[ad_1]
The audience applauded as Leon Bridges ambled to the microphone. The retired architect spent more than six hours attending a meeting of the Baltimore Planning Commission to give testimony on a subject that is important to him: the proposed redevelopment of the harborfront.
Politicians have welcomed the proposal, which would significantly reshape the Inner Harbor area and the city’s skyline. Some residents love it, some residents hate it. A group of people have been criticizing it. architect.
A panel of city architects dismissed the designs at a November hearing, with one of them saying it looked as though ChatGPT had been asked to design a waterfront development. Two local chapters of the national architecture organization wrote to oppose the development plans, and several architects also wrote letters of their own.
“We were told earlier that the vision for Harborplace would reflect Baltimore,” Bridges said Thursday. “It seems to me that vision has been lost.”
There are concerns about overbuilding, adding high-rise residential towers and whether developers and taxpayers can raise the estimated $1 billion needed for the plans. But what architects care most about is who is driving the car.
Politicians and developers dominate, they say, while architects and planners take a backseat. Many architects would like to see a comprehensive public planning process (a roadmap of sorts) for Harborplace before cars and drives are launched.
Mark Lamster, architecture critic for The Dallas Morning News, said this kind of battle for the steering wheel happens in cities across the country, especially when it comes to major developments.
Architects are driven by issues of scale, conservation, sustainability and aesthetics, while developers are primarily concerned with profitability, Langster said.
P. David Bramble, principal of MCB Real Estate, said similar things at a community meeting this month. His company, which bought Harborplace out of administration this year, said the overriding principle of the MCB redevelopment proposal was “economic sustainability”.
“The math has to work,” Bramble said. “We have to build a program that we can fund.”
This does not mean that MCB will ignore the design of the new Harborplace. Bramble and his team promoted an international design competition, ultimately selecting Danish firm 3XN, which had been working with local architects from Gensler and BCT Design Group.
3XN co-founder Kim Nielsen spoke with Baltimore’s building review panel via video call from Copenhagen in November. He spoke of architecture’s ability to create captivating spaces.
One of the proposed buildings – the ‘Sail’ – is a commercial building with a pitched roof that would allow people to walk up and down it. Nelson calls it an “elevated community landscape” that will bring people back to the Inner Harbor.
Not everyone sees it that way.
“The Sail building backs onto Pratt Street,” Bridges said.
The retired architect also raised questions about plans for two high-rise residential towers. Bridges said MCB Real Estate owns a parking lot on Pratt Street across from Harborplace, which would be an ideal location for an apartment complex.
John Mariani wrote in testimony to the Planning Commission that it doesn’t make sense to build an apartment complex along the waterfront when there are other opportunities for multifamily housing nearby. Klaus Philipsen writes that if MCB’s plans go ahead, the city could lose control of important space. David Benn echoed the former planning director’s concerns, writing that he didn’t want Baltimore to become “the Dallas of the Chesapeake.”
Still, Arjun Hosakere, an architect who has worked for Gensler and Baltimore development firm Zahlco, said something has to change.
While Harbor Square once attracted millions of visitors each year, today it is run-down and almost deserted. Hosakere said now is the time to get excited about Harborplace’s transformation.
“You can’t please everyone,” he said of the criticism. “You always get it.”
Hosakere said people should remember that designs will continue to evolve and improve as the development team gets feedback from architects, engineers and the public. Architects may also dislike projects that the public likes, he said.
“I’m not saying this is a great design and when it’s done, we can build this thing,” Hosakere said. “Like any project anywhere, it’s always going to be refined.”
But Langster said opposition to the Harborplace redevelopment has more to do with what might be lost than what might be gained. The existing harbor—even in its current form—is a historic and influential work in the history of American architecture, and was once very successful.
“The idea that they would go in and blow it up instead of accepting the design and working from it is really offensive to an architect,” Langster said.
Correction: This article has been updated to correct the description of John Mariani’s testimony before the Planning Commission.
[ad_2]
Source link