Baltimore in the 70's and 80's: being torn down.

What was Baltimore like before I-83 was built right down the middle of the city (1975)? Before a lot of larger interesting buildings were torn down in the 1970's and 80's?

I spent some time browsing this interesting blog; Kilduffs.com, which has a LOT of great images of buildings and street-views from the 1900's to the 1970's. Link

Baltimore, 1914/From Kilduffs.

Same site, different page, lists buildings that have been town down. I am amazed that the Tower Building was taken down in 84'! I'd never heard of it--it looks so cool! (near the bottom) Link

Tower Building coming down, 1984/from Kilduffs

Here's another great page, a travelogue documenting Baltimore in 1979. Great pictures of inner harbor, fells point, power plan (check out how spooky it looks!). Link

Calvert Rowhomes Demolished

This weekend I discovered that my a favorite crumbling ruin of mine, a pistachio-green three-story rowhome on the 2100 block of Calvert Street, in Baltimore, was finally demolished. I wrote about the house earlier, here.

As it was...
What a beauty

From Google Maps, on Built Baltimore

At the same time, Axis Alley, a very cool experiment in environmental art, also comes to a close. A number of artists had been painting, building and engaging with the site for the past few months. The demolishing of the block and clearing of the lot ends this temporary exhibit as well.


I've discovered that the 2100 block demolition is part of an 85 Million dollar redevelopment deal between the city of Baltimore and the DC development company, Telesis. Details are here.

Neighborhood re-envisioned by Telesis. [From Baltimorebrew.com, courtesy Telesis.]

I don't quite understand why the properties still appear to be owned either by the "Housing Authority" or "the Mayor and City Council". They got some good deals though! (Here's a home sold to the city for 5$!!)

I hope the new structures coming soon to Charles Village, Goucher and Barclay will respect the architectural heritage of the buildings they are replacing, and not just be bland, thoughtless generic "ugly-tecture" (Of the variety of Charles Commons or Village Lofts in upper Charles Village! Ugh!). We'll see I guess!

† [A Note to readers. I am currently migrating images previously hosted on flickr. Hopefully images that have been 'broken' by flickr (*shakes fist menacingly*) will soon be restored.]

Secret Gardeners

One of the best-kept secrets in Baltimore are the seven small, city-owned, citizen operated urban farms scattered throughout the city. And to think I've been trying to grow veggies in my shady postage-stamp yard this whole time!

The farms appear to be a resource that I think many city-dwellers would like to take advantage of, but of which few may be aware.

Locations of all 7 City farms. Larger Map. Let me know if the druid hill location is inaccurate.

The mystery began to unravel when I discovered a mysterious farm plot tucked inside a chainlink fence as I was walking in Roosevelt Park, in Hampden. Luckily for me, a local farmer had left the gate ajar while he was gardening and upon my questioning revealed that I (or anyone in the city) could rent a small plot for a modest yearly fee!

This site answers some questions and has contact information for interested parties.

Some small details are not up to date, however.

Here's a selection from the 2010 farm plot application:

(which you can request by email from the coordinator by following the link above.)

1.To qualify for participation in the program, you must be at least 18 years of age and a resident or employee of Baltimore City. An adult must sponsor anyone under 18.

2. New gardeners are permitted to rent only one plot in their first year. Gardeners will be considered for additional plots in subsequent years at the discretion of the coordinator. Each household has a three-plot maximum.

3. Plots are @ 10’ x 15’ and are marked by a numbered stake. Make sure the stake number matches the number on your contract and receipt.

4. Rental cost for 2010 is $30.00 per plot; there is a one time non-refundable key fee of $10.00 for new participants. Prices are subject to change through written notice. Do not make copies of your garden key – extra keys can be obtained through the City Farms office.

5. Gardening hours are dawn to dusk. For your personal safety and to prevent vandalism, make sure the gates are locked at all times.

6. Wood chips and leaf compost are provided by the Horticulture Division for use in the gardens. Water will be available from early spring through late fall.

7. At the City Farms, trash is separated into two categories – organic garden remains, and garbage. Organic debris consists of pulled weeds, spent plants or anything that once was growing in your garden. Organic debris is kept in a separate pile at designated areas in each City Farm. Garbage is trash that has not grown in your garden, and goes in the trashcans provided. Do not put garbage in the organic waste piles, or bags of pulled weeds in the trashcans.

8. At each City Farm there is a Garden Representative who can help with problems or questions.

For some reason the yearly rent for a plot increased in 2010 from 20$ a year to 30$ a year. Are they running out of land or something?

Hopefully, knowledge of the City Farm program will increase in the future, leading to more farms, lower costs and greater community involvement!

I've just requested a plot at Clifton Park and am expecting my key to arrive in the mail any day. Let the farming begin!

Tree City

Spring is here...

The flowering cherry trees around Baltimore are coming into bloom as the warm weather arrives, spreading their perfume across the city.

As I consider the lovely springtime aroma, I am moved to make a romantic statement:
A city can never have enough trees.

Even someone who knows nothing about environmental science can easily list a handful of human-scale benefits provided by urban trees.

Trees in the median of W 33rd, Baltimore.

I was more than a little sad, then, to hear that as a result of the city's 100+ million dollar budget shortfall for 2011, the ongoing effort to plant more city trees has been halted (Link missing, Same story Here.) for 2011 .

This whole no-money-for-trees situation brings up three questions for me:

1. How many trees does the city already have?
2. How any should we have?
3. How much would it cost to meet that goal?

~o~

Our Current Urban Forest...

According to Examiner.com, Baltimore city has about 2.5 million trees. That's about 3.9 trees per person. Collectively, this forest removes 244 metric tons of "ozone pollution" from the atmosphere. [each year?](*)

~o~

Money Trees...

A tree provides services to the city, and therefore has a calculable monetary value. Maryland has a REALLY COOL tree value calculator here, which estimates the value of these services.
Some quick calculations, for fun:

• A mature White Oak, 24 inch diameter trunk, growing in front of a single-family home in my neighborhood provides $389 worth of cooling, air cleaning and storm-water abatement per year.

• A young Magnolia tree growing in a nearby park provides $54/similar benefits/year.

• An average sized American Sycamore tree growing across the street from my apartment building (Note: this one isn't hypothetical!) provides $194/benefits/year. This breaks down as 4,700 gallons storm-water absorbed, 166kWh electricity not needed for cooling and 591 pounds of CO2 removed from my air.

~o~

Urban Forests...

Before the current budget crisis, Baltimore had set a progressive agenda for repairing the city's relatively deforested landscape:

In March of 2006, Baltimore City adopted a Tree Canopy Goal of 40 percent coverage within a 30-year time frame, thus doubling the City’s existing 20 percent tree canopy coverage.(*)

This has now been put on hold.

In comparison, here are some other urban canopy percentages for similarly sized cities:
An ideal coverage of 40% is borrowed from here. I believe this is considered a 'dense' coverage.

~o~

The Green Future?...

So it seems Baltimore could use another 2.5 million trees, to top our tree-population up to 5 million.
With tree-planting on hold in Baltimore, it seems that for the moment, the effort is left up to private citizens and organizations, which is a challenge people should become aware of.

Today...



Future?...


Planting trees is a great investment. I don't know how much it costs the city to plant a tree, but even if, for the sake of argument, planting a single linden tree sapling cost them 2000$ each (including initial labor and upkeep for 5 years), the calculator shows that it pays for itself in 20 years--after that it "turns a profit".

Now consider that a private person can plant and care for a tree for less than 100$.
(coupons for $25 off that tree here)
I hope Baltimore can continue greening- without breaking the bank.

The Village Green?

While I was snooping around for my most recent post, I discovered CleanerGreenerBaltimore.com, a local government initiavive to make the city more beautiful and sustainable.

Among the many neat resources here, (including promotion of an 'urban forest', which is just cool.) is a guide for turning vacant lots into community gardens (pdf).

I was reminded of a previous post here about a very large empty lot in the heart of my neighborhood owned by a commercial developer.




As of today, it appears that the lot, called the olmstead, is owned by Johns Hopkins.

It would be a benefit to the entire community if the University would allow the community to farm the Olmsted while development plans are still in limbo.

The area, of about 1.75 acres, could provide mini-lots to the many students and professionals that live in nearby apartments (pictured above).

Putting the land to a farming use would eliminate the need for mowing, as well as reduce local weed pollen (weeds also pictured above).

Could a temporary urban farm be next for the long-vacant Olmstead?

City Impressions

How sustainable is Baltimore? I stumbled across the chart below while surfing Wikipedia, and couldn't help but wonder where we stand among our peers in the shameful amorphous 'us cities' blob.

---

Impressions

Thinking about Baltimore in purely unscientific terms, it doesn't at first give one the impression of being particularly 'green':

• Derives it's electricity from coal and nuclear, both unsustainable long-term polluters.
• Miserable/non-existent bike lanes and crumbling roads dangerous to bikers.
• Sprawling suburbs contrasting with blocks and blocks of empty urban structures.
• Many treeless streets and spaces.
• Multiple limited, oddly-placed public transportation options which are not very well 'knit together'.
• A geographic location requiring extensive summer AC and winter heating.

On the other hand, it does enjoy some notable green/sustainable amenities:

• Several farmers markets offering local produce.
• Many mixed-use neighborhoods.
• Large numbers of vacant structures represent a capacity that can be 'reused' if the city grows (as opposed to new materials having to be used).
• Single stream recycling.
  
• Strong youth/artist subculture which promotes sustainability.

In many of these points Baltimore does not differ much from how one might imagine an average historic American city.

Does Baltimore need a Trolley?

Slow going?

What's happening with the proposed Charles Street corridor trolley in Baltimore?
The last press (via JHU) on their website (dated September 08') made it sound like funding issues and mixed community sentiment were slowing things down.

The project funding proposal seems to hinge upon Johns Hopkins University's willingness to voluntarily pay 50$ tax for each $100,000 assessed value of their property in the area, which probably comes to an enormous sum. Obviously, the current economic climate may make this voluntary payment unlikely to happen.

Secondly, the use of city funds to build a trolley serving an allegedly homogeneous population has been called into question: (from the above press link)

Ed Hayes, a resident of Remington and an opponent of the trolley, put his concerns about the trolley in stark terms. He believes that it would be a "gated transportation system" which would only serve to connect the "all white Charles Village to the all white Inner Harbor."

The three primary districts in question, Inner Harbor, Mount Vernon and Charles village/JHU homewood are unquestionably neighborhoods that are 'whiter' than average in Baltimore.

But shouldn't one also note that are neighborhoods with great historical and architectural significance, house multiple city cultural institutions (museums, schools, etc) and serve as a city business corridor?

















(Postcard depicting street trams in Richmond, VA--1920's. Public Domain)

~
Just a Tourist Trap?

Some opponents of the Trolley, on a website here(Trolleytrouble), take issue with the cost (they quote 300 million, the JHU article quotes 150 million) compared to busing. They also argue that the trolley wont provide reliable transport and in fact, may cause congestion.

One thing I noticed however, is that in fact nowhere do trolley supporters suggest that the project would ease congestion or provide convenient transportation. They carefully use words like 'calming' or 'connectivity' when describing befits--never efficient or economical.

The official page here suggests that increased tourism, "image" and retail visibility are the concrete primary goals of the project--and frankly, I think that a trolley probably would help meet these.

~
Fair?

And so, the question seems to be: "Is it fair to use some public (special tax district, state and federal) funds to build a private tourist amenity for the benefit of a culturally and historically significant yet possibly elite 'minority*' enclave."

My personal answer would be "Not unless the people who are paying for it, or their representatives, approve the project by democratic process."
Its currently unclear to me if this has really happened yet.
When and if it does however, I hope neighborhoods not impacted by the Trolley will allow it to proceed.

Under current plans, the Private, not-for-profit 'Baltimore Development Corporation' plans to use 71 million dollars of "state and federal" [funds] for building the line.

If and when elected state officials find the project worth funding, I believe one must consider it the same as a majority of it's citizens democratically doing so as well.

The remainder 85 million would be raised by a 'special tax zone' 1/4 miles on either side of Charles Street.

~
The Future

I like the idea of a Trolley in Baltimore. It would be fun to ride and increase ease of transportation for some--but I don't think I can support the proposal until it is either approved democratically by the citizens of the communities that will pay for it,-- or payed for entirely by private voluntary revenue.




~
NOTES:

• Interesting site: why people don't ride mass transit.

• The entire budget for the general fund for the city of Baltimore in 2008 was about 1,004 million dollars.

• The JHU article prices total construction costs at 156 million--71m of which would be from state/federal sources.
  

• Here's a great article about history of streetcars in Baltimore.
  

• Some more reactions, via YouTube:

Farming the city.

A mega-rich Detroit libertarian is considering intense urban farming as a solution to his city's woes. I wonder what it could do for other depressed post-industrial cities?



The article (Fortune via cnn) suggests that many view Detroit citizens see the proposal as a selfish land-grab by an untrustworthy 'invader'. I'd have to agree that in this case, it probably is.

Detroit has learned (and I think other cities should take note,) that large corporate entities are not good investments.-- They exploit city space and resources until it becomes no-longer profitable to do so. Then they leave us with the bag in one hand and a dysfunctional landscape in the other.

A few statements in the interview raise red flags for me:

"What if we had seven lakes in the city?" [the millionaire] wonder[s]. "Would people develop around those lakes?"
"It all sounds very exciting," [responds] the DEGC's Jackson, whose agency is working on assembling a package of incentives for Hantz, including free city land. "We hope it works."

Hope it works? I don't know what the outcome will be, but I surely hope that Detroit's citizens get more than such a weak assurance before they consent to let their landscape be used for a for-private-profit experiment.

~

All these Detroit problems aside, I am interested in thinking about ethical large scale public farming could do for other cities.

For a program to be ethical and useful, I think the following guidelines are required:

• Land to be redeveloped into farm must be land that the neighborhood democratically chooses to be re-purposed.
• The new farm must be community owned in perpetuity.
• Farms, if chosen to be run as for-profit by their communities, must return their profits to the farm's home community.
• Coterminosity is not important--neighborhood integration is important.
  

Despite it's problems the now-defunct South Central Farm in LA seems to be a good model for how larger urban farms can enrich a city.


(photo:Jonathan McIntosh, South Central Farm, L.A.)

Why raze thousands of acres indiscriminately, as is proposed in Detroit? (at 14 acres, South Central was the largest urban farm in America at the time.)
It seems like the kind of broad stoke that a city or community could regret later, if not well considered.

Hopefully it will be the people, and not just a rich individual or private corporation, that make this call.

~

Also, shout out to archipreneur , an interesting architecture blog, that mentions this story here.

City Limits?

In the 1960's the population inside Baltimore city limits was about 1 million.
Today there are 600,000 in the same space.




Baltimore currently faces the same problems as most older US cities--crime, decay, maintaining infrastructure--
but could it be that trying to solve these problems in our underpopulated city spaces is made more difficult because of all this empty space?

-- much like a single person trying to repair a crumbling house that's far too big?

What about the strategy of shrinking the city to better serve a shrunken population?

These questions spurred me to discover the historical city boundaries of Baltimore.


~


Baltimore became an independent city in 1851, breaking away from Baltimore County.

In The History of Baltimore City and County, from the earliest period to the present day: including biographical sketches of their representative men by John Thomas Scharf, published in 1880,(and found here on google books) I found a map showing Baltimore Town in 1730 and its original 60 or 80?(hard to make out..) acres.


(note that the 'boundaries' are 1880 boundaries--much smaller than in 2010.)

And here's an 1880's map, with historic limits and some unusual tract names. It's funny to recognize some names, like Mt. Royal (a contemporary neighborhood), amid the other wild ones--I wish there were still a 'haphazard' neighborhood!


These early maps all show a relatively small Baltimore in from 1852-1880's.
Baltimore's 1852 population was about 500,000.(census data)

An 1852 map:




















Here are Baltimore's Limits today with its 1852 limits (the map above) superimposed:



~

In 1888 the city annexed 2 miles to the north limit of the city (Additions included the areas that now include lake montebello and druid hill park) and 2 miles to the west limit, adding 36,000 people and increasing the city space by about 18.5 square miles (my rough calculations) to ~30 square miles.

Before the 1888 annex Baltimore had a population of 380,825 , area of 11.6 sq/mi, and density of ~32,000 persons per square mile.

In 1889 the population was boosted to ~417,000, area 30.1 sq/miles, and density was 13,853 persons per square mile.


(from Baltimore: its history and its people, Volume 1 By Clayton Colman Hall)



The new city 1888 limits looked like this:



~

Another large annexation occurred in 1919 (Baltimore, Volume 11) that nearly tripled the size of the city:

Baltimore's 1919 annexation:

A link to more details. (Baltimore County police, 1874-1999. via google books.)

~

In 1910 Baltimore had 558,000 residents and was 30 square miles,
population density 18,500 person/square mile.

In 1920, after the annex, it had 733,000 residents in 79 square miles,
and average density fell to 9,200 person/square mile.

And today?...

Its difficult to discern what has happened to the limits since, if anything.

Baltimore now has 80.8 sq/mi of land within city limits--awfully close to the 79 sq/mile total after the 1919 annex.
Perhaps there were was another very small annex, or perhaps land was built into the harbor.

As of 2009, Baltimore has a density of 7,882 persons per square mile--even less than after the 1919 density-dropping annex.

~

Some musings:

From a satellite, there is a visible area of notable development within Baltimore. Maybe this should be the 'city limit'? It pretty much coincides with the city limits in the 1910's:



Doubts:

-Maybe we have more parks today, which drives down density but increases happiness.
-Too many parks can be a bad thing.
-What if current density can't be recollected into a smaller, leaner city?
-Can a city contain a more urban core and a 'suburbanish' fringe and not betray or underserve one group?
-Do cities need the tax dollars from suburbs-within-city-limits to pay for the actual city-within-city-limits?

What might resizing to a smaller Baltimore do for its residents, budget, demeanor and quality of life?