Justified challenges or legal shenanigans?
In a surprising turn of events the Titanic isn't any longer smoothly sailing into a safe harbor of a ballot question approval. Instead, a circuit judge found ballot question F about HarborPlace confusing and hard to understand and invalidated it. The question begins "with the purpose of amending the provision dedicating for public park uses", then meanders in an endless boundary description to end in expanding the allowed uses in the park "to include commercial uses, multifamily residential development and off-street parking" as well as increasing the area where such uses would be allowed. In a more surprising turn, the judge also found that amending the City Charter isn't the right vehicle to address this type of land use and zoning question and hasn't been right even when it was done the first time around nearly half a century ago ago for the current pavilions.
 |
| A 2025 vision of revamping the pavilions (MG2 Architects) |
The ballot language was drafted by the city solicitor and approved by the State Board of Elections. This approval was disputed in the Circuit Court by a group of Baltimore residents opposed to MCB's development proposal. Should the judge's decision stand, the ballot question would be invalid and MCB would not have the rights to build the stuff they propose.
The Election Board quickly appealed the judge's decision to the State Supreme Court which now has to decide when and how it will take up the issues.
The wording of the ballot question is just another step by the city administration bending over backwards in paving the way for MCB's redevelopment proposal from rezoning to the Mayor standing with the developer every step of the way.
Challenging the wording is legitimate.
Naturally, the Circuit Court agreeing with the petitioners contesting the ballot question caused cries of foul from the Mayor, city councilman Eric Costello and even a SUN editorial. All pay little attention to the legal matters at hand, namely the wording of the ballot question and instead attack the judge directly and arguing that the judge overstepped her bounds and robs city residents their democratic right of self determination. Costello even tweeted about the "worst kind of voter suppression". Mayor and councilman seem angered by the court's location outside the City in Anne Arundel County where the Board of Elections is located.
 |
| Question F on the ballot: What? |
The crying that the judge jeopardizes democracy is ironic considering that the confusing ballot question is only the last step in of many steps of depriving city voters from a real say in the matter in the first place. From the time when Mayor Scott found MCB friend Bramble as a willing buyer of the pavilions to today the matter was presented as a forgone conclusion with no serious alternatives. Voters are to believe it is MCB or nothing. Clearly this true. Frankly, HarborPlace would have a much better chance to actually see the improvements most that everyone agrees are needed in a timely manner if one would pursue a less grandiose plan.
Why some people oppose MCB's development
With the appeal still pending its a good time to review again why many say that changing the City Charter was a bad idea in the first place and why allowing high-rise apartment towers, an indoor mall and an office building in any city park is a bad idea, and this particular city park is no exception.
Let's contrast MCB's key arguments with observable reality.
Pro: MCB's key argument is that the pavilions are obsolete, must be demolished and that HarborPlace has become so downtrodden that only a very big change can help bringing people back . They further argue that their $490 million project that includes 900 apartments will bring the amount of additional people to the area that are needed to support the shops, restaurants within the project and beyond. In fact, MCB says that their project and the revival of HarborPlace will be a catalyst for reviving all of downtown.
 |
| Alternative plan by Mahan Rykiel 2015, no more Pratt Street pavilion |
Con: The reality is that the pavilions were indeed neglected for a long time and that in the end a lot of the tenants had left. However, they were considered structurally sound when Ashkenazy bought them they did not find them obsolete. Before they abandoned the project they hired Seattle Architects MG2who drew up to to bring the buildings up to modern standards, presented them to the city's design review and even made some improvements to the Pratt Pavilion. The reality is, too, that MCB has legacy tenants operating in the pavilions to this day (The Cheesecake Factory) and has added a slew of new tenants doubling the occupancy rate in a short time.
Con: The reality is also that the millions of visitors each year who visit HarborPlace dwarf anything that 900 residences can offer. People come for events such as the wine village, the Christmas village, the ice rink, visiting tall ships or simply to enjoy being at the water. The fully redesigned Rash Field open space is always full of people. The attraction have never been the buildings but the activities.
Pro: MCB's project is large and injects potentially a large amount of money into the City's economy. The private cost of $490 million for the buildings relies on an additional $400 million of public money being spent on fixing the promenade, bringing the total to one billion dollars. Public investment would enlarge the park area by adding parts of Pratt and Light Streets to HarborPlace and connecting the McKeldin Plaza. Pratt and Light Streets would be turned into attractive urban boulevards that are a pleasure for pedestrians and easy to cross. MCB's project includes about the same lease area of restaurants and shops as the current pavilions, with income form the apartments supporting the commercial uses.
 |
| Pratt and Light Streets today are more highway than urban boulevard |
Con: The reality is that the restaurants and shops were originally intended to be amenities to the enjoyment of the Inner Harbor. Their original success was based on very careful programming and scheduling regular events. They were never meant to be profit centers but engines to add value to the entire area.
Baltimore has similar cases in Belvedere Square, at the Cross Street Market or at Cross Keys where the mix of shops and eateries is seen as a necessary amenity adding value to the surrounding area.
The shops and restaurants at HarborPlace similarly could add again value to the surrounding areas and MCB would profit from them since they are controlling one property at the corner of Light and Pratt and another one on Pratt across from the World Trade Center. The construction of mixed use towers there would be far more useful with the same revitalization effect.
instead of this proven approach MCB turns the $80 million problem of the pavilions (market value plus estimated debt on them) into a $490 or even $ 1billion problem if one adds the expected public investment. It isn't known how much of the $490 million cost is underwritten and how MCB would convince lenders that they can build 900 apartments without a single designated on site parking space or that they have accounted for all the extra cost that comes from building highrises on fill that was once water.
Baltimoreans just have to look around to see how well those supposedly game changing mega projects fared in the past, from the "Superblock" to La Cite's Poppleton renewal to Port Covington or EBDI. Some never came of the ground and all of them shrank substantially in the process. Failures can also be seen for smaller projects closer to the Harbor: After the demolition of a beautiful landmark the News American Site (now controlled by MCB) has set vacant for decades. The Mechanic Theatre was also demolished with no reconstruction in sight. The former McCormick Spice company was demolished and it took over 30 years until at least one phase of redevelopment was completed with resdiential highrise (which di not noticeably alter how many people are in the area).
 |
| MCB rendering of their proposal (Our Harborplace website) |
Pro: MCB points to numerous global waterfront projects that consist of a mix of parks, commercial uses and residences, many of them very successful and well liked, including The Wharf in DC, Toronto's waterfront, and New York's Battery and Brooklyn Park projects.
 |
| Incremental steps instead of a mega project? |
Con: The reality is that in most of those cases the waterfront promenades, parks and public spaces were funded by the for profit portions of the developments, such as apartments.
Also: In most cases the residences don't sit directly along the water but are well set-back. In none of those precedents were apartment towers built in a long ago designated public park.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument that 900 apartments placed inside the park are necessary to revive HarborPlace is not convincing.
Apartment towers, no matter how well designed are definitely not an attraction and likely would introduce conflicts between public uses/events and private homes.
And yes, Baltimore voters should have a say in this drastic change of the City Charter, even if the Circuit judge thinks that the extra protection of this public park should never have been anchored in the City Charter. But the question must be understandable and simple. It should say something like this: "with the purpose of adding commercial uses, multifamily residential development and off-street parking on 4.5 acres of the designated public park known as HarborPlace".
Fixing up what is wrong with HarborPlace without changing the City Charter and within the old zoning restrictions would be a faster, much cheaper and way less disruptive approach than Bramble's Fata Morgana, regardless how the Supreme Court of Maryland will decide on the ballot question.
Klaus Philipsen, FAIA