Breaking the 349 foot Cap...

[deltad22]

I have heard that the condo in MB is taller than SouthTrust in Cola. So MB might have the winning title right there.

I voted Columbia because it seems like the logical place to build one. The office vacancy is a problem now, but that can change. Don't forget that it doesn't have to be an office tower, it could easily be a residential tower. I think that one would work very well in Columbia due to the high demand for living in places like the Vista. Obvuiosly it would have to be built out side of the Vista, but it could be done. DT is becoming a popular place to live.

Greenville runs a very close second. It is undergoing a significant 'skyscraper boom,' so the demand is obviuosly there for both office and residential space. Greenville has alot of untapped energy in this regard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This one goes to Greenville Hands down, the development in Greenville is outpacing Columbia by a landslide. Downtown Greenville is going vertical. It will be a very different skyline in the near future.

[jfl25]

I think Myrtle beach will be the first, mainly because of the tourism.I think Columbia will follow,and I believe this will all happen over the course of the next 10 years. I wish I could say that it would be Greenville, but I'm sure it will also follow but just alittle behind the other two.

[JT Boy]

Keep in mind that a residential building floor is shorter than a commercial building floor, so a 29-floor condo would almost certainly be shorter than a 25-floor office building.

Also, I'd like to propose that height alone is not the best indicator of an appealing urban area. Atlanta has some of the tallest office buildings in the country but my visits there have left me with the impression of a dull central core populated with gigantic office buildings and empty sidewalks, while a visit to Portland, OR, whose tallest is 550 ft., revealed a dynamic, exciting, engaging city that was a joy to visit.

[monsoon]

Very true. From the street level, DC is one of the most liveable cities in the USA yet it has a height restriction of about 12-14 floors.

[goodbye]

Great point, JTboy! When people visit a city, what is the impression they receive, and when they leave, how lasting is that impression? I believe the major cities in South Carolina are on a definite track to show both size and unforgettable style. Already, people visiting our cities are saying great things about the pedestrian-friendly work being done in the hearts of these downtowns.

[btoy]

I voted for Greenville more out of hope than actual belief that it would happen. I actually think MB is the better canidate. But two things to think of with Greenville is the number of upcoming towers in Greenville. That could be a sign of things to come or, or could point towards an excess of available office space to be on the horizon therefor making it less likely to happen in the near future. But, one must think that with the renewal of the Gateway site option that something is in the works. And I hope it is something BIG!

But then it could be years before anythign that big is built in the state and things could change state wide by then so it really is hard to say where it would happen.

[Charleston native]

My vote was for Myrtle Beach, but could be close with Columbia.

Does North Charleston have height restrictions, or is that just Charleston?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Arrgghhh! Are there people out there that are just trying to bug me? I do not like this poll showing Charleston and North Charleston as separate entities, because they really aren't.

Charleston has height restrictions, but they can be changed with the proper votes from city council and the Board of Architectural Review. The Northside does not have stringent height restrictions, but towers cannot be built there due to the fact that the international airport and Air Force base have approaches and airspace that require planes to fly at low altitudes.

I voted for Myrtle Beach because they have the ability to build virtually whatever they want along the Strand. There will be a need to build a larger hotel or condo complex on or near the beach, and with the tourist demand for more hotel buildings, MB will eventually have the tallest building.

[lastweek]

Also, I'd like to propose that height alone is not the best indicator of an appealing urban area.  Atlanta has some of the tallest office buildings in the country but my visits there have left me with the impression of a dull central core populated with gigantic office buildings and empty sidewalks, while a visit to Portland, OR, whose tallest is 550 ft., revealed a dynamic, exciting, engaging city that was a joy to visit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point, I'd much rather see Columbia evolve into a Portland (vibrant arts/nightlife, controlled growth, great mass transit, clean) than another Atlanta, even though I do always enjoy myself when I visit Atlanta.

My vote is for MB though because I dont think any of the other cities have the need for that much more density yet.

[Spartan]

There is a demand for density in our downtowns. Greenville and Columbia are the best proof of this. Greenville is undergoing a massive residential transformation in its core. Condos and apartments are being built or old buildings are being rennovated and outfitted for residential use. Columbia has many residential projects going on as well, and of a similar nature. I think that this is one of those situations where if you build it they will come. The occupancy rates in DT Cola are very high. I don't know for sure if Greenville is the same way or not, but I would assume so because of the construction of all of these new units.

[goodbye]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Charleston ended up being the first to build something 30-plus stories?

[Charleston native]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Charleston ended up being the first to build something 30-plus stories?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if I'd be laughing because of the irony, or tearing up because I'd be so happy of my hometown FINALLY building something tall!

[UrbanSoutherner]

My vote is for Myrtle Beach. I do not see where the demand would come from for a 30+ story office building in SC right now. Unlike a couple of decades ago, the banks in Columbia are all branches of NC banks. Greenville attracts primarily manufacturing firms that locate along the I-85 corridor in sprawling, low-rise buildings. Even when it gets a decent-sized office (like Michelin), it seems that it winds up going into a low-rise suburban setting. Charleston just does not need that kind of office space. In watching Atlanta for the past decade, there has not been as much high-rise office construction as residential/hotel. Developers do not build tall office buildings without tenants lined up--tenants who need lots of space for office workers. SC cities have been lucky to add a couple of 15-20 story buildings every decade. I think that means that any 30+ story building built in the foreseeable future in SC will be residential/hotel. And there is plenty of space for shorter residential/hotel buildings in downtown Greenville or Columbia or Charleston. But they are not creating new beach-front property. I also have to think that Myrtle Beach will draw more retirees as Florida just gets too overdeveloped. Thus, my vote goes to Myrtle Beach over the long run. In the past few decades, Myrtle Beach has literally grown from a small, quiet beach town to the state's fifth largest urbanized area. During peak tourist season, it has a de-facto population to rival the state's other cities. It is SC's boom town for the foreseeable future. It's unfortunate since I really do not consider Myrtle Beach to be particularly urban like Columbia, Charleston, or Greenville. Oh well.

[Spartan]

Welcome to the forum UrbanSoutherner! You have many good points. I agree that MB is not a "true" urban area, though it does have an extremely urban feel in some places. My issue with it is that it is essentially a mile or two wide the entire length of it, and most of that is not dense at all. Also, the majority of it caters to cars. The clear exception is the Ocean Blvd area.

I wonder what percentage of its condo towers contain permanent residents? Most of them are hotels. None are offices. Myrtle Beach is an interesting place. Tourism is its economy, and I can't fault it for that.

[UrbanSoutherner]

I would be curious to know what percentage of the new condo building residents in Myrtle Beach are full-time residents vs. second home/vacation rental owners. I also wonder how many more tourists Myrtle Beach can sustain without becoming a huge mess. My hope is that it gradually becomes more economically diversified with full-time retirees and more non-tourist businesses and industries. I also fear that Charleston may eventually go too far with attracting tourists. Do not get me wrong, tourism has been a great economic engine for Charleston and has fueled much of the historic preservation efforts (as a justification for them). I just want to see Charleston remain a real urban environment, which means people living and working in the historic district. If you get too many tourists, I think it could endanger that. For example, King Street is really more a tourist-geared revitalized commercial area than one geared to the residents. In a way, I find Greenville's Main Street more interesting in that it really serves the locals. However, if tourism helps preserve some of Charleston's great architectural heritage, then so be it.

[Spartan]

I would be curious to know what percentage of the new condo building residents in Myrtle Beach are full-time residents vs. second home/vacation rental owners. I also wonder how many more tourists Myrtle Beach can sustain without becoming a huge mess. My hope is that it gradually becomes more economically diversified with full-time retirees and more non-tourist businesses and industries. I also fear that Charleston may eventually go too far with attracting tourists. Do not get me wrong, tourism has been a great economic engine for Charleston and has fueled much of the historic preservation efforts (as a justification for them). I just want to see Charleston remain a real urban environment, which means people living and working in the historic district. If you get too many tourists, I think it could endanger that. For example, King Street is really more a tourist-geared revitalized commercial area than one geared to the residents. In a way, I find Greenville's Main Street more interesting in that it really serves the locals. However, if tourism helps preserve some of Charleston's great architectural heritage, then so be it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed- I would hate to see Charleston turn into something like St. Augustine.

[lastweek]

There is a demand for density in our downtowns. Greenville and Columbia are the best proof of this. Greenville is undergoing a massive residential transformation in its core. Condos and apartments are being built or old buildings are being rennovated and outfitted for residential use. Columbia has many residential projects going on as well, and of a similar nature. I think that this is one of those situations where if you build it they will come. The occupancy rates in DT Cola are very high. I don't know for sure if Greenville is the same way or not, but I would assume so because of the construction of all of these new units.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course there is a demand for a relitive amount of density in Cola and Greenville, but I hesitate to think that this demand would necessitate a 30+ story building. It would be of enormous risk (if it could even be financed) to build a building like that without having tenants/buyers lined up. Office occupancy in Cola is 81%, which is strong, but not necessarily indicative of saturation. However, it looks like class A properties will see increased demand this year.

Trust me, I'd love to see a 30+ story tower added to Columbia's (or Greenville's) skykine. However, it will take a real paradigm shift, such as company relocation (and the accompanying residential surge), to spark that kind of development. It will happen, just a matter of when.

Here is some office market analysis for Cola, for end of year 2004:

http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositori...fficeMarket.pdf

[UrbanSoutherner]

I agree with lastweek about the pragmatic considerations when developers are thinking of building a large high rise office building. They are not going to build just on ego or speculation. They want to know they have tenant ready to go. I also want to throw out there the idea that maybe a 30-plus story high rise would not be positive for the continued urbanization of Charleston, Columbia, or Greenville. These cities need to get vibrant streetscapes back downtown. That goal may be more assisted by a number of 3 to 7 story buildings on various blocks tying it all together rather than a single 30 plus story building. Charleston has by far the least impressive skyline of those three cities, but it has in many ways a more urban feel with the density and streetscapes. Atlanta has many large office buildings that are like fortresses surrounded by sterile plazas. That is not exactly the most enjoyable urban environment. DC is one of the most urban feeling cities in the US, and again, it has no skyscrapers to speak off. But it sure feels urban.

[Charleston native]

I agree with lastweek about the pragmatic considerations when developers are thinking of building a large high rise office building. They are not going to build just on ego or speculation. They want to know they have tenant ready to go. I also want to throw out there the idea that maybe a 30-plus story high rise would not be positive for the continued urbanization of Charleston, Columbia, or Greenville. These cities need to get vibrant streetscapes back downtown. That goal may be more assisted by a number of 3 to 7 story buildings on various blocks tying it all together rather than a single 30 plus story building. Charleston has by far the least impressive skyline of those three cities, but it has in many ways a more urban feel with the density and streetscapes. Atlanta has many large office buildings that are like fortresses surrounded by sterile plazas. That is not exactly the most enjoyable urban environment. DC is one of the most urban feeling cities in the US, and again, it has no skyscrapers to speak off. But it sure feels urban.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your point is well taken, but I believe that our cities here should not follow the exact example of cities like DC. If you built nothing but 3-7 story buildings for many blocks, you may have the urban feel in the vicinity, but downtowns need to have more than that. Cities need to have skylines to mark a place of arrival, a gateway if you will, that signifies to people traveling into the city that they have reached a destination. Many cities such as New York, Philly, Miami, Charlotte, and Atlanta have this. My hometown does not, but I believe that it can still have a vibrant downtown and a more diversified skyline.

If your city lacks a skyline, it becomes difficult for somebody to get a mental picture of the general city.

[waccamatt]

Your point is well taken, but I believe that our cities here should not follow the exact example of cities like DC. If you built nothing but 3-7 story buildings for many blocks, you may have the urban feel in the vicinity, but downtowns need to have more than that. Cities need to have skylines to mark a place of arrival, a gateway if you will, that signifies to people traveling into the city that they have reached a destination. Many cities such as New York, Philly, Miami, Charlotte, and Atlanta have this. My hometown does not, but I believe that it can still have a vibrant downtown and a more diversified skyline.

If your city lacks a skyline, it becomes difficult for somebody to get a mental picture of the general city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make some interesting points, Chuck. I agree with them for the most part.

[waccamatt]

Of course there is a demand for a relitive amount of density in Cola and Greenville, but I hesitate to think that this demand would necessitate a 30+ story building. It would be of enormous risk (if it could even be financed) to build a building like that without having tenants/buyers lined up. Office occupancy in Cola is 81%, which is strong, but not necessarily indicative of saturation. However, it looks like class A properties will see increased demand this year.

The vacancy rate in Columbia will change drastically in the next year as 3 highrises in downtown Columbia are converted from office space.

The Barringer Building, Columbia's oldest skyscraper (1903) is being converted into apartments or condos.

The Palmetto Building (1912) is being renovated into a hotel.

The former American Sentinal Life, aka #1 Main Street, is about to be announced as being converted into condos.

These redevelopments will take around 400,000 square feet of significantly vacant office space downtown and convert it into other uses. I bet that 81% will be well over 90% by the time all of these developments begin. That might warrant a new tower (I hope!)

[goodbye]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone considered the possiblity that a really tall building need not be 250,000+ square-feet?

In Greenville the 88,000 sf Pinnacle on Main will be built on only three-quarters of an acre and only have 7,000 sf per each of the 13 stories. Even more astounding is the 10-story 1925 former Chamber of Commerce building, which has only 3,000 sf per floor.

At 7,000 sf per floor, you could build a 210,000 sf, 30-story high rise. Likewise, at only 5,000 sf per floor, a 150,000 sf, 30-story building could be created. These are incredibly low totals, but they can maximize the useability of much smaller pieces of property. Interesting!

[monsoon]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone considered the possiblity that a really tall building need not be 250,000+ square-feet?

In Greenville the 88,000 sf Pinnacle on Main will be built on only three-quarters of an acre and only have 7,000 sf per each of the 13 stories.  Even more astounding is the 10-story 1925 former Chamber of Commerce building, which has only 3,000 sf per floor.

At 7,000 sf per floor, you could build a 210,000 sf, 30-story high rise.  Likewise, at only 5,000 sf per floor, a 150,000 sf, 30-story building could be created.  These are incredibly low totals, but they can maximize the useability of much smaller pieces of property.  Interesting!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As buildings get taller, there other factors come into play such as the need for more elevators and utilities vaults to service the upper floors. These have the effect of greatly reducing the amount to sq footage available on the lower floors. This is the primary reason you don't see many tall thin buildings.

[UrbanSoutherner]

Of course there is a demand for a relitive amount of density in Cola and Greenville, but I hesitate to think that this demand would necessitate a 30+ story building. It would be of enormous risk (if it could even be financed) to build a building like that without having tenants/buyers lined up. Office occupancy in Cola is 81%, which is strong, but not necessarily indicative of saturation. However, it looks like class A properties will see increased demand this year.

The vacancy rate in Columbia will change drastically in the next year as 3 highrises in downtown Columbia are converted from office space.

The Barringer Building, Columbia's oldest skyscraper (1903) is being converted into apartments or condos.

The Palmetto Building (1912) is being renovated into a hotel.

The former American Sentinal Life, aka #1 Main Street, is about to be announced as being converted into condos.

These redevelopments will take around 400,000 square feet of significantly vacant office space downtown and convert it into other uses. I bet that 81% will be well over 90% by the time all of these developments begin. That might warrant a new tower (I hope!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is interesting. I had not considered the taking of office space for condos. On that point, is much of any significant suburban office space in Columbia or is most office space still downtown?

[lastweek]

There is 4,590,822 sqft of office space in the CBD, with an 85% occupancy rate.

There is 4,908,722 sqft of office space in the outlying suburbs, with a 76% occupancy rate.

The breakdown of the suburbs is like this (as of end of year 2004):

St. Andrews - 2,017,537 72.3%

Northeast - 1,399,850 75.5%

Forest Acres - 805,513 82.0%

Cayce/West Columbia - 656,794 84.5%

[UrbanSoutherner]

Thanks for numbers lastweek. I am surprised that there is as much suburban office space.