|
Architecture debate stirs emotions
By Dan McCue
Staff Writer
To those who wage the battle over what constitutes appropriate development in Charleston’s historic district, the cause is nothing less than saving the city itself.
The threat is a host of proposed projects they contend will rent the fabric of the historic district and diminish one of the region’s key industries.
The city’s Board of Architectural Review has already given its endorsement to an eight-story hotel on the northwestern edge of Marion Square, the one-time Citadel parade ground that is now the historic district’s largest park.
On the other side of the square, an eight-story condominium and retail building is in the works, and not far away, the College of Charleston is building a new basketball arena, a new science building and an arts center addition.
At the same time, the city itself plans to redevelop the Mendel Rivers Federal Building site on Marion Square, as well as Ansonborough Fields, which could include two 50-room hotels, condos and other buildings.
And then there is the Clemson Architecture Center planned for George Street, the size and modern design of which have touched off public furor.
In this and subsequent articles in an ongoing, occasional series, the Business Journal will explore the issues of local architecture and how it influences the debate over future development.
“The debate over these things is what makes Charleston, Charleston,” said Kris King, manager of easements and technical outreach for the Historic Charleston Foundation. “While it’s very hard to find agreement on our aesthetic sentiments on some of these issues, it’s fantastic that people are so interested in it.”
To understand the debate, one first has to realize that there’s a difference between those who object to a project on preservationist grounds and those who advocate for only the classical or traditional design.
Charleston preservations contend that every structure should be true to its period while respecting the context into which it is placed. Traditionalists, on the other hand, come much closer to demanding that new structures emulate or harkens back to the era of their neighbors.
Peg Moore, of the Committee to Save the City, belongs to the latter way of thinking.
The committee made a name for itself in 2003 when it unveiled its “Vision for Marion Square,” a collaboration with a number of local architects that replaced contemporary structures around the square with buildings more in keeping with 19th century design.
“Before people consider what to do with a building or lot downtown, they should look at the city’s preservation ordinance,” Moore said. “The purpose of its introduction was to encourage the continued construction of historic styles.
“It doesn’t come out and explicitly say you can’t have a modernist style, but by its very requirements, that’s a forgone conclusion. There just isn’t a way to make a modernist building fit. No matter how you define it, modernism is an obsession with novelty.”
Moore is among those who contend classicalism is coming back in style in many American cities, pointing to Nashville, among other cities, where the new public library in downtown and its newest concert hall were built in a classical rather than modernist style.
That challenge to classicalisms spread, she said, isn’t developers who say bigger is more profitable and therefore better, but the fact that many architects now at the peak of their careers, simply don’t have a firm grounding in its principles.
“Today’s architects, many of whom are absolutely wonderful, came up when modernism was at its height,” Moore said. “As a result, they’re having to learn about and bring classical style into their work themselves. It’s going to happen, but of course, it’s going to take time. It’s like learning to speak Greek. You can’t just will yourself to be able to do it by Thursday.”
Because it will take time for the renaissance of classicalism to catch up to projects now in the approval pipeline, it’s critical that her group and others use every opportunity to keep the issue before the public, Moore said.
“What we need to do is keep talking about the subject, keep educating and keep reminding people from an economic perspective it’s important to treat the downtown like one of our sacred places,” Moore said. “Remember, it’s the downtown that stamped Charleston with the image it has in the public mind.”
But for all the fervor of someone like Moore, there are others who think the issues are bigger than traditional vs. contemporary. Among them is Eddie Bello, Charleston’s city architect and preservation officer.
“To me, the far bigger issue is just that we have a lot of growth in the city,’ said Bello, who oversees the city’s Department of Design, Development and Preservation. “What you’re hearing when people discuss these issues is people struggling with the management of that growth.”
Bello thinks the development proposals that are on the table now are nothing but indicative that Charleston is healthy and people want to live and work here.
“But adjusting to that change that comes with growth is difficult,” he said. “I grew up here. I understand the concern that we are losing our scale.”
While Bello can understand why some Charlestonians say, “No more big buildings,” they also need to understand that property owners should be allowed to build on their property, he said.
“The challenge we’re all confronting is that we’re going to have to have some larger buildings if we are going to stay a vibrant city,” Bello said. “If we could all just get to that point, then we can go on to the next and, I think, vitally important stage of ensuring that what we do wind up with is good architecture.”
But what exactly is “good” architecture?
The definition changes depending upon the location, Bello said.
“To me, the issue with architecture is that it should work well within the context of the surroundings in which it’s placed,” he explained. “Now, that doesn’t mean that all new buildings that go up in the historic district should look like they date from the 19th century; what it does mean is the buildings should be made from excellent materials and the forms should work well with what’s around it.
“Personally, I think you can do that with both really good traditional architecture or really good contemporary design.”
The members of the Historic Charleston Foundation, preservationists rather than traditionalists, tend to agree with that sentiment.
“We’re not, as a rule, against contemporary design; we think the debate is a lot more complex than simply pitting traditional against contemporary,” King said. “What we want is to ensure that every building that goes up in the historic district is as excellent as it can be and that means in terms of form, mass, material and detail.”
King points to King Street as the city’s laboratory for what works architecturally in Charleston. “Everybody says King Street is an encyclopedia of styles, and that’s something we hope to see continue in the city over time,” he said. “To have every building look like it was built in the 1700s would cheapen the value of the buildings that really are that old.
“Personally, I think one thing our tourists respond to very favorably is being able to look at different buildings and be able to identify their respective eras,” he continued. “The key, of course, is to have property owners and the people they hire to design and build their structures respect the context and ensure the very best in detail and material.”
It would be wonderful if the law could settle the question of what is appropriate for downtown Charleston independent of sensitive natures, but that’s not the case, according to Jennifer McStotts, preservation law professor at the College of Charleston.
“Coming up with a code that would satisfy the debate over what’s appropriate in terms of architecture is very difficult to do,” McStotts said. “The best way, probably, would be to have an ordinance mandating compatible design, but even then, you’re going to want to have a little fudge room so that you don’t wind up with endlessly repetitious buildings.”
According to McStotts, most land-use law tends to be aspirational. “You’re trying to accomplish a certain goal and the law helps you get there,” she said. “Where it gets tricky is when you use the law to guide styles that normally evolve naturally. That’s when you get disputes over what’s good, what’s bad and what do people really appreciate.
“Unfortunately, the reality is no matter how you structure the law or the building, not everyone is going to like it,” she said.
Dan McCue is a staff writer for the Business Journal. E-mail him at dmccue@charlestonbusiness.com.
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version