Cityplanner

All I stated was the exact text in each of my posts, and then you attacked my “mindset” and claimed that I view certain groups of people as “deplorable” and a “problem”. I found your response extremely offensive and judgmental. Don’t read things into what people say. I say what I mean and mean what I say. If I wanted to make disparaging statements, I would, but I did not. I simply stated facts. As someone who is and has been heavily involved in pro-transit and pro-social justice work, I am very offended by your posts. You’re the one who is making offensive statements.

Well, I’m very pro-transit and have worked in CATS advocacy within government. Facts are facts. Bus riders at off hours are not high-income. Should transit be improved so that it appeals to more people? Yes. But denying facts serves no purpose. Shall we pretend that bus riders who use the transit center late at night are upper-income? If so, what good would that do?

Unfortunately buses at non-rush hours likely attract a clientele that cannot afford a car, so being right next to the bus station helps that demographic access the Epicentre.

Yes, you are correct. It’s just one less store that would attract me to Northlake.

Pottery Barn closed, too? And -1 anchor? Seems like this is the next Eastland. Really, really unfortunate, since it's such a nice-looking mall.

There are plenty of old office buildings that are converted and upgraded into Class A office space, with the entire building gutted and redone, or converted into residential. For example, http://www.390madison.com is one of many in midtown Manhattan. It looks really stunning and modern now, although it was built in the 1950s. I'm surprised that this hasn't been done a while ago. Plus upgrading or converting the Landmark Building could hopefully eliminate the swastika-like logo.

Epicentre is really just the wrong use of the site. A block surrounded by a Ritz-Carlton, BofA office buildings and business-oriented hotels ought to have things that appeal to higher-income office workers. Get rid of the businesses (if any remain) that attract a rough crowd and rebuild the site so that is elegant, it's easily accessible from the Ritz-Carlton and BofA office buildings and hotels, and so that it's not accessible from the bus station. And then re-tenant it. Bring in a small collection of high-end retail stores (things that ought to be in Founders Hall, but aren't) and business-oriented restaurants. As Northlake Mall empties out, the stores that were on its upper level may choose to come to the Epicentre: an Apple store and a few others that I see on its directory: Chico's, Loft and White House Black Market are certainly stores that would appeal to some office workers uptown. (Wow, where did all of the nicer store at Northlake go?)

And when did we work? I can’t fathom going clubbing 4 nights in a row.

After the Nordstroms in Richmond and Norfolk closed, Nordstrom would open in Greenville? This sounds like the former poster who saw a Nordstrom gift card for sale somewhere around town and was adamant that it meant that a Nordstrom was definitely opening at Haywood.

I don't see how the market can support millions of square feet of additional suburban commercial space, unless it's storage or warehouse space. Office and retail? Nope, the market is already significantly overbuilt.

I don't want properties along I-385 developed. The last thing we need is more car-centric suburban sprawl. If we're going to have suburban commercial development, I'd like it to be like BridgeWay; I think that it's a very nice-looking development, and pedestrian-friendly. But most development along highways is not. EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, everyone. I'm not looking to fight, and Skyliner, I'm definitely not looking to disagree with you or your posts. I just carried away once I get on soapbox. I'd just love a spotlessly-clean, walkable and transit-friendly urban core, full of upscale everything. Greenville's definitely getting there, and it's far ahead of a lot of cities.

For zoning, the city and county could simply ban office developments above a certain number of square feet in suburban areas. And set the maximum permitted amount pretty low. Result? Any large office developments have to be downtown. Now we don’t have the idiots in charge who allowed 3 large malls to be built near each other within a 12-year span, but the same mentality of “build anything! Growth at all costs! Woo hoo!” is still around.

Agreed. And the city and county could simply adopt zoning that would prioritize large-scale commercial development downtown, but they don't. That wouldn't cost a cent of tax "incentives". However, the fact that the Hughes have so much development downtown (part of Riverplace, ONE, etc.) indicates to me that they think that both can coexist. Clearly both downtown and suburban offices can coexist; downtown has only about half of Greenville County's office space (if that). Building more suburban developments doesn't help, though.

I don't think that this will hurt downtown. (The Hughes have so much invested in downtown that they wouldn't want to cannibalize their own buildings there.) This will hurt dinky suburban office buildings. It's such a tenant-friendly market that surely tenants who are already in suburbia would jump to upgrade their space by moving to Bridgeway. I don't think that this project will suffer by having a smaller developer behind it (vs. a large national developer like the County Square developer).

I would think that the main "loser" from the Bridgeway Station development would be existing suburban office space. There's already a glut of it, and in this real estate market, anyone who wants to upgrade to Bridgeway Station and get new, nice space could probably do so at a pretty reasonable cost. I'm not sure if a larger office developer would necessarily prevail over a smaller one. The Hughes Co. already landed some prime retail tenants downtown at ONE over Simon's Haywood Mall.

There are some news articles out about how an owner of a warehouse used by Brooks Brothers was left with a warehouse full of junk and invoices that Brooks Brothers didn't pay. If that's how the ONE owners were treated, I can see why they wouldn't do whatever was necessary to keep that store. BB is now on my "do not shop" list (which is easy to comply with since so many of its stores are closed). Hopefully loss of a higher-end store won't be damaging to downtown's prospects; losing Saks Fifth Avenue didn't seem to affect Charleston much at all, so hopefully it'll be the same for Greenville.

Sure, I’m no fan of cancel culture either, but why not have SC re-named after Charles II? I think it would be kind of neat to acknowledge that link to pre-1776 times, perhaps with a resolution of the state legislature and a plaque or statue. Or maybe SC could re-name itself after Prince Charles (to keep Meghan Markle away)?

Let's keep in mind that there is ZERO reason why any of these old structures cannot be rebuilt. Plenty of European neighborhoods were completely built again after World War II, as they had been before they were destroyed. And plenty of 1890s-looking buildings are being built today (just look at NYC's Upper East Side, where there are plenty of examples). Some others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Classical_architecture If we miss the Ottaray Hotel, or the Woodside Building, or City Hall, then build them again. What was built once can be built again. Why are we letting the "2000s box" apartment buildings be built all over downtown when they'll look dated in 20 years, instead of re-building buildings in a style that has stood the test of time?

You’re fine. The over-reaction is mine. Sorry. For the post below: out of curiosity, why? I liked shopping there, but it was a mall, like many others.

I don't think your post above is necessary; I got the point and adjusted my statements, as you will see from my posts.

Fair point. Keeping character, even if it's not an architectural masterpiece, is worth a lot. I think that Greenville has done a good job keeping old buildings around, and keeping them in good condition--certainly better than Charlotte.

South Carolina was named after King Charles I, who attempted to be an absolute monarch and seems to have been a total disaster as king of England, as his reign led to civil war and the abolition of the British monarchy. Given current re-thinking of many current names that are attributed to people in the past who are viewed now as being horrible people (here's looking at you, Wade Hampton and John C. Calhoun), why doesn't South Carolina re-think its name? Perhaps it could keep the name but re-name itself after King Charles II, who was a very popular king of England? It would be kind of neat to have a current commemoration of King Charles II, showing how old and historic South Carolina is. Thoughts?

For the buildings that we miss: were any of them really architectural masterpieces? They had character, and they were good examples of buildings of the era, but were any of them really beautiful or of high architectural merit? Nope. They were often more attractive than what followed (i.e., City Hall, and the parking lot or whatever that replaced Textile Hall). Similarly, for all of the buildings being built now, particularly downtown: a lot of them are nice-looking, and they're often good examples of 2000s-era architecture, but in 100 years, if any of them are torn down, will it be a real loss? Nope.

I used to think City Hall, but the complex that stands where City Hall was is certainly a more productive use of the space. I spent plenty of time at the Southern Railway station before it was torn down. It certainly had more character than the current Norfolk Southern/Amtrak station, so, yes, I miss it somewhat. Personally, I really cannot stand Brutalist or mid-century modern architecture so anything that was there before the Daniel Building and the like would have been better.

Good point. If we get a dollar store in the Brooks Brothers space I'll be crushed. Let other cities have their retail downgrades. The former JCPenney building across from ONE would actually be a good site for a Target, and it's spacious. It seems weird that it's still office--who needs ground-floor office space?