This page will be updated periodically.
Extensive Case Review in MHT
final leter to UB.
Historic
Status
The 1915
Odorite
Building
is designated historic and is in the
Mt.
Vernon
local & national register districts and a Certified State Heritage Area.
State Requirements
(1) State Clearinghouse. UB
failed to submit plans to the Clearinghouse, thus preventing comments from
Baltimore
City
and state agencies
(2)
Consultation. UB has
complied with the bare minimum requirement to consult with MHT according to one
district court, but the State Advisory Council found this was inadequate and
requested additional consultation. UB
has not even submitted its development plans to MHT
3)
Alternatives. Demolition
is prohibited unless UB can show there are “no prudent and feasible
alternatives.” UB has failed to
show that no preservation alternatives exist, or even to seriously consider
them.
Clear Alternatives
Baltimore Heritage developed just one alternative to show that
alternatives exist. This design by
Davis Buckley
accomplishes the following:
·
Provides for all program needs
·
Adds contemporary architecture that contributes to the historic
district and the campus
·
Preserves the
Odorite
Building
·
Costs the same as or less than the University’s current plan
Cost
Clark Construction estimated $12.5 million to build the
Davis Buckley
design (including a $500,000 contingency), $300,000 less than UB’s current
estimate.
$1.6 million estimate by UB to save the front facades is not reliable
·
MHT engineers found the added cost to be $240,000 using the same
study
·
UB has never evaluated re-using the entire building
The State Dept. of Housing has offered $25,000 to UB to study alternative
which has not been accepted
Opposition
The following groups oppose UB’s demolition plans:
Maryland Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; Maryland Historical
Trust; National Trust for Historic Preservation; Preservation Maryland; CHAP;
Mt. Vernon-Belvedere Association; and Mt. Royal Improvement Association.
The following communications occurred between the
University
of
Baltimore
and its own project architects and engineers.
They are taken from materials prepared by the Maryland Historical Trust
based on court records.
Preservation
Feasibility
Ayers/Saint/Gross
“…based on the visual evidence and the
building’s history, it
& Hillier Group (1990):
seems reasonable to assume that the Odorite could be reused for most
normal University occupancies.”
Smith
Architects (1993):
“The conclusion drawn as a result of our feasibility study is that the
[Odorite] Building is structurally sound…[R]enovations could be developed
architecturally to overcome the current negative perception of the Building. The
costs of renovation would be comparable to the cost of new construction.”
Preservation Questions
Murphy & Dittenhafer (2002):
“Is there any change to the previously communicated direction that the
Odorite building will be entirely demolished and removed as part of the project?
As part of the design process, will there be any need to evaluate the
feasibility of incorporating all or part of the Odorite building into the
Student
Center
design, either as a design alternative
or in connection with obtaining Maryland Historic Trust approval?
Has the Maryland Historic Trust provided a “no adverse effect” ruling
regarding the removal of the Odorite building from the site?
Please clarify.”
University
of
Baltimore
:
“A. ) No change to the existing documents has been made; it is the
University’s intent not to retain any portion of the current building.
B.) No contact with the
Maryland Historic Trust or community groups has been initiated by the
University. The University will
handle this during the Clearing House process.”
Design Review
Murphy
& Dittenhafer (2002):
“Which of the following groups will need to review the design and, if
so, how many submissions and/or presentation will be made to each group?” [The
Maryland Historical Trust was listed as one of the groups.]
University
of
Baltimore
:
“Maryland Historical Trust – Answer:
none is anticipated.”