Review board wants every building to look inviting
Photo Gallery
Commercial Corridor
Charleston's Commercial Design Review Board has made an impact on several projects in the city.
Several years ago, Charleston officials watched as Lowe's and Home Depot built their too-familiar cookie-cutter stores in West Ashley and James Island, while the new Lowe's in Mount Pleasant featured a series of nicer touches.
That's because that town essentially forced the company to build a better building.
Charleston's frustration ultimately caused the mayor and the City Council to form the city's Commercial Corridor Design Review Board to scrutinize planned offices or stores along the city's major arteries outside the historic district. (Inside the historic district, the Board of Architectural Review has that job.)
I recently toured some of the places influenced by the CCDRB (the board's inelegant nickname). My guide was John Baatz, who thought about being an architect but now works as an associate professor of pediatrics and director of the Medical University of South Carolina's Gel Proteomics Facility.
Baatz also is wrapping up his second four-year term on the board and is proud of its work.
Here's why. These are some examples that Baatz picked out that illustrate how the board is trying to give the city's less historic places a new, improved look.
Baatz says the old gas station at 828
Savannah Highway, now in its second restaurant incarnation as the Triangle Char and Bar, could have been torn down but was nicely converted into a restaurant.
Architect Allan Wendt shepherded the design through the board, and the simple metal cladding and brick make it inviting but also true to the building's roots.
"They really paid tribute to what it once was and made it into something new and novel," Baatz says.
The board's work has been popular enough that its authority has been expanded a few times. It recently was given the right to review demolitions of buildings past a certain age.
Nice landscaping helps
The idea of building a new Wal-Mart at the West Ashley Circle already had raised some hackles because the chain abandoned a smaller store just a few miles away.
Baatz says the board encouraged Boice-Raidl-Rhea Architects to make the design distinct to Charleston. "They made it look like Tara, which also didn't fly," he says. "It's near the plantation district, but we didn't want something like that."
Instead, the building's front facade is broken up into separate pieces. That should make the property more easily subdivided should the store ever close.
And its most attractive feature, one that Baatz says the board tries to emphasize in every project, is its landscaping. In this case, an allee of palmettos leading to the front door.
Favor pedestrians over parking
The approach to the Costco wholesale store on Town Center Drive may be the only big box in the Lowcountry where motorists approaching it notice a lengthy walking path instead of a parking lot.
The building, designed by Mulvanny Architects, is close to the street, but several major trees were saved and a meandering path was laid out among them. The building's long horizontal wall also is broken up with changes in materials and metal awnings to create a more interesting backdrop.
"Typically, people don't want to put in sidewalks," Baatz says. "They say, 'But nobody is walking there now.' That's not the kind of thinking we want."
No one really sees the parking lot until they turn into it. "This is like no other Costco," he says.
No more cookie-cutters
When Dick's Sporting Goods planned to build a new store on Orleans Road near Citadel Mall, Baatz recalls, "They wanted to stay with the prototype."
The resulting building is probably not dramatically different from other Dick's stores, but it does contain some touches that the city pushed.
Architect Arnie McClure of Coast Architects came up with a design that added more windows than a normal Dick's store, which only has a large glass entrance. Baatz notes these windows not only make it more interesting to walk past the store, but they also make it more interesting to shop inside.
The building's footprint also follows the curve of the road.
Mind your neighbors
The urology office at 641-647 Saint Andrews Blvd., designed by Shook Associates, stands on the site of a former bakery. While it has many neighboring offices, most all of them are in homes converted to a new use.
Baatz says architect David Shook did a nice job building a relatively large new office building in a way that blends in with the nearby homes. Also, the design saved a stand of trees near a prominent corner of the site.
Baatz says that in general, the board tries to ensure that heating and air conditioning units and trash containers are well hidden; that signs are positioned on low pedestals rather than tall poles; and that the parking lot lighting is as subtle as possible. "We don't want them to be a UFO landing pad," he says.
The board's point is not to turn every suburban building into an award-winning piece of architecture. It's to cajole, encourage and perhaps sometimes force property owners to create a better public realm because that contribution might last a lot longer than their business, at least at that particular place.
"We want every building to look inviting. That's the biggest thing, whether you're walking to it or simply driving by," Baatz says.
Robert Behre may be reached at 937-5771 or by fax at 937-5579. His e-mail address is rbehre@postandcourier.com, and his mailing address is 134 Columbus St., Charleston, SC 29403. 937-5771 or by at
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net 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 "suggest removal" 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 Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 20 comment(s)
Posted by trm2105 on March 31, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with these design review boards is that you end up with people like Baatz "who thought about being an architect but now works as an associate professor of pediatrics."
I thought about being a doctor, so can I get any surgical volunteers? Anyone?
Seems like placements of hvac units, trash containers, signs, etc. can be written into a code that would take care of most of the CCDRB decision making.
Posted by Reader on March 31, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not a problem having non-architects on the board. The whole point is to have more attractive buildings, and it is the whole population that determine what attractive means, not just architects.
Posted by joelmckellar on March 31, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with reader, but I think it's important to have a mix between design professionals and other citizens...
Posted by icbmman on March 31, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with boards like this is that every single person involved (including citizens which have zero experience in architectural design) tries to become the project leader, basically having too many chiefs in the room and not enough indians. The project ends up taking years to plan, costing the business much more money than is usually intended, so the plan is scrapped. For example, has anybody investigated into the reason why West Ashley doesn't have a up-to-date movie theater? Could this board have inhibited proposals for one?
Actually, the Commercial Corridor Design Review Board does a pretty fair job of getting neat projects done, such as the sporting goods store and the new pet store at Citadel mall. However, if given too much power, they could become Chas' suburban version of the BAR, which has severely inhibited progress within the downtown area.
Posted by theronce on March 31, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
trm2105, you took my line about the doc moonlighting as an architect. No problem, like Reader says...that is not the problem, and I see Reader's final point too. Regardless of who is on the board, what makes my neighbors think that on top of our elected officials micromanaging "my" property, I need a doc, a pig farmer, or a musician, all unelected or requested by me, to tell me how to manage "my" property. How many more layers of unelected, opinionated, nosey, and pretentiouos authority do we need to tell us what to do with "our" property. Somebody please give these people something else to tempt them in their dull lives.
Posted by watchdog on March 31, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You ever see the BAR building downtown? or the Chas County Library downtown? The board pass that crap.
Posted by icbmman on March 31, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Theronce, that was well said, and probably more powerful than what I wrote.
Posted by trm2105 on March 31, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
isn't all just opinion. ok, right, even a doctor, lawyer, or janitor can have an aesthetic insight. however, it is still a highly subjective discussion that even designating a review board does not lend any objective and measurable credibility. sure, the government should ensure public safety and welfare, but stay out of design. let individuals and time determine what stays around and what doesn't.
Also if its just a review board, do you still get to build even it you don't consider their comments? I think not. So what is called a design review board is actually a design authorization committee. I'm just waiting for the other foot to fall on this fascist march toward authorizing the design of everything else in the private sector.
Posted by gencon1 on March 31, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This paragraph says it all. "The board's point is not to turn every suburban building into an award-winning piece of architecture. It's to cajole, encourage and perhaps sometimes force property owners to create a better public realm because that contribution might last a lot longer than their business, at least at that particular place."
The word "Force"is the key word in the whole article. Another intrusion into the private property of others.
Posted by rjcontego on March 31, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
come on...some oversight is needed or the big box stores and strip malls will just get uglier and uglier. in greenville, they were paving over huge tracks of woods and green space to put in spacious parking lots with NO trees or landscaping. it was a tragedy and i think they are still fighting it there. developers can be negligent! they've destroyed some of the most beautiful places in the world and you probably have seen a few of them...food for thought.
Posted by pompusmaximus on March 31, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer how convenient that you mention the slums of King and Meeting and completely forget to mention the beautiful retail portion the BAR has been heavily involved in. (also the redesign of the fast food restaurants near spring st.)
There must be design oversight for these suburban buildings or else our suburbs will look just like any other suburb in America. Government wouldn't have to step in if these companies would simply consider aesthetics.
Posted by icbmman on March 31, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer, you've highlighted a problem that I've complained about for literally decades. The reason why the city keeps slums as they are and constantly meddles with new projects? I don't know...it's just THAT stupid and idiotic.
Posted by Reader on March 31, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TRM2105 wrote, "I'm just waiting for the other foot to fall on this fascist march toward authorizing the design of everything else in the private sector."
Charleston has had a review board since 1929, and the sky has not fallen yet. I wouldn't hold your breath.
As for the talk about the blighted areas of the peninsula, that is not relevant to the discussion. The City cannot affirmatively require property owners to take any action to restore their properties if they don't want to. I would think that the libertarian crowd here would be happy with that.
There is a balance at play. The City cannot force Joe Average to take affirmative steps to restore his house as he sees fit (without regard to the feelings of the rest of the public). But, at the same time, Joe Average cannot chose to go forward with restoration of his house without accepting certain conditions on the permits he needs. It is a delicate balance, but it has worked for 80 years.
Posted by trm2105 on March 31, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reader, can you please explain why my neighbor, much less anyone else, has the right to force me to make my property such that its appeal to them takes precedent over my own? You're right the sky hasn't fallen, and it wouldn't fall if Charleston had never had a review board. The hysteria that bad design would run amuck and that good old design would all be leveled is preposterous.
Ok, fascist may be a bit strong. I'm sure that these review boards are not that cohesive. And if this is the case, how can you believe that a board made up of so many different subjective opinions should determine anymore what is appropriate than those doing the design.
The automobile industry has to adhere to safety regulations for good reasons. However, safety and aesthetics are completely separate matters and the NTSB doesn't determine the look of the car parked in your driveway.
As far as the BAR, its initial role was drastically different from the power it possess today. It was originally a free architectural clinic for the old white elites and wealthy comya's purchasing more of the private residences in the lower peninsula. A misuse of municipal power? I'd say so, but it is characteristic of the way many things have gone in Charleston and that are now accepted as the way things should be done.
Anyone concerned about recent Charleston history, politics, and taste should read Yuhl's book, "A Golden Haze of Memory: The Making of Historic Charleston."
Posted by theronce on March 31, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
gencon1, you zeroed right in on the corrrect word, "force". That is force backed by the weight of laws enacted by our friends and neighbors elected as our representatives ultimately enforced with a gun to penalize us if we are too dumb to be cajoled or encouraged to think like they think with fines and imprisonment by our friends and neighbors over what is best for our property. Ownership of real property in South Carolina is almost dead.
Posted by crankyyankee on March 31, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One important point is missing from this discussion. There is no private land owership in South Carolina! You rent your holdings from the Government when you pay your property taxes every year. Don't pay your rent next year and see who owns the land. So the County is telling you how you can build on their land not your land. Big difference.
Posted by pompusmaximus on March 31, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reader, you did a wonderful job of responding to irrelevent points. (nothing new to this forum I assure you)
The point they are trying to make is that without some design oversight held by the government, the charm, beauty, character and quality of life in Charleston could very well diminish.
I understand the anti government sentiment around the area but this is something that effects us all. We should not sacrifice the physical appeal and character of our great city to satisfy the rights of Wal-Mart, Rite Aid or dare I say money man pawn.
Posted by icbmman on March 31, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pompus, one point is not irrelevant: why invest so much time, energy, and money in dictating what developments in suburbia should do while basically neglecting the derelict areas in the urban core? For the glory of preservation?!?! What utter nonsense!
CCDRB was OK in its initial form, because it basically asks or "sells" the developer into making design changes. However, it's starting to obtain too much power like the BAR...especially with granting the authority of demolition review. People need to be able to hold the BAR and CCDRB in check, because they can be (and are, for the most part) hindrances to common sense development. Will the CCDRB deny demolition of the 'Lil Cricket store next to Kmart because it's more than 50 years old, even if it clearly is an ugly gas station?! That is what the city can look forward to if this board is given more power.
Posted by KidYendor on March 31, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I hate is that the Lowes and Home Depots feel they have to build their stores across the street from each other. Instead of spreading away from each other to provide convenient access to shoppers they put each store in the shadow of the other. It's like they are one store with two names. Does it have to do with competition, marketing, or development stupidity?
Posted by Ron_Godzilla on March 31, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need mega high rises downtown or up in North Chuck or Mt P that way we can sell more condos with waterfront views. Once King Joe is dethroned I think this will be the case.