Jump to content

Master Plan Results


GvilleSC

Recommended Posts

The new master plan for downtown and the CBD is to be unveiled tomorrow at a 4:00 PM city council meeting. This master plan is the result of Sasaki and Associates' master plan that we've been hearing about. Is anyone planning on attending? This is exciting! :w00t:

Awesome! I won't be able to make it, but I'm definitely looking forward to this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Looking at the article, it's mentioning 5 districts for downtown. I guess that it may have changed by now, but I'm not real sure how I feel about those districts. It mentions nothing for the North End, or even North Main in the City Center... I'll wait to see what's revealed today. Can't wait!! :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the article, it's mentioning 5 districts for downtown. I guess that it may have changed by now, but I'm not real sure how I feel about those districts. It mentions nothing for the North End, or even North Main in the City Center... I'll wait to see what's revealed today. Can't wait!! :w00t:

I thought North End and North Main already had master plans. Isn't this new master plan an addition (update)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made it to the meeting, Below are a few items of interest that I noted.

1) The area between Bowater and the church street bridge was one of the areas targeted for redevelopment.

2) Add a interchange at the end of the church street bridge with direct access to the broad street area.

3) Possably build visitor center in this area.

4) Increase trolly lines to neighborhoods .

5) Move trolly lines off main street .

6) Need a larger university presents downtown (Clemson Graduate center)

7) Redevelop county square - Need the county office to stay but in a taller building and add housing units.

8) Add the Stone ave- Wade Hamton intersection to the gateway site (for better planing)

9) Reorganize the DPC- one group to approve residential projects and one to approve downtown development.

10) Clarify Requirements for development.

11) Created center city zone for buildings up to 20 stories.

12) Created an emerging zone for buildings up to 8 stories.

13) plan to have light rail station downtown and not out at the interstate.

Just a few items for discussion. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made it to the meeting, Below are a few items of interest that I noted.

1) The area between Bowater and the church street bridge was one of the areas targeted for redevelopment.

2) Add a interchange at the end of the church street bridge with direct access to the broad street area.

3) Possably build visitor center in this area.

4) Increase trolly lines to neighborhoods .

5) Move trolly lines off main street .

6) Need a larger university presents downtown (Clemson Graduate center)

7) Redevelop county square - Need the county office to stay but in a taller building and add housing units.

8) Add the Stone ave- Wade Hamton intersection to the gateway site (for better planing)

9) Reorganize the DPC- one group to approve residential projects and one to approve downtown development.

10) Clarify Requirements for development.

11) Created center city zone for buildings up to 20 stories.

12) Created an emerging zone for buildings up to 8 stories.

13) plan to have light rail station downtown and not out at the interstate.

Just a few items for discussion. :D

Thanks, Trey!

I'm not sure about moving the trolley off of Main Street. If it were done today, we'd lose a good portion of the trolley riders, IMO. I like that it would get you there faster (most likely), but right now, people aren't realistically going to walk a block off of Main to catch a trolley (that some people don't know runs).

What's with this "up to 20 stories" business?? How about an "over __ stories" district, instead? Let's not restrict ourselves in height. Though, I love the idea to generate areas of buildings of a common height.

I'm interested in the Clemson Graduate Center, but I'm not sure how it would be feasible. Selected programs are in Greenville now, but how many graduate programs would you think would allow for a Greenville presence? Most grad students need a way to work for the university through teaching, assisting, or whatever it may be, and a large presence of students per program would need to exist for Grad students and teachers to only be in Greenville and not have to travel back and forth several times a week (much less each day)... without this, a 'permanent' or semi-permanent student presence would be hard to achieve, I'd think.

Nonetheless, I like the new outlook on things this study has provided. I look forward to finding out even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Trey!

What's with this "up to 20 stories" business?? How about an "over __ stories" district, instead? Let's not restrict ourselves in height. Though, I love the idea to generate areas of buildings of a common height.

The main goal was to make it clear to developers what height of building could be built were and not have to wait on the DPC to decide, and to encourage taller building in these zones. ( you could still build a taller building but would have to be approved)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main goal was to make it clear to developers what height of building could be built were and not have to wait on the DPC to decide, and to encourage taller building in these zones. ( you could still build a taller building but would have to be approved)

I see. So, not so much a restriction as I originally thought, but more of a guideline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I definitely see the value of plans like these, sometimes I think cities could save money and just consult with UPers about ideas for downtown. You inevitably see many of the same ideas that have been discussed here show up in these types of plans. To us they are no-brainers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading through this master plan, I think that Greenville could have saved some money and just read our urban planet boards (althought, the report would be filled with 50 storie skyscrapers ;) ). Most of the issues in the plan have been raised and discussed at length within these pages. I was happy to see so many simularities between how we envison Greenville's future within the report.

I think they did not really address parking though. I saw a lot of the thouroughfares that they wanted built up to encourage connections as just new buildings built on top of current parking lots, including church lots. Even the BiLo Center lot was covered with buildings. Some people do NOT like parking garages and there has to be places for people to park when comming to any of the 5 "corners".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the fact that you typically have to pay to use a parking garage (vs. on street parking, which is free in Greenville)? Or is it more of a security issue with people?

Either way, their mentality is what is in need of changing, not a parking plan to include more surface lots. If someone truly will not park in a garage, then they should take advantage of a park and ride service, whether it's actually a designated lot or simply parking in a situation like Old Time Pottery's lot on Laurens Rd and walk 20 feet to the bus stop. Then again, these people probably have an unfavorable view of public transportation and won't use it, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the fact that you typically have to pay to use a parking garage (vs. on street parking, which is free in Greenville)? Or is it more of a security issue with people?

Either way, their mentality is what is in need of changing, not a parking plan to include more surface lots. If someone truly will not park in a garage, then they should take advantage of a park and ride service, whether it's actually a designated lot or simply parking in a situation like Old Time Pottery's lot on Laurens Rd and walk 20 feet to the bus stop. Then again, these people probably have an unfavorable view of public transportation and won't use it, either.

I can't quite put my finger on the logic behind why some folks prefer not to park in garages. I can guess it could be due to the cost, the cramped spaces, the tight corners, potential crime, etc. There are plenty of good reasons to use a garage, but some folks would rather not. Waiting on someone's mentality to change could take a while, I think while we are waiting we need to consider the need for well placed surface lots if we are to expect a lot more people comming downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't quite put my finger on the logic behind why some folks prefer not to park in garages. I can guess it could be due to the cost, the cramped spaces, the tight corners, potential crime, etc. There are plenty of good reasons to use a garage, but some folks would rather not. Waiting on someone's mentality to change could take a while, I think while we are waiting we need to consider the need for well placed surface lots if we are to expect a lot more people comming downtown.

We've touched on it in other threads... but I think a significant issue is the fact that you have to pay for the garages... whereas the close spaces don't have to be paid for.

We really don't have any issues with parking, aside from perception... emphasized by the fact that those who are willing to walk further to get to their eventual destination are punished for doing so by making them pay for parking in the garages. The garages are mostly empty, all day long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've touched on it in other threads... but I think a significant issue is the fact that you have to pay for the garages... whereas the close spaces don't have to be paid for.

We really don't have any issues with parking, aside from perception... emphasized by the fact that those who are willing to walk further to get to their eventual destination are punished for doing so by making them pay for parking in the garages. The garages are mostly empty, all day long.

People also like to be "winners." They want to win in the "find the good parking space" game. Other than saving time (which is why I usually head for the garage) why pay to park in a dark building away from the public eye when I can park somewhere out in the open? Their is a sense of security with parking out in the open and you really don't feel like you've "won anything" by parking in the garage. How can we make parking in the garages a place for "winners"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've touched on it in other threads... but I think a significant issue is the fact that you have to pay for the garages... whereas the close spaces don't have to be paid for.

We really don't have any issues with parking, aside from perception... emphasized by the fact that those who are willing to walk further to get to their eventual destination are punished for doing so by making them pay for parking in the garages. The garages are mostly empty, all day long.

That is true of current day Greenville, the context was within the 20 year Master plan not really addresssing the need for surface lots or garages while removing existing lots.

Edited by gvegascple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People also like to be "winners." They want to win in the "find the good parking space" game. Other than saving time (which is why I usually head for the garage) why pay to park in a dark building away from the public eye when I can park somewhere out in the open? Their is a sense of security with parking out in the open and you really don't feel like you've "won anything" by parking in the garage. How can we make parking in the garages a place for "winners"?

I agree with you on this tact. While many other facilities have been reworked with a more modern emphasis on ergonomics, ease of use, and user experience, the parking garage has remained basically unchanged in many, many years. Perhaps there is a better way to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading through this master plan, I think that Greenville could have saved some money and just read our urban planet boards (althought, the report would be filled with 50 storie skyscrapers ;) ). Most of the issues in the plan have been raised and discussed at length within these pages. I was happy to see so many simularities between how we envison Greenville's future within the report.

I said the same thing a little earlier. But I will say that consulting firms are able to give some specifics that we as armchair urban planners aren't always able to provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody must be parking in the garages because I often find a spot on the street with relative ease. I used the Commons garage for work five days a week and it was always full. Richardson and Bowater are also well used from my experience. Death to surface lots!!!

Link to comment
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.