Project reinvents downtown block
By Robert Behre
The Post and Courier
This large rectangular park, named Simonton Square in honor of the former school on the property, is a defining feature of Morris Square.
The Post and Courier
This view down Marbel Lane shows how the architect tried to make these service alleys attractive with landscaping and mixed paving.
Anyone who remembers the old Simonton School, or the grassy field that existed for years after the school was torn down, can return to the Radcliffeborough neighborhood today and get a profound sense for how much Charleston is changing.
This city block bounded by Morris, Smith, Marion and Jasper streets has been reinvented yet again, this time as Morris Square, a mix of 32 homes, town homes and condos, two commercial spaces, as well as a large park and an intimate plaza.
Morris Square is the first large-scale urban infill project by developer Vince Graham, who is probably best known for I'On, a New Urbanist neighborhood in Mount Pleasant whose traditional design has been featured in National Geographic magazine and many other places.
But there are some big differences: While I'On was hugely controversial and ultimately saw its apartment and retail aspect diluted by town politics, Morris Square is pretty much what Graham and his planners hoped it would be.
That's partly because Graham had to work closely with the city. The development hinged on a land swap in which the city traded the existing Dereef Park for three separate parks to be built by Graham. They include the new Simonton Park (named after the old elementary school), the plaza and a future park to be built in the project's final phase north of Morris Street.
The buildings' traditional designs by Allison Ramsey Architects Inc. of Beaufort nicely complement the neighborhood's 19th century architecture, but it's doubtful they will satisfy preservationists who say most everything built in downtown Charleston these days is at least one story too tall.
The tall, slender nature of the buildings is driven by two realities: The land cost, which led Graham to push for a certain number of square feet, and flood rules, which don't allow any living area lower than 14 feet above sea level. Smith Street, a former creek bed, is only about 4 feet above that mark.
The architects, and the city's Board of Architectural Review, were aware of the height difference between Morris Square, where the tallest buildings rise up 49 feet, and the nearby homes, most of which are two stories (less than 30 feet).
The houses are designed so their taller sections often are recessed back from the street, particularly along Marion Street where the height disparity between the new and old is most apparent.
Even though flood rules dictate that no finished space be on the ground level, the design also tries to be as friendly to the street as possible. The homes have windows and doors along the sidewalk, even though there's only parking or storage behind them. "We tried to make it appear like it was habitable space," Graham says.
The two commercial spaces flank a new plaza with a limestone fountain. The only reason they're allowed is because all their door and window openings can be covered by large steel panels stored just around the corner.
The plaza also has a somewhat roomier feel because Graham narrowed down Jasper and Morris streets slightly with paving meant to slow down cars.
"For me, a street can be parklike. Why shouldn't it be?" Graham asks. "If a dog will feel comfortable sleeping in a street, then you've succeeded in street design."
The 30-month-long construction, done by Chastian Construction, was challenging because it all had to be done at once. Even features as straightforward looking as Simonton Park are more complex than they appear. The elevated grassy area actually covers a series of drainage pipes that store the buildings' stormwater runoff until the city's drainage system can accept it.
While Morris Square is more urban than anything Graham has built before, it shares the same New Urbanist thinking by asking homeowners to accept greater density in return for better public spaces.
"You have a yard," Graham says. "It's just owned by everybody."
Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771; fax, 937-5579; e-mail, rbehre@postandcourier.com; or regular mail, 134 Columbus St., Charleston, SC 29403.
Comments
draftdot (anonymous) says...
all sounds so good-
but unfortunately it's dog ugly!!! materials look so cheap & poorly detailed.
just as a side-note: last year the I'on Group received a public reprimand & "Cease & Desist Order" from the SC Board of Architectural Examiners:
http://www.llr.state.sc.us/POL/Archit...
July 7, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
The plan of townhouses around a landscaped common area was a good idea. However, as Draftdot wrote, that development is UGLY.
These developers need to be reined in. The developer should never have been allowed to cram in so many square feet into such a tiny area since it required him to build twenty feet taller than surrounding houses. They look ridiculous.
The BAR does a good job on single, small projects. But, on things like this, the City inevitably supports oversized projects since it is an easy way to increase the property tax base.
July 7, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
farfallaspeaks (anonymous) says...
Reader.
your right that developers need to be reined in, but your wrong about density apportioning. The town could "cram" more people into the heart, and even be more beautiful, if done correctly.
Rather than these "hoods" that cut farms down, and build crap boxes.
The ideal villa is an illusion that destroys it's own ideal when constructed.
July 7, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
Farfallaspeaks - Agreed, in part. It is hard to believe, but peninsular Charleston today has a lower population than at any time in a century. We can, and should, encourage more people to return to our cities (see other articles about transportation costs, etc.).
However, it is a balancing act between size and numbers. You cannot have big houses AND a lot of them. That is what the developer in this case was given permission to do. He should have built the same number of units, but made each one smaller (namely, shorter). Or, he should have kept the large townhouse plan, but built fewer of them.
Developers too frequently cry about how they need to build more units to cover their development costs. That is not really true. Instead, they need more units to cover the tremendous profit margin built into their plans and to cover the overpriced land they bought.
The City whimps out on cookie cutter condo projects and hotels because it wants to encourage more taxable floorspace so that Mayor Riley can continue to claim that he doesn't have to raise taxes. The result is a gross corruption of Charleston's historical styles executed in fake stuccoed boxes on every empty square inch. Meanwhile, homeowners have to fight with the BAR for months at a time to add a fence to their houses while large developers enjoy Riley's favor and get massive Anytown, USA projects whisked through the process in a single meeting.
(But stepping down off my soapbox for a moment . . .) Those buildings on Morris are ghastly.
July 7, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mlm (anonymous) says...
If given the choice, I'd take this project at Morris and Smith any day over ones like what went up last year at Morris and Coming. At least Vince Graham and his crew have some understanding of what they are doing. Unfortunately they are the exception to the rule among developers of this type now throwing up so much junk downtown.
Simonton School was four stories tall with 12-14 foot ceilings on each floor. Reader is correct. The density of downtown Charleston is lower today than it has ever been. Today's population on the entire peninsula is less than 35,000 and that includes college students. In 1840, over 40,000 lived south of Boundary Street (Calhoun Street today). It's our deference to cars, not people, that make downtown feel crowded.
July 7, 2008 at 7:22 p.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. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
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!
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- UPDATE: Missing woman's fiance seen leaving scene of burned SUV, carrying a shovel
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- Magnolia Gardens offering free dream wedding to contest winner
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
- Ex-Boeing worker claims racism, retaliation in firing
- MCDERMOTT COLUMN: Golf business has risks, rewards





