Main Street/CBD Developments

[carolinagarnet]

In DC they are probably referencing Union Market and Eastern Market. Eastern Market was designed as a market, while Union Market is a converted warehouse (I think). They are both very open and include produce vendors, juice bars, small cafes, etc. The concept might work in Columbia, but the target market would need to be tourists, local office works, and residents within a few blocks. The only challenges would be the noise level, which might rile the office workers, and seating capacity (depending on how they combine/divide the units). I like the shape of the idea though.

[growingup15]

I read this whole thing. its a Shame EDr pulled out when that land is so valuble and ripe for development. I really hope another company decides to build there and i hope they build something big like 15+ floors to spite USC and the Alumni kids who obviously don't know anything. 

 

http://columbiabusinessreport.com/news/55974-tower-takedown-what-edr-rsquo-s-exit-means-for-future-dorm-projects

[carolinagarnet]

I read this whole thing. its a Shame EDr pulled out when that land is so valuble and ripe for development. I really hope another company decides to build there and i hope they build something big like 15+ floors to spite USC and the Alumni kids who obviously don't know anything. 

 

http://columbiabusinessreport.com/news/55974-tower-takedown-what-edr-rsquo-s-exit-means-for-future-dorm-projects

It's clear that USC and My Carolina are powerful enough to block any development on that land. I didn't mind a 15 story building when there was a 12 story building right down the street on Assembly, but now that project is much lower. I want all of Main redeveloped and it's now obvious that USC will need to direct that effort.

[carolinagarnet]

Based on the quality of their renovations on Main, I think this is a great development. 

http://columbiabusinessreport.com/news/55980-agape-buys-building-housing-army-navy-store-caf

[Spartan]

Lots of good stuff in this article. Apparently with everything planned or underway downtown, retail space is going to more than double - from 650,000sqft to 1,500,000 sqft - this includes all of the downtown subareas: Main Street, the Vista, Five Points, and Bull Street. Obviously most of that growth is contained within Bull Street, but its still a lot of positive growth. With all of the student housing going up around downtown it is bound to attract more retail as well.

Class A office space is experienceing its lowest vacancy rate in decades. If that holds up we could see new office building construction or at least major renovations to existing ones.

 

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article40554297.html

[victory]

Things have really slowed down in this forum. We had so much momentum prior to the flooding. I hope we start to get some good news soon!

[carolinagarnet]

I thought the same thing the other day, but it has more to do with the seasonality of construction. Most announcements are made in summer.

[carolinagarnet]

Sounds like we may not see an office high rise in downtown for a while.

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article55128290.html

[urbanlover568]

3 hours ago, carolinagarnet said:

Sounds like we may not see an office high rise in downtown for a while.

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article55128290.html

That article is so fiction it's not even true. I can't believe the state allowed that to be published. Editor does't know any urban planning at all, or the writer for the matter. 

[gman430]

2 hours ago, mpretori said:

That article is so fiction it's not even true. I can't believe the state allowed that to be published. Editor does't know any urban planning at all, or the writer for the matter. 

Just because you don't agree with the article doesn't make it fiction. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by gman430

[urbanlover568]

Just now, gman430 said:

Just because you don't agree with the article doesn't make it fiction. 

It's not that i dont agree with it. It's that it's false. 

Lockwood doesn't acknowledge the environmental and financial pros of having a tower compared to a huge spread out office building. Major cities are building towers without anchors, so i dont know why he is saying they need one. 

Student housing isn't going to appeal to young professionals. Only students can live in them so I don't understand how that is beneficial for a young professional. Major companies are not going to relocate to a place because of a "student housing boom". I think instead of magnifying that, they should magnify the potential for jobs after a student graduates so the area can retain graduates after they graduate.

This article doesn't mention the decrease price of office space as a whole.

[growingup15]

14 hours ago, mpretori said:

It's not that i dont agree with it. It's that it's false. 

Lockwood doesn't acknowledge the environmental and financial pros of having a tower compared to a huge spread out office building. Major cities are building towers without anchors, so i dont know why he is saying they need one. 

Student housing isn't going to appeal to young professionals. Only students can live in them so I don't understand how that is beneficial for a young professional. Major companies are not going to relocate to a place because of a "student housing boom". I think instead of magnifying that, they should magnify the potential for jobs after a student graduates so the area can retain graduates after they graduate.

This article doesn't mention the decrease price of office space as a whole.

thats true. very true. when i was reading the article I was thinking like this was So false. At the 2020 forum i was at. when i talked to the director of the Downtown District he even told me that Columbia is going to go Up as in buildings are gonna get taller because the land prices are going up. when a company buys land they want to build something thats worth it. kinda like the Apartment Tower that was supposed to be build on Lady and Park st. the developer said that it would be a lose to build something less than what the land is worth. same wit hthe developer in West Columbia trying to build the Brooklyn Complex.

[carolinagarnet]

16 hours ago, mpretori said:

It's not that i dont agree with it. It's that it's false. 

Lockwood doesn't acknowledge the environmental and financial pros of having a tower compared to a huge spread out office building. Major cities are building towers without anchors, so i dont know why he is saying they need one. 

Student housing isn't going to appeal to young professionals. Only students can live in them so I don't understand how that is beneficial for a young professional. Major companies are not going to relocate to a place because of a "student housing boom". I think instead of magnifying that, they should magnify the potential for jobs after a student graduates so the area can retain graduates after they graduate.

This article doesn't mention the decrease price of office space as a whole.

The financial pros of having a tower? He acknowledges that professional firms (i.e. law, accounting) need contiguous space, but South Carolina does not have any firms are large enough to anchor a skyscraper and Columbia does not have enough to fill an entire tower (unless a lot of major firms got out of their long term leases and decided to move). Columbia is not New York, Chicago, even Charlotte- developers are not going to build a spec tower with such a small business community and little sign of a major corporate relocation. Skyscrapers are a lot more expensive per square foot than smaller office buildings, which is the argument for boutique spaces. As great as it would be to see a new tower downtown, I agree that the chances are slim barring some unforeseen development. Of course the city seems to be planning something for the United Way HQ site, but I think it will probably be in the 10-15 story range.

I think the argument for student housing is that it's low hanging fruit. The demand is there and will continue to increase as USC grows. The shopping, restaurants, and amenities that students want around town are more or less the same that recent graduates want, so growing the downtown population even through student housing is a great place to start. I don't know that Columbia will get any major relocations without help from the state and neither the city nor the county are in the position to cover tax incentives. What USC is doing with Innovista sees to be Columbia's best bet: organic growth. Areas like Austin, the Research Triangle, and Silicon Valley built an entrepreneurial culture that retained local talent and over time turned them into magnets for innovation. Columbia may one day replicate this pattern on a smaller scale. It is a long-term strategy, but it ensures more stable, sustainable growth. 

1 hour ago, growingup15 said:

thats true. very true. when i was reading the article I was thinking like this was So false. At the 2020 forum i was at. when i talked to the director of the Downtown District he even told me that Columbia is going to go Up as in buildings are gonna get taller because the land prices are going up. when a company buys land they want to build something thats worth it. kinda like the Apartment Tower that was supposed to be build on Lady and Park st. the developer said that it would be a lose to build something less than what the land is worth. same wit hthe developer in West Columbia trying to build the Brooklyn Complex.

Downtown still has a lot of surface lots that will keep land value from shooting up too quickly. It seems far more likely that one or two residential towers will be built in the next few years than will office buildings because there's existing demand from people in the suburbs who want to move into downtown and from the constant flow of USC graduates, most of whom move out of the city after graduation. The writer correctly pointed out that the central business district is larger than just the Main Street Corridor and there is plenty of incentive to build on the fringes (Bull Street, the Vista, Huger) rather than on or near Main Street. The parking issue alone is enough to encourage companies to locate in less densely developed areas. 

Edited January 18, 2016 by carolinagarnet

[krazeeboi]

On 1/18/2016 at 1:45 PM, carolinagarnet said:

What USC is doing with Innovista sees to be Columbia's best bet: organic growth. Areas like Austin, the Research Triangle, and Silicon Valley built an entrepreneurial culture that retained local talent and over time turned them into magnets for innovation. Columbia may one day replicate this pattern on a smaller scale. It is a long-term strategy, but it ensures more stable, sustainable growth.

Agreed, but too bad USC doesn't have the financial backing of Big Tobacco or Big Oil like the Triangle and Austin do, respectively. And the state isn't making tech/knowledge-based jobs a major part of its eco-devo strategy unfortunately. 

[carolinagarnet]

3 hours ago, krazeeboi said:

Agreed, but too bad USC doesn't have the financial backing of Big Tobacco or Big Oil like the Triangle and Austin do, respectively. And the state isn't making tech/knowledge-based jobs a major part of its eco-devo strategy unfortunately. 

Not to mention that USC doesn't have the research funding or endowments of Texas, UNC, NC State, or Duke. USC has been collaborating more with Clemson and other schools to draw grants, but ultimately Clemson still presents competition for research-related companies. ICAR is more fully developed than Innovista and USC does not benefit from being on the I-85 corridor directly between Atlanta and Charlotte. Still, I think Innovista has greater potential due to the live-work-play philosophy and the fact that it's in the middle of a city. The ITology concept in downtown presents an interesting concept: consortiums or partnerships that lease office space otherwise reserved for private companies. While I don't foresee any of the Innovista groups suddenly needing huge blocks of office space, over time they may help lower the vacancy rate. 

[Spartan]

19 hours ago, krazeeboi said:

Agreed, but too bad USC doesn't have the financial backing of Big Tobacco or Big Oil like the Triangle and Austin do, respectively. And the state isn't making tech/knowledge-based jobs a major part of its eco-devo strategy unfortunately. 

"High tech" manufacturing doesn't count? To be fair I think knowledge based jobs are in the equation, but the state isn't capitalizing on the opportunities at all. Sure there are some knowledge-based jobs at Boeing, but for most of its employees its not a true knowledge-based job generator. It's a shame because there is a lot of brain power moving to places like Charleston, Columbia, and Greenville. The state only focuses on creating the lowest cost of living possible and using that as a selling point, which, in turn, tends to attract employers only looking for cheap labor. The larger cities seem to be about more than that, but it's not a unified strategy.

[carolinagarnet]

I find the Facebook comments to the story pretty telling. Meal tax is usually limited to "tourism" related expenses, so the city cannot apply the revenue to the sewer/water repairs or to services for the homeless, but people feel like borrowing such a large amount of money for beautification is wasteful. I agree- I doubt anything that the city does to Finlay Park is going to draw people from across the region or the country to Columbia. Building a riverfront park would seem to be a much larger draw as other cities have become meccas for their rivers (e.g. San Antonio, Savannah, Chattanooga). With the money pouring tens of millions into Bull Street, I think this plan is a little tone deaf.

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article55545290.html

2 hours ago, Spartan said:

"High tech" manufacturing doesn't count? To be fair I think knowledge based jobs are in the equation, but the state isn't capitalizing on the opportunities at all. Sure there are some knowledge-based jobs at Boeing, but for most of its employees its not a true knowledge-based job generator. It's a shame because there is a lot of brain power moving to places like Charleston, Columbia, and Greenville. The state only focuses on creating the lowest cost of living possible and using that as a selling point, which, in turn, tends to attract employers only looking for cheap labor. The larger cities seem to be about more than that, but it's not a unified strategy.

I don't see much in the way of high tech manufacturing other than subsidized projects like BMW, Boeing, and Volvo. With the "jobs at any cost" focus, companies like Giti, Continental Tires, and Mercedes are drawing huge incentives for producing very few low wage jobs. The state really needs to consider whether its economic incentive dollars are being used wisely. Drawing a corporate headquarters of any size brings executives, human resources, finance and accounting, and operations positions that on average command higher salaries. Even if the company moves existing employees, you still see increased activity in the housing market, more traffic at CAE, and payroll taxes that all benefit the state much more than temporary construction and procurement (most of it from out-of-state anyway). North Carolina did a pretty good job of stealing corporate relocations until they froze their incentives to a large extent and job growth has suffered. Charleston is obviously the most attractive destination in the state for relocation, but Columbia could build off of back office functions (IT, some finance and HR, procurement, call centers) much in the same way Charlotte did for the New York banks. Considering how inexpensive it is to operate in Columbia, this would seem to be low hanging fruit.

[Spartan]

I know there hasn't been much high tech manufacturing... that was supposed to be sarcasm  South Carolina seems to hang its hat on high-tech manufacturing but we've seen relatively little in terms of actual investment.

North Carolina politicians (specifically Republicans) are also pretty bent out of shape about missing out on all those large manufacturing projects to South Carolina, which is why they are re-tooling their economic incentives packages. It's also worth noting that they don't care about corporate relocation unless they go to a city other than Charlotte.

[carolinagarnet]

The former Moe Levy's is getting a new breakfast restaurant:

http://columbiabusinessreport.com/news/56790-breakfast-restaurant-to-locate-in-former-moe-levy-rsquo-s-site?rss=0

[ColaFan]

On January 20, 2016 at 0:25 PM, carolinagarnet said:

 but people feel like borrowing such a large amount of money for beautification is wasteful. I agree- I doubt anything that the city does to Finlay Park is going to draw people from across the region or the country to Columbia. Building a riverfront park would seem to be a much larger draw as other cities have become meccas for their rivers (e.g. San Antonio, Savannah, Chattanooga). With the money pouring tens of millions into Bull Street, I think this plan is a little tone deaf.

 

Longtime reader, first time poster.  Love this forum.  Glad to see a little more activity.

Personally, while I think that Bull Street is a big project for the City, I am not sure there is anything that would be of more benefit to the City's long term prospects than completing a first-rate waterfront park on the Columbia side of the river.  I feel if the City got that right, the surrounding property would really be in a position to develop and it is the sort of thing that can help make a nice impression.  

Of course, I am not sure how much of the property on that side of Huger is potentially developable as opposed to simply being part of the proposed park., but that's an area that could grow up with high end residential or mixed development like you see coming along in Greenville.

I think a first class riverfront could complement Bull Street in making downtown living seem more appealing.  

But like the other threads here suggest, the downtown is going to need to be able to pull in more business.  I'm still somewhat confused about how Columbia has failed to do better in that area.  Maybe the City needs to do better with incentives.  I think like Greenville so many years ago, the City is in a position where having things come in is probably worth more than the tax revenue in the short term.  

1 hour ago, carolinagarnet said:

The former Moe Levy's is getting a new breakfast restaurant:

http://columbiabusinessreport.com/news/56790-breakfast-restaurant-to-locate-in-former-moe-levy-rsquo-s-site?rss=0

 

Seems like a good play on the increase in downtown population.  

[carolinagarnet]

2 hours ago, ColaFan said:

Longtime reader, first time poster.  Love this forum.  Glad to see a little more activity.

Personally, while I think that Bull Street is a big project for the City, I am not sure there is anything that would be of more benefit to the City's long term prospects than completing a first-rate waterfront park on the Columbia side of the river.  I feel if the City got that right, the surrounding property would really be in a position to develop and it is the sort of thing that can help make a nice impression.  

Of course, I am not sure how much of the property on that side of Huger is potentially developable as opposed to simply being part of the proposed park., but that's an area that could grow up with high end residential or mixed development like you see coming along in Greenville.

I think a first class riverfront could complement Bull Street in making downtown living seem more appealing.  

But like the other threads here suggest, the downtown is going to need to be able to pull in more business.  I'm still somewhat confused about how Columbia has failed to do better in that area.  Maybe the City needs to do better with incentives.  I think like Greenville so many years ago, the City is in a position where having things come in is probably worth more than the tax revenue in the short term.  

 

Seems like a good play on the increase in downtown population.  

Welcome! I'm glad that this topic drew you into the discussion. I read a story today about the resurgence, or rather surgence, of Des Moines (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/how-des-moines-iowa-got-cool-213552?o=3). It's a long article that I highly recommend, but the main thrust is that they focused on enhancing the city's natural assets, including the Des Moines River. Columbia has built a great riverwalk on both sides of the river and may breach the final gap on the Columbia side (under the Jarvis Klapman Bridge) if it wins a Knight Foundation grant (http://www.free-times.com/news/columbia-could-win-money-to-finish-riverwalk-012016/). A riverfront park like the one proposed in the Sasaki Plan would make it a focal point. City leaders have said the park they envision would be more natural (i.e. no amphitheater, fewer pedestrian bridges). Unfortunately, the Richland penny sales tax controversy, the SCANA black tar cleanup just south of the Gervais Street Bridge, and the flood repair threaten to delay the project for a long time. I hope the city finds a way to prioritize a park because it will undoubtedly lead to sustained development on an extended Williams Street. 

The issue with Finlay Park in my estimation is that it is not really a focal point. There is a huge elevation change from Assembly Street, the Post Office blocks it from view, there is a lack of connectivity between the park and the CBD. The neighborhoods around the park are already built out, so development potential is very limited. It's important that the park is safe and serves at least basic functions, but nothing the city does will overcome the built-in obstacles. Even if the post office is moved, the courthouse and other buildings across Assembly are replaced by buildings that embrace the park, and the city pushes millions in improvements, it is still at the bottom of a hill and blocks away from the river. The CBD and the Vista will experience some moderate growth (relatively), Bull Street will generate growth for 5-10 years, and Innovista will probably expand as USC grows, but there is not necessarily a plan for growth post-2025. Columbia is not following the same development pattern as Greenville due to the grid and the much larger footprint. That said, we could see a multiplier akin to what Greenville saw with Falls Park with a new riverfront park. It will take some time for the city to reach the river (the Vista is still moving there), but that is undoubtedly the future.

[victory]

8 hours ago, carolinagarnet said:

Welcome! I'm glad that this topic drew you into the discussion. I read a story today about the resurgence, or rather surgence, of Des Moines (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/how-des-moines-iowa-got-cool-213552?o=3). It's a long article that I highly recommend, but the main thrust is that they focused on enhancing the city's natural assets, including the Des Moines River. Columbia has built a great riverwalk on both sides of the river and may breach the final gap on the Columbia side (under the Jarvis Klapman Bridge) if it wins a Knight Foundation grant (http://www.free-times.com/news/columbia-could-win-money-to-finish-riverwalk-012016/). A riverfront park like the one proposed in the Sasaki Plan would make it a focal point. City leaders have said the park they envision would be more natural (i.e. no amphitheater, fewer pedestrian bridges). Unfortunately, the Richland penny sales tax controversy, the SCANA black tar cleanup just south of the Gervais Street Bridge, and the flood repair threaten to delay the project for a long time. I hope the city finds a way to prioritize a park because it will undoubtedly lead to sustained development on an extended Williams Street. 

The issue with Finlay Park in my estimation is that it is not really a focal point. There is a huge elevation change from Assembly Street, the Post Office blocks it from view, there is a lack of connectivity between the park and the CBD. The neighborhoods around the park are already built out, so development potential is very limited. It's important that the park is safe and serves at least basic functions, but nothing the city does will overcome the built-in obstacles. Even if the post office is moved, the courthouse and other buildings across Assembly are replaced by buildings that embrace the park, and the city pushes millions in improvements, it is still at the bottom of a hill and blocks away from the river. The CBD and the Vista will experience some moderate growth (relatively), Bull Street will generate growth for 5-10 years, and Innovista will probably expand as USC grows, but there is not necessarily a plan for growth post-2025. Columbia is not following the same development pattern as Greenville due to the grid and the much larger footprint. That said, we could see a multiplier akin to what Greenville saw with Falls Park with a new riverfront park. It will take some time for the city to reach the river (the Vista is still moving there), but that is undoubtedly the future.

I've said it before, but I still subscribe to the Sasaki Plan, and the city does, too. I agree with all points you made. We need that "world class" riverfront park, and this city can take off!

[carolinagarnet]

2 hours ago, victory said:

I've said it before, but I still subscribe to the Sasaki Plan, and the city does, too. I agree with all points you made. We need that "world class" riverfront park, and this city can take off!

This is a couple months old, but the Guignard family isn't down with the Sasaki plan for the riverfront park:

Those who appreciate the natural beauty along the river are glad Thompson and city officials didn’t rush to build the park envisioned in the Sasaki plan in 2006. It featured an artificial reflecting pool, a granite bulkhead along the river, a concrete amphitheater, and what Granby neighborhood leader Bob Guild referred to a “a mockery of a canal.”

The complaints about the level of “hardscaping” in the plan, along with a major drop in federal funding for such projects, led to the shelving of those aspects of the Sasaki plan.

Thompson and Benjamin both see the park as more natural than in the original plan, with more native trees, less concrete and respect for the 3.5-acre wetlands in the middle of the property. They’d like a path slightly wider and grander than the riverwalk on the west side of the river. And a central gathering spot is a must, to create the front porch feel.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article22004907.html#storylink=cpy

Personally I don't care what it looks like, so long as it exists. This is somewhat off topic, but I wish Columbia would add really visible signage to highlight the Columbia riverwalk and help direct people from the riverwalk to Finlay Pak. The area would have a much greater sense of connectivity if people could easily chart their own paths between parks.

[victory]

9 hours ago, carolinagarnet said:

This is a couple months old, but the Guignard family isn't down with the Sasaki plan for the riverfront park:

Those who appreciate the natural beauty along the river are glad Thompson and city officials didn’t rush to build the park envisioned in the Sasaki plan in 2006. It featured an artificial reflecting pool, a granite bulkhead along the river, a concrete amphitheater, and what Granby neighborhood leader Bob Guild referred to a “a mockery of a canal.”

The complaints about the level of “hardscaping” in the plan, along with a major drop in federal funding for such projects, led to the shelving of those aspects of the Sasaki plan.

Thompson and Benjamin both see the park as more natural than in the original plan, with more native trees, less concrete and respect for the 3.5-acre wetlands in the middle of the property. They’d like a path slightly wider and grander than the riverwalk on the west side of the river. And a central gathering spot is a must, to create the front porch feel.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article22004907.html#storylink=cpy

Personally I don't care what it looks like, so long as it exists. This is somewhat off topic, but I wish Columbia would add really visible signage to highlight the Columbia riverwalk and help direct people from the riverwalk to Finlay Pak. The area would have a much greater sense of connectivity if people could easily chart their own paths between parks.

I remember reading that article, and being surprised the park design met with disapproval. The plan, overall, is still the benchmark, and a member of the city planning team told me this at an open, public idea session at the Convention Center. While rethinking the look of the park may very well be justified, I think in general the city still makes most its moves with consideration to how it fits in the larger, Sasaki scheme.  

[ColaFan]

On January 26, 2016 at 10:10 AM, carolinagarnet said:

This is a couple months old, but the Guignard family isn't down with the Sasaki plan for the riverfront park:

Those who appreciate the natural beauty along the river are glad Thompson and city officials didn’t rush to build the park envisioned in the Sasaki plan in 2006. It featured an artificial reflecting pool, a granite bulkhead along the river, a concrete amphitheater, and what Granby neighborhood leader Bob Guild referred to a “a mockery of a canal.”

The complaints about the level of “hardscaping” in the plan, along with a major drop in federal funding for such projects, led to the shelving of those aspects of the Sasaki plan.

Thompson and Benjamin both see the park as more natural than in the original plan, with more native trees, less concrete and respect for the 3.5-acre wetlands in the middle of the property. They’d like a path slightly wider and grander than the riverwalk on the west side of the river. And a central gathering spot is a must, to create the front porch feel.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article22004907.html#storylink=cpy

Personally I don't care what it looks like, so long as it exists. This is somewhat off topic, but I wish Columbia would add really visible signage to highlight the Columbia riverwalk and help direct people from the riverwalk to Finlay Pak. The area would have a much greater sense of connectivity if people could easily chart their own paths between parks.

 

to me, anything would be an improvement and something to work with.  But I don't think it would be a bad thing if the Columbia side was a more urban space than what exists on the other side.  I don't think it should be just hardscape and grass, but I don't think the best plan is an entirely natural preserve.  The idea should be to make it a public gathering space, IMO, more than it is a visit to a natural preserve.

I think it should have a  different purpose than the river trials on the other side.