Get It Together, Columbia!
#1
Posted 13 March 2005 - 09:52 PM
#2
Posted 13 March 2005 - 10:03 PM
#3
Posted 13 March 2005 - 11:24 PM
I agree with you completely. Columbia has made a great deal of progress but there doe need to be more going on. I want to see more development of all kinds. As for residential development, I want to see more development that pushes the limits of the Vista's zoning.
One good project is the rennovation of the Barringer Building on Main St. into apartments.

I would like to see more projects on this scale. These things don't have to be towers, but they need to be along the lines of the Pavilion Apts on Richalnd or Calhoun at the Huger/Elmwood/126 intersection.
Columbia stil has a lot of room to grow, so I think that in the olng term it will be a great place. I am aslo somewhat impatient about this... but that deosn't really do any good
#4
Posted 14 March 2005 - 12:38 AM
One disadvantage that all SC cities has is the restrictive annexation laws. I think we need to put pressure on the legislature to change this. More city population means more money available for city projects. I agree about Assembly Street. It, and Elmwood need to be made into grand boulevards, as does Huger Street. It does take time, however.
This post has been edited by waccamatt: 14 March 2005 - 12:40 AM
#5
Posted 14 March 2005 - 12:50 AM
#6
Posted 15 March 2005 - 01:06 AM
#7
Posted 15 March 2005 - 01:06 AM
#8
Posted 15 March 2005 - 07:35 AM
#9
Posted 15 March 2005 - 07:49 AM
#10
Posted 15 March 2005 - 10:24 AM
waccamatt, on Mar 15 2005, 02:06 AM, said:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thanks, but all credit should go to the good folks over at http://www.capitolplaces.com - I should have credited them to start with.
UrbanSoutherner, on Mar 15 2005, 08:49 AM, said:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I tend to agree with you. Columbia has the best chance of achieving true urbanity sooner, though Charleston could be a close second if it had more office type places in its core.
#11
Posted 15 March 2005 - 11:59 AM
For instance, Main Street has a lot of potential, but one of the first priorities should be to eliminate ALL surface parking lots in the downtown core. Surface lots are a suburban design idea that merely function as deadzones in urban areas. If memory serves, there is a small surface lot adjacent to the Southtrust building, what a waste of valuable space in the heart of downtown Columbia. I realize that these lots are mainly private property and the city can't force owners to convert to other uses, but a little gentle persuasion would be helpful.
If you want to see a parking lot, just head out to your local stripmall. Conversely, if you'd like to have an interesting, engaging, exciting, pedestrian experience, you should be able to head to your local downtown.
#12
Posted 15 March 2005 - 12:28 PM
#13
Posted 15 March 2005 - 04:30 PM
UrbanSoutherner, on Mar 15 2005, 01:28 PM, said:
Concentrating on one area can be a good thing. Consider my hometown's redevelopment of King Street...they are concentrating on burying lines and adding better lighting. By concentrating on that area, more attention to detail is given and you have a quality product that lasts for years and years.
It really depends on a city's economic status, though. Jacksonville has been amazing in its redevelopment in prepping for the Super Bowl. Many ugly areas of the city in 5 years have been transformed to superb urban areas.
This post has been edited by Charleston native: 15 March 2005 - 04:31 PM
#14
Posted 15 March 2005 - 05:17 PM
#15
Posted 15 March 2005 - 08:18 PM
Spartan, on Mar 15 2005, 05:17 PM, said:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I completely disagree with you on the idea of attracting an Olive Garden or Outback-type restaurant to downtown. Folks who live in the suburbs have those kinds of restaurants at their local shopping strips; why would they drive into downtown for the same experience they can have close to home?
Tax incentives can be a very powerful tool, but they should be directed to help foster intriguing, locally-owned businesses, not to subsidize cookie cutter corporate development. In the case of Columbia, I agree that another huge issue is all of the blank walls on Main Street. Every office building should be required to have street front retail on its ground floor, and not just bank branches and dry cleaners either.
#16
Posted 15 March 2005 - 08:56 PM
#17
Posted 15 March 2005 - 09:33 PM
UrbanSoutherner, on Mar 15 2005, 12:28 PM, said:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
^^ I agree with every word, especially the part in bold. Columbia suffers from spreading itself too thin. Just tonight a friend of mine that works in Washington D.C. was telling me about a meeting he had with three Cola city councilmen. All they did was jockey for position over which project (Harden or Assembly St. streetscaping) should have first priority for funding from the Feds. Rather than decide among themselves (Mayor Bob was absent, BTW) which project should have the highest priority and present a united front, they made fools of themselves and left a bad impression.
Spartan, on Mar 15 2005, 05:17 PM, said:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree with the tax incentives and zoning laws, but instaed of Olive Garden or Outback, how about KEEPING the local flavor of local owned businesses like the Sherlock Holmes Pub, underneath the Palmetto building!!!!
JT Boy, on Mar 15 2005, 08:18 PM, said:
Tax incentives can be a very powerful tool, but they should be directed to help foster intriguing, locally-owned businesses, not to subsidize cookie cutter corporate development. In the case of Columbia, I agree that another huge issue is all of the blank walls on Main Street. Every office building should be required to have street front retail on its ground floor, and not just bank branches and dry cleaners either.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
^^ Right on!!!
BTW, like the initiator of this thread, I use to be 27 and living in Cola. I got tired of waiting on all the city's promises to come true, and left. I'm 41 now, and I'm still waiting on something to go up at CCI. Yes there's been progress, but must it be so sssslllllloooowwww? No one is guiding the ship, so it is drifting.
#18
Posted 15 March 2005 - 10:19 PM
Spartan, on Mar 15 2005, 08:56 PM, said:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't know what Sticky Fingers is, but I can say that putting a suburban-style franchise restaurant on Main Street in Columbia is not a good way to create a unique identity for downtown. Instead of Olive Garden, why not a Garibaldi's? Or you could go to Villa Tronco, an historical Columbia restaurant. Or another creative local restaurant like Motor Supply?
The Vista is filled with good, locally-owned restaurants and pubs, and folks flock there. I'm sure that office workers that like Olive Garden would frequent an Olive Garden restaurant at lunch, but to what end for the city? There will always be people who like the predictable (and in mind horribly dull and mediocre) food that can be found at a corporate restaurant, and a franchise would be a natural addition to a thriving downtown that has a mature business district, but not helpful in building a unique destination for Columbia.
#19
Posted 15 March 2005 - 10:31 PM
This post has been edited by waccamatt: 16 March 2005 - 09:55 PM
#20
Posted 15 March 2005 - 10:42 PM
Spartan, on Mar 15 2005, 07:17 PM, said:
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
An interesting side note; both Friday's and Applebees tried to open locations in the Vista and were told to get lost by the development corp. Chain restaurants are strongly discouraged in that part of town.
The McDonalds on Huger and Gervais slipped in there on a technicality, and the original design was actually a "traditional" looking McDonalds, and gas station and a convenience store combo. Luckily, the develpment corp held their ground and the McDonalds was forced to redesign into what it looks like today. I've heard that the design has been replicated in other urban areas in the south, but I'm not sure exactly where. Talk about avoiding a disaster!
I do agree on the tax incentives for redevopment. The city can't offer property tax abatements, but i'm not so sure if that would be a viable/smart solution anyway.

Help











