Corner store's fate up in the air
Dec. 8 hearing likely to determine historic structure's future
It's one of Charleston's oddest and saddest sights: a historic corner store fenced off from the street, its second floor propped up only by timber cribbing.
Now the owners of 348 Ashley Ave., the city and the preservation community must figure out what to do next.
Everyone seems to agree that the best solution is to restore the building as it was, but the case is complicated because the demolition of the first floor — an unintentional twist, the owners say — threatens its historical integrity.
And that, in turn, may force its owners to comply with federal flood rules and rebuild a markedly different structure whose first floor would have to be jacked up 5 feet higher than the street.
A Dec. 8 hearing before a city board could determine if bureaucracy prevails over common sense.
The Post and Courier
This building at 348 Ashley Ave. has been hiked up on wooden cribbing. According to a Board of Architectural Review notice, the home has been approved for demolition after the fact.
Jim Moore says he and his business partner, Stephen Zoukis, bought the corner store building at Ashley and Race Street early last year. After one tenant passed away, they moved out the other two and planned to rehabilitate the building into two residences.
But when construction crews propped up the second floor, its southern wall caved in. For safety reasons, Moore authorized the dismantling of the other walls.
He now acknowledges he made a mistake by not seeking a partial demolition permit from the city's Board of Architectural Review. "We took down what was going to fall down," he says. "In retrospect, I probably should have just frozen everything, called the city and said, 'Come, look. This is a nightmare.' "
That happened last May. Since then, Moore says, he has spent about $100 a day to rent the cribbing and fencing while the city determines what can be done next.
"Everybody wants it to look nice, but nobody wants to give us permission to make it look nice," Moore says.
City Preservation Officer Eddie Bello says the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood rules don't allow residential space on the ground floor if it's in a flood zone. Had the first floor not been dismantled, it probably would have been grandfathered in as a renovation.
Bello says if the State Historic Preservation Office determines that meeting FEMA requirements would damage a building's historic integrity, then the owner also can get a variance from the rules.
The problem is that 348 Ashley Ave. isn't in one of Charleston's historic districts, and its deteriorated condition makes it more difficult to argue that enough of the building survives to consider it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Andy Chandler with the State Historic Preservation Office says he has helped Charleston property owners get such exemptions in the past, but 348 Ashley is a different case.
"The building is between a rock and a hard place, and so are we," Chandler says. "We would like to encourage the preservation of this property, of course. We hope it will be restored and that the first level will be put back intact and that it will continue to be a vibrant part of that community. But when you try to apply the National Register like this, it doesn't fit."
Chandler says if the first floor were rebuilt, then it would stand a better chance of being considered eligible for the National Register, "but that's not the way the system works."
Chandler says the city could handle these cases internally without involving to the state, but it's unclear whether that process can or will be rewritten in time to save this store.
Historian Lissa Felzer, who is consulting with the building's owners, hopes someone can act to recognize the building's history and clear the way for its restoration.
Her research shows the building was constructed around 1923 by James and Edvina Evans, who had a store on the ground level and their own apartment on the second floor. After he died nine years later, the property changed hands several times but served as a neighborhood grocery through 1970.
She argues it's worthy of a FEMA variance because, despite its current condition, it's part of Charleston's black history and important to the functional and social history of the Westside neighborhood.
"It's kind of a Catch 22," Felzer says. "A lot of people get ahold of these FEMA buildings, get a variance and just gut them."
Robert Behre may be reached at 937-5771 or by fax at 937-5579. His e-mail address is rbehre@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Neponset (anonymous) says...
I am all for saving historic buildings where there is something to save, but looking at the picture we don't have much here - just the gutted upper floor of a wooden structure that will require a lot of work and material ($$) to be worth anything. My thought is to move it to some industrial lot and let demolition by neglect finish this thing off and use this lot for some worthwhile project..
December 1, 2008 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JourneyOn (anonymous) says...
These nightmares are all over the city. The buildings are not in the historic districe yet because of the original building date (age) they are considered historic property. Some are termite infested, some were burned out, most are falling down, all are eyesores on the city.
I know owners who want to rebuild something nice, some want to build a community center, and the city insists on restorations that cost two and three times the price of rebuild or remodel.
Gee, I would think the city would like to see the buildings brought back to life again - in 2008 - instead of insisting on 1928.
Lighten up Council! There isn't anything historic about deteriorated buildings!
December 1, 2008 at 7:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
islandbenzbc (anonymous) says...
Maybe common sense will prevail...probably not!
December 1, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mansejolly (anonymous) says...
"It's one of Charleston's oddest and saddest sights."
I take issue with this statement. I get it that the City is in the business of preservation, because the more buildings we preserve, the more of them we can convince all the tourists to spend their money looking at. Even buildings in the bad parts of town need to be considered, as gentrification will--like it already has for so much of the peninsula--eventually make those neighborhoods "tourist-friendly." (I write that with a bit of cynical resignation.) However, I would argue that when we have endemic poverty, homelessness, and gang violence, it is borderline inhumane to declare this little building to be one of the "saddest" parts of the city.
December 1, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Ok, lets assume the owner can overcome the obstacles, build a new first floor and place this derelict on top. What will you have? I suspect the powers that be will not allow low maintenance siding such as Hardy plank/siding and so you will have a high maintenance building that will require frequent painting.
December 1, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
Well said, mansejolly.
December 1, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Looks like this forum is moving toward social issues. I agree that this derelict is not the saddest thing around. It is just one of many badly neglected buildings owned by absentee land lords and/or owners that will not or can not properly maintain this and many other buildings. Like it or not, this building and many others have no place in our current real estate environment, and if it were not for obstructionist organizations and governments, large areas of these depressed areas would be razed.
December 1, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
First, the building is older than reported. I suspect that Lissa was only researching far enough to show that the building was or was not clearly more than 75 years old (and therefore within the BAR's jurisdiction). The actual age of the building is probably about 115 years old.
Second, let's not forget that the owners were the source of their own problem. Tearing down the first floor was against the law. They cannot now complain that the lack of a first floor is a hardship on them. That is like shooting your parents and crying to the jury about being an orphan.
Third, let's also not forget that there is a simple answer here. Even with FEMA requirements, you can have a commercial use on a first floor in the floodzone. Only residential uses have to be above the flood level. Again, the owners are the source of their own problem. The building was historically a corner store with a store on the first floor. But an office on the first floor again, and all the problems go away.
December 1, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
John
Just one problem, the owner has on going financal and rental costs.
December 1, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
the owners around here never learn, I have worked with several clients that spent tens of thousands of dollars before I was hired, because they built without permission, and had to tear it out.
This is the city punishing the owner.......
now. He can build it again, with subtle flood vents.
if he wants to occupy the ground floor with anything more than retail he is screwed.
December 1, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Looks to me like a developer trying to add value to a piece of property is walking across a mine field of problems and unless he/she has the ear of the little emperor, is doomed to take a big financial hit.
December 1, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
combahee (anonymous) says...
Why is it people buy these buildings and don't do their homework as for what the rules and laws allow and don't allow. A simple call to City Hall could have clarified all this in the beginning.
I have very little sympathy for the owners. Why did they jack up the second floor in the first place? What did their permit say.
Unfortunately the only solution at this time is to tear the whole thing down and fine the owners.
December 1, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eatmorecollards (anonymous) says...
That picture sure looks like a accident waiting to happen to me.
December 1, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
Com
Yes, one should do some home work. As far as calling city hall, my experience is that you end up talking to some one who has no info to offer, does not answer your call or you get joe and you need to have something to offer. Best advice for folks, not in the inner circle, is to stay away.
December 1, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
whatever. neponset, if you do your research, they will tell you, straight up: don't add anything, or take away without consulting us with drawings to back up your ideas.
December 1, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
512c
The "us" suggests that you are speaking as an official of the Charleston Building Dept. I agree, when the work exceeds the scope of the permit one should revise and resubmit the permit. Hopefully the building dept will work with the permit holder on the problem. Unfortunately, when the wall fell down, the owner made the wrong decision to remove the other first floor walls, in the interest of safety.
December 1, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
algorelost (anonymous) says...
When did BAR go across the cross town?
December 1, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
devilsadvocate77 (anonymous) says...
Geez! Since when is 1923 old? I know people that were born that year and are still alive and kicking. They get less attention to their well-being by the government then this house is getting. So everything old has to be saved? Then why did we knock down the old bridges when the Ravenel bridge was built? One was built in 1929...wouldn't that be considered historically significant? Maybe we should have lifted it 5 feet higher and made due?!?!? Some restorations, even with the best intentions, are destined to fail. They all don't end up in a showcase on HGTV.
December 1, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
islandbenzbc (anonymous) says...
A fire would solve the problem....
December 1, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Neponset (anonymous) says...
devil
Good comment
December 1, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CannonMan (anonymous) says...
Anything would be better than the building hanging in mid-air and not renovated. That isn't helping anyone. A residence? A commercial space? Does it really matter?
With bureaucracy like this, it's a wonder that anyone would want to purchase and renovate a property in Charleston.
This is disgraceful.
December 1, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
AlGoreLost - The BAR has jurisdiction to review the demolition of any building in the City if it is 75 years old or more. Below Line St. (not the Crosstown, technically) the BAR also has jurisdiction to review modifications to existing buildings and new construction.
DevilsAdvocate - First, the building is likely older than 1929. Second, national preservation standards tend to set 50 years old as the age at which preservation should start being considered. At that point, buildings have generally stood the test of time long enough to be evaluated with a meaningful perspective.
CannonMan - What bureaucracy? All the owner had to do was get one demolition permit. That is not asking too much. The problem is that the owner didn't know what he was doing and is now seeking relief he never would have been granted if he had not taken things into his own hands in the first place.
December 1, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Back in the early nineties I was all set to purchase a lot on the main street in McClellanville(in the "historic" area) but after a couple of fruitless meetings with the self aggrandizing architectural review board I told the real estate agent to scrap the deal.
No way did I want to deal with their bureaucratic BS and I have the same sentiment towards Charleston.
They can keep their old decrepit eyesores but I'll not waste any of my funds on such stupidity.
December 2, 2008 at 12:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.