Menu
© Historic Charleston Foundation
Posted: July 2, 2018
When City Council adopted amendments to the BAR in 2017 that changed the design review process and height districts across the peninsula, it was with the stated intention that the new regulations would be assessed after a six-month period. The Foundation is calling on the city to begin its overdue analysis of these changes, particularly in light of the recent conceptual approval of development plans for the former Hughes Lumber site at 82 Mary Street. HCF staff believe the process is clearly not working the way in which it was intended.
On June 13th the BAR-L gave conceptual approval to the design below for a new office building at 82 Mary Street, the old Hughes Lumber site. The BAR-L granted a partial approval despite resounding opposition from Historic Charleston Foundation, the Preservation Society, and the Cannonborough-Elliotborough neighborhood association, who all argued that the design was both unattractive and inappropriate. This design does not meet the dictates of the new guidelines as they relate to materials, fenestration, response to the environment, or use of detail and articulation, to name a few. Even more troubling, the BAR-L is willing to consider awarding this project an extra story of height for “architectural merit,” demonstrating a significant divide between the community and the BAR.
82 Mary Street Proposal
82 Mary Street Proposal
82 Mary Street Proposal
Historic Charleston Foundation is very concerned that the BAR-L is not sufficiently applying the new BAR architectural guidelines developed by Andres Duany’s DPZ Partners and adopted by the City last year. HCF contributed both financially and substantively to the development of the guidelines, and they were explicitly intended to prevent architecture like the above from being allowed in the center of Charleston’s historic district. We believe that, if applied correctly, the guidelines should prohibit buildings like this from being approved.
Historic Charleston Foundation is presently advocating for this design to be improved significantly and for the BAR guidelines to be revisited and potentially strengthened. We hope that with further clarification and instruction the BAR-L and BAR-S will feel both bound and empowered to deny inappropriate designs like this one right from the start.
View More
We visit beautiful, historic Charleston every spring. Please, please do not allow the historic integrity of one of the most beautiful cities in the world be compromised by building structures that are not in character with the rest of the city. The core of Charleston’s charm and appeal rests with the beautiful architecture.
Thank you for spearheading concern over this proposed architecturally jarring building.
The 82 Mary Street proposal is not inherently a bad design, it simply is inappropriate in size and style within the context of the historic peninsula and its urban neighbors.
Clearly, the BAR-L and BAR-S decision makers need to heed local input and HCF needs to be more forceful in clarifying what the intended guidelines as developed by Andres Duany’s DPZ Partners, which were adopted by the City. Who’s responsible for interpreting these guidelines?! I would have thought that common sense would play an important part!
Much too tall and massive. This design does not compliment our historic city and is better suited in New York or
Chicago. Not a very appealing building. I say no and please keep opposing this development
Agree! It is terrible!
It concerns me that if the present building continues Charleston will look like any other city and loose its charm. No building should be higher than the steeples of the beautiful churches in Charleston. if the building of hotels keeps up Charleston is going to be changed forever. Buildings should blend in with the architecture that is around them and not stand out like a sore thumb. There is always going to be growth but growth with planning is one thing and growth with no planning is another. I think the city father’s better wake up.
I am a visitor to the charleston area from mn. I come every 2 years because of the architecture the ambiance..to allow a bldg of this nature disrupts what i come for.
Should the city change what makes charleston special?
I can go to many big cities other …you start building this way i have no reason to visit…bad decision.
I will spend more time in savannah,and other pristine cities who realize the impt of maintaining real history.
It seems that the hotel proposed adjacent to this site at the corner of Meeting & Mary should be shown in the rendering of this proposed development. The combination of these two structures could easily overwhelm the sites and give too much latitude to future submittals on nearby Meeting Street property. BAR decisions are too subjective. Tighter rules will give more guidance and counter, hopefully, much of the subjectivity.
Bravo! The quickest way to destroy the historical look and feel of Charleston is to allow developers to build something like that. Stand your ground HCF!
I agreee
I agree
Another terrible decision. Why are board members letting the citizens down? So upsetting. …
This design is unsightly. It clearly does not fit into the historic character of the city. Such a shame that architects are clamoring to build modern buildings in a city that prides itself on its historical beauty.
Although we live in Arizona, we visited beautiful Charleston twice this year. Tourists visit the city and contribute to the Charleston economy in part because of the city’s historic character. The proposed building at 82 Mary Street clearly appears to be inappropriate for the historical center of Charleston. Economic development can be consistent with historic preservation. However, completion of the proposed project would be a seriously regrettable mistake.
Stay on top of this problem. Charleston has too much development going on in the historic district
Cranes everywhere. Charleston has lost its local charm. Time to slow it down
The board also needs to set up guidelines for the interiors of historic homes. So much is being lost when people buy a historic home on the exterior but try to change the interior into a modern floor plan. Never will understand why anyone would buy a historic home if they didn’t like history. Can’t replace these wonderful homes
I do not feel this design should be approved at all!!!! It in no way reflects
What people love and visit historic Charleston to see!!!!!!
Why doesn’t the owner and architect just paint a big middle finger on the side of the building? It makes the historic building which is left look so pitiful.
I visit Charleston once or twice a year and I am horrified at thought of such a building. What are they thinking?
I am not impressed with the members currently sitting on the BAR-L. This city used to have some crack-shot members who care about this city. and preserving it. I heard that the bar asked the developer to come up with something new and interesting. Someone has very poor taste. This building is not even cohesive from one side to the next. Shame!
I am continually disappointed in the new structures and developements that are popping up all over the peninsula. What is happening to the Charleston we all love and cherish?? I can not believe what the BAR is allowing to be built both too dense and aesthetically unappealing! Shame on the bar!!!! This little gem of a historic city will be changed forever!! It’s a treasure we can not afford to lose.
I was always under the impression that the BAR was the guardian of Charleston’s historic fabric. In the past 20 years, I have observed its approval of distinctly modern buildings that, through negotiation with developers, blend seamlessly into what makes Charleston unique. Should this design for 82 Mary Street come to fruition, it will signal to other developers that the BAR will not be a hindrance to their plans to remake our city. I am reminded of a 1950’s New Yorker cartoon showing two women talking: “Let’s go to Boston. I hear they are tearing it down and putting something else up.”
We own a second house in Charleston on Morris Street, so very close to this building. When you cross over King street from Mary it becomes Morris. While this design is very nice for Charlotte or any other modern city, The architecture is a way to modern for the Charleston peninsula. I don’t think you can start from this design and make it fit into Charleston. They should go back to the drawing board.
Please HCF – tell us how to gather and help you all advocate and fight this terrible building! If BAR approves this – what’s next? What are some ideas on how we can help get the BAR in alignment with you and the other preservation organizations – whose integrity and philosophies have built our amazing city?
Please do not ruin the architectural integrity of that area. It is one of the most ‘neighborhoodlike’ areas left- Mazyck-Wraggborough and Radcliffborough enighborhoods.
Though many of the older black families have been pushed out it has still some character and openess that should be left. An office building to that proportion is totally out of place for a residential area. The building is too high and massive for that site anyway – architecturally speaking. The plans look atrocious for Charleston – maybe not downtown Columbia.
The City Council seems to have become overwhelmed with growth tax ‘fixes’ over last years left over from promises of last mayor. He certainly did many good but the momentum of more and more approvals for larger complexes , i.e. the former Sargent Jasper site, overwhelm the site. Let alone that it is being built on infill land and flooding there is a big problem. They build the building, but what happens when the road is so flooded and people can’t get through and business and residents are angry???
I have been to some meetings for the Short term rental discussions. As most City Councils the politics and bureaucracy of ‘agendas’ dominate and real concerns are barely discussed. Perhaps this is why this building on Mary Street -planning was allowed and height discussions and the past regulations are not put together.
I have lived in Charleston for only 2.5 years and have seen a big difference in ‘liveablilty’ – decreasing and more traffic.
In a capitalist environment, I hope the Hughes Lumber owners were not forced to move, but I do not know.They should have made a small fortune if they were paid properly.
But aren’t developers savvy enough to evaluate the projections of nearly full occupancy and tax breaks to reality of the day. One wonders when most of them are from out of town. Is that type of growth fiscally sustainable in the huge growth statistics for the last 15 years in this area. Blinders are on as they were in the ‘market crash’ of 2007-8 perhaps.
Of course City Council people want to ‘keep’ their jobs/power and seem to be only trying to get more tax revenue because they are in the ‘hole’ now. Not even enough public money available to even do minor flood control and keep up the parks, etc.
Of course, we( preservationists and concerned citizens) know the saturation point has started. I wish I could say how to make the City Council and others see the ‘reality’. But they are motivated by $$. Fair enough in a capitalist environment, but the balance is all one way – to the $ side.
I lived in middle England d for many years until 2.5 years ago – in beautiful , historic towns where easy commutablility to London has marked significant growth in those towns. Height restrictions were not the problem, but the amount of new residential communities (thousands of homes in one swoop) being built were. The very same type of problems that City Councils there allowed all the planning to receive tax money but the bare bones improvements in infrastructure, grocery stores, medical facilities, and roads barely came many years later . A similiar disconnect as I see here.
Perhaps other types of growth and investment are needed , like flooding protection, better roads, better housing for people working in high rent businesses so they too can live closer to where they work. Have offices further north( upper Morrison) and build parking areas for them. Have/keep the center area of Charleston( what is now Upper King to the Battery) for liveability – blend of residential integrity and tourist businesses. No more development here – we cannot have another high rise building!! They don’t blend in architecturally anyway. Let alone tourists will start turning away as congestion and prices become so unattractive. But – how to convince others is the big question?
I
Bravo for opposing a design that is completely at odds with the character of the city and shame on the BAR for failing to enforce its mandate. The developer should be the one who is truly ashamed for foisting this on the city in which he lives. The interview in which he tries to defend the building is a tragi-comedy. This building – and the developer – belongs in Charlotte or Atlanta. I’ll buy him a first class ticket provided it is one-way.
oppose, oppose, oppose. Between the massive amount of tourists, the short term rental problem, and the developers licking their chops, you are going to lose this city. It happens just a little bit at a time, and you CANNOT go backward. Please please slow down, and be very intentional about what stays and is built. It’s not a big area, and everything big that is built, eats up quite a %, not to mention the soul of the peninsula…and don’t even get me started on the cruise ships…
I think we need to get some new BAR members.