U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Coastal North Carolina
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-29-2016, 02:59 PM
 
181 posts, read 185,404 times
Reputation: 103

Advertisements

To Winterville I say this: BE CAREFUL.

Keep the signs low, and the clutter to a minimum. Look and Greenville Blvd. as an example of how NOT to develop. EVER.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2016, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Danville, VA
4,669 posts, read 3,059,865 times
Reputation: 2929
Greenville reveals options for new Town Common
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 06:40 AM
 
137 posts, read 141,015 times
Reputation: 76
Default Town Common, Phase II Plan Options

Has anyone seen the phase II plan options for the Town Common? They weren't in the newspaper or the city's website as of early this morning. I'd love to see them if anyone knows where they might be on the Internet or could post them here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 06:55 AM
 
294 posts, read 271,651 times
Reputation: 64
Did we not already have a plan done for the Town common? Is this a continuation or a new one all together? Lets get on with it shall we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 07:26 AM
 
1,022 posts, read 1,005,562 times
Reputation: 367
Looks like they updated an article about the Town commons:

http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/0...n-display.html

Quote:
Shannon Keith
Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Ideas to help Greenville’s Town Common “reach its full potential” were on display Monday during an open house at City Hall.

More than 100 people attended the open house to discuss alternatives for the Town Common Phase 2 Design and Development project. The project is part of the Town Common Master Plan, the city’s long-term plan for the development of the 25-acre park.

“I’m pleased with the turnout. ... It shows you care about our Town Common,” Greenville’s Recreation and Parks director, Gary Fenton, said. “This park has always been important, but it hasn’t reached its full potential.”

Representatives from Rhodeside & Harwell Inc. (RHI), a landscape architecture firm in Alexandria, Va., discussed their progress on Town Common Phase 2 designs during Monday’s open house. RHI presented the City Council with design alternatives for the Town Common Phase 1 Design and Development in April.

Earlier this year, the city and design consultants from RHI held a series of public-input meetings where residents could provide suggestions for potential Town Common improvements and the city’s overall plan for the park. RHI based the Phase 1 schematic design alternatives on input from the meetings.

“What we have here tonight builds upon the Phase 1 schematic designs,” RHI’s Elliot Rhodeside said. “And it incorporates the playground currently under construction at the Town Common.”

The design concepts on display Monday included:
* A reconfigured parking concept along First Street to provide additional spaces;
* A kiosk for kayak and canoe rentals;
* Plans to relocate the park’s amphitheater to provide seating for 3,000-5,000 people;
* Public restroom facilities;
* Retail/vendor space along First Street;
* An interactive fountain that could be used as an ice skating rink during the winter;

* A 5,000- to 6,000-square-foot civic/community building with a catering/staging kitchen that could accommodate up to 300 people for events.

The design concepts also included plans to create a “living shoreline” along the Tar River, Rhodeside said. The walkway and chain-link fence along the river would be removed, and the park’s land would gradually be graded to where it meets the water’s edge.

“The bulkhead along that promenade is deteriorating,” Rhodeside said. “It’s only got about 10 to 12 years left in it. Instead of spending the money to rehabilitate or replace it, we will take the park back down to the waterfront in a 21st-century way.”

Design alternatives for a Town Common memorial marking Sycamore Hill Missionary Baptist Church’s original location on First and Greene streets also were on display during Monday’s open house.

The church, founded about 1867, was first called the African Baptist Church and is one of the city’s oldest congregations. Members changed the church’s name to Sycamore Hill Missionary Baptist Church in the 1880s. In 1917, a large brick church was completed at the corner of First and Greene streets.

As a result of the Shore Drive urban renewal project in the late 1960s, the church building was sold to the city’s Redevelopment Commission, and the congregation was forced to move to Eighth Street in 1968. In 1969, the old church building was destroyed by an arsonist.

Members of the congregation for years have advocated for the creation of a memorial to the church at the site. The church has been on Hooker Road since the 1990s.

Albi McLawhorn from Greenville-based architectural firm MHAworks discussed possible designs the firm is creating from input from members of the church’s congregation.

“We met with some members of the church today and had a spirited discussion,” McLawhorn said. “We’ve received so much input from them and are trying to flesh out a couple of concepts based on these meetings.”

“These designs are very interesting,” church member Lillian Outterbridge said. “There is some tweaking to be done ... but I think Mr. McLawhorn has been wonderful, and we have enjoyed speaking with him about this project.”
Representatives from RHI are scheduled to present updated Phase 2 design alternatives to the Greenville City Council in the fall for approval.






Photos still look like concepts, and not approved changes. I know this is a huge project, but it just seems like they still have no idea on what they want to put there. This has been years in planning, and still it doesn't feel like it's close to being complete or final.

Last edited by michealbond; 08-30-2016 at 07:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 08:53 AM
 
2,401 posts, read 3,364,833 times
Reputation: 1406
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealbond View Post
Looks like they updated an article about the Town commons:

Town Common ideas on display - Daily Reflector









Photos still look like concepts, and not approved changes. I know this is a huge project, but it just seems like they still have no idea on what they want to put there. This has been years in planning, and still it doesn't feel like it's close to being complete or final.
Where to start...

First the good things....like the pier concept with the removal of bulkhead and return to natural status. Walkway across the park is nice as a barrier and provides connectivity.

I like the amphitheater placement and the tower concept in the background. I like the idea of the restrooms at the top of the amphitheater in terms of placement.

The bad...first off the diagonal parking is the wrong way...although diagonal parking is a good idea on First Street.

As well, this is a classic example of overthinking a space. A community building? Only IMO as a use for the amphitheater. This should be a "natural" space w/o buildings. Mini-golf? No. Volleyball? No. Hard courts? No...again a natural space. Zip Line? It's too small...maybe if you were going to build a Zip Line that crosses the river into River Park North.

So, IMO you are left with a outdoor BMX park or just a multi-purpose field. A BMX park is too much of a centerpiece, IMO on the Town Common. This is better off in some other space. If you are going the multi-purpose route, then it should be incorporated into the Amphitheater space, as overflow. So it doesn't work in this design. A multi-purpose field could be used for BMX demonstrations as well as festivals...but again it needs to be situated as overflow for the Amphitheater.

Finally a fountain...where its located is just awful. A fountain would go well at Five Points...I think the Town Common water feature is the river. You don't need to add a water feature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 10:36 AM
 
1,674 posts, read 2,043,456 times
Reputation: 1074
This plan isn't as busy and congested as the original, but it could still be toned down. At last night's meeting they were still asking for more ideas from citizens...as if all of this after all this time wasn't enough.

I don't mind the military memorials being displaced as it deserves it's own space elsewhere downtown. I'll be glad to see the sundial removed, and I'd still rather have the boat ramp/fishing space just off the north side of the Greene St bridge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 01:13 PM
 
872 posts, read 1,719,014 times
Reputation: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancisDrake View Post
I choose to believe the economic development professionals from Pitt and Greenville when they say interstate access would help the area. Just because Greenville is growing well, doesn't mean its growing like it could.
There are plenty of development professionals who would disagree. This study is a good read; 100 NC counties were included in this research.
Rand Transportation and Economy Study


Quote:
Originally Posted by LM117 View Post
economic engine of southwest VA, US 58 is a big speed trap, the Feds will fund these roads
Sorry, but none of these make sense. Highways are best when transporting manufactured goods; Roanoke is not a huge manufacturing economy and they are putting their eggs in the healthcare and medical research basket. Regarding the I87 route, You don't spend millions to reroute around a speed trap and connect Eleizabeth City to an Interstate corridor. The highway service in that part of VA is more than sufficient for the traffic that is generated out of the Triangle as well as what funnels off of 95. Lastly, the states are responsible for the construction AND the funding of new Interstate highways. The government does give money to states for highway construction and maintenance, but NC's basket of construction money will not get bigger by adding Interstate miles. The only basket that grows is the money for maintenance. Personally, I love driving in NC because the state has great roads- from Interstate to two lane corridors. I do try to avoid getting gas there because for years, the gas tax was much higher than that of VA. If you wonder why VA and NC develop their transportation so differently, it only requires an understanding of the way each state funds their roads. I do think VA has gotten to the point where the leadership is not buying into the economic development aspect, choosing other types of infrastructure that will be more relevant to future users.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 04:10 PM
 
137 posts, read 141,015 times
Reputation: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by HP91 View Post
Where to start...

First the good things....like the pier concept with the removal of bulkhead and return to natural status. Walkway across the park is nice as a barrier and provides connectivity.

I like the amphitheater placement and the tower concept in the background. I like the idea of the restrooms at the top of the amphitheater in terms of placement.

The bad...first off the diagonal parking is the wrong way...although diagonal parking is a good idea on First Street.

As well, this is a classic example of overthinking a space. A community building? Only IMO as a use for the amphitheater. This should be a "natural" space w/o buildings. Mini-golf? No. Volleyball? No. Hard courts? No...again a natural space. Zip Line? It's too small...maybe if you were going to build a Zip Line that crosses the river into River Park North.

So, IMO you are left with a outdoor BMX park or just a multi-purpose field. A BMX park is too much of a centerpiece, IMO on the Town Common. This is better off in some other space. If you are going the multi-purpose route, then it should be incorporated into the Amphitheater space, as overflow. So it doesn't work in this design. A multi-purpose field could be used for BMX demonstrations as well as festivals...but again it needs to be situated as overflow for the Amphitheater.

Finally a fountain...where its located is just awful. A fountain would go well at Five Points...I think the Town Common water feature is the river. You don't need to add a water feature.
I like that the design is predominately natural, however, I think it is ok for some of the space to be developed to encourage much more traffic than the current space does. I agree that the open area that's designated for multiple uses is too much. I do think having a second open area is a good thing. There is plenty of open space behind the amphitheater, especially if the seating capacity is already 3,000-5,000 (hopefully, 5,000). Central Park has Tavern on the Green so I think having some kind of restaurant, food service, beer garden as part of the second open space would be good and it should provide a significant permeable hard surface area, such as a plaza. The water feature, which I agree is misplaced, could be located here, as well. I like the dual use of the water feature to attract people to the park in different seasons. The interactive fountain, I assume would be mainly for kids to cool off during the summer, but I don't know for sure. I'd also like to see significant shading (natural or otherwise) in this area to make it more inviting on hot summer days. The rest of that space could be reserved as an open field for pick-up football, soccer, or other field games and/or programmed classes (exercise classes, yoga classes, etc.). These areas could be separated by a wall so that the plaza area is at a higher elevation. I think these things are needed to generate greater use of the park, otherwise, the park might not be much more active than it currently is, and I believe that is one of the overall goals for the redesign, which in turn will become a magnet for developing the south side of First Street.

For the most part, I like the rest of the design, except making the sidewalk along First Street very wide the length of the Park with plenty of seating. I'm also not clear if the promenade across from Evans Street down to the river is elevated as it goes down to the river, or not. I get the impression it is elevated, which I really like and would also lend itself to be extended across the river to River Park North at some point.

Last night's session was just a preliminary look at ideas and the final plan will be presented this fall. Last night's feedback will be used to inform the final plan. So, if there were things you didn't like about the plan and you have suggestions, forward them to the city or the design company. I'd assume they're still open to suggestions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2016, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Danville, VA
4,669 posts, read 3,059,865 times
Reputation: 2929
Quote:
Originally Posted by sregorat3 View Post
Regarding the I87 route, You don't spend millions to reroute around a speed trap and connect Eleizabeth City to an Interstate corridor.

Lastly, the states are responsible for the construction AND the funding of new Interstate highways. The government does give money to states for highway construction and maintenance, but NC's basket of construction money will not get bigger by adding Interstate miles. The only basket that grows is the money for maintenance.

I do think VA has gotten to the point where the leadership is not buying into the economic development aspect, choosing other types of infrastructure that will be more relevant to future users.
I-87's routing came about as a way to connect eastern NC to the Port of Virginia in Norfolk. That port plays a role in eastern NC's economy. That's why Greenville and Kinston are pushing for the upgrade of US-13/NC-11 between US-64/I-87 in Bethel and US-70/I-42 in Kinston, mainly due to the Global TransPark, which has been severely hampered by lack of infrastructure due to NC lacking the foresight to make sure the site had the right infrastructure in place 25 years ago and Greenville being the economic hub of eastern NC. The Port of Morehead City is a fishing dock by comparison and while Wilmington has made improvements, it still lags way behind Norfolk. The "Raleigh-Norfolk" connection was basically used as a means to an end to give eastern NC interstate access to Norfolk's port. Plus, there's CSX building their massive hub in Rocky Mount. It would mean more businesses utilizing Norfolk's port, which is good for Norfolk, along with the benefit of Hampton Roads no longer being a cul-de-sac. I don't really see it as a bad thing and Hampton Roads is in support of it. I doubt they would've supported it if they believed there would be no benefit for them.

I'm also aware of the funding issue and so is NCDOT, which is why they pushed for I-42, I-87 and the extension of I-795 to be signed into law and why there's a push to include US-264. As I've mentioned before, Congressionally designated High Priority corridors are first in line whenever federal funding is appropriated. They're not fully federal funded, but a certain amount is usually given for projects of significance on those corridors. The FAST Act did not fund any new corridors, but when Congress does appropriate funds, high priority corridors come first. Otherwise, there would be no reason for NC to get new interstates signed into law and they would've simply went through the FHWA. NC only did so for corridors that would have a significant impact for the state.

High Priority Corridors - National Highway System - Planning - FHWA

Quote:
Advantage of Designation as a Congressional High Priority Corridor

As noted below funding was not provided in the current (FAST) multiyear surface transportation authorization, however earlier authorizations (ISTEA, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU) either directly or indirectly provided funding for these corridors.
Future Interstates - High Priority Corridors - National Highway System - Planning - FHWA

Quote:
13. Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor from Raleigh, North Carolina, through Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City, North Carolina, to Norfolk, Virginia.

81. United States Route 117/Interstate Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North Carolina.

82. United States Route 70 from its intersection with Interstate Route 40 in Garner, Wake County, North Carolina, to the Port at Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina.
Eastern NC (and the state in general) tends to get a lot of flack for the ideas they come up with regarding highways, the Quad East interstate sytem being the biggest, and even though I'm not entirely sold on the idea and understand the skepticism, I certainly understand why the idea is being pushed. Eastern NC's economy has suffered over the past 20+ years and that's why they have been doing their damndest in recent years to turn things around because the status quo and the localism BS with every city/town looking out themselves rather than cooperating as a region just wasn't cutting it.

Regarding VA not buying into the economic development aspect, I couldn't agree more, since it's blatantly obvious in southside VA, except for Hampton Roads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Coastal North Carolina
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top