Keeping the old looking its best
Bill would make state agencies report on historic sites
By Robert Behre
State agencies would have to catalog their historic buildings and tell local lawmakers how they plan to maintain and preserve them if state Rep. Chip Limehouse has his way.
Limehouse said Tuesday that he plans to file a bill requiring all arms of state government to figure out which of their buildings are either on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to take steps to ensure that they are properly cared for.
The Post and Courier
The agencies also would have to report to state lawmakers in the counties where their historic sites are located.
For instance, the bill could force the State Ports Authority to lay firmer plans for the preservation of the Bennett's Rice Mill facade and Castle Pinckney, two historic, 19th century brick structures it acquired decades ago but currently has no use for.
Limehouse, R-Charleston, said the idea isn't to force already strapped state agencies to spend significantly more on historic preservation, but to ensure that these properties get attention from a wider group.
"In many cases, a state agency's mission is not preservation. They're struggling in other areas, so the last thing they're going to do is go look for more things to do," Limehouse said. "This will make sure we don't forget about things."
Part of the motivation behind the bill was the continued deterioration of the Bennett's Rice Mill ruin at Union Pier in downtown Charleston, he said.
The surviving facade is considered one of the nation's most significant works of Palladian industrial architecture, but dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of bricks have sloughed off its base in recent years, threatening its future.
Limehouse noted that the Ports Authority also owns Castle Pinckney, an abandoned fortification in the middle of Charleston Harbor that needs attention.
"I'm not pointing fingers at the Ports Authority," Limehouse said. "Their mission statement isn't to protect historic properties."
And the Ports Authority isn't an isolated case. The S.C. Department of Natural Resources acquired historic ruins of Comingtea Plantation when it bought the 10,697-acre Bonneau Ferry tract in Berkeley County several years ago.
Local preservationists have provided advice about caring for the site but remain concerned about the fate of some structures, such as what's left of an 18th-century plantation house and a nearby rice mill.
The Medical University of South Carolina and the College of Charleston also own many historic buildings on their downtown campuses, and their stewardship occasionally has put them at odds with local preservation groups.
There also are examples beyond Charleston. The S.C. Department of Mental Health is currently wrestling with what to do with a large vacant portion of the 19th-century Babcock building and grounds in downtown Columbia.
Bennett's Rice Mill, Castle Pinckney and the ruins of Comingtea Plantation are among the historic sites that could benefit under a preservation bill that state Rep. Chip Limehouse plans to introduce.
Preservationists said they liked the idea of Limehouse's bill.
Katherine Saunders, associate director of preservation at the Historic Charleston Foundation, said some state agencies, even federal agencies, can put preservation on the back burner.
"If they don't have the money allocated in their budgets, they're really caught between a rock and a hard place," she said.
"You find it on the county, state and federal levels. Sometimes, public ownership of historic properties within agencies that aren't set up for them can be very problematic, for the agency and the resource," she said.
Michael Bedenbaugh, executive director of the Palmetto Trust for Historic Preservation, said he appreciates Limehouse's effort to ensure that state-owned buildings are protected.
"It's cheaper in the long run to reuse and recycle our buildings instead of building new ones," he said.
Limehouse said agencies could compile their lists and plans at relatively minimal cost. If they need more dollars for the preservation work, they could approach the Legislature or other preservation groups for help, he said.
For instance, the Historic Charleston Foundation and the architecture and preservation programs at the College of Charleston and Clemson University plan to approach the Ports Authority soon about documenting and assessing the condition of Castle Pinckney.
The S.C. Department of Archives and History runs the State Historic Preservation Office and helps state and local governments with specific preservation issues.
Limehouse said that work is important, but the agency mainly responds to restorations or other changes proposed to historic buildings or sites. It doesn't have the time or means to proactively inspect the condition of historic state-owned buildings to prevent demolition by neglect.
The Bennett's Rice Mill facade could be undergoing repairs before Limehouse's bill comes up for a final vote next year, but Saunders said the bill would help lead to a wider discussion that would help preserve other sites.
"I hope we can stand back and ask, 'What is the bigger issue?' " she said. "We want to be proactive in addressing these things and not always be in a reactive stance."
Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771 or rbehre@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
That's just great. Now we're going to have to catalog every falling brick on ridiculous things like this. And it's just a "minimal" cost...we got tons of money for that. Someone should go in there and knock that piece of crap over like nature intended along with half the other "historic" national relics in this country.
Government is great, government is good, government giveth, government taketh away. All bow to the great government and may it grow greater and greater and shed its light on thee, for without it thou art nothing.
July 22, 2009 at 6:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
First, that's an overstatement. The article very clearly says that the requirement would apply only to those things eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Second, if you hate the government so much, then perhaps you should be asking why the government even owns historic properties it doesn't plan to care for in the first place. If the SPA can't even explain what its plans are for sites like Castle Pinckney, then perhaps it should consider selling it.
July 22, 2009 at 6:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
The spa purchased all available adjoining land, as I would have done were I them. And I certainly do ask not just why they don't maintain so many "historic" properties on the national registry but why in the world they are there to begin with. I believe this crumbling pile of bricks is probably considered eligible to be on the registry or it wouldn't be specifically mentioned here. Some people in this country seem to think that things should be on the registry so they are protected even though those things are not old nor are they of any national nor historic relevance. What value does this facade have specifically that can't be recorded in architectural drawings and photographs? It's old? It's only about 170 years old, and no amount of upkeep and tax dollars are going to make it of any more value. It's pretty? It's a crumbling mass of bricks that has to be supported by steel beams and couldn't even be used as the facade for a building safely without completely taking it apart and rebuilding it. Take a picture and knock it down or let it fall but don't waste tax dollars on it.
July 22, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Moontree (anonymous) says...
SC's major source of revenue is tourism. It needs to preserve historical structures as part of it's efforts to continue this vital sorce of income. If the tax revenue from tourism declined because SC turned vanilla then I would love to hear the Major's rantings over the resulting tax increases due to the tax shortfall.
July 22, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
Just photographing old buildings is not adequate. Saving the actual material of historic buildings in place is important.
There is nothing about Monticello or Fallingwater or Ft. Sumter or the Colosseum that could not be accurately measured and photographed, but that hardly excuses tearing them down. Indeed, to the extent that an historic site is historically ONLY because of some event - and not a remnant, physical structure - why even document it with pictures at all? Doesn't a history book's account adequately relate what makes it historic? Why not pave over all our Civil War battlefields?
And, rhetorical questions aside, just how old does something have to be to merit historic status is 170 years doesn't cut it?
July 22, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
I meant, ". . . is historically important ONLY because . . . ."
July 22, 2009 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
desspec (anonymous) says...
Good intent; bad law.
July 22, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
R_U_Kidding_Me (anonymous) says...
These relics are falling down because they weren't built to last forever. Europe has historic buildings that are a thousand years old in better shape. Why? Maybe quality of contruction has something to do with it. It's important to remember the past but we can't save every little piece of it. In other words, I think history is important but I wouldn't want to live in it.
July 22, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Take a picture of them and then tear them down! I would like to know how many homes in Charleston are in disarray. I rode over by Hapmton Park area, back through the crosstown and most of the people living there couldn't afford to take care of a all wooden home that is 100 years old or better. Nor could the landlords who own homes and rent them. It takes massive amounts of money to restore and then maintain one of these homes. I guess pick your poison...Gonna spend your money on something, just don't spend mine on it, OK!
July 22, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
combahee (anonymous) says...
It is obvious some of you making comments didn't even bother reading the article.
They aren't talking about every old building and house, only State government owned structures. And of the State owned structures only one either eligible or on the National Register.
Too often a State agency takes over a piece of property only to "abandon" the historic structure on the property. Some of these structures are very important to our history and understanding of our forefathers, as well as money makers for tourism.
Many of the buildings in Europe aren't there because they are built better, they are still surviving because they were maintained and used.
Castle Pinckney is a historic treasure. It is in disrepair because it gets no maintenance. Ft. Sumter is in good condition because it is maintained and provides lots of revenue in the form of tourist dollars.
Historic in Charleston is a money maker and will continue to be. Heritage based tourism continues to grow. This helps reduce the taxes you and I pay. So to those who don't give a damn, tell me that when your taxes go up.
July 22, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RuleNumberOne (anonymous) says...
There are some that want to slash and burn anything govt but still expect the US to remain the greatest superpower nation in the world and the leader of the free world. They want no government, but still expect pension checks and want the government to step in any time there's an emergency. There is a definite need to preserve our heritage and our culture, whether it's preserving sites, teaching our kids history, or honoring our culture through arts and music programs. That's We The People we're talking about.The government has a legitimate role in making sure our American culture and heritage is preserved. It keeps a melting pot nation with such diversity more cohesive and strong.
July 22, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DevilsAdvocate077 (anonymous) says...
Let it fall, let it fall, let it fall!
(Borrowing the holiday song Let it Snow)
Nobody knows what that sagging wall is. Everything old does not have be saved. If that were the case I would still have my 1969 Plymouth Fury.
July 22, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mainermike (anonymous) says...
AS I SEE IT, by Mainer Mike Brown.
It's awful to have old buildings go to waste.
July 22, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Numba10 (anonymous) says...
speaking of MUSC---on Ashley ave one can walk thru the gates of old Porter there to the right you will find the Confederate cannon foundry. Behind there is an Episcopal church which was a stable and carriage house for the federals at the start of the civil war---That old brick wall used to enclose the federal arsenal that was taken by the citizens of Charleston at the start of the civil war----When MUSC took over the old Porter campus a lot of historical bldgs were destroyed
July 22, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USCgradstudent (anonymous) says...
I think the bill is a wonderful idea for several reasons. The goal is to make sure state agencies don't forget and neglect the history they own. It will help state agencies remember to value the history for which they are responsible, just as federal agencies are responsible for historic sites they own or manage. Historic sites and buildings are important in terms of tourism dollars, yes, but also in the building of community. The feeling of a place-- belonging, personal connection and responsibility, learning about other people and cultures-- is greatly influenced by the physical reminders of the people and events that happened before in that place. --All the stories of the past that we and future generations should have the right to experience and learn from. History books can't always do that. And, on a different note, I'll highlight Michael Bedenbaugh's comment on the economic, and environmental, benefits of reusing materials and structures that already exist. Wonderful and numerous studies are being done on energy conservation and rehab-ing historic buildings in sustainable ways, especially by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
July 22, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
combahee (anonymous) says...
QUOTE;
Posted by DevilsAdvocate077
" Nobody knows what that sagging wall is. Everything old does not have be saved. If that were the case I would still have my 1969 Plymouth Fury."
And that '69 Plymouth Fury restored is worth about 3 times what the vehicle you are driving today is worth!
And yes we know what that wall was, didn't you read the article?
July 22, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jim_Isle (anonymous) says...
Heritage tourism. National Register. McLeod Plantation. Oh, I forgot. It's owned by Historic Charleston Foundation and they want it to go away. After all, it's on James Island. Sorry, this isn't part of what the article was about, but sometimes you wonder.
July 22, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slr456 (anonymous) says...
I am a tourist and I love Charleston. I visit once or twice a year. It's a grand old city, but to be honest I wouldn't walk across the street to see any of the above buildings pictured...or what's left of them. The first pictured looks dangerous. Point being if the building is intact it should be saved if possible, but if it's a pile of brick then no. Also considering the current economic state of things money would be better spent on other causes.
July 22, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mlm (anonymous) says...
The name of the plantation on the Cooper River is Comingtee, not Comingtea.
July 23, 2009 at 12:20 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.
- 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
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
