Archived

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

Charleston native

Charleston Skyscrapers

Can Charleston have a taller skyline that is NOT near the historic district? Explain your answer.  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Can Charleston have a taller skyline that is NOT near the historic district? Explain your answer.

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      23


Recommended Posts

I'm asking this question, because I want to see if people think that Charleston's skyline can EVER change from what it currently has. Right now, the biggest part of the skyline is the new bridge. Do you think taller buildings will be built to add to enhance the look of the bridge?

I personally think that it can, because eventually most of the old Charleston leaders will be replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think it can, I could see like a new town center, one focused on centralizing offices ssomewhere being built. But I don't know that it should, it would change the character of the area. If it was done though I think it should happen on Mt. Pleasant or West Ashley (just over the river).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can happen. I think the neck area should be converted into office towers. That would allow for the improvement of the area since they want to revitalize it anyway. It would also create a "CBD" of sorts for corporations seeking a Charleston locale.

I agree with moton- the question is do they want it?

I think the answer is no. Charlestonian leaders are so caught up with the history that they refuse to believe that it is not the 18th century anymore. I love old history of Charleston, but if old world cities like London and Paris can find a way to incorporate office towers into their city, then so can Charleston.

Having said that, I realize the the official City of Paris and City of London are actually not where these office towers are located. However, the principle is still there. London converted the old Canary Wharf that was a run-down area into a prime area for office towers. As I understand it the London Metro has some sort of umbrella government. But I'd really rather not get into English politics etc.

La D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan, your last question reflect my sentiments. If it doesn't happen in Charleston, it will most certainly happen in N. Charleston. But I'm with Charleston native; the two cities should merge, and the North area would be where the modern highrises/skyscrapers would be located, and the history of downtown Charleston could be preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most definitely! I don't see any major city growing without building vertically at least once in a while. Many times the event necessary to promote viable consideration of taller structures in a city, is the increase of property values due to a limit of available space, plus high demand. If companies continue to show a strong interest in locating at a central spot within downtown, then it is only a matter of time before the pressure reaches the breaking point and you see first one, then another high-rise plan disclosed, and so on. That will be very exciting for the Lowcountry! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can happen. I think the neck area should be converted into office towers. That would allow for the improvement of the area since they want to revitalize it anyway. It would also create a "CBD" of sorts for corporations seeking a Charleston locale.

I agree with moton- the question is do they want it?

I think the answer is no. Charlestonian leaders are so caught up with the history that they refuse to believe that it is not the 18th century anymore. I love old history of Charleston, but if old world cities like London and Paris can find a way to incorporate office towers into their city, then so can Charleston.

Having said that, I realize the the official City of Paris and City of London are actually not where these office towers are located. However, the principle is still there. London converted the old Canary Wharf that was a run-down area into a prime area for office towers. As I understand it the London Metro has some sort of umbrella government. But I'd really rather not get into English politics etc.

La D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for North Charleston. I am not too familiar with the political climate down there, and I have only visited a handful of times, but I get the feeling that North Charleston will encorage and foster high density growth before Charleston will even know what happened.

To the people more familiar: Is that really such a bad thing though? I get the feeling that there is a bit of political tension between Charleston and N. Charleston, but what is the difference if North Charleston begins to develop a skyline and Charleston is left to it's more historic roots? i'm curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plans for high rises in the north area. Currently the Noisette plan has zoning for buildings a shigh as 18 - 20 stories tall. North Charleston city council has given up zoning control so that development can start and that companies eager to get in will be able to start revitalizing that area. The neck area is also looking at this as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charleston should look to New Orleans. While I never seen the historic distric in Charleston allowing high-rises, just outside of the historic downtown (in the neck I suppose) could quite easily house high-rises without detracting from the value of the historic area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for North Charleston.  I am not too familiar with the political climate down there, and I have only visited a handful of times, but I get the feeling that North Charleston will encorage and foster high density growth before Charleston will even know what happened.

To the people more familiar:  Is that really such a bad thing though?  I get the feeling that there is a bit of political tension between Charleston and N. Charleston, but what is the difference if North Charleston begins to develop a skyline and Charleston is left to it's more historic roots?  i'm curious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I really don't like this when people talk about N. Charleston. It is a bad thing when a suburban city only 30 years-old becomes the primary city next to another city that is 300 years-old, a county seat, and the prime catalyst in the area for economic development. The only reason for N. Charleston's existence is Charleston. And really, the city is a redundant entity...it starts from the Charleston peninsula, for crying out loud. There is political tension, but that is because old-school Charleston city leaders downplayed the North area as being important to their city 40 years ago. This arrogance is what made the North area citizens vote to incorporate. It makes little sense to have 2 similar size bureaucracies vying for power. What would be a better plan but to merge the 2 cities into 1 unified city? Read the post for Charleston's northern neighbor where I wrote a letter to the city about this potential problem.

Anyway, the Noisette project is going to have a city center, but with buildings about 13 stories tall. It will blend in with the Neck area which Spartan and I have said before should be the focal point for high rises.

Little-known fact: Charleston's tallest building is Dockside Condominums located on the Cooper River, downtown. It is 19 stories tall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like this when people talk about N. Charleston. It is a bad thing when a suburban city only 30 years-old becomes the primary city next to another city that is 300 years-old, a county seat, and the prime catalyst in the area for economic development. The only reason for N. Charleston's existence is Charleston. And really, the city is a redundant entity...it starts from the Charleston peninsula, for crying out loud. There is political tension, but that is because old-school Charleston city leaders downplayed the North area as being important to their city 40 years ago. This arrogance is what made the North area citizens vote to incorporate. It makes little sense to have 2 similar size bureaucracies vying for power. What would be a better plan but to merge the 2 cities into 1 unified city? Read the post for Charleston's northern neighbor where I wrote a letter to the city about this potential problem.

Anyway, the Noisette project is going to have a city center, but with buildings about 13 stories tall. It will blend in with the Neck area which Spartan and I have said before should be the focal point for high rises.

Little-known fact: Charleston's tallest building is Dockside Condominums located on the Cooper River, downtown. It is 19 stories tall.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Charleston native, the plan is for 18 story tall buildings. Log onto noisettesc.com for the detailed description for the urban center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plans for high rises in the north area.  Currently the Noisette plan has zoning for buildings a shigh as 18 - 20 stories tall.  North Charleston city council has given up zoning control so that development can start and that companies eager to get in will be able to start revitalizing that area.  The neck area is also looking at this as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where is this going to be, exatcly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charleston native, the plan is for 18 story tall buildings.  Log onto noisettesc.com for the detailed description for the urban center.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't find the specs for the buildings. I see the drawings of the city center intersection, but they don't look that tall. Could you put up the actual link that can take me there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charleston native, the plan is for 18 story tall buildings.  Log onto noisettesc.com for the detailed description for the urban center.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nevermind, I found the article in today's P & C. However, the article says that the Noisette project is ZONED for buildings as high as 18 stories, but that does not neccesarily mean that all the buildings will be that tall. The point of this poll though is to see if the downtown core area could get some skyscrapers. The North area will have density, but they're looking for a similar look to some downtown historic areas such as King Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is crazy. N Charleston would be better off going with a maodern DT area. Just to be clear, we are talking about that part of N Charleston where the big traffic circle is when you say "north area," right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan, you hit the nail on the head with your post. Many Charleston leaders ARE still living in the 18th-19th centuries, believing that they can have a viable, relevant downtown without highrises. This mentality needs to change sometime soon if Charleston is to continue to grow.

If many leaders in Charleston, including the mayor, had their way in the city, the theme song for it would be Sesame Street's "Who Are the People in Your NEIGHBORHOOD?" They constantly emphasize neighborhoods, and I understand that, but it's like they are obsessed with them...almost as much as preservation.

The leaders will change, though, and I think once that happens, Charleston will start building highrises in the Neck area especially with the Cooper River bridge being complete. If they do it right, that area will be an awesome uptown. West Ashley will not get skyscrapers, because they're already preserving some areas by adding the historic district over there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not only CAN Charleston have a viable, relevant downtown without highrises, it DOES.

People travel from all over the country and even the WORLD to see the special place that downtown Charleston is. It is a model of urban living in the US. It is not stagnant, and it is growing. And it is doing so without scarificing it's history or urban fabric to do so. Historic preservation (along with poverty from the Civil War and depression)is the ONLY thing that kept Charleston from turning into just another dirty, decaying port city with nothing to distinguish itself from every other city.

You don't see European cities like London and Rome destroying their historic areas for high-rises.

The primary reason North charleston incorporated was because the state's strident annexation laws prevented annexation by Charleston.

I say let the high-rises go to North Charleston or maybe the neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only CAN Charleston have a viable, relevant downtown without highrises, it DOES. 

You don't see European cities like London and Rome destroying their historic areas for high-rises. 

I say let the high-rises go to North Charleston or maybe the neck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think thats the point though. Nobody is arguing that they should remove historic buildings to make a downtown. Downtown in this sense means a "corporate" downtown. A downtown with highrise office towers the likes of which Charleston hasn't seen as of yet. Im talking baout Columbia or even Greenville style buildings.

One key difference is that the center of Charleston will always be the historic downtown. Even if Charleston decides to convert the neck into a highrise district, it would only be busy during business hours. all other activity would be relegated to old charleston.

Another city to compare to would be DC. Even with the height restrictions DC has a pretty serious business district. Charleston could even use that as a model and just allow more MUSC-syle structures in certain areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is crazy. N Charleston would be better off going with a maodern DT area. Just to be clear, we are talking about that part of N Charleston where the big traffic circle is when you say "north area," right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, the circle is known as Park Circle. But the intent of the development is to not obliterate current neighborhoods, which is what a modern DT would do. They also want to be somewhat cooperative with Chas. as far as keeping DT the ultra-core urban area.

Many of the leaders there want to develop a mixture of core urban areas (mini-downtowns) throughout different parts of the city. Daniel Island, a planned mixed-use of commercial and residential buildings, is going to have its own "downtown", but the entire island along with a huge section of the Cainhoy peninsula north of it is in the city of Charleston. Another part of the city, West Ashley, has several projects planned such as the new traffic circle on Glenn McConnel Blvd and redevelopment of an old mall (the first one, actually) called Ashley Landing. They want to add apartments and more pedestrian friendly areas to revive that part of town. The Noisette is another example of a mini-downtown. Also, Carolina Park in Mt. Pleasant, a current DT in Summerville, and a new planned DT for Goose Creek.

The North area is not going to get skyscrapers, primarily because most runway approaches are in the city. They will have height restrictions because of the airport/Air Force base. DT Charleston is further away from an approach...so they have a better chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, the circle is known as Park Circle. But the intent of the development is to not obliterate current neighborhoods, which is what a modern DT would do. They also want to be somewhat cooperative with Chas. as far as keeping DT the ultra-core urban area.

Many of the leaders there want to develop a mixture of core urban areas (mini-downtowns) throughout different parts of the city. Daniel Island, a planned mixed-use of commercial and residential buildings, is going to have its own "downtown", but the entire island along with a huge section of the Cainhoy peninsula north of it is in the city of Charleston. Another part of the city, West Ashley, has several projects planned such as the new traffic circle on Glenn McConnel Blvd and redevelopment of an old mall (the first one, actually) called Ashley Landing. They want to add apartments and more pedestrian friendly areas to revive that part of town. The Noisette is another example of a mini-downtown. Also, Carolina Park in Mt. Pleasant, a current DT in Summerville, and a new planned DT for Goose Creek.

The North area is not going to get skyscrapers, primarily because most runway approaches are in the city. They will have height restrictions because of the airport/Air Force base. DT Charleston is further away from an approach...so they have a better chance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Latest information from sources in the Noisette redevelopment is that there are towers planned for the North Charleston at river center. They are not disclosing any info yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest information from sources in the Noisette redevelopment is that there are towers planned for the North Charleston at river center.  They are not disclosing any info yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate that damn town.

I think I'll change my name to North Charleston native...because that is going to be the new name of the metro area and the county seat...

Sorry...just venting. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be alittle too worried about N Charleston becoming the county seat. Changing a county seat would take alot of effort and most importantly alot of money. :)

However, If North Charleston ever outgrows Charleston the Metro name could officially be called the "North Charleston-Charleston MSA." That happened in San Francisco... that area is now called the "San Jose - San Francisco - Oakland MSA." But North Charleston still has to gain about 16,000 in population assuming that Charleston doesn't grow. That alone would take a significant amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what is the point and reason behind allowing a 30 year-old suburban city, whose SOLE reason for its existence is the city of Charleston, to redevelop and become the biggest and most important city in the area? I basically see N. Charleston as a leech...it has sucked opportunity and growth from Charleston in order to gain economic power and money. If Charleston did not have such historical significance, and if it didn't bring in tourists like it does, N. Charleston would be a small river town.

This is like West Columbia building its own skyscrapers across the river from Columbia, trying to outdo its neighbor! Or Mauldin doing the same to Greenville...the reason you want a CENTRAL city is to unify the community under one location. If somebody asks me where I'm from, am I going to end up saying, "Oh, I'm from Charleston-North Charleston-Mt. Pleasant-Summerville"?

Would somebody PLEASE show me the evidence of the towers that will be built up there in Noisette? I keep searching the website, but there is nothing that shows specifics of TOWERS. Are they going to build 30-story buildings along the river?

Anyway, this poll is about whether DOWNTOWN CHARLESTON will get skyscrapers, not its neighbors...maybe I should have been more specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Or Mauldin doing the same to Greenville...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mauldin will never reach the point where it could suck the life out of Greenville. It is merely a suburban city which mainly gains its acclaim by housing a large number of the population in the County of Greenville. The city of Greenville is on an unmatched pace of development, and unless something catastrophic happens in the near future, there will be absolutely no way for Mauldin to even have a chance to achieve a higher status in that comparison. Sure, Mauldin may eventually have its own skyscrapers, but you won't think of it as anything more than what Buckhead is to Atlanta, in my estimation. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mauldin will never reach the point where it could suck the life out of Greenville.  It is merely a suburban city which mainly gains its acclaim by housing a large number of the population in the County of Greenville.  The city of Greenville is on an unmatched pace of development, and unless something catastrophic happens in the near future, there will be absolutely no way for Mauldin to even have a chance to achieve a higher status in that comparison.  Sure, Mauldin may eventually have its own skyscrapers, but you won't think of it as anything more than what Buckhead is to Atlanta, in my estimation. :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh I know that...I was just using it as an example to illustrate my point. I'm not saying that those situations are possible. But that's exactly why I'm comparing the incomparable to what is actually happening in my hometown!!!!! Alot of people are overlooking this situation, but what is so odd is that so many people in Charleston are accepting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.