Demolition proposal of property on Meeting Street deferred

A proposal to demolish a building housing three Meeting Street businesses was met this month with such vehement community disapproval that the architect deferred the application before a city board considered it.

For now, the tenants at the 20th-century building at 280 Meeting St., which is home to The Bicycle Shoppe, 319 Men and Theatre 99, can breathe a little easier — at least for a while.

According to media reports, the tenants were blindsided by the demolition proposal, which they only found out about after word spread through social media.

“I think everyone is a little bit relieved that they’re taking a beat here to, presumably, talk with the community,” said Preservation Society of Charleston President and CEO Brian Turner. “We encouraged people to comment when this was first posted on the Board of Architectural Review’s (BAR) agenda, and we were really glad to see a lot of people register their objections on the online portal.”

The board’s agenda, posted ahead of the Sept. 10 public meeting, was amended on Sept. 8 after the applicant, Eddie Bello of Bello Garris Architects, deferred the proposal on behalf of the property owner, listed as W.E. Applegate III.

Bello did not respond to requests for comment.

“As we often are in these situations, we’re really mindful that the way the BAR process is set up,” Turner said. “There’s pros and cons for dealing with something like this. The natural question is how would the board analyze a building like this? They have a lot of different tools they can use to say, ‘No.’ ”

Turner pointed to language in the BAR’s policies as evidence in favor of the building: importance to city culture, architecture and aesthetics, the nature and character of the surrounding area and more.

Turner said 20th-century buildings like the 280 Meeting St. property get a lot of skepticism from the board.

“Oh, they’ve lost their integrity, or well, they’ve been heavily altered, as if that’s a sort of factor that warrants against their continued survival,” he said. That’s been frustrating for us.

“The city should be doing all it can to preserve these cultural spaces that are funky and give us a unique identity,” Turner added. “Not to mention, but the likelihood of what replaces this from an economic perspective is probably not these kinds of spaces.”

Turner, however, admits speculation on the future of the site isn’t as relevant to the board as what currently lies there. BAR rules state that demolition applications are to be submitted on their own merits, and replacement projects aren’t really to be considered when discussing demolition proposals.

“It may be less relevant for the board to consider, but the reality is that it has the power to consider these cases for the city’s continued viability as a thriving arts and culture district,” Turner said.

The Preservation Society received an outpouring of support from community members on social media, with 44 comments on an Instagram post asking people to stand with the small businesses housed at 280 Meeting Street.

It is not clear how many public comments the BAR received ahead of the Sept. 10
meeting. Representatives with the BAR and the city of Charleston did not respond to requests for comment. When the board next takes up the proposal, however, all submitted comments that were not read on Sept. 10 will be read then.

The governing BAR committee meets on the second Wednesday of every month. Its next meeting will be Oct. 8. The agenda has not yet been posted.