New apartment building proposed near Unity Park

[vicupstate]

Westfield and Broad MF

153 units and podium garage.

 

[gman430]

Now we know what the soil drilling was for. 85 feet tall. 

[GvilleSC]

I generally like the color scheme of this one. It's nice to avoid a typical red brick when given the chance. That height will have a nice presence up on that hill, and the units should have great views of the city. 

[vicupstate]

Application with Staff comments

Staff recommends denial.  

[gman430]

The DRB staff needs to go pound sand. It will probably be deferred not denied. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by gman430

[GVLer]

"Staff recommends a further exploration of the articulation and materials

over such a long expanse of building facing downtown.

Per PRI 6.6, staff recommends additional study of the material color

selections to avoid monotony and to ensure a balanced, unified whole. As

a typical condition, staff also recommends that physical material and color

selections be reviewed and approved prior to construction."

 

I wonder if that translates into "For the love of God do not build another exterior facade as hideous as the McLaren"?

[vicupstate]

Personally I think there is definitely room for improvement on this project.  It isn't often that the staff recommends a denial.  If I were the developer, I would request a postponement and instead do an INFORMAL review with the board at the December meeting.   

[distortedlogic]

1 hour ago, vicupstate said:

Personally I think there is definitely room for improvement on this project.  It isn't often that the staff recommends a denial.  If I were the developer, I would request a postponement and instead do an INFORMAL review with the board at the December meeting.   

I agree, but IMO this building; not that it's a beauty mind you, is a lot better looking than many they have embraced with open arms. Here's looking at you Aloft, Mclaren, and just about any of the nauseatingly boring 5 story boxes with flat tops.

[gman430]

4 hours ago, vicupstate said:

Personally I think there is definitely room for improvement on this project.  It isn't often that the staff recommends a denial.  If I were the developer, I would request a postponement and instead do an INFORMAL review with the board at the December meeting.   

The DRB will probably just defer it if the developer does go before the board instead of denying it. Denying a project means having to wait an entire year for resubmittal while deferring means only having to wait a month. DRB doesn’t like going the denial route if they can avoid it. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by gman430

[vicupstate]

29 minutes ago, gman430 said:

The DRB will probably just defer it if the developer does go before the board instead of denying it. Denying a project means having to wait an entire year for resubmittal while deferring means only having to wait a month. DRB doesn’t like going the denial route if they can avoid it. 

With an informal review the developer appears accommodating, while still getting the board's input.  It is so rare that staff recommends denial, that I wouldn't take the chance that they just deny it outright. 

[gman430]

They plan to start construction in November 2023: 

https://www.postandcourier.com/greenville/business/mid-rise-apartment-project-planned-stones-throw-from-unity-park/article_b16ae302-8877-11ed-86d0-83e05b134cdd.html

[distortedlogic]

https://upstatebusinessjournal.com/square-feet/153-unit-apartment-building-proposed-adjacent-to-unity-park-greenville-sc/

This would be in addition to the Delano.  Mixed renderings IMO but would be more residents and density. Going before DRB this month.

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by distortedlogic

[gman430]

Two residents spoke in favor of this project. Three residents spoke against it. DRB didn’t understand why staff recommended denial. Apparently it has to do with the amount of recommendations. Even with that, the DRB had the project deferred to March to mainly work on the colors, step-backs above the fifth floor, pool deck area, and the side facing downtown. The DRB overall is happy with what was presented today. There are some discussion regarding height but the DRB feels like the step-backs will address those. The site is zoned C-4 also so there are no height restrictions. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by gman430

[NewlyUpstate]

This is going back in front of the DRB this month

https://www.greenvillesc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/10336?fileID=58012

Quote

The building architecture has been revised in response to comments from the DRB and City staff. The focus has also been on clarifying the architectural story for the project. The architectural revisions make it clear that this is a six story building with a brick base, brick middle and mansard top. The architectural forms have been treated carefully with lighter brick and balconies used for projecting volumes while recessed volumes and spandrel zones feature contrasting darker brick as a way of weaving the darker material through the lighter volumes. All architectural elements and their placements - cornices, water tables, belt courses, terrace setbacks, etc follow a certain rigor within this architecture and are used to bolster the architectural vision. Specifically, the following have been added per comments heard at the DRB and comments from City staff.  

• Site furnishing plan has been included.  

• Public and private areas are now clearly designated. Public terrace at north end now provides an open, inviting, and interactive space to the public while the raised courtyard is designed as a private amenity space for residents.  

• Windows and views into the mailroom have been provided.  

• Building has been relocated several feet in the southerly direction to provide better clearances along the sidewalk all around the building.  

• Façade facing downtown has been reworked and now features contrasting bays - lighter projecting bays featuring balconies and darker recessed bays, which break up the previous monolithic treatment and help the façade appear as an articulated one. Additionally, terrace setbacks have been carved out of the building mass at the seventh floor at the southwest corner and at the top of the central bay to echo the larger terrace amenity at northwest corner.  

• The façade (dark brick zone) closest to District West apartments at our southern end is pushed away from the Westfield façade envelope line and now features an additional step back at the seventh floor, as one would expect, above the brick line and within the mansard region of the architecture.  

• Material board has been revised accordingly to reflect the changes seen in the revised architecture  

• Color palette has been revised to improve contrast and legibility of the architecture.  

• Streetscape plantings have been revised to provide shade as much as possible while also being sensitive to the context – overhead power lines, fire department access issues.  

• All major entrances into the building feature protection in the form of canopies.  

• Requested 6’ pedestrian clearances have been provided along Broad street.

 

[NewlyUpstate]

Planning Staff is now recommending to approve this project 

[gman430]

This project was approved today 4-0. One person spoke in favor of it and nobody spoke in opposition. The only thing the developer has to do is have an informal meeting with two members of the DRB board for final material selection like brick and glass before construction can begin. 

[gman430]

Construction slated to start in February 2024 with completion in December 2025. 

Edited March 8, 2023 by gman430

[PuppiesandKittens]

This is more future Section 8 housing.

ALL of these quick-construction, "Charlotte, NC 2010 Panel-Covered Boxy Apartment Buildings" are going to age badly, and in a few decades, they'll be undesirable.  That means that beautiful, nice downtown Greenville will have a large clump of undesirable housing in it.  

The Eastland area in Charlotte, and University City in Charlotte, were the site of lots of similar construction in the 1970s through the 1990s and once those buildings started to age, only people who couldn't afford better would live there, leading to those areas becoming rough, undesirable areas.

The same thing could happen to downtown Greenville if we're not careful.

Any developer wanting to profit off of our beautiful downtown should be required to build a high-quality building that will hold up well.  That will help keep downtown desirable.   Developers who want to profit off of our beautiful downtown shouldn't be allowed to build #&*($, because building *#$()*# means short-term profits for the developer but long-term costs for the rest of us.  (And I say this as a conservative/libertarian.)

[Horatio Nelson]

4 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

This is more future Section 8 housing.

ALL of these quick-construction, "Charlotte, NC 2010 Panel-Covered Boxy Apartment Buildings" are going to age badly, and in a few decades, they'll be undesirable.  That means that beautiful, nice downtown Greenville will have a large clump of undesirable housing in it.  

The Eastland area in Charlotte, and University City in Charlotte, were the site of lots of similar construction in the 1970s through the 1990s and once those buildings started to age, only people who couldn't afford better would live there, leading to those areas becoming rough, undesirable areas.

The same thing could happen to downtown Greenville if we're not careful.

Any developer wanting to profit off of our beautiful downtown should be required to build a high-quality building that will hold up well.  That will help keep downtown desirable.   Developers who want to profit off of our beautiful downtown shouldn't be allowed to build #&*($, because building *#$()*# means short-term profits for the developer but long-term costs for the rest of us.  (And I say this as a conservative/libertarian.)

Some will age gracefully and some won't, luckily most of this stuff isn't being built at the exact same time, and it is all in areas that will remain desirable regardless (Outside of another sea change in how desirable cities themselves are). Cheap housing doesn't immediately mean crime infested, there are other overlapping effects that need to line up to cause something like that.

If a building becomes old and undesirable but is in a place that is desirable, it can always be torn down and rebuilt into something better. I'd prefer we as a society build more things to last but in this case I'm not super worried about this particular concern.

[PuppiesandKittens]

17 minutes ago, Horatio Nelson said:

Some will age gracefully and some won't, luckily most of this stuff isn't being built at the exact same time, and it is all in areas that will remain desirable regardless (Outside of another sea change in how desirable cities themselves are). Cheap housing doesn't immediately mean crime infested, there are other overlapping effects that need to line up to cause something like that.

If a building becomes old and undesirable but is in a place that is desirable, it can always be torn down and rebuilt into something better. I'd prefer we as a society build more things to last but in this case I'm not super worried about this particular concern.

Not sure if I can agree.  Downtown certainly was not desirable at all in the 1970s-1980s; lots of neighborhoods have life cycles, with periods when they're desirable and periods when they're not, and plenty of downtowns are now much less used than they were pre-Covid, so who knows what the future will bring.  Cheap architecture generally doesn't age well, and while #*($) buildings can be torn down, often it's cheaper to build elsewhere.  We are still plagued with the Daniel Building and it took decades to get rid of the Greenville News building, for example.

Beautiful, high-quality construction would help ensure that downtown remains desirable.  And making a building beautiful, at least on the outside, doesn't cost THAT much;  brick is no more expensive than panel siding, for example.

[SVL]

7 minutes ago, PuppiesandKittens said:

Not sure if I can agree.  Downtown certainly was not desirable at all in the 1970s-1980s; lots of neighborhoods have life cycles, with periods when they're desirable and periods when they're not, and plenty of downtowns are now much less used than they were pre-Covid, so who knows what the future will bring.  Cheap architecture generally doesn't age well, and while #*($) buildings can be torn down, often it's cheaper to build elsewhere.  We are still plagued with the Daniel Building and it took decades to get rid of the Greenville News building, for example.

Beautiful, high-quality construction would help ensure that downtown remains desirable.  And making a building beautiful, at least on the outside, doesn't cost THAT much;  brick is no more expensive than panel siding, for example.

The majority of this building will be covered in brick, two shades of a greyish color.

[ingvegas]

Glad city punted this back for a better exterior and better scaling to sidewalk. Yes, the city should encourage developers to beef up exterior quality and be greedy on interior cuts when building inside 29601. It's easier to gut an interior than to build a new building.

Quality building exteriors, decent architecture, calculated massing, smart transportation, proper parking, ample greenspace, and shady sidewalks are the keys to snowballing development to value in a city center. 

Edited March 9, 2023 by ingvegas

[gman430]

DRB signage up on site. Not sure why. Maybe it’s old or it’s for final materials approval. 

[gman430]

Financing being provided by: https://gordonroadcapital.com Total estimated cost of project is around $58 million. 

Good fly around video of project: 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

This is going to be a good density builder.