HCF Pushes for Review of the BAR Height Amendments

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.