Charleston writes own building standards

Preservation a key element of guidelines

Glenn Keyes Architects

The BAR unanimously approved adding this steeple to the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist even though the Secretary of Interior's standards say, 'Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.' That's one reason Charleston opted to write its own standards.

Robert Behre
The Post and Courier

Cathedral of St. John

Across the United States, dozens of cities have adopted federal standards for working on historic buildings, but when someone suggested Charleston do the same, many bristled at the idea.

It's not just that Charlestonians have a historical legacy of resisting the federal government, though they do. It's also that this city often has been at the vanguard of the nation's preservation movement. Residents here organized to save old buildings many decades before any federal preservation standards were put to paper. And some saw flaws in the federal rules.

So Charleston wrote its own.

The resulting two-page document seems to be winning broad support. The city will know for sure after it holds a Monday forum on the new guidelines.

The city's Board of Architectural Review could adopt them as early as Wednesday.

The debate began after the city's preservation plan update recommended that the city adopt the U.S. Secretary of Interior standards for restoring, rehabilitating

and conserving old buildings.

But some residents, such as College of Charleston architectural historian Robert Russell, argued against adopting the standards, partly because they appeared to favor additions to historic buildings in a modern style.

He also objected to the language of the standards, which has become less flexible since the standards first appeared in 1976. Would they leave enough wiggle room for the Board of Architectural Review to do what it thought was right?

That prompted the city's preservation staff to take its own shot at the rules, which were vetted through leaders at the Historic Charleston Foundation, Preservation Society and other interested groups.

The city's standards begin with a preamble that says they "are to be applied in a reasonable manner ... they are not hard and fast rules."

Russell said he thinks the city's proposed standards are great because they reflect the reality that preservation here is an ongoing conversation.

"It's nice that there's a possibility for back and forth, give and take, instead of someone wielding a heavy hammer, which never has been Charleston's way of doing things," he said.

Unlike the federal standards, which were written to guide preservation projects receiving federal tax credits, the city's standards actually are meant to be a handy reference for developers, property owners and architects who aren't familiar with the Board of Architectural Review's likes and dislikes.

Those who follow the Board of Architectural Review know the do's and don'ts, but the city's zoning code doesn't lay out many specifics for the board.

It merely says the board should consider "the general design, the character and appropriateness of design, scale of buildings, arrangement, texture, materials and color of the structure" when looking at new buildings.

When looking at new buildings or rehab projects, the board also should consider what "would be detrimental to the interests of the old and historic district" and avoid "arresting and spectacular effects, violent contrasts of materials or colors and intense or lurid colors, a multiplicity or incongruity of details resulting in a restless and disturbing appearance, the absence of unity and coherence in composition not in consonance with the dignity and character of the present structure."

Charleston Urban Design and Preservation Division director Eddie Bello said the new standards simply try to explain how the Board of Architectural Review has done things in the past.

"Nobody wanted more regulations and nobody wanted strict rules because the (board) doesn't work that way," he said.

It also says additions to historic buildings should be sympathetic and removable and discernible from the old building but adds, "The differentiation may or may not be stylistic, and may be as subtle as a change in building footprint, material or other means."

The idea of adopting standards, which has been among the most controversial aspects of the proposed preservation plan, now looks like it could be one of the first aspects of the plan that takes effect.

"The preservation plan is so broad," Bello said, "we didn't want it to get sidetracked on this issue."

Reach Robert Behre at rbehre@postandcourier.com or 937-5771.