Downtown Master Plan & Urban Code

[krazeeboi]

^I didn't know it encompassed a height limit. In a way that can be good, since buildings that are more on the human scale tend to be much more pedestrian friendly than midrises/highrises, but the code should just mandate retail in the ground floor of towers.

[Spartan]

I read in the Master Plan exec. summary about a height limit- but I just assumed it would be something that is designed to provent the obscenely tall and out of character for Spartanburg from locating here. Eight stories seems a little short, and I'd be interested to know how they came up with that figure. If they had to do one, I'd say about 20 would be a good number (Denny's Tower is around 18 I think). And lets be realistic here- we aren't going to see walls of 20 story buildings in Spartanburg.

Skyscrapers- if appropriately done- can be very beneficial to a downtown core, and are a source of pride for the community (just read the Gville forum, and how excited those guys get over the very possiblity of a new tower (not to mention the ones that are being built). That said- I have always maintained that skyscrapers are not necessary for a quality urban environment, and some height restriction really wont change that. Just look at Charleston. It is admittedly frustrating though, because I see Spartanburg as being just large enough to support a few skyscrapers and to have a decent skyline some day.

The good news is the Council has to pass the code, and they could very well take that part out.

[hub-city]

I don't really know why height restrictions are needed. Shoudn't the market take care of that? I did read somewhere that all residential condos etc... would be mixed use with retail/restaurant on the bottom level. I do like that part, but if someone wants to build a 15 storey building then let them.

[Spartan]

Agreed.

[Spartan]

Spartan's Review: The Master Plan - Chapter 2 Intro & Analysis

The master plan is a very infromative and exciting document to read. The Executive Summary does give you the general idea of the rest of the document as it should- but in order to really understand what's being suggested (and what will hopefully be adopted in full) you need to read the rest of the chapters.

So whats' in Chapter 2? If you want to get an good idea about Spartanburg's history, specifically relating to downtown, and its many planning and development related efforts and issues over the past 200 years or so, then you should read this chapter. The first 20 pages or so give you a very good overview, then the next section gives a much more detailed account of Spartanbug's history. It covers every plan that Spartanburg has had since the 70s.

The good stuff comes from the analysis section. It gives an outline of what's to come in the following chapters, but it covers many other areas as well. One of the more interesting maps is on p12. It gives you an overview of all of the projects that have occured downtown since 2000. Its quite impressive (albiet a little hard to read at their font size).

What I learned from this chapter is that Spartanburg has indeed had a history of paying money for plans that rely on the big fish idea, but usually the big fish never bites, and more frequently the City has dropped the ball and not made any moves on the plans it created. The good news is that more recently, the city has been more likely to actually use the plan and not let it collect dust. You can see though the discussion that over time, more and more of the plans have been followed.

The last downtown plan, Share the Vision (1998) is almost entirely complete. It called for many things that we now enjoy and benefit from including: Barnet Park, Zimmerli Amphitheater, Rennovated Memorial Auditorium, the Marriott, a conference center, rennovate the train depot, turn Belk Building (aka Palmetto Building) into apartments and establishing a farmers market. The items that haven't been completed yet are- rennovating the Montgomery Building (several attemps have been made, and it sounds like this will happen now) and building a golf center, among others.

This gives me a good vibe about the current plan and the desire to use it to really get something done.

On p41, they give some conclusions about Spartanburg. They make a lot of interesting points, and I highly reccomend reading it. I'm not going to go into too much detail about it, except to comment on 2 things:

1- They suggest dense residential developments between the commercial district/CBD and the surrounding neighborhoods. This is vital to the next point-

2- Promote Strong Neighborhoods!! I have been saying this for quite some time, as have many others here on UP. Spartanburg has so many great neighborhoods right around downtown, but most people only know about Converse Heights, and now Hampton Heights (due to the restoration effort).

Other neighborhoods like North Converse Heights, Park Hills, South Converse, North Dean, Beaumont, and Midtown Heights are all integral parts of the downtown restoration, because these are the areas that should be targets for people to live while the work, shop, and play downtown. All of these other neighborhoods lack the sense of identity and place that the other two have. This needs to be corrected (especially with Park Hills and the neighborhoods to the west of there). There is a lot of confusion or apathy (or both) about where the neighborhoods are, and also what they are. I think that a major component of reestablishing downtown as a significant center is to include the surrounding neighborhoods too. I'll add a disclaimer that I haven't read the entire plan yet, so they may delve into that a littel further. I still think this is one fo the most important things for Spartanburg to work on.

I realize that many readers here may not know Charlotte very well, but what I have learned so far is that one of the best parts about my new city is not "Uptown" but the areas surrounding it. They are not dissimilar from the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Spartanburg in terms of age, style, and attractiveness. Charlotte has made them into places "to be" and has (based on my limited experience) made them into palces with an identity of their own. Obviously the dynamics here are a bit different than back home- but I think that Spartanburg should apply the same principle. The in town neighborhoods should once again be highly desirable places to live, not places to avoid.

[krazeeboi]

The executive summary was a pretty good summary of where Spartanburg has been, where it is, and where it is trying to go. It really shows me that the city gets it. These were the take home points for me:

The challenges that downtown faces are largely in its geography, as its assets are visually and/or physically separated in a manner that reduces the opportunities for synergy.

Great downtowns are built in fine-grained increments. The mega-project rarely saves a downtown and is very difficult - financially and politically - to achieve. In truth, the largest scale projects that might be achievable for a City like Spartanburg have already occurred

[Spartan]

The City Planning Commission has scheduled weekly meetings to discuss the implementation of the master plan. They talked about Housing first, and they will meet each week to discuss the other aspects of the master plan. Hopefully this will lead to their reccomendation to the Council to adopt the plan in full (but without the height restriction).

Article

[krazeeboi]

So far, this sounds like a plan that will not be left sitting on the shelf.

[Spartan]

I am even more optimistic about the Master Plan these days. It sounds like this WILL happen. The City is going to put out an RFP by the end of the year for a developer for the Renaissance Park site. The City owns all of the land there, so it should make the process easier. The site has the potential for about 1.1 million sq ft of combined residential and retail space. Thats about the size of Westgate Mall folks. This has the potential to be the best thing Spartanburg has seen in a long time, and it culd be come the centerpiece for Spartanburg.

Remember, the mast plan is a guide. The specific details will still have to be worked out for this site. I hope that in the next 5 years, this will be well under way, if not complete. This is an exciting time to be a Spartan

For further reading, check out this article from the Herald-Journal.

Renaissance Park is covered in depth in Chapter 6 of the master plan, which I will eventually get to and post a review here. But until then you shoud go and read it for yourself. If you're interested in Spartanburg's future, you will find it to be a great read! In the mean time, here is one page from the Master Plan that shows some street layouts and renderings:

[krazeeboi]

That was a great read, and it shows that city leaders are committed to making sure that such a large and highly visible piece of property is not just developed, but developed correctly. I particularly liked this part of the article:

If the project is developed correctly, which is the city's intent, the site will link Wofford and Converse colleges with downtown and create an urban, pedestrian-friendly environment for those living in the area and for patrons of the cultural center and Marriott, Franklin said.

The fact that this development won't be a centerpiece in and of itself, but will also connect the dots between relatively separated parts of the city is terrific. It also appears that it will require E. St. John Street to become pedestrian-friendly by narrowing and streetscaping it. I think a Renaissance Park centerpiece development might resemble a smaller version of Rockville Town Square in Rockville, MD:

[Spartan]

I don't really know why height restrictions are needed. Shoudn't the market take care of that? I did read somewhere that all residential condos etc... would be mixed use with retail/restaurant on the bottom level. I do like that part, but if someone wants to build a 15 storey building then let them.

Ok, the Urban Code is posted online, and I have some clarification on the height restriciton. Here's the scoop: There are several zoning districts within the urban code- DT4, DT5, and DT6. Each of these is based on the urban transcet concept which you can read more about in the Code itself. To see the code, look at this link.

Here's the map:

[here's a link to a hi-res version]

Thre break down is like this-

DT4 represents the residential districts, so it has a height cap of 3 stories.

DT5 represents the urban transition zones, so it has a height cap of 4 stories.

DT6 represents the urban core of the ciy. It has a height cap of 8 stories.

HOWEVER - there is an incentives program in place that allows the DT5 and DT6 categories to build higher than that. So its not that there is a restriction like Charleston, but there is a built in system to encourage height by doing one or two things: provide an investment in public art or obtaining LEED certification.

Here is the bonus structure:

Public Art

A 1% investment will allow 1 extra storey in DT5 and DT6

A 2% investment will allow 2 extra stories in DT6

So, just with a small investment in public art, DT5 is up to 5 stories and DT6 is up to 10 stories. But lets move on to LEED.

LEED Certification

Silver will allow a 2 storey bonus for DT5 and 3 Stories for DT6

Gold will allow a 2 storey bonus for DT5 and 3 Stories for DT6

Platinum will allow a 2 storey bonus for DT5 and no maximum for DT6

• So with just LEED Silver or Gold certificaiton and no art investment you can achieve 11 stories downtown in DT6 and 6 stories in DT5.
  
• With LEED Silver or Gold certification and an art investment you can achieve 7 stories in DT5 and 13 stories in DT6.
  
• In DT6 with LEED Platinum there is no restriction on height.
  
• There is a 2 storey minimum on all buildings downtown.
  

According to this, the main shopping and restaurants district will be concentrated on Main Street between Converse and Magnolia (basicly where it is today, and then along Magnolia. Other key streets to have storefronts are Church St, St John, South Spring, South Daniel Morgan, North Liberty, and East Main (east of Converse). I think that the restaurant district will have to be altered (eg: the Magnolia Street Garage and the Palmetto Bank building) to make things really gel.

The districts I've mentioned don't address Renaissance Park, which has its own set of classifications.

This is a fantastic urban code. To sum it up, what this does is set up the legal structure in downtown so that we won't get crappy skyscrapers downtown. IT DOES NOT PREVENT SKYSCRAPERS. We will have more, better buildings with this arrangement, and a better urban environment downtown. This will set Spartanburg up with the most progressive set of ordinances in the state regarding urban development (in my opinion) except perhaps for Charleston.

I hope that the City Council will pass the Urban Code in full. Keep in mind that this is still in draft form, so it could change. I also hope that this will assuage some of your concerns about how this could limit Spartanburg, becuase all it will do is enhance it.

[krazeeboi]

So in other words, it assures that the core will get the taller towers and the outlying areas shorter towers?

[Spartan]

Yes. The tallest buildings would be in the urban core, some medium sized buildings would be located in the surrounding areas.

[spartanburgh]

I have a different opinion of the height restriction downtown. First of all I don't know how adding 1-2% in costs to a building or adding LEED requirements is an incentive to build higher? I don't think its a small investment either. If Marriott had to conform to this code it would have added $500,000 on the developer who already went bankrupt doing the deal, considering the $50,000,000 price tag. The 7 story condos planned for Renaissance Park didn't fly, but if they would have been close to selling enough units would this extra cost prevent them from developing (wait its across the line from D-6, it can't be done anyway)? My point is most of these projects are not home runs, and these added costs can make deals fall through. I don't know of a single building that has met the platinum LEED standard in all of South Carolina. Another point is there is no footage height associated with the restriction. You could build an eight story 120' tall building that has 200,000 square feet and it look like crap and pay no penalty. You could build a ten story 100,000 square foot building that is only 100' tall and do a great job and it wouldn't pass code with out expensive fees to pay even though it may be highly efficient.

I wish the code would be changed to reflect a more positive approach to building these efficient buildings regardless of height. For Example, If you build Silver LEED you get a tax break of 1% on your property taxes, Gold gives you a 2% break and Platinum would give you a 3% break and donations to art would give you a 1% break for an investment of art up to 1% of your costs regardless of height.

The third point is you could go near Spartanburg Regional (outside the master plan area) and build a 15 story building that couldn't be built in the central business district? The code STINKS on this issue and should be changed.

Look at the code from the developers perspective and I think you will agree. I really don't think Spartanburg will be getting many tall buildings anyway, but I do know of one group that has expressed interest in a building that would be in the 12-15 story range. The actual building is probably 3-5 years out, but will this be enough of an expense to make it take longer or derail the plan altogether. If a positive package was in place maybe the numbers would make it happen sooner.

Last point, Would you rather see the Denny's tower 8 stories tall and have no landscape or 18 stories with a nice park around it? I think its more important to incent for positive reasons than to make someone buy their way out of a code.

[Spartan]

Ok, you've covered a lot of gound so im going to address this as best I can, point by point.

First of all I don't know how adding 1-2% in costs to a building or adding LEED requirements is an incentive to build higher? I don't think its a small investment either. If Marriott had to conform to this code it would have added $500,000 on the developer who already went bankrupt doing the deal, considering the $50,000,000 price tag.

You're thinking about initial costs, which woudl indeed go up. But if you limit the development capacity, then create encouragement to build taller you can cover the added expenses by having additional sellable space.

The 7 story condos planned for Renaissance Park didn't fly, but if they would have been close to selling enough units would this extra cost prevent them from developing (wait its across the line from D-6, it can't be done anyway)? My point is most of these projects are not home runs, and these added costs can make deals fall through. I don't know of a single building that has met the platinum LEED standard in all of South Carolina.

I think that was a crappy project anyway, but you're right, that wouldn't be allowed by the new Code becuase it would be in the Ren. Park. category. I think that the Mary Black foundation is platinum. I think. But thats a rehab, not a new construction.

Another point is there is no footage height associated with the restriction. You could build an eight story 120' tall building that has 200,000 square feet and it look like crap and pay no penalty. You could build a ten story 100,000 square foot building that is only 100' tall and do a great job and it wouldn't pass code with out expensive fees to pay even though it may be highly efficient.

I wish the code would be changed to reflect a more positive approach to building these efficient buildings regardless of height. For Example, If you build Silver LEED you get a tax break of 1% on your property taxes, Gold gives you a 2% break and Platinum would give you a 3% break and donations to art would give you a 1% break for an investment of art up to 1% of your costs regardless of height.

The third point is you could go near Spartanburg Regional (outside the master plan area) and build a 15 story building that couldn't be built in the central business district? The code STINKS on this issue and should be changed.

Look at the code from the developers perspective and I think you will agree. I really don't think Spartanburg will be getting many tall buildings anyway, but I do know of one group that has expressed interest in a building that would be in the 12-15 story range. The actual building is probably 3-5 years out, but will this be enough of an expense to make it take longer or derail the plan altogether. If a positive package was in place maybe the numbers would make it happen sooner.

Last point, Would you rather see the Denny's tower 8 stories tall and have no landscape or 18 stories with a nice park around it? I think its more important to incent for positive reasons than to make someone buy their way out of a code.

You couldn't build anything like that near Regional or anywhere else because the zoning would not allow it, unless perhaps it was a tower as a part of a new SRMC project.

I think that you have to look at it from a sales point of view. You invest a little more and you get more return in the long run.

I agree that some sort of tax break would help the process on the developer's part. But, I don't think that this will result in a lot of crappy short buildings in Spartanburg. But I'd rather see two 8 storey buildings than one 16 storey building anyway.

[breed]

One logistical problem with tying LEED certification to building height... the determination of LEED certification isn't made until after the building is completed, as many of the points awarded are done so as part of the building process. It takes a year plus to find out if a completed building meets the requirements.

[Spartan]

Good point. But I would think that so long as its planned to meet those goals then it would work out, even if they don't reach the right certification.

One other thought I had is that while this may limit the number of large highrises we get, it would mean that the ones we do get will be awesome.

[spartanburgh]

Breed your 100% right and this new code specifically states that the certificate of occupancy would be held until certification is met. This is really bad planning. Spartanburg will certainly get many more buildings that are less than 8 stories and they will have no incentive to go green. Why is this code so restrictive to buildings we will rarely get? Make it a positive incentive for all buildings to go green and forget the height restrictions. This part of the code really makes no sence at all.

[breed]

I think holding the CO based upon whether the property gets certified wouldn't work. New buildings can't just sit empty while they wait for certification. Case in point, the new Independence Pointe building in Greenville is applying for LEED certification. It won't be determined for months, but the building is occupied.

One potential solution I could see working would be to create some sort of modified LEED checklist... using things that aren't subjective, or things that the city would like to see. It may be short, but at least it would get people headed in the right direction. Or perhaps the city hiring a LEED-certified engineer to review development plans to make a judgement call on the likelihood of qualification.

Checklist for LEED can be found here:

http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2245

[Spartan]

How is this bad planning? Its is directly encouraging good building development, thats the point. Don't get caught up over the idea that if they don't make LEED Platinum that they will tear the building down or not allow them to be occupied. Who cares if we don't get any skyscrapers? Spartanburg isn't going to be Columbia in terms of skyline, but that doesn't mean we can't have a Charleston-like downtown.

[krazeeboi]

And even if some of these buildings don't quite qualify for LEED certification, it's still a good thing that they will have green features. LEED certification is just a standard; we shouldn't think that a building has failed simply because it failed to get certification.

[spartanburgh]

Its bad planning because it does nothing to encourage green building practices for 99% of the buildings that are likely to be built in Spartanburg (1-8 stories). If someone builds any height upto 8 stories they have no reason to go green. If they build over the limit requiring any green level their C.O. will be held until the building is certified by the USGBC (section 4.4.2 vii of the downtown code). If the C.O. is going to be issued after the USGBC certifies the building no one would be stupid enough to build a multimillion dollar building that could sit idle for months until approval is issued. Its also bad planning because it chooses a story height that has no direct correlation to building code requirements or overall building height.

You prefer shorter buildings and I prefer taller buildings and they are our opinions and thats fine, but when you penalize a developer instead of incenting I think you choose the wrong course.

You are right, Spartanburg will never have a Columbia skyline, with this code I'm afraid downtown will look like a sububan office park with no more buildings over 8 stories.

[Spartan]

I see what you're saying about highrises, but the whole point of this master plan and urban code is so that downtown will NOT look like an office park. With or without highrises we'll still have a nice looking downtown. I like a nice skyscraper as much as the next person, but they are not necessary to have a quality urban downtown that people will want to go to.

If it passes as is, then nobody's going to build a highrise unless they really want to. Perhaps they will modify some parts of it to make the highrise components easier to get.

[breed]

After taking a look at the code, ultimately this has the impact of capping building height at ten stories (assuming the two story credit for art is met.)

Which is fine. It is what it is.

However, after reading the code and the two pages on LEED certification and how to go through that process, it seems like a bit of a waste. While you may have someone interested in 15-story Platinum LEED certified building in downtown Spartanburg, with the code as written, it's not going to happen. There are things that are subjective in the LEED-certification process, leaving the occupation of a building up to a subjective year-long review of your construction process will kill any potential development.

The bottom-line... I just don't think the section written on LEED in the code accomplishes what it intends to accomplish. Of course, maybe the inclusion of the code would be the only way to get the building cap imposed. But considering that it came from a consultant and not the city itself, I doubt that compromises would have already surfaced in their work... but I'm not privvy to the Spartanburg political process.

[Spartan]

All very good points. I'm starting to rethink my position on this LEED stuff. I still think that some sort of requirement should be made to create quality buildings downtown, be that LEED or some other system, but perhaps one that is not so stringent. There does need to be some balance between what the goals are and the realities of making them happen at the pace we want. By that I mean I agree with the notion that we may get a LEED Platinum building eventually, but in the same timeframe we could also have gotten two LEED Silver buildings (or whatever), which would ultimately be more beneficial to the environment we want to create.

Also, we have no idea how Council is going to change this code, as it is just a proposal right now.