Downtown office market

[Firefox]

Does anyone know any news on these two preposals or what have you now?

The article also said that Wachovia is expected to make an announcement soon concerning its office space. It's moving out of the Palmetto Center (along with SCANA) and may consolidate operations right across Main Street at Hampton where it has a large amount of leased space. Another possibility could be to relocate in the office space that is to be part of the Kline site development (which we should also hear something about soon).

A new high-profile tenant for The Meridian on Main Street is expected to be signed in the next month that would take the building over the 80% occupied mark.

[pedestrian]

I'm new to this forum (I'm new to Urban Planet entirely, actually). I guess I'll just jump in.

Personally, I would hate to see a new 30+ story high-rise built in downtown. I think we could create a better downtown for Columbia by building more buildings downtown that were NOT high-rises, and therefore creating the demand to get rid of surface parking and other blighted areas. For example, I would personally prefer ten 5-story buildings instead of one 50-story or two 25-story high-rises. Yes, these buildings look impressive, and they do make the city look more impressive from a distance, but impressive skylines don't increase the livability or the walkability of downtown. It doesn't make sense to me to have a 40 story building on main street and then have empty lots and one story buildings just a couple blocks away on Sumter and Bull. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think we should aim for a more even skyline that is dense everywhere rather than a skyline that is more impressive yet only dense in a small corridor.

I love skyscrapers just as much as everybody else here, but I think we should go in a slightly different direction.

[mr. chips]

Personally, I would hate to see a new 30+ story high-rise built in downtown. I think we could create a better downtown for Columbia by building more buildings downtown that were NOT high-rises, and therefore creating the demand to get rid of surface parking and other blighted areas. For example, I would personally prefer ten 5-story buildings instead of one 50-story or two 25-story high-rises. ...I love skyscrapers just as much as everybody else here, but I think we should go in a slightly different direction.

I agree with you completely - and I am a former New Yorker!

[waccamatt]

I like density, but nothing beats a good 'ol skyscraper.

[CorgiMatt]

I like density, but nothing beats a good 'ol skyscraper.

As long as it's not too tall compared to everything else around it.

[krazeeboi]

I'm new to this forum (I'm new to Urban Planet entirely, actually). I guess I'll just jump in.

Personally, I would hate to see a new 30+ story high-rise built in downtown. I think we could create a better downtown for Columbia by building more buildings downtown that were NOT high-rises, and therefore creating the demand to get rid of surface parking and other blighted areas. For example, I would personally prefer ten 5-story buildings instead of one 50-story or two 25-story high-rises. Yes, these buildings look impressive, and they do make the city look more impressive from a distance, but impressive skylines don't increase the livability or the walkability of downtown. It doesn't make sense to me to have a 40 story building on main street and then have empty lots and one story buildings just a couple blocks away on Sumter and Bull. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think we should aim for a more even skyline that is dense everywhere rather than a skyline that is more impressive yet only dense in a small corridor.

I love skyscrapers just as much as everybody else here, but I think we should go in a slightly different direction.

Welcome to the forum!

Firstly, I would not want to see Columbia's next tower located on Main. I'd like the skyline to have more of an east-west orientation, and there's room for one on Sumter to do just that. Also, I think the current cluster of towers on Main explains, in part, why Main has been having such trouble getting jump-started in terms of vibrancy.

Ideally, I'd like to see Columbia get some modern, non-boxy skyscrapers (nothing TOO tall) with decorative tops that do a very good job of incorporating street-level retail.

[Spartan]

I'm new to this forum (I'm new to Urban Planet entirely, actually). I guess I'll just jump in.

Personally, I would hate to see a new 30+ story high-rise built in downtown. I think we could create a better downtown for Columbia by building more buildings downtown that were NOT high-rises, and therefore creating the demand to get rid of surface parking and other blighted areas. For example, I would personally prefer ten 5-story buildings instead of one 50-story or two 25-story high-rises. Yes, these buildings look impressive, and they do make the city look more impressive from a distance, but impressive skylines don't increase the livability or the walkability of downtown. It doesn't make sense to me to have a 40 story building on main street and then have empty lots and one story buildings just a couple blocks away on Sumter and Bull. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think we should aim for a more even skyline that is dense everywhere rather than a skyline that is more impressive yet only dense in a small corridor.

I love skyscrapers just as much as everybody else here, but I think we should go in a slightly different direction.

Well said! And Welcome to the forum!

That statement hits the nail on the head exactly. Skyscrapers are nice ways to enhance the urban environment, but you have to have an urban environment first. Relying on skyscrapers as the only means of achieving density is counter productive at best.

[Chtimi]

Oh no. You're speaking like those conservator Parisians who refuse high-rise buildings.

As long as it's not too tall compared to everything else around it.

Look, the Eiffel tower was the highest tower in the world during 40 years, it was hated by the Parisians at the beginning but now welcome almost 10 millions visitors the year.

I always supported the idea of a remarkable building for Columbia, a symbol.

"Too tall" ? It would be a good excuse to build two other skyscrapers with an intermediate height.

[Chtimi]

I like density, but nothing beats a good 'ol skyscraper.

You bet. I like vertical architecture too.

My city of Lille is physically the most American city in France, with far suburbs, like Lens, all in detached houses, my region Nord-Pas de Calais is the region having the higher rate of owners, and the higher rate of households having a garden, some districts of downtown Lille were rebuilt after the WW1 "

[krazeeboi]

"Too tall" ? It would be a good excuse to build two other skyscrapers with an intermediate height.

Precisely. This is what other cities have done when they had a supertall in comparison to every other tower: Chicago (Sears Tower), Minneapolis (IDS Tower), Charlotte (BOA Tower), etc. Now these towers blend in very well with their surroundings.

[Spartan]

The point was made that if you were given the option between one 50 storey building or five 10 storey buildings, the five 10s would be preferred. The benefits of spreading density around are clear. Charleston, much like Paris, has not needed to build skyscrapers, and it has the most densly populated core in the South. Low-rise buildings (under 10 foors) are more beneficial to creating an urban environment that people will want to be in. We don't want to become New York wiht its skyscraper canyons.

Columbia can easily handle a 30 storey tower, and it would fit in nicely. But stick that same 30 storey tower in Spartanburg and it would look very much out of place visually.

[TheSuperPope]

Who says we dont want some of those skyscraper canyons?

[krazeeboi]

We don't want to become New York wiht its skyscraper canyons.

Why not?

[Chtimi]

Yeah why not ! I like density with low or high-rise buildings, no, with low AND high rises.

[pedestrian]

I agree with the idea that Columbia could take in another short "sky-scaper," but I just wonder should we? When cities started to build buildings over 10 stories at the turn of the 20th century, it was because of a shortage of land. Nowadays, American cities try to build as tall as possible as quickly as possible, not because of a shortage of land but because it gives the feeling that the city "has arrived." If we have a high-rise downtown, then we are a real city. I feel like that's true because when I visit a new city, that's how I initially judge it. If Columbia could fill in all the holes in the downtown grid, then I think another 20+ story office building could be appropriate. I don't think this will be anytime soon, though.

I may be against a new office sky-scraper, but I would definately be in favor of some type of tower that wasn't for office space. If Columbia were to have a tall structure as a symbol for the city, I would love for it to be purely for the architecture (like the Eiffel Tower for Paris or the Space Needle for Seattle). I might be wrong, but I think both of those towers were built when those cities held the World's Fair. I wonder if Columbia could host the World's Fair? Maybe then we could get our tower...

I know that Spokane, WA hosted several decades ago, and Spokane is of similar size to Columbia.

[Captain Worley]

Buildings over three stories get expensive, because of building codes. the taller they are, the more expensive it gets. You need high end business or housing to support such buldings, and Columbia has a limited number of those, so far.

That being said, I wouldn't mind an explosion of three story buildings at all.

[Spartan]

I'd like to say that I'm not necessarily AGAINST and office tower, but if give the aforementioned choice, I would choose more low rises over one highrise. But we also have to consider that 10 storeys in any city in SC is a high rise. I will once again point out that Charleston is famous for its downtown, and yet is has only a few scattered highrises. We should also keep in mind that cities don't build skyscrapers, developers do. Cities can guide growth, but they can't maintain an iron first on it.

[Chtimi]

Dream and imagination are good too, this really suits Columbia. Charleston has the assets we know. While Columbia is more a city of the future. There are a lot of possibilities. Pedestrian suggested that Columbia host the World's Fair. Yes, it's a good occasion to boost the building work and to get a monument whose the image alone will make think "that's Columbia". A structure not necessarily complex or a skyscraper, for example the Gateway Arch in St Louis is memorable. Simple but effective.

[waccamatt]

A world's fair would be alot of fun - but I haven't heard of any world's fairs in recent years, has anyone else?

[Spartan]

Do they still have those things?

[Captain Worley]

Jeez, I don't know. Last one I can recall off of the top of my head was the one in Knoxville in, what, 1982?

[Matt83USC]

I wouldn't trust our city leaders to run any sort of World's Fair...the amount of mismanagement on the small projects is bad enough...

[Chtimi]

I remember Sevilla '92, Lisboa '98 and Hannover 2000. With different success, the greatest was Lisbon where a new (dense) district was built.

There is also the American Capital of Culture now, which corresponds to the European Capital of Culture, Lille 2004 was a complete success with 15,000 artists and 9 millions visitors. The new buildings were not linked especially with this event, but the city was amazingly transformed all year long. Now Lille is working to host a World's fair for the next decade.

An Expo can help, at least for the renown. It's not obligatory of course, Columbia is growing easy, it's good to live in a city where we can think "Great, but calm down, the best is coming".

[Spartan]

Interesting. I think the prominence of the world's fair has fallen into obscurity, unfortunately. They just dont seem to have the same impact as they did 100 years ago.

[krazeeboi]

Here's an article about Collexis' commitment to Columbia. The company is currently in the Capitol Center, but has made a verbal commitment to Innovista sometime in the future.