The McClaren

[GreenvilleSucks]

32 minutes ago, GVLer said:

How is it that after an eternity of construction, the exterior cladding and balconies are STILL NOT FINISHED? It is butt ugly but at least finish it. 

Supply chain constraints.  I don’t know why anybody is surprised by this. It’s happening everywhere right now. I work at a manufacturing plant and we’re still only back up to 70% of where we’re supposed to be in terms of getting supplies in. Our backlog of orders continues to grow due to this. 

Edited March 31, 2023 by gman430

[GVLer]

Maybe....but other projects can seemingly move a far better pace. I asked my builder this morning about supply chain and he said it was largely OK.

[GvilleSC]

38 minutes ago, GVLer said:

Maybe....but other projects can seemingly move a far better pace. I asked my builder this morning about supply chain and he said it was largely OK.

Depends on materials. If they had chosen to go with a more “standard” exterior materials, then they’d probably be complete by now. 

[GVLer]

Today is April 15, 2023 and The McLaren is still a blight on the Greenville skyline. 

[motonenterprises]

6 hours ago, GVLer said:

Today is April 15, 2023 and The McLaren is still a blight on the Greenville skyline. 

There is nothing wrong with this building. Smh

[vicupstate]

If you look back at the comments in the first three pages of this thread, when the approvals were going through, you will see most of the comments were favorable and even very favorable. We all fell in love with the density and the plaza.  I will say that 'Skyliner' was a definite exception as was 'ausrutherford'. The city and the neighborhood were much more invested in seeing the McClaren building preserved than  the architecture. Once that was resolved, the discussion was mostly over.  

 

 

[GreenvilleSucks]

At least it started construction on time unlike all of these other downtown projects that are just going through delay after delay after delay. I’m looking at you Kimpton. 

[apaladin]

14 hours ago, gman430 said:

At least it started construction on time unlike all of these other downtown projects that are just going through delay after delay after delay. I’m looking at you Kimpton. 

Yep love it. Not your typical box building, Good height and girth. Great addition to the skyline. 

[ingvegas]

On 4/16/2023 at 6:58 AM, vicupstate said:

If you look back at the comments in the first three pages of this thread, when the approvals were going through, you will see most of the comments were favorable and even very favorable. We all fell in love with the density and the plaza.  I will say that 'Skyliner' was a definite exception as was 'ausrutherford'. The city and the neighborhood were much more invested in seeing the McClaren building preserved than  the architecture. Once that was resolved, the discussion was mostly over.  

 

 

True. I don't think most of us amateurs understood how the dimensions would impact that area. And let's be honest, the pictures look 1,000x better than the actual building.

I hope I'm wrong, but I expect this development to age rather poorly. It's new, and most of us cringe when looking at it now. I shudder imagining how it will hold up in 10 years. 

[distortedlogic]

On 4/16/2023 at 6:58 AM, vicupstate said:

If you look back at the comments in the first three pages of this thread, when the approvals were going through, you will see most of the comments were favorable and even very favorable. We all fell in love with the density and the plaza.  I will say that 'Skyliner' was a definite exception as was 'ausrutherford'. The city and the neighborhood were much more invested in seeing the McClaren building preserved than  the architecture. Once that was resolved, the discussion was mostly over.  

 

 

To be fair, those comments were for the original design. While not everyone's favorite, it was MUCH nicer looking that what actually got built.

[motonenterprises]

There is nothing wrong with this building. Stop whining. Lol. I like it.

[vicupstate]

4 hours ago, distortedlogic said:

To be fair, those comments were for the original design. While not everyone's favorite, it was MUCH nicer looking that what actually got built.

Maybe I am forgetting, but the design changed very little since it was proposed. Same materials too. 

[distortedlogic]

4 minutes ago, motonenterprises said:

There is nothing wrong with this building. Stop whining. Lol. I like it.

Different strokes i guess.

4 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

Maybe I am forgetting, but the design changed very little since it was proposed. Same materials too. 

Very different IMO.

 

[vicupstate]

3 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

Different strokes i guess.

Very different IMO.

 

The only difference is the 'lean forward' aspect of the two brown sections.  

[distortedlogic]

3 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

The only difference is the 'lean forward' aspect of the two brown sections.  

 

I guess the general shape and window set outs are the same (I'll admit, more similar than I thought) but the cladding is TOTALLY different and looks very cheap and ... ugly to me. I also prefer the "lean forward" look you're talking about, as well as the more abrupt roofline variations. Always hard to tell from renderings, but TO ME, this rendering looks way better than the product.

[PuppiesandKittens]

7 minutes ago, distortedlogic said:

 

I guess the general shape and window set outs are the same (I'll admit, more similar than I thought) but the cladding is TOTALLY different and looks very cheap and ... ugly to me. I also prefer the "lean forward" look you're talking about, as well as the more abrupt roofline variations. Always hard to tell from renderings, but TO ME, this rendering looks way better than the product.

The through-the-wall air conditioners scream “cheap construction” to me.  The whole thing is a disgrace.

When a building can be beautiful at no additional cost, why not make it beautiful?

[GvilleSC]

It's always "at no additional cost".    

[PuppiesandKittens]

2 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

It's always "at no additional cost".    

Good proportions and lines don’t require additional cost.

Brick is the same price as “Charlotte 2010 Boxy Apartment Complex Style” panels.

If people in Prague in 1890 could build beautiful apartment buildings for middle-class people, far poorer than today, so can we.

Edited April 21, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[motonenterprises]

Again. You are all welcome to pool your money together and show us all how it's done.

[GvilleSC]

4 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Good proportions and lines don’t require additional cost.

Brick is the same price as “Charlotte 2010 Boxy Apartment Complex Style” panels.

If people in Prague in 1890 could build beautiful apartment buildings for middle-class people, far poorer than today, so can we.

No, no— explain the cost differential of through-wall mechanical units and a condenser farm on the roof. You’re the expert, and this is one of your hang ups. 

[PuppiesandKittens]

8 hours ago, motonenterprises said:

Again. You are all welcome to pool your money together and show us all how it's done.

For the two points I mentioned that can make a building more attractive at no additional cost:

1. Better lines and proportions: instruct the architect to use a time-tested design, perhaps even just copying an existing building’s exterior style, instead of the “Charlotte 2010 Boxy Apartment Style.”  Additional cost: $0.

2. Order brick for the exterior instead of panels.  Additional cost: $0.

Having normal air conditioning instead of through-the-walls air conditioners costs more, I’ll concede, but since having through-the-walls air conditioners is so rare in Greenville, surely that cost can be borne, particularly at the high rent levels that I’ve seen for the McClaren.

Even if did cost more to make a building attractive: other new buildings downtown, at similar (or lower) rent levels, are higher-quality.  This means that cost savings in building the McClaren go straight to the developer’s pocket.  Why is the burden to defend this building not on the developer?

Edited April 22, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[vistatiger]

3 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

 

Having normal air conditioning instead of through-the-walls air conditioners costs more, I’ll concede, but since having through-the-walls air conditioners is so rare in Greenville, surely that cost can be borne, particularly at the high rent levels that I’ve seen for the McClaren.

Is that the wall A/C units under the windows?  Geez if that's the case that screams cheap Myrtle Beach motel.  Is that going to cool an apartment in the very  humid summer here? Those things struggle to cool a small motel room  and  are often  very loud.  No way I would throw away top rent for that but that's my opinion.

Edited April 22, 2023 by vistatiger

[GreenvilleSucks]

@PuppiesandKittensdoes bring up a valid point though. If all of these other apartment buildings going up downtown can have air conditioning units on the roof instead of in the walls why can’t this one? There’s plenty of room on the top of the building for them. I don’t buy the excuse that it’s too expensive.

Edited April 22, 2023 by gman430

[NewlyUpstate]

Are all rooms for sure through the wall AC units? Remember this building has something like 50 affordable units where I could see making more economical decisions on HVAC could help make that happen, for those rooms specifically

I'm eager to see internal pictures of the rooms. I still don't see any published online.

Edited April 22, 2023 by NewlyUpstate

[motonenterprises]

8 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

For the two points I mentioned that can make a building more attractive at no additional cost:

1. Better lines and proportions: instruct the architect to use a time-tested design, perhaps even just copying an existing building’s exterior style, instead of the “Charlotte 2010 Boxy Apartment Style.”  Additional cost: $0.

2. Order brick for the exterior instead of panels.  Additional cost: $0.

Having normal air conditioning instead of through-the-walls air conditioners costs more, I’ll concede, but since having through-the-walls air conditioners is so rare in Greenville, surely that cost can be borne, particularly at the high rent levels that I’ve seen for the McClaren.

Even if did cost more to make a building attractive: other new buildings downtown, at similar (or lower) rent levels, are higher-quality.  This means that cost savings in building the McClaren go straight to the developer’s pocket.  Why is the burden to defend this building not on the developer?

They are not higher quality. You're on the outside looking in. This building has amenities in it that can't be seen from the outside. It is a welcome addition to Greenville. The developer has nothing to defend. They have the approval of those who are in power. They punch up not down. I know that sounds mean, but it's true. They have the approval of the ones that matter to them. You can go to the meetings and try to stop the next building in construction you don't like, but this one is done. Every building we've had built there is someone complaining about it. Usually that has nothing to do with it getting built.