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.
A person's opinion who's family has lived in the same Charleston house is no more valid than the person that arrived yesterday. Each should be afforded the same level of respect and their opinion should be judged on the merits alone.
I actually agree. The same could be said in reverse. There seems to be an attitude among some that believe any old timers/locals in the area are simply obstinate and/or unwilling to accept any change. There is a happy medium here, I think. The locals need to be open to new ideas and the newcomers need to respect the longevity some families have invested in the area. In other words - catch more flies with honey.
That being said, I have not been convinced this cruise terminal would damage the landscape and/or historic character of our fair city. I listened to both sides of the argument and to me, there has not been compelling evidence that the cruise terminal would damage Charleston. We have long been a port city and if anything, the addition of this terminal is simply reinforcing that idea.
I actually agree. The same could be said in reverse. There seems to be an attitude among some that believe any old timers/locals in the area are simply obstinate and/or unwilling to accept any change. There is a happy medium here, I think. The locals need to be open to new ideas and the newcomers need to respect the longevity some families have invested in the area. In other words - catch more flies with honey.
That being said, I have not been convinced this cruise terminal would damage the landscape and/or historic character of our fair city. I listened to both sides of the argument and to me, there has not been compelling evidence that the cruise terminal would damage Charleston. We have long been a port city and if anything, the addition of this terminal is simply reinforcing that idea.
While I agree, it often takes a few years living in a place and paying attention to what is going on, who the players are etc. before knowing most anything about an area.
As an example. Many still do not understand nor grasp county schools. Especially what brought such about.
Many do not understand why a goodly amount of people refuse to call it the Ravenel Bridge and prefer to call it the Cooper River Bridge.
The Charleston County School Board and Ravenel. Like the linkage.........LOL
Last edited by accufitgolf; 09-14-2013 at 02:58 PM..
While I agree, it often takes a few years living in a place and paying attention to what is going on, who the players are etc. before knowing most anything about an area.
As an example. Many still do not understand nor grasp county schools. Especially what brought such about.
Wouldn't a local just get that from the news? Like stories from the paper or Live 5? You know, the things that are available to the public internationally for many years now?
I'm late to the argument here, but from what I've read on the reasoning behind the Why's and Why Not's, I think that there's great logic in determining to toss the permit. The building of the terminal risks physical damage to the historical buildings and their foundations. It doesn't sound at all like it's an aesthetic or anti-noise, or even an anti-diesel exhaust issue.
If the engineers did not produce sufficient information of how they were going to protect the buildings of the surrounding area from construction vibrations and securing shore lines, then they cannot say that these buildings will not be at risk.
A good example is the James Brown House (not the singer, a freed slave) in New York City. It was built in 1817 (much younger than some of the buildings downtown). It managed to withstand the construction of the Holland Tunnel built beneath the area from 1920-27, as well as a fire in the building next to it. But, when Philip Johnson came around to build the Urban Glass House right next door to, it was at risk of collapse.
Fortunately, these strict laws enforced by the courts to confirm all aspects of protecting surrounding buildings of potential construction sites forced the architects and contractor to fortify the building (which houses a wonderful Irish pub called the Ear Inn, if ever you find yourself in NYC). Construction began in 2005, but the Ear Inn and the upstairs private residence had to have a number of support beams placed throughout each floor from the basement, as well as special sensors that were monitored to show any shift in the foundation or the infrastructure. And that's only what the public could see. Sure, this example is one building being built next to another, but the same rules apply.
So, it's not necessarily people not wanting to allow job growth or not wanting to see big diesel chugging ships in their neighborhood.
I'm late to the argument here, but from what I've read on the reasoning behind the Why's and Why Not's, I think that there's great logic in determining to toss the permit. The building of the terminal risks physical damage to the historical buildings and their foundations. It doesn't sound at all like it's an aesthetic or anti-noise, or even an anti-diesel exhaust issue.
If the engineers did not produce sufficient information of how they were going to protect the buildings of the surrounding area from construction vibrations and securing shore lines, then they cannot say that these buildings will not be at risk.
A good example is the James Brown House (not the singer, a freed slave) in New York City. It was built in 1817 (much younger than some of the buildings downtown). It managed to withstand the construction of the Holland Tunnel built beneath the area from 1920-27, as well as a fire in the building next to it. But, when Philip Johnson came around to build the Urban Glass House right next door to, it was at risk of collapse.
Fortunately, these strict laws enforced by the courts to confirm all aspects of protecting surrounding buildings of potential construction sites forced the architects and contractor to fortify the building (which houses a wonderful Irish pub called the Ear Inn, if ever you find yourself in NYC). Construction began in 2005, but the Ear Inn and the upstairs private residence had to have a number of support beams placed throughout each floor from the basement, as well as special sensors that were monitored to show any shift in the foundation or the infrastructure. And that's only what the public could see. Sure, this example is one building being built next to another, but the same rules apply.
So, it's not necessarily people not wanting to allow job growth or not wanting to see big diesel chugging ships in their neighborhood.
Just saying...
This is a good point, but never raised. It is clear they are worried about more people oggling their houses and crowding the streets.
This is a good point, but never raised. It is clear they are worried about more people oggling their houses and crowding the streets.
I'm sure there are multiple factors coming from multiple residents. But, I would believe -first and foremost- protecting one's assets from damage/destruction would be more important than more dips looking and coveting their assets. (Besides, come on... whether it were always in the family or bought, a fraction of the people who are living there want others to ogle their assets. Heh... ogle their assets.)
I'm sure there are multiple factors coming from multiple residents. But, I would believe -first and foremost- protecting one's assets from damage/destruction would be more important than more dips looking and coveting their assets. (Besides, come on... whether it were always in the family or bought, a fraction of the people who are living there want others to ogle their assets. Heh... ogle their assets.)
Haha. Well yes, damage is more important but it's not mentioned in the challenge.
I don't see any problem with putting the cruise terminal where it's proposed, but here's another solution.
Perfect place for the new cruise terminal would be Drum Island. Ships would go under bridge and dock on the east and west side of the island. A ramp from the bridge or another small bridge to get on and off the island. Cost would be high, but the folks downtown would stop complaining. It'll be all by it's self and isolated. Now when you start saying it's all just mud, look at Hog Island, now (Patriot's Point). It was a spoil area just like Drum Island is now. It can be done and the cruise industry would pay for it.
More ships could dock there if channels were cut into the island for ships to pull into. No worry about traffic and parking, or noise. And maybe a nice water front park at the tip facing the harbor.
Small boats could take tourist to Market street shopping area.
This is a natural industry that Charleston should monopolize on. Here we are a seaport town and we call ourselves a 'World Class City' and we don't even have a deceit ship terminal downtown because of a few people who don't want this in their neighborhood. It's time to get up off of our bums and get something done.
I don't see any problem with putting the cruise terminal where it's proposed, but here's another solution.
Perfect place for the new cruise terminal would be Drum Island. Ships would go under bridge and dock on the east and west side of the island. A ramp from the bridge or another small bridge to get on and off the island. Cost would be high, but the folks downtown would stop complaining. It'll be all by it's self and isolated. Now when you start saying it's all just mud, look at Hog Island, now (Patriot's Point). It was a spoil area just like Drum Island is now. It can be done and the cruise industry would pay for it.
More ships could dock there if channels were cut into the island for ships to pull into. No worry about traffic and parking, or noise. And maybe a nice water front park at the tip facing the harbor.
Small boats could take tourist to Market street shopping area.
This is a natural industry that Charleston should monopolize on. Here we are a seaport town and we call ourselves a 'World Class City' and we don't even have a deceit ship terminal downtown because of a few people who don't want this in their neighborhood. It's time to get up off of our bums and get something done.
I'm down for that - use up some land that's otherwise not good for anything. They would need some kind of quick and easy access to Market St though, but it's probably doable.
I also question moving the facility up the river as some of the newer ships are over 40ft taller than the bridge allows. As the fleets age these newer ships will become the norm. It needs to stay where it is and the folks who decided to buy their home beside an active port need to get over it.
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.
