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.
Bids for development at the Imperial Tobacco property have been published online by the city of Greenville, after several months of withholding their release.
Greenville officials sought bids from firms to carry out conceptual designs for the 86-acre site after a City Council vote in June. The bids were to be opened on Sept. 15, and a public discussion was expected to follow at a subsequent council meeting.
Since then, the bids have not been discussed at any City Council meeting, and despite repeated requests by The Daily Reflector, have remained out of the public eye. The bids were published on Wednesday on a city website page that provides an overview of the project. Certain information that was deemed sensitive or potentially harmful to the bidding developers was redacted by the city.
The three proposals for the development of the site come from The Keith Corporation out of Charlotte, Armada Hoffler, of Virginia Beach, and Hallmark Communities and Seacoast Communities out of Mount Pleasant, SC. The bid from The Keith Corporation is for a partial portion of the total site, where they hope to construct a large office building. The other two bids are for the complete development of the site.
Bids from Armada Hoffler and Hallmark both propose a large amount of housing development mixed with commercial space and a large office building.
The Hoffler proposal consists of 325 residential units, 21,380 square feet of retail area, 62,008 square feet of office space and 1,251 parking spaces. According to the site plan included in Hoffler’s bid, housing would be spread largely throughout four medium-sized buildings and one large building on the corner of Atlantic Avenue and Bonners Lane, attached to a parking garage. The office space would mostly be located in a large office building on the south side of the site, at the intersection of Dickenson and Atlantic avenues.
The proposal from Hallmark consist of 315 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail space, 66,000 square feet of office space and 1,131 parking spaces. The layout of the spacing is similar to Hoffler’s layout, with the same large three-story apartment complex and three-story office space. It is not clear in either proposal if the housing is specifically student targeted.
The city’s release of the bids is compliant to the repeated requests of the Daily Reflector. Originally the city denied the release of the bids in accordance to North Carolina General Stature 132-6(d), and again denied a follow-up request for the bids with redacted details, as suggested by North Carolina Press Association General Counsel, Amanda Martin.
“In accordance with NCGS 132-6(d), the city is withholding the release of proposals received for the former Imperial Tobacco site until a developer for the project has been identified,” City Attorney Emanuel McGirt said in an email on on Nov. 14.
“Any release of the requested information prior to the selection of a partner could adversely affect the selection process. We are excited about the potential of a public-private partnership for the former Imperial Tobacco warehouse site, and we anticipate selecting a partner for this highly anticipated project in the near future. We look forward to sharing more details once the selection process is complete.”
According to Brock Letchworth, the public information officer for the city, no specific change resulted in the city reversing its decision regarding the bids. He said that releasing the bids with the sensitive information redacted seemed like a “good compromise” between getting the information out to the public and protecting the developers privacy.
“I think that it was just a general consensus among staff and council that it would be a good thing to get out there for the public to view what the proposals are,” he said.
Imperial Tobacco operated a processing plant at the site from the 1900s. The property was optioned by a developer in the mid-2000s but it burned down in 2008.
The city purchased the site for $1 in 2012 and used a federal Brownfield grant to clean up toxins left from the fire and plant operations.
In September 2016, the council contracted with Development Finance Initiative of Chapel Hill to facilitate development of the site.
DFI presented multiple options to the council at the June meeting. The council approved a concept that reinvests revenues from the development of some sections of the property to ensure affordable housing is included elsewhere on the land.
The site is expected to attract approximately $68 million in private investment if the plan comes to fruition, officials said in June.
It is not clear when the bids will be presented to City Council. It is possible they will be discussed at the City Council retreat at the end of the month or during the February council meetings.
Contact Seth Gulledge at Sgulledge@reflector.com and 329-9579. Follow him on Twitter @GulledgeSeth
Finally. Only problem is that they did not provide the web link to see the proposals
My only hope is that none of the housing is targeted to students. They need market rate housing in this area, enough with the student housing.
Edit: After reviewing the documents, I'm pleased with both Hoffler & Hallmarks proposals. Hallmark indicates it would be residential housing, not student housing. I didn't read the other one carefully enough to see, but I imagine it's the same.
Last edited by jpirate; 01-18-2018 at 09:28 AM..
Reason: q
To be honest, I don't really like any of the proposals, maybe one.
Ask yourself what downtown Greenville needs more of?
The answer is 1) hotels, 2) another parking deck in this area, 3) offices.
I dont see a hotel anywhere in those proposals. And for that reason, I would reject all of them. Notice I didn't include housing into what downtown needed or retail. You see, including the 10th St project, there is more than enough housing, and as for market rate housing, they just added about 50 units or so ON Dickinson Avenue between two developments. Retail? How about lets fill the spaces being created now (look at the Boundary). As well, this development isn't on the main road.
If I was going to choose one, it would be the one that just chose to develop the office building. IMO, build that, work on financing another city owned parking deck and utilize much of the remaining space trying to attract a large hotel (both the office building and hotel can take advantage of the city deck, as well as the general public that will frequent Dickinson Avenue businesses. And build a pocket park for that area.
Housing can be renovated loft style space between Dickinson and Evans in the Tobbaco district. THIS SITE is vacant and can support new buildings...like a hotel (which cant be built in the district). Think of downtown Wilmington's hotels, they are all being built outside of the Historic District, because it gives the ability to build the way the hotels want to.
I'm a little surprised this topic isn't getting more heat, whether it be here on CD, in the media, or elsewhere. A lot of effort was made to convert an entire city block to ECU's benefit in regards to accommodating the new chancellor home. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit(s) isn't in order. I'm hoping the new Mayor will put his city over his university.
My only hope is that none of the housing is targeted to students. They need market rate housing in this area, enough with the student housing.
Edit: After reviewing the documents, I'm pleased with both Hoffler & Hallmarks proposals. Hallmark indicates it would be residential housing, not student housing. I didn't read the other one carefully enough to see, but I imagine it's the same.
Sweet! I like option 1 and 2, and I think 3 is kinda unnecessarily. We have enough student housings and we still have space to put more, not just in that area.
- They all show residential so I guess option 2.
I guess it's okay to put more student housings.
Last edited by Slay The Great; 01-18-2018 at 03:01 PM..
I'm a little surprised this topic isn't getting more heat, whether it be here on CD, in the media, or elsewhere. A lot of effort was made to convert an entire city block to ECU's benefit in regards to accommodating the new chancellor home. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit(s) isn't in order. I'm hoping the new Mayor will put his city over his university.
The university wants to address every issue except the conflict of interest with Webb. There's also been no accounting of how to reimburse the city for work already done.
I'm a little surprised this topic isn't getting more heat, whether it be here on CD, in the media, or elsewhere. A lot of effort was made to convert an entire city block to ECU's benefit in regards to accommodating the new chancellor home. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit(s) isn't in order. I'm hoping the new Mayor will put his city over his university.
On 08/17, the price of the home decreased to $969k, yet the foundation paid $1.3 million for it? Aside from the bad optics and conflict-of-interest here with Rick Webb, I do what to know how the price of the residence jumped by over $300k in less than a year.
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.
I like option 1 and 2, and I think 3 is kinda unnecessarily. We have enough student housings and we still have space to put more, not just in that area.
