Jump to content

Master Plan Results


GvilleSC

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, SVL said:

There are some interesting ideas in the master plan draft. Check it out if you haven't already:

http://greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12213/Design-Charrette-Presentation?bidId=

Returning College to a two-way would probably be hated by SCDOT, but I like the idea. 

Lowering Church back to ground level would right a wrong. 

I really like the roundabout idea at Rutherford and Pete Hollis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, ausrutherford said:

Returning College to a two-way would probably be hated by SCDOT, but I like the idea. 

Lowering Church back to ground level would right a wrong. 

I really like the roundabout idea at Rutherford and Pete Hollis.

 

I like College going two ways as well. It looks like they would want to do the same to East North. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gman430 said:

Not sure I support shrinking those roads down. They already get really backed up during rush hour. Can’t imagine how bad those roads would get if they lower the number of lanes they have...yikes. 

I was thinking exact same thing.  I was downtown the other day during rush (first time in awhile), and there simply is no where to put the cars. I completely get the appeal of road diets but there has to be infrastructure in place to accommodate the traffic or it won't matter how grand the plans. And if there are still thousands of units in the pipeline, where are those cars gonna go over the next 10 years, 20 years?

There are some good ideas in this plan, I like the visions for some of the key intersections and they are sorely needed. One thing, I hope there is collaboration between this master plan and the other plans that were posted earlier (areas immediately adjacent) or it runs a serious risk of the areas looking poorly coordinated and becoming functionally disconnected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, gman430 said:

Not sure I support shrinking those roads down. They already get really backed up during rush hour. Can’t imagine how bad those roads would get if they lower the number of lanes they have...yikes. 

First, improving the grid network helps. The plan calls for many connections to improve the grid system, especially for Church St.

Second, traffic finds a way (Jurassic Park pun). Look at Atlanta when the section of I85 collapsed. People were calling for gridlock everywhere and it ended up not being nearly as bad as they thought. Why? People did not make unnecessary trips and found ways around that they did not previously use.

 

Making them two-way essentially undos some of the wrongs of the 1960s-1970s. Church, Academy, Pete Hollis plowing through neighborhoods really hurt the livability of downtown. It's time to fix it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2018 at 7:21 PM, gman430 said:

Not sure I support shrinking those roads down. They already get really backed up during rush hour. Can’t imagine how bad those roads would get if they lower the number of lanes they have...yikes. 

Keep in mind that a two way E. North. St. Would be an option to Beattie Place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Exile said:

If both E. North and Beattie were two-way, there would have to be some sort of traffic control  solution at the Gateway split. I'm no civil engineer, but it's not likely as simple as installing a light and painting a few lines.

Both intersections where the road splits would have to be reengineered. 

Still plenty of options if you need to go through downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cabelagent said:

They could engineer a different split right through the undeveloped gateway property...utilize it for a worthwhile purpose.

No way. Stay within the current ROW. That land would actually increase in value significantly if the surrounding streets were 2 way instead on 1 way.  It might still be somewhat challenged though.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Greenville last weekend and had occasion to drive both ways over the Church St. bridge. It's actually an impressive  drive, especially going north, because of all the new 5-7 story buildings that have been built close to the bridge. Gives the feeling of substance. I would not have predicted that the lower end of DT would densify first, but it seems more likely (less unlikely?)  that the surface parking down there will disappear first.

Going the other way is impressive, too, and when Camperdown is finished, will be more impressive. It's just that from that angle, the buildings that hit the eye first are a lot farther away.

I, for one, love the way DT is developing. It'll take a few more decades to fill in between what used to be a scattergram  of DT high/midrises. But I can remember DT's "death throes." It never really died--although it was in a coma for a long time--but what's happened  downtown over the last ~36 years (since Hyatt-Commons opened) is amazing!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Exile said:

I was in Greenville last weekend and had occasion to drive both ways over the Church St. bridge. It's actually an impressive  drive, especially going north, because of all the new 5-7 story buildings that have been built close to the bridge. Gives the feeling of substance. I would not have predicted that the lower end of DT would densify first, but it seems more likely (less unlikely?)  that the surface parking down there will disappear first.

Going the other way is impressive, too, and when Camperdown is finished, will be more impressive. It's just that from that angle, the buildings that hit the eye first are a lot farther away.

I, for one, love the way DT is developing. It'll take a few more decades to fill in between what used to be a scattergram  of DT high/midrises. But I can remember DT's "death throes." It never really died--although it was in a coma for a long time--but what's happened  downtown over the last ~36 years (since Hyatt-Commons opened) is amazing!

I agree-- downtown is developing quite nicely. It was a treat to be in town a month ago to check things out. I look forward to returning this week!

I think we can generally be proud of how Greenville is managing its downtown development. Of course, nothing is ever perfect, but I'm glad to see the master plan being updated to hopefully yield some good guidelines moving forward, and assist in creating a livable community we can all enjoy! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

How many master plans does this city that don’t even get followed properly (Wade Hampton Blvd) need? :dontknow: Sometimes I wonder if it’s overdone and tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere like on mass transit. 

Edited by gman430
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gman430 said:

How many master plans does this city that don’t even get followed properly (Wade Hampton Blvd) need? :dontknow: Sometimes I wonder if it’s overdone and tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere like on mass transit. 

Agree. Out of all of this the only thing they talked about on channel 4 tonight was streetscaping Buncombe and adding parking along Buncombe which would be a huge mistake. A lot of this is drawings of nice looking buildings that don't exist and probably never will. If anyone can make heads or tales of this please share. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find value in the city commissioning master plans. They've helped steer the city in the past, and will continue into the future. What Greenville really needs is to make sure that the rules and regulations guiding the DRB have enough teeth to promote good development, and that the jurisdiction of the DRB evolves as the urban core grows.  

The mayor attributed this study's impetus to be based in the office building proposal for the banks of the Reedy River. I think we all agreed that that building shouldn't be built, and we need to avoid such private proposals in the future. The City will have to evaluate what is in the plan, and decide what to adopt and follow. We'll see if the city has any interest in pursuing form-based codes, as recommended.

I thought the 10-year projections were quite interesting. We'll meet close to half of the projected number of hotels in the next couple of years based on what's currently proposed/under construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ink isn't even dry on the Wade Hampton study, at least not the most recent interation, which was much more hefty than anything that came before it. 

The Buncombe/Pete Hollis  road diet is a no-brainer IMO. It is definitely needed and probably would have already been done, if state and Federal permissions were not involved.  The city opposed the Pete Hollis throughfaring from the very beginning and they have been proven correct that it was the wrong way to go.  Compare the redevelopment on Hollis versus anywhere else in the urban core, and it has been non-existant. Being surrounded by fast moving (and one-way) traffic is why the Gateway site has sat fallow too.    

I went to the meeting and there was definitely more to the plan than just Buncombe.  You never get the full story from a media report and certainly not a TV news segment. 

I had no qalms with what I saw proposed, the question will be how closely will the city follows it. Hopefully, pretty faithfully.      

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gman430 said:

I just don’t understand how you approve new townhomes and a storage facility on Wade Hampton Blvd when you know the master plan whether complete or not goes against it. 

The storage facility looks nice. It’s an upgrade for that area of Wade Hampton. 

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.