As you know Mayor Riley, Charleston is a city of rich historical significance. It has taken its honors for being one of the finest historical treasures of America. Rich in history, the city offers lessons in history that surpass book documentations or classroom discussions. Recently, Charleston has seen an economic boom in the commercialization of the city. Due to the rapid growth of tourism in Charleston, the icons which make the city unique are slowly being ignored and with the lack of emphasis on the city’s icons, Charleston will soon transform itself into a replica of Myrtle Beach.
For example, King Street is becoming too commercialized for its own good. Too many of the cosmopolitan shops that you can find in many other psychocentric destinations, have taken away appeal from the family owned/ localized boutiques. One thing that also makes Charleston unique is its architectural integrity. Some of the many major tourist attractions like: Rainbow Row, The Battery, and the many historic houses have retained their original architecture and appeal ever since their creation and surprisingly, many of these buildings have withstood floods, hurricanes and even earthquakes.
Through historical preservation, these icons help illuminate Charleston’s historical significance ever since it has became a major tourist destination and to put them behind for incoming commercial, cosmopolitan shops further complicates the economic imbalance of the Charleston tourism economy. Indeed bringing in these shops and types of businesses create more revenue and taxation for the city, they do not add to the overall historical significance of the city. Moreover, they are in actuality a leakage to the local economy.
For example, Victoria Secret’s, the Gap, Banana Republic, J. Crew, and Steve Madden are all apart of a larger corporation that are headquartered in another city and as a result, part of the revenue is divvied between the respective corporations and Charleston, leaving Charleston with only a portion of the revenue that is taxable. Arguably, if those shops were that of local ownership, then Charleston would benefit even more. Being locally owned and operated, more money would be not leak out from the local economy however more will circulate through it.
How so? The local operator would in turn take their revenue earned and spend in the local economy by buying goods and services from the local market and from those funds; then that money spent is again circulated back through the local economy. In addition the rise in commercialization has caused a separation in Charleston’s oldest shopping district, King Street. Walking down Upper and Lower King Street, I noticed that the two areas were completely different.
In Upper King Street, were numerous cosmopolitan shops, hotels, and restaurants but in Lower King Street district were many dilapidated family-owned/local shops and restaurants. In a survey we conducted, we asked visiting tourists which areas of King Street did the mainly stay at or visit while they are in Charleston. Not to our surprise, many of them did not even attempt to venture onto the Lower King Street district because it was dilapidated and unappealing to their eyes. Mayor Riley, it is imperative that you incorporate both districts into one because as of now, they exist as two separate markets.
Yes it is okay for them to be different, but to be totally separate weakens the city’s economic potential. With the proper planning and zoning, the King Street district can become the back-bone of Charleston’s tourism economy. We suggest that it is to your advantage as a way to attract both allocentric and pyschocentric travelers to Charleston. If done so, Charleston can be an ideal tourism destination for many to follow. Charleston will have the benefit of profiting tremendously from both disciplines.
According to our survey done on 50 tourist visiting Charleston, 65% of the tourist preferred shopping at local shops and restaurants owned by area locals. In addition, they also agreed that Charleston needs improvement when it comes to upholding its architectural integrity. From the survey conducted, we also found that a majority of the tourist preferred to lodge in local inns and or at a bed and breakfast. Considering the numerous amounts of them located throughout the city, they have to be in competition with the more modern chain hotels.
Although they are good, they take away from the southern hospitality that comes along with staying in a bed and breakfast or local inn. No, we are not saying to expel these types of attraction from the city, because they do bring jobs, taxation and tourism to Charleston. We just impress upon you to take in to consideration that the tourism outlook of Charleston is changing from mid-allocentric/physcocentric to full blown physcocentrism. Yes, I understand that Charleston is trying to out do its competitors, but we don’t believe that it is going about in a more fiscal manner.
As we have stated, if Charleston continues to invest more in the cosmopolitan giants, then it will attract a tourism population that are no more than a emulation of their competitors further complicating the issues already concerning Charleston’s tourism economy. 2) Along with the commercialization of the old buildings and structures of Charleston that make the city as a whole feel more historic, untouched and preserved, the wildlife has been on the ropes of this tourism fight for supremacy.
The constant growth rate of people coming to Charleston has caused a higher need for housing, libraries, hospitals, and basically the loss of habitat for animals and natural vegetation. The marshes, which is a signature (niche) of Charleston not only are appealing to the eye and the minds of the tourist, they also help protect the city from flooding and other natural disasters which deal along the coast. If we go on to future development of these cites then are destroying ecological protections of this great city, which will only go on to be replaced by artifical barriers which only scar the natural landscape.
