Did the best UDARP ever just get dismantled?

The Urban Design and Architecture Review Panel’s goal is to achieve the highest quality for the planned and built environment of Baltimore City by providing the Planning Commission and the Department of Planning with design review expertise in the areas of urban design, architecture, and landscape design for all proposed master planning efforts and significant development projects. (Planning Department website)

Some cities don't have one and in others it wields a lot of power. Community activists see it
as a last stop against bad development, developers as a burdensome obstacle making development harder in cities than in the suburb. The typical resident doesn't care about it at all.

Designers explain the McKeldin square design to UDARP 

The "it" are design review panels that in one form or another exist in major cities across the country. Baltimore has had design review panels since 1964, the first panel was established by the then Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency (BURHA). In 1997 the panel was merged with a design review panel run under the Baltimore Development Corporation and both became a function of the Planning Department. The design review was never incorporated as a freestanding commission into the City charter.

From an article in the Baltimore Business Journal  last week, it looks as if the mayor of Baltimore just sided with developers by revamping Baltimore's  architectural and urban design review panel (UDARP) to be be less review and more resource, a move that wasn't exactly enthusiastically embraced by the department overseeing the design review, judging by the tone of the quotes attributed to Planning Director Tom Stosur.

Neither communities that want to fight development via design review nor developers who want to either see the review go away or use the experts on the panel as a free design resource reflect the true purpose of  design review. UDARP was never intended to stop bad development (which can only be done through the regulatory process and not an advisory panel) but it was certainly also not created to grease the wheels for developers.

UDARP Design Review: Almost a round-table discussion
(Photo; The Daily Record)

A 2006 report by then Planning Director Otis Rolley who had subjected UDARP to one of the many overhauls it has experienced over time, explained the purpose of  UDARP the best:

Sustainable economic development, critical to Baltimore’s future, is dependent upon the quality of architectural and urban design executed within the city.  Once constructed, quality projects retain their value over a longer lifespan, contribute to healthy urban environments, and attract additional peripheral investment; and they, in turn, attract additional quality work.  At their best, they provide inspiration for and identity to the population of an entire region. 

 Mayor Pugh is a great friend of design and the arts, but is also closely aligned with many influential developers. The changes  announced via the BBJ seem to entail that the panel is renamed Urban Design and Architectural Advisory Panel (UDAAP) and that the review is becoming an advisory service. The change of one letter doesn't seem to be a big deal, especially since the panel was all along advisory (to the Planning Director) but if the main goal is to make it easier for developers to build their projects in Baltimore then the reform would miss the boat.

"The mayor’s office was interested in making sure the panel was not seeming to the development community as an onerous hurdle, but that it was definitely slanted more toward being helpful and collaborative." (Planning Director Stosur)

If the main goal is to make City government an agent of service rather than an agent wielding a stick and penalties, it would be a welcome change. However, UDARP meetings have long evolved into a very collaborative process and one wonders whether those who pushed for change are just serving sour grapes because they received a critical review and whether they have really attended UDARP meetings to know the proceedings beyond their own projects.

The Panel is comprised of six individuals who bring expertise in various aspects of architectural, urban, and landscape design. Members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Director of Planning.  All proposed development projects in Baltimore City that require Department of Planning Site Plan Review also require design review. At a pre-development meeting, Department staff shall determine the extent of review that will be required. All projects will require at the minimum staff review. Significant development projects will additionally require UDARP review. There are two official stages of Panel review – Schematic and Final. These reviews coincide with the typical stages of development that design professionals follow through project design. Each stage requires the Panel’s approval before the next stage of design development should be undertaken. Minutes are sent to the development team after each presentation and response to Panel comments is a requirement for the following presentation. All proposed development projects in Baltimore City that require Department of Planning Site Plan Review also require design review. At a pre-development meeting, Department staff shall determine the extent of review that will be required. All projects will require at the minimum staff review. Significant development projects will additionally require UDARP review. There are two official stages of Panel review – Schematic and Final. These reviews coincide with the typical stages of development that design professionals follow through project design. Each stage requires the Panel’s approval before the next stage of design development should be undertaken. Minutes are sent to the development team after each presentation and response to Panel comments is a requirement for the following presentation. (From current process as described on the website)

This latest suggested reform is noticeably different from the previous overhauls in that it came down as a surprise to the design community and even to the UDARP members who got fired in the process, even though rumors that UDARP may see change had swirled around for some time and caused the article Speaking out for Design Review  in this space nearly a year ago (April 2017). By contrast, in 2006 Planning Director Otis Rolley had formed a Best Practices Taskforce which conducted extensive outreach to architects (the ones who have to prepare the review documents and stand before UDARP), developers (the ones who have to pay the architects) and economic development experts (who can assess long-term impacts of development) who, studied how other cities address the matter and issued a detailed report with recommendations.

Design Review Process, overview chart 

Mayor Pugh said in a statement for this article that there was outreach. In an additional statement received after this article was first published, the Mayor's office clarified that "The design panel’s purpose is to provide advisement on proposed projects to achieve a high quality of architecture and design for Baltimore. This is still the purpose of the panel."
The full statement is included below the article.
No further comment was available from Planning Director Stosur.

The actually proposed changes will be presented at an upcoming UDARP meeting in April and are not fully known yet. Pavlina Ilieva, a panelist who in her time since 2015 has given the UDARP panel a very observant voice with a sharp sense how architecture and urban design intersect, has been appointed as the chair of the new round table format envisioned for the panel. She stated for this article that:

The goal as presented [is] to reposition the UDARP panel as a resource to the Planning Department and project teams in a collaborative and peer-to-peer manner as opposed to the approving body [....] This includes some fairly simple changes to its format - from ‘review panel’ to a 'round table’ configuration, a chair panelist that can help structure and facilitate the discussion and introducing new members (and possibly a term of service) as a way of developing local talent [...] I believe these are all great ideas, fairly standard improvements to the ‘customer’ experience in a public service setting and generally complimentary to the work of UDARP

New UDAAP  chair Pavlina Ilieva  (Photo: MSU)

Ilieva is unhappy with the way how the BBJ article makes it sound as if there is no support for meaningful discourse of design and architecture in Baltimore. She says about the work on the panel:

We take time away from our full-time jobs, second jobs, passions, hobbies and families to serve Baltimore and not to please or displease developers. [...] I am confident that the new panel will rise to the challenge, amidst low expectations, and contribute to the delivery of quality projects for the City of Baltimore.

Of course, BBJ reporter Melody Simmons didn't make up the quotes which indicate that the Mayor's office didn't leave the reform to Planning. She also didn't make it up that UDARP members Gary Bowden and Richard Burns were ousted, even though both were highly qualified and always constructive in their role on the panel, though they were also often quite critical. Design review panelists shouldn't be uncritical push-overs, no matter if they sit in a row as a review panel or in a circle. There were plenty of review sessions in which the developers and the presenting architects commended the constructive tone of UDARP and explicitly stated that their design was improved thanks to UDARP comments and suggestions.

"We received some great feedback from the panel on the open space and completely re-thought how the buildings and the park interface with the waterfront at the southern portion of the site." (Michael Beatty starting off his team's presentation about HarborPoint, 2015)

To observers the recent UDARP appeared to be one of the most articulate, professional and to the point panels that Baltimore ever had. A panel wouldn't be effective if comments and suggestions wouldn't sometimes hurt.  One will never be able to determine the precise cause, but there are certainly projects that were presented at UDARP and never saw the light of day after a devastating review. One of those projects was the redesign of a McKeldin Plaza water feature and another a new apartment building on Mulberry Street which proosed a surface parking lot in downtown. In both cases one could argue that, in the long run,the city was better off to wait for better design.

Looking forward, one would hope that Mayor Pugh, her Chief of Strategic Alliances, former County Executive Jim Smith, and Planning Director Tom Stosur would not only strive to be on the same page but also have some consensus about design review with all major stakeholders when it comes to ensuring the highest quality of design and architecture for the future of Baltimore.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA
updated to include statement from the Mayor's office

see related article on this blog about the value of design review panels
and Speaking out for Design Review (April 2017)
Baltimore Design Review Rocks (2015)

Statement from the Mayors Office (3/21/18):

• Based on the Mayor’s Transition report, Mayor Pugh requested the Planning Department to consider ways to enhance the design review process – similar to the way permitting was reviewed and improved by city agencies at the Mayor's request.

• The design panel’s purpose is to provide advisement on proposed projects to achieve a high quality of architecture and design for Baltimore. This is still the purpose of the panel. The name was changed from Urban Design and Architectural Review Panel (UDARP) to Urban Design and Architectural Advisory Panel (UDAAP) because there has been confusion as to whether or not the panel “approves or disapproves” projects.  The panel has never been an approval body, but rather makes recommendations to the Planning Department about design issues.  Ultimately, it is the Planning Director who decides if a project meets the design standards for approval.

• The intent is for the panel to be a resource to the Department and applicants through a collaborative and peer-to-peer process to improve the quality of design for projects in Baltimore. 

• Staff looked at best practices from other cities in terms of design review processes. Establishing a chair was one of the best practices found in reviewing other cities, like Washington DC. In addition, the Planning Department will implement a “roundtable” format to make the process more collaborative rather than a “review” format. This format has also been adopted in other municipalities and been proven successful. 

• The Department also did a call for interest on serving on the panel – similar to the Mayor’s open call for board and commission members last year.  UDARP had not been included for the call for members initially since it is not a charter commission or board.

• Pavlina Ilieva will serve as Chair.  She has been on the panel for 3 years, is a professor at Morgan State University and runs a private architectural practice in Fells Point named PI.KL.