Main Street/CBD Developments

[carolinagarnet]

44 minutes ago, vicupstate said:

Lead paint wouldn't be an issue as it was built after 1978. I don't think asbestos would be either by that construction date. i doubt a private sector user would have an interest in it, so a government use would allow he building's value to be realized in the sale. Otherwise it is a tear down, which would add $1-2mm in demo costs. It is an ugly building but a decent budget would allow for a better appearance. 

Ah, good to know. The timing might not be ideal for private sector use given that there are shovel-ready projects in Columbia Common and Innovista and plenty of developable land in the CBD. Considering how courthouses are generally laid out, I would imagine that retrofitting the building for other uses would not be ideal. The cost of demolishing the current building and constructing a new facility would be pretty expensive, which is probably why the county wants to share the infrastructure cost burden with the city. 

[ColaFan]

On 1/4/2017 at 10:08 PM, carolinagarnet said:

Ah, good to know. The timing might not be ideal for private sector use given that there are shovel-ready projects in Columbia Common and Innovista and plenty of developable land in the CBD. Considering how courthouses are generally laid out, I would imagine that retrofitting the building for other uses would not be ideal. The cost of demolishing the current building and constructing a new facility would be pretty expensive, which is probably why the county wants to share the infrastructure cost burden with the city. 

I can't imagine that it would be particularly advantageous for the City/County to repurpose the existing Courthouse.  I also cannot imagine that any County would include a Courthouse in a tower these days.  Just too many logistical issues there, I think.

I've thought that the County ought to look at North Main possibly for the Courthouse.  Lots of blight down that corridor and perhaps the Courthouse could be a positive motivator down that way.  It also would be relatively close to the existing courthouse location so it would not disrupt too much.  

I think the County could then either use the lot for redevelopment or sell it off for private redevelopment.

[carolinagarnet]

3 hours ago, ColaFan said:

I can't imagine that it would be particularly advantageous for the City/County to repurpose the existing Courthouse.  I also cannot imagine that any County would include a Courthouse in a tower these days.  Just too many logistical issues there, I think.

I've thought that the County ought to look at North Main possibly for the Courthouse.  Lots of blight down that corridor and perhaps the Courthouse could be a positive motivator down that way.  It also would be relatively close to the existing courthouse location so it would not disrupt too much.  

I think the County could then either use the lot for redevelopment or sell it off for private redevelopment.

What logistical issues to you foresee? I'm genuinely curious because federal courthouse design standards encourage vertical stacking.

https://www.gsa.gov/portal/mediaId/137050/fileName/Courts_Design_Guide_07.action (Figure 3.2)

[Spes]

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.

[growingup15]

On 1/8/2017 at 4:52 PM, ColaFan said:

I can't imagine that it would be particularly advantageous for the City/County to repurpose the existing Courthouse.  I also cannot imagine that any County would include a Courthouse in a tower these days.  Just too many logistical issues there, I think.

I've thought that the County ought to look at North Main possibly for the Courthouse.  Lots of blight down that corridor and perhaps the Courthouse could be a positive motivator down that way.  It also would be relatively close to the existing courthouse location so it would not disrupt too much.  

I think the County could then either use the lot for redevelopment or sell it off for private redevelopment.

Are you kidding me. You'll think vertical building would not be the next thing for three new courthouse in downtown.  Remember the city is looking into doing more vertical development and consolidation of offices and stuff so I'm pretty sure that a courthouse in an office tower would work wonders for the city and county. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by growingup15

[ColaFan]

On 1/8/2017 at 9:19 PM, Spes said:

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.

Depends on what you mean by higher rise.

Generally speaking, all of the newer county courthouse tend not to be more than four or five stories and generally speaking have a bigger footprint.  If you are putting Charleston, Beaufort, Horry, Sumter, Dorchester, Lancaster in the vertical category then that is certainly what is being built.  I don't consider them as particularly vertical and they certainly are not high rises.  

Really the only high rise on the state level is Florence and it is being replaced with a structure along the lines of the others.  A relatively spread out facility of moderate height.  The Florence courthouse was constructed as a combination court house and city county offices complex.  It is a disaster logistically.  you have three elevator banks feedings the entire building.  So you have criminal roll calls on the elevators with citizens trying to pay their water bills or get a building permit.  You have inmates sharing elevators.  The halls are terribly cramped and there is no real space for people heading to court to congregate outside the courtroom.  The Clerk's offices are on different floors from the courtrooms.  

I'm not sure why the feds would favor verticality and I'm not saying it is impossible to design something that would be functional, I just have a hard time seeing how it would flow as well as the current fashion.   You'd still need a wide footprint to make it make sense and that would likely eliminate the cost saving and footprint.

Also state courthouses have a very different need and a very different volume and variety of courts and cases.

I don't see it as a very functional or desirable design plan.

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by ColaFan

[growingup15]

12 hours ago, ColaFan said:

Depends on what you mean by higher rise.

Generally speaking, all of the newer county courthouse tend not to be more than four or five stories and generally speaking have a bigger footprint.  If you are putting Charleston, Beaufort, Horry, Sumter, Dorchester, Lancaster in the vertical category then that is certainly what is being built.  I don't consider them as particularly vertical and they certainly are not high rises.  

Really the only high rise on the state level is Florence and it is being replaced with a structure along the lines of the others.  A relatively spread out facility of moderate height.  The Florence courthouse was constructed as a combination court house and city county offices complex.  It is a disaster logistically.  you have three elevator banks feedings the entire building.  So you have criminal roll calls on the elevators with citizens trying to pay their water bills or get a building permit.  You have inmates sharing elevators.  The halls are terribly cramped and there is no real space for people heading to court to congregate outside the courtroom.  The Clerk's offices are on different floors from the courtrooms.  

I'm not sure why the feds would favor verticality and I'm not saying it is impossible to design something that would be functional, I just have a hard time seeing how it would flow as well as the current fashion.   You'd still need a wide footprint to make it make sense and that would likely eliminate the cost saving and footprint.

Also state courthouses have a very different need and a very different volume and variety of courts and cases.

I don't see it as a very functional or desirable design plan.

 

It's called planning. Every heard of it. The city and county can easily plan this out so it be a disaster like that of which you speak of. Because one example is bad doesn't mean they're all bad.

[ColaFan]

10 hours ago, growingup15 said:

It's called planning. Every heard of it. The city and county can easily plan this out so it be a disaster like that of which you speak of. Because one example is bad doesn't mean they're all bad.

That seems like a pretty rude response. 

[growingup15]

40 minutes ago, ColaFan said:

That seems like a pretty rude response. 

Well I apologise if that comes of as rude but I still stand by what I said.

[wwmiv]

http://www.midlandsanchor.com/cason-development-group-announces-cottontown-redevelopment/

The developer who renovated the space now belonging to The War Mouth has purchased two properties (2222 Sumter and 2238 Sumter) and is renovating one of them (the latter address) around the corner on Sumter. The renovated property will be home to a coffee house, wine and beer bar, as well as a salon. The other space is not yet leased. The article also mentioned a brewery being put in at 1223 Franklin. 

That'll create a good nucleus of activity to build off of, but this area really needs some streetscape improvements and a few more initial projects to really take off. 

Edited February 6, 2017 by wwmiv

[carolinagarnet]

I didn't hear about Cyberwoven's renovation, so this is doubly awesome! Cyberwoven is renovating and then moving into 1634 Main Street (next to Michael's Cafe) and the law firm Belser & Belser is renovating and occupying part of 1634 Park Street. I love that local companies are taking on these projects on their own, without developers!

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/article132885899.html

[carolinagarnet]

Looks like The Edge is ready to go! Shame that they couldn't preserve the historical building, but that's the nature of development sometimes.

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article133160709.html#emlnl=Breaking_News_Alerts

[growingup15]

5 minutes ago, carolinagarnet said:

Looks like The Edge is ready to go! Shame that they couldn't preserve the historical building, but that's the nature of development sometimes.

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article133160709.html#emlnl=Breaking_News_Alerts

I wish they would of built the tower into it like they did to a building where the meridian building.

[carolinagarnet]

A new piano bar called DaufusKEYS opened at 1710 Main Street. It's nice to see new development continuing to stretch up Main!

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/shop-around/article134465974.html

[victory]

3 minutes ago, carolinagarnet said:

A new piano bar called DaufusKEYS opened at 1710 Main Street. It's nice to see new development continuing to stretch up Main!

http://www.thestate.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/shop-around/article134465974.html

I picked my daughter up from play rehearsal tonight at Town Theatre. We normally head back to Forest Acres (where we live) for dinner. Tonight, though, we decided to eat at Persona Wood Fired Pizza on Main. The weather was perfect, and we parked a block away, and enjoyed an evening stroll after having a delicious, affordable meal. There were lots of people out and about, and the delicious smells of the Oak Table, Persona, Bourbon, etc, filled the air. As a lifelong resident, it pleases me so much to see our city, and Main Street, slowly evolving into a wonderful regional gem.

[victory]

New article about proposed city "skyscraper" at www.thestate.com.

[carolinagarnet]

1 hour ago, victory said:

New article about proposed city "skyscraper" at www.thestate.com.

http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article134814454.html

Not much beyond what we've all discussed, other than that the city released an RFP. Responses were due back on Friday. Five years seems like a short turnaround, but Missy Gentry would have a better idea than anyone else. I wonder how quickly the city can end its active leases? I'm not familiar with the properties that it owns/occupies, but I'd love to see a list if someone happens to have one.

[growingup15]

This is nice.  http://www.wistv.com/story/34674648/boutique-grocery-store-to-open-on-main-st-this-summer

[carolinagarnet]

Some updates from the November Board Meeting regarding Sasaki's work in Columbia, specifically Main Street: 

"The South Main Street Area Plan and the Bull Street School of Medicine site planning studies were on-going. Mr. Gruner said that a comprehensive update of the University’s 2010 Master Plan was underway by Sasaki. The update will include an implementation report on what had been accomplished since 2010; implications of enrollment growth on space needs; priorities for the next 10 years; new planning initiatives; and the national trends in Higher Education that have application at USC. When asked, Mr. Gruner responded that he did not expect the report to be ready until Summer 2017."

http://www.sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/board_of_trustees/documents/minutes_archive/2016/b-g_111816.pdf

[victory]

Is the Don Tomlin plan to build multiple skyscrapers atop existing parking garages, dead in the water? If anyone has any definitive info, we can either close the file on this, or have renewed excitement over what would truly transform the downtown skyline.

[growingup15]

15 hours ago, victory said:

Is the Don Tomlin plan to build multiple skyscrapers atop existing parking garages, dead in the water? If anyone has any definitive info, we can either close the file on this, or have renewed excitement over what would truly transform the downtown skyline.

I can email Matt Kennell about it and see what's up about this. The last time i emailed him about it he said that they were tweaking the first one because of structure issues. But that it was still on. 

[victory]

35 minutes ago, growingup15 said:

I can email Matt Kennell about it and see what's up about this. The last time i emailed him about it he said that they were tweaking the first one because of structure issues. But that it was still on. 

I'd very much appreciate it if you would. I had forgotten about this project, as it has been so long since it was first talked about in local media.

[carolinagarnet]

On 5/28/2017 at 5:28 AM, victory said:

I'd very much appreciate it if you would. I had forgotten about this project, as it has been so long since it was first talked about in local media.

I hate to be a pessimist, but I can't imagine that a building that requires some degree of retrofitting, not to mention much higher architectural/engineering costs, would make financial sense given the market rate in Columbia and the high saturation of student apartments. We have seen a number of announced apartment buildings stall recently (Kline, Bull Street student apartments, The Edge) and building atop a parking garage is not an easy shovel-ready project. I suspect developers are holding off to give the market some time to absorb all of the new units (including the UofSC Tower that's under construction).

Edited May 29, 2017 by carolinagarnet

[victory]

On 5/29/2017 at 11:29 AM, carolinagarnet said:

I hate to be a pessimist, but I can't imagine that a building that requires some degree of retrofitting, not to mention much higher architectural/engineering costs, would make financial sense given the market rate in Columbia and the high saturation of student apartments. We have seen a number of announced apartment buildings stall recently (Kline, Bull Street student apartments, The Edge) and building atop a parking garage is not an easy shovel-ready project. I suspect developers are holding off to give the market some time to absorb all of the new units (including the UofSC Tower that's under construction).

I'm sure you're right.

[Armacing]

Apologies if this has been posted, but I just came across this proposal (link below).  I would prefer some more height, but I guess it's high quality in-fill.

http://bullstreetsc.com/about/