Revitalization Plan for the Eastside

[Charleston native]

lol

congratulations man. Take your time and enjoy your weekend. Much luck to you and your family's future. Respond when youre ready.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alrighty then, I'm officially back! Thanks to you Donny and Spartan for the congratulations. It is awesome to be married!!!!! I will say this, though: buying a home is alot more work than I thought it would be so don't EVER buy a house and get married on the same week. I learned that the hard way.

Anyway, after reading your response, I think I understand your point...even though I disagree with it somewhat. You're saying that the city could have revitalized and improved that area a long time ago, right? You're saying Charleston and its government let the area fall into shambles and only now they have decided to provide the initiative and imagination to transform the community. However, according to what I think you're saying, these improvements will only displace the low-income black people currently living there because property values will soar and increase property taxes substantially.

If I inferred to your response correctly, I do agree with some of the points you made. It is kind of fishy to see the city only take an interest in sprucing up the area now that the real estate market has increased the value of downtown properties. I also agree that Charleston should have been striving to enhance and beautify the community 20 years ago. I went to high school and college DT, and I remember commenting about how the city was just letting the area go...and it was so strange to do that since this area was the gateway into the city!

Despite the suspicious activity that city hall is demonstrating with the current project, there is a part of your argument that I have to disagree with. The residents of the community share the responsibility as well for the current state of the East Side. You're saying that the residents did not "just sit back and watched their community go down and did absolutely nothing...", but I have to disagree with that. The quality of life in a neighborhood is not just the city's responsibility; it is the responsibility of every single resident that owns property in the area. Residents of the East Side have been known to warn drug dealers of CPD patrol cars coming, to give these dealers a safe haven during a drug bust, and to be somewhat apathetic about the whole situation. This is not an opinion of mine; this information was in the City Paper from a journalist who went undercover into the East Side. Needless to say, this information is extremely disappointing.

So I do see your side of the story. Charleston should have done a better job of preventing the deterioration of the East Side. All I'm saying is that the city is not the only responsible party...maybe different people moving into the community will change that.

[Charleston native]

It is unfortunate when a group of people are displaced because of the rising costs of living in the area. However, how do you keep them in the area, when economic factors are pushing them out? Obviously if the demand for the property is there, then the prices will go up. Should we do something to keep them artificially low?

I really do not see how that makes good sense. Keeping property values low, so a small group of people can afford them, reeks of socialism. While well intentioned, I am sure, it affects an even larger group of people negatively, by limiting the areas into which they can move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bumping this back up...this is a VERY good point. I wish I had responded to this earlier. Great point, Chickenwing!

[Spartan]

I suppose rent control is always an option, but that is debatable. I think most would be infavor of letting the natural economic forces do their thing. If you think back, that is how the area got into its current state to begin with.

I do not agree with keeping areas unnaturally depressed in value just to keep people there.

[Charleston native]

Donny James, I hope you read this! Today, in the letters to the editor page, an ex-East Side resident wrote this opinion in dealing with the drugs and crime in the neighborhood. He makes an excellent point: a police substation should be built in that area to improve things.

However, I think this letter also demonstrates that the East Side is in definite need of revitalization and redevelopment. The story here is incredible; it is something you would hear about in a Third World country!

...The East Side of Charleston is a true community that few people know, but the East Side also is out of control, in fact, lawless.

Last month, my friend, who lives on Nassau Street, caught someone stealing his pickup truck. On instinct or deep affection for his truck, he jumped in the back. The driver proceeded to race through the neighborhood at 80 mph. Rightfully, my friend tried to smash the guy's skull with a steel pipe that happened to be sitting in the back of his truck. The driver hit a car at South and East Bay streets and ran away. Nobody was hurt. The two vehicles were totaled. I am glad to have been there for my friend to console him as he showed me the $95 ticket for negligence that the Charleston Police Department issued him...

...The drug trade is open for business 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on Line and Hanover streets and South and America streets...

East Side patrols

[Spartan]

Yeah, if they ever want that stereo type to change for that area they are goingot have to increase police patrols there. So much for the best police chief in the nation.

[Donny James]

Yeah thats a sad fact that I already knew anyway, but all that really does is just emphasize my point in the first place.

Chief Greenberg was praised so much because of how he "dramatically decreased crime", specifically in the downtown tourist area of Downtown Charleston. The tourist district. Meanwhile the crime and drug trade in the poorer neighborhoods remained consistent throughout the years. I remember reading how Greenberg was touring the nation, giving lectures on what he did to bring crime down in Charleston. And each time I see that article, the main focus of it is how he made quote "the public housing projects one of the safest places in Charleston." And also how Charleston had virtually become "graffiti-free", etc...etc..etc... Believe you me. From 1985 (or whatever year he says he made it safe) -until recently, nothing about ANY of the Charleston housing projects has been nowhere near safe. The only exception being the Wilson Street Projects, which coincidentally happens to be the only housing project in the tourist district. And also the only one that has a police substation (as you mentioned) in it. Now a blind man can see these blatant differences.

Gadsden Green (on Hagood Avenue), Johnson Street Projects (on the Eastside), South Street Projects (near the Post Office on the Eastside), Romney Street Projects (on the Eastside), Bayside Manor (behind the city dump and graveyards), Mary Ellen Drive Apartments (which they just tore down to build condos)......NONE of these housing projects were anywhere REMOTELY close to being safe. In any respect. Neither were the surrounding neighborhoods. There were NO "police substations" in these non-tourist areas, even though the huge majority of the crime came from these neighborhoods, not the Wilson Street Projects neighborhood. Why add a police substation in the housing complex with the least amount of crime? Because its the only one sitting in the smack dab middle of the tourist district, south of Calhoun.

Now I can say that during these years with the reduction in crime, the overall crime for the city of Charleston, which includes those poorer neighborhoods, did have a decrease. But all the of the attention was, and has been, focused on the tourist district. Which obviously makes sense in a tourist-driven city, but the neglect given to the areas that needed the attention the most has always been apparent, and in turn you still have these problems. Nobody wanted to give any attention to the Eastside before. The Eastside is probably the best it has been, for lack of a better term, in recent memory. And its STILL bad. Its just that now the face of the neighborhood and the demographic is changing, so now all of a sudden they need to focus more attention on the Eastside problems, to appease the new population.

Have you ever noticed......Charleston Native being that I see your passion and admiration for our hometown city, just as I have, or have you ever gone riding around after dark to the latenight gas stations downtown? How many are there?

There are THREE. One on East Bay, across the street from the Eastside Projects/Post Office (which closes and customers leave well before dark), one on Huger Street (in the ghetto where drug dealers and crackheads hang all night), and the last one is WHERE?

On the corner of Meeting and Calhoun, in the middle of the tourist district. Now obviously, the first two mentioned are the worst neighborhoods, the place where police protection is needed the most. But for some reason (you tell me), the only one that has a 24-hour officer on duty is the BP. On Calhoun and Meeting. (Its now a 76 but old Charlestonians we still call it the BP)

The other two gas stations, where drugs are blatantly sold on Huger Street all night. And transvestite prostitutes walk up and down that King Street block from the gas station to James Simmons Elementary School till the wee ours of the morning. You dont see any officer on duty.

Their method of policing is completely different in this part of town. They just ride through periodically to see if they can find someone to arrest. Same thing with the Exxon across the street from the Post Office. No officer on duty. But you have a 24-HOUR officer at Harris Teeter (in the tourist district) where you might be lucky to see somebody jaywalking at the most. And the BP at Calhoun and Meeting is the only one that doesnt have a bulletproof glass separating the teller from the customers. That speaks volumes in itself.

Its blatant disregard for the poor areas. So no. Still cant agree with you buddy. They only pay attention to the poor communities when they have to. Not when they need to.

[Donny James]

No reply Charleston native??

[Charleston native]

No reply Charleston native??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, man, I thought it was a rhetorical question! You're right about the gas stations and the police substations. I do feel safer around the Harris Teeter on East Bay than the gas station at Meeting and Calhoun. I actually try to get gas at the Shell you're talking about across from the Post Office, and I admit, my head is on a swivel while I'm pumping because some of the people walking around there look a little shady.

You have an excellent point, and I agree with you. More police substations need to be in place, and more attention needs to be paid to those areas. I'm quite surprised that a substation was not built around the Post Office on East Bay due to the murder of The Boathouse restaurant's manager a couple of years ago. The restaurant sits next door to projects (which is amazing in itself), and many tourists come to this place because it has some of the best seafood in the city.

I especially see where you're coming from in that the city only focuses on crime deterrence when there is maximum benefit, i.e. the tourism industry. I find that to be very disheartening. But you can't absolve the communities' and the residents' responsibilities for the areas blighted areas. There needs to be a consensus that both the government and the residents have failed in providing a safe community. I think once this fact is understood by all parties involved, redevelopment and revitalization of the East Side can be done efficiently and with the best planning available.

[krazeeboi]

There needs to be a consensus that both the government and the residents have failed in providing a safe community. I think once this fact is understood by all parties involved, redevelopment and revitalization of the East Side can be done efficiently and with the best planning available.

I think this to be a fair and balanced view.

[Donny James]

I agree.

[Charleston native]

Here's an update on the upcoming redevelopment of the East Side where the old Cooper River bridges once stood. There could be a potential problem because the demolition contractor is removing the supports of the old bridges only two or three feet below the ground. Most of the reinforced concrete foundations, which are 4 to 6 feet thick with piling underneath, will remain. Since the area is mostly marsh land or soft soil, these lingering concrete chunks could cause uneven settling or bumps on the ground. The city of Charleston already is re-evaluating its master plan for redeveloping the area, because officials realize the cost of removing all traces of the foundation would be too high.

The city's director of the Civic Design Center said that the major parts of the plan wouldn't change, but some details might. For instance, to stay away from the foundations, a planned street from Meeting Street to Morrison Drive, might be built as two, two-lane roads with a median rather than as a single four-lane road. The article link is here below.

Bridge footprints to leave lasting mark

[Spartan]

Its probably too late at this point but it might be cool to save a few of the pillars as a relic/monument to the old bridges.

[lsgchas]

I have a friend who works as a tour guide and is very knowledgeable about downtown Charleston. He told me the other day that they're going to leave some of the columns standing in a new city park. I haven't read anything confirming this however.

[Charleston native]

I remember hearing about that as well. It might be in the city's design plans on their website, which is located in their City Civic Design Center. If I have more time, I will check it out. If anybody gets there before me, please post the link here.

[digital_sandlapper]

Charleston Native and Donny James--I enjoyed your debate, and am happy you reached the subsequent understanding. Both of you had valid points. I hope the Eastside can become a place where all can live in peace and harmony (seriously).

As a former resident of downtown Charleston, I must add something. There is also a total lack of adequate housing for MID-income folks such as myself. This lack of mid-income housing also bodes ill for Charleston's future. Single-income households are simply a pipe dream--even as far up the penisula as Mt. Pleasant Street. I started out on Cannon Street, in the midst of poorer folks and college students: people who can only afford to live there because 1) they've been there longer than the mortgage (the poor), or 2) because they share their places and expenses with 15 assorted other bodies (the students.) In both cases, neither category of resident kept up their property well due to 1) cost prohibitiveness, or 2) total lack of caring. Tour the streets of Cannonborough around the end of the school year to see how these temporary residents treat their "homes", but that is a whole other topic string . .

I had to scramble for roommates, which was disastrous, and so I abandoned my $1,500/month house (which was NO Taj Mahal) for the Hampton Park area. There, decent housing started at $900/month, still too much for my single income, but better than Cannon St. Plus, the street was quieter (no late-night partying students), safer (less drug activity and theft), etc. I ended up having to get a roommate to survive . . again, disastrous.

I finally had to do something on the anniversary of THAT lease, so I found a better job where the cost of living is more reasonable: in Columbia. I live 2 miles from the center of town, have a bigger place, in a cleaner, safer, old neighborhood, and pay just $695/month. I'm finally able to afford living alone in a city!

Charleston is losing a huge contingent of talented and skilled members of their citizenry due to the exorbitant cost of living: teachers, police officers, young professionals, etc. And, yes, Mt. Pleasant and West Ashley were just as bad.

[krazeeboi]

That is definitely a justified criticism of DT Charleston, one that we've mentioned many times. I absolutely HATE it when downtowns become playgrounds for the rich.

[Infinite1]

That is definitely a justified criticism of DT Charleston, one that we've mentioned many times. I absolutely HATE it when downtowns become playgrounds for the rich.

when property values are high, there are height restrictions, and construction/renovation costs are exorbitant because "original materials" must be used or bluestone sidewalks wiht granite curbs are required, housing costs will be high" In order to bring costs down, you have to allow for more economical construction either via more massive development or less costly construction techniques (ie cheaper materials). i don't think the city will compromise on either of those anytime soon, so we'll see.

[krazeeboi]

I understand that it was practically inevitable in Charleston's situation; still, I hate it when it has to turn out like that.

[MikesLogic]

This isn't going to change anytime soon either for many reasons, one of which Charleston had record existing home sales in January while an article on CNN talks about the country experiencing a slow down. It's going to take something drastic for the area to really allow that kind of development in existing areas. The only place we are going to see it will be magnolia and noisette projects. So the sooner those get started the better off we will be and I pray the cities will be extra lenient in these areas as far as size and density are concerned otherwise it just won't be affordable. Ideally Charleston leaders should be going out of their way to make sure enough affordable housing is available in their city but that just isn't the case right now.

[UrbanSoutherner]

Charleston Native and Donny James--I enjoyed your debate, and am happy you reached the subsequent understanding. Both of you had valid points. I hope the Eastside can become a place where all can live in peace and harmony (seriously).

As a former resident of downtown Charleston, I must add something. There is also a total lack of adequate housing for MID-income folks such as myself. This lack of mid-income housing also bodes ill for Charleston's future. Single-income households are simply a pipe dream--even as far up the penisula as Mt. Pleasant Street. I started out on Cannon Street, in the midst of poorer folks and college students: people who can only afford to live there because 1) they've been there longer than the mortgage (the poor), or 2) because they share their places and expenses with 15 assorted other bodies (the students.) In both cases, neither category of resident kept up their property well due to 1) cost prohibitiveness, or 2) total lack of caring. Tour the streets of Cannonborough around the end of the school year to see how these temporary residents treat their "homes", but that is a whole other topic string . .

I had to scramble for roommates, which was disastrous, and so I abandoned my $1,500/month house (which was NO Taj Mahal) for the Hampton Park area. There, decent housing started at $900/month, still too much for my single income, but better than Cannon St. Plus, the street was quieter (no late-night partying students), safer (less drug activity and theft), etc. I ended up having to get a roommate to survive . . again, disastrous.

I finally had to do something on the anniversary of THAT lease, so I found a better job where the cost of living is more reasonable: in Columbia. I live 2 miles from the center of town, have a bigger place, in a cleaner, safer, old neighborhood, and pay just $695/month. I'm finally able to afford living alone in a city!

Charleston is losing a huge contingent of talented and skilled members of their citizenry due to the exorbitant cost of living: teachers, police officers, young professionals, etc. And, yes, Mt. Pleasant and West Ashley were just as bad.

How is it that the Charleston market is able to sustain housing costs that are so much higher than Columbia or Greenville? If the local housing market is rational and based on supply and demand, what is the cause? I could understand it if it were just on the peninsula due to the desirability of the historic houses, but it is even true with tract houses in the suburbs. I know more than one person who in recent years had jobs offered in Charleston but chose to remain in Columbia due to the housing cost differential. Do Charleston jobs pay that much more? From what I have seen, that is not the case. Are retirees driving up the prices? What is it? In the "which of the big three is the more economically vibrant" discussions on this forum, this issue rarely seems to come up. If the three SC cities are roughly equal in terms of size and economic vitality, how is it that the Charleston housing market gets to charge a premium to live there? Atlanta and the Triangle are more expensive than Columbia or Greenville, but both of those boomtowns have tons of fast growth (i.e., rising demand) and tons of great jobs (to pay the higher housing costs). Is this an argument in favor of Charleston having a little more economic steam than Columbia or Greenville? Is it because Charleston has less land available for expansion in the future? I doubt that is the cause since there are directions that it could grow without running into water or national forests. Is this indicative of people irrationally choosing to live in a more expensive place in the absence of higher salaries because they really want to live there due to other amenities or emotional attachment? What is it?

[digital_sandlapper]

How is it that the Charleston market is able to sustain housing costs that are so much higher than Columbia or Greenville? If the local housing market is rational and based on supply and demand, what is the cause? I could understand it if it were just on the peninsula due to the desirability of the historic houses, but it is even true with tract houses in the suburbs. I know more than one person who in recent years had jobs offered in Charleston but chose to remain in Columbia due to the housing cost differential. Do Charleston jobs pay that much more? From what I have seen, that is not the case. Are retirees driving up the prices? What is it? In the "which of the big three is the more economically vibrant" discussions on this forum, this issue rarely seems to come up. If the three SC cities are roughly equal in terms of size and economic vitality, how is it that the Charleston housing market gets to charge a premium to live there? Atlanta and the Triangle are more expensive than Columbia or Greenville, but both of those boomtowns have tons of fast growth (i.e., rising demand) and tons of great jobs (to pay the higher housing costs). Is this an argument in favor of Charleston having a little more economic steam than Columbia or Greenville? Is it because Charleston has less land available for expansion in the future? I doubt that is the cause since there are directions that it could grow without running into water or national forests. Is this indicative of people irrationally choosing to live in a more expensive place in the absence of higher salaries because they really want to live there due to other amenities or emotional attachment? What is it?

Urban, your secong to the last sentence hit the nail on the head. The Charleston job market does NOT (I am speaking from experience) pay enough to keep good people like me around. I simply couldn't afford it. I did my research, and was considering Augusta when this job in Columbia came through. A modest house for me in the dreamy Summerville area of Augusta was 1/3 the square footage cost of one in a noiser, slummier, sketchier part of Charleston. The choice to move was a "no-brainer." The amenities of the city are not as grand here, but I can play in Charleston anytime I want. Living in thriving Columbia and saving tons of $$ is very pleasing, and more than makes up for missing the history and beaches of Charleston. The Holy City has, in a sense, become its worst nightmare: a sort of theme park for vacationing only. Sigh . . I do hope that Magnolia and Noisette will fix that, and have reasonably priced housing for MIDDLE income folks to afford living and contributing to the vibrancy of an urban Charleston. In the meantime, I am quite happy with the manageable and cool city that is Columbia.

[krazeeboi]

I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if a stink was raised about Magnolia and Noisette like it was for I'ON in Mt. Pleasant concerning affordable housing.

[lsgchas]

This isn't going to change anytime soon either for many reasons, one of which Charleston had record existing home sales in January while an article on CNN talks about the country experiencing a slow down. It's going to take something drastic for the area to really allow that kind of development in existing areas. The only place we are going to see it will be magnolia and noisette projects. So the sooner those get started the better off we will be and I pray the cities will be extra lenient in these areas as far as size and density are concerned otherwise it just won't be affordable. Ideally Charleston leaders should be going out of their way to make sure enough affordable housing is available in their city but that just isn't the case right now.

I agree that could be the answer for affordable living downtown. Make downtown bigger, i.e. expand the dense urban fabric that makes downtown Charleston unique. However, it's pretty clear that the affordable neighborhoods will be in North Charleston (Noisette, Mixson Ave., etc.). Magnolia and Bobby Ginn's Promenade project will be targeted more towards people who can afford million dollar condos. This is by no means ideal (in fact, in its own way, it's pretty lame), but at least middle and lower income people will be able to live in well-designed urban neighborhoods, and not have to move to Summerville, Awendaw, Goose Creek, etc.

[lsgchas]

How is it that the Charleston market is able to sustain housing costs that are so much higher than Columbia or Greenville?

It's because Charleston got cool. People around the country move here because they hear a lot of buzz about it. What a change! When I was growing up, you didn't move to Charleston unless it was because of a job. That was it. Period. I'm not trying to put down Columbia or Greenville, but I don't think people from around the country know much about those cities yet. At least not in a "Let's pack up and move somewhere cool and far away" sort of way. That seems to be why young people move here (those are the newcomers I mostly meet), but the same probably holds true for older people, especially retirees.

When I was living in NYC, I started talking to someone in a bar about the South. She said she'd heard Asheville and Charleston were cool. And guess what. Both are now boom towns, with a big influx of out-of-staters.

[Charleston native]

Urban, your secong to the last sentence hit the nail on the head. The Charleston job market does NOT (I am speaking from experience) pay enough to keep good people like me around. I simply couldn't afford it. I did my research, and was considering Augusta when this job in Columbia came through. A modest house for me in the dreamy Summerville area of Augusta was 1/3 the square footage cost of one in a noiser, slummier, sketchier part of Charleston. The choice to move was a "no-brainer." The amenities of the city are not as grand here, but I can play in Charleston anytime I want. Living in thriving Columbia and saving tons of $$ is very pleasing, and more than makes up for missing the history and beaches of Charleston. The Holy City has, in a sense, become its worst nightmare: a sort of theme park for vacationing only. Sigh . . I do hope that Magnolia and Noisette will fix that, and have reasonably priced housing for MIDDLE income folks to afford living and contributing to the vibrancy of an urban Charleston. In the meantime, I am quite happy with the manageable and cool city that is Columbia.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this assessment. I think the ability to afford living in Chas based on the job market is dependent on what your your occupation experience is. In Chas, there are plenty of jobs for people with experience in medicine, IT, and manufacturing/distribution industries. There is also a significant amount of opportunities for people with experience in defense contracting industries. And these jobs pay quite enough for their employees to love there.

To me, Chas offers a quality of life that no other city in SC can offer: coastal living with big city amenities, yet maintaining a small-town atmosphere in some parts. I prefer to drive 15-20 minutes to the beach, rivers, or parks rather than 2-3 hours living in Cola. I sincerely miss the beach, its beauty, and its many recreational offerings while I've lived here. Cola does offer comparable shopping and dining, but my hometown offers higher quality in those areas. The city is not a theme park for vacationing only, and I take issue with that statement. I could say a city like Cola is for business and politics only, but I will avoid harping on that issue.

Many of my once-single friends are marrying and purchasing homes in the old north area, and they have low-paying jobs. It's really a matter of analyzing the pros and cons of living in Chas and figuring out what you can live with.