sc smitty

Traditional design does not necessarily mean you are trying to make a building that is a recreation of the past, or lies about its age. It simply is using time tested design principles and architectural elements that give a building proper scale and character. There are buildings all over this country that are architectural masterpieces that borrow building forms and design elements and from Greek and Roman buildings 2000 years ago. Is this considered creating a false sense of history? One of Greenville's own DRB members recently said at a meeting that architecture is always looking forward, and not looking to the past, completely ignoring this fact. I'm all for taking from past building traditions, and reinterpreting them for today, so a building is truly an expression of it's time, rather than strictly trying to copy historic styles. This very site should serve as a lesson against simply trying to follow the latest design trends. The Greenville News building was very forward thinking and modern for its time, but in a span of 50 years, is considered ugly and outdated by most, and headed for demolition. I think architecture deserves to have some more thought put into creating a place that will stand the test of time, and not be treated as a disposable commodity that will be demolished in another 50 years when tastes change again. There are plenty of examples of good and bad design in both modern and traditional buildings. It's not necessarily the building style that makes it well designed or not, but how the details, form and proportions are carried out, and like others, I haven't been impressed lately in how this has been accomplished in most new buildings here.

^^ AMEN!! Unlike us, out of town developers and architects don't have to live with the uncreative stuff they're erecting here. Just as long as they make their buck and get a magazine article or award out of it.

I like the plan, and think the gabled roofs are a refreshing change from the bare box architecture we've been seeing go up everywhere lately. I also like seeing the odd angled intersection of Wade Hampton and Stone Ave being fixed.

Yes, the design is boring, but seriously, how is this different from a lot of the other new buildings being put up? Isn't anyone else getting tired of the same unimaginative, boring, boxy style that architects keep churning out everywhere? It would be nice to see this one actually happen, only to fill the vacant lot sitting there for years, but that is pretty sad to want something built, only because it's better than nothing.

The article says they will be "looking at the development to ensure it meets the intent of the Design Guidelines and Downtown Master Plan." So basically the city is paying another firm to do the job of the DRB.

I'm sure they will want to. Greenville's current obsession seems to be out with the old and in with the trendy, bland box.

A terrible neighborhood? I'm not that familiar with Spartanburg, but I've see far worse sections of town. I wouldn't think right next to Wofford College is such a crummy area. And it was built in 1884, and is far from being broken down.

They cannot find a buyer that is willing to pay the inflated price they want for it. There was talk of someone in Mississippi buying the parts and using them to basically recreate a new version of the house, but that never worked out, and now they are pretty much trying to part the contents out for architectural salvage. People in historic preservation have approached the Cleveland family in the past, trying to offer help in finding a buyer and a use for the house, but were never given a chance. Why are people only speaking up now? Because it wasn't until recently that the family has moved forward with plans to tear the house down. It is not in that bad of condition that it couldn't be saved and repurposed by the right buyer. It at least deserves that chance.

Things are under way to help preserve Bon Haven. The Palmetto Trust for Historic Preservation, which led the effort to move and save the Wilkins mansion in Greenville, is heading things up. They are looking to raise the money needed to buy out the rights to the house from the salvage company that currently has a contract to demolish the house and part out its contents for architectural salvage. The Historic Architecture Review Board is meeting on February 12 to vote on whether to recommend the house be included on the city's list of protected historic buildings, which would prevent the house from being demolished. Anyone interested in seeing this building preserved needs to show up at the meeting and speak out for saving this piece of Spartanburg's history. http://www.goupstate.com/article/20150204/ARTICLES/150209814/1180?Title=Group-officially-forms-to-save-Bon-Haven Facebook page for Save Bon Haven: https://www.facebook.com/savebonhaven

I agree the buildings could be pulled up toward the road and hide more of the parking in the back, similar to McBee Station. The current big box store in the back of the site with a sea of parking in front doesn't fit the character the city should be pushing for on Augusta St. If you don't like the proposed layout, come out to the planning commission meeting and say something. It doesn't do much use to gripe about it on here, and then do nothing to seek for some positive changes. When I attend commission meetings, I am frequently the only one standing up to say something.

Most of the route along Parkins Mill would be within the existing road right of way, so it would not be using any private property in people's front yards. People already have the right to use the existing sidewalks there. The Swamp Rabbit would simply be a widened sidewalk. I don't see what the big objection from the neighborhood would be. Seems like simply caving to political pressure. In spite of that, I think a route that keeps off road through the country club along the river would be much nicer.

Work has started on site today with volunteer cleanup in the lower areas along the riverbank, and clearing the location of the new boardwalk beside Church St. It will continue through the weekend. See below for more info on volunteering: Unique Opportunity to Help Hand Clear the Cancer Survivors Park Site! CSPA is partnering with United Way’s Hands on Greenville Friday, January 16: 10am-1pm & 1pm – 4pm Saturday, January 17: 10am-1pm & 1pm – 4pm Sunday, January 18: 2pm – 4pm This project involves hand-clearing approximately 3+ acres of weeds, underbrush and debris. We will also be removing small trees and pruning trees along both sides of the Reedy. Wear protective clothing and boots. Bring gloves, clippers, etc if available. 25 volunteers needed each day. Availability on a first come – first served basis. Great group project The Cancer Survivors Park is located along the Swamp Rabbit Trail between Falls Park and Cleveland Park, below the Greenville Chamber of Commerce. Parking for the project will be at the lower Chamber lot, meeting at Swamp Rabbit Trail at Church St. Bridge. Sign up is necessary at www.handsongreenville.org For more information: CSPA Office (864) 255-5010 or visit www.cancersurvivorspark.org VISION: To change the way we live with cancer. MISSION: To serve as a catalyst for collaborative activities that engage, educate, empower and enhance the lives of anyone touched by cancer and to ensure the sustainability of the CSP as the central venue for carrying out that mission.

Just because a building represents the era in which it was built, doesn't mean it's good design to begin with. Look at the Greenville News building. Clearly modern for its time, it's pretty much universally hated now, and bound for demolition less than 50 years after being built. The current trend of lego block style architecture will similarly look dated and out of style in the same period of time. I was also at that DRB meeting, and I would question several of the member's statements that architecture should be forward thinking, and never repeat the past. Have they never heard of Greek revival or colonial revival architecture, or seen the current craftsman trend of many new neighborhoods today? Plenty of public buildings and churches all around are using elements and forms of architecture that were used thousands of years ago. Sounds like the DRB could use a little education in architecture, rather than pushing their preference for the latest trend.

I certainly hope they will get creative and come up with a new name for this new section of trail. Does it really make sense to continue to name any new trail the Swamp Rabbit? Seems like that would be as confusing and naming all streets downtown Main St.

What's the point of having design guidelines then? I've heard plenty of other people who think that building is ugly and out of place. People's personal opinions will always vary on whether they like something or not. The DRB's purpose is to evaluate a building based on the adopted guidelines, not on whether they happen to like the design or not. Anything else will result in arbitrary decisions like we've been seeing. How is it fair to hold one person to the guidelines and not another?

I would hope not as well, but are they going to arbitrarily apply the design guidelines to one project and not another? They blatantly ignored key guidelines for the last building at Main & River.

Doing something similar to E North St would make sense. A center turn lane would make it much safer than cars currently stopping traffic in the left lane waiting to turn. It would cut down on people having to weave back and forth between two lanes to get around cars stopped to turn, and slow down speeding. Unfortunately it's a DOT road and what makes sense isn't exactly their top priority.

http://www.greenvillesc.gov/PlanningZoning/PlanningApplications/Applications/2015/JANUARY/DesignReviewBoard/01-08-2015/CA-15-15-724SouthMainStreet.pdf Seriously? I guess now that the DRB doesn't bother enforcing the West End Design Guidelines, it doesn't matter how ridiculous your proposal is.

No, but why be bothered with facts?

They went on and on how they wanted this to be a unique store and the best Harris Teeter in the state. I didn't see anything that unique about it. It's basically a big box with a sea of parking in front of it. I was surprised they wouldn't make an effort to bring the building up closer to the road and hide some of the parking on the interior. The current site layout does a much better job of breaking up the parking lot around the buildings. The Harris Teeter in downtown Charleston does a much nicer job of taking an existing warehouse building and reusing it as part of the grocery store to create a much more unique store that fits into its context. It's a shame something similar couldn't be looked at and work with the old post office. The whole thing looks very disappointing to me and not at all in keeping with the scale and quality I would think should be demanded for Augusta St.

There are no design changes from the most recent plans presented to the DRB. Apparently they made some changes based on feedback received prior to the meeting. The DRB spent hardly any time discussing if the project met the existing West End design guidelines (many of which it violates). There was also no regard for the existing legal settlement that allowed the building to be demolished only if the existing facade was recreated as part of the new building.

Not bad, but it's sure not a "historic brownstone look," and what in the world is "Italianate, authentic Federal-style design"? Those are two completely different styles. Sounds like someone skipped his architecture history course.

People should go up north before they start complaining about bad roads around here. Yes, some roads around here could use some work, but overall they are in good condition compared to other areas of the country. Seems they are ready to repave an entire road any time it gets a few potholes, rather than just making some repairs. A lot of money is wasted on unnecessary projects around here, rather than where it needs to be spent. They need to spend the money they already have better, before they start raising new taxes.

It may not be out of scale with newer buildings being built off Main St, but it's totally out of scale with the surrounding buildings on Main, not to mention totally out of context with the historic buildings nearby. The city gave approval to demolish the original building based on the last design that recreated the historical façade as part of the new development. Not sure what happened to that requirement. Once again, it would be nice to see an architect come up with something more imaginative that a bunch of bare ugly boxes.

Hope they put a little more thought into the streetscape. The sidewalk right against the road, with a brick wall on the other side, and light poles right in the middle of the walk doesn't look very pedestrian friendly.