Jump to content

adrockc2

Peace Center Remodel

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Den2Gvl said:

Wow! Would this be completely closed off to the public? 

I think this is a TERRIBLE idea. The open air pavilion really makes for a unique venue in Greenville and is an open and inviting space. Gee, let's close it off and make another exclusive place where only people with too much money get to enjoy it...

And I would be ok with some short flowering shrubs, but putting trees to block the view from across the river is another terrible idea. One of the coolest things about river walk is being able to walk down it, and see/experience all the happenings, music, parties, etc in an OPEN setting. This all screams exclusivity to me; the opposite of how Greenville bills itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


33 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

I think this is a TERRIBLE idea. The open air pavilion really makes for a unique venue in Greenville and is an open and inviting space. Gee, let's close it off and make another exclusive place where only people with too much money get to enjoy it...

And I would be ok with some short flowering shrubs, but putting trees to block the view from across the river is another terrible idea. One of the coolest things about river walk is being able to walk down it, and see/experience all the happenings, music, parties, etc in an OPEN setting. This all screams exclusivity to me; the opposite of how Greenville bills itself.

I wonder if it's a request from musicians and performers to have a backdrop and not feel exposed? I don't know, but you'll still be able to hear the music and enjoy the environment whether you can see the performers' rear ends or not... I'm indifferent to that element of the proposal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. :dontknow: The current space there is boring in my opinion. Not much to do but just walk inside of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have ever tried to use the pavilion for a private event, i.e. wedding, you know that it is a crap shoot with the amphitheater behind it. Unless you are willing to buy out both venues, you risk a loud event ruining your event.

Which is why it is rarely used. This a logical move with a beautiful building.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awful!  Such an important piece of Greenville's history will be lost forever.  It has such a wonderful feel the way it is now - and compliments the Reedy River perfectly.  It's also open to the public which is fantastic.  There was huge PUBLIC and private investment that went into remaking the peace center and now it's being taken away so they can book private events.  A great example of what it looks like to screw something up that has helped to make Greenville so great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, oklahoma75 said:

This is awful!  Such an important piece of Greenville's history will be lost forever.  It has such a wonderful feel the way it is now - and compliments the Reedy River perfectly.  It's also open to the public which is fantastic.  There was huge PUBLIC and private investment that went into remaking the peace center and now it's being taken away so they can book private events.  A great example of what it looks like to screw something up that has helped to make Greenville so great.

Well, they're not tearing it down. It will once again be an enclosed building.

According to the media stories on this proposal, the original plans for the Peace Center included renovating this structure. It stands like it is today because they ran out of funds. If only they had initially been able to realize the full scope of their original plans, you wouldn't even know what you'll be missing. 

Edited by GvilleSC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand the negative comments. This building was not originally open so technically, it’s going back to its original design. It will look the same except for glass. As it is now, very few use it. Why not make it look even better, and make it more functional at the same time? The naysayers are probably the same folks that wanted to keep that awful bridge that hid our beautiful downtown park. 

Edited by gman
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, gman said:

I don’t understand the negative comments. This building was not originally open so technically, it’s going back to its original design. It will look the same except for glass. As it is now, very few use it. Why not make it look even better, and make it more functional at the same time? The naysayers are probably the same folks that wanted to keep that awful bridge that hid our beautiful downtown park. 

I agree. Like I said previously, it’s boring in its current state. All you do is walk in, look around for a few seconds at a big empty space , and walk back out...yawn. Can’t really use it in the Winter right now either. 

Edited by gman430

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This building is completely underutilized in its current state, even by the public. Why not bring it back to its original, enclosed state?   I don’t understand some of the negativity around this. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Galley said:

It's too bad they let a few vocal folks put this badly needed improvement on hold. It would have looked so much better and been so much more useful. Right now, it just looks like an unfinished empty and underutilized building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 4:52 PM, gman said:

I don’t understand the negative comments. This building was not originally open so technically, it’s going back to its original design. It will look the same except for glass. As it is now, very few use it. Why not make it look even better, and make it more functional at the same time? The naysayers are probably the same folks that wanted to keep that awful bridge that hid our beautiful downtown park. 

Well it's not like I have an adamant opinion either way, I just like building the way it is. Yes, it's not a modern polished venue, but that's the whole point. Greenville has kept very few of it's old and rugged buildings, and this building is rather unique in this way. It's like an old historic structure that has character of it's own. I like that it's open to the public. It's a cool place the let the kids run around in, take pictures, and enjoy a historic structure for it's own sake. While I'm sure the new propoasal would be "nice", I just think Greenville has plenty of modern facilities that only the wealthy can enjoy. If this goes through, the old historic character of the building and the "public space" it creates would be gone, and it would only be used by people paying a whole bunch of money for their wedding or office party. Huge life changing loss; no. Small historical character loss; yes; IMO. If this goes through, it will be state of the art, and make a lot of money; I just think we don't always need to look at that first. Not putting the building on Dogwood Lane a couple years ago was a good example of preserving a public space at the expense of a money maker.  Just my opinon, and it will probably happen in some form so, it won't matter what I think. 

"The naysayers are probably the same folks that wanted to keep that awful bridge that hid our beautiful downtown park. "

Rediculous statement. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to my first show last night since the new seats were put down - pleasantly surprised how much more room there was between the aisles.  Nice improvement for sure!  Also, Dear Evan Hansen was great ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

DRB voted down the latest plans 3-2.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Thx....this is getting interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

DRB voted down the latest plans 3-2.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

I can’t wait to hear their comments. It’s crazy how the public is in uproar about this building. And people wonder why land holders don’t let people use their private land as a grassy field even. People start using something that is private and the owner allows it, then they think they are forever entitled to the space. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, johnpro318 said:

I can’t wait to hear their comments. It’s crazy how the public is in uproar about this building. And people wonder why land holders don’t let people use their private land as a grassy field even. People start using something that is private and the owner allows it, then they think they are forever entitled to the space. 

Yea...the city is just asking for a lawsuit over this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, vicupstate said:

DRB voted down the latest plans 3-2.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk
 

Ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how much the Peace Center spent to have these designs drawn up by the architect just to get denied in the end? Ouch. 

I don’t understand the DRB’s comment about the National Park Service either. The Wyche Pavilion is not part of the NPS so why in the world should it apply here? Makes no sense to me. 

Edited by gman430

Share this post


Link to post
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.