Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thing is that the DOT already said that there was no guarantee that the berm & wall would be saved, even if they took out the sidewalks & bike lanes. There's a good chance that with a single multi-use path, the berm & wall would be affected as well. It really doesn't matter what form it takes, the widening should be accompanied by a place people can safely bike or walk where they need or want to go.
This is just silly. I'm hoping that the DOT is just reworking things and in 6 months they'll have "Alternative E" for this corridor.
True...but if berms are the issue, with a multi-use path you can cut down two sidewalks and two bike lanes to one multi use path...significantly reducing the width they need. Problem is it was already designed. Greenville as a whole should move away from the overly cumbersome idea of retrofitting its roads with both bike lanes and sidewalks...unless it plans on buying lots of properties along its routes. Multi use paths can have large easements or small ones depending on the terrain. And they are cheaper to build overall.
Restrictions attached to a grant utilized by the city in the 1980s to build the Town Common amphitheater prohibits structures like a large science learning center proposed for the park, the Greenville city’s attorney confirmed Thursday.
City Attorney Dave Holec confirmed via email that the city had discovered the restrictions were part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant received for the construction of the amphitheater on the Town Common in 1986. Under the terms of the grant agreement no part of the 25-acre park may be used for outdoor recreation without the approval of the National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
The revelation apparently quashes a brewing debate over whether the common should be utilized for structures like a Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math (STEAM) center proposed during the Greenville City Council’s annual planning retreat in January.
Tim Elliott, director of the Sidewalk Development project to build a large mixed-use housing complex downtown, broached the discussion of a STEAM center, which was included on the council’s possible “big idea” developments.
Elliot and others suggested such a facility would give the city an iconic drawing card it’s needed for the park, even showing off schematics of a building shaped like a pirate ship dominating the center of the common.
“Greenville is definitely on the rise ... but it is not a destination yet,” said Elliott, whose $32 million residential-commercial complex is underway at Dickinson Avenue and Reade Circle. “The city needs something that will take it to the next level.”
Jim Blount, a local partner in the Sidewalk Development project, said the project could help attract and retain more professionals in Greenville.
“This could be a catalyst project,” Blount said. “Something that could attract further development in the area.”
Even though the STEAM center may not be permitted on the Town Common, District 3 Councilman McLean Godley is requesting that city staff continue to explore ways to develop public-private partnerships in the area.
“There are so many opportunities to unlock the potential of the Tar River,” Godley said. “Even if we are restricted on what we can place on the Town Common, we should look at other areas where this STEAM center could be built.”
The proposal to build the center on the common had prompted an outcry from proponents of green space, including from a political activist group known as New Greenville. The group’s director Uriah Ward said on Thursday he did not support “privatizing public space,” particularly the proposal of a STEAM center on the Town Common.
“This project deviates from the master plan,” Ward said. “It is primarily an indoor space that does not belong in a park. If we give up any of this green space, we will lose it forever.”
However, Ward said that he was in support of building a science and learning center at a different location in the city.
“We hope that, if you continue to pursue this project, that you will look at other locations,” Ward said in a letter sent to City Council members.
Blount said he hopes the city will consider alternative locations for a possible STEAM center.
“I hope this project will get consideration from the city,” he said. “The site of the Town Common was selected because of its central location and the potential of constructing something iconic that people entering the city would see. Even if this is something that can’t be built on the Town Common, I think this is something that would benefit Greenville tremendously.”
The Town Common master plan approved by the council also called for the eventual construction of a civic center on the park grounds.
I wonder if this will affect any other developments they want to do with the park. I wonder if they could skirt around it by splitting the park up into two separate parks and building all the civic stuff they want on one "side".
I'm glad the STEAM center on the Town Commons debate can be put to rest, it was a hot topic that was going to cause nothing but up roar and controversy no matter the decision. The local media was all over it on social media over the past week.
I'm all for the STEAM center personally, I think it would be great uptown, either across the street from the Town Commons if they could ever get a piece of property over there or maybe over off Dickinson Ave. I really wish we could get a Marbles type place uptown, just maybe on a smaller scale.
My impression is that the city/city council was looking for a way to save face on the STEAM proposal for the Town Common. They didn't want to offend the Sidewalk Development people since they are investing a lot of money in Greenville and they had to find a way to address the public outcry over the issue. I think the STEAM proposal is a good one, it was just proposed in an unacceptable place. I'm all for doing this project somewhere near the Town Common that does not eliminate the development potential along First Street across from the Town Common. I also hope the city council has learned a lesson from this. You don't do a publicly funded redevelopment plan with several rounds of public input and then proceed to trash that plan to appease an investor. The same can be said for the Evans Street widening project, however, in this instance, the council is trying to appease a small group of homeowners. I'm not saying those homeowners don't have a legitimate complaint, but as council members, they have to make decisions based on the greater good, not to appease narrow interests.
I'm not saying those homeowners don't have a legitimate complaint, but as council members, they have to make decisions based on the greater good, not to appease narrow interests.
"the greater good" is always the phrase that comes out when it's not your property the government is taking over. I'm all for this project but not at the expensive of personal liberty and freedom.
"the greater good" is always the phrase that comes out when it's not your property the government is taking over. I'm all for this project but not at the expensive of personal liberty and freedom.
It sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too. Naturally, everyone wants everything they can get. But, to have certain things, including marriage, community, society, etc. individuals have to give up some things to enjoy the fruits of those other things. Ultimately, these choices come down to personal decisions. One can become a hermit and move to an isolated area where they can enjoy all the personal freedoms and liberty all they want. But, in order to enjoy the benefits of society, one must sacrifice some of those freedoms and liberties. No one likes having to make sacrifices, but in order to achieve the "greater good", they sometimes become necessary.
It's otherwise under streets and over top of vacant land. It may be under UNX too but I'm not sure. It cuts across the property that Thai 360 sits on, but they are not the owners, so I don't know if they are getting any financial compensation to move.
The corner lot of Davenport and Frog Level that is under development now has a small sign in front of it: Dollar General. I suppose that sign is stating what's going up there and not subliminal advertising. There's a DG about two miles from there on Dickinson.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
