Augusta Road

[gman430]

Didn't realize they wanted the drive thru along Augusta Street like that. I thought the entire building was going to be along Augusta with the drive thru behind it. I'm having second thoughts about supporting this project now. 

Edited August 23, 2016 by gman430

[NBNY2GRNVL]

Bi Lo is dirty, gross and only has basic food. They don't serve the same Market as Publix and Harris Teeter. There is no demand being fulfilled by Bi-Lo that is the same as those others. I live over that way as well and I can't wait for HT to open and I have to commute it at least once per day many times twice. I will say I'm not really interested in a Suburban style Chick-fil-A. If they could get creative with the building or something I could see it working but otherwise no.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[RiverWalker]

Augusta Road Chick-fil-A plans withdrawn amid recommendation to deny:

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2016/10/27/augusta-road-chick-fil--plans-withdrawn-amid-recommendation-deny/92851394/

[greenjoesc]

Does anybody know what's going on with Harris Teeter at Lewis Plaza?  I haven't seen much progress on the supermarket aspect of the project.  

[transplant08]

12 hours ago, greenjoesc said:

Does anybody know what's going on with Harris Teeter at Lewis Plaza?  I haven't seen much progress on the supermarket aspect of the project.  

Drove by two weeks ago, not a person on site.

For all the journalistic fanfare these developments receive at the announcement phase, why is there never any follow up or accountability?

Edited January 17, 2017 by transplant08

[btoy]

I would not be surprised if the recent decision to tear down additional and build a new medical office building so that they can tear the existing one down may have changed some of the scheduling.  

 

Regardless I fail to see how a private developer owes you any follow up or accountability about their private development.

[transplant08]

9 hours ago, btoy said:

Regardless I fail to see how a private developer owes you any follow up or accountability about their private development.

True, out of town developers don't owe me a thing. I guess we should just get used to the mushroom treatment.

[btoy]

The developer is local.

[transplant08]

More mushroom treatment

http://upstatebusinessjournal.com/news/harris-teeter-lewis-plaza-still-planned-despite-limited-construction-activity-company-says/

"A Harris Teeter spokesperson told the Upstate Business Journal Feb. 14 the company didn’t have “any updated information” to share. Danna Robinson, the spokesperson, didn’t respond to additional questions by email."

[vicupstate]

Page 36 of link

Planning Commission April 2017

Sounds like new landscaping and parking alignment, with houses being removed.  

[ausrutherford]

3 hours ago, vicupstate said:

Page 36 of link

Planning Commission April 2017

Sounds like new landscaping and parking alignment, with houses being removed.  

They have been wanting to upgrade that shopping center for over 2 years. Glad is finally coming in. 

[gman430]

I see the two old buildings at Augusta and Bradshaw right near Fluor Field have a general contractor sign up: http://nick7733.houzz.com

[gman430]

Work has started on the new streetscape project. 

[vicupstate]

Something must be about to surface here.

Dunbar St abandonment

[GMoxley]

20 hours ago, vicupstate said:

Something must be about to surface here.

Dunbar St abandonment

Agreed. They were clearing out the old convenience store at that corner a few weeks ago.

[sc smitty]

When you have too much money and no common sense:

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2018/07/09/demolition-underway-augusta-road-home/767269002/

Here's a previous view inside this historic home that's currently being destroyed:

 

[GMoxley]

2 hours ago, sc smitty said:

When you have too much money and no common sense:

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2018/07/09/demolition-underway-augusta-road-home/767269002/

Here's a previous view inside this historic home that's currently being destroyed:

 

That doesn't make any sense. The choice to tear the home down was one of reasonableness....I.e. common sense. If money was no object, then they would've just refurbished the existing structure. But, from what I heard, it was in such poor condition, it was exceedingly costly to reno. 

[bikeoid]

27 minutes ago, GMoxley said:

That doesn't make any sense. The choice to tear the home down was one of reasonableness....I.e. common sense. If money was no object, then they would've just refurbished the existing structure. But, from what I heard, it was in such poor condition, it was exceedingly costly to reno. 

It would be interesting to hear more details because this boggles the mind after seeing the video.   Grossly deficient wiring?  That can be redone for much less, even in brick walls.  Poor weather sealing?   Add insulation.   

[sc smitty]

That house didn't show any signs of neglect or being in need of major repair.  Sure, things like HVAC, kitchen, baths, etc. might need of updating, but no way that's more expensive than tearing it down and starting over.  Why spend 1.5 million on a house, only to tear it down?  If they didn't want to renovate it, they should have figured that out beforehand and left the house alone for someone that would, instead of destroying yet another piece of Greenville history.

[GMoxley]

51 minutes ago, sc smitty said:

That house didn't show any signs of neglect or being in need of major repair.  Sure, things like HVAC, kitchen, baths, etc. might need of updating, but no way that's more expensive than tearing it down and starting over.  Why spend 1.5 million on a house, only to tear it down?  If they didn't want to renovate it, they should have figured that out beforehand and left the house alone for someone that would, instead of destroying yet another piece of Greenville history.

Did you actually examine the house? Kinda arrogant to say that just from driving by...

They bought it with the intention of fixing it up and maintaining the historical character, but after digging into it they figure out it would be much more expensive to try to repair everything. There's only so much investigation you can do before you buy a house....you can't exactly tear into walls...

The historical factor is a debatable point. I love historical homes, but I recognize that not every piece of history can be saved (nor should be)....gotta make room for the future.

The house had been on and off the market for a while, so it was unlikely that another suitable buyer was going to come along in the near future to restore it. And even if they had, they might've made the same decision to demolish....

[Exile]

How historic is it? Built in the 30's or 40's? Not sure that qualifies.

I actually knew the owners back in the 70's. If it's the same family (this would be children or even possibly grandchildren), then not much to do. We can disapprove, but there are houses just like that one going up all over the place.

[gman430]

Meh...I honestly don’t see anything really historic about it myself.  Looks like a lot of homes you see in golf neighborhoods like Thornblade and Chanticleer. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by gman430

[sc smitty]

6 minutes ago, GMoxley said:

Did you actually examine the house? Kinda arrogant to say that just from driving by...

They bought it with the intention of fixing it up and maintaining the historical character, but after digging into it they figure out it would be much more expensive to try to repair everything. There's only so much investigation you can do before you buy a house....you can't exactly tear into walls...

The historical factor is a debatable point. I love historical homes, but I recognize that not every piece of history can be saved (nor should be)....gotta make room for the future.

The house had been on and off the market for a while, so it was unlikely that another suitable buyer was going to come along in the near future to restore it. And even if they had, they might've made the same decision to demolish....

Watching the video, it's pretty safe to make the statement that this house is not anywhere close to being run down, without being "arrogant".  And built in 1938 certainly qualifies as being historic by historical preservation standards (50 years old is the usual minimum qualification).  I'm not saying they don't have the right to demolish the house, but I certainly don't think it's the best use, or of any benefit to the community as a whole.  I know that this is the finest piece of architectural history in Greenville, but it is yet another historic part of the city that is being too quickly discarded. 

[GMoxley]

2 hours ago, sc smitty said:

Watching the video, it's pretty safe to make the statement that this house is not anywhere close to being run down, without being "arrogant".  And built in 1938 certainly qualifies as being historic by historical preservation standards (50 years old is the usual minimum qualification).  I'm not saying they don't have the right to demolish the house, but I certainly don't think it's the best use, or of any benefit to the community as a whole.  I know that this is the finest piece of architectural history in Greenville, but it is yet another historic part of the city that is being too quickly discarded. 

Ohhh. Excuse me you watched a video. You must be an expert on the house.

Seriously though, most of the expensive issues renovating a house...eg. structural issues, foundation issues... aren't noticeable from a visual inspection.

Let me ask you this, would you rather the house remain vacant for a few more years and fall into further disrepair? What would you say would be the "best use" for this property?

[sc smitty]

13 hours ago, GMoxley said:

Ohhh. Excuse me you watched a video. You must be an expert on the house.

Seriously though, most of the expensive issues renovating a house...eg. structural issues, foundation issues... aren't noticeable from a visual inspection.

Let me ask you this, would you rather the house remain vacant for a few more years and fall into further disrepair? What would you say would be the "best use" for this property?

Don't think I claimed to be an expert on the house or said to have completed a full inspection on it, so not sure where you got that impression.  I simply stated that based on looking at images of the house from inside and out, I see evidence of a lived-in, well built and well maintained home that shows no signs of severe structural issues or falling into disrepair as you state.  If you have knowledge of the supposed defects  or disrepair you speak of that would justify demolition, please share and enlighten us.  I have been involved in construction projects and renovations of historic properties for some time, and have seen many buildings that can legitimately be described and neglected and deteriorated, with actual major structural problems be restored, often for much less than the exorbitant cost initially estimated by architects and contractors.