Charleston Daily is a concept in community. Its mission is to promote, assist, and celebrate in everything Charleston, South Carolina. By partnering with businesses, community leaders, volunteers and events, we are spreading the love that is Charleston.
As this city continues to grow and prosper, we want to help spread the message to all about how wonderful this community is.
Charleston is about the people, community, water, land, history, heritage and the true southern warmth it brings with each and every day.
MOMO Riverfront Park is thrilled to announce the upcoming opening of their second location at Crowfield Golf Club (300 Hamlet Circle, Goose Creek, SC 29445).
Now Goose Creek and all the golf enthusiasts in the area will now experience the luxurious and relaxing experience of Momo right in their backyards.
Follow MOMO Crowfield on INSTAGRAM to stay up to date on the details of the grand opening.
Next time you are in the Park Circle area, make sure you stop in for a great scenic dining experience – MOMO Riverfront Park Menu
Read More
Architectural project construction project concept
As permits and housing starts decline nationwide, South Carolina faces similar challenges in its residential construction sector. Permitting activity in the state has dropped for a second consecutive year, marking a -8% decrease compared to the previous year. This slowdown hints at challenges for housing affordability and availability across the state.
South Carolina issued 45,423 new permits last year, down -8% from the previous year. The drop was particularly sharp for multi-family buildings with 5 or more units (-44%), signaling a tightening market that could limit accessible housing options for residents;
The Charleston metro area witnessed the highest decrease (-7%), with around 8,500 new permits issued last year. Despite the overall decline, there was a notable 89% increase in permits for 2- to 4-unit buildings, suggesting a shift towards smaller multi-unit housing options;
Greenville-Anderson and Columbia, other medium-sized metros, also experienced nearly -6% drops in permitting activity, echoing the statewide pattern of regional housing challenges, affecting construction sectors and potential homebuyers alike;
Myrtle Beach-Conway metro area bucked the statewide trend with a 9% increase in permit issuance. This goes to show that some areas within the state continue to foster opportunities for housing development and improved affordability;
Smaller metros like Sumter and Spartanburg saw nearly -6% decreases in permits for new homes, with Florence close behind at -5%, complicating the quest for affordable housing in these area for potential buyers.
Resource: This extensive resource page features a year-over-year breakdown of residential construction data at the national, state, and metro levels spanning over the last decade.
ADAC UNVEILS Q1 ADDITIONS AND EXPANSIONS, DESIGN CENTER THRIVING AT 90% OCCUPANCY
New Showrooms Include Milieu and French Market Collection
ATLANTA: Continually committed to serving the design industry with fresh offerings, Atlanta Decorative Arts Center (ADAC) is starting the year off strong by bringing on two new showrooms and three current tenant expansions set to open this spring. Milieu and French Market Collection join the roster at the Southeast’s preeminent design destination which is maintaining 90% leased, a high number when considering businesses are still defining retail and office space requirements post-pandemic.
In addition to the two new showrooms, several of ADAC’s existing tenants have recently experienced exponential growth, resulting in the need to expand current space to better accommodate clientele and display an additional range of products and services. Current expansions include C + H Interiors increasing its current showroom to an impressive 4,500 square feet including a fine art gallery, Made Goods showroom expanding to 8,900 square feet including a recently launched collection of vanities, and Susan Currie Design expanding its studio to a chic 750 square feet.
“We are overjoyed to welcome two extraordinary new showrooms, adding a fresh wave of products and services to our community,” says Katie Miner, General Manager, ADAC. “The expansion of existing showrooms and design offices is a testament to our commitment to providing an unparalleled platform for phenomenal businesses in the industry. At ADAC, our goal is to ensure our partners’ creative and functional needs are not just met but surpassed.”
Below are details on the latest ADAC showroom and design studio news:
Milieu | Suite 502 Milieu, an exceptional game table company, is set to unveil a remarkable, 1,350-square-foot showroom at ADAC in Spring 2024. With a wide range of exquisite custom game tables and game room furniture, Milieu promises an unmatched gaming experience. As the sister company of Venture Games, a renowned family-owned business best known for its superior, American-made tables, Milieu is dedicated to providing high-quality craftsmanship and innovation. “I am most excited to bring a unique sourcing experience to our clients,” said Lizz McKay, co-owner. “The game industry is poised for a revolution of quality, customer experience, and style, and Milieu will offer all three.” www.milieu1928.com
French Market Collection | Suite 407 The French Market Collection has made the strategic decision to relocate to ADAC after thirty-seven years in its previous location. “We chose to relocate to ADAC to provide a better shopping environment for our customers,” said owner Peggy Richardson. Spanning an impressive 4,288 square feet, the new location will showcase an exquisite array of art, décor, and furniture, including handspun Aubusson rugs, embroidery pillows, tables, chairs, and more. The showroom will be opening in Spring 2024, carrying lines such as New Growth Designs featuring florals, plants, trees, planters, and Enduraleaf UV stable plants and trees for outdoor use, as well as Get Lit Ltd designer lighting. www.frenchmarketcollection.com
C + H Interiors | Suite 418 + 420 After three years of residence at ADAC, C + H Interiors is more than doubling its existing showroom to 4,500 square feet of space to better accommodate all its bespoke project endeavors and include its own in-house fine art gallery. New product lines include Dell Anno, European style cabinetry and furniture; Interlude Home, contemporary furniture; Adriana Hoyos, timeless products all emitting distinct personality; Jimeco Interiors, a legacy of elegant finishes, joinery, and furniture; and BNF Studio, expertly crafted, unique furniture. “One of my primary destinations as a designer has always been ADAC,” said owner Lia Shin. “Because of this, when I searched for ideal locations to open a product showroom, I had no doubt that ADAC would be the best and only option.” The expanded showroom will be open to the public in Spring 2024. www.candhinteriorsatl.com
Made Goods | Suite 403 Located in ADAC since 2018, Made Goods is a wholesale brand focused on creating special statement pieces for designers and boutiques. To provide more space to showcase its tableware, bath, and fragrance displays, Made Goods is expanding its existing showroom to an expansive 8,900 square feet. “We are so excited about the expansion of our showroom,” said Keyana Pratt, Public Relations Coordinator. “Since 2018, we have been with ADAC, and for us, it only felt natural to continue our collaboration and expand on our existing showroom. We have expanded our Blue Pheasant display, Thucassi display, and the biggest addition is our vanity collection. We have expanded into the space next door and renovated portions of the existing showroom to give it a fresh new look to display all our beautiful products.” Designers can now shop for all brands directly from the showroom floor today. www.madegoods.com
Susan Currie Design | Suite 503C After opening its new design office at ADAC in 2020, Susan Currie Design has increased to 750 square feet of studio space boasting natural light and more storage space for optimal organization and creativity. With this new space, there was also room to add a new designer to the team. “Having my interior design studio at ADAC offers not just a great space, but a location rich in resources,” said owner Susan Currie. “Being situated in one of the premier design centers in the United States allows me to seamlessly navigate multiple showrooms, enhancing our ability to bring unique visions to life for every project.” The estimated move-in date is early March 2024. www.susancurriedesign.com
ADAC features over 65 unique showrooms and 25 design studios that are open to the public Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Photos, interviews, and additional showroom information are available upon request.
ABOUT ADAC: Built more than 60 years ago by renowned architect and developer John Portman in the prestigious Buckhead community of Atlanta, ADAC (Atlanta Decorative Arts Center) is a community-focused, nationally recognized leader in the world of interior design and home fashion, serving as the essential one-stop shopping resource for interior designers, architects, and builders. In November 2018, ADAC was acquired by ANDMORESM and parent company Blackstone, the world’s largest operator of premier showroom space for the furnishings, home décor and gift industries. The ADAC campus consists of ADAC and ADAC WEST with more than 550,000 square feet with over 25 design offices and more than 65 showrooms offering 1,200 of the industry’s finest product lines including furniture, fabric, rugs, lighting, accessories, floor and wall coverings, antiques, fine art and framing, kitchens, bath, tile and stone, and home theater products. Likewise, ADAC’s extensive services include custom designs such as framing, electronic systems, faux finishing, and draperies. To learn more, visit www.adacatlanta.com. Follow along on Facebook,X, and Instagram.
Multiple Additional Recognitions Reflect Growth Strategy and Commitment to Clients
RALEIGH, N.C., March 26, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — Cherry Bekaert (the Firm) is proud to announce it has ranked 1st as the ‘Fastest Growing Firms in the U.S. 2024‘ by Accounting Today. The prestigious list recognizes the top accounting practices with the highest revenue growth in percentage terms in 2023. The Firm is honored to be recognized for its commitment to excellence and dedication to clients in these rankings.
Cherry Bekaert ranks 1st on Accounting Today’s “Fastest Growing Firms in the U.S. 2024” list.Post this
Cherry Bekaert’s strategic acquisitions bolstered a 99.66% growth rate for the Firm in 2023—resulting in Accounting Today’s Fastest-Growing U.S. Firm, Top Tax Firm and Top Southeast Region Leader in 2024. The Firm accelerated its growth strategy with exceptional client service offerings, further enhancing capabilities and expanding into new markets—guiding clients forward with solutions that boost efficiency and address business challenges.
62% of the firms recognized by Accounting Today’s Top 100 and Regional Leaders list reported double-digit growth, and 43 firms reported growth of about 20%, confirming a trend of widespread growth in both groups over the past three years. Cherry Bekaert’s growth rate was a whopping 99.66%, earning the number one spot on the list and underlining the success of the Firm’s aggressive private equity-fueled growth plan.
In 2024, Cherry Bekaert was recognized by USA TODAY as a Most Recommended Tax & Accounting Firm. The Firm also received multiple regional awards by The Business Journals in its nationwide locations. Additional accolades from Accounting Today include 1st on the Southeast Region’s Regional Leaders list, 21st on the Top 100 Firms list, Leaders in Consulting 2024 list and Leaders in Tax 2024 list. The rankings in both national and regional publications place Cherry Bekaert among the best accounting firms in the country. The Firm continues to place higher on recognition lists than in years past, highlighting its substantial growth and award-winning performance.
“Cherry Bekaert is thrilled to have expanded our teams and market reach significantly this past year, boosting our ability to act as trusted advisors to our clients,” said Michelle Thompson, CEO, Cherry Bekaert Advisory LLC. “As we grow, we will continue to optimize our private equity investment by keeping our strategy at the forefront, which prioritizes digitally driven, industry-aligned solutions through integration and transformation across our business.”
The advancement of the Firm strategy has been an integral part in the Firm’s success. Cherry Bekaert’s strategy is grounded in the Firm’s shared values and made up of three areas: Inspire Our People, Evolve Our Business and Expand Our Reach. These three areas help further investments in technology, automation, and additional resources to create a better environment for professionals, provide opportunities for development and career growth, and expand our service and offerings for clients meeting today’s business and organizational demand. In addition, the Firm strives to be at the forefront of strategic growth, adding depth and breadth through organic growth and through targeted acquisitions. The recent acquisitions have garnered Firm recognition throughout offices in prominent regions.
“These rankings are a reflection of our talented teams and their commitment to their clients and our Firm,” said Michelle Thompson, Cherry Bekaert Advisory LLC. “Cherry Bekaert is honored to be recognized as a leader in the industry. We look forward to continuing to provide exceptional service to our clients and achieving even greater success in the future.”
These awards bolster the Firm’s elevated approach to a strategy that prioritizes integration and exploration across the business, providing digitally driven and industry-aligned solutions that meet today’s business challenges.Visit our website to see a full list of our awards.
About Cherry Bekaert
Cherry Bekaert, ranked among the largest assurance, tax and advisory firms in the U.S., serves clients across industries in all 50 U.S. states and internationally. “Cherry Bekaert” is the brand name under which Cherry Bekaert LLP and Cherry Bekaert Advisory LLC, independently owned entities, provide professional services in an alternative practice structure in accordance with applicable professional standards. Cherry Bekaert LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides attest services, and Cherry Bekaert Advisory LLC and its subsidiary entities provide business advisory and non-attest services spanning the areas of transaction advisory, risk and accounting advisory, digital solutions, cybersecurity and tax. We exercise a deliberate curiosity to know our clients’ industries and work collaboratively to create shared success. For more details, visit cbh.com/disclosure.
Cherry Bekaert LLP and Cherry Bekaert Advisory LLC are members of Allinial Global, an accountancy and business advisory global association. Visit us at cbh.com and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook,X@CherryBekaert or Instagram.
Join Nic Butler, Ph.D., historian at the Charleston County Public Library as he discusses the birth of North Charleston and what is present day Park Circle.
Long before the rise of the present municipality, a group of capitalists coined the name “North Charleston” in 1912 to describe a bold development scheme on the west bank of the Cooper River. The heart of the proposed 6,000-acre city was an upscale segregated community called Pinewood Park, nestled within a circular array of broad streets and verdant lots. Economic gloom eventually crushed their corporate scheme, but the footprint of the circular neighborhood survived and evolved into the modern community called Park Circle.
The present City of North Charleston was incorporated in 1972, sixty years after investors launched a business plan for its creation. Residents of the modern municipality are rightfully proud of the community’s diversity, vitality, and history. Those living and working in the orbit of Park Circle admire the distinctive geometry of its streets and parks, which have blossomed into valuable real estate in recent decades. Few remember, however, that Park Circle is a vestige of a larger development plan that was never fully implemented. Its history is embedded within the larger story of the rise and fall of two successive entities called the North Charleston Corporation and the North Charleston Company that collapsed during the Jazz Age and the Great Depression, respectively. To understand the context in which those entities arose and the conditions that led to the demise of their master plan, we have to turn back to the era preceding the city’s conception.[1]
From the early years of the Carolina Colony to the spring of 1865, large-scale plantation agriculture dominated the landscape of the present City of North Charleston. Generations of enslaved people of African descent lived and labored on numerous privately-owned tracts stretching northward from City of Charleston up “The Neck” of the peninsula between the rivers Ashley and Cooper. The demise of slavery in 1865 led to the collapse of the plantation economy that had defined South Carolina for two centuries. Lowcountry residents, Black and White, experienced hard times during the final decades of the nineteenth century as people struggled to establish new ways of working and living. Formerly enslaved people and free people of color created a new community called Liberty Hill in 1871, for example, which still exists today on the western perimeter of Park Circle. Lumber companies from the northeast purchased huge swathes of the former plantation land surrounding that Black community, but invested little in local infrastructure. The rise of a phosphate industry—mining the soft rocks and processing them into fertilizer on Charleston Neck—created many jobs and some wealth, but that exploitative work lasted little more than a generation. At the turn of the twentieth century, local civic and business leaders were anxious to discover new methods of boosting the region’s struggling economy.
The creation of the U.S. Navy Yard in 1901 marked a significant turning point in the rural history of Charleston Neck. The 1,200-acre site had formerly been Retreat Plantation, which the City of Charleston purchased and marketed briefly as a refuge called Chicora Park in 1898. The contemporary extension of the city’s electric trolley service helped downtown residents reach new jobs at the Navy Yard at the dawn of the twentieth century and spurred some development on the periphery of the government property. Several small residential developments arose near the Navy Yard in the early 1900s, including Buckfield, Chicora Place, and Cherokee Place, but none fulfilled their goal of drawing large numbers of White investors from urban Charleston.[2]
According to the U.S. Census of 1910, the total population of Charleston County was 88,594 people, sixty-six percent (66%) of whom lived and worked on the peninsula south of Mount Pleasant Street, within the corporate limits of the City of Charleston. The landscape outside the city was sparsely populated, however. North of Mount Pleasant Street and stretching across the coastline between the rivers South Edisto and South Santee, the descendants of enslaved people outnumbered White residents by a ratio of more than five to one across the rural county. There was a vast amount of real estate available for development, and the most logical starting point was just a few miles north of the existing metropolis.[3]
The main obstacle to growth within the modern footprint of North Charleston was a long-standing perception that the area was uninhabitable by people of European descent. The local White community was convinced that the swampy, mosquito-infested landscape was dangerous to their health, a belief inherited from earlier plantation owners who spent most of their time in urban Charleston. To address this long-standing fear, James Cosgrove and the Charleston County Drainage Commission used chain-gangs of convict laborers (almost exclusively Black men) to fill swampy lands near the rivers Ashley and Cooper and cut several new roads through the forested landscape. That work during the early years of the twentieth century literally paved the way for potential investors to tour the sparsely-populated area and see the valuable vacant land waiting for development.[4]
Conceiving North Charleston:
The driving force behind the concept of “North Charleston” was Robert Goodwyn Rhett (1862–1939), a local businessman who was intimately connected to the phosphate industry and had helped secure the creation of the U.S. Navy Yard at the turn of the twentieth century. In addition, Rhett held a controlling interest in the Peoples State Bank of Charleston and served two terms as the city’s mayor between 1903 and 1911. Fully aware of the economic challenges and opportunities facing the Charleston area at that time, Rhett turned his attention from the old Palmetto City to the undeveloped rural landscape to the north and west of the Navy Yard on the Cooper River.
In the months after his final term as Mayor of Charleston, R. G. Rhett gathered a coterie of like-minded men to plan a new business venture on a scale without precedent in the Lowcountry. The initial investors included Robert L. Montague, Edward W. Durant, Henry Buist, Tristram T. Hyde, and civil engineer James O’Hear. Their plan coalesced in June 1912 with the creation of the Filbin Corporation, which immediately purchased 4,650 acres of forested land from the Burton Lumber Company. The property in question was bounded to the north by Goose Creek, to the east by the Cooper River, to the south by Noisette Creek, and to the west by the African-American community called Liberty Hill and a few other privately-held tracts.
In September 1912, the officers of the Filbin Corporation divided their extensive property into several tracts destined for different purposes. The northernmost tract of 3,227 acres was reserved for farm land under the control of a new, subsidiary organization called Charleston Farms Corporation. The easternmost range of 519 acres along the Cooper River waterfront was reserved for future industrial projects and remained in the hands of the Filbin Corporation. The parent entity transferred the remaining parcel of nearly 900 acres, including high land and marsh between Filbin Creek and Noisette Creek, to the newly-formed North Charleston Corporation. The new corporation then purchased Noisette Farm, a 425-acre tract between Noisette Creek and the Navy Yard, and several smaller tracts adjoining. The aim of the North Charleston Corporation was to transform this swath of nearly 1,500 acres into a new “suburban city” to rival its southern neighbor.[5]
Rumors of the massive real estate project near the Navy Yard generated numerous enquiries from the local press about the goals of the North Charleston venture. In several interviews with newspaper reporters between the autumn of 1912 and the spring of 1913, R. G. Rhett and his business partners identified five factors that motivated the project. First, the former mayor and his associates had an intimate knowledge of the challenges facing the existing commercial facilities along Charleston’s Cooper River waterfront. The new stone jetties at the mouth of the harbor facilitated an increase in ship traffic, but constraints onshore precluded the expansion of port terminals along East Bay Street. The city contained approximately 2,400 acres of high land at that time, most of which was already covered with residential and commercial buildings. Adding further infrastructure for railroads and cargo ships at the southern end of the peninsula would simply worsen the existing congestion.
Second, the area of North Charleston provided the best available solution for new port facilities. Phosphate plants covered most of the waterfront property along the relatively thin Neck of the peninsula between the City of Charleston and the Navy Yard. The only real estate available for port expansion in 1912 was north of the U.S. Navy Yard, extending from Noisette Creek to Goose Creek. Along that two-and-a-half mile stretch of waterfront, the channel of the Cooper River was still sufficiently deep for ocean-going cargo vessels.
Third, the former plantation land north of the Navy Yard was adjacent to existing railroad junctions, and the sparsely-populated landscape provided a fresh canvas for planning new inter-modal transport facilities. There was ample room for the construction of new dockyards, railyards, factories, and villages for workers, all of which could grow and flourish without the physical constraints found in urban Charleston. As the local economy pivoted from agriculture to industry, the broad terrain north of the Navy Yard offered the best hope for a prosperous future.
Fourth, the land that became the center of North Charleston was potentially healthier than the crowded city of Charleston. The older municipality, laid out on the southern tip of Oyster Point in 1672, was only a few feet above sea level, and its population had endured numerous epidemics of various diseases over the generations. In contrast, the landscape immediately north of the Navy Yard ranged from twenty to nearly forty feet above sea level. With additional drainage work to eradicate the swampy depressions, the site could be transformed into the healthiest and most desirable residential property in the county.
Fifth and finally, Mr. Rhett and his associates saw in this vast forested landscape the potential for the combination of relatively small-scale farms adjacent to both industrial sites and suburban residences. This notion of pairing concepts old and new reflected recent trends in civic planning, including the idealistic “Garden City” concept then popular in Britain. It also resonated with Charleston County’s agricultural roots, and offered future residents the potential of a farm-to-table diet supplied by small farmsteads within the community.[6]
Designing North Charleston:
Each of the three corporations created in 1912 pursued their respective goals during the ensuing years. For the present conversation, I’ll focus on the residential endeavors of the North Charleston Corporation and ignore its industrial and agricultural siblings. Immediately after making the initial purchase from Burton Lumber Company in June, R. G. Rhett and his associates hired men to survey the land, subdivide the aforementioned parcels, and begin cutting access roads for future infrastructure. To plan the residential streets and suburban topography, they engaged a landscape architecture firm, the P. J. Berckmans Company of Augusta, Georgia. The firm sent a young but talented designer, William Bell Marquis (1887–1978), who was chiefly responsible for the original plan of North Charleston.
During the summer of 1912, Marquis proposed a general outline that embraced all of the land between Filbin Creek and Noisette Creek, to the east of Liberty Hill and west of the proposed industrial sites along the Cooper River waterfront. His design combined elements of the trending “Garden City” and “City Beautiful” movements, including a circular park at the center of the property, quartered by two perpendicular avenues running north-south and east-west, and then quartered again by complementary diagonal avenues. Within the central park or plaza, as it was called in the early days, Marquis created a “beautiful circular bowl” for a “fountain jet” that was functioning by the spring of 1913. A description published that May noted that the “circular park 300 feet in diameter” was “carpeted with a perfect grass lawn, intersected and surrounded with pebble walks, and beautified with the most luxuriant shrubbery and flowers obtainable.”[7]
After Mr. Marquis defined the general hub-and-spoke plan of the residential area in 1912, engineers commenced the work of laying out the principal avenues that were named for the project’s principal investors. They devoted significant resources to the work of clearing and grading the landscape to fill variations in the topography. They also began installing cutting-edge, modern utilities such as water and sewage lines and cables for electricity and telephones. Meanwhile, the landscape architect created a separate and more conventional residential design for the Noisette tract, immediately south of the eponymous creek, with small residential lots arranged within a mostly-rectangular grid of streets and blocks.
The North Charleston Corporation publicized its project sporadically during 1913 and 1914, while the residential infrastructure was still under construction. A report from chief engineer James O’Hear, written in late October 1913, offers intriguing insight into the city’s progress. O’Hear stated he had conversed extensively with landscape architect W. B. Marquis about the work of laying out the smaller streets and subdividing the blocks. “The land included in North Charleston, notably in the southeast quadrant, is broken by deep ravines and steep hillsides,” said O’Hear. “The attempt to force streets and avenues along rectangular lines would not only be in violation of all rules of landscape architecture, but would render all adjacent areas unsuitable for residential purposes on account of the street grades, and would cost the corporation thousands of dollars in grading on account of heavy cuts and fills.”
The solution offered by W. B. Marquis included a flexible plan of streets that “follow the contours, and the irregular blocks included by [the] same are subdivided into irregular building lots.” The result, said Mr. O’Hear, was “an area of irregular shape, comprising about 200 acres, including the most beautiful section of the property around the central park . . . which has been tentatively named Fernwood Park.” “The whole plan,” concluded Mr. O’Hear, “will doubtless be a layout in accordance with the most modern ideas of town planning, and will be in any event a vast improvement on the conventional checker-board lay-out first contemplated, both as to beauty and economy.”[8]
Marketing North Charleston:
In late 1913, the North Charleston Corporation hired an architect to design six modest model homes on the corporation’s property near the Navy Yard. The houses were opened for the inspection of prospective customers in April 1914, but the city planners waited another year before offering to sell any of the vacant residential lots.[9] Sales did not commence until April 1915, at which time the corporation launched a publicity campaign that seems woefully modest by twenty-first century standards. In several advertisements published in the spring of 1915, the developers identified the city’s principal neighborhood, now known as Park Circle, by the name “Pinewood Park.”[10]
Residential lots surrounding the circular hub were much larger and more expensive than those in the Noisette tract to the south and near the factory district to the east and north. All of the approximately 3,000 lots arranged in 240 blocks were subject to racial restrictions, however. As early as May 1913, two years before sales commenced, the North Charleston Corporation assured the public that the new community would enforce the “absolute segregation of the residences of the races” and “the absolute exclusion of negro dwellings beyond the limits of the town.”[11] African-Americans were allowed to rent and reside in future dwellings erected on the fringes of North Charleston, but they were precluded from purchasing lots. Sale contracts for smaller lots on the periphery of Pinewood Park precluded White purchasers from reselling, donating, or renting such property “to any person of the negro race” before the year 1940. The largest and most exclusive lots within Pinewood Park (that is, modern Park Circle) carried the same restrictive covenant, but extended the prohibition to the first of January, 1960.[12]
Electric trolley service from urban Charleston to the heart of North Charleston commenced on May 1st, 1915. For a fare ranging from five to ten cents, prospective buyers could ride the segregated streetcars from anywhere in the city to a new station on east Montague Street. The corporation did not build any further homes, but invited the public to visit the vacant streetscape and select a lot. After paying a deposit of 1/30th the purchase price, citizens could own a home site after just twenty-nine monthly payments. Anyone dissatisfied with their purchase could cancel the contract at any time and receive a full refund. Advertisements warned customers to hurry because the new suburban lots were in high demand and the prices would continue to rise as the yet-unfinished infrastructure matured.[13]
In reality, however, the North Charleston Corporation sold only 106 lots during the year 1915, and few houses appeared during the subsequent years. Modern audiences might be shocked to learn that its promotions included several exaggerated figures. It claimed that the entire project, including the industrial and suburban farm sites, encompassed a total area of 6,000 acres, when it was really closer to 5,000 acres. Advertisements claimed that the summit of North Charleston was forty feet above sea level, when its own research showed the highest point was several feet lower. White Charlestonians—the corporation’s target audience—were not, in fact, flocking to North Charleston in 1915 or in subsequent years.[14]
The Failure of North Charleston:
The “suburban city” envisioned by the initial developers failed to materialize, as did the neighboring enclave of small suburban farms to the north and the battery of factories along the Cooper River waterfront. Their bold plan, called “daring” by the local press in 1913, required an investment of private capital of unprecedented proportions in this part of the country. Its successful realization required a commensurate response from the public, but the cards were stacked against the North Charleston Corporation from the outset. To sell all of its residential lots, one-tenth of Charleston’s White population would have had to relocate up the Neck to the proposed city. That mass migration never occurred, and, in retrospect, it seems obvious that the corporation’s “daring” plan was too ambitious for its time.
The ripening of their grand scheme coincided with a national scramble to prepare for entry into the Great War then raging in Europe. The distant conflict soured the global economy and induced Americans to close their wallets and postpone dreams of upward mobility. Furthermore, R. G. Rhett, local bank president and president of the North Charleston Corporation, spent little time with the project after he became president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in early 1916. The Charleston Farms Corporation developed one “model farm” around that time, but soon abandoned its initial goal of attracting two or three hundred White farmers to cultivate ten to fifteen acres each. A significant part of the proposed farm land was sold to the Yeamans Hall Company to become an exclusive golf community. The residential plan for the Noisette tract, directly south of Pinewood Park, never materialized. A few factories arose on the Cooper River waterfront, worked by laborers black and white who resided in separate mill villages nearby, but the corporation’s industrial plan never fulfilled its original goals.[15]
The progress of the Great War in Europe triggered a growth spurt at the Charleston Navy Yard in the late 1910s, which generated a greater demand for modest housing for sailors and laborers both Black and White. The marketing model of North Charleston as a suburban refuge for weary Charlestonians quickly faded as the Navy Yard expanded to become the dominant entity to the north of quaint old Charleston. Economic conditions did not improve in the early 1920s, and the North Charleston scheme was deeply in debt. To keep the entire venture afloat during the fluid excesses of the Jazz Age, the original corporate entities—the Filbin Corporation, the Charleston Farms Corporation, and the North Charleston Corporation—reorganized under a new venture called the North Charleston Company, financed by a $200,000 mortgage of its property to the Mercantile Trust and Deposit Company of Baltimore, Maryland.
The onset of what became the Great Depression in 1929 did not immediately cripple the fledgling city of North Charleston, but the end was not far over the horizon. The Peoples State Bank, under the leadership of R. G. Rhett, collapsed in early 1932. Its assets, including the remaining holdings of the North Charleston Company, were sold at auction in 1933 and 1934. By that time, most of the flowers, shrubs, and trees laid out by landscape architect W. B. Marquis twenty years earlier had perished from want of attention. Many of the streets cleared, graded, and surfaced by order of chief engineer James O’Hear twenty years earlier were overgrown with native vegetation. The bondholders of the Mercantile Trust and Deposit Company of Baltimore purchased most of the North Charleston Company’s assets and reorganized them in 1934 under new entity called the North Charleston Holding Corporation, also based in Baltimore. The initial concept of North Charleston was officially dead.[16]
Vestiges of the Original North Charleston:
In the wake of the Great Depression and the demise of the North Charleston master plan, the United States government became the dominant force shaping the development of the local landscape. The government acquired large parcels of the Cooper River waterfront and the forested farmland near Goose Creek for naval purposes, and built blocks of modest workforce housing around the periphery of Pinewood Park, the central neighborhood of the original North Charleston plan. Park Circle, the circular road orbiting the neighborhood’s central park, emerged as its identifying feature by the end of the 1930s.[17]
The further expansion of the Charleston Navy Yard during the Second World War eclipsed the bold plans outlined by the North Charleston Corporation a generation earlier. New residents erased many of the smaller streets planned by W. B. Marquis in 1912 and carved more practical thoroughfares. The central fountain within a tranquil garden enclosed by a circular drive, proudly advertised in 1913, was covered in 1942 by a USO clubhouse for White men and women affiliated with the nearby Navy Base. The population of the segregated neighborhood swelled during the 1950s and embraced integration in the 1960s like the rest of the surrounding community.
Park Circle was not the first residential development within the present corporate limits of North Charleston, but it was certainly the most ambitious and noteworthy. As the surviving vestige of a bold plan that failed to blossom, the modern neighborhood represents a valuable part of the city’s history. Although Robert Goodwyn Rhett and William Bell Marquis might not recognize the eclectic, unpretentious spirit of twenty-first-century Park Circle, the distinctive geometric plan they established more than a century ago will endure for generations yet to come.
[1] The most authoritative source on this topic is Dean Thrift Sinclair, “‘A New Town Will Appear on Charleston Neck’: North Charleston and the Creation of the New South Garden City,” Ph.D. diss., Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, 2001. A PDF version of this 597–page document is available from LSU Digital Commons.
[3] Figures derived from U.S. Census Bureau, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940: Population, Volume 2: Characteristics of the Population; Part 6: Pennsylvania-Texas (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1943).
[5] Details of these real estate transactions are found in the Records of the North Charleston Company, 1912–1955, at the Charleston Archive, Charleston County Public Library (CCPL).
[6] Sinclair, “North Charleston,” discusses these factors in 209–11; see also Charleston News and Courier, 23 May 1913, page 1 of “Panama Canal Edition” supplement, “Big and Daring Plan for the Building of a City.”
[7] Sinclair, “North Charleston,” 47–55, 113–24; Charleston News and Courier, 23 May 1913, page 2 of “Panama Canal Edition” supplement, “Big and Daring Plan for the Building of a City.”
[8] Report of James O’Hear to R. G. Rhett, 23 October 1913, pages 5–6, in Records of the North Charleston Company, 1912–1955, at the Charleston Archive, CCPL.
[9] Letter from James O’Hear to R. G. Rhett, 18 September 1913; Report of James O’Hear to R. G. Rhett, 23 October 1913, page 8, in Records of the North Charleston Company, 1912–1955, at the Charleston Archive, CCPL; News and Courier, 5 April 1914, page 9: “First Residences Built At North Charleston.”
[10]News and Courier, 12 April 1915, page 6, “Consider a Home in North Charleston”; Evening Post, 7 May 1915, page 11, “North Charleston”; News and Courier, 8 May 1915, page 6, “Ideal Homes.”
[11] North Charleston historian Ruth Cupp estimated the total number of blocks and lots; see Ruth Cupp Research Papers, 1949–2002, at the Charleston Archive at CCPL; News and Courier, 23 May 1913, pages 1 and 2 of “Panama Canal Edition” supplement: “Big and Daring Plan for the Building of a City.”
[12] Sinclair, “North Charleston,” 230; North Charleston Corporation to R. L. Montague, title to real estate, 17 August 1915, Charleston County Register of Deeds, R16: 634 (of 631–37).
[13]News and Courier, 2 May 1915, page 14, “Opening of Car Line to North Charleston”; Evening Post, 3 April 1915, page 13, “Sales Gratifying”; News and Courier, 8 April 1915, page 7, “Announcement”; News and Courier, 12 April 1915, page 6, “Consider a Home in North Charleston”; Evening Post, 7 May 1915, page 11, “North Charleston”; News and Courier, 8 May 1915, page 6, “Ideal Homes”; The Sunday News, 9 May 1915, page 5, “Trolley Trips.”
[14] Sinclair, “North Charleston,” 285; News and Courier, 5 April 1914, page 9, “First Residence Built At North Charleston”; Evening Post, 4 January 1915, page 1, “Trolley Line to N. Charleston”; News and Courier, 2 May 1915, page 14, “Opening of Car Line to North Charleston.” See also the abovementioned advertisements.
[15] Sinclair, “North Charleston,” 289–314. The developers mentioned the number of potential farmers in Evening Post, 12 February 1913, page 4, “North Charleston Project.”
[16] Details of the collapse of the North Charleston Company are found within the extant corporate records at CCPL, in Sinclair, “North Charleston,” 338–53, and in The Trust for Public Land, Full Circle: A Vision for North Charleston (n.p.: The Trust for Public Land, 2008).
[17] Sinclair, “North Charleston,” 361–87. The earliest newspaper use of the neighborhood name “Park Circle” that I have seen appeared in News and Courier, 22 December 1940, section 3, page 9, “North Charleston Community News.”
Join Nic Butler, Ph.D., historian at the Charleston County Public Library as he discusses the the inception of the French Quarter in Charleston’s Historic District. This full synopsis and 28 minute podcasts delves into a transformative time in Charleston’s history.
In September 1973, a group of preservation activists coined the term “French Quarter” to describe a single block of urban Charleston that was slated for demolition. The site was added to the National Register of Historic Places that same month, and the new name soon became part of the local lexicon. Residents have embraced and expanded the concept of Charleston’s “French Quarter” over the past half-century, but few recall the curious circumstances of its creation. The story behind the neighborhood’s popular name is required reading for true amateurs of local history.
During the early days of 1973, the Atlanta-based Baier Corporation conceived a plan to redevelop a block of approximately 1.5 acres in urban Charleston, bounded by East Bay, Cumberland, and State Streets, including all of the buildings on the north side of Lodge Alley and buildings standing at the southeast end of the alley. The bulk of the structures encompassed with this block were then empty warehouses, constructed in the late nineteenth century as storage for the wholesale trade in vegetables and liquor. Wholesale commerce had dominated this part of East Bay Street during the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, but the industry moved out of the downtown area in the 1950s and 1960s to larger facilities further north up the Cooper River waterfront. On the aforementioned downtown block, the Baier Corporation planned to raze most of the vacant stores and warehouses and erect a mid-rise tower containing sixty to seventy luxury condominiums distributed across seven or eight stories measuring approximately eighty-nine feet tall (roughly the same height as the Mills House Hotel at the southwest corner of Meeting and Queen Streets). The redevelopment plan also included a row of two-story retail storefronts along East Bay and State Streets, and a twelve-foot high brick wall along Cumberland Street and parts of Lodge Alley.
The $6 million Baier project represented a major boost to the tourism economy of 1973 Charleston. On the last day of February, Alan Leigh Baier, president of the development company, joined Mayor J. Palmer Gaillard and representatives of the local Chamber of Commerce for a press conference at City Hall to announce the plan. The mayor praised Mr. Baier “for his interest in preserving the historic nature of the city” and predicted that his project would become a “tremendous asset” to Charleston’s economy.[1] Two months later, while the Baier Corporation was still negotiating to purchase the property in question, a local attorney representing the developer presented its condo project to the city’s Board of Architectural Review (BAR).[2] Joseph H. McGee informed the board that the developer had modified its plans according to feedback offered by local advocates of historic preservation, and added that the new structures would “conform to the character of other buildings in the neighborhood.” McGee also assured the board that the proposed tower would rise no higher than ninety feet—the height limit imposed by the zoning ordinance in force at the time. The developer sought permission to demolish fourteen of the fifteen structures then covering the block in question, most of which, said McGee, were simply vacant warehouses constructed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One residential structure standing at the northeast corner of Lodge Alley and State Street was to be retained and renovated. No one appeared before the BAR to counter the construction plan or the demolition request, though the board acknowledged receipt of three letters of opposition. On the last day of May, the board approved the condo plan and granted the Baier Corporation permission to demolish fourteen buildings.[3]
During the early days of June 1973, a number of downtown residents expressed shock and disappointment at the BAR’s support for the Baier project. They were concerned about the precedent-setting impact of ninety-foot tall tower on East Bay Street, and about the potential loss of fourteen historic buildings of various vintages located within one of Charleston’s most historic neighborhoods. Opponents of the project circulated a petition asking City Council to order a re-hearing of the plans before the BAR. A letter submitted to Council with the petition in July stated that residents proposed “to show evidence that these buildings are indeed over 100 years old, that the property has great aesthetic and historic integrity, and that these buildings can be incorporated into a useful and contributing part of the downtown” area. At the same time, preservation advocates lobbied City Council to revise the zoning ordinance pertaining to this area, reducing the maximum allowable height from ninety to fifty feet.[4]
Mayor Gaillard responded to the petition by noting that City Council exercised no authority over the Board of Architectural Review, and suggested that the opponents pursue their goals through courts of law. Two suits filed against the BAR that summer, one in the local Court of Common Pleas and one in U.S. District Court, sought to reverse the board’s decision or at least delay demolition.[5] In the meantime, architectural journalist Robert P. Stockton, aided by volunteer researchers, quickly assembled a historical profile of the endangered structures. Most were indeed late-nineteenth century wholesale warehouses and storefronts, while the buildings closest to Lodge Alley were likely built during the early 1800s, and the large building at the southwest corner of East Bay and Cumberland Streets was completely rebuilt after suffering a tornado strike in 1938.[6] In mid-August 1973, a group of citizens proposed an “alternative approach to development using the existing complex of warehouse structures” then slated for demolition, which they argued were “more in scale and architectural harmony with neighboring historic structures than the proposed high-rise structure would be.” Similar recent examples of “adaptive use” could be found in other American cities, and the condo opponents hoped Charleston would continue its position of leadership in the field of historic preservation.[7]
Despite the efforts of local preservation advocates, headed by Nancy Stevenson and Nancy Hawk, the city government issued a demolition permit to the Baier Corporation on August 16th. The development firm was eager to commence work on the multi-million-dollar project, but the volume of protest and the pending lawsuits dampened the president’s enthusiasm. On August 28th, Mr. Baier settled a compromise with his foes. In exchange for a $10,000 option, paid by a group of ten citizens, and their collective agreement to drop the lawsuits, Baier offered to sell the aforementioned block of property, plus an additional block at the southeast corner of Market and Church Streets, for $1,260,725. If the ad-hoc group of preservationists could sign a purchase contract by October 15th and complete the transaction by November 15th, Baier agreed to abandon the proposed development. If the opponents were unable to raise the funds within the time specified, they agreed to let the condo tower proceed without further objections.[8]
Immediately after securing an option to purchase the property from Baier, Nancy Stevenson and Nancy Hawk filed papers with South Carolina’s Secretary of State to incorporate a non-profit entity called the Save Charleston Foundation.[9] The co-chairs of the newly-minted organization held a press conference on September 5th to announce a drive to raise $1.26 million to complete the purchase. From their headquarters at 14 Legare Street, Mrs. Hawk said the group “hoped to get one million people from around the country to send in a dollar apiece,” which they hoped would generate a sufficient fund to allow Save Charleston Foundation “to borrow the balance of the money.” During the ensuing weeks, the nascent foundation began a grass-roots nationwide publicity campaign that emphasized the historic qualities of the buildings slated for demolition, “some of which,” they argued, “date from before the Civil War.” The Preservation Society of Charleston and the Historic Charleston Foundation, which had earlier endorsed the Baier project, now voiced their support for the campaign to save the old buildings.[10] Plans were made for television announcements, and a newspaper notice distributed across the country grabbed attention by stating that “America’s Most Historic City has 29 Days to save an Entire Block of Antebellum houses and other buildings.”[11]
The key to the success of the fund-raising campaign was to convince the public that the buildings slated for demolition embodied sufficient historic character to merit preservation. Using the research performed earlier by volunteers, the Save Charleston Foundation crafted statements that emphasized the local and national significance of the property in question. Buildings ignored by previous generations of local preservation advocates were now described as invaluable elements of the city’s architectural fabric. Visiting reporters from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and numerous regional newspapers flocked to Charleston to hear historical anecdotes and see the endangered structures. Mayor Gaillard famously told reporters he stood “squarely behind both sides” of the controversy. Thousands of small donations trickled in from across the United States and were augmented by a number of pledges for zero-interest loans.[12]
While the Save Charleston Foundation publicized its fundraising campaign in September 1973, the group pursued another strategy behind the scenes. Historical information about the property and buildings in question, gathered in Charleston by amateur historians, was forwarded to the state office of historic preservation at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History in Columbia. On September 4th, state preservation staff completed a form nominating the Baier property to the prestigious National Register of Historic Places. The application described the block bounded by Lodge Alley, East Bay, Cumberland, and State Streets as a singular entity with an unprecedented name: “Charleston’s French Quarter District (Lodge Alley).” The official “Statement of Significance” presented several paragraphs of historical facts of dubious veracity that included just one sentence regarding the proposed name of the district: “Located in a section where the French Huguenots once lived and worked, Lodge Alley was a thruway for merchants working at the docks on East Bay Street.” In fact, most of the nomination text and supporting material refers to buildings and historical events located outside the stated physical boundaries, offering no further justification for the proposed name. A brief description of the site’s “Physical Appearance” simply asserts that “Lodge Alley is located in an area of the old walled city of Charleston where the French Huguenots once had warehouses and dwellings.”[13]
The nomination form also explains that Lodge Alley was previously known as Simmons’ Alley, but was renamed for the Freemasons who purchased a lot in the alley in 1773 and built a lodge house. Within that building, says the nomination form and subsequent press statements issued by the Save Charleston Foundation, the Freemasons constructed a rolling stage with effigies of the Pope, the Devil, and British politicians that was paraded through Charleston in November 1774 to protest oppressive British taxation. This event, claimed the advocates, endowed the “French Quarter” with national significance worthy of preservation and commemoration, but two facts undermine the assertion. First, the lodge in question stood on the south side of Lodge Alley, outside the boundaries of the proposed historic district.[14] Second, the 1774 event in question, which I summarized in Episode No. 236, was not a patriotic tax protest, but very clearly an anti-Catholic demonstration against the granting of civil rights to French Catholics in the province of Quebec—a bigoted event unworthy of modern commemoration.
The form nominating the “French Quarter District” to the National Register of Historic Places contains several other anomalies. First, the document was prepared by state officials without input from the property owner, the Baier Corporation, the president of which had repeatedly asserted that the existing buildings were devoid of historical significance. Such disregard for the property owner isn’t technically illegal, but, considering the controversial nature of the project at the time, it demonstrates a potentially unethical degree of favoritism. Second, the nomination form prepared in Columbia on September 4th was received in Washington D.C. on the 14th and approved five days later. The front page of the application—which is now available online—bears the hand-written annotation “Special Handling,” and it was evidently approved without sufficient review of its dubious historical claims. Such administrative shortcuts stand in stark contrast with the current application process, which mandates a far higher threshold to gain the coveted status of inclusion on the National Register.
The invention of “Charleston’s French Quarter District” in September 1973, despite its numerous flaws, provided invaluable credibility to the fundraising campaign of the Save Charleston Foundation. In subsequent weeks and months, the group and its numerous supporters spun larger and larger stories of the historical role played by French immigrants who once resided near, but not necessarily within the rather narrowly-defined boundaries of the “French Quarter.” Preservation advocates and journalists trumpeted the flawed story of the parade float built by the Freemasons in 1774 as a model of American patriotism.[15] After raising $625,000 from citizens and acquiring a loan for the balance from the North Carolina National Bank, the Save Charleston Foundation signed a contract to purchase the Baier property on 15 October 1973 and completed the transaction four weeks later.[16]
The purpose of the preservation campaign of 1973 was to save fourteen buildings from demolition and to prevent the erection of a ninety-foot-tall condo tower overshadowing East Bay Street. Save Charleston Foundation’s alternative plan was to adapt the existing buildings within the newly designated “French Quarter” for mixed commercial use, including retail shops, restaurants, and a “motel.” The new owner outlined its development plan that November, but legal and economic complications delayed the start of the project for several years. Restoration and rehabilitation work finally commenced in earnest in 1980, and the Lodge Alley Inn—complete with its “French Quarter Restaurant”—finally opened in April 1983. The property was sold in the autumn of 1998 to Bluegreen Corporation of Boca Raton, Florida, which gradually transformed the existing hotel into the present enclave of privately-owned timeshare units.[17]
Prior to the autumn of 1973, Charlestonians applied the phrase “French Quarter” either to a neighborhood in New Orleans or to a creek within the Francis Marion National Forest. The name was first applied to a block of urban Charleston that September as part of a preservation campaign, but did not immediately enter the local lexicon. The Preservation Society began offering fall tours of the French Quarter in 1979 and the name gradually gained local recognition, most notably after the opening of the French Quarter Restaurant in 1983. A brief description of the French Quarter, extracted from a 1973 newspaper article, was added to the city’s official training manual for tour guides.[18] A French Quarter Neighborhood Association, encompassing a much larger swath of real estate, coalesced in the 1990s, by which time the historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations enshrined in the 1973 National Register designation had become fixtures in the marketing of urban Charleston.
So, how French is Charleston’s so-called French Quarter? The answer depends on how one defines its boundaries. First, let’s focus on the block defined by National Register listing of 1973. The land encompassed by Lodge Alley, East Bay, Cumberland, and State Streets includes parts of four lots defined in the 1672 Grand Model of Charleston: the northernmost parts of Lots No. 32 and No. 68, and the southernmost parts of Lots No. 33 and No. 75. Lodge Alley, formerly known as Simmons’ Alley, was created after 1713, when Francis Holmes purchased from Robert Daniel the northernmost part of Lot No. 32, containing 100 feet of vacant frontage along East Bay Street, and divided the land with his friend, John Simmons.[19] Each man sacrificed five feet of his respective half to create a passageway ten feet wide, but their object was not necessarily to facilitate traffic to and from nearby wharves. In fact, there were no wharves north of Queen Street at that time, and Queen Street, then known as Dock Street, was a watery thoroughfare that interrupted traffic along the Bay Street until the late 1730s. It’s more likely that Simmons’ Alley was created to facilitate passage from the northern end of the Bay Street to the southern part of the town, via a crooked, twenty-foot-wide passage known as Union Street (now State Street). Wragg Alley, created by merchant Joseph Wragg in the early 1700s, served a similar purpose before it was reconfigured in the late 1700s as Amen Street and then supplanted by the eastward extension of Cumberland Street circa 1840.[20] Modern State Street was created circa 1812, after a major fire in the neighborhood in 1810 provided an excuse to widen and straighten the narrow passage previously known as Union Street.[21]
Within three-and-a-half-centuries worth of property records pertaining to the land bounded by Lodge Alley, East Bay, Cumberland, and State Street, defined as the “French Quarter” in 1973, one finds only a handful of French names. Noah Serré, for example, purchased a narrow swath of Grand Model Lot No. 33 in 1743, and his parcel, now No. 191 East Bay Street, later passed through several families of French extraction.[22] A native of the French colony of Saint-Domingue, John Pezant, acquired the northern half of this so-called French Quarter some years before his death in Cuba in 1849. His heirs sold the sparsely-settled property in 1852, after which later owners, primarily German and Jewish merchants, scraped Pezant’s wooden residence and built commercial warehouses.[23] From the perspective of property ownership and architectural contributions, therefore, persons of French extraction played a demonstrably minor role in the history of the block designated the French Quarter in 1973.
In recent decades, especially since the formation of the modern neighborhood association, many Charlestonians have adopted the habit of describing a much broader but amorphously defined French Quarter. Unofficially, the current conception of the quarter spans from Broad Street northward to Market Street, and from Meeting Street eastward to the Cooper River waterfront. This broad landscape includes a core part of the City of Charleston that dates back to the creation of the town in the 1670s, in which a number of French immigrants—both Protestant and Catholic—have settled during the past three and a half centuries. Prior to September 1973, however, no resident, visitor, or historian of Charleston ventured to describe this area as containing a significant concentration of French people, or as an area defined by French architectural or other cultural characteristics. Numerous persons of French extraction certainly settled in the broad neighborhood between Broad and Market Streets in centuries past, and French Protestants have indeed worshiped at a Huguenot Church at the southeast corner of Queen and Church Streets since the 1680s. Nevertheless, the claim that French residents dominated the history of that area is a fanciful assertion that ignores the presence and contributions of numerous other ethnic groups in centuries past. One might as easily argue that the neighborhood should be called the African Quarter, the Yankee Quarter, the Jewish Quarter, the Warehouse Quarter, or any other subjective moniker that suits the purpose at hand.
In short, the name “French Quarter” is an imprecise, arbitrary phrase invented as a marketing slogan to support the partisan purposes of a contentious legal battle in the autumn of 1973. That campaign to save fourteen historic structures was a bona-fide success for the cause of historic preservation, and the buildings rehabilitated in the 1980s and still in use today were certainly worthy of conservation. If the ninety-foot-tall tower of condos proposed by the Baier Corporation in 1973 had been built, that structure would have set a precedent leading to a version of historic Charleston very different from the landscape we see today.
As a life-long student of the history of early Charleston, I wholeheartedly acknowledge that French-speaking people, Protestant and Catholic, White and Black, played important roles in the long history of the broad neighborhood in question. Their collective cultural influence within the greater Charleston area is beyond question. Never did they form a majority of a particular geographic neighborhood, however, like German immigrants did in Charleston’s eighteenth-century “Dutch Town.” As a matter of personal preference, therefore, I avoid using the phrase “French Quarter” in my own speech and writing. In my mind, the 1973 moniker is a modern affectation akin to several other inaccurate place-names coined in the twentieth century, including the “Four Corners of the Law,” “Holy City,” and “Harleston Village.”
Once foreign to Charleston, the phrase “French Quarter” has become naturalized in the Palmetto City over the past half-century and, I suspect, will continue to thrive in the years to come. While the name does not suit my historical palate, I respect my neighbors’ freedom of choice to embrace or reject the name, and I commend those advocates of 1973 who worked to save an important part of the city’s commercial architectural fabric. To my fellow citizens fond of the marketing slogan invented in 1973, I say vive la différence!
[1] In Charleston News and Courier, 1 March 1973, page 1, “Condominiums Planned For East Bay Area,” Baier stated that the height of the structure was still under discussion. He later described the proposed height as “approximately 89 feet high” in Evening Post, 28 August 1973, page 1-A, “Local Group Gets Option.” The brick wall and retail shops were described in News and Courier, 1 June 1973 (Friday), page 1-B, “Razing Requests Approved For Condominium.”
[2] The Baier Corporation purchased 183-185 East Bay Street on 21 March 1973, and the remaining property on 5 June 1973; see Charleston County Register of Deeds (hereafter CCRD), book A101: 123, and book B102: 211, 222.
[3] Baier requested demolition permits for numbers 183, 185, 187, 189, 191, 195, 197, 199, 201, and 203 East Bay Street, and numbers 46, 48, 50 and 52 State Street; the sole remaining building was 44 State Street; see News and Courier, 29 May 1973 (Tuesday), page 7-A, “Demolition Request Submitted”; News and Courier, 1 June 1973 (Friday), page 1-B, “Razing Requests Approved For Condominium”; News and Courier, 22 November 1973, page 1-B, “Review Board Defended On High-Rise.”
[4]News and Courier, 29 June 1973, page 8-D, “Residents Ask Rehearing On Condominium Project”; City Council proceedings of 17 July 1973, printed in Evening Post, 3 August 1973, page 8-D.
[5]Evening Post, 28 August 1973, page 1-A, “Local Group Gets Option.”
[6]News and Courier, 20 August 1973, page 1-B, “Structures Date Back to 19th Century”; for the building at the corner of East Bay and Cumberland Streets, see News and Courier, 5 October 1938, page 14, “165 Structures Face Demolition”; News and Courier, 26 October 1938, page 10, “Pearlstine Awards Rebuilding Contract.”
[7]News and Courier, 20 August 1973, page 1-B, “Plan Proposed For 14 Warehouses.”
[8]Evening Post, 28 August 1973, page 1-A, “Local Group Gets Option.”
[9]News and Courier, 1 September 1973, page 6-B, “Notice.”
[10]News and Courier, 6 September 1973, page 1-A, “Condominium Opponents Seek Funds”; Evening Post, 15 September 1973, page 1-B, “Architects And Foundations Join High-Rise Opponents.”
[11]News and Courier, 16 September 1973, page 11-C, “Charleston, S.C.”
[12]News and Courier, 15 September 1973, page 6-A, “‘Save Charleston’ Group Still Far Short of Goal”; Evening Post, 18 September 1973, page 2-A, “Condominium Foes Gaining National Note”; Evening Post, 20 September 1973, page 10-A, “Save Charleston (Reprinted from the Washington Post)”; News and Courier, 22 September 1973, page 1-B, “Mail Flooding Foundation”; Evening Post, 24 September 1973, page 1-B, “Keeping Posted,” by Basil Hall; Evening Post, 9 October 1973, page 2-B, “‘I’m Squarely Behind Both Sides,’ Declares the Charleston Mayor,” reprinted from the Wall Street Journal, by Neil Maxwell.
[14] Documents concerning the Marine Lodge’s purchase of a lot on the south side of Simmons’ Alley in June 1773 are found in CCRD H4:301–25.
[15] According to News and Courier, 26 September 1973, page 1-B, “Register Lists East Bay Site,” “research on the history of the complex, the basis for the nomination, was conducted by Miss Marguerite Stedman, Mrs. Carroll Ann Smith and Mrs. Jinx Jones, all of Charleston.” Robert Stockton summarized the history of the neighborhood, with some inaccuracies, in News and Courier, 1 October 1973, page 1-B, “Charleston’s French Quarter Dates to Late 1700s.”
[16]Evening Post, 26 September 1973, page 1-B, “East Bay Plans Progress”; News and Courier, 27 September 1973, page 1-B, “Preservation Funds Add Up”; Evening Post, 5 October 1973, page 1-B, “Foundation May Revise Fund Goal”; Evening Post, 13 October 1973, page 1-B, “Volunteers Will March Again For East Bay Site”; Evening Post, 15 October 1973, page 1-A, “Foundation Opts To Buy”; News and Courier, 16 October 1973, page 1-A, “Local Group To Buy Buildings”; News and Courier, 16 November 1973, page 1-B, “Law Suit Clouds Action By Save Charleston Group”; the conveyance from Baier Corporation to Save Charleston Foundation, executed on 16 November 1973, is recorded in CCRD book F103: 347.
[17]News and Courier, 17 November 1973, page 1-B, “Foundation Plans New Development”; Evening Post, 7 December 1973, page 1-A, “Lodge Alley Site Sale Announced”; News and Courier, 17 May 1974, page 1-B, “Save Charleston Group Hopes To Salvage ‘Kitty’”; News and Courier, 7 November 1974, page 1-B, “Proposed Developers Being Sued”; News and Courier, 21 November 1974, page 1-B, “Litigation Stalled by Court Order”; Evening Post, 28 August 1975, page 2-A, “Firm Has New Ideas For Old Warehouses”; Evening Post, 15 April 1983, page 10-A, quarter-page advertisement: “Welcome to Charleston’s Inn of History”; Charleston Post and Courier, 3 Sept 1998, page 7-B, “3rd Hotel Deal Sold Downtown.”
[18] See Historic Charleston Foundation, compiler, The City of Charleston Tour Guide Training Manual (Charleston, S.C.: City of Charleston, Office of Tourism, 2011), 264–65. The text in question is from News and Courier, 1 October 1973, page 1-B, “Charleston’s French Quarter Dates to Late 1700s,” by Robert P. Stockton.
[19] See Robert Daniel to Francis Holmes, conveyance, 4 June 1713, and Francis Holmes to Samuel Eveleigh, power of attorney, 20 June 1713, in South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Records of the Register of the Province, book H: 302–5, 315.
[20] A 1757–58 deed of partition of the estate of Joseph Wragg, which included property on both the north and south sides of Wragg Alley, is recorded in CCRD B3: 233–71. The widening and straightening of Cumberland Street, which involved the absorption of Amen Street, took place 1838–40.
[21] A plat of the revised path of State Street, “surveyed in March 1812” by John Wilson, found in CCRD I8: 443–48, shows that the widening and straightening of the street removed more than thirteen feet from the west end of Lodge Alley. The present structures on the east side of State Street, to the north and south of Lodge Alley, were constructed after 1812.
[22] See Sarah Blakeway, by her attorney, Charles Pinckney, to Noah Serré, lease and release, 27–28 January 1742/3 (16th regnal year of George II) CCRD Z: 10–19. The property later descended to the Dutarque and Gaillard families.
[23] See the two wills of John L’Aimable Pezant in South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Will Book K (1845–1851), pages 301, 395; WPA transcript volume 45: 561–65, 727–30; Charleston Courier, 7 April 1852, page 3, “Valuable Building Lots. Under Decree in Equity. Pezant vs. Cay and others”; Pezant’s property is illustrated by plat made by Charles Parker in 1852, now plat No. 7134 in the Plat Collection of John McCrady, held by the Charleston County Register of Deeds.
Investments in attractive private debt sector now surpass $100 million
CHICAGO, IL /PRNewswire/ — JLL Income Property Trust, an institutionally managed daily NAV REIT (NASDAQ: ZIPTAX; ZIPTMX; ZIPIAX; ZIPIMX) with approximately $7 billion in portfolio equity and debt investments, announced today that it originated a $48 million senior, secured floating rate first mortgage loan on an institutional-quality apartment community in Charleston, South Carolina. The loan has an initial three-year term, earns an interest rate of 3.85% above SOFR – the Secured Overnight Financing Rate – with a SOFR floor of 4%, and is projected to deliver a yield of approximately 8 to 9%.
With this most recent loan, JLL Income Property Trust has now surpassed $100 million in its senior secured floating rate first mortgage portfolio. In a market environment where traditional real estate debt sources are facing balance sheet and legacy portfolio challenges that have resulted in significantly curtailed lending, JLL Income Property Trust has capitalized by originating real estate loans that complement and further diversify its core, multi-sector property portfolio while also potentially enhancing investment performance.
“With continued disruption in the traditional real estate lending markets, we see tremendous opportunities to make accretive loans on attractive properties that add value to our diversified real estate portfolio,” said Allan Swaringen, President, and CEO of JLL Income Property Trust. “This Charleston investment is expected to provide JLL Income Property Trust with durable cash flows, downside protection through a senior position to the equity investment in the property, and added diversification to our portfolio of core equity and debt investments.”
Swaringen continued, “This investment brings our senior secured first mortgage loan portfolio to more than $100 million. Over time we intend to invest a meaningful allocation toward this private debt sector to capitalize on this higher interest rate environment to the benefit of our stockholders.”
The property is a 358-unit apartment community spread across 13 three-story residential buildings. The property is located in North Charleston, two miles from Charleston International Airport and seven miles from United States Joint Airforce Charleston, the largest employer in the region. Ongoing development in the market includes a $1 billion medical campus for Roper St. Francis Healthcare located one mile west of the property that is expected to bring more than 2,000 jobs to the area. Other major employers in the area include Boeing, the Medical University of South Carolina, Trident Health System and the Charleston County School District, among others.
For more information on JLL Income Property Trust, please visit our website at www.jllipt.com.
About JLL Income Property Trust, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZIPTAX; ZIPTMX; ZIPIAX; ZIPIMX) JLL Income Property Trust, Inc. is a daily NAV REIT that owns and manages a diversified portfolio of high quality, income-producing residential, industrial, grocery-anchored retail, healthcare and office properties located in the United States. JLL Income Property Trust expects to further diversify its real estate portfolio over time, including on a global basis. For more information, visit www.jllipt.com.
About LaSalle Investment Management LaSalle Investment Management is one of the world’s leading real estate investment managers. On a global basis, LaSalle manages approximately $89 billion of assets in private and public real estate property and debt investments as of Q4 2023. LaSalle’s diverse client base includes public and private pension funds, insurance companies, governments, corporations, endowments and private individuals from across the globe. LaSalle sponsors a complete range of investment vehicles including separate accounts, open- and closed-end funds, public securities and entity-level investments. For more information, please visit http://www.lasalle.com.
Valuations, Forward Looking Statements and Future Results This press release may contain forward-looking statements with respect to JLL Income Property Trust. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not descriptions of historical facts and include statements regarding management’s intentions, beliefs, expectations, research, market analysis, plans or predictions of the future. Because such statements include risks, uncertainties and contingencies, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Past performance is not indicative of future results and there can be no assurance that future dividends will be paid.
2024 Mount Pleasant Farmers Market – 645 Coleman Blvd, Mount Pleasant, SC
Market Details
The Mount Pleasant Farmers Market features farm goods, food vendors and live music.
Join us every Tuesday starting, April through September, from 3:30 – 7:00 p.m. to pick up fresh produce and other farm goods, prepared meals, and plenty of other goodies to stock your kitchen. Free parking.
Do you Facebook? Become a fan of the Farmers Market Facebook community! This is the best place for up-to-date info and any weather-related announcements including early closures or cancelations (this is available even without a Facebook account).
Clemson Extension Master Gardeners
Also available for your assistance are the Clemson Extension Master gardeners, seasoned volunteers who can help solve most pesky gardening problems. Make the Mount Pleasant Farmers Market a weekly affair!
Seasonal Offerings
What’s in season at the Mount Pleasant Farmers Market? This Seasonal Crop Calendar has all the harvest dates for local produce.
Specialty Markets
Holiday Market – Saturday, December 14, 2024. The festival is a combination of locally grown fresh produce, baked goods, homemade preserves, hot food and hand crafted gifts. Details can be found on the Holiday Market web page. The application for the Holiday Market is available in August.
For more information about the Mount Pleasant Farmers Market, e-mail the Market Manager or call (843) 884-2528.
Application Information
The Mount Pleasant Farmers Market is a traditional market meaning that only farmers and food vendors are allowed to sell. Vendors interested in applying for the 2024 season, please review all market rules and regulations before you submit an application. Food vendors must have a DHEC commercial kitchen were they produce their goods. Please note cottage law vendors are not accepted. All Farmers must submit a crop list as well as grow over 50% of what they sell.
Vendors wanting to be considered for a space need to complete and submit an application by February 10. 2024
Traveling is meant to be a unique experience full of fun and relaxation, but it can be difficult to navigate some of the most popular travel destinations – which are often pricey and crowded. Many people may not know that there are tons of alternate destinations to visit, that remain “off the beaten path” but are equally exciting as their well-known counterparts.
The book includes a two-page spread on the museum and encourages travelers to visit – “it is a vital and affirming place for anyone interested in understanding the real history of one of the country’s most popular cities”
About the Author
An award-winning writer and editor for National Geographic Traveler, Andrew Nelson has roamed all 50 states as well as numerous countries for the magazine and website. He served as director of editorial projects for National Geographic Travel in Washington, D.C., and has taught in institutions such as Loyola University New Orleans and the College of Charleston. He lives in Washington, D.C.
Fraggle Rock LIVE will feature beloved Fraggles, Doozers, and Gorgs in an all-new Fraggle Rock adventure in development for 2025
HOLLYWOOD, Calif., March 22, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — A new first-ever Fraggle Rock stage show is in development from The Jim Henson Company, with The Brad Simon Organization on board as the exclusive booking agent. Starring the characters of the beloved original Jim Henson series currently seen in the hit Emmy Award-winning Apple TV+ reboot, Fraggle Rock LIVE will feature the iconic Fraggles alongside all the favorite characters from the show, as well as new characters in a brand-new exciting, interactive, live musical adventure perfect for all ages!
When Gobo Fraggle discovers a legend about a long lost Fraggle treasure called the Great Song Stone, his pals Mokey, Boober, Wembley, and Red join him on an adventure to find it, and end up celebrating the greatest treasure of all – something much more special than they could have ever imagined!
Featuring gorgeous new walk-around versions of the Fraggles, puppet-sized and mechanized Doozers, appearances from the giant Gorgs, and exclusive new magical puppet creatures all from the acclaimed Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, this all-new musical stage adventure will welcome audiences into the incredible world of the iconic and beloved Fraggle Rock! Written and directed by John Tartaglia (Avenue Q, Shrek the Musical, Stephen Schwartz’s The Secret Silk), the show will include favorite songs, fantastic in-theater immersive special effects, and exciting physical staging, as well as magical heartwarming moments, hilarious and endearing new characters, and much more to make this unforgettable theater experience perfect for families with young first-time theater goers, and for Fraggle Rock fans who are young at heart.
“There is so much momentum behind creating the first-ever Fraggle Rock live show for families and fans! We are simply blown away by the response we have seen from the many theaters who are excited to welcome the Fraggles to their communities. I can’t wait for fans to get the chance to see the Fraggles come to their hometowns!” said John Tartaglia, Creative Supervisor of Fraggle Rock for The Jim Henson Company.
The Brad Simon Organization is the exclusive booking agency for Fraggle Rock LIVE. Visitwww.fragglerocklive.com for additional information.
About The Jim Henson Company The Jim Henson Company has remained an established leader in family entertainment for over 65 years and is recognized as an innovator in puppetry, animatronics, and digital animation. The Company’s most recent credits include the Oscar®-winning Guillermo Del Toro’s Pinocchio for Netflix, the Emmy®-winning Fraggle Rock: Back to the Rock for Apple TV+, and the feature film The Portable Door for MGM+. The Company is currently in post-production on a new reimagining of Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day starring Eva Longoria and Cheech Marin for Disney+. Other television credits include Slumberkins, Harriet the Spy and Fraggle Rock: Rock On, all for Apple TV+, Word Party for Netflix, Earth to Ned for Disney+, and the Emmy-winning Netflix Original series The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance. Other TV productions include Dinosaur Train (PBS), Splash and Bubbles (PBS), Sid the Science Kid (PBS), and Julie’s Greenroom (Netflix), as well as Fraggle Rock, The Storyteller, and the sci-fi series Farscape. Feature film credits include The Star (Sony Pictures Animation), Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (Disney), and the ground-breaking fantasy classics The Dark Crystal, and Labyrinth.
With additional locations in New York and London, The Jim Henson Company is headquartered in Los Angeles on the historic Charlie Chaplin lot, complete with soundstage and post-production facilities. The Company is home to Jim Henson’s Creature Shop™, a pre-eminent character-building and visual effects group with international film, television, theme park and advertising clients, as well as Henson Recording Studios, one of the music industry’s top recording facilities known for its world-class blend of state-of-the-art and vintage equipment. The Company’s Henson Alternative credits include the feature film The Happytime Murders, and the popular live puppet improvisational show Puppet-Up! – Uncensored.
About The Brad Simon Organization For nearly four decades, the goal of The Brad Simon Organization has been to provide an array of unique and innovative productions and performing artists to presenters and their audiences. Since 1983, they have provided tour booking services for a diverse roster of artists and productions in a wide variety of performance venues, including performing art centers, commercial theaters, amphitheaters, arenas, festivals, fairs and theme parks. Relying on years of expertise, they also assist our producing clients in identifying and acquiring the theatrical touring rights for book and television-based properties. Their national and international tours have reached millions of audience members at over 1,000 commercial and non-profit venues in all 50 states in the US; 8 provinces in Canada, Sydney, Australia, Singapore and other territories. They have toured 20+ productions based on top-rated television series, over 80 book titles, as well as original theater productions, targeted to multi-generational family audiences.
About John Tartaglia John Tartaglia is an acclaimed actor, director, writer, and puppeteer, Tony-nominated for originating both Rod and Princeton in Broadway’s debut company of Avenue Q. His theatrical directing credits include Stephen Schwartz’s The Secret Silk and Jim Henson’s Inspired Silliness, both for Princess Cruises, Kinky Boots (3d Theatricals), Disney’s Beauty and the Beast (Maltz Jupiter Theater), Claudio Quest (Six-time winner at NY Musical Theatre Festival, including Best in Fest and Best Director), Shrek The Halls (DreamWorks Theatricals), Because of Winn Dixie (Arkansas Rep and Goodspeed Opera House development) and Jim Henson’s Musical World (Carnegie Hall).
Most recently, he finished production on the second season of the EMMY-winning Fraggle Rock: Back to the Rock, serving as an executive producer, writer, and puppet captain, and performing Gobo Fraggle, Architect Doozer, Gunge, Barry Blueberry, and Sprocket the Dog.
John has worked many summer seasons at the country’s award-winning, oldest outdoor theater, the St. Louis MUNY, directing such shows as Shrek the Musical, The Wizard of Oz, Tarzan, Annie, Matilda, Mary Poppins, and most recently Disney’s Beauty and the Beast. Other credits include the national tours of Jim Henson’s Dinosaur Train Live and Jim Henson’s Sid the Science Kid Live! as well as several shows for Sesame Place, PA.
John can be heard every Sunday on Sirius XM On Broadway on his show “Sunday Funday with John Tartaglia.”