I've decided to go ahead with a new thread here. I wasn't going to, but the length of this felt justifiable in light of the tone and structure.

---

I touched on this briefly before:
I don't understand the pre-occupation with residential/commercial establishments heavily favoring the waterfront or views of. What is so damn special about it? The water there is not nice. It is the only non-industrial part of our industrial branch of the Bay, full of trash and run-off from the Jones Falls. It is as if office tenants put up buildings to look at the water and ignore the city as if they were not part of it!

I would much rather look at city or park, than water. You can see the dichotomy between the functional neighborhoods north of the harbor and those south of the harbor in terms of the personality and character of the people. I feel that the north of downtown neighborhoods have a greater interest and respect for the City as an urban environment, whereas the harborhoods are less so; I find this most pronounced in Canton in my anecdotal observation. The harbor neighborhoods look at the City as recreation and are more insular to their slice of real estate.

It doesn't matter anyway:

There is only so much density to be built on the waterfront. New developments and densities east of Caroline St will be minimal . That area is virtually built out. Most of it remained in tact anyway. Arguments for an east-west Red Line are illusory and fall apart upon a more critical examination.

Whatever the obsession is with the waterfront, we will get over it if the City continues to become more popular.

The old CBD/financial district (north of Lombard, east of Liberty/Hanover) is simply last on the list for revitalization, and offers the most possible opportunities for density. RWN and Naing are example of this. He's the one proposing two 60 towers. They are not office, but it doesn't matter. The City is attractive to people. Once a base of talent is in place, business opportunities can not go down (barring some national or regional economic deterioration or collapse, which wouldn't surprise me give that the Feds are being funded by China.....). I think they will likely go up. Anybody in the top 20 floors of those towers can see the water anyway, for god's sakes!

We've now locked down our Port. No more "condo creep" onto outer edges of the harbor. The Port is the natural base of this city's economy. Don’t f*&^ with it.

UMB has expanded eastward, clear to Paca, and a few spots east of Eutaw, it's off the harbor and getting better. Their new building will activate two formerly dead corners (Pratt and Green, Lombard and Paca). The Zenith has risen from parking. The huge Hilton is rising from parking.

The ill-conceived "Superblock" of Weinberg infamy appears to have moved forward--thereby removing a potential stigma to adjacent Charles Center office space.

The Arena is huge road block. It's not used regularly and it's ugly as hell, certainly not helping Charles Center office space (again). Find a new site, our downtown would be better if it weren't there. Demolish it and follow the Master Plan. Rebuild Redwood, build a park, built the underground garage, and new plan new building space on the south side (or vice versa, if you prefer).

But my point is, everything is crowding toward the old CBD to be successful again. It is simply last because of our waterfront obsession and the faster growth of higher education farther west.

Massive development opportunities lay on Pratt and north without demolishing Grade A historic buildings. More SF of ANY kind of space can be constructed between Pratt and Orleans St than remaining on the harbor. If Baltimore continues its rebound, the CBD will be superhot property, because there you can build tall with the least resistance.

Forgive me if I've tread on my own familiar topics, but I want to say so more concisely here: The era of waterfront development is winding down. It just doesn't seem that way because we are in the throes of the last great projects yet to be built.

The obsession with the waterfront (commercially) has always been a detriment to our downtown, esp. with CC/IH, BDC, or Willie Don or whomever allowing the design of the Pratt St buildings to violate their mater plan and give the finger to Lombard didn't serve us well.

Our growing popularity, metropolitan population growth, and land scarcity will finally make the CBD viable, it's just sad that it has to come last; but I am convinced based on the premise of continued favorable regional/national economic conditions, are old downtown is not lost.

I mention this because I've heard so much here lately about the failures and unattractiveness or decline of the CBD to point out what I believe to be logical conclusions based on the evidence of recent years and economic tendencies.

The growth of the waterfront is nearing completion. The REAL downtown waits, along with Mt. Vernon, Charles North and Old Goucher.

Nate

Appendage:
With regards to the late W. Sondheim, he may have been great in early years, but time had clearly withered his faculties, or intelligence—for I question anyone doesn’t admit the Light Rail wasn’t a success and who thinks the JFX should be demolished anytime soon. Feel free to bite my head off on that one, but I’m right!

I generally agree. Baltimore has a lot of potential and that's something that everyone realizes. The waterfront development should be appreciated b/c it helped bring some visibility to the city so more could see what the city can develop into. Baltimore has a lot of room to improve and will continue to do well.

I don't know how old you are, but the "real Downtown" has made huge strides in the past 10 years. I was born in 1957 and I've seen it. In the 70's, after 6:00 PM Downtown was virtually deserted at night. Now, it is vibrant with a mix of offices, retail and residential.

o There are at least 8 new hotels that have recently opened or are currently being developed in the heart of the CBD.

o There is a new condo towers going up (414 Water) and rental units going into structures like the Monsey, BG&E and Fidelity Buildings. New rental structures like Cityscape are in the pipe line. New condos like Naings twin towers are too.

o There is significant new retail in the form of a grocery store (the first one in years I might add), the Mechanic Theater site redevelopment, and a soon to be revamped Brown's Arcade. Street level retail that had been empty for years is now being leased.

o Institutions like Mercy and U of M are expanding rapidly.

We live in a free capitalist country. As such, MARKET FORCES will determine what gets constructed where. Waterfront property has always been more valuable than land locked property. If companies choose to locate on the waterfront and they can afford to do so, then good for them. Likewise for new residents.

Unlike a communist country where things are planned by the state, in the United States we offer choice. If the waterfront is not for you, don't live near it. That creates demand for development in other areas of the city. For others, it is the perfect place.

If Baltimore had not developed its waterfront in the 70's, it would be more like Detroit or Newark today than the Baltimore you now know. How ironic it is that the waterfront is the very reason for Baltimore's existence, and the waterfront is also partially responsible for rebuilding it. If we didn't have waterfront we wouldn't have Baltimore. Period.

But the bottom line is this; neither you nor anyone else can force things to be different. No one could stop suburban flight in the 60's and no one could keep retail on Howard Street. All these choices are personal and belong to the people who make them. That holds true regardless of if you are individual deciding where to live or shop, or a captain of industry choosing an office site. I see absolutely nothing wrong with having options. In fact, for Baltimore to be successful, it must provide options and variety. :2cents:

P.S. One thing that makes waterfront land more valuable for offices and residents is that you are GUARANTEED a view forever. In the CBD, you can have a kick ass view one day, and look at the wall of a new building the next day. That's one of the reasons I pciked a northern facing condo in Water St. They aren't going to demolish City Hall and the Court Houses for new buildings. Naing, well "The best laid plans of mice and men...." :fiddle:

I think your misinterpreting my piont slightly, here.

My point is that the old financial district will return, successfully, and

That our preoccupation with the water is a reason why it has not been succesfull sooner.

But I must say you are using some post hoc reasoning when refering to if we didn't build the waterfront we'd be Detroit, etc. There are many ways history could have unfolded for the City and downtown, and not building the Harbor, doesn't necessarily mean we couldn't have been successfull if not more so than today.

Really, my age is not relevent here. :) Only my observations and facts presented. :)

My opinion is that desire for the waterfront has come at the expense elsewhere, and I'm not of the opinion waterfrontness is all that special, thank you. :)

Nate

I tend to agree with Wada here. The city was really dying and then the Inner Harbor came along and since then it has really made things happen. I think we will see everything along the waterfront be built out and then start to really see more development and attention paid to the CBD. Naing's proposal is a great start, as is the renovation of some buildings beginning to take place now.

I think it will be a very slow process, especially with Westport beginning at some point, but I believe we will see a thriving CBD in years to come.

My opinion is that desire for the waterfront has come at the expense elsewhere, and I'm not of the opinion waterfrontness is all that special, thank you. :)

Nate

I agree with your general view that waterfront development cannot continue forever. We will simply run out of land. However I don't think that we are in any danger of the CBD decaying. I would argue the opposite, that the CBD is stronger and more diversified now than it has ever been.

Why do people value waterfrontness so much? Who knows, people flock to the beach, maybe its a evolutionary thing. People like the water.

As is usual we disagree. :hug: My point is that if it weren’t for the waterfront, ALL of downtown would have continued to deteriorate. Many of the business that moved to the waterfront would not be in Baltimore City today but instead would be in the burbs or in another city.

Why stay in the old CBD when there are other options? To compete with the beltway counties you have to offer something they don't have because that is what they are offering city business. They are offering free parking, better access for a car based society, and cheaper rents. They are offering a location that is, most likely, closer to where their workers live.

Baltimore is offering something the counties can't - and urban environment and a beautiful waterfront location. The fact is that downtown has expanded means that what Baltimore offered was good enough to overcome what the counties offered.

I still don't understand why you and others divide downtown up into districts? People who are not from here view the area from Harbor East to MLK Boulevard as "Downtown". I do too. Architecturally it is the same - a mix of high-rises and mid-rises. You can't tell where one district ends and another begins. It’s not like mid-town and downtown in New York City where you have a huge neighborhood in between the two districts of skyscrapers.

The only existing water front offices that are not contiguous to the traditional CBD are at Tide Point and Hale's development. Everything else on the water is residential or has a very small office component. You would naturally expect to have a few offices in south (Tide Point) and east (Hale) Baltimore. All of Baltimore's offices will never be downtown. It is no different that having offices in White Marsh and Owings Mills. The fact that they are there doesn't detract from Towson.

The difference between you and I is that you view the CBD as not being "as successful". I view it as being 10 times better than what it was earlier in my life time. That is where age does come into play. If you actually walked around downtown in the 70's as an adult after dark like I did, you would clearly be able to see the difference between then and now. Pictures do not tell the whole story and I would never want the traditional CBD to be nothing but offices and a few hotels again. When it was that it was morbid.

I know that the traditional CBD is in better shape now than it has been since the 50's. It consists of a healthy balance of residential, hotel, retail, AND offices. It has life in it after 6:00 PM and there are no vacant hulks of buildings standing empty. IT IS SUCCESSFUL NOW and it has engines that will continue to make it successful like the courts, city and state government offices, hospitals, and yes - market rate offices.

We do agree on one thing though, it is only going to get better.
:applause:

Wada and all....

I can't find a compelling reason why Baltimore could not have succeeded by doing differently than what it's done. I think they did at least half of CC/IH wrong anyway--to our detriment. You make a claim that you don't support: how do you know Baltimore would not have been successful without concerted/concentrated development around the harbor? You don't and you can't know, nobody can.

What is self-evident is that most cities are near significant bodies of water, but they are not overtly waterfront oriented. Pick any non-resort type City.

There are differences in area. Downtown used to stop at Lombard. Pratt St was the dock. The only remaing building on the north side of Pratt is the Candler.

Even though it's finally on the upswing, I think the CBD was more successful in years past, even since the 50's. We had more stores, fewer garages, more street life. The buildings were in better shape because they were younger--in recent years building codes weren't as enforced. We lost the Tower Building, the Southern Hotel, the block on Baltimore at One Light was functional.

I was saying that it's going to come back. I may have incorrectly used "deduce" instead of "induce" for my reasoning.

Market forces is supply and demand; it doesn't mean the market will decide what is good. Economics is the ecology human wealth. Having the "market work it out" is distinct from adjusting to a good end or equilibrium. Market Forces could work out to the extinction of humans due to catostrophic shortages of oil.

I just wanted to touch on some of your points Wada for they seemed to imply something that I contend is not necessarily so.

I'd like to look at some empirical data:

I'm sure a certain someone around could find occupancy rates per building per year over the last several decades if he or she was inclined to dedicate the time and energy. That could be one way to judge health of downtown (although aggregating occupancy with health and vitality would be subjective--hence why this is not a science).

It's more in recent years than the initial expansion toward the harbor that I'm criticizing (to be clear).

Vitality requires density and we need a dense core SOMEWHERE, and I'd rather have that than a spread out skyline that requires driving everywhere. It's near impossible to deliver a very dense core on the waterfront.

I'm just fascinated with the pre-occupation of the water. Years ago, everyone wanted away from the water! I rather look out at great architecture than the floatsom and jetsome in the Patapsco! :)

Nate

:nono: Let’s look at what happened downtown in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.

The Equitable building was mostly vacant. (Now rehabed for offices)

The Munsey Building was completely vacant. (Now apartments)

The Court Square building was mostly vacant. (Now rehabed for offices)

The old News American Building (on Baltimore Street) was vacant. (Now rehabed for offices)

The Garrett building on Redwood was vacant. (Now a law firm's offices)

One Charles Center was half vacant. (Now a law firm's offices)

The Tower Building was vacant and was demolished for a parking lot.

The Emerson Hotel was vacant and demolished to be replaced by a new office tower after a long stint as a parking lot.

The Southern Hotel was vacant and so was the office building next to it. They are now parking lots.

The Odd Fellows Building on Cathedral was vacant. (Being converted to condos)

Hecht's was vacant on every floor but the first. (Now apartments)

Stewart's was vacant. (Now Catholic Charities)

Hutzler’s was vacant until the state renovated it for offices.

The Johnson Building on Charles St. was vacant. (Now apartments)

The Jefferson Building on Charles St. was vacant. (Hotel conversion)

The Kyser Building on Redwood was mostly vacant. (Hotel conversion)

I could go on, but you get the point. All the buildings noted above have now been renovated and put to another use except for the few that have been demolished.

And companies left in mass:

Maryland Casualty moved to the burbs.

Crown Cork and Seal moved to Philadelphia.

SSA moved to Woodlawn.

Sun Life Insurance moved to Los Angeles.

HCFA moved to Woodlawn.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield moved to Baltimore County.

Rouse moved to Howard County.

Manakin moved to Howard County.

USF&G moved a good chunk of its employees to Mt. Washington.

PH&H moved to Hunt Valley.

McCormick moved to Hunt Valley.

Monumental Life Insurance left.

DLA Piper (one of Baltimore's largest law firms) moved to Mt. Washington.

T. Rowe Price moved a good chunk of its employees to Owings Mills.

Again, I could go on. I won't even get into the companies that are no longer in existance because it sickens me. The reason I went through this is because I wanted to illustrate that the TREND was CLEARLY to leave Downtown and not come to it to do business.

If we didn’t develop the waterfront, more companies would have left. Would every company have left? No. But a waterfront location gave the city something unique to counter what the suburban counties were offering which was cheap land, lower property taxes, free parking, better car access, etc.

It is similar to the white flight that occured during that time frame. Did every white family leave the city? No. Did most of them leave? Yes. A trend is a trend.

Compared to what I have witnessed in the past, the old CBD is doing great. If we didn't have the Inner Harbor, well, it wouldn't be doing quite as well as it is now. I am positive about that. Can I prove it? No. But I can say that the reuse of many of the old buildings referenced above is directly related to the development of the waterfront and the tourist attraction it has become. The people who fill the hotels that are now in many of these structures go to the harbor. They don't stay in the CBD and look at density.

My question to you is what could the City have done differently in the old CBD that they hadn't already done? They got new office towers constructed and struggled to fill them. They built pedestrian malls such as Old Town and Lexington and they failed. They built sky walks and they were a disaster. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE PROPOSED, SHORT OF DEVELOPING THE INNER HARBOR, THAT YOU THINK WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE CBD TO BE MORE COMPETITIVE WITH THE SUBURBS AND GET THE DENSITY THAT YOU THINK ISN'T THERE BECAUSE OF WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT?

I think I have made my possition very clear and I have defended it well. You are correct, I can't prove my point. But you can't prove yours either and the trends clearly support my position more than they support yours.

P.S. The water is cleaner now that it has been in a long time due to the clean water act. The big problem now is litter. In the 70's it was chemical polution. Most of the dumping by companies has stopped and you don't hear about rivers catching on fire any more. The Boston Harbor, the Patapsco and the Cuyahoga rivers are alomst ready for swimming. In fact, Turner has proposed a beach in his Westport development.

I still don't understand why you and others divide downtown up into districts? People who are not from here view the area from Harbor East to MLK Boulevard as "Downtown". I do too. Architecturally it is the same - a mix of high-rises and mid-rises. You can't tell where one district ends and another begins. It’s not like mid-town and downtown in New York City where you have a huge neighborhood in between the two districts of skyscrapers.


I was going to say the same thing during the first discussion of Legg Mason moving to Harbor East but didn't want to get flamed.

To me it's all "Downtown", I didn't even know Inner Harbor was seperate from downtown untill some forumers started talking about it that way. I really think expanding the skyline outwards was really a blessing at this point. Now that outer paecels are taken, this is creating development constriants and there is no where to go but up. I thinkt he quality and use of the projects are more dire.

The real question I guess is not relentless focus on the waterfront but what would have replaced it if it was not there? Something would have definitely been built there. Is a highway or industrial zone better than what is there now?

I think the city would have recovered without the Harbor, but not even remotely close to what we are seeing today, which is a city on the verge of busting out and really being something great. The recovery would have been much, much slower and the amount of recovery would pale in comparison to today.

Wada guy,

Thanks for the rundown.

Sure, I realize there were dead spaces, but wasn't this spread over quite a number of years?

But we sure did seem to have more retail then. Since you were around at the time, can you tell me what stores of significance we had?

I remember Hambuger's, right? and the Hub? Was there anything else of noteworthyness east of Liberty?

Nate

waterfront office space > non waterfront office space.

The Inner Harbor development is quite arguably the best thing to happen to the city since....uh....well how about I say a long time??:)

We should cherish our waterfront and allow it to be the engine of our revival.

The Waterfront Development in Baltimore started a revalution of Waterfront Developments in all Major Cities that are boardered by water. If it wasn't for the Baltimore Harbor then DC wouldn't be soo competative to make a 25 year plan to build $Billion's worth of High Dense Development with a new Baseball Stadium by the SE/SW Waterfront.

Getontrac's main reason to Bash the Baltimore Harbor's Dense Development plan is because he/she knows that it will help encourage Business/Economic/Revenue Growth for the city and also Compete against other Major Cities. He/She wouldn't be satisfied until the Communist Left Wing Extremist Politicians cause a Massive Business/Econnomic/Revenue WIPEOUT Throughout the City (if not the Entire State) that will leave Baltimore abandond with old rusty Buildings, Junk Yards, Busted Streets, Extreme Poverty, and other Forms of Corruption while Northern Virginia, Atlanta, DC, Philly, Houston, Charlotte, Boston, etc. continues encourage Business/Economic/Revenue Growth for the Future.

The waterfront is almost like a theme park today. You have the Science Center, Harborplace, USS Constellation, National Aquarium, the Historic Seaport exhibits...I could go on and on.

I don't think we would have anywhere near the progress we see today without these amenities.

Humans are just naturally attracted to water.

The waterfront is almost like a theme park today. You have the Science Center, Harborplace, USS Constellation, National Aquarium, the Historic Seaport exhibits...I could go on and on.

I don't think we would have anywhere near the progress we see today without these amenities.

Humans are just naturally attracted to water.

Yes especially since all living bodies are majority made up of water.

The waterfront is almost like a theme park today. You have the Science Center, Harborplace, USS Constellation, National Aquarium, the Historic Seaport exhibits...I could go on and on.

I don't think we would have anywhere near the progress we see today without these amenities.

Humans are just naturally attracted to water.

Theme park, or as I often refer to it: a circus.

The harbor, and piers in particular are unique foregrounds for the display of buildings. The finger piers collectively resemble a curio cabinet full of collectibles, an assortment of sizes and shapes.

I can see why one might want to live on the water with the beautiful views of the water, however have you ever been at the Harbor for the many special events. The traffic is out of control. I will take the amazing dining of Mt Vernon anyday over the chains at the Harbor. There are so many areas away from the Harbor with more appealling architecture. Give me a condo in the sky in Mt Vernon and I will walk to the Harbor to see the water.

^Ditto :)

Nate

Theme park, or as I often refer to it: a circus.

The harbor, and piers in particular are unique foregrounds for the display of buildings. The finger piers collectively resemble a curio cabinet full of collectibles, an assortment of sizes and shapes.

In fact it needs more of that "Theme park" pizzazz imo. Nothing in the inner harbor makes you want to stay more than one day or a whole day. Like I've said in te past, taking it to the next level is crucial to it's survival and would help enormously to get Baltimore that tier one recognition (if the city knows how to take advantage of it and spin it off as an attraction for white colar jobs).

I just wanted to add my two cents on this one (doesn't everyone?)

My first remark is to your view of the communities and their perceptions of the city. I have found (and i've only lived here for 2.5 years) is that most people I meet with in the northern parts of the city tend to be older and have spent more time living in their particular neighborhoods. Many (but I won't say most or all...) have bad views of the city that have been formed over years of living near some of the worst neighborhoods in the city. On the contrary, it seems that most people moving into Canton, Fells, and Federal hill seem to be younger and younger (as myself). All the new neighbors I meet here seem to have such an upbeat attitude about the future of the city and our neighborhoods.

As outlying neighborhoods develop I see this same trend. People moving in and falling in love with the city. My friends and I go out on the weekends to the Walters, BMA, Ball games (I just got my season tickets in the mail today!!!), and just run around to see every neighborhood. I know it seems that people moving in are making this seem like a city of visitors, but over months and months...everyone is becoming locals. My friend from New Jersey moved here, and now she's an Orioles fan (and dropped those awfffulll Yankees) and will probably be staying here for years to come because the city reall did "charm" her.

My point is that many of us who are new do have respect and interest in the city.

The only other thing I wanted to talk about was the water development. I think it is slowing down, but take a look at Middle Branch on a map...more waterfront there that could boom over the next few years (and I hope it does).

I just wanted to add my two cents on this one (doesn't everyone?)

My first remark is to your view of the communities and their perceptions of the city. I have found (and i've only lived here for 2.5 years) is that most people I meet with in the northern parts of the city tend to be older and have spent more time living in their particular neighborhoods. Many (but I won't say most or all...) have bad views of the city that have been formed over years of living near some of the worst neighborhoods in the city. On the contrary, it seems that most people moving into Canton, Fells, and Federal hill seem to be younger and younger (as myself). All the new neighbors I meet here seem to have such an upbeat attitude about the future of the city and our neighborhoods.....

I understand your observation but, as one of those north Baltimore people, I think we are sometimes underappreciated. You are right that the average age is older than a place like Canton, but that is because we are "lifers". Many of those people bought into the city years ago when downtown/Canton/ S Baltimore, etc were still on the slide, raised kids in the city and supported the tax base when their suburban associates thought they were touched. In general, I find the NB crowd to range between incorrigible elitists, to "normal" people to genuinely visionary people who believed in the city when it really sucked but had to find somewhere practical to raise kids. The attitude may not be quite as upbeat, but it is enduring and it kept this place solvent when most people were on the way out.

In fact it needs more of that "Theme park" pizzazz imo. Nothing in the inner harbor makes you want to stay more than one day or a whole day. Like I've said in te past, taking it to the next level is crucial to it's survival and would help enormously to get Baltimore that tier one recognition (if the city knows how to take advantage of it and spin it off as an attraction for white colar jobs).

On the "theme park" theme, I've always thought that somebody (the city? a business association?) should come up with the equivalent of a Disney "Park Hopper" pass. Pay once, see lots of stuff. Having a predictable cost with different levels (one day, two days + hotel, etc) might take away the scary parental thought that every time you walk through a door somebody wants you to pay again.

There is a pass like that for some attractions. A combination Historic Seaport pass gets you on the Constellation, Torsk, Taney, and all day use of the water taxi.

A ticket that would combine the Aquarium, Science Center, and Port Discovery for about 2/3 the price would appeal to families, I would think.

My view was a bit more reductionist:

North of the habor neighborhoods (generally north of downtown), and

neighborhoods surounding the waterfront.

The north of the harbor neighborhoods I break into the "North Baltimore", long-time stable areas, and the inner, older, more recently settled Mt. Vernon, Charles North, Charles Village, Hampden, Bolton Hill, Reservoir Hill. The former is as scando described, the latter are simply newcomers who are, generally different in culture than the harborites. Many harbor newcomers are sports people, in part due to the location of the new stadiums. There's generally more money on the waterfront hoods than in the inner north of harborers, but factoring out money, those with money living in the inner north tend to be more art/science/academic/urban oriented than the harbor people. North of the harbor has the colleges. These differences are my observational generalizations. I think the lure of waterfront property brought certain people to those areas initially, and the sports relationship.

To me, Mt. Vernon and Canton are night and day. Both have many new residents.

Nate

There is a pass like that for some attractions. A combination Historic Seaport pass gets you on the Constellation, Torsk, Taney, and all day use of the water taxi.

A ticket that would combine the Aquarium, Science Center, and Port Discovery for about 2/3 the price would appeal to families, I would think.

That's part of what I am thinking about. The Historic Seaport pass happens because they are all one entity except the water taxi and the WT has a deal with them (and a lot of discounts for other businesses), but there should be a deal which includes the Aquarium, Science Center and Discovery along with the ships, taxi and a shuttle to the Walters and BMA. One of the best things about Disney is that once you're "in the compound" and have one of those passes, you can ride the buses, go to any park and sleep in your hotel without further bucks. Not that it's cheap but it is predictable and for family visitors, that's important.

A day type pass would be nice, although I wonder how something like that would be funded? We've had many similar deals in the past with limited success. I think it always boils down to cost and competition among the many competing attractions.

In fact it needs more of that "Theme park" pizzazz imo. Nothing in the inner harbor makes you want to stay more than one day or a whole day. Like I've said in te past, taking it to the next level is crucial to it's survival and would help enormously to get Baltimore that tier one recognition (if the city knows how to take advantage of it and spin it off as an attraction for white colar jobs).

As for "pizzazz", keep in mind people are what animate the city, not signage. Sure, attractions are great...but only "quality" will keep people coming back. But, from an architectural standpoint, the foreground we have to play with in downtown (the Inner Harbor) is bordering on tackiness. (Think gondola scheme.) The configuration of the piers, the backdrop of the harbor as a tourist destination...lends an air of silliness to the city.

That's ok in and of itself, but I know I've become alienated in the process, and I resist it when "pizzazz" begins to creep into other parts of the city. Sure, I'll go to the Inner Harbor once in awhile, but for a slightly more mature and real urban experience, I'd rather explore and hang out in Fells Point, Federal Hill, Mt. Vernon, or other parts of the city. If I want "theme park"...I guess I'll go to the Inner Harbor, or Disney World. But the harbor area (to me) has become extremely tacky, and continues to become more so with time.

While I know most on this board don't like the "vanilla boxes" we've built along Pratt and Light Streets, or the planting-berms, at least they provide some sort of continuity to the streetscape. With all the paddles boats, street vendors, the guitar on top of the smokestack at the Power Plant, potential for LED's, etc. -- I think we need to be careful the milieu doesn't become overwhelming. Maybe controlled chaos?!

Have you ever been to Power Plant Live at night, when all the signs are illuminated, neon in full swing...and the sidewalks are sparsely covered? It looks silly! It looks overdone, like a "Baltimore Hon" with her hair poofed and too much makeup.

Sure, we can envision Times Square, but the real "pizzazz" of Times Square is the mass of people, not the neon lights...

I enjoyed this debate and want to offer my two cents.

Clearly, we're lucky to have created something like the Inner Harbor. While I don't personally think the experience reveals much of Baltimore's distinct charm, the harbor has more foot traffic than any other downtown neighborhood I know. Sure, it's not always the sea of humanity I like most -- tourists and the like -- but I'm no fan of Times Square either. They're important, but distorted, representations of the cities they're located in.

Nate, I think there's a couple problems with the old CBD. While I share your nostalgia for days gone by, when the whole city descended on twenty or thirty square blocks for work, a couple problems come to mind with the old CBD. First, harbor views are important but not everything. Atmosphere is important in creating a work environment that attracts young employees. Unfortunately, that environment is not, by and large, in the old CBD. While some downtown streets, like Redwood, have been beautifully restored, many are windswept and quiet back alleys of the city. Of course, that could change with greater business density -- a chicken and egg scenario, you're quite right -- but large firms looking to competitively recruit employees need to offer the best amenities of the city if they're going to make the commitment to urban office space and the costs it entails. Harbor East, a recent Baltimore Sun article noted, is one of those neighborhoods. While it doesn't "feel" like Baltimore, and isn't built on a traditional city street grid, it is a comfortable place to stroll through, and it has a surprising array of amenities. I walk through some downtown streets and am awed by the architecture, but many streets -- Lexington, East Baltimore, Howard, etc. -- are too decayed to be comfortable. Perhaps New York can restore old cobblestone back alleys to new charm, but Baltimore doesn't have the critical mass of business or population to do so. People here head for the best real estate attainable, and that's located along the water.

That being said, I think the old CBD can be a growing ground for new companies looking for an urban location with lower rents. Obviously, not all tenants will seek $35/sf office space, and older stock will trickle down to smaller, newer companies. Companies like Naing International Enterprises, the Shapiro Company, etc., all lease space in the old CBD. Companies like Southern Management could move their headquarters here, too. Southern Management, for example, would be a perfect fit for One Charles Center, as the firm is renovating many adjacent structures.

Will new office be constructed in the CBD? My guess is probably not. A sizeable chunk of vacant space exists. But the city needs big businesses as well as small ones, and incremental growth can always occur in the CBD while larger tenants pursue the glitz along the water. Perhaps we'll see a couple more renovations like the Garrett building in the future, and those, to me, are far more valuable than an office tower. The Garrett Building and the Hampton Inn and Suites make Redwood Street a far more walkable experience than it was two years ago. Imagine how Calvert St. will look a year from now.

Just some thoughts for now. It's time to sleep.... :)

My first remark is to your view of the communities and their perceptions of the city. I have found (and i've only lived here for 2.5 years) is that most people I meet with in the northern parts of the city tend to be older and have spent more time living in their particular neighborhoods. Many (but I won't say most or all...) have bad views of the city that have been formed over years of living near some of the worst neighborhoods in the city.

I don't know what people you're talking to, but many of these North Baltimore residents have committed to this city for life and will be here long after the Canton in-and-outers are gone. These people have stabilized great neighborhoods and stuck with the city through thick and thin. I don't quite understand your comment about some of the worst neighborhoods in the city, but East Baltimore is certainly right at the top and in close proximity to Canton. What north Baltimore neighborhoods are you talking about anyway?

This link should take you to the BACVA page. There is currently a promotion for that type of pass. It gets the visitor into these 4 places:

National Aquarium in Baltimore
Maryland Science Center
Port Discovery, the Children’s Museum
Top of the World Observation Level

It is not everything, but it is 2 big ones on the Waterfront with the Aquarium and Science Center and it is cheaper than getting them separately. I think they need to advertise these promotions a little more heavily so more people take advantage of them and visit our waterfront. I know this promotion is to help pull people there for the winter, but hoefully they will offer some summer promotions like this as well, or create something more permanent.


http://www.baltimore.org/winter2007/wfpass.html

I can see why one might want to live on the water with the beautiful views of the water, however have you ever been at the Harbor for the many special events. The traffic is out of control. I will take the amazing dining of Mt Vernon anyday over the chains at the Harbor. There are so many areas away from the Harbor with more appealling architecture. Give me a condo in the sky in Mt Vernon and I will walk to the Harbor to see the water.

I, of course, agree. Mount Vernon is such a great neighborhood. I'm so happy to call it home.

I, of course, agree. Mount Vernon is such a great neighborhood. I'm so happy to call it home.

What I love about Mt Vernon is that it is really a city inside the city. It has a large residential community, small businesses, restaurants, bars, a small supermarket, walkable distances, corporate presence, government, a hospital, 3 colleges and the major weight of high culture in Baltimore (Walters, Peabody Institute, Pratt Library, the Peabody Library, MICA, BSO, Opera). I find the 19th century scale and density of the place to be very appealing in a way that concentrated tall buildings can never be. As an added benefit, it definitely has the best concentration of preservable architecture in the entire metro area; it's like the Venice of the mid-Atlantic. The recent completion of the renovation of the Basilica is really world class. I lived there for a while and have worked there most of my adult life and never really get tired of the area except to the extent that I wish it were able to hit its full potential, which is sky-high.

What I love about Mt Vernon is that it is really a city inside the city. It has a large residential community, small businesses, restaurants, bars, a small supermarket, walkable distances, corporate presence, government, a hospital, 3 colleges and the major weight of high culture in Baltimore (Walters, Peabody Institute, Pratt Library, the Peabody Library, MICA, BSO, Opera). I find the 19th century scale and density of the place to be very appealing in a way that concentrated tall buildings can never be. As an added benefit, it definitely has the best concentration of preservable architecture in the entire metro area; it's like the Venice of the mid-Atlantic. The recent completion of the renovation of the Basilica is really world class. I lived there for a while and have worked there most of my adult life and never really get tired of the area except to the extent that I wish it were able to hit its full potential, which is sky-high.

I agree. It has HUGE potential. If only it could fill in all of those parking lots that still linger around and get some better streetscaping. I live on a block where the street lighting is above the tree canopy so it can get pretty dark at night. Pedestrian level lights would be much appreciated. 1209 is gonna make a noticable difference to the neighborhood I think. Adding more people and street-level retail always helps. I think so far at 1209 its gonna be a Starbucks and branch bank. I'm not sure what else.

I agree. It has HUGE potential. If only it could fill in all of those parking lots that still linger around and get some better streetscaping. I live on a block where the street lighting is above the tree canopy so it can get pretty dark at night. Pedestrian level lights would be much appreciated. 1209 is gonna make a noticable difference to the neighborhood I think. Adding more people and street-level retail always helps. I think so far at 1209 its gonna be a Starbucks and branch bank. I'm not sure what else.

One of the things I have noted about Mt Vernon is that change there comes rather gradually and for each 5 buildings that get better 2 get worse, so the overall change is pretty incremental. The area that is definitely getting better right now is above Chase. With several new and rehabbed buildings from UB, several restaurants on Charles and the coming of 1209, this two block strip will be way better than the no-man's-land of a few years ago. My biggest concern in the area now is the old Medical Arts Building, which closed a while ago and seems to be in limbo. There was a sign for apartments, but that is gone. On the other hand, several houses on that block are being rehabbed, the BSA is getting lots of work the the houses bracketing the wine store on the corner of Charles and Read are turning into condos. Like it's been for a while, some buildings getting better, a few getting worse. The next one I'd like to see go away is the parking lot at Charles and Eager.

^Kingdon Gould, who I believe owns PMI Parking, controls that lot along with the one at Charles and Read and the lot on the other side of Gampy's.

Word is from the MVBA that since he can't get his 200'+ towers, he ain't building until the properties are sky high in price. He'll be charging $15/day for parking before he builds, I bet....unfortunately....

Nate

^Not to carry water for Gould or anything, but he's done a number of nice-looking buildings in D.C. Seven years ago, he told a group in Mt. Vernon that he wanted to do a minimum of ~200 residences; that was the point at which the amenities he likes to provide in his projects would make financial sense. At one point, he hoped to acquire the old MacGillavry's pharmacy and GAMPYs on the NW corner of Charles and Read, and do two midrise buildings with shared amenities. With the restoration of the Mac's and GAMPY's buildings, _that_ ain't happening.

Medical Arts' problem is parking ... a succession of developers haven't been able to secure enough parking close enough to the building. Management has also let the building get run down.

I sure he's done some good stuff, but I'd rather keep the buildings in Mt. Vernon shorter than he wanted. I really like the corner at Charles and Read.

The last thing we need is to have him knock it down and have the market turn south, like upteen billion projects. :ohno:

I'm happy with what MVBA did to the corner.:)

Nate

Medical Arts' problem is parking ... a succession of developers haven't been able to secure enough parking close enough to the building. Management has also let the building get run down.

Unfortunately, it's not only run down, but right now the main entrance is boarded up and really ugly. I wonder if they have approached the owner of the garage across the street on Read. It seems like it might be a possibility...or is that one used up by Albion people?

I sure he's done some good stuff, but I'd rather keep the buildings in Mt. Vernon shorter than he wanted. I really like the corner at Charles and Read......I'm happy with what MVBA did to the corner.:)

Nate

Huh? What did they do? Crack up the pavement on the parking lot and make all the fence posts crooked?

I wonder if we can build a large (4/5 story) underground garage on the Lippman lot with City parking bonds. I don't know how that really works, but I've heard of such projects, elsewhere!

Eventually or simutaneously, we could build some 4-8 story building above it.

Possible?

Nate

^^No, the old MacGuilvary's Drug Store, where the wine shop is. Gould owns the lot between Gampy's and 914 N. Charles, too. :)

Nate

^^No, the old MacGuilvary's Drug Store, where the wine shop is. Gould owns the lot between Gampy's and 914 N. Charles, too. :)

Nate

Ooops. I meant to make disparaging remarks about the lot on the corner of Charles and Eager. The wine store really looks good and I am encouraged to see the work on the long dead Gampy's and the buildings around the corner on Read. Of course there's that other parking lot on the southwest corner of Charles and Read. I could rant about that one while I'm in a ranty mood.

Ooops. I meant to make disparaging remarks about the lot on the corner of Charles and Eager. The wine store really looks good and I am encouraged to see the work on the long dead Gampy's and the buildings around the corner on Read. Of course there's that other parking lot on the southwest corner of Charles and Read. I could rant about that one while I'm in a ranty mood.

wow. he owns all THREE of those?? If you were to ask me three parking lots in Mount Vernon that need buildings the most it would be those three. That bastard. I don't know who he is but he's on my list. I'm not sure what kind of list but it's a bad one. really bad.

That brings me back to the whole Mount Vernon issue of parking. They shouldn't make buildings require SO MUCH of it. A friend of mine is on the MV arch. review committee and he said alot of great projects don't get built because they can't provide the insane amount of parking required. Either mount vernon needs to build a parking garage like Fed Hill or we just need to drop that rule. This is an URBAN neighborhood. It's supposed to be hard to find parking. That's cause everyone's not supposed to own a car. To be completely contradictory, don't even get me started on all the parking meters around here. They honestly sit empty half the time while residents fight for neighborhood spots. They start ticketing at 8am as if any store in this neighborhood opens before 10.

whew...ok...i'm done.

I think the new URP has reduced parking requirements.

Nate

I'm happy with what MVBA did to the corner.

Nate

Absolutely. The beautifully renovated MacGillavry's (Spirits) on the NW corner of Charles and Read was for many months highlighted on HGTV as part of their "Restore America" initiative with the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Baltimore has too few Second Empire buildings; glad it was saved.

But once two midrise buildings on the NW and SW corners of Charles and Read weren't possible, KGIII pushed for more height to get what he regards as a commercially viable product -- i.e. ~200 units -- on the SW corner; glad that was defeated.

So, the surface lots will likely be around for a while. Money in the bank.

Could be mistaken, but I think Gould's sister Amy owns and is renovating the buildings on Read next to Spirits.

The good news about Charles St (sans Rochambeau) Mt. Vernon is that once 1209 N. Charles is completed there will be 3 complete, unbroken blocks on the street: the 1100, 1200, and 1300 blocks (unless you count the driveway acces between Mercantile Bank and the Brewer's Art on the 1100 block ;))

It seems to be UB's plan to build a new library on their parking lot on the 1400 block--then we'll have 4 unbroken blocks.

Gould is probably right about some of the economics, at least based on certain premises. The market is probably not quite hot enough in Mt. Vernon to build a high-quality structure and make money on it if you can't build tall (200+"). MVBA doesn't seem to mind; "We'll wait" to quote MVBA VP Paul Warren, whose known for his blistering media attacks--did you hear his rant on the last mayor in The Sun regarding the Rochambeau?

The 1000 block seems problematic, because that short bronze brick building is really out-of-place, although newer and in good condition. It seems to me that if that building were out of the way, the lot would be big enough to do something good with and not have to be tall.

Anyway, there's always the Maryland Club parking lot, although I have no idea in hell how you would make a good street frontage with the way they did things there.

Nate
(I'd rather be in Mt. Vernon again, but it's just too expensive to get a good place. Don't need no stinkin' waterfront view ;))

I have lived in Mt Vernon for eight years and have seen it come a long way. I guess I am in the minority that does not see a problem with a high rise that is architecturally appropriately for the neighborhood. It could work and add so much to the area. How about a 30 story Belvedere Hotel like building with grand balconies with roof top terraces for the penthouses?

^ Back in the 80s or early 90s, a developer proposed a 15-20 story tower on the SW corner of Charles and Chase opposite the Belvedere. Didn't happen (obviously) but it did underscore how difficult it is to build a structure as graceful as the old hotel. Unless a top-flight architect and a developer with lots of $$$ are involved, anything near that mansard-roofed charmer is likely to look like poor stepsister. And not just $$$ for good design; have to have the dough to bury parking. Otherwise you get four to five "dead" floors with parking decks in a 30-story building (like the building on the NW corner of St. Paul and Lexington). In a neighborhood like MV, people should be living in those four to five floors. Eyes on the street, and all that.

^ Back in the 80s or early 90s, a developer proposed a 15-20 story tower on the SW corner of Charles and Chase opposite the Belvedere. Didn't happen (obviously) but it did underscore how difficult it is to build a structure as graceful as the old hotel. Unless a top-flight architect and a developer with lots of $$$ are involved, anything near that mansard-roofed charmer is likely to look like poor stepsister. And not just $$$ for good design; have to have the dough to bury parking. Otherwise you get four to five "dead" floors with parking decks in a 30-story building (like the building on the NW corner of St. Paul and Lexington). In a neighborhood like MV, people should be living in those four to five floors. Eyes on the street, and all that.

oh, Jane Jacobs. How wise she was. I agree. I kind of agree with Mt Vernator too. If the building is done well (ie. ground floor retail, neighborhood-appropriate massing/sidewalk conditions, etc.) a high-rise building would be a good thing for Mount Vernon. The more people you can get, the better. I know, I know. People always bring up parking and all that but if you wanna know my feelings on that read my post above. I'd love to get rid of my car. I just need a good reason/alt. means of transit. Anyway, I think it's WAY worse to build a new traditionally-styled building that tries to cheaply immitate traditional architecture than it is to build a mid-rise sleek modern form. I think MICA has already helped establish that kind of thinking in the neighborhood which is a good thing. Look at it this way, if you put something imitation next to something authentic, it cheapens them both. If you put two authentic things next to each other, it highlights the unique qualities of both. That's my take on it. What am I saying? That low-rise bank building across from the Belvedere is a total waste of space.

I think it's WAY worse to build a new traditionally-styled building that tries to cheaply immitate traditional architecture than it is to build a mid-rise sleek modern form. I think MICA has already helped establish that kind of thinking in the neighborhood which is a good thing. Look at it this way, if you put something imitation next to something authentic, it cheapens them both. If you put two authentic things next to each other, it highlights the unique qualities of both.

Agreed. MICA, though, was able to build the Brown Center and the new dorm in a contemporary style because the sites are outside the Bolton Hill historic district. Remember the fuss about the proposed sleek glass in-fill building at 20 E. Preston (between Charles and St. Paul)? http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=9&sectionID=4&articleID=385

Anyway, here's hoping. If 1209 and the reno of the old Calvert School/Hynson Westcott & Dunning property at 10 W. Chase are successful, maybe Mercantile/PNC will move across the street into the former Trahan Burden Charles hq and redevelop their property on the NW corner of Charles and Chase.

Agreed. MICA, though, was able to build the Brown Center and the new dorm in a contemporary style because the sites are outside the Bolton Hill historic district. Remember the fuss about the proposed sleek glass in-fill building at 20 E. Preston (between Charles and St. Paul)? http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=9&sectionID=4&articleID=385

No. I don't. What exactly happened with that? Did it get shot down?

I have lived in Mt Vernon for eight years and have seen it come a long way. I guess I am in the minority that does not see a problem with a high rise that is architecturally appropriately for the neighborhood. It could work and add so much to the area. How about a 30 story Belvedere Hotel like building with grand balconies with roof top terraces for the penthouses?

I think that a 30 story proposal would reap the whirlwind. I can see a couple areas, however, where 12 - 18 might work and get past the opposition. I could see it happening around the Belvedere, or near the existing high rises on Center St or perhaps in the no-man's land east of Howard near Symphony Center (parking lots, Rite Aid, etc).

30 stories is a bit too tall. definitely. But 12-18 stories would be ideal in my mind. Historical preservation is very important, but sometimes it prevents the neighborhoods from evolving and growing into the next phase. Mount Vernon will always be particularly vunerable to this issue due to it's proximity to downtown, light rail, interstate, and train station. The need for more housing will only get greater and trying to keep everything low will be a struggle. And if the yellow line is ever built, forget about it. As long as they develop existing empty lots and/or redevelop irresponsible post-war buildings, I'm FOR it all the way.

The issue's already been setteld by the new URP, there will be areas that will be allowed more than 100', possibly up to 150', I think towards the north. I think 12-18 is reasonable and in scale with some of the historic structures.

Nate

No. I don't. What exactly happened with [20 E. Preston]? Did it get shot down?

Not shot down, but pretty sure it's on the back burner. CHAP requested more masonry, less glass, to make the building more "contextual." Developers www.towerhill.biz reportedly had a contract on one of the duplexes but the buyer backed out as the delivery date slipped and the design became less contemporary. Here's the architect's view http://www.pfarc.com/20epreston.html. The previously linked Urbanite article http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=9&sectionID=4&articleID=385 and a subsequent letter http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=20&sectionID=4&articleID=168 do a pretty good job fleshing out the history/context v. contemporary design issue.

Not shot down, but pretty sure it's on the back burner. CHAP requested more masonry, less glass, to make the building more "contextual." Developers www.towerhill.biz reportedly had a contract on one of the duplexes but the buyer backed out as the delivery date slipped and the design became less contemporary. Here's the architect's view http://www.pfarc.com/20epreston.html. The previously linked Urbanite article http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=9&sectionID=4&articleID=385 and a subsequent letter http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=20&sectionID=4&articleID=168 do a pretty good job fleshing out the history/context v. contemporary design issue.

Interesting. Who are these historic people anyway? are they elected? A friend of mine is on the MVARC and he says pretty much anyone can be on it. You don't even have to be an expert. Sometimes half the meeting is taken up with arguing over a paint color and how it should be historically accurate. who ARE they, really? It's like, how long are we gonna keep this up people? what's next? why don't we just fence the neighborhood off and make it a museum. You can only live there if you wear historically accurate clothes. Ever notice how Americans are so obsessed with our relatively short history? Neighborhoods have to evolve. I swear its situations like this that make me think that someday the pendulum might swing back against historical preservation. They need to learn to choose their battles more wisely.

Interesting. Who are these historic people anyway? are they elected?

Most are like Douglas Huntley Gordon. Loved Mt. Vernon. Was dismayed in the 50s to see buildings being torn down left and right on Charles Street. Last straw was the Walters Art Museum's plans to demo the Garrett-Jacobs Mansion on West Mt. Vernon Place for a hideous addition. Fought two city bond issues and filed hundreds of lawsuits to stop the project. Founded Baltimore Heritage www.baltimoreheritage.org in 1961.

Others are like Sen. Mikulski. Like their neighborhood; aren't partial to highways running through it. A social worker in the 60s, she teamed with the Society for the Preservation of Fell's Point and Federal Hill http://www.preservationsociety.com/ to stop I-83 at Fayette and get the alignment of I-95 moved from Federal Hill Park to the southern edge of Locust Point.

Here's CHAP's story http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/historic/

Arguments about stuff like paint are tedious, nearly insane, but often necessary, as are--for better and worse--the people who have those arguments. Historic districts are collections of fine details. Here's what preservation looks like when the details are done right http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?ArticleID=605&IssueID=45&SectionID=4

That said, still would like to see 20 E. Preston built ...

Most are like Douglas Huntley Gordon. Loved Mt. Vernon. Was dismayed in the 50s to see buildings being torn down left and right on Charles Street. Last straw was the Walters Art Museum's plans to demo the Garrett-Jacobs Mansion on West Mt. Vernon Place for a hideous addition. Fought two city bond issues and filed hundreds of lawsuits to stop the project. Founded Baltimore Heritage www.baltimoreheritage.org in 1961.

Others are like Sen. Mikulski. Like their neighborhood; aren't partial to highways running through it. A social worker in the 60s, she teamed with the Society for the Preservation of Fell's Point and Federal Hill http://www.preservationsociety.com/ to stop I-83 at Fayette and get the alignment of I-95 moved from Federal Hill Park to the southern edge of Locust Point.

Here's CHAP's story http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/historic/

Arguments about stuff like paint are tedious, nearly insane, but often necessary, as are--for better and worse--the people who have those arguments. Historic districts are collections of fine details. Here's what preservation looks like when the details are done right http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?ArticleID=605&IssueID=45&SectionID=4

That said, still would like to see 20 E. Preston built ...

Those were very well deserved battles and I'm completely glad they won them. I'm sure the 1960's was a devastating time for historic cities in this country, what with urban renewal, interstate building, and a general lack of appreciation for old buildings. Some cities got hit harder than others. If it weren't for those people, Baltimore would be devastated today. They started the movement here at the same time many others like Jane Jacobs did in Greenwich Village....(also saving it from a highway) I'm all for saving old buildings. You can't build them like that anymore, it's true. So why try? Infill with some exquisitely detailed modern buildings and you've got a very European situation. Now lets build great buildings there today that people can also appreciate 100 years from now.

I've met some of the people on the MVARC and they appeared to be pretty astuted, knowledgable, not necessarily old people, who really care about the neighborhood (I used to be a dues paying MVBA member). Sometimes reality just gets you down to stupid nitty gritty details, when dealing with CHAP and everything else with the Housing Authority to keep up inspections to maintain consistency in enforcement and other such issues. I really give them credit.

My gut feeling is that I'd rather have an ARC from those in in Mt. Vernon than any other Balto. hood.

Nate

:) :) It is great to have the historic district we have. However, having traveled to many major capital cities in the US and around the world I do not get it. If Baltimore is to be a world class city, our cultural district needs to be more than just a museum the suburbinites visit once or twice a year. We are so close in Mt Vernon. Progress happens. Mt Vernon was a corn field 150 years ago. Let's fill in those parking lots with architecturally appropriate skyscapers tickling the sky. It would be a plus for Mt Vernon and Baltimore.

I just don't see skyscrapers meshing well with Mt. Vernon. 20 stories is really about it, to be reasonable, without ripping the fabric of the neighborhood.

An example of this is the Near North side of Chicago. It's a thriving area because of the density, but it's integrity as a neighborhood is lost due to skyscrapers and their parking demands. It really created a disjointed neighborhood.

Nate

I just don't see skyscrapers meshing well with Mt. Vernon. 20 stories is really about it, to be reasonable, without ripping the fabric of the neighborhood.

An example of this is the Near North side of Chicago. It's a thriving area because of the density, but it's integrity as a neighborhood is lost due to skyscrapers and their parking demands. It really created a disjointed neighborhood.

Nate

I agree. I've been to near north Chicago many times but it's a bit extreme. Especially with the Hancock Tower (as beautiful as it is). I say about the height of Harbor East's "The Vue" What is it? 25 stories? but GOOD architecture people!! No "Upper East Side" generic, single-use nonsense. (that means YOU Horizon House, 1010 Saint Paul!!!)

I agree. I've been to near north Chicago many times but it's a bit extreme. Especially with the Hancock Tower (as beautiful as it is). I say about the height of Harbor East's "The Vue" What is it? 25 stories? but GOOD architecture people!! No "Upper East Side" generic, single-use nonsense. (that means YOU Horizon House, 1010 Saint Paul!!!)

Arn't there already a few 12-15 story apartment towers in Mt. Vernon?

Arn't there already a few 12-15 story apartment towers in Mt. Vernon?

Yeah...but they're not very good...60-70s era...generic...no street presence. They've tried to retro-fit retail in them but it doesn't work....hence my comment about Horizon House...1010 Saint Paul...etc. They weren't built with today's idea of what urban buildings are SUPPOSED to do. Mt. Vernon will never be completely residential...especially the North/South Streets. Too much traffic. you gotta have a neighborhood retail base. It's gotta be a mix...but done better than those.

Well, the Belvedere is, as well as the Stafford Apts. (12-15 stories). Henderson's like 10. The Regency's okay, 611 Park is hidden, St. Paul at Chase is okay, Horizon--not so, The Chase House is nasty.... The Peabody Court is decent...barely historic....

Nate

Mt Vernon was a corn field 150 years ago.

Get yer point, but MV has always been about real estate; farming wasn't really part of the picture. Eagers got it in a swap for land near Annapolis is the 1680s; it was part of a crescent of land they owned that extended down to Camden Yards and embraced original 60 acres set off for Balto Town in 1729. After the Revolution, their grandson/patriot hero/governor John Eager Howard built "Belvidere" ("beautiful view") near where the Belvedere is now, and started calving large chunks of the property, donating some (land for Lexington Market, UM med school, Washington Monument) and selling the rest for development. The area near the WM was a de facto park (and occasional dueling ground) until Howard died in 1828 and his heirs set aside the four parks around the monument and marked off lots around them.

So, the question is, WWJEHD? ("What Would John Eager Howard Do?")

I know: who cares?

:) I am a lover of history especially Baltimore. My family goes back to the settling of Maryland. My great grandfathers were a Baltimore City policeman who's beat was the inner harbor in the late 1800s and the other was an administrator for the trolley system at the turn of the centuryin Baltimore. It is so important to preserve the amazing buildings we have left. However, to preserve those buildings I feel we need to move forward in neighborhoods like MV and make them viable for future generations. The more people you have, the more services you have. MV is a strong neighborhood. It could be stronger and also spread that economic strength to surrounding neighborhoods. The more residents you have the stronger voice you have. I say fill in the parking lots in MV with big beautiful elegant buildings.

^Well, we're just going to have to wait ol' Kingdon out. :bash:

Nate

Get yer point, but MV has always been about real estate; farming wasn't really part of the picture. Eagers got it in a swap for land near Annapolis is the 1680s; it was part of a crescent of land they owned that extended down to Camden Yards and embraced original 60 acres set off for Balto Town in 1729. After the Revolution, their grandson/patriot hero/governor John Eager Howard built "Belvidere" ("beautiful view") near where the Belvedere is now, and started calving large chunks of the property, donating some (land for Lexington Market, UM med school, Washington Monument) and selling the rest for development. The area near the WM was a de facto park (and occasional dueling ground) until Howard died in 1828 and his heirs set aside the four parks around the monument and marked off lots around them.

I thought I read somewhere, that the monument was located where it is after locations further downtown were shouted down be residents who were certain that it would collapse on their house in the first strong wind. At the time, that hill was a short walk outside the city.

I thought I read somewhere, that the monument was located where it is after locations further downtown were shouted down be residents who were certain that it would collapse on their house in the first strong wind.

It was supposed to go where the Battle Monument is now at Calvert and Fayette, which was then a largely residential area. Mills' column was the tallest masonry structure in the U.S. when it was proposed, so collapse was a concern. Disruption was also an issue: the monument was proposed in 1809, a decade after GW's death, but wasn't finished until 1829. That's a long time to have masons and bricklayers working in front of your house.

I'd say so. :nuts:

...Mills' column was the tallest masonry structure in the U.S. when it was proposed, so collapse was a concern. ...

That's interesting. I believe that Baltimore had 3 tallest's in its past. The Monument, the Shot Tower and the spire of the Presbyterian Church on Park Ave. That was back in the 19th century. We're a long way from that now. A few years back when the church renovated after a fire, workers found, to their horror, that what had long been considered a masterpiece of Victorian cast iron architecture (the spire) was a kludge. The construction company had cheated on the design, cheapened the internal supports and nailed timbers in place instead of cast iron. It was a miracle that the thing had not collapsed. It's now rebuilt (invisible from the outside) but maybe those 19th century folks were not far off on worrying about tall buildings collapsing on their houses.

That's interesting. I believe that Baltimore had 3 tallest's in its past. The Monument, the Shot Tower and the spire of the Presbyterian Church on Park Ave. That was back in the 19th century. We're a long way from that now. A few years back when the church renovated after a fire, workers found, to their horror, that what had long been considered a masterpiece of Victorian cast iron architecture (the spire) was a kludge. The construction company had cheated on the design, cheapened the internal supports and nailed timbers in place instead of cast iron. It was a miracle that the thing had not collapsed. It's now rebuilt (invisible from the outside) but maybe those 19th century folks were not far off on worrying about tall buildings collapsing on their houses.

The original central spire of Camden Station (now restored spire) is said to have been the tallest structure in the United States, when built. Of course there is a long list of "tallest structure between here and there" in Baltimore "at any particular point in time."

One immediate example that comes to mind is The Continental Trust building on the SE corner of Calvert and Baltimore Streets. Initially when completed, it was touted as the "tallest building south of Philly."

And we do have a long list of "firsts" as well, in terms of construction, materials, monuments, etc.

While Baltimore isn't known as a center, or powerhouse of architecture, we sure have a lot of interesting tid-bits. Too bad it seems these tid-bits are only interesting to us locals...

^Good old "One Calvert Plaza"....;)

Yeah, at the time, how hard would it have been to build the tallest building south of Philly?:lol: There was no urban south to speak of!

Nate

^Good old "One Calvert Plaza"....;)

Yeah, at the time, how hard would it have been to build the tallest building south of Philly?:lol: There was no urban south to speak of!

Nate

For another one, I think that the BOA building at Light and Baltimore was once, the "tallest building in the world south of the Mason Dixon line". That was when Redwood St was the "Wall Street of the South".

For another one, I think that the BOA building at Light and Baltimore was once, the "tallest building in the world south of the Mason Dixon line". That was when Redwood St was the "Wall Street of the South".

It was, and of course we could add the list of tallest buildings in Baltimore...of which The Tower Building held that claim for awhile.

But as for towers in Mt. Vernon, reaching 15, 20, or even 30 stories...I'd be interested in seeing one actually proposed and built. Talk is cheap. Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse on this one? With the exception of the 70-story residential highrise proposed on the old Waterloo site back in the early 1970s, nothing has ever come to fruition. I just don't understand all the worry and discussion about highrises in Mt. Vernon. We'll get there once someone comes around with an actual plan to build something tall. In the meantime, there is plenty of vacant residential to renovate and occupy.

It was, and of course we could add the list of tallest buildings in Baltimore...of which The Tower Building held that claim for awhile.

But as for towers in Mt. Vernon, reaching 15, 20, or even 30 stories...I'd be interested in seeing one actually proposed and built. Talk is cheap. Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse on this one? With the exception of the 70-story residential highrise proposed on the old Waterloo site back in the early 1970s, nothing has ever come to fruition. I just don't understand all the worry and discussion about highrises in Mt. Vernon. We'll get there once someone comes around with an actual plan to build something tall. In the meantime, there is plenty of vacant residential to renovate and occupy.

Give me a highrise in Mt Vernon. Why don't developers get it. Mt Vernon is a much better location than the Inner Harbor. The collections of resturaunts is tops in Baltimore. The area around the Monument is unbeatable for walks from Spring to Fall. It has so much more character. Sink a huge parking lot under it to help with parking.

Sink a huge parking lot under it to help with parking.

A member of the Engineering Society of Baltimore (in the Garrett-Jacobs Mansion at 9-11 W. Mt. Vernon Place) proposed a garage under the west park of MVP eight years ago. Idea wasn't well received. Entrance and exit ramps and ventilation equipment would fugly up the park's ambience big time. Keep an eye on the Walter's lot (NW corner of Cathedral and Centre) for museum expansion/structured parking. They had designers looking at it at the same time as the ESB proposal, but needed to acquire the three buildings to the north of it on Cathedral to get a large enough footprint.

That site could be a good footprint for UG parking, but I'd hate to lose the houses.

Either way, it will be difficult to create much "extra" parking in Mt. Vernon and keep it Mt. Vernon. Most new parking would be consumed by the occupants of the attached/adjacent structure.

Nate

That site could be a good footprint for UG parking, but I'd hate to lose the houses.
Nate

Not sure about UG. Walters has in the past had a problem with flooding. Apparently, some remnant of Tiber Creek still runs under Centre Street.

It would seem like any river around there would be a storm water line and not under the parking lot. I wouldn't think 2 levels would be problematic.

But, interesting to note, though! Where/when else did they have problems?

But, interesting to note, though! Where/when else did they have problems?

Pretty sure it was prior to the late 80's restoration of the original gallery. Friend was docent there and mentioned "Tiber Creek" which I hadn't heard about before (except for the TC in Ellicott City).

Change of subject here:

Does anybody know when First Thursday starts up again in Mount Vernon? Is it April or May?

Change of subject here:

Does anybody know when First Thursday starts up again in Mount Vernon? Is it April or May?

Looks like May. Too bad I probably won't be there.

http://www.wtmd.org/1sthtur/julianvelard.htm

All you need to know About May's 1st Thursday

May 3rd Music Starts at 5:30



For Directions to West Mount Vernon Park, Click Here


Rain policy: The Concert will only be cancelled if rain is heavy enough to pose an imminent or immediate health threat either to audience or band.

Cameras are allowed

Pets are allowed, Children have a great time. First Thursday’s Concerts are a wonderful time for everyone including dogs, but please remember that all pets MUST be on a Leash within the park.

The Charles Street Restaurant Association will be providing food at the park including creations from the finest restaurants in the park. Juice boxes and snacks will be available for kids, drinks will be available on site served by the Midtown Yacht Club featuring wine and Brewer’s Art Beer.

Alcohol may only be purchased from vendors in park during concert. No alcohol may be brought into the park or taken out of the park.

Julian and Eva will have CD’s and other merchandise at the concert. Stop by the WTMD Tent and we’ll be able to direct you to the merchandise table (which often is also under the WTMD tent).

WTMD staff and volunteers will be on site under the WTMD Tent. Come over, say hello, grab a WTMD bumper sticker, and we’ll be glad to answer any questions you have about the station or the First Thursdays Concert Series. If you’ve been enjoying the First Thursday Concerts along with WTMD’s daily programming and you haven’t become a member, or your membership has lapsed, you can do at The WTMD tent.

If you enjoyed the beer at the park stop by The Brewer’s Art after the concert and have another while enjoying their fine cuisine. Or, you might want to take in drinks and dinner at any of the other fine restaurants that make up the Charles Street Restaurant Association. Below are links to all … so you can preview menus before heading out to the concert.

Does anyone know if someone is moving into the old Gampy's spot? I was told a ribs place had signed a lease. The new Minato space is looking great. I look forward to sushi there. Has anyone tried Red Square? On my way home from the airport about a month ago, a Russian cab driver said it is very authentic eats. I had dinner at the Brass Elephant's Tusk Lounge on Friday. They have half price bottle wines on Fridays. What a great space for eats and drinks! You can't duplicate that at the Harbor.

FWIW, Red Square will now host swing dancing on Wednesday nights starting April 18th. :D

Nate

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2007-04/29024102.jpg

Judges attack 'quick take'
Appeals court says city abused use of eminent domain for redevelopment plan
By Jill Rosen
Sun reporter
Originally published April 13, 2007
For the second time in two months, Maryland's highest court has found fundamental flaws in Baltimore's favored economic development strategy, a near-instantaneous type of eminent domain called "quick take."

In a decision released yesterday, the Court of Appeals soundly slapped Baltimore development officials for abusing the property seizure tactic in a way that, judges say, constrains a landowner's exercise of constitutional rights.

The court ruled that the Baltimore Development Corp. failed to show any justification for using quick take, which is intended for emergencies, to immediately seize the former Chesapeake Restaurant on North Charles Street in 2005 for a redevelopment project.

"There certainly was no evidence that quick-take was necessary for the public's health, safety, or immediate welfare, and it was not asserted that [the property owner] was a 'holdout' of any sort," wrote Judge Dale R. Cathell.

"In fact, the city had the power to initiate condemnation for approximately a year and a half and chose to wait, apparently, until the last minute, and then decided to make use of a type of action that curtailed the property owner's ability to present a defense."

The high court came down hard on Baltimore's quick-take technique in February, too, ruling that the BDC had no urgent need to seize a Charles North bar called The Magnet owned by George Valsamaki.

Yet another challenge - this time from a group of west-side shop owners who said the BDC's secretive ways kept them from fighting the agency's seizure of their property for the superblock redevelopment effort - prompted the high court in November to force the BDC to open its books and meetings.

George Nilson, Baltimore's city solicitor, said yesterday that the court's message, underscored in the Valsamaki case, is that the city must change its ways - though not necessarily stop using quick take.

"The Court of Appeals could have thrown out the quick-take process. It didn't," Nilson said. "It reminded us - not that we needed to be reminded - that we have a burden of proof to establish before a taking."

The Chesapeake seizure happened before the Valsamaki ruling. Since then, Nilson said, Baltimore has reformed. He said those involved with eminent domain - both at the BDC and the city's housing department - now understand that they must make stronger cases for takings and that quick take is not always the answer.

"The next time a quick take comes up - and it will be soon - we'll have everything ready to go," Nilson said. "There will be compelling cases for quick take."

During arguments before the Court of Appeals a month ago, the city vigorously defended its seizure of the long-closed Chesapeake Restaurant, saying owner Robert Sapero's refusal to sell was scuttling a $50 million renovation of the Charles North area.

In the fall of 2005, although Sapero said he was about to sell the prominent property, which sits a few doors down from the popular Charles Theatre and about a block from Pennsylvania Station, the BDC promised it to private developers, Station North Development Partners LLC. The developers had a $50 million plan for a complex of condominiums, townhouses, artists lofts, shops, restaurants, a parking garage and an art gallery.

The developers include Tower Hill Development & Consulting LLC; Michael and Alan Shecter, who own The Charles Theatre and the Everyman Theater; Florida-based developer the Miller Group; and Stephen A. Masciola.

The city seized the restaurant that December, offering $770,000 for it even though Sapero, who bought the restaurant in 1986, said he had a contract with someone for $2 million.

"It is interesting that their appraisals were so woefully low when compared with the modern marketplace," Sapero's attorney Alan R. Engel said yesterday. "It's 'If you don't make a deal with us, we'll just go in and take it right now.' That's the abuse the court is trying to protect all citizens from."

The court accused Baltimore of using quick take, which gives property owners just 10 days to challenge seizures, as a "litigation tactic," bringing it in when purchase negotiations with property owners break down.

Both Valsamaki and Sapero complained that the quick-take process was so fast that it left no time for their attorneys to use the discovery period of the suit to gather information to defend their cases.

"The use of quick-take should always be subject to close scrutiny," Cathell concluded. "It must not be forgotten that private property rights are fundamental constitutional rights."

The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to Circuit Court.

Timothy Sandefur, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation who wrote a brief in the Valsamaki case, said these decisions show Maryland's high court is not only "strongly in favor of property rights" but "really upset by the abuse of the quick-take power by local officials."

"In recent years, courts have tended to defer to local officials to such a degree that city officials think that they can do pretty much whatever they want with people's property," he said. "It's refreshing to see a court stepping in and saying no, the Constitution limits what you can do."

By limiting quick take, Maryland joins a handful of states whose judiciaries have restrained the property seizure powers that the U.S. Supreme Court granted government in 2005's Kelo v. New London decision. There the high court ruled that government can take homes or businesses for private economic development projects.

Armando Carbonell, a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Massachusetts, said with the Kelo backlash, governments are becoming "sensitized" to eminent domain controversy. However, he adds, it's still an important revitalization tool for cities like Baltimore.

"It is not the preferred way of doing planning and making cities," Carbonell said, "but it may be the necessary way in some cases. We need to proceed in a thoughtful way and use it conscientiously."

Does anyone know if someone is moving into the old Gampy's spot? I was told a ribs place had signed a lease. The new Minato space is looking great. I look forward to sushi there. Has anyone tried Red Square? On my way home from the airport about a month ago, a Russian cab driver said it is very authentic eats. I had dinner at the Brass Elephant's Tusk Lounge on Friday. They have half price bottle wines on Fridays. What a great space for eats and drinks! You can't duplicate that at the Harbor.

The space is up for rent. I walked past today and there was a sign advertising a restaurant space with outdoor seating. Some work is being done, but there isn't any indication that a tenant is currently signed on.

The Brass Elephant building is a treasure. They used a building once occupied by a small company that made expensive antique reproductions. That company (Potthast) left behind all that elaborately carved woodwork that you see in there.