Urban Design Committee

East Side Redevelopment

AIABaltimore and a dozen other groups are working with 1000 Friends of Maryland as convener and coordinator to provide advice and expertise to leaders of the Eastside Redevelopment Project north of Johns Hopkins Medicine. These groups are concerned with various issues including: design, historic preservation, urban planning, sustainability, housing, equity, jobs, and transit. After two general meetings, AIABaltimore, through its Urban Design Committee, hosted a meeting with the Mayor's representatives Paul Brophy, Davon Barbour, and Hopkins' Michael Iati to discuss built environment issues. Representatives of the following groups participated: Baltimore Heritage, Maryland Historical Trust, the Neighborhood Design Center, and Preservation Maryland. The following Discussion Points assembled from the notes of several UDC members and his own were compiled by Brad Rogers of 1000 Friends of Maryland:

Discussion Points

From the Biotech Park Design Meeting, February 4th, 2002

Everyone at the meeting agreed that the proposed Biotechnology Park is an excellent opportunity to revitalize East Baltimore, while firmly establishing a role for Baltimore in the growing field of medical technology.

The following list represents a brief overview of the major design issues, as they emerged from our discussion. By discussing these issues early in the process, we hope to make the project as successful as possible, and prevent any future sources of conflict.

The primary design issues associated with the Biotech Park are these:

1. Integration with the Neighborhood. The current proposal attempts to soften the relationship between the current “Hopkins Wall” and the surrounding neighborhood. It does this by gradually stepping down building heights, as well as by screening parking facilities with residential and commercial uses. Nonetheless, we suggest that there could be even more North-South integration between the Biotech Park and the neighborhood, both in terms of architecture and pedestrian movement. While it is important to maintain the integrity of the Biotech “Street Address”, permeability between the Park and the neighborhood would generate eyes on the street (improving safety) and encourage Park employees to live nearby. This integration could be done by:

A. Varying the northern boundary of the Biotech Park, so that it is not such a straight line along Eager Street.

B. Creating an active public space within the Park boundaries, perhaps with a North-South orientation along Wolfe or Washington streets.

C. Creating a commercial node within the Park boundaries, such as a supermarket, that would draw residents into the Park itself and serve as a new amenity to the neighborhood.

D. Creating more residential units on the Eager Street edge, perhaps through larger-footprint apartment buildings.

2. Bridging Madison Street. Although the overall effect of the Biotech Park may be to step down building heights between Hopkins and the rowhouse neighborhoods north of it, the fact remains that Madison Street will always be bounded on one side by the “Hopkins Wall”. This poses significant design problems for the Southern edge of the Park, making it difficult to create an attractive pedestrian realm in this space. This problem is compounded by the high traffic volumes that already flow through the street. We should take care to prevent a chasm between the inward-looking “Biotech Main Street” of Ashland and the inward-looking Hopkins campus.

3. Finding the Right Amount of Parking. The current plan calls for 7,000 new parking spaces to serve 8,000 new jobs. This figure came from a simple formula in the existing zoning code, requiring something to the effect of three spaces per 1000 square feet of office space (although, technically, this exact calculation would generate only 6,000 spaces). So much parking is a great concern for several reasons.

A. First of all, it presumes that very few Biotech Park employees will live in adjacent neighborhoods, within walking distance of the Park (a stated goal of the project that we all share).

B. Second, it provides employees with little incentive for transit use, and presumes little transit ridership by Biotech Park users.

C. Third, it generates a tremendous amount of traffic within an already congested residential neighborhood, undermining the active pedestrian realm we all want to create.

D. Fourth, it generates additional air pollution within a region of the city that is well known for its high rates of respiratory illness.

E. Fifth, parking garages with interior passageways to Biotech offices will discourage people from walking out on the street, limiting the number of safety-producing eyes on the street.

F. Finally, so much parking presents a tremendous design challenge from an aesthetic perspective.

4. Taking Advantage of Transit. The new Baltimore Regional Rail Plan calls for an extension of the metro along Broadway, to create a new multi-modal stop at the Amtrak tracks (tentatively named “Madison Square”). The project plan should reflect this new rail option. In particular, we should examine the possibility of creating more density within the immediate vicinity of the new rail station, to take advantage of transit as an economic development engine. Higher density development would also generate ridership for the rail line, making it more successful. As a consequence, fewer parking spaces might have to be constructed within the Biotech Park boundaries.

5. Comprehensive Transit Planning. Given that there are complicated transportation decisions, having to do with parking, transit access, and pedestrian improvements, it is important to create a larger discussion of transportation strategy for East Baltimore as a whole. For example, if the success of the pedestrian-oriented Biotech Park requires less traffic on Madison Street, then where would this traffic go? Should Orleans Street take a greater share of traffic than it already does, as some have proposed? How will bus lines have to be changed to reflect new employment locations and new transit stops?

6. Successful Parks. The plan correctly recognizes that the view from the railroad tracks is unattractive, and needs to be improved. We also agree on the importance of creating viable park space within the city, as an economic development tool and a contributor to quality of life. However, experience shows that large, passive open spaces quickly create maintenance difficulties, and become havens for criminal activity. The railroad tracks already have this reputation now, and is not clear whether they are capable of being a safe public space in the foreseeable future. In fact, the same could be said for the proposed park north of Eager Street. New parks must be designed to allow for easy police access, and must promote the constant presence of nearby residents, who can guard the spaces. In the immediate future, new green space might best be located within an area with more planned activity, such as within the Biotech Park boundaries itself. Such a park might even be designed to act as a bridge between the facility and the neighborhood, promoting controlled permeability in an active setting where there are eyes on the street. Then over time, as the neighborhood stabilizes, it may be possible to lay out additional green spaces, particularly if they are faced with houses and provide other safety measures.

7. Using Historic Resources. Not every rowhouse in East Baltimore needs to be saved from the wrecking ball. In fact, many are already past the state where they can be easily salvaged. This being said, it is important to maintain the existing urban fabric and to maximize the cultural and economic value of our historic resources. It is neither accurate nor practical to treat all rowhouses as “obsolete” or “inherently dysfunctional”. The best strategy is to protect preservation edges along well-traveled throughways, and then to provide new housing types within the heart of the neighborhood. This is what the plan seems to propose, given that it protects some contiguous streetscapes (and, in particular, the important streetscape of Broadway) while projecting changes within block interiors. If the figures quoted at the meeting were correct, then we feel comfortable with the notion that 2/3 of the units would be rehabbed, while 1/3 would be new units. However, we do feel that there should be a certain number of preservation elements within the Biotech Park itself, to prevent it from feeling sterile. In addition, we strongly agree that a historic survey must be done as soon as possible, to identify our most valuable resources.

8. Project Phasing and Scope. The current plan is very ambitious. While this is certainly not cause for criticism, it is nonetheless a source of risk, given that funding is still up in the air. We must therefore discuss how our strategies might change based upon different funding scenarios. For example, less funding might require a smaller planning area, with less initial relocation of residents. This would prevent the further destabilization of the neighborhood if new uses were not quickly able to fill the vacuum caused by relocation.

9. Efficient Public Process. To streamline the public process, and to keep up the project’s momentum, we suggest making only minimal changes to the five Urban Renewal Ordinances, to allow for acquisition and create basic zoning changes. The actual master plan – with all of its complexities and details – could then be advanced through a PUD process. This will give the local community and other interested groups more time to give input, and would take pressure off of the Urban Renewal Amendment hearings, which need to happen soon. The PUD process also is a more useful mechanism for reflecting the design issues and intents of the plan than the Urban Renewal Ordinances.