Elliott Davis building

[gs3]

Just a few photos of one of the newer downtown buildings completed last year. On the edge of downtown, this building rarely shows up in photos. On a side note, if you go their website: http://www.elliottdavis.com/profile/history.htm there are a couple of neat old photos of the Woodside Building.

[goodbye]

This is one of the most disheartening examples of why Greenville should have clear architectural guidelines in place before any new large buildings are started, IMO. I think it is not only ugly today, but will require an exterior renovation in the future, if not a total demolition. And it is in a prominent location along the Church Street bridge no less. Call me crazy!

[gs3]

Disagree with you on that one Skyliner. The building is fairly simple, clean design. Remember, The Tower at Falls & Broad will be next door to this building, so maybe the two will compliment.

[GvilleSC]

I think it's a nice welcoming building to downtown via Church St. It's a nice, clean looking building to have the rest of downtown unfold just past it!

Also, the person who designed this one is designing the Park at West End, AKA one of the residences at the Baseball stadium. So, I hope you like it!

[EDPro]

Anyone know if this building's twin is the Charter building at Bridges & I-385?

[goodbye]

I think it's a nice welcoming building to downtown via Church St. It's a nice, clean looking building to have the rest of downtown unfold just past it!

Also, the person who designed this one is designing the Park at West End, AKA one of the residences at the Baseball stadium. So, I hope you like it!

It really doesn't matter who designed it to me. I just think it is way too simplistic and rather boring to be located in downtown. I want Greenville to be one of the most attractive places in every way. We need bold and beautiful structures, not standard, bland, or overused designs. I'm not saying that simple is not beautiful. This structure is just not very architecturally pleasing to look at. I want magnets for people's eyes. B)

[btoy]

It really doesn't matter who designed it to me. I just think it is way too simplistic and rather boring to be located in downtown. I want Greenville to be one of the most attractive places in every way. We need bold and beautiful structures, not standard, bland, or overused designs. I'm not saying that simple is not beautiful. This structure is just not very architecturally pleasing to look at. I want magnets for people's eyes. B)

Bold and beautiful can be very expensive, it costs alot of money to make an impact. Alot of developers are not trying to make an impact, they are trying to make a buck. And until rents get to a certain point, to much flash just doesn't make good bussiness sense.

Personally, I think simple can be very elegant. Also, remember that what is bold a beautiful now can be ugly in a few degades. Think of The Greenville News building. I think rather than bold the aim shoudl be towards something timeless.

[goodbye]

This building is not timeless or elegant, IMO. I completely agree with your point about bold being expensive. The bold I'm referring to is more classic than modern. I don't care if we never see a modern tower in downtown, because of your point that it could be limited in its attractiveness over the years. The ones we had in the past several decades have needed a little help to keep alive.

[btoy]

Oh, I didn't mean to say this building was timeless or classic. I just think that should be the aim of any structure. I would say it is unoffensive, and I don't seeing it as a tear down unless there is a time that demand for downtown land calls for it. IE a tear down for a much larger structure and all vacant land is used up.

I would love to see everything built be a masterpiece, I just know that many developers want something that can be built affordably and will be attaractive enough for the long term to remain leasable.

I think for masterpiece strucutres we need be name corporate headquarters, companies that want to say hey look at our office, look how successful we are, companies who rely on image.

[GvilleSC]

It really doesn't matter who designed it to me. I just think it is way too simplistic and rather boring to be located in downtown. I want Greenville to be one of the most attractive places in every way. We need bold and beautiful structures, not standard, bland, or overused designs. I'm not saying that simple is not beautiful. This structure is just not very architecturally pleasing to look at. I want magnets for people's eyes. B)

Well, congrats to you . I was commenting on who designed it because they are likely to design more of the same sort. Yes, he also did the Charter Comm building and he did design Elliot Davis and is designing the Park at the West End. You will see more of it whether you like it or not. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't matter to the owner and that's who has the say along with the city's design and preservation board. The building is well lit, stylishly, at night. It is first class on the inside and that's what's going to attract companies and promote businesses to fill up our vacancies downtown. Also, since when is this an overused design? there is NO other building of similarity in downtown...? Besides, do you get tired of the historical design in Charleston? It's everywhere. and Riverplace? It's got the same design scheme throughout. I don't understand your logic here?

[goodbye]

I'm entitled to an opinion.

[Greenville]

Speaking of ugly buildings, each time I see the Landmark Building I am more and more offended by it. Yeah, it's tall and has been there for decades, but what were they thinking when they designed the exterior?!? It really looks dated, and the fact that our tallest tower looks so dated can't make a very progressive impression on visitors.

Oh well, at least it helps our skyline from a distance. Ha ha.

[RestedTraveler]

I have to agree with you there. There's a building here in Orlando that was of similar design which was, within the past four years, completely rennovated to take on a more modern appearance on the outside:

I can't find any before images to give a good comparison. I'm still not quite sure I like the result...it seems half-baked. Anyway...the point is that something similar could be done with the Landmark Building (and probably should have been done when it was recently rennovated).

Edit: I should say that I borrowed these photos from the Orlando Weekly Photo Update thread.

[vicupstate]

^^ Thanks for posting RT, very interesting. A Before image would be nice to see, if it can be found. I'm with you RT, it does look a little half-baked.

While we are on this topic, I would like to see City Hall's exterior renovated as well. It is black, bland and boring IMO.

There is a very similiar building in Asheville (BB&T building I think). It is the tallest and ugliest building in DT Asheville.

Does anyone else have examples of 60's/70's high rises that have been significantly altered on the Exterior?

[RestedTraveler]

Here is an older "Before Images" that I found online of that building in Orlando:

And, BTW, I agree with you on City Hall. Both it and the Landmark building could use a bit of a face lift. However, on the bright side, as newer buildings are added to our skyline, these two will become less noticible.

[GvilleSC]

I will agree with you that city hall definitely needs help. Hopefully they will eventually find someone to design the new city hall in place of the parking garage and incorporate some of the aspects of the old city hall with the ugly one to produce a feel of ONE but also to make the tower more pleasing to eye and inviting.

did that makes sense? well, pretty much, rebuild the old city hall building... and change the exterior of the city hall tower to make it fit-in with the new old city hall, BUT also if it were done right... it COULD actually end up fitting in with the other historic buildings that surround it. Liberty, Family courthouse, Poinsett... HMMMM.. The metal and glass just stick out in that area right now....