Jump to content

Historic Congaree Vista Developments


CorgiMatt

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure what you mean by "constantly" as if I've mentioned it in every post for the last couple of weeks or something, but the reason I mentioned it here was pretty straightforward. I'm more than certain the CVS was in mind when Greenville made the very appropriate decision that it did, and probably the Carolina First bank headquarters as well. It's common for cities to make such zoning changes in response to recent and planned developments and Columbia should certainly follow suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


^^That's a gross proposal, and sad to see for any urban environment. Really, FIVE drive thrus?!

Greenville just voted to eliminate drive thrus as an automatic right for properties zoned for the CBD. I think it'd be wise for Columbia to look into something similar.

FYI, this plot is not in the CBD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, this plot is not in the CBD.

So that makes this development ok? :dunno: To me, it'd suggest that more changes in zoning and restrictions for downtown need to change.

Krazee- I'm sure the CVS did make some council members realize that without restrictions, any sort of drive thru could legally be developed. However, I think it's needs to be noted that the CVS drive thru is the absolute best possible scenario in the way it's proposed. Thus, it seems a little odd that you seem to imply a comparison between a very urban pharmacy with a single drive thru on a back street and a 5 drive-thru customer service center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that makes this development ok? :dunno: To me, it'd suggest that more changes in zoning and restrictions for downtown need to change.

I don't think Matt was implying that it was OK, but he was just making a factual correction.

Krazee- I'm sure the CVS did make some council members realize that without restrictions, any sort of drive thru could legally be developed. However, I think it's needs to be noted that the CVS drive thru is the absolute best possible scenario in the way it's proposed. Thus, it seems a little odd that you seem to imply a comparison between a very urban pharmacy with a single drive thru on a back street and a 5 drive-thru customer service center.

I'm not comparing the developments and I fail to see how you made that assumption. All I said was that the less-than-ideal CVS on Main with a drive-thru was probably first and foremost in the minds of city council members when the zoning change that you mentioned was made; no more, no less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not comparing the developments and I fail to see how you made that assumption. All I said was that the less-than-ideal CVS on Main with a drive-thru was probably first and foremost in the minds of city council members when the zoning change that you mentioned was made; no more, no less.

I understand exactly what you said. You stated that the "grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side", in response to a comment about someone's disappointment in Columbia. I'm not sure I can think of any recently proposed or built projects that offer a 5 lane car centered drive thru development in either of Columbia's peer cities in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old hydroelectric plant at the mouth of the Columbia Canal would tie into the river walk and EdVenture-State Museum complex under a deal being negotiated by the city and a small power company. By the way, the plaza construction surrounding the south end of the canal is coming along nicely.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/02/07/1682519/city-hopes-to-make-hydro-plant.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand exactly what you said. You stated that the "grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side", in response to a comment about someone's disappointment in Columbia. I'm not sure I can think of any recently proposed or built projects that offer a 5 lane car centered drive thru development in either of Columbia's peer cities in the state.

Identical correlations elsewhere in the state aren't necessary for my statement to hold true. Conceptually, (an)other example(s) can make the case. I'm sure you'd disagree, but I would argue that while neither is ideal, a one-story, multi-lane development in a relatively underdeveloped area on the edge of downtown bordered by a 7 acre vacant lot and a power substation with no pedestrian activity whatsoever (which could easily give way to a higher, truly urban use once the demand is there) is roughly conceptually even with or possibly marginally preferential to a one-story development along a city's primary urban corridor that does not make the highest use of a prime site (and would be harder to redevelop) with a drive-thru which would partially hinder urban development along the adjacent side street. I realize that this is subject to debate, which is why this is a discussion board and we are free to discuss our opinions on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conceptually, (an)other example(s) can make the case. I'm sure you'd disagree, but I would argue that while neither is ideal, a one-story, multi-lane development in a relatively underdeveloped area on the edge of downtown bordered by a 7 acre vacant lot and a power substation with no pedestrian activity whatsoever (which could easily give way to a higher, truly urban use once the demand is there) is roughly conceptually even with or possibly marginally preferential to a one-story development along a city's primary urban corridor that does not make the highest use of a prime site (and would be harder to redevelop) with a drive-thru which would partially hinder urban development along the adjacent side street. I realize that this is subject to debate, which is why this is a discussion board and we are free to discuss our opinions on the matter.

I wouldn't really expect a car-oriented development to be taken by boosters as a negative thing when that's the precedent in the city. <_< I really don't know where else you could be coming from on this topic if the previous sentence isn't it. I'd be up in arms, not trying to find justification for the project by comparing it to other cities.

Furthermore, the comparison you're making to Greenville's CVS development seems to expose unfamiliarity with the topic. The building is 2 stories on Main Street, keeping the scale and context in agreement with adjacent structures. Only the rear of the site is one story. Additionally, it's adding 3 retail spaces (two on Main, one at Brown and McBee). How can this really be seen as a bad thing? Only by a Columbia booster could that be the case, and in only that way could it be brought up for comparison purposes in such a topic. It's fulfilling exactly what the City of Greenville expects and requires of developments. You can argue that greater height could be a better use of the site, but at what expense? Main @ Broad recently introduced new office space on the market, the Custom House is nearing completion in the West End with retail/commercial and 6 residential units, and the Riverwalk under construction with 44 apartments, artist studios, and two floors of office space. I'd rather not see anything get in the way of those projects, nor would I like to see advances on Washington Square be postponed as a result.

Edited by GvilleSC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't really expect a car-oriented development to be taken by boosters as a negative thing when that's the precedent in the city. <_<

You read my criticisms of this project earlier and I just said that it's far from ideal in my previous post, so it's a bit disingenuous of you to say something like this. Also, let's not act as though Greenville is immune from car-oriented developments in the city, even a few newer developments. You seem to be a bit obsessed with bashing Columbia when it comes to this for some reason, which is puzzling. At any rate, I'm tired of rehashing that topic, so moving on...

Furthermore, the comparison you're making to Greenville's CVS development seems to expose unfamiliarity with the topic. The building is 2 stories on Main Street, keeping the scale and context in agreement with adjacent structures. Only the rear of the site is one story. Additionally, it's adding 3 retail spaces (two on Main, one at Brown and McBee). How can this really be seen as a bad thing? Only by a Columbia booster could that be the case, and in only that way could it be brought up for comparison purposes in such a topic. It's fulfilling exactly what the City of Greenville expects and requires of developments. You can argue that greater height could be a better use of the site, but at what expense? Main @ Broad recently introduced new office space on the market, the Custom House is nearing completion in the West End with retail/commercial and 6 residential units, and the Riverwalk under construction with 44 apartments, artist studios, and two floors of office space. I'd rather not see anything get in the way of those projects, nor would I like to see advances on Washington Square be postponed as a result.

I seriously doubt that the city expects and requires new developments on Main to have drive-thrus, but you're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You read my criticisms of this project earlier and I just said that it's far from ideal in my previous post, so it's a bit disingenuous of you to say something like this. Also, let's not act as though Greenville is immune from car-oriented developments in the city, even a few newer developments. You seem to be a bit obsessed with bashing Columbia when it comes to this for some reason, which is puzzling. At any rate, I'm tired of rehashing that topic, so moving on...

I seriously doubt that the city expects and requires new developments on Main to have drive-thrus, but you're entitled to your opinion as I'm entitled to mine.

Your quote: "possibly marginally preferential to a one-story development along a city's primary urban corridor"

Sounds like a comparison putting the SCANA development in a positive light, no? Otherwise Greenville's CVS is extremely bad, which I can't see considering what it's adding at street level, being compared to a 5 drive thru center with no pedestrian engagement...?

And, you're the only one who is dwelling on the drive thru portion. THREE retail spaces are being added, and a tiny drive thru off of a side street and an alley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your quote: "possibly marginally preferential to a one-story development along a city's primary urban corridor"

Sounds like a comparison putting the SCANA development in a positive light, no? Otherwise Greenville's CVS is extremely bad, which I can't see considering what it's adding at street level, being compared to a 5 drive thru center with no pedestrian engagement...?

Firstly, you're cutting off the majority of the context of my quote which is pretty misleading. Secondly, I had harsh criticisms of the project earlier in the thread. Thirdly, there is no pedestrian engagement to be had with this project because it will be located in an underdeveloped area (bounded by a power substation and 7 acre vacant lot) where no one walks anyway. Fourthly, even then, the building itself will be pulled up to the side street (William Street) which it will face.

And, you're the only one who is dwelling on the drive thru portion. THREE retail spaces are being added, and a tiny drive thru off of a side street and an alley.

That's because the drive-thru is part and parcel of this Main Street project and like I said, I'm pretty sure it was probably in the minds of city leaders when they made that zoning change, which was a good move. As I said earlier, Columbia should follow suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't really expect a car-oriented development to be taken by boosters as a negative thing when that's the precedent in the city. dry.gif I really don't know where else you could be coming from on this topic if the previous sentence isn't it. I'd be up in arms, not trying to find justification for the project by comparing it to other cities.

Furthermore, the comparison you're making to Greenville's CVS development seems to expose unfamiliarity with the topic. The building is 2 stories on Main Street, keeping the scale and context in agreement with adjacent structures. Only the rear of the site is one story. Additionally, it's adding 3 retail spaces (two on Main, one at Brown and McBee). How can this really be seen as a bad thing? Only by a Columbia booster could that be the case, and in only that way could it be brought up for comparison purposes in such a topic. It's fulfilling exactly what the City of Greenville expects and requires of developments. You can argue that greater height could be a better use of the site, but at what expense? Main @ Broad recently introduced new office space on the market, the Custom House is nearing completion in the West End with retail/commercial and 6 residential units, and the Riverwalk under construction with 44 apartments, artist studios, and two floors of office space. I'd rather not see anything get in the way of those projects, nor would I like to see advances on Washington Square be postponed as a result.

Just curious...what makes you think that Greenville is not a car dependent city? There is absolutely no transit to speak of and outside of a small downtown area, the city/county are developed with the car in mind. There is nothing about Haywood, Laurens, Woodruff or any other roads in Greenville that are not car oriented and the extended metro is a ultra ultra low density line of counties that have little in common. I know you are a big Greenville/Clemson person, is that why you always seem to pick out things with Columbia to bash? Why do you think that Greenville is the standard in the Carolinas (remember you said it was further along that Charlotte as well)?

For the record, I agree that this particular piece of land in The Vista should be developed into something else but, I also agree that a 2 story building built on Main St is a waste of land. Are land prices in Greenville so low that a development like this could be profitable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious...what makes you think that Greenville is not a car dependent city? There is absolutely no transit to speak of and outside of a small downtown area, the city/county are developed with the car in mind. There is nothing about Haywood, Laurens, Woodruff or any other roads in Greenville that are not car oriented and the extended metro is a ultra ultra low density line of counties that have little in common. I know you are a big Greenville/Clemson person, is that why you always seem to pick out things with Columbia to bash? Why do you think that Greenville is the standard in the Carolinas (remember you said it was further along that Charlotte as well)?

I'm only talking about downtown development here, which is why I referred to the word: precedent. You would never look for precedent outside of downtown for a downtown project, therefore precedent only refers to urban development. If you really want to have this discussion and comparison of urban design standards in the two cities, it belongs in the South Carolina forum, not here.

I posted in this thread with similar criticism of SCANA as everyone else has expressed. That's not bashing Columbia. That's being appropriately critical and offer constructive thought through example of Greenville's drive-thru ban. ALL relevant.

Any other criticism has been directed at Krazee making comparisons that don't hold water. It's like comparing two balls of different materials when one is inflated and the other is deflated and holds very different properties as a result. I don't think Greenville's CVS should be brought into the discussion, and for the record: I did not bring it up.

---------

As a relevant discussion to the topic of the Vista and walkability, what areas do you all envision as being a priority for mixed uses? It's apparently NOT everywhere as I have learned through this discussion. I think there's always a tier-ing of need that comes from priority, established places, and prominence, but there also must be standards that still exist in places of lower priority, etc. Maybe it's a City issue, where zoning needs to be extended, altered, or revisited from the ground up?? I don't know. Thoughts? Consider curb cuts along Gervais, for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is as far west off of Main Street in Greenville as this site is west of off Main Street Columbia? It's not like this one development is going to kill the overall feel of the entire Vista. When the parcels around it are developed it will hardly be noticeable. As long as Jerry Kline is alive, any development that takes place on his his huge corner parcel will be something substantial, attractive and urban. And as far as the placement of the SCANA payment center on the site is concerned, the rules call for it to be urban. The architectural design could very well at least look like a two-story building, because that's another guideline for Vista development. Has anyone seen the renderings? And maybe about 20 of the 5,000 trees the city is going to plant over the next 10 years (10,000 over the next 20) will be planted on the site to buffer the drive-through lanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No rendering, but here are site plans: Link

I still don't quite see the need for such a facility......aren't there existing buildings that can/already provide such services. More people pay online these days. What's up with all the parking?? The building better be somewhat attractive <_< . Overall, I think SCANA just doesn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Given the immediate context of the surrounding blocks of the Vista, this is sort of a "better than nothing" suburban design. I don't care how anyone spins it, this is not a good project for downtown Columbia. The vacant parcels in the area should be viewed as a blank slate. There are so many good examples of how to do something right in downtown (Canalside) that it should be pretty blatant that this is unacceptable.

Columbia does a lot of things very well, but there are many flaws that could be fixed with policy changes and a little backbone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There is a glimmer of hope that the SCANA customer service center could get scrapped. Here's a blurb from this week's edition of the Free Times:

On March 1, SCANA asked the City of Columbia to place the company’s proposed customer service facility in the Vista on “inactive status,” SCANA spokesman Eric Boomhower tells Free Times. The company has a number of facility projects that are under review “primarily due to just the economic circumstances that everybody is facing right now,” Boomhower says, “and this is one of those projects that’s under review.” SCANA has not made a definitive decision as to whether or not the project will move forward. Putting the Vista project on inactive status will give the company time to review its plans with a new mayor and new city officials who weren’t in office when the seeds for the plan were planted, he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a glimmer of hope that the SCANA customer service center could get scrapped. Here's a blurb from this week's edition of the Free Times:

On March 1, SCANA asked the City of Columbia to place the company’s proposed customer service facility in the Vista on “inactive status,” SCANA spokesman Eric Boomhower tells Free Times. The company has a number of facility projects that are under review “primarily due to just the economic circumstances that everybody is facing right now,” Boomhower says, “and this is one of those projects that’s under review.” SCANA has not made a definitive decision as to whether or not the project will move forward. Putting the Vista project on inactive status will give the company time to review its plans with a new mayor and new city officials who weren’t in office when the seeds for the plan were planted, he said.

Let's hope it is on "permanent hold"! Or else that they get a better plan that fits the urban character that is needed in that location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.