CONSTRUCTION THREAD: Verdae

[Sonrise]

Wow, this is one of the more cynical/ignorant posts I've read in quite a while. You can criticize aspects of New Urbanism movement, such as the tendency to focus on greenfield sites or build developments that are too expensive to support a true mixed-income population, but the principles of New Urbanism are solid. If you don't care about suburban sprawl and all the economic/environmental costs that go along with it, that's fine. Just own up to it rather than insulting thousands of people who you don't know a thing about.

Don't be so sensitive. This is a message board and on ocassion people will have opinions that differ from your own. I feel that NU is a scam, but I support anyones right to participate in it, as long as I am not forced to. P.S. Being against NU doesn't mean that I support "suburban spraw", that's very condescending. It's not an either/or.

[Sonrise]

Let me clarify something. I love the fact that a development can incorporate single family units, apartments, commerical and parks into one development. What I don't like is the fact that people are guilted and/or shamed into liking it or not liking it. I don't like that developers are building homes on lots smaller than the welcome mats on the front porch and claiming that it is to "reduce our carbon footprint" or whatever pc mantra that will make them look "progressive". They're doing it because they are greedy, bottom line. But as I stated previously, there are many consumers that do feel good about themselves buy having a tiny yard. Hey, too each his own, no problem. What I do object to is the condescending , "I'm an enlightened progressive, and you're not" attitude that was evidenced by saying that I like suburban sprawl, because I'm skeptical of NU. That's a very intolenrat opinion to hold.

[gs3]

New Urbanism is a ruse and a marketing ploy, itself. Greedy developers can put multiple homes on tiny lots, all under the guise of "environmentalism" "smaller carbon footprint", etc. while buyers who are oriented towards this type of thinking can feel good themselves by doing their part to be "green." It's greed placating guilt. A win/win.

I'd say that is a pretty brilliant observation! Sad that so many of these NU developments are plopped smack in the middle of suburbia, off a freeway entrance, so everyone still needs a car. Nothing green about that.

I'll just asked, what was was/is wrong with just good old "urban". Why the need for "new urbanism"?

[Sonrise]

I'd say that is a pretty brilliant observation! Sad that so many of these NU developments are plopped smack in the middle of suburbia, off a freeway entrance, so everyone still needs a car. Nothing green about that.

I'll just asked, what was was/is wrong with just good old "urban". Why the need for "new urbanism"?

Yeah, I'm all for gentrification.

[GvilleSC]

I'll just asked, what was was/is wrong with just good old "urban". Why the need for "new urbanism"?

New urbanism is simply a name, and in fact one of many that all can be used interchangeably for the same thing. That just starts splitting hairs.

[Sonrise]

New urbanism is simply a name, and in fact one of many that all can be used interchangeably for the same thing. That just starts splitting hairs.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I think NU is very agenda driven, but that's a different topic for another time.

[GvilleSC]

I strongly disagree with that statement. I think NU is very agenda driven, but that's a different topic for another time.

I'm merely saying that "new urbanism," as a term, is one name of many for a type of development. You can call it Traditional Neighborhood Development, New Urbanism. Chris Leinberger calls it Walkable Urbanism. Doesn't matter.

There's definitely an agenda, but you and I probably disagree about what that is and what its goals are.

[gs3]

Yeah, I'm all for gentrification.

Yep!

[HomerJay]

New urbanism is a design-based approach to urbanism that was "created" primarily by architects and urban designers. It is an attempt to resuscitate the desirable elements of "old" urbanism that have been largely thrown out the window over the past 50 or 60 years in favor of a suburban-style sprawl pattern of development. If some developers have used the term as a marketing device, to call the whole philosophy a scam or a ruse is a gross exaggeration that avoids discussion of the important economic, environmental, political and social issues that are implicated. The agenda is to encourage development that is compact, walkable, diverse, and economically and environmentally sustainable. You don't have to share those values, but if you insist on employing logical fallacies instead of engaging the discussion, you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

[Sonrise]

I'm merely saying that "new urbanism," as a term, is one name of many for a type of development. You can call it Traditional Neighborhood Development, New Urbanism. Chris Leinberger calls it Walkable Urbanism. Doesn't matter.

There's definitely an agenda, but you and I probably disagree about what that is and what its goals are.

haha, I remember this same conversation a few years ago. I was discussing the term "TND" and how their is nothing traditional about them. But like I said, I'm all about choice, as long as the choice isn't forced upon me.

New urbanism is a design-based approach to urbanism that was "created" primarily by architects and urban designers. It is an attempt to resuscitate the desirable elements of "old" urbanism that have been largely thrown out the window over the past 50 or 60 years in favor of a suburban-style sprawl pattern of development. If some developers have used the term as a marketing device, to call the whole philosophy a scam or a ruse is a gross exaggeration that avoids discussion of the important economic, environmental, political and social issues that are implicated. The agenda is to encourage development that is compact, walkable, diverse, and economically and environmentally sustainable. You don't have to share those values, but if you insist on employing logical fallacies instead of engaging the discussion, you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I know all about NU, TND, etc. Lemme ask you a question and answer this as honestly as possible: Say there was a new TND; sidewalks, mixed use buildings, housing of all incomes, commercial and park integration, but the lots for single family homes were 1/2 acre or more. Would you support this project? Thanks

[HomerJay]

I know all about NU, TND, etc. Lemme ask you a question and answer this as honestly as possible: Say there was a new TND; sidewalks, mixed use buildings, housing of all incomes, commercial and park integration, but the lots for single family homes were 1/2 acre or more. Would you support this project? Thanks

It depends on the specifics, of course, but I don't see why not. 1/2 acre SF lots can certainly have a place in a true neighborhood, which is what I am ultimately looking for. But, as the percentage of those lots in the neighborhood goes up, the urban character becomes more difficult to sustain. At that point, you're into the familiar NU territory of creating better suburbias.

Your point about choice is a valid one and I'm not saying urban living is for everyone. I actually think one of the goals of NU is to expand choice, not reduce it. Some people want to live on large lots and don't care about walking or biking to places. Others prefer rural environments. Given a choice, however, I think an increasing number of people (particularly younger and older) would opt for more urban style living. Right now, that middle ground between low density suburbia and high density urbanism is hard to find.

[Duped by Verdae]

When Verdae was originally announced they said they would have all types of residents including apartments, so what is the problem?

Yes, but it was also announced as being neo-urban, walkable, and TND. See the YouTube clip around 4:55 where you can see Rick Sumerel say this in his own words. And please tell me where you saw that we are against apartments in Hollingsworth Park. It is and always has been about the design and architectural standards. We are not against apartments if incorporated in a TND fashion with good architecture. The architecture for the current project is NOT good. When pressed, Bill Monroe characterized it as "eclectic." Please show me where in historical architecture you can find a similar looking structure. Arlington Properties has a brand name for this type of apartment building calling it the "big house" look. If you look at the city planning website, you can see that the apartment complex is a typical "garden style" pod of development isolated from the remainder of the development. Also, in the "master plan," that location was slated for single family homes. I could go on and on. Instead of commenting on things you don't know about, how about doing a little reading and research. I am a homeowner and have been heavily involved in this struggle with Verdae to live up to their promise of a true TND community. You don't know the half of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Ut6DatUIw

http://www.greenvillesc.gov/PlanningZoning/PlanningApplications/Applications/2012/FEBRUARY/PlanningCommission/02-9-2012/Z-7-2012-TapestryParkatVerdae-RockySlopeRoadnearWoodruffRoad.pdf

https://acrobat.com/app.html#d=jg3M*di2bHO5A8V7jWs9MQ

http://www.hollingsworthpark.com/

[Sonrise]

It depends on the specifics, of course, but I don't see why not. 1/2 acre SF lots can certainly have a place in a true neighborhood, which is what I am ultimately looking for. But, as the percentage of those lots in the neighborhood goes up, the urban character becomes more difficult to sustain. At that point, you're into the familiar NU territory of creating better suburbias.

Your point about choice is a valid one and I'm not saying urban living is for everyone. I actually think one of the goals of NU is to expand choice, not reduce it. Some people want to live on large lots and don't care about walking or biking to places. Others prefer rural environments. Given a choice, however, I think an increasing number of people (particularly younger and older) would opt for more urban style living. Right now, that middle ground between low density suburbia and high density urbanism is hard to find.

Fair enough, and thanks for your honest response. My apologies if I came off a little to strongly yesterday.

[gman430]

The apartment complex was approved by the planning commission in a 5-0 vote back in early April. Only two people spoke in opposition of the project and they both live at the same address within Verdae. There will be 241 units.

Oh and the Laurens Road apartment complex at Millennium Campus was approved in a 4-1 vote at the same meeting. 244 units for it.

Edited July 19, 2012 by citylife

[ausrutherford]

The apartment complex was approved by the planning commission in a 5-0 vote back in early April. Only two people spoke in opposition of the project and they both live at the same address within Verdae. There will be 241 units.

Oh and the Laurens Road apartment complex at Millennium Campus was approved in a 4-1 vote at the same meeting. 244 units for it.

Is this in Greenville city limits?

[GvilleSC]

Is this in Greenville city limits?

Yes.

[gman430]

A "small" photo update:

Edited July 26, 2012 by citylife

[Duped by Verdae]

The fact that they were approved does not mean that the commission members necessarily liked them. It meant that they could not deny them because they basically followed the overall city guidelines. The city guidelines are not specific for New Urbanism nor do they mandate that type of planning although they encourage many elements of it. If you read the critique of the apartments written by the city, they clearly state that the apartments are not in character with the rest of the development. I don't know why you don't seem to get it.

I was not able to attend the meeting due to work. However, my wife did attend as did two of our neighbors, a married couple. Our neighborhood is filled with many dynamic people who don't necessarily have the ability to get away from their other commitments to be able to attend meetings. The Langenhans served as our representatives. They are the ones you probably heard if you were there. Getting something approved by the planning commission has much less to do with integrity to original design and details than it does to political forces and adherence to code. Tripp Muldrow, who was chair at the time, seemed disappointed by the direction of the development but said he could not deny the application.

The apartment complex was approved by the planning commission in a 5-0 vote back in early April. Only two people spoke in opposition of the project and they both live at the same address within Verdae. There will be 241 units.

Oh and the Laurens Road apartment complex at Millennium Campus was approved in a 4-1 vote at the same meeting. 244 units for it.

[gman430]

Verdae planning new hotel possibly: http://www.gsabusiness.com/news/44721-verdae-planning-hotel-off-woodruff-road?rss=0

Edited August 3, 2012 by citylife

[gman430]

Construction has started on the apartment complex along Rocky Slope Road.

[gman430]

Construction has started on the new Verdae Candlewood Suites hotel along Woodruff Road.

[ausrutherford]

Construction has started on the new Verdae Candlewood Suites hotel along Woodruff Road.

Is there any sketches? and how many rooms?

[gman430]

Is there any sketches? and how many rooms?

http://www.greenvillesc.gov/PlanningZoning/PlanningApplications/Applications/2012/AUGUST/BoardofZoningAppeals/08-16-2012/V-12-157-25GreenHeronRoad.pdf and http://www.midashospitality.com/2012/09/midas-hospitality-llc-announces-the-groundbreaking-on-a-new-candlewood-suites-greenville-sc/ Haven't seen any renderings yet.

Edited September 28, 2012 by gman430

[GvilleSC]

Verdae's residential component continues to increase its pace of development. The next building of townhomes has started construction, more single family houses are starting, and the new apartments are moving right along. The monster 11,000 sf home in the Manor section is complete. WYFF4 had a story on this home tonight, complete with its nearly full-sized basketball court/gym, 8' indoor slide, movie theater, salt water pool, etc... It seems like something you'd see on MTV Cribs.    Is this for a celebrity, or just a local with a crazy amount of money?

[scgubers]

No celebrity, just a local with a crazy amount of money.