Greenville Transit

[gs3]

While the Woodruff and 85 intersection may be a form of sprawl, TRUE sprawl is what goes on for miles down Woodruff and 385 into Simpsonville, Fountain Inn, etc. Remember guys, all these developments along 85 are immediately touching and fairly tight....Greenridge, The Point, Magnlia Town Center, South Financial, Millenium Campus, ICAR, Verdae......and all are on vacant land that is in the CENTER of the metro. I'd class this more as infill, since it's only a couple of miles from downtown. Much smarter to infill this land than to skip over this available land and sprawl out miles away from the city (ie: the way Kershaw County has done in the midlands which is bad sprawl). So for everyone calling this sprawl, would you rather have it infilled on this vacant land, in a tight formation, in the city limits under city zoning regulations, close to midtown and city center, OR have it 12 to 15 miles away in Simpsonville, in the county with loose zoning regulations????? Given the choice, seems like smart decisions were made!

[g-man430]

You've got a point there, gsupstate. I forgot how dense this will be in the next 5-10 years.

Edited June 2, 2006 by g-man430

[krazeeboi]

^Another reason why our cities need more flexibility in growth.

Now, anyone care to address the sprawling subdivision side of things?

[g-man430]

I'm all for it. Greer and Simpsonville, like when you have a farm field than 800 homes than another farm field, that's sprawl. Example: just drive down Brushy Creek Road than go down Suber Road past Riverside High School. DID YOU KNOW: the upstate was ranked 5th as having the worst sprawl in the entire country in 2005.

Edited June 2, 2006 by g-man430

[goodbye]

It didn't make the sprawl, it made it worse. Sort of like that commercial with "we didn't make the car, we made it faster." Same thing is going to happen when Magnolia Park Town Center gets built, just more traffic for Woodruff Road.

G-man, you didn't answer my question. What would have been a better utilization of those large properties with prime interstate frontage and access? The traffic is already here to stay, as every big city would indicate. Greenville had a problem with little to no image along the most heavily traveled corridor in the Upstate. As gsupstate stated, this is the proper type of development along this corridor, and in the end, it will benefit the City of Greenville in more ways than we know today. What we need to do is to look at alternative modes of transportation to relieve at least some of the congestion that will continue to grow over the years.

[g-man430]

G-man, you didn't answer my question. What would have been a better utilization of those large properties with prime interstate frontage and access?

A park. Just kidding. I have no idea.

What we need to do is to look at alternative modes of transportation to relieve at least some of the congestion that will continue to grow over the years.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time. The developments are already here, so it's too late too change that, but we can still make the traffic go down some with mass transit.

Edited June 2, 2006 by g-man430

[g-man430]

I give up here too, well some. I still think we have a future in mass transit though. When will it arrive, who knows.

[gs3]

DID YOU KNOW: the upstate was ranked 5th as having the worst sprawl in the entire country in 2005.

I remember that study. The top five worst sprawl were all along the 85 corridor I believe. It was like Atlanta, GSA, Winston Salem/Greensboro, Charlotte and maybe Raleigh/Durham. I was shocked to see the Carolina's leading the nation in sprawl, even ahead of California. Do you know where to find this info? I remember reading it, but can't find it.

[breed]

I remember that study. The top five worst sprawl were all along the 85 corridor I believe. It was like Atlanta, GSA, Winston Salem/Greensboro, Charlotte and maybe Raleigh/Durham. I was shocked to see the Carolina's leading the nation in sprawl, even ahead of California. Do you know where to find this info? I remember reading it, but can't find it.

The south has two things that are leading to sprawl... surging growth since WWII (99% of post WWII development is automobile-centered) and plentiful land. If a place has both of these, they are going to have sprawl.

While some argue that the South lacks in terms of planning. While there may be some truth to that, sprawl is more of a product of growth patterns and land availability than whether or not good planning is being done.

[monsoon]

Its not a question of planning, but a question of the government's lack of political will to limit what people can do with their property, and unrestrained highway building. It's this combination that is leading to sprawl oriented growth in SC. High growth can be had in a more sustainable manner, but until recently this hasn't been on the minds almost anyone in SC.

The South and SC are now being paid back for allowing this kind of growth by filthy air, endless traffic congestion, and having to deal with the economic facts of very high gasoline prices that are going to continue to rise. It's really a question of how much more painful it has to get before they do something about it in the state.

[g-man430]

I remember that study. The top five worst sprawl were all along the 85 corridor I believe. It was like Atlanta, GSA, Winston Salem/Greensboro, Charlotte and maybe Raleigh/Durham. I was shocked to see the Carolina's leading the nation in sprawl, even ahead of California. Do you know where to find this info? I remember reading it, but can't find it.

I don't know where to find this info either. I just remembered reading about it on here one day.

STOP THE SPRAWL NOW!!!!

[breed]

While it's true, I think that there's often a sense of "the south is doing it all wrong". The point to be made here is that the south is doing their post WWII development in the same manner that everyone else has done their post WWII development. Because we didn't have alot of pre-WWII development, its negative consequences are magnified.

My hope is that our elected officials will begin to recognize that we will be headed down the same path as most other urban areas and will take steps to help mitigate the negative consequences of inefficient growth patterns.

[g-man430]

This quote is dead right and true:

For Greenville / Spartanburg, and I hate saying this - it's a mega-Gwinnett County or Cobb County (Atlanta metro counties) in the making. Excluding the city centers of Greenville & Spartanburg which I have no intent to dismiss, but the built environment of those counties will eventually be similar to the metro counties mentioned.

My primary reasoning - interstate access. Most of the harm has already occurred - industrial & office developments were allowed to occur seemingly along the entire I-85 stretch. Precedence is the biggest problem - even if Greenville & Spartanburg wished to become proactive & follow a new urbanist strategy - it would require a tight-lock land use plan to hold up in court. I can surmise that most of the land along the interstate is already zoned industrial / office-institutional & certainly much of the land is at least partially developed, as well as purchased for the purpose of development.

Therefore the problem is, any county land use plan has to accept that the entire interstate corridor will eventually be totally built out. What can at least be done - is to promote additional mixed use developments along the interstate. But even so - it certainly isn't the most sustainable development pattern.

So the ideal of I-85 being contained isn't likely, which of course leads to a necessity to continually expand I-85 (though some transit service could be initiated serving the corridor) & lead to a multi-nodal commuting pattern. Hence the inability to plan for a region's commuting patterns or living choices when there is no central destination. Therefore - there will continue to be an interest to live along anywhere off of the freeway, which is how the sprawl started.

Regarding the downtowns of Greenville or Spartanburg - infill & growth will certainly continue, as Atlanta or Charlotte has shown, growth in the urban core will continue despite growth in the suburbs / exurbs. But in case some believe urban redevelopment 'counters' sprawl, not totally - because again as Atlanta & Charlotte has shown, even with tremendous growth in the urban core - sprawl continues unabated. So the prognosis - growth in the urban core & growth in the suburban periphery simultaneously.

Edited June 2, 2006 by g-man430

[Greenville]

I don't see why people expect the government to step in and fix these problems involved with sprawl. Unless you want to live under an extreme form of government rule, where the government owns everything and makes every single decision, high levels of urbanity are not going to happen in this day and age. For the most part, the truly "urban" cities are ones that are of great historical importance that began developing hundreds of years ago. They had a head start on cities like Greenville, which have only recently become important on a regional level.

You're dealing with private landowners and private businesses who want to locate to an area. It is a dangerous game to try to regulate what both parties can and cannot do. I would love less sprawl and more urban development, but to be honest I do not think the government should be trusted to regulate these small details - especially when they have proven incapable of handling much larger issues. It is a slippery slope when we start having government-issued stipulations for what a given piece of land can or cannot be used for.

Before anyone has a knee-jerk reaction, I am not saying that zoning should not exist. It should. We don't need a huge manufacturing plant downtown next to a skyscraper. All I am saying is that we should always put ourselves in the position of the landowner who has paid their own money for a parcel of land. It is easy for us to say what we would like for them to do with that land (e.g., what kind of development, what price to charge, etc.); after all, it isn't our money at stake. Some regulations for the good of the community are needed, but an abuse of those restrictions goes against the rights of private landowners.

I will put up with some sprawl here and there if I have to, being thankful that I live in an area that is growing at a good pace. I think it is important to keep in mind that everyone doesn't want to live in a highly dense residential area with limited parking, no yard, high traffic counts, etc. In fact, most people don't want that. They would much rather have easy access to their cars, a larger house for the money, a yard for their kids, etc. I don't fault them for that, as it is their right. That is important for urbanites like ourselves to remember - especially on a message board where we stay relatively isolated from the suburbanites and their views.

[krazeeboi]

^Well, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum...somewhat. Just because you own a piece of land doesn't mean that you should deal with that land irresponsibly. The good of the whole is what is at stake here, and it is what cities are all about in the first place. Unfortunately our state is still stuck in the colonial days when the only thing close to urbanization in the state was in Charleston.

As far as government control goes, my own viewpoint is that as far as land use regulation goes, this should be more of a home rule issue. Unfortunately, our state legislature (again) would like to strip this authority away from counties and municipalities, rendering them ineffective in controlling their own destinies. One area in which this can be seen is with impact fees. For some reason, we don't have a problem giving this state and its land over to private developers and those in the billboard industry who care nothing about quality of life and the built environment but who only wish to make a quick buck at the expense of our beautiful landscape and infrastructure. This isn't about suburbs per se; the suburbs were with us pre-WWII. But the unsustainable way in which they are now sprawling is unacceptable.

The sprawl of the Upstate coupled with the overwhelming conservative climate, which would uphold individual property rights up till the death with little to no governmental involvement, make for a dangerous combination.

And mass transit isn't going to take cars off the road--rather it's designed to not add more traffic/congestion as fast. And I would say that the interstate property wouldn't be deemed "prime" had the city not grown towards it.

[Greenville]

^ I don't feel that I am on an end of the spectrum, krazee. I consider myself somewhat in the middle, in that I agree that land use should be somewhat regulated yet I also recognize the rights of a private property owner. Most people seem to want one or the other, and neither is realistic or practical.

I agree that enforcement of land use should be local. After all, local governments have a better idea as to the direction in which the city wants to go. Zoning is good and necessary, but incentives are also helpful in recruiting the right kinds of developments to an area.

More than government regulations and private property rights, the biggest factor driving urban developments is demand. Demand, of course, largely determines the price of land. Skyscrapers aren't built because they look pretty, but rather because a developer must go vertical to capitalize on the high price he/she paid for that land. Not only do Southern cities have plenty of space for sprawl, but they also do not have the expensive land prices that more in-demand areas like NYC, DC, and Boston have. So until land in the South becomes more exclusive and in-demand, it is going to take a lot of government influence and monetary incentives to even have a chance to get the kinds of urban development us UPers are after.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Greenville

[gs3]

^Well, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum...somewhat. Just because you own a piece of land doesn't mean that you should deal with that land irresponsibly. The good of the whole is what is at stake here, and it is what cities are all about in the first place. Unfortunately our state is still stuck in the colonial days when the only thing close to urbanization in the state was in Charleston.

As far as government control goes, my own viewpoint is that as far as land use regulation goes, this should be more of a home rule issue. Unfortunately, our state legislature (again) would like to strip this authority away from counties and municipalities, rendering them ineffective in controlling their own destinies. One area in which this can be seen is with impact fees. For some reason, we don't have a problem giving this state and its land over to private developers and those in the billboard industry who care nothing about quality of life and the built environment but who only wish to make a quick buck at the expense of our beautiful landscape and infrastructure. This isn't about suburbs per se; the suburbs were with us pre-WWII. But the unsustainable way in which they are now sprawling is unacceptable.

The sprawl of the Upstate coupled with the overwhelming conservative climate, which would uphold individual property rights up till the death with little to no governmental involvement, make for a dangerous combination.

And mass transit isn't going to take cars off the road--rather it's designed to not add more traffic/congestion as fast. And I would say that the interstate property wouldn't be deemed "prime" had the city not grown towards it.

The sprawl of the Upstate is due to multiple cities in close proximity, exactly the same the same as Raleigh/Durham or the Triad. Whats the excuse for sprawl in the other two major metro's of SC?

If you brushed up on your history, you would see 85 has always gone through Greenville (the Augusta Road, Pleasantburg area), so while the city has grown around 85, it hasn't been a "lets open fast food joints at the exits to grab passing tourist dollars" kind of sprawl. If you spent time in Greenville, which I don't think you have, you would notice Greenville has expanded in all directions and yes, taken in 85. Do we have sprawl. Yes. Do all southern metros? Yes. Do we have a great urban core as an alternative to sprawl? Yes. This is still the US and it's our right to own land and do with the land as we see fit. With that said, I'll be the first one to say I hate "butler buildings", sprawl, disposable architeture, etc. HOWEVER, we need to educate our fellow citizens better to impact change instead of legislating laws to force the change. All these years of government control and we have nationwide sprawl???? What will MORE government do any differently that will change things?

PS: Your term of "overwhelming conservative climate" is falsely stated.

[krazeeboi]

^ I don't feel that I am on an end of the spectrum, krazee. I consider myself somewhat in the middle, in that I agree that land use should be somewhat regulated yet I also recognize the rights of a private property owner. Most people seem to want one or the other, and neither is realistic or practical.

I guess both of us are somewhere in the middle, just closer to different ends of the middle. But I agree, striking a healthy balance is the hardest thing to do.

I agree that enforcement of land use should be local. After all, local governments have a better idea as to the direction in which the city wants to go. Zoning is good and necessary, but incentives are also helpful in recruiting the right kinds of developments to an area.

Agreed. Unfortunately, our legislators in Columbia don't understand this. Just another example of how reactive we are as a state.

More than government regulations and private property rights, the biggest factor driving urban developments is demand. Demand, of course, largely determines the price of land. Skyscrapers aren't built because they look pretty, but rather because a developer must go vertical to capitalize on the high price he/she paid for that land. Not only do Southern cities have plenty of space for sprawl, but they also do not have the expensive land prices that more in-demand areas like NYC, DC, and Boston have. So until land in the South becomes more exclusive and in-demand, it is going to take a lot of government influence and monetary incentives to even have a chance to get the kinds of urban development us UPers are after.

Again, agreed. But I would also factor in geography, as that has probably been the greatest factor that influenced density in the north. The closest example we have down this way is Charleston, which chose not to go vertical on the peninsula.

[krazeeboi]

The sprawl of the Upstate is due to multiple cities in close proximity, exactly the same the same as Raleigh/Durham or the Triad. Whats the excuse for sprawl in the other two major metro's of SC?

If you brushed up on your history, you would see 85 has always gone through Greenville (the Augusta Road, Pleasantburg area), so while the city has grown around 85, it hasn't been a "lets open fast food joints at the exits to grab passing tourist dollars" kind of sprawl. If you spent time in Greenville, which I don't think you have, you would notice Greenville has expanded in all directions and yes, taken in 85. Do we have sprawl. Yes. Do all southern metros? Yes. Do we have a great urban core as an alternative to sprawl? Yes. This is still the US and it's our right to own land and do with the land as we see fit. With that said, I'll be the first one to say I hate "butler buildings", sprawl, disposable architeture, etc. HOWEVER, we need to educate our fellow citizens better to impact change instead of legislating laws to force the change. All these years of government control and we have nationwide sprawl???? What will MORE government do any differently that will change things?

PS: Your term of "overwhelming conservative climate" is falsely stated.

Sprawl exists in the Upstate for every reason that it does in every other Southern metro, but the situation is compounded there because of the proximity of the municipalities--the latter is not the sole reason or even the primary reason. Reasons have already been given for this.

And I never denied that Greenville has expanded in all directions, as all cities not restrained by geography have done.

I am still of the persuasion that government has a role and a responsibility in all of this. For the most part, there has not been much government control as it regards land use regulations, particularly in the South. The most notable exception has been in Oregon, where the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. It's not about more government, it's about more efficient government.

It's just too bad that we (collectively speaking) can't even see two generations down the road as far as all of this is concerned.

[btoy]

I don't see why people expect the government to step in and fix these problems involved with sprawl. Unless you want to live under an extreme form of government rule, where the government owns everything and makes every single decision, high levels of urbanity are not going to happen in this day and age. For the most part, the truly "urban" cities are ones that are of great historical importance that began developing hundreds of years ago. They had a head start on cities like Greenville, which have only recently become important on a regional level.

You're dealing with private landowners and private businesses who want to locate to an area. It is a dangerous game to try to regulate what both parties can and cannot do. I would love less sprawl and more urban development, but to be honest I do not think the government should be trusted to regulate these small details - especially when they have proven incapable of handling much larger issues. It is a slippery slope when we start having government-issued stipulations for what a given piece of land can or cannot be used for.

Before anyone has a knee-jerk reaction, I am not saying that zoning should not exist. It should. We don't need a huge manufacturing plant downtown next to a skyscraper. All I am saying is that we should always put ourselves in the position of the landowner who has paid their own money for a parcel of land. It is easy for us to say what we would like for them to do with that land (e.g., what kind of development, what price to charge, etc.); after all, it isn't our money at stake. Some regulations for the good of the community are needed, but an abuse of those restrictions goes against the rights of private landowners.

I will put up with some sprawl here and there if I have to, being thankful that I live in an area that is growing at a good pace. I think it is important to keep in mind that everyone doesn't want to live in a highly dense residential area with limited parking, no yard, high traffic counts, etc. In fact, most people don't want that. They would much rather have easy access to their cars, a larger house for the money, a yard for their kids, etc. I don't fault them for that, as it is their right. That is important for urbanites like ourselves to remember - especially on a message board where we stay relatively isolated from the suburbanites and their views.

I agree with just about all of that, though I would ad, while we can not regulate most of the cuases of sprawl with out limiting property rights. There are things we can do to limit sprawls impact on our life. Some regulations have minimal negative impacts on private property rights while still providing a better place to live. Yes it takes more money but one example would be more neighborhood interconnectivity, more thoroughfares more connector roads and more bipasses.

And, If people will use it mass transit could help as well.

The sprawl of the Upstate coupled with the overwhelming conservative climate, which would uphold individual property rights up till the death with little to no governmental involvement, make for a dangerous combination.

Why is it that the same people who argue about peoples rights to marry who they want, rights to privacy, right to freedom from religion, rights to this and that and other rights that never exsisted are the first ones that want to trample on our private property rights.

Oh, and on another issue, our Textile Heritage has helped lead to sprawl, if the infrustructure and utilties were only available from the city centers outwards we may have seen less of it. But the creation of Textile Villages and the souch out side the main towns, with their own sewer and water and infrustrcture made it possible to service more areas outside the city center. And this was continued with the creation of special works districts as well.

[gs3]

It's not about more government, it's about more efficient government.

I totally agree with that statement! Problem is, in the US, "efficient" and "government" are oxymorons. Anytime "efficient" is talked about is turns into "more".

My favorite, on that subject, is when you fly back into the US and you have to fill out customs forms....depending on your status, one, two, or three forms. At the bottom of each is printed "this form complies with the US Government paperwork reduction act". If it was truely a "paperwork reduction act", would I be writing on a piece of paper at all.......for government workers (on a bloated government payroll, sitting in some newly constructed, but not needed office building) to sort and file??????

[Greenville]

I totally agree, gsupstate! Perhaps the government can work on that $1 trillion deficit a little before they start regulating people's lives to that extent. This country was founded on freedoms, and we should all work hard to ensure that people can believe the way they want to, love who they want to, say what they want to, and basically live their lives the way they wish as long as it does not harm others. Sprawl can be controlled, but I think the government is going too far if it begins to trample on the aforementioned rights that our great country was founded upon.

[krazeeboi]

I totally agree with that statement! Problem is, in the US, "efficient" and "government" are oxymorons. Anytime "efficient" is talked about is turns into "more".

My favorite, on that subject, is when you fly back into the US and you have to fill out customs forms....depending on your status, one, two, or three forms. At the bottom of each is printed "this form complies with the US Government paperwork reduction act". If it was truely a "paperwork reduction act", would I be writing on a piece of paper at all.......for government workers (on a bloated government payroll, sitting in some newly constructed, but not needed office building) to sort and file??????

You make good points.

But regarding efficient government equaling more government, this is where I have to give our present governor his props. He is actually about trimming the fat and getting rid of duplication within state government. Now if the Legislature could join the rest of the world in the 21st century, we could be going somewhere.

[goodbye]

I agree with just about all of that, though I would ad, while we can not regulate most of the cuases of sprawl with out limiting property rights. There are things we can do to limit sprawls impact on our life. Some regulations have minimal negative impacts on private property rights while still providing a better place to live. Yes it takes more money but one example would be more neighborhood interconnectivity, more thoroughfares more connector roads and more bipasses.

And, If people will use it mass transit could help as well.

Why is it that the same people who argue about peoples rights to marry who they want, rights to privacy, right to freedom from religion, rights to this and that and other rights that never exsisted are the first ones that want to trample on our private property rights.

Oh, and on another issue, our Textile Heritage has helped lead to sprawl, if the infrustructure and utilties were only available from the city centers outwards we may have seen less of it. But the creation of Textile Villages and the souch out side the main towns, with their own sewer and water and infrustrcture made it possible to service more areas outside the city center. And this was continued with the creation of special works districts as well.

Great points, btoy and others, and BINGO on the individual rights statement. I see too much selectivism among many of the groups claiming to act in protection of individuals' civil rights as a U.S. citizen. There also seems to be a new definition to the word, "tollerance."

[monsoon]

I totally agree, gsupstate! Perhaps the government can work on that $1 trillion deficit a little before they start regulating people's lives to that extent. This country was founded on freedoms, and we should all work hard to ensure that people can believe the way they want to, love who they want to, say what they want to, and basically live their lives the way they wish as long as it does not harm others. Sprawl can be controlled, but I think the government is going too far if it begins to trample on the aforementioned rights that our great country was founded upon.

Lest we forget the country was founded on rights for just white males. Blacks could be held as slaves and had no rights and women could not vote and essentially had no rights either. Both situations are unheard of now because government changed the rights of these demographics and took away the right to own slaves. The point is society changes and while we like to complain about government, it is still a reflection of the people how voted for it and it will change too.

Sprawl simply could not exist if it were not for governments building the roads and infrastructue to support it. Most of the post WWII sprawl in SC that depends upon access to government owned highways, municipal water and sewer systems, and easements granted by government to supply gas, power, telephone and cable service. There is no "right" for a property owner to have access to these items but because the SC government has decided that it will support automobile based sprawl, we have the situation we have today.

If sprawl means the continued building of communities that are totally dependent on the automobile (they are not really communities), then I believe it is bad for the cities of SC and in the South in general. Government has to be proactive in curbing this type of development because it is the actions of the government that makes it possible in the first place.