Estrella 1

Jonathan Estrella
Mrs. Jennifer Gray/ Dr. Leah McClimans
PHIL 211
25 April 2014
Final Project: Student Housings Effects on Columbia Communities
The City Council Chambers almost resemble a church. Rows of pew-like benches face
toward the front. Rather than a tabernacle or pastors podium, the front of the chambers contains
a long table with name placards of the City Council members, and a projector screen is hung up
from the ceiling behind them. Within, a peaceful and civilized debate is taking place. There are
no personal attacks, witty quips, or sentimental speeches. Rather, the two sides are attempting to
come to a practical consensus on a problem that encompasses multiple issues. Ben Arnold is the
owner of an area of land at 550 Huger Street, which he is attempting to turn into an apartment
complex designed for students at USC. A president of a nearby neighborhood association is
worried that the project will effectively wall off their community from the city. In a very calm
and respectful manner, both spokespeople brought their concerns to the Design/ Development
Review Commission (D/DRC).
For Mr. Arnold, it was his third time visiting the D/DRC for this specific site. Although
the project was approved by the D/DRC, he faces problems as the development of the area takes
place. He continues to make adjustments, such as increasing the number of rooms the building
will be able to support, which creates other issues like increasing the size of the parking structure
to accommodate the increase in potential residents. After presenting his proposed changes to and
answering questions from members of the D/DRC, he is questioned by a nearby neighborhood
association president (NAP), in particular about the plan for the parking structure. The NAP is

Estrella 2
worried that the stream of traffic from new residents will cause traffic jams, making life difficult
for the members of his community and increasing the risk for their pedestrian traffic.
The neighborhood that would be affected lies south of the proposed apartment complex,
near the intersection of Whaley, Huger, and Catawba streets. By looking at an overhead map of
the area, it is easy to understand that neighborhoods concerns. They lie in the southwest corner
of the city, just far away enough from downtown to avoid most traffic, but close enough to enjoy
the commodities of the city. However, they are also enclosed by multiple apartment complexes
already The Club at Carolina Stadium just to the West, Olympia and Granby Mills to the South,
and Aspyre farther East. Furthermore, multiple railroad tracks run right through the
neighborhood, and it seems as if the only true escape for these residents lies to the north.
In the simplest, terms, the NAP stated it perfectly: I am concerned that the thought
pattern is that there is enough connectivity, when in reality, there is not. With the construction
of a new apartment complex to the North the proposed project on the land owned by Ben
Arnold the residents of the neighborhood will be flooded with traffic from all directions. This
will not only make it difficult for the residents themselves to drive into downtown or out of the
city, but will increase the traffic hazards for their pedestrian traffic. The NAP made sure to
emphasize that he was not opposed to an increase in density or student housing projects, but to
how they affect his community. He understands that the idea of building housing complexes so
close to downtown is that students will walk to class, but based upon the experience of the
student housing which already surrounds his neighborhood, the NAP believes students will
continue to drive to class and add to the congestion.
Mr. Arnold responded that overall, the housing project should not affect the pedestrian
and bike traffic in the neighborhood in question, and that the traffic obstructions that could occur

Estrella 3
are not in his control. He stated that the exit for the parking garage will be made to face Pulaski
Street which is in the northeast corner of the complex and facing the opposite direction of the
neighborhood and lead immediately onto the already heavily congested Blossom and Huger
streets. Furthermore, he stated traffic concerns were not his to consider, but for the Department
of Transportation. If connectivity needs to be increased, it should be up to the DoT to create
more sidewalks, crosswalks, and stoplights to aid the pedestrian traffic.
Although it is hard to disagree with Mr. Arnold, the enclosure of the neighborhood should
still remain a concern for him. His decision to build the entrance to the parking structure in the
opposite direction of the neighborhood shows that he has put considerable thought into the
development of the student housing and is attempting to limit the inconveniences it will cause
the community. However, decisions like expanding the size and occupancy of the building,
which leads to increased parking and traffic, demonstrate that Mr. Arnold is more interested in
profit than the concerns of neighboring communities. His claim that traffic concerns are an issue
for the DoT to solve, though legitimate and truthful, only further convinces community members
that he truly has little concern for the issues his development will cause them. If Mr. Arnold
really wants to build rapport with members of the neighboring community, he could provide
advice or choose to aid the neighborhood association in efforts to bring the attention of these
issues to the DoT, such as increasing crosswalks, sidewalks, and traffic lights or re-examining the
timing of traffic lights to aid the flow of traffic and lead to less congestion. Doing so could not
only avoid complaints by this neighborhood association against future development ventures, but
may gain him support and a reputation as a conscientious developer.
As the entity created to protect neighborhoods and historical buildings, the D/DRC
should be even more concerned about the development of the student housing project. They

Estrella 4
have already allowed three other apartment buildings to enclose the neighborhood, increasing
traffic and generally decreasing the quality of life for the neighborhood residents. And although
the ideal situation is that students walk to class, the reality is that they do not. Most students
living in off-campus housing tend to drive despite it being a 15-20 minute walk to campus
from most locations for reasons that are not wholly their fault. For example, residents of
Aspyre apartments do not have a direct sidewalk path to campus. If they walk up Assembly
Street, a large section of the road is missing sidewalks due to the railroad crossing. If they
decide to walk over to Main Street from Whaley Street, they must walk under a bridge of
railroad tracks, where there is also no sidewalk. Furthermore, multiple railroad tracks cross both
Assembly and Main Street, so if one train must wait for another to pass, it blocks off the road and
hinders students means of maneuver, possibly making them late for class if they have to wait for
the train to move or find an alternate route to the university.
Understanding the reality of situation should make the D/DRC more sympathetic to the
cause of the neighborhood association; therefore, they should do what they can to alleviate the
problems that student housing development is causing the neighborhood. They could use their
influence with city council members or the mayor to devote funds to increasing the number of
lanes on the major streets, increasing the connectivity of streets (e.g. Pulaski to the Blossom
Street Bridge, or the separation of Green Street for railroad tracks), updating the timing of traffic
lights, and increasing crosswalks and sidewalks to encourage students to walk to campus. They
could even have Mr. Arnold look into other means for student transportation, such as having the
university include his student housing complex on its bus routes. Despite whatever actions the
D/DRC or Mr. Arnold take, the neighborhood has legitimate concerns about the development of
a new student housing complex and its effects on their community.