Editorial: Don't approve Union Pier without trying National Trust proposal

The Charleston Planning Commission will meet at 5 p.m. Wednesday to review several ordinance changes to accommodate new development on Union Pier, the State Ports Authority's 64-acre site on the Cooper River. File/Gavin McIntyre/Staff

The proposed redevelopment of Charleston's Union Pier has been subject to a bevy of public meetings, forums and information sessions before it faces its first crucial milestone this week, as the Charleston Planning Commission meets at 5 p.m. Wednesday at the Ports Authority Passenger Terminal at the southern tip of the pier site.

The commission's job is to listen to the public and consider the pros and cons before making a nonbinding recommendation to Charleston City Council, which will make the final decision on whether to approve the planned unit development zoning, comprehensive plan amendment and height and accommodations zoning ordinance amendments.

We don't believe the commission will have enough information to make a responsive recommendation at this point. And we are far from alone. The city's neighborhood and advocacy groups have expressed similar worries about the plan: Its buildings would be too tall, it would be too dense with too little open space, and it would have too many hotel rooms and not enough affordable housing on the 64-acre site.

Such concerns ultimately led the National Trust for Historic Preservation to include Charleston's historic neighborhoods around Union Pier on its annual 11 Most Endangered Historic Places list. Importantly, the trust also has floated a promising way forward that could address these problems.

Katherine Malone-France, the trust's chief preservation officer, has asked the city staff and the Planning Commission to pause for more planning work, and we urge them to take the trust up on its suggestion.

"The proposed overdevelopment of the publicly owned Union Pier risks unnecessary harm to Charleston's unique and irreplaceable historic neighborhoods," Ms. Malone-France says. "To help reduce this avoidable harm to adjacent historic neighborhoods, to help address public controversy, and to reach a local consensus in support of a new and more innovative plan for Union Pier that is compatible with long-term preservation of Charleston's historic neighborhoods, the National Trust for Historic Preservation recommends that the City of Charleston consider hosting an 'Ideas Lab' for Union Pier. "

The trust held such a lab in Washington to look at ideas for the National Mall's Tidal Basin with local residents, the National Parks Service and top designers and created some innovative concepts. Union Pier would benefit from — and is every bit as worthy of — this same kind of expansive, transparent and inclusive rethinking. The goal would not be to create one winning design but rather to examine precedents from other cities and create a set of principles to guide the redevelopment. It's important to remember this property is not owned by a private developer but by an arm of our own state government.

The other reason tapping the brakes makes sense is that we don't know if the plan that will be presented Wednesday will work financially. The plan that the Ports Authority's consultant Lowe has put forward includes expensive infrastructure such as an extended city grid, new parks and stormwater improvements that it proposes to pay for through a tax increment financing district. Such a district could be created if the city, Charleston County and the Charleston County School Board all agree to forego their share of property taxes from the new development for an extended period, possibly 25 years. Initial discussions have begun on this, but there has been no public debate or decision to indicate if this plan is even viable in the end.

There's another financial aspect that deserves more public debate as well. We don't dismiss the Ports Authority's hopes to sell the 64-acre Union Pier site to one or more developers for a significant sum and use those proceeds to build a new phase of the Hugh Leatherman Container Terminal in North Charleston, but we do agree with Charleston Mayor John Tecklenburg's conclusion that "What we need to do is have the best development for our city and its residents and not be so concerned about how much money the port is going to make."

Figuring out how best to strike that balance between the port's financial return and the value to the city of ensuring this development is complementary and fits into the city is yet another reason to consider an ideas lab that the trust proposes.

In the end, we should all hope Union Pier ultimately will be redeveloped in a way that includes the best qualities of what the Ports Authority proposes, particularly with the expansive new public space along the water's edge, a park worthy of the architecturally and historically significant Bennett Rice Mill facade, an extension of the city's street grid with transportation and stormwater benefits to nearby neighborhoods and, yes, room for attractive new buildings.

It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Charleston, and it should not be considered a failure on anyone's part to acknowledge that the current plan is not there yet.

Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier.

Email -->

Charleston Mayor John Tecklenburg is expected to say something soon regarding the city's plans for picking its next police chief, but whatever process or search emerges, what's most important is ensuring that the next leader possesses many of the same qualities possessed by former Chief Luth… Read moreEditorial: Charleston's next police chief should have these qualities

For years, C… Read moreEditorial: Charleston County tourists should help cut rising housing costs

For all its boasting about conservative lawmaking, one of the most consequential things the S.C. Legislature did this year was to grow our state government. And unlike a lot of things you could do that would result in a more expensive and more difficult to manage government with more separate agencies, this one won't provide any new services. To the contrary, bifurcating the Department of Health and Environmental Control could very well diminish the quality of services the current agency provides, by severing the structural link between health programs and environmental programs that were designed to protect public health: Think clean drinking water efforts, for example. Read moreEditorial: DHEC split grows government. There's a way to overcome that.