mallguy

Yes, and I was curious about it so I researched the company's target demographic. It's rural people who like hunting and fishing. It's trying to move more into the mainstream, but that's its target.

He said that Greenville had a lot of the target market for his product (low-income/blue collar--otherwise Cabela's never would have opened there, he said). Dick's is for suburbanites; Cabela's is for hunting and fishing and the like.

His image of Greenville was that it was inhabited by lots of the lower-income demographic, based on that Cabela's and a few other things. It is sad that Cabela's was his point of reference because that is not an accurate image at all of Greenville and there are so many other nice things there. It's tough to do anything about Cabela's. I'd prefer that it not be there, but that's not a realistic preference. There are plenty of choices that planners can make in order to offset that, though, starting with having higher-end stores at the airport (no Dunkin Donuts). I would try to clean up some of the stuff along I-85 in between the airport and Pelham Road; there are some tacky signs and tacky stores. Charlotte's impressive skyline is visible from most everywhere so even if you see the NASCAR stuff, you see the impressive uptown skyline (which, I know, includes a NASCAR building) and thus know that Charlotte has a strong high-end center.

As I've stated repeatedly, Greenville is a beautiful, desirable city with a great population. The few trashy THINGS (not people) in it (Dunkin Donuts, Trump signs,* etc.) create an incorrect image of the city for newcomers. Greenville and its people are not trashy, and the few trashy THINGS, particularly at gateways to the city, need to be corrected so that a correct image of Greenville is the first thing that people see. We need well-educated and highly skilled people to come to Greenville to invest and create well-paying jobs. Putting up indicia that Greenville is a rednecky place--which, as I've repeatedly said, it is not--harms the ability to attract them by creating an incorrect image of Greenville. For example, I know one senior executive (a very affluent Republican) at a Fortune 100 corporation who came to Greenville for business; when I asked him what part of town he was in, he said, "I don't really know--we kept going back and forth by that Cabela's." That's how we want Greenville to be remembered? There are a lot more trashy things AND PEOPLE in NY than Greenville. *I know that Greenville County went for Trump, but most of his voters in Greenville probably did so out of concerns about Hillary, not because they're "deplorables".

This thread is getting ridiculous. Big picture: planners should keep aesthetics and creating a positive image of Greenville as a well-educated, nice city (which it is) in mind. No neon, Trump signs, trashy businesses, anything that is rednecky, etc. along main entryways into town.

No, Trump actually loves KFC and McDonald's so he probably would love Dunkin Donuts. Boston is a beautiful city. So is Greenville; we just need to focus on ensuring that trashiness is reduced.

I spent years living in Boston, actually. The Dunkin Donuts demographic there is the same: downscale.

Correct, there isn't a lot of fast food. I-85 generally looks fine, as far as highways go, and the airport is very attractive. Just a few small things to change (the Dunkin Donuts, the Cabelas or whatever it is and the Donald Trump signs...).

On the main entryway into town? Plenty. It would be great to have no gun stores, Bojangle's, Dunkin Donuts, Donald Trump signs, etc. at the airport or on the main entrance all the way to downtown. The airport itself is very attractive. People just need to think: "is Dunkin Donuts the best tenant in this spot? Will it make the best impression on investors? Will it make people think that Greenville is a well-educated, leading city among cities of its size?"

It's a first impression of a city. The first impression, if you see a Bojangles, Dunkin Donuts, Bass Pro Shops or a Donald Trump sign, is that Greenville is what you'd think of the South: low-income, rednecky. That is not an accurate first impression at all.

Charlotte does not have a Dunkin Donuts; its has Starbucks all around.

Great point, Majikman. Greenville's public transportation should be vastly increased in size, and not just local bus lines: there should be more intercity passenger trains along the I-85 corridor. In Greenville, if you don't have a car, it's really tough to get around, and the only realistic option for intercity transportation is Greyhound (I'd guess; the once-a-day night train doesn't really sufficiently serve the market). This void harms the working poor more than the rest of us.

I agree- great posts, NBNY and FUgrad02. Greenville should focus on affordable housing, in places EDITED TO UPDATE near jobs,* and really should be doing a lot more to improve the lives of the underprivileged. I don't know quite how Greenville ranks in terms of inequality and opportunities for the underprivileged (and the abilities of underprivileged persons to rise to higher-income brackets), but Charlotte and Atlanta get very low marks on both, so I'm guessing that Greenville is similar. Perhaps the county could set aside a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the County Square site to fund mass transit, housing and economic development initiatives. I stand behind my assertion that in a discussion that has nothing to do with race, attributing an undesirable characteristic to a race of people (jumping to equate low-income with being of color) is racist. * Places for low-income housing should be near where jobs are. Does downtown have a lot of lower-income jobs? Or are lower-income jobs elsewhere? Wherever they are, there should be housing, and public transportation should be improved significantly so that underprivileged persons should have commutes that are convenient for them.

scgubers, you have not retracted your racist statements and thus cannot be trusted to engage in civil discourse, so I am not continuing a discussion with you. This is the second time I've told you that.

Great post, ausrutherford. Those are great locations because they are convenient to downtown and along mass transit lines, yet much more cost-effective for everyone involved, including the residents.

scgubers, you are clearly part of the "basket of deplorables" with your racist posts. You decided to make all sorts of statements about race, equating people of color with Section 8 housing and poverty. Since you cannot engage in a productive discussion, I will not take part in this further. Shame on you.

scgubers, my post had NOTHING to do with race; I am from an ethnic/immigrant background (yet have a graduate degree). You need to take back your racist statements that poverty = color. Then we can engage in a civil discussion. There are lots of low-income white people in South Carolina, just so you know. Also, just so you know, mixed-use properties still exclude people. Have you ever heard of Phillips Place in Charlotte? It is a very upper-income development; low-income people are not generally there.

Your post is racist. Your post implies that (1) I'm not ethnic and (2) Section 8 housing is for minorities. Your post also states that (3) higher-end uses are for whites. Point (1) is false and points (2) and (3) are directly racist. I never brought up the issue of race; you did, by associating low-income with color; you are racist. Your logic is also faulty. Any use of the property will exclude certain people. Section 8 housing would exclude upper-income people. Retail will exclude certain people. Residential will exclude certain people. So no matter how the property is used, someone will be left out. As a taxpayer, I have the right to weigh in on how taxpayers' property (County Square) is used. It should be sold at the highest price. So stop your racism and faulty logic, please. This is a public forum, visible for the world to see, and now we have someone from South Carolina (you) saying that government housing is for people of color, and higher-income things are for whites. Your statements are completely offensive.

As long as it's aesthetically attractive and higher-end, I'm happy with whatever use and style comes up, although it would be great to use this site for new retail construction for national retailers as part of its uses. Please no Section 8 housing, like some of the Democrats on City Council wanted.

Hecht's was slightly better than a JCPenney. I thought that since it was part of the same family as Lord & Taylor, it would be a nice store, but although the physical appearance of Hecht's stores was fine, they were a far cry from L&T and I wondered why one was at SouthPark. I think that the Charlotte-area Macy's being nothing special is due to their former Hecht's status. The "real" Macy's (e.g., Lenox Square in Atlanta) are fine; the Lenox one is very nice, actually.

Why would someone shop at Carolina Place when SouthPark isn't that far away? I don't get it, except for a quick trip (e.g., a pair of socks or Chick-fil-A). The mall has been around for almost 25 years so people must. I'd think that the area's demographics would be very strong; I wouldn't see the are declining at all. Greenville, SC had 2 malls less than a mile from each other; the smaller of the two went under but was quickly redeveloped into an outdoor center.

I prefer department stores and almost never buy anything in the apparel stores within the mall; department stores are easier for one-stop shopping. I'd prefer to avoid going in 10 small stores, each with a limited selection. I'd think that the Macy's stores at SP and Northlake (and Columbia Place Mall in Columbia in particular) could be on the endangered list, although surely the SP store would become a Bloomingdale's, right? (I have no knowledge of those stores' performance or anything about their statuses, so treat this as just idle speculation.) I'd be surprised if Macy's pulls out of Charlotte, though; it's too big of a market.

Macy's is closing. GGP apparently bought the space.

I have mixed views. The building that's being torn down is bad. I think that it was an '80s re-do of an older building; I vaguely remember when it was built. However, are we sure that there is no hotel room bubble downtown? The typical drivers of hotel room demand (I'd guess)-- tourist and business events and office space-- don't seem to be growing as quickly as the number of hotel rooms. The 2010s architectural style will be terribly dated in 20 years, too. It'd be better to just copy older and timeless styles of architecture, such as neo-Renaissance, colonial or the like.

It's the addition of multiple competitors to downtown businesses, all within a close range. If we want a vibrant downtown, we need to steer commercial development there, rather than letting people build whatever/whenever in suburbia. McAlister Square was pretty close to downtown and people had that same mindset then. Haywood Mall was pretty close to McAlister Square and people had that mindset then (just look at the news articles with McAlister's reaction to Haywood's opening). Some things apparently never change.