Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It sounds like you want to prohibit new development in rural areas on the edge of a metro, violating private property rights. There is nothing prohibiting infill in SC cities and suburbs. That has occurred for years.
Given the US is the 3rd most populated country with a large number of immigrants coming in every year, it isn't realism based urban planning to make it harder for metros to expand.
Your and my ideas about land use are diametrically opposed. Willy nilly development has been and is a scourge on our nation.
Status:
"dreaming of Glacier National Park"
(set 29 days ago)
779 posts, read 363,621 times
Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlestondata
There is zero attractiveness aesthetically to Union Pier currently other than a relic of an old building. The facade is about to be preserved. Obsolescence happens, and when something that’s ugly becomes obsolete, good riddance if they can create features that are reminiscent. I’ll take Waterfront Park and its pedestrian wharfs over what was once there.
Many people who visit Waterfront Park probably think it was there when Charleston was a colony of England or at least during the peak slave trade decades.
Many people who visit Waterfront Park probably think it was there when Charleston was a colony of England or at least during the peak slave trade decades.
They should read, get a tour guide, both, or just enjoy it.
The suburbs are more dense than majority of the land in the US and will become more dense as you acknowledge when you talk about infill. I don't see an advantage in more people living in close proximity. The downtown is already busy enough.
Suburban development isn't based on premise everyone wants to live away from the city. Many people do want to live away from the city for several reasons and the demand leads to the supply.
Can you give the boundaries of the city of Charleston that are used to calculate the population density? It doesn't seem that dense to me relative to the suburbs. It's surprising to me a person who emphasized density as much as you likes downtown Charleston given the building height restrictions. Seems like you would be in Manhattan or similar.
I don’t call Daniel Island in the city of Charleston a suburb because if not for water it would basically be an extension of the peninsula in design. But as dense as Daniel Island is, it’s way down the list of Charleston proper’s densest neighborhoods. The peninsula is where the density is, yet there is, as I have said and repeated several times, gobs of room for more housing to be built on the peninsula. For instance, 300+ affordable housing units are going to be torn down and replaced by 1,100 units, and that’s nothing compared to what’s coming in the form of market rate housing with attainable workforce housing interspersed on the peninsula.
Density from densest to least dense, googled:
Gadsden Green
Radcliffborough
Cannonborough/Ell…
Harleston Vlg
Eastside
North Central
Ansonborough
Hampton Park
Charlestowne
Wagener Terrace
Westside
Mazyck-Wraggbor…
S Windenere
Northbridge Ter
French Quarter
Riverland Terrace on James Island
Sandhurst
Cresent
Moreland
Stiles Point
Shadowmoss in West Ashley
East Central
Wappo Heights
Silver Hl/Magnolia
Daniel Island
Status:
"dreaming of Glacier National Park"
(set 29 days ago)
779 posts, read 363,621 times
Reputation: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlestondata
It’s all in the zoning.
Are there any places in this country where rural areas around metros were prohibited from being developed? That doesn't appear to be the case using the eye test.
I don't think there's popular support for your approach. Urban planning requires accepting unavoidable constraints.
No residential or commerical development that is occupied can be described as willy nilly. The market is the invisible hand driving development.
Here's an article about a new development in the Cainhoy area. https://www.live5news.com/2024/04/25...rkeley-county/ This sounds like the kind of development you oppose but the Charleston Director of Planning, Preservation and Sustainability Robert Summerfield touts it.
Last edited by LakeMan45; 05-05-2024 at 12:44 PM..
Are there any places in this country where rural areas around metros were prohibited from being developed? That doesn't appear to be the case using the eye test.
I don't think there's popular support for your approach. Urban planning requires accepting unavoidable constraints.
No residential or commerical development that is occupied can be described as willy nilly. The market is the invisible hand driving development.
Here's an article about a new development in the Cainhoy area. https://www.live5news.com/2024/04/25...rkeley-county/ This sounds like the kind of development you oppose but the Charleston Director of Planning, Preservation and Sustainability Robert Summerfield touts it.
There's a **** ton of areas around Charleston that are prohibited from development (or at least significant development) for a variety of reasons largely relating to environmental offsets, drainage issues (filling in swamps) or federal reasons (Francis marion national forest)
There's a **** ton of areas around Charleston that are prohibited from development (or at least significant development) for a variety of reasons largely relating to environmental offsets, drainage issues (filling in swamps) or federal reasons (Francis marion national forest)
I have said over and over - away from the water, on the highest elevations, the City’s new approach to growth. They are writing it into their new codes. There is gobs of such land on the peninsula. Buildings four to eight stories high, ten to 12 in spots, will house a lot of people, as I just saw a news report about local housing prices continuing their pace of increases in the face of a severe shortage that will be remedied only by building more housing units. It’s the city. The city is the city. Cities (not paper cities that formed because they didn’t want to be in the city) grow when people are moving to the area and those cities offer attainable housing options through supply that meets and even exceeds demand. No more filling in swamps. That would be robbing Peter to pay Paul in the 21st century water management manner of growing. Perhaps you need a consultation with a City of Charleston urban planner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
