A Critical Moment: Union Pier Redevelopment

Posted: February 3, 2023

Proposed height plan for Union Pier Terminal, indicating the number of stories in each city-blocked sized building. 

On January 30, 2023, the State Ports Authority (SPA) and its L.A.-based development team, LOWE, shifted into high speed when they submitted their application for the redevelopment of Union Pier to the City of Charleston. While the speed and contents of the application are cause for concern, HCF supports the redevelopment of Union Pier Terminal in a way that reflects the community needs, exceptional design principles and values of this great historic city and her people. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to properly consider and develop an important piece of land into a vibrant new peninsula neighborhood that can be enjoyed by locals and visitors alike. But this effort needs to be intentional and should encompass the needs of a wider spectrum of Charlestonians. As a significant waterfront property that is in the public domain, the benefits of this redevelopment should be for the people in our community.

Historic Charleston Foundation has advocated, in detail, with the port and the city for such a plan. The application submitted, disappointingly, did not reflect the majority of Historic Charleston Foundation’s comments or suggestions. Because it is a state-owned public asset, HCF has argued that the plan for Union Pier should be approached differently than other private developments and should far exceed what a typical development would deliver.  And it must reflect the unique brand and values of Charleston in style, scale, architecture, and design. This prime real estate should be developed as a waterfront access point for all of the districts of Charleston. It can provide new restaurants as well as housing for a range of income levels. We can agree that for Charleston to keep its charm and continue to be one of the most profitable regions in the state, this development must not be a generic build of huge luxury condo buildings, hotels and retail space that is unwelcoming to the rest of the city and its residents. We expect the plan to be bold, visionary, and provide exceptional amenities to residents. This expectation has guided our thoughts and recommendations and approach to the redevelopment of this site. What is critical to remember is that we get one shot at this to be done properly. This cannot be done without adequate public input and a reasonable timeline for comment and due consideration.

Of grave concern is the speed with which this project is hurtling forward.  The Port hopes to have its plan approved by the city in June, and the land itself sold to a developer (or developers) by the end of this year. The city planning department is saddled by an outdated Comprehensive Plan and Peninsula Plan, and is therefore hampered without a vision or lens through which to adequately assess a plan for this valuable 70-acre waterfront land.  It is, therefore, even more essential that the city leads this process with thoughtful community engagement to fulfill the needs of our diverse and growing community.

In the end, no one will remember if this project took 6 – 9 months longer to allow for a community-first process. If, instead, the city allows the land to be developed to maximum capacity to achieve the financial objectives of the port and a few developers, it will have sold us all out for mediocrity.   That will be what future generations remember.

We look forward to continued engagement with you – the community – in this process to ensure that you are informed, and your voice is heard.

Or, send your comments directly to the redevelopment team here.  Continue reading for HCF’s high-level recommendations that were submitted to LOWE and the SPA.

Sincerely,

Winslow Hastie

P.S. You might have seen this opinion letter by Steve Bailey that the Post & Courier published over the weekend. If not, it’s thought-provoking, and I encourage you to read it!

Representation of the city-block size buildings in the proposed redevelop plan for Union Pier Terminal.

Historic Charleston Foundation’s Response to the Union Pier Plan, a summary:

The redevelopment of Union Pier Terminal is a critically important opportunity on the last 70 acres of undeveloped waterfront on the peninsula. Adjacent to two National Register Historic Districts, it is the largest proposed development project in the history of downtown. HCF is deeply invested in ensuring that this project is reflective of the design principles of our world-renowned city. Consequently, HCF has spent considerable time in meetings with the Port and LOWE to gain insight into and influence their redevelopment plans for Union Pier Terminal.

Like many of you, we attended the public engagement sessions held last fall and the Planning Commission meeting in mid-December, where the team presented their concept plan. We have reviewed, analyzed, and provided detailed feedback, given the highly schematic nature of the information that was presented. (Our full comment memo to SPA and LOWE can be accessed below.) We submitted these comments in the hope that they might meaningfully impact their master plan proposal.

Generally speaking, HCF would like to see a redevelopment proposal that appropriately relates to Charleston and reflects the diverse character of our exceptional city.

This week, the SPA and LOWE filed an application with the city to begin the city’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) process. Through the TRC process, the public is getting their first look at the PUD documents. TRC is an internal city committee that reviews site plans for compliance with city ordinances and is comprised of city department heads. Committed to a very swift timeframe, we expect the SPA to apply to the Planning Commission for consideration of this project in April or May, followed by City Council for final approval in June. Things are moving very quickly so we need people to get engaged!

Based upon our initial reviews of the re-zoning application, HCF’s high-level recommendations are:

Process – Focus on legacy implications and a high-quality, community-led process

• This parcel was designated as a “Future Planning Area” in the Charleston City Plan, and updates to that plan, including the Comprehensive Plan are seriously out of date.  Thus, the city should lead this process, rather than abdicating this responsibility to the Planning Commission and/or City Council who must now asses the merits of the plan without a vision or roadmap.

Heights and Massing

• Airflow and view corridors from the waterfront into the peninsula must be preserved and honored. The height district plan as a whole is too massive, blocky and tall. Heights should integrate modulated, smaller residential dwellings  interspersed with few larger buildings that don’t’ exceed 6 stories, and should scale down to 2.5-3 stories. Any 5 or 6-story buildings should be very limited and scattered across the site to create a modulated skyline and eliminate a “canyon effect” that blocks views to the water. Heights must be considered on a per lot basis, with limited maximum building footprints.  
• City blocks must  integrate with the neighboring National Register neighborhoods by using more alleys, and treating varied block shapes and sizes.  Large blocks should be broken up to add interest, human perspective, scale and pedestrian benefits.

Generous Open/Civic Space and Historic Context

• The amount of open space, parks, and civic space interspersed on the developable acreage should be generous and adhere to the city zoning code of 20% . Community and civic needs should drive the usage.  Is there a civic building and park that should be considered?
• The area around the Bennett Rice Mill façade should be more open with more breathing room; as an important historic relic of Charleston’s once thriving rice trade, which was based on the free labor of enslaved West Africans, this full history must be accurately researched, told memorialized by being linked, visually and physically, with the newly constructed International African American Museum situate on the site of Gadson Wharf. As the only historic remnant along this part of the waterfront, the rice mill façade should be the central axis for an open park corridor to the Cooper River, or considered as a pedestrian plaza or mall.
• The wharf park concept is preferred to that of the island park as it reflects historic precedent. Regardless, this park must be visually linked to Washington Street so that residents from on and off the peninsula have an inviting visual and safe pedestrian passage to the park.

Land Use – Should have a resident-focused perspective–inviting to locals on and off the peninsula.

• The PUD should include a significant amount of workforce and affordable housing equitably dispersed throughout the site (the 50 units proposed is extremely inadequate).
• Cap the number of hotel rooms at 300 with thoughtful consideration of views and impact on current residents of Charleston.
• We commend that the plan encourages a lively retail and restaurant corridor, and recognize that this will be additive for the city and the region.  We encourage that the focus remain resident-centric, rather than visitor centric.

Architecture

• This scale of this project, and location in the heart of a nationally renowned historic port city merits including architectural principles and design guidelines in the PUD documents.  All future development must also be subject to BAR approval.

Transportation

• Integrate multimodal mobility with CARTA transit stops, bike lanes, pedestrian-only rights-of-way, and future water taxi in the street diagrams.
• Add more street grid deflections to add visual interest, calm traffic speed, and be more consistent with the historic street grid of the lower peninsula. Wharf Street is a good start.

What are your thoughts on how Union Pier Terminal should be redeveloped? You may also send your comments directly to the redevelopment team here.

To read Historic Charleston Foundation’s full response to SPA and LOWE, follow the link: Union Pier Response

Bennett Rice Mill

3 responses to “A Critical Moment: Union Pier Redevelopment”

1. Trish Dare says:

   February 4, 2023 at 10:49 am

   I agree with the thoughtful questions and recommendations HCF has posed to SPA and LOWE. I would also like to stress to SPA and LOWE that it would be short-sighted to rush development plans that would permanently impact our beautiful and historic city.

   Thank you,
   Trish Dare

   Reply
2. Martha Stillman says:

   February 5, 2023 at 11:47 am

   I’m am appalled and disappointed in the lack of oversight of development in the Charleston area and particularly the Berkeley County and Summerville/ Nexton areas. Clean clearing of 100s of acres has no consideration for wildlife and native species of plants and trees. I have complained to planning and zoning and was told that Berkeley County has no “tree ordinance “. So the beautiful rural area that I purchased into is in danger of overdevelopment. The infrastructure has been overlooked and is no where near adequate for the development that is rapidly happening. All the rich dark soil from the many pine forests that have been clean cut has been removed and sold off. I’m sadder and unhappy with what is happening here. The charm of the area is rapidly being destroyed. Unfortunately we may have to relocate out of the area. Something must be done about this random overdevelopment like that in Mount Pleasant!

   Reply
3. Beatrice Bernier says:

   March 3, 2023 at 1:49 pm

   The drawings and sketches make it look like it is flat but they are raising the area 9ft from 6 ft (bottom of East bay) to 15ft about Washington street, and then building 6/7 floor height. Dont expect views to the sea unless you live in those buildings and issue of flood around the new hill?. There will be no housing ownership just rental (to garner the 6% tax instead of 4%) few locals will stay because it will by high rent most likely a lot of part timers from outside state. A lot of new traffic and cars in and around the new district that will be ok (they can handle in the district) but most of this traffic will come down East Bay creating a bottle neck along East Bay and so far no traffic calming and pedestrian crosswalks in the section from Charlotte street to base of Ravenel bridge, good luck crossing. The affordable component on site is a misery (50 units)and $8m in pot for housing elsewhere (a pittance). Yes there will be a park on the waterfront , and do you truly believe it will cost nothing to the residents in the future (who will maintain the public space, street network, and ensure continuous public access) ? it will be a new district , yes, just dont expect it to be a “Charleston neighborhood”. AS for the mill it will be surrounded by new tall buildings, at a minimum view corridors to the sea should to be preserved from East Bay where possible (and especially around the Mill.)

   Reply