September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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          

« Immigration bill | Main | A&T »

May 26, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Don Moore

If Action Greensboro offered these guys a chance to move a few years back, the Grasshoppers stadium could have been at this location. Plus moving the seafood store and cleaning up the brown field that surrounds the area would have been far cheaper than moving social services.

It would have really accelerated southside development.

Ed Cone

Woulda, coulda, maybe shoulda...didn't.

I was a proponent of putting the stadium on South Elm.

But you know what? The new stadium is pretty damn nice, South Elm is getting redeveloped anyway -- I'd say as a result of the baseball process, and using federal money as suggested during that process by Roch Smith Jr.

It's possible, even in disease-prone Greensboro, for good things to happen, and for non-zero-sum outcomes to apply.

Roch101

Any word on what will happen to the mermaid sign?

diane

I was against putting a new stadium at Lee and South Elm streets. The plan called for closing Elm Street to through trarffic. I saw that as a bad idea at an already congested intersection close to the railroad.
Also, I don't think the driving forces behind the stadium really wanted it there. They hired a consulting firm to plan the entire downtown. The consultants made a mistake by suggesting that the stadium be located on South Elm Street.
Plans changed quickly. The area that was to be closed off to build the stadium became a "gateway to Greensboro" and a brown field with terrible pollution problems that could not be overcome to build the stadium.
I'm glad that the area will be redeveloped. I hope it is done in a way that will please the people of Greensboro and not just the outside consultants who cojuldn't even get the games of the streets correct on their illustrations and presentations.

diane

Sorry about the spelling. Should have been couldn't even get the names of the streets correct. I was on a rant.

Anonymous

I am sorry to see the building go, since as long as I can remember it has been a landmark on that corner. It was reassuring that no matter what national chain stores came and went and restaurants closed and opened, there was always the seafood store on that location.

hugh

Fits perfectly with Greensboro's attitude, "if it's old, tear it down".

Ed Cone

It's not a beautiful building, and it's surrounded empty lots or abandoned structures (one of which, the old Jones Bros. Bakery, does have a nice facade...but no roof). And I hear the mermaid may be moved with the business...I'm not a big fan of tearing down our old buildings, but I'm not sure that this neighborhood re-do qualifies as one of our bad moments in urban planning.

mick

Try this again...

As one of those swim center supporters I think a new sign would be more appropruate.

"IF IT SWIMS, IT MUST GO ELSEWHERE"

Seriously, I think I'm with Ed on this one. Redevelopment is needed.

David Wharton

S. Elm has a lot of good old buildings further on south; ride down that way and have a look at them if you haven't done so lately. If I remember right, the redevleopment plan recommends some preservation, but making that happen ... that's another thing.

I hope that whatever replaces the fish store has a comparable street presence and grit. It's possible to build new stuff that has a little edge to it, you know.

hugh

Is the feed silo/building on the West side of South Elm slated for demo also?

It would be nice to salvage that for it's aesthetic value.

Ed Cone

This one?

If so, nope, it's privately-owned and there are plans to develop it.

The comments to this entry are closed.