Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the article and it was an interesting read. It certainly offers some lessons for both Columbia and all Southern cities with student populations. However, I think Columbia's situation is different enough to make the comparison not completely direct. From the photos in the article, the San Marcos developments look like garden-style, suburban apartments whereas Columbia's are much more urban in nature. Columbia's biggest problem has been "gaps in the teeth" of its downtown core and lack of taxable real property. These developments help both of those issues. Like waccamatt said, they can easily be converted to market rate apartments in the future. Although I'm glad the boom in student housing has slowed here, I still believe it was a good thing that will add vibrancy and taxable property to the city.
I agree that the gaps needed to be filled and am also not against some of the developments, especially those around Blossom and southward, I just think that around The Vista and Main Street, it would have been much better to see housing developments not catering to students going in to balance out the student population.
Also the tax break that the city gave student housing developments is ridiculous and from my understanding, was only for those developments that are designated as student housing, so we wont see the tax revenue from those gaps filled with student housing for a while or at least not nearly as much, and now have a downtown taken over by students.
But just like you said, the situation in Columbia vs San Marcos is completely different, San Marcos is a true college town where the students at Texas State pretty much are the only market they have to choose from (based off of reading up and researching San Marcos a bit further), Columbia on the other hand has a much broader market beyond just USC kids.
I agree that the gaps needed to be filled and am also not against some of the developments, especially those around Blossom and southward, I just think that around The Vista and Main Street, it would have been much better to see housing developments not catering to students going in to balance out the student population.
Also the tax break that the city gave student housing developments is ridiculous and from my understanding, was only for those developments that are designated as student housing, so we wont see the tax revenue from those gaps filled with student housing for a while or at least not nearly as much, and now have a downtown taken over by students.
But just like you said, the situation in Columbia vs San Marcos is completely different, San Marcos is a true college town where the students at Texas State pretty much are the only market they have to choose from (based off of reading up and researching San Marcos a bit further), Columbia on the other hand has a much broader market beyond just USC kids.
I can't remember which development this statistic was about specifically, but one of the larger complexes with be paying $500,000/year in property taxes and $1,000,000/year once the abatement period sunsets. Even with the abatement, that's a significant amount of money, particularly compared with the previous value of the undeveloped land.
Let's also not forget about the non-student housing going up downtown. Kline City Center, CanalSide, land bank renovations, the apartments at City Market, the renovations at Lady and Sumter, and the Don Tomlin above-garage apartments. All of those are market rate aimed at the general population. They'll likely skew young, but will also have some empty nesters I'm sure. In most cities in America, downtown residents skew young, so this is normal.
In short, I agree too much student housing is a bad thing, but I don't think Columbia has crossed the Rubicon on that yet. I live, work, and play in downtown Columbia and while there is certainly a visible student presence, it does not feel overrun by them. Columbia is more vibrant with people of all ages in the city center today than at any time in decades. It's great to see.
Student housing really kicked off the post-recession building boom in Columbia and played a large role in creating the development momentum that's now in full gear, so it really hasn't been all bad.
The State Newspaper is reporting that Richland County's water park "dream" has dried up. As long as I'm paying property taxes there, this is a good thing. Given Richland County's recent reputation, I'm glad it fell through. Maybe Lexington County can get one off the ground. Oh wait, they have Lake Murray.
To me the much bigger problem cities are facing is too LITTLE building , _not_ too MUCH. The fact of the matter is these apartments are needed for the growing student population and also could possibly help pull out students from the more traditional non-student neighborhoods. So ironically enough this could make Columbia's neighorhoods better, not worse, as partying students in, say, the Shandon/rosewood area become potentially less of a problem for neighbors. My point is even if it's student housing, it potentially opens up housing for everyone. And this is something Columbia should be proud of. The apartments look great and are certainly urban in style. The development of the old cotton mill on blossom for example is a great example of how Columbia gambled and it paid off. Also not all of the apartments/condos being built are designed for students, eg the west cola condos.
The State Newspaper is reporting that Richland County's water park "dream" has dried up. As long as I'm paying property taxes there, this is a good thing. Given Richland County's recent reputation, I'm glad it fell through. Maybe Lexington County can get one off the ground. Oh wait, they have Lake Murray.
Part of Lake Murray extends into Richland County, too.
To me the much bigger problem cities are facing is too LITTLE building , _not_ too MUCH. The fact of the matter is these apartments are needed for the growing student population and also could possibly help pull out students from the more traditional non-student neighborhoods. So ironically enough this could make Columbia's neighorhoods better, not worse, as partying students in, say, the Shandon/rosewood area become potentially less of a problem for neighbors. My point is even if it's student housing, it potentially opens up housing for everyone. And this is something Columbia should be proud of. The apartments look great and are certainly urban in style. The development of the old cotton mill on blossom for example is a great example of how Columbia gambled and it paid off. Also not all of the apartments/condos being built are designed for students, eg the west cola condos.
Excellent points. I forgot to mention Palmetto Compress when I listed the market rate apartment developments downtown. That project appears to be a real winner all-around. I can't wait to see the finished product.
I completely agree about the student apartments drawing students from traditional neighborhoods, and I also think this would be a good thing for the city. In fact, as a downtown resident active in my neighborhood association, we've supported many of these projects for this very reason. There's been an uptick in developers looking to flip former rental units in Shandon and Wales Garden into single family homes germain to the surrounding neighborhood. Most of it is still in early stages, so we'll see how it goes. Fingers crossed.
Consider all of that with today's passage of the landlord ordinance, and I would bet money that some of the more subpar rental homes adjacent to downtown will no longer be appealing sources of income for our local slumlords. If the ordinance has a similar effect here that is has in other cities with student populations, we should notice a sprucing up of our downtown neighborhoods. I say let the property management people at student apartment complexes deal with rowdy students, not neighbors living a much more adult lifestyle
The State Newspaper is reporting that Richland County's water park "dream" has dried up. As long as I'm paying property taxes there, this is a good thing. Given Richland County's recent reputation, I'm glad it fell through. Maybe Lexington County can get one off the ground. Oh wait, they have Lake Murray.
Property taxes would not have funded the park. Hospitality taxes would have. As a non-Richland County resident, you would have paid little to nothing for the water park.
Isn't Richland County building a water park out in NE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtnluver8956
They are The project was approved, just got to get the funding right. apparently it's going to be a very sizable park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlestondata
The State Newspaper is reporting that Richland County's water park "dream" has dried up. As long as I'm paying property taxes there, this is a good thing. Given Richland County's recent reputation, I'm glad it fell through. Maybe Lexington County can get one off the ground. Oh wait, they have Lake Murray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCxpBrussel
Property taxes would not have funded the park. Hospitality taxes would have. As a non-Richland County resident, you would have paid little to nothing for the water park.
Heard on the news today... Water Park is officially DEAD.
I can't remember which development this statistic was about specifically, but one of the larger complexes with be paying $500,000/year in property taxes and $1,000,000/year once the abatement period sunsets. Even with the abatement, that's a significant amount of money, particularly compared with the previous value of the undeveloped land.
Let's also not forget about the non-student housing going up downtown. Kline City Center, CanalSide, land bank renovations, the apartments at City Market, the renovations at Lady and Sumter, and the Don Tomlin above-garage apartments. All of those are market rate aimed at the general population. They'll likely skew young, but will also have some empty nesters I'm sure. In most cities in America, downtown residents skew young, so this is normal.
In short, I agree too much student housing is a bad thing, but I don't think Columbia has crossed the Rubicon on that yet. I live, work, and play in downtown Columbia and while there is certainly a visible student presence, it does not feel overrun by them. Columbia is more vibrant with people of all ages in the city center today than at any time in decades. It's great to see.
I am glad to hear since that I have not been downtown in a long time since moving, that non-student housing is really starting to become more in the forefront there. When I was there (2012-2014), it was all about new student housing with very little mention of any new non-student housing developments going in and I was gravely concerned with that as I was (still am) a young college grad who looked for housing downtown and had very few options unless I wanted to live in a student apartment.
As long as we can have a good balance down there and not be overrun by students, I agree that any development is good but if it takes a turn to where everything becomes more student- centric, we have a problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The project was approved, just got to get the funding right. apparently it's going to be a very sizable park.
