Bull Street Common

[waccamatt]

I really have no opinion one way or the other. Either chice would be fine with me. I think I lean more towards the 'git r done' side.

I prefer that, too, but I worry about it being a good overall development if there isn't a plan followed for the entire site.

[Spartan]

Having more than one developer is like not putting all of your eggs in one basket. If one developer goes bankrupt, the whole project doesnt die.

[krazeeboi]

The Bull Street property has officially been put on the market. NAI Avant is marketing the property to developers and has launched a website giving information about it.

[Spartan]

crap. all that work for nothing.

[waccamatt]

Gee, what a time to try and find developer(s) for this project.

[krazeeboi]

crap. all that work for nothing.

No, it was planned to go on the market.

NAI Avant agent Gene Green said he will discuss several options with the department, among them selling the property to a

[krazeeboi]

Gee, what a time to try and find developer(s) for this project.

Actually, it probably IS a good time to find a developer for this tract. This is a long-term project and by the time a developer is found and the first phase of construction starts, the housing market should be back on an upswing. Imagine if this project were fast-tracked early on before the bottom fell out of the housing market. There would surely be a lot of empty units on the property now and that wouldn't be good for such a large, high-profile project as this.

[CorgiMatt]

If the current low mortgage interest rates hold, the demand to live in town should make this the ideal time to try to buy it. Several reports recently have said the surplus of houses is getting bought up rather quickly and that when the housing market comes back it's going to come back big. It should be interesting.

[emerging.me]

Here is the real estate flyer (PDF) from NAI Avant.

Edited January 28, 2009 by emerging.me

[Captain Worley]

Looks like preservationists have put another roadblock on the road to developemnet. In a way, I'm surprised this hasn't come up earlier.

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/666863.html

[krazeeboi]

I really wouldn't call it a "roadblock," since it's ultimately up to the buyer/developer whether or not the historic buildings on the campus would be reused or not. The trust is just making a suggestion, a good one at that. I suspect that at least some of the buildings, if not most, would be reused. Developers realize the value of historic buildings, and I believe they would receive some tax credits from the city for reusing those buildings.

[CorgiMatt]

Well, now, we know good and well we can't go tearing down old brick buildings with huge southern columns, or the Babcock building with the tower visible on Elmwood Avenue.

[TheCarolinaKing]

Dreadful!

[Spartan]

Krazee is right, this isn't a major problem since the plan was to reuse the building anyway. Its more than likely going to be a good thing. Its true that the buildings status on the National Register doesn't protect it from demolition. I hope that they will somehow mandate that the building be saved. IMO it would strengthen the site.

Its also interesting that people have asked about buying PARTS of it for development. IMO, if they could get several developers together that all agree on one plan then it would be a good thing. We'd have some architectural variety and we wouldn't have to worry about a Kline Steel situation where the developer just dropped out.

[waccamatt]

Looks like preservationists have put another roadblock on the road to developemnet. In a way, I'm surprised this hasn't come up earlier.

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/666863.html

I think those buildings need to be preserved. If they're destroyed there is no getting them back.

[Captain Worley]

I agree that there are some buildings that need to be preserved. What concerns me is, are they going to want to preserve every building? I hope not, but who knows.

I also think this should have been resolved a couple, three years ago.

Oh, and thanks em for posting the sales brochure. pretty interesting.

[Spartan]

There are only a handful of historically significant buildings in there, and they should be preserved. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the other buildings be preserved. That would make the site undevelopable.

[BryCola]

There are only a handful of historically significant buildings in there, and they should be preserved. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the other buildings be preserved. That would make the site undevelopable.

Exactly right. There are lots of eyesore buildings in there. I took a drive all through there last year, and boy that place can be creepy. Deep in there, it's like a ghost town of haunted buildings. Would make a great place for a scary movie. (actually there WAS a scary movie filmed there...Death Sentence with Kevin Bacon) LOL Preserve maybe 2 or 3 of the largest buildings up front, and get rid of the rest.

[waccamatt]

Yeah, we certainly don't need to preserve the cookie-cutter more recent buildings, but the historically significant structures must be preserved - especially the Babcock Building and the building designed by Robert Mills. If we lost the Babcock Building it would be a tragedy. They also need to give it back its silver roof.

Edited January 31, 2009 by waccamatt

[CorgiMatt]

David Bryant and Capitol Places (the new Company formed by their combination) have bid on the historic part of the State Hospital campus. Their new company headquartered in Columbia targets historic preservation and infill development projects across the Southeast.

http://www.columbiabusinessreport.com/news...-of-bull-street

[krazeeboi]

That's definitely good news, even if it does look like the entire property will be divided among a few developers.

[Spartan]

Excellent news. having multiple developers is a good thing. This way the whole project is more likely to succeed, and there will be some architectural variety (hopefully).

[CorgiMatt]

The bid has been rejected. The DMH is saying no to the idea of multiple developers. They don't want to be in the development business any longer than they have to. David Bryant says in the article in the The State this morning that at least his company's overture turned some heads and should get the ball rolling. The article also says there has been interest from highly qualified bidders. The department still has a three-year time line to vacate the premises.

[Captain Worley]

I think they'd be a lot better oif with multiple developers, especially with the housing market the way it is. Looks like this is becomming CCI II.

[krazeeboi]

I think they'd be a lot better oif with multiple developers, especially with the housing market the way it is. Looks like this is becomming CCI II.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Except this time, it's the state holding things up, not the city.