Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Spes

  • Rank
    Unincorporated Area

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

765 profile views
  1. intrigued by the spaces marked what looks like "future development" across Falls Street... Wyche's real estate holding vehicle owns all of it.
  2. I think we're singing the same tune here but a couple points I want to rant on cathartically: USC's latest partnerships with Holder have all been on ground leases, so the property tax exemption stays with the University. Yes the development adds activity and benefit to the urban space but keeps it off tax rolls. My main point with the Icon debacle is that if the University can torpedo a development by going to the mat over something so comically flimsy as "a shadow on the horseshoe for 2 hours a day in December" there is a massive disincentive to development that does not meet the long-term goals of the University, and they've effectively roped off south-of-Senate. That should be concerning in and of itself. Maybe it's legal, but it weeds out competition in a way that will retard growth in that area for a long time.
  3. I'll agree that most of the slow down is market driven, even if the Columbia market had the sustained demand to accommodate each of these multifamily projects on full build-out, most of the developers and lenders don't want to take the bet that they'll be in a good spot when the music stops. I get that. USC's renewed activism in the area is troubling though, and reminded me of an argument I saw in a citylab article: http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/09/an-unusual-objection-to-less-parking-it-will-make-our-city-too-nice/406096/ I, for one, sincerely doubt that Icon on Main would have been built out as originally shown, but USC is starting to occupy a real estate monopsony in that area whose self-interests are not necessarily aligned with the city's.
  4. is this still the latest design they're going with? http://columbiasc.gov/depts/planning-boards-commissions/ddrc/agendas/20150813/ddrc_2015-08-13_pkt11_assembly_1015_eval.pdf the original was 1,000,000x better. real letdown.
  5. probably without. that thing is a massive waste of space
  6. I would encourage you to look at the banner on the building next to the Cigar Factory and upwardly revise your estimate. Is that sustainable? who knows, whatever. it's not my money
  7. 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.
  8. based on no personal knowledge, I've always assumed the 200 East Broad tenants parked across Calvin in the open lots there. There's probably only a little over 100 spots in the 200 East Parking Lot, maybe ~10 of those are client/visitor parking, and they need a lot more than that between South State, Elliot Davis, and Turner Padget alone.
  9. same buyer purchased (almost) the entire block of houses across Crook Street, adjacent to Academy. Financing doesn't look to be in place for any construction project. Also, separate lenders, which is odd-isn
  10. I share your enthusiasm for the site and distaste for above-ground parking, but the site's disconnectedness from downtown-proper (i.e. walking distance from North Main) probably means it will only work as lower-density; highest case scenario is probably South Ridge-esque. But projections on demand for apartments/etc may limit that... If the occupancy rate on apartments in 3 years is lower than 80%, don't keep your hopes up I hope it can be something great as part of downtown, but it would work well as a dense, transitional residential area
  11. Spes

    Augusta Road

    This mistakes the fact that the decision comes from the property owner and the HT franchisee, not the city or anybody worried about what is "sufficient" for the area. Obviously HT thinks there is enough demand (now and in the future) to justify the location, and whether they're right will remain to be seen. considering that the property owner is planning to tear down the building, maybe don't get your hopes up
  12. Here's a better idea: take the ridiculous amount of money that would go into a white elephant like a water park, or a beach in Findlay park, or a Unicorn parade down Assembly street, and put it into something that provides an actual, measurable difference for the city, like better roads, sidewalk improvements, more teachers, or something else decidedly less sexy.
  13. City is already doing significant road and lighting repairs to the roadways under the Elmwood Bridge
  14. Security Concerns limit federal buildings to federal agencies and wouldn't allow private leasing like that.
  15. Hughes Commercial already owns the parcel parcel at the corner of East McBee and Church, on the block with Erwin Penland
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.