Greater Charleston Projects & Developments

[krazeeboi]

^Good points, lsgchas.

Again, there's no dispute that the Charleston metro area is growing; it's the fastest growing among the Big Three. But I think it's also important to point out that those 113,000 homes planned for the area are spread out over several years--that being the case, not all of these residential projects will materialize. That seems to be the nature of the real estate beast. As CorgiMatt says, only time will tell. That said, I think the P&C article actually made some good points, especially about realtors believing the "fact" that the homes in the area are 7% undervalued (even after the corrected info has been made available). But when you have a lot of relocation within the metro area, that may indeed inflate the perception of growth.

[Charleston native]

Another thing they "forgot" to mention was the base closure, that was like 18,000 jobs gone. My family is one of the originally from here and moved back also.

Exactly! Great point, Mike. The base closure was the biggest thing that inhibited Charleston's growth in the 90s, no doubt about it. The 90s were great for Cola and G'ville, but they didn't lose their biggest employers. I need to remember that next time some people here post the growth rates. Here's the main thing to consider: Chas lost 18,000 jobs, went through a major hurricane, and still grew! I think this says alot about how fast Chas is growing.

To lsg's point: you do have a good one, but it is missing a key element. I could be mistaken, but I think you're looking for the major company announcements for these new jobs. I think you're looking for several companies to bring in 1,000 or 10,000 jobs at a time. However, what many people here seem to forget is that the majority of American business is small business. It's the little companies or stores that hire 5-10 people. It's small companies, practices, and start-up firms. Or it could be firms branching out. The bottomline is that the jobs are there...again, look at every hospital and bank in the metro area. Almost all of them are expanding with significant additions to their facilities and additional branches; plus, a major bank (SunTrust) is going to start a major competition in the market by building 16 branches throughout the metro area. These things would not happen if Chas was not experiencing a boom.

[Infinite1]

the article also conviently focuses on berkeley and dorchester county relocations while ignoring that more than half the people who moved to the core county , Charleston county, came from out of the area.

Also, the assertion that people are merely shuffling themselves around within the tri-county regioin does not seem to hold water. If that were indeed the case, then you would think that there would be a glut of smaller homes in older subdivisions left on the market. The truth is the opposite. Older homes on James Island and West Ashley (the first suburbs) are selling like hotcakes. So all these people must be moving out of apartnments then right??? Except aprtment vacancy rates are decreasing and more units are being added. Their numbers just don't seem to add up. Show me the areas these poeple who are shuffling are leaving vacant.

[Charleston native]

^ Infinite1, I want to shake your hand. Fantastic point! There are virtually no vacancies for these older properties and West Ashley, James Island, even northern parts of DT show this. The P & C has never reported any vacancies, especially lately. As a matter of fact, there has been concern for the lack of available rental properties and apartments in recent articles. Again, great point.

[vicupstate]

I read this article last night, and the issue that Infinite1 makes occurred to me too. You can't move up without selling the house you already own. I think the move-up market gets even hotter in hot markets, because the people that live there see what is going on. They figure they need to make their move before it costs even more the next year. Therefore, they stretch themselves to move up sooner than they had originally planned.

The hugh increases in property values of the last few years in Florida and Charleston and other markets nationwide will cool off. Interest rates are up somewhat, and incomes are not keeping up. The real question is will things actually drop somewhat or just cool and level off. It looks to me to be the latter.

I don't have much background knowledge of IRS records/numbers, but I know Census bureau numbers can be way off.

Take these two examples:

In 1990 Columbia had a census population of 110,734. The 1998 census estimate put the poulation at 110,840. When the 20000 census came out, the population was 116,000.

In 1990 Charleston had a census count of 88,256. The 1998 census estimate put the poulation at 87,044, a loss of nearly 1,200. When the 2000 census was taken, it showed 96,600. Obviously the bureau missed not only the number, but the direction of the change. There population estimates have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[CorgiMatt]

Exactly! Great point, Mike. The base closure was the biggest thing that inhibited Charleston's growth in the 90s, no doubt about it. The 90s were great for Cola and G'ville, but they didn't lose their biggest employers. I need to remember that next time some people here post the growth rates. Here's the main thing to consider: Chas lost 18,000 jobs, went through a major hurricane, and still grew! I think this says alot about how fast Chas is growing.

To lsg's point: you do have a good one, but it is missing a key element. I could be mistaken, but I think you're looking for the major company announcements for these new jobs. I think you're looking for several companies to bring in 1,000 or 10,000 jobs at a time. However, what many people here seem to forget is that the majority of American business is small business. It's the little companies or stores that hire 5-10 people. It's small companies, practices, and start-up firms. Or it could be firms branching out. The bottomline is that the jobs are there...again, look at every hospital and bank in the metro area. Almost all of them are expanding with significant additions to their facilities and additional branches; plus, a major bank (SunTrust) is going to start a major competition in the market by building 16 branches throughout the metro area. These things would not happen if Chas was not experiencing a boom.

There are more businesses in Columbia and more people to start more businesses. Home grown businesses are the wave of the future. Some manufacturing might still come in from other states, but the bulk of the growth will be home grown, fueled largely by research institutions. One demographic fact that gets overlooked is that many people are migrating to capitals and university towns and cities.

[krazeeboi]

I read this article last night, and the issue that Infinite1 makes occurred to I don't have much background knowledge of IRS records/numbers, but I know Census bureau numbers can be way off.

Take these two examples:

In 1990 Columbia had a census population of 110,734. The 1998 census estimate put the poulation at 110,840. When the 20000 census came out, the population was 116,000.

In 1990 Charleston had a census count of 88,256. The 1998 census estimate put the poulation at 87,044, a loss of nearly 1,200. When the 2000 census was taken, it showed 96,600. Obviously the bureau missed not only the number, but the direction of the change. There population estimates have to be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't doubt that Census numbers can be off; recently, Fulton County challenged the Census Bureau about its population numbers, and the Bureau, from what I understand, adjusted its figures accordingly. However, we must also remember that we're dealing with SC cities here. The population changes you speak of over that 10 year period are insignificant when compared with those of other cities.

[Charleston native]

There are more businesses in Columbia and more people to start more businesses. Home grown businesses are the wave of the future. Some manufacturing might still come in from other states, but the bulk of the growth will be home grown, fueled largely by research institutions. One demographic fact that gets overlooked is that many people are migrating to capitals and university towns and cities.

*sigh* More businesses are moving to Chas and people are starting their own businesses there as well. I believe more people are moving to the coast than inland areas, and that's a fact. Why is it I have to constantly defend Chas? Why is it that people up here in Cola think Chas is a sleepy, historic town and always will be? Chas is a college town as well...C of C, The Citadel, MUSC.

As a matter of fact, check this article out. Already, MUSC research has helped create a biotech company, First String Research. Already, other biotech companies are working with MUSC researchers and locating to Chas for close proximity. Creation of this anti-scarring gel will prove very profitable and quicken the growth of the biotech industry cluster. Have we forgotten the Vought plant? It has already fostered another company to locate in Chas to provide bearings for the planes...and it hasn't even been completed, yet!

[Spartan]

Good points Charleston native. I can't think of any Cola people who thought of Charleston as a sleepy tourist town. But that coudl just be me.

I think Charleston has a bright future.

[krazeeboi]

Good point about the biotech industry in Charleston. MUSC is certainly one Charleston's big advantages.

[CorgiMatt]

*sigh* More businesses are moving to Chas and people are starting their own businesses there as well. I believe more people are moving to the coast than inland areas, and that's a fact. Why is it I have to constantly defend Chas? Why is it that people up here in Cola think Chas is a sleepy, historic town and always will be? Chas is a college town as well...C of C, The Citadel, MUSC.

As a matter of fact, check this [url="http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=71458

[Charleston native]

Sorry, I thought I have been defending Columbia all this time. Like I said before I have always thought that Charlestonians assume Charleston is superior to Columbia. I'm not sure why the intense desire to see Charleston pass Columbia in size...

I guess the main reason is that Chas was the state's first city. It was also the 4th largest city in the US from the late 1700s to the early 1800s. Maybe natives like me want Chas to be what it used to be in size, in comparability to other major cities, and in importance to the country. I know this may never happen, but maybe the city can regain some parts of what it had.

The bottomline is that Chas needed to be defended after the P & C article which you earlier mentioned. The article had many holes and faulty points, yet several people here ate it up. Cola wasn't even an issue.

[lsgchas]

the article also conviently focuses on berkeley and dorchester county relocations while ignoring that more than half the people who moved to the core county , Charleston county, came from out of the area.

This is a good point. I noticed this too when I read the article a second time. The P&C should have pointed this out. I'm glad, however, that they're finally getting to the math behind our housing boom. I would have rather seen (and have been waiting to see) a break-down of how many houses are already on the books and compare it to what we'll need according to population growth estimates. I've been thinking of doing the math myself, but I've been lazy. But using the census number projected for 2030 (800,000 residents, an increase of 200,000), and looking at the number of new homes already approved (133,000+), you can see pretty quicky the problem.... There are almost as many new houses already approved as there are individual people expected to move here in the next 25 years. I mean, can't even the most mentally deficient politician see there's a problem with that? Yeh, you may say that the census numbers are BS, but let's double them. Let's say 400,000 new people move here in the next 25 years. Then let's assume that each household holds 3 people (that's even lowballing the average), then you still have all the houses you'll need in the next 25 years already approved.

The people in charge of making decisions on zoning can't seem to find the off switch when it comes to approving new developments. Maybe this is just a pro-business bias on their part, maybe they're afraid of what will happen to the economy when all the people who jumped on the real estate bandwagon face a slowdown, maybe they're just short-sighted politicians. But why sacrifice important rural areas or overburden infrastructure when we already have enough houses on the books? This is what infuriates people in the Lowcountry. No, you don't here many of their voices here, but then again, as much as I like this board, it has the rep of being a developers' amen corner.

[Spartan]

Just becasue houses are approved doesn't mean that they will be built. Not everything thing will be spec houses.

[krazeeboi]

The bottomline is that Chas needed to be defended after the P & C article which you earlier mentioned. The article had many holes and faulty points, yet several people here ate it up. Cola wasn't even an issue.

While the article may not have been entirely accurate on some points, I don't think the intent was to portray Charleston as a declining urban disaster, nor did any of us take it that way. And as it has been reaffirmed over and over, Charleston is the fastest growing of our largest metros; that is a fact. Charleston has also experienced the largest job increases for the past 5 years; that is also a fact. But at the same time, everyone isn't breaking his/her neck trying to move to the SC Lowcountry. I never did think the nature of Charleston's growth was any different than that of Columbia's or Greenville's, which is why I was quite surprised when I saw the number of houses planned for the metro area for the next several years. And to repeat our mantra here, we will just have to wait and see what materializes and what doesn't. No matter what, I still wish Charleston nothing but the best.

[Charleston native]

...The people in charge of making decisions on zoning can't seem to find the off switch when it comes to approving new developments. Maybe this is just a pro-business bias on their part, maybe they're afraid of what will happen to the economy when all the people who jumped on the real estate bandwagon face a slowdown, maybe they're just short-sighted politicians. But why sacrifice important rural areas or overburden infrastructure when we already have enough houses on the books? This is what infuriates people in the Lowcountry. No, you don't here many of their voices here, but then again, as much as I like this board, it has the rep of being a developers' amen corner.

It may have that reputation, but for good reason. For many years, preservationists virtually obstructed ANY new development DT and thus, affecting the need to build away from the urban core. Many people in the Lowcountry don't seem to get it: if you inhibit development in the urban core of a popular, beautiful, coastal city which is growing economically (prohibiting taller buildings, demanding constant architectural changes, stalling projects for 3-5 years), the only solution for developers to satisfy high demand is to build in suburban areas and the outlying rural areas.

Prohibiting development in the suburban and rural areas can drive builders to focus on infill developments, but builders really like to go where the land is cheaper and there are less constraints on how and what they build (architecture, etc.). If area leaders block developers in this way, the economy will suffer. You think real estate prices down there are bad now? Imagine what they'll do when you can't build anywhere else.

For years, Chas has been inhibited in its growth. As it is starting to boom, I think people are finally realizing the city's full potential.

[lsgchas]

It may have that reputation, but for good reason. For many years, preservationists virtually obstructed ANY new development DT and thus, affecting the need to build away from the urban core.

I thought the more interesting part of the post was that our municipalities have approved more than enough enough houses for the next 25 years, but developers are still pushing for more. Somehow you thought I was talking about preservationists and their views about building taller buildings downtown.

[Charleston native]

Well, I was explaining that developers are pushing for more developments further out merely because of the preservationist "rule" in and around DT. And since DT gets alot of revenue from tourism and property taxes, the other suburban municipalities approve the massive house building to rake in more money for themselves. I blame this massive build-out on the preservationists because if they didn't provide so much obstructionism, DT could be built taller and denser, reducing the need to build further out in the other suburbs.

[digital_sandlapper]

Well, I was explaining that developers are pushing for more developments further out merely because of the preservationist "rule" in and around DT. And since DT gets alot of revenue from tourism and property taxes, the other suburban municipalities approve the massive house building to rake in more money for themselves. I blame this massive build-out on the preservationists because if they didn't provide so much obstructionism, DT could be built taller and denser, reducing the need to build further out in the other suburbs.

Preservationists aren't soley to blame for that, Chas. Native! Better schools, cheaper taxes, more shopping choices, proximity to employment, (and even intolerance of minorities, let's face it), are much more to "blame" for suburban sprawl.

I credit the preservationists for many, many good things, but they aren't infallible, of course. They certainly can impede growth, as you said. But, as you also said, things have gotten better, and Charleston is booming, but in a smart way (though not always--but a heck of a lot smarter than most.)

I am optimistic that, in the end, history will prove that 20th- and 21st-Century Charlestonians will be judged as having done an excellent job of planning and of stewardship for the city we all love.

[vicupstate]

Preservationists aren't soley to blame for that, Chas. Native! Better schools, cheaper taxes, more shopping choices, proximity to employment, (and even intolerance of minorities, let's face it), are much more to "blame" for suburban sprawl.

I credit the preservationists for many, many good things, but they aren't infallible, of course. They certainly can impede growth, as you said. But, as you also said, things have gotten better, and Charleston is booming, but in a smart way (though not always--but a heck of a lot smarter than most.)

I am optimistic that, in the end, history will prove that 20th- and 21st-Century Charlestonians will be judged as having done an excellent job of planning and of stewardship for the city we all love.

Couldn't have said it better myself digital!!

If the historic areas that were preserved had been allowed to be demolished, they would have merely been replaced with suburban style office buildings, etc. The tremendous density that exists there now, would have been lost. The reasons you listed are indeed the causes of sprawl, not preservation. Preservation has allowed the city to return to glory, thus putting a brake on sprawl.

[digital_sandlapper]

This is a good point. I noticed this too when I read the article a second time. The P&C should have pointed this out. I'm glad, however, that they're finally getting to the math behind our housing boom. I would have rather seen (and have been waiting to see) a break-down of how many houses are already on the books and compare it to what we'll need according to population growth estimates. I've been thinking of doing the math myself, but I've been lazy. But using the census number projected for 2030 (800,000 residents, an increase of 200,000), and looking at the number of new homes already approved (133,000+), you can see pretty quicky the problem.... There are almost as many new houses already approved as there are individual people expected to move here in the next 25 years. I mean, can't even the most mentally deficient politician see there's a problem with that? Yeh, you may say that the census numbers are BS, but let's double them. Let's say 400,000 new people move here in the next 25 years. Then let's assume that each household holds 3 people (that's even lowballing the average), then you still have all the houses you'll need in the next 25 years already approved.

The people in charge of making decisions on zoning can't seem to find the off switch when it comes to approving new developments. Maybe this is just a pro-business bias on their part, maybe they're afraid of what will happen to the economy when all the people who jumped on the real estate bandwagon face a slowdown, maybe they're just short-sighted politicians. But why sacrifice important rural areas or overburden infrastructure when we already have enough houses on the books? This is what infuriates people in the Lowcountry. No, you don't here many of their voices here, but then again, as much as I like this board, it has the rep of being a developers' amen corner.

Thank you, lsgchas! You are so absolutely right about this ridiculous overbuilding in Charleston and other cities of our state and across America. We need county councils and other decision-makers to find that damn "off" switch, indeed! But it'll never happen . . They get intoxicated and their judgment impaired by the swirl of dollar signs spewed forth by the speculators (modern-day carpetbaggers?) The rural areas will continue to be sacrificed by the greedy, and infrastructure will continue to cost us all dearly. And there's little we can do about it . . unless. . . we can change the attitude of perhaps just one person, and then there'll be a sea-change. I'm actually optimistic. REdevelopment makes economic sense, the developers are starting to come around . . though it may take those west coast investors mentioned earlier. Too bad my own home state doesn't have too many progressive thinkers like John Knott, Robert Clement, Joe Riley, and the guys at Civitas (ALL Charlestonians, Native Chas.)

I am, like many others here you may be surprised to know, NOT taking part in a developers' amen corner! I do, however, support smart growth. I'On, Magnolia, Noisette, Daniel Island . . these are good. Cainhoy, Goose Creek, Summerville, etc., etc. . . . bad.

Also, I DO NOT dream of a Charleston anywhere approaching the size and dumb growth sprawl of Atlanta or any other MEGApollitan area. What a nightmarish thought! I want it to thrive, but not if the cost is its unique sense of place, its local culture, and its built and natural beauty which gives it such a special prominence in the America we all love.

[digital_sandlapper]

Couldn't have said it better myself digital!!

If the historic areas that were preserved had been allowed to be demolished, they would have merely been replaced with suburban style office buildings, etc. The tremendous density that exists there now, would have been lost. The reasons you listed are indeed the causes of sprawl, not preservation. Preservation has allowed the city to return to glory, thus putting a brake on sprawl.

Vicupstate, I couldn't agree more. Preservation, and the role Charleston has played in its founding and incredible flourishing in this country, is one of the things that Charleston and its residents should be the MOST proud of. We should not only acknowledge this, but blatantly celebrate it!

It really continues to be a bastion of strength in this realm, as it should be. Remember Charleston's motto: "She protects her buildings and . . ." I just wish I could afford to live in it, instead of just be a tourist as if I were an outsider! Well, I guess I am . . [sigh . . . ]

[Spartan]

Thats a great point. The preservation effort in Charleston was the first of its kind in the nation. The city owes its success to those efforts. That said, it should not be blinded by them. Even its contemporary sister cities like Boston and New Orleans have allowed some more modern construction.

[krazeeboi]

^And also Savannah, which is building modern buildings downtown.

[lsgchas]

I think using Boston and Savannah as role models is a big step down for Charleston. Charleston is the best at historic preservation, much better than either of those cities. Charleston's plan to place large buildings around Marion Square and along Upper Meeting Street is much more intelligent than Savannah's haphazard way of building taller buildings smack in the middle of their most historic areas. And to make it worse, most of Savannah's taller buildings are major eyesores. And Boston? That's like comparing apples and oranges. Only the most historic and famous of Boston's colonial buildings still remain, which was probably unavoidable considering Boston's huge population and commercial importance.

Personally, I tend to be sympathetic to the preservation movement in Charleston, but I think some of the groups are wasting their ammunition on projects that won't seriously diminish Charleston's charm. I say some because not all preservationists are against the taller buildings around Marion Square. However, to understand what life would be like without the preservation movement, you only need to look at some of the horrible losses Charleston suffered when their influence was not as strong. Take the Charleston Orphan House for instance, which used to stand at the corner of Calhoun and St. Phillip. It was considered the most imposing building in Charleston, built in 1794, but it was torn down in the 1950's to make way for a Sears & Roebucks. At the time, the preservationists fought hard, but lost. Now the site is used for unoffensive, but rather bland C of C dorms. Imagine if the college had use of this building instead.