Your Virtual Front Page, Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Just a quick look at the current headlines:

  1. Syria Used Chemical Arms Repeatedly, Israel Asserts (NYT) — Of the usual sources I peruse, only the NYT and the Guardian are leading with this right now, but I think they’re right.
  2. Officials: U.S. wars motivated Boston suspects (WashPost) — Lots of angles out there on this, but I went with this one.
  3. Haley signs Boeing incentives bill (AP) — The headline pretty much says it.
  4.  (WIS) — Again. This time it’s at Assembly and Laurel streets.
  5. Interview with Elizabeth Colbert Busch (The Guardian) — I found it particularly interesting that a British publication was playing this on high up on their main news web page.
  6. Developer Kahn files for bankruptcy (AP) — I found this shocking, and distressing.

As you can see, I’m unusually heavy on local today. Another interesting story that didn’t quite make the cut, on the Randy Scott saga: Leon Lott says Scott will always have a place in the sheriff’s department.



25 thoughts on “Your Virtual Front Page, Tuesday, April 23, 2013

  1. Doug Ross

    I think there is a lot of inventory remaining of the homes/condos built above the stores in Sandhills. Very bad idea. Who wants to pay $300k for a three bedroom unit above a pet supply store?

    1. Silence

      Agree with that, Doug. Mixed use is not particularly desirable, the folks who want it are mostly urban planners and federal transportation weenies.

    2. Norm Ivey

      And the business turnover rate tells me leases are expensive at the Village . I try to support the businesses there–especially the non-chain ones, but they close as quickly as they open.

      I like the idea of what Kahn tried to do at Sandhills–the original plan also called for an office and medical park. If those had developed, perhaps the housing would have been easier to move. I think many of the units are rented rather than owned now. They’re a great solution for people with a certain lifestyle, or those who embrace the green aspect of it. Columbia, SC just isn’t the right market for such a project.

      1. Doug Ross

        I agree the concept is fine, I just think they misread the price point for the type of person who would want to live there. The target audience is probably young childless professionals, mostly single. $300K is not a typical entry point for them around here. More like $125-150K. Not many people want to live in a place with that much traffic (both foot and car) flowing around on Friday and Saturday nights.

        1. Norm Ivey

          Exactly what I mean–those who appreciate the lifestyle don’t have the money. Those who have the money don’t appreciate the lifestyle. Those who have the money and appreciate the lifestyle don’t make Columbia their home.

  2. Bryan Caskey

    Suspicious package that shut down the Strom Thurmond Federal Building (and my son’s daycare inside) turned out to be a box of some homeless guy’s clothes.

  3. bud

    I find the Sandhills shopping center a miserable place to go. I like the idea of an open-air mall but this mess just doesn’t work for me. It’s neither walker nor motorist friendly. If you walk from store to store in inclement weather you get wet. There’s very little green space except in the annoying traffic circle. It’s very difficult to park near where you find a park and have to walk a ways you have to navigate this maze of roadways filled with motorists trying to find a place to park. On top of all that the place is just not esthetically pleasing.

    Does anyone remember the original Richland Mall as it existed in the early 60s? With it’s covered walkways and easy parking that was a nice facility, just a bit too small. I’d like to see something based on that concept tried again.

    1. Silence

      Again I agree with bud! I’d also expand the definition of “miserable plaec to go” to include our other area shopping malls as well: Columbia, Columbiana, Richland Fashion Midtown at Forest Acres and Dutch Square.

    2. Norm Ivey

      I live 5 houses down from Sandhills, and I like it. There are enough restaurants that we can vary our outings. At different times of the year, there is live, free music at the fountain (where they considerately ignore coolers) as well as other community events (blood drives, fireworks, holiday events). There’s a hardware store and a grocery store that take care of most needs. We can walk, but usually take the GEM to get around. The trick to parking is to park BEHIND the building where you want to shop and avoid the main drag. We avoid the theater on weekend evenings, but it’s fine at all other times. It’s not pretty, but it’s a shopping center and serves that purpose well.

      1. Doug Ross

        I agree, Norm. It is what it is – a shopping center with a variety of restaurants and a movie theatre. Not sure what else it could be. We go there at least once a week.

    3. Steven Davis II

      “Does anyone remember the original Richland Mall as it existed in the early 60s? With it’s covered walkways and easy parking that was a nice facility, just a bit too small. I’d like to see something based on that concept tried again.”

      Maybe the city can do that with the cotton warehouse they just bought.

  4. bud

    I like the layout of Columbia Place Mall ok but it has been in decline for some years now. The 2 level, enclosed mall approach with ample parking was much better than Sandhills. Having said that I wouldn’t go there now. It’s a bit scary.

  5. Steven Davis II

    As Chris Rocks says, “There are the malls white people go to, and there are the malls where white people used to go to.”

Comments are closed.