City wide height limits for Charleston

[trm2105]

No, its the entire Charleston City. I don't think the county would be effected by this.

I hope that they opposed him because he was crazy, and hot just because of the height of the condos.

More on those zoning changes and height restrictions. "More uniformity" seems to be the answer to all our growth challenges. Whatever happened to offering a variety of options?

[url=http://www.charlestonwatch.com/archives/000398.html#more]City attempts to

[Spartan]

Its much easier for developers to do their thing if the code is the same for teh whole city, or in this case everything that isn't downtown.

[trm2105]

Finally got around to drafting up a letter to my councilman. Thought I'd share.

Dear Councilman Lewis,

I recently learned of the proposal to impose height restrictions throughout Charleston to 55 feet for new buildings (P&C, July 19, 2006).

The city and the region faces increasing development that will continue to place pressure on our infrastructure, natural resources, and the overall quality of life. Restricting the height of new buildings would effectively limit densities citywide.

It seems to be a symbolic gesture at best, devoid of any consideration for the expansive outward growth trends now shaping the urban fabric. If the city is serious about controlling its growth and ameliorating the sprawl that threatens our natural, rural, and historic areas, how does this potential height restriction aid in accomplishing these goals? Are there logistic motivations for a cap on new building heights? Is the height restriction simply to impose the historic scale of downtown across the entire city?

Charleston has the opportunity to lead the region in crafting an alternative vision by encouraging pockets of greater densities within its existing boundaries. Height is essential in achieving these densities. Allowing taller buildings in former industrial areas and in designated gathering places is a fair trade off for preserving the natural, rural, and historic assets that make the city and the region a unique place to live.

I encourage you to oppose such broad measures that ignore the city

[Spartan]

Sounds good to me. I like it. If all of Charleston was like downtown, the height restriciton might not make sucha big difference.

[sonofaque86]

that sucks. why throughout the whole entire city? it's the 21st century. they need to catch up with the times. the historic section can have its own heigh limits but its silly for all the city limits to be height restricted

[randy1]

We have to remember that these are just proposals for certain areas of the city. Th city council is not trying to impose height restrictions throughout the entire city but just in those delicate residential or potential residential areas that include the historic peninsula, west ashley and parts of james, johns and daniel island. City council is not saying NO to new high rise developments. I've talked with a member of the city council recently about this and he stated that areas such as the medical district and parts of the neck area and even upper meeting street will not be affected. The city council understands the need for density to offset the uncontrolled growth. He also mentioned that the article in the post and courier did not state specifics and went to generalize the entire issue without really asking city council about the reasoning behind the proposal. And its just a proposal...not all council members are behind this. Mayor Joe Riley himself does not see a need to impose more height restrictions...to do so will fabricate the downtown area just to please a few who do not live their annually. We have had a problem in downtown with residents who vision Charleston in the 18th and 19th century and not allowing it to become more than that ...indeed Charleston is an unique experience and should be preserved to cherish what has been valued for so many years. To destroy that would turn this city into "anytown usa". These residents are older Charlestonians who are reluctant to change. Regardless of what height restrictions are placed, Charleston should not be defined by how high buildings are. I for one don't mind tall buildings, but we must not succumb to the idea that a thriving city is one with a "Bank of America" skyscraper. North Charlestonis the planning stages of its high rise development along the Cooper River. This alone will give the Charleston region the height it desires, but it does not say that because of it that Charleston city does not need it. Eventually Charleston city will develop those high rises but don't expect it to be 80 stories tall. Even Columbia has heigh restrictions and has had issues in building the Capitol Center in front of the statehouse. I recall my urban geography professor at USC stating that the lawmakers sought to curb that development because of its proximity to the statehouse and how it overshadows it. He told us that Columbia has height restrictions that will also too keep buildings at a certain height and that the Capitol Center will probably remain the tallest building in the city. So you see these issues are not unique to a single city but to many who share visions of a "gathering place" that doesn't seem to alienate the "town" from its residents.

[Infinite1]

We have to remember that these are just proposals for certain areas of the city. Th city council is not trying to impose height restrictions throughout the entire city but just in those delicate residential or potential residential areas that include the historic peninsula, west ashley and parts of james, johns and daniel island. City council is not saying NO to new high rise developments. I've talked with a member of the city council recently about this and he stated that areas such as the medical district and parts of the neck area and even upper meeting street will not be affected. The city council understands the need for density to offset the uncontrolled growth. He also mentioned that the article in the post and courier did not state specifics and went to generalize the entire issue without really asking city council about the reasoning behind the proposal. And its just a proposal...not all council members are behind this. Mayor Joe Riley himself does not see a need to impose more height restrictions...to do so will fabricate the downtown area just to please a few who do not live their annually. We have had a problem in downtown with residents who vision Charleston in the 18th and 19th century and not allowing it to become more than that ...indeed Charleston is an unique experience and should be preserved to cherish what has been valued for so many years. To destroy that would turn this city into "anytown usa". These residents are older Charlestonians who are reluctant to change. Regardless of what height restrictions are placed, Charleston should not be defined by how high buildings are. I for one don't mind tall buildings, but we must not succumb to the idea that a thriving city is one with a "Bank of America" skyscraper. North Charlestonis the planning stages of its high rise development along the Cooper River. This alone will give the Charleston region the height it desires, but it does not say that because of it that Charleston city does not need it. Eventually Charleston city will develop those high rises but don't expect it to be 80 stories tall. Even Columbia has heigh restrictions and has had issues in building the Capitol Center in front of the statehouse. I recall my urban geography professor at USC stating that the lawmakers sought to curb that development because of its proximity to the statehouse and how it overshadows it. He told us that Columbia has height restrictions that will also too keep buildings at a certain height and that the Capitol Center will probably remain the tallest building in the city. So you see these issues are not unique to a single city but to many who share visions of a "gathering place" that doesn't seem to alienate the "town" from its residents.

The only place Columbia has height limits is in the Congaree Vista area.

[Spartan]

Yeah I had Dr Jakubs too. He told us that same hting, but he did mention the height restrictions in the Vista alone. They would not mind a new high rise else where though. They just don't want to obstruct the view coming into Columbia from the west or from 126.

[sonofaque86]

The only heigh ristrictions are in the Vista in Columbia

[krazeeboi]

What gives height restrictions their impact seems to be the reference point. Washington and Madison, WI have restrictions in place that state that nothing can be built taller than the dome of the capitol building. Because those domes are pretty tall, the buildings can have noticeable height and also contribute to density. In contrast, I think the tallest structure in DT Charleston is the steeple of St. Michael's, which isn't really all that tall relatively speaking.

[Charles Pearson]

What gives height restrictions their impact seems to be the reference point. Washington and Madison, WI have restrictions in place that state that nothing can be built taller than the dome of the capitol building. Because those domes are pretty tall, the buildings can have noticeable height and also contribute to density. In contrast, I think the tallest structure in DT Charleston is the steeple of St. Michael's, which isn't really all that tall relatively speaking.

The tallest is the steeple of St. Matthews' German Lutheran Church at 297 ft, which is pretty tall...

According to Emporis, St. Matthews' is 192 ft...

but the most beautiful steeple that I love is St. Philip's on Church Street, which rises to 200 feet (current building built 1835)... I love this building that had a beacon attached to its steeple between 1893 and 1915 and was utilized as a lighthouse to guide ships in Charleston Harbor....St. Ignatius Church in San Franciso reminds me somewhat of Charleston's St. Philip's...which is stunningly beautiful when seen from atop Bunea Vista Park...St. Igatius is 212 Ft tall & was built in 1914...

[krazeeboi]

I stand corrected about the exact steeple. But even then, steeples aren't prominent structures like capitol domes are.

[Greenville]

The tallest is the steeple of St. Matthews' German Lutheran Church at 297 ft, which is pretty tall...

According to Emporis, St. Matthews' is 192 ft...

but the most beautiful steeple that I love is St. Philip's on Church Street, which rises to 200 feet (current building built 1835)... I love this building that had a beacon attached to its steeple between 1893 and 1915 and was utilized as a lighthouse to guide ships in Charleston Harbor....St. Ignatius Church in San Franciso reminds me somewhat of Charleston's St. Philip's...which is stunningly beautiful when seen from atop Bunea Vista Park...St. Igatius is 212 Ft tall & was built in 1914...

I like St. Phillip's too. I think it is cool that the steeple has a slight lean to it.

[Spartan]

I stand corrected about the exact steeple. But even then, steeples aren't prominent structures like capitol domes are.

They are in Charleston though.

[krazeeboi]

I know, but I still don't think they stand as prominent references to height. Also consider that there are several steeples in Charleston as opposed to only one capitol dome per city (unless an older structure is still standing). Take Madison for example. This really works for that city:

I just think height restrictions work better in regards to a single, prominent reference point than several that aren't as tall or prominent. That said, I see no reason to implement such restrictions citywide.

[Charles Pearson]

i see what you mean...it's kind of like the prominence of San Francisco's City Hall dome (which is taller than the DC Capitol dome--I think) set against the high-rises in the Civic Center/UN Plaza...

[mags]

North Charlestonis the planning stages of its high rise development along the Cooper River. This alone will give the Charleston region the height it desires, but it does not say that because of it that Charleston city does not need it.

so north charleston is planning on developing highrises?

[waccamatt]

Last I heard, I think he did succeed. I think they finally got tired of dealing with him and the property is now in Edisito county. He eventually lost the property but I believe he succeeded.

I didn't know there was a new county in South Carolina! Seriously, though, Edisto seceded from Charleston County and became part of Dorchester County. I'm sure that's the same thing that happened with this property.

[Infinite1]

Last I heard, I think he did succeed. I think they finally got tired of dealing with him and the property is now in Edisito county. He eventually lost the property but I believe he succeeded.

I didn't know there was a new county in South Carolina! Seriously, though, Edisto seceded from Charleston County and became part of Dorchester County. I'm sure that's the same thing that happened with this property.

actually, Edisto went to Colleton County.

[Spartan]

True. And apparantly some people are no longer happy with this arrangement, and want to go back to Charleston.

[Charleston native]

Can't say I'm surprised by this, but we can pretty much hang up the possibility of any high rises being built in my hometown. These stupid, idiotic city leaders think they're doing a good thing, but I guarantee that this will only fuel future sprawl, and far less density. I believe this will effect the Magnolia project as well. The city council has voted to sharply reduce the allowable height of new commercial buildings outside of the historic downtown area. More than 1,000 properties in West Ashley, James Island, Johns Island, the Cainhoy peninsula and the Charleston peninsula above Mount Pleasant Street are covered by the change, which in most cases limits new buildings to 55 feet.

I don't even understand this quote: "The city modified the plan in response to criticism, and City Council approved a resolution Tuesday saying the city will consider individual properties where taller buildings could be allowed or shorter ones required." So what does this mean? The city council can completely override the ordinance and approve a taller building? So why even enforce an ordinance? This just gives them more "benevolent" power to completely control the skyline and keep it low, unexciting, and mediocre.

This just SUCKS!

City lowers height limits

[krazeeboi]

Well, expect any potential towers to go to North Charleston.

[Spartan]

While I am not thrilled about these height limits, the city's old height limit was not condusive to highrises either (the 3x rule). It was antiquated and useless. At least with this law you can get 55 stories right up next to the road.

The paper did say that there were several exceptions to the rule:

""In areas that carry the city's "gathering place" zoning designation, the limit is 65 feet. Areas zoned as business parks, a rare zoning classification, have a 45-foot limit, and areas zoned commercial/transitional carry a limit of 50 feet or three stories, whichever is shorter. Churches, schools and hospitals could be up to 80 feet tall, with another 15 feet allowed for architectural features.""

I'm not convinces that this will increase sprawl. DC has height limits and they have a dense and vibrant urban core. This will spread the density arounda little bit. The only problem is that its not quite enough density to allow for truly effective mass transit.

[Infinite1]

^ I'm sure you meant 55 FEET right up against the road. 55 Stories will NEVER happen in Charleston.

[Charleston native]

...I'm not convinces that this will increase sprawl. DC has height limits and they have a dense and vibrant urban core. This will spread the density arounda little bit. The only problem is that its not quite enough density to allow for truly effective mass transit.

I don't know if I can agree with this. DC has an incredible amount of sprawl that extends throughout Northern VA. I also know of the standard 2-hour commutes many DC workers experience traveling into the city.

55 feet up against the street as a maximum height is so limiting, it's ridiculous. This ordinance will prohibit any major corporation from locating their HQ into an urban environment such as DT, and the Neck project will be nothing more than a glorified lifestyle center. As far as creating a beautiful urban gateway into the DT area, this will not happen either. You can't create a visual gateway when you can't even see the fricking buildings, since they will be tree level!

I've really become discouraged about my hometown now...this SC idiocy is infectious and contaminates every bit of bureaucracy. I understand that they want to limit the impact on historic Chas and suburbs, but they could've left the MUSC/Lockwood area and the Neck out of this ordinance.