Controversial hotel advances
BAR gives preliminary approval to 404 King St. project
By Robert Behre
The Post and Courier
Craig Bennett, acting chairman of the Charleston Board of Architectural Review, examines a model of a hotel proposed at 404 King St. The BAR gave preliminary approval to the plan Wednesday.
Map
Marion Square Hotel
While some have likened the new Midtown hotel project on upper King Street to Charleston Place, a more fitting example may be the large and controversial hotel planned at 404 King St., on the northwest corner of Marion Square.
Both split Charleston's architecture and preservation community. Both had to weather civil litigation designed to stop the building.
And both withstood years of evolving designs and public debate.
The planned hotel at 404 King went before the city's Board of Architectural Review again Wednesday and ultimately won preliminary approval by a 4-1 vote.
The vote marked another successful milestone in the developer's five-year odyssey to get it permitted, but two historic preservation groups are suing the city over its decisions to allow its 10-story height and to allow a hotel there in the first place.
Developer Michael Bennett of Bennett Hofford said he hoped those lawsuits would be resolved so construction could begin before the end of the year — or within a year.
"This is going to be Charleston's version of the Waldorf. ... These will be the highest priced hotel rooms in the city," he said. "This thing is so expensive. It doesn't make economic sense. This is Bennett Hofford's legacy."
A separate Midtown project, about eight blocks north on King Street, was unveiled earlier this week. That will have 235
luxury hotel rooms and about 170 condos, plus retail. Asked if the market could absorb so many hotel rooms, Bennett said, "I ain't worried about anybody."
The issue Wednesday was the architectural design, and architect Julie Nelson of Goff-D'Antonio Associates Ltd. outlined several changes, such as the addition of quoins, canvas awnings and higher entrances, made since the board last reviewed the design last May.
But the changes didn't satisfy everyone. Winslow Hastie with the Historic Charleston Foundation particularly questioned a series of obelisks that would perch on a second floor terrace overlooking the square. "It's sort of a mortuary architectural motif," he said.
Robert Gurley of the Preservation Society said, "This is still a huge building that really doesn't accommodate itself to its site. ... It still has this south Florida look to it."
Mazyck Wraggborough neighborhood president Vangie Rainsford disagreed. "I've been to Palm Beach, and I don't get that kind of feeling with this building."
Farley Clark of the Committee to Save the City also praised its classical, timeless design and asked, "Why would we let the Old Citadel building dictate what we try to do here?"
BAR member Robert Stockton later answered that question, saying, "The city's motto is 'She guards her buildings,' and I think we should continue to do that. The Old Citadel should continue to be the dominant building on the square." Stockton consistently voted against the proposed hotel saying its design "has nothing whatsoever to do with the Old Citadel." The Old Citadel served as The Citadel's campus until the early 20th century, and it's now an Embassy Suites hotel.
BAR member and architect Chris Schmitt urged the architects to consider doing more with color, removing shutters and other detailing to create more differences among the building's four sides.
"I see on this building an extreme amount of sameness as you go around it," he said. "I don't know if I've ever seen a building with this many stories with shutters on it."
Clark praised Charleston Place for what it has done for the city and what this new hotel could do, but Schmitt agreed only to an extent. "While Charleston Place has done a lot for the city, it's probably one of the worst architectural designs the city has ever seen."
Preservation Society Executive Director Cynthia Jenkins also didn't like the comparison. "Go up there (to upper King). It's revitalized. It's been revitalized for five years. Clearly, we don't have to have this hotel to revitalize it."
Jenkins said he was horrified and disappointed with the board's vote, adding, "You could plop that building down in any city in America. It would be great in Memphis. Certainly in Charlotte. Maybe in Jacksonville. There's nothing that orients you to Charleston in that building."
Schmitt and BAR members Eddie Fava, Erika Harrison and Chairman Craig Bennett ultimately voted to give it preliminary approval subject to restudying the Hutson Street facade, the use of shutters around the whole building, changing the roof to copper, using more stone and less stucco and eliminating all faux windows.
Bennett voiced concern that the hotel's five-story section jutted out further into Marion Square than the Old Citadel and was three feet taller, but the board already had approved its height, scale and mass.
When the board began discussing the height and mass again, Bennett Hofford attorney Frances Cantwell broke in and tried to ask a question. Craig Bennett ruled her out of order, but Yvonne Fortenberry, head of the city's Department of Design, Development and Preservation, raised a similar flag. "We have to be careful we don't go back to the issue of height, scale and mass," Fortenberry said.
Reach Robert Behre at rbehre@postandcourier.com or 937-5771.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
MotoryachtSoCo (anonymous) says...
"This thing is so expensive. It doesn't make economic sense."
Well, straight from the horse's errrrr ... mouth? Translated we are going to build this thing because our ego and our bank will let us.
As I've said before ....
Progress and redevelopment came, soon followed by the other two horsemen of the apocalypse, greed and arrogance and with them the need to improve everything else at a massive cost to the taxpayers.
We need to improve the "Battery" clean up the sidewalks, and improve our parks and corridors to the historic district. Doesn't anyone notice how dreadful the cross-town looks? The area on the other side of the memorial bridges is horrid.
Do we really need to build the "Paris-Hilton" of Charleston?
February 21, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paul (anonymous) says...
Another example of Sir Joe building another monument for his greedy developement buddies ...
February 21, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
Another ugly building whose real purpose in the eyes of the City is to bring in easy accommodations tax revenue regardless of design. The Mayor is in bed with the developer and has exercised highly questionable tactics to force this building through the process, such as forcing skeptical board members to remove themselves from the process on the pretext of non-existent conflicts of interest.
February 21, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beenya_toolong (anonymous) says...
This big, stucco box is awful and should not be the dominating focal point of Marion Square. It is not needed as a catalyst for growth or revitalization, which has long since taken hold. If anything we need something to slow down the Disneyfication of King St. At this point Upper King still actually has a few owner-operated small businesses...this is GOOD, this is character! What will this hotel bring? Congestion and BABY GAP!
Do we want to turn upper king into an outdoor shopping mall of overpriced and generic chain-stores like have overtaken the stretch of King from Calhoun to Broad? I think not. Why do you think people love Charleston so much? It's because we have resisted change over the years, and have protected the character of our town unlike most cities around the country. We have something unique here. We seem to be losing sight of this. Whats next? How about a Starbucks out at Ft. Sumter? After all wouldn't it be nice for all the weary tourists to be able to get an invigorating shot of energy out there so that they would have the energy to come back to King St. and spend all their money at corporate-owned stores? Oh, yes. Grand idea. In fact, I think we should just pave over Marion Square so there will be adequate parking for all the guests at the beautiful new hotel.
February 21, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
Beenya_toolong - Funny you should mention Disney because Hilton Hotels and the Waldorf that Mr. Bennett is so fond of is planning to build .... you guessed it a Waldorf a Disney World and another in Las Vegas. UGH!
One of the things that make Charleston the No. 2 wedding destination in the world... (Paris is No. 1) is the wonderful romantic setting ....
Sadly there is nothing romantic about a 10 story stucco monster that ".....is so expensive (that) it doesn't make economic sense..."
February 21, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
I thought that a plan had been proposed to build a 10-story structure that resembled the castle-like appearance of the old Citadel. The picture given in P & C shows the unimaginative crap that continues to be approved in this city. My word! It looks like a 10-story version of a Chas single-house! Absolutely pathetic!
I think it's about time to dissolve the BAR, because for the most part, they have prohibited legitimate progress on downtown developments and they continue to approve uninspiring, cliche Chas designs.
While I do not have a problem with the height of the building, the design completely resembles the Chas single-houses with the shutters and roof. I really thought they were going to build a castle-like structure as suggested by the Committee to Save the City.
I really believe that just about all of the organizations that attempt to "make downtown better" do nothing but inhibit it and make it boring. That includes the idiots with their lawsuits against the city.
Mediocrity celebrated and welcomed in my hometown. Some things NEVER change.
February 21, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
meesta_challie (anonymous) says...
It looks like any mid-sized hotel complex in any city.
Ho-hum.
Build this in Dubai, and build several smaller structures
in beautiful Charleston.
It just doesn't fit.
February 21, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OverHere (anonymous) says...
I concur ICBMman. The BAR and all the bickering leads to middle of the road garbage and embarassments like the County Library standing vacant for 10 years.
February 21, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
msplacedinsc (anonymous) says...
Great idea to help establish a new feel to a blighted area. Expanding the tax roll for the city with these new buildings. Create jobs for people. WIN, WIN & WIN! The design and look of the buildings falls short for this area? That needs to be looked at again.
As far as the look of the Crosstown, I contacted Mayor Joe about how dreadfull the Crosstown looks. He sent my letter to the Director of City Parks and his response to me was the State of S.C. owns the Crosstown and the city maintains it. The city has created several "little parks". The City needs to request funding from the state to give a fresh look to the front gate of the battery, The Crosstown.
February 21, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
greener1 (anonymous) says...
how many of you monkeys live downtown and will be affected by this hotel?
why is everything Joe's fault when it's bad? and why does he get elected each term? conspiracy i guess.
you people are grasping for air as usual and i wish i could bottle it and take it away from you so you idiots would perish!
February 21, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
OverHere, you said it exactly!!! For over 10 years the dilapidated library still sits in the middle of the tourism area as a huge blight to the landscape. Luckily, upper King Street has been able to flourish despite its ugliness.
The BAR and the preservation societies have made a potential economic stimulus drag for far too long. The project is still taking YEARS and is becoming costly. Somebody tell me how those organizations have "helped" downtown.
February 21, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mdtpace (anonymous) says...
It's funny that homeowners who want to make the most innocuous changes to their homes downtown have to go through hell and back with the BAR to get it done, but these a$$holes really have no problem at all. Why does everything have to be so over the top and outrageous. Bennett and Hofford have massive egos and this project is just a way for them to further that. I love the thought process of 'downtown is so charming, let's change it in every way possible and make it so expensive that 98% of the population can't afford it, that will be cool". Years ago, Myrtle Beach was charming too. That cheese didn't happen by accident. It was driven by greed and ego. Charleston doesn't need a Walforf. It's not New York or Chicago or Boston. I thought that was a good thing.
February 21, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
Greener1 - Monkeys live downtown? Really? Why are you playing the race card?
Why does the Mayor get reelected? Do you know anyone else who would like to make a career out of sucking up to a bunch of oversized egos?
Up until 20 years ago another wonderful colonial American City had an unspoken rule that no building should be higher than "Billy Penn's" hat. But someone thought that was out of date and absurd and so they began to build monster high-rise buildings downtown. Now daylight is hard to find in historic downtown Philadelphia, vacancy runs at about 40% and the city has the highest per capital murder rate in the country. Tourist dollars have been zapped and even the Four Season's is losing money.
Maybe Mayor Riley and the BAR need a trip to Philly and see first hand the "Hood" 20 years of progress has created?
February 21, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rsdyas (anonymous) says...
What does this project do with all the wonderful B&Bs that Charleston has to offer? Does the city provide a compensation plan for the rooms lost to this monster? They need one for the transition.
I think that the uptown needs something to solidify the renewal that it has incurred, however not at the expense of one of the city's greatest charms.
However, let us not make haste with the wonderful mass of jobs this will create for the middle class neighborhoods within which this will sit, and at the same time let us not lose focus that Charleston is a growing Metropolitian City. As I see it, we have two avenues to meet the encroaching end of the baby boomer era: 1)to rely on tourism much like Savannah to carry us through 2)bank on the natural ability of Charleston to influence business and skilled professionals to transition into the city. I feel that the latter would be a better 20 year plan for the city and I also feel that any uptown advances are to its benefit. A fusion of the midtown (as they call it) and the upper Morrison Street stretch (which is soon to bussle with the high rises everyone fears) would create for a good business district, and could finally allow Charleston to once again be a city with a prosperous business hub that ensures the success of every man, and not just a beautiful retirement community.
Change is good.
February 21, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
rsdyas, not all change is good, but the "2nd avenue of change" that you propose for Chas is. I think the problem with majority of the anti-hotel people is that they wish the city to remain as it is...in other words, they want to maintain the status quo. They love and celebrate mediocrity. What they refuse to realize is that stagnation equates to a dying city. You're either growing or you're dying. The prosperous economy that the city is now experiencing would not have occurred without Chas Place and the other developments that were built downtown...put succinctly, CHANGE had to occur to make Chas the tourism mecca it is today.
February 21, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
icbmman - You are so correct! Charleston Place is a perfect example of how to integrate old and new. However, it's not a 10 story eyesore prominently displayed across from a 100 year old city park. Bennett's ego needs this property to be seen not disguised or hidden behind a facade that looks like everything else in Charleston.
BTW Could this design be a slightly different version of the design rejected for the sanctuary on Kiawah a few years back?
February 21, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EBatos (anonymous) says...
The Post and Courier needs to have a link to Related Articles so we can read past articles. I'd like to be able to read articles about this project, Midtown, and other BAR meetings.
February 21, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
magoo (anonymous) says...
at Least its the start of a better skyline then we have now, I hope the build more bigger buildings to dwarf the ugly containers that are now the skyline>>>
February 21, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trm2105 (anonymous) says...
For anyone who is interested in a compelling insight into what got Charleston to this bulwark of old and new, historic and modern, and all the other dichotomies that folks split hairs about, get the book "A Golden Haze of Memory: The Making of Historic Charleston," by Stephanie E. Yuhl.
The problem is that this is all so subjective. It's like waking up in the morning and going door to door to ask your neighbors what shoes would go best with your petticoat. Go ahead try it, see how ridiculous that would be for both you AND your neighbors.
Everyone has likes and dislikes, but some insist on judging everything now on the likes and dislikes of a dead aristocrats while ignoring the fact that most of it was built for a small elite on the backs of the majority of Charlestonians, black and white.
More whitewash has been applied to Charleston's history than has ever been applied to its buildings.
February 21, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Cedar, I'm not thrilled with the current design of the hotel either. Like I said earlier, it should co-exist with the Old Citadel building, having a similar architectural design, but taller...I have no problem with the proposed height. But this hotel's design looks exactly like a tall and wide Chas single-house...very unimaginative.
February 21, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
What will adding another 300 hotel rooms do? Besides
More rooms?
More tourists?
More jobs?
More traffic?
More parking?
More carriage tours?
More police?
More conventions?
More restaurants?
More congestion?
More shopping?
More garbage?
More crime?
The only thing I can see good is it might just be enough rooms to have the Holiday Inn on Savannah imploded.
February 21, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
msplacedinsc (anonymous) says...
I wonder if the MUSC new wing came under this much debate? BAR & The Mayor allowed this building to be built so, why all the stink?
As a person who works for a hotel/mixed use developer, we really don't care what the general public thinks when it comes to the design and funtionality of our buildings because very few local folks stay at local hotels.
There are soooooo many more important issues you and everybody posting needs to and should concentrate on than these buildings because frankly it's out of our hands.
February 21, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lantanagurl (anonymous) says...
I am so tired of outsiders coming into my city & making it UGLY. Go away and stay away!!!
February 21, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lantanagurl (anonymous) says...
msplacedinsc....maybe you should move? just a suggestion. MUSC? BENEFITS us ALL. Hotel? Benefits very few and none of them in the area it's located in. BTW, I live downtown and am from here. I love my city, even with it's problems & I've lived all over this planet. In addition, I vote for anyone who is NOT Joe!!!
February 21, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trm2105 (anonymous) says...
Lantanagurl,
If it weren't those outsiders, you wouldn't have the charleston you do now. A lot of early preservation was funded by those from off. Local elites that started the preservation movement sought outside funding because they themselves were strapped. It certainly isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be. Such is life.
February 21, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
icbmman (anonymous) says...
Lantanagurl and others like her continue to transform the term "Charleston hospitality" into a myth. Well said, trm2105.
February 21, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hoak1218 (anonymous) says...
It wouldnt be a problem if they didnt make that stupid reference to the Waldorf...why in the hell does Charleston need a Waldorf??...it will bring money to the city...but the tourists are already a pain in the ass...We should focus on fixing up cross town...not marion square. Marion square is fine for now...work on the numerous vacant houses and crime ridden streets of crosstown first. That will help us alot more than some ridiculous, large, hiltonesque hotel.
February 21, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
From the City Paper:
Post and Courier Report On Midtown Misses Shot at Transparency
A Post and Courier story about the Midtown development planned for Upper King Street is missing one very important paragraph:
Evening Post Publishing, the parent company of the Post and Courier, has an even larger chunk of undeveloped real estate within a block of the hotel/condo/retail plans at Midtown.
Why is that paragraph missing? I wouldn't want to bet on this one. But the P&C is tending unique fields as a chronicler of the very Upper King revitalization that will increase the value of the company's unknown Evening Post development plans.
Every development story within a few blocks (at the very least, two) should include that statement as a effort on their part to be upfront about the fact that the success of these developments won't just impact the readers - it'll impact the paper.
A quick follow up after bouncing this story off of a coworker. There are two points that suggest that the Evening Post development should have been mentioned in the story:
ZONING: The whole reason for the story is that the city will be considering a hight and density variance for the project in the next three weeks. Those decisions will have a major impact on what the Post and Courier is allowed to do with its property.
MONEY: The success of the new development will have a direct impact on the value of the paper's nearby land holdings and would likely impact what they do with it.
Hummmmm???
February 21, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnS (anonymous) says...
The designer must have been high when he made the model.
February 21, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Akhenaton06 (anonymous) says...
CedarPosts, you really think allowing high rises was what got Philadelphia into the mess it's in today? If that's the case, then why is Philadelphia's colonial sister city, Boston--which also allowed high rises--in MUCH better shape than Philadelphia today in just about every way?
February 22, 2008 at 2 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
disco (anonymous) says...
You guys are just mad because they're not putting in another Wal-Mart. It's called progress...
February 22, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
Oh, Yeah, The romance of Marion Square!
Hey! Cedar Post!
I'm sure you made sure there was a shot of the historic L. Mendel Rivers Federal Office Building in your wedding photos!!!
For your reception you retired to the BP station? Or maybe the Liquid Lounge?
I'd love to be married on Marion Square, if I was a pagan!!!
February 23, 2008 at 12:04 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.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Biting research
