Community Architect Baltimore: HarborPlace Design Review

The HarborPlace design team (architect Gensler and Landscape Architect Unknown Studio presented to the City's Design Review Panel (UDAAP) for a second time today and presented the memorable moment when a team that was sent packing in the first round only to came back with the exact same design expecting a different outcome.

To be fair, in the initial review UDAAP didn't so much criticize the design as the lack of a process that showed how the team arrived at the design and the absence of submittals required during the concept plan review. In today's meeting those omissions were filled and the UDAAP process "rebooted" and the second session is considered an extension of the first.

UDAAP minutes of 11/16/23: How do the streets to the north intersect with the project? The team has not shared what happens at these key nodes. Are they being maintained as entry points? Will they be redesigned? How does that edge interact with the development?

There needs to be a much more rigorous investigation of the possibilities with regard to the massing and placement of buildings. There's absolutely no telling why the 2 towers are positioned where they are on Light Street, why they are on one side and not the other.

The team is encouraged to challenge the morphology around the forms as they develop – provide more analysis on how these forms evolved from the initial concept and why specific locations were chosen over others. • The proposed buildings could be placed anywhere in the world; what about this site in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor has shaped the buildings? If the team feels the building is in the wrong place, then it can be shifted. If not, then show the Panel why it is properly located. Either way, it needs to be studied for that conversation to happen. § Based on studies of the building form, the environments and public space will shift again and need to be solved. There is quite a bit of work left ahead for this project. The team is encouraged to be flexible as the process continue.

On the first day of February the team returned with the exact same design but with a lot more material to explain why the design looks the way it does.

UDAAP usually wants to see and participate in how a project evolves. The reverse process in which a completed design is explained after the fact was highly unusual. An observer was left with the nagging impression that sketches and explanations were offered to justify a design that had already been completed and couldn't be altered and that some of those images may have even been produced for this meeting and not as part of the design evolution. Reviewer and architect Pavlina Ilieva observed that "Normally at a presentation of the masterplan concept level not so much is already realized"

Nevertheless the explanations were illuminating and UDAAP was appreciative of the effort,even though not entirely satisfied that things have to be the way they were presented.

In all, UDAAP members once again told MCB and lead architect Gensler that revisions were needed to their highly debated plan to redo the city's iconic Inner Harbor site.
And that includes the "character" of the project itself, says Osborne Anthony, a UDAAP member.
"I get the feeling just looking at it, that it’s beginning to take on an air of exclusivity and I’m a bit concerned about that," Anthony said. "In my mind, Baltimore is not chic. It’s a gritty area, it’s blue-collar. Its history stands for itself." (BBJ)

Below I will show most of the images that were presented as screenshots to explain the design, many of which had not been previously shared. Where applicable I share design reviewer comments per my notes.

(All images MCB)

Birds eye view of the assembly of proposed buildings

Pavlina Ilieva comment: A building like the sail needs room to breathe. It needs space around it.

Ground level view from near where the Constellation docks looking southwest

.Pavlina Ilieva comment: What will this look like on a Tuesday when the crowds aren't there? How does this space feel like when the people are not there.? Will it have intimacy and feel welcome. What will people do there?

These framework sketches are illustrative of a mental construct that guides the later design.
"Big Water"

Details of the Freedom's Port Plaza bringing water towards the city

The idea behind the Freedom's Port Plaza. Sharon Bradley comment: Sharon Bradley: The Freedom Park works well as an arrival point but needs to express its topic in the materials . Be careful of over-programming the water.

showing the footprint of the building outlines
Pavlia Ilieva comment: the disciplines really interacted I am sure not that the buildings landed and then the open spaces were made to mitigate them rather than the buildings being actually derived from a master concept.
Sharon Bradley comment: The water should not be overprogrammed

This plan shows the existing pavilions overlaid on the proposed buildings

This image shows HarborPlace in the context of the overall promenade

Pavlina Ilieva comment: "Colonizing the water" doesn't have to be all at HarborPlace, you have the entire promenade for water access.

This is a section through the high-rises and across Light Street

Kevin Storm question: Where is the parking? Response: Parking would be under or wrapped.

Panel question: Would there be affordable housing. Response: Yes, 10% affordable units at 60% AMI per new city code.

This framework sketch shows the idea of echoing the marshes that were originally around the Baltimore Harbor. Pavlina Ilieva referred to this sketch as a concept that much better than the completed design shows how buildings could be part of a landscape.

This rendering shows the upper and lower promenade next to the

proposed office building. Pavlina Ilieva question: What is the first floor use of the building. Response: Undetermined. Pavlia Ilieva comment: I question that the masterplan logic requires that the spaces they create with the connections need to be filled with buildings. This was never interrogated . The logic of "how do we we fill the parcels with buildings is most problematic with that little building next to the WTC. In the composition it looks like a space filler. You don't have to fill the space on the ground with buildings. It could be a park.

"Public realm

Public Space and retail level interface

Public Space and retail level interface
Pavlina Ilieva comment: The design is too much about movement and not enough about being in a place. Where is the "there"?

Pratt Street section today and proposed

Light Street section today and proposed
Ilieva question: What is your option if these public street realignments don't come through?

Response: Many public space improvements especially along the promenade are needed, whether we develop or not. See also Waterfront Partnership's Promenade Report.

Comparison of the water edges different cities

Osborne Anthony comment: For your precedents why don't you go to Fells Point and tell us what you learn from there. I am concerned about an air of exclusivity. Baltimore is not chicque, its gritty. This needs to be reflected in the program and the uses. Try to capture "The true cultural tapestry of Baltimore".

Proposed building heights dip towards the Freedom's Port Plaza

Diagram of the connections to the water via street grid extensions

Osborne Anthony's comment: You open up the roadway aligned viewsheds to the water and then what? There is no gathering space or recognition of arrival.

Same for pedestrians arriving at Pratt and Light. How do you carry forth into the ped circulation at Pratt and the connection to the stadia. Who are the users of the IH, past, present and intended?

Where are you key points of access after parking, by transit?