Jump to content

gs3

The West End

Recommended Posts


okay, going back and looking at it again, the sign starts off with a brick base up to a wide single pole with a cross bar about 3/4's of the way up which will hold the message center on the right oan the Drive logo on the left from the cross bar up the single pole becomes to smaller poles with the West End Field sign on the left above the message center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds sweet, actually. It should be quite tasteful.

Some Brick Trivia: The brick being used at the West End Ballpark and the Fieldhouse at West End came from two separate mills in Laurens, SC. The brick used at the base of the Shoeless Joe Jackson statue at the West End Market as well as the brick used at Shoeless Joe Memorial Park came from the original Comiskey Park in Chicago where Shoeless Joe played for the Chicago White Sox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on this subject, the stones used to build the original grist mill on Reedy Falls were reused to build the Gassoway Mansion in the Overbrook community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds sweet, actually. It should be quite tasteful.

Some Brick Trivia: The brick being used at the West End Ballpark and the Fieldhouse at West End came from two separate mills in Laurens, SC. The brick used at the base of the Shoeless Joe Jackson statue at the West End Market as well as the brick used at Shoeless Joe Memorial Park came from the original Comiskey Park in Chicago where Shoeless Joe played for the Chicago White Sox.

I think I heard the the one of those mills was teh Joanna Mill in Union and that those are the same bricks used at the point.

I also heard that the shopping center at Mills Mill Used bricks from Poe Mill in Greenville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I heard the the one of those mills was teh Joanna Mill in Union and that those are the same bricks used at the point.

I also heard that the shopping center at Mills Mill Used bricks from Poe Mill in Greenville.

Thanks, btoy! I wish I had read this before this past Sunday. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article from the Greenville News on the redevelopment of the buildings at the corner of Main and River Streets.

The larger of the two buildings looks as if it's ready to fall down on its own...it will need little assistance if and when demolition comes. I would be all for preserving these buildings if that could be done, but it doesn't look to me that this is possible. I'm no expert though, so I trust the DPC will do the right thing here. If they cannot be saved, then I see no reason why the new development can't go forward. I don't have a problem with the "scale" of the area being raised, especially if things fill in between River Street and the Field House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Agreed. I don't see how a 4 story building will overpower the surrounding buildings. And I like that they say they are going to incorporate the original architecture into the new building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial reaction was that 4 stories seems like too much. I would rather see 2 stories with a recessed 3rd story/open air rooftop space.

The thing about the West End as opposed to N Main is that it is on a more human scale. The buildings don't feel like they tower over you and block out the sunlight. I think it should have a different feel than the upper part of Main to keep it unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a 4 story building would be fine. The Fieldhouse, IMO, is not too tall. And if you think about it, the red building (dont know the name, but it used to be home or still is to Prudential C. Dan Joyner) is a rather tall building- or atleast one that has a LOT of impact. Diversity is always good and the view coming down Augusta Street would be amazing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those building right now are an eyesore. I'm all for preserving good pieces of Architecture. I don't think these buidlings qualify.

I think a newer building that responds to both River st and Main st could help the West End stretch down along River st. Right now once you cross over Main st between the Army Navy Store and these buildings it's like going through a back alley. Essentially preserving these buildings would only save the outer walls. Structurally they are useless you would have to build an entirely new building within the confines of the outer walls. You can design and construct a new building that incorporates elements of what was there. That corner is like a gateway to the rest of the westend. A signature building would be a pretty cool welcome to that area of the westend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always seen this intersection as the "Court Square" of the West End. Taller buildings should be welcomed if they are architecturally attractive. Our buildings are not overpowering at all compared to many larger cities. :thumbsup:

Here is an example from some buildings in Pittsburgh, taken by member Evergrey.

53031954.100_0612.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing the "historic preservation" card gets old when you're talking about ugly and/or structurally unsound buildings. First it was the Kimbrell's building downtown, and now this. Basically, anyone can call an old building "historical" regardless of its appearance, and "important" regardless of its past or present function. I am all for maintaining our history, and we have done a great job of that in downtown as well as the West End. I strongly disagree, however, with people who call any building built before 1960 as "historical" and fighting to keep it around even though it serves no current purpose, is ugly, and in extreme cases, presents a safety hazard.

Neither these buildings in the West End or the Kimbrell's building should be disputed over, especially when a developer wants to put something more attractive and useful (i.e., more progressive) there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing the "historic preservation" card gets old when you're talking about ugly and/or structurally unsound buildings. First it was the Kimbrell's building downtown, and now this. Basically, anyone can call an old building "historical" regardless of its appearance, and "important" regardless of its past or present function. I am all for maintaining our history, and we have done a great job of that in downtown as well as the West End. I strongly disagree, however, with people who call any building built before 1960 as "historical" and fighting to keep it around even though it serves no current purpose, is ugly, and in extreme cases, presents a safety hazard.

Neither these buildings in the West End or the Kimbrell's building should be disputed over, especially when a developer wants to put something more attractive and useful (i.e., more progressive) there.

I have mixed feelimgs on this one. A LOT of beautiful buildings have been lost in the name of "progress", including in Greenville. The Ottoray Hotel, the Textile Hall and the old City Hall just for starters. I'm sure plenty of folks said the same type of things about those buildings just as the wrecking ball removed them.

If the old city hall were around, it would be the "postcard" picture of DT Greenville. Instead, we have that ugly, unimaginative black steel eyesore.

I realize that we are talking about a less ornate, more simple building, but the principle still applies. Assuming these buildings are structurally sound (as yet undetermined at this point, developers will say anything), some consideration should be given to saving them.

I would have to see a rendering before I could pass judgement on the appearance of the proposed new building, but 4 stories straight up WOULD be out of scale. The Field House is the only other 4 story buildings in the area and it is some distance away. By recessing the 4th floor, that may make it acceptable, but without a rendering, it's hard to say.

I would prefer to see the vacant lots between the plaza and baseball park be 3 or 4 stories, so that the Field house is not as out of context to the surrounding area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize that we are talking about a less ornate, more simple building, but the principle still applies. Assuming these buildings are structurally sound (as yet undetermined at this point, developers will say anything), some consideration should be given to saving them.

According to the article A Structural Engineer, a Archtiect, and Clemson University have already said the buildings are not sound.

Edited by btoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would love to see the four-story building replace the ones at the corner because of the potential to improve the architecture and usefulness as additional residential and retail. I do not see four stories as being out of place here at all, provided the architectural design compliments the surrounding buildings well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine something on this corner that's as tall as the Field House with similar detailing and perhaps even with reused brick from either these same buildings or another building on the facade? I'd be all for that. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a really brief discussion with a city official:

1. The West End has always had a village atmosphere and the City wants to maintain the corresponding human scale.

2. The is some disagreements on the methodology of the Clemson scientist noted in the above article. Apparently the bricks he/she tested were the most vunerable bricks in the building (what I mean is: he/she most likely chose bricks directly below a leaky window sill or otherwise exposed to an inordinate amount of water saturation).

Just what I heard...

And as for my opinion, I echo VicUpstate's thoughts. Who's to say that in 30-50 years, City Hall won't be viewed as an excellent example of formalism style architecture. I know almost nothing about architecture, but it seems many of the buildings in the past that were viewed as unappealing often come back into style. Just for example, there is a house on the corner of McDaniel Ave and Cothran that is in the international style. I used to really dislike it. But it has really grown on me recently, as has the international style (I commute past it every day).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the cost and effort to renovate an old building makes it less desireable to redevelop. Example: The recently demolished Kress building at the corner of Main and McBee. Another prime example of poor decision in the name of progression was the demolition of the Woodside tower. It held tremendous architectural value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate when you realize the historical significance of a building when its too late.

I for one would like to see those buildings stay if they are sound. They are not architecturally offensive, and they fit the surroundings. Obviously a facelift is needed, and RT's suggestion of old mill brick could work wonders.

If the buildings are not sound, I am all for a 4-story structure if there is a way to keep the "human scale" of the west end intact. I like the idea of a rooftop deck with the upper floors offset from the street. When I look down toward the ballfield, the Field House looks immense. Luckily, I think that will be toned down when it is bricked. It may just be an illusion of many square feet of exposed Tyvek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine something on this corner that's as tall as the Field House with similar detailing and perhaps even with reused brick from either these same buildings or another building on the facade? I'd be all for that. :thumbsup:

Totally agree with you RT! :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason the Field House looks so big, is that it stands alone. Once the fill-in begins, it will blend nicely with the surroundings.

Borrowing one of RT's photos:

106562329_742e248031_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. surprised no one beat me to this news.

This afternoon was the meeting with the DPC regarding several semi-significant project proposals. I had hoped to attend, but decided against it late in the afternoon. Wish I had been there now. The plans were presented for the West End building at South Main and River Street. This will definitely be a great addition to the West End, if the developer is successful in maneuvering through the testy waters of the DPC. As some of you hoped, it appears that at least the top floor will be recessed with balconies. I love the design and can easily envision it boosting pedestrian activity in the West End. Everything I saw was on WYFF 4 this evening. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.