mallguy

Republicans are only a small minority in the county commission. Democrats control the mayor's office and a majority of the county commission. It's at best a far stretch to blame Republicans for this.

I believe that Lowe's targets a less-upscale customer base than Harris Teeter (and thus Publix) at least. I assume that BI-LO will take at least a small hit.

Not everyone wants to deal with Charlotte or Atlanta traffic, and Greenville has significantly cheaper housing in in-town neighborhoods. Doesn't Greenville have its niches anyhow, such as engineering and auto industry jobs? Greenville should improve its higher education offerings and transportation. Clemson is a well-ranked school, but that's it for research universities (and even it can get better), and that's not enough to create a huge reservoir and synergy of talented people like Raleigh/Durham has. (While Furman wows people in Greenville with its academics, that's not the same thing as a major research university.) For transportation, GSP has direct flights to few places, I-85 is falling apart and there are few other options; having passenger trains along the I-85 corridor, like NC has, would help as well.

Sure, and my point is still valid either way: Iowa Pacific or another private operator could run the train. I still don't see a Charlotte-Asheville train (regardless of routing) to be viable. The Southern Railway ran two trains until the late '70s; one was a daily one and one was a scenic/tourist one. Both were not profitable at all and didn't have a lot of ridership.

There are plenty of other passenger service providers who could run an Asheville train. Iowa Pacific, a private railroad, runs multiple private passenger trains around the US. If a ski train could be profitable, Iowa Pacific or someone else could run it; the Rio Grande Railroad, for example, and its successors ran a Colorado ski train until recently. I don't see a Charlotte-Asheville train as ever time-competitive with driving, but maybe someone could make it work. It's time for rail advocates to think outside the box and not just depend on government to provide these types of things.

The government should get out of the way and let Hughes Development take charge. That company has brought all sorts of big-name retailers to downtown Greenville, SC: Brooks Brothers, Anthropologie, Orvis, etc.

One thought: perhaps Richardson Street could be narrowed or at least some streetscaping and other visual enhancements to the buildings could be added along the east side of the street? 2 parking garages + a 1970s office building, while great in that they add density, could be a little bit more attractive.

GSP is one of the best-looking airports that I've ever been to: spotless and very attractive, and overall very easy to use. The airport management has done a superb job. I'd suggest that it also add things that are helpful for business travelers (and other frequent fliers): 1. First class/"preferred"/"elite" lanes at check-in. I was surprised that US Airways/American/United had only general check-in lanes, particularly when those airlines have at least some first class passengers from GSP, and credit card holders who are supposed to get that benefit. 2. TSA Pre-Check security lane. I was also surprised that the TSA Pre-Check lane is gone. Hopefully it wll come back. I was able to leave my shoes and belt on, but who really cares, since I had to wait in a very long security line. 3. Dual-zone boarding lanes. At least US Airways has dual-zone boarding lanes, indicated as such, in most airports. (There are supposed to be 2 lines: one for frequent fliers, and one for general boarding.) GSP didn't have those. GSP, please add these things, and you'll make frequent fliers happy!

You're exactly right. I like the layout and size of the buildings, but what if downtown Greenville also had consistently great and timeless architecture? The 2000s-era modernistic style won't last forever. At least many of the new buildings downtown that have that style also are brick and otherwise blend in well to downtown's existing buildings. The Greenville News-site buildings don't. I don't want a contemporary style that will look awfully dated in a few years. Surely people at the time when the Daniel Building and Greenville News buildings were built thought that their styles were great and contemporary--now, at least to me, they're hideously ugly.

I like how large the development seems. Like other new developments downtown, I'd prefer that the architecture be more traditional so that we avoid having lots of horribly dated-looking buildings, and a dated-looking downtown, in 20 years.

Do you have a specific example of a development by a national builder (and Ryan in particular) that has "marred the face of the City of Greenville"?

I also agree that moving the bus terminal and redeveloping the site would be terrific. I had not thought of that. I recall that the site was a surface parking lot until the late 1980s. Since it could be redeveloped from scratch, it would make a great location for a development that requires large floorplans, such as an urban Target or a large office building with a large-format retailer at the base, or even a mixed-use development like the Epicenter in Charlotte. Perhaps the developer of that site could contribute towards a new transit center elsewhere in downtown, such as on one of the parking lots in the east side of downtown; at least in NYC, real estate developers frequently are required to contribute to improvements to adjacent subway stations, for example.

Unfortunate to be losing so many rail lines, but I suppose that they weren't financially viable.

Thank you; I am happy with this outcome. Back to the topic at hand, if you look at Foursquare, Anthropologie has hundreds of check-ins; Brooks Brothers has a decent amount and Orvis has very few. Does that indicate relative sales for the stores? Or just that Anthropologie appeals to a customer base that uses Foursquare, and Brooks Brothers and Orvis don't? Perhaps a minor concern, but I just want to make sure that these amazing stores flourish.

Agreed 100%! Back to Main & Washington... How's Orvis doing?

Scgubers, again: Please stop equating low-income areas with African Americans. Your assertion is solely yours, without any basis whatsoever in fact or other posts. Nobody brought race into this thread, particularly in a negative way, until you did. Whether or not you consider West Greenville (e.g., Berea, White Horse Road, etc.) to be "West Greenville" and a largely white area, I do, and that's what I posted. Further, Greenville itself refers to white areas far west of downtown- beyond the areas you name- as "West Greenville": * The "West Greenville" magistrate's court, on the government's own website, is on White Horse Road (http://www.greenvillecounty.org/magistrate_courts/West_Greenville.asp), a generally white area near Berea. * The "West" side park, on the government's own website, is near White Horse Road (http://greenvillerec.com/parks/westside), a generally white area near Berea. * For realtors, "West Greenville" stretches as far west as even Powdersville, at the edge of the county (http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/West-Greenville_Greenville_SC). To respond to some of your other allegations that "low-income" equals "African-American", all without any basis whatsoever in fact or other posts: What I stated about West Greenville is that we need to increase the incomes of people who live there (which is of course a good thing- who would not want a salary increase, other than maybe you?). Race has NOTHING to do with that, except in your own mind. I NEVER stated that we needed to make West Greenville "more like the white neighborhoods"--particularly as the neighborhoods that I mentioned, where residents' incomes should be improved--are largely white. Only you continue to equate low income with African-American, in your own mind only. You may have initially misunderstood what I meant by "West Greenville", but you should have thought about it a bit before leaping to your own unsupported and offensive conclusion that "low-income" means "African-American". You should instead actually read my post and see that "West Greenville", in my mind (and the government's, and others', as per the links above) is, let me repeat, a generally white area, as I've posted many times. Again: stop jumping to the conclusion that low-income ties to African-American. Your assertions are very offensive, and it's even more offensive wrongly to attribute your views to others, and warped for you wrongly to assert that low income means "African-American", and then to play holier-than-though about racial issues.

I usually don't respond to posts such as the one above, but: 1. First, your equation of a lower income neighborhood with African Americans is solely yours, and it's not based on fact. (I find your assertions about African-Americans extremely offensive, and for you to inpute your statements to me is extremely offensive and wrong.) West Greenville is overwhelmingly white. African-Americans make up only a small portion of the population. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berea,_South_Carolina. Accordingly, when I walked around Falls Park recently, I saw very few African-Americans; most people there were white, with a Hispanic minority. So there goes most of your post. 2. Second, it is certainly possible to tell where someone is from by ways other than skin color. Since most West Greenvillians are white, their origins can be discerned by clothing, such as Berea High gear, and by, believe it or not, talking to them or hearing them without engaging in direct conversation. 3. Third, I certainly look at groups of white people and attribute a geographic origin to them. I live in NYC and when I see groups of fair-skinned/fair-haired whites in NYC, wearing preppy, colorful clothes, I immediately think that they are from places such as Kansas or Iowa--certainly not New York. Lots of other NYC residents also make that attribution. Perhaps we shouldn't, but there goes another of your false assertions. 4. Fourth, West Greenville does need to be changed by, as I stated, improving the incomes of people who live there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement; a higher income is desired by most everyone. You don't want a higher salary? Higher incomes in all neighborhoods surrounding downtown would help attract higher-end retailers, although improving people's incomes is per se a very desirable goal. Next time you want to make statements such as the ones you did, (1) do your homework and (2) do not attribute your own views to others. Clear?

I'm still not understanding why anything more than a station like a NYC-area commuter railroad station (but with a larger waiting area) needs to be built. Even with a 5th Piedmont, Charlotte will have 14 trains a day, and even if the Red Line is built, Charlotte would have maybe 50 trains a day. There is no need to build a Grand Central Terminal-size station for that. Just a few tracks and decent-size waiting area would work fine.

West side in general. The neighborhoods to the east of downtown (particularly the southeast) have what I'd guess are very appealing demographics, and neighborhoods north and south of downtown are also fine. The west side, however, needs a lot of TLC. It always has. I've seen a lot of West Greenville residents come to Falls Park, but they don't shop on Main. Separately, I wonder how long it will be until: (1) The former JC Penney on N. Main (across from ONE) gets turned back into retail. Isn't it owned by the same company that developed ONE, and weren't there some news articles stating that it's being considered for high-quality retailers? (2) The Greenville Summit (the yellow hotel that is now elderly housing across from First Presbyterian) gets redeveloped. It's now a strong location, with Aloft and ONE diagonally across from it, and surely there is a more profitable use for the building than government-subsidized housing.

The demographics of West Greenville need to be improved: incomes of existing residents need to be increased, and higher-quality housing needs to be built there. That, and with the addition of additional retail anchors downtown, would make downtown an even better location for high-quality stores.

The Piedmont cars look nice, but they're still 1960s-era cars and don't have the sleek feel that newer cars do. I'd hope that the NCDOT would tag along on an upcoming equipment order; with the Midwest states ordering new cars and locomotives recently, it would have been nice of NCDOT had as well.

Yes, my mistake about Washington. That street should just be narrowed significantly and should be "Main Street-ized", with similar parking, broad sidewalks, etc.

Maybe the well-being of its citizens? * Educational levels * Economic strength and development * Healthcare quality * Low crime * Median income level * Income mobility Mecklenburg County ranked last among 50 large urban areas in the US for income mobility for poor people. So what if Charlotte has street musicians, a streetcar or uptown retail- the things that liberals pine for, when many of its people are trapped in poverty, with little chance to escape? http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/01/23/4635519/new-study-charlottes-poor-struggle.html#.VJ7gN90MA

Downtown seemed to do a good business over Christmas. Brooks Brothers was very busy today; multiple customers when I was in it. Mast was packed, and there were a lot of women walking around with Anthropologie bags.

The new Starbucks on N. Main is great! Light and airy interior, super-nice people working there and outdoor seating in the plaza in front of the Hyatt. Other thought: I have been reading a book about retail site selection, and fast 1-way streets are terrible for retail; 2-way narrower streets are much better, and parking in front of a store is critical. With that, and with stores now along Washington Street (Orvis, etc.), why doesn't the city narrow Washington and W./E. North Streets within a block or two of Main in order to make the streetfront sites better for retail? Now Washington and W./E. North Streets have narrow sidewalks and are 1-way, prioritizing speed over retail visibility.