I see that Mayor Steve Benjamin is sufficiently proud of the new agreement for redeveloping the storied Bull Street property that he’s posted a video of him talking about it on his re-election campaign site.
Personally, I’ve been too busy the last couple of days to digest it all and decide what I think, beyond the fact that I’m glad there is some movement on the deal, finally.
But it occurs to me… I’ve noticed that some of y’all spend a lot more time thinking about urban development than I do, and no doubt you already have some well-informed opinions.
So, share. What do you think about this? If you come up with something “incredibly insightful,” your opinion could actually have an effect…
I’m told that back in the day, “going to Bull Street” meant the same thing here that “going to Bolivar” used to mean when I worked in West Tennessee (the state mental hospital was in Bolivar, TN). In the foreseeable future, it will mean something else. But what?
Related Posts
Um, the public hearings for this agreement “ten years in the works” have been suspiciously scheduled on either side of the Fourth of July weekend. Not to worry, the mayor has already said he doubts anything anyone will say will affect the agreement. Only five out of the more than a dozen buildings top urban expert Andres Duany thought should be saved will be. The estimate for infrastructure is almost a third of what most people think it will cost….what else?
If it includes a baseball stadium and a minor league team to go with it, I am for it.
I’m ignorant about the details – will it compete with Innovista for commercial tenants?
My biggest concern is how they will handle traffic flow in and out.
We are all, except maybe Hughes and Benjamin, ignorant of such details, but let’s rush to approve it anyway!
School zoning will make or break the residential developments. How is District 1 (or 5 for that matter) going to gerrymander their way to a different answer than what geography would provide? If they don’t find a way, look for anything but large scale residential development.
In fact, I would expect the City will be the one to kick in all of the investment dollars; field of dreams kind of stuff.
The few historic buildings ought to be repurposed, but I think we are far more likely to see big box retailers and a smattering of marginally successful urban infill projects – at least until people start to ask who it is they intend to resell to, and at what price. Then look for more retail and other stuff like that when the flaccid residential marketing phase comes to a screeching halt; retai users that will probably just tear up all the infrastructure the City is going to commit itself to constructing out of the gate as they pave over paradise.
Good thing the Mayor has lots of residential development experience in Cola with govenment subsidized projecs. We just need to have faith, they say…
Brad-
Lost in the discussion around the development of the Bull Street property is one fact: the primary beneficiaries from the sale of the property are supposed to be people with mental illnesses.
In 2007, then State Attorney General Henry McMaster successfully championed this cause before the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Court concluded ”… we hold that the proceeds from any sale of the property must remain in trust for the benefit of DMH for the care and treatment of the mentally ill.”
More than half a decade later people with mental illnesses are still waiting for this promise to be fulfilled. Why? Because the agenda of preservationists have hijacked the Court’s ruling.
Preservationists have caused endless delays in the sale of the property and thus endless delays in much needed funding for mental health services.
Preservationists appear to give no consideration to the fact that South Carolina’s State Department of Mental Health has repeatedly taken a budgetary beating. It is a beating that literally translates into the unnecessary suffering of people with mental illnesses because treatment options are in such short supply.
Members of Columbia City Council need to ignore the preservationists and consider which of the two are more important: preserving a building or preserving a human life?
And they need to do so now.
Regards,
J. David Almeida
[email protected]
803-546-6379
It is not an either/ or proposition. Saving more buildings, with the right developer, can yield higher proceeds for DMH, and honor the mentally ill who came before us!
Do we want to “honor the mentally ill who came before us” or help the ones who need it now?
Seriously, I would imagine the history of a mental institution is not something the general public has any interest in seeing preserved. It’s old buildings… what happened there could be considered “historic”?
Some of those old buildings should not only be preserved, they should be repurposed and brought back to life.
You want to see what people can do with crazy old structures like this? Try http://www.mcmenamins.com/Edgefield# Or really, look at any of these entreprenuers’ properties…
I think that the Admin building would make an awesome off-beat hotel/restaurant/event space/etc.
I’m fine with the repurposing part – I just think it would be “crazy” to try and do anything in terms of honoring mental patients from the past. Use the buildings for some better purpose.
By honoring, I did not mean some stupid museum or plaque. I meant preserving to sense of the place while reusing them. Mark is so right!
And what exactly is the purchase price that the Dept. Of Mental Health will receive? Is it greater than or less than what the City of Columbia is committing itself to fund to improve the property?
Government sales are not, ever, straight purchase and sales as private transactions most often are. Everyone has a stake in the outcome. While I would never say everyone has a vote in the outcome; clearly many, many people’s voices are being ignored wholesale here. In the end, that is what guarantees a net negative outcome. Too bad City Council isn’t more mindful of their obligations to all. But I wouldn’t worry too much about the Dept of Mental Health at the end of the day – it is the City taxpayer who is going to feel the burn.
Mr. Almeida, I would say that it’s not the preservationists who have “hijacked” the court’s ruling, as you put it. It is the South Carolina Legislature who has failed to appropriate adequate funds to care for the mentally ill in South Carolina. If the DMH ends up with a large windfall due to the sale of the State Hospital campus, guess who’s going to slash their budget to make up for it? That’s right, the legislature.
The City of Columbia has an obligation under the law to properly plan and zone the property. See SC Code of Laws, Title 6, Chapter 29. As part of this obligation, the city chooses to listen to (or not listen to) the various stakeholders who have an interest in how the parcel is used. It’s not about human lives versus buildings. It’s about planning smartly, ensuring proper land use, and improving everyone’s quality of life.
That isn’t Mr. Almeida’s concern or his clients.
Dear JesseS-
Very well stated. And succinctly at that!
I believe more than enough time has passed for a well thought through deliberative process.
My desire is simply for the process to move forward so that people with mental illnesses gain access to services generated from the proceeds of the sale of the Bull Street property, per the Court’s ruling. It’s that simple.
Silence, what our state elected officials choose to do in the future is neither here nor there. What they chose to do in the past is equally irrelevant.
I stand by my assertion that preservationists have hijacked the intent of the Court’s decision and in doing so, inflicted unnecessary suffering upon people with mental illnesses. They have indeed placed buildings before people.
It is well past time to make good on the Court’s ruling.
J. David Almeida
email address: [email protected]
Phone number: 803-546-6379
Dave, you raise an important point.
And you know, after the cotton-warehouse thing, I’m getting a little impatient with the whole protect-old-buildings meme.
I toured that main building on the Bull Street grounds about a decade ago. It was interesting, but I didn’t get the feeling I was walking through an irreplaceable treasure (especially when I had to step over piles of what appeared to be human excrement, although that’s neither here nor there, I realize).
People should come before buildings.
But is it people before buildings, or medicating people before preserving old buildings?
I would argue that some things society creates, buildings included, are more important than “saving” every last person (most often from themselves). Whether any of these buildings meets that threshhold or not is an open question. But I wouldn’t just walk away from this property to secure a few extra dollars – that will only go to a governmental agency anyway.
What is the actual, net purchase price anyway? Sounds like the City government is obligating itself to sums which exceed the price to be paid to the Dept. of Mental Health by the developer? Am I wrong? Instead we get bedazzled with total horse manure economic studies curtesy of the Chamber of Commerce. Is that the best anyone can do to make the case for this sale? No wonder the developer is lying low and avoiding public comment or explanation. I would too.
Since I live about two blocks from there, I’m against the baseball stadium. It’ll be a noisy, traffic-filled mess.
Glad that nobody really wants my opinion, and that our city leaders are again telling us how things are gonna be.
Please go speak at either hearing, or at least send an email to each of the council members! We need new voices!
Kathryn, I can’t make the hearings since they are during the middle of the afternoon and I have to work! I will make sure to email council and the mayor to express my extreme displeasure with the proposal.
I think it would be a great site for a baseball stadium. But I’m glad you would be on the other side of a six-lane roadway. No matter what is developed on the Bull Street site.
The site is directly connected to both I-126 and 277 (and Bull & Harden Streets). That’s what makes it so deserving of being used for something other than residential development.
Sure.
A baseball stadium would be better down in the large scale entertainment areas near the river or William Brice….like where the old one is…..
The old one still is…
Exactly!
FYI, here’s a link to Harry Miley’s economic impact report on the project.
The same person who told us the penny tax would generate over $1.2 billion dollars of total economic activity in the Midlands area and create 16,500 jobs?
And this head scratcher – “It is estimated that roads that are in disrepair cost the average Richland County motorist $281 a year in additional vehicle operating costs.” Think about that one. $281 a year per Richland County motorist.
Call me skeptical. I’d love to have a job where I can just make up inflated numbers that support a government program with no accountability as to whether they end up being accurate.
Click and Clack say that bumpy roads really wear out a car fast! If a car costs X, and conks out a year early, that could be quite a bit. Add in a few busted rims and axles….
I don’t understand the methodology, and it seems a bit like a castle built on a lot of speculation, but sure, developing the site will, in any conceivable likelihood, yield far greater economic benefits than it does now, as a barely used mental health facility.
Duh…
Imagine a hip “asylum village” where the sort of semi-Goth youth who code like demons dwell (and they do live well) and devise brilliant techno-wizardry…..won’t happen if they bulldoze what makes it truly unique!
Kathryn,
How much money have you spent on car repairs that you can attribute to the roads in downtown Columbia? Seriously, $281per motorist per year is the number pulled from thin air. That’s two tires and a front end alignment for every car, every year just due to the roads.
It’s made up fantasy statistics which he was paid to produce. You think they would pay him to come in with real numbers?
I thought it should be a huge urban park, like Balboa park in San Diego.
To translate the proposal for the site’s development, they are projecting about 425 owner occupied homes/town homes/condos and 3,200 rental apartments.
That ratio is basically saying they have given up on owned housing on the property. >6,000 people living in rentals and <800 people in owner-occupied housing – plus another 1.5 million square feet of retail, office and other non-residential uses, which would be equivalent to about 7 Walmart Supercenters in total area.
So on the 181 acre site, it appears that the developers are planning a grand total of approximately 27,500 square feet of development per gross acre (i.e. 3-4 times "suburban" scale development). That isn't townhouse density; that's really more like six story multifamily blocks and 8-10 story office buildings – plus lots of structured parking.
I hope the City hasn't committed itself to building more structured parking for private developers on top of the roads, sewers and other infrastructure it seems to have committed itself to providing.
Personally, I like development. I just don't see anything here for the citizens of Columbia to get excited about. But I do see lots and lots of reasons for concern. It is no wonder this scheme was under tight wraps until the end game was around the corner. Or around the holiday…
Statements that I believe to be true which may generate some controversy with some here on Brad’s blog.
1) Wealthy people who buy expensive new houses don’t want to be too close to people who buy cheap houses, rent houses or rent apartments.
1a) People who buy nice houses particularly don’t want to live near people who rent subsidized housing. It might not be right or fair, but that’s just how life is.
1b) Families don’t want to live near college students. Students are noisy and keep late hours.
2) Most people don’t want to live too close to commercial activities.
3) People don’t want to live in an active construction project.
4) Rush hour traffic on Elmwood Avenue and Bull Street is already terrible.
5) Anybody who wants to sit outside in Columbia in July or August to watch baseball is ready for the mental hospital already, so maybe this IS (or was) the right place for a stadium.
6) This is a bad plan, and misses the opportunity to do something really great with a unique parcel downtown.
Silence,
Your 1) is true of people who buy NEW houses. But look at Shandon (among other neighborhoods) for a great example of what old house people like. College students will always suck as neighbors, however. Unless one is also a college kid…
4) is only true from a Columbia perspective. I’m still waiting for the City to finally decide to tie Colonial Drive to North Main Street. The whole Columbia Metro area seems to have a special talent for resisting the obvious traffic relievers. Sometimes I think of the region as more a collection of ghettos (and I don’t mean racially or economically).
I meant Harden Street Extension to N. Main and River Drive…
That would be the end of my neighborhood, Mark.
Once upon a time there was a plan to connect 277 with 126 downtown. SCDOT acquired and still owns the property, but hopefully it will never happen.
While connecting 126 and 277 makes no sense, creating a more distributed surface traffic pattern is not necessarily a neighborhood killer. Huge arterial roadways like Elwood and Bull do more harm to adjacent residential areas, I think. When roads go to three lanes per direction, that’s the end. More streets like Devine would be more helpful to the viability of many neighborhoods across the city.
The thing to avoid is a traffic engineer’s typical idealization of roadways as funnels.
Mark,
I agree, the plan as revealed so far looks awful. It reminds me of the Broad River Road area between 126 and 20…I’m not really sure Columbia needs more of that.
Preserving old buildings is hardly a meme! It is why the Vista can charge higher rents than a similar sized space out in the middle of nowhere. It is why tourists come to Charleston in droves and not Goose Creek.
I could go on.
You can’t make Columbia into Charleston.
Instead of preserving the past, Columbia should try to find a niche to attract high paying industries. Charleston’s got the historical niche covered. Columbia should try to be the city of the future. The RTP area grew by embracing the future instead of the past.
Doug, the RTP area has Duke, NC State, and UNC – Chapel Hill. We have USC, Benedict and Allen.
What you trying to say? (Just kidding.)
You know, I thought we Southerners were the ones who venerated and preserved our past. Then, in 2005, I traveled for the first time through the countryside and small towns of central Pennsylvania, and discovered that EVERY place was like Charleston and Savannah. An excerpt from a column at the time:
My daughter spent one of her several summers up there (training at Central Pennsylvania Youth Ballet) living in an 18th-century farmhouse several miles outside Carlisle. That one was a sort of Georgian brick, but many old farm buildings in the area were made of stone, and in beautiful condition.
The countryside up there was like driving through a park that had been restored out of a previous century (the Amish horses and buggies helped with the impression). Everything was beautiful, and prosperous-looking. Comparing it to the double-wide and tumble-down views of so many back roads of SC, I couldn’t help thinking, “No wonder they won the war…”
I think that’s the first column that I also published on my blog — or close to it. The headline was “Today’s column, souped-up version.” I was excited about what hypertext links, photos, etc., could do to liven up a column.
Before long, I didn’t want people reading the dead-tree version of my columns, because I considered the blog version (NOT the linkless version on thestate.com) to be the real, fully-realized version….
I liked the first response to your first blog column.
As a citizen of Columbia I am completely comcerned that this project could go wrong. But there is also the possibility that, if done correctly, this could make Columbia the city of the future.
In my opinion, infrastructure is the only solution to build in this area. There are TONS of residential areas around the city of Columbia so high rise apartments is not the answer; they tried this at Sandhills and it has been resisted. A baseball stadium is a high risk investment as it would compete with USC and must have a team worth going to see aka major league.
I personally feel that the area should bring the metro tram to Columbia. A central station that connects ALL of Columbia would be ideal in such location. It would help the cities citizens with transportation costs and ease up the heavy use on our highways. Along with this the area could use some nice restaurants and a historic park area for the monuments.
The construction of a tram system throughout the city creates thousands of jobs in itself and will be the source of revenue for years to come. Make it on an epic scale and make people come wanna ride it and Cola would thrive!
Just my 2 cent
This is classic; the City pushes through the sale over the July 4th holiday and now the State mental health agency is acknowledging over the last weekend in August that they won’t see a dime in purchase money from Hughes until AFTER September 20014 – and then the developer will quite literally pay just a dime.
I would say I am shocked. However, people aren’t really aware of just how unusual this really is in private sector development. Those who have arranged this massive giveaway clearly are banking (pun intended) on that. Sellers don’t usually sell without compensation at closing, even when they are selling a pig. In this case, assuming the final payment is made in September 2019 and not later as Hughes is now negotiating to push out, the NPV (Net Present Value) on this – the “true” cost to the developer – is going to be less than $11 million. One could argue that the State/City’s cost of funds are lower than the developer; but the point is that given the 8 year payment timeframe, the present value any way it is sliced isn’t even close to the mythical $15 million figure.
This is what almost always happens with government deals. It isn’t that there are not smart people on both sides of the negotiating table; it is just that the private side (whether buying or selling) has but one motivation, and they are able to exploit the wide ranging motivations and interests of the public officials on the other side to drive home an economically beneficial result. Nice work, Mayor Bob.
It looks like Hughes has his dirt track racer drifting around Bull Street property, throwing up dust and smoke and getting whoops and hollas out the crowd of awed suckers who have payed to see him earn his money doing what he likes to do. While failure is always on the table in development, Hughes has very little at risk (as these things go) and significant prospects of reaping huge returns while he uses other people’s money to get through the expensive early years.
So many of us said what you said, but our strong mayor rammed it through!