Greercat

LOL - must be missing some logic here. Is there some connection to the link above and some historical comment by the WSJ?

There is so much above I need to try to synopsize. My cut is: 1. Transit is making a BIG comeback. 2. GTA buses are great and we should all take a ride on one. 3. All growth is not good, many on UP don't understand this esp. SC pol's 4. Traffic would be minimized if we had a grid system 5. Most on the board don't like the way G'ville has been growing since the 70's, I guess excepting the ones from #3 above. Starting from the top, I'll take your word on the transit trends. Obviously, there are people on the board who follow this breathlessly. My only thought is, until G'ville is MUCH larger I wouldn't get my hopes up for a significant increase in demand or interest on this front. Until there are REAL traffic and REAL parking problems in core areas, there won't be big demand for transit. Which brings us to item 3, where I think most everyone agrees some developments are better than others. The issue is, for those interested in developing an urban core (see above), G'ville needs LOTS of growth, both urban AND suburban. The "managed growth" you advocate slows growth in general and delays the development of the urban core that I assume you'd like to see. Hey, I'm not advocating anything goes, but developments like Magnolia, the new one behind the Pointe, and yes, the ones on Pelham are not horrible developments. Yet, they are constantly questioned, if not outrightly opposed, by many on the board. I think that is bad news for the metro area, and by connection, for urban development within G'ville. Stopping a development on Woodruff isn't going to make the developer move it to DT - but sometimes it seems that's what some people think. To digress, the fact is city development is dependent on large masses of people in both the city and outlying areas. It seems popular to decry the "growth and sprawl" of Atlanta, but if you really study it, DT and MT Atlanta have been BOOMING the past 10 years or so with huge development and infill. This was not the case 30 years ago, but large metro growth has inevitably created the demand for intown residential, retail, commercial, and yes, neighborhood development. Similar trends can be seen in Charlotte. This is driven by a critical mass that effectively demands core urban development for the same reasons as in #1 above, traffic, commute times, parking, nightlife, etc. G'ville doesn't have critical mass and none of the forces that drive this demand. Hence, core urban development is slow and spotty - what little we have is driven by a handful of eateries and a little nightlife, which is good, but we need more people to drive more urban development. Slowing growth in the 'burbs doesn't help our people needs. Lastly, I'm not so sure so many are unhappy with the way G'ville has developed since the 70's. There are lots more options for living, dining, and shopping than when I moved here in the mid-90's. I think most on UP and elsewhere like that. I realize most growth has been in the 'burbs, but considering that the G'ville suburbs were so small it was inevitable that growth would flow there. Along the way, DT has done alright given the limits of a small city. What will help DT is continued growth around the city to help create that critical mass.

Well Cap'n and Kraz I guess you guys are taking the bus to work tomorrow. Have fun and hope the AC is working! But seriously, Cap'n - I guess it is "just whining" that I'm talking about. We can all hope for the best developments that good planning can provide. I'm with you there - but it's all the whining about EVERY development that has been announced in recent weeks that is old and tiring. Believe me, there are a lot of "no growthers" in G'ville (I'm glad you are not one of them). Between them, the real environmentalists, the guy next door who never dreamed that the 100 acres of vacant land next him would ever be developed, and all the old-timers who think a dozen cars at the traffic light constitutes TRAFFIC - all these forces combine to slow a lot of good development in G'ville. The Greenville News has been giving this group a prominent forum for years. I'm just surprised at how often this is emulated on UP at the mention of any significant project.

That's cool... Peace!

WHAT?? Maybe I'm reading this wrong Kraz, but you state this as though you expect some county will surpass Greenville in the next "several years". Hate to spring this on you, but even if G'ville growth slowed to a crawl it would take a couple DECADES for your lower State counties to catch up. The fact is, that since about the mid-twentith century G'ville's raw growth has been outpacing anything else in the State every decade since. Last year's growth estimates continue this 50+ year old trend and no low country or midland county is going to come close to even reversing this trend for the foreseeable future. Sure there are a few fast growing lower State counties, but most of those were very small twenty years ago and even today none of those have even come close to catching Charleston or Richland in their own neighborhoods. I know it kills the rest of the State to think about it, but Greenville IS the big county and the big Metro (no matter how the Fed's try to slice it).

Thank you, Greenvilleguy! All the recent whining about "sprawl" makes me think the looney enviromentalists have invaded the board to try to gain support for their "no growth" positions. I'd LOVE to see a larger, more dense DT, but one thing we need for that to happen is to develop a larger Metro area. These new developments are filling-in dead space within the metro area - creating a bigger feel. Bottom line we need both development DT and on the outskirts of the G'ville. Oh and yeah, we'll get some more traffic - sorry, but noone outside the the NE wants to catch the bus or subway to go to work. Get over it, it's the 21st century and the auto is here to stay!

Why would GSP be "dragging their feet" on the addition of the GSP-MIA flight on American?

The reasons for the interest in Charleston and Columbia are Sanford and Taylor. It's NO secret Sanford's people have steered every major investment opportunity to Charleston - at least as best they could. Now ol' Joe 'the log cabin guy' is trying to get the government town into the act. Google has dozens of these sites in the works, but not all will happen based on incentives, demand, etc.

I don't know of a flight from GSP to JFK. I know there are flights to Newark and LaGuardia, but don't know about JFK. To me, the addition of both MIA and JFK would be huge for international travelers. The number of connections that could be made to Europe/Mideast/Asia from JFK and Latin America from MIA is substantial and would give Delta some serious competition for GSP travelers on such routes. Also, another option into ORD can't hurt. Such a move by American could signal a big push into the GSP market. I work for Fluor and since we moved our HQ's to Dallas in the spring the American flights to/from DFW have been PACKED. We need a larger plane into DFW or move flights per day on the CRJ's. I agree about the need for a Boston flight - I think it should be priority number one. Also, agree with the need for something to the West - LA sounds as viable as any other.

Exactly what firms have been attracted to Innovista? I know of no established companies - just a few existing USC research projects and a couple State funded, so-called, startups with a few employees each. The State and Columbia seem very focused on this one technology seemingly due to the urging of a few faculty members. Anyone familiar with Venture Capital knows you need to have bets on several technologies to achieve one big winner (in this case economic development for the area). Such technological depth is, so far, unapparent at Innovista. The Innovista/USC initiatives need to display true economic development results before we compare them to ICAR and those hundreds of jobs attracted to date.