I sure hope this thread is taken the right way. Boston and Baltimore are both great American cities and I wouldn't want anything I'm writing here to seem a negative about either. It isn't.

But I am curious:

Could Boston learn a lesson from Baltimore about extensive waterfront/pleasure development?

Let me explain. Boston was early in the game in the back-to-the-city/let's-enjoy-the-waterfront movement with Fanueil Hall/Quincy Market. The only place that came compete with Boston in the early phases to reuse of historical waterfront buildings is San Francisco and Ghirardelli Square.

No question either that Quincy Market begot Harbor Place in Baltimore. Unless I'm mistaken, they were both Rouse projects.

But my impression is that Baltimore, once the idea of waterfront development took hold, took off with it to a degree that Boston did not. I believe that need was part of the reason for this: Boston's profile tended to be larger that Baltimore's, Baltimore's far more in need of a boost.

I would also have to add that Baltimore's enclosed Inner Harbor layout was far more condusive to a clustering of vistor oriented developments than Boston's linear layout with many piers interupting the more open Baltimore waterfront.

But even with those restrictions, could Boston look to Baltimore's attempt to zone the major tourist attractions along the waterfront as an example for Beantown itself?

And do any folks in Boston, Baltimore, or the east coast in general think I'm on to anything here....or way off base on my observatons?

Well, IMO, alot of cities have looked and are still looking to imitate Baltimore's success in the "waterfront" areas. Baltimore is STILL improving it's waterfront. I believe it must be a continuing effort to help everything stay fresh and exciting.

Well, IMO, alot of cities have looked and are still looking to imitate Baltimore's success in the "waterfront" areas. Baltimore is STILL improving it's waterfront. I believe it must be a continuing effort to help everything stay fresh and exciting.

I agree. I guess I was just thinking about the northeastern cities, due to their similiarites (and going down to the Atlantic, there no were southern counterparts to these in size among the old colonial cities).

meanwhile, New York (Manhattan) and Philadelphia were more river oriented with space limitations for such development. Washington was too government oriented (and not really a seaport setting) to be considered.

IMHO, it was Boston that has the most in common with Baltimore among the northeastern cities in the way the harbor can be incorporated into the city.

nationally, San Francisco (with its own great nautical setting) shares much in common with Baltimore in the way that it has developed its waterfront. Chicago, though inland and Great Lakes, could expand on areas adjacent to create something as extensive as Baltimore.

Of course Boston can learn from Baltimore's waterfront development. I certainly hope Baltimore takes a look at Boston when it shifts its redevelopment efforts/attention from its waterfront to its CBD.

Lots of cities, all over the world, look to Baltimore when developing their waterfronts. Just last week, Washington announced plans to essentially recreate a smaller version of Baltimore's Inner Harbor in SE DC complete with an Aquarium, Science Center, shops, hotels....basically everything the Inner Harbor has. Now, I dont think that trying to create a knock-off will do Boston any justice, but I certainly think that learning from the mistakes and successes of Baltimore's waterfront endeavor wouldnt hurt.

Steven W makes a good point, too. Baltimore's waterfront is still changing and evolving more than 20 years after the project was started. The main thing that cities should take from Baltimore's Inner Harbor is that with good (and even some not-so-good leadership), really good things can happen to change the culture and bolster the national (and international) reputation of cities.

Remember, until recently, one could stand on the West Shore of the Inner Harbor, look around and see the glitz and glamour that is the Aquarium, Science Center, hotels, and shops. Conversely, however, one would also see a defunct chromium plant, empty lots with no plans for development, another industrial plant on the South Shore, and prime parcels used as parking lots.

Now, a neighborhood of $1 million+ condos/apartments, class-A office space and upscale retail has risen from the sea of parking lots once dominating the landscape east of the Inner Harbor. Brands like Ritz-Carlton, Intercontinental and Four Seasons are helping change the hotel landscape along the waterfront. 50+ story towers will soon rise from what were the last two undeveloped parcels of land along the waterfront.

Of course Boston can learn from Baltimore's waterfront development. I certainly hope Baltimore takes a look at Boston when it shifts its redevelopment efforts/attention from its waterfront to its CBD.

Lots of cities, all over the world, look to Baltimore when developing their waterfronts. Just last week, Washington announced plans to essentially recreate a smaller version of Baltimore's Inner Harbor in SE DC complete with an Aquarium, Science Center, shops, hotels....basically everything the Inner Harbor has. Now, I dont think that trying to create a knock-off will do Boston any justice, but I certainly think that learning from the mistakes and successes of Baltimore's waterfront endeavor wouldnt hurt.

Steven W makes a good point, too. Baltimore's waterfront is still changing and evolving more than 20 years after the project was started. The main thing that cities should take from Baltimore's Inner Harbor is that with good (and even some not-so-good leadership), really good things can happen to change the culture and bolster the national (and international) reputation of cities.

Remember, until recently, one could stand on the West Shore of the Inner Harbor, look around and see the glitz and glamour that is the Aquarium, Science Center, hotels, and shops. Conversely, however, one would also see a defunct chromium plant, empty lots with no plans for development, another industrial plant on the South Shore, and prime parcels used as parking lots.

Now, a neighborhood of $1 million+ condos/apartments, class-A office space and upscale retail has risen from the sea of parking lots once dominating the landscape east of the Inner Harbor. Brands like Ritz-Carlton, Intercontinental and Four Seasons are helping change the hotel landscape along the waterfront. 50+ story towers will soon rise from what were the last two undeveloped parcels of land along the waterfront.

waj0527, i do think one of the things that gives your city such an advantage is the enclosure that is the inner harbor. I'm not sure there is a compable setting anywhere in the nation. As I said before that dramatic (see-it-from-all-sides) setting offers a concentration and focal point that linear waterfronts lack.

Could there have been a more ideal location for such a development as this than what you find in Baltimore's inner harbor? I think not.

I agree with you with regards to the inherent advantages of the natural topography of the Inner Harbor itself. The fact that the area is compact and enclosed certainly made it easier for the city to transform it into a destination.

I guess the point I was trying to drive home is that with painfully careful planning and quality public leaders who are truly dedicated to what they're doing, a city can take a derelict area, waterfront or otherwise, and turn it into a gem.

Sure, all cities can learn from each other when it comes to waterfront development & best practices generally.

No question, Baltimore has indeed done a really superb job with its harbor front, turning it into a big tourist destination.

Boston too started off in the 1970s with the New England Aquarium & then the Quincy Marketplace.

One difference though is that Boston was more cut off from its waterfront by the elevated Central Artery than Baltimore, where plans for similar freeways were fortunately averted before the damage could be done.

So Boston ended up dumping $14 billion into the “Big Dig” to fix 1950s transportation mistakes mostly around the harbor. But much of what was done was underground infrastructure, not the stuff that tourists see.

Now that’s the Big Dig’s all done (well not quite!) I’m sure that it will stimulate a lot more interesting, public-use development all around Boston’s harbor.

However, Boston, which never had problems attracting tourists, seems much more focused on improving things for residents. So Boston has accomplished a lot more citywide & its population regrowth of recent decades is only threatened by excess gentrification.

In Baltimore, by contrast, the gap between the “Potkim Village” harbor front (& parts of the smallish downtown) and the rest of the city has been rather glaring. Baltimore was one of the biggest population losers during the 1990s. Seems like Baltimore is really beginning to turn the corner since then.

Boston can take notes from Baltimore on waterfront development. So too can Baltimore when it comes to citywide, neighborhood-based stuff. Both cities have accomplished a lot.

i AGREE

Boston, as well as most cities, could learn from the experience of Baltimore. I think because Balimore's waterfront more down and out than Boston, had nothing to lose, and went into renovating its waterfront firing all cylinders. Boston's waterfront's been great, so there wasn't the need to change, I guess.

All the money is being funneled into the Big Dig repairs so I don't see any improvement besides a few wharf being redeveloped.

Yup, I think Boston should take a look at Baltimore for its Waterfront Then take a page from Chicago for Millenium Park. (For The Rose Kennedy Greenway)

^^ It couldn't hurt. :)

imo, the one thing that baltimore has to its advantage more than any other waterfront i can think of, is the lack of a major thoroughfare between the cbd and the waterfront itself. philly has I-95 seperating the city and the river. seattle has a raised highway along its waterfront. boston is thankfully removing its impediment. but the fact that this is not the case in b-more allows for all of those executives in the buildings in the cbd to look over at the waterfront and see it as an accesible park. then they bring their families to visit on the weekend. then their kids grow up and create a local citizenship who associate with the harbor. its more than just a question of "where to put the building'. its a question of getting people to embrace and care about a natural asset. its also necesarry for the city to use the waterfront as a lure to bring people back into the city. baltimore used to host a 'city fair' at the still unfinished harbor just to get people to come and see what was planned. its vital to use it once its built!