Jump to content

Downtown preservation, height restrictions


vicupstate

Recommended Posts

The tricky part with history and historic buildings is that one building alone doesnt mean very much. But 10 or 20 groupsed together can define a place and give the correct historical context. We should be careful when destroying the past, but we shouldn't rule it out as an option either. We don't want to forget where we've been, but we should keep things moving toward the future. So, people may not come to Charleston with the same expectations as Williamsburg, but they come for similar reasons.

CharlestonNative- can you elaborate on what the plans are for the MUSC area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply
This is wrong, vic. I was still living in Chas almost a decade ago, and the area below Calhoun and below Broad were far from being as dilapidated as areas around Cannon and Spring Streets. Some of these single houses located off of Sping Street are burnt out, cockroach and rat-infested dumps which have outlived any usefulness as a significant historical structure to be preserved. Shall we even mention the Eastside? The bottomline is that preservation of these areas is not going to lead to more robust tourism. People only associate historic DT Chas with what does exist in the prime historic areas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Cock roaches and rats? Give me a break!! HAve you ever heard of an exterminator? Are you sure you didn't grow up in the other Charleston? Dude in the 1970's Lower King Street had more rats than shoppers! In the '60's just blocks from Rainbow Row were houses of prostitution! If those areas had been leveled, what would Charleston be today?A dirty Navy/shipyard town, that's what...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I first lived in downtown Charleston in 1981, and boy have I seen change! Vic, you are right about the rest of what is now so nice being dilapidated too. You would not believe what they can do with a "cockroach and rat-infested shack" that Chas. Native refers to below. There were numerous examples, now worth hundreds of thousands, south of Calhoun. Most were simply run-down, and not shacks, but I was always amazed that Charleston wouldn't allow these shanties (ones that a good wind could knock down) demolished. But that was before I witnessed what they could do to renovate (or essentially rebuild in some cases.) So, Chas Native, the houses you refer to CAN be refurbished, and that leads me to my next point...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I'm really happy to see impassioned debates about substantial issues here on UP (and not the typical city vs. city crap), I would ask that we all be respectful in our disagreements and give each other the benefit of the doubt. After all, a message board is a rather impersonal means of communication and has limitations in that regard. This is a really important topic and I would love for it to continue, but cooler heads need to prevail here. Thanks for your cooperation. :)

Now, back to the topic at hand. CN, you make a really good observation when you say:

My point isn't if the houses can be refurbished...my point is that these houses shouldn't be refurbished. If real estate prices are any indication, the DT area is already a difficult place to afford to live. Further refurbishment of houses that aren't necessary for the city's historical fabric will drive prices even higher, while high-density developments will be prohibited from being built.

This is important, because now we're talking about the balancing act here between preservation and housing affordability. Now one thing I will say is that I think it's just as important that the history of the "less desirable" areas of downtown be preserved as well. This part of the city has its own distinct history and individual flavor; it also has a story that needs to be told. So I think it's necessary that some preservation occur in these areas, as they also play a role in the makeup of the city's historical urban fabric. As a matter of fact, I'd say that you would want some homes with a slightly higher price tag in order to economically diversify the neighborhood (sans gentrification--at least widescale gentrification) and provide a different sense of stablity for such neighborhoods. Now, exactly how much should be preserved is another question, but some of these houses do need to be saved. As a matter of fact, I'd love to see middle class/upper middle class Blacks occupy several of these dwellings in these historically Black neighborhoods, especially in light of Charleston getting its share of the reverse Southern migration among African Americans, which is still in full swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe the laws will ever be changed, Chas Native. If the implausible happened years from now and the demolition laws relaxed, those structures will have already been refurbished. I just don't see anything other than the status quo occurring in Charleston, even if an earthquake hit, thank goodness! The preservation movement is politically and economically entrenched more than ever across the land-- even more so in Charleston. This means that the protections these buildings have now will not only prevail, but will grow in strength and breadth. That's what I see as the future for Charleston.

What do the rest of you think? Will Charleston ever relax their laws regarding historic structures on the peninsula?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should probably clarify my position, dig. I think the laws will change, but only in certain areas of the downtown peninsula. The planned Hilton hotel at the old library somewhat sets a precedent that common sense should be heeded when judging how tall a building should be. The zoning variance was requested and approved, so I'm sure that other developers would attempt to get a zoning variance in other cases, particularly at MUSC.

Will they change around and below Calhoun? I highly doubt it, nor would I want any changes there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is important, because now we're talking about the balancing act here between preservation and housing affordability. Now one thing I will say is that I think it's just as important that the history of the "less desirable" areas of downtown be preserved as well. This part of the city has its own distinct history and individual flavor; it also has a story that needs to be told. So I think it's necessary that some preservation occur in these areas, as they also play a role in the makeup of the city's historical urban fabric. As a matter of fact, I'd say that you would want some homes with a slightly higher price tag in order to economically diversify the neighborhood (sans gentrification--at least widescale gentrification) and provide a different sense of stablity for such neighborhoods. Now, exactly how much should be preserved is another question, but some of these houses do need to be saved. As a matter of fact, I'd love to see middle class/upper middle class Blacks occupy several of these dwellings in these historically Black neighborhoods, especially in light of Charleston getting its share of the reverse Southern migration among African Americans, which is still in full swing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DS, I hope the city relaxes the height restrictions for the city outside of DT--I think they are totally unnecessary.

I would much rather the city keep the stringent height restrictions and preservation ordinances and make exceptions where warranted than relaxing them altogether, which could have some rather dire consequences for downtown.

But I agree as far as the luxury condos and upscale townhomes.

And the Enston home is a real gem....absolutely beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DS, I hope the city relaxes the height restrictions for the city outside of DT--I think they are totally unnecessary.

I would much rather the city keep the stringent height restrictions and preservation ordinances and make exceptions where warranted than relaxing them altogether, which could have some rather dire consequences for downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This appears to be a great organization. Too bad these types of organizations only tend to be found in cities that already have great architectural legacies to be preserved and not cities in need of establishing such legacies. They play much more comprehensive and extensive roles than the typical, run-on-the-mill municipal historic preservation organization (although they are important and have their place as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe the laws will ever be changed, Chas Native. If the implausible happened years from now and the demolition laws relaxed, those structures will have already been refurbished. I just don't see anything other than the status quo occurring in Charleston, even if an earthquake hit, thank goodness! The preservation movement is politically and economically entrenched more than ever across the land-- even more so in Charleston. This means that the protections these buildings have now will not only prevail, but will grow in strength and breadth. That's what I see as the future for Charleston.

What do the rest of you think? Will Charleston ever relax their laws regarding historic structures on the peninsula?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point isn't if the houses can be refurbished...my point is that these houses shouldn't be refurbished. If real estate prices are any indication, the DT area is already a difficult place to afford to live. Further refurbishment of houses that aren't necessary for the city's historical fabric will drive prices even higher, while high-density developments will be prohibited from being built. And what does this lead to? More suburban "sprawl" which many of you abhor. We're already seeing most people who work DT commuting from West Ashley (which, BTW, is not ever going to see skyscrapers with it being the oldest suburb, Charles Towne Landing, etc.), Summerville, Goose Creek, and even Moncks Corner. As ohioaninsc said in the P & C's comment section:

I don't think it's futile to ask why these buildings can't be demolished, because city laws can be changed. The extremist preservationists helped create some of these laws, and they can just as easily be removed. God forbid, people are going to end up getting killed or injured by these structures in order for those rules to change, if an earthquake doesn't come along and finish the job naturally. Just because a structure is 200 years old, doesn't automatically qualify it to be preserved.

I think DT Chas will see a modern skyline in the medical district, at least, and hopefully the Neck. Some common sense people are coming to Chas and realizing that things need to be changed, as well as natives like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wonder how many feathers I ruffled w/ that comment on the P & C website, but thanks for using it. That is my whole arguement here, is that if you don't create higher density developments, then you are just going to continue to see the city and suburbs sprawl itself out. Also, please tell me what is so great about having every single historic home in DT cost over a million dollars. Everytime I walk through the neighborhoods w/ these beautiful old homes, you never see any residents out, only tourists. From what I understand, there are more and more of these homes being bought by wealthy northerners as vacation homes, and are only occupied about 1 month out of the year, and the average Charleston Family or average transplant into the city, can't afford them. So, they end up living in sprawlburbia b/c that is what they can afford.

I would never ever advocate building highrises on the lower peninsula, or even midrises, but in certain areas, they can be tastefully done. I do believe Magnolia would be the best option, and I would not put any height limit there. In fact, I would be scared to death not to, b/c if N Charleston doesn't, and they eventually start building highrises, it will become the North Charleston metro area, and not he Charleston metro area, b/c unfortunately, it's a pipe dream, though I'd love to see it happen, that the 2 cities could merge together back into 1 city, and drop off the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One major problem is that people see, for example, paying $300,000 for a 2500 sq ft house in ANY suburban area as a better deal than the same price for a 1200 sq townhouse/condo in an urban area because of the simple fact that there is more space. I realize that prices in Charleston are more than that, but I'm talking about the principle of the thing. The height restrictions don't help the problem because you have to have higher unit costs to offset the higher costs of land and development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.