ColaFan
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Project Database
User Guide
Store
Events
Posts posted by ColaFan
-
-
On 1/4/2017 at 10:41 AM, carolinagarnet said:
Wow, it seems the state is giving SCANA a huge pass on the black tar cleanup just south of the Gervais Street Bridge. Not that there are any immediate plans, but this frees the area for development of a riverfront park.
What did they decide on SCANA. I thought I saw that there was a fight gearing up over the white wash plan.
I assume that the Columbia side/Riverfront Park phase remains on the back burner?
I've been a little confused for a long while why Columbia was dragging its feet on creating a centerpiece park. I actually think if done correctly it could do a lot of the City's attractiveness. And I think it could help jolt development perhaps.
I think Columbia's side can be more of a destination, finished park than a natural habitat. Someplace that could host a fourth of july celebration, a festival, etc, as opposed to a place to necessarily walk in the woods. More of an urban park.
-
On 2/21/2017 at 9:56 AM, TKJones said:
My thoughts exactly after having walked through, unfortunately. It's definitely a nice redevelopment, don't get me wrong, but the whole thing just seems way too non-functional to justify taking up nearly an entire city block. If they wanted it to feel like a small park like the article says, then why not just build one of those instead of planting some small trees and a few hundred square feet of sod in the middle of a big stone parking lot? Also, what's with the giant slabs just sitting there? Am I missing something on this one?
Tend to agree wth this, though a pocket park in that sort of high foot traffic area might not be feasible.
I think maybe as the canopy fills in, it might look nicer.
-
10 hours ago, growingup15 said:
It's called planning. Every heard of it. The city and county can easily plan this out so it be a disaster like that of which you speak of. Because one example is bad doesn't mean they're all bad.
That seems like a pretty rude response.
-
2
-
-
On 1/8/2017 at 9:19 PM, Spes said:
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.
Depends on what you mean by higher rise.
Generally speaking, all of the newer county courthouse tend not to be more than four or five stories and generally speaking have a bigger footprint. If you are putting Charleston, Beaufort, Horry, Sumter, Dorchester, Lancaster in the vertical category then that is certainly what is being built. I don't consider them as particularly vertical and they certainly are not high rises.
Really the only high rise on the state level is Florence and it is being replaced with a structure along the lines of the others. A relatively spread out facility of moderate height. The Florence courthouse was constructed as a combination court house and city county offices complex. It is a disaster logistically. you have three elevator banks feedings the entire building. So you have criminal roll calls on the elevators with citizens trying to pay their water bills or get a building permit. You have inmates sharing elevators. The halls are terribly cramped and there is no real space for people heading to court to congregate outside the courtroom. The Clerk's offices are on different floors from the courtrooms.
I'm not sure why the feds would favor verticality and I'm not saying it is impossible to design something that would be functional, I just have a hard time seeing how it would flow as well as the current fashion. You'd still need a wide footprint to make it make sense and that would likely eliminate the cost saving and footprint.
Also state courthouses have a very different need and a very different volume and variety of courts and cases.
I don't see it as a very functional or desirable design plan.
-
On 9/21/2016 at 6:47 PM, growingup15 said:
http://www.wltx.com/mb/sports/ncaa/usc-gamecocks/usc-wont-bid-for-march-madness-games/323181803
They bring up a great topic here about Columbia not having enough hotel space to host such huge events. Makes me wonder how many hotels are planned or needs to be built in Columbia in the next few years to handle the constant fluctuation of people
I don't quite understand how Columbia has enough hotel rooms to support conventions and football games and USC graduation, etc and not enough to support the NCAA tournament.
I think the bigger concern was perhaps that the existing hotels did not have availability for the featured dates.
-
On 1/4/2017 at 10:08 PM, carolinagarnet said:
Ah, good to know. The timing might not be ideal for private sector use given that there are shovel-ready projects in Columbia Common and Innovista and plenty of developable land in the CBD. Considering how courthouses are generally laid out, I would imagine that retrofitting the building for other uses would not be ideal. The cost of demolishing the current building and constructing a new facility would be pretty expensive, which is probably why the county wants to share the infrastructure cost burden with the city.
I can't imagine that it would be particularly advantageous for the City/County to repurpose the existing Courthouse. I also cannot imagine that any County would include a Courthouse in a tower these days. Just too many logistical issues there, I think.
I've thought that the County ought to look at North Main possibly for the Courthouse. Lots of blight down that corridor and perhaps the Courthouse could be a positive motivator down that way. It also would be relatively close to the existing courthouse location so it would not disrupt too much.
I think the County could then either use the lot for redevelopment or sell it off for private redevelopment.
-
Just needs more trees, less pavement, fewer wires.
-
3 hours ago, growingup15 said:
So i found out that land is being turned into green space. I guess thats good
Where did you see that? I've been wondering.
-
I think the City would be better served building out the waterfront park than addressing Finlay right now.
That would be more of an attraction and would unite the Columbia side river, which I think is more valuable. I think that's more likely to push development as well.
The problem with Finlay, I guess more than anything, is that it is not terribly convenient to many people because there is relatively little downtown population and this being a southern city people aren't likely to drive in to a place where you might see homeless.
-
1
-
-
Anyone know what the cost of repainting/renovating rail bridges is? The rail bridge above Gervais near Harden is one that comes to mind but there are several in the downtown area that could use a coat of paint.
I know that generally would be on the railroad, but seems like they might be a good neighbor or city or university could contribute. I think it might help the feel of the area to get these looking a little neater and less like its a run down area.
The block or two from five points to the road on which Capstone sits has an unsavory appearance based in part on that rusty bridge and the carwash. The buildings on the other side aren't the best either. Seems like a natural progression for business district with law school coming online and the new condo. I think people might like to walk up gervais, but not sure that is something that would be that appealing right now.
-
Glad to see some official progress there. the movie theater seems like an interesting concept and a second destination draw for the project.
Sounds like an upscale, pricier option too, which hopefully might suggest the composition of the development. I don't think this thing really is all that exciting if it is just a second Harrison or Sandhills. Hoping to see some interesting new shopping.
-
What is the latest with the development of the Columbia side of the river?
I thought that the River Esplanade or whatever they had in mind had been in planning for awhile. Has the City dropped this after floods and attention to Bull Street?
to me, the City has really delayed an opportunity to create a signature attraction that could in turn spur development and be a selling point for the City in attracting investment downtown.
I think the City could definitely develop this into more of an urban park that would be a bit different from what has been done on the other side. I know that perhaps the Guingard property itself would not necessarily be subject to development, but I think there is a lot of non-developed land between that and the Vista that could benefit from condos, hotel, offices with park access.
You'd also be linking up existing trails and giving it a central destination point that would perhaps spur interesting uses and development downstream.
-
Any new plans or announcements about a downtown trolley or other transit service? I know that the trolleys were unsuccessful 20 years ago, but it seems as though you have more people living downtown now.
I think you could start with a Gervais axis and an Assembly axis.
Gervais might run from State Street in West Columbia to Five Points. the Assembly route could run from Whaley (or even George Rogers) to Elmwood. I think that would capture a lot of the new housing and give these student housing communities access to USC while also letting people move pretty freely between entertainment districts and the river.
I guess it still would depend on the willingness of people to ride public transit, but maybe it would be convenient enough for people to get a critical mass of people that would feel safer. I suspect safety is the biggest concern now of many, whether that is a reasonable fear or not.
-
Rode by the condos at Harden and Gervais earlier this week. They have really made progress from the last time I made by, with the main entrance now nearly complete. It looks like it will be a nice looking addition once the landscaping fills in. I could see that being another catalyst for that area.
-
8 hours ago, TKJones said:
The design is cool and fitting, especially with the glass sections as I said. Same with 650 lincoln, strom, marriot, etc.
All I was really trying to say was that since everything is the same neutral color, those nicer buildings tend to blend in with the bad ones (coliseum, old law school, jones I think it's called on main) depending on where you're walking, and make the area as a whole look a lot more dated than it actually is - at least to my eye.
Good point bringing up consistency though - can't really argue against them trying to do a better job with it in this area than they have in some of the others. I'm excited to see how everything turns out on Greene.
I tend to agree with you. I think using the same tan yellow brick on every new building on campus is pretty monotonous. It works, but its fairly boring. That color also tends to show wear also.
Of course, I kind of hate the business school, so maybe its not so bad.
-
On January 26, 2016 at 10:10 AM, carolinagarnet said:
This is a couple months old, but the Guignard family isn't down with the Sasaki plan for the riverfront park:
Those who appreciate the natural beauty along the river are glad Thompson and city officials didn’t rush to build the park envisioned in the Sasaki plan in 2006. It featured an artificial reflecting pool, a granite bulkhead along the river, a concrete amphitheater, and what Granby neighborhood leader Bob Guild referred to a “a mockery of a canal.”
The complaints about the level of “hardscaping” in the plan, along with a major drop in federal funding for such projects, led to the shelving of those aspects of the Sasaki plan.
Thompson and Benjamin both see the park as more natural than in the original plan, with more native trees, less concrete and respect for the 3.5-acre wetlands in the middle of the property. They’d like a path slightly wider and grander than the riverwalk on the west side of the river. And a central gathering spot is a must, to create the front porch feel.
Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article22004907.html#storylink=cpy
Personally I don't care what it looks like, so long as it exists. This is somewhat off topic, but I wish Columbia would add really visible signage to highlight the Columbia riverwalk and help direct people from the riverwalk to Finlay Pak. The area would have a much greater sense of connectivity if people could easily chart their own paths between parks.
to me, anything would be an improvement and something to work with. But I don't think it would be a bad thing if the Columbia side was a more urban space than what exists on the other side. I don't think it should be just hardscape and grass, but I don't think the best plan is an entirely natural preserve. The idea should be to make it a public gathering space, IMO, more than it is a visit to a natural preserve.
I think it should have a different purpose than the river trials on the other side.
-
2
-
-
On January 20, 2016 at 0:25 PM, carolinagarnet said:
but people feel like borrowing such a large amount of money for beautification is wasteful. I agree- I doubt anything that the city does to Finlay Park is going to draw people from across the region or the country to Columbia. Building a riverfront park would seem to be a much larger draw as other cities have become meccas for their rivers (e.g. San Antonio, Savannah, Chattanooga). With the money pouring tens of millions into Bull Street, I think this plan is a little tone deaf.
Longtime reader, first time poster. Love this forum. Glad to see a little more activity.
Personally, while I think that Bull Street is a big project for the City, I am not sure there is anything that would be of more benefit to the City's long term prospects than completing a first-rate waterfront park on the Columbia side of the river. I feel if the City got that right, the surrounding property would really be in a position to develop and it is the sort of thing that can help make a nice impression.
Of course, I am not sure how much of the property on that side of Huger is potentially developable as opposed to simply being part of the proposed park., but that's an area that could grow up with high end residential or mixed development like you see coming along in Greenville.
I think a first class riverfront could complement Bull Street in making downtown living seem more appealing.
But like the other threads here suggest, the downtown is going to need to be able to pull in more business. I'm still somewhat confused about how Columbia has failed to do better in that area. Maybe the City needs to do better with incentives. I think like Greenville so many years ago, the City is in a position where having things come in is probably worth more than the tax revenue in the short term.
1 hour ago, carolinagarnet said:The former Moe Levy's is getting a new breakfast restaurant:
Seems like a good play on the increase in downtown population.
-
1
-
Innovista
in Columbia
Posted
Any information out there about some of these projects?
1. Riverfront Park between Gervais and Blossom.
2. USC Master plan to redevelop Whaley Street area of campus by bringing the creek to surface level and greenscaping. there was a nice video rendering of that at one point. I think that plan was due for an update to be presented a year or so ago, but never saw any reference to it afterwards. This is just outside of Innovista, but I think linked up to Innovista thought Greek Village/Strom Thurmond center.
3. USC extension of Green Street and building in the Innovista footprint.