362 replies to this topic

[krazeeboi]

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Quote

The “Bull Street Neighborhood” is expected to help make downtown Columbia attractive to the “creative class” — young professionals, medical workers and researchers who like to live close to where they work and play. The site is expected to be popular with workers at USC’s new research campus, as well as with empty-nesters looking for in-town living and pedestrian-scaled streets.

Does anyone think that with this grand project under way, less focus will be given to the revitilization of the Main Street area, particularly any residential developments in the future?

[colajnp]

krazeeboi, on May 24 2005, 01:47 PM, said:

Here's an excerpt from the article:
Does anyone think that with this grand project under way, less focus will be given to the revitilization of the Main Street area, particularly any residential developments in the future?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In my opinion no.   I think it will bring more of a critical mass downtown which will be good for Main St and everywhere else.   If they have a couple thousand people living that close to city center, they are a lot more likely to go to Main St for events, dining, art museum, etc...   instead of the people who live in Irmo, Lexington, NE, who stay in there own areas.  With more activity, more life, it will continue to generate excitement to the city center.   It also greatly increases the amount of people living downtown which will give national retailers more of a reason to locate downtown.

[lastweek]

Yeah, it will catalyze storefronts on Main St and bring some retail and services back downtown.  I didnt go to the unveiling, but I attended a couple of sessions last week.  They specifically kept the amount of retail in the development propotionally low in hopes to spur adjacent commercial infill.  He said that basic needs would be met, but extravagent shopping would be elsewhere.  The only exception would be the proposed movie theater, but I don't know if that made it to the final plan or not.

Andres Duany is a riot.  He took valid criticisms to heart and really went off the vibe of those concerned.  The whole planning effort exceeded my expectations.

Emerging, or anyone else who went on Monday:  Did Andres ever close on how long he thought the development would take to complete or sell out?  Last week he was saying 15 years because he was under the impression that the Columbia real estate market is very slow.  Others said it would be much faster, and that he was underestimating demand.  Was there any clarification or further speculation during the unveiling?

[sonofaque86]

I live Downtown and Im probably on Main St. one time out of a month...its dead

Edited by sonofaque86, 24 May 2005 - 07:49 PM.

[emerging.me]

lastweek, on May 24 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

Yeah, it will catalyze storefronts on Main St and bring some retail and services back downtown.  I didnt go to the unveiling, but I attended a couple of sessions last week.  They specifically kept the amount of retail in the development propotionally low in hopes to spur adjacent commercial infill.  He said that basic needs would be met, but extravagent shopping would be elsewhere.  The only exception would be the proposed movie theater, but I don't know if that made it to the final plan or not.

Andres Duany is a riot.  He took valid criticisms to heart and really went off the vibe of those concerned.  The whole planning effort exceeded my expectations.

Emerging, or anyone else who went on Monday:  Did Andres ever close on how long he thought the development would take to complete or sell out?  Last week he was saying 15 years because he was under the impression that the Columbia real estate market is very slow.  Others said it would be much faster, and that he was underestimating demand.  Was there any clarification or further speculation during the unveiling?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Duany is indeed a riot. The worst-case scenario is 20-25 years to complete all phases of the project. Duany said, it'd obviously be a shame if it took that long. He expects interest to be extremely high and indicated that it should be done well before that but failed to give a more conservative estimate.

The first phase he'd like to see built is the "civic square" area which would include the church, a performing arts theater, gymnasium and a library. There's also retail, offices, some live/works, and a number of townhouses in that phase -- if I recall correctly. I'm sure there was more residential, but I can't remember what it was.  There's also talk of a small 8-plex movie theater along the street that would run from the entrance to Williams. This phase would be built while Babcock is being converted into a grand hotel (160-200 rooms) and small conference center. The City Hall idea was scrapped basically because there's not anything wrong with the current City Hall situation. I was skeptical about another hotel downtown, but Duany really sold by the time he was done pitching it.

It really was an amazing presentation. Just to hear someone so knowledgeable (and charismatic) -- a world renown urban planner -- up there speaking enthusiastically about Columbia was really exciting. I'll retype some more of my notes later tonight.

Edited by emerging.me, 24 May 2005 - 08:05 PM.

[Spartan]

You guys need to check out this pdf here: http://www.thestateo...ll_st_plans.pdf

and the accompanying article here: http://www.thestate....te/11722067.htm

Its a great read, and better defines what they plan to do with the campus.

[waccamatt]

I like the plan although I'd like taller buildings. Doggone it I need to win the lottery so I can build skyscrapers!

[krazeeboi]

Heck, I'd be glad to see ONE taller building....actually a new tallEST.

[Doug L]

krazeeboi, on May 25 2005, 01:45 AM, said:

Heck, I'd be glad to see ONE taller building....actually a new tallEST.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me too krazeeboi.  Columbia is a beautiful city but lacks an impressive skyline.  I hate the fact that USC will be destroying the old Radisson Hotel building....it is probably the best example of tacky, 1950s, generic, utilitarian architecture in midtown Columbia.

I like the Bull Street layout that had the diagional boulevard.  I'd anchor that puppy witha 50 story drop-dead georgeous apartment building.

[emerging.me]

Doug L, on May 25 2005, 08:33 AM, said:

Me too krazeeboi.  Columbia is a beautiful city but lacks an impressive skyline.  I hate the fact that USC will be destroying the old Radisson Hotel building....it is probably the best example of tacky, 1950s, generic, utilitarian architecture in midtown Columbia.

I like the Bull Street layout that had the diagional boulevard.  I'd anchor that puppy witha 50 story drop-dead georgeous apartment building.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

haha, man... I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from most of you guys! I'd much rather have quality density than impressive height. And I think if we do add more height in the future it should be concentrated in city center.

And I see your point, but I must say that the Carolina Plaza is truly assy. No offense, of course. I have odd architectural taste myself, so I'm one to talk. hehe.

[emerging.me]

Something else from my notes that you guys will love -- haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but I haven't been keeping up with all the news (on vacation this week)...

Duany recommended keeping the rail line at the rear of the property intact -- even if the railroad reroutes. He suggested leaving a space open for a light rail station with a line that would connect the Bull St. neighborhood to Benedict, USC, and the Research Campus. It's easy to imagine that line continuing on into a revitalized Olympia and possibly even an extension over the river between the airport and downtown. As well as a North-ish extension to Farrow Rd. He added, "Don't ever do 'rails to trails,' because you'll need them."

Edited by emerging.me, 25 May 2005 - 09:07 PM.

[Spartan]

emerging.me, on May 25 2005, 10:56 PM, said:

haha, man... I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from most of you guys! I'd much rather have quality density than impressive height. And I think if we do add more height in the future it should be concentrated in city center.

And I see your point, but I must say that the Carolina Plaza is truly assy. No offense, of course. I have odd architectural taste myself, so I'm one to talk. hehe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this! Signature buildings are great, but they should be clustered together to make an attractive skyline. Bull St. is too far out of the way to be seen. The domed building as you come in on Elmwood is plenty

Carolina Plaza is quite ugly IMO. I would only regret its loss because of its height.

[krazeeboi]

Oh I'm not advocating a "secondary skyline" in the Bull Street area. I'm just wishing for a few towers, or even just a new tallest, in the core area. But even more than that, I'd like to see infill from the BOA plaza down to the concentration of towers along Main.

[waccamatt]

krazeeboi, on May 25 2005, 10:11 PM, said:

Oh I'm not advocating a "secondary skyline" in the Bull Street area. I'm just wishing for a few towers, or even just a new tallest, in the core area. But even more than that, I'd like to see infill from the BOA plaza down to the concentration of towers along Main.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. When I make my first hundred million I'll build a new tallest, lol.

[krazeeboi]

LOL, we will hold you to that.  

[Hybrid0NE]

emerging.me, on May 25 2005, 11:04 PM, said:

Something else from my notes that you guys will love -- haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but I haven't been keeping up with all the news (on vacation this week)...

Duany recommended keeping the rail line at the rear of the property intact -- even if the railroad reroutes. He suggested leaving a space open for a light rail station with a line that would connect the Bull St. neighborhood to Benedict, USC, and the Research Campus. It's easy to imagine that line continuing on into a revitalized Olympia and possibly even an extension over the river between the airport and downtown. As well as a North-ish extension to Farrow Rd. He added, "Don't ever do 'rails to trails,' because you'll need them."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God Bless Duany! Now all we need is a grassroots organization to promote LRT for the Three Rivers region (with a couple subway stations under the CBD and USC areas) and we could spark some interest (if only minimal).

[JT Boy]

emerging.me, on May 25 2005, 08:56 PM, said:

haha, man... I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from most of you guys! I'd much rather have quality density than impressive height. And I think if we do add more height in the future it should be concentrated in city center.

And I see your point, but I must say that the Carolina Plaza is truly assy. No offense, of course. I have odd architectural taste myself, so I'm one to talk. hehe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I completely agree with your comments about density vs. height.  I would much rather see Columbia develop a dense core of 10-20 stories buildinds of all sorts than to try and push a few 35-40 story towers into downtown.  There is nothing wrong with a 40 story tower, but it should be supported by a really active, dense city center, not poking out like a sore thumb.  Portland, OR and Washington, DC are two excellent examples of cities that lack major height, but more than make up for it with a dense, liveable core with an active street life (and some good architecture too).

Also, glad to hear that the Carolina Plaza is going, it is bad design taking up a prime spot in downtown.

[Spartan]

I think that the Plaza's destruction is just under consideration. Maybe someone can correct me though.

[sonofaque86]

Columbia's groundscrapers are beautiful...We'll get a new 11 story guys! If we're lucky a 13 story building in the future!

[waccamatt]

sonofaque86, on May 26 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

Columbia's groundscrapers are beautiful...We'll get a new 11 story guys! If we're lucky a 13 story building in the future!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL son. We all want more scrapers, but unfortunately they are not always economically feasible.