Jump to content

City Hall Site


cdude9409

Recommended Posts

...Please also bear in mind that while height is function of land cost, it is also a compromise between City Council and the Developer. City Hall houses Greenville Leaders, and as such, needs to be a prominent building in a prominent location. Putting a high rise next to the current City Hall would dwarf the current building, and could potentially undermine Council and weaken their role as leaders in this community. You may recall one of the competing proposals for this site included a high rise that was significantly larger than City Hall and it is my understanding that this was one of the main contributing factors to not being awarded the land sale contract.

I find this take on the matter somewhat interesting, actually. I hadn't even considered this, but this would tend to make some sense.

Regardless of whether there's an IMAX Theatre included in this project or not, it would be nice to see at least a 2-4 screen theatre somehow worked into the plans. Something similar to the Premier Trade Plaza in Orlando, only on a smaller scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Frankly, if the city discouraged something bigger, because they didn't want something that would match City Hall's height, that is very small minded IMO. What makes a better impression, a tall (if architectural out of date) city hall or a well-designed, active, urban place of commerce and activity? Does anyone even KNOW what the Charlotte City Hall even looks like? Does anyone even care? I bet a lot more people know what the B of A Corporate Center looks like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, if the city discouraged something bigger, because they didn't want something that would match City Hall's height, that is very small minded IMO. What makes a better impression, a tall (if architectural out of date) city hall or a well-designed, active, urban place of commerce and activity? Does anyone even KNOW what the Charlotte City Hall even looks like? Does anyone even care? I bet a lot more people know what the B of A Corporate Center looks like.

I couldn't agree with you more vicupstate. That would indeed be a juvenile way of thinking. And I disagree with the writer, I do not think the jacksonville buiding would be out of place in gville, perhaps he should have said that it wasn't in the scope of the project he is working on. Perhaps that sort of mentality is what holds gville back at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good representative skyline is NOT what Greenville has. It can't touch most other cities' and it has a good bit of work to do. But at street level, most other cities, even with their beautiful highrises and graceful skylines, can't touch Greenville's downtown. It's what we excel in doing- street level activity. Low to mid-rise buildings help make this possible. If Riverplace had been one building, it could have reached a height of atleast 40+ stories but with VERY limited street level retail, gallery, and resturant space. In reality, it is now made up of 4 (soon to be 5) buildings with an abundance of street level resturant, retail, and gallery space. As a result, we now have a beautiful Riverwalk along the Reedy.

As we continue to build more low to mid-rise structures downtown, the amount of desired available land will slowly become scarce. As a result, developers will take advantage of the opportunity to maximize space and build taller. McBee Station, Riverplace, the Fieldhouse, The Palmetto Bank, etc all contribute to this and will eventually pay off. Not to mention that the amount of street level activity will be increased and the desire to live and work downtown will become that much more desirable-- making future high-rises possible.

That's just my take on the issue and while I'd love to see another high-rise, I also realize that the time will come. Greenville's downtown wasn't revitalized in a day. Much the same, the skyline can't be brought up to par in that amount of time either. ;)

I understand you point GvilleSc, and it has been made before. But I am not sure why Gville can't develop both at the same time. I don't completely buy the idea that all the land must be built out first before we can get highrises. Columbia has a lot more available land surrounding their DT than we do, and they have a much better skyline. This could be said of many cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand you point GvilleSc, and it has been made before. But I am not sure why Gville can't develop both at the same time. I don't completely buy the idea that all the land must be built out first before we can get highrises. Columbia has a lot more available land surrounding their DT than we do, and they have a much better skyline. This could be said of many cities.

I understand what you're saying. Just for the sake of looking at it from another point of view- does Columbia have street level activity like we do? And it may have nothing to do with skyscrapers (other than their lack of retail on the first floor)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Email from a very high-profile person that works for Windsor/Aughtry:

Thanks for sending me that link. I had never visited urbanplanet before. Apparently I should be keeping up with that better. I saw the comments about the building from Jacksonville, and really felt like while that is a pretty building it would be out of place in Greenville, SC. The role of a developer is very difficult, because you have to balance interesting designs, with actual demand, and get it to stay within a realistic budget. Failing to do so, can easily bankrupt any developer. As far as having an IMAX downtown, I would live to see one. The problem here is that IMAX is a very special niche, and we as a developer are not willing to speculate on the old adage of "if you build it, they will come." If you have someone interested in being the operating partner/owner, than we would be happy to meet with them and see about incorporating something into the project for them. I think I understand your position having not seen our proposal, but let me assure it is a first class design and would be a great addition to Downtown. Please also bear in mind that while height is function of land cost, it is also a compromise between City Council and the Developer. City Hall houses Greenville Leaders, and as such, needs to be a prominent building in a prominent location. Putting a high rise next to the current City Hall would dwarf the current building, and could potentially undermine Council and weaken their role as leaders in this community. You may recall one of the competing proposals for this site included a high rise that was significantly larger than City Hall and it is my understanding that this was one of the main contributing factors to not being awarded the land sale contract.

Thanks for contacting this person at Windsor/Aughtry and posting their response here. Their comments are very interesting.

I disagree with this person about the Jacksonville building being "out of place" in Greenville. I do not think it goes against the vibe found in Greenville, and architecturally it would fit in fine. Perhaps it would look strange at first to actually have a new, modern tower downtown though. Perhaps some people are against having any new towers constructed since the 1980's (Poinsett Plaza excluded), but I think the problem in the past has been logistics/timing and not a lack of fit.

I was somewhat shocked to read the part about city council not wanting a building in the area to dwarf the current city hall building. I understand that egos are at play, but come on. Is it realistic for an 8-10 story building to be setting the cap on building height in a city at the center of a metro of over 1 million people?!? if that is their concern, then they should build a structure that is dynamic and will trump any highrise that could possibly be built in Greenville within the next 50 years.

Besides, do any cities of importance have city hall as the tallest building? I understand that the point here is that city leaders want it to be the tallest in the general area, and not in downtown as a whole, but it is still a silly way to look at things. They need to grow up if that is dictating their view of potential projects. If they are truly about promoting the greater good of Greenville, and increasing quality of life, they will not let petty factors decide the fate of a project.

With that said, I am looking forward to seeing what Windsor/Aughtry comes up with for the city hall plaza site. Despite only being 6-7 stories at this point, I do think it has the potential of contributing well to the street-level experience and expanding that block of downtown with quality retail and restaurants. Hopefully the final design won't overshadow city hall too much! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Greenville's skyline will develop in due time. The unfortunate thing is other than the street-level activities, most developers don't really see the use of building a 30+ story high rise there. I think if Greenville can lure more corporations and companies to the downtown area either as their regional headquarters or even world headquarters then the interest will be there to build such a high rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, if the city discouraged something bigger, because they didn't want something that would match City Hall's height, that is very small minded IMO. What makes a better impression, a tall (if architectural out of date) city hall or a well-designed, active, urban place of commerce and activity? Does anyone even KNOW what the Charlotte City Hall even looks like? Does anyone even care? I bet a lot more people know what the B of A Corporate Center looks like.

Charlotte's city hall is on the governmental side of Uptown, which is the western portion around 3rd, Trade, and 5th; the corporate side of Uptown, where the vast majority of corporate towers is located, is to the east along College and Tryon. The only thing in the immediate vicinity that compares in height to city hall is the new county courthouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying. Just for the sake of looking at it from another point of view- does Columbia have street level activity like we do? And it may have nothing to do with skyscrapers (other than their lack of retail on the first floor)

Interestingly enough, where Columbia has the most street-level activity (Vista, Five Points) is not where the towers are located (along Main). However, this is not true of Charlotte, which has been able to successfully combine the two. Granted, not every tower has street-level retail, but for the most part there is enough along College and Tryon, where most of Uptown's towers are located, to generate a good amount of pedestrian activity. So both (towers and street-level activity) can definitely happen together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, where Columbia has the most street-level activity (Vista, Five Points) is not where the towers are located (along Main).

Exactly. Columbia's activity centers are not on Main St, so its sort of a difficult comparison, but thats off topic. Don't get caugt up in this idea that skyscrapers are what makes a downtown, because they aren't. Greenville doesn't need a great skyline to define itself because it has Main Street and Falls Park, etc. Midrise structures like RiverPlace and this new hotel are exactly what Greenville needs. The things that are built there should fit in with Greenville's scale and character, and that character is NOT one of large skyscrapers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Columbia's activity centers are not on Main St, so its sort of a difficult comparison, but thats off topic. Don't get caugt up in this idea that skyscrapers are what makes a downtown, because they aren't. Greenville doesn't need a great skyline to define itself because it has Main Street and Falls Park, etc. Midrise structures like RiverPlace and this new hotel are exactly what Greenville needs. The things that are built there should fit in with Greenville's scale and character, and that character is NOT one of large skyscrapers.

I do not completely disagree, but will say that I believe Greenville DOES need more highrises to be built downtown, but only if designed to enhance street-level pedestrian activity. This can be done very easily. Wachovia Place is one example, as is Poinsett Plaza. With that said, this particular development in this particular location should be very effective. I am not opposed to delaying this in the name of something taller, but ONLY if that something is guaranteed to happen within a reasonably short amount of time. Waiting for an elusive dream would only stunt the opportunity for continuous growth of our "spinal" urban core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenville needs high-rises downtown to provide more office workers, who will hopefully spend money downtown and lead to more restaurants and stores. Witness Charlotte; there's not much else downtown M-F from 9 to 5 other than office workers and they support a few national chain stores and tons of restaurants.

The City Hall site needs to have the parking garage blank wall along S. Main turned into something else; even some windows or a small store or something would help make that block more pedestrian-friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenville needs high-rises downtown to provide more office workers, who will hopefully spend money downtown and lead to more restaurants and stores. Witness Charlotte; there's not much else downtown M-F from 9 to 5 other than office workers and they support a few national chain stores and tons of restaurants.

Does Greenville need more highrises? What is the occupancy rate for Daniel Building, the US Shelter buildings, Wachovia Place, the Bank of America building?

Are these buildings turning away tenants? Seems if the demand was there, more high rises would be built.

Sorry, I'm still having trouble understanding what the big deal about high rises is. Basically what I gather from this site is that they are impressive to outsiders and make us feel good about ourselves. But there are still empty floors on the higher buildings that presently exist.

From a developer or investor standpoint, I really understand why it's hard to justify building another, or two or three buildings at this point in time in Greenville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyscrapers are really an ego-thing, although some cities that lack traditional skylines still have pretty robust egos (e.g., Charleston). But Greenville (or at least the Greenville forumers here) really want outsiders to take notice of their city, and a good way to do that is by advertising a burgeoning skyline; it's a sign of notereity in a sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyscrapers are really an ego-thing, although some cities that lack traditional skylines still have pretty robust egos (e.g., Charleston). But Greenville (or at least the Greenville forumers here) really want outsiders to take notice of their city, and a good way to do that is by advertising a burgeoning skyline; it's a sign of notereity in a sense.

Skyscrapers can be an "ego-thing" for many, but in practical terminology, they are a maximized use of available property. Also, I think Greenville justifiably does have a fairly "robust ego" about its unique qualities, which seems to pay dividends in the long run. There is no doubt that its skyline will grow over time, as prime land becomes more and more scarce. :shades:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a developer or investor standpoint, I really understand why it's hard to justify building another, or two or three buildings at this point in time in Greenville.

Definitely- as the South Financials and other potentially large downtown tenants locate in the suburbs. DT Greenville, don't get me wrong, has a disproportionately large share of office space downtown, for a Sunbelt city, and over the past 10 years it has peformed very well, and there are still some small office developments coming downtown, but not enough to justify a new Class A tower. I still think we need to work to steer more large companies downtown rather than to suburbia.

I think the Class A office vacancy rate downtown is decent, but the Class B (e.g., Daniel Building) rate is higher- still, not enough to justify new construction, without big tenants coming downtown as they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, if the demand is there, and the economy can support it, I say build a hundred big, beautiful buildings.

But I'm not really interested in even one big, beautiful building with assorted tenants that shut down and move out every time the Fed. cheif burps, and the economy dips a little bit.

Riverplace, the Piedmont Natural Gas building, Bowater, etc. are impressive, beautiful buildings where companies who intend to stay in Greenville for years and years operate out of. More power to them.

You can have plenty of beauty, and impressiveness and still be under 8 stories. We have a lot to be thankful for in Greenville's downtown. I just don't want the wants to overtake the needs, if you know what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an email from Jim Bourey on the issue:

The design for the buildings which would be built on the City Hall Plaza site is not set at this time. However, as part of the development agreement we are requiring active uses fronting on both Main and Broad Streets. We do not want to have blank walls that do not contribute to street life. The City Council informally endorsed some design concepts for the Piazza. The next step is to go to the DPC for their approval and do a detailed design. The Council approved an extension of the time required to develop the old Woolworth Building site. We will be working with the developer to do a revised development agreement that includes a much larger area and more comprehensive view of this area. We will continue to require ground floor retail along Main and Washington. This is indeed an excellent site for a major retail anchor such as Borders.

Jim Bourey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skyscrapers can be an "ego-thing" for many, but in practical terminology, they are a maximized use of available property.

This is true, but Greenville, like several other Southern cities (even those with a large number of highrises like Charlotte and Atlanta) still have lots more land to build on without having to go seriously vertical. The geography of the typical Southern city doesn't demand highrises. The South Financial campus provides a good example of this. They have the room to build a sprawling campus (land that was specially designated as such at that), and it's obviously cheaper for them to do so. For most Southern cities, towers serve more of an iconic purpose than an efficiency purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.