Thursday, January 15, 2015

New Baltimore - Paul Burkhard - 1904


 
 
 
 
Architects and Builders Journal, May 1904, p. 15

 May the Authorities Provide
Baltimore Ten Years Hence As Seen
By Architect Paul Burkhard,
20 E. Franklin Street

               The picture above is a reproductions of a perspective view presenting a suggestion for the rebuilding of the burnt district of Baltimore.  The original at this writing is on exhibition in the office of the architect, 20 East Franklin Street.

               The fundamental idea from which the author started is this:  Not to pay too much attention to pretty improvements, such as widening a few streets and locating here and there miniature so-called “parks” – in reality, mere squares with a few trees – changes that will not perceptibly improve the general appearance of the city.  Instead of this all effort and expenditure is to be concentrated on one point with a view to create there an aesthetic center that will tend to make Baltimore one of the most beautiful cities of the world.

               An available point for such a center Nature herself has provided for the city.  It is the Basin, lying in the very heart of the city, and the natural beauty of which need only be developed, instead of being wantonly destroyed as has been done heretofore.

               The suggestions embodied in the author’s design are the following:

1.      All the docks and wharves west of the power-house are to be removed entirely from this basin.  There is sufficient room in other parts of the harbor, where they will have all needed facilities without spoiling the aesthetics of the best portion of the city.

2.      All the earth and rubbish from the docks, and partly, also from  the  burnt district,  is to be used in widening Light street, Pratt street and the proposed extension of Frederick street along the water side – to provide for two or four rows of shade trees with ample walks between and outside these rows.

3.      The first row of block north of the basin (from Light street to Frederick street) should be entirely reserved for public buildings.  This may seem a bold idea – yet is it not in direct line with modern thought and progress and with the consideration that the new city will be built for a future generation?  Besides what is impossible for enthusiastic and patriotic Baltimorean?  But if this idea should be considered unattainable, then at least the central portion of this area  should be used for a public library or art gallery, and the  rest for private buildings only under certain restrictions as mentioned below.

4.      In the first row of blocks on all sides of the Basin, no high buildings or “skyscrapers” are to be permitted, all structures being limited to a maximum height of five or six stories.  The erection of tall buildings is, however, to be permitted in the next and succeeding blocks.  These great towering structures, rising beyond and above the lower but more ornamental building in front, will give the appearance of a “city of terraces,” the skyscrapers now forming a magnificent background of an inspiring picture such as a great scenic artist might choose as an imposing stage setting.  Greeting the spectator standing on Federal Hill or on some pleasure craft in the Basin they would present one of the grandest architectural panoramas of the world.

5.      South street and Gay street are not to be carried through to Pratt street, to avoid marring the beauty of the water front by cutting it into too many small parts.  But the buildings facing the end of these streets are to be constructed with covered passages or arcades, giving pedestrians a direct route to the water-front park.  Proper disposition of these arcades with the requisite width and height will afford a splendid view or diorama through the rows of columns to the water, and this feature of architectural beauty would more than recompense the frequenters of these streets for the slight disadvantage that carriages must reach the park and the Basin through on of the other streets.  The effect would be similar to that of the City Hall of Philadelphia, but with more majestic portals.

6.      The entrance to the Basin, which will then be used exclusively as a starting point for pleasure and sporting craft, is to be marked by two architectural monuments surmounted with statues and facing each other.

7.      North Charles street, as the main promenade street, is to be connected with the water front by a public square in the diagonal of the Basin, allowing a direct view of and an easier access to the water from that street.

8.      All minor and less radical changes and improvements, however desirable they may appear, are, if necessary, to be sacrificed to the one great idea – to make the city of Baltimore what it ought to be.

It is true that the carrying out of this idea will cost money – a great deal of money.  But all the details of this design need not be carried out at once.   It is only necessary now to make the requisite plan and provision their eventual completion.

At least it is certain that the realization of this ideal will be fully worth its cost.  Aside from its aesthetic and educational influence upon our people, and especially the rising generation, its product of civic pride, patriotism and loyal citizenship, it would be as good a business investment as nay city on earth ever made.  For Baltimore would thenceforth engage the attention of travelers of all nations,  as a spot where the beauty of nature, the beauty of architectural art, and last, but not least, the famed beauty of Baltimore’s women, all would unite to form an aesthetic and recreative center of extraordinary charm.

Whoever has seen the famous Alster Basin with the “Jungfernstieg” at Hamburg, or the great natural charms of the Swiss cities of Zuerich, Luzerne and Geneva, grouped around the curving shores of limpid blue lakes, or the magnificent panorama of Naples and its bay will readily realize that no higher effect is attainable in city architecture than by designing parks, streets and buildings into an artistic hand harmonious scheme with a beautiful and animated body of water.

In the large parks of New York and Chicago and the other large cities, where natural advantages were lacking, the landscape artists have produced an animated and picturesque effect by artificial lakes and reservoirs.

An Early Harbor Vision - Baltimore Evening Sun ∙ Friday, July 5, 1985 ∙ Other Voices

An Early Harbor Vision
By Fred B. Shoken
Baltimore Evening Sun ∙ Friday, July 5, 1985 ∙ Other Voices

                Although most people attribute the first planning efforts for the Inner Harbor to Mayor Theodore R. McKeldin in the early 1960s, the first Inner Harbor plan is actually much older.  According to an Evening Sun article of February 20, 1946, the first Inner Harbor plan was envisioned in 1904.
 
                Shortly after the Baltimore Fire of that year, Paul E. Burkhard presented in a small brochure his idea for the redevelopment of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.  Instead of making minor improvements to the “burnt district,” such as widening streets  or creating small parks, Burkhard suggested that all improvements be concentrated on one point, the harbor, “with a view to  make Baltimore one of the most beautiful cities of the beautiful cities of the world.”
 
                Like the present Inner Harbor improvements, Burkhard envisioned Baltimore’s waterfront to be a major public place.  He proposed the removal of Piers 1, 2 and 3 to create a more expansive vista at the harbor.  He also called for some infilling,  using the wreckage of the fire to widen Pratt and  Lights streets with rows of shade  trees planted  along  the water’s edge to create a pedestrian promenade.  His Inner Harbor would be a grand entrance to Baltimore.  The waterfront would be used exclusively for pleasure and sporting crafts.
 
                Acutely aware of the potential for a dramatic skyline, he planned for the type of building that would surround the Inner Harbor.  The buildings that would front on the harbor would be reserved for public use and would be a maximum of four to six stories high.  These long low buildings would create an unbroken backdrop for Baltimore’s grand entranceway.  Skyscrapers would be allowed behind these buildings creating a terraced skyline.
 
                The Burkhard plan showed a great deal of insight towards the urban design of downtown Baltimore.  Unlike the present Inner Harbor improvements, his plan called for a strong connection to Charles Street, Baltimore’s most prestigious street, by way of a public park diagonal to his redeveloped waterfront.  The lack of this vital connection to Charles Street in the present Inner Harbor design has been criticized by some of today’s architects and planners.
 
                The first Inner Harbor plan was illustrated with a view from Federal Hill showing a skyline that rivaled the best of early city beautiful plans.  The drawing is reminiscent of views of the 1893 Chicago Columbia Exposition.   If his plan had been accomplished, Baltimore’s harbor would have featured the Beaux Arts grandeur of ornate buildings and monumental statues, as well as the waterfront atmosphere of today’s Inner Harbor.  The early plan would have truly made Baltimore one of the most beautiful cities of the world, but it was not to be.
 
                This vision of the future was rejected by Baltimore leaders of the day who were in a hurry to rebuild their businesses destroyed by the Baltimore Fire.  The Inner Harbor was an active area for maritime trade in the early 20th century.  Instead of a marvelous entranceway to the city, industries and warehouses were rebuilt along Baltimore’s waterfront.  Over a half century later these same buildings were torn down for the present Inner Harbor improvements.  Finally, much of Burkhard’s dream has been realized, but little is known about the fate of this early city planner.
 
                In fact, except for the 1946 Evening Sun article, there is no other record that Paul E. Burkhard ever existed.  There is no evidence that Burkhard lived in Baltimore around 1904, since he is not listed in Baltimore City Directories of that era nor is he mentioned in any local history books.  He is called an architect in the newspaper article, but neither the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects nor the national headquarters has any information on him.  There is no record of him at the Maryland Historical Society, Pratt Library, Peale Museum, Baltimore City Archives or Peabody Institute Library.  There is also no known copy of his original brochure suggesting his Inner Harbor plan.
 
                Mayor McKeldin’s efforts in the Inner Harbor have been recently recognized with the construction of a new fountain in his honor at the harbor.  The modern day Inner Harbor planners have been lauded in both the local press and national professional magazines, but the first Inner Harbor planner is all but forgotten.

                Fred B. Shoken is a research analyst for the city’s Commission for Historical & Architectural Preservation.


Wednesday, January 14, 2015

1904 Burkhard Inner Harbor Plan - Evening Sun Article

A Beautiful Balimore – A Dream of 42 Years Ago
Baltimore Evening Sun, February 20, 1946  Page 40

“What is impossible for the enthusiastic and patriotic Baltimorean?”

That question was posed 42 years ago by a forward looking architect who soon found the answer.

Scarcely more than a month after the great fire of February 7, 1904, the architect, Paul E. Burkhard, presented in a small brochure his idea fir a beautiful new Baltimore to be built on the ruins of the burnt district.

He would have made the basin and its surrounding area an aesthetic center, comparable in beauty to the Alster basin at Hamburg, the graceful lake-shore landscapes of Zurich, Luzerne and Geneva, the panorama of Naples and its bay.

But “enthusiastic and patriotic” Baltimoreans were lackadaisical about the plan, and the marble columns and park trees somehow became wharves and warehouses.

Here is the idea that Baltimore let get away.

The architect proposed to skip the “petty improvements, such as widening a few streets and locating here and there miniature so-called parks – in reality mere squares with a few trees,” because these changes would not perceptibly improve the general appearance of the city.

Instead he suggested, “All effort and expenditure are to be concentrated on one point with a view to creating there an aesthetic center that will tend to make Baltimore one of the most beautiful cities of the world.”

First all the docks and wharves west of the power house were to be removed from the basin.  The earth and rubbish from the docks and the burnt district were to be used in widening Light street, Pratt streets and the proposed extension of Frederick street along the water side to provide for two or four rows of shade trees with ample walks between and outside the rows.

The first row of blocks north of the basin (from Light street to Frederick street) were to be entirely reserved for public buildings.

In this first row of blocks on all sides of the basin no high buildings or skyscrapers were to be permitted, all structures were limited to a maximum height of five or six stories.

The erection of tall buildings was to be permitted in the next and succeeding blocks to give the appearance of a “city of terraces.”

“Greeting the spectator standing on Federal Hill or on some pleasure craft in the basin, they would present one of the greatest architectural panoramas of the world,” Burkhard wrote in his brochure.

South and Gay streets were not to be carried through to Pratt street in order to avoid marring the beauty of the water front by cutting it into too many small parts.

The entrance to the basin was to be used exclusively as a starting point for pleasure and sporting craft and marked by two architectural monuments surmounted with statues and facing each other.

North Charles street, as the main promenade street, was to be connected with the water front park by a public square in the diagonal of the basin.

Finally, the architect wrote, “all minor and less radical changes and improvements, however desirable they may appear, are if necessary to be sacrificed to the one great idea:  to make the City of Baltimore what it ought to be.

“Aside from its aesthetic and educational influence upon our citizens, and especially the rising generation, its product of civic pride, patriotism and loyal citizenship.  It will be as good a business investment as any city of earth ever made.

“For Baltimore will thenceforth engage the attention of travelers of all nations – as a spot where the beauty of nature and the beauty of architectural art and – last, but not least the famed beauty of Baltimore’s women all unite to form an aesthetic and recreation center of extraordinary charm.

“Can Baltimore afford to shoulder the responsibility of not taking advantage of the profound natural advantages that God has given her?”

That was written in 1904.