Competing theories of urban redevelopment may be headed for a collision on Howard Street, Baltimore's boulevard of broken schemes.
What might be termed the big-bang theory for renewing the city's rotting retail district says developers won't risk $350 million building hundreds of apartments and shops unless they have freedom to be creative and are allowed to demolish scores of buildings, if necessary.
Another approach, which might be termed the SoHo theory, holds that such large-scale demolition is doomed to fail because distinctive architecture is the only advantage urban areas hold over the boring but convenient suburbs.
This school of thought draws its inspiration from once-depressed urban districts like SoHo in New York City and lower downtown Denver, which are thriving because the renovation of older buildings has attracted hip young people and childless older couples.
The path Baltimore will take might soon become clear. Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke set in motion last month a plan to redevelop the west side of downtown by signing a law that allows the Baltimore Development Corp., a quasi-governmental body, to condemn 110 buildings in an 18-block area and sell them to developers.
City officials, preservationists and developers are debating which theory is best for the economic revival of the west side. They are also asking whether too many demands to save century-old buildings might scare away investors and highly prized retail chains.
Charles C. Graves III, the city's director of planning, said the final approach will likely combine both schools of thought.
The widespread use of condemnation approved by the mayor and City Council last month will give developers flexibility to think of ways to lure tenants.
But Graves said the city plans to move slowly and to preserve the most valuable historic buildings -- if it is economically feasible.
"We are not going to be doing wholesale demolition," Graves said. "Demolition will only come after we have very detailed plans from developers for each parcel. And if there are historic properties, I would be very much interested in trying to integrate them into the new development."
No matter what approach emerges, it is likely to face a rough ride on a street that has seen at least four revival plans fail since the growth of suburban malls killed the city's department stores.
Strolling past the pawnshops and vacant storefronts of Howard Street is like taking a tour through a museum of bankrupt revitalization theories.
The first exhibit: the Lexington Street pedestrian mall, a street of clothing stores and five-and-dime shops, which the city closed to traffic in the early 1970s, following a national trend. Now the city is studying the possible return of cars to boost business.
Next came the hooplike arches of light bulbs -- many of them long ago burned out -- that rise over the street. The city erected these in 1986 to encourage shoppers after the opening of a subway station. The area was renamed the Howard Street Transit Mall.
The city dug up Howard Street in 1988 to build a light rail system track down its center -- another move business leaders hoped would lift the area.
Finally, at the north end of Howard Street stand the "Avenue of the Arts" street signs near the boarded-up Mayfair Theater. The city raised these in 1993 as part of an unsuccessful effort to encourage artists to fill apartments and studios in the area.
The city's new redevelopment plan would displace many of the T-shirt vendors and beeper salesmen who repopulated the first floor of largely empty buildings after large department stores, including Stewart's and Hutzler's, closed in the 1970s and 1980s.
The project seeks to renovate the vaudeville-era Hippodrome Theater with $50 million in state funds, and perhaps replace the Baltimore Arena at a cost of $200 million, with the hope of luring a National Basketball Association team.
Anchored by these large projects and the expansion of the neighboring University of Maryland, Baltimore, developers would build more than 900 apartments, a telemarketing center, dozens of shops and restaurants and maybe a multiscreen movie theater, according to city development officials.
Although the redevelopment plan allows for condemnation, it also demands the preservation of the area's most significant structures, including the old Hecht's and Stewart's department store buildings, the Baltimore Equitable Society building at 21 N. Eutaw St. and the American National Bank at 100-104 W. Lexington St.
Tyler Gearhart, executive director of Preservation Maryland, warned that several important buildings are at risk and that the character of the neighborhood would be lost if only a few historic structures remain amid sterile contemporary architecture.
Among the buildings not protected is a former toy shop, built in 1867 at 322 W. Baltimore St., with an ornate cast-iron facade and twisting columns. It is of a style that Baltimore iron craftsmen made popular throughout the country before the invention of the steel-frame skyscraper, said architecture writer James D. Dilts.
Gearhart has been trying to convince the city that the revival of the west side is more likely to succeed if the city creates a historic district that would give developers tax breaks to fix up old storefronts.
"We are exploring legal options that would prevent large-scale demolition of historic buildings as originally proposed in the west side plan -- but only as a last resort," Gearhart said. "We are optimistic that creative developers will view these buildings as assets -- as opposed to liabilities -- key to a successful and sustainable revitalization."
His plea strikes some business leaders as too esoteric for a city desperate to lure investment to a seedy neighborhood.
'Vacant victory'
Laurie Schwartz, president of the business organization Downtown Partnership, said she worries that threats of lawsuits from preservationists might scare away developers and derail an important effort to help the city.
"It would be a vacant victory with vacant buildings," said Schwartz.
Among those who are most skeptical of large-scale demolition is Joel Kotkin, an urban development expert who is writing a book about the future of U.S. cities. He said Baltimore's new condemnation law seems to be a throwback to failed urban renewal projects of the 1950s and 1960s.
Dozens of cities, including New York and the District of Columbia, tore down neighborhoods that some considered "slums" to replace them with cold-looking modern boxes that soon became vacant.
Kotkin said Baltimore's best strategy for competing with the suburbs is to preserve the city's uniqueness.
The redevelopment of the Inner Harbor worked for Baltimore in the 1970s and '80s because its unusual waterfront views lured suburbanites from their generic malls and subdivisions.
Because the west side lacks a waterfront, it would be foolish to try to duplicate Inner Harbor-style shopping, said Kotkin. The west side's only possible magnet is the restoration of its 19th-century storefronts, he said.
West side developers dispute the notion they are trying to resurrect failed policies or impose a suburban model in an urban district.
M. J. "Jay" Brodie, president of the Baltimore Development Corp., said: "I think they are 180 degrees wrong if they say we are doing this the old-fashioned way. We are encouraging developers to preserve buildings whenever possible."
'Some common ground'
David Stein, director of real estate for the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, the largest development group working on the west side proposal, said his organization is not trying to imitate suburban malls.
The foundation has submitted a $140 million proposal to rebuild six blocks around Howard and Lexington streets into a hip, urban college area that will attract students from nearby University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Rather than big-box retail stores, the developers want to build about 300 apartments, youth-oriented cafes and restaurants, bookstores, music stores, cleaners and clubs. They would include the most successful local urban-market businesses and preserve old buildings when they think it's practical, Stein said.
"There sounds like there might be some common ground between the Weinberg proposal and what the preservationists want," said Fred Siegel, an urban issues author at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington. "There is nothing more hip for young people and students than living in a renovated 19th-century building."