CONSTRUCTION THREAD: Verdae

[Duped by Verdae]

I just stumbled across this thread and do have to put in my 2 cents as a resident and owner at Verdae. I believe I was sold a false bill of goods. Verdae was touted to me as a true New Urbanist development with master planning and an architectural code. However, as the other residents and I are discovering, Verdae is NOT living up to true TND standards. There is NO overall master plan in place. The architectural guidelines are not being followed. Variances are being granted without notifying the residents who bought into the concept. In fact, Verdae is set to throw out the old architectural guidelines to replace them with new ones, presumably watered down. Even the current guidelines are not being enforced. In my opinion, the Lazarus Shouse houses are ugly and look like suburban tract housing. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. I am extremely disappointed. I moved here from out of state and have been familiar with the New Urbanist/TND movement for well over a decade. I was excited that there was a development here in Greenville, but now I am disgusted by the way the development is being handled. There are many other communities who have done TND "right." Unfortunately, no one at Verdae understands what it really means. No one there has the necessary experience in TND/New Urbanism or is qualified. To them, TND is a marketing term (shame on me, they fooled me). I am not alone in my opinion as the current residents (a small number of us, but we are the "pioneers" who believed in the TND concept) have met several times among ourselves as well as with Verdae Development to voice our concerns. However, they have not been responsive. Unfortunately, we really have no power and are stuck with our "investment," only hoping Verdae will do the right thing and stay true to the code of TND. I agree with NewUrban that there can be many price points while MAINTAINING architectural integrity. Unfortunately, there is quite a lack of integrity from Verdae as far as staying true to the original principles of the development.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Duped by Verdae

[GvilleSC]

Since, you say you are a resident of Verdae, maybe you can actually offer specific examples of how Verdae isn't living up to its hype? You and NewUrban make rather strong accusations for a development that's only a few years into development and moving somewhat slow due to the economy. Some things seem premature at this point, and I've still yet to understand the basis of this bashing. I simply want some evidence to better understand the reasons of unhappiness. To this point, I've yet to be presented with anything of substance...

[NewUrban]

Since, you say you are a resident of Verdae, maybe you can actually offer specific examples of how Verdae isn't living up to its hype? You and NewUrban make rather strong accusations for a development that's only a few years into development and moving somewhat slow due to the economy. Some things seem premature at this point, and I've still yet to understand the basis of this bashing. I simply want some evidence to better understand the reasons of unhappiness. To this point, I've yet to be presented with anything of substance...

You seem unwilling to accept that there is an architectural component to New Urbanism. It is true that if you look at most of what has been written about New Urbanism and, if fact, the Smart Code itself does not get very specific about about the design of individual buildings. The Smart Code does not promote any particular architectural vocabulary; but it does address scale, massing, density, setbacks, block dimensions etc. The point I continue to try to make, however inarticulately, is that almost all TNDs around the country try to aim higher than typical suburban architecture for the individual buildings. Maybe the architecture of individual buildings is not important to you; maybe its all about density and transit, but I think that does not really represent a complete vision or understanding about what makes places special and what make people want to live and work in them. Does this make any sense?

Maybe Elizabeth Moule and Stefanos Polyzoides in their essay "The Street, the Block, and Building" that appears in the book, The New Urbanism, Toward an Architecture of Community , say it a little better:

"The judicious application of codes is to result in a diverse, beautiful, and predictable fabric of buildings, open space and landscape that can structure villages, towns, cities, and indeed the metropolitan region. Architecture and urbanism shall not be separated; nor shall formal, social, economic and technical/functional issues be considered in isolation."

Edited December 19, 2010 by NewUrban

[GvilleSC]

Like you say, the important design guidelines for TND are associated with "scale, massing, density, setbacks, block dimensions etc". All of that contribute to the ability for one to live, function, and experience the sense of community that's being sold. All of that has been and remains to be implemented at Verdae.

The design language of individual buildings is purely an aesthetic chase. Some continuity can definitely help establish a feel and sense of place. And, that's fantastic from a marketing standpoint. In Verdae, it's really hard for me to understand where this drops off for you guys... It's not like we've seen a change from all brick to vinyl siding. Having experienced other TND neighborhoods, as well, I'm not sure I see how Verdae is so different?

[Duped by Verdae]

Since, you say you are a resident of Verdae, maybe you can actually offer specific examples of how Verdae isn't living up to its hype? You and NewUrban make rather strong accusations for a development that's only a few years into development and moving somewhat slow due to the economy. Some things seem premature at this point, and I've still yet to understand the basis of this bashing. I simply want some evidence to better understand the reasons of unhappiness. To this point, I've yet to be presented with anything of substance...

I'm not sure what you mean by specific examples. I have offered up the Lazarus Shouse homes as a prime example. The proposed townhomes also do not follow current design guidelines. The design guidelines do serve a purpose. Other TND developments have them and enforce them. This development is only a few years in, but it is important to me because I will be a long term resident. I care very deeply about how it develops and am not fond of the "shortcuts" that Verdae is pursuing in order to build out more quickly at the expense of trashing the design guidelines and long term value. As far as the basis of the bashing, I have been living it. I have had numerous email exchanges and meetings with Verdae. As I mentioned, the current residents have met multiple times as a result of our displeasure with Verdae for not following their own design guidelines. The house currently being built on Lot 112 in Ruskin Square is already breaking two design guidelines. One-it has a double garage door. The guidelines clearly state that only single garage bay doors are allowed. (The ones on the early homes were a variance, which was a mistake in my opinion). Two-the elevation is too low. The main level is supposed to be 2-3 feet above street level. Look at the other houses in Ruskin Square. That house will look like it is sinking into the ground by comparison.

Obviously you are very taken with Verdae and the TND concept. That is great. However, I think you need to realize that Verdae is not playing by the TND rules. If you don't care, that's fine, but I do.

[gman430]

I can't figure out why there is so much whining over this development. If you don't like the homes that are being built in Verdae then don't move there or drive through it. Seems simple to me. Now if you're a resident there and don't like what's being offered then you can put up your house for sale and move, file a complaint with the developer and city, or just stay put and live your life happily.

Somebody said there was no masterplan for Verdae. I beg to differ: http://www.wgmdesign...gn-planning.php

Oh and does it seem fishy to anybody else that these naysayer posts are showing up all of the sudden? Maybe it's a competing developer who isn't happy.

[GvilleSC]

By specific examples, I was looking for specific design elements. Simply saying that the Lazarus Shouse homes are sending Verdae spiraling out of control offers no insight into the problem at hand, and that's ALL that you and NewUrban had said for a few pages of this thread. I appreciate the variance issues that you cited. And, if you recall, I've stated multiple times that I'm not "taken" by Verdae and TND simply because they exist. However, I'm not going to accept criticism when there's no stated basis for it. I like hearing sides and fair arguments and deciding for myself. But, when there's no explanation (other than "lazarus Shouse, Lazarus Shouse... ruin, despair, etc), I can't take you seriously. I hope that's clear. I do support TND's concept, and I totally see the flaws. The term is applied loosely in many cases, and the market and 'what sells' often drives developments to water down their total package. Good examples do exist. Perfect examples? No so much, or at least not many. Verdae is still in its infancy, and the type of example that it will be can't be seen at this point.

As far are your cited examples:

Garage doors face alleys. I'm not sure why that becomes a problem. If the homes were front loaded, then yes: major issue. The public sides of the development will never experience this design mishap.

As for the elevation of the first floors of the homes, I really don't think it's going to be perceptible once more is built. The density in Ruskin Square isn't going to allow much big picture viewing of entire streets.

[NewUrban]

I can't figure out why there is so much whining over this development. If you don't like the homes that are being built in Verdae then don't move there or drive through it. Seems simple to me. Now if you're a resident there and don't like what's being offered then you can put up your house for sale and move, file a complaint with the developer and city, or just stay put and live your life happily.

Somebody said there was no masterplan for Verdae. I beg to differ: http://www.wgmdesign...gn-planning.php

Oh and does it seem fishy to anybody else that these naysayer posts are showing up all of the sudden? Maybe it's a competing developer who isn't happy.

Verdae does have a rudimentary master plan done by a Charlotte firm with very little urban planning and no recognized TND experience. The current plan reflects "euclidian" planning which encourages segregation of uses (and pricing/income levels in residential/ note the separation of the "Manor" lots from Ruskin Square). Euclidian planning is essentially the type of 1970s and 80s type of master planning that we are all familiar with (gates etc.). Verdae is not a New Urbanist or TND plan as claimed by the developer. Please see the Smart Code: http://www.smartcodecentral.org/ . Why can't Greenville have a sophisticated, well planned, New Urbanist community?

[NewUrban]

Like you say, the important design guidelines for TND are associated with "scale, massing, density, setbacks, block dimensions etc". All of that contribute to the ability for one to live, function, and experience the sense of community that's being sold. All of that has been and remains to be implemented at Verdae.

The design language of individual buildings is purely an aesthetic chase. Some continuity can definitely help establish a feel and sense of place. And, that's fantastic from a marketing standpoint. In Verdae, it's really hard for me to understand where this drops off for you guys... It's not like we've seen a change from all brick to vinyl siding. Having experienced other TND neighborhoods, as well, I'm not sure I see how Verdae is so different?

You obviously know a lot more about Verdae than I do. What evidence do you have that "all of that has been...implemented at Verdae"?

[Cap'n Prowler]

Wow wow wow. I feel like I gotta chime in on this.

Yes, it is true that new urbanism traditionally incorporates a code for aesthetics. But new urbanism isn't exactly 'new' anymore. And it's been been getting a bad rep from planners for awhile now. (For the record, I have a degree in finance and am pursuing one in planning.) Aesthetics codes have often been tools for the entitled upper-classes to keep lower-classes out of certain neighborhoods. If Verdae is relaxing these codes, it's for economic reasons, and the development will probably fail if it doesn't.

I know how much everybody wants to believe that the recent recession was just a temporary hiccup of the macroeconomy, but there have been some changes like the disappearing middle-class that are going to be very long-term, if not permanent. Everything I've been learning about economics, planning, and (perhaps most importantly) energy have changed my opinions over the years since living in Greenville and being an active member of this board about what constitutes a "quality" development. Aesthetics, which have been a top priority over the past couple decades in planned communities, are likely to drop out of importance as people struggle to live in the new economy and deal with new crises in energy, food, and transportation.

It's a bit difficult for me to read how passionate people still get over aesthetic issues (and some others I've read on these forums). I've long defended Greenville and other Sunbelt cities for not being the 'backwards' towns my northern colleges want to think they are, but new urbanism is considered a dinosaur in the books these days. It's not really a compromise for actual urban development, and not at all sustainable by tomorrow's standards.

[Duped by Verdae]

I can't figure out why there is so much whining over this development. If you don't like the homes that are being built in Verdae then don't move there or drive through it. Seems simple to me. Now if you're a resident there and don't like what's being offered then you can put up your house for sale and move, file a complaint with the developer and city, or just stay put and live your life happily.

Somebody said there was no masterplan for Verdae. I beg to differ: http://www.wgmdesign...gn-planning.php

Oh and does it seem fishy to anybody else that these naysayer posts are showing up all of the sudden? Maybe it's a competing developer who isn't happy or jealous Columbia residents.

I guess you're not reading my posts carefully. It's too late. I have spent a significant amount of money buying my lot and building my house. Then after the fact, Verdae is now changing the rules. Yes, had they been upfront, I would have no reason to complain because I would have known what I was getting. I may have chosen to live elsewhere. Not so simple, really. Put my house up for sale and move-really? What a great market. And don't think what Verdae has done/is doing is not devaluing the houses. If you're willing to pay me what it cost me to buy my lot and build my house, I will sell it to you.

And the master "plan" you linked is merely a drawing; that's all it is.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Duped by Verdae

[Duped by Verdae]

Wow wow wow. I feel like I gotta chime in on this.

Yes, it is true that new urbanism traditionally incorporates a code for aesthetics. But new urbanism isn't exactly 'new' anymore. And it's been been getting a bad rep from planners for awhile now. (For the record, I have a degree in finance and am pursuing one in planning.) Aesthetics codes have often been tools for the entitled upper-classes to keep lower-classes out of certain neighborhoods. If Verdae is relaxing these codes, it's for economic reasons, and the development will probably fail if it doesn't.

I know how much everybody wants to believe that the recent recession was just a temporary hiccup of the macroeconomy, but there have been some changes like the disappearing middle-class that are going to be very long-term, if not permanent. Everything I've been learning about economics, planning, and (perhaps most importantly) energy have changed my opinions over the years since living in Greenville and being an active member of this board about what constitutes a "quality" development. Aesthetics, which have been a top priority over the past couple decades in planned communities, are likely to drop out of importance as people struggle to live in the new economy and deal with new crises in energy, food, and transportation.

It's a bit difficult for me to read how passionate people still get over aesthetic issues (and some others I've read on these forums). I've long defended Greenville and other Sunbelt cities for not being the 'backwards' towns my northern colleges want to think they are, but new urbanism is considered a dinosaur in the books these days. It's not really a compromise for actual urban development, and not at all sustainable by tomorrow's standards.

You say that Verdae might be relaxing the code for economic reasons (yes, I would agree), and that it would fail if they didn't (no, I don't agree). Verdae is backed by Hollingsworth. They will not "fail." They have a huge financial backstop. That's one of the reasons I chose to build there. I didn't want to build in a neighborhood where the developer went bankrupt and all the planning went out the window.

I'm not sure why there seems to be a class warfare aspect creeping into the discussion regarding following ESTABLISHED design guidelines. Other TNDs follow their design guidelines yet manage to be inclusive of many different price points.

[Cap'n Prowler]

Strict design guidelines have been used for decades as a means of class warfare. That may not be the case here, but I believe it's a valid point to bring to the discussion.

If you think you have a case where they're breaking the established rules and it's going to affect your wellbeing, take it up with an attorney. You may have a case. It just seems futile though. If I lived there, I'd be praying that those lots get filled and the transit element gets implementd.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Cap'n Prowler

[NewUrban]

Strict design guidelines have been used for decades as a means of class warfare. That may not be the case here, but I believe it's a valid point to bring to the discussion.

If you think you have a case where they're breaking the established rules and it's going to affect your wellbeing, take it up with an attorney. You may have a case. It just seems futile though. If I lived there, I'd be praying that those lots get filled and the transit element gets implementd.

For you Transit Oriented Development (TOD) people its all about transit. It would be wonderful to have public transit linking everything, but if there is no aesthetic consideration, than you will be able to quickly, efficiently, and sustainably get from one crappy place to the next; not a world I want to live in.

And for the leftists who want to talk about design control being a form of class warfare, you should know that the Obama administration is quite pro-New Urbanism and that the Congress for New Urbanism is well populated with liberals and socialists.

[Duped by Verdae]

To Cap, I am hoping that the lots get filled, and the transit element would just be icing on the cake. However, I am not so desperate that I want it to be filled with houses that don't meet the guidelines. I am patient and know that the location alone is a huge asset that will mean this neighborhood will eventually get developed. And like I said in an earlier post, Verdae has the financial wherewithal to wait out the bad market.

To GVille who keeps asking for specific examples/specific design elements, I am including a link to a PDF. This critique of the Lazarus Shouse spec house was produced by an experienced leader in TND/New Urbanism at the request of the concerned residents who currently live in Verdae. I think this is what you were asking for. We brought our concerns before Rick Sumeral and Verdae, but they were not sympathetic to our concerns at all. We have considered legal action, but reading the covenants, we have no power. We have also looked into seeing if the City of Greenville could help us, but unfortunately, that avenue is also a dead end. The entire development is zoned S-1. Unfortunately, we can only fight this battle in the court of public opinion, and based on the responses in this forum, it doesn't look good.

[gman430]

[gman430]

[GvilleSC]

The first building of townhomes has been framed. It's great to see the number of units and homes under construction at Verdae. Things definitely died off for a while, but are very much back in swing right now.

[Duped by Verdae]

Construction is progressing indeed. Unfortunately, the developer (with no architectural background) has essentially rewritten and dumbed down all the architectural guidelines. Last summer he even PROMISED the current residents that all housing beyond Shadwell Street would maintain the guidelines we had built under. Not surprisingly, as evidenced by the current crop of builder specials from the Better Homes and Gardens plan book off the supermarket aisle, he broke his promise. Verdae Development, more specifically, its president, lacks any sense of integrity or ethics. If I could sell my property for what I paid for it, I would be out in an instant.

[gman430]

Construction is progressing indeed. Unfortunately, the developer (with no architectural background) has essentially rewritten and dumbed down all the architectural guidelines. Last summer he even PROMISED the current residents that all housing beyond Shadwell Street would maintain the guidelines we had built under. Not surprisingly, as evidenced by the current crop of builder specials from the Better Homes and Gardens plan book off the supermarket aisle, he broke his promise. Verdae Development, more specifically, its president, lacks any sense of integrity or ethics. If I could sell my property for what I paid for it, I would be out in an instant.

You won't like this then:

[Duped by Verdae]

True, I am very disappointed by the (in my opinion) ugly stock builder plan houses going up with vinyl soffits, cheap doors and windows. However, aside from the choice of color, I like the grey house built on Ruskin Square. On the other hand, while the brick house being built on the square is no doubt expensive, there are certain design elements which I don't like. First of all, the elevation of that house sits much lower than the surrounding houses. Also, I think it looks out of place in terms of style and materials, a bit anachronistic if you will. So it is not all about expense, because that brick house with the copper flashing is probably the most expensive house to date built or being built in Ruskin Square, but of houses on the actual square, it is the one I like the least. As far as the house going up in the manor section, that house is abiding by all the design guidelines that were previously in place and I think it will be a fantastic house. I actually like the overall size and shape of the house on the corner of Shadwell and Kimborough too. I just don't like the windows. The previous guidelines called for simulated divided light windows. As far as the townhomes are concerned, it's too early to tell, but from the elevations I saw, they are more of the same builder's special. They were originally to be built by Allura, a company with ties to mass market home plan architect Donald Gardner.

[Duped by Verdae]

On closer inspection, the house at the corner of Shadwell and Kimborough has some "excessive" design elements like the unnecessary double gables.

[GvilleSC]

It appears that clearing and grading has begun for the first phase of retail.

[Greenville]

It appears that clearing and grading has begun for the first phase of retail.

Excellent! A positive step, for sure.

[gman430]

It appears that clearing and grading has begun for the first phase of retail.

I saw that, but don't the retail store plans have to go before the planning commission before they start construction? That's the way it was with Magnolia Park.

Edited June 21, 2011 by citylife