Return to Basic Planning Tenets

By Winslow HastieWith the current pace of development and the fact that Charleston's population is growing at three times the national average, we will most likely hit a regional population of over a million people well before the projected time frame, reported by USA Today, of 2029. Throw into that mix the widespread concerns about flooding and sea level rise, traffic and congestion and housing affordability, and we’ve suddenly got serious “big city” problems for a metropolitan area that population is really not that large.Moving might be tempting, but it’s not the answer!Economic prosperity is good for Charleston. It creates opportunity. It also attracts people seeking opportunity. This is the deal: the people are coming. Historic Charleston Foundation’s role in this transition to a mid-size city is to advocate for management of this growth – to the extent we are able – to create a better region.The Foundation’s approach to reviewing projects on the peninsula is to work with developers and neighborhoods to ensure sound preservation, design and planning principles are followed. Architectural design aside, we have been supportive of many of the large residential and office projects on the peninsula. This may seem counter-intuitive, but for the most part, those buildings are located in transitional zones that lack historic character and could use the revitalization. More people living and working downtown is a good thing. If we can return our downtown to the vibrant center that it once was, then we can demand better transit (remember those cool old streetcars?), a more robust range of housing types, and benefit from a reduction in sprawl-induced traffic.However, as a city, it is past time to start thinking more regionally and focus on where these newcomers are going to live, the proximity of their work and schools to where they live, the options they have to move around, and demanding that all the cities and counties in our region have a commensurate focus on parks and open space, respect for historic character, the creation of full-spectrum housing, and an overall concern for community livability.Return to the BasicsTwo very basic rules need to be followed unequivocally: the allotment of density must be tied to infrastructure and our priceless natural fringes must be preserved. And, yes, that is despite of the crazy mega-developments already in the pipeline.We should also re-establish a focus on the New Urbanist concept of the “Transect:” as cities and towns radiate out, they historically segued into suburban and then rural zones. Ultimately these cities then tapered down from more dense and tall in the center to small-scaled buildings at the rural edges where greater value is placed on open space. We absolutely should not have huge apartment complexes on the outer sea islands and swampy periphery of our region.There is a reasonable alternative between the huge apartment complex and the single-family home—it’s often referred to as the “missing middle” in urban planning circles. Unfortunately, we don’t ever see these transitional housing types anymore—the duplexes, the courtyard apartments, the townhomes—it seems that zoning codes and developers have forgotten about these great solutions for introducing density into different zones of a community in a way that is much more compatible than dropping a massive mid-rise apartment buildings onto Johns Island.