Breaking the 349 foot Cap...

[carolinadude9409]

The way things have turned out the last couple of years with proposals and stuff, I would say it is either going to be Greenville or Myrtle Beach. Remember, Greenville did have a proposal for the state's tallest, the tower at falls and broad, but it unfortunately died.

[krazeeboi]

You can't just take proposals into account, you've also got to consider which cities actually managed to get towers built the past couple of years. Obviously Columbia is a contender here.

[GvilleSC]

Carolinadude9409 is right. Greenville has had a lot of proposed developments. Two should begin before the end of the year. But in addition to the proposals, a lot of projects have been built, including two of Greenville's largest private investments in downtown's history; they are under construction currently (Riverplace and McBee Station). So, Greenville obviously CAN get things off the ground, though they may not all be towers. I think this bodes well for the city and with most of SC's fastest growing companies being in the area only increases the chances.

[monsoon]

In these discussions the re-occuring theme is that Columbia can build a tower, Greenville can build a tower, etc etc. Cities rarely build towers, developers and businesses do. Skyscrapers are very expensive buildings to construct and don't happen unless one of the following happens:

1. There is high demand for a location and not enough land to satisfy that demand.

2. A business wants a signature tower to make a statement and/or to sell luxury living highrise living.

3. A developer wants to break a record for the sake of doing so

Of this list, #1 is the only legitimate reason for skyscraper construction. In the Carolinas only Myrtle Beach would meet #1. The towers in downtown Charlotte are mostly being built due to #2. The Signature Tower in Nashville is an example of #3.

In the case of Columbia, and Greenville the question should does either city meet one of the criteria listed above. Given that #1 is out, that leaves #2 or #3.

[krazeeboi]

Well, what about downtown office space coming off the market, thus lowering the vacancy rate? Would that fall under #1?

As far as any one business building a tower, for Columbia I'd say its best chances would rest with SCANA.

It just seems as though it's cheaper to build out in Greenville rather than build up. I could see a company constructing a campus on Millenium Campus before erecting a tower.

[803metlife]

It just seems as though it's cheaper to build out in Greenville rather than build up. I could see a company constructing a campus on Millenium Campus before erecting a tower.

lol

[krazeeboi]

I didn't mean it as a joke; I was serious. Millenium Campus is in a good location with lots of land. I think it has the potential to discourage the construction of at least some towers. It's not a knock on Greenville or anything, just an observation. Am I off on this assertion Greenvillians?

[GvilleSC]

lol

I'm not sure I understand the laughter... Millenium Campus and the adjacent property is making more of a statement on travalers than anything being built in any other city. It's very high profile and Greenville will be more known and better known for it.

I didn't mean it as a joke; I was serious. Millenium Campus is in a good location with lots of land. I think it has the potential to discourage the construction of at least some towers. It's not a knock on Greenville or anything, just an observation. Am I off on this assertion Greenvillians?

no, you're not off. And it's attracting more high paying jobs and headquarters to the city. It's a very positive thing.

[krazeeboi]

OK, I didn't think so. But I believe that both Columbia and Greenville have equally as good a chance as having a mixed-use tower constructed, as both are really tapping into a burgeoning downtown residential market.

[Infinite1]

well honestly, Greenville CBD is a very small office market for the supporting population. There may be some pent up demand that could explode. I'm not sure what the hesistance is there, perhaps it is that the market is somewhat unproven and dvelopers are iffy. (Greenvillians, maybe you have more insight). Columbia just built out large scale class A space (Meridian) that put the occupancy rates back to around 85%. I believe they are around 87% now. All that to say, in the grand scheme of things G'Ville is likely to see a tower before Columbia, but since there seems to be some skittishness I would doubt it would be "state's tallest" material. Just my observation.

For both cities, the best bet for a really large tower would be a mixed use proposal.

[monsoon]

Well, what about downtown office space coming off the market, thus lowering the vacancy rate? Would that fall under #1?

No because every single city in the Carolinas except for Myrtle Beach is surrounded by square miles of vacant land. Even most of the land inside the loop of Charlotte is still vacant parking lots. Sure more buildings can go up, but there is really not reason to put up a highrise.

[GvilleSC]

No because every single city in the Carolinas except for Myrtle Beach is surrounded by square miles of vacant land. Even most of the land inside the loop of Charlotte is still vacant parking lots. Sure more buildings can go up, but there is really not reason to put up a highrise.

But if you never built highrises, then you would fill up with low to mid-rise buildings. Then it's going to be terribly expensive to tear them down to go vertical. Not to mention the opposition you would face. It only makes sense to me to build a good mix of both

[monsoon]

That makes absolutely no economic sense at all for the individual developers putting up the buildings. That statement only makes sense if you are working from the premise that cities or some central authority builds these buildings which we know they don't. It's individual developers that put up buildings and they are not going to do so unless one of the 3 criteria is present. The question should be does Greenville or Columbia have one of those criteria.

[GvilleSC]

That makes absolutely no economic sense at all for the individual developers putting up the buildings. That statement only makes sense if you are working from the premise that cities or some central authority builds these buildings which we know they don't. It's individual developers that put up buildings and they are not going to do so unless one of the 3 criteria is present. The question should be does Greenville or Columbia have one of those criteria.

You're taking my comment out of context. I'm not talking about what's in the best interest for the developer and regulating who builds what and where... that all depends on the market conditions. Don't be so deffensive.

[GvilleSC]

I'd have to go with Greenville. The downtown hotel market is still not up to where it should be. Therefore, a hotel in a mixed use tower would take up a fair amount of space and assist to make the building happen. A residential component could be thrown in and of course the first level would be retail. With the city's push for existing Greenville companies to move downtown, filling the office space shouldn't be too far out of reach.

[Greenville]

It just seems as though it's cheaper to build out in Greenville rather than build up. I could see a company constructing a campus on Millenium Campus before erecting a tower.

Yeah, but isn't it true in any city that it is cheaper to build out rather than up? Or are you suggesting that land is cheaper in Greenville than in comparable metros?

As we all know, land will always be cheaper the farther you get from city center. So in the case of Southern cities with cheap available land in the outskirts of the city, something has to draw companies and developers into the CBD to build towers. That can be quality of life, demand, prestige, and/or proximity to other businesses/places of interest. Greenville is doing the right things to get more business downtown, although I definitely agree that Millennium Campus is a draw for companies relocating to the area (which could potentially cause them to not build downtown).

[krazeeboi]

Yeah, but isn't it true in any city that it is cheaper to build out rather than up? Or are you suggesting that land is cheaper in Greenville than in comparable metros?

I wouldn't think that land would be cheaper in Greenville than in any other metro its size in the South, but how many metros have provided land expressly for the purpose of encouraging the building of low- to mid-rise corporate complexes, with close proximity to downtown? That makes it all the easier for companies to opt for anything BUT a tower.

[Spartan]

No because every single city in the Carolinas except for Myrtle Beach is surrounded by square miles of vacant land. Even most of the land inside the loop of Charlotte is still vacant parking lots. Sure more buildings can go up, but there is really not reason to put up a highrise.

What do you mean by vancant land? MB has no less vacant land than any other city. If you mean CBD land, then Charleston has zero available land. I would argue that MB has more potential land for highrises than most cities, but it is limited by the fact that most of it is not ocean front and therefore less desirable.

--

Also, I think Krazee makes a good point (last page). Greenville has the campus style developments going on, and there is a lot of prime real estate available on I-85 that needs to be built out first. Verdae and ICAR, etc. Are muge projects, and their presence alone potentially weakens the CBD's draw for an office tower. Thats not to say that it can't happen, just that it may decrease the odds somewhat.

[monsoon]

What do you mean by vancant land? MB has no less vacant land than any other city. If you mean CBD land, then Charleston has zero available land. I would argue that MB has more potential land for highrises than most cities, but it is limited by the fact that most of it is not ocean front and therefore less desirable.

You answered your own question. Myrtle Beach is putting up highrise oceanfront residential towers and the land for this it is very limited that is why they are building skyscrapers. This is the only place in the Carolinas where #1 applies. I did not include Charleston because there is no demand there for highrise towers due to building restrictions.

[803metlife]

Yeah, but isn't it true in any city that it is cheaper to build out rather than up? Or are you suggesting that land is cheaper in Greenville than in comparable metros?

As we all know, land will always be cheaper the farther you get from city center. So in the case of Southern cities with cheap available land in the outskirts of the city, something has to draw companies and developers into the CBD to build towers. That can be quality of life, demand, prestige, and/or proximity to other businesses/places of interest. Greenville is doing the right things to get more business downtown, although I definitely agree that Millennium Campus is a draw for companies relocating to the area (which could potentially cause them to not build downtown).

One thing I can say Greenville has done an excellent job on is developing I-85. Greenville gives more of a visual impression riding down 85 when Columbia has more residential developments long side it's freeways. Columbia should have built more of it's business located near the freeways to make travelers passing threw wonder what's going on in this city.

[Mr.Marc]

One thing I can say Greenville has done an excellent job on is developing I-85. Greenville gives more of a visual impression riding down 85 when Columbia has more residential developments long side it's freeways. Columbia should have built more of it's business located near the freeways to make travelers passing threw wonder what's going on in this city.

Columbia lets its visitors riding down I-26 wait in pain and then suprises them with the CBD at the end of 126. It also gives u a glimpse of what the city has to offer from I-77.

[803metlife]

Columbia lets its visitors riding down I-26 wait in pain and then suprises them with the CBD at the end of 126. It also gives u a glimpse of what the city has to offer from I-77.

Traveling from OB(orangeburg) last month I notice a view of Columbia's skyline I never noticed before. You'll notice it when your on I-26 and you can either take 77 or stay on 26. It's a classic view showing Columbia's skyline streching across the CBD. The good thing is I-77 goes all the way to Detroit in case anyone never knew. I found that out going to the Super Bowl last feb.

[sonofaque86]

Yes! I love that I-26/I-77 view...When you come right above that hill coming from Orangeburg and DT Columbia entire skyline pops up you are amazed...My little brother used to call it NYC and we would laugh. lol

[Greenville]

One thing I can say Greenville has done an excellent job on is developing I-85. Greenville gives more of a visual impression riding down 85 when Columbia has more residential developments long side it's freeways. Columbia should have built more of it's business located near the freeways to make travelers passing threw wonder what's going on in this city.

Thanks for the nice compliment about Greenville, 803metlife, but I think it evens out overall. Columbia currently has a better skyline than Greenville, IMO. Hopefully the years to come will allow both cities to improve their respective weaknesses.

[krazeeboi]

Traveling from OB(orangeburg) last month I notice a view of Columbia's skyline I never noticed before. You'll notice it when your on I-26 and you can either take 77 or stay on 26. It's a classic view showing Columbia's skyline streching across the CBD. The good thing is I-77 goes all the way to Detroit in case anyone never knew. I found that out going to the Super Bowl last feb.

Actually, I-77 terminates in Cleveland. But you can use I-77 to get to Detroit.

I hope Skyliner is taking notes here; a Columbian just gave Greenville a compliment.