Saw this campaign on Twitter [LINK came through the alumni association]. (I do not know anything about it, just thought it would be of interest to people here on GC.) Does anyone know anything about this development in question?
Save Our Horseshoe?
- Thread starter taiwancock
- Start date
A
anon_n4c0cp5zhdxn7
Guest
The stupid thing is the university owns a tall building directly across the street from the horseshoehorseshoe. It's sour grapes from our school because they prob got out bid for the land.
The building in question would be a for profit dorm/apartment complex. The city waived all height restrictions that all university and city buildings have had to abide to.
This waiver will not apply to USC so it is forbidden from growing Up. It would be a building totally out place, it would cast a shadow on the horseshoe and dominate the areas skyline. It also is property outside the university's control,
Town(money, money,money) VS Gown(controlling their neighborhood, aesthetics, wanting everybody to play by the same rules)
This waiver will not apply to USC so it is forbidden from growing Up. It would be a building totally out place, it would cast a shadow on the horseshoe and dominate the areas skyline. It also is property outside the university's control,
Town(money, money,money) VS Gown(controlling their neighborhood, aesthetics, wanting everybody to play by the same rules)
it reads to me as if the developer wants to increase the capacity of building more than 10 times what was originally submitted???
YES! USC has to provide x amount of sq footage per dorm resident(this includes parking space and other things in the formula) this building's requirements are severely out of line with what the city MANDATES of USC
The building you are referring to is the Burns Building. It was the former Federal Government Building. USC did not build it. They bought it years ago when the Feds vacated. The long term plan would be to eventually demolish the building. It is very old so that may not be in the too distant future.
Nice spin. So sorry someone gave you a half-empty glass of whatever your drinking.
When USC stated its opposition to this 15 story monstrosity several weeks ago, the Memphis based company devolping this piece of crap, EdK, was apologetic, humble, and seeking a compromise - several days later, they were defiant, arrogant and insisting on their 15 floors of concrete and steel crap. What happened in the mean time? Probably some $$$ exchanged hands - not saying . . . just wondering out loud.
I would imagine the change in attitude is due to the smear campaign the university is running right now.
Rather unfair statement...... I could counter with accusations of city giving special treatment and the possibility of sweetheart kickbacks to elected officials..... But I would never stoop that low
Does that really ruin the Horseshoe? The only thing they show is that in December (when the sun sits at its lowest and casts the longest shadow), it will put a shadow on a large portion of the Horseshoe. What about the rest of the year when people actually spend time on the Horseshoe?
A counter argument for the building is that it will be a property in excess of $30 million. It will be privately owned - not by the University. In a City where a large amount of property is owned by the University, Governement entities, large churches, and other tax exempt entities, this would represent a nice chunk of new property taxes to benefit the city.
Fair assessment.....it still leaves questions about density issues and are you going to have one set of rules for private developers and another for USC.
Much lower standard set for the private company that that has no investment in the area except profit.
I wouldn't call $30 million "no investment in the area". For the kind of taxes they will infuse into the city's coffers, I think they will make a density exception. Also, by having a multi million $ property tax exemption for all the property it owns, I think there is already a much different standard between private companies and USC.
My point is they have already been given an insane density exception that if allowed to stand will make traffic and parking an even worse nightmare with just that building.
USC will be quite willing to live by those same rules AND that will change the whole nature of how the area is developed AND that will not be good for the city or the university
Also you willfully misunderstand my comment about investment, yes they have a HUGE monetary investment but I question their commitment to the best interests of the city.
Sometimes bigger is not better it is just bigger
Last edited:
You are right about the density being a potential problem, but I think it will be anyway. The university is adding over 800 beds of its own just a couple of blocks away - and taking away parking at the same time. The university is growing at such a rapid rate that more and more housing is needed. That certainly is not the fault of the private developers. I don't think it makes much difference if added housing is located on one tract or on several contiguous tracts - there is still going to be more congestion. One good thing about this proposed development in that regard is that it is so close to the main campus it shouldn't have a huge impact on the rest of the city's congestion, unlike the HUB located on Main St. I would suspect there will be substantially more foot traffic than auto traffic with this new building.
$30 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what the university gives to this city. This complex will look horrible from any viewpoint and should be scaled back to 8-9 floors with a required setback of at least 20 feet.
If Columbia is so desperate for taxable property, let them annex more suburbs. Btw, the current assessed value of the property in question is less than a million $$$ and most of the land is owned by the Baptist Church for student ministries, I.e. non-taxable.
This Memphis crowd is trying to drive a wedge between the university and the city. They care only about THEIR profits which will benefit only out-of-state interests.
And you think the university doesn't?
Here's the shadow in question BTW supplies by the designers of the building... Take note the shadow doesn't even reach the Horseshoe.
And you think the university doesn't?
Here's the shadow in question BTW supplies by the designers of the building... Take note the shadow doesn't even reach the Horseshoe.
Shadow or no shadow. This 'high rise mausoleum' proposal is an eyesore that needs to be amended to about one fourth it's planned size. Compare the Columbia plans to Athens Heights in Athens, GA. Not an architectural prize winner but definitely an improvement over the Main Street project.
Really? What exactly does the University "give" the city? More crime? More property to provide fire protection for? More congestion/traffic problems? Greater demands on already taxed utility services? The added police personnel needed for 5 points alone costs the City thousands of $ each year. How much of that does the university pay for? ZERO!
Not sure what you point is regarding the current assessed value. That's the whole issue. That property will become taxable, and when reassessed after occupancy will be worth over $30 million. That will add several hundred thousand $ in new property tax.
Also not sure what you mean by the developer caring only about their profits. Don't ALL companies? Doesn't USC? Doesn't USC ask for more of your and my tax $ every year? Don't they raise tuition nearly every year? Didn't they implement a "Seat Tax" just for the privaledge of buying football tickets at ever increasing ticket prices?
Actually, it's _extremely_ difficult in SC for cities to annex suburbs, so that's pretty much out of the question.
The current taxable value of the property is irrelevant. If it will cost $30 million to build, you can be sure the assessed value will be in that same neighborhood (and taxed at the commercial rate, to boot).
I don't have enough facts to have an opinion about whether or not it's a "good" project (the website for the petition only had a place to sign it and didn't really have any facts about the project. But you can be sure that the city isn't making any zoning changes or project approvals without plenty of public hearings to allow everyone in Columbia to weigh-in on what this property owner should be allowed to do with his own property.
As for the company's motives, I doubt they want their project to be any more controversial than it has to be - that would likely be bad for business. And, yes, I'm sure they are motivated by profit - that's the goal of any company, a goal that has done a lot more good for America's cities than harm.
Do you want Columbia to be a podunk college town like Athens or to be a real city like Charlotte?
It's not a gorgeous building, but it will create more density in that part of downtown, which is good. Additionally, it's replacing a real eyesore in the Sandy's building. The shadow argument is plain bull.
That building, the Byrnes Building, is the former FEDERAL building (SSA, IRS, etc.). It was ceded to USC by the US Government and, per the BOT of USC, it is scheduled for demolition in 5 years. The building is only 7 stories AND was not built by USC.
Not really. A high rise concrete jungle surrounding our state university is not very appealing to me. If it floats your boay - go for it, but this proposal from EdR sucks!
Solution: knock off 5 floors and redo the exterior.
You want Columbia to become a real city? A major one? You've got to build up and condense, not sprawl. This isn't LA.
Back to the original point. EdR's proposed 'private dorm' is not a bad idea - generally speaking, but the plans I've seen for the 'Icon on Main' look like something a Clemson grad would dream up as a joke - on us. Too high, too dense and too ugly. That's why Dr. Pastidis opposes the plans as submitted. So does the USC Alumni Association, as well as many who support the USC.
15 stories is not too high; that is ridiculous. Maybe they could double the height and half the footprint then it would't create much of a shadow area.
Will look like crap if the height is approved. The (housing project) is ridiculous!
If you dislike Columbia becoming a legitimate city more like Charlotte, you're always free to root for Clemson
