Unattractive hotel ruins city's skyline

April 25, 2008

To quote Sun architecture critic Edward Gunts, "Would Oriole Park have been better off had the hotel property not been developed? Possibly. Was that ever really an option? No" ("Going, going, gone," April 21).

No? What nonsense.

The Robert Johnson-led "Believe" team put forth an excellent convention hotel proposal that would have added a far taller and more attractive contribution to the skyline on the other side of the convention center on Conway Street. This would have left the parking lot parcel across from Camden Yards to be developed as a replacement site for the aging 1st Mariner Arena, creating the third in a string of sports/entertainment venues in that area without blocking anyone's view in the process. This plan then would have opened up current arena's critical west-side site for future development on a site that is begging for yet another high-rise, high-profile building.

So there's no reason to claim that this project was inevitable.

As for the members of the Baltimore Development Corp., well, they are so short-sighted that they probably can't even make out the hulking monolith that is the Hilton and that will forever be an obtrusive stain on the view from Camden Yards.

Scott Murphy-Neilson

Herndon, Va. Rather than comment on the hideous 1960s hospital-esque design of the new downtown Hilton that sterilizes its neighborhood and largely ruins Camden Yards' desired cityscape effect, Edward Gunts meekly concluded that the property had to be built, and that it blocks some views.

He scattered in a few quotes that added little to the piece and briefly mentioned a critique by a Washington Post sportswriter. But the local architecture critic apparently could not be bothered to critique the design of the hotel building itself.After attending my first Orioles game of the season last Sunday, I left the game hoping Mr. Gunts would use his considerable local platform to draw attention to this glaring eyesore for Baltimore and the issues surrounding its creation.

With his non-critique critique, Mr. Gunts - and his paper - have failed their readers.

James Yolles

Baltimore I understand that the city needs to develop and add amenities. But why exactly must those changes so often come at the expense of aesthetics?

The latest example of such an "improvement" is the conference hotel near Camden Yards. That building is one big dense block, which is devoid, so far as I can see, of any real design.

It blocks the view of the city from the stadium - which is bad enough. But it doesn't add anything either.

Are we supposed to be inspired by the bloated massiveness of the design, the sameness of the windows, the metal casing on the building?

Isn't anyone in charge of how the city is evolving aesthetically?

Mary Toth

Baltimore The fact that the spectators' views north from Oriole Park at Camden Yards will be partially obstructed by the soon-to-be completed Hilton is bad enough.

But how can a distinguished architectural firm be allowed to "design" a monotonous structure featuring row upon row of rectangular apertures?

The Hilton simply adds another unexciting building to the city, like just about every other recent addition to the Baltimore skyline - with the exception of the convention center itself.

I hope future conventioneers will appreciate the convention center's progressive design during the daylight hours and ignore the banal, box-like hotel structure they may be entering at night.

Bennard Perlman

Pikesville

The writer is a former member of Baltimore's Civic Design Commission.

To Our Readers: The Sun welcomes letters from readers. All letters become the property of The Sun, which reserves the right to edit them. Letters should include your name and address, along with day and evening telephone numbers. E-mail us: letters@baltsun.com; write us: Letters to the Editor, The Sun, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore 21278-0001; fax us: 410-332-6977