The McClaren

[PuppiesandKittens]

1 hour ago, motonenterprises said:

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.

I’ve actually done a walk-through of the interior of the McClaren.  

Through-the-wall air conditioners are just one of the cheap aspects of this building.

If you’re fine with }%{*}% being built in our beautiful downtown that’s your right but I sure will be working to ensure that this }^{#]^* isn’t built again.  It’s a good fit for a tourist trap area or derelict urban zone, not Greenville.

[motonenterprises]

1 hour ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

I’ve actually done a walk-through of the interior of the McClaren.  

Through-the-wall air conditioners are just one of the cheap aspects of this building.

If you’re fine with }%{*}% being built in our beautiful downtown that’s your right but I sure will be working to ensure that this }^{#]^* isn’t built again.  It’s a good fit for a tourist trap area or derelict urban zone, not Greenville.

I believe our leaders know what they are doing. Has anyone here created a successful city including me? No.

[apaladin]

11 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?

Brick? So just like every other building. Thought everyone wanted something different? 

Edited April 22, 2023 by apaladin

[GVLer]

I don’t blame leadership. I suspect they expected better as did we all. I would also wager that if asked privately they would admit to severe disappointment in the actual outcome. 

[motonenterprises]

1 hour ago, GVLer said:

I don’t blame leadership. I suspect they expected better as did we all. I would also wager that if asked privately they would admit to severe disappointment in the actual outcome. 

I know people on there. That isn't true. Mostly just experts here.

[PuppiesandKittens]

12 hours ago, motonenterprises said:

I know people on there. That isn't true. Mostly just experts here.

Plenty of us in this forum do work in real estate, transportation and other fields that do give expertise in urban planning.  For example, I’ve worked for a transit agency in land use, rail construction and operations; have done plenty of real estate investing (with my family being builders and owners of some buildings on Main); etc.  I wouldn’t discount people who post.  Time for civic leadership that won’t let cheap {^#{]* be built in our beautiful downtown, which will make our beautiful downtown less beautiful and less desirable.

[GVLer]

I too have been in real estate my entire adult life. I am comfortable with my opinion on aesthetics. 

[motonenterprises]

5 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Plenty of us in this forum do work in real estate, transportation and other fields that do give expertise in urban planning.  For example, I’ve worked for a transit agency in land use, rail construction and operations; have done plenty of real estate investing (with my family being builders and owners of some buildings on Main); etc.  I wouldn’t discount people who post.  Time for civic leadership that won’t let cheap {^#{]* be built in our beautiful downtown, which will make our beautiful downtown less beautiful and less desirable.

I'm in real estate locally and have been for awhile. I also have owned properties. Also know people on this committee. I'm good with their decision. Despite all of this who's in real estate etc, the question still remains. Who here has been apart creating a city that has been as successful as Greenville is? Especially the downtown area. This isn't a slap at any of you. It's a legitimate question. I think people like Knox and others have done an admiral job with Greenville. Many other cities would love to be in this position. I trust their decisions. They know what they are doing.

[PuppiesandKittens]

40 minutes ago, motonenterprises said:

I'm in real estate locally and have been for awhile. I also have owned properties. Also know people on this committee. I'm good with their decision. Despite all of this who's in real estate etc, the question still remains. Who here has been apart creating a city that has been as successful as Greenville is? Especially the downtown area. This isn't a slap at any of you. It's a legitimate question. I think people like Knox and others have done an admiral job with Greenville. Many other cities would love to be in this position. I trust their decisions. They know what they are doing.

I was involved in Charlotte with the construction of the Lynx Blue Line, and related land-use decisions and multi family real estate investment there, and my family and I have been involved in real estate in Greenville since the 1700s (I have the land grant records from the 1700s framed and in my living room), including by building the building on South Main where the Belk dollar store was, and plenty of other properties.

So I have been a part of building a successful city.

But whether anyone here has or hasn’t: is letting a developer build a {^{#]*{ building that is highly visible downtown a good choice?  It doesn’t take significant experience with real estate, or Greenville, to know that the answer is no.  If we want downtown to remain vibrant, building aesthetically appealing and high-quality buildings is important.  Part of the reason why downtown went down in the 1960s and 1970s is because it was ugly.

Edited April 23, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[GvilleSC]

“Because it was ugly”  yes, you’re an expert. 

[gman430]

When is the Kimpton going to start construction?  Oh and we still need JetBlue.

Edited April 23, 2023 by gman430

[GVLer]

Let’s not conflate issues. I think the city leadership has done an AMAZING job with the city. The urban planning is second to none that I think of. However, I think the developers built an uglier and cheaper version of what was expected. Because Greenville sets the bar so high, results like this stand out for missing the mark. So do not relate my disappointment in this project with the city at large. 

[motonenterprises]

5 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

I was involved in Charlotte with the construction of the Lynx Blue Line, and related land-use decisions and multi family real estate investment there, and my family and I have been involved in real estate in Greenville since the 1700s (I have the land grant records from the 1700s framed and in my living room), including by building the building on South Main where the Belk dollar store was, and plenty of other properties.

So I have been a part of building a successful city.

But whether anyone here has or hasn’t: is letting a developer build a {^{#]*{ building that is highly visible downtown a good choice?  It doesn’t take significant experience with real estate, or Greenville, to know that the answer is no.  If we want downtown to remain vibrant, building aesthetically appealing and high-quality buildings is important.  Part of the reason why downtown went down in the 1960s and 1970s is because it was ugly.

We know what we are doing in Greenville. We aren't Charlotte and aren't trying to be. Anyone that doesn't like what we're doing here has other choices besides Greenville. That's the beauty of being in America. If you don't like a place you can choose another one. If you don't like our McClaren that's you. Don't live there and don't look at it.

Edited April 24, 2023 by motonenterprises

[PuppiesandKittens]

10 hours ago, motonenterprises said:

We know what we are doing in Greenville. We aren't Charlotte and aren't trying to be. Anyone that doesn't like what we're doing here has other choices besides Greenville. That's the beauty of being in America. If you don't like a place you can choose another one. If you don't like our McClaren that's you. Don't live there and don't look at it.

In the Greenville that I grew up in, all who wanted to work together to make Greenville even better were welcome, and nobody was ever told to leave town.  It’s too bad that you don’t share that perspective.

Edited April 24, 2023 by PuppiesandKittens

[motonenterprises]

2 hours ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

In the Greenville that I grew up in, all who wanted to work together to make Greenville even better were welcome, and nobody was ever told to leave town.  It’s too bad that you don’t share that perspective.

I didn't tell you to do anything. I said if a person doesn't like an area they can move to another one. I'm glad you're here. But I don't want you to be in a place you're not happy with. It's a building. For every building in every city there is someone who isn't going to like it. It is what it is. I know my posts are kinda straight forward, but I respect your opinion even if I don't agree. It's just a healthy debate.

 

[btoy]

I like that it looks like Legos.

[gman430]

The heating or air conditioning unit they put on top of the building on the end next to Academy Street definitely does not help with how the building looks. Yikes. 

[motonenterprises]

Here we go again.

[ingvegas]

And the hits just keep on.......coming. Because it looks that bad. 

[gman430]

25 minutes ago, ingvegas said:

And the hits just keep on.......coming. Because it looks that bad. 

The exposed garage sure is beautiful isn’t it?  

[motonenterprises]

2 hours ago, ingvegas said:

And the hits just keep on.......coming. Because it looks that bad. 

Looks good to me.

[GVLer]

In the spirit of being an equal opportunity “hater” I would just like the say the First Presbyterian addition along Academy is another big miss. As an aficionado of quality design and construction it pains me to drive by that heinous box of cheap synthetic stucco and whatever that god awful bronze colored “stuff” is. Lots of amazing new projects underway in Greenville. Hopefully our excellent leadership can avoid more of these two examples of unacceptable standards. 

[motonenterprises]

3 hours ago, GVLer said:

In the spirit of being an equal opportunity “hater” I would just like the say the First Presbyterian addition along Academy is another big miss. As an aficionado of quality design and construction it pains me to drive by that heinous box of cheap synthetic stucco and whatever that god awful bronze colored “stuff” is. Lots of amazing new projects underway in Greenville. Hopefully our excellent leadership can avoid more of these two examples of unacceptable standards. 

Get on the board and let them know of all of the mistakes they are making.

[PuppiesandKittens]

I received a daily update from Nextdoor, with a picture of the McClaren, and a caption saying that it’s “really ugly” and asking if it’s “a prison or an apartment complex”.  I’m not the only one who doesn’t care for it.

[GVLer]

I also saw that. Over 280 comments crucified this project.