What will be Columbia's next hot neighborhood? (St. Andrews, West Columbia: real estate, sublease)

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by LexingtonDad

I wasn't talking about North Columbia as a whole, I was talking about North Main Street area of Columbia. There are very few places in Columbia I don't feel safe and that area is at the top of the list.

I LIVE in the North Main Street area. 3 blocks west of North Main to be precise.

[LexingtonDad]

Originally Posted by waccamatt

I LIVE in the North Main Street area. 3 blocks west of North Main to be precise.

If you're between I-20 and Beltline best of luck. Keep the doors locked and the pistol cocked.

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by LexingtonDad

If you're between I-20 and Beltline best of luck. Keep the doors locked and the pistol cocked.

I've lived here for 8 years and other than a broken window I've had no problems. Yes, I'm between I-20 and Beltline and a pistol is not necessary.

[g-man430]

Originally Posted by waccamatt

I LIVE in the North Main Street area. 3 blocks west of North Main to be precise.

I LIVE in the suburbs.

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by g-man430

I LIVE in the suburbs.

Poor G-man; when you graduate from college you can move into the city.

[davey123]

Originally Posted by Columbiadata

Suburbia isn't community-focused. It's not about downtowns and neighborhood schools. Getting back that sense of community this nation once had is what we need. I'm just old enough to remember when downtown was the center of everything in all cities and towns, and you lived in a city, in a town or in the country. I guess I should write a book.

I agree with some parts of what you wrote and disagree with other parts. You state that suburbia is not community-focused. I have lived in more than one suburb; and the ones that I lived in had incredible senses of community. The parents seem to have strong interest and involvement in their children's schools. Residents had strong investment in their neighborhoods. So, my experience with those particular suburbs was that they were incredibly community-focused. It could be, however, that I am unclear on how you are defining community-focused.

I know that some feel that the suburbs are too sterile. From this, I surmise that, in part, there is a feeling that the houses in the suburbs are too "cookie-cutter." This is true. Yet, the strengths of living in the suburbs, for some people, far outweigh the strengths of living in the city. That is the beauty of having a choice in where you live. What is interesting is that when you look at new subdivision developments in-town, you can see that many of them also have a cookie-cutter appearance. Yet, some of the same people who describe the suburbs as being sterile describe these newer in-town developments in more favorable terms. I suspect this has more to do with the fact that they are in-town developments, and less about their appearance. Nevertheless, we like what we like. As I said, that is the beauty of choice.

I would agree that the burgeoning of suburbs (and exurbs) can erode away the sense of community of the downtown. You can see countless examples of this across the US. However, this is neither a necessary nor inevitable outcome. I actually see it as an opportunity for government officials, community developers, and urban planners to think more creatively about ways to make the downtown area the center of attraction. When you look nationally at both large and small cities, you can see that some cities do this well, while others do not.

As for Columbia, I am sure that the growth of the sterile suburbs can continue simultaneously with the re-development and growth of the downtown. But, I have to rely on smarter people than I to make that happen. I can see development in the downtown area. I must admit that I was surprised at how expensive some of the townhomes are in the downtown. I recall seeing similar prices in downtown Philly. Yet, the amenities of downtown Columbia are a far-cry from the amenities in downtown Philly. So, for me, I am somewhat confused about why the prices of in Columbia's downtown are similar to those in major cities. This confusion makes me lean toward the surburbs.

Given that the downtown area is no more than a 20 to 25 minute drive away from the sterile suburbs, I guess I am going to be one of those suburbanites.

[Woodlands]

Originally Posted by LexingtonDad

If you're between I-20 and Beltline best of luck. Keep the doors locked and the pistol cocked.

I am sure you have reasons/experiences for your opinions and there are some challenged areas off of North Main. There is a whole lotta ground between Beltline and I-20 and quite a few neighborhood both on and off of North Main. Some are good others not so good. I do think things are getting better. In the past, I believe that the City did not focus on north Columbia.. 70s and 80s and that contributed it its decline and negative image that may persist today. But since the early 90s alot of effort has/is going into the redevelopment of the corridor some of which is continuing on today. When bad things happen (in North Columbia) the geographic reference point is often NORTH Main Street since it is the area's major corridor from downtown to I-20. All the major streets (Monticello and Fairfield Rd ) end up intersecting with North Main and it is linked to some of the negtive things that may happen off of those corridors as well. I also think there are about a half dozen or so businesses scattered along North Main that the City could do without that are probably a blighting influence on some of the neighborhoods. Overall, I think you could pinpoint certain locations and specific neighborhoods along North Main that could be problematic..but I do not think the entire street deserves that reputation.

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/861811.html


Master Plan for the Villages of North Columbia - City of Columbia Development Gateway

http://www.columbia.sc.gov/tasks/sit...esentation.pdf

[Akhenaton06]

Originally Posted by davey123

I know that some feel that the suburbs are too sterile. From this, I surmise that, in part, there is a feeling that the houses in the suburbs are too "cookie-cutter." This is true. Yet, the strengths of living in the suburbs, for some people, far outweigh the strengths of living in the city. That is the beauty of having a choice in where you live. What is interesting is that when you look at new subdivision developments in-town, you can see that many of them also have a cookie-cutter appearance. Yet, some of the same people who describe the suburbs as being sterile describe these newer in-town developments in more favorable terms. I suspect this has more to do with the fact that they are in-town developments, and less about their appearance. Nevertheless, we like what we like. As I said, that is the beauty of choice.

You have a point about the "cookie cutter" appearance of even some older neighborhoods. Go to cities like Baltimore, DC, and Philly, and even a lot of the rowhouses look the same. However, I think the difference is that in in-town neighborhoods, those neighborhoods have a character and quality created by time, are walkable, and have great connectivity with surrounding areas. That's the biggest distinction between those in-town areas with houses that look the same and suburban areas.

[melskybell]

Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman

The fact that the neighborhoods near Dutch Square are Columbia HS will hurt them. Most that live in the area want Lex/Richland 5 schools so it will keep the value down. Chapin is gaining popularity but there aren't any neighborhoods to "fix" up there. In NE Clear Springs doesn't have much turnover but there have been several flips there lately. Briarcliffe is also an area that has really benefited from growth in the NE. NW will probably be Challedon West, Challedon, Chartwell, Dutch Village, Raintree. Midtown has Olympia, Rosewood, The Avenues, and Shandon.

Most of the areas I've mentioned are already good subdivisions anyway but they are older and there are rehab opportunities to be had.

Is there any "rehab" hope for closer in areas such as St. Andrew's, Saluda Terrace, and/or Westover Acres? I never hear these areas mentioned - are they "bad" areas? Since they're so close to downtown, any hope of redevelopment moving in that direction?

My ideal would be a little bungalow with a nice, large, private shaded lot within walking/bicycling distance of downtown/"hot" areas.

[melskybell]

Originally Posted by davey123

I definitely agree to each his/her own. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the point that you make about "what is wrong with our entire nation?"

Well, if what's happening there with the new "shoebox" developments is the same as here in TX and many other areas I've seen below from flying around, the "cookie cutter" looks coupled with cement, concrete, asphalt, and brick everywhere, and 10 ft. grass perimeter around the houses with no room for trees, and all you see as far as you can see are brown rooftops within very close proximity of each other, again, with no room for trees to break up the monotony, this country is in deep (crap).

So yes, these types of developments invading the suburbs and stretching far into the rural areas is disgusting, ugly, "sterile" and has high vacancy rates due to overbuilding, so those who bought in them are losing value.

And I do believe they are VERY detrimental to a healthy environment when there are no trees or real "green" areas. Certainly, the air quality suffers.