Spes

intrigued by the spaces marked what looks like "future development" across Falls Street... Wyche's real estate holding vehicle owns all of it.

I think we're singing the same tune here but a couple points I want to rant on cathartically: USC's latest partnerships with Holder have all been on ground leases, so the property tax exemption stays with the University. Yes the development adds activity and benefit to the urban space but keeps it off tax rolls. My main point with the Icon debacle is that if the University can torpedo a development by going to the mat over something so comically flimsy as "a shadow on the horseshoe for 2 hours a day in December" there is a massive disincentive to development that does not meet the long-term goals of the University, and they've effectively roped off south-of-Senate. That should be concerning in and of itself. Maybe it's legal, but it weeds out competition in a way that will retard growth in that area for a long time.

I'll agree that most of the slow down is market driven, even if the Columbia market had the sustained demand to accommodate each of these multifamily projects on full build-out, most of the developers and lenders don't want to take the bet that they'll be in a good spot when the music stops. I get that. USC's renewed activism in the area is troubling though, and reminded me of an argument I saw in a citylab article: http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/09/an-unusual-objection-to-less-parking-it-will-make-our-city-too-nice/406096/ I, for one, sincerely doubt that Icon on Main would have been built out as originally shown, but USC is starting to occupy a real estate monopsony in that area whose self-interests are not necessarily aligned with the city's.

is this still the latest design they're going with? http://columbiasc.gov/depts/planning-boards-commissions/ddrc/agendas/20150813/ddrc_2015-08-13_pkt11_assembly_1015_eval.pdf the original was 1,000,000x better. real letdown.

probably without. that thing is a massive waste of space

I would encourage you to look at the banner on the building next to the Cigar Factory and upwardly revise your estimate. Is that sustainable? who knows, whatever. it's not my money

Courthouses these days are more likely to be higher rise for a smorgasboard of security/planning/logistical reasons, whether in an urban setting or not. You can just look at the last few state courthouses for an idea. The only exceptions I can think of are Horry and Berkeley, one of which may have been an add-on or reno job. I hadn't thought about North Main, which would be good for the area, but is far less likely because they will want to keep it within a reasonable distance from other services like banks or other county/government offices. It probably is a no go on Elmwood frontage purely for traffic concerns (which is a shame, but a fact of life). My first impression was that they would target the city lot on Blanding and Sumter, which is similar acreage and loses almost no advantage in location. This is Columbia/Richland government, so reason is not a good predictor.

same buyer purchased (almost) the entire block of houses across Crook Street, adjacent to Academy. Financing doesn't look to be in place for any construction project. Also, separate lenders, which is odd-isn

I share your enthusiasm for the site and distaste for above-ground parking, but the site's disconnectedness from downtown-proper (i.e. walking distance from North Main) probably means it will only work as lower-density; highest case scenario is probably South Ridge-esque. But projections on demand for apartments/etc may limit that... If the occupancy rate on apartments in 3 years is lower than 80%, don't keep your hopes up I hope it can be something great as part of downtown, but it would work well as a dense, transitional residential area

This mistakes the fact that the decision comes from the property owner and the HT franchisee, not the city or anybody worried about what is "sufficient" for the area. Obviously HT thinks there is enough demand (now and in the future) to justify the location, and whether they're right will remain to be seen. considering that the property owner is planning to tear down the building, maybe don't get your hopes up

Here's a better idea: take the ridiculous amount of money that would go into a white elephant like a water park, or a beach in Findlay park, or a Unicorn parade down Assembly street, and put it into something that provides an actual, measurable difference for the city, like better roads, sidewalk improvements, more teachers, or something else decidedly less sexy.

City is already doing significant road and lighting repairs to the roadways under the Elmwood Bridge

Security Concerns limit federal buildings to federal agencies and wouldn't allow private leasing like that.

Hughes Commercial already owns the parcel parcel at the corner of East McBee and Church, on the block with Erwin Penland

I found Epicentre to be a tourist-obsessed, franchised monstrosity. Columbia's drought of local establishments is deep enough, and retarding its growth. God forbid.

Transit is a great idea and out state and country could use more of it. That being said, at its least expensive, Light Rail currently runs around $20 million per mile, and it's about 40 miles from Columbia to Newberry. You guys can do the math. Maybe focus on getting a half-way decent bus system first.

Being so close to the West End and the baseball stadium certainly gives that some advantages, but I can see some impediments to the development. First, it's just a silly amount of real estate, about three times the size of South Ridge, and Four times the size of the Greenville News Plot. That will not only take a very dedicated developer with a clear vision, but it will be hard to pull off cohesively in a way that will communicate with all of its surroundings. Second, there's already a lot of infrastructure in there, and uprooting it will probably require a suitable replacement for those services first. Between County Square and the University Center, there's a lot of moving parts. Third, and I think most importantly, is the restricted access between the site and the rest of downtown. The site is right next to the west end, and it would certainly transition effortlessly into the area, but the Governor's school intractably blocks it from easy access to the park. Further, on its east end, the tract doesn't exactly meet up with any pedestrian intensive part of downtown. If the downtown area can hinge outward off of its linear path with Camperdown, and into the under-utilized blocks between Main and Church streets, it may have a broader connection to the rest of the city, but without that, it will be an odd extension of the West end that tapers into the South Ridge intersection. The West End's development is certainly reaching a fever pitch lately, but I just don't see it viably keeping the same character and energy by dog-legging out around the Governor's School. At best, I think it would be set for something along the lines of South Ridge, or a commercial center on the western portion with more emphasis on single-family throughout the rest. It is, of course, mostly about money, and not fit. I do hope I'm wrong and that somebody else has more vision than I do and can pull it off. Just making observation

Columbia, South Carolina, the United States, and the rest of the world absolutely needs to ramp up mental health care, indigent care, and rehabilitative support. While that much is true, the idea that the city should move the least fortunate among us out of sight and out of mind is at least misguided. The city has no power to move a private charity off of land that they own, and any attempt to zone those services into the hinterlands would be costly, chaotic, and morally condemnable. I want Columbia to succeed, but if "really making it" as a city means chewing up human life, frankly, Columbia doesn't deserve to make it.

Been to several theaters in Columbia and Charleston where beer, wine, and sometimes liquor are available, and never once saw a problem with disorderly conduct. It's a different dynamic than, say, a bar or a baseball game, where the beer is cheap(er) and people keep getting more. Prices are inflated, movie keeps you in your seats, service is slower where there's a waitstaff.

About 75% of it is also owned by 3 LLCs. Good sign.

I'll agree that it's not exactly architecturally inspired, but some people won't be happy unless they see everything in columns and granite or cutting edge glass. Except the developers don't have any obligation to pay for that... so... If you want it world class, do it yourself

Mmmmmmmmm no, no they aren't. Columbia's pedestrian-oriented development has been almost entirely along existing linear thoroughfares: Main Street, Gervais, Harden. Your point is well taken but the example amiss.

Not to mention every credible, objective economic study has shown that public money spent on stadiums inevitably fails to meet return on investment. Investment in infrastructure and education, however...

Charleston is obviously growing at a much faster pace than Greenville (and the rest of the country!) but let's not make your little pissing match a game of "broad generalizations about statistics." http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=PEP_2014_PEPTCOMP&prodType=table http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk Comparisons to Columbia are dubious at best