Charleston's unique environment, people, and circumstances contributed to a tradition of preserving and protecting the physical evidence of past generations. Over the past century, Charlestonians have moved from saving individual buildings to entire neighborhoods to maintain the city's unique sense of place.
1900 - 1930: PRESERVATION AS NATIONALISM
Early preservation efforts had a specific ideological motivation: saving the city's remaining colonial era structures for educational purposes. In the early 1900s, Charlestonians like other Americans shared a growing interest in the beginnings of the country. This rise of nationalism is best represented by the efforts of the National Society of Colonial Dames and its sister organization, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Charleston's local chapters took up the charge of stimulating interest and pride in the nation through the preservation of the city's earliest buildings. In 1902 the Colonial Dames acquired the pre-revolutionary Powder Magazine, one of the oldest remaining structures associated with the permanent settlement of Charleston of 1680. Meanwhile, the DAR acquired the Old Exchange one of the city's most prominent buildings, from the federal government. The motivation in both cases was the same: to acquire and preserve those buildings associated with past events which would physically reflect Charleston's contribution to the development of the nation.
The most notable individual of the time was a real estate agent, Susan Pringle Frost. For nearly nine years she worked independently to save historic residences in the city. She gathered a group of like-minded citizens, and in 1920 the Society for the Preservation of Old Dwellings was formally established.
1931-1966: FORMALIZATION OF AN ETHIC
In the next 35 years, historic preservation became a formal, institutionalized ethic. The Society continued to stimulate interest in the preservation of historically important buildings and encourage private sector involvement in the preservation of individual structures. Existing civic and newly formed nonprofit organizations focused on increased awareness of good planning and preservation principles; and on securing buildings from inappropriate development through outright ownership. Their efforts, combined with the infusion of preservation objectives into government regulations, would make a significant impact on the city and set an example for the nation.
The work initiated in 1929 by the Special Committee on Zoning resulted in the hiring of a planning consultant, Morris Knowles, from Pittsburgh, Pa. Knowles conducted a survey with the assistance of Albert Simons which identified a relatively small but extremely important area of 18th-century buildings. His work also took into account a variety of planning issues relating to parks, schools and land utilization. Ultimately this work formed the basis for a city plan and zoning ordinance. Although the plan was never adopted, the city council did ratify the proposed (historic district) zoning ordinance on October 13, 1931. The opening sentence of the ordinance clearly stated its purpose: "In order to promote general welfare through the preservation and protection of historic places and areas of historic interest...", leaving no doubt as to the city's intention. For the first time groups or areas of buildings were designated as significant and worthy of protection. The blending of planning and preservation goals was unique and a revolutionary concept for its time.
The city council also created the Board of Architectural view (BAR) and the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Although the powers of the review board were limited to reviewing demolition requests within the area specified, the formal plan submission and review procedures opened an avenue for negotiation which heretofore never existed. The board's role was that of a negotiator, working with applicants to find mutually acceptable solutions to design problems. During the late 1930s Charleston utilized federal sources of money for preservation purposes. In 1938 when a tornado struck, federal assistance was used to mitigate the damage to historic structures. The city also used available federal funding under Roosevelt's New Deal to provide public housing. In 1939 the city razed a number of dilapidated buildings outside the historic district defined by the 1931 ordinance. The most valuable antebellum structures were saved and incorporated into the new multi-family housing project. Although this was the only time the Housing Authority of Charleston restored historic buildings for housing, in subsequent years it rehabilitated the Marine Hospital (1833) by Robert Mills and the adjacent City Jail for administrative functions.
In 1959 the city council revised the historic zoning ordinance for the first time, granting the BAR powers over demolitions and the ability to review exterior in alterations to any pre-1860 building, as well as to any building within the Old and Historic Charleston district. Although no additional area was added to the board's jurisdiction, the ordinance gave the BAR a voice.
Charleston in the 1960s struggled with many of the same social and economic issues as other southern cities, the least of which was the need for inner-city economic revitalization. Public sector improvements of the time were not quite as kind. In 1967, the city of Charleston under Mayor J. Palmer Gaillard supported the removal of historic buildings for a new civic auditorium and meeting hall to bring conventions and entertainment downtown. The Preservation Society and Historic Charleston Foundation moved eight of the threatened structures to appropriate infill sites throughout the city and placed the buildings up for sale. Conversely, Mayor Gillard and the city council voted to expand the boundaries of the Old and Historic District, nearly tripling its size, to an east-west line that included one-half of the peninsula's land mass. All the buildings south of the recently constructed Septima Clark Expressway (US Highway 17) fell under the jurisdiction of the BAR, with the added power to deny demolition permanently. In 1970 the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) sought to expand its highway system west across the Ashley River. The preservation community feared the expansion would have a detrimental effect on the Old and Historic Charleston National Register District (designated in 1966). After the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation determined an adverse effect for the proposed James Island Bridge, SCDOT mitigated the effect by terminating the bridge improvement to the edge of the Ashley River at the end of Calhoun Street, away from the boundaries of the historic district.
Such public sector struggles identified the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the city's resources. Not until the adoption of the Feiss-Wright Anderson Survey and Preservation Plan in 1974 was a comprehensive architectural inventory, ranking of buildings, and area plan available to the public. The first inventory since the 1944 Carolina Art Association effort, the inventory identified more than 2,800 structures. The preservation plan became the centerpiece for planning and zoning efforts on the peninsula for the next two decades. It recommended a downtown revitalization strategy and stronger enforcement of building codes and height restrictions. It also stimulated the city council to extend the Board of Architectural Review's controls further up the peninsula.
The election of Joseph P. Riley, Jr. as mayor in the 1970s has had a lasting effect on this historic city. A Charleston native, son of a successful real estate and insurance businessman, graduate of The Citadel, lover of history, the arts, architecture and his city, Riley utilized the unique characteristics of Charleston as a magnet for needed economic development. At the same time he understood the need to maintain the high quality of design and construction reflected in the city's historic architecture. He also displayed a very keen sense of urban design and planning that would maintain the fabric of the city. From the beginning, his administration embraced an aggressive agenda of stimulating a city that was supported by a large military establishment (Navy and Air Force), constant port traffic, and a small tourist economy. It was not enough, however, to attract the kind of money needed to reinstate Charleston as one of the most significant and important cities along the Atlantic coast.
The proposed complex split the city's preservation community in half. Those in favor saw the development as the centerpiece of much-needed revitalization. Opponents saw it as old style urban renewal that would destroy the quality and character of the historic city. Questions over the long-term effect of the project beleaguered the city, developer, and architects for years. Finally after several developers, architects, and a myriad of lawsuits, compromises, and design changes, the center opened eight years later as Charleston Place. The final plan included a 600-room mid-block hotel, meeting/conference facility, and retail shops along the commercial street frontage. It also restored a city block of 19th-century cast-iron storefronts and returned to private ownership property not needed for the development.
A year later preservationists again had to battle large-scale development. In the shadow of Charleston Place a local private developer sought to demolish the 1938 Art Deco Riviera Theater for a retail/office building. Preservationists collected more than 5,000 signatures against the project and presented the petition at the Board of Architectural Review hearing. More than 200 individuals attended the hearing to urge denial. In a unanimous decision, the board denied outright the loss of a significant landmark. This decision reflected the change in the community's attitude toward what was considered historic in a city that for decades had limited itself to protecting only the earliest of buildings and sites.
The following year, in spite of this victory, the city council voted against a proposal to expand the National Register district in response to community opposition. The expansion would have included buildings south of the east-west boundary created by the Crosstown Expressway. Residents feared gentrification as a result of the designation and were confused about the role the local Board of Architectural Review would have with this national designation. Although there had been scattered interest in utilization of tax incentives in the area, a local developer attempted to force the issue of designation. His efforts failed to persuade the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer) to go against the local recommendation. Although the area would not carry the national recognition that it deserved, the city council amended the zoning ordinance once again to expand the role of the BAR to review all new construction within the proposed boundaries.
A year and a half later a greater challenge threatened Charleston's historic resources. During the early morning hours of September 21, 1989, Hurricane Hugo struck the South Carolina coast northeast of the peninsula. The hurricane affected 85 percent of the city's properties. Immediately, preservation organizations formed a consortium which included the Preservation Society, Historic Charleston Foundation, the Charleston Museum, the southern regional office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and city planners. This self-initiated group assessed damage to buildings within the historic district, collected and identified significant architectural elements for salvage, and established weatherization and stabilization procedures. The group disseminated information to property owners, coordinated the efforts of volunteers from the National Park Service and the American Institute of Architects, and served as a clearinghouse for suppliers, vendors, and manufacturers of building materials.
The city refused to reduce or diminish its requirements for compliance with local building codes and the BAR did not reduce its standards or relinquish the right of approval for changes within the historic district. The battle over the expansion of the National Register district was set aside in the struggle to save the city's historic resources. Uninsured or under-insured property owners cited economic hardship and demanded substitute materials and relief from standard construction practices. The BAR, however, emphatically refused to deviate from established standards by unanimous vote. This decision saved countless historic buildings from demolition and inappropriate modification.