Rendering of proposed Crescent development in downtown Columbia. View is of Area 3 looking east, with the proposed swim center to the right. Click for high-resolution version. Image © 2014 Howard Hughes Corporation; used with permission. Columbia is well on its way to becoming a real city with a real downtown. (This is not an April Fools’ joke.) Last night I attended the pre-submission meeting at which Howard Hughes Corporation presented its plans for the Crescent area next to Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion. (I arrived a few minutes late, missing the introduction of the presenters and the opening remarks.) For now I’ll leave a more complete description of the meeting to the professionals (see Luke Lavoie’s story today in the Baltimore Sun) and will just give some initial somewhat disconnected impressions. ...

I previously discussed parking at Merriweather Post Pavilion. How does Merriweather fare compared to other venues? Do they offer any glimpses of Merriweather’s future with respect to parking? For this post I picked three different venues, each with a Merriweather connection and all of them together showing a wide range of venue parking situations. Jiffy Lube Live and surroundings, Bristow VA. The circles show areas within a quarter mile and half mile of the venue. Click for high-resolution version. ...

The future of Symphony Woods and the Inner Arbor plan is tied up with the future of Merriweather Post Pavilion. So what of Merriweather’s future? The past weeks have seen a brewing battle over Merriweather between the Howard County government (more specifically, County Executive Ken Ulman) and the Howard Hughes Corporation. For the complete rundown see Luke Lavoie’s ongoing coverage in the Baltimore Sun, as Ulman first verbally admonished Howard Hughes over the pace of renovations to Merriweather, then proposed legislation expediting transfer of Merriweather to the nonprofit Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission (a move that was envisioned in the original Downtown Columbia plan [PDF]). In response, according to an article by Kevin Litten in the Baltimore Business Journal, John DeWolf of Howard Hughes claimed Ulman had “blindsided” them, and floated the idea of Howard Hughes pulling out of Columbia entirely. ...

This week Frank Gehry weighed in on the Inner Arbor plans, plans that (in Gehry’s words) “deeply disturb me.” One could say a lot about this: About Gehry’s motivations and who might have influenced him to speak out (see Julia McCready), whether today’s Columbia is as welcoming to talented young architects as the Columbia of the 60s and 70s (see Tom Coale), whether these exercises in WWJRD (“What would Jim Rouse do”) are useful or not (see Jesse Newburn in her comments on Gehry’s letter), and how this might connect with the desire by members of the CA board to regain influence over the Inner Arbor Trust (see Bill “Marshmallow Man” Woodcock). ...

I was fortunate last night to be able to attend the Howard County Design Advisory Panel meeting to review the Inner Arbor plan. It was a very interesting and informative meeting, and I hope to be able to blog about it in much more details—especially since it answered many of the remaining questions I had about various elements of the plan. For now though I’ll simply note that the panel unanimously approved the plan as submitted. The major substantive concern raised was whether the paths in the central part of the park were quite wide enough to handle the anticipated pedestrian traffic, especially during Wine in the Woods and major events at Merriweather Post Pavilion. The panel asked the design team to take a second look at that. ...

[This post continues my ongoing series on the evolution of the Inner Arbor plan for Symphony Woods in downtown Columbia, Maryland.] Contrary to the conclusion of my last post, I’ve decided to hold off posting about the Merriground and the Merriweather Horns until after the design advisory panel meeting. Instead I wanted to go back to one of my earlier Inner Arbor posts and revisit the topic of the Chrysalis amphitheater. At the time I wasn’t entirely clear how the flowing shapes of the Chrysalis were to be constructed; I wasn’t even sure what material the Chrysalis was to be made of. Now I have a much better idea of what’s going on with the structure, and wanted to pass that information on to you, my readers. ...

[This post continues my ongoing series on the evolution of the Inner Arbor plan for Symphony Woods in downtown Columbia, Maryland; for a list of previous posts see part 7.] Since the pre-submission meeting [PDF] on December 2, 2013, the Inner Arbor project has been moving forward: First, the Inner Arbor Trust has achieved 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. This is important for at least three reasons: It means that contributions to the Inner Arbor Trust will be tax-deductible, which may help motivate some individuals and for-profit corporations to provide funding. It may also make it easier for the Inner Arbor Trust to solicit donations from philanthropic foundations: Private foundations don’t care about the tax-deductibility aspect, but foundations typically make grants only to organizations with 501(c)(3) status. Finally, it ensures at least a basic level of financial transparency for the Inner Arbor Trust, since 501(c)(3) organizations must make their Federal tax returns (the so-called Form 990) available for public inspection. ...

Metamorphosis produces the Butterfly, as I conclude my comments on the features of the Inner Arbor plan as presented at the pre-submission meeting on December 2. For context and more information see other posts in this series: Addressing concerns raised at the pre-submission meeting An overview of the Inner Arbor plan, and more comments and concerns Word Art, the Letter Garden, and the Maze The Picnic Table and the Lily Pads The Caterpillar The Chrysalis The Butterfly For a good summary of the proposed features see Andrew Metcalf’s story “Breaking Down the Plan to Develop Symphony Woods” at the Columbia Patch. For more on the vision behind the Inner Arbor plan and some inspirations for its features, see the Columbia Association’s original presentation on the Inner Arbor plan. As with the other features I focus on the following questions for the Butterfly: Does it work? Is it beautiful? Will it last? What’s the cost? ...

After the Caterpillar comes the Chrysalis, as I continue my comments on the Inner Arbor plan. For context and more information see other posts in this series (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5). For a good summary of the proposed features see Andrew Metcalf’s story “Breaking Down the Plan to Develop Symphony Woods” at the Columbia Patch. For more on the vision behind the Inner Arbor plan and some inspirations for its features, see the Columbia Association’s original presentation on the Inner Arbor plan. Again my focus is on the following questions for each feature: Does it work? Is it beautiful? Will it last? What’s the cost? ...

I now turn to the most prominent features in the Inner Arbor plan, starting with the Caterpillar. For context and more information see other posts in this series (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4). For a good summary of the proposed features see Andrew Metcalf’s story “Breaking Down the Plan to Develop Symphony Woods” at the Columbia Patch. For more on the vision behind the Inner Arbor plan and some inspirations for its features, see the Columbia Association’s original presentation on the Inner Arbor plan. My focus continues to be on the following questions for each feature: Does it work? Is it beautiful? Will it last? What’s the cost? ...