Greenville County Square redevelopment

[vicupstate]

Dunbar Street Connector

 

[gman430]

Half of of the fifth floor and all of the sixth and seventh floors have been leased in the first office building (not including county offices) to get built on site. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

18 hours ago, gman430 said:

Half of of the fifth floor and all of the sixth and seventh floors have been leased in the first office building (not including county offices) to get built on site. 

I wonder if this is one lease? 

[gman430]

[GvilleSC]

I don’t think I’ve seen renderings showing the “Grocer”. Granted, it’s less urban without a mixture of uses above it. Hopefully that changes. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by GvilleSC

[apaladin]

8 hours ago, gman430 said:

So it looks like the taller builings have been eliminated. Just a bunch of 4-8 story buildings. Ho hum. What happened to the high rise next to Church St. Too tall? Thought it was supposed to be next? 

[distortedlogic]

21 minutes ago, apaladin said:

So it looks like the taller builings have been eliminated. Just a bunch of 4-8 story buildings. Ho hum. What happened to the high rise next to Church St. Too tall? Thought it was supposed to be next? 

I think the tallest in one particular section can be 12 stories,  8 in the other sections. Not sure which section this is.

I still think this development may end up being one of the biggest missed opportunities in our downtown's history in terms of architecture and urban design.  I would like see more height,  with at least one being a true highrise, but I really wish we could have gotten something other than just the same architecture that is already everywhere. There's nothing in this rendering that looks inspired or sticks out at all. 

[gman430]

1 hour ago, apaladin said:

So it looks like the taller builings have been eliminated. Just a bunch of 4-8 story buildings. Ho hum. What happened to the high rise next to Church St. Too tall? Thought it was supposed to be next? 

It’s still there. It’s just not in this rendering because it doesn’t show that site within the development. 

41 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

I think the tallest in one particular section can be 12 stories,  8 in the other sections. Not sure which section this is.

I still think this development may end up being one of the biggest missed opportunities in our downtown's history in terms of architecture and urban design.  I would like see more height,  with at least one being a true highrise, but I really wish we could have gotten something other than just the same architecture that is already everywhere. There's nothing in this rendering that looks inspired or sticks out at all. 

Yep. That’s what happens when you get the NIMBY’s involved and convince the Planning Commission to get the developers to slash the 20 story limit all the way down to 12. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by gman430

[gman430]

8 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

I don’t think I’ve seen renderings showing the “Grocer”. Granted, it’s less urban without a mixture of uses above it. Hopefully that changes. 

Yep. That’s the one thing that has changed compared to the previous renderings and not for the better. This development continues to impress me less and less the closer it gets to getting built. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by gman430

[PuppiesandKittens]

Greenville has had so much development downtown in the past 15 years that looks alike, and looks like every other box built nationwide in the past 15 years, that once styles change, downtown is going to look dated. (Charlotte will have the same issue.)

Many of these new buildings could have been built using time-tested, timeless styles that would have created lasting beauty.  (There are some exceptions.) But they weren’t.  I view that as a big miss.

I hope that at least County Square doesn’t get a grocer.  One isn’t needed.  What is needed are “everyday” stores whose nearest locations are on or near Woodruff Road.  I’m still hoping for a Target, and a Costco or something would also do very well.

[distortedlogic]

2 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Greenville has had so much development downtown in the past 15 years that looks alike, and looks like every other box built nationwide in the past 15 years, that once styles change, downtown is going to look dated. (Charlotte will have the same issue.)

Many of these new buildings could have been built using time-tested, timeless styles that would have created lasting beauty.  (There are some exceptions.) But they weren’t.  I view that as a big miss.

 

I agree. The architecture for this project should be higher quality than more modern boxes,  this looks like a suburban office park anywhere USA. The concept for Union Bleachery would have been way better for this site than this. 

[GvilleSC]

2 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

I hope that at least County Square doesn’t get a grocer.  One isn’t needed.  What is needed are “everyday” stores whose nearest locations are on or near Woodruff Road.  I’m still hoping for a Target, and a Costco or something would also do very well.

Lol - the time tested Architecture of a Costco. I can’t wait to see someone WALKING home with the 300 pack of toilet paper and a dozen rotisserie chickens in their arms. 
 

I think you’re looking for amenities for Augusta Road residents, while I’d like to see amenities for people who actually live downtown.  Costco will be near the interstate where it belongs. 

I’m in the camp that this isn’t turning as as well as it was planned. They’re showing surface parking by the grocer. Somehow height was everyone’s big concern, but they somehow didn’t restricted surface parking?
I hope this evolves for the better, but I think some of the massings need to be broken up. These look like a lot of long, low, stick-built apartment buildings. 

[adrockc2]

Won't anything built here have to go before the DRB? The  developers obviously need some guidance. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

2 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

Lol - the time tested Architecture of a Costco. I can’t wait to see someone WALKING home with the 300 pack of toilet paper and a dozen rotisserie chickens in their arms. 
 

I think you’re looking for amenities for Augusta Road residents, while I’d like to see amenities for people who actually live downtown.  Costco will be near the interstate where it belongs. 

I’m in the camp that this isn’t turning as as well as it was planned. They’re showing surface parking by the grocer. Somehow height was everyone’s big concern, but they somehow didn’t restricted surface parking?
I hope this evolves for the better, but I think some of the massings need to be broken up. These look like a lot of long, low, stick-built apartment buildings. 

Amenities for Augusta Road residents, amenities for people downtown and beautiful architecture are not mutually exclusive.  

Requirements for quality architecture might dissuade some retailers, but not all.

Have you seen the beautiful 19th century buildings along Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, housing stores (at least in the near past) such as Bed Bath & Beyond and Lowe’s?

Edited January 7, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[gman430]

2 hours ago, adrockc2 said:

Won't anything built here have to go before the DRB? The  developers obviously need some guidance. 

Nope. Part of the deal the county made with the city for lowering the height was that the buildings do not have to go before the DRB as long as the zoning administrator determines the buildings are in compliance: 

“Requests for Final Development Plan (FDP) approvals, site plan approvals, multi-family project approvals and all subdivision approvals within the HSN-GCS sub-district shall be submitted to the City for review and final approval by the Zoning Administrator. All such plans submitted to the City will be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for conformance with the HSN-GCS sub-district development standards adopted in this Section 13 of Code. If the Zoning Administrator determine that such plans are in substantial conformance with the HSN-GCS sub-district requirements, the landowner may proceed with development of the property in accordance with such plans without any further review or approval by the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission or any other City entity formed for the purpose of land use regulations. In the event the Zoning Administrator determine that such plans are not in substantial conformance with the HSN-GCS sub-district requirements, the landowner may appeal such decision directly to City Council whereby City Council shall either approve or disapprove the plans submitted by the landowner.”

Edited January 7, 2023 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

1 hour ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

They were built in the 19th century and preserved? That was progressive and cutting edge design at the time. They were pushing the limits of their technology, not trying to build something of an age gone by. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by GvilleSC

[PuppiesandKittens]

2 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

They were built in the 19th century and preserved? That was progressive and cutting edge design at the time. They were pushing the limits of their technology, not trying to build something of an age gone by. 

They were built using Neo-Renaissance and other neo-historical styles, which were not progressive or cutting-edge; they were “retro”. 

As to your mockery of “the time tested [sic] Architecture [sic] of a Costco”, plenty of urban areas, like Sixth Avenue, have beautiful, time-tested architecture for big-box retailers.  And even the Staples and Publix downtown have used more traditional, and likely more expensive, construction than suburban stores, so Greenville already has examples of big-box stores tailoring their design to meet aesthetic requirements.

Traditional architecture isn’t necessarily expensive to build: the water works building downtown is beautiful and is traditional, and a few of the newer buildings are.  

Edited January 7, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[GvilleSC]

18 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

They were built using Neo-Renaissance and other neo-historical styles, which were not progressive or cutting-edge; they were “retro”. 

As to your mockery of “the time tested [sic] Architecture [sic] of a Costco”, plenty of urban areas, like Sixth Avenue, have beautiful, time-tested architecture for big-box retailers.  And even the Staples and Publix downtown have used more traditional, and likely more expensive, construction than suburban stores, so Greenville already has examples of big-box stores tailoring their design to meet aesthetic requirements.

Traditional architecture isn’t necessarily expensive to build: the water works building downtown is beautiful and is traditional, and a few of the newer buildings are.  

Their internal structure WAS using the technology of the time. The decoration on the exterior was fashionable for the day. It’s called adaptive reuse. Nobody is building those exact specifications today In order to sign a lease with Staples. Sorry- that isn’t happening anywhere. You’re more likely to get something akin to DC USA in Washington, DC. 

You’re missing the point that the current renderings for County Square’s redevelopment show a big box tenant WITHOUT any mixture of uses. That’s a terrible design flaw and equal to the original sin on the site of Bell Tower Mall. If they don’t have the desire to place residential or other commercial uses over the grocer, then they’re not going to over a Target, a Costco, a Home Depot, a TJ Maxx, etc. So, why should I support more big boxes to turn this into the equivalent of Cherrydale Plaza? This is downtown. McBee station leaves something to be desired, but was appropriate on a proforma for the 2000’s. This site and Greenville should demand better. 

As for the colonial architecture downtown, which is very out of place, the punched windows used to achieve the look create a less than ideal internal work environment. It’s dark with the lack of glass. Some folks don’t care if we have sick buildings, as long as their aesthetics fantasies are achieved. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by GvilleSC

[PuppiesandKittens]

3 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

Their internal structure WAS using the technology of the time. The decoration on the exterior was fashionable for the day. It’s called adaptive reuse. Nobody is building those exact specifications today In order to sign a lease with Staples. Sorry- that isn’t happening anywhere. You’re more likely to get something akin to DC USA in Washington, DC. 

You’re missing the point that the current renderings for County Square’s redevelopment show a big box tenant WITHOUT any mixture of uses. That’s a terrible design flaw and equal to the original sin on the site of Bell Tower Mall. If they don’t have the desire to place residential or other commercial uses over the grocer, then they’re not going to over a Target, a Costco, a Home Depot, a TJ Maxx, etc. So, why should I support more big boxes to turn this into the equivalent of Cherrydale Plaza? This is downtown. McBee station leaves something to be desired, but was appropriate on a proforma for the 2000’s. This site and Greenville should demand better. 

As for the colonial architecture downtown, which is very out of place, the punched windows used to achieve the look create a less than ideal internal work environment. It’s dark with the lack of glass. Some folks don’t care if we have sick buildings, as long as their aesthetics fantasies are achieved. 

I’m not following this discussion:

1. So now the topic has changed to the “internal structure” of 19th century buildings, not the exterior style, which was my topic.  Well of course the “internal structure” would be new for the time.

2. No, I’m not “missing the point” about single-use big-box stores.  I hadn’t chosen to discuss that point.  It is possible to have mixed-use buildings that include big-box stores and other uses.  The Staples at McBee Station is precisely that, and Charlotte has a Lowe’s that has residential.  I would of course expect big-box stores at the County Square site to be mixed-use.  May I actually state my view before being criticized about my view?

3. So now the topic for discussion is the interior of the water works building?  I don’t have anything to add on that point as I haven’t been inside.  I disagree that the exterior is out of place; and if it’s out of place, it’s out of place in a good way, as it’s very attractive.

So to recap: before criticizing my views on topics that I haven’t addressed, may I share what my views are, as the discussion topics seem to be changing?

[GVLover]

I’ve seen Whole Foods stores in urban areas that have parking lots. I think it’s stupid to pay so much per acre to not want to maximize your investment with something more useful than a dreadful parking lot, but it ain’t my money unfortunately.

Truly, what I care to see in this development is a proper dinner theater as far as entertainment options go. Not many cities have downtown movie theaters, let alone a dinner theater and I think it would do quite well considering the other options Greenville County has. If Cinergy happened to abandon BridgeWay for County Square, then I’m all for it. 

[btoy]

I was told months ago they were talking to three grocers and one of them would not allow additional floors above the store.  Was hoping that was not the one they went with, but its looking like they did.

[johnpro318]

1 hour ago, btoy said:

I was told months ago they were talking to three grocers and one of them would not allow additional floors above the store.  Was hoping that was not the one they went with, but its looking like they did.

Dang that would stink. Seems a grocer would want customers that live literally above. Even if they don’t regularly shop there, they’ll run in for convenience from time to time. I’m all for no surface parking anywhere in the city at this point. 

[gman430]

Welp…I hope the Haynie Sirrine residents are happy now. Thanks to their complaining we get no high-rises, a bunch of boring boxy looking buildings, a suburban grocery story, and no DRB reviews. Yay. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by gman430

[PuppiesandKittens]

1 hour ago, johnpro318 said:

Dang that would stink. Seems a grocer would want customers that live literally above. Even if they don’t regularly shop there, they’ll run in for convenience from time to time. I’m all for no surface parking anywhere in the city at this point. 

Agreed and I guess that means that chains other than Harris-Teeter, Whole Foods and Publix (all of which have stores in multi-level buildings) have been considered.  Please tell me that it isn’t an Aldi or the like.

This is a beautiful new(ish) complex that is somewhat nearby, and similar buildings could be built at County Square, but aren’t: https://ncresearchcampus.net

[vicupstate]

8 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Agreed and I guess that means that chains other than Harris-Teeter, Whole Foods and Publix (all of which have stores in multi-level buildings) have been considered.  Please tell me that it isn’t an Aldi or the like.

This is a beautiful new(ish) complex that is somewhat nearby, and similar buildings could be built at County Square, but aren’t: https://ncresearchcampus.net

Obviously, it won't be an Aldi's.  While H-T, Whole Foods and Publix all have stores in multi-level buildings that doesn't mean they will accept that in ANY city, regardless of size and density norms.