Exile
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by Exile
-
-
Well annexed to the park would be good as well, but what I meant was incorporate that site into the development plans (ie. tearing down the current structure and rebuilding). I could only imagine how much condos there would go for, for instance.
Either way. A good development would blend into the park.
Anything but a parking garage.
-
Oh, Ok.... well still. Finding a way to incorporate that site would be great although Id guess that space would not be cheap with its proximity/view to the park.
Not sure if this is exactly what you meant, but it would really be great to *tear down* that parking garage. Having a garage fronting the river right above the falls strikes me as a bit ridiculous, given what's happened since it was built. Think of it: the News site development with a major entrance that has an unobstructed view of the river, over the garage site that's been annexed to the park. Not likely any time soon, I suppose. But what if....?
-
The site might not be worth millions if it's not worth building on. If that were the case, then the owners might be happy to get anything out of it. I suppose that, having bought it in 2008 (according to the News article), they thought they were getting it cheap. But maybe it's just a bad site. It's across the street from a courthouse, an arena, and a historic church/graveyard, which means that the city's not going to grow to or around it in any meaningful way. And access is terrible, even for pedestrians, as greenjoesc noted.
Seems to me that the only real potential is as some sort of complement or adjunct to the Arena, particularly because a wide footbridge already exists there.
Or, some enterprising entrepreneur could build over Beattie Pl.
Who knows? In the meantime, plant the trees.
-
The site is just in a bad location plain and simple. I say put a city park on site until it's developed but what do I know.
If it's too difficult to build on, then I think the park idea is good. Maybe put the mother of all statues (Greenville statues, of course) in the center, or something taller, like an obelisk. Or maybe Greenville's run out of money for monuments? Too bad the Wilkins house couldn't have been moved there.
Is there irony in the fact that the street construction that required the destruction of the Carolina Theater 40-odd years ago has now orphaned such a prominent location? Is there a higher elevation in downtown? If so, not by much, I would guess.
-
Just out of idle curiosity, and too lazy to look through the forum, did the Gateway Site ever get any serious consideration as a spot for a convention center? I'm looking at Google Earth, and it seems to me that it's a natural: proximity to the Arena and to the Hyatt (kind of like the way the Marriott Marquis, Hilton, and Hyatt in Atlanta combine forces); with the potential (perhaps) of putting a hotel next to it, say across from Liberty Square (if there's enough room between the Church Street and the garage). Conventions I've been to in larger cities sometimes required a lot more effort than parking at the Arena and walking across a bridge would.
I am living elsewhere now, but I don't recall ever hearing mention of the possibility.
-
Annexation is very difficult, but annexation of already developed areas that are not being redeveloped does happen, it just isn't that common. In order to annex it typically takes 75% or more approval from those involved. It is possible to annex by election, but it is expensive and rarely happens too.
I used to get annoyed by SC's restrictive annexation laws. I wanted to see big-city numbers (or at least bigger numbers) for Greenville.
But then relatives of mine in another city got absorbed into a municipality against their will and with no real recourse, only to have their property taxes essentially double, with no discernible improvement in "services." I now see merit in SC's way of doing things, insofar as it seems (unwittingly?) to protect the property rights of individuals.
And anyway, why care about city-population figures? Atlanta does pretty well with a city population at less than 10% of metro. Orlando, where I live, is comparable.
-
Southwest is being undercut in order to drive them out of the market. If they leave, the previous high prices will return. That will reduce passengers even further. The renovation costs will be born by a shrinking market, thus raising fares. It is downward spiral.
Granting what you say for the sake of argument, did Southwest not do the same thing when it came to town? Is it OK for Southwest to undercut its competition, but not vice versa? I'm not inclined to view the "legacy" carriers as operating in cartel fashion, which is what you seem to be suggesting. On the contrary, they're all competing with each other (at least where they overlap), and GSP travelers are benefiting from the competition.
But if what you suggest were to come to pass, what of it? If someone must fly, Charlotte (e.g.) is easy to get to, particularly for Spartanburg travelers. Under those circumstances, I might choose to fly into Charlotte instead of GSP, which would be a bit inconvenient (but give me an excuse for eating at the Beacon!). That is to say that the consumer is still sovereign. If GSP travelers really objected to higher fares, they would bid the prices down by going elsewhere or by choosing other forms of transportation. However, It seems pretty obvious to me that fares at GSP have historically been higher because most of its traffic is business-related, and businesses who are flying their representatives all over the place are not as price-sensitive as, e.g., vacation-travelers are.
That said, I am not inclined to be skeptical about Southwest's longevity at GSP. They know how to compete as well as their competition does, and are probably financially in a better position to do so. I have to believe that they factor all these variables into their decision to enter a market in the first place. The only potential achilles heel I could see for them is their reliance on 737's. Unless Air Tran brought a lot of smaller jets along with them into the merger, Southwest can't easily shift to planes more appropriate to a lower-than-expected demand.
As for the airport expansion, that seems pretty clearly speculative, and not an accommodation to the Southwest effect. So GSP travelers will indirectly bear that cost no matter what Southwest does. But again, on the (good?) assumption that GSP's management knows what it's doing, then there must be potentially other opportunities presented by such an expansion.
-
The market is there when RATES are reasonable. The rates are only reasonable when there is sufficient competition.
Well, according the Southwest, the market isn't there for certain routes. And the load factors that were shared in an earlier post on this thread were not all that encouraging for the others, though it would surprise me if the Chicago routes were losing money.
-
If they aren't supported, they will leave and the other airlines will just jack those prices right back up like they did when Independence shut down. So if Greenville travelers do not smarten up they will have no one to blame but themselves when Southwest is gone and air prices out of GSP are astronomical again.
Also, while your fare points are true, Southwest consistently ranks higher in customer service and overall customer satisfaction ratings year in and year out than the other major carriers that serve out of GSP.
I can think of only three ways for Greenville (Spartanburg, Anderson) travelers to "smarten up," if I understand your comment correctly: 1) start flying more; or 2) quit driving to Charlotte (or elsewhere; though I can't imagine driving to Atlanta to fly) and originate here in GSP; or 3) shift from other GSP carriers to Southwest.
But nobody's going to (or should) just start flying to keep an airline in town, whatever its perceived benefits; and if people are in fact still going to other airports, its because they perceive a better deal there (driving included). If Southwest hasn't pulled them away from that option, then its not likely that any airline will, and who am I to second-guess them on how they travel?; and the third option is a wash as far as GSP traffic is concerned and could harm other carriers (which isn't a good thing for competition either).
It may be that GSP, particularly given the ease of getting to Charlotte, just doesn't have the market to support Southwest's particular connections and destinations, even Chicago (yet?). I hope not, but if the demand isn't there... And unlike other carriers, Southwest can't shift to smaller jets (not significantly smaller, anyway).
-
Hello all,
I was reading this recent article in the News about renewing West End visibility and am looking at a Google Earth image of it, but realized I don't know the exact boundaries of the West End. Can anyone help me out? How far from the river does the West End extend?
Thanks.
-
Portland also serves the entire state of Maine. Anyone who wants to go anywhere up there probably has to go to Portland first.
Actually, Portland is sandwiched between Manchester, NH (served by Southwest and very close to Maine) and Bangor, which has a respectable airport that used to be a stopover on translatlantic flights in the way-back-when, I guess kind of like Anchorage was (is?) in the Pacific.
I don't recall the distances, since it's been over a decade since I've been there, but Portland's geographic relationship to Manchester and Bangor is probably comparable to Columbia's relationship to GSP and Charleston (without the common coastline, of course).
-
Whats the website for Camperdown?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
-
I think it depends on the airlines. Independence Air will use the jetway bridge, US Airways does not. Comair (Delta) uses it sometimes, Continental and American also. I really love the amount of RJ's we get....so much easier to fly.....you can gate check your bag and avoid bagage claim at the end......boarding with 50 people is way quicker than boarding with 150.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree entirely. And the RJ's can fly just as high and fast as the big jets, though not nearly as far.
Though I haven't flown through GSP in several years, and only once in the last 10 years, I view the air traffic issue there the same way I view the skyscraper issue downtown. It's better to have a lot of 60-90 seaters flying in and out all the time, with a few of the 737's here and there; than to have the occasional big-jet traffic that GSP had only 20 years ago. All the international investment already established in the area ensures that GSP will never be relegated to a mere commuter airport.
What is the biggest passenger plane that flies into GSP? 757? How about the biggest cargo plane? They extended the runway so that they could land 747 cargo planes loaded with BMW engines. Are they doing that now?
And, on a completely different subject, what is that "Warn 0%" under my screen name on all my posts? Am I on probation or something? Wha'd I do?
-
I noticed on the airport's web site that, of the dozens of daily departures, only 8 (by my count) are in Boeing/MD/Airbus type equipment. Lot's of 60-90 seat CRJ's (which I love), ERJ's and similar aircraft. US Air equipment isn't listed, but I imagine many of those are big planes, too.
My travel nowadays pretty much always puts me on one of the big planes. My question is, at GSP are you able to board those planes through the boarding bridges, or do you have to walk outside, Fred Flintstone-style? At Dulles and BWI, you have to walk outside, but I always assumed it was because of how busy those airports are in general.
-
Check out the Latin (
) on the Retail/Office page.
) on the Retail/Office page.
Camperdown (Greenville News Building Site)
in Greenville
Posted
I don't in principle object to a Target on that site, but the urban Targets I'm familiar with have a pretty big footprint, even the double-decker ones. Is the site really big enough for something like that and a hotel, offices, plaza, other retail, etc.?