Background and Timeline

Public outcry over Crosscreek first made headlines after a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on December 20, 2007, when Stadium63 asked the city to amend a previously-approved project to include permission for a car lot. In response to the uproar, including one emotional five-hour meeting with residents, Planning and Zoning Commissioners and City Council members repeatedly blocked approval for Crosscreek. In March 2008, the City Council rejected Stadium63's request altogether. Two months later, the developers quietly hired a mediator to facilitate discussions with two neighborhood associations opposed to the plan, Timberhill and Shepard Boulevard.

The turnaround in Crosscreek's fortunes began on June 17, 2008, when the Timberhill association and Stadium63 reached an agreement, announced hours before a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on the proposal. After the Shepard Boulevard association announced its support for the agreement on July 9, a revised Crosscreek proposal proceeded to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and finally, in August, by the City Council.⁹

Criticisms and Obstacles

Incoherent vision

(see also: The vision for Columbia)

Among the loudest complaints from residents during the Crosscreek approval process has been the seeming lack of a unified vision for Columbia's development. Without a larger plan for how Columbia should grow, some say the project could one day become a hindrance. The proposed alterations to Stadium Boulevard, for example, could prohibit extending that road to the east, critics said.

Aesthetic concerns

Many residents describe the Crosscreek site as being a gateway for visitors to Columbia. These residents expressed concerns that the project's features - a car lot, a Taco Bell, a gas station - made for a poor entryway into the city. Stadium63 addressed these concerns by agreeing on a unified architectural theme to the development, including brick buildings with sloped roofs and cast-iron light fixtures.

Environmental concerns

(see also: Columbia's land and natural habitats)

Residents expressed worry that runoff from the proposed car lot could pollute nearby Grindstone Creek, although developers made assurances that the project would be built to the latest safety and environmental standards.

A convoluted planning and zoning process

(see also: The planning and zoning process)

Both residents and developers decried a process many described as piecemeal and haphazard, although their complaints centered on different aspects of that process. Residents stressed the need for the city to address larger visioning questions about Columbia's future before agreeing to the development. Developers cited a need for a more transparent methodology in the city's decision-making process.