ingvegas

That's a big lot with a lot of potential. Rendering looks cheap. Too bad it couldn't be a District West - Phase II. I hope they at least include some street level retail along Westfield Street, even if it is just a local walk-in corner-mart for all the condo residents in the area. Kind of a dead-zone between downtown and The Commons.

Hard to make a quick profit, but anyone else wish these developers would be in a war to build the most beautiful buildings instead of the fastest dollar? Isn't that what set off the tremendous architecture in Chicago? The city and county should create an award to give to the best development - and throw in some tax breaks to the winner.

True, but if you ever ate at Toss then you know they deserved to go. All other retail in that building has been consistent. The Grand Bohemian and this development (if done right) have the opportunity to anchor, accelerate, and model future development in the East Broad section of Downtown.

Why exactly do you believe this? A giant upscale hotel will be next door. Camperdown is a block away with 200 hotel rooms and 215 apartments. Hyatt Regency is 1/4 mile away. High-income long-term residential abounds in all other directions. Sidewall is doing very well and is at a location that is not nearly as advantageous. This development, with a parking garage, will pull from local neighborhood and also from downtown.

This x 10. I live in this neighborhood. Pedestrians and bicyclists are constantly walking to/from Downtown to Cancer Park, the two pocket-parks (Sue Simpson and Rose Garden), and Sidewall. IMHO, this development, as currently planned, adds little and will likely devalue what this area could be. One could argue that it worsens the area because it builds a parking lot between the building and the street, and it appears many of the mature trees will get taken down so the building can be set back further and get more commercial exposure from Church Street. Take out those trees and things will look a lot different from all directions. This will change the look of that corner, significantly. It will not add value. An Open Letter to United Community: Hey Bank! If you're reading this, then you already know, we are not big fans of what we smell cooking right now. Why not build up to the street with consumer inviting non-bank retail that will bring the foot traffic to your bank-retail? Banks want foot-traffic, right? Banks like exposure, right? Banks like collecting lease-money from successful tenants, right? Banks like talking about how they provide ways for local retail to grow, right? You want your hard working office workers and lucrative clients to have someplace that is nice and close to meet, drink, and talk money and debt? So not why share part of the first floor with an upscale coffee/bagel shop, or delicatessen (i.e. something like Reid's Fine Foods). And yes, please throw in a locally-owned specialty food store (maybe a bakery, cheese shop, butcher, or wine store)? Oh, and don't be another corporate bully. Keep those big and beautiful trees along the Church St. Connector and Church Street. Hey, did you know that a well placed and classy sign makes a better billboard for who you are and your business than using a huge ugly building to announce your presence to the area. Stay classy. A nice building surrounded by old trees makes it look like you've been there a really long time. People trust maturity. So be cool, don't be needy. Be a retail facilitator, and not an invading corporate degenerate. All the Best, -ingvegas p.s. This note is a little salty, but we're really glad to have you in our neighborhood. I hope what you build makes me want to move my accounts from the Big-Bad-National to you. I really want you to hold my monies.

So glad there will be retail all along Main Street. I have no idea how ''The Green" was built without retail along Main Street. Too bad more retail was not included along Vardry Street, but maybe the distance to the Church and High School was a factor.

Local community to make long-term and permanent sacrifices in the name of protecting developers short-term profits. Get ready for more traffic and loss of quality of life thanks to "leaders" who seek to help the few over the many and the future generations. https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/2021/03/15/controversial-greenville-county-development-rule-could-repealed/4693351001/ Instead of repealing Article 3.1 wholesale because it is "too vague" the objectors must bring specific changes they want and debate that. Not just lot size, but road and environmental requirements for development. It's too easy to say "repeal!" and not come up with objectively supported plans to address the complaints. Otherwise, this is clearly a naked attempt to cater to developers at the cost of traffic, poor planning, and plant the seeds of additional sprawl of Atlanta proportions. Watch them try to blame the litigation costs for the repeal.

I think the 12-story height limit is a wise decision at that particular site. Some really smart and experienced urban planners would agree (Sasaki Associates, Inc., Downtown Greenville Master Plan page 41-42). To each his own, but the city made the right call. I think this will turn out very well. Now, if we could just get a 30-story building built at the Gateway site....

In my legal opinion, I would challenge it, and I think I would win - based on this set of facts.

Contracts can be found unenforceable on grounds of public policy not only to protect one of the parties involved, but also because what the contract represents could pose harm to society as a whole.

A 10 year statement might be in the agreement, but I don't think it is enforceable. If the government can take your private property under eminent domain then it can ignore a private developer's contract to terminate future development of a government owned property. If this falls through, which I don't think it will, then I suspect the County would be on the hook for refunding RocaPointe for their actual time costs and actual investment as damages. However, Roca will not have standing to stop future development of the site by another developer. Roca was aware of the city's zoning requirements and the city's control of future development at the site at the time of purchase (so the County would actually have arguments to not even pay actual damages if Roca tries to pull out because they didn't get the zoning variances they want). Plus, assuming Roca is even compensated for their time and actual investment, then I don't see how it would be a wise business move to risk a large sum in attorney fees just to stop the County from developing the site at a later date with someone else. It does not help Roca's future bottom line. In short, I believe the "10-year mothball" is an unenforceable contract provision and carries no real weight.

From the article: County Councilman Ennis Fant said Tuesday. "It's either 3.5 million square feet with green space, trails and organization. Or 6 million square feet of chaos with nothing. Do you have a choice, really?" I'm still confused by the argument. So Ennis threatens our county with "six million feet of chaos" because of six stories and oversight from the DRB on pre-existing requirements? Wouldn't that 3.5 million sq. feet be more valuable with green space, trails, and organization anyway? How can he threaten "chaos" if any development is still required to follow DRB rules? Someone needs to run against this guy. https://www.wyff4.com/article/greenville-county-councilman-ennis-fant-owes-dollar55k-in-property-taxes-anderson-county-assessors-office-says/27498514

I hope the city tells them to pound sand. This is a public shakedown.

I'm optimistic for compromise resulting in a win-win-win (developer-county-city). Government is not perfect, but it stands to represent the desires of many (local citizens), rather than wishes of a few (corporation). Realistically, the land is too valuable for Rocca to walk away from. If they do then someone else (better?) will more than happily step in and do it right.

Haynie Sirrine, Alta Vista, and West End

Wow, yes, this could be a great development. It's a mini-version of the what is outside the new Atlanta Brave stadium, Suntrust Park. I thought that the best part and experience of going to Suntrust Park was actually outside the stadium in the community area with outdoor music, shade, and the ability to drink and eat outside. Everyone likes to lounge to music in the shade, eat/drink, and people watch. That apartment developer, and the stadium, should consider building a few restaurant and bar areas that open to this street, and leave room for a live music stage. The street to be easily closed for live music events on game days and Friday nights in the off-season. A perfect community and revenue building space.

I haven't heard anyone say that Greenville should not have any tall buildings. Project One, Camperdown, etc. - all great projects and appropriately placed. They could have been made even taller. Some people just don't think tall buildings on County Square promotes the best overall long-term outcome. I think their opinion is supported by prior master plan recommendations, road infrastructure, the nature of the surrounding neighborhoods, and topography. Tall buildings should be built. Build them on Main Street, the Broad / River District, West Washington, or the Gateway site. You don't need a tall building to say you live in a great city. Neighborhoods and the character of the local citizens and leadership make a city, not a 20 story building.

Not sure I follow the math. As my 8th grade math teacher said, "write down the work you did. Two, 20-story buildings are in the current plan. Capping them at 12-story cuts 8-stories of potential square footage. I'm not an architect, but wouldn't allowing another 12-story building gap the deficit?

True, that, Vic. I would be okay with a 12-story cap. Maybe there is room for compromise between the developer the city?

Agreed, Sasaki might say it's a great idea, but the problem is we don't know that. Any argument to the contrary is consequently subjective speculation. Arguing that downtown has changed over the last 10 years is really not new evidence. The Sasaki Master Plan pretty much envisioned the growth and change that has already occurred in other areas of the downtown area (pretty remarkably, btw). I think the Sasaki plan carries a lot of weight based on the development that has occurred since it's recommendations were made, and also all subsequent Master Plans seem borrow rather heavily on it. I've pasted what the report says for County Square below (a link to the entire plan can be found at: https://www.greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/283/Downtown-Master-Plan-PDF). County Square A redeveloped County Square on University Ridge has the potential to become an exciting new intown neighborhood complemented by a complex of county and other offices (Figures 5.14 - 5.15). New development can take advantage of the hilltop location and views of downtown, while responding carefully to the context of the Governor’s School for the Arts and the small scale residential buildings on Howe Street. Church Street gives the site visibility and direct access out to Interstate 385. Redevelopment of County Square can also reinstate a stronger connection between Church Street and the West End and down to the Green Necklace along the river. Located on a high hill overlooking the Reedy River, this site was the historic campus of Furman University before it moved out of downtown in 1961. The gracious campus was redeveloped into a one story shopping mall and movie theater surrounded by surface parking lots. The historic alignment of University Ridge as it meandered from Cleveland Street through the site to the West End was changed. With the demise of the shopping center, the buildings were renovated into county offices and a family court employing 683 workers and providing services to many residents. Encompassing approximately 30 acres, County Square is large enough to feature a range of housing types, meeting the needs of different people who may want to live downtown. On the western edge, smaller scale townhouses will complete the character of Howe Street. Four to six story loft buildings could step up the hill from Howe Street and the Governor’s School, with greater heights and density along University Ridge and moving to the west side of the site, where ten to twelve stories would be appropriate. At a similar scale, the County offices could command the corner of Church Street and University Ridge. The main street for this district will be the realigned University Ridge extension that connects to the existing rotary. Since shared parking between the stadium and the county offices will continue to be a factor, a strong connection is warranted and will help organize the district. A network of new streets and smaller blocks will open up development opportunities and make the site permeable for walking. As the buildings step up the hill, each will take advantage of the striking views of downtown and the riverfront parks in the foreground. A series of civic spaces on the hill will allow for more public views opening to the north. If a civic building is warranted, a prominent location overlooking downtown and along the main street should be considered. This new residential and office development will increase the population of people shopping and dining in the West End and on Main Street. The site is within walking distance (5 to 15 minutes) but can also be accessed easily by bicycle, an expanded trolley route, or of course automobile. As such, retail uses in County Square should be limited so as to not compete with the Main Street experience. A coffee shop and other neighborhood scaled retail will add convenience, especially on the Church Street side. Big box retail and “lifestyle centers” that would detract from downtown should not be considered for this prime redevelopment site.

I'm for the development, but I disagree with opinions regarding the impact that height will have. I'd rather see a dense community of 6-8 story buildings that are mixed use. I think that would create a better overall community and mitigate traffic concerns on surrounding roads. Scott Towers is not a similar analogy. The Scott Towers were 14 stories. And they stuck out, bad. And I'll keep a straight face and argue Camperdown is not similar until someone can tell me that County Square is at the exact same elevation as the Camperdown. It's not. County Square sits on a hill overlooking the Camperdown project. Again, I'm not against the development. I'm just against 20 stories. Why? One reason is Sasaki Associates, Inc., Downtown Greenville Master Plan, 2008 - recommended limited height at this site. That recommendation is the basis of the current zoning law. They're pretty smart and successful urban planning group. Sure, it's a recommendation that is 11 years old, but can someone give me another study from an objective third party urban planner that says the best use at the site is multiple 20 story buildings? (Citation desperately needed).

I hope the city continues to deny the 20-story heights. It's a bad idea. Not a good look, doesn't match the area, and I don't think the roads support it. County Argument: "That affects our density," Kernell said. "And density is the key for us because we are trying to maximize our value." "Our value." Kernell sounds like he is on the side of the developer, not the citizen. Would Kernell care about unsustainable density at that site if the County wasn't lusting after an ostentatious and pretentious government building that will be used by less than 0.5% of the county population? There would be no pressure if the county just built a normal building, big enough for future needs, at 1/3 of the cost, or at another site to give the developer more acreage. Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants. - Epictetus

I'd take 2 ten story buildings over one twenty story building. Take City Hall, for example. I believe it is approximately 10 stories stories. Now double the height AND put it up on higher elevation. It will stick out and not look good. Has anyone seen renderings of this building? I like the idea of clustering the taller buildings along northern side of the development and then tapering back height as it moves south to blend in with the residential areas there. Maybe with a proper mix of living, business, and retail/restaurants the traffic will not get too bad......maybe.

I see your point, Gman, but I still have concerns. $10 million sounds like a big number for traffic improvement, but thousands of new residential units and hundreds of thousands of developed space is an even bigger number. I don't think the streets in the surrounding area can handle it. That is why the zoning is what it is now. Exactly how much space is forfeited by sticking with the current 6-story zoning, specifically? Will that significantly deter sprawl? No. I would argue that sticking with zoning would actually increase the property value in the surrounding area more because with more demand you see higher value. Higher value = increased property taxes = more money in county coffers in the long run. Views: You point to Camperdown because it is set to be 17 stories, right? But Camperdown was developed in an area that is zoned for that size high-rise. So I have no problem with Camperdown. However, multiply the Camperdown building by 3-4 buildings, and more importantly do it on ground that is significantly elevated to where Camperdown is, and I see a big problem. Plus, there are residential areas and streets closer to where these new buildings will be constructed -- Camperdown is next to other tall-ish buildings. Master Plan: Is the zoning really 17 years old? Didn't tax payers just pay for an updated Master Plan? Does anyone know what it recommended? No, we're not Mayberry and we need to develop. But if you are short-sighted and poorly develop this opportunity you are killing the goose that laid all the golden eggs to get us to where we are today. The developer needs to build up high rises to just the cost of the land purchase? This argument falls really short. The developer knew the zoning laws when the property was purchased. The developer should have run the numbers before making the offer. I'm sure it did. To say that zoning needs to be changed now is to insinuate the county officials, off the record, told the developer that zoning would be changed in order to justify the higher purchase price. If true, that is not proper procedure and should be examined. I don't think a developer's due-diligence on traffic carries much weight. They're an interested party to the outcome. I'd rather the people that live and work in the area find a neutral third-party to make the traffic conclusions and recommendations. And I thought that was done before and why zoning is what is now. The affordable housing issue is wagging the dog. Affordable housing is an issue that needs to be addressed, but should not be in the conversation on this specific development. You develop the area right, and tax revenue will come in for affordable housing, but without sacrificing the quality of life for the current residents.

I watched the video above. What is the "fake news" in it? The video basically states the multiple 12-story and the two 20-story towers will pollute the skyline and traffic will get significantly worse. All sounds pretty logical to me. Is traffic going to get better with this development? I suspect b.s. anytime someone just says "fake news" without adding facts. I'm disappointed that the current zoning plan, recommended by neutral third party experts, and paid for by local citizens, is going to be ignored for an out of town developer that cares only about bottom profit lines - not legacy. The point of zoning laws is to curb the short-sighted efforts of a few developers in the favor of the long-term benefits for all local tax-paying citizens. It seems the developer took over the leverage in this deal after it was completed. First from the county, and now from the city, because the city needs the county's support for a development by the river. So weak on the part of our representatives. I don't think buildings over six stories should be built on the county site. If Rocca wants to complete a total build-out, in a city grid network, with 6 story mixed use buildings, and the city and county helping establish tree-lined sidewalks, and a few parking garages (think Barcelona) - then so be it - that is Rocca's property right within the zoning laws. The developer could still get the same square footage, zoning and development rules are met; and, for the public public, zoning is followed by all (even people with large capital), and government saves face by not looking like sell-outs for their fancy, but gilded, county administrative building. County can get their leverage back by scaling back their desire to have an over-the-top county office building. It's too much. County offices should not be a center-piece, but a building that can be easily maintained and with adequate public meeting space to accommodate needs well into the future. I don't understand the desire to have a 60 million dollar county building in a prime piece of property. Why? If someone is thinking of challenging county and city members for their seats this coming election year - this is the time. I don't think our current representatives understand this. A candidate who runs on following zoning laws (i.e. the rule of law), curbing abusive development, and protecting quality of life of current citizens will be something voters want - and our current representatives seem to be ignoring it.