Posts

[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? ...

Today I focus on the Picnic Table and the Lily Pads as I continue my look at structures and other features proposed as part of the Inner Arbor plan. For more background see part 1, part 2, and part 3 of this series. 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 before, my focus is on the following questions for each feature: Does it work? Is it beautiful? Will it last? What’s the cost? ...

Today I look at the proposed structures and other features proposed for Symphony Woods as part of the Inner Arbor plan presented at the pre-submission meeting last Tuesday. For more background see part 1 and part 2 of this series. 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. My goal in this and subsequent posts is to critique each feature, measuring it against the following questions: ...

After reviewing concerns expressed about the Inner Arbor plan, it’s now time to take a closer look at the proposed design. Andrew Metcalf has done a great breakdown of the proposed design for Columbia Patch. I’ll try not to duplicate his work, but rather provide some color commentary to complement his play-by-play. First, I think it’s important to properly set expectations. Many people, including Ken Ulman in his recent comments, have been comparing the Inner Arbor plan to iconic parks like Millenium Park in Chicago (part of Grant Park and home to Anish Kapoor’s famous Cloud Gate sculpture), New York’s Central Park, and Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen. ...

Last Tuesday night the Inner Arbor Trust revealed a clearer picture of what’s they’re proposing for downtown Columbia. I attended the pre-submission meeting, including the Q&A afterward. See Luke Lavoie’s before and after articles in the Baltimore Sun and a similar article in the Washington Post for straightforward overviews of the design proposal and reactions to it; read on for my more opinionated take. ...

This is part 2a of a (hopefully) four-part series; see also part 1, part 3, and part 4. This part grew so long I’m spreading it across two posts, with the second post to follow when I finish writing it. This post continues my thoughts on the concept of “market democracy” as described in John Tomasi’s book Free Market Fairness. In this post and the next I explore the second core idea of market democracy, that of society as a “spontaneous order”:1 ...

In my previous post I discussed the very high median household income in Howard County in 2012, and noted that median household income is only part of the story: It shows how a “middle income” household is doing, but doesn’t say anything about how income is distributed among the various households. How do we measure the relative distribution of income across households, and what does this measure say about Howard County? ...