MCB Real Estate cleared a key hurdle in its efforts to redevelop Harborplace, when a City Council committee voted on Tuesday to advance legislation needed for its $500 million plan to proceed.
After listening to testimony for more than four hours, the council’s Economic and Community Development Committee voted to approve three bills that would enable the developer to move ahead with plans to tear down the two mostly-vacant Harborplace pavilions at Pratt and Light streets and replace them with a mixed-use development containing two high-rise towers containing a total of 900 residences; offices; shops; restaurants; and public space.
The bills now move out of committee and on to the full council for consideration at its next meeting, Feb. 26. As approved with amendments, they would remove existing height limits, add housing and parking as permitted land uses and give MCB control of more city-owned property than it has now, to enlarge the Harborplace redevelopment footprint.
One of the bills calls for a referendum on the city ballot in November, asking voters if they support amending the City Charter to make more city-owned land available for private development. At present, an MCB affiliate leases and controls 3.2 acres of city-owned land. Under the proposed legislation, MCB would control 4.5 acres of city-owned land. But even with City Council approval, construction can’t begin unless city residents vote to amend the City Charter.
P. David Bramble, managing partner of MCB Real Estate, said after the hearing that he’s happy with the committee’s votes but knows there’s more work to do.
“We’re obviously very pleased,” he said. But “there’s a long way to go…This is just the beginning.”
“This approval marks an exciting milestone in shaping the future of Harborplace and the Inner Harbor,” said Colin Tarbert, President and CEO of the Baltimore Development Corporation, in a statement after the hearing. “With these bills now advancing to the full council for a final vote, we’re one step closer to realizing a transformative vision for the Harborplace site.”
More than 40 citizens testified before the committee, including Ted Rouse, a son of Harborplace developer James Rouse; Mark Anthony Thomas, president and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee; lawyers; developers; architects; a former Harborplace merchant; a former City Council member; and numerous people who live within walking distance of the two pavilions.
Opinions were divided among those not associated with the development team. Twenty-three speakers opposed the Harborplace legislation. Thirteen, including the first 10 speakers, were strongly in favor of the bills and praised Bramble for his efforts to revitalize the harbor. Some speakers conveyed a mixed message, saying they want to see Harborplace revitalized but don’t agree with certain aspects of the pending legislation. A man who lives on Key Highway encouraged council members not to approve the bills while his son spoke later to say he was all for them.
Others seem to have missed the point of the hearing. One woman came to say she doesn’t think people should be allowed to ride bikes on the Inner Harbor promenade. Another wanted Native Americans to be part of the project.
City Council member Eric Costello, who sponsored the three bills along with City Council President Nick Mosby, said there has been strong interest in the development.
“One of the things [that has been] very interesting and exciting about this project…is the level of interest from residents all across the city,” he said. “Whether they love it, they hate it, they’re not sure, folks are interested in what could potentially happen here.”
As the council gets ready for its next hearing on the Harborplace legislation, here are some takeaways from Tuesday’s testimony – or at least what speakers wanted council members to take away from their testimony:
Not a giveaway: Jon Laria, former managing partner and now special counsel to the Ballard Spahr law firm, said he wasn’t speaking for or against the bills, but he wanted to clear up one misconception about the redevelopment process.
Highly respected for his civic work, Laria said some people are under the impression that Mayor Brandon Scott arranged for the property to be acquired by MCB Real Estate, after the previous owner defaulted on a loan and the property was taken over by a court-appointed receiver. Laria said he does not represent MCB but is familiar with the lengthy effort to identify a developer to take the property out of receivership and he wanted to say that that the selection of MCB Real Estate as the developer was not a giveaway and no favoritism was involved.
In his testimony, Laria described the transaction as a “very public and transparent process” that was “negotiated in good faith” and “at arm’s length.” He said it was common knowledge that Harborplace was in receivership and available for purchase, that the receiver ultimately accepted what was deemed to be “the highest and best offer” for the property, and that there was an objection period and no objections were filed after the decision. “I just thought I’d share that factual information,” Laria told the council members.
Public capital at stake: A representative for the city’s finance department said the city has not been asked to provide any “direct” funds to pay for changes to public space and streets as part of Harborplace’s redevelopment. He and others told the council members that the cost of public improvements — estimated to be $400 million — is expected to be covered with state and federal funds.
“There is no direct ask of city funding associated with this project,” he told the council members. “There is nothing that the finance department is aware of right now that would require city funding.” “We are not looking for any city funding for the project,” said MCB attorney Caroline Hecker.
But even if they city isn’t asked to allocate general funds for the development, former council member Jody Landers said, the legislation asks the city to contribute other valuable assets.
“I’m actually confounded by the comment that the counsel for the developer made about not asking for city funds, as if removing the height restriction, removing the parking prohibition and [amending the city charter] to build private residences on parkland is not an expenditure of public capital,” Landers said.
“There’s more to public funds than just public money. What about open space? What value does that bring to the city and why would we be spending it willy nilly? The footprint increase argument is also very misleading because parkland is not just the surface footprint. It’s the air space above it and the open areas and the landscaping around it. So we should be cognizant of that too…Let’s do an analysis of why the current Harborplace failed before we give away this public open space.”
‘Perpetual means perpetual’: Attorney John Murphy contended that the proposed council bills shouldn’t be approved because they violate Baltimore’s City Charter, which calls for certain development restrictions to be imposed on parkland at Pratt and Light streets in perpetuity.
“Perpetual means perpetual,” Murphy said. “Back in ’79, we adopted a charter amendment that said this park was created in perpetuity. This [legislation] makes two major changes to this. It allows residential, 900 units, and it expands the development area from 3.2 [acres] to 4.5. Those basic changes violate the perpetuity language which is written into the charter and the code. The open space character of Harborplace did not come about by accident. This was the design from the beginning. The open space was contrasted with the rest of the Inner Harbor development, which was very high density. It was designed by the preeminent planner of the day. When Rouse came along, they decided…and the voters approved, let Rouse in with 3.2 acres, but no more. This was stated in perpetuity.”
No traffic analysis: Even though MCB’s redevelopment plan calls for the intersection of Pratt and Light streets to be redesigned and for Light and Pratt streets to be narrowed, the city transportation department has completed no traffic studies to indicate exactly how that might be done or to analyze what impact such changes would have on traffic, a spokesperson for the city’s Department of Transportation told the council. There also has been no analysis of the potential impact that the construction of 900 residences would have on traffic at and around that intersection, the spokesperson said.
David Tufaro names names. Developer David Tufaro, the founder of Terra Nova Ventures and part of a citizens group called the Inner Harbor Coalition, has made no secret of his concerns about the Harborplace legislation and his desire that the city prepare a new master plan to guide Inner Harbor development before any individual projects move ahead.
As part of his testimony, Tufaro mentioned the names of more than a dozen people that he says do not support the proposed City Council legislation. Among the names he mentioned were: former council members Rochelle “Rikki” Spector, George Della, Carl Stokes and Landers; former city housing commissioners Robert C. Embry Jr., Jay Brodie and Paul Graciano; architects and planners Steve Ziger, Leon Bridges and Adam Gross, Scott Rykiel and Janet Marie Smith; economists Anirban Basu and Steve Walters; Rouse family members Jimmy and Ted Rouse; developers Bill Struever, Martin Azola and Tom Bozzuto; and mayoral candidates Bob Wallace and Thiru Vignarajah.
More amendments requested: Ted Rouse, the son of Harborplace developer James Rouse, said he’d like to see the council add three more amendments to the legislative package. He said he’d like to require that design review by the city’s Urban Design and Architecture Advisory Panel be mandatory, that demolition of the two pavilions not be permitted until funding commitments are in place for both the public and private parts of the development, and that any on-site parking associated with the project be underground. Architecturally screened parking above ground “is ugly,” he said.
No private development south of Conway Street: The three pending council bills don’t permit any additional development along the harbor shoreline east of Light Street and south of Conway Street. For any private development to occur south of Conway Street, additional legislation would need to be introduced and passed, and another City Charter amendment would need to be approved by city voters, Costello said.
“Under no circumstances, do these bills change existing conditions in the Urban Renewal Plan, in the zoning code, in the City Charter or anywhere else in the city code to allow for things to be built in West Shore Park or in Rash Field. That is not being permitted. I want to be very clear on that,” he said.
The proposed changes described as ‘modest’: Hecker, the attorney for MCB Real Estate, described the changes outlined in the legislation as ‘modest’ but essential modifications that are consistent with all previous master plans adopted to guide development around the Inner Harbor.
“This legislation really is critical to establishing the flexibility that we need to think creatively about reimagining the Inner Harbor,” she told the council members
The redevelopment plans that were unveiled in October “are consistent with what has been envisioned for the Inner Harbor” since redevelopment was first contemplated in the 1960s, she maintained. “The Inner Harbor Project I Urban Renewal Plan was first adopted in 1967. It’s been amended several times, but the latest amendments that you have before you today are really modest changes to the original plan that was initially contemplated over 50 years ago…This is not a radical change from what has been in the works for a long time. This is really a plan that’s built on the legacy of all of the planning work” that has come before.
In the beginning, at Forums etc. MCB portrayed this as “affordable housing” which it is NOT. I think the public was misled by these sort of statements made by them into thinking they could actually afford to live there, and some believe they can build “generational wealth” by being a vendor there. It is despicable.