Iconic but Gen X: Are Harborplace’s Pavilions Worth a Fight to Preserve?

The shooting tower. The Washington Monument. The Harborplace Pavilions. Two of these are untouchable historic landmarks in Baltimore. Is the third one?

Tuesday’s election more or less answered that question. NO.

When voters decided to allow residential development on the Inner Harbor, they also gave the green light to an ambitious redevelopment plan that will begin with the demolition of the iconic green-roofed pavilions.

Baltimore has rules in place to protect the old and unique buildings that evoke nostalgic feelings, bring back fond memories and teach us about our past. Harborplace might meet those criteria, but historic preservation laws likely won’t save the pavilions, according to historic preservation attorney John C. Murphy.

It turns out they’re not quite historical enough. The buildings from the generation

Murphy has argued historic preservation cases in Baltimore for decades. He played a role in some of Baltimore’s biggest development battles, opposing the use of eminent domain and establishing that the city’s economic development department is not a private entity but a government agency that abides by the law to Maryland’s public records.

Many of these disputes either originated with or involved the Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation (CHAP), a city agency founded in 1964. CHAP plays a key role in Baltimore’s historic landmark designations, which can save these buildings from demolition.

Baltimore’s guidelines largely mirror federal guidelines. The government only considers a building historic if it is at least 50 years old. Harborplace is 44 years old. There are exceptions to this rule, even if a building has achieved “exceptional importance”. But Murphy said that won’t matter in Baltimore.

Landmark designation requires a City Council ordinance approved by the mayor, Murphy said, and City Council members and Mayor Brandon Scott are almost all in favor of redeveloping Harborplace. The enabling legislation was passed by the Baltimore City Council earlier this year, with Scott as one of its biggest supporters.

There is a possibility that the federal government could grant the pavilions a historic designation, Murphy said, but that is also unlikely. Normally it requires a nomination from the state, Murphy said, and Gov. Wes Moore has also announced the redevelopment of Harborplace.

When Harborplace opened in 1980, it immediately caused a stir. It attracted more visitors than Disney World and inspired a wave of similar port developments in cities around the world. But over time, the “festival marketplace” began to resemble a mall with more national chains and fewer local stores.

Harborplace was sold and then sold again. The tenants left the abandoned pavilions. The structures fell into disrepair and became an eyesore.

Last year, MCB Real Estate bought it for $83 million. The Baltimore-based company has proposed a radical redesign of the Inner Harbor. MCB wants to build larger and taller buildings than currently, but its plan would also change the surrounding streetscape, add more parkland and make the area friendlier for pedestrians and cyclists.

In several interviews this year, MCB co-founder Fr. David Bramble said the pavilions should be demolished. In recent years they have become “water shacks full of crappy tenants,” he said.

“There’s nothing special or iconic about these buildings,” Bramble said in another interview.

Bramble said it was the people who made Harborplace special and created that festive atmosphere, meaning the shoppers, the tourists, the small business owners and the restaurateurs.

It was also the architecture, Murphy said.

The low-rise pavilions were amenities that enhanced the inner harbor, he said. They didn’t dominate it. Their limited footprint and a 50-foot height limit meant the city-owned land on the Inner Harbor would remain an open space for the public, Murphy said, calling it one of Baltimore’s greatest attributes.

That wasn’t always the case.

For much of Baltimore’s history, the Inner Harbor was privately owned by traders who built on the marshy shoreline. According to a video documentary from Baltimore Heritage and its executive director Johns Hopkins, they extended the docks further into the water and created new land. Hopkins, a local historian, said the land only became public property after the Great Baltimore Fire of 1904, which destroyed the downtown area.

Hopkins said the city has used eminent domain to seize land along the waterfront and rebuild docks important to Chesapeake Bay commerce, while also creating a pier solely for public access and recreation. After the construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, much of the produce, seafood, and goods unloaded from ships in the Inner Harbor were transported by truck to Baltimore.

After World War II, Baltimore began a decade-long redevelopment of its downtown area. The warehouses and industrial buildings along the waterfront were demolished, making way for attractions like Harborplace.

Murphy said he believes there is a legal battle to preserve the Inner Harbor in its current condition, arguing that Harborplace and the surrounding land are a “charitable trust.” In property law, a charitable trust refers to land that is intended for use or enjoyment by the public and cannot be altered by future owners.

When voters approved the Harborplace plans via ballot question in 1978, they enacted certain provisions – height restrictions and parkland definitions – that effectively made the Inner Harbor a nonprofit trust, Murphy said.

A similar dispute in 1938 prevented a city plan to build playgrounds in what is now Leakin Park.

When Murphy presented this legal option to a coalition group opposed to the redevelopment of Harborplace, he said they declined to pursue it.

Instead, they filed a lawsuit challenging the wording of the ballot question that allowed residential development on the Inner Harbor, claiming it was confusingly worded and misleading. The Maryland Supreme Court disagreed, the question remained on the ballot and 60% of voters supported it.

Murphy said a charitable trust lawsuit is still possible, but he would need someone to act as a plaintiff.

“Without a client, I won’t file a case,” Murphy said.