City wide height limits for Charleston

[knightrider162]

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.

If I understand it correctly, the MUSC/lockwood area is out of this ordinance... Isn't this just for off the peninsula and north of Mt. pleasant street???

[Charleston native]

^ OK, I think they did leave off the MUSC/Lockwood area, but north of Mt. Pleasant Street significantly affects all of the Neck developments. However, I would be willing to bet that city officials will fight any significant high rise in the MUSC/Lockwood section as well, limiting designs to boring midrises. I've totally lost any confidence that the city will be progressive in its future DT plans.

[knightrider162]

^ OK, I think they did leave off the MUSC/Lockwood area, but north of Mt. Pleasant Street significantly affects all of the Neck developments. However, I would be willing to bet that city officials will fight any significant high rise in the MUSC/Lockwood section as well, limiting designs to boring midrises. I've totally lost any confidence that the city will be progressive in its future DT plans.

I just read an overview of the meeting on charlestonwatch.com and this in effect is a very weak ordinance and probably will have a good bit of exceptions. It still isnt a good decision to me but we arent without hope on this one.

[Spartan]

thats good to know. I'm not that concerned about it. The old height restriciton was essentially the same.... ineffective, and not proactical. One thing that you all have to admit is that this heigh restriction is more condusive to urban, pedistran scale development than the old 3x rule, which was only effective at creating sprawl.

[krazeeboi]

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.

True, but then again, DC's height limit is typically at 12 stories; developers have pretty much made it work, as the suburban commercial centers (Fairfax, Tysons Corner, etc.) don't have buildings that are much taller. I think DC's sprawl is pretty standard relative to its size; its MSA is roughly the same as Atlanta's, but it doesn't appear that highrises in Atlanta has mitigated any of its sprawl. A great majority of DC's sprawl is related to the city's relatively high cost of housing.

[Charleston native]

I just read an overview of the meeting on charlestonwatch.com and this in effect is a very weak ordinance and probably will have a good bit of exceptions. It still isnt a good decision to me but we arent without hope on this one.

I hope you're right. Maybe I jumped to conclusions a little early with this decision, and after reading the city minutes on charlestonwatch, I'm somewhat encouraged.

Krazee, the biggest problem I have with DC is the height limit. Currently, the tallest building in Chas is 19 stories, and most other buildings have been restricted to 12-13 stories. I guess they changed the ordinance just to update it, but the 55-foot restriction was nothing but a blanket overlay that might affect development that many people want to be taller. I understand that we don't want to build a 30-story tower off of Savannah Highway for example, but the ordinance should have been less restrictive on the height limit with properties that do not significantly impact suburban neighborhoods...i.e., the Neck.

[krazeeboi]

I agree with you concerning Charleston's situation, but I believe that height restrictions are very much within reason for our nation's capital. Imagine what 9/11 would have been like if DC had several highrises.

[Jerseyman4]

Pardon me if i missed anything in all of the posts made,

Not sure where i heard this from but from my undersatnding, the city of Charleston cannot place high-rise buildings due to the soil-type (very soft to simply put it) and the pennisula is at sea level or in some places, below sea level. Adding my own commentary, if this is the case, the area did get an earthquake in the mid 1800s so if the area godforbid, received another Earthquake, it is possible the high rise buildings, the closer you get to the battery, probably could not support itself and collapse. Not too long ago, i heard about an earthquake (about a 3.1) near Blenheim, Marlboro County.

[Spartan]

thats true, but you can build anything if you can put pillars down to bedrock. SC is in a tectonically active area, but its not like California or something. If highrises are built in Charleston, you cna rest assured that it won't be downtown.

[sonofaque86]

I don't think there's room on the peninsula to put highrises downtown. I don't know why they just can't create anothe district seperate for high rises and keep the history and stuff on the peninsula be.

[knightrider162]

I don't think there's room on the peninsula to put highrises downtown. I don't know why they just can't create anothe district seperate for high rises and keep the history and stuff on the peninsula be.

There is room around the MUSC-Crosstown- Lockwood Blvd. area and I do think that is where they are focusing much attention to for more highrises.

[Charleston native]

Pardon me if i missed anything in all of the posts made,

Not sure where i heard this from but from my undersatnding, the city of Charleston cannot place high-rise buildings due to the soil-type (very soft to simply put it) and the pennisula is at sea level or in some places, below sea level...

Hey Jersey, that is a somewhat good point, but the entire World Trade Center complex in lower Manhattan was built on water! They had to add land to the original island. If this can be done in NYC, filling land in marsh areas around DT Chas should be easier. And as Spartan pointed out, you just need to drive the pillars to bed rock.

Krazee, good point as well.

Skyscrapers can be built on the peninsula, away from the historic areas. Knight pointed out the best area for highrises which is the upper west side of the peninsula. Other highrises would have to be built near the Columbus Street port terminal or the Neck.

[Jerseyman4]

Hey Jersey, that is a somewhat good point, but the entire World Trade Center complex in lower Manhattan was built on water! They had to add land to the original island. If this can be done in NYC, filling land in marsh areas around DT Chas should be easier. And as Spartan pointed out, you just need to drive the pillars to bed rock.

I hear what your saying. The engineering difficulties of constructing the northern end of the New Jersey Turnpike through the Meadowlands (aka massive wetlan area) was to dig deep into the bedrock, then pour rocks/asphalt/etc so the road would not buckle overtime. So if a high-rise were to be built anywhere below Calhoun Street, it would be VERY VERY costly and probably discouraged. Manhattan Island is situated just above the ice age boundary thus, if you ever go to Central Park, you will many stone/rocky hill tops (then you have the NJ Palisades and Staten Island Palisades [unofficial term but referring to Todt Hill area]. Manhattan Island overall is much harder soil than the Charleston Battery which is why they were able to construct high-rises.

[SimCity]

You can see examples of Charleston's soft foundations on Lockwood Blvd. That area, like much of the East Bay St. area was once marsh but was filled in over the centuries with soil and refuse to make new land. As a result the land over there is sinking which leads to uneven roads,parking lots, municipal buildings where new steps have to be added every couple of years as the parking lots subsides and even the relatively new Hwy. 17 overpass over Lockwood Blvd. had to be repaired after soil subsidence damaged the foundations and created a huge gap between the bridge and adjoining road. From an engineering and cost standpoint, the best place for heavy skyscrapers in Charleston would be along the original spine and highest land on the penisula, i.e. the King St. corridor.

[Spartan]

Excellent point!

[Spartan]

This is an article about DC's height restrictions, which are having similar effects on that city's core as Charleston's are on its core. Change the references on DC to "Charleston" and tell me what you think.

Article.

[SimCity]

This is an article about DC's height restrictions, which are having similar effects on that city's core as Charleston's are on its core. Change the references on DC to "Charleston" and tell me what you think.

Article.

[Charleston native]

This is an article about DC's height restrictions, which are having similar effects on that city's core as Charleston's are on its core. Change the references on DC to "Charleston" and tell me what you think.

Article.

[krazeeboi]

The article for DC does have amazing parallels to Chas and its land usage. DC shows a clear example of how building height limits contribute to suburban "sprawl" reaching out to land 20-40 miles from the urban core. I find it amazing how the lower suburbs of DC stretch for miles into Virginia.

[Spartan]

I would not call Rosslyn an example of "good" urbanity. DC benefits from having one of the best transit systems in the nation though. What Rosslyn, Courthouse, Bethesda, etc show is that transit stations if left to develop on their own will generate nodes of density.

I mainly posted that because of it is relevance to downtown. Downtown DC is dominated in part by the Federal Triangle and tourist functions of the Mall... the rest of downtown could have MORE development in it. The problem is that all of the available space has been taken up. So short of expanding thebusiness district, there is literally no more room for buildings in Downtown Washington. So, Fairfax County and other suburban counties are seeing more development than they might otherwise see.

Charleston is dominated by the Market/French Quarter and South of Broad as the primary tourist and historic areas. The rest of downtown doesn't have a primary business district (for offices) though the King/Meeting corridor serves that pupose to some degree. The parallel is that there is very limited space in Charleston to redevelop, especially being located on a peninsula. The height limits further box in the peninsula, but with the new citywide heigh limits, that effect is essentially the same for teh whole city. As a result, North Charleston and other suburban areas are seeing more devleopment than they might otherwise see. North Charleston will likely see most of the largescale business development for the forseable future unless charleston can figure out how to create a more business friendly environment. Or maybe they just don't want to do that?

[Charleston native]

^ I can't imagine them not wanting more businesses when the city itself created the Chas Digital Corridor as an initiative to attract IT and similar-type companies as well as providing tax incentives among other things. I think some of what Chas has in its thought processes are similar to what SimCity posted earlier: they want economic prosperity, but they want to keep building heights low throughout, and that just defies reality.

[monsoon]

I think if they imposed a height limit in Charleston of around 20 stories, and kept a strong historic building/neighborhood restrictions in place, it would be good for the city, in fact any city, in the long run. I get so tired of Southern cities that think the ticket to being world class is to put up a few 50-100 story towers. It's laughable when these towers are sitting in the middle of a bunch of parking lots and hundreds of square miles of low density sprawl.

Charleston has the unique advantage in that its geography, and already established grid pattern gives it the opportunity to create something that is much more desirable than the above example. Charleston does not need a CBD of super tall towers, but there should be some leeway to allow for economic growth. A 20 story height limit would provide a huge amount of building space for the pennisula. Lets keep in mind the vast majority of buildings in the Tokyo metropolitan area are under 20 stories (earth quakes) yet it is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. All it takes is a good approach to planning, good transit options, and some give and take on both sides of the issue.

[Charleston native]

Good points, metro, but you would be hard-pressed to find city officials who will compromise with 20-story buildings. The only DT area where some will give in with building height is MUSC, since the ability to build on more land for the university is extremely limited. Some leeway would be given around Lockwood Drive, but that would be the extent.

I agree that Chas should not try to build 50-story skyscrapers or taller, but I think the city should consider the possibility of allowing 30-40 stories either in Magnolia or around the MUSC/Lockwood area in future years. The demand for Chas densifying to that extreme is not there yet, but permitting this height sets the precedent for future densification. Developments would probably start at 20 stories, and as others are planned and developed, buildings could eventually reach this height.

With Chas being currently too restrictive, a precedent will be set among developers, and they will be discouraged to even attempt to build taller buildings there...unless they go to the north city (uggh!)

[krazeeboi]

I would not call Rosslyn an example of "good" urbanity. DC benefits from having one of the best transit systems in the nation though. What Rosslyn, Courthouse, Bethesda, etc show is that transit stations if left to develop on their own will generate nodes of density.

[Spartan]

With Chas being currently too restrictive, a precedent will be set among developers, and they will be discouraged to even attempt to build taller buildings there...unless they go to the north city (uggh!)