Downtown Master Plan & Urban Code

[Spartan]

Voting on the thing will be progress. Most likely what will happen is they will vote on it once, then some layer will sue the city for some reason and it will derail the whole process.

[Spartan]

Finally, some action with the Urban Code!!!!!!!

It looks like Mayor White and the City Council are going to take this thing back to the public and get it moving towards approval in some form.

HJ Article.

I expect the public, even though they were involved in the process of creating the plan with a week-long charrette, will have some opposition. People will argue against more rules (which is not true) and the every faithful property-rights card... but understand this, in the world of right-centered politics this is about as friendly of a document as you can have. The code fundamentally changes how the city operates its zoning policy. The "use" of a building/property is guided by its location to some extent, but the code focuses on form over function (thus reducing the amount of rules imposed on a property owner like a traditional euclidean zoning code does). By embracing the street and constructing more buildings like you see on Main St, the environment for pedestrians will be improved, and like you see in the other big cities in South Carolina, if we want to succeed like the big boys we have to do whatever it takes to improve the pedestrian environment. Its a tried and true process. If you don't believe me, take a trip to Greenville's Main Street and tell me that you don't like it. Go to the Vista or Five Points in Columbia and then explain how those are bad urban places. Then go to Charleston and explain how East Bay, Market, Meeting, and King Streets are bad. Spartanburg will be its own unique place with the elements of success from other cities where it works.

I know you lurkers are out there (sign up and say hello!) but to anyone reading this, it is imperative that you contact your mayor and city council representatives and voice your support for this plan. Please don't let another plan sit on the shelf!

[hub-city]

I'm all for the urban code. I guess my biggest complaint is the height restrictions. While I don't forsee a tall building in the next few years, I don't want Spartanburg to look like a office park either. What are the thoughts of those of you that are more familiar with the plan? Will a company go to the higher LEAD status to build something more that 6 storeys?

[Spartan]

I think the upcoming vetting process will remove the height restrictions, or at least make it easier to build tall buildings.

[spartanburgh]

This requirement has to go. 6 Stories is only available in a mostly build out area of downtown. The rest of the downtown is limited to 4 stories. Not many properties downtown are large enough to get a significant amount of square footage if you can't go up. Can anyone imagine Greenville accepting a code with height restriction? These code writers would be shown the interstate real quick in Greenville. The balance of the code will require a great building without going to this extreme.

[Spartan]

In their defense, Charleston is an amazing city and it has very few buildings over 4 stories.

[spartanburgh]

Then let Charleston adopt a 4 and 6 storey height limit and leave Spartanburg without a height limit. I didn't hear one single person in all the master plan process support the height limits and many were strongly against it. I would hate for Spartanburg to look like a suburban office park and thats exactly what this code will get you as written.

[krazeeboi]

I think it should just be mandated/heavily encouraged that buildings be built with street-level retail, wherever feasible. The height restrictions are unnecessary. The vast majority of the recent buildings to go up downtown have been 6 stories max anyway.

[Spartan]

I would hate for Spartanburg to look like a suburban office park and thats exactly what this code will get you as written.

I agree, but how so? The street retail isn't going anywhere, nor are the pedestrian-oriented design requirements.

What you did hear people say about Spartanburg is that they "like the small town feel."

[spartanburgh]

Would anyone of you include a height restriction on buildings in Spartanburg if you were writing the new code for development? If so, why? What does it accomplish and why is it necessary? If anyone can give a good answer then maybe it should be included. All the code writers would say when someone opposed the height limits was "it is to increase density". This seems to be totally absurd as a property with a 4 story building is certainly less dense than the same property with the same footprint building and 12 stories. Most suburban office parks have height restrictions so that the developers can sell more property and make more money. If you want more square footage you have to buy more of their property. Why would a City adopt this same mentality and call it increasing density? A more dense City will be developed without height limitations. Which is more dense NYC or DC, Boston or Charleston? Most property owners have a finite amount of property, it can't be increased in the downtown area, so why this limitation?

[westsider28]

I agree that a height restriction is unnecessary. I don't really understand why we wouldn't want a 10-15 story building if a developer wanted build one (however unlikely that may be). I think that height diversity is desirable in a downtown for increasing density. I believe you would mostly get 4-6 story buildings regardless, due to the cost of building something taller. In other words, development would be self-regulating, without the need for restrictions.

I also think that comparing Spartanburg to Charleston is unfair and pointless. They are two vastly different cities.

[hub-city]

Back when the cultural center was first discussed being put at Renaissance park, there was a 9 storey condo being proposed also. The arts people were very much against it because they said the taller building would "take away" from the beauty of their building. (it was then a modern design and was going to sit back farther in the park)

That's when I first heard Bill Barnet say that Spartanburg doesn't need taller buildings. There is a lot of influence in this city by men who own/built 3 storey buildings and I bet if truth be told, they don't want to compete with taller buildings. JMO

[Spartan]

The public at large wants to keep the "small town feel" of Spartanburg. Skyscrapers don't fit in a small town.

By establishing a height restriction, the city would spread out the density and still maintain a small town feel. Land prices are at a premium in DC because of the height restrictions, so people won't lose money in the long run. The issue is not the height of the building but how it addresses the street. Density for the sake of density doesn't make a great city. Charlotte has skyscrapers, but the city's uptown is not all that great because so many of the buildings, residential and commercial, ignore the pedestrian environment. We have density in Charlotte, and we have nothing to show for it.

[westsider28]

What exactly is a "small town feel"? That's kind of an ambiguous description. Does Greenville have a "small town feel"? I think they do, despite having many tall-ish buildings. I worry that the general public wanting a "small town feel" is an example of this area's irrational aversion to change. I would argue that 6-10 story buildings (Montgomery Building?) aren't "skyscrapers" and would fit in just fine. In fact, I'm pretty sure Spartanburg had more 6+ story buildings 80 years ago than it does now.

However, I do agree that the most important thing is to have street-level retail/restaurant/etc. in new buildings to engage pedestrian activity. The last thing we need are more buildings like, unfortunately, the ESA. It would be nice someday, for example, to be able to walk from Morgan Square to the Auditorium without feeling intimidated by the journey.

[Spartan]

That's a great question. What is a small town feel? I hear people say Charlotte has a small town feel, which is the most asinine thing I've ever heard... but I suppose its all relative to your perspective. If you're from Gaffney, you'd say that Spartanburg is a large town. If you're from Union you'd say Gaffney is a large town too.

I've personally never thought of Spartanburg as a small town. A small city perhaps. Spartanburg is the center of the 4th largest urban area in South Carolina, and part of a metro area of over 1 million. So, IMO small is not the term I'd prefer to use.

My question is this: why do people want skyscrapers in Spartanburg? Most of y'all seem pretty convinced that we need to have the option to build them. Why is that?

[spartanburgh]

I think the better question is why does the City want to prevent taller buildings? Small town feel can happen in any size City. I remember when we resided in Kansas City, everyone said it has such a small town feel!!!!! Kansas City? Small town feel to me is more of an attitude and mindset of the residence than if tall buildings exist. There is no reason to eliminate a possible development that could have a tremendous positive affect on the City. The code is predetermining that this type development is unnecessary. If Hilton ever wanted to build a Hotel downtown to compete with the Marriott, they would likely want the presence of a taller building or if Bank America wanted a signature building downtown they would likely want something that stood out. These scenerios are not likely, but if they developed why would you tell them no?

[krazeeboi]

My question is this: why do people want skyscrapers in Spartanburg? Most of y'all seem pretty convinced that we need to have the option to build them. Why is that?

Because that's the way cities organically grow and develop, with buildings of different dimensions. I know we discuss Charleston and DC here a lot, particularly within this thread, but those cities have reasons behind their height restrictions which is to preserve certain aesthetic features about the cities. Spartanburg has no such need, so why the height restrictions? Just make it mandatory that new buildings engage the street and pedestrian properly and the problem is solved. Like I said before, the vast majority of new construction in downtown Spartanburg over the past few years has been 6 floors and under anyway, so why throw in an unnecessary restriction?

[Spartan]

I look at it this way- Spartanburg and Spartans have made it clear that they/we do not want to be Greenville. We want to be something unique while still pulling from the successful ideas that other cities in the state and the region have used. The height restriction would be an extremely unique control on the urban form, and it would dramatically change the way the city looks over time. The "aesthetic features" of Charleston and DC certainly do not exist in Spartanburg, but looking long term, what's to say that we can't create a similar environment in Spartanburg?

[hub-city]

It's not like I want skyscrapers, but I would like another 7-9 storey hotel, condo, or multi-use building. I do not consider the Marriott at it's 9 floors to be a skyscraper by any means, but this new plan would highly discourage anything similar.

[spartanburgh]

Well said Krazeeboi and Hub-City. I couldn't agree more.

[krazeeboi]

I look at it this way- Spartanburg and Spartans have made it clear that they/we do not want to be Greenville. We want to be something unique while still pulling from the successful ideas that other cities in the state and the region have used. The height restriction would be an extremely unique control on the urban form, and it would dramatically change the way the city looks over time. The "aesthetic features" of Charleston and DC certainly do not exist in Spartanburg, but looking long term, what's to say that we can't create a similar environment in Spartanburg?

Unless Spartanburg plans to build national icons or historic churches with giant steeples, I have no clue how that's going to happen. Although the intentions are good (to promote urbanity), I think this is a pretty forced and inauthentic way to make it happen.

[Spartan]

So by "aesthetic" you really mean "attractive iconic structures." I'm looking at it from the angle of creating something unique to South Carolina- a modern city without tons of skyscrapers. How is it inauthentic? If it happens, it's authentic.

Let me pose this question, what if the height limit were 6 stories (which I thought it was for the core district)?

[spartanburgh]

Soooo... There have been no good reasons for height restrictions, so they should be taken out. The 6 storey height limit is only along a short section of Main St. (already built out), a short section of St. John St. (one side only because of Renaissance Park(3 storey limit that side))), and N. Church from Marriott to Main. This doesn't make sence either. You can build 6 storeys by the rairoad track on W. Main St.(one quarter of the intersection only), but the City Hall site which sits just 250' from the City Center is only 4 storeys. If you were to infill the Green space beside the Kennedy St. Garage as suggested by the master plan it can only be 4 storeys. Thats not high enough to get above the parking garage, so instead of being a little higher and looking over downtown or possibly the Mountains etc. you will have a good view of a Toyota or Honda etc., good luck with that development.

[Spartan]

Now that is the first good reason not to have a height limit that I've heard so far. The parking deck situation, assuming that it's not underground (which would be ideal) could potentially prevent structures from being built on top of them. Though I will point out that it's very feasible to wrap a parking deck with offices/condos with street retail and still keep it under 4 floors.

[spartanburgh]

The Kennedy St. Parking deck is 5 levels or the equivalent of a 4 story building so if you don't go higher you want have any good views, that seems to be the problem/feedback on Library Commons. People don't like looking at the backs of the old buildings on Broad St., If Library Commons was higher and had better views, it may have sold much better.

If 4-6 storey heights are the tool to make Spartanburg an authentic place in the next 20-30 years, shouldn't we take all buildings over 6 Storeys down to that level to be authentic? If this is what would make Spartanburg authentic we have missed that opportunity. Denny's, the Montgomery building, Marriott, the Skyular building and Archibald Rutledge would all have to loose multiple floors.