Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

colajnp

Residential - Do you think...

Recommended Posts


I'm more than sure that larger, more upscale condo projects will be popping up within the next few years, but I really don't want to see a condo craze in Columbia like what's happening in Charlotte now. Don't make the city's focal point (downtown) a virtual country club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think eventually we will see more upscale residential condos developed. I like what charlotte has going on right now. Columbia can afford something like this when Innovista is developed. Innovista is going to really shape the downtown area. You will definetly see more people living and working in the downtown area!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for the condo movement DT but make it sensible don't build hundreds of 250,000+ 2 bedroom condos. That's just stupid. I'm anxious to see what the condo tower on south main will look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is building a 2 bdr condo that sells for $250,000 stupid? First, they are selling. Second, condo building in downtowns is an extremely expensive project. If you build a concrete and steel structure the cost just to build (not land, architecture, ect... costs) will run around $140+sq ft. Charlotte has 600sq ft 1 bedrooms for just under $200,000. If Columbia gets these big time condo highrises, look for prices to increase.

I'm all for the condo movement DT but make it sensible don't build hundreds of 250,000+ 2 bedroom condos. That's just stupid. I'm anxious to see what the condo tower on south main will look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like it ! :shok: That will cause many problems.

For housing downtown : about 5 / 6 levels, organized in city-blocks. The towers can be alloted to offices, hotels and stores, not housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know I just think it's stupid to continually build out of price range, and impractacal projects strictly to appease a certain income level. The ave. Joe gets priced out and the only one's who can afford it are corporations/ companies, etc. It's similar to what has happened to both Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head. Places end up loosing their natural charm and character and end up becoming exploitaive dollar grubbing tourist jokes of themselves. Maybe 250K for a 2BR was a bit low but it was just to get my point through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandlapper is correct...and I might add a point. Resale.

2br condos, no matter how expensive or inexpensive, don't have a good track record of resale. Condos, as a whole, don't have a good resale history. It would be a shame to have almost empty towers in a few years because people want a yard for their kids & pets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A certain amount of condos in the mix is good. More people living downtown and increased tax base sound pretty good for the city and recruiting business to Columbia. You will always pay a premium to be downtown with the cost of land. I do agree on more affordable housing and that will need to come from rental market and some areas such as Olympia and others areas close in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The increasing land values downtown is going to make the prices of the units very expensive. I wouldn't be suprised to see Charlotte style towers in Columbia at some point, so probably not until a few more residential real estate cycles have passed.

What I consider downtown is everything bounded by Elwood, Harden, and Whaley - basicly the original grid. Most of this is restriced in height for one reason or another, either its in the Vista

(pretty much everything west of Assembly), its zoning/historical context , or neighborhood (Shandon). Basicly highrises are limited to the corridor between Park and Sumter (maybe Marion north of Senate).

Think about it- nobody is going to build another highrise in the Shandon area without a major fight. They might could squaeeze in another along Devine (infact, I'd like to see that). I doubt you'd see anything of the likes in Arsenal Hill either, unless maybe its right along Huger (like the Pavillion Apts are now) or right along Assembly (more likely).

East of Marion you have a relatively residential area in appearance. It was historically a residential area though it is not really one as much today. You could see a midrise on Bull St I think, but that would be it.

South of Senate bewteen Sumter and Assembly is prime real estate so far as I'm concerned. USC would be glad for more residential units in the area I'm sure. Not to mention that there are rumos floating around here that a high-rise is in the works for that area.

That leave a pretty narrow window of opportunity for highrise developers. I think midrises are definately going to make Columbia work. I would not mind seen a Charlotte-style highrise residential structure or two though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that statement (ComingToClum), and I believe that mixed development is a good way to go. I just don't want to see the area get exploited and left hung out to dry 10-15 years later when it's not "cool" to live DT anymore and all of the rich people move back out to lake murray. I think the area should cultivate and develop without the assistance of "big time money". It's the same old carpet bagger scenerio just ask the SC coast. Places like San Francisco, Santa Fe, Boulder, Seattle, etc. were great places to live before rich people were told that they were, that's what made them great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the scenario Spartan has described will definitely work in Columbia's favor. As I've said before, I'm more a fan of mid-rise density than skyscrapers. DC is about as urban as you can get in the South, and there's no skyline to speak of (in the traditional sense). But at the same time, I wouldn't want to see an excellent tract of land perfect for a skyscraper be used for a low/mid-rise building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently ran across this editorial in The Columbia Star that pretty much has it mixed up. An opinion piece that appeared in The State advocated making sure that affordable housing would still be availabe downtown in the midst of all of the residential development that's taking place. Essentially, the Star interpreted this as meaning that we should create ghettos downtown, which couldn't be further from the truth. To me, affordable housing is housing that is within the price range of the "average" blue-collar worker. For instance, I don't make $40K a year, my job isn't high-tech or a glitzy financial job, but very important (medical services). I don't think that all one-bedroom apartments in city center or close to it should start out at $700/month. Anybody get my drift?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Krazee; there needs to be affordable housing all over the city and many people can't afford the ridiculously expensive housing that's being built downtown. I have a well above average salary for this area, but I still couldn't afford many of these developments. I'll stay in my diverse neighborhood on the edge of downtown until I retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be real for a minute. People want condo towers because they're "towers", not necessarily because they're so feasible. They want to be able to show off their city's skyline. It's fashionable. In all honesty, I don't think it's such a great idea for Columbia, yet. But don't get me wrong, one here, one there is fine.

I'm also worried about the cost and the resulting inaccessability to the likes of, say, myself, not to mention the lack of resale potential. I'm more in favor of developments like CanalSide and the Bull Street Project. Urban villages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the (apparently) large demand for and the short supply of housing downtown how can "affordable" housing can be accomplished? I frequently hear people requesting this but I've yet to hear any actual plans mentioned. From an economics standpoint, the higher prices represent the fact that there IS short supply and high demand so it seems appropriate, although unfortuate in that there is less income-level diversity. As more housing developments come into existence however, one would think prices would come down a bit as the supply of homes grows.

To achieve cheaper housing, one obvious idea would be to have smaller, higher density condos with fewer amenities. I often feel though that people would not want to live in these types of places. Based on conversations I've had with some people living in Columbia, I suspect that the general expectation is that a house the size of one they can get in Irmo/Lex/NE should sell for the same price downtown. In other words, I feel many people in Columbia are unwilling to sacrifice house and yard size for a downtown location so they expect home prices to reflect this.

Also, while we're on this topic, is there a formally accepted defintion of afforable housing? For example, is it housing that can be purchased by a people of family making the media income in the area?

Any real ideas for how to acheive a residential population of people with highly mixed income levels?

(Apologies if this is better suited for a different thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable housing typically is defined as a person making less than 120% of the median income. HUD makes those designations. In Orlando, a single person household would need to make less then 46k. When most people mention affordable housing , I think they mean workforce housing which is between 80% and 120%. Teachers, Police officers etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm speaking of affordable housing, such as that which the Bull Street project envisions. I understand how it goes with condo towers; I'm not really speaking of those. As was stated, I don't want to see downtown Columbia full of condo towers; a few would be nice, but every other tower doesn't need to be a condo tower. I much prefer the "urban village" concept, which can have a variety of housing for all income levels. It's interesting that one Arsenal Hill resident said about the new housing coming to that neighborhood that he (or she, I forget) would like to see more affordable housing come to that neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.