Spartan
-
Posts
19,539 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by Spartan
-
-
On 2/20/2023 at 6:25 PM, westsider28 said:
I'm a huge road-diet advocate and I'd love to see Church Street narrowed, but it seems unlikely within our lifetimes. It's pretty much the only direct North-South route east of I-26. It connects Boiling Springs and Roebuck, two fast-growing areas. It's heavily-traveled through downtown every weekday evening (and morning, probably). Short of a bypass loop and/or massive transit expansion, I see no scenario where it can be narrowed. There aren't really any existing reasonable alternative routes.
I think our best bet is stuff like @sptgguysuggested. In addition to landscaped medians, I'd like to see leading pedestrian signals (throughout downtown actually) and no right-on-red at intersections. We need more street trees, too (which SCDOT hates). At least any new developments along the corridor downtown will be required to have wide sidewalks.
To bring it back to the Montgomery Building, it was a unique situation with an existing building being boxed-in, whereas a new building would have wider sidewalks. I wonder if the St John sidewalk could be widened by shifting St John a few feet south when the HBJ lot gets developed?
The issue is lack of political will. There's no technical reason that it can't be done, there's just a lack of people demanding that it be done.
On 2/23/2023 at 3:33 PM, sptgguy said:Thanks for the details. I was aware that they were in place but not to that level. Guess the real issue is we need more new buildings/developments. I agree...the city needs to apply these codes to the major arteries.
Yep. The code only works when new buildings come in. Cities evolve slowly - but you can already see a difference in the quality of the newer products (see Northside/N Church St)
-
1
-
-
On 2/20/2023 at 12:34 PM, westsider28 said:
We wouldn't have to speculate if the City would put important stuff like this on their website, where it would be fully accessible to the public (as it should be).
What do you mean? What isn't available on their website?
-
1 hour ago, SpartanBorn&Raised said:
I concur with that! Something else that recently dawned on me. Spartanburg needs more tall buildings (I know, the market needs to be there with more white-collar jobs coming). I'm realizing that a Downtown with more buildings around it feels more intimate, comforting to visit and ironically more inviting/welcoming. I'm not the only one who thinks this, am I? Albeit keep the streets and buildings tree-lined (not like Columbia, which I love for its walkability among other things but there is way too much exposed sky there).
I agree it would be fun to see more, taller buildings - but I'll always point out that the "vertical" feel of larger cities can be achieved even with out them. What you're looking for is more buildings that are right up to the edge of the street instead of set back behind a parking lot. Tall buildings in and of themselves do not make a city. Designing cities for people and not their cars will always make places more attractive, higher value, and make people want to spend time there, thus increasing demand for buildings, restaurants, retail, office workers, etc. It's all builds on itself.
-
4
-
-
Gotta say, I like this new render a lot better. They fixed that god-awful corner treatment/ The steps make it feel more welcoming.
-
On 2/13/2023 at 10:02 PM, hub-city said:
I hope they are true. I was walking down that way way and it just looks ideal for a stadium and other amenities. I don’t know the regulations in regards to the Greenville Drive, but would still be a great location…..
I'm not sure what the rules are, exactly, but I think that distance requirement 1) can be waived somehow, and 2) would not apply if it were used for non MiLB baseball (e.g.: The Spartanburgers)
It would be interesting if somehow we could get a baseball stadium on one of those large tracts of land.
-
No argument about the positives of this project... but if a delay results in them rethinking parts of it to make a stronger project then I'm for it. I suspect, however, that they wouldn't have bought up all that land if they weren't going to do the work - but crazier things have happened.
-
On 2/12/2023 at 5:05 PM, westsider28 said:
I believe that's incorrect. During the nomination process, demolition is only delayed. But if approved/listed, the exterior (or façade at least) is permanently protected from demolition, as I understand it.
Perhaps. Depends on how the codes are written in SC and the City.
-
These old style theaters can work as movie theaters/playhouses, but IMO the thing that is needed to make it truly successful is a more walkable Church St. We need to remove lanes on Church to make it a more enjoyable walk, and let the through-traffic take other routes around downtown.
-
4
-
-
Historically speaking its built in a style that often had terracotta tiles on the roof, which could have been cool too. But thanks for the clarification.
-
Is the roof actually red or is that some kind of lining?
-
FWIW, historic status can help delay but doesn't necessarily prevent demolition of old buildings. This is why good design standards via a form based code are so important. There's the historic fabric that is irreplaceable, but there's an urban fabric that can be maintained and improved upon for future generations if done well. IMO, its a really great thing that they extended the DT code up to the north. Whatever replaces that building will not be a step backwards.
-
TBH I won't be entirely upset if it goes away...
-
This is a really great infill project. Way to use the extra space in that parking deck to save some $$!
-
I hope they use that extra $1mil to jazz up the architecture a bit. From an urban design standpoint its checking all the boxes, but it's a bit vanilla, IMO.
Does anyone know if this will also serve as an entrance to the library? Looks like it will be entirely separate - but it would be a great opportunity to make a connection to Church Street that someone might actually use.
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the update!
-
Suburban Philadelphia is a completely different animal. If we adopt their ordinance then maybe I'll come around. Again, I submit to you Lexington County. Just look at the results of decades of growth down there, and compare that to what's going on in Spartanburg County today. You won't be able to find any significant difference except they have a bit more sand in their soil. Look at this area and pan around the area west and south of Lexington (which is newer growth than Irmo), and see if there's anything that looks like something you'd rather have in Spartanburg County. I'm willing to bet you won't see much that is special.
Are subdivisions bad? Not necessarily. Are shopping centers bad? Not necessarily. It's not about what is being built, but how its being laid out and how it connects. I remain skeptical that this zoning ordinance will do much to shift the needle significantly. I should add that its not all bad - some limitations on where these large industrial warehouses get built is probably a good thing. I'm interested to see what their public facing engagement looks like this fall.
-
2
-
-
On 1/24/2023 at 9:01 AM, NotNotSanti said:
That was very informative, thank you. The link is for the Performance Zoning that has been applied for the Southwest region. I wonder if any modifications will be done to it before it's rolled out to the county as a whole. Based on their schedule it would seem like it. Wonder what kind of improvements could be done to it.
Honestly curious, is there another kind of zoning that you would prefer? I'm fairly new to this topic of county wide zoning. What does Greenville, for example, use?
Also... how will this mesh with the previous approvals for mixed-use development in the county?
A few thoughts.
-
The point of zoning is not solely to regulate development. It is supposed to be the regulatory tool to implement a land use plan that has been vetted by a stronng public engagement process. Zoning, in the absence of a plan, is just a massive and annoying HOA.
-
A Form-Based Code (like the City's Downtown Urban Code) is the Gold Standard zoning model. There are only a few places in SC that use a form based code, with Beaufort County being the largest geographically. Form based codes are superior because they regulate the parts of building cities that actually matter, which is where the building is located on a site and how it addresses the street (ie: does it have a front door onto a sidewalk). Cities were built this way by default up until 1950 or so. This model does not significantly regulate land uses - it allows for the market to determine where things should go, and as such it has an inherent flexibility to respond to current market forces. They always allow for mixture of uses, facilitate good street network development, and generally result in more attractive places to live. The idea is that you remove barriers to good development practices and add barriers to bad practices. This does not prevent bad development, but the market tends to take the path of least resistance - and it has been proven to work quite well.
-
Euclidean zoning does the opposite. It separates land uses by category and by design encourages separation of buildings. Much of suburban Atlanta and Charlotte are built under this model - make of that what you will. It is possible to accomplish a "hybrid" zoning structure that uses FBC principles in the Euclidean model. Charlotte does this in its new UDO and it isn't terrible - but FBC would still be a better tool. This model requires rezonings with council action to determine any potential changes in land use. It is inherently less flexible in responding to market conditions, and in a state like SC it is typically more of a rubber stamping process since Councils bend over to approve literally any rezoning - so why have it if you aren't going to stick to it?
- Performance Zoning is the worst model I've heard of - though I do give it some credit for being better than nothing. It has been well summarized in this thread so I won't rehash it - but I think its safe to predict that it won't have the desired outcome. You can look at Lexington County, which uses the model we are basing our ordinance off of, as a guide. They've had it in place for close to 20 years I think (could be wrong about that). IMO if you've ever spent any time there I think you would agree that it does a fantastic job of reinforcing a dated "bad suburbia" model of growth (i.e.: the status quo) - and if that's your jam then you should be pretty excited about this move.
The ability of this zoning model to support mixed use development will ultimately depend on how its written. In all likelihood it will be better than the current regulatory process that disallows it almost entirely. My biggest critique is that it does not require new street connections between developments. All new development is going to be located on to fewer roads, thus forcing more traffic onto those roads and increasing the need to make EXPENSIVE improvements (aks: widenings) that the General Assembly is, thus far, unwilling to pay for. But hey, let's see how many shitty "starter" homes we can cram onto one acre.
When talking about growth in the Upstate, I've heard my entire life "we just don't want to be Atlanta" - but so far there is zero effort being made to accomplish that goal. Circling by to my first point - unless I've missed something, Spartanburg County does not have a current land use plan. They have an old plan that they just continue to renew - but it dates to the 90s if memory serves. IMO, they have the process backwards. Why are they adopting this zoning tool? What goals is it going to accomplish/implement? Who is determining what the zoning should be and why - especially in areas where we want to preserve open space/farming etc.?
What is the plan? What do the people of Spartanburg County want to see in terms of growth? How does the people's voice translate into policies/goals in the plan? What are the tools available to implement it, and which ones are appropriate for Spartanburg County? -- these are all questions that should be asked before adopting a zoning ordinance. Once you address those, then the narrative, path forward, and information about what the public actually supports all become clear.
-
2
-
The point of zoning is not solely to regulate development. It is supposed to be the regulatory tool to implement a land use plan that has been vetted by a stronng public engagement process. Zoning, in the absence of a plan, is just a massive and annoying HOA.
-
Well said. There is a learning curve with these things, even more so when it involves SCDOT.
-
On 11/29/2022 at 8:49 AM, roads-scholar said:
If this eyesore of a building is demolished and an attractive storage facility is constructed (i.e. John B White Blvd where the Camelot Cinema once stood) this would be a huge improvement. BTW, that building was a Bi Lo supermarket that was constructed in the 70's.
Would love to see an example of a storage facility that is attractive haha. But seriously, literally anything would be better than that eyesore.
On 11/29/2022 at 1:10 PM, westsider28 said:Nah, storage facilities are worthless. And it would lock in that land use for years/decades. Why are we seeing worse land-use now than in the 70s? Your example is another step backwards from a business that contributed to community vitality, entertainment, and amenities to one that doesn't. An abandoned building at least has the possibility of something better.
I don't subscribe to the "we must get rid of eyesores at any cost" mentality. That's how we've lost so much history. Not saying this particular building is historic, but the site deserves so much more than being a repository for people's crap.
To be fair, the US is over-retailed which is why we have so many vacant storefronts and Spartanburg was also growing east until I-26 was complete so there was a good reason to build a store there at one time. Somewhat ironically, if trends keep going the way they are over the next 10-20 years we may need a grocery store at that location.
-
Wow that's an amazing transformation! Its one thing to know how I used to look, but those pictures are more powerful.
-
Wow are ticket sales really that bad? Didn't we sell out pretty much every game this year? If they're looking at modifications that extensive then I would want to see additional normal-fan seating replace the ramps to create a U or something. Get ready for the fanbase to lose its mind - especially if they don't roll it out well.
-
Sounds great. I highly recommend listening to Mitch Silver if you get a chance. He's a great speaker and 'gets it' when it comes to creating good public space.
-
1
-
2
-
-
I love that the original bridge abutments are still down there. Definitely adds some character to the area!
-
Thanks for sharing this.
I'd love to see them connect a driveway to Rice or Stevens St. I also think it would be cool if they preserved the canopy thing that's there now. Could be a cool entry feature / industrial relic.
Downtown Projects & Developments
in Spartanburg
Posted
It's in Section 510 of the zoning ordinance. See page 236 (pdf page 248). You can also bypass the local process and go through SCSHPO. I think the HARB can react to local or national designations, but I could be wrong.
TLDR: