Jump to content

Master Plan Results


GvilleSC

Recommended Posts

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.

I think those people have seen too many movies where people have been robbed or murdered in dark parking buildings! :lol:

I actually prefer parking buildings to surface lots. I don't think I am the only one, either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


For those who may have missed it, the plan calls for parking garages in each of the "five corners," helping to urbanize downtown much more and eventually eliminate the unsightly and wasted vacant properties currently used as parking lots. This will also help people get out of their vehicles and walk around downtown more, not to mention many more people will be able to find adequate parking with ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how many spaces are on the West Washington Street Parking Deck? Those are always the first to go it seems like. Making that parking area free (and open) on nights and weekends was a great move by the City. If the Woolworth property gets redeveloped, that deck's free spaces will be in even greater demand.

The Richardson Street garage's ease of access and use is always attractive to me when deciding where to park (even if it's on a day when you must pay). I think it has to do with the ease of access to Main via Piazza Bergamo, and the Washington Street restaurants via Laurens Street.

Edited by GvilleSC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Richardson Street garage's ease of access and use is always attractive to me when deciding where to park (even if it's on a day when you must pay). I think it has to do with the ease of access to Main via Piazza Bergamo, and the Washington Street restaurants via Laurens Street.

The Richardson Street Garage is my usual parking building as well. It's perfect for most anything in the downtown area north of McBee. If I am only going to the West End, I often look for a space on Camperdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Richardson Street Garage is my usual parking building as well. It's perfect for most anything in the downtown area north of McBee. If I am only going to the West End, I often look for a space on Camperdown.

To divert the parking lot discussion back to the master plan, there are spots that have yet to turn into projects and projects that have yet to be turned into actual buildings, many of whom are very close to the action or would be action in any of the 5 corners. I think that they should be turned into surface lots while in limbo. they most likely will be very close to the shops and restaurants or cool space and, like the free street parking did for main, will make it easier for people to initially explore these corners and help them to thrive in the early days. Then as those places have established their roots and identities and ability to draw people, those lots will become valuable commodities to turn into future projects and then they can build a garage. I think you need a "free available parking on main st" that turns into "free parking on a very nearby surface lot' that turns into a "parking garage" lifecycle.

On another note, and on the establishing of 5 unique identities, how about we start a thread on suggestions for each identity? I know that Richmond, Va came to mind as a southern city with a river - esque area, and an art and cafe/bar area and Charleston's antique district on Queen st came to mind and Arlington, Va., Ballston, VA., Georgetown, DC., old town Alexandria, etc. Lets start thinking of successful examples already set that we have experienced that we can use as a starting off point for our 5 corners! I am fairly certain that city planners read this blog and that our ideas can have a positive impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the name of the "Broad and River" district they proposed, but it is confusing considering that Broad and River Streets exist and intersect, but not in the district (since the name is based on the River's presence and not the street's)... I also like the "Warehouse district" name, but I'd rather it just be called "West End" to relieve confusion. Heritage Green suits me just fine.

I'm opposed to the 'gateway district' name. It's too general and plain IMO. Also, the County Square district is terrible, too.

Edited by GvilleSC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warehouse District is okay with me, but it should not overshadow the West End identity. Ideally, it would be a separate area from what is considered the West End. Where would the line be drawn?

I like the Gateway District name too. It makes sense given its prominent location at the end of I-385. Plus, it would be nice if the Gateway site developers incorporate "Gateway" into the name somehow. Can we get Gateway computers to outbid Bi-Lo to sponsor the arena? :lol:

Heritage Green works for me. It sounds distinctive and cool. I really hope there is a way to connect it to the major activity centers downtown, because it is an island unto itself right now.

Surely the names for County Square District and Broad and River District were only used for planning/descriptive purposes, and nothing more. It would sound stupid to say, "Hey, let's head over to the Broad and River District to get a drink." Surely Sasaki & Associates, and their wealth of experience with city master planning, feel the same way.

As great as the plan is, I would really have liked to see one of the "five corners" be a nightlife district. Perhaps Sasaki envisions all of the corners having good nightlife options, rather than those offerings being found in just one district. Nonetheless, I would like to see a few blocks devoted to entertainment for the young adult crowd. It's only going to happen if the city steps in, because otherwise we will have protests from Heidi Aiken and everyone else who thinks nightlife equals crime. :rolleyes:

Overall, I like the master plan. It's nothing earth-shattering, but provides good recommendations regarding infrastructure and logistics. We need that sort of viewpoint to go along with our GO Centers, mixed-use developments, etc. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warehouse District is okay with me, but it should not overshadow the West End identity. Ideally, it would be a separate area from what is considered the West End. Where would the line be drawn?

I like the Gateway District name too. It makes sense given its prominent location at the end of I-385. Plus, it would be nice if the Gateway site developers incorporate "Gateway" into the name somehow. Can we get Gateway computers to outbid Bi-Lo to sponsor the arena? :lol:

Heritage Green works for me. It sounds distinctive and cool. I really hope there is a way to connect it to the major activity centers downtown, because it is an island unto itself right now.

Surely the names for County Square District and Broad and River District were only used for planning/descriptive purposes, and nothing more. It would sound stupid to say, "Hey, let's head over to the Broad and River District to get a drink." Surely Sasaki & Associates, and their wealth of experience with city master planning, feel the same way.

As great as the plan is, I would really have liked to see one of the "five corners" be a nightlife district. Perhaps Sasaki envisions all of the corners having good nightlife options, rather than those offerings being found in just one district. Nonetheless, I would like to see a few blocks devoted to entertainment for the young adult crowd. It's only going to happen if the city steps in, because otherwise we will have protests from Heidi Aiken and everyone else who thinks nightlife equals crime. :rolleyes:

Overall, I like the master plan. It's nothing earth-shattering, but provides good recommendations regarding infrastructure and logistics. We need that sort of viewpoint to go along with our GO Centers, mixed-use developments, etc. :)

There was no mention of the GO centers at all in the master plan. Does that mean that the research indicated they are not a good idea? Surely they were aware of our intent to implement the GO campaign (I know, and don't call you Shirley)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I really like is the proposed added intersection at the foot of the Church Street Bridge (on the Camperdown side of thing. It will slow people's drive time somewhat, but the added walkability and improved NAVIGATION will be worth it.

There was no mention of the GO centers at all in the master plan. Does that mean that the research indicated they are not a good idea? Surely they were aware of our intent to implement the GO campaign (I know, and don't call you Shirley)

It referred to something as the 'visitor center' I believe, which I took to mean the GO Center. I think it was placed on the Bowater side of the Liberty Bridge...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, I like the master plan. It's nothing earth-shattering, but provides good recommendations regarding infrastructure and logistics. We need that sort of viewpoint to go along with our GO Centers, mixed-use developments, etc. :)

-Agreed. And I would hope the city will use concepts from, without simply adopting it. While it does have some concepts, I don't think DT should be limited to what it describes

-In reference to the discussion about the removal of church st bridge earlier in the thread; here are a coupl of other possibilities. If a new bridge is needed in the future to accomodate increased traffic, how about a classy double decker bridge. Four lanes in each direction. It would be a project, could be a pretty cool thing for the future.

or

What about redeveloping the underside of the bridge now. The bridge is pretty tall in some places. The entire length under the bridge could be filled with unique residences, shops, attractions, with doors facing both towards main st and away on the other side. The development would abutt right underneath the bridge, so as to appear that the bridge actually goes right over top of the developments. There would only be a couple openings for cross streets, and these could be dressed up with arches over the streets, or gateways of some kind. The possiblities exist for some really unique projects there.

I dunno, just some thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

I challenge anyone to read "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Schoup and then see if you still agree with the above statement. The idea behind parking should be to change the perception of parking to the viewpoint below:

I never pay to park downtown. There is always a free spot if you aren't too lazy to walk a little farther or if you get there early enough to park in the free garages or spaces.

Also, I just realized that I never commented on the plan. While I haven't read the entire thing yet, I really like what the plan is promoting, especially with the Five Corners concept. As Greenville's downtown evolves it will be interesting to see how this concept takes root.

gville_5corners.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
  • 1 year later...

I'm glad that Greenville continues to try to "plan smart." 

 

Good online article introducing the perils of suburban sprawl. http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/

 

My favorite quote: 

 

The amount of tax revenue their low-density setup generates, he says, doesn’t come close to paying for the cost of maintaining the vast and costly infrastructure systems, so the only way to keep the machine going is to keep adding and growing. “The public yield from the suburban development pattern is ridiculously low,” he says. One of the most popular articles on the Strong Towns Web site is a five-part series Marohn wrote likening American suburban development to a giant Ponzi scheme."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 years later...
  • 10 months later...
11 hours ago, SVL said:

This looks like the followup to this article and set of meetings from September.

https://greenvillejournal.com/2018/09/06/city-wants-your-idea-for-what-future-should-hold-for-downtown-greenville/

The bottom of this article highlights the areas under consideration. I don't think it is nearly comprehensive enough.  While it does include county square, it doesn't include places like the Washington St post office area, Unity Park and adjoining areas, Green ave, much of the former Cline Co area, or even Stone Ave. Not sure how you can have any kind of comprehensive plan without including those areas. :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

This looks like the followup to this article and set of meetings from September.

https://greenvillejournal.com/2018/09/06/city-wants-your-idea-for-what-future-should-hold-for-downtown-greenville/

The bottom of this article highlights the areas under consideration. I don't think it is nearly comprehensive enough.  While it does include county square, it doesn't include places like the Washington St post office area, Unity Park and adjoining areas, Green ave, much of the former Cline Co area, or even Stone Ave. Not sure how you can have any kind of comprehensive plan without including those areas. :dontknow:

Is there a plan for the city that is different from the plan for downtown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

This looks like the followup to this article and set of meetings from September.

https://greenvillejournal.com/2018/09/06/city-wants-your-idea-for-what-future-should-hold-for-downtown-greenville/

The bottom of this article highlights the areas under consideration. I don't think it is nearly comprehensive enough.  While it does include county square, it doesn't include places like the Washington St post office area, Unity Park and adjoining areas, Green ave, much of the former Cline Co area, or even Stone Ave. Not sure how you can have any kind of comprehensive plan without including those areas. :dontknow:

There are master plans for all of those areas but they probably should be updated also.

2011 Stone Avenue Master Plan

2006 Pete Hollis Gateway Plan

2002 Green Avenue Master Plan

2005 West Washington Street Master Plan

As you can see, These were done years ago and a lot has changed since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

This looks like the followup to this article and set of meetings from September.

https://greenvillejournal.com/2018/09/06/city-wants-your-idea-for-what-future-should-hold-for-downtown-greenville/

The bottom of this article highlights the areas under consideration. I don't think it is nearly comprehensive enough.  While it does include county square, it doesn't include places like the Washington St post office area, Unity Park and adjoining areas, Green ave, much of the former Cline Co area, or even Stone Ave. Not sure how you can have any kind of comprehensive plan without including those areas. :dontknow:

Unity Park has its own Master Plan. I am pretty sure it includes parts of Southernside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is the best place for this but it seems pretty appropriate. Here is a link to last night's North Main State of the City Address featuring two council members. Lasts about 80 minutes. It is a great discussion on topics like affordable housing, transportation, sidewalks, appts downtown, the Scott Tower site, even some budgeting stuff. They also mention the upcoming new Master Plan. You may need to open in an incognito tab if greenvilleonline won't let you view. I've always wished the Mayor would do one of these every year.

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2018/10/29/greenville-news-livestream-state-city-forum-thursday/1810530002/

Edited by distortedlogic
  • Like 1
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.