The following was published in the Post and Courier on November, 27, 2022
by Whitney Powers
Discussion about the Union Pier redevelopment plan has largely focused on the buildings and such to be constructed on the 40 acres of high ground and ideas such as smaller lots sizes and buildings that reflect the granular and diverse character of the city.
But we tend to overlook how truly significant it is to contemplate the future for the last 30 acres of undeveloped waterfront on the peninsula. This really is the final opportunity for Charleston residents to gain physical access to the historic waterfront without obtaining membership in a private club or residency in an adjacent building or negotiating through a boat ramp or marina or getting a seat in a waterfront restaurant. It could even be argued that focusing on this public space could better inform the future building fabric than attempts to codify the architecture.
Unfortunately, what has been proposed reflects the trend that the Madrid-based urban planner Alvaro Sevilla-Buitrago cautioned against earlier this year: “Public administrations collaborate with private actors, corporate sponsors, and groups of middle- and upper-class gentrifiers to promote sterile projects that create sanitized public space commons and consumption centered conviviality to attract high-income households, tourists, and potential customers.”
Perhaps it is too much to expect something other than plans driven by maximum profitability. However, we shouldn’t accept sacrificing the immediacy of the waterfront for a 1,200-linear-foot berth for cruise ships or yet another marina to limit public water access on the peninsula.
What is really needed for this area is shared infrastructure that transcends a short-sighted, expedient template as well as something that optimistically looks forward for the sake of future generations who may live here. As was done with the redevelopment of Marion Square, world-class practitioners and their creative examples can guide our thinking by asking: What are the unique challenges and opportunities here?
We should account for how this area manages tides and climate change, is a waterfront biome and supports existing structures. Consider the work of landscape architect Kate Orff of SCAPE, who offers a vast portfolio of urban waterfront rehabilitation and development projects around New York and other coastal urban areas where ecology serves as infrastructure, flood control and entire planting structures that invite public engagement.
We should acknowledge the port’s breadth of history. And while a nod to the mistreated Mosquito Fleet is a welcome offer in the plan, what about others? Architect Jeanne Gang of Studio Gang has been the project leader for redevelopment of the Memphis riverfront’s 30-acre (just like Union Pier) Tom Lee Park, now under construction. Long ago named for a black fisherman who saved more than 30 people from the Mississippi River after a riverboat steamer sank, the redeveloped park acknowledges the floodplain, includes several active areas and landscaped conditions that address the challenges of the levee system, and creatively connects to the historic downtown grid. The project team also includes artist Theaster Gates, whose proposed work there has been funded through the Mellon Foundation’s Monument Project.
Global efforts provide other possibilities. Examples found in the April 2019 edition of the UK magazine Architectural Review highlighting pier redevelopment projects include:
Disembarkation of cruise ships routed below the waterfront park terrace in Yokohama, Japan, therefore bypassing the need for tourism infrastructure within the park.
Redevelopment of Pier 2 in San Francisco as the Fort Mason Center for Arts & Culture.
A swimming pool created within the context of the pier system for Aarhus, Denmark.
Renovations to the historic St. Petersburg, Florida, railroad access pier as a proposed mixed-use project featuring restaurants, cafes and fishing decks along with boating, swimming and shopping facilities.
So far, the lack of any focus on the waterfront would suggest that the city will be blindsided if the current iteration of the Union Pier plan is accepted as is. The city must claim its interests in more ways than scrutinizing the architectural expressions on the built portion of the site. It must counter the deal that’s been struck so that the waterfront pier is not demolished or monetized away from the public.
We should not accept a plan that doesn’t put the community’s interest ahead of the developer’s, who not only is being paid to create a master plan, but stands to gain even if the parcels are developed by others.
Whitney Powers is an architect and Charleston resident.