Greenville Summit

[rabbit seisin]

Quote

 

Wow - I wasn't expecting this. Decent height and I think the design compliments the existing building fairly well. The blank wall is a shame, but the reality of a zero lot line.

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/23336/23-320-PUBLIC-POSTING-201-W-Washington-St

 

 

This little corner of downtown has a ton of unused potential. Hopefully this gets built and the adjacent lot can be redeveloped too, so we don't have to look at the featureless wall forever.

I'd also like to see something more ambitious done with the greenlink garage with some street level interest added to Richardson and Laurens streets. The east side of Laurens Street has some gorgeous facades but the west side currently looks like a dungeon. I always thought that area could be a natural extension of the N Laurens pedestrian corridor. Join that with First Pres, Grace, and the historic architecutre of the Summit, calm Richardson St. a little, and I think you would have a very attractive urban space to lure pedestrians off Main St. 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by rabbit seisin

[NewlyUpstate]

Hope they do something temporarily with the blank wall, such as a mural... or honestly even some sort of tasteful advertising billboard could even work. Overall looks like a great improvement.

[gman430]

Not bad. The design could use some tweaking but it’s definitely good infill. The blank wall might be on purpose due to another building being planned next door in the future. And hopefully it means another tower crane to add to the list of a good many planned for the skyline. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by gman430

[PuppiesandKittens]

3 hours ago, NewlyUpstate said:

Hope they do something temporarily with the blank wall, such as a mural... or honestly even some sort of tasteful advertising billboard could even work. Overall looks like a great improvement.

Agreed. Given how visible that blank wall is, it could be better.  I'd suggest, instead of doing an addition that doesn't match the rest of the building, do an addition in exactly the same style, complete with the brickwork and ornamentation around the top, and maybe do an interesting design in brick instead of the blank wall.  But it's certainly more attractive than the rear of the Hotel Greenville has ever been.

Nice to see the exterior of the Summit fixed up; it's been derelict for decades. I assume that this means that the rest of the building will also be fixed up inside. 

Will these be market-rate apartments (or built to be market-rate at some point)?  

"First Presbyterian Church of God" on the building diagram cracked me up.

The owner of this building should be commended: after decades of being either totally derelict or only moderately derelict, this building, which has always intrigued me, is finally, for once, being improved into something that's not an eyesore.  

Edited May 17, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[distortedlogic]

Well just my .02. I think the project is fine overall but I really do not like that look of that wall. Not only will it look totally out of place for the rest of the building (and the Summit itself) but just doesn't look very nice to begin with.  I wonder if there are some other plans for down the road, it just doesn't fit.

As for the Summit, I have never thought of it as an eyesore. Its an older building, without much ornamentation, but it looks fine overall; and WAAYYY better than the cinder block across the street. Now THAT is an eyesore.

[PuppiesandKittens]

16 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Well just my .02. I think the project is fine overall but I really do not like that look of that wall. Not only will it look totally out of place for the rest of the building (and the Summit itself) but just doesn't look very nice to begin with.  I wonder if there are some other plans for down the road, it just doesn't fit.

As for the Summit, I have never thought of it as an eyesore. Its an older building, without much ornamentation, but it looks fine overall; and WAAYYY better than the cinder block across the street. Now THAT is an eyesore.

The new addition looks like a parking garage.

The two-story brick buildings currently behind the Summit (and are still there in the photo, next to the addition) have zero architectural interest to me and likely little commercial interest.  I'm guessing that they will be bought, knocked down and replaced by a further expansion of the Summit.

I also wonder if the new apartments in the Summit will, either now or in the future, be sold as condos or higher-end apartments.  I don't see how the economics would work for a private developer to build new affordable housing on a prime site downtown.  

My sixth sense tells me that the whole Summit building will be significantly upgraded to be higher-end housing within about 10 years, once the current tax credits expire. I may be totally wrong, and I have no basis other than intuition to say that, though.

(I called the Summit and "eyesore" just because, at least since the 1970s, it's been really run-down; the exterior now is probably the nicest that it's been in that time period.  I find the building's exterior to be reasonably attractive, and when I did a walk-through of part of the ground floor before it was renovated, while the interior was in bad shape, it had some nice elements to it on the ground floor.)

Edited May 17, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[btoy]

When you build up to a shared property line their are limits having windows on that wall.  What if the adjacent property also wants to build and attach their building to this building?  For that reason an easement would need to be granted by the adjacent property owner for their to be windows on that wall.

[PuppiesandKittens]

Deleted, I think that the posts above are great and my rambling doesn’t help.

Edited May 19, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[gman430]

The applicant requests approval of an 8-story addition with a connector to the historic structure and a new courtyard situated between the two structures. The proposed addition would be constructed along the property line, consistent with the C-4 provisions which do not require side setbacks. Staff notes that the GVL2040 Comprehensive Plan establishes affordable housing as a priority to the City, and the applicant has indicated that the project timeline is restricted in order to meet requirements of SC Housing, which would require an application to be submitted no later than July. SC Housing would determine the project “infeasible” if not approved at that time. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. If no other solution is identified for means of egress on the West side of the building, the applicant must review any proposed alteration to the existing chimney with staff and 2 members of DRB.
2. The proposed connector shall be attached in a manner that minimizes damage to historic materials.
3. A full-scale material mock-up, focusing on the patterned treatment of the windowless, SW- facing wall, shall be reviewed by 2 members of the DRB and staff. The mock-up must remain on site throughout construction.
4. Any signage will require a separate sign permit and Certificate of Appropriateness and must adhere to the sign regulations and Appendix J.
5. Applicant shall maintain a safe and designated pedestrian connection along rights-of-way during the construction process.
6. Per the recent Section 19-1.11 LMO Text Amendment, an Affidavit of Substantial Compliance must be signed and notarized by the property owner prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Conformity.
7. This CA is considered a specific site development plan. As such, the CA issued for this project shall be subject to Land Management Ordinance Section 19-2.2.14 Lapse of approval/vested rights and the Vested Rights Act, Article 11, of Chapter 29, Title 6, of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (S.C. Code §§ 6-29-1510 et seq.). The CA shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of approval by the Board. The Vested Right shall be granted up to five annual extensions upon a written request for an extension that must be received from the applicant at least sixty (60) days before expiration, unless any change or amendment to the land development ordinance or regulations of the City of Greenville’s Code of Ordinances were to be amended that would no longer allow execution of the site-specific development plan. At any time during the two-year period or any subsequent Vested Rights extensions, the applicant may be granted a building permit from the City Building Official. Should the CA expire at any time prior to the application for a building permit, such permit shall not be issued until a current CA is provided.

Edited May 26, 2023 by gman430

[gman430]

If approved by DRB today: 

July 2023-Preliminary approval for housing tax credit

November 2023-Final approval for housing tax credit

September 2024-Construction start if we’re lucky 

December 2025-Construction complete

Edited June 1, 2023 by gman430

[gman430]

Approved by DRB 4-0. Two members of board to approve lighting and materials of building at a future date. 

[gman430]

Total cost of project is $24 million.

[apaladin]

On 6/9/2023 at 12:17 AM, gman430 said:

Total cost of project is $24 million.

Tower crane? 

Edited June 11, 2023 by apaladin

[PuppiesandKittens]

50 new apartments for $24 million?  That suggests that they won’t be priced as affordable housing in the long run, and that this building eventually will be fixed up as market-rate housing or something.

Edited June 11, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[btoy]

I think this is a LIHTC project or something similar in which case it will be affordable for at least 15 years.

[PuppiesandKittens]

4 hours ago, btoy said:

I think this is a LIHTC project or something similar in which case it will be affordable for at least 15 years.

I think that you are 100% right.  Affordable for now, but to be changed in the future.