Understanding the CHAP decision on the Morton Street carriage houses

This is the second of two articles about the most recent meeting of the CHAP Commission.

Having tabled the decision about the Martick's building at 214 West Mulberry Street, the Commission went on to deliberate about the proposal by building owner Howard Chambers to tear down the backs of four carriage houses on Morton Street in Mount Vernon, preserve the fronts and build a six story "addition in the back across all building lots.

Montage of the denied project (Morris Ritchie Associates)

The staff recommendation was for CHAP to ask for a modification of the proposal to retain more than 15' of the front of the buildings and then revisit the matter. But the verdict of the Commission was harder than expected. Last year the Commission approved the demolition of historic buildings on nearby Eager Street to make way for a new highrise without keeping any part of those buildings.  Also a 2006 proposal for demolition of the same carriage houses had support from then Mayor Martin O'Malley, and then planning director Otis Rolley III on the grounds that new construction would enhance the tax-base and get more people on the streets of Mount Vernon.

Montage of the denied project (Morris Ritchie Associates) 

Indeed, CHAP  had seen the Morton Street carriage houses many times before, Commissioners and staff have changed but the applicant has stayed the same  since 2001. Some applications dealt with rehab proposals, one with full demolition but was eventually pulled, so was a proposal much like the one now which suggested to keep three fronts and tear one carriage house down for a new building. The concept received a pretty positive review in 2006 but no final vote. However, Chambers never followed through with those plans.

The west side  of Morton Street

The somewhat erratic history may not have helped, nor did the fact that the project was now submitted as an "addition" and not as "demolition", a point that created much debate and some uncertainty how to proceed. Changing course would have meant that the matter would have to start over in a two step process in which the first point of consideration would be if the buildings are significant in this local historic district. This is what Johns Hopkins of BalTimor’s Heritage  asked for in his testimony and this is what the applicant could have settled with. It would have kept the door open a bit longer.

The plaintive tone of Howard Chambers did little to sway the commission in his favor. "People I talk to say “do something with the parking lot [across from his proposed project] before you tear anything down, but I don't control that lot" he started his testimony, arguing a point the Commission would never make. He then argued economics and how hard it is to rent out those carriage houses (an economic hardship argument, while allowed under CHAP rules is centered around a demolition and not an addition, and finally complained that "nothing happens in Mount Vernon", a point that CHAP isn't responsible for, especially since they had just permitted the new apartment tower south of Eager Street, certainly a major project.

“I am tired of nothing happening in Mount Vernon. You see all the activity in Station North, Hampden, Remington. What is the problem with Mount Vernon? The problem is that Mount Vernon is resistant to change.” (Howard Chambers

It also didn't help that the architect, Chris Pfaeffle of Morris Ritchie Associates made a more philosophical than technical plea. In it rang not so subtly the suggestion that Baltimore is too provincial to understand how preservation is understood elsewhere as a dynamic continuum instead of "static and dead as in taxidermy". He described the proposed project as "a strategic work of design [where] you can walk into the cool old building to get to the cool new building above.” This is not the language preservationists find convincing.

First floor plan  (Morris Ritchie Associates)

For an argument to be tailored to CHAP's standards one would talk about what historic significance the backs have or don't have, or how the proposed "addition" really does not turn the remaining fronts into the tails of a big new dog.  Some explanation about how the main features of the carriage houses would be integrated and emphasized would have helped, too. Even better if they had convinced the Mt Vernon Improvement Association about the benefits of their project. ((They spoke against it). Alas, as it was, the team left the floor wide open for the Commissioners and the testimonials which were mostly negative.

Commissioner Gibson made his point most forcefully: "This is in my view the wrong thing in the wrong place. Period." CHAP member Matthew Mosca described the row of carriage houses as a local treasure and opined that there's not another street like this in Baltimore, a point also made by  nearby resident  Paula Fernandez who was reminded of  the mews in her native England. Architect Steve Ziger, whose office is on Morton Street, testified as well, a daring move, given that he had forcefully argued for Eddies to come down for the Richter tower. But his point was very illustrative and directly to the point of the deliberation:

“Fifteen feet is less than half of the width of this room. “The setback turns the elevations into a parody and a joke [...] where is the cutoff between what is a demolition and what is a significant addition?” (Steve Ziger)

two of the carriage houses in question (SUN photo)

Historic preservation doesn't enjoy a very high esteem in public opinion, no matter that developers are sitting on an even lower rank.  Many misunderstandings about preservation exist; The misgivings often contradict each other: Some hold that preservation is elitist, clinging to white "high culture". Others complain about the opposite, namely that there is too much preservation even of mundane structures. Others see preservationists as unrealistic, nostalgic "building huggers" who don't understand economic realities. The star architect Rem Koolhaas also saw new development being jeopardized by too much preservation.  The reality is that Baltimore's CHAP Commissioners are not only experienced practitioners, quite sophisticated, and well versed in understanding the forces of development. If an argument is well crafted, neighbors testify in favor of a project and a case is made within the rules of CHAP, the Commissioners are quite willing to bend. Architect and chair of the Commission Tom Liebel made this point in a recent SUN article:

"Our goal is to be a positive force for preservation in the city and not be seen as obstructionist because we're getting dragged in at the tail end of the conversation when people find out too late what's going on. The goal is not to fossilize the city in amber but rather to make use of our great historic structures as a springboard into the future." (Tom Liebel, FAIA)

Applicants do better if they don't come in as adversaries but as partners who understand that CHAP does an important job. After all, Baltimore's biggest asset is a rich treasure trove of historic buildings, both, "high brow" and "low brow". Preservation has long become an element of the culture wars, of social identity and, importantly, of economic development. A national study shows that preservation areas in all cities perform far better than those where bulldozers reign unfettered.

The owners and developers of these two projects I described seemed to not fully get the all important context. But each case before the Commission could be another lesson for those projects yet to come.
 .
Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

BBJ about the CHAP decision
Ed Gunts (Fishbowl) about the CHAP decision
2006 Chambers Plan Baltimore SUN

My blog has many articles about preservation as a tool including this:
What makes Baltimore special - its Architecture! The Case for Preservation