CONSTRUCTION THREAD: Magnolia Park Town Center

[distortedlogic]

Believe me, there are a lot of "no growthers" in G'ville (I'm glad you are not one of them). Between them, the real environmentalists, the guy next door who never dreamed that the 100 acres of vacant land next him would ever be developed, and all the old-timers who think a dozen cars at the traffic light constitutes TRAFFIC - all these forces combine to slow a lot of good development in G'ville.

That's pretty good!. Guess there are a few of these off Pelham road huh?

[gs3]

I'm with you there - but it's all the whining about EVERY development that has been announced in recent weeks that is old and tiring.

True. Would be nice to see people more positive about the growth and direction of Greenville. Greenville has stepped up to the plate, and companies have taken notice!

[goodbye]

Special thanks to G-man for digging this site plan up. While I am sure much of it will change, at least this answers several questions about what tenants are interested in the Greenville market. A few of special interest are: REI (two-level store), Cheesecake Factory, Borders, A-Loft/Element/Hyatt Place/Spring Hill Suites. Also included is a 300,000 sf Class "A" office tower. This is only part of the overall plan. I am interested to see what comes from the new owners.

[btoy]

Also notice Border's and PetCo and Ruth's Cris and Chipotle.

The design will change since the developer has changes, also, the 300,000 SF tower was to be County Offices.

Edited March 29, 2007 by btoy

[goodbye]

I mentioned the Borders, and I figured the office tower was for the County - why else would they include such a large suburban Class "A" office building? I hope the new design has a better layout with less large parking lots.

[mallguy]

I see the Aloft, if it comes, Ruth's Chris, Cheesecake Factory, Maggiano's and Borders as very desirable tenants.

Too bad Greenville Mall didn't have the last 4, which could perhaps have saved it.

Upscale retail?

[distortedlogic]

I mentioned the Borders, and I figured the office tower was for the County - why else would they include such a large suburban Class "A" office building? I hope the new design has a better layout with less large parking lots.

Couldn't agree more. I do not like developments with so many large surface parking lots. the city needs to put an ordinance on this or something. At least put in a central garage or something.

[mallguy]

That site plan is very informative and interesting. Are the tenants listed on it ones that have definitely signed leases?

Where's the upscale retail?

[whitehourseview]

So.... Greenville Mall was leveled for a Costco and a parking lot?

[Spartan]

Thank you, Greenvilleguy! All the recent whining about "sprawl" makes me think the looney enviromentalists have invaded the board to try to gain support for their "no growth" positions.

I'd LOVE to see a larger, more dense DT, but one thing we need for that to happen is to develop a larger Metro area. These new developments are filling-in dead space within the metro area - creating a bigger feel. Bottom line we need both development DT and on the outskirts of the G'ville. Oh and yeah, we'll get some more traffic - sorry, but noone outside the the NE wants to catch the bus or subway to go to work. Get over it, it's the 21st century and the auto is here to stay!

Nobody outside of the NE, Midtwest, West, Florida, DC, Atlanta, Charlotte, Clemson.... I hate to break it to you, but transit is making a huge comeback across the nation, and no major city is complete without a good transit system.

Well Cap'n and Kraz I guess you guys are taking the bus to work tomorrow. Have fun and hope the AC is working!

But seriously, Cap'n - I guess it is "just whining" that I'm talking about. We can all hope for the best developments that good planning can provide. I'm with you there - but it's all the whining about EVERY development that has been announced in recent weeks that is old and tiring.

Believe me, there are a lot of "no growthers" in G'ville (I'm glad you are not one of them). Between them, the real environmentalists, the guy next door who never dreamed that the 100 acres of vacant land next him would ever be developed, and all the old-timers who think a dozen cars at the traffic light constitutes TRAFFIC - all these forces combine to slow a lot of good development in G'ville.

The Greenville News has been giving this group a prominent forum for years. I'm just surprised at how often this is emulated on UP at the mention of any significant project.

I am taking the bus to campus/work tomorrow, and pretty much every day that I don't have to work in Greenville for that matter. Have you ever actually ridden on a GTA bus? You seem to be making assertations that so far as I can tell, are not the least bit true. GTA has a nice new fleet of buses, its too bad the money can't be allocated to operate a decent system. I'm confident that will change eventually.

I think that far too many people in South Carolina have the attitude that any growth is good growth, when that is simply not the case. Politicians especially. And I think its more rooted in ignorance, and the history of our state's poor track record with economic development until the past few decades. There are many people, even on this board, who just assume that any new development is a good one, without taking a look at it first. There are good projects and bad ones, and some that are in between. If you can't take a step back and look at the good and the bad parts of new growth then you are just doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Greenville, of all places in this state, is in the position to demand and expect higher things from developers, and it should set its standards higher so that the new growth areas will be developed properly. The issue is not stopping growth, but managing it so that it happens in an orderly, well designed fashion.

All projects generate traffic. Traffic comes with a thriving economy. The issue is not that traffic exists or is increasing, but how its dealt with. Woodruff Road is a funnel for way too many vehicles, because there are literally no other ways to go that are more convenient. A 10x10 grid of streets has thousands more options than one road with a few intersections does. Also, don't get caught up in the idea that a "grid" has to be rectilinear. The key issue is connectivity. The more connections a place has, the more options you have in reaching your destination.

Cap'n, Krazee, myself and most others here understand that the way Greenville has been growing since the 70s is not setting us up for a Greenville that will be something BETTER than our neighboring metros (Atlanta, Charlotte). There is a reason we don't track the development of every McDonalds and fast food restaurant, but we do track projects like Magnolia, and RiverPlace. This is UrbanPlanet afterall.

[mallguy]

So.... Greenville Mall was leveled for a Costco and a parking lot?

At least the restaurants seem good- but where're the Tumi, Anthropologie, Urban Outfitters, Apple Store, Z Gallerie, etc.?

[goodbye]

At least the restaurants seem good- but where're the Tumi, Anthropologie, Urban Outfitters, Apple Store, Z Gallerie, etc.?

That is one reason I hope the new owners make a few significant changes.

[DealMan]

From my understanding the other higher end retailers including fashion retailers are looking in the two "U" shaped buildings that lined the main street, they are just not labeled on this plan. I am also interested to see the new plan. This plan seems very functional but I think the new owners will add more density and I am interested to see what is in place of the county office building.

[Greercat]

Nobody outside of the NE, Midtwest, West, Florida, DC, Atlanta, Charlotte, Clemson.... I hate to break it to you, but transit is making a huge comeback across the nation, and no major city is complete without a good transit system.

I am taking the bus to campus/work tomorrow, and pretty much every day that I don't have to work in Greenville for that matter. Have you ever actually ridden on a GTA bus? You seem to be making assertations that so far as I can tell, are not the least bit true. GTA has a nice new fleet of buses, its too bad the money can't be allocated to operate a decent system. I'm confident that will change eventually.

I think that far too many people in South Carolina have the attitude that any growth is good growth, when that is simply not the case. Politicians especially. And I think its more rooted in ignorance, and the history of our state's poor track record with economic development until the past few decades. There are many people, even on this board, who just assume that any new development is a good one, without taking a look at it first. There are good projects and bad ones, and some that are in between. If you can't take a step back and look at the good and the bad parts of new growth then you are just doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Greenville, of all places in this state, is in the position to demand and expect higher things from developers, and it should set its standards higher so that the new growth areas will be developed properly. The issue is not stopping growth, but managing it so that it happens in an orderly, well designed fashion.

All projects generate traffic. Traffic comes with a thriving economy. The issue is not that traffic exists or is increasing, but how its dealt with. Woodruff Road is a funnel for way too many vehicles, because there are literally no other ways to go that are more convenient. A 10x10 grid of streets has thousands more options than one road with a few intersections does. Also, don't get caught up in the idea that a "grid" has to be rectilinear. The key issue is connectivity. The more connections a place has, the more options you have in reaching your destination.

Cap'n, Krazee, myself and most others here understand that the way Greenville has been growing since the 70s is not setting us up for a Greenville that will be something BETTER than our neighboring metros (Atlanta, Charlotte). There is a reason we don't track the development of every McDonalds and fast food restaurant, but we do track projects like Magnolia, and RiverPlace. This is UrbanPlanet afterall.

There is so much above I need to try to synopsize. My cut is:

1. Transit is making a BIG comeback.

2. GTA buses are great and we should all take a ride on one.

3. All growth is not good, many on UP don't understand this esp. SC pol's

4. Traffic would be minimized if we had a grid system

5. Most on the board don't like the way G'ville has been growing since the 70's, I guess excepting the ones from #3 above.

Starting from the top, I'll take your word on the transit trends. Obviously, there are people on the board who follow this breathlessly. My only thought is, until G'ville is MUCH larger I wouldn't get my hopes up for a significant increase in demand or interest on this front. Until there are REAL traffic and REAL parking problems in core areas, there won't be big demand for transit.

Which brings us to item 3, where I think most everyone agrees some developments are better than others. The issue is, for those interested in developing an urban core (see above), G'ville needs LOTS of growth, both urban AND suburban. The "managed growth" you advocate slows growth in general and delays the development of the urban core that I assume you'd like to see. Hey, I'm not advocating anything goes, but developments like Magnolia, the new one behind the Pointe, and yes, the ones on Pelham are not horrible developments. Yet, they are constantly questioned, if not outrightly opposed, by many on the board. I think that is bad news for the metro area, and by connection, for urban development within G'ville. Stopping a development on Woodruff isn't going to make the developer move it to DT - but sometimes it seems that's what some people think.

To digress, the fact is city development is dependent on large masses of people in both the city and outlying areas. It seems popular to decry the "growth and sprawl" of Atlanta, but if you really study it, DT and MT Atlanta have been BOOMING the past 10 years or so with huge development and infill. This was not the case 30 years ago, but large metro growth has inevitably created the demand for intown residential, retail, commercial, and yes, neighborhood development. Similar trends can be seen in Charlotte. This is driven by a critical mass that effectively demands core urban development for the same reasons as in #1 above, traffic, commute times, parking, nightlife, etc. G'ville doesn't have critical mass and none of the forces that drive this demand. Hence, core urban development is slow and spotty - what little we have is driven by a handful of eateries and a little nightlife, which is good, but we need more people to drive more urban development. Slowing growth in the 'burbs doesn't help our people needs.

Lastly, I'm not so sure so many are unhappy with the way G'ville has developed since the 70's. There are lots more options for living, dining, and shopping than when I moved here in the mid-90's. I think most on UP and elsewhere like that. I realize most growth has been in the 'burbs, but considering that the G'ville suburbs were so small it was inevitable that growth would flow there. Along the way, DT has done alright given the limits of a small city. What will help DT is continued growth around the city to help create that critical mass.

[Greenville]

Excellent post, Greercat. I agree with you.

[GvilleSC]

Developed seems to be being thrown around here in different terms. Spartan seems to be using it in a sense of construction, layout, and planning, while Greercat seems to be referring to it in a sense of growth. It's not the growth that I oppose; those living, dining, and shopping options come with growth and that's great. It's the lack of foresight and lack of planning when developing that I regret the county not doing a better job with.

[Spartan]

There is so much above I need to try to synopsize. My cut is:

1. Transit is making a BIG comeback.

2. GTA buses are great and we should all take a ride on one.

3. All growth is not good, many on UP don't understand this esp. SC pol's

4. Traffic would be minimized if we had a grid system

5. Most on the board don't like the way G'ville has been growing since the 70's, I guess excepting the ones from #3 above.

Starting from the top, I'll take your word on the transit trends. Obviously, there are people on the board who follow this breathlessly. My only thought is, until G'ville is MUCH larger I wouldn't get my hopes up for a significant increase in demand or interest on this front. Until there are REAL traffic and REAL parking problems in core areas, there won't be big demand for transit.

Which brings us to item 3, where I think most everyone agrees some developments are better than others. The issue is, for those interested in developing an urban core (see above), G'ville needs LOTS of growth, both urban AND suburban. The "managed growth" you advocate slows growth in general and delays the development of the urban core that I assume you'd like to see. Hey, I'm not advocating anything goes, but developments like Magnolia, the new one behind the Pointe, and yes, the ones on Pelham are not horrible developments. Yet, they are constantly questioned, if not outrightly opposed, by many on the board. I think that is bad news for the metro area, and by connection, for urban development within G'ville. Stopping a development on Woodruff isn't going to make the developer move it to DT - but sometimes it seems that's what some people think.

To digress, the fact is city development is dependent on large masses of people in both the city and outlying areas. It seems popular to decry the "growth and sprawl" of Atlanta, but if you really study it, DT and MT Atlanta have been BOOMING the past 10 years or so with huge development and infill. This was not the case 30 years ago, but large metro growth has inevitably created the demand for intown residential, retail, commercial, and yes, neighborhood development. Similar trends can be seen in Charlotte. This is driven by a critical mass that effectively demands core urban development for the same reasons as in #1 above, traffic, commute times, parking, nightlife, etc. G'ville doesn't have critical mass and none of the forces that drive this demand. Hence, core urban development is slow and spotty - what little we have is driven by a handful of eateries and a little nightlife, which is good, but we need more people to drive more urban development. Slowing growth in the 'burbs doesn't help our people needs.

Lastly, I'm not so sure so many are unhappy with the way G'ville has developed since the 70's. There are lots more options for living, dining, and shopping than when I moved here in the mid-90's. I think most on UP and elsewhere like that. I realize most growth has been in the 'burbs, but considering that the G'ville suburbs were so small it was inevitable that growth would flow there. Along the way, DT has done alright given the limits of a small city. What will help DT is continued growth around the city to help create that critical mass.

Transit can work in Greenville, and there is probably more demand than you realize. Interestingly enough, GTA reported that its ridership was up significantly last year( before all these cuts). Does anyone remember that figure? Transit always boils down to money, and how much the local government wants to invest. You need only look at Charlotte, where they commited to a permanent funding solution to their transit system, and their ridership has sykrocketed as service has improved. I don't buy the arguement that a city like Greenville can't do transit.

I try not to respond point by point, but you have warranted this for your "synopsis" since you didn't get my points as I intended. So, to clarify my earlier statements:

#3 - I said all growth is not good growth and that most people here on UP DO understand this, though there are some who do not, or disagree with that notion. It is my belief that SC politicians do not.

#4 - Congestion would be reduced over all if there were more connectivity. This is a well proven fact. Its why downtown anywhere has relatively little congestion compared to outlying areas. I can think of no exceptions.

#5 - I think that generally, if you are interested in the UP forums, you are interested in the urban nature of development and redevelopment in the core areas of our cities. There is a reason that we track every random small project in downtown but not every McDonalds or CheckCash store they put in the suburban areas.

Anway, you appear to have addressed my main point, GreerCat. You seem to think that if growth in Greenville is managed that it will somehow slow or stop other growth. Why? It doesn't have to. You just assume it will. Why is it bad that people said they don't want a new Target or Walmart and then they got what they wanted? Should an area or neighborhood not reflect want the people who live there want for their own community? Should we just let the market run free with no guidlines, no plan on what Greenville wants for itself and its future?

Developed seems to be being thrown around here in different terms. Spartan seems to be using it in a sense of construction, layout, and planning, while Greercat seems to be referring to it in a sense of growth. It's not the growth that I oppose; those living, dining, and shopping options come with growth and that's great. It's the lack of foresight and lack of planning when developing that I regret the county not doing a better job with.

Exactly. In simple terms, its not what you have, its how its layed out on the land. You can have all of the same stores and same housing types, but the lay of the land could be set up in a way that is more sustainable, and that makes more sense for the future.

[gs3]

Special thanks to G-man for digging this site plan up. While I am sure much of it will change, at least this answers several questions about what tenants are interested in the Greenville market. A few of special interest are: REI (two-level store), Cheesecake Factory, Borders, A-Loft/Element/Hyatt Place/Spring Hill Suites. Also included is a 300,000 sf Class "A" office tower. This is only part of the overall plan. I am interested to see what comes from the new owners.

Thanks Skyliner. These were some of the names that were confirmed. Someone ask about the retail names....this site plan wasn't a complete tenant listing.

It's going to be good guys.

[mallguy]

Odd that the Magnolia Park website and the site plan don't list any upscale tenants- just DSW Shoe Warehouse and the like. Fingers crossed! Wouldn't a developer want to flaunt any destination retailers it's already lined up?

REI is a big asset, even if it's not upscale.

Edited March 30, 2007 by mallguy

[DealMan]

MallGuy, from my understanding they are not allowed to put names on the site plan unless they have (1) permission from the retailer and/or (2) a signed lease.

[Greenville]

Although we will surely see more upscale tenants confirmed for Magnolia Park, remember that many of the places we already know about are SC firsts (to my knowledge, anyway): DSW, Cheesecake Factory, Maggiano's, REI, Borders, Chipotle, etc.

[mallguy]

Yes- correct with South Carolina firsts. Looking for upscale retail like Apple Store and TUMI. Surprised that if leases have already been signed, there is still no official publicity about them.

[gs3]

Wouldn't a developer want to flaunt any destination retailers it's already lined up?

You are correct! Yes they would want to advertise. It would be done in the form of a tenant announcment release, which as of today, hasn't happened. When the tenant release does come out, I'm sure much flaunting will be done by the developer (and probably some flaunting on this board

[linkerjpatrick]

Yes- correct with South Carolina firsts. Looking for upscale retail like Apple Store and TUMI. Surprised that if leases have already been signed, there is still no official publicity about them.

When you say stores "like" Apple and TUMI do you mean Apple most likely will be coming or stores "like" an Apple store. I have talked with some local "Apple People in the know" and they have mentioned these rumors and also mentioned the "like" part of the rumor. I use Apple stuff about 90% of time I'm involved with Computers and related devices so I would love for this to be a reality.

Are we talking about a definitely possibility at Magnolia Place or is it possible an Apple store could show up in another place like downtown, Haywood or somewhere else on Woodruff Road?

[mallguy]

Others on this board have expressed sentiments that Apple Store and TUMI are possibilities. I haven't, although it would be nice to have higher-end retail than what I'm seeing; surely my beloved Harold's and Parisian weren't leveled for a DSW Shoe Warehouse and a fitness equipment place.