785 replies to this topic

[sonofaque86]

I haven't been to Clemson Rd. in about a year...The last time I was over there there was nothing at the sandhill site

[waccamatt]

I drove by there last weekend and a great deal of the development is now under construction. Leasing must be picking up steam.

[JT Boy]

I hate to sound like a grouch, and I'm sure that this shopping center will be a lot nicer than the standard strip mall, but this "Village" is really nothing more than a gussied-up strip mall.  I've seen a lot of similar developments in different cities, and while they are much more pleasant shopping environments than your typical center, they in no way replicate the feeling of being in a real, urban shopping district.  It seems to me that many developers have caught on that it is easier to get approval for these kinds of things than just the standard string of big boxes, so they push this type thing as "town centers".

I suppose the one bright light might be that this development could become the nucleus for some dense, more urban-style development out there in the suburbs.  It would also be nice if this could serve as a transportation hub, with city bus lines stopping here, providing folks a nice way to get back and forth to downtown Columbia.

[Spartan]

I think its more of a mix between a strip mall and a standard mall. What we can see from the road is the ourlying stores. I have yet to see a picture of the interior area. Check out the site plan:


I consider it the "mall of the future." While traditional malls are falling out of style, this type of development is going up everywhere. Greenville is working on one, and Charleston already has one in Mt Pleasant. Even Spartanburg is getting something similar, though it will be more residential and less commercial. Its just a trend. Would you rather see this type of development or a traditional mall?

[HAMMETTM]

Spartan, on Apr 13 2005, 01:01 PM, said:

Would you rather see this type of development or a traditional mall?

I like those types, but I like the traditional malls better

[StevenRocks]

HAMMETTM, on Apr 13 2005, 03:27 PM, said:

I like those types, but I like the traditional malls better

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.  Gussied up strip-malls are not the answer.

[krazeeboi]

Well I like the fact this it's different. Variety doesn't have to be a bad thing.

[JT Boy]

Spartan, on Apr 13 2005, 11:01 AM, said:

Would you rather see this type of development or a traditional mall?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither actually.  I would prefer to shop in an established, urban, business district.  But I realize that may not be a viable option for many folks because of where they live.  As I said, I'm certain this will be a more pleasant experience that going to your local Boxes 'R Us strip mall, but it still is a strip mall.  Just one look at that rendering shows a series of shops awash in a sea of surface parking lots.  Regardless of what flowery language developers may use, this is not a civic space or a town center.  It is a shopping center.  Now if you have to build a shopping center, it might as well be an attractive one, and I'm sure this one will be, and I hope that folks in the area enjoy shopping there.  

But why, oh why, couldn't they get rid of one section of parking and turn it into a nice green park?

[Spartan]

The problem with what you said is how do you make that happen in suburbia?

I live in downtown Columbia, but it just doesn't have everything that I need. I usually have to go to Harbison or Woodhill Mall every month or two to get what I can't get downtown. Maybe once downtown becomes a fully functional place on its own people will be encouraged to create the same thing elsewhere in the city.

[StevenRocks]

That's really the issue when one asks "Why did downtown die out?"

Downtown didn't die just because people liked malls better.  Downtown died out because it was dingy, overcrowded, and hard to access.  When people got cars, they wanted a place to park them.  Downtown couldn't provide that as well as the suburbs, and people had to pay for the privilege there.  Downtown closed at 5 or 5:30, and people wanted to shop later.  Downtown usually only accomodated that one night a week at the most.  I could go on.

I'm not trying to trash downtowns, because in a sentimental way, I wish they'd come back.  But there's no way you can trash the inadequacies of malls without also figuring out why they came to be in the first place.

Edited by StevenRocks, 13 April 2005 - 10:12 PM.

[emerging.me]

Wow... we're really hitting on some good stuff here. This topic is kind of a passion of mine...

Urban flight, suburban sprawl and related cultural phenomena are largely tied to our love affair with the automobile.  All of these have grown out of our culture's postwar obsession with individual freedom, independence, power and privacy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the pursuit of many of these values, but our unhealthy, single-minded quest for these things has created a dysfunctional society -- and a lonely, distorted version of the human existence for the individual. People are starved for community and relationships -- this is part of the reason why the concept of New Urbanism has caught on (note the quote in my signature).

I'm not saying that community can't happen in malls -- suburbia's answer to Main Street -- because it obviously does in a more limited way.  However, I do believe that cities are inherently relational and suburbs, by design, are not.

Edited by emerging.me, 13 April 2005 - 11:07 PM.

[Spartan]

Well, the fact is we probably won't ever escape the suburban shopping area. That doesn't mean they have to look like crap though. Thats what I like about Sandhill. It is a suburban shopping center, but they are making it look nice. Its a big change. The old slab of concrete with a box on it isn't cutting it anymore.

[StevenRocks]

Spartan, on Apr 14 2005, 01:15 AM, said:

The old slab of concrete with a box on it isn't cutting it anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll agree with that, but what people are tired of a lot of times is the details and not the general design.  

Consider the ubiquitous Wal-Mart Supercenter.  It is basically a mall without walls.  The inclusion of so many categoires under one roof is also evocative of the old-school department stores.  The basic design is good, if not spectacular.  Yet its details are troubling.   The common owner is an enemy to society, the merchandise is crappy and the buildings are worthless.  

If someone who gave a damn about the community operated that store with quality merchandise and the building reflected the styles of the area, there would be loads of people praising it.

Same thing with malls and downtowns: the general design qualities of each are sound, but the devil is in the details.  If we as members of the community can have some input on the details of the design: IOW having a say in what kinds of events and community functions work there, along with logistical concerns like access, downtown could come back strong or the mall could be responsive.  

Just a thought

[JT Boy]

emerging.me, on Apr 13 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

Wow... we're really hitting on some good stuff here. This topic is kind of a passion of mine...

Urban flight, suburban sprawl and related cultural phenomena are largely tied to our love affair with the automobile.  All of these have grown out of our culture's postwar obsession with individual freedom, independence, power and privacy.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the pursuit of many of these values, but our unhealthy, single-minded quest for these things has created a dysfunctional society -- and a lonely, distorted version of the human existence for the individual. People are starved for community and relationships -- this is part of the reason why the concept of New Urbanism has caught on (note the quote in my signature).

I'm not saying that community can't happen in malls -- suburbia's answer to Main Street -- because it obviously does in a more limited way.  However, I do believe that cities are inherently relational and suburbs, by design, are not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a good discussion...

I would add to your excellent points emerging me that much of suburban growth and urban flight is also based on fear of the "other", as witnessed in city after city as African-Americans moved into previously all-white neighborhoods, and the white people pulled up stakes and headed to the suburbs.

You are right that a sense of community can happen in Malls, in fact community happens anytime you have a group of folks gathered together.  The main difference between a mall/shopping center and an urban business district is that a mall is a purely commercial creation, created and controlled by a single owner, while a city is an organic entity with all the messiness of street life, diversity, weather, etc... (At least in theory...)

And Spartan, I know that shopping centers are a necessity of life for the majority of the population, which is fine.  I just don't want folks thinking that places like Sandhill are a legitimate substitute for urban business districts.

[emerging.me]

JT Boy, on Apr 14 2005, 10:07 AM, said:

You are right that a sense of community can happen in Malls, in fact community happens anytime you have a group of folks gathered together.  The main difference between a mall/shopping center and an urban business district is that a mall is a purely commercial creation, created and controlled by a single owner, while a city is an organic entity with all the messiness of street life, diversity, weather, etc... (At least in theory...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right on. I would also add... I, generally speaking, you are much more likely to be called by name at the "corner coffeeshop" than at Starbucks by the mall.

[lastweek]

Well, its farily evident that creating community in developments and in town infill developments are two prominent trends of the coming years.  Out in the burbs people will want recreation in addition to their consumption.  That concept is still being ironed out.  Where I grew up in Ohio, the lifestyle center hit big in the last couple of years.  I have visited many of them, and they are generally pleasent and offer a good mix of stores.  However, people still haven't embraced the concept.  They will shop the way they are used to shopping, i.e. go to a store and get what you need, go to car, drive to next store, repeat.  This creates quite a clash with these new centers that are designed so you park once and shop.  As a result, every lifestyle center I went to had absolutely horrific traffic and parking problems.  In a few instances I just gave up and left.  I haven't been out to Sandhill yet, so I'm not sure if it exhibits the same issues.

Factoring the ~60 year cycle for community 'depreciation', there will probably be quite a shakeup in the shopping situation in Columbia, where the most development will occur in the city and way out in the burbs, leaving a drout in the second and third ring suburbs.  More people may end up going back into town to shop rather than outwards like they have done for the past 40 years.

Supposedly, inner cities will account for at least 40 percent of the total increase in U.S. purchasing power between 2000 and 2045, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

[Spartan]

StevenRocks, on Apr 14 2005, 03:12 AM, said:

I'll agree with that, but what people are tired of a lot of times is the details and not the general design. 

Consider the ubiquitous Wal-Mart Supercenter.  It is basically a mall without walls.  The inclusion of so many categoires under one roof is also evocative of the old-school department stores.  The basic design is good, if not spectacular.  Yet its details are troubling.   The common owner is an enemy to society, the merchandise is crappy and the buildings are worthless. 

If someone who gave a damn about the community operated that store with quality merchandise and the building reflected the styles of the area, there would be loads of people praising it.

Same thing with malls and downtowns: the general design qualities of each are sound, but the devil is in the details.  If we as members of the community can have some input on the details of the design: IOW having a say in what kinds of events and community functions work there, along with logistical concerns like access, downtown could come back strong or the mall could be responsive. 

Just a thought

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a good point, and something I hadn't considered regarding merchandise. However, what is the local style? How can you define that in suburbia (aka: generica)?

I don't think there is any one good answer to this, but I would be interested to hear what anyone has to say.

I think that downtowns are the only places with a "local style" which is what makes them attractive. Going to Two Notch Rd. isn't that much different than going to Harbison Blvd. You just have the railroad tracks..... but the stores are all the same.

[StevenRocks]

Spartan, on Apr 14 2005, 10:17 AM, said:

That is a good point, and something I hadn't considered regarding merchandise. However, what is the local style? How can you define that in suburbia (aka: generica)?

I don't think there is any one good answer to this, but I would be interested to hear what anyone has to say.

I think that downtowns are the only places with a "local style" which is what makes them attractive. Going to Two Notch Rd. isn't that much different than going to Harbison Blvd. You just have the railroad tracks..... but the stores are all the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have an answer either on how to define "style" in the suburbs.  (and I'll preface this by saying it's not a great one ).  But I guess it could be created.  

Two Notch Rd. is a different neighborhood with different geography and a different demographic makeup than Harbison Blvd.  There has to be something that defines these areas, and whatever that thing is, it can be incorporated into the local architecture.  

In the case of Harbison Blvd., Columbiana reflects some vaguely neo-Spanish Colonial architecture.  Maybe that could be the "base" for the design of the area.  Two Notch Rd., with Columbia Place's '70s modern style, could take on a more modernist inspiration.

[sonofaque86]

I love Columbia's Place 70's style...I used to like seeing those tall columns when I was younger

[DigitalSky]

sonofaque86, on Apr 20 2005, 07:34 AM, said:

I love Columbia's Place 70's style...I used to like seeing those tall columns when I was younger

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

does anyone have pics of Columbia Place or know anywhere i can see some? thx