Rather than post this in the Baltimore Development thread, I figured I'd make use of the rest of the forum and start a thread dedicated to Baltimore's State Center Redevelopment, which will certainly be one of the city's largest development initiatives upon completion.

I found this PDF file of a report released in March 2005 (although I've never come across it before, and for some reason is appeared at the top of the Google listings today, so I'm thinking it has only recently been made available). The report outlines in detail the hopes for what State Center will turn out to be, and I, for one, am very impressed. If this is a sign of the future developments we can expect in Baltimore, I think we'll be in good shape. Anyhow, take a look:

http://www.mdot-realestate.org/docs/state_center_strategy.pdf

Discuss....

You know Peter, this is one project that I seriously forgot about. After reading the proposal I saw that you are correct when you mentioned this will be one of the largest development initiatives in the city. One thing that struck me was the thought of how the current state office buildings would incorporate itself with the newer modern style of residential and office buildings to be constructed? It also looks like the armory is becoming a new elementary school. The reason why I brought this up is because Baltimore city schools are trying to save money by getting rid of underpopulated schools. I never think of it as a bad investment to fund school construction. Hell, if there's a school system that need new schools it's Baltimore's hands down. Many Baltimore bashers in the surrounding counties will cry foul. Overall, the entire project looks very good.

For whatever reason, and from several sources I can't remember, I believe they are taking a step back in the process. So the development probably won't happen too soon, but if you're link is the one I think I read a year ago, it would really help mend the City neighborhoods that were so horribly cut apart years ago due to urban renewal, highway projects, public housing, and the extension of Howard St north of Chase.

I think issues with McColloh Homes may be setting the project back. I think a of people there want to stay in the projects because they feel they won't be able to get another place after the projects are knocked down and replaced with redevelopment. A valid concern in today's real estate market and stagnating wages, etc. I really WOULD like to get rid of all the Projects, but we're all mired in legal issues at the moment......

Nate

For whatever reason, and from several sources I can't remember, I believe they are taking a step back in the process. So the development probably won't happen too soon, but if you're link is the one I think I read a year ago, it would really help mend the City neighborhoods that were so horribly cut apart years ago due to urban renewal, highway projects, public housing, and the extension of Howard St north of Chase.

I think issues with McColloh Homes may be setting the project back. I think a of people there want to stay in the projects because they feel they won't be able to get another place after the projects are knocked down and replaced with redevelopment. A valid concern in today's real estate market and stagnating wages, etc. I really WOULD like to get rid of all the Projects, but we're all mired in legal issues at the moment......

Nate

I also speculate that the change in administrations may be changing the landscape. The Ehrlich admin had a strong desire to get rid of State property, even if it be parks or state forest in some cases. The State center project could be proposed as a redevelopment project and have, as an "unintended" consequence that some State agencies would move to districts of political friends (like the lame attempt to move the Dept of Planning to PG county where they would pay 5 times the rent and where the entire department threatened to quit). Not that I think O'Malley doesn't have his own debts to pay, but they are probably different ones. All of the State buildings are badly in need of maintenance and probably the redevelopment is a good idea anyway, but given the presence of "The Projects" and the fact that the wave of development just hasn't gotten to Preston St yet, this just may be on ice for a while.

Just received this e-mail regarding the State Center project. Check out the link, if you haven't already. It's pretty interesting.

Mr. Smith:

On behalf of Sam Minnitte, we appreciate your interest in State Center. The planning process has been on-going with our private sector partners since last March. The selected Master Development team is led by Struever Brothers Eccles and Rouse and includes other nationally prominent urban developers. The project is in its due diligence phase with a number of environmental and engineering background studies underway.

However, the State Center project features as its core principle a commitment to community participation in all phases of development planning. Project planning and design will begin this spring with a number of opportunities for community input. In addition, the State Center Neighborhood Alliance represents all of the immediate neighborhoods and meets regularly. We would welcome your participation, and I will see that you are on the list for upcoming meetings.

In the meantime, I would direct your attention to the State Center link at www.mdotrealestate.com . State Center can be found under the "featured properties" or "transit development" tabs. Several historic documents, including The Draft State Center Transit Oriented Development Strategy, the Request for Developers' Qualifications, and Neighborhood Alliance Meeting Notes, describe the history of the project and its current status. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Jim Peiffer
410.865.1211

Just received this e-mail regarding the State Center project. Check out the link, if you haven't already. It's pretty interesting.

Mr. Smith:

On behalf of Sam Minnitte, we appreciate your interest in State Center. The planning process has been on-going with our private sector partners since last March. The selected Master Development team is led by Struever Brothers Eccles and Rouse and includes other nationally prominent urban developers. The project is in its due diligence phase with a number of environmental and engineering background studies underway.

However, the State Center project features as its core principle a commitment to community participation in all phases of development planning. Project planning and design will begin this spring with a number of opportunities for community input. In addition, the State Center Neighborhood Alliance represents all of the immediate neighborhoods and meets regularly. We would welcome your participation, and I will see that you are on the list for upcoming meetings.

In the meantime, I would direct your attention to the State Center link at www.mdotrealestate.com . State Center can be found under the "featured properties" or "transit development" tabs. Several historic documents, including The Draft State Center Transit Oriented Development Strategy, the Request for Developers' Qualifications, and Neighborhood Alliance Meeting Notes, describe the history of the project and its current status. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Jim Peiffer
410.865.1211
^^^^this sounds good. sounds promising. on the other hand, i have to agree with nate on this. the people in the mccollough homes are going to put up a fight against this.

^I suspect that's why they're going with another round of community input. The first time the project included the McCulloh site, this time I don't think it necessarily will.

Nate

^^ You're right. Some of the reports on the site exclude the McCulloh site from the project site.

Great, another residential ghetto, I would hope they would mix it up a bit more. 3,100 units is a lot. They could definitely add more retail, office and institutional space. Perhaps some other kind of cultural attraction.

^^^^yep, a residential ghetto. that's exactly what it's going to be unless they find a way to include the mccollough homes into the mix. otherwise, the purpose for building this project will be null & void.

I don't understand these residential ghetto comments.

The original concept plan Peter presented seemed to have quite a bit of retail, IIRC.

Now there are lots of retail opportunities in Mt. Vernon and downtown that aren't realized, so one must keep in my the amount of residential/commercial needed to generate viable retail strips and locales. There's certainly math involved.

What we really need is large footprint retail opportunities. That's what this early 19th century inner-city is desperately short of. Otherwise, large amounts of small retail establishments may be unwarranted even in larger developments.

Nevertheless, all larger projects should strive to be mixed-use, even if the retail component is small.

Nate

Hey All,
I'm just getting interested in Development news and the such... Can someone explain what Mccollh will bring that is SO valued for success? Additionally why would it then be left out to get approval? What are the "issues with Mccollh" that Getontrac (Nate) mentioned?

Thanks,
Aaron

Essentially the problem with the McCulloh Homes resides with the fact that funding for Section 8 housing has become tighter in recent years and many if not the majority of Section 8 housing is below legally acceptable housing codes. What would happen is that many (if not most) of the McCulloh residents would be forced out, their land of their old neighborhood revitalized, them not being able to partake in that, and then be force to live in housing that is as bad, if not worse than that offered at McCulloh.

It's not so much that the residents of McCulloh like the place, it's simply that, rightly so, as has been the case in recent past, they may wind up in a worse place. Many are elderly and have very limited options.

The project would be MUCH better off with McCulloh being demolished and the project with a larger footprint. Most citizens would prefer to have all the old public housing projects gone, but until such time as we can find an acceptable (politically and economically) place to relocate them, we're forced to keep more than too many of the projects in existance. The City and the State recognize this, hence why the project has shifted gears.

Nate

Hey All,
I'm just getting interested in Development news and the such... Can someone explain what Mccollh will bring that is SO valued for success? Additionally why would it then be left out to get approval? What are the "issues with Mccollh" that Getontrac (Nate) mentioned?

Thanks,
Aaron

McCulloh homes (AKA, "The Projects") are pretty squalid and well known to State employees as the source of people who break into cars parked in unguarded lots. Once the State Center project was announced, they also became "historic" (note my cynicism). There is a legitimate issue of what will happen to the residents if the entire area is condemned but it is quite a stretch to suggest that there is something there worth preserving. Nevertheless, I think we can be certain that this will be raised as a big emotional issue as plans begin to consolidate. Expect public gatherings and protests that will drag on. Unfortunately, the desirability of the State center project will be adversely effected by the continued existence of the projects. This will be a difficult issue, especially what with eminent domain being under attack.

Thanks for the help!

Struever has set up a website for its State Center redevelopment at www.statecenter.org

There's not a whole lot up at the moment, but it definitely looks like this could turn into a very informative site. There's even a discussion board for city residents to provide input.

Pretty cool document on the site that outlines the history and evolution of the state center site. There are very few parts in Baltimore that look better now than they did sixty years ago, and State Center isn't one of them.

http://statecenter.org/data/25/link/70/Educate--Composite072507r.pdf

The document also states that construction is planned for begin in 2009.

Struever has set up an online survey about the future of State Center. It focuses on what the residents of Baltimore would like to see State Center become.
It's quick - took me only about five minutes, maybe less. If you're interested, you can find it at: www.statecenter.org It's on the right side of the main page, under "Take the State Center survey"

If I'm reading the "landing page" on the survey correctly, they seem to be only interesting in those who live near or work in or near State Center responding.

^^ It's possible, but if you click the "Resident of a neighborhood nearby State Center" option, it names quite a few city neighborhoods, so I figured the "Live Elsewhere in the Vicinity of State Center" option referred to people who live elsewhere in the city or even the metro. I guess they don't want people from Russia answering the survey, but I don't think they intend to keep residents of Patterson Park or Roland Park from sharing their feelings. After all, if the goal still resembles the earlier proposals from a few years ago, State Center will become a destination for residents from all over the region.

This is a project that I think, for most is hidden in the background, because it is several years off. Could be very exciting.

State Center PUD went before the Department of Planning today at 2:30pm. Hopefully, things went smoothly.

Great possiblities with the state center project. :yes:

^^can't wait to hear how that meeting went....

yeah, me too! ^^ :)

State Center PUD went before the Department of Planning today at 2:30pm. Hopefully, things went smoothly.

The powers seem to be aligned on this one, but I bet it's a while before anything happens. Even before the tanked economy and the recent banking dramatics, Streuver had a couple projects that have been lagging due to dubious sales. Add in the early stages of Harbor Point and the fact that the State Center isn't that prime of a location and I bet it's a couple years before we even see firm plans.

http://www.baltimoregrows.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/05_07_rendering.jpg

:)

http://www.baltimoregrows.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/05_07_rendering.jpg

:)

I can't figure this rendering. It appears to be looking from the west side of Howard and Preston Sts (the light rail tracks are on the far side of the wide street). There already are new buildings there (Symphony Center) and the area isn't part of the State Center project. If it were a mirror image, then the building at that corner that is going to stay (O'Connor Building) is gone. Late versions of the plan have O'Connor, 301 W Preston and the Armory remaining after the project and those are missing.

Yeah, I think, IIRC, that there have been revisions since this concept render came out. I was just serching for any and all renderings I could find on the web. I would love to see the latest one, though! :yes:

I can't figure this rendering. It appears to be looking from the west side of Howard and Preston Sts (the light rail tracks are on the far side of the wide street). There already are new buildings there (Symphony Center) and the area isn't part of the State Center project. If it were a mirror image, then the building at that corner that is going to stay (O'Connor Building) is gone. Late versions of the plan have O'Connor, 301 W Preston and the Armory remaining after the project and those are missing.

Click on this

http://www.statecenter.org/data/25/link/78/Plan%20Presentation%201.17.08.pdf

and scroll to page ten for a map of the plan. Then, imagine you're looking west/nortwest from Read Street across Howard. The buildings in the foreground left is a proposed Maryland General addition; on the right is a proposed denser development of the Rite Aid site. The buildings in the center are a reconfigured/reskinned O'Connor Building (although it may be demolished and rebuilt on the site) and a new building to its right in what's now a plaza. Armory still stands, but is now obscured from this view.

Incidentally, the PUD was approved on 9/25 unanimously.

Click here

http://www.statecenter.org/statecenter

for more on that, plus lots o' good data.

good website. :yes:

http://www.statecenter.org/data/16/media/230/preston.jpg

^^ I really like that rendered scene. :yes:
Very cool!

Go Baltimore, this great.

So some of the building's will just be renovated?

Click on this

http://www.statecenter.org/data/25/link/78/Plan%20Presentation%201.17.08.pdf

and scroll to page ten for a map of the plan. Then, imagine you're looking west/nortwest from Read Street across Howard. The buildings in the foreground left is a proposed Maryland General addition; on the right is a proposed denser development of the Rite Aid site. The buildings in the center are a reconfigured/reskinned O'Connor Building (although it may be demolished and rebuilt on the site) and a new building to its right in what's now a plaza. Armory still stands, but is now obscured from this view.

Incidentally, the PUD was approved on 9/25 unanimously.

Click here

http://www.statecenter.org/statecenter

for more on that, plus lots o' good data.i think we're talkin' a good 3-5 years before this gets started. can't wait!!!:okay:

i think we're talkin' a good 3-5 years before this gets started. can't wait!!!:okay:

At least 3 - 5 years. The promoters seem to thing this is a sure thing, but then so was the West Side in 1995. I think it was supposed to be transformed by now. State Center isn't close to the water and is right next to the projects. I guess they think that enough happy speak will make it happen, but at this point, Streuver has a couple of projects that were stalled before the economic fireworks (The Olmstead and 1209 Charles St) and Doracon has been dormant on Pratt Street for what seem like ages.

You're right, Scando, but the one difference here is that the state (and its 3500 employees) is the lead tenant. These buildings are functionally obsolete and need to be replaced/renovated one way or the other.

So some of the buildings will just be renovated?

Well, vigorously gutted and reskinned. Here's the breakdown as of last May (page 21) ...

http://statecenter.org/data/25/link/93/UDARP%20Presentation%205.8.08.pdf

201 W. Preston would be partially demolished and reskinned to become the new "face" of State Center. It would still have offices.

301 would be gutted, reskinned, and converted to apartments

Fifth Regiment Armory might become a sound stage or apartments

300 Preston and 1100 Eutaw are designated as "flexible" ... but if they stay, expect new facades on both.

At least 3 - 5 years. ...

For some reason, only Phase 2 of this program has dates: 2011-2016.

http://statecenter.org/data/25/link/93/UDARP%20Presentation%205.8.08.pdf

Scroll to last page.

Last post for a while, I promise ... odd that they tossed in a photo which includes a Confederate monument in Alexandria (p. 53) ... it's not even a particularly attractive streetscape. ...

http://statecenter.org/data/25/link/93/UDARP%20Presentation%205.8.08.pdf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://sites-of-memory.de/main/alexandriaappomattox.html

From the Web site: "The sentiment engendered by the Civil War and the military occupation of Alexandria gave rise to a chapter of the United Confederate Veterans organization. In 1886 a proposal was put forth to the UCV to erect a memorial to the men of Alexandria who died in the war. A statue was commissioned based on a previously published drawing of an unarmed Confederate soldier, head bowed, observing the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Court House. On May 24th, 1889 the memorial was dedicated on the spot where Alexandria's troops had departed the city 28 years earlier. The statue portrays a Confederate soldier who faces South as if in deep contemplation. The inscription on the South face of the monument's base reads: Erected to the memory of Confederate dead of Alexandria, Va. By their Surviving Comrades, May 24th 1889. ..."

You're right, Scando, but the one difference here is that the state (and its 3500 employees) is the lead tenant. These buildings are functionally obsolete and need to be replaced/renovated one way or the other.

Where art these jobs coming from??? Annapolis, B'more etc..???

They're already at State Center. It's just that the facilities are outdated and need to be replaced.

They're already at State Center. It's just that the facilities are outdated and need to be replaced.

Thanks for the 411 Peter.

You're right, Scando, but the one difference here is that the state (and its 3500 employees) is the lead tenant. These buildings are functionally obsolete and need to be replaced/renovated one way or the other.

That's quite true but State taxes are lagging and everything in the way of capital expenditures is being cut or delayed, including a billion in transportation projects. Cuts begin this year and get bigger next year. Those buildings suck but they will last, as is, for quite a while. Wherever those employees go and whether they build or rent in a big project would require the State to spend and that's one of the reasons I don't think this will happen quickly.

Furthermore, the old buildings on the "campus" are riddled with asbestos and will really need to be cleaned to the bones if they are to be reused. At this point, old asbestos is sequestered but if anybody goes into the walls or ceiling, they will find oodles of complications.

And....if the employees are to remain, construction of new buildings will have to precede any recycling or demo of the old ones..again, reason for delay. I think this will eventually happen but in the same way that Baltimore will get a great transit system - over a long period of time.

^^ Again, all good points and given what's going on with the credit markets, etc., I don't know that construction 2011-2016 is feasible. A few thoughts, though:

1. State Center is different from West Side in three crucial respects: the State owns all the land; more than half of it is already empty (i.e. surface parking lots); a lead tenant (i.e. state employees) exists.

2. You're right that capital projects are being put on hold, but the state can only keep employees in a crappy environment for so long. Even if (as I'd thought) there has been asbestos abatement, other mechanical systems are ageing rapidly. If there hasn't been abatement, the situation is even worse. Think state employee unions will tolerate it forever? I don't.

3. The empty parking lots allow phasing.

So, anyway, we'll see ...

^^ Again, all good points and given what's going on with the credit markets, etc., I don't know that construction 2011-2016 is feasible. A few thoughts, though:

1. State Center is different from West Side in three crucial respects: the State owns all the land; more than half of it is already empty (i.e. surface parking lots); a lead tenant (i.e. state employees) exists.

2. You're right that capital projects are being put on hold, but the state can only keep employees in a crappy environment for so long. Even if (as I'd thought) there has been asbestos abatement, other mechanical systems are ageing rapidly. If there hasn't been abatement, the situation is even worse. Think state employee unions will tolerate it forever? I don't.

3. The empty parking lots allow phasing.

So, anyway, we'll see ...

AFSCME represents the state employee's as well as the agency I work for.
You are absolutely correct en regards to the union. They tolerate everything
except center to right politics.

^^ Again, all good points and given what's going on with the credit markets, etc., I don't know that construction 2011-2016 is feasible. A few thoughts, though:

1. State Center is different from West Side in three crucial respects: the State owns all the land; more than half of it is already empty (i.e. surface parking lots); a lead tenant (i.e. state employees) exists.

2. You're right that capital projects are being put on hold, but the state can only keep employees in a crappy environment for so long. Even if (as I'd thought) there has been asbestos abatement, other mechanical systems are ageing rapidly. If there hasn't been abatement, the situation is even worse. Think state employee unions will tolerate it forever? I don't.

3. The empty parking lots allow phasing.

So, anyway, we'll see ...

Available land and transit access are the big points for State Center, but the location won't be very good until more critical mass gets to the area. Being right next to the projects isn't much of a benefit either. The buildings can keep going for quite a while too. The HVAC was completely rebuilt a few years ago and minor upgrades have kept the lights on and the rain out of the buildings. As for the asbestos, it's sequestered and isn't a hazard until somebody decides to rehab the buildings and disturbs it. I guess I think it will eventually happen, but I don't think it will be fast. The economic wild card just imposes additional delays. As for phasing, I think a large building on the large bleak plaza on Howard St could replace most of the buildings that are there now. That would free up the rest of the complex. Somehow, though, the State will have to come up with lots of money for a new building or be willing to be tenants in somebody else's.

... The HVAC was completely rebuilt a few years ago and minor upgrades have kept the lights on and the rain out of the buildings. As for the asbestos, it's sequestered and isn't a hazard until somebody decides to rehab the buildings and disturbs it. ....

Good data.

The State Center team is smart to move ahead with planning and thus be poised to get rolling whenever the economy and state budget permit (2011 as proposed, or beyond). Not to sound like the folks who are telling us the federal bailout of Wall Street will make taxpayers dough in the long run (although it's conceivable), but the state should realize some cash on the sale of property for residential and commercial development.

State Center meeting tomorrow, December 4 at 6:30pm at Union Baptist Church.

from the e-mail:
The State Center partners are inviting everyone to a meeting on December 4, 2008 at 6:30 at Union Baptist Church to receive an important Project update and participate in a discussion of new opportunities to influence decisions on transportation and other community programs.

Looks like there will be another meeting on December 11 as well, but it doesn't say where, when or why.

This should be interesting to see given this economic climate.

This should be interesting to see given this economic climate.

Ain't nothing happening for a while. The State is nearly broke, Streuver is nearly broke and the market for office space, retail or condos sucks. They can meet all they want but it's going to be a few years at best before anything happens.

Exactly, maybe in 10 years they will break ground on this project:ohno:

yep! it's all doom and gloom. :ohno: :cry:

yep! it's all doom and gloom. :ohno: :cry:

I don't know that it's doom and gloom, but I think the State center project has always been the weakest of major efforts in the city and therefore is the easiest one to postpone.

That's a pity. With the light rail tie in and Metro right there, it just seems like a great spot to re-develop, sandwiched in next to Mt. Vernon and the bold Station North proposal.

That's a pity. With the light rail tie in and Metro right there, it just seems like a great spot to re-develop, sandwiched in next to Mt. Vernon and the bold Station North proposal.

It's right on Light Rail and the Subway as well as being an easy place to drive to but otherwise it's not a hot area like the waterfront and it's just not a visually appealing location. It's also right next to a bunch of "projects". Times for development will have to be better for State Center to take off.

i actually kind of like the existing state center buildings, I actually think that there is some aesthetic connection between those buildings and the brand new MICA gateway building, very nearby. there are some obvious improvements that could be made, but i hope that they will be renovated rather than demolished, especially when there two enormous parking lots next door. Is anybody with me?

i actually kind of like the existing state center buildings, I actually think that there is some aesthetic connection between those buildings and the brand new MICA gateway building, very nearby. there are some obvious improvements that could be made, but i hope that they will be renovated rather than demolished, especially when there two enormous parking lots next door. Is anybody with me?

I sorta like the old 50's buildings. Those are becoming historic now. The problem is that they need a complete overhaul. Leaky windows, poorly controlled ventilation, inadequate electrical supplies, ancient plumbing and asbestos insulation on pipes and ceilings all come into play here. The systems have been patched a piece at a time to keep the place running from day to day, but at some point the buildings will need to be stripped to the bones and all the asbestos will need to be removed. I don't know how to price all that out, but since you'd have to get all the offices (about 3500 employees) out for some extended period, it seems dubious that it wouldn't be cheaper and more effective to build something new and wreck the old buildings.

http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2009/04/20/story2.html?b=1240200000^1813111

Friday, April 17, 2009
State Center project in Baltimore may get the ax
State treasurer could decide fate of $1.6B redevelopment

Baltimore Business Journal - by Daniel J. Sernovitz Staff

Maryland lawmakers may have dealt a lethal blow to the massive State Center redevelopment planned for midtown Baltimore, a $1.6 billion project hailed by supporters as the most significant economic development effort in the city since the Inner Harbor’s revitalization.

The fate of the long-anticipated proposal now rests in the hands of state Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp, who will decide if the state can afford to take on the project. Kopp’s report is due by May 15, and its contents could determine whether State Center moves forward or is scrapped.

But the project has become a point of contention between its supporters, who believe it will bring jobs and taxes to Baltimore, and its opponents, who worry about its impact on the state’s already diminished finances.

Because of those concerns, state legislators led a charge to derail the project. The effort didn’t succeed, but it resulted in a state budget amendment pinning the development to Kopp’s review. The treasurer, along with Comptroller Peter Franchot and various bond rating agencies, will focus on whether undertaking the project would max out the state’s ability to borrow money for other projects in need of state money.

As part of the development project, the state would lease the 25-acre office complex to State Center LLC, led by Baltimore developer Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse Inc. The state would then rent the office space it needs — estimated at between 1 million square feet and 1.5 million square feet — from Struever Bros.

State Center has been in the works since 2005, when the state began to seek plans from developers to remake the property off Martin Luther King Boulevard. Struever Bros. was picked in March 2006 to redevelop the property, home to a number of state agencies.

The Baltimore developer hopes to convert the office complex into a mixed-use community with 1,200 residential rental and for-sale units, 2 million square feet of office space, 250,000 square feet of retail space and 7,000 parking spaces. Groundbreaking for the project was slated for late fall 2010 — but that timetable does not include Kopp’s review.

The project would be developed in phases over a period of 10 years. With a favorable report from Kopp, the development deal would still need to be reviewed by the General Assembly’s budget committees and formally approved by the state Board of Public Works.

Among the lawmakers leading the opposition to State Center was Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer, a Democrat representing Baltimore and Howard Counties. Kasemeyer said he does not believe the state transportation and general services departments have been open about the process or the development’s financial terms.

Kasemeyer believes the project is fraught with problems and unanswered questions. He said he is concerned about how much the state will be charged in rent for office space it now owns rent-free. He also questions whether the state has considered less-expensive alternatives, and the struggling Struever Bros.’ ability to finance its development.

Michael Gaines, assistant secretary for General Services’ real estate department, said Kasemeyer’s concerns are legitimate and should be explored as part of the project. But he said his department, along with the transportation department, have considered those issues already and he does not believe they should keep the project from moving forward.

As proposed, Struever would borrow $888 million toward the $1.6 billion project, according to legislative services data. Another $338 million would come from state-issued debt. State and federal tax credit programs would cover $234 million in project costs, and the remaining $145 million would come in equity from the developers and from outside investors.

Struever Bros. spokesman Bob Rubenkonig acknowledged the financing market has impacted the developer’s projects. He said the company is seeking an equity partner to help with the project’s costs but does not expect the credit crunch will affect State Center because of its location, size and development potential. He declined to comment on the pending treasurer’s report or questions about the project by state legislators.

^^That's a huge mountain to climb, it seems to me. I'll probably be in my 70's or 80's, if I live that long, when this State Center project is finished.

If anyone is interested, you can reach Nancy Kopp at treasurer@treasurer.state.md.us I just sent her an e-mail.

It's also important to note that Struever's www.statecenter.org is no longer around.

Its to bad this project appears to be headed for the trash heap like so many others. But this could be scaled back and reconfigured, since this site has such great transportation access, MARC, Light rail, subway and bus. It has so much potential, but the state lacks foresight when it comes to mass transit.

I have always felt this is the best location for the arena (remember that?).

I can't say I'm surprised by this, but I bet that eventually the project comes back from the dead. At this point, the State doesn't have any money and Streuver is having serious problems. Meantime, waterfront property isn't doing well and it's hard to imagine something at this scale happening in this location, so far from the waterfront. It's nice to be on transit, but that alone won't be the selling point since the transit doesn't go to THAT many places. I think the location has potential for the future, however, so I'd hate to see it go to something like townhouses; it ought to be something big. Bottom line is that State Center will remain as is for at least 5 years.

Baltimore office complex will be redeveloped to include new offices, apartments, condos and stores

By Lorraine Mirabella | lorraine.mirabella@baltsun.com | Baltimore Sun reporter
5:46 PM EDT, May 15, 2009

State officials have picked new lead developers for an ambitious $1.4 billion revitalization of the state's outdated 28-acre office complex in midtown Baltimore, replacing Struever Bros. Eccles and Rouse, which has struggled with mounting debt amid the recession.

Baltimore-based Struever Bros., an original equity partner in the development team, will remain as a consultant on the project, planned as a transit-centered community of new offices, apartments, condos and shops, the state Department of General Services and the Department of Transportation said late Friday.

The new developers, PS Partners LLC, include Linden Associates, headed by Baltimore developer Christopher Kurz, and Ekistics Capital Partners LLC, founded by Caroline Moore, who recently left Struever Bros, where she had been project manager for State Center.

"By reconstituting the team, we get the best of all worlds," said Alvin Collins, General Services secretary. "We retain the experience of the original partners while bringing in fresh talent and increasing the financial wherewithal needed to move the project forward."



State officials, who hoped the redevelopment, to take place over a decade, will become a model for transit-oriented development.

Very interesting change of course for this project. Today is the day that State Treasurer Nancy Kopp was scheduled to make a decision on whether there is enough money in the budget to fund the project. I am assuming that this change in plans means the project is still a go, but I'll still wait for the final word from the treasurer's office.

I've never heard of PS Partners, and Linden Associates (www.linden-assoc.com) doesn't seem to have done anything except suburban developments. I'm glad the project is still on the boards, but I'm not optimistic about these developers.

http://baltimore.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2009/05/11/daily57.html

Friday, May 15, 2009, 6:23pm EDT | Modified: Friday, May 15, 2009, 6:34pm
Treasurer warns of State Center debt impact
Baltimore Business Journal - by Daniel J. Sernovitz Staff

A report issued late Friday afternoon warned the state could max out its ability to borrow money if it moves forward with its planned $1.6 billion redevelopment of a Baltimore City state office complex.

The report by Treasurer Nancy Kopp did not take a position on whether State Center should move forward, but it raised several concerns, including how much it would cost the state in annual rental payments, whether the private developers picked for the project are financially stable enough to complete the project, and whether the state considered other alternatives.

Also Friday, the state agencies pushing the project announced several key changes to the development team that would handle the development. Among them, Baltimore developer Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse Inc. is no longer an equity partner in the project and its role has been reduced to that of a consultant. Doracon Contracting, which was also a partner in the project, previously also stepped back and will not be involved at all.

Struever Bros. spokesman Bob Rubenkonig said the company decided to pull out of the project as an equity partner because it was unable to raise money for the development. But he noted Struever Bros. and CEO C. William "Bill" Struever will continue to play an active role as consultant to State Center LLC.

Remaining as part of the original State Center LLC development team is McCormack, Baron & Salazar, an affordable housing developer. McCormack has brought on a new partner, PS Partners LLC, headed by managing partner Christopher Kurz. PS Partners is made up of Linden Associates LLC and Ekistics Capital Partners LLC. Ekistics was founded by Caroline Moore, previously project manager on the State Center project for Struever Bros.

“By reconstituting the team, we get the best of all worlds,” said Alvin C. Collins, secretary of the state Department of General Services which is spearheading the State Center project along with the state Department of Transportation.

In the final days of its session, state legislators drafted a budget amendment charging Kopp to look into State Center’s financial implications and, specifically, how it would impact the state’s debt affordability limits. Kopp was asked to consult on the report with Comptroller Peter Franchot, the state’s bond council and bond rating agencies on the study, which was due today.

The state departments of transportation and general services have proposed to lease the 25-acre state office complex off Martin Luther King Boulevard to State Center LLC, a team of private developers which had been led by Struever Bros. The developers would lease the land for a 50-year term and would redevelop the property into a mix of office, residential and retail space. The state would then lease at least half of the development’s planned 2 million square feet of office space for use by its various agencies, including the Department of Assessments and Taxation and Franchot’s own offices.

The treasurer’s report focused on whether the project represented a capital lease or an operating lease. If it was considered to be a capital lease, that would mean the state would be required to list it on its balance sheet as corresponding assets and liabilities. The report did not take an official position on that but presented a number of opinions suggesting it could be viewed as a capital lease.

“As noted above, at this time there is not enough information to definitively determine whether the anticipated occupancy leases are capital or operating,” the report noted. “However, based on internal discussions and consultations with experts, the treasurer’s assessment is that the prudent approach at this time is to assume that the State Center occupancy leases are, or will be, capital leases and that they will impact debt affordability.”

The report will now go to the state budget committees for consideration.

For those of you who are still confused, perhaps Robbie Whelan can help explain it a little better:

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=11519&type=UTTM

State Center future hinges on technicality
ROBBIE WHELAN
Daily Record Business Writer
May 14, 2009 6:20 PM
A technicality in the state’s accounting practices may spell doom for the proposed redevelopment of State Center, a massive, mixed-use project in Baltimore for which the state has yet to propose a viable financing plan.

Maryland Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp is expected to release a report Friday produced by her office that will determine whether the project will be considered a capital expenditure or an operating expenditure under the state’s budgetary accounting definitions. If State Center is deemed a capital expense, the project will have to remain within the Maryland’s capital debt affordability limit, and funds for the redevelopment will have to come from the state’s already-stressed capital budget.

The report was commissioned by state lawmakers in April, after the issue was brought up in budget discussions.

“The office of the Treasury has a very specific mission to determine whether this is a capital or an operating lease,” said Howard S. Freedlander, deputy treasurer for external affairs with the state. “That mission is not to determine whether this is a good project or a bad project. It is to determine whether the state can afford it. The Department of General Services is suggesting that this is an operating lease, with no impact whatsoever on the state’s capital debt budget.”

What’s the difference? A capital lease for State Center would put the office complex on the state’s books as an asset or a liability, and ownership of the project would transfer to the state at the end of a lease. If the state continued to use office space there under an operating lease, then lease payments would be listed as rental expenses, and would come from the state’s operating budget.

Most capital expenditures, including land acquisition and the construction of schools, prisons and hospitals, are paid for by the issuance of general obligation bonds, which are guaranteed by the state.

A city design panel gave the go-ahead to State Center’s master plan a year ago. The $1.6 billion design called for eight new buildings, 6 million square feet of new construction and a general overhaul of the existing cluster of state-owned office buildings at the corner of Howard Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard, just yards from a number of major public transit hubs, including light rail, metro and bus lines.

Michael Gaines, the Department of General Services’ point-person on the project, declined to answer questions about the size of the state’s proposed investment in State Center’s makeover, or the state’s ability to pay for it, but did say the project has the potential to create 8,000 new jobs, double nearby transit ridership and generate $60 million in state taxes, annually. Gaines confirmed Thursday that DGS has proposed that State Center should be considered an operating expenditure.

About 3,500 state employees from multiple state agencies work at State Center, but state officials have described the space as outdated and badly in need of renovation.

The redevelopment was to be led by local developers Struever Bros. Eccles and Rouse and Doracon Contracting Inc., and also called for condominiums, 250,000 square feet of retail space, 250,000-300,000 square feet of public-use space and 2 million square feet for parking. St. Louis-based affordable housing builder McCormick Baron Salazar was slated to build dozens of mixed-income housing units.

Freedlander added that the project “hasn’t even been discussed by the Capital Debt Affordability Committee as a priority.”

“The critical question is going to be the actual expense to the state, regardless of how it is classified,” said Del. Murray D. Levy, a member of the state’s appropriations committee who sat on a task force regarding State Center. “There’s a debt affordability limit, but even if it fits into that, the question becomes, can we afford the payments on the debt also?”

Since last year’s approval of the master plan, hard times have gotten worse. In addition to a weak housing market and a struggling national economy, the state legislature made deep cuts this year to deal with a projected $2 billion budget deficit. On Wednesday, the state comptroller reported that tax revenues were down nearly 17 percent, or lower than 2008 levels.

In addition, the project’s lead developer, Struever Bros., this year defaulted on more than $6 million in loan obligations. On Thursday, Struever declined to answer specific questions about the project’s future, saying instead, “We remain very excited about State Center,” and announcing a community meeting on the development plan scheduled for Tuesday.

The head of Doracon, the other main development partner at State Center, is Ronald Lipscomb, who is defending himself against allegations brought by the Office of the State Prosecutor concerning his alleged bribery of Baltimore City Councilwoman Helen Holton.

“We have two choices,” Levy said. “We could increase the state property taxes, which I’m sure would be very popular with state elected officials — I’m sure they’d love to take credit for that, or fund it out of some other revenue source, some source of operating funds. And those operating funds are shedding money.… Where the hell are we going to get the money? We don’t have any right now.”

For those of you who are still confused, perhaps Robbie Whelan can help explain it a little better:

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=11519&type=UTTM

State Center future hinges on technicality
ROBBIE WHELAN
Daily Record Business Writer
May 14, 2009 6:20 PM
A technicality in the state’s accounting practices may spell doom for the proposed redevelopment of State Center, a massive, mixed-use project in Baltimore for which the state has yet to propose a viable financing plan.

Maryland Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp is expected to release a report Friday produced by her office that will determine whether the project will be considered a capital expenditure or an operating expenditure under the state’s budgetary accounting definitions. If State Center is deemed a capital expense, the project will have to remain within the Maryland’s capital debt affordability limit, and funds for the redevelopment will have to come from the state’s already-stressed capital budget.

The report was commissioned by state lawmakers in April, after the issue was brought up in budget discussions.

“The office of the Treasury has a very specific mission to determine whether this is a capital or an operating lease,” said Howard S. Freedlander, deputy treasurer for external affairs with the state. “That mission is not to determine whether this is a good project or a bad project. It is to determine whether the state can afford it. The Department of General Services is suggesting that this is an operating lease, with no impact whatsoever on the state’s capital debt budget.”

What’s the difference? A capital lease for State Center would put the office complex on the state’s books as an asset or a liability, and ownership of the project would transfer to the state at the end of a lease. If the state continued to use office space there under an operating lease, then lease payments would be listed as rental expenses, and would come from the state’s operating budget.

Most capital expenditures, including land acquisition and the construction of schools, prisons and hospitals, are paid for by the issuance of general obligation bonds, which are guaranteed by the state.

A city design panel gave the go-ahead to State Center’s master plan a year ago. The $1.6 billion design called for eight new buildings, 6 million square feet of new construction and a general overhaul of the existing cluster of state-owned office buildings at the corner of Howard Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard, just yards from a number of major public transit hubs, including light rail, metro and bus lines.

Michael Gaines, the Department of General Services’ point-person on the project, declined to answer questions about the size of the state’s proposed investment in State Center’s makeover, or the state’s ability to pay for it, but did say the project has the potential to create 8,000 new jobs, double nearby transit ridership and generate $60 million in state taxes, annually. Gaines confirmed Thursday that DGS has proposed that State Center should be considered an operating expenditure.

About 3,500 state employees from multiple state agencies work at State Center, but state officials have described the space as outdated and badly in need of renovation.

The redevelopment was to be led by local developers Struever Bros. Eccles and Rouse and Doracon Contracting Inc., and also called for condominiums, 250,000 square feet of retail space, 250,000-300,000 square feet of public-use space and 2 million square feet for parking. St. Louis-based affordable housing builder McCormick Baron Salazar was slated to build dozens of mixed-income housing units.

Freedlander added that the project “hasn’t even been discussed by the Capital Debt Affordability Committee as a priority.”

“The critical question is going to be the actual expense to the state, regardless of how it is classified,” said Del. Murray D. Levy, a member of the state’s appropriations committee who sat on a task force regarding State Center. “There’s a debt affordability limit, but even if it fits into that, the question becomes, can we afford the payments on the debt also?”

Since last year’s approval of the master plan, hard times have gotten worse. In addition to a weak housing market and a struggling national economy, the state legislature made deep cuts this year to deal with a projected $2 billion budget deficit. On Wednesday, the state comptroller reported that tax revenues were down nearly 17 percent, or lower than 2008 levels.

In addition, the project’s lead developer, Struever Bros., this year defaulted on more than $6 million in loan obligations. On Thursday, Struever declined to answer specific questions about the project’s future, saying instead, “We remain very excited about State Center,” and announcing a community meeting on the development plan scheduled for Tuesday.

The head of Doracon, the other main development partner at State Center, is Ronald Lipscomb, who is defending himself against allegations brought by the Office of the State Prosecutor concerning his alleged bribery of Baltimore City Councilwoman Helen Holton.

“We have two choices,” Levy said. “We could increase the state property taxes, which I’m sure would be very popular with state elected officials — I’m sure they’d love to take credit for that, or fund it out of some other revenue source, some source of operating funds. And those operating funds are shedding money.… Where the hell are we going to get the money? We don’t have any right now.”

We should get in line behind GM and California for some TARP funds or bail-out money. I think we could make a good argument that this would be a very wise investment that would pay for itself, as it would prime the local economy and would make a great hub for a maglev/subway/rail/bus mega-hub - the model for TOD around the world????????????????!!!!!!!!!!:nuts::bash::banana::cheers:

I'd also recommend a new super-tall for visibility (70 stories) - owned by private enterprise, of course :ohno::lol:.

We should get in line behind GM and California for some TARP funds or bail-out money. I think we could make a good argument that this would be a very wise investment that would pay for itself, as it would prime the local economy and would make a great hub for a maglev/subway/rail/bus mega-hub - the model for TOD around the world????????????????!!!!!!!!!!:nuts::bash::banana::cheers:

I'd also recommend a new super-tall for visibility (70 stories) - owned by private enterprise, of course :ohno::lol:.

Why not fund this with slot revenues? We use the lottery and tunnel tolls to fund everything else.

For those of you who are still confused, perhaps Robbie Whelan can help explain it a little better:

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=11519&type=UTTM

State Center future hinges on technicality
ROBBIE WHELAN
Daily Record Business Writer
May 14, 2009 6:20 PM
A technicality in the state’s accounting practices may spell doom for the proposed redevelopment of State Center, a massive, mixed-use project in Baltimore for which the state has yet to propose a viable financing plan.

Maryland Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp is expected to release a report Friday produced by her office that will determine whether the project will be considered a capital expenditure or an operating expenditure under the state’s budgetary accounting definitions. If State Center is deemed a capital expense, the project will have to remain within the Maryland’s capital debt affordability limit, and funds for the redevelopment will have to come from the state’s already-stressed capital budget.

The report was commissioned by state lawmakers in April, after the issue was brought up in budget discussions.

“The office of the Treasury has a very specific mission to determine whether this is a capital or an operating lease,” said Howard S. Freedlander, deputy treasurer for external affairs with the state. “That mission is not to determine whether this is a good project or a bad project. It is to determine whether the state can afford it. The Department of General Services is suggesting that this is an operating lease, with no impact whatsoever on the state’s capital debt budget.”

What’s the difference? A capital lease for State Center would put the office complex on the state’s books as an asset or a liability, and ownership of the project would transfer to the state at the end of a lease. If the state continued to use office space there under an operating lease, then lease payments would be listed as rental expenses, and would come from the state’s operating budget.

Most capital expenditures, including land acquisition and the construction of schools, prisons and hospitals, are paid for by the issuance of general obligation bonds, which are guaranteed by the state.

A city design panel gave the go-ahead to State Center’s master plan a year ago. The $1.6 billion design called for eight new buildings, 6 million square feet of new construction and a general overhaul of the existing cluster of state-owned office buildings at the corner of Howard Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard, just yards from a number of major public transit hubs, including light rail, metro and bus lines.



I still don't understand why people are using 2006-2007 figures to value projects, the land alone is only worth 75% to half of what it was when the project was proposed.

Contractors should be kissing feet and ass in the bidding process knowing that they will not be paid in 2006 prices.

Materials costs are down.

In a nutshell, the project is not worth $1.6 billion any longer and should not be. I simply hope the state is smart enough to renagotiate for a good deal.

Why not fund this with slot revenues? We use the lottery and tunnel tolls to fund everything else.

You might recall that lottery money is supposed to fund education.

I still don't understand why people are using 2006-2007 figures to value projects, the land alone is only worth 75% to half of what it was when the project was proposed.

Contractors should be kissing feet and ass in the bidding process knowing that they will not be paid in 2006 prices.

Materials costs are down.

In a nutshell, the project is not worth $1.6 billion any longer and should not be. I simply hope the state is smart enough to renagotiate for a good deal.

What makes all this more interesting is that, promo aside, this just isn't that much of a desirable project. Transit friendly or not, it's just not that well located for a time where waterfront property is going begging. Office space downtown is available, condo units remain unsold and retail is tanking. They might as well use 1989 prices...they will still be too high. Unfortunately, I just don't get the transit part as a big factor. True, it's right next to the subway and LR, but they won't move anybody to jobs further than downtown and Hopkins, and we already have condos and office space at a surplus there. It's not like being on the New York or DC subway, which actually go somewhere. I continue to think this could be a huge money sink, which won't go anywhere until the economy is booming and downtown starts to run out of land.

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=11616&type=UTTM

Md. Senate panel backs State Center
ANDY ROSEN
Daily Record Business Writer
May 28, 2009 8:38 PM
ANNAPOLIS — The Senate budget committee recommended Thursday that the state move forward next week with its plans for the massive State Center redevelopment project planned for Baltimore City.

The move has support from budget makers in the House of Delegates as well, despite two recent reports that questioned some financial aspects of the project.

A critical report released this week by state legislative analysts said the state could be getting a bad deal if the Board of Public Works approves a plan next week that could pave the way for an up-to-$200 million contribution. The Senate committee also recommended that the Maryland Stadium Authority be brought in to help oversee the project, and called for more legislative involvement in planning.

The House Appropriations Committee and Senate Budget and Taxation Committee met Thursday to hear from officials on plans for the project, which envisions $1.4 billion in development including office, retail and residential space in the area roughly bounded by Dolphin Street, Martin Luther King Boulevard, Howard Street and Madison Avenue.

The critical report from the nonpartisan Department of Legislative Services also questioned many assumptions that the O’Malley administration has used for financial plans on State Center, including office vacancy rates and cost that the state would pay to rent space at new private developments within the project.

The DLS report comes on the heels of another report earlier from this month from Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp. That report suggested that the state should plan with the assumption that its commitment to the project would be a capital, rather than an operating expense.

Though that report did not offer a definitive conclusion, it did raise concerns that the project could cause the state to exceed its debt limits.

Administration officials argued that the state’s entry into the development agreement next week would not commit the state to become a long-term tenant at the development.

Michael Gaines, assistant secretary of the Maryland Department of General Services, said the state could drop out of the deal in December, either terminating it at a cost of $3 million to $5 million or allowing the development to proceed without state participation.

Both reports stem from budget language that the General Assembly added toward the end of this year’s session, after concerns arose about how the state would account for the project and whether Maryland could afford to participate.

DGS contests the idea that the project should be considered a capital lease, and says it thoroughly considered other options for new state office space in Baltimore before deciding that the proposed course of action is best.

“If we didn’t go forward, the developers could walk. If we don’t go forward, the development could be challenged,” Gaines said. “There’s tremendous risk in not going forward.”

But the DLS report said the agreement is problematic because it locks in many terms of the deal, including the payments the state will get for the land where the project will be sited.

“It doesn’t seem like there’s been a lot of opportunity for meaningful discussion of what the other options are,” said David Juppe, senior operating budget manager with DLS, said Thursday.

House Appropriations Chairman Norman Conway, D-Worcester and Wicomico, said he felt more comfortable with the issue following the hearing.

“I think there are questions that the committees have on both sides,” he said after his committee’s briefing. “I think a lot of that was answered in the briefings that were given.”

http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=11616&type=UTTM

Md. Senate panel backs State Center
ANDY ROSEN
Daily Record Business Writer
May 28, 2009 8:38 PM
ANNAPOLIS — The Senate budget committee recommended Thursday that the state move forward next week with its plans for the massive State Center redevelopment project planned for Baltimore City.

The move has support from budget makers in the House of Delegates as well, despite two recent reports that questioned some financial aspects of the project.

A critical report released this week by state legislative analysts said the state could be getting a bad deal if the Board of Public Works approves a plan next week that could pave the way for an up-to-$200 million contribution. The Senate committee also recommended that the Maryland Stadium Authority be brought in to help oversee the project, and called for more legislative involvement in planning.......

I admit that I agree with the Legislative guys on this. I'm not sure that this project is any sort of gold mine.

Another setback?