tl;dr: On the occasion of Michael McCall’s death I reflect on his signature achievements in Columbia, Maryland.

Two weeks ago I was distressed to learn of the death of Michael McCall. Although Michael was a long-time resident of Columbia, he was actively involved in Columbia and Howard County affairs for less than six years, from the fall of 2011 to the spring of 2017.

During that time he put forth a new vision for a park in Symphony Woods in downtown Columbia, reigniting excitement about the future of one of the signature places in the county. In his pursuit of that vision Michael left behind two tangible legacies, one architectural and one institutional: the striking green Chrysalis amphitheater that forms the centerpiece of the park, and the Inner Arbor Trust created to oversee the park’s future development.

Beginning in late 2013 I took a personal interest in Michael’s vision for Symphony Woods, and since then have written over a hundred thousand words on his “Inner Arbor” plan, and in particular on the design and construction of the Chrysalis. During those years I also had extensive correspondence with Michael, as he generously shared photos, plans, and other material relating to the Chrysalis and the park for use in my writing.

It was not unusual for me to publish an Inner Arbor- or Chryalis-related post and then shortly thereafter get a call from Michael offering additional information, or providing his own thoughts on how things were going. He also shared with me a fair amount of insider gossip about the various people and organizations involved with the Chrysalis and Inner Arbor plan to one degree or another. (Needless to say I left that material out of my writing, except in those cases where I could independently confirm it from public sources.)

Thus although I can’t provide a full account of Michael’s life and work, I feel more able than most to assess his legacy when it comes to Columbia.

Michael McCall, developer

In the title of this post I very deliberately referred to Michael as the “developer” of the Chrysalis, not as the “creator” or a similar term. In Howard County these days the word “developer” has become for many a slur, as they attribute most if not all of the county’s problems, ranging from school overcrowding to traffic congestion to flooding in Ellicott City, to “greedy developers” and their alleged quest to pave over the county in pursuit of profit.

But I think it’s appropriate to call Michael a developer, and I think he would have accepted the designation gladly. He was not responsible for the visual appearance of the Chrysalis, for the design of its structural steel backbone, for the creation of its green aluminum skin, or for the detailed architectural work needed to make it work for its users and visitors. Those responsibilities fell in turn to the New York-based designer Marc Fornes of THEVERYMANY, the international engineering consulting firm Arup, the A. Zahner Company of Kansas City, Missouri, and the Baltimore firm Living Design Lab, the architects of record.

What Michael did was everything else: creating an overall vision and strategy for Symphony Woods, selecting designers and architects for the various components of the Inner Arbor plan, working with and securing funding from various sources, including Howard County and the Columbia Association, taking the project through the Howard County design approval and planning process, overseeing and managing all of the various firms involved in design and construction, and in general working to see these activities through to the successful completion of the Chrysalis and its opening to the general public.

These are exactly the things that developers do. Michael himself started his career working with one of the most well-known and revered American developers, Jim Rouse, who was responsible for the creation and development of Columbia and then later founded the nonprofit Enterprise Foundation (now Enterprise Community Partners) to support the development of affordable housing across the country.

In 1982 Michael left his home state of Minnesota and moved to Columbia to join the Enterprise Development Company, the for-profit subsidiary of the Enterprise Foundation. He worked there for ten years before leaving in 1992 to found his own development consulting firm, Strategic Leisure. In that capacity he worked on a number of development projects across the US and elsewhere in the world—but never in Maryland, Howard County, or Columbia.

The Inner Arbor plan and the creation of the Chrysalis

Amost twenty years later Michael came to be involved with Symphony Woods, as the Columbia Association was encountering problems with county design and planning authorities in its attempt to develop a park—an attempt that came after decades of what can best be described as benign neglect of the woods on the part of CA and others.

Michael first appeared in the public record for Columbia with comments during the “Resident Speak Out” period at a Columbia Association board meeting on September 22, 2011. He agreed with the concerns about CA’s Symphony Woods plan expressed by the county’s Design Advisory Panel, and questioned the lack of an overall unifying strategy for developing the park.

Michael’s comments did not go unnoticed. Introduced by his mentor, George Barker, his former manager at the Enterprise Development Company, beginning in 2011 and continuing through 2012 he entered into a series of conversations with various people and entities involved in downtown Columbia development, including Howard County, the Howard Hughes Corporation, I.M.A. (operators of Merriweather Post Pavilion), and the Columbia Association itself.

The result of those conversations was a concept plan for what McCall called the “Inner Arbor” project (punning on Baltimore’s Inner Harbor festival marketplace, one of Jim Rouse’s most famous projects), intended to fulfill the vision expressed in the Howard County General Plan that Symphony Woods become “a new kind of cultural park, where the landscape becomes a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses”. That concept plan was adopted by the Columbia Association Board of Directors on January 24, 2013, as the board abandoned its previous plan for Symphony Woods in response to further hiccups in the Howard County planning process.

Soon afterward the Columbia Association board also decided to establish a separate organization, the Inner Arbor Trust, to implement the previously-adopted concept plan for Symphony Woods, under a perpetual easement from CA. On May 10 the Inner Arbor Trust officially came into existence, with Michael as its first President and CEO.

Things moved fairly quickly after that, at least in comparison to previous Symphony Woods plans. Michael spent the summer selecting a design team for the project, and in November presented the full design team, including designer Marc Fornes, in a public meeting held soon after the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Columbia. The end of the year saw the public presentation of plans for various park structures, including the Fornes-designed Chrysalis amphitheater.

The year 2014 saw the Inner Arbor Trust receive official 501(c) tax-exempt status (January), the Inner Arbor plan approved by the Howard County Design Advisory Panel (February), submittal to Howard County of a Site Development Plan, including final plans for the Chrysalis (May), and approval of that SDP by the Howard County Planning Board (November)—just ahead of a November 30 deadline set by the Columbia Association board.

After completing the easement agreement with the Columbia Association in December 2014, the first part of 2015 was taken up in securing further funding for the Chrysalis and negotiating additional legal agreements with various entities, including Howard Hughes Corporation and I.M.A. Actual construction activities for the Chrysalis began in earnest late in the year, after selection of Whiting-Turner as general contractor and A. Zahner Company as “design-build” contractor for the Chrysalis shell, and the official groundbreaking ceremony on September 22.

2016 saw the bulk of Chrysalis construction, including completion of the concrete “subfloor” (April and May), erection of the steel “skeleton” (completed in August), installation of the ZEPPS panels intended to support the aluminum “skin” (completed in October), and installation of the green skin panels themselves (completed in late 2016 or early 2017).

On April 22, 2017, the Chrysalis amphitheater, was officially dedicated and opened to the general public, and on May 1 Michael officially stepped down as President and CEO of the Inner Arbor Trust. (He was succeeded by Nina Basu, former general counsel of the Trust.) Michael went on to work on other development projects elsewhere, but his work in Columbia was done.

The institutional legacy

As noted above, Michael’s tangible legacy in Columbia can be divided into two parts: the Inner Arbor Trust and the Chrysalis amphitheater.

The creation of the Inner Arbor Trust resolved a long-standing problem, namely the relative inaction and inertia of the Columbia Association when it came to downtown Columbia in general and Symphony Woods in particular. Despite multiple attempts beginning in the 1990s to interest it in enhancing Symphony Woods as a community park for downtown, the CA board declined to take any action.

After the Columbia Association board did get around to proposing a plan for a Symphony Woods park, only to run into trouble with Howard County planning authorities, Michael provided them with both an alternative plan and an alternative way of getting that plan implemented, namely putting Symphony Woods development under the effective control of an independent nonprofit organization.

The success of that approach speaks for itself: in addition to successfully completing construction of the Chrysalis, under the continuing leadership of Nina Basu the Inner Arbor Trust has maintained and enhanced the park’s natural setting and has worked to attract visitors to the park, both through programming at the Chrysalis and such seemingly simple (but apparently never previously considered) steps as putting picnic tables in Symphony Woods.

The Trust has also continually evolved its plans for Symphony Woods to reflect budget and other realities (including in particular creating a revised concept plan), and in general has worked in conjunction with other stakeholders to enhance the overall appeal of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood (as Howard County planning documents refer to it).

The architectural legacy

The Chrysalis is a beautiful and striking structure, to my mind the most distinctive piece of architecture in Howard County, surpassing Merriweather Post Pavilion and the former Rouse Company headquarters turned Whole Foods Market (both I think overrated in retrospect because of their association with Frank Gehry).

It’s also becoming a very useful one. I once had a local politician express concern to me that the Chrysalis might end up as a “green elephant,” but I think it’s safe to say that that will not be the case. That’s in large part due to the work of the Inner Arbor Trust in encouraging and hosting a wide variety of local programming, from yoga classes and kid’s activities to celebrations of the cultures of Howard County’s diverse population.

Although Merriweather Post Pavilion has traditionally been thought of as Columbia’s main cultural venue, its size makes it much more suited for nationally-known touring acts and other events drawing audiences from across the entire Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area. For events targeted at a more local or more niche audience the Chrysalis is a much more suitable venue, more intimate and approachable.

As a result the Chrysalis is well on its way to becoming a beloved local landmark, a gathering place for the entire community, and a symbol of the evolving downtown of Columbia.

The intangible legacy

Like Jim Rouse, Michael’s reach exceeded his grasp. Jim Rouse sought to create a “new American city,” a “garden for the growing of people,” but a poor US economy in the 1970s and overall trends in society left Columbia as just a somewhat more diverse example of a typical American suburban bedroom community.

Similarly Michael had a vision of an arts and culture park in Symphony Woods worthy of comparison with Millennium Park in Chicago or Tivoli Gardens in Denmark, featuring the work of a host of world-class architects, designers, and artists—a park that could attract visitors from across the metropolitan area and even from elsewhere on the Eastern seaboard.

That dream was not and likely will not be fulfilled. Howard County is one of the wealthiest counties in the United States. However it has neither the concentrated private wealth that has funded signature parks elsewhere in the US (for example, the new Barry Diller-funded Little Island park in New York City) nor the governmental budget capacity to make up for the lack of private funding—especially given more pressing problems like the COVID-19 pandemic and flooding in Ellicott City.

Mindful of such realities and preferring things as they are, many residents of Columbia and Howard County, and more than a few community activists and local politicians, have been content to honor Columbia’s past while accepting a diminished future for it, simply tending the embers of a dying legacy.

In his desire to “make no little plans” Michael refused to believe that the best days of Columbia were behind it. He promoted a vision for Symphony Woods that could inspire a new generation, and in the Inner Arbor Trust and the Chrysalis gave us the first fruits of that vision. We can best honor his memory by keeping that vision in mind, and carrying on the work of creating a new park for Symphony Woods that he so determinedly began.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from my “Creating the Chrysalis” series, including in particular the post on Michael’s vision and strategy for Symphony Woods park development, and the post containing a complete timeline of events relating to the Chrysalis and Symphony Woods.

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and the development of Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised; for the very latest plans for the park see the article “A new plan for Symphony Woods.”

For more on Michael’s life and work see the Strategic Leisure web site. The Chrysalis and Merriweather Park page in particular has a lot of interesting material on how Michael himself saw his work in Symphony Woods.

tl;dr: The Inner Arbor Trust is revising its plans for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods to reflect new realities.

In April 2017 the Chrysalis amphitheater in downtown Columbia, Maryland, was opened to the public as the first element of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. The amphitheater was built by the Inner Arbor Trust, the nonprofit organization created to manage and develop the Symphony Woods property under a perpetual easement from the Columbia Association, the property owner.

Since then the Inner Arbor Trust has promoted and hosted a set of free events at the Chrysalis and hosted other events in the park, while at the same time planning for further development of the park, based on the so-called “Inner Arbor” plan. The Inner Arbor Trust is now proposing a revision to that plan, and recently held a briefing for the boards of directors of the Trust and the Columbia Association.

The Merriweather Post posted a good overview of the revised concept plan, so I won’t recap it in detail in this post. Instead I want to explore the factors I think are driving the revision and comment on the various elements of the plan.

Note: While I have been a long-time supporter of the Inner Arbor Trust and its plans for Symphony Woods, I have no formal affiliation with the Inner Arbor Trust, the Columbia Association, or any other of the organizations that are or might become involved with park planning. This post contains my personal opinions, and is based solely on the slide presentation and briefing video released to the general public by the Inner Arbor Trust.

New realities, new plans

This revised concept plan is the latest of three attempts to develop Symphony Woods as a park. Before discussing the new plan, let’s briefly review how we got here:

For forty years the Symphony Woods property was little more than a relatively neglected piece of land over which people traveled by car or on foot to get to Merriweather Post Pavilion, which it surrounds. Finally in 2008 the Columbia Association began planning for a park in Symphony Woods and, after an initial plan met with criticism during the Howard County planning process, adopted the Inner Arbor plan (referred to by some as the “McCall plan,” after its creator Michael McCall).

In 2013 the newly-established Inner Arbor Trust further expanded and refined the Inner Arbor plan, took it through the 16-step county approval process in 2014, and successfully built the Chrysalis amphitheater as the first step in creating the newly-named Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

Why is the Inner Arbor Trust now considering revising the existing approved plan? As an outside observer I can see at least three realities with which the Trust must contend.

First, the economic reality: As currently approved the Inner Arbor plan is a very ambitious plan, with a estimated price tag well into the eight digits just for the first phase. Although Howard County is a relatively wealthy county, it lacks the concentration of great individual or corporate wealth (e.g., in the form of a billionaire or Fortune 100 company) that in other locales has provided the bulk of funding for world-class public parks.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further strained the finances of those entities that might be candidates for funding Merriweather Park development. An anticipated slow economic recovery from the pandemic, coupled with a possible recession in the coming decade, would likely make it difficult to impossible to fully develop Symphony Woods as envisioned in the current plan.

The economic reality then influences the political reality: the Inner Arbor Trust will need support from as many as possible of the people and organizations who can influence funding decisions. It’s no accident that the new concept plan presentation begins with a list of all the stakeholders whom the Trust has consulted in the process of deciding on a plan revision.

This includes the Columbia Association in particular, since its approval is needed for any changes to the park plans. The Columbia Association is also currently involved in an legal dispute with the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission, owner of Merriweather Post Pavilion, and the tenor of that relationship may constrain the form of any future park development. (See the discussion below.)

Finally, priorities for park development have arguably been changed by the progress of the Howard Hughes Corporation’s development of the Merriweather District, including completion of Merriweather Drive and Symphony Woods Road bordering Symphony Woods on the west, south, and east, completion of the multi-use pathway next to those roads, and completion (or impending completion) of office, residential, and retail developments along Merriweather Drive.

The park and the pedestrian

Although Symphony Woods was designated as public open space from the very beginning of Columbia, making it fully accessible to the general public was not a major priority for most of its existence. Until recently there were only two pedestrian access points to the park, both intended primarily for getting people to and from Merriweather Post Pavilion: one pathway from Little Patuxent Parkway to the west gate of the pavilion, and a second pathway to the south of the pavilion leading from the then-undeveloped land used for parking during events.

Once within Symphony Woods there were no pedestrian pathways providing access to the other parts of the property. Visitors had to walk along the bare ground next to the fence surrounding the pavilion, walk on the sides of roads providing vehicular access to the Merriweather VIP parking lot and the backstage area, or take their chances on a turned ankle or an encounter with thorns by striking out into the woods to the east and south of the pavilion.

The original Inner Arbor plan partially rectified that lack, proposing a set of pathways in the northern part of Symphony Woods that would provide enhanced access from Little Patuxent Parkway back to the Chrysalis. However that plan provided nothing for the southern part of Symphony Woods, at least in the first phase.

Now that it’s possible to walk all the way around the park on the new multi-use pathways, that lack of pathways into and within the park has become quite glaring: walkers on Merriweather Road near the intersection with Hickory Ridge Road confront a set of guardrails and then a steep drop into a creek valley, while walkers on the sidewalk on the west side of Symphony Woods Road find a steep upslope broken only by a one-lane access road (Chrysalis Drive) intended for cars and trucks, and then a less steep drop into a second creek valley.

There are now a new staircase and ramp leading from Merriweather Drive down to the previous path leading to Merriweather Post Pavilion. However, walkers seeking to go into the park proper still face a lack of pathways if they want to explore the creek and lake area to the south of the pavilion, or must take another steep hike up Dennis Lane if they want to go to the Chrysalis.

The revised concept plan proposes a set of new gateways into the park, along with an expanded set of pathways once you get into the park. Going clockwise from the western side of Merriweather Drive, these are as follows:

Southwest gateway: This proposed entrance point is not from Merriweather Drive itself, but under it, along the creek that runs below a bridge just south of the intersection with Hickory Ridge Road. As such it would provide a nice link into the park from what will be preserved open space between Hickory Ridge Road and the Juniper apartment complex.¹ The pathway from that point would then lead into the park to a short (45-foot) “hidden bridge” spanning the creek just south of the pavilion fence line.

Southern gateway: This is the most striking proposed gateway, consisting of a 290-foot pedestrian bridge carrying park visitors from the multi-use pathway along Merriweather Drive over the creek and onto a pathway next to Dennis Lane. (See above for the approximate location.) In the revised concept plan this bridge is shown alongside the existing path to the pavilion, including the staircase, ramp, and wooden bridge over the creek. However, the bridge would save visitors the hike down a couple of dozen feet to the creek and back up again, improving accessibility of the pavilion from the south, and could also provide access to ADA-compliant pathways within the park itself. Thus it can also be seen as a potential replacement for the current southern entrance.

Eastern gateway: This proposed gateway includes a shorter (78-foot) bridge from the sidewalk next to Symphony Woods Road over a second creek to the rear of the Chrysalis amphitheater. (See above for the approximate location.) If this were to be combined with a suitable crosswalk on Symphony Woods Road, it would provide a very convenient and accessible connection between the Chrysalis and the proposed New Cultural Center on the current site of Toby’s Dinner Theatre.²

Northeast gateway: This would include yet another bridge, this one 150 feet long, leading from the northeast corner of the park at Little Patuxent Parkway. This bridge would take the place of a boardwalk proposed in the current Inner Arbor plan, carrying visitors over the second creek and into an expanded set of pathways north of the Chrysalis.

Western gateway: I’ve left this one for last because it does not involve an expansion of pedestrian access, but rather a refinement of the access that already exists. As one of the presenters remarked during the briefing, this area (at the intersection of Merriweather Drive and Divided Sky Lane) is if anything over-supplied with paved access roads and pathways.

The problem is not therefore to provide access where there was none, but to make this area more visibly a part of the park and more welcoming to people walking into it. The revised concept plan proposes to rectify this by providing a terraced landscape that includes play spaces for children and a visitors center with restrooms.

The topic of restrooms leads us into the next section.

The park and the pavilion

Since the 2000s a common theme in planning for downtown Columbia has been the need to consider the combined Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods properties as a single whole, what the Downtown Columbia Plan dubs the “Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood.” In accordance with this approach Howard County planning authorities encouraged greater integration of activities, uses, and design features between Merriweather Post Pavilion and any park developed in Symphony Woods. (Among other things, this was one of the key recommendations the Howard County Planning Board made with respect to the Columbia Association’s original plan for a park.)

The current Inner Arbor plan takes this recommendation to heart, and proposes eliminating the existing fence between the Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods properties (at least along the northern boundary), incorporating the existing historic buildings and pathways within the pavilion as a shared area between the pavilion and park (perhaps with a fountain). Instead of a fence the Inner Arbor plan proposes controlling access to the pavilion via a long cylindrical structure, the Caterpillar, acting as an artificial berm separating the northernmost portion of the park from the area shared with the pavilion, and providing infrastructure for events within the park.

For various reasons the Caterpillar has always been one of the most controversial elements in the Inner Arbor plan. But beyond any concerns previously expressed, one major problem with the Caterpillar is that it assumes a very high degree of cooperation between the respective property owners and managers, cooperation that may be beyond the desire and ability of the various parties to sustain.

The revised concept plan, perhaps following the dictum that “good fences make good neighbors,” deletes the Caterpillar and proceeds on the linked assumptions that there will continue to be a fence between the two properties, and that visitors to the park would normally be locked out of the pavilion.³

This has various implications, beginning with the western gateway discussed above. The revised concept plan proposes constructing a small visitors center here, perhaps in the spirit of the original Exhibit Center built by the Rouse Company to welcome prospective Columbia residents. Whether or not that’s the case, the practical use of this structure would be to provide restrooms for visitors on the west side of the park—since the Merriweather Post Pavilion restrooms would be locked away behind the fence.

In the revised plan that fence would itself be either replaced or overlaid with a new fence, designed to be more aesthetically pleasing and to provide park visitors at least partial screening of the ice machines, golf carts, and other Merriweather Post Pavilion fixtures currently visible on the other side of the fence. Based on the slides in the revised concept plan presentation, the proposed fence could use wooden pickets spaced closely together, providing a visual tie-in with similar pickets used for railings at the Chrysalis.⁴

That would take care of the west and east sides of the fence, next to the western gateway and the Chrysalis respectively. In between, on the northern portion of the fence, the revised concept plan attempts to solve a problem and create an opportunity.

Because the area just north of the fence is heavily used by vendors and others during Wine in the Woods and similar events held in the park, alternative infrastructure to that within Merriweather Post Pavilion must be provided to support merchandise booths, food and drink stalls, and the like.

The revised concept plan addresses this need via a proposed covered walkway or colonnade located next to the fence, running east-west along what the plan terms the “Ridgeline.” This colonnade could be used for vendor stalls, for public art, or simply as a quick and easy way to get from the western gateway to the Chrysalis without having to take a longer route over other park pathways.

The plan further proposes locating a stage in the middle of this colonnade, providing the opportunity for small-scale performances either standalone or as part of larger events. For events that use both properties, gates in the fence on either side of the stage would open to provide free access for event-goers crossing between them, without their having to walk all the way to the east or west pavilion entrances.

Continuing clockwise, just as on the west side of the park there is a need for restrooms on the east side of the park near the Chrysalis. Currently that need is served by a temporary restroom located next to the historic building housing the Merriweather Post Pavilion staff.

However that temporary facility will be replaced at some point by a new restroom designed to alternately allow access to either park or pavilion visitors, depending on whether events are being held in Merriweather Park Pavilion or not. (Since visitors will be allowed in the park during most Merriweather Post Pavilion events, they would still need to be accomodated during those times; presumably the proposed visitor center restrooms would fill that need.)

Priorities and pitfalls

Overall I think the revised concept plan does a good job of addressing the realities that development of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods will need to deal with going forward. However there are still decisions to be made regarding priorities in proceeding with the next phases of development, as well as potential pitfalls along the way.

In terms of priorities, the first order of business is to complete the already planned and funded pathways in the northern section of the park. The first portion of this pathway system has recently been completed, and provides pedestrian access from Little Patuxent Parkway into the northeastern portion of the park and from there to the Chrysalis. The next portion of this pathway system will extend the current pathway system further west into the northwestern section of the park. When completed this pathway system will help address the needs of events like Wine in the Woods.

What will the next park improvements be after that? That will I think depend on higher-level priorities. I see two general ways to go:

The first is to prioritize the needs of events like Wine in the Woods that use the northern part of the park. For example, this might drive earlier construction of the above-mentioned colonnade and stage running along the northern boundary of Merriweather Post Pavilion.

The second approach would be to serve the needs of the new Merriweather District developments to the south of the park. For example, constructing pathways along the lake might encourage residents and workers from those buildings to explore the park’s southern reaches and build more awareness of and support for further proposed park developments like the southern gateway.

There are also potential pitfalls along the way. Soliciting support from as many organizations as possible will help with fundraising and gaining financial support from Howard County and the state of Maryland. However it also invites potential micromanaging of park development in a way that may detract from the overall vision for the park.

For example, the Downtown Columbia Plan envisions the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood as “a new kind of cultural park . . . a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses.” Taking its cue from this, the Inner Arbor Trust advertises Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods as a place where “where arts, culture, and community come together.”

However now that more residents and workers are moving into the Merriweather District and nearby areas, they may be looking for more conventional park features for recreational and other uses. As but two examples, in the concept plan briefing Virginia Thomas of the Columbia Association board discussed putting a bocce court in the park, and I can also see some local residents lobbying for a dog park—there’s already an area next to the multi-use pathway along Merriweather Drive with signs directed at dog owners.

Many if not all of these other uses may be ruled out by existing easements and agreements. However they may nonetheless end up distracting from the work needed to realize the park as one devoted to art and culture.

Speaking of art, and the art of architecture in particular, another area of difficulty may be realizing a high degree of design excellence for the park’s various features. In architecture there is sometimes a trade-off between aesthetics and practicality, and better-looking structures are typically more expensive to build and maintain. I can see designs like those presented in the concept plan for the gazebo, the Nest, and the two pavilions (see above) possibly being compromised in the interests of saving money and serving more utilitarian purposes. (Again, an example: in the concept plan briefing Alan Klein of the CA board suggested that the gazebo be redesigned to shelter park visitors from the rain.)

Thus although I think adoption of the revised concept plan would significantly increase the chances of completing the development of Merriweather Part at Symphony Woods according to the vision in the Downtown Columbia Plan and the Inner Arbor Trust mission statement, realizing that vision will still require much work and attention. As refinement of the plan continues I hope to be here to chronicle accomplishments and promote further progress.

For further exploration

For more information on the revised concept plan see the video recording of the briefing to the Inner Arbor Trust and Columbia Association boards, and the accompanying slide presentation [PDF]. For a briefer overview see the Merriweather Post article “Columbia’s ‘Central Park’: The Inner Arbor Trust Plan for Symphony Woods.”

For more information on the various attempts over the years to develop Symphony Woods as a park, see my history of Symphony Woods and an accompanying timeline of events up through May 2017, as well as my other posts on the Inner Arbor plan.

tl;dr: OPUS Merriweather 2018 repeated the success of last year and improved upon it.

The OPUS Merriweather festival, now in its second (and hopefully not last) year, has two purposes, one commercial and one artistic: to “disrupt the notions that Columbia is a sleepy suburb” (in the words of Vanessa Rodriguez, director of marketing at the Howard Hughes Corporation, the developer of downtown Columbia), and to “offer a platform for visionary artists to push boundaries, disrupt conventions, and create spaces of provocation and reflection” (per Caroline Maxwell, artistic director of Wild Dogs International, the Brooklyn-based curators of OPUS Merriweather). The OPUS 1 festival in 2017 was an excellent first step in achieving those goals, and the now-renamed OPUS Merriweather event improved upon its success.

This is not a detailed review, but I did want to highlight some things that went better this year, and a few things that I think still need improvement:

First, the quality of the art and music remains high. I don’t think there were any clunkers among the art I saw, and last year’s problem of lines for installations was definitely solved: If you wanted to see an art piece and knew where it was located then there was no problem getting to see it. (The only event where I had some difficulty seeing due to the crowd was Patrick Higgins’s and Monica Mirabile’s dance/music piece “Dossier X” staged under Matthew Schreiber’s laser installation “Gemini.”)

Particular favorites of mine included “Luminal Space Trilogy” by AES+F (surrealistic art films on a super-wide screen), Maren Hassinger’s “Pink Light” (a real crowd favorite for people who wanted to loiter under it and take pictures of one another), and the above-mentioned “Gemini” (one of the most beautiful laser installations I’ve ever seen, transcending the stereotype of flashy concert and planetarium laser shows).

The musical acts I saw were also high-quality: Quantic and Pantha Du Prince did great DJ sets, Kadhja Bonet and Sudan Archives are interesting up-and-coming musicians, and Oneohtrix Point Never is world-famous among people who follow indie music. (An online acquaintance of mine was supremely jealous of my being able to see OPN live, and for free at that.)

The split of music acts between the Chrysalis and the lawn stage worked well, with DJ acts on the lawn stage and other acts on the Chrysalis alpha stage. I didn’t hear much if any bleed-through of sound between the two venues. I’ll also repeat what I said last year on Twitter, that this event very much demonstrates that the Chrysalis is a capable and unique performance venue that is also very fan friendly—I had no difficulty seeing the stage from any spot or getting as close to the artists as I wanted.

Finally, the logistics of the event were pretty good, at least in my experience. Parking was straighforward and close (I had reserved a space in lot 2 right next to One Merriweather), and because I got there early I had no trouble getting food. Everything I had to eat was good, with the lychee and pork salad from Rose’s Luxury probably the best thing I’ve ever eaten at a outdoor festival. (It was expensive, but worth every penny.)

Now some thoughts on areas where OPUS Merriweather could further improve (it’s a fairly short list):

First, I thought the map provided to attendees was confusing and somewhat misleading. As an example, it shows the Yoko One piece “Wish Tree” on the north side of the Chrysalis stage, and I got very frustrated looking for it. It’s actually on the south side of the Chrysalis, next to the driveway down from the VIP parking lot (a much better and more accessible location, in my opinion). Also apparently mislocated on the map was the Hisham Bharoocha + 80881 piece “The Difference Between Difference and Difference Marked By Language,” which I saw the sign for only while leaving the festival.

Speaking of maps, I had to continually turn on the flashlight on my phone in order to consult the (paper) brochure containing the map and schedule of events. The brochure itself advertised an OPUS Merriweather app, but I couldn’t find any mention of it in the iOS App Store. Maybe this app was Android only, or was not finished in time for the event?

Finally, OPUS Merriweather showed yet again that Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods really needs a comphrehensive well-lighted pathway system. While there was a fair amount of ambient light, I spent more time than I would have liked stumbling through the dark trying to avoid tripping over electrical cables and other obstacles. I really hope the Inner Arbor Trust is able to secure funding (whether from the county, CA, or private donors) to be able to build the type of pathway system envisioned in the Inner Arbor plans.

Despite the glitches, I think OPUS Merriweather was overall a very successful event. I found it impossible to see and hear everything I wanted to, and regret missing some things, but that’s to be expected with a single-day festival with multiple simultaneous events going on.

As I wrote on Facebook a few days ago, I don’t think the target audience of OPUS Merriweather is Columbians or county residents, rather it’s residents and (especially) businesspeople in Baltimore and DC who are candidates to live, work, and open businesses in downtown Columbia. For that audience OPUS Merriweather offered a unique and worthwhile experience that they wouldn’t have expected to be in Columbia, and wouldn’t have been able to get where they live.

(As an example, Dan Reed of the Montgomery County urbanist blog “Just Up the Pike” tweeted “I’d love to see MoCo parks host events like #OpusMerriweather.” But Montgomery County has no equivalent to Merriweather Post Pavilion or the Chrysalis, and I think they’re key to making an event like OPUS work—simply having “lots of parks and open space” is not sufficient.)

The bottom line is that Wild Dog International did a great job of pulling together a stellar festival line-up, especially given the constraints of having it be an all-ages event and (presumably) not having art with overly political content. I don’t know whether OPUS Merriweather met Howard Hughes’s goals from a marketing perspective, but I’m glad they saw fit to sponsor the event, and hope they’ll continue to do so. My last act when leaving the festival last night was to visit Yoko Ono’s “Wish Tree,” where I wished for another OPUS Merriweather Festival next year.

Further exploration

• The OPUS Merriweather website provides a good preview of the event prior to its being held. The artist and curator interviews are particularly interesting.
• “In its second year, Columbia’s Opus arts festival aims to be ‘bigger and better’,” Amanda Yeager, Baltimore Business Journal, October 9, 2018. An article discussing the Howard Hughes Corporation’s plans and goals for OPUS Merriweather.
• “Wild Dogs In The Woods,” Karisa Senavitis, Ravelin Magazine. An interview with Ken Farmer and Caroline Maxwell of Wild Dogs International.
• The OPUS Merriweather Instagram feed (login required) offers a sampling of the events and art, with the #opusmerriweather Instagram tag providing reactions from attendees.

tl;dr: I have some final thoughts after completing my series on the Chrysalis and the background to its creation.

My previous post marked the end of my series “Creating the Chrysalis.” After twelve articles and a few hundred hours of writing I’m ready to take a break from writing about the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, although I’ll continue to support the work of the Inner Arbor Trust through my volunteer efforts (as at the recent Wine in the Woods event) and my donations.

However before I leave these topics (at least for now) I thought I’d take the opportunity to sum up my thoughts and opinions on the things I’ve been writing about. So without further ado here are some things I found noteworthy:

The neglect of Symphony Woods

For a tract of land that’s been the subject of so much attention and professed adoration these past few years, it’s really amazing to me how little a role Symphony Woods played in the life of Columbia for most of its history. Other than people crossing the property to get to Merriweather Post Pavilion, very little happened in Symphony Woods in the first 25 years of Columbia—even things associated with Symphony Woods in people’s minds, like the petting zoo and the Maryland Renaissance Festival, were mostly if not entirely located on the adjacent Rouse Company property and not in Symphony Woods proper.

1993 marked the first year in which more than token attention was paid to Symphony Woods, with the beginning of Wine in the Woods and attempts by Cy Paumier and others at LDR International to persuade the Columbia Association to develop Symphony Woods as a park. But again, nothing significant happened for another ten years, as proposals for a new park fell on deaf ears.

By 2003 Symphony Woods was completely absent from the Columbia Association’s list of (19!) strategic priorities (the outcome of an intensive two-year planning effort), and the LDR International proposal was so forgotten that Ken Ulman and Joshua Feldmark apparently stumbled onto it later that year like archaeologists discovering a long-lost civilization.

The lasting influence of GGP

This atmosphere of general disinterest in Symphony Woods was lifted only when a few years later General Growth Properties proposed its own plans for downtown Columbia, including building a road and various civic structures on the CA-owned Symphony Woods property. The resulting reactions from CA and others, along with the concurrent controversy over the proposal for a 23-story luxury condominium building near the lakefront (now the site of Little Patuxent Square), energized activists of all stripes to weigh in on the future of downtown Columbia in general and Symphony Woods in particular.

Whatever one’s opinions on the actual details, I think it’s clear that GGP’s proposals were the first attempts at serious planning for Columbia since the earliest days of the planned community, including reviving Jim Rouse’s practice of consulting outside experts in multiple disciplines. Many of the ideas for downtown Columbia we now take for granted first originated with GGP or in the parallel (and symbiotic?) Howard County planning effort.

This includes in particular the concept of an overall neighborhood encompassing Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion, and the idea of that neighborhood (which GGP referred to simply as “Merriweather”) as “a new kind of cultural park where the landscape becomes a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses.” To my knowledge this language first appeared in GGP’s proposed General Plan Amendment from 2008 (see page 12) before being written into law as part of the Downtown Columbia Plan in 2010 (see page 13).

Not all of GGP’s ideas were so felicitous. One bad idea that refused to die was trying to establish some sort of linear or otherwise formally geometric connection between The Mall in Columbia and Merriweather Post Pavilion. Such a scheme was previously hinted at in the north-south “Corporate Boulevard” envisioned in the county’s 2006 draft master plan for downtown Columbia (see for example page 2.2) and in the “major promenade-style walkway” from the Mall to Symphony Woods mentioned in the 2007 Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision (page 23).

However its fullest expression was in GGP’s 2008 plan, which included a linear “Merriweather Connection to Symphony Overlook,” complete with associated buildings, from Little Patuxent Parkway all the way to Merriweather Post Pavilion (see the illustration on page 53).

The idea of putting buildings and roads in Symphony Woods between The Mall in Columbia and Merriweather Post Pavilion was soundly rejected, but the allure of a north-south axis between the two lived on, most notably in the Symphony Woods Park plan created by Cy Paumier and his associates—even if it meant cutting a significant number of trees to fit in a formal pathway geometry.

The idea of a formal mall-pavilion axis didn’t receive significant pushback until the Design Advisory Panel and Planning Board reviewed the Symphony Woods Park proposal, and wasn’t killed off entirely until the creation of the Inner Arbor plan, with its philosophy of meandering pathways and tree preservation.

Why classical music left Merriweather Post Pavilion

I had originally planned for the timeline post to focus solely on Symphony Woods, the Inner Arbor plan, and the construction of the Chrysalis. However I soon decided that Merriweather Post Pavilion was integral to the overall history (just as it’s integral to the overall vision for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods), and so it was worth doing a parallel set of items discussing what was going on with the pavilion.

The conventional narrative about Merriweather Post Pavilion goes something like this: It was created as a home for the National Symphony Orchestra, the orchestra subsequently went bankrupt, and then the pavilion was permanently taken over by the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, the Who, the Grateful Dead, and Janis Joplin. This conventional narrative is not entirely wrong, but it omits some interesting wrinkles.

First, as best as I can determine the National Symphony Orchestra never went bankrupt. It did have financial difficulties and labor issues (including a musicians strike), and those problems did result in the NSO’s 1970 summer season almost being cancelled. However the NSO did survive (in fact, it still exists) and it continued to play concerts at Merriweather Post Pavilion, at least for a while.

I suspect that what really caused the National Symphony Orchestra to abandon Merriweather Post Pavilion was the opening (in 1971) of Filene Center at Wolf Trap Farm in northern Virginia (now Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts). Filene Center was a more elaborate facility closer to Washington DC, and was lavishly subsidized both by US taxpayers and by its namesake, Catherine Filene Shouse. (Compare Shouse to fellow heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post, who famously never gave a dime to support Merriweather Post Pavilion after Rouse named it for her.)

However the National Symphony Orchestra’s decamping to northern Virginia did not mark either the end of classical music at Merriweather Post Pavilion or its final takeover by rock acts. Instead, by means of some hefty subsidies the Rouse Company was able to entice the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra to begin playing summer concerts at the pavilion, starting in 1974. The BSO went on to play at Merriweather Post Pavilion for several years.

Like the National Symphony Orchestra, the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra was also lured away from Merriweather Post Pavilion, this time by the promise of a new performance center in Oregon Ridge Park north of Baltimore (off I-83 near Hunt Valley) and the efforts of Baltimore County Executive Donald Hutchinson and BSO patron Joseph Meyerhoff. Despite at least two attempts that promise never materialized. Nevertheless the BSO left Merriweather Post Pavilion for good after the 1981 summer season.

(Howard County chauvinism compels me to add that the BSO’s performance space in Oregon Ridge Park is no great shakes; it looks like nothing more than an upgraded version of the amphitheater at Centennial Park.)

In the meantime, during the BSO years the Rouse Company also tried to keep rock acts away from Merriweather Post Pavilion, as the pavilion played host to a parade of middlebrow pop stars like Engelbert Humperdinck and Perry Como. Rock acts eventually came back, but then in 1995 northern Virginia gave birth to another Merriweather Post Pavilion competitor, Nissan Pavilion (later, and unfortunately, renamed Jiffy Lube Live).

In the end the story of Merriweather Post Pavilion is not just that of the decline of classical music and the rise of rock, though that’s certainly a factor. I think it’s also a function of Howard County’s occupying a somewhat-awkward position between Washington and Baltimore, and not being the beneficiary of patronage from the cultural and political power brokers of either.

Thus Merriweather Post Pavilion’s continued survival has relied, and I think will continue to rely, primarily on the willingness of Howard County residents to support the pavilion both directly and indirectly. This includes the pavilion renovations (partly funded by the county), the work of the nonprofit Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission (also partly county-funded), and of course the county’s contributions toward realizing the larger vision of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

Beyond Jim Rouse and the “pioneers”

With this year marking the 50th birthday of Columbia we’ll hear a lot about Jim Rouse and his role in creating Columbia, and likely also a lot about the “pioneers,” those individuals and families who were the first residents of the newly-created community. Given that, I think it’s appropriate to spare a thought for two other groups of people who won‘t be highlighted quite as much in these celebrations.

The first is the Howard County commissioners who gave Rouse the green light to proceed with the development of Columbia, along with the county government personnel who cooperated with the Rouse Company in getting it planned and built. The commissioners in particular paid a heavy price for their role in creating Columbia, as the rapid influx of new residents tilted the voter population heavily toward Democratic-voting Columbia residents and led to a takeover of the county’s political establishment that sidelined the previous generation of politicians. (For more on this process see my book Dividing Howard: A History of County Council Redistricting in Howard County, Maryland.)

The second (and for our present purposes more important) group is the new generation of politicians, civic leaders, and activists who came to prominence in the first decade of the 21st century. In particular 2006 marked the election of Ken Ulman as Howard County executive, as well as the election of a completely new set of County Council members: Calvin Ball, Greg Fox, Mary Kay Sigaty, Jen Terrasa, and Courtney Watson.

The “class of 2006” remained intact and at the helm of Howard County government for the next eight years, during which the foundations for the future of downtown Columbia were laid, including the creation of the 2010 Downtown Columbia General Plan, detailed planning for the Crescent property inherited by the Howard Hughes Corporation from the Rouse Company and GGP, the agreement for and funding of renovation of Merriweather Post Pavilion, the pavilion’s transfer to the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission, and (last but not least from our point of view) the funding of the Inner Arbor Trust’s work on the Chrysalis after the Columbia Association board’s approval of the Inner Arbor plan.

That work has continued under the new administration of Allan Kittleman, with four out of the five “class of 2006” council members continuing to serve through 2018. (Courtney Watson resigned from the council to run unsuccessfully for County Executive against Kittleman.) Recent events have included the Tax Increment Financing plan for the Crescent development (or as Howard Hughes has taken to calling it, the Merriweather District), more funding for the Chrysalis, and (beyond downtown) plans for the village centers.

Also worthy of note are people who are not elected officials (at least, not yet) but who fill key leadership roles within Howard County and help knit together the civic fabric of the county. There are too many of these people to list them all, and I don’t want to slight anyone by not mentioning them, so I’ll simply say that you can find this next generation serving on government boards and commissions, serving as executive directors and board members of nonprofit organizations, and otherwise advocating for a positive future for Columbia and Howard County. You can also find some of their activities and achievements highlighted in my previous timeline post.

I hope that when Columbia celebrates its 100th birthday this second generation of Columbia and Howard County leaders will be given due recognition for their roles in creating the new Columbia of the 21st century.

It pays to bring in the best

At the dedication of the Chrysalis Michael McCall called up to the podium three people whose input concerning technical requirements influenced the final form of the Chrysalis: Brad Canfield of I.M.A. (who provided an example “technical rider” from the EDM artist Skrillex), Toby Orenstein of the Columbia Center for Theatrical Arts (who suggested the need for a smaller secondary stage), and Coleen West of the Howard County Arts Council (who was concerned that the stage floor to be springy enough for dance performances).

I’ve previously described the innovations inherent in the Chrysalis’s form as well as the demanding nature of the technical requirements put on it as a proposed venue for popular musical acts and theater and dance performances—requirements due in large part to the suggestions of Canfield, Orenstein, and West. As many an IT shop and defense contractor has learned to its regret, combining visionary technology with stringent and often evolving requirements can be a recipe for disaster.

Fortunately, that didn’t happen with the Chrysalis. (If it had I would have written a very different series, or perhaps no series at all.) In my opinion the reason why it didn’t happen is the overall high quality of the design, engineering, fabrication, and construction team put together by the Inner Arbor Trust: when potential problems arose there were people available who knew what they were doing and were able to work with others on the team to produce a successful outcome.

Bringing in the best possible people and organizations to get something done isn’t exactly a new thing in Howard County. The Rouse Company’s 1964 presentation on Columbia lists over sixty consultants and advisors that Jim Rouse sought out for help in planning the new city—not just from Washington and Baltimore but from all over the US.

The bottom line is that it pays to go for the best, both in the quality of the final product and in the avoidance of obstacles to producing it. That’s a lesson to keep in mind as we look to the future phases of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. We’re fortunate to have a beautiful design for the next major park feature, the Butterfly guest services building, created by the upcoming Brooklyn-based firm nARCHITECTS (recently named #9 for design in the Architect Magazine 2016 Top 50 list). Hopefully the Inner Arbor Trust will be able to attract the funding necessary to get that design realized as it was originally envisioned.

Local news and the risk of losing our history

The celebration of Columbia’s 50th birthday will also feature artifacts and documents collected by the Columbia Archives. The Archives has done a great job of preserving the early history of Columbia, and some of the fruits of that effort are available online, including its own timeline.

However the period of most interest to me is not the first decade or so of Columbia but rather the last decade or so, during which the future form of downtown Columbia was debated and plans for a park in Symphony Woods finally moved forward. For that period I relied almost totally on online sources both free and paid, and came to two conclusions:

The first is a cliché by now: that there is no substitute for professional news reporting done at the local level. Time after time I found myself consulting local newspapers, most notably the Baltimore Sun, in an effort to confirm what happened when and who said what about it.

Gone forever are the days when Howard County could support a multiple-person staff of Sun reporters, along with independent reporting from the Columbia Flier and Howard County Times. Now we’re lucky to have one person assigned to the Howard County beat, and those people typically move on to other things within a year or two. But I’m still grateful for what we have.

However, when it comes to researching the past (as opposed to following current affairs) our local papers do have some major disadvantages, for example, the lack of a usable online archive for older issues of the Columbia Flier and Howard County Times. And once you get beyond newspapers to other sources of online information the picture gets even worse.

For example, in some of my previous posts I linked to various documents on the Howard County government web site. Many of those links no longer work, victims of an apparent reorganization of the county’s internal document management system. Similarly, you can no longer find online records of many past Columbia Association board meetings, since CA’s board page now includes only meetings since January 2014. Even the Inner Arbor Trust’s extensive collection of construction photos and related materials is no longer visible due to a revamp of the Trust’s web site (although old links still work).

The list goes on: Looking for the columbiatowncenter.info web site that GGP used to promote its downtown plans? Gone, and preserved elsewhere only in fragments. How about online copies of presentations and other documents used in public meetings on proposed developments (e.g., pre-submission meetings, Design Advisory Panel meetings, and Planning Board meetings). Mostly never posted online, and now either sitting on a private hard drive somewhere or sent to the recycle bin. What about video recordings of those public presentations? Are you kidding me? Nobody bothered to film them.

The above may sound like the grumblings of a frustrated amateur historian, but I think it reflects a larger truth: For people living in and (especially) growing up in the 21th century, if something isn’t online and easily findable via search engines then it might as well not exist. How are our descendants going to celebrate the second fifty years of Columbia in 2067 if large chunks of the history of those years are lost forever, tossed in the digital dustbin?

I think this is so important a topic that I hope to post more on it later.

Questions and answers

Now for some semi-random questions and answers, in which I get to interview myself:

• Q: Why did you write this series?

  A: Because I wanted to promote the work of the Inner Arbor Trust in creating Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, and because I thought it would be an interesting thing to research and write about. (And indeed it was.)

• Q: How much time did you spend writing and researching the series?

  A: I have no idea. Probably a few hundred hours all told, given that each article took at least 10-20 hours from start to finish, and a few took significantly longer.

• Q: Why didn’t you include links to the newpaper stories in your timeline post? After all, many of them can be read online at no charge.

  A: Because I ran out of time and energy. There are almost four hundred references in the timeline, and unfortunately many if not most of the newspaper stories either are not online or if online cannot be found by searching for the title of the story as it appeared in print.

• Q: Do you plan to turn this series into a book?

  A: No. I’d be very surprised if the core readership of my blog exceeds one hundred people, and based on past experience the audience for any book would be an order of magnitude less than that. Reshaping the series into a book just isn’t worth the time that would be needed to do a good job of it.

• Q: Is there anything you wish you’d included in the series but didn’t?

  A: Yes. It wasn’t until a few weeks ago that I heard the story (from Kevin Day of Living Design Lab) of why the Chrysalis shingles have four different colors (and not, for example, three colors or five): it’s because there were four large coils of sheet aluminum used in fabricating the shingles, with each coil assigned a different color.

• Q: What’s your opinion on the future of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods?

  A: I think the Inner Arbor Trust is in good hands, and I’m content to simply sit back and let Nina Basu and the Trust’s board decide how best to pursue funding and constructing the remaining phases of the park.

• Q: What will you write about now?

  A: I have some ideas, but I’m not ready to talk about them yet. As Jason Booms of the local blog Spartan Considerations puts it, “stay tuned, as more will follow” (but not necessarily that soon).

Thanks and acknowledgements

To conclude this post I want to thank the many people without whom creating this series would have been impossible, or at least much more difficult than it was:

• The reporters of the Baltimore Sun and the Columbia Flier, especially those who covered downtown Columbia developments (including those related to Symphony Woods) in the GGP and Howard Hughes eras, including (in chronological order) Laura Cadiz, Larry Carson, Janene Holzberg, June Arney, Lindsey McPherson, Sarah Toth, David Greisman, Luke Lavoie, Amanda Yeager, and Fatima Waseem. (Luke Lavoie’s work was especially important, accounting for over ten percent of the almost four hundred sources I cite.)

• Marc Fornes and THEVERYMANY, who graciously gave me permission to reproduce a broad collection of renderings and photographs of both the Chrysalis and other THEVERYMANY projects, along with Zahner, Arup, and Living Design Lab, who also contributed various illustrations.

• The Columbia Archives and Columbia Association staff, for providing online access to key historical documents.

• And, finally, Michael McCall, whose thorough documentation of the work of the Inner Arbor Trust made this project tractable, and whose comments and suggestions helped make the series as comprehensive and accurate as possible—and, of course, whose work in creating and implementing the Inner Arbor plan meant that there was something for me to write about in the first place.

And with that I’m signing off for now . . .

tl;dr: The “Creating the Chrysalis” series ends with a timeline of significant events in the history of the Chrysalis, Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, and the surrounding downtown Columbia area, from 1962 to the present, with references.

This article is the last in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

Previous articles in this series discussed in detail various aspects of Symphony Woods, the Inner Arbor plan, the Chrysalis, and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. This article provides a timeline of events concerning these and related topics, including in particular downtown Columbia development and the evolution of Merriweather Post Pavilion, from the creation of Columbia to the present. It includes references for all events discussed in the timeline, and a final section listing additional sources of online information concerning the topics of this article.

1962

Jim Rouse begins the process of creating Columbia.

• April: Jim Rouse begins investigating acquiring land in Howard County, Maryland.

  Gunts, Edward. “50 years ago, a city was started behind scenes.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 19 Feb. 2012, p. 1G.

• October 15: Jim Rouse proposes to Connecticut General Life Insurance a venture to “plan and develop . . . a New City of approximately 100,000 people” between Baltimore and Washington.

  Rouse, James W. Letter to Irving G. Bjork. 15 Oct. 1962, issuu.com/columbiaarchives/docs/1962-10-15-letter. Accessed 6 May 2017.

1963

Howard County learns of Rouse’s plans.

• October 29: Jim Rouse announces to Howard County officials and residents his intent to build a planned community on almost 14,000 acres of land recently acquired by Howard Research and Development, a joint venture between his company and Connecticut General Life Insurance.

  Pickett, Edward G. “14,000 acres in Howard to be developed.” Baltimore Sun, 30 Oct. 1963, p. 44.

1964

The idea of Symphony Woods first appears in print.

• November 11: Howard Research and Development publishes a marketing brochure for Columbia. Among other things, the brochure promises the establishment of a park on a 40-acre tract of wooded land in Columbia Town Center.

  Community Research and Development, Inc. Columbia: A New Town for Howard County. 11 Nov. 1964, p. 28, issuu.com/columbiaarchives/docs/columbia_a_new_town. Accessed 6 May 2017.

1966

Construction of Columbia begins.

• June: The Rouse Company retains contractors to do clearing and grading in and around the future Village of Wilde Lake, including grading the lake bed and building access roads for construction equipment.

  “Clearing to start in Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, 19 June 1966, p. 7F.

1967

Columbia, Merriweather Post Pavilion, and Symphony Woods are opened to the world.

• June 21: Columbia officially opens with the dedication of Wilde Lake, followed by an opening to the general public five days later.

  Lewis, Jack. “Columbia opening slated.” Baltimore Sun, 18 June 1967, p. 2F.

  “New village—familiar name.” Hartford Courant [Hartford CT], 23 June 1967, p. 19.

• July 14: Merriweather Post Pavilion officially opens with an inaugural performance by the National Symphony Orchestra. The pavilion is located within a 10-acre area owned by the Rouse Company, entirely surrounded by a 37-acre area designated as Symphony Woods and owned by the Columbia Association (the homeowner’s association created by Rouse for Columbia).¹

  Hill, Frederic B. “Wet throng hails Columbia, Rouse, Humphrey, and music.” Baltimore Sun, 15 July 1967, p. 20B.

  Hume, Paul. “Merriweather Post Pavilion opens to critical acclaim.” Washington Post, 16 July 1967, p. D1.

  Arney, June. “Makeover for Merriweather.” Baltimore Sun, 26 May 2008, p. 1B.

1968

Merriweather Post Pavilion focuses on classical music.

• Merriweather Post Pavilion hosts performances by the National Symphony Orchestra and other artists, including Van Cliburn, Benny Goodman, and the New York City Ballet.

  “Season preview at the Post Pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, 19 May 1968, p. 14D.

1969

As the National Symphony Orchestra experiences labor difficulties and financial problems, popular music begins its takeover of Merriweather Post Pavilion.

• Spring–summer: Merriweather Post Pavilion begins to host rock acts, including Led Zeppelin, Blood Sweat and Tears, Richie Havens, Janis Joplin, and Iron Butterfly.

  Cowan, Richard. “With a little help . . .” Washington Post, 25 May 1969, p. B8.

  “Summer adventure in performing arts.” Columbia Flier, 18 June 1969, p. 1.

• October–November: The National Symphony Orchestra endures a six-week strike by musicians.

  Ross, Nancy L. “Musicians call halt to strike.” Washington Post, Nov. 24 1969, p. A1.

1970

The popularity of Merriweather Post Pavilion with rock acts leads to expansion and crowd control issues.

• Merriweather Post Pavilion expands its capacity by 2,000 by adding loge seating under canvas tents to the sides of the main pavilion and putting more seats in the aisles of the main pavilion.

  “New addition to Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, 12 May 1970, p. B6.

• June 27: After uncertainty over its financial situation, the National Symphony announces that it will have a full summer season at Merriweather Post Pavilion after all.

  Kriegsman, Alan M. “Symphony saviors.” Washington Post, 27 June 1970, p. C1.

• June 28. Several hundred people enter Symphony Woods and break through fences to gate-crash a concert by Procol Harum at Merriweather Post Pavilion. Concerts the next two days by The Who and others draw up to 20,000 people with no further problems.

  Hodge, Paul. “Crowd crashes Post Pavilion.” Washington Post, 29 June 1970, p. 4A.

  Ross, Nancy L. “Rocking on.” Washington Post, 1 July 1970, p. B5.

1971

The Rouse Company outsources management of Merriweather Post Pavilion, as Wolf Trap opens and competes with the pavilion for classical music performances.

• January: The Rouse Company engages Nederlander Arts Associates to operate Merriweather Post Pavilion under a 10-year lease agreement.

  “New managers at Merriweather.” Baltimore Sun, 24 Jan. 1971, p. D15.

• June: The National Symphony Orchestra schedules four summer performances at Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  “National Symphony plans Post Pavilion concerts.” Baltimore Sun, 20 June 1971, p. B4.

• July: After testing a prototype elsewhere in Columbia, Antioch College proposes to construct a 30,000 square-foot inflatable structure on Rouse Company land next to Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion to house the college’s Human Ecology Center.

  “The ‘Bubble’.” Columbia Flier, 21 July 1971, p. 40.

  Clark, Michael J. “Big air-bubble campus planned.” Baltimore Sun, 2 Dec. 1971, p. C20.

  Clark, Michael J. “Antioch lays the cornerstone to pneumatic campus in Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, 7 July 1972, p. A9.

• July 1: Filene Center at Wolf Trap Farm Park in Northern Virginia opens with a concert featuring the National Symphony Orchestra.

  Sanders, Donald. “Park for the arts puts music in the Vienna (Va.) woods.” Baltimore Sun, 27 June 1971, p. D1.

1973

The Rouse Company and the Columbia Association try to attract more visitors to downtown Columbia, as the bubble bursts on another downtown scheme.

• Symphony Woods and the adjacent Rouse Company property next to the Columbia Mall host a 5-acre petting zoo during the summer.²

  Clark, Michael J. “Howard zoo’s 1st born a mule.” Baltimore Sun, 11 Sept. 1973, p. C13.

• October-December: Amid concerns about practicality, maintenance cost, and vandalism, Antioch College tries to sell its inflatable structure next to Symphony Woods, but “Mother Nature and larcenous scavengers” prove to be its downfall, as winds collapse the structure and thieves pick over the remains.

  Clark, Michael J. “College has bubble trouble.” Baltimore Sun, 26 Oct. 1973, p. A10.

  Clark, Michael J. “Scavengers plunder Antioch’s burst bubble.” Baltimore Sun, 6 Dec. 1973, p. C7.

1974

The Rouse Company attempts to steer Merriweather Post Pavilion away from rock and back to more traditional fare.

• January 29: The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra announces a series of performances at Merriweather Post Pavilion supported by funding from the Rouse Company, as Rouse executive Michael Spear notes the pavilion’s need to “change its image.”

  Galkin, Elliott W. “Symphony season adds Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Jan. 30 1974, p. B6.

  Clark, Michael J. “Merriweather drums out rock era.” Baltimore Sun, 30 Jan. 1974, p. C11.

• April: Nederlander Arts Associates suspends operations at Merriweather Post Pavilion for the 1974 summer season, citing restrictions on rock acts and the Rouse Company’s unwillingness to expand seating.

  “Columbia concerts reduced.” Baltimore Sun, 26 Apr. 1974, p. C4.

1975

The Rouse Company continues its efforts to avoid having Merriweather Post Pavilion become a rock venue.

• March 19: The Rouse Company discusses its efforts to get the state of Maryland to buy Merriweather Post Pavilion. Rouse executive Michael Spear notes that the responsibility for booking performers has left the Rouse Company “troubled by our ownership of the pavilion” ever since its creation, and that the pavilion has “lost several hundred thousand dollars since it opened.”

  Clark, Michael J. “Columbia pavilion up for sale.” Baltimore Sun, 20 Mar. 1975, p. D1.

• May: The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra schedules six summer concerts at Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  “Symphony slates summer concerts.” Baltimore Sun, 11 May 1975, p. D18.

1977

Crowd control problems continue at Merriweather Post Pavilion, and a new attraction opens near Symphony Woods.

• August 14: The Columbia Association bans trespassing in Symphony Woods during performances at Merriweather Post Pavilion. The ban is lifted less than two weeks later.

  Clark, Michael J. “Columbia revokes trespassing ban at Merriweather Post Pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, 25 Aug. 1977, p. 24C.

• September–October: The first annual Renaissance Festival is held next to Symphony Woods.³

  “A Renaissance Festival: First Annual Renaissance Festival, Columbia, Maryland.” Baltimore Sun, 16 Sept. 1977, p. 5B.

1978

More potential competition for Merriweather Post Pavilion appears, then recedes.

• April 8: Consultants to Baltimore County, including Frank Gehry, recommend constructing a new performance center at Oregon Ridge Park to replace Merriweather Post Pavilion as the summer home of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra. Advantages cited for the proposed center’s design include “better backstage facilities and wing and storage space than [Merriweather Post Pavilion].”

  Pietila, Antero. “Build Oregon Ridge pavilion, consultants say.” Baltimore Sun, 9 Apr. 1978, p. A1.

• November 7: By a 59%–41% margin Baltimore County voters defeat a plan to borrow $4 million to build the proposed Oregon Ridge performance center.

  “Voting on Baltimore county questions.” Baltimore Sun, 9 Nov. 1978, p. A11.

1979

Jim Rouse leaves the company that bears his name, and Merriweather Post Pavilion sticks to non-rock fare as the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra considers leaving the pavilion.

• March: Howard County Executive J. Hugh Nichols announces that the county will not issue concert permits for Merriweather Post Pavilion until a security plan is in place to control access to the pavilion and Symphony Woods during concerts.

  “‘Security plan’ required for pavilion at Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, 13 Mar. 1979, p. 5C.

• May: Jim Rouse steps down as CEO of the Rouse Company.

  “Annual meeting marks end of an era for Rouse.” Baltimore Sun, 24 May 1979, p. 15A.

• June 1: With “people like Paul Anka, [Engelbert] Whatshisdink, Perry Como, George Benson, Chuck Mangione, [Joan] Baez, and Judy Collins,” critic Tom Basham criticizes “blandness” in Merriweather Post Pavilion’s summer schedule, with the pavilion “serving cold turkey to rock fans this year.”

  Basham, Tom. “Dog days lie ahead.” Baltimore Sun, 1 June 1979, p. B6.

• June 21: Baltimore Symphony Orchestra President Joseph Meyerhoff proposes a scaled-down pavilion for Oregon Ridge park as the new summer home for the BSO.

  Trammer, Monte L. “Pavilion plan considered in county.” Baltimore Sun, 22 June 1979, p. C22.

1980

Symphony Woods continues to function mainly as the entry way to Merriweather Post Pavilion, as the pavilion continues to compete with Oregon Ridge Park for classical performances.

• Juny 2: Critic Stephen Sera reviews Baltimore Symphony Orchestra summer concerts and praises the acoustic quality of Merriweather Post Pavilion compared to Oregon Ridge Park.

  Cera, Stephen. “BSO does justice to Tchaikovsky.” Baltimore Sun, 2 July 1980, p. C3.

• September: In the course of a dispute between the Columbia Association and the operators of Merriweather Post Pavilion, Lt. James Robey of the Howard County Police Department (and later Howard County Executive) testifies that without the closing of Symphony Woods before and during Merriweather performances “there will be no pavilion.” Members of the Columbia Association Board of Directors⁴ complain that as a result families can’t picnic in Symphony Woods most weekends during the summer.

  Garland, Jeanne. “Pavilion operators ask the council to eliminate fee for closing woods.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 14 Sept. 1980, p. 3.

• November 4: By a margin of only 126 votes Baltimore County voters approve a $1.25 million bond issue to construct an Oregon Ridge performance center to be used by the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra. However the performance center fails to attract matching state funding.

  “Oregon Ridge barely won.” Baltimore Sun, 14 Nov. 1980, p. D2.

  Sin, Richard H. P. “Hutchinson drops bid for Oregon Ridge aid.” Baltimore Sun, 26 Feb. 1981, p. C20.

1982

Jim Rouse finds life after the Rouse Company, Michael and Barbara McCall move to Columbia as Michael begins working with Rouse, and the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra abandons Merriweather Post Pavilion.

• January: Jim and Patty Rouse found the non-profit Enterprise Foundation (later renamed Enterprise Community Partners) and its for-profit subsidiary, the Enterprise Development Company.

  Peirce, Neal R. “For the poorest.” Baltimore Sun, 18 Jan. 1982, p. 11A.

• Spring: Michael McCall and his wife Barbara move from Minneapolis to Columbia, and McCall joins the Enterprise Development Company as its fourth employee to work on various projects, including a joint venture with Walt Disney Co.

  Lavoie, Luke. “‘An awesome responsibility’.” Columbia Flier, 14 Mar. 2013, p. 1.

  Strategic Leisure. “Who.” Strategic Leisure, strategicleisure.com/who.

• May 26: For the first time in almost a decade the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra does not play at Merriweather Post Pavilion, instead scheduling summer concerts at Oregon Ridge Park and Pier 6 at the Inner Harbor.

  Cera, Stephen. “Summer concerts set in 3 locations.” Baltimore Sun, 26 May 1982, p. C17.

1983

One of the last non-Merriweather attractions at or near Symphony Woods shuts down.

• April 5. Someone sets fire to the backstage area of Merriweather Post Pavilion, causing $250,000 damage.

  “Pavilion fire ruled arson.” Baltimore Sun, 7 Apr. 1983, p. D2.

• July: The petting zoo at Symphony Woods closes due to lack of interest.

  Wyskida, Sherry. “Declining attendance brings close of Children’s Zoo.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 13 July 1983, p. 11.

1985

Symphony Woods loses another non-Merriweather attraction.

• February 28: The Maryland Renaissance Festival receives approval to move its operations from next to Symphony Woods to a dedicated site in Crownsville, Maryland.

  Clark, Michael J. “Renaissance festival gets OK for site.” Baltimore Sun, 1 Mar. 1985, p. 3D.

  Sarris, Marina. “Cultural diversity lost as Renaissance festival moves.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 10 Mar. 1985, p. 2.

1992

The Rouse Company makes a first attempt at developing its property next to Symphony Woods, as Michael McCall strikes out on his own.

• March 19: The Howard County Council (acting as the Zoning Board) rejects a request from the Rouse Company to build 300 apartments in Columbia Town Center next to Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods.

  Nelson, Erik. “Howard County officials trim plan for Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 21 Mar. 1992, p. 2B.

• April: Michael McCall founds Strategic Leisure, Inc.

  Lavoie, Luke. “‘An awesome responsibility’.” Columbia Flier, 14 Mar. 2013, p. 1.

  Strategic Leisure. “Who.” Strategic Leisure, strategicleisure.com/who.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2016.

1993

More than 25 years after its creation, interest grows in encouraging more use of Symphony Woods.

• May 15-16: The first Wine in the Woods festival is held in Symphony Woods.

  Nelson, Erik. “Wine gala is called a success.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 17 May 1993, p. 1B.

• November: The Columbia Association contracts with Land Design Research (later renamed LDR International), a firm founded by former Columbia planner Cy Paumier and his associates, to study ways to increase the use of Symphony Woods.

  Sachs, Adam. “Citizens group aims to influence plan for Symphony Woods.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 1 Dec. 1993, p. 3B.

1994

The first park plan for Symphony Woods appears, along with another new park attraction.

• November 10: LDR International presents the results of its study on development of Symphony Woods, recommending a pathway around the park with a more formal park entrance and boardwalks over environmentally sensitive areas, a formal garden and wildflower plantings, seating for picnickers, and a “sound garden” with hidden speakers or fountains. The plan is later estimated to cost $600,000.

  Sachs, Adam. “Path, boardwalk urged for Symphony Woods.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 Nov. 1994, p. 1B.

  Sachs, Adam. “Cost of upgrading Symphony Woods estimated at $600,000.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 12 Dec. 1994, p. 3B.

• December: The first Symphony of Lights display is held in and around Symphony Woods.

  “Drive through display of seasonal light scenes.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 15 Nov. 1994, p. 6B.

1995

Development in downtown Columbia and Symphony Woods is stalled, and the future of Merriweather Post Pavilion is uncertain.

• February 16: LDR International again presents its plan for Symphony Woods at a public hearing sponsored by the Columbia Association, amid concerns that the plan is “too extravagant” and recommendations to “move slowly” on the project, citing (among other things) the fact that the park is closed for Merriweather Post Pavilion concerts during the summer. Only one resident attends the hearing.

  Sachs, Adam. “Council to begin deliberations tonight on Columbia Association budget.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 16 Feb. 1995, p. 6B.

  Sachs, Adam. “Financial committee pans plan for recreational vehicle parking.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 17 Feb. 1995, p. 3B.

• February 27: Amid resident concerns about spending increases the Columbia Association Board of Directors votes to cut the CA budget, deferring several capital projects including a $102,000 project to dredge the pond in Symphony Woods, the first phase of the park plan proposed by LDR International.

  Sachs, Adam. “Council adopts budget.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 28 Feb. 1995, p. 1B.

• May: The Rouse Company asks Howard County for permission to build 345 apartments or condominiums next to Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods.

  Nelson, Erik. “345 apartments proposed for Town Center.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 16 May 1995, p. 1B.

• June: In his comments before the Howard County Planning Board regarding the Rouse Company’s rezoning request, Rouse executive Alton Scavo raises the possibility of Merriweather Post Pavilion being closed down, and also speculates about adding an arts, educational, and cultural center near the pavilion.

  Coram, James M., and Adam Sachs. “No overhaul of Pavilion is planned.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 19 June 1995, p. 1B.

• July: The Howard County Planning Board rejects the Rouse Company’s proposal to develop apartments next to Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods, citing the risk of the pavilion being forced to close due to noise complaints and the need to preserve downtown land for commercial development.

  Nelson, Erik. “Rouse plan for apartments near Post Pavilion denied.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 30 July 1995, p. 3C.

1996

The end of an era in Columbia.

• April 9: Jim Rouse dies.

  Lally, Kathy. “Urban visionary succumbs at 81.” Baltimore Sun, 10 Apr. 1996, p. 1A.

1997

The Rouse Company attempts to address issues with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

• April: Contracts are signed for an initial set of renovations at Merriweather Post Pavilion, designed to help it compete with other venues.

  “Post Pavilion improvements will permit larger-scale acts.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 23 Apr. 1997, p. 3B.

• October: As Merriweather Post Pavilion celebrates its 30th birthday, its size and outdated facilities make it less competitive compared to alternative venues like the new Nissan Pavilion (now Jiffy Lube Live) in northern Virginia.

  Hedgpeth, Dana. “Newer venues challenge pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 20 Oct. 1997, p. 1B.

1999

Merriweather Post Pavilion sees a new operator, but plans to create a park in Symphony Woods provoke little interest.

• March: Concert promoter SFX International takes over operations at Merriweather Post Pavilion from the Nederlander organization.

  Neal, Jill Hudson. “Merriweather concert lease goes to SFX.” Baltimore Sun, 23 Mar. 1999, p. 2C.

• March 25: Cy Paumier and LDR International present to the Columbia Association a proposal to make Symphony Woods more accessible to visitors.

  Niedowski, Erika. “Columbia looks to improve access to Symphony Woods.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 25 Mar. 1999, p. 3B.

• July 22: Cy Paumier and LDR International again present to the Columbia Association Board of Directors a proposal for Symphony Woods, and wait for the board to decide whether to begin discussions about it.

  Niedowski, Erika. “Symphony Woods renovation eyed.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 23 July 1999, p. 1B.

  Niedowski, Erika. “Marando calls for council review.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 13 Aug. 1999, p. 1B.

2003

The Rouse Company makes a last attempt at developing downtown Columbia and threatens to downsize Merriweather Post Pavilion, as others revive the idea of creating a park in Symphony Woods.

• March: The Rouse Company considers applying for permission to build more residential units in Columbia Town Center, and rumors circulate about the fate of Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Reconsidering Town Center.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 23 Mar. 2003, p. 1B.

• April 21: The Rouse Company proposes adding 1,600 residential units in Columbia Town Center next to Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion, helping to create a “vibrant urban center.”

  Cadiz, Laura. “Rouse subsidiary seeks OK for 2,141 more units.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 1 May 2003, p. 1B.

• April 24: After two years of debate and discussion, the Columbia Association Board of Directors approves a strategic plan for CA, including a list of 19 priorities for 2004 and other items for future years. Developing Symphony Woods as a park is not among them.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Columbia Council lists its long-term goals.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 1 May 2003, p. 3B.

• May 29: The Howard County Planning Board approves the Rouse Company’s request to add 2,141 new residential units, including about 1,600 units in Columbia Town Center. Rouse executive Dennis Miller pledges that units will not be built on the Merriweather Post Pavilion or Symphony Woods properties: “[Merriweather Post Pavilion] will always be used for the arts.” Miller later repeats the pledge to counter rumors that Merriweather Post Pavilion will be closed, although he notes that development could affect the pavilion’s parking lots.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Planning Board OKs additional housing units.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 30 May 2003, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Merriweather Post rumors denied.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 22 July 2003, p. 1B.

• July 23: The Rouse Company proposes converting Merriweather Post Pavilion into a year-round indoor theater, noting that the pavilion has been “deteriorating through the years.” Members of the recently-formed advocacy group Save Merriweather speak out against the plan.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Board delays Rouse hearings.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 25 July 2003, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Theater proposed for Post Pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 24 July 2003, p. 1B.

  Alexander, Sandy. “Fans want Merriweather to stay the same.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 24 Aug. 2003, p. 1B.

  “History and accomplishments.” SaveMerriweather.com, Save Merriweather, 2004, www.savemerriweather.com/history.html. Accessed 11 May 2017.

• September–October: As the Howard County Council (in its role as the Zoning Board) conducts a series of contentious public hearings on the Rouse Company’s proposals, council member (and future County Executive) Ken Ulman and Columbia Association board member Joshua Feldmark attempt to revive the idea of developing Symphony Woods as a park, citing their rediscovery of LDR International’s 1999 proposal to CA.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Windfall seen in building proposal.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 Sept. 2003, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Residents testify on Town Center proposal.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 12 Sept. 2003, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Press Rouse for details on housing, panel told.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 25 Sept. 2003, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “A vision of ‘Central Park’ in Howard.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 5 Oct. 2003, p. 1B.

  Carson, Larry, and Laura Cadiz. “Rouse Co. defends plan for zoning.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 21 Oct. 2003, p. 1B.

• October: The Rouse Company hires I.M.P., the owner of the 9:30 Club in Washington DC, to manage Merriweather Post Pavilion, replacing Clear Channel Entertainment (formerly SFX Entertainment).

  Cadiz, Laura. “New Merriweather management.” Baltimore Sun, 15 Oct. 2003, p. 3E.

• November 3: The Howard County Council holds its eighth and final public hearing on the Rouse Company’s proposal to add more residential units in Columbia Town Center and elsewhere.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Eighth hearing held on rezoning.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 4 Nov. 2003, p. 1B.

2004

The Rouse Company is absorbed into General Growth Properties, as the Howard County Council gets more involved in planning downtown Columbia and attendees see the first fruits of I.M.P.’s management of Merriweather Post Pavilion.

• January 21: The Howard County Council unanimously rejects the Rouse Company’s request to add 2,141 residential units to Columbia. Chair Ken Ulman cites the need for an analysis of possible revisions to Columbia’s New Town zoning scheme, as well as a desire for more details on pedestrian access, a possible Symphony Woods park, and other issues.

  Cadiz, Laura. “County board rejects Rouse’s downtown plan.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 22 January 2004, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Zoning denial spurs doubts about Rouse.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 25 Jan 2004, p. 1B.

  Pichaske, Pete. “Rejection could signal end of New Town zoning.” Columbia Flier, 29 Jan. 2004, p. 4.

• February–March: As the future of Merriweather Post Pavilion remains uncertain in the face of Rouse Company plans to convert it to an indoor theater, I.M.P. Productions previews its first season of events at the pavilion.

  Alexander, Sandy. “Venue posts concert dates.” Baltimore Sun, 5 Feb. 2004, p. 1E.

  Alexander, Sandy. “Merriweather Post holding on.” Baltimore Sun, 21 Mar. 2004, p. 62T.

• March 31: The Rouse Company files a court appeal of the Howard County Council’s rejection of its plans. (The appeal is ultimately unsuccessful.)

  “Rouse Co. appeals rejection of its plan to add homes in Columbia Town Center.” Baltimore Sun, 8 Apr. 2004, p. 3B.

  Wan, William. “Judge to rule on fate of land next to Merriweather Post Pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 13 Mar. 2005, p. 1G.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Plans for Columbia are moving forward.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 14 Sept. 2005, p. 1G.

• June: The Howard County Council decides to undertake its own comprehensive analysis of Columbia’s New Town zoning regulations, while Howard County plans to study the feasibility of purchasing Merriweather Post Pavilion from the Rouse Company.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Council abandons plans for citizen zoning panel.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 17 June 2004, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “County weighs buying Merriweather.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 24 June 2004, p. 1B.

• July: As I.M.P. works to make improvements to Merriweather Post Pavilion and increase revenue, Howard County Executive Jim Robey proposes financing a county purchase of the pavilion using ticket sales and concessions revenue.

  Alexander, Sandy. “Merriweather pavilion dances to a new theme.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 1 July 2004, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Tickets seen as source of funds for pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 4 July 2004, p. 1B.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Managers combat pavilion’s reputation.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 25 July 2004, p. 1B.

• July 28: County Executive Jim Robey creates a citizens advisory panel to advise him on whether Howard County should purchase Merriweather Post Pavilion from the Rouse Company.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Robey names panel to study pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, 29 July 2004, p. 3B.

• August 20: General Growth Properties (GGP) announces its intent to acquire the Rouse Company for $12.6 billion. Rouse executive Bob Rubenkonig announces “it’s definitely business as usual” as far as plans for Columbia and Merriweather Post Pavilion are concerned.

  Hopkins, Jamie Smith. “Rouse to sell to competitor.” Baltimore Sun, 21 Aug. 2004, p. 1A.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Rouse plans survive sale.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 24 Aug. 2004, p. 1B.

• September: As the Rouse Company renews I.M.P.’s contract to manage Merriweather Post Pavilion, I.M.P. co-owner Seth Hurwitz urges the citizens advisory panel on the pavilion to maintain it as an open-air venue, and pavilion manager Jean Parker points to the need for at least $5 million in repairs.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Firm that operates pavilion opposes plan to enclose it.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 29 Sept. 2004, p. 1B.

• September 13: The Howard County Council begins a series of public hearings on proposals to revise zoning regulations for Columbia.

  Cadiz, Laura. “County holds zoning forum.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 14 Sept. 2004, p. 1B.

• November 12: General Growth Properties concludes its purchase of the Rouse Company. As a consequence of the acquisition, GGP assumes responsibility for planning in Columbia Town Center.

  Hopkins, Jamie Smith. “Rouse, real estate innovator, moves into history.” Baltimore Sun, 13 Nov. 2004, p. 11C.

• December: As General Growth Properties encounters resistance to its new role in Columbia, the Columbia Association proposes holding a weeklong “charrette” in which residents, developers, and county officials could create draft proposals for downtown Columbia development.

  Wan, William. “Rouse buyer meets friction.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 19 Dec. 2004, p. 1B.

  “Columbia leaders propose a summit on land use.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 17 Dec. 2004, p. 2B.

• December 17: As Howard County’s exclusive right to purchase Merriweather Post Pavilion expires, the citizens advisory panel on the pavilion issues its preliminary recommendations, advising against converting it to an indoor venue. The panel also offers suggestions on addressing future parking needs at Merriweather Post Pavilion, including entering into parking agreements with nearby office buildings or building parking garages on the Symphony Woods property.

  Wan, William. “Howard rights to venue set to expire.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 19 Dec. 2004, p. 8B.

2005

Merriweather Post Pavilion is saved and is proposed as a center for culture and the arts for Columbia and Howard County, as GGP, Howard County, and others plot the future of Columbia’s downtown.

• January: The citizens advisory panel on Merriweather Post Pavilion prepares to make its final recommendations amid confusion and controversy about General Growth Properties’s plans for the pavilion and for downtown Columbia.

  Wan, William. “Fate of Merriweather Post Pavilion may be decided soon.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 16 Jan. 2005, p. 1B.

• March 18: The citizens advisory panel on Merriweather Post Pavilion produces its final report, recommending that Howard County purchase the pavilion, and advising “positioning Merriweather as a center for the arts, education and culture and making it an important regional and cultural force.” The panel recommends making about $19.5 million in renovations to the pavilion, including raising its roof.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Panel recommends Howard buy pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, 19 Mar. 2005, p. 3B.

  Citizen Advisory Panel on Merriweather Post Pavilion. Final Report. Howard County, 2005, frankhecker.com/assets/texts/citizens-advisory-panel-on-merriweather-post-pavilion-final-report.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.

• April 11: Howard County Council members Guy Guzzone and Ken Ulman announce Howard County Executive Jim Robey’s decision to fund development of a community master plan for downtown Columbia, in parallel with efforts by General Growth Properties to develop its own plan.

  Cadiz, Laura. “2 Town Center plans coming.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 13 Apr. 2005, p. 1G.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Mastering a plan for Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 17 Apr. 2005, p. 1G.

• April 12: General Growth Properties abandons plans to convert Merriweather Post Pavilion into an indoor venue and subsequently takes the pavilion off the market, declaring that “the [Town Center and Merriweather Post Pavilion] are linked.”

  Cadiz, Laura. “Howard pavilion to stay open air.” Baltimore Sun, 13 Apr. 2005, p. 1B.

  Carson, Larry. “Downtown plan for Columbia tied to pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, 1 May 2005. p. 1G.

• May 18: General Growth Properties holds a public meeting to unveil a draft plan for downtown Columbia, including a proposed development of three buildings in the Crescent property south and west of Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  Cadiz, Laura, and Larry Carson. “Developer unveils its plan for Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, 19 May 2005, p. 1B.

• June: General Growth Properties holds public “town hall” meetings to present a framework for a future master plan for downtown Columbia and discuss issues of traffic and walkability.

  “You’re invited to attend the 2nd Columbia town hall meeting.” Baltimore Sun, 10 June 2005, p. 5G.

• October: Howard County sponsors a weeklong charrette, a series of public meetings (originally proposed by the Columbia Association) to solicit input on the future of downtown Columbia.

  Wheeler, Timothy B. “A ‘there’ there: Seeking a more urban Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, 2 Oct. 2005, p. 6F.

  Otto, Mary. “‘Whatever happened to Tivoli?’” Washington Post, 13 Oct. 2005. p. T12.

  Blakely, Andrei. “Charrette gives public voice in planning of downtown.” Columbia Flier, 13 Oct. 2005.

  Blakely, Andrei. “Mass input guides new downtown Columbia.” Columbia Flier, 20 Oct. 2005.

2006

A vision for downtown Columbia starts to form, as the Columbia Association pulls back on its participation in planning efforts and a new generation of Howard County politicians takes power.

• February 27: The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning presents a draft master plan for downtown Columbia. It treats Symphony Woods, Merriweather Post Pavilion, and the Crescent property as an integrated neighborhood for planning purposes, and envisions it as “a cultural, residential, service retail, and office district.” It also suggests improving pedestrian access to Symphony Woods from the mall, and includes a rendering of a possible promenade from the mall terminating at a fountain in Symphony Woods just south of Little Patuxent Parkway.

  Cadiz, Laura. “Columbia plan is on way.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 26 Feb. 2006, p. 1G.

  Design Collective, Inc., and Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. The Columbia Downtown Master Plan (Preliminary Draft). Howard County, Maryland, 27 Feb. 2006, archive.org/details/CDMP1Intro. Accessed 11 May 2017.

• March 9: The Columbia Association Board of Directors debates a resolution to prohibit CA staff, including CA President Maggie Brown, from having private discussions with General Growth Properties and Howard County officials regarding downtown Columbia planning. The board votes to amend the resolution to instead require the staff to report on the times, places, and attendees for all such meetings, and not enter into any agreements without public review by the board.

  Even with the clarification provided by the resolution, confusion and controversy persist regarding the extent to which CA staff can or should discuss downtown Columbia planning issues with GGP, Howard County, or others.

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, Held: Thursday, March 9, 2006, Approved March 23, 2006. 23 Mar. 2006, p. 3.

  Columbia Association. Resolution on Downtown Partnership Meetings [as introduced]. 9 Mar. 2006.

  Columbia Association. Amendment to: Resolution on Downtown Partnership Meetings [as approved]. 9 Mar. 2006.

  Arney, June. “Much ado about meeting.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 2 Apr. 2008, p. 2U.

  Arney, June. “CA board ‘off to a good start.’” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 28 May 2008, p. 3U.

• October 19: General Growth Properties and Howard Community College sponsor the first in a series of “Voices of Vision” presentations in which invited speakers present on topics relevant to Columbia downtime planning. Further events are held in November 2006 and January 2007.

  “Columbia: ‘Grow or die’.” Baltimore Sun, 22 Oct. 2006, p. 1G.

• November 7: Ken Ulman is elected Howard County Executive. Calvin Ball, Greg Fox, Mary Kay Sigaty, Jen Terrasa, and Courtney Watson are elected to the Howard County Council.

  Paley, Amit R. “Ulman wins as Democrats strengthen hold on council.” Washington Post, 8 Nov. 2006, p. A43.

2007

Downtown planning efforts continue, and identify Symphony Woods as a key component of the vision for downtown Columbia.

• September 28: The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning releases a draft document Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision.

  Arney, June. “Howard releases ‘vision’ of town.” Baltimore Sun, 29 Sept. 2007, p. 1B.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision (Draft). Howard County, Maryland, 28 Sept. 2007, archive.org/details/DCCVDraft092807All. Accessed 11 May 2017.

• November: Columbia Association board member Cynthia Coyle and Alex Hekimian and Alan Klein (of the advocacy groups Alliance for a Better Columbia and the Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown respectively) protest General Growth Properties scheduling private meetings with members of Columbia village boards to discuss downtown redevelopment, citing provisions of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act.

  Arney, June. “GGP is holding private meetings on Town Center.” Baltimore Sun, 14 Nov. 2007, p. 1G.

• December 10: Greg Hamm replaces Doug Godine as Regional Vice President of General Growth Properties and general manager of Columbia.

  Arney, June. “GGP selects Hamm for post.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 12 Dec. 2007, p. 1G.

• December 28: The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning releases the final version of Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision. It recommends “both woodland restoration [of Symphony Woods] to enhance its value as a natural area and additional activities to meet its full potential as the ‘Central Park’ for Downtown.” It also recommends a promenade connecting Symphony Woods to the mall.

  Arney, June. “A downtown re-vision.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 30 Dec. 2007, p. 1G.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision. Howard County, Maryland, 28 Dec. 2007, archive.org/details/DCCV2007. Accessed 11 May 2017.

2008

General Growth Properties promotes its new plan for downtown, including Symphony Woods, and the Columbia Association reacts.

• January: The Columbia Association adds a preliminary budget item for a new CA headquarters, possibly to be located on CA-owned land in Symphony Woods next to Toby’s Dinner Theater.

  Arney, June. “Association offers 2009, 2010 budgets.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 16 Jan. 2008, p. 4U.

• March: General Growth Properties begins a series of four public forums to discuss the future of downtown Columbia. Alan Ward, one of the designers working on a GGP plan for downtown Columbia, comments on possible arts and cultural uses for Symphony Woods: “Merriweather Post Pavilion is important, but what else goes on in Symphony Woods? What could make it more part of the life and future of downtown?”

  Arney, June. “Trying to get Columbia on the right foot.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 9 Mar. 2008, p. 8U.

  Arney, June. “Architect shares Town Center ideas.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 Apr. 2008, p. 4U.

• April 3: General Growth Properties and the Columbia Association meet for the first time to discuss issues relating to downtown Columbia.

  Arney, June. “Much ado about meeting.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 2 Apr. 2008, p. 2U.

  Arney, June. “GGP, CA upbeat on meeting.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 9 Apr. 2008, p. 3U.

• April 28: General Growth Properties presents to the public a proposed master plan for downtown Columbia. The plan proposes a “cultural spine” linking The Mall in Columbia with a renovated Merriweather Post Pavilion, including a pedestrian promenade from the mall to the pavilion, multiple civic and cultural buildings within Symphony Woods, and a new road south of and parallel to Little Patuxent Parkway.

  Arney, June. “GGP reveals downtown Columbia plan.” Baltimore Sun, 29 Apr. 2008, p. 2B.

  Gunts, Edward. “Putting a ‘there’ there.” Baltimore Sun, 5 May 2008, p. 1C.

  “Downtown Columbia Plan: Overview.” Columbia Town Center, General Growth Properties, columbiatowncenter.info/MasterPlan.aspx. Archived 9 May 2008.

• May 10: General Growth Properties begins a series of “Vision in Focus” public presentations describing the proposed master plan, as well as a separate “Community Discussions” series. Consultant Gail Dexter Lord emphasizes the need for new cultural attractions in downtown Columbia, as controversy arises over GGP’s proposal to put buildings on CA-owned land within Symphony Woods.

  Arney, June. “Future Columbia transit previewed for residents.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 May 2008, p. 3U.

  Arney, June. “Culture is keynote of Columbia forum.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 14 May 2008, p. 6U.

  Arney, June. “Residents give GGP proposal mixed reviews.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 14 May 2008, p. 7U.

  Arney, June. “Makeover for Merriweather.” Baltimore Sun, 26 May 2008, p. 1B.

• May 22: The newly-elected Columbia Association Board of Directors meets and receives updates on the CA staff’s recent initial meeting with General Growth Properties. The CA board also authorizes making a formal request to Howard County officials to delay any zoning changes to give the board time to talk with officials. Board member Tom O’Connor notes that “we haven’t talked to them at all because we’ve had this embargo on [CA] staff talking to the county.”

  Arney, June. “CA board ‘off to a good start’.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 28 May 2008, p. 3U.

• June 26: The Columbia Association Board of Directors adopts a seventeen point position statement crafted by the Planning and Strategy Committee that articulates CA’s position on desired outcomes for downtown development, including that “Symphony Woods will be protected and will serve as Columbia’s Community Park.” The board also approves sending a letter to Howard County and GGP outlining its position.

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, Held: Thursday, June 26, 2008, Approved August 28, 2008. 28 Aug. 2008, p. 5.

• July 11: General Growth Properties previews its planned rezoning submission to Howard County in a public meeting. Among other things, the plan proposes developing “culturally themed buildings and green spaces” in the northern portion of Symphony Woods. In response to a concern expressed about “the incredible shrinking Symphony Woods,” GGP Vice President Greg Hamm remarks that “Symphony Woods is a seriously degraded environment” and points to reforestation plans for woods along US 29.

  Carson, Larry. “Views of the future.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 July 2008, p. 4U.

• July 24: The Columbia Association Board of Directors approves a set of “Guiding Principles for Future Plans for Development of Symphony Woods,” to be used by CA staff in discussions with General Growth Properties:

  1. Restoration and maintenance of a vibrant and natural ecosystem.
  2. Provisions for a gathering place for individuals and community events.
  3. Merriweather Post Pavilion will be an exciting and active destination.
  4. Limited new roadways or buildings of a park-related scale.
  5. Connectivity and accessibility to the rest of the downtown.

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, Held: Thursday, July 24, 2008, Approved September 25, 2008. 25 Sept. 2008, p. 4.

• July 28: The newly formed advocacy group Columbia 2.0 announces its support for redevelopment of downtown Columbia.

  Carson, Larry. “Role by youth urged in Columbia’s plans.” Baltimore Sun, 29 July 2008, p. 2B.

• September 9: The newly-formed advocacy group Columbia Tomorrow meets in Symphony Woods to express support for the General Growth Properties proposal and for the restoration of what it calls an ”environmentally sensitive area that has been unintentionally neglected.”

  Carson, Larry. “New group backing Columbia proposal.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 Sept. 2008, p. 1G.

• September 24: General Growth Properties Vice President Greg Hamm issues reassurances that GGP’s financial problems will not affect its plans for downtown Columbia redevelopment.

  Carson, Larry. “Developer about to redo Columbia faces cash crunch.” Baltimore Sun, 28 Sept. 2008, p. 8A.

• September 25: The Columbia Association Board of Directors approves having CA staff work with Cy Paumier and associates “to collaborate and work toward developing a best approach and budget estimate for CA to move forward with a plan/programming/design for CA property in the Downtown.”

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, Held: Thursday, September 25, 2008, Approved October 23, 2008. 23 Oct 2008, p. 4.

• October 1: General Growth Properties formally submits its General Plan Amendment, Zoning Regulations Amendment, and supplemental materials to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. That evening Greg Hamm presents GGP’s proposals for downtown Columbia to the Columbia Association Board of Directors.

  Carson, Larry. “Makeover under way.” Baltimore Sun, 5 Oct. 2008, p. 1A.

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Special Meeting, Held: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, Approved December 23, 2008. 23 Dec. 2008, p. 1.

  Carson, Larry. “Makeover underway.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 5 Oct. 2008, p. 1G.

• October 29: At a meeting sponsored by the advocacy group Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown, Alan Klein criticizes GGP plans to remove 40 percent of the trees in Symphony Woods, and Cy Paumier shows artist’s conceptions of an alternative proposal for Symphony Woods.

  Pitts, Jonathan. “Coalition critiques Columbia plan.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 2 Nov. 2008, p. 2G.

• November 8: The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning issues its Technical Staff Report in response to General Growth Properties’s submission. Among other things, DPZ recommends either finding alternative locations for buildings proposed in Symphony Woods or finding other replacement parkland.

  Pitts, Jonathan. “Howard planners give conditional OK to GGP proposal for Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, 11 Nov. 2008, p. 9A.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Technical Staff Report, ZRA 113. Howard County, Maryland, 13 Nov. 2008, frankhecker.com/assets/texts/ZRA113StaffReport.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2017.

  Carson, Larry. “Session examines GGP zoning proposals for Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 4 Dec. 2008, p. 1G.

• December 11: The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning holds its first hearing to discuss the General Growth Properties submission to the Howard County Planning Board, as GGP seeks to address its financial problems.

  Pitts, Jonathan. “Specifics sought from GGP.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 14 Dec. 2008, p. 1G.

  Walker, Andrea K., and Larry Carson. “Columbia developer trying to refinance.” Baltimore Sun, 13 Dec. 2008, p. 10A.

• December 23: The Columbia Association Board of Directors unanimously approves beginning work on a concept plan for Symphony Woods development.

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, Held: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, Approved January 22, 2009. 22 Jan. 2009, p. 4.

2009

Howard County evaluates and reworks the General Growth Properties plan, while the Columbia Association moves forward with its own plans for a park in Symphony Woods.

• January 8: Greg Hamm of General Growth Properties presents GGP’s response to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning’s Technical Staff Report to the Howard County Planning Board. Among other things, GGP agrees “to provide 1 acre of new parkland for every acre of Symphony Woods where new buildings are planned.”

  Meanwhile architectural critic Roger Lewis revisits Columbia’s progress after 20 years and recommends “making [Columbia] denser . . . with a greater variety of uses in order to create destinations where you want to be 24/7 and 365.”

  Carson, Larry. “Dispute on downtown Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 Jan. 2009, p. 3G.

  Holzberg, Janene. “Rethinking Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 Jan. 2009, p. 1G.

• January 22: Former Columbia Association board member Jud Malone (a founder of the advocacy group Columbia Tomorrow) recommends that CA turn Symphony Woods over to Howard County for conversion into a public park.

  Carson, Larry. “Columbia developer agrees to lower-cost housing.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 25 Jan. 2009, p. 2G.

• February: Cy Paumier and associates announce they are working on a new plan for Symphony Woods for consideration by the Columbia Association.

  Simmonsen, Derek. “CA devising alternative plan for Symphony Woods.” Columbia Flier, 5 Feb. 2009.

• March 26: The Columbia Association Board of Directors unanimously approves a Symphony Woods concept plan created by Cy Paumier, John Slater, and associates, and directs that it be presented to the general public.

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, Held: Thursday, March 26, 2009, Approved June 25, 2009. 25 June 2009, p. 3.

• April 16: General Growth Properties files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as concerns are raised about GGP’s ability to pursue the redevelopment of downtown Columbia.

  Walker, Andrea K. “General Growth Properties seeks bankruptcy protection.” Baltimore Sun, 17 Apr. 2009, p. 1A.

  Carson, Larry. “Columbia plan in danger?” Baltimore Sun, 17 Apr. 2009, p. 1A.

• May 1: Phil Nelson becomes the new President of the Columbia Association.

  Carson, Larry. “Residents meet CA’s new head.” Baltimore Sun, 28 June 2009, p. 2G.

• June 1: Merriweather Post Pavilion managers unveil $1 million worth of updates to the pavilion, including expanded bathrooms and a new concession stand.

  “Merriweather has a lot to crow about.” Baltimore Sun, 2 June 2009, p. 12A.

• August 27: The Columbia Association Board of Directors unanimously approves sending a letter to the Howard County Planning Board notifying it of CA’s intention to present a concept plan for Symphony Woods.

  Columbia Association. Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, Held: Thursday, August 27, 2009, Approved September 24, 2009. 24 Sept. 2009, p. 4.

  Columbia Association. Letter to Howard County Planning Board. Aug. 2009.

• September 3: The Howard County Planning Board approves the conceptual portion of the General Growth Properties plan for downtown Columbia.

  Carson, Larry. “Columbia remake moves forward.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 6 Sept. 2009, p. 3G.

• September 16: The Columbia Association presents to the public the concept plan developed by Cy Paumier, John Slater, and associates for development of Symphony Woods, including a formal pathway system, a fountain, a café, “Woodland Garden,” and a 120-space parking lot.

  Coyle, Cynthia. “CA’s proposed design plan for Symphony Woods PARK.” Howard County Blog, 17 Sept. 2009, howardcountyblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/cas-proposed-design-plan-for-symphony.html. Accessed 24 July 2011.

  “CA officials plan to turn Symphony Woods into a park.” Columbia Flier, 18 Sept. 2009.

  Markus, Don. “Revitalization sought for Symphony Woods.” Baltimore Sun, 18 Oct. 2009, p. 1.

• November 2: Howard County Council Chair Mary Kay Sigaty formally introduces Council Bills 58 and 59 (CB-58-2009 and CB-59-2009), legislation for the Downtown Columbia Plan and the associated zoning regulations.

  Howard County Council. Bill No. 58-2009, AN ACT adopting the Downtown Columbia Plan, a General Plan Amendment for the purpose of revitalizing and redeveloping Downtown Columbia; and generally relating to the Downtown Columbia Plan, a General Plan Amendment. Howard County, Maryland, 3 Feb. 2010, apps.howardcountymd.gov/olis/GetFile.aspx?id=6249. Accessed 6 May 2017.

  Howard County Council. Bill No. 59-2009, AN ACT amending the Howard County Zoning Regulations to create a new Downtown Columbia revitalization process in the New Town District; defining new terms; establishing a new residential density for Downtown Columbia; establishing new land use percentages for open space in Downtown Columbia; establishing an affordable housing provision for Downtown Columbia revitalization; establishing new off-street parking requirements for Downtown Columbia revitalization; and generally relating to the New Town zoning district. Howard County, Maryland, 3 Feb. 2010, apps.howardcountymd.gov/olis/GetFile.aspx?id=6326. Accessed 6 May 2017.

• November 23: Lawyers assure the Howard County Council that the proposed plan for downtown Columbia will remain enforceable even in the event of General Growth Properties selling all or part of its holdings.

  Carson, Larry. “Plan for Columbia safe, council told.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 29 Nov. 2009, p. 4G.

• December 2. At a Howard County Council meeting to discuss plans for downtown Columbia redevelopment, Philip Kirsch, Chair of the Columbia Association Board of Directors, and General Growth Properties Vice President Greg Hamm exchange accusations about lack of communications and GGP’s alleged desire to take CA land to expand Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  Carson, Larry. “Tension surfaces over pavilion.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 6 Dec. 2009, p. 1G.

• December 8: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson and General Growth Properties Vice President Greg Hamm assure the Howard County Council that CA and GGP will cooperate on negotiating any necessary easements as part of renovating Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  Carson, Larry. “Clearing the air on redevelopment.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 13 Dec. 2009, p. 4G.

2010

Howard County officially adopts a new plan for downtown Columbia, including integrating Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods, and the Columbia Association continues its own park project.

• January: The Columbia Association budgets an initial $2.3 million for development of Symphony Woods Park, as the Howard County delegation to the Maryland General Assembly approves a local bond bill for $250,000 in funding for the park.

  Carson, Larry. “Columbia cuts gym towels from budget.” Baltimore Sun, 16 Jan. 2010, p. 2A.

  Carson, Larry. “Money matters, but it might not be enough this year.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 24 Jan. 2010, p. 3G.

• February 1: The Howard County Council unanimously approves the new Downtown Columbia Plan as an amendment to the Howard County General Plan. The plan describes the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood as “a new kind of cultural park where the landscape becomes a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses.” In addition to Merriweather Post Pavilion and the park, the plan calls for “compatible commercial uses such as a café in the park or museum shop.” The language in the original plan calling for streets through Symphony Woods is replaced by language specifying that “access through Merriweather-Symphony Woods that connects the civic and cultural uses will be compatible with the topography.”

  Carson, Larry. “Columbia to undergo urban transformation.” Baltimore Sun, 2 Feb. 2010, p. 1A.

  Downtown Columbia Plan: A General Plan Amendment. Howard County, Maryland, 1 Feb. 2010, archive.org/details/downtown_columbia_plan. Accessed 6 May 2017.

• April: The Maryland General Assembly approves $250,000 in funding for the Columbia Association’s development of Symphony Woods.

  Carson, Larry. “Battle on liquor license limits moves to new front.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 18 Apr. 2010, p. 3G.

• May 15–16: The Wine in the Woods festival features a new layout, chosen in anticipation of the Columbia Association beginning work on Symphony Woods development.

  Holzberg, Janene. “Celebration in Symphony Woods boasts a new layout.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 9 May 2010, p. 1G.

• May 18: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson announces that an anonymous nonprofit from outside Howard County will donate $250,000 to support development of Symphony Woods as a park.

  Carson, Larry. “Donor gives money for Symphony Woods project.” Baltimore Sun, 23 May 2010, p. 7G.

• May 20: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson informs the Board of Directors of a potential county roadblock to CA’s development of Symphony Woods, based on the need to follow after or coordinate with the plans of General Growth Properties.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, May 20, 2010, Approved: June 10, 2010. 10 June 2010, p. 1.

• July: General Growth Properties prepares to split itself into two entities, with GGP retaining ownership of The Mall in Columbia, and ownership of Merriweather Post Pavilion and undeveloped land in downtown Columbia being transferred to a new entity.

  Gunts, Edward, and Larry Carson. “General Growth prepares to split.” Baltimore Sun, 14 July 2010, p. 14A.

• September 2: Faced with the need to dredge Lake Kittamaqundi, the Columbia Association contemplates taking money from the budget for the delayed Symphony Woods Park project.

  Carson, Larry. “More funds to dredge proposed.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 5 Sept. 2010, p. 2G.

• November 2: Ken Ulman is re-elected as Howard County Executive. Incumbents Calvin Ball, Greg Fox, Mary Kay Sigaty, Jen Terrasa, and Courtney Watson are all re-elected to the Howard County Council.

  Carson, Larry. “‘Satisfied’ Howard voters stay with the incumbents.” Baltimore Sun, 7 Nov. 2010, p. 2.

• November 9: The Howard Hughes Corporation is spun out of General Growth Properties, and assumes GGP’s responsibilities for planning in Columbia Town Center.

  General Growth Properties. “General Growth Properties Completes Spinoff of The Howard Hughes Corporation.” 9 Nov. 2010, investor.howardhughes.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=241177&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1494391. Accessed 6 May 2017.

• November 26: As the Howard Hughes Corporation moves forward with its plans for downtown Columbia redevelopment, the Columbia Association schedules work on the Symphony Woods Park project to begin in December 2011.

  Carson, Larry. “Columbia plan for downtown picks up.” Baltimore Sun, 27 Nov. 2010, p. 3A.

• December: Merriweather Post Pavilion is named one of the top three amphitheaters in the country by Billboard magazine.

  McPherson, Lindsey. “Billboard: Merriweather Post rocks.” Columbia Flier, 2 Dec. 2010, p. 1.

2011

The Columbia Association unveils its plan for a park in Symphony Woods, but encounters problems in taking the plan through Howard County’s new and more rigorous planning process.

• March 7: The Howard County Council approves a new set of design guidelines for downtown Columbia, removing one potential roadblock to redevelopment of downtown Columbia, including Symphony Woods.

  Carson, Larry. “Council OKs Columbia sign rules.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 13 Mar. 2011, p. 4G.

  Howard County Council. CR138-2010, A RESOLUTION adopting Downtown-wide Design Guidelines for Downtown Columbia. Howard County, Maryland, 7 Mar. 2011, apps.howardcountymd.gov/olis/LegislationDetail.aspx?LegislationID=1101. Accessed 7 May 2017.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Downtown Columbia Design Guidelines: Downtown-Wide. Howard County, Maryland, Nov. 2010, www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fcdab7B57Cs%3d&portalid=0. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• April: John DeWolf replaces Greg Hamm as the Regional Vice President of the Howard Hughes Corporation responsible for development of downtown Columbia.

  Carson, Larry. “He’s set to move quickly on Columbia changes.” Baltimore Sun, 6 May 2011, p. 8A.

  McPherson, Lindsey. “DeWolf eager to dive into downtown redevelopment.” Columbia Flier, 12 May 2011, p. 4.

• June 9: The Columbia Association Board of Directors unanimously approves the so-called “Plan B” layout for development of Symphony Woods.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, June 9, 2011, Approved: June 23, 2011. 23 June 2011, p. 3.

• June 16: In accordance with the new development review process for downtown Columbia, the Columbia Association hosts a pre-submission community meeting to present its plans for Symphony Woods. CA notes that $1.2 million in funding for the first phase of the project is included in the 2011 capital budget, and another $1.4 million in the 2012 budget, in addition to a $250,000 Maryland state grant and a matching $250,000 donation promised by an anonymous donor.

  Toth, Sara. “CA presents plans for Symphony Woods.” Columbia Flier, 23 June 2011, p. 16.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Land development review process for downtown Columbia revitalization. Howard County, Maryland, Nov. 2010, www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=_oT1cawSChY%3d&portalid=0. Accessed 27 May 2017.

• July 13: The Howard County Design Advisory Panel reviews the Columbia Association proposal for Symphony Woods (based on the Cy Paumier design). Various panel members criticize the design as lacking a suitable vision, and the panel’s decision recommends (among other things) defining a “specific vision for this site” and providing “more clarity to a theme for the neighborhood.” In his own comments, DAP chair Rob Hollis notes that “As one of the first projects in a ‘new’ Town Center, this park should set the example for other projects to follow. It is imperative that Symphony Woods Park be of the highest design standards.”

  Subsequently Barbara McCall brings to the attention of her husband Michael a Columbia Flier article on the Design Advisory Panel review. He agrees with what he reads as the DAP’s concerns, but assumes that CA will make appropriate adjustments to the proposed park design.

  Toth, Sara. “Design panel advises stronger vision for Symphony Woods.” Columbia Flier, 21 July 2011, p. 6.

  Columbia Association. Symphony Woods Park in Columbia Town Center: Design Advisory Panel Meeting for Final Development Plan. 13 July 2011, inartrust.org/s/DAP-meeting-7-13-11-copy-2.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

  Hollis, Rob. Design Advisory Panel 07-13-2011, Symphony Woods Park - Phase 1. 13 July 2011, inartrust.org/s/DAP-review-of-CA-plan-copy-2.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• August 11: The Columbia Association Board of Directors considers updated plans for Symphony Woods and a revised vision statement for the park, and discusses architectural details of park facilities and potential uses. CA President Phil Nelson urges board members to focus on the plans for the first phase.

  Toth, Sara. “Carousel for Symphony Woods? CA to study.” Columbia Flier, 18 Aug. 2011, p. 13.

• September 22: The Columbia Association Board of Directors votes 7-2 to approve the Final Development Plan for Symphony Woods as presented. During the “resident speak out” portion of the same meeting Michael McCall, in his first public comments on Columbia, advocates for CA creating an overall strategy for all of Symphony Woods before deciding on the tactics by which to implement such a strategy.

  Greisman, David. “CA says yes to first phase of Symphony Woods Park.” Columbia Flier, 29 Sept. 2011, p. 1.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, September 22, 2011, Approved: October 27, 2011. 27 Oct. 2011, pp. 2-5.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• October 13: Having approved the Symphony Woods Park plan and already specified the park’s benches and furniture, the Columbia Association Board of Directors votes 8–2 to adopt a formal vision statement for Symphony Woods.

  In the audience is Michael McCall, who sees CA’s actions as contrary to the strategic planning principles he learned while working with Jim Rouse and the Walt Disney Company, especially given his view of the importance of the Symphony Woods property to the future of downtown Columbia.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, October 13, 2011, Approved: October 27, 2011. 27 Oct. 2011, pp. 2-5.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• October-November: In the wake of the October 13 meeting of the Columbia Association Board of Directors, Michael McCall meets with George Barker, his mentor and former manager at the Enterprise Development Company, former General Counsel of Howard Research and Development, and (along with Emily Lincoln) a leader of the advocacy group Bring Back the Vision.

  After hearing McCall’s concerns about CA’s plans Barker volunteers to introduce McCall to Howard County Executive Ken Ulman, and with Lincoln reviews McCall’s presentation for that meeting.

  McCall, Michael. Tribute delivered by McCall to George Penniman Barker’s family, colleagues & lifelong friends. 3 June 2016, static1.squarespace.com/static/51e1bf57e4b0e2abc3e95f77/t/579e8dd81b631bd12f0cbc79/1470008793102/George+Barker+Tribute+statement.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2016.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• November 18: Michael McCall, George Barker, and Emily Lincoln meet with Howard County Executive Ken Ulman, Jessica Feldmark and Ian Kennedy of the Howard County Executive staff, and Marsha McLaughlin and Bill Mackey, Director and Division Chief respectively of the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. McCall presents his criticisms of the Columbia Association’s plan for Symphony Woods.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• December: The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning provides the Columbia Association comments and questions on CA’s submission for the Final Development Plan for Symphony Woods Park. As with CA’s previous FDP submission, most of the DPZ comments and questions concern the park’s relationship to and integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion, including access points from the park to the pavilion.

  Greisman, David. “County: Plan for Symphony Woods Park needs fine-tuning.” Columbia Flier, 22 Dec. 2011, p. 14.

2012

Howard County mandates changes to the Symphony Wood Park project, the Columbia Association board and staff discuss how to proceed, and an alternative appears.

• January 3: Michael McCall meets for the first time with John DeWolf, Regional Vice President of the Howard Hughes Corporation, to discuss plans for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• January 26: The Columbia Association Board of Directors reviews plans for a proposed fountain in Symphony Woods and offers critiques of the design.

  Greisman, David. “Reviews mixed for planned fountain.” Columbia Flier, 2 Feb. 2012, p. 1.

• February 6: The Columbia Association Board of Directors considers setting aside $1.4 million toward construction of a new CA headquarters, location to be determined.

  Greisman, David. “CA could begin saving for new headquarters.” Columbia Flier, 9 Feb. 2012, p. 6.

• February 22: The Columbia Association Board of Directors includes a total of $1.6 million for Symphony Woods park development in CA’s 2013 and 2014 budgets.

  Greisman, David. “CA adopts budget with spending cut.” Columbia Flier, 1 Mar. 2012, p. 8.

• March: The Columbia Association submits a revised Final Development Plan for Symphony Woods Park to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning, as part of Howard County’s new 16-step process for reviewing proposed developments in downtown Columbia.

  The revised plan includes mention of proposed park facilities usable by visitors to both Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion, including an amphitheater, a pavilion, and a café, reflecting CA staff discussions with the Howard Hughes Corporation, owner of the Merriweather Post Pavilion property.

  Greisman, David. “Symphony Woods plan awaits OK.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 11 Mar. 2012, p. 3G.

  Rector, Kevin. “Downtown disconnect.” Columbia Flier, 1 Mar. 2012, p. 1.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Land development review process for downtown Columbia revitalization. Howard County, Maryland, Nov. 2010, www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=_oT1cawSChY%3d&portalid=0. Accessed 27 May 2017.

• May 8: Michael McCall meets for the first time with Columbia Association President Phil Nelson to discuss plans for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• July 12: The Columbia Association presents its Final Development Plan for Symphony Woods (FDP-DC-MSW-1) to the Howard County Planning Board. The presentation focuses on plans for a fountain and a formal pathway system, requiring the removal of up to 64 trees. Future possibilities noted in the plan include a woodland garden, amphitheater, children’s activity area, and picnic area, as well as a café and other facilities that could be shared with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  McPherson, Lindsey. “Planning Board weighs Symphony Woods plan.” Columbia Flier, 19 July 2012, p. 12.

  Columbia Association. FDP-DC-MSW-1, Downtown Columbia, Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood, Final Development Plan, Town Center, Section 1, Area 1, Lot 23. 3 May 2012, archive.org/detail/FDP-DC-MSW-1. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• July 19: The Howard County Planning Board considers the Final Development Plan for the Columbia Association proposal for Symphony Woods (FDP-DC-MSW-1) and approves it conditional on various changes being made, including rerouting paths to avoid tree removal and developing a plan for integration of Symphony Woods with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  McPherson, Lindsey. “Phase one of Symphony Woods redesign approved.” Columbia Flier, 26 July 2012, p. 12.

  McPherson, Lindsey. “Planning Board has suggestions for Symphony Woods changes.” Columbia Flier, 26 July 2012, p. 13.

• August 23: The Columbia Association Board of Directors hears a staff recommendation to put development plans for Symphony Woods on hold pending more information on Howard Hughes Corporation plans for redeveloping Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  CA Landscape Services Manager Jan Clark notes that Howard Hughes discarded its original conceptual plan for Merriweather Post Pavilion in favor of a new and significantly different concept plan more consistent with the overall downtown Columbia redevelopment plan. CA President Phil Nelson adds that “It’s not just Symphony Woods, it’s not just Merriweather Post [Pavilion]. The county expects us to be planning for a [Merriweather-Symphony Woods] neighborhood design.”

  Lavoie, Luke. “CA weighs putting Symphony Woods projects on hold.” Columbia Flier, 30 Aug. 2012, p. 4.

• September 6: The Howard County Planning Board issues its final decision and order relating to the Final Development Plan for the Columbia Association proposal for Symphony Woods (FDP-DC-MSW-1). The decision and order requires the Columbia Association to revise the FDP to state that “tree removal shall be minimized by aligning paths around healthy trees and minimizing grading,” and to work with the Howard Hughes Corporation to develop a “coordinated plan for the [Merriweather-Symphony Woods] neighborhood” based on a “shared vision and design for Merriweather-Symphony Woods as a unique cultural and community amenity.”

  Howard County Planning Board. The Columbia Association, Petitioner before the Planning Board of Howard County, MD, Planning Board Case No. 394, Decision and Order. Howard County, Maryland, 6 Sept. 2012, inartrust.org/s/Planning-Board-Decision-and-Order-9612.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• September 25: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson sends a letter to the CA Board of Directors recommending that they devote time in October and November to discussing how to proceed with development of Symphony Woods, including whether and how CA might participate in some sort of Trust partnership with Howard Hughes Corporation and Howard County for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood, and whether CA should try to develop a new plan for Symphony Woods taking into account plans for Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  Nelson, Phil. “Placing the Board Committee Process Temporarily on Hold.” Columbia Association, 25 Sept. 2012, inartrust.org/s/10112-BOC-Staff-Item-re-Policy-Sessions.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• October 5: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson sends a letter to the CA Board of Directors containing several questions for the board to discuss in the wake of the Planning Board’s “decision and caveats” and other factors affecting the future of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood, including whether to continue with the previous plan or do something different.

  Nelson, Phil. “Discussion cover memo regarding CA’s future involvement in the Symphony Woods/Merriweather Post Neighborhood.” Columbia Association, 5 Oct. 2012.

• October 11: The Columbia Association Board of Directors discusses whether to work with Howard Hughes Corporation and Howard County to create a separate organization (“trust”) to develop Symphony Woods. In an informal “straw vote,” the board members present unanimously agree to explore the proposal.

  Lavoie, Luke. “CA explores agreement to coordinate Symphony Woods redevelopment.” Columbia Flier, 18 Oct. 2012, p. 13.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, October 11, 2012, Approved: October 25, 2012. 25 Oct. 2012, p. 3.

  Stack, Andy. “Background on CA and Inner Arbor Trust.” Blog of Dr. Chao Wu, 15 Sept. 2015, chaowu.org/2015/10/07/background-on-ca-board-inner-arbor. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• October: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson asks Michael McCall for advice regarding development of Symphony Woods, and McCall volunteers to create an alternative plan.

  McCall, Michael. Letter to Jessamine Duvall. 27 May 2014, p. 3, inartrust.org/s/Letter-on-the-Progress-and-History-of-the-Inner-Arbor-Trust-140527.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

2013

The Columbia Association charges the Inner Arbor Trust with responsibility for creating a park in Symphony Woods, and the Trust goes to work amid controversy about CA’s decision.

• January 18: The Columbia Association releases the first image of the Inner Arbor concept plan in preparation for the January 24 Board of Directors meeting. Howard County Executive Ken Ulman expresses his support for the plan: “I have long viewed the property that is now Symphony Woods as a centerpiece and linchpin for downtown Columbia. . . . New York City has its Central Park. Chicago has its Millennium Park. And Columbia deserves and must have the same landmark status.”

  Lavoie, Luke. “Columbia is planning an arts district.” Baltimore Sun, 19 Jan. 2013, p. 2A.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Hearing set on new Symphony Woods plan.” Columbia Flier, 24 Jan. 2013, p. 4.

• January 24: Michael McCall presents the Inner Arbor concept plan to the Columbia Association Board of Directors and CA President Phil Nelson presents his recommendations relating to the plan. Council member Jen Terrasa attends the meeting and afterward expresses support for the project: “The design is pretty exciting. It’s something we would be proud to see.”

  Lavoie, Luke. “Excitement, caution for Symphony Woods proposal.” Columbia Flier, 31 Jan. 2013, p. 6.

• January 31: Michael McCall again presents the Inner Arbor concept plan in a public meeting sponsored by the Columbia Association.

  Hirsch, Arthur. “New proposal for Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 3 Feb. 2013, p. 1G.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Columbia Association hosts public unveiling of Symphony Woods plan.” Columbia Flier, 7 Feb. 2013, p. 8.

• February 7: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson sends a letter to the CA Board of Directors recommending that CA establish a separate organization to develop Symphony Woods according to the conceptual plan proposed by Michael McCall.

  Nelson, Phil. “Formation of a Trust for Symphony Woods Development.” Columbia Association, 13 Feb. 2013, inartrust.org/s/3-Formation_of_a_Trust_for_Symphony_Woods_Development.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• February 13: Columbia Association President Phil Nelson publishes an updated version of his letter of February 7, with additional details on and clarifications regarding his recommendations for Symphony Woods.

  Nelson, Phil. “Formation of a Trust for Symphony Woods Development.” Columbia Association, 13 Feb. 2013, inartrust.org/s/3-Formation_of_a_Trust_for_Symphony_Woods_Development.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• February 14: The Columbia Association Board of Directors votes 8–2 to establish the Inner Arbor Trust, grant it a perpetual easement to develop Symphony Woods, and provide $1.6 million in initial funding.

  Lavoie, Luke. “CA board nearing vote on Symphony Woods plan.” Columbia Flier, 14 Feb. 2013, p. 4.

  Lavoie, Luke. “‘Done deal’ vote advances Symphony Woods plan.” Columbia Flier, 21 Feb. 2013, p. 4.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, February 14, 2013, Approved: February 28, 2013. 28 Feb. 2013, inartrust.org/s/Approved-BOD-Minutes-2013_02_14.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• March: Cy Paumier and associates plan to present a revised version of their park design, touting it as compatible with the Inner Arbor concept plan. In response Michael McCall cites the Howard County Planning Board mandate to preserve trees by routing pathways around them.

  Lavoie, Luke. “New pitch for Symphony Woods fountain, cafe.” Columbia Flier, 28 Mar. 2013, p. 4.

• 28 March: The Columbia Association Board of Directors elects Ed Coleman and Gregg Schwind as its representatives on the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors. They join Phil Nelson, who holds an ex officio seat on the board as CA President.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Schwind and Coleman elected to Inner Arbor Trust.” Columbia Flier, 4 Apr. 2013, p. 16.

• April: The Inner Arbor plan becomes an issue in Columbia Association elections, with both supporters and opponents claiming victories.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor plan heats up CA election.” Columbia Flier, 11 Apr. 2013. p. 1.

  Lavoie, Luke. “CA board members debate meaning of elections.” Columbia Flier, 2 May 2013, p. 16.

• April 25: Howard County Executive Ken Ulman reiterates his support for the Inner Arbor plan, and proposes $5 million in county funding for downtown Columbia arts and cultural programs and facilities.

  Ames, Blair. “Ulman’s budget increases spending for schools, police.” Columbia Flier, 25 Apr. 2013, p. 6

• May 10: The Inner Arbor Trust officially begins life as an organization with the election of a seven-member Board of Directors, the appointment of Michael McCall as President and CEO, and adoption of bylaws. Besides Ed Coleman, Gregg Schwind, and Phil Nelson of the Columbia Association, other board members include Deborah Ellinghaus, Kent Humphries, Gill Wylie, and Beverly White-Seals.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Board of Inner Arbor Trust expands to seven members.” Columbia Flier, 30 May 2013, p. 13.

  Inner Arbor Trust. “Inner Arbor Trust Inc., the not-for-profit developer of Symphony Woods, was formed in Columbia, Maryland.” 28 May 2013, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Press-Release-Bios-52813-0ydu.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• May 23: As part of the FY2014 capital and expense budget (CB25-2013) the Howard County Council approves up to $3.5 million in funding for construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater.

  Howard County Council. Council Bill 25-2013, AN ACT adopting the current expense budget and the capital budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013, and ending June 30, 2014, to be known as the Budget and Appropriation Ordinance of Howard County, Fiscal Year 2014. Howard County, Maryland, May 2013, apps.howardcountymd.gov/olis/LegislationDetail.aspx?LegislationID=202. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• June: Merriweather Post Pavilion is named the fourth-best amphitheater in the US by Rolling Stone magazine.

  Case, Wesley. “Columbia pavilion named top venue.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 30 June 2013, p. 1G.

• September 20: Michael McCall presents the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County and discusses the selection of the design team, including initial members Martha Schwartz Partners and Mahan Rykiel Associates.

  McCall, Michael. “Introduction of Inner Arbor Trust to Leadership Howard County 9/20/13.” Vimeo, 20 Sept. 2013, vimeo.com/78288327. Accessed 7 May 2013.

• October: Martin Knott replaces Kent Humphries on the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor Trust Inc. replaces board member.” Columbia Flier, 31 Oct. 2013, p. 13.

• October 30: Columbia celebrates the 50th anniversary of Jim Rouse’s announcement of his plan for Columbia, with development efforts underway or proposed at or near The Mall in Columbia and Lake Kittamaqundi, in Symphony Woods, and in the Crescent property south of Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods.

  Hirsch, Arthur. “At 50, Columbia still a vision in progress.” Baltimore Sun, 30 Oct. 2013, p. 1A.

• November: The Inner Arbor Trust announces the selection of landscape designer Martha Schwartz as the lead designer for phase 1 of the Inner Arbor project.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor hires designer for Symphony Woods.” Columbia Flier, 7 November 2013, p. 6.

• November 18: At a public meeting the Inner Arbor Trust introduces the selected design team (“designers of delight”) at a public meeting. The team includes Martha Schwartz Partners, Marc Fornes of THEVERYMANY, Mimi Hoang and Eric Bunge of nArchitects, Arup, and Mahan Rykiel Associates.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor Trust introduces design team.” Columbia Flier, 21 Nov. 2013, p. 8.

  Inner Arbor Trust. “Unabashed Designers of Delight.” Vimeo, 18 Nov. 2013, vimeo.com/191568080. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• December 2: The Inner Arbor Trust presents the new Inner Arbor plan to the public at a pre-submission meeting prior to presenting the plan to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel and submitting a Site Development Plan (SDP) to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Features include the Chrysalis amphitheater, the Butterfly guest services building, the “art of bounds” Caterpillar berm, the Picnic Table, the Play Maze, Word Art, and Letter Garden.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Praise, questions for Inner Arbor plans.” Columbia Flier, 5 Dec. 2013, p. 1.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Trust envisions Symphony Woods as Merriweather Park.” Columbia Flier, 5 Dec. 2013, p. 18.

  Inner Arbor Trust. “Development of Symphony Woods: Site Development Plan (SDP) Public Meeting.” 2 Dec. 2013, inartrust.org/s/A-Inner-Arbor-Trust-Community-Meeting-Minutespdf-copy.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• December 11: The Columbia Association executes a perpetual easement agreement with the Inner Arbor Trust, granting the Trust the right to develop Symphony Woods. (The agreement is later amended on March 14, 2014, to make minor corrections.)

  Columbia Association and Inner Arbor Trust. Amended and Restated Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and Easement Agreement. 14 Mar. 2014, inartrust.org/s/IAT-001.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• December 18: The Inner Arbor Trust executes a $3.5 million grant agreement with Howard County.

  McCall, Michael. Letter to Jessamine Duvall. 27 May 2014, p. 3, inartrust.org/s/Letter-on-the-Progress-and-History-of-the-Inner-Arbor-Trust-140527.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• December 28: The Inner Arbor Trust submits its IRS Form 1023 application for tax exempt status.

  McCall, Michael. Letter to Jessamine Duvall. 27 May 2014, p. 3, inartrust.org/s/Letter-on-the-Progress-and-History-of-the-Inner-Arbor-Trust-140527.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

2014

The Inner Arbor Trust finalizes the design for the first seven phases of the new park and successfully shepherds its plan through the Howard County planning process, as renovations for Merriweather Post Pavilion are planned and funded and Howard Hughes Corporation unveils its plans for developing the area around Symphony Woods.

• January 31: The Inner Arbor Trust receives official 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status from the IRS.

  Inner Arbor Trust. “A brief history of the Inner Arbor Trust (through October, 2015).” Oct. 2015, inartrust.org/s/A-Brief-History-of-the-Trust-October-2015-v3.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• February: Howard County Executive Ken Ulman presses the Howard Hughes Corporation on its plans for renovating Merriweather Post Pavilion, as required by the Downtown Columbia Plan and recommended by a report from consultants Ziger/Snead.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Ulman presses developer on future of Merriweather.” Columbia Flier, 13 Feb 2014, p. 6.

  Ziger/Snead. Merriweather Post Pavilion Physical Review Update (Draft). Feb. 2014, frankhecker.com/assets/texts/140214-draft-merriweather-physical-update-report.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.

• February 4: The Inner Arbor Trust submits the Site Development Plan for the northern portion of Symphony Woods to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor unveils plan.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 16 Feb. 2014, p. 1G.

• February 19: The Inner Arbor Trust publishes the final form of the Inner Arbor plan for the northern portion of Symphony Woods, adding the Merriground play area and the Merriweather Horns sound sculptures, and dropping the Play Maze, Word Art, and Letter Garden.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Playscape, audio added to Symphony Woods plan.” Columbia Flier, 20 Feb. 2014, p. 14.

  Holzberg, Janene. “A sound vision for Columbia.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 2 Mar. 2014, p. 1G.

• February 26: The Howard County Design Advisory Panel reviews the final Inner Arbor plan and unanimously supports it as submitted, with panel members praising the design.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor plans ‘wow’ panel.” Columbia Flier, 6 Mar. 2014. p. 13.

  Howard County Design Advisory Panel. “Meeting Summary, February 26, 2014.” Howard County, Maryland, 26 Feb. 2014, inartrust.org/s/DAPsum-2014-2-26.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• March: After noting the Inner Arbor Trust’s use of the name “Merriweather Park” in its submissions to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning, the Columbia Association asks the Trust to retain the name Symphony Woods when referring to the property. Subsequently the Inner Arbor Trust adopts the name “Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.”

  Lavoie, Luke. “CA vows to keep Symphony Woods name.” Columbia Flier, 27 Mar. 2014, p. 6.

• March 13: Howard County Executive Ken Ulman proposes to move up the date when ownership of Merriweather Post Pavilion will be transferred to the nonprofit Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission. Soon afterwards the county and Howard Hughes Corporation begin discussions about pavilion renovations.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Bill would impact Merriweather ownership.” Columbia Flier, 20 Mar. 2014, p. 4.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Ulman shows optimism about Merriweather.” Columbia Flier, 27 Mar. 2014, p. 28.

• March 26. The Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors appoints board member and local businessperson Martin Knott as Chair of the Trust.

  McCall, Michael. Letter to Jessamine Duvall. 27 May 2014, p. 3, inartrust.org/s/Letter-on-the-Progress-and-History-of-the-Inner-Arbor-Trust-140527.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• March 31: At a pre-submission community meeting the Howard Hughes Corporation presents plans for developing the Crescent property to the south and west of Symphony Woods.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Urban streetscape planned for crescent property.” Columbia Flier, 20 Mar. 2014, p. 6.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Downtown plans draw concerns about traffic and tall buildings.” Columbia Flier, 3 Apr. 2014, p. 16.

• April: The Inner Arbor Trust releases a report on its efforts to improve the environmental health of Symphony Woods, including planting 200 new trees (to replace 31 trees to be removed) and restoring stream beds in the eastern part of Symphony Woods.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor plans include adding trees.” Columbia Flier, 17 Apr. 2014, p. 4.

• April 10: The Columbia Association selects Nancy McCord to be one of its two representatives on the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors, replacing Ed Coleman.

  Lavoie, Luke. “McCord elected to Inner Arbor Trust.” Columbia Flier, 1 May 2014, p. 12.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, Held: April 10, 2014, Approved: April 24, 2014. 24 Apr. 2014, pp. 4-5.

• April 14: Howard County, Howard Hughes Corporation, and the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission sign a memorandum of understanding regarding a five-year, $19 million renovation plan for Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Agreement heralds Merriweather renovation.” Columbia Flier, 22 May 2014, p. 4.

• April 26: The Inner Arbor plan again becomes an issue in Columbia Association elections marked by low turnout.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Ketley, Lein, Schwind win Columbia elections.” Columbia Flier, 1 May 2014, p. 13.

• April 28: The Inner Arbor Trust formally submits its Site Development Plan (SDP) to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning.

  McCall, Michael. Letter to Jessamine Duvall. 27 May 2014, p. 3, inartrust.org/s/Letter-on-the-Progress-and-History-of-the-Inner-Arbor-Trust-140527.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017.

• May 21: The Howard County Council approves County Executive Ken Ulman’s recommendation of an additional $1.5 million of funding for the Inner Arbor Trust in the form of a challenge grant. The Council also approves $10 million in funding for Merriweather Post Pavilion renovations and the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Agreement heralds Merriweather renovation.” Columbia Flier, 22 May 2014, p. 4.

  Yeager, Amanda. “County Council passes 2015 budget.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 25 May 2014, p. 1G.

  Howard County Council. Council Bill 24-2014, AN ACT adopting the current expense budget and the capital budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, to be known as the Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance of Howard County, Fiscal Year 2015. Howard County, Maryland, May 2014, apps.howardcountymd.gov/olis/LegislationDetail.aspx?LegislationID=800. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• May 28: The Boards of Directors of the Columbia Association and the Inner Arbor Trust hold a joint meeting to discuss the progress of the Inner Arbor plan.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Columbia Association, Inner Arbor meet.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 1 June 2014, p. 4G.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Symphony Woods plan subject of gathering.” Columbia Flier, 5 June 2014, p. 15.

• June: Howard County Executive Ken Ulman joins with musician Jack Johnson to preview plans for renovations at Merriweather Post Pavilion, as newly-arrived Howard Hughes Corporation Vice President Greg Fitchitt gets credit for helping to negotiate the plans with the county, and Howard Hughes signs a development agreement with the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission, the future owners of the pavilion.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Merriweather renovation plans rolled out.” Columbia Flier, 12 June 2014. p. 4.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Fitchitt new face of Howard Hughes.” Columbia Flier, 12 June 2014, p. 8.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Howard Hughes, arts commission sign Merriweather deal.” Columbia Flier, 26 June 2014, p. 8.

• June 2: Milton Matthews becomes the new President of the Columbia Association, replacing Phil Nelson.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Partnerships key for new CA president.” Columbia Flier, 10 July 2014, p. 4.

• June 12: The Columbia Association Board of Directors discusses whether the current form of the Inner Arbor plan is a “material change” from that described in the easement granted the Inner Arbor Trust. By a 7–3 vote the board decides that it is not.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, Held: June 12, 2014, Approved: June 26, 2014. 26 June 2014, pp. 2, 4-5.

• July 10: After a presentation by Michael McCall of the Inner Arbor Trust, the Columbia Association Board of Directors votes 6–4 to endorse the Inner Arbor Plan as currently conceived.

  Yeager, Amanda. “CA endorses Symphony Woods plan.” Columbia Flier, 17 July 2014, p. 6.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, Held: July 10, 2014, Approved: July 24, 2014. 24 July 2014, p. 3.

• August 7: Karen Newell is elected to the Inner Arbor Board of Directors.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 9 Jan. 2016.

• October: The Boards of Directors of the Columbia Association and the Inner Arbor Trust hold another joint meeting to discuss the progress of the Inner Arbor plan, including phasing of park development, fundraising, and negotiation of an agreement with I.M.P., the operators of Merriweather Post Pavilion, for use of the Chrysalis amphitheater.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Symphony Woods development nears start.” Columbia Flier, 23 Oct. 2014, p. 8.

• November 4: Allan Kittleman is elected as Howard County Executive. Incumbents Calvin Ball, Greg Fox, Mary Kay Sigaty, and Jen Terrasa are re-elected to the Howard County Council, and are joined by newly elected council member Jon Weinstein.

  Wood, Pamela. “Republican Kittleman beats Watson in executive race.” Baltimore Sun, 5 Nov. 2014, p. 1A.

• November 20: After delaying its decision a week to allow more time for public testimony, the Howard County Planning Board unanimously approves the Inner Arbor Trust’s Site Development Plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods (SDP-14-073). The Planning Board approves the design concepts, uses, and locations of park features for all seven proposed phases, and fully approves phases 1 and 2 (including the Chrysalis amphitheater) for construction.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Planning Board tables Inner Arbor decision.” Columbia Flier, 13 Nov. 2014, p. 4.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Initial Inner Arbor phases approved.” Baltimore Sun, 23 Nov. 2014, p. 1G.

  Lavoie, Luke. “Inner Arbor wins Planning Board approval.” Columbia Flier, 27 Nov. 2014, p. 6.

  Inner Arbor Trust. SDP-14-073, Downtown Columbia, Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood, Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods Phase 1 & Future Phases 2-7. inartrust.org/s/Part-1-of-5-SDP-14-073-R1.pdf, inartrust.org/s/Part-2-of-5-SDP-14-073-R1-copy-2.pdf, inartrust.org/s/Part-3-of-5-SDP-14-073-R1.pdf, inartrust.org/s/Part-4-of-5-SDP-14-073-R1.pdf, inartrust.org/s/Part-5-of-5-SDP-14-073-R1.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

2015

The Inner Arbor Trust lays the groundwork for the start of Chrysalis construction and continues working with others to integrate Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

• January 22: The Howard County Planning Board approves changes to the site development plan for renovations to Merriweather Post Pavilion. Inner Arbor Trust President Michael McCall testifies in support of the plan: “The park and the amphitheater will knit together well.”

  Lavoie, Luke. “Merriweather renovations poised to start.” Columbia Flier, 29 Jan. 2015, p. 10.

• March 6: The Inner Arbor Trust enters into a long-term operating agreement with It’s My Amphitheater, Inc., relating to joint use of Merriweather Post Pavilion and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. Under the agreement I.M.A. agrees to compensate the Trust for future use of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods for Merriweather Post Pavilion events. The agreement also makes public areas of Merriweather Post Pavilion accessible to visitors outside of pavilion events.

  Inner Arbor Trust and I.M.A. License, Easement and Operating Agreement. 6 March, 2015, inartrust.org/s/IAT-IMA-Operating-Agreement-Executed-31615.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• March 19: The Howard County Planning Board approves the Final Development Plan for the Howard Hughes Corporation’s project to develop the Crescent property south and west of Symphony Woods.

  Yeager, Amanda. “Crescent plan given nod by Planning Board.” Columbia Flier, 26 Mar. 2015, p. 4.

• April: The first phase of renovations at Merriweather Post Pavilion is well underway.

  Ames, Blair. “Let the music begin.” Columbia Flier, 23 Apr. 2015, p. 28.

• April 15: Dave Sciamarelli is elected to the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 9 Jan. 2016.

• April 25: Columbia Association board elections again see low turnout. Any controversies over Symphony Woods go unmentioned in newspaper accounts.

  Yeager, Amanda. “Boulton, Evans win contested CA races.” Columbia Flier, 30 Apr. 2015, p. 4.

• May 22: At the request of Howard County Executive Allan Kittleman, the Howard County Council approves $1.4M for the Inner Arbor Trust in support of construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater and related purposes, as part of the FY16 Expense and Capital Budget (CB23-2015).

  Yeager, Amanda. “Kittleman proposes $1B operating budget.” Columbia Flier, 23 Apr. 2015, p. 6.

  Howard County Council. Council Bill 23-2015, AN ACT adopting the current expense budget and the capital budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016, to be known as the Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance of Howard County, Fiscal Year 2016. Howard County, Maryland, 22 May 2015, apps.howardcountymd.gov/olis/LegislationDetail.aspx?LegislationID=1390. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• May 27: The Inner Arbor Trust enters into a reciprocal easement agreement with Howard Hughes Corporation subsidiaries Merriweather Post Business Trust and Howard Research and Development relating to joint use of Merriweather Post Pavilion and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

  Inner Arbor Trust, Merriweather Post Business Trust, and Howard Research and Development Corporation. Reciprocal Easement Agreement. 27 May 2015, inartrust.org/s/IAT-MPBT-HRD-REA-HoCo-Recorded-60315-copy.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• May 28: The Inner Arbor Trust appoints Nina Basu as General Counsel and Kirsten Coombs as treasurer.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 9 Jan. 2016.

• August: After years of discussion about where to locate a new headquarters for the Columbia Association (including the possibility of building one on CA-owned land in Symphony Woods), CA moves to leased space in an office building off Broken Land Parkway.

  Yeager, Amanda. “Columbia Association to move its headquarters.” Columbia Flier, 20 Aug. 2015, p. 12.

• September: After a competitive bidding process the Inner Arbor Trust selects Whiting-Turner as general contractor for all Chrysalis construction except for the Chrysalis shell itself (to be fabricated and installed by A. Zahner Company).

  Inner Arbor Trust. “September, 2015 Chrysalis Development Report.” 1 Oct. 2015, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Update-as-of-October-2015.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• September 1: The Inner Arbor Trust enters into a licensing agreement with Howard Hughes Corporation subsidiary Merriweather Post Business Trust for use of the word mark “Merriweather” in connection with Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

  Inner Arbor Trust and Merriweather Post Business Trust. Trademark License Agreement. 1 Sept. 2015, inartrust.org/s/Trademark-License-Agreement-Merriweatehr-Hughes-Executed.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• September 3: The Howard County Planning Board approves FDP-DC-MSW-1A, a comprehensive Final Development Plan for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood submitted jointly by the Inner Arbor Trust and subsidiaries of the Howard Hughes Corporation. The plan modifies the previous FDP-DC-MSW-1 for Symphony Woods to be consistent with the previously-approved Site Development Plan SDP-14-073 for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, and improve integration of the park with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Technical Staff Report, Merriweather Symphony Woods Neighborhood, Planning Board Hearing of September 3, 2015, Case No. PB 416. Howard County, Maryland, www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=LK3Z4voZgec%3d&portalid=0. Accessed 11 May 2017.

  Howard County Planning Board. “Planning Board Past Meetings.” Howard County, Maryland, 3 Sept. 2015, www.howardcountymd.gov/Departments/Planning-and-Zoning/Boards-and-Commissions/Planning-Board. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• September 9: The Howard County Design Advisory Panel considers plans for further renovations to Merriweather Post Pavilion, including a raised roof and a larger stage house, and offers some minor suggestions.

  Howard County Design Advisory Panel. Meeting Summary, September 9, 2015. Howard County, Maryland, 9 Sept. 2015, http://www.howardcountymd.gov/DesktopModules/DnnSharp/SearchBoost/FileDownload.ashx?file=11432&sb-inst=9164. Accessed 11 May 2017.

• September 12: The Inner Arbor Trust holds a groundbreaking ceremony for the Chrysalis amphitheater.

  Michaels, Andrew. “Amphitheater underway in Symphony Woods.” Columbia Flier, 17 Sept. 2015, p. 4.

• September 18: The Inner Arbor Trust executes a new amendment to its grant agreement with Howard County to reflect the additional funding of $1.4 million from the county.

  Howard County, Maryland, and Inner Arbor Trust. Amendment Three to Grant Agreement. 18 Sept. 2015, inartrust.org/s/Amendment-3-to-Grant-Agreement-9-18-2015.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• October: Howard County issues permits to the Inner Arbor Trust for grading of the Chrysalis site and construction of the foundation.

  Inner Arbor Trust. “October, 2015 Chrysalis Development Report.” 1 November 2015, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Update-as-of-November-2015.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• November 3: The Inner Arbor Trust sponsors the “Math of Architecture and Architecture of Math” public event with Joni Newkirk of Integrated Insight, Inc., and Bill Zahner of A. Zahner Co.

  Michaels, Andrew. “Pair join Merriweather Park design team.” Columbia Flier, 29 Oct. 2015, p. 17.

  Holzberg Janene. “Chrysalis is seen as a huge draw.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 8 Nov. 2015, p. 1G.

  Inner Arbor Trust. “Math of Architecture, Architecture of Math, November 3, 2015.” Vimeo, 3 Nov. 2015, vimeo.com/155286541. Accessed 8 May 2015.

• November–December: Whiting-Turner continues construction work on the Chrysalis foundation, including constructing a cistern to control storm water runoff, pouring “mud mats” for the foundation, and laying underground electrical conduits.

  Inner Arbor Trust. November & December, 2015 Chrysalis Development Report. 20 Dec. 2015, http://inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Update-as-of-November-2015-3oxn.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• December 17: The Howard County Planning Board approves SDP-16-018, a joint site development plan for improvements to Merriweather Post Pavilion and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, including shared restrooms, accessible paths, and handicap parking spaces.

  Inner Arbor Trust. November & December, 2015 Chrysalis Development Report. 20 Dec. 2015, http://inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Update-as-of-November-2015-3oxn.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning. Technical Staff Report, Merriweather Post Pavilion and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, Downtown Columbia - Merriweather Symphony Woods Neighborhood, Planning Board Meeting of December 17, 2015, Case No.: SDP-16-018. Howard County, Maryland, 3 Dec. 2015, www.howardcountymd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Hylr2WVK7HA%3d&portalid=0. Accessed 8 May 2017.

  Inner Arbor Trust and Merriweather Post Business Trust. SDP-16-018, Site Development Plan, Merriweather Post Pavilion & Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, Town Center, Section 1, Lots 13 & 23, Redevelopment Phase 2 & 3. Jan. 2016, inartrust.org/s/MPBT-IAT-Joint-SDP-16-018.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

2016

Chrysalis construction proceeds apace in concert with Merriweather Post Pavilion renovations.

• January: The Inner Arbor Trust sponsors an event “Let there be light” featuring the work of Arup lighting designer Star Davis. Unfortunately, it is cancelled due to a major snowstorm.

  Holzberg, Janene. “At Symphony Woods, lighting design comes alive.” Columbia Flier, 28 Jan. 2016, p. 4.

• February: Construction of the Chrysalis is well underway, with completion estimated for the spring of 2017. Whiting-Turner is placing rebar and pouring concrete for the piers and walls of the subfloor, while Arup and Zahner are preparing “shop drawings” (in digital form) for the steel framework and aluminum skin.

  Michaels, Andrew. “Chrysalis construction making headway.” Columbia Flier, 25 Feb. 2016, p. 4.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Report on the Chrysalis Development. 15 Feb. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Update-as-of-February-2016.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

• March: The steel tubes making up the steel framework of the Chrysalis are fabricated by the Walters Group, as Whiting-Turner continues work on the walls and piers of the concrete subfloor. Meanwhile renovations at Merriweather Post Pavilion continue as the stage house is replaced.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Report on the Chrysalis Development. 15 Mar. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Update-as-of-March-2016.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

  Michaels, Andrew. “Merriweather revamping sound monitoring.” Columbia Flier, 10 Mar. 2016, p. 4.

• April: Zahner fabricates the ZEPPS panels and aluminum shingles of the Chrysalis skin, while Whiting-Turner nears completion of the concrete subfloor.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Report on the Chrysalis Development. 15 Apr. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Update-as-of-April-2016.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

• May 3: The Inner Arbor Trust signs an agreement with Howard County for use of the Chrysalis during Wine in the Woods and other events.

  Inner Arbor Trust and Howard County, Maryland. Chrysalis Use Agreement. 3 May 2016, inartrust.org/s/Chrysalis-Use-Agreement-Fully-Executed-51116.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

• May 12: The Columbia Association Board of Directors selects Lin Eagan and Gregg Schwind to be its representatives on the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors.

  Columbia Association. Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting, Held: May 12, 2016, Approved: May 26, 2016. 26 May 2016, p. 2.

• June: Metropolitan Walters, part of the Walters Group, erects the steel framework of the Chrysalis while skin fabrication continues at Zahner.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Chrysalis Construction. 15 July 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Chrysalis-June-update-copy.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

• July: Howard County Executive Allan Kittleman proposes to provide $90 million via a “tax increment financing” plan to fund development of infrastructure for downtown Columbia, including a parking garage to support visitors to Merriweather Post Pavilion and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

  Waseem, Fatimah. “Project finance plan offered.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 3 July 2016, p. 1G.

• August: Metropolitan Walters completes erection of the steel framework of the Chrysalis. ZEPPS panels from Zahner arrive on the construction site and are beginning to be installed. Meanwhile Howard Hughes Corporation’s first building in the Crescent development nears its opening date as the second building is under construction.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Chrysalis Construction. 15 Aug. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Chrysalis-August-update.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

  Waseem, Fatimah. “$41M Columbia office building to open in ’17.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 21 Aug. 2016, p. 1G.

• September: Zahner continues installing ZEPPS panels, including fabricating some panels on site.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Chrysalis Construction. 15 Sept. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Chrysalis-September-Update-copy.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

• October: Zahner installs the last of the ZEPPS panels on the steel framework of the Chrysalis, and begins installing the green aluminum shingles forming the outer surface of the Chrysalis skin. The Howard County Council considers a public financing plan to help fund infrastructure improvements for downtown Columbia, including a new 2,545-space parking garage to serve Merriweather Post Pavilion and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Chrysalis Construction. 15 Oct. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Chrysalis-September-Update-draggedjpg-4dbe.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

  Wood, Pamela. “Howard weighs financing option for Columbia plan.” Baltimore Sun, 11 Oct. 2016, p. 1A.

  Waseem, Fatima. “TIF for core under scrutiny.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 16 Oct. 2016, p. 1G.

• November: More than half of the surface of the Chrysalis has been covered with green aluminum shingles, with Zahner projected to finish the work in December.

  Inner Arbor Trust. Chrysalis Construction. 15 Nov. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-Chrysalis-October-Update-sm.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2017.

• November 2: Mary Ann Scully, CEO of Howard Bank, is elected to the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors, as Howard Bank pledges to contribute $50,000 to the Trust.

  Inner Arbor Trust. “The Inner Arbor Trust unanimously elects Howard Bank’s CEO Mary Ann Scully to its Board of Directors.” 17 Nov. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Mary-Ann-Sculley-Press-Release-November-17-2016.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

  Inner Arbor Trust. November 2, 2016 Board Minutes. 2 Nov. 2016, inartrust.org/s/Inner-Arbor-Trust-November-2-2016-Minutes.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2017.

• November 30: Howard Hughes Corporation transfers ownership of Merriweather Post Pavilion to the nonprofit Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission.

  Waseem, Fatimah. “Merriweather Post eyes its new future.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 4 Dec. 2016, p. 1G.

2017

The Chrysalis comes to life and a new era begins for the Inner Arbor Trust.

• March 18: At the recommendation of Michael McCall, the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors elects Trust General Counsel Nina Basu to succeed McCall as President and CEO of the Trust, effective May 1. The board also elects Eric Metzman as a new board member, replacing retiring original board member Gill Wylie.

  McCall, Michael. Personal communication. 27 May 2017.

• April: The Maryland General Assembly approves a $150,000 grant to the Inner Arbor Trust in support of the Chrysalis.

  Yeager, Amanda. “Session makes a local impact.” Baltimore Sun, Howard ed., 16 Apr. 2017, p. 1G.

• April 22: The Chrysalis is dedicated with a public ceremony and concert.

  Holzberg, Janene. “Park by day, public sculpture by night.” Baltimore Sun, 16 Apr. 2017, p. 1 (A&E).

  Janney, Elizabeth. “Chrysalis dedicated to people of Columbia.” Columbia Patch, 24 Apr. 2017, patch.com/maryland/columbia/chrysalis-dedicated-people-columbia. Accessed 8 May 2017.

• May 1: Michael McCall steps down as President and CEO of the Inner Arbor Trust, after successfully leading the Trust through its formation as a nonprofit organization and achievement of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, the selection of a design team and creation of a detailed plan for the northern portion of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, the approval of a seven-phase Site Development Plan by Howard County (including concepts and locations for all park features), the execution of legal agreements with the Columbia Association, Howard County, the Howard Hughes Corporation, and It’s My Amphitheater, Inc., and the completion of phase 1 of the Site Development Plan, including the construction of the Chrysalis. He is succeeded by former Trust General Counsel Nina Basu.

  Basu, Nina. “Started working at Inner Arbor Trust.” Facebook, 1 May 2017, www.facebook.com/ninabasu/timeline/story?ut=32&wstart=-2051193600&wend=2147483647&hash=10155301230471913&pagefilter=3&ustart=1&pnref=story. Accessed 26 May 2017.

For further exploration

In writing the “Creating the Chrysalis” series and this timeline, I consulted multiple sources both online and offline. Unfortunately almost all of the online sources available have one or more flaws, including being incomplete, overly expensive, lacking adequate search facilities, or being prone to broken links as the underlying sites are revamped. At times my only option was to manually scroll through microfilm at the Central Branch of the Howard County Library System.

Here are the main information sources of interest:

• Baltimore Sun. The Sun has multiple ways to retrieve its articles:

  • The standard Baltimore Sun search page linked to from the main newspaper web site includes results for the Columbia Flier and Howard County Times, but will only return results within the last couple of years. It also lacks critical features like being able to search within a date range; even the function to sort results by date is broken.
  • A Google search against the Baltimore Sun site will typically return many more useful results than searching on the Baltimore Sun site itself.
  • The official Baltimore Sun archives (maintained by Newspapers.com) has excellent historical coverage (back to 1837) and can be used to obtain full images of the printed papers, including photographs and illustrations. Searches can be restricted to a date range and results sorted by date. Snippets of the results are viewable at no charge; full pages may be viewed for $8 per month for an unlimited number of searches. Indexing of articles is generally excellent; however, in some cases articles cannot be found using the most straightforward query but will show up using a slightly different query.

• Columbia Flier and Howard County Times. The archives for the Columbia Flier and Howard County Times are combined with Baltimore Sun archives for recent years. For articles before that time there is no option at present except to look for articles on microfilm.

  There used to be a site archives.explorehoward.com that provided access to earlier articles. However it no longer exists, and its contents are not archived anywhere else as far as I know. I am also not aware of any separate online index to the contents of the Columbia Flier and Howard County Times.

• Washington Post. As with the Sun, there are multiple approaches to finding Post articles:

  • The Washington Post search function retrieves articles back to 2005. Its advanced search option allows sorting results by date (in descending order only).
  • The official Washington Post archive site provides two options, searching articles from 1877 to 1995, or from 1987 to the present; both options have an “advanced search” function that allows searching a date range and sorting results by date. The site provides article previews at no charge; prices for the full articles range from $4 per article to just over $1 depending on how many you purchase.

• Columbia Association records of Board of Directors meetings, including minutes, agendas, and board packets (i.e., material provided to the board in advance of meetings). At present only records back to January 2014 are available online. Earlier records have been removed from the main CA site and links to them no longer work.

• The Inner Arbor Trust web site contains many documents of interest scattered around the site. The two main document areas are as follows:

  • “The Making of the Trust” contains links to several documents of interest for the period leading up to the formation of the Inner Arbor Trust.
  • “Corporate Documents” contains links to several documents of interest for the period after the formation of the Inner Arbor Trust.

• Various web sites maintained by General Growth Properties and Howard Hughes Corporation, including the columbiatowncenter.info and downtowncolumbia.com sites. Unfortunately, the former site is no longer online, and many of its pages were not archived. However the following pages at the Internet Archive may be of interest:

  • “A history of the Downtown Columbia Project” (formerly “A history of the Columbia Town Center project”) contains a timeline of activities related to GGP and Howard Hughes planning for downtown Columbia from May 2005 to December 2010.
  • Various sections of GGP’s proposed 2008 General Plan Amendment, including the following:
    • “Making a special place” (archived 19 Feb. 2009)
    • “Moving and connecting people (archived 19 Feb. 2009)
    • “Sustaining the environment” (archived 19 Feb. 2009)
    • “Balancing and phasing growth” (archived 19 Feb. 2009)
    • “Involving everyone” (archived 19 Feb. 2009)
    • “Exhibits” (archived 7 Oct. 2009)

• Columbia and Howard County blogs. The following blogs include material from people active in the controversies around development of downtown Columbia and/or Symphony Woods.

  • Coale, Tom. HoCo Rising. 2006–present, www.hocorising.com. Tom Coale is a former CA board member.
  • Coren, Evan, and others. Howard County Blog. 2006–2009, howardcountyblog.blogspot.com. Evan Coren is a former CA board member.
  • Dunn, Brian. Columbia 2.0. 2008–present, columbia2.wordpress.com. Brian Dunn is a former CA board member. This blog also served as the website for the advocacy group Columbia 2.0.
  • Hecker, Frank. Frank Hecker blog. 2004–present, frankhecker.com. Frank Hecker is the author of this series.
  • Lane, Dennis. Tales of Two Cities. 2006–2013, writing-the-wrongs.blogspot.com. Dennis Lane was a commercial real estate developer and prominent local blogger.
  • McCready, Julia. Village Green/Town² . 2011–present, villagegreentownsquared.blogspot.com. Julia McCready is a former member of the Oakland Mills Village board.
  • Santos, Bill. Columbia Compass. 2006–2012, columbiacompass.blogspot.com, and 2012–2014, columbiacompass.weebly.com/blog. Bill Santos is a former member of the Howard County Planning Board.
  • Woodcock, Bill. The 53. 2008–present, 53beersontap.typepad.com/53beers. Bill Woodcock is a former member of the Oakland Mills Village board.

• Web sites of Columbia and Howard County advocacy groups. Most of these are out of date and many are no longer available on the web, except for fragmentary snapshots preserved by the Internet Archive. Note that I have included only organizations significantly involved in advocacy activities relating to Symphony Woods, Merriweather Post Pavilion, or downtown Columbia development in general.

  • Alliance for a Better Columbia. abettercolumbia.org (archived 18 Dec. 2014). Founded by Paul Amico and Alex Hekimian in October 1987.
  • Bring Back the Vision. bringbackthevision.org (archived 6 Aug. 2008). Founded by Emily Lincoln in 2007.
  • Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown. www.coalitionforcolumbiasdowntown.org/AboutUs.html. Founded by Alan Klein in October 2006.
  • Columbia 2.0. columbia2.wordpress.com. Founded by David Yungmann, Katie Dunn, and Mac Cassity in July 2008.
  • Columbia Tomorrow. columbiatomorrow.org (archived 10 Dec. 2012). Founded by Jud Malone in September 2008.
  • Howard County Citizens Association. howardcountyhcca.org. Founded in 1961.
  • New City Alliance. www.facebook.com/NewCityAlliance. Founded by David Yungmann in October 2009. The group also maintained a web site newcityalliance.org before moving to Facebook.
  • Save Merriweather. savemerriweather.org. Founded by Justin Carlson and Ian Kennedy in June 2003.

tl;dr: Getting the details right on the Chrysalis, featuring Living Design Lab and Mahan Rykiel Associates.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

Previous articles in this series discussed the design, fabrication and installation of the steel frame and skin of the Chrysalis, as well as the construction of the “subfloor” to which the steel frame is attached. This article completes that discussion, focusing on various details of the Chrysalis design and construction not previously covered. It features the work of Living Design Lab, architect for the Chrysalis, and Mahan Rykiel Associates, the landscape architect.

Living Design Lab

The “Chrysalis Team” page on the merriweatherpark.org web site includes a number of people and companies previously discussed in this series, including Marc Fornes and THEVERYMANY, Arup, Zahner, and Whiting-Turner. Right near the top of the list you’ll find listed Living Design Lab as architect.

To quote Wikipedia, an architect “plans, designs, and reviews the construction of buildings.” Whether or not there’s a separate designer on the project (as there was for the Chrysalis), ultimately the architect is responsible for the project being able to meet the needs of the people who are going to use it.

As noted above, for the Chrysalis the Inner Arbor Trust chose as architect Living Design Lab, a Baltimore firm founded in 2014 by Davin Hong, subsequently joined by Kevin Day. The principals of Living Design Lab have shown a willingness to stretch themselves, to take on complex and ambitious projects with multiple stakeholders, to practice design above the level of a isolated building or structure, and to do work that serves the community as a whole and not just their client.

Projects on which they’ve worked include advocacy for an integrated design approach to renewing Baltimore’s schools and their surrounding neighborhoods, a project to revitalize Greenmount Avenue in Baltimore, the Baltimore Green Network—an ambitious plan to create an interconnected system of greenspaces throught the city—and a project to build cities for refugees in the Middle East in place of their current camps.

This background prepared Living Design Lab to play a key role in the complex and ambitious project that was the Chrysalis, working with THEVERYMANY, Arup, and Zahner to take the formal concept of the Chrysalis—the 3-dimensional form created through the parametric design process—and make a buildable structure able to handle the demands to be placed upon it.

Sweating the details

Even a typical architectural project involves a myriad of details, more or less visible to the people using it. Less visible details include those needed to satisfy local authorities that a building or other structure will be safe for people and satisfy other requirements: Does it provide adequate fire protection? Does it comply with ADA requirements regarding access? What about handling of storm water runoff? And so on . . .

Even the more visible details often go unnoticed by many, but can elicit a sense of delight when done really well, or irritation when done poorly—think of how satisfied we feel when we hold and use a really well-designed smartphone, for example, or how we’re annoyed when we pay thousands for a new car only to find that the body panels aren’t consistently joined, or that an otherwise sumptuous interior is spoiled by misplaced controls and cheap plastic parts. And of course we want good design for an reasonable price.

For the Chrysalis Living Design Lab dealt with both types of details, working to understand and satisfy a myriad of technical requirements related to the function, construction, cost, schedule, and regulatory approval of the Chrysalis, all without compromising the design intent. For example, consider the question of fire protection: Above the stage floor the Chrysalis is a pure metal structure of steel and aluminum. Arguably a conventional building sprinkler system is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Chrysalis—just one of the many issues that had to be negotiated with Howard County officials for a structure very different than those that typically come before them.

Previous articles have discussed various strategies employed to preserve the design intent for the Chrysalis—so often compromised in projects—while making it possible for it to fulfill its purposes, including most notably serving as a professional performance stage. These strategies included the introduction of the steel framework with its “spine” of primary steel and “ribs” of secondary steel to support heavy theatrical loads and resist dynamic wind loads, and the use of ZEPPS panels to support the pleated surface of aluminum shingles.

This attention to design intent and the uniqueness of the Chrysalis extended to other aspects as well. To explore just one, consider the wooden pickets attached to the exterior of the Chrysalis subfloor (see the first figure above). These pickets are Living Design Lab’s elegant solution to three separate problems:

First, code requirements dictate that there be adequate protection to prevent people from falling off the stage and other surfaces greater than a certain height above the ground. Second, aesthetic considerations dictate that some sort of screening be provided for the otherwise uninterrupted expanses of concrete forming the exterior walls of the subfloor. Finally, budget considerations mean that any solution must not be overly expensive to fabricate and install.

The solution that Living Design Lab came up with was to use vertical wooden pickets (of the same ipe hardwood used for the stage floor) extending from the ground either to the stage floor (at the front of the stage) or beyond it (at the rear of the stage) to form guard rails. The result is more aesthetically pleasing than using conventional railings for the stage and a separate screen or facade for the exterior walls.

But how to build and install these wooden pickets, given that they have to both follow the curve of the stage floor and also match up with the angled legs of the Chrysalis at the points where the guard rails meet the legs? Every picket might have a different orientation in 3-dimensional space, and thus have to be attached in a slightly different way.

For the solution to the problem see the rendering above: Each picket is attached to a angled aluminum attachment bracket. Different attachment brackets have different angles, so that their respective pickets can assume different angles to the ground depending on the degree to which the underlying subfloor wall “leans in.” (Viewing the picket from above and comparing it to an airplane, this is the “pitch” angle.)

Each picket is free to rotate around the bolt attaching it to its bracket, so it can also be slanted to the left or right in a direction parallel to the exterior subfloor wall—in airplane terms, the “roll” angle of the picket can change. Finally, the bracket itself is attached to a horizontal aluminum support plate in such a way that the bracket and its attached picket can “yaw” back and forth slightly to match the curve of the stage floor and the positions of its neighboring pickets.

This arrangement of pickets, brackets, and support plates, elegant as it is, would be too expensive to fabricate if each bracket had to be unique, and too complicated to install as well, given the need to adjust the pickets to precise angles. To address this, the system was designed to require only a limited number of types of brackets, each holding a picket to a particular angle to the ground. The underside of each support plate was then marked to indicate to the installers the type of bracket to be used at each position, together with a line to indicate how the installer should align each bracket relative to the plate (the “yaw” angle).

This system is but one example where having a balance of technical expertise with design sophistication enabled Living Design Lab and the other members of the core Chrysalis team to realize the form of the Chrysalis as a buildable design within a reasonable budget and time schedule.

Mahan Rykiel Associates

While Living Design Lab is a relatively new firm, Mahan Rykiel Associates has been a fixture of the Baltimore scene for over 30 years. Founded by Catherine Mahan in 1983 as Catherine Mahan Associates, it became Mahan Rykiel Associates after Scott Rykiel joined the firm in 1993 and became a partner with Mahan.

Mahan Rykiel has completed or is currently working on a host of projects in the Baltimore-Washington region, including several involving parks: Harbor Point on the waterfront west of Fells Point, Pierce’s Park next to the Columbus Center at the Inner Harbor, Eager Park north of Johns Hopkins University, and Fern Valley and the National Capitol Columns at the US National Arboretum.

Closer to home, Mahan Rykiel has many associations with Columbia: Scott Rykiel used to work at the Columbia-based firm LDR International, two partners at the firm currently live in Columbia, and Mahan Rykiel has been involved with downtown Columbia projects for over ten years, including being the landscape architect for the Columbia Association’s Symphony Woods Park project.

After the Columbia Association decided to adopt the Inner Arbor plan and created the Inner Arbor Trust to carry it out, the Trust decided to take advantage of Mahan Rykiel’s deep knowledge of Symphony Woods and added them to the design team for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

Getting to and from the Chrysalis

In joining the Inner Arbor design team one major task Mahan Rykiel took on was that of creating a new path system for Symphony Woods—fulfilling the mandate of the Howard County Planning Board to minimize tree removal by “aligning paths around healthy trees and minimizing grading.” Mahan Rykiel’s work at the Chrysalis represents the beginning of creating a comprehensive system of meandering paths for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, as seen in the multiple pedestrian areas around the structure.

The first is an 8-foot-wide accessible path leading to the Chrysalis from a set of seven new handicap parking spaces at the Merriweather VIP parking lot. This path winds around the existing Merriweather Post Pavilion administrative offices and concludes in front of the Chrysalis between the alpha and beta stages.

In order to minimize the slope of the accessible path it goes below grade a bit for one section, in which it is flanked by low walls made of natural stone from the region. To minimize storm water runoff the accessible path features flexible pervious pavement made from recycled tire granules, aggregate rock, and a binding agent. (See the figure above.)

At the Chrysalis the accessible path terminates in a pedestrian area in front of the alpha and beta stages. This area uses light-colored pervious clay pavers, again to minimize storm water runoff. (See the figure above.)

At the south end of the Chrysalis concrete and wooden steps lead to the beta stage. At the north end of the Chrysalis the clay pavers transition to a wooden ramp that provides an accessible approach to the alpha stage floor. This ramp is surfaced with the same ipe hardwood used for the Chrysalis stage floor, and flanked by the same wooden picket discussed above, serving as guard rails. (See the figure above.)

At present this elevated wooden boardwalk is relatively short. However, in phase 2 of the development of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods the boardwalk will be extended west and then northeast to provide an accessible path to the Chrysalis from a new entrance to the park at the corner of Little Patuxent Parkway and South Entrance Road, next to the multi-use pathway to Lake Kittamaqundi.

The final approach to the Chrysalis is via a short access road providing vehicular access to the loading dock at the rear of the alpha stage. Paved with asphalt and edged with cobblestones, this road provides another walkable approach to the Chrysalis.

Supplemented by landscaping work around the Chrysalis to restore a more natural landscape, the Chrysalis path system and the other areas surrounding the Chrysalis represent Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in miniature, foreshadowing how Mahan Rykiel’s work will enhance Symphony Woods during the subsequent phases of park development.

Taking the stage

Another key element of the Chrysalis in its final form, important to performers and audience alike, is the stage floor.

This floor has to satisfy several requirements: it has to provide as level a surface as possible; bear the weight of performers, their equipment, and an on-stage audience that might number in the hundreds; be yielding enough for dance and related performances; be sturdy enough to last a long time while exposed to the elements; provide adequate space for electrical cabling and other below-stage equipment; allow for easy repair if damaged; and, finally, be installable above a concrete surface that may be somewhat uneven in places.

The path to a solution began with Michael McCall, the president of the Inner Arbor Trust: in the course of planning a deck for his own home, McCall came across the Bison system of wooden floor tiles and adjustable deck supports. (See the figure above.) Living Design Lab and Arup evaluated the system, and based on its multiple advantages the Chrysalis team decided to adopt it for the main stage floor.

Each Bison unit supports the corners of four adjacent wooden tiles. The deck supports are threaded to allow fine adjustments to be made to the height of the tiles to make the stage floor as level as possible. If needed the base of each unit can also be adjusted to compensate for the underlying surface sloping somewhat.

The wooden tiles for the floor are 2-foot by 2-foot and (like the wooden pickets and the ramp to the Chrysalis) are made of ipe hardwood. They are elevated several inches above the underlying concrete subfloor to allow space for electrical cabling and other equipment, and can be individually removed if needed to gain access to the space under the stage floor. They can also be individually replaced if damaged.

The Inner Arbor Trust also took advantage of the nature of the tiles to mount a fundraising campaign, allowing people or organizations to have their names or other texts laser-engraved on the individual planks of the tiles in return for donations. The final form of the Chrysalis stage floor thus reflects not only the contributions of Living Design Lab, Arup, and the other members of the Chrysalis team, but also the contributions of the many other people and organizations who have helped bring the Chrysalis to life.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of sources, including the following:

• For more on Living Design Lab and its principals, Davin Hong and Kevin Day, see the following:

  • Living Design Lab. The firm’s web site.
  • Davin Hong. Professional biography of Davin Hong.
  • Kevin Day. Professional biography of Kevin Day.
  • “Building communities through schools: An interview with Davin Hong. A 2013 interview with Davin Hong.

• For more on Mahan Rykiel Associates, see the following:

  • Mahan Rykiel Associates/Practice. About page on the Mahan Rykiel site.
  • “Moving heaven & earth,” by Stephanie Shapiro, page 1C, Baltimore Sun, October 9, 2006. Includes a profile of Scott Rykiel.
  • “Devoted to ‘creating wonderful outdoor spaces’”, by Lorraine Mirabella, page 3C, Baltimore Sun, April 1, 2012. An interview with Catherine Mahan on her retirement from Mahan Rykiel, discussing the history of the firm.
  • “Unabashed Designers of Delight” [121-minute video] (November 18, 2013). A presentation introducing the design team for the Inner Arbor plan. It includes a presentation by Scott Rykiel beginning at 41:54.

• For more on the Chrysalis stage floor see the following:

  • Bison Innovative Products and example deck supports and floor tiles.
  • Entry for ipe (the hardwood used in the stage floor tiles and pickets) at the online Wood Database.
  • Engraving for the Chrysalis stage floor tiles.

• For more on the Chrysalis amphitheater and its origins in the Inner Arbor concept plan, see the following:

  • Michael McCall presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [33-minute video] (September 20, 2013).
  • The Chrysalis portion of the Inner Arbor pre-submission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014).

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: Now that construction of the Chrysalis is complete, what are the next steps to fulfill the vision of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods?

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous few articles in this series discussed the design and construction of the Chrysalis itself. Now that construction of the Chrysalis is complete I take a look at what’s next for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. In particular, this article focuses on other Merriweather Park features that are already part of the Site Development Plan approved by the Howard County Planning Board and are thus candidates for the next few years of park development.

A roadmap for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods

When the Inner Arbor Trust went before the Howard County Planning Board in November 2014, it sought approval not just for the Chrysalis amphitheater, but for a whole range of planned features for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods—or at least the northern portion of it. (Recall that the Symphony Woods property also includes areas to the east, south, and west of Merriweather Post Pavilion.) In their combination of beauty and utility these features make Merriweather Park a more attractive destination for visitors and provide various key functions needed to accomodate them.

SDP-14-073, the Site Development Plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, outlines 7 phases of park development, with phase 1 being the construction of the Chrysalis and related infrastructure and phase 2 construction of an additional path connecting to the Chrysalis. In approving SDP-14-073 the Planning Board approved the design concepts, uses, and locations of park features for all 7 phases, and fully approved phases 1 and 2 for construction.

Each phase is tied to a particular area of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. The park features in each of the 7 phases are as follows:

1. The Chrysalis and related infrastructure, including an access road to the rear of the stage, a parking lot with 7 handicap spaces, and an accessible path from that parking lot to the Chrysalis.

2. A new park entrance at the corner of Little Patuxent Parkway and South Entrance Road, leading to the Chrysalis via an accessible boardwalk. This phase also includes the Sky Horns, a sound sculpture near the entrance (part of the Merriweather Horns public art) and restoration of the two streams on the eastern side of Merriweather Park.

3. The Butterfly guest services building and related infrastructure, including a rooftop terrace with lines of sight into both the Chrysalis and Merriweather Post Pavilion, and a large three-tiered deck facing the Chrysalis.

4. The Merriground play area and another new park entrance, from Little Patuxent Parkway across from the Mall in Columbia access road (to the west of the first park entrance). This phase also includes the Song Cycles, a second sound sculpture near the new entrance.

5. The Picnic Table and associated paths, including a third entrance to the park from Little Patuxent Parkway (to the west of the first two park entrances). This phase also includes the Land Horns, a third sound sculpture near the new entrance.

6. The Caterpillar and associated paths.

7. A renovated access road from Little Patuxent Parkway to Merriweather Post Pavilion, under the new name Free To Be Drive, along with a visitor drop-off area, a fourth park entrance, and the Tone Reeds, the fourth and final entrance sound sculpture.

The timing of phase 2 and beyond will depend on available funding, and the actual order of phases 3 through 7 may not be the same as that listed above.

All features listed above are discussed below, with the exception of Free To Be Drive and related vehicular roadways, parking spaces, and paths: much of that work has already been constructed by Howard Hughes Corporation under a later Site Development Plan (SDP-16-018) jointly submitted by Howard Hughes and the Inner Arbor Trust. (See also the last figure below.) Although paths, lighting, and elements of the Merriweather Horns will be constructed during their associated phases, for convenience they are discussed in separate sections.

The Merriweather Park path system

The plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods includes over 2 miles of paths and walkable access roads and 4 separate pedestrian entrances into the park from Little Patuxent Parkway and Free To Be Drive, designed by landscape architects Mahan Rykiel Associates of Baltimore.

These paths and access roads will not all be constructed at once, but instead will be built incrementally as part of the various phases. For example, phase 1 (the Chrysalis) included construction of a walkable access road to the Chrysalis from the Merriweather Post Pavilion VIP parking lot, and an accessible path to the Chrysalis from a newly-built parking lot with 7 handicap spaces.

Phase 2 of the Site Development Plan includes construction of an accessible boardwalk from the Chrysalis to Little Patuxent Parkway. The planned boardwalk first heads west from the Chrysalis (skirting the existing stream to the north of the Chrysalis) and then goes northeast to the intersection of Little Patuxent Parkway and South Entrance Road, where the path will connect with the existing multi-use pathway leading to Lake Kittamaqundi. (See the two figures above.)

Additional paths will be constructed as part of the remaining phases, including adding two additional park entrances on Little Patuxent Parkway, one across from the access road to The Mall in Columbia, and one next to the existing access road from Little Patuxent Parkway to Merriweather Post Pavilion, and adding a fourth entrance from the future Free To Be Drive.

The pathways themselves are designed to be attractive, durable, and pervious to assist in handling storm water runoff. As it happens, the paths already constructed for the Chrysalis provide examples of all the planned pathway types:

• Larger pedestrian areas, like the area in front of the Chrysalis alpha stage, will use permeable clay pavers (blue areas in the figure above).
• Regular paths, like that leading to the Chrysalis from the 7-space handicap access parking lot, will use flexible pervious pavement made from recycled tire granules, aggregate rock, and a binding agent (green arrows in the figure above).
• Boardwalks and decks, like the ramp leading to the Chrysalis stage, will be surfaced with ipe (“ee-pay”), an extremely durable and low-maintenance hardwood (red arrows in the figure above).
• Walkable access roads, like that leading to the Chrysalis from the Merriweather Post Pavilion VIP parking lot, will be surfaced with asphalt and edged with cobblestones (purple areas in the figure above).

Any walls next to pathways (for example, as seen in the accessible path to the Chrysalis) will be constructed of stone from the region (yellow areas in the figure above).

Finally, the pathway system will provide plenty of opportunities for people to sit and take a rest, using seating built into the stone walls, long benches next to paths, circular benches, and circular bench and table combinations. Like the boardwalks and decks, these will be built using ipe hardwood. Altogether there will be seating for over 2,000 people.

The Butterfly

The Butterfly, designed by Mimi Hoang and Eric Bunge of the New York-based firm nARCHITECTS, is a guest services building containing café and gallery space, planned to be located between the Chrysalis and Merriweather Post Pavilion. Its main customer base will be people attending concerts and cultural events at either or both venues, supplemented by other visitors to the park. (The Butterfly will be open to the general public most of the time, except when ticketed events are being held at Merriweather Post Pavilion or the Chrysalis.)

In designing the Butterfly nARCHITECTS aimed for immersion, lightness, and connection: to immerse visitors in the natural setting, impart a sense of lightness to the structure, and connect it to both the Chrysalis and Merriweather Post Pavilion. One key element in promoting these goals is the design for the roof of the Butterfly. The roof is designed for active use by visitors: to watch performances at the Chrysalis or those held on the roof itself, or just to hang out with friends at the rooftop bar.

The roof will accomodate almost three hundred people, either standing or sitting on steps built into the upward curving wings of the roof. It will be reachable either by two exterior stairs or by an elevator within the Butterfly itself.

The ground floor of the Butterfly has four wings, housing food preparation areas, a small art gallery, and restrooms. The central space will have seating to accomodate patrons of the café. The Butterfly also has a three-level terraced outside deck facing the Chrysalis, again with seating to accomodate visitors.

The Butterfly can be entered from both the Merriweather Post Pavilion side (from the VIP parking lot) and the Chrysalis side (from the terraced deck), with glass walls providing a view through the building and a visual connection between the Merriweather Post Pavilion area and the woods leading to the Chrysalis—again promoting the goals of immersion, lightness, and connection.

The Merriground

The Merriground, designed by Martha Schwartz Partners, is a children’s play area containing multiple elements: a double helix spiral slide, a climbing tower and slide, various elements that can be used either for seating (at their lower levels) or climbing, a ring of rope swings, a “spider web” of rope that can be used as a hammock in which to relax, and—last but not least—the Wondrous Tower, a 45-foot-tall anodized aluminum tower within which visitors can ascend a spiral staircase and look out over the park.

The elements of the Merriground are custom-designed to have a common aesthetic and match the overall aesthetic of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods: the elements incorporate circular and spiral shapes, and the wood used will be the same durable ipe hardwood used for the Merriweather Park boardwalk and decks.

The Merriground will be located on the boardwalk (from phase 2) that leads into Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods from the corner of Little Patuxent Parkway and South Entrance Road. It abuts the Lily Pads, a set of circular decks with benches that forms part of that boardwalk.

The Merriground thus not only serves as a play area, but also provides an attractive “entrance experience” for visitors arriving from the northeast, for example, walking from Lake Kittamaqundi on the multi-use pathway.

The Picnic Table

The Picnic Table, also designed by Martha Schwartz Partners, has a very simple function: it takes an area of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods that is low-lying and damp and turns it into an area that can be used for picnics, seating for events like Wine in the Woods, and just plain lounging around.

As its name suggests, the Picnic Table can be seen as an alternative to and replacement for conventional picnic tables. However, it can accomodate many more people within its expanse of 300 by 25 feet: over three hundred people can sit on or near the edge for an event like Wine in the Woods. The Picnic Table also has a much lower profile than conventional picnic tables: it is only 18 inches high, and is designed so that it appears to float above the ground below: the edges of the Picnic Table are cantilevered over 6 feet out from the relatively small steel columns and girders holding it up.

Finally, the Picnic Table is designed to fit into the landscape: it is covered with artificial turf to help it blend in to the underlying lawn, and has cutouts to avoid existing trees. (Seven new trees will also be planted to fill spaces within the existing tree cover.) The artificial turf and the underlying surface of the Picnic Table will also be perforated to allow water to drain naturally through the surface.

The development phase that includes construction of the Picnic Table will also see construction of a third pedestrian entrance into the park from Little Patuxent Parkway, and the Land Horns sound sculpture near the entrance. This accessible entrance will be west of the two other entrances, near the existing access road to Merriweather Post Pavilion and the future Free To Be Drive.

Oriented northwest to southeast, the Picnic Table itself runs roughly parallel to a section of this new path, and also roughly parallel to a separate path (on the other side of the Picnic Tables) constructed as part of the same phase as the Merriground. Visitors will thus have easy access to the Picnic Table from multiple segments of the park pathway system.

The Caterpillar

The Caterpillar, designed by Martha Schwartz Partners, is the single most extensive feature proposed for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, about twice as long as the Picnic Table. It stretches over about a third of Merriweather Park from east to west, a circular tube covered with plants and other landscaping features.

Although it’s designed to serve multiple functions, the Caterpillar’s primary purpose is very simple: to provide an attractive visual and physical barrier between the “performance park” envisioned in the Inner Arbor concept plan (Merriweather Post Pavilion, the Chrysalis, and associated venues) and the “public park” (just south of Little Patuxent Parkway). This is in support of the twin principles of “operational elasticity” and “the art of bounds” pursued by the Inner Arbor Trust: to allow both the park and the pavilion to expand as needed to accomodate particular uses, and to ensure that the park can remain open to visitors even when events are held at the pavilion.

The striking design of the Caterpillar follows directly from these principles: a fence or wall would be too visually forbidding and unwelcoming for park visitors (as is the current fence around the Merriweather Post Pavilion property), while an earth berm of the needed height would be so wide that it would encroach upon the surrounding trees and suffocate their roots.

Essentially a tubular green wall, the circular cross-section of the Caterpillar allows for it to be large enough to provide physical separation between the two park areas while having a relatively small footprint on the ground below. At almost 11 feet high the Caterpillar is high enough to discourage visitors from climbing over it, but its rounded shape creates a more organic and visually friendly impression than a vertical barrier. Gateways at either end (where the Caterpillar structure arches over the paths) will funnel pedestrian traffic between the northern part of Merriweather Park and the southern part.

The Caterpillar does not follow the line of the existing fence on the property line between the Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion properties. Instead it is located some distance north of the property line (towards Little Patuxent Parkway), with the area just south of the Caterpillar (towards Merriweather Post Pavilion) containing a pedestrian plaza and serving as an additional public area for visitors to the pavilion.

In addition to acting as an attractive visual and physical barrier, the Caterpillar also helps with the prosaic problem of providing utilities for events such as Wine in the Woods that spread beyond Merriweather Post Pavilion or the Chrysalis. The structure is hollow, designed to contain electrical lines, water lines, computer network cables, and anything else needed to support events in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

The space immediately north and south of the Caterpillar can be used for event tents and other temporary structures, the fronts of which would face the paths and pedestrian plazas, and the backs of which would be next to any power or other utility outlets embedded in the Caterpillar. The Caterpillar can also support wireless access points to provide WiFi signals to a good portion of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

The Caterpillar will also support a number of other uses: At either end it will contain information booths for visitors to the park or the pavilion. Since the structure supports potted plants as the main visual element it can be used as a community garden to raise flowers or herbs, and since it’s intended to be lighted from within it can be used for visual art of various sorts.

Martha Schwartz has proposed other possible uses as well, including having “portals” through which people could view artworks or educational displays, supporting “audioscapes” either natural (e.g., activated by the wind) or artificial (using microspeakers), or having the structure interact with visitors via smartphone or tablet apps. The Caterpillar can thus serve as a platform for a myriad of possible uses, and will be one of the unique attractions of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

The Merriweather Horns

As visitors enter Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods the Inner Arbor Trust wanted to make them feel that they were entering a special place. In support of that goal the Trust turned to a local artist with a national reputation, former Howard County resident William Cochran. The result was the Merriweather Horns, a set of sculptures for the entrances to Merriweather Park, as well as other sculptural elements to be located elsewhere in the park.

The Merriweather Horns are inspired by the ancient practice of producing sound via horns, from animal horns to musical instruments to the acoustic horns of old-time phonographs and audiophile speakers. As befits their inspiration, all of the pieces are designed to occasionally produce sounds of various types, soft enough to be heard only while standing near the sculptures, and muted during concerts held at Merriweather Post Pavilion or the Chrysalis.

Cochran designed one sculpture for each of the four entrances to Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods:

• The Sky Horns will be located at the northeast entrance to Merriweather Park, at the intersection of Little Patuxent Parkway and South Entrance Road. They are a set of about a dozen long thin straight horns, from 6 to 23 feet in length, suspended among the trees and pointing down towards visitors entering the park on the boardwalk. (See the figure above.) Their sounds are designed to combine and evoke the human voice.

• The Song Cycles will be located at the central entrance to Merriweather Park, at the bottom of the stairs leading down from Little Patuxent Parkway. Resembling traditional phonograph horns, two of them (terminating in fan wheels) are interactive sculptures: visitors can sit at them and use a set of bicycle pedals to produce a series of sounds from the sculptures. Pedalling faster changes the character of the sounds, until eventually they reach a crescendo and the cycle begins anew.

• The Land Horns will be located at the northwest entrance to Merriweather Park, off Little Patuxent Parkway. They are a set of 6 large (up to 28 feet tall) horns, all but one with the bell part of the horn facing the ground. Five of the horns will produce a low frequency melody directed into underground acoustic chambers, with the other horn producing somewhat higher pitched sounds in harmony.

• The Tone Reeds will be located at the southwest entrance to Merriweather Park, off the access road to Merriweather Post Pavilion from Little Patuxent Parkway (the future Free To Be Drive). They are a set of over 200 thin vertical rods ranging in height from 12 to 18 feet, positioned in a loose cluster several feet off the path. They produce a light delicate chiming sound.

In addition to the four main sculptures, there will also be about a dozen “pathfinder horns” at various points on the pathway system. These sculptures will serve as wayfinding devices, for example with two intertwined standing horns (from 8 to almost 10 feet tall) located at a fork in the path, each facing a different direction the visitor can take. The mouths of the horns will face down toward the visitor, with an interior gold finish covered by perforated stainless steel grilles with directional arrows and text.

The pathfinder horns will produce soft sounds characteristic of the forest and its underground wildlife. They can also be synchronized together to play a soft “evening song” melody to mark the end of the day.

Although they produce different sounds, all of the Merriweather Horns have a common visual aesthetic, combining white pearlescent fiberglass with stainless steel, designed to have a light appearance in a portion of the park that is in shade much of the time. The Merriweather Horns will also be lighted from within in various ways as part of the overall lighting scheme for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods (see below).

Restoring the landscape in Merriweather Park

Although it’s sometimes referred to as a preserved forest, after years of use and relative neglect the Symphony Woods property is not close to being in a natural state: most of the property is simply a lawn with accompanying trees, and even the more wooded parts of the property lack the understory plants one would find in a truly natural forest.

A key part of the plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods is therefore to restore the woods to a more natural state while still making it possible for visitors to use the park on a day to day basis and during events like Wine in the Woods. The planting design was created by landscape architects Mahan Rykiel Associates, the firm that also designed the systems of paths in Merriweather Park, working with the Baltimore-based firm Biohabitats.

Mahan Rykiel has designated 5 different types of landscape in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, with each planned to be restored in a different manner (see the figure above):

1. Areas at the park entrances and next to many of the paths will have feature plantings: decorative bushes and shrubs (e.g., azaleas and rhododendrons), small trees, flowers, and the like. These will enhance the experience of visitors using the paths, beautify the outer edge of the park along Little Patuxent Parkway and Free To Be Drive, and form a natural complement to the Merriweather Horns.¹
2. Areas to be used by visitors, for example the hill next to the Chrysalis and the areas around the Picnic Table and Caterpillar, will be restored as natural lawns.
3. Various areas in the more heavily forested eastern portion of the park will become enhanced woodlands, with native woodland plants (shrubs, perennials, groundcovers, and grasses) added to form a proper understory for the trees.
4. A relatively open area in the north of the park and another to the southwest will be converted into native meadows.
5. Finally, the streambeds in the eastern portion of the park will be restored and riparian buffers created between the streams and the rest of the park.

Lighting Merriweather Park

The Chrysalis and Merriweather Post Pavilion will frequently host events in the evening. Visitors to Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods on those and other nights will want to be able to walk through the park and be able to find their way and have a sense of security. Proper lighting of the park is key to addressing these issues.

The New York office of Arup Associates, with Star Davis as lead, created the lighting master plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. The plan features multiple “layers” of lighting that work together to create an overall experience. The plan aims for the various lighting elements to have a natural quality, “as if growing from the earth and drawing power from the soil”:

• The first layer is lighting for the pedestrian pathways of Merriwweather Park. This will be provided by small fixtures near ground level spaced every 5 feet, designed to shine light on the path without bleeding light upward.
• The second layer is lighting for vehicular roadways within Merriweather Park: access roads, parking lots, and visitor drop-off points. This will be provided by pole-mounted lights of various heights (each no higher than necessary given its location), facing downward to minimize light loss upwards.
• The third layer is landscape lighting in Merriweather Park areas where people would be most likely to gather: between the Butterfly and the Chrysalis, at the Merriground and Picnic Table, and between the Caterpillar and Merriweather Post Pavilion. Some of these lights will be low to the ground (similar to the pathway lights), while others will be suspended among the trees.
• The fourth layer is lighting for the Merriweather Horns, including both those at park entrances and the pathfinder horns located throughout the park. These will be softly lit from within.
• The final layer is “integrated feature animation,” that is, lighting of park features like the Merriground, Picnic Table, and Caterpillar that is designed to subtly change over time or in response to the actions of visitors.

Illumination throughout Merriweather Park will vary by layer and feature, designed to meet recommended light levels for various uses and contexts while not producing excessive or misdirected light. The overall effect of the lighting master plan will be to show all the features of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods to their best advantages, making the park at night a magical experience for all its visitors.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online and offline sources, including the following:

• For more on Martha Schwartz Partners, nARCHITECTS, and William Cochran, see the following:

  • Martha Schwartz Partners/Practice/Profile. From the Martha Schwartz Partners web site.
  • “Q&A with landscape architect Martha Schwartz”. A Newsweek interview from March 11, 2015.
  • nARCHITECTS. nARCHITECTS web site.
  • “13 mins interview with Mimi Hoang - nARCHITECTS”. An Arch20 interview from 2016 [?].
  • “Unabashed Designers of Delight” [121-minute video] (November 18, 2013). A presentation introducing the design team for the Inner Arbor plan. It includes a presentation by Martha Schwartz beginning at 12:00 and a presentation by Eric Bunge and Mimi Hoang beginning at 1:18:24.
  • “Studio William Cochran/Bios”. Biographies of William Cochran and his wife and partner Teresa Cochran.
  • “William Cochran: changing streetscapes through public art,” by Erik Anderson, May 18, 2016, Frederick News-Post. An article about Cochran’s work in Frederick and beyond.

• For more on the planned features for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the following:

  • By design/Community presentation. This page on the Merriweather Park web site features slides from the community presentation on December 2, 2013, including more renderings and design diagrams for the Caterpillar, Butterfly, and Picnic Table.
  • By design/The plan. This page on the Merriweather Park web site features a gallery of renderings of the Merriground and the Merriweather Horns.
  • SDP-14-073 (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5). Although it can be difficult to read for the layperson, the approved Site Development Plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods provides a wealth of detail about planned park features.
  • SDP-16-018. A subsequent Site Development Plan (jointly submitted by the Inner Arbor Trust and the Howard Hughes Corporation) describing elements that are part of phase 7.

• For more on the plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods as it has evolved from the original Inner Arbor plan, see the following:

  • The Inner Arbor pre-submission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014). Among other things, this presentation outlines the principles of “operational elasticity” and “the art of bounds.”

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I discuss how the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods can attract visitors, based on research conducted by Integrated Insight.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous few articles in this series discussed the design and construction of the Chrysalis itself. There will be one more article discussing the final architectural details of the Chrysalis, but in the meantime before construction is completed I’ll take a detour and discuss other aspects of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. In particular, this article focuses on how Merriweather Park might attract visitors and how many visitors could be reasonably expected once the park is built out, based on research conducted for the Inner Arbor Trust by Integrated Insight, Inc.

Integrated Insight and the real Disney magic

Over the 50 years that Symphony Woods has existed many people have proposed ways to encourage more visitors, from early attempts by the Columbia Association to promote Symphony Woods as a picnic area for families to CA’s more recent efforts to formally develop the area as “Symphony Woods Park” (the so-called “Paumier plan”). However during that entire time few if any people made a serious effort to research exactly what types of park features might best attract visitors, and how many visitors might reasonably be expected as a result.

When the Inner Arbor Trust was given the responsibility of developing Symphony Woods as a park, one of its first actions was to commission exactly such a study. To perform the research the Trust turned to the Florida-based firm Integrated Insight, Inc.

Integrated Insight was founded in 2009 by Joni Newkirk, Scott Sanders, and other former executives of the Walt Disney Company. Newkirk had previously worked as a senior vice president responsible for researching, forecasting, and optimizing business for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, the organization responsible for Walt Disney World, Disneyland, the Disney cruise line, and other Disney attractions around the world.

Jim Rouse was a fervent admirer of Walt Disney and his work in creating the Disney theme parks, once referring to Disneyland as “the greatest piece of urban design in the United States today . . ., [fulfilling] all its functions it set out to accomplish, un-self-consciously, usefully, and profitably to its owners and developers.” Rouse’s work in creating festival marketplaces like the Inner Harbor development in Baltimore can be seen as adapting various aspects of Disney’s ideas to an urban setting.

Although Jim Rouse did not have the opportunity to work with Disney while at the Rouse Company, afterwards he explored creating a joint venture between the Walt Disney Company and the Enterprise Development Company, the for-profit arm of his nonprofit Enterprise Foundation. The lead on that project was Michael McCall, who was later to found Strategic Leisure, Inc., and then to spearhead development of Symphony Woods as president of the Inner Arbor Trust. McCall was thus familar with Disney’s various projects, the executives responsible for them, and the capabilities that Disney had built in strategy and operations for its parks and resorts.

Those parks and resorts owe their success not just to the family-friendly image carried over from Walt Disney’s animated films, but to the Walt Disney Company’s application of sophisticated business practices to every aspect of running the parks: promoting the parks to potential visitors via various channels, forecasting park attendance to a high degree of accuracy, ensuring that visitors have a wide variety of park experiences available to them, engineering the layout and other aspects of the parks (including the lines for rides) to optimally accomodate visitors, and doing all this in a way that both delights visitors and is financially sustainable.

Joni Newkirk, Scott Sanders, and their colleagues played key roles in all of these areas. When they left Walt Disney Company to form Integrated Insight they brought with them a wealth of expertise in providing entertainment, travel and leisure organizations services including market research and consumer insights, forecasting and feasibility analysis, revenue and profit optimization, and capacity and operational planning. It was thus natural for Michael McCall and the Inner Arbor Trust to turn to Integrated Insight for advice on how to turn the Inner Arbor vision into a successful park.

Checking out comparable attractions

Integrated Insight first looked at the proposed Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in the context of its likely market and of comparable and (in some cases) competitive attractions around the US and beyond.

In doing this Integrated Insight (following the lead of the Inner Arbor Trust) considered the Symphony Woods property not in isolation but rather as integrated with Merriweather Post Pavilion: events at the pavilion will drive visits to the park, and features of the park will enhance the pavilion experience.

Integrated Insight also considered all the park features envisioned in the original Inner Arbor concept plan: not just the Chrysalis, but also other elements like a sculpture garden, a café, and so on. This recognized that the appeal of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods for visitors will not be tied to any one park feature (just as, for example, visits to Disneyland aren’t driven by any one attraction). Instead Merriweather Park’s appeal will be a function of the total park experience.

As it turns out, some of the elements in the Inner Arbor concept plan are not part of the currently-approved plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, like the “treehouse” structures proposed as part of the elevated boardwalk. Others will likely be present, but not necessarily as part of Merriweather Park itself. For example, the proposed New Cultural Center on the Toby’s Dinner Theater site next to the park will provide indoor performance venues similar to those proposed in the concept plan.

However, the overall principle remains sound: what will attract visitors is the overall experience of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood and related cultural attractions in the Merriweather District—Howard Hughes Corporation’s term for the combination of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood and the Crescent Neighborhood surrounding it to the south and west.

There are 8 million people within 50 miles of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, an additional 6 million people between 50 and 100 miles away, and another 10 million people between 100 and 150 miles away—a total of 24 million within a 3-hour drive. These form the core markets for Merriweather Park, although it is also possible that visitors from further away will spend some time at the park while visiting the Baltimore or Washington DC area (e.g., as tourists or for family visits).

Thus Integrated Insight’s list of comparable and competitive venues includes a mix of local attractions and more remote ones. For example, the Inner Arbor concept plan included a proposed sculpture garden south of Merriweather Post Pavilion. As part of the research study Integrated Insight looked at almost a dozen sculpture parks elsewhere in the US and around the world, with park sizes ranging from less than 2 acres to over 1,000 acres, park entry fees of up to $12, and annual attendance from about 80,000 people to 1 million people.

These figures, along with the detailed descriptions in the research reports, provide some reasonable guidance on the possible appeal to visitors of a comparable sculpture garden within Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, along with what it would take to make such a garden artistically and financially successful.

Integrated Insight performed similar research on other comparable and competitive features, including outdoor amphitheaters (comparable to Merriweather Post Pavilion and the Chrysalis), indoor venues (comparable to the indoor theaters proposed in the Inner Arbor concept plan and planned as part of the New Cultural Center), and events and festivals (comparable to Wine in the Woods and music festivals at Merriweather Post Pavilion). (See the figure above for the types of attractions covered, and a sample of those described.)

One comparison of particular interest is to “cultural districts,” that is, areas within cities that feature multiple cultural attractions and are marketed as a single overall entity to prospective visitors. For example, the Pittsburgh Cultural District (overseen by the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust) covers 14 city blocks and features 7 theaters, 8 public parks and art installations, 12 art galleries, 50 restaurants and other places to dine, and 90 retail shops. In total the Pittsburgh Cultural District hosts 3,000 events and attracts 2 million visitors each year.

Again, this emphasizes that, just as the individual features within Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods should not be considered in isolation, Merriweather Park should not be considered in isolation from the broader downtown Columbia area, especially the Merriweather District south of The Mall in Columbia.

That area alone includes a host of cultural attractions existing, planned, and proposed, including the renovated Merriweather Post Pavilion, the Chrysalis and other features planned for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, the New Cultural Center planned for the Toby’s Dinner Theater site, and a proposed new Central Branch library and a possible indoor music venue in the Crescent Neighborhood. If all of these are realized they will work in concert (no pun intended) to make downtown Columbia an attractive destination for both locals and visitors interested in culture and the arts.

Surveying potential park visitors

In addition to researching comparable and competition attractions to Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, Integrated Insight conducted a survey of 1,000 people to (among other things) further estimate the total market for Merriweather Park, determine what proposed park features, special events, and other aspects were most appealing to potential visitors, learn what revenue opportunities there might be for park attractions, and estimate how many people were likely to visit the park and its associated venues.

The survey included four groups of people: locals (within 10 miles of the park), residents (within 11-50 miles), mid-Atlantic tourists (recent visitors to the Washington DC/Baltimore area from various mid-Atlantic states, and distant tourists (recent visitors to the Washington DC/Baltimore area from other states). In addition, participants were screened to include only those who had participated in various cultural events (concerts, festivals, live theater, etc.) within the last two years, had visited parks or cultural venues (museums, art galleries, sculpture gardens, etc.) within the same timeframe, or expressed significant interest in such participation or visits.

As noted above, the purpose of the research was to gauge potential visitors’ interest in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods as envisioned in the Inner Arbor concept plan, not just the Chrysalis. Participants in the survey read a three-paragraph description of Merriweather Park (“In the middle of the Baltimore/Washington Corridor lies a beautiful and extraordinary escape, a forested culture park, founded in music and adorned with art.”) and watched a video that included renderings of the proposed park features. They answered various questions to determine demographics, elicit their opinions on the park, and gauge the likelihood of their visiting it.

Some of the more interesting conclusions from the demographic survey were as follows, starting first with tourists:

• Tourists are less affluent than locals (not surprising given the demographics of Howard County) and have a higher mix of families. Distant tourists are also relatively younger.

• Most tourists to the Washington DC/Baltimore area are repeat visitors likely to be looking for new and interesting things to do.

• Tourists have specific interests in cultural attractions, outdoor parks and performance venues, and festivals—all characteristics of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

• The overwhelming majority of visitors will have access to a car, and thus easy road access and parking for Merriweather Park will be an important factor in their willingness to visit.

• Tourists participate in outdoor, cultural, and festival activities and have a high interest in continuing to do so. However attending concerts and live performances is not a primary driver of visits to Washington DC or Baltimore.

• The vast majority of tourists do not plan their entire trip but leave at least some time open for last-minute activities. They also tend to drop 1 out of 4 planned activities from their itineraries. Together these mean that people are open to stopping by Merriweather Park for some reason or other, but their likelihood of visiting is stronger if they’ve already committed to visit (e.g., by buying tickets to a festival or other event).

• Tourists have a lot of choices for activities in Washington DC and Baltimore. The majority of them have family in the area, and in many cases family members accompany them, so positive word of mouth and family endorsements will be key for attracting people to Merriweather Park.

Other findings with respect to locals and residents are as follows:

• Locals and residents generally have similar interests to tourists. Locals and residents with families are more interested in participating in activities than those without, except for attending concerts and visiting art galleries (for which interest is comparable).

• Awareness of Merriweather-related events is relatively low compared to awareness of nationally-recognized events like the Cherry Blosson Festival: no more than half of locals and residents were aware of Wine in the Woods, with even fewer aware of any of the various Merriweather Post Pavilion music festivals (Capital Jazz Festival, Virgin Freefest, etc.).

• Nevertheless, significant numbers of locals and residents have attended performances at Merriweather Post Pavilion or Toby’s Dinner Theater.

Public opinions on the proposed park

In addition to the questions about visits to and interests in atractions in the Washington DC/Baltimore area, the Integrated Insight survey also asked people their opinions about the proposed Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. Those surveyed were asked to rate on a 10-point scale both their interest in attending an event at Merriweather Park and their interest in simply spending some time at the park. They were then asked to explain in their own words why they had rated their interest the way they did.

About two-thirds of all respondents indicated a strong interest (7-10 rating) in attending an event or just visiting the park. (See the figure above.) Of those indicating strong interest, reasons included the park sounding fun, being different and unique, providing outdoor activities, and providing entertainment.

Only 10% of all respondents indicated they had little interest (1-3 rating) in visiting Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. The most common reasons for their low ratings were the distance they would have to travel (for example, for Virginia residents who would have to cross the Potomac River) and lack of interest in what the park had to offer. In general those with little interest were relatively older, were not living with other family members, and had less interest in attending live performances.

A significant fraction of respondents expressed extreme interest in both spending time at Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods and also attending events there (rating of 10 on both questions). The locals and residents expressing such extreme interest tended to be those who often hosted out-of-town visitors, more frequently attended performances at local venues, and more frequently visited The Mall in Columbia and a branch of the Howard County Library System.

The words survey respondents used to describe Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods were overwhelmingly positive: “great,” “wonderful,” “amazing,” “fantastic,” “spectacular,” and so on. Only 5% of the words used to describe the park were negative (e.g., “boring” or “overdone”).

The most appealing aspects of Merriweather Park were the outdoors aspect, the presence of multiple things to do, the events and performances, and the art and architecture. Almost half of all respondents could not name anything they did not find appealing. Of those who did name negatives the most frequently mentioned were distance, access, crowds, and parking—although it’s worth noting that less than 5% of respondents expressed concerns about parking and traffic.

Overall the survey respondents came away with a strong positive impression of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. A question eliciting word impressions of the likely effect of the park on people produced responses like “merry,” “happy,” “free,” and “relaxed,” while two thirds or more strongly agreed with statements that Merriweather Park would be “a place to explore,” “a place with diverse offerings,” “green,” and “a commmunity park I would be proud of.” Almost as many people strongly agreed that Merriweather Park would be “a good fit for Maryland” and “a good fit for Columbia.”

The survey also asked respondents to rate the appeal of 12 individual park features, including all the elements proposed as part of the original concept plan (like the Treehouse Skywalk) or added later (like the Merriground play area). The majority of respondents rated all park elements as highly appealing (8-10 on a 10-point scale). The 6 most popular features were the Treehouse Skywalk, Fountain Plaza, and sculpture garden (proposed in the concept plan), the Picnic Table and Caterpillar (part of the approved Site Development Plan), and Merriweather Post Pavilion itself.

Since this series has been focused on the Chrysalis, it’s worth noting that the survey respondents found the Chrysalis to be a unique park element—84% could not name another venue it reminded them of. The most common responses from people referred to the Chrysalis as “amazing” or “great,” and highlighted its relatively intimate scale, architecture, and setting; only a small minority did not like the Chrysalis.

The bottom line is that people responded most strongly to those proposed aspects of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods that were most unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere—both unique events to attend (e.g., festivals and special performances) and unique park features that could be experienced during family outings. These aspects in turn increased the interest of those in the mid-Atlantic states and beyond in visiting the Washington DC/Baltimore area.

Estimating park attendance

Finally, Integrated Insight used various questions combined with known attendance at existing destinations to estimate future annual attendance at the completed Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

The first step was to ask respondents to estimate how often they might visit, and what might draw them to the park. About half of locals and residents combined indicated they would likely visit at least a few times a year, with others indicating they would visit more often. As noted above, the most common reasons given for likely visiting were to attend specific performances or have a family outing.

Interest among tourists was also strong, with about three quarters of respondents indicating they would likely visit Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods if it were open while they were visiting. About half indicated their interest was strong enough they might plan a special visit to the area to visit Merriweather Park.

However expressed interest in visiting a place does not always translate into an actual visit. To get a better estimate, Integrated Insight started with the populations in the various groups of potential visitors (locals, residents, mid-Atlantic tourists, and distant tourists), reduced the population to include only that fraction expressing strong interest in visiting (from the survey results), and then for tourists further reduced it to include only those visiting the Washington DC/Baltimore area in the past year.¹ This resulted in an estimated addressable market for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods of about 30 million people.

Intergrated Insight then further adjusted its estimates to account for any overstatements respondents might have made regarding their intentions to visit the park. For example, if one took at face value the information provided by respondents regarding past visits to Merriweather Post Pavilion and extrapolated that to the size of the estimated addressable market, one would conclude that the pavilion had about 8 times more visitors per year than the actual attendance figures.

In other words, a more accurate estimate of projected attendance would be only about one-eighth or about 12% of what a naïve estimate might suggest—the so-called “overstatement factor” or “coefficient of overstatement.” Integrated Insight did similar calculations comparing survey respondents’ stated attendance at other venues compared to their actual attendance, and again obtained an overstatement factor of about 12%.

Integrated Insight used this overstatement factor in combination with other estimates (e.g., the number of potential venues at Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, their respective capacities, and the likely number of events per year) to generate estimates on park attendance due to events. They also compared these estimates to actual attendance at comparable other venues (included those discussed above, like the Pittsburgh Cultural District) to see whether the estimates were reasonable.

At the same time Integrated Insight generated similar estimates for people who might visit the park outside of special events, including those visiting for family or school outings. These were also adjusted using the same overstatement factor of 12% used in adjusting attendance estimates for events.

The final estimate for attendance at a completed Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods was approximately 2.5 million visitors per year. This estimate includes attendees at Merriweather Post Pavilion and other performance venues, general park visitors (e.g., for walks and family outings), visitors for school graduations and other school-related visits, and people attending various special events (e.g., weddings or family reunions).

This level of attendance would make Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods one of the more popular attractions in the Washington DC/Baltimore area—not nearly as popular as (for example) the National Air and Space Museum, but significantly more popular than Washington DC attractions like the US Botanic Garden and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.

One problem presented by this level of attendance is how to accomodate visitors to Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, especially during large events where a lot of visitors might want to leave all at once after the event is over. Integrated Insight assisted with this task as well, applying its experience in “industrial engineering” from the Disney parks and resorts to the proposed park pathway system.

For example, in its endorsement of the design of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, the Howard County Design Advisory Panel also recommended that the Inner Arbor Trust review the width of planned pathways within the park (shown in the figure below). Integrated Insight provided estimates on how many people would be able to exit the park within a given time (in this case, 800 people per hour for each foot of pathway width).

Based on these estimates the Trust revised its plans in order to widen certain pathway segments from 8 feet wide to 10 feet wide. The resulting pathway system, together with the entrance drive into the park off Little Patuxent Parkway, should be able to support the exit of more than 13,000 people going north within a 20-minute period. This will be more than sufficient for all but the very largest events, especially considering that traditionally most people have parked south of Merriweather Post Pavilion, not north, and that the 2,500-space parking garage planned to support the pavilion will also be to the south.

Integrated Insight thus applied its expertise to multiple aspects of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, bringing deep experience in park marketing and management to the long-desired goal of developing Symphony Woods into an attractive and popular park. The next article in this series will focus on future features planned for Merriweather Park, features that will help round out the vision of the park that Integrated Insight’s survey respondents found so attractive.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online and offline sources, including the following:

• For more on Integrated Insight, its history and team, and its work on the Merriweather Park project, see the following:

  • Integrated Insight, Inc.: Management consulting [PDF], July 2014. A presentation of Integrated Insight’s executive team and their background, its areas of expertise, and representative projects.
  • Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods: Market regions and comparative analysis [PDF], December 7, 2014. A presentation discussing the regions from which Merriweather Park would likely draw most of its visitors, and presenting information about other venues in the US and elsewhere with comparable attractions and appeal.
  • Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods: Product research and demand study (part 1, part 2, and part 3) [PDF], December 15, 2014. A presentation discussing the results of a public opinion survey concerning Merriweather Park and an analysis of potential annual attendance.
  • “Math of Architecture, Architecture of Math” [67-minute video]. An event on November 3, 2015, sponsored by the Inner Arbor Trust to promote the Chrysalis project. Includes a presentation by Joni Newkirk starting at 10:40, discussing Integrated Insight and its research.
  • Letter from Michael McCall to Randy Clay, March 14, 2014. A letter responding to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel’s request to the Inner Arbor Trust to review the widths of the planned pathways within Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

• For more on the Chrysalis amphitheater and its origins in the Inner Arbor concept plan, see the following:

  • Michael McCall presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [33-minute video] (September 20, 2013).
  • The Chrysalis portion of the Inner Arbor pre-submission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014).

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I present more details on the Chrysalis integrated foundation/basement system (“subfloor”) and other construction at the Chrysalis site, featuring the work of Whiting-Turner.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous two articles in this series discussed the fabrication and installation of the steel frame and skin of the Chrysalis. This article presents more information on the construction of the structural concrete integrated foundation/basement system (also known as the “subfloor”) to which the steel frame is attached. It features the work of the Whiting-Turner Contracting Company of Towson, Maryland.¹

Whiting-Turner

As discussed in the previous article, for the steel frame and aluminum shell of the Chrysalis the Inner Arbor Trust used A. Zahner Company as the “design-build” contractor. For the remainder of the Chrysalis construction, including construction of the reinforced concrete structural “subfloor” that serves as a robust foundation beneath the Chrysalis stage, the Trust followed the more traditional “design-bid-build” process. After competitive bidding the Trust selected as general contractor the Whiting-Turner Contracting Company of Towson, Maryland.

Like Zahner, Whiting-Turner is a private company with a heritage that reaches back over a hundred years. It was founded in 1909 in Baltimore, Maryland, by G. W. C. Whiting, a Baltimore native and recent graduate in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his classmate LeBaron Turner. Turner left the company after five years, but Whiting continued his association with the company until his death in 1974 at the age of 91.

In its early days Whiting-Turner bid on contracts for paving roads and laying sewer pipes. In the 1920s it took on bigger projects, including the elevation of Loch Raven Dam in Baltimore (completed 1922) and the construction of various bridges. (Whiting-Turner later did work on both the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the Delaware Memorial Bridge.)

1938 saw Baltimore native and Johns Hopkins engineering graduate Willard Hackerman join Whiting-Turner. After rising through the ranks Hackerman replaced G. W. C. Whiting as president in 1955, and remained in that position until his death in 2014 at the age of 95. (His replacement was current president and CEO Timothy Regan.) During Hackerman’s tenure Whiting-Turner literally changed the face of Baltimore, constructing (among others) Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, the National Aquarium, M&T Bank Stadium (home of the Baltimore Ravens), and (last but not least) Jim Rouse’s Harborplace development.

Closer to home, Whiting-Turner constructed the Teachers Building (completed 1967), the first office building in Columbia and the former headquarters of the Columbia Association. Whiting-Turner also built the Columbia Mall (completed 1971) and oversaw its later expansion and renovation as The Mall in Columbia (completed 1999).

Whiting-Turner’s involvement with Columbia is thus as old as the city itself, and its work on the Chrysalis marks 50 years of Whiting-Turner projects in downtown Columbia.

Preparing the Chrysalis site

Whiting-Turner’s role in the construction of the Chrysalis encompassed more than just the construction of the foundation/basement: they were ultimately responsible for tree protection, stormwater management, site utilities, electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems, roads and paths, and general site work—things that most users of the Chrysalis will likely not consciously notice, but which are critical to ensuring the safety, stability, and functioning of the Chrysalis as a whole.

As the general contractor Whiting-Turner selected and oversaw subcontractors who carried out these various tasks. However in the end it was Whiting-Turner’s work in coordinating the many details of construction and holding subcontractors to high standards of quality that would make the difference in bringing the project to a successful conclusion. This work was overseen by Whiting-Turner vice president (and Howard County resident) Jeff Cooper, project manager Peter “Tyge” Sheehan, and assistant project manager Sam Grayman.

After the Chrysalis groundbreaking in September 2015, Whiting-Turner established its on-site office and commenced preparing the site, once the Inner Arbor Trust had received a grading permit from Howard County. (This was separate from the building permit, which was issued later.)

Appropriately, given the concern expressed by many regarding the trees of Symphony Woods, Whiting-Turner’s first task was to ensure the health of trees near the construction area. In pursuit of this they hired a professional arborist to survey the trees in the vicinity and create a comprehensive plan to protect them. This included pruning the roots of trees next to areas scheduled to be excavated, placing mats to protect specific critical root zones, and doing nutrient feeding for certain key trees.

There is a small stream to the north of the Chrysalis and behind the Chrysalis to the east (toward South Entrance Road). In order to limit runoff and prevent construction debris from entering the stream buffer area, “super silt” fencing (filter fabric backed by chain link fencing) was placed around the construction area.

The next task was the construction of a new 8-inch water line to the Chrysalis site itself and to the Chrysalis service road (which runs from the Merriweather Post Pavilion VIP parking lot to the back of the Chrysalis). This water line serves fire suppression sprinklers in the Chrysalis itself, and supplies two new fire hydrants at the beginning and end of the Chrysalis service road. The line will also supply drinking water for general purposes in and around the Chrysalis, and provide water to subsequent phases of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

The construction of the water line illustrates the complications of land ownership in the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood. The source of the water for the new water line is an existing water main in South Entrance Road, and the new line passes under Symphony Woods Road, a private road owned by the Howard Hughes Corporation. Howard Hughes provided the Inner Arbor Trust an easement to make such a connection as part of a wide-ranging reciprocal easement agreement concluded between the two parties.

The Chrysalis cistern

As evidenced by the July 2016 flash flood in Ellicott City, heavy rainstorms can result in very large quantities of runoff, especially when the rain falls onto impervious surfaces such as roads and buildings. A key task in construction, undertaken even before excavating the site, was therefore putting in place permanent measures to handle runoff into the nearby stream, particularly from the 12,000 square feet of the Chrysalis shell canopy—a pleated surface that acts as a very large rain gutter over the approximately 5,000 square feet of the Chrysalis stage.

On many building sites ponds are constructed to retain runoff prior to releasing it into the surrounding watershed. Aesthetic considerations and the limited area of the site required a different solution for the Chrysalis: instead of a pond Whiting-Turner installed an underground cistern, constructed of large corrugated metal pipes 5 feet in diameter and capable of storing almost 2,500 cubic feet of water in total (over 18,000 gallons).

The pleats of the Chrysalis shell carry rainwater and snow melt to the base of the nine shell legs where the canopy comes to the ground. At the base of each leg stormwater drains through beds of landscaping stone that sit on galvanized steel grates that top underground basins. The basins (resembling concrete bathtubs) then funnel the runoff into a network of underground pipes that empty into the cistern.

The runoff accumulates in the cistern until the cistern reaches its design capacity, at which point the cistern begins to release water into the stream system. The overall effect is to even out the flow of water and reduce high-velocity surges during severe downpours. This reduces the harmful effects of both local erosion of the stream bed and downstream sedimentation as the runoff proceeds into the Little Patuxent watershed.

Site excavation and mud mats

After the cistern was installed Whiting-Turner began the mass excavation of the Chrysalis foundation/basement, preparing the site for the foundation construction and for installation of underground utilities, including conduits for supplying electricity to the theatrical lighting and audio systems.

The Chrysalis construction site was designed as closely as possible to be in a “net zero fill” condition. In other words, earth that was removed during the initial stages of construction was saved and then redeployed later in the construction process, instead of being hauled away. This was more cost efficient and also resulted in a lower carbon footprint for the construction as a whole.

As part of this process dirt and small stones were stockpiled on-site and covered with plastic for future use in backfilling the inside and outside of the Chrysalis foundation walls. Larger stones that could not be used for fill were removed by Whiting Turner’s subcontractor, Highland Turf, Inc., and moved to other locations within the Merriweather-Symphony Woods and Crescent neighborhoods, for use by the Howard Hughes Corporation in its own stream restoration projects.

Once the foundation was excavated, workers poured concrete “mud mats” (also known as “mud slabs”) following the outline of the Chrysalis’s exterior and interior walls. The mud mats served as a non-structural “foundation for the foundation,” providing a solid flat surface upon which reinforcing steel bars (rebar) and wooden molds for concrete (formwork) could be placed, and the concrete for the subfloor’s walls then poured.

Reinforced concrete

Once the mud mats were poured, workers placed reinforcing steel bars or rebar in preparation for constructing the exterior and interior walls of the subfloor foundation.

First used extensively in the 19th century and perfected in the 20th, reinforced concrete is ubiquitous in modern construction. It works by combining the compressive strength of concrete with the tensile strength of steel—in other words, the concrete resists being pushed together and the steel resists being pulled apart. With the two bonded together in a composite, the resulting material resists loads placed on it without bending or breaking.

The reinforced concrete used in the Chrysalis is “cast in place” concrete: A mesh or “mat” of rebar was laid on top of the previously-poured mud mats, tied together, and inspected. The rebar was laid especially densely in areas designed to bear heavier loads, such as the concrete piers to which the legs of the Chrysalis steel frame are attached. (See the figure above.)

Wooden modular paneled formwork was then constructed around the rebar to act as a mold, and high-strength “5,000 psi” concrete poured into the formwork and around the rebar.² As the concrete cured it bonded to the steel bars (rebar is typically corrugated to make this bond stronger), giving the resulting walls or piers their strength.

Laying the rebar, constructing the formwork, and pouring concrete was made more complicated by the irregular shape of the Chrysalis foundation: looking at the structure from above (in so-called “plan view”) there are only four 90-degree angles apart from the stairs. In all other places the formwork needed to be carefully framed to correspond to the curves in the exterior walls and piers.

The foundation/basement walls and ceiling

In January 2016 construction of the Chrysalis was interrupted by the “Snowzilla” storm. After the storm was over and snow cleared from the site, the first major concrete pour of the foundation was successfully made, by Whiting-Turner’s subcontractor McGuire Concrete. First to be poured were the 8-inch-thick exterior walls and the associated concrete piers for attachment of the steel frame of the Chrysalis.

The exterior walls were reinforced with #3 and #5 rebar placed every 6 inches, laid crossways in two layers.³ The piers were reinforced with a larger size of rebar, laid so densely that special accomodations had to be made to fit in the anchor bolts to which the legs of the steel frame were attached.

(Special care was taken in surveying where to place these bolts, in order to position them as accurately as possible for connecting to the steel frame. The bolt positions were surveyed twice before pouring the concrete, and then surveyed again immediately afterward to ensure that the pouring operations had not disturbed them.)

Subsequently three interior walls were poured (also 8 inches thick, and similarly reinforced), running in parallel lines from the front of the Chrysalis to the back. These walls formed two interior rooms of a walkout basement, one to be used for electrical equipment providing 2,000 amps to the stage, and the other to be used for storage of Chrysalis-related equipment—almost 1,600 square feet in all.

In the back of the Chrysalis Whiting-Turner and its subcontractors constructed three sets of concrete stairs leading from ground level to stage level, for the use of performers, stagehands, and others. (Between the stairs is a loading dock with a space for a so-called ”scissors lift” to lift equipment from the dock to the stage.)

Once the interior walls were complete, the two basement rooms were covered with a 10-inch-thick slab of reinforced concrete, poured into formwork supported from below, with two layers of #5 rebar placed every 6 inches each way. This slab forms the ceiling for the basement rooms and a portion of the concrete floor for the stage.

The remaining spaces outside the two rooms were then filled with dirt saved from the earlier excavation, topped with a layer of gravel, and then capped with 10-inch-thick slabs of reinforced concrete to match up with the slab over the basement rooms. All of these slabs tied directly into the walls and piers, using rebar exposed for this purpose. (See the figure below.)

In total about 550 cubic yards of high-strength 5,000 psi concrete went into the structure. The concrete was reinforced by over 100,000 pounds of rebar.

The structural diaphragm

As previously discussed, all of these elements form what structural engineers call a “diaphragm,” integrating the vertical foundation walls and piers together with the horizontal floor into a single, strong structural whole. This is the same principle that makes a soup can much stronger with one of its lids fully attached to its cylinder, as the lid acts as a diaphragm, transferring forces exerted from one point throughout the rest of the can. The result is a strong rigid structure that can easily support the steel frame of the Chrysalis and the attached shell, and help the Chrysalis resist the various loads placed upon it.

Whiting-Turner’s role in constructing the Chrysalis did not end with the completion of the subfloor. As a general contractor its work is not finished until the completed Chrysalis structure and all related elements—railings, roads, pathways, etc.—are handed over to the Inner Arbor Trust. Discussion of the remaining elements, including some not yet finished at the time of writing, is deferred to a future article on the architectural details of the Chrysalis and the lansdcaping of its surroundings.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online and offline sources, including the following:

• For more on Whiting-Turner, its history, its work on the Chrysalis project, and related topics, see the following:

  • Whiting-Turner portfolio of selected projects and areas of expertise.
  • “Whiting-Turner History.” Historical timeline on the Whiting-Turner web site.
  • “G.W.C. Whiting rites tomorrow,” page A17, Baltimore Sun, November 19, 1974. Obituary for G. W. C. Whiting.
  • “Construction Magnate and Philanthropist,” by Jacques Kelly, page A1, Baltimore Sun, February 11, 2014. Obituary for Willard Hackerman.
  • “Building Occupancy,” page F10, Baltimore Sun, September 17, 1967. Announcement of the opening of the Teachers Building in Columbia.
  • “Work Sped On Columbia Mall for Tomorrow’s Opening,” by Carleton Jones, page F1, Baltimore Sun, August 1, 1971. An article on the opening of the Columbia Mall.
  • “New wing of The Mall opens with a flourish,” by Jill Hudson Neal, page 14B, Baltimore Sun (Anne Arundel edition), September 19, 1999. The opening of a new wing of The Mall in Columbia after the mall’s renovation and expansion.
  • Inner Arbor Trust construction updates for September 2015, October 2015, November and December 2015, January and February 2016, March 2016, and April 2016. Ongoing updates describing the progress of the construction of the Chrysalis.
  • “Chrysalis steel and concrete construction.” A collection of photographs (and a video) showing the progress of the construction of the Chrysalis.
  • “Reinforced concrete.” A Wikipedia article describing the history and use of reinforced concrete.

• For more on the Chrysalis amphitheater and its origins in the Inner Arbor concept plan, see the following:

  • Michael McCall presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [33-minute video] (September 20, 2013).
  • The Chrysalis portion of the Inner Arbor pre-submission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014).

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I explain how the skin of the Chrysalis was fabricated and installed by A. Zahner Company.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous article in this series discussed the steel frame that underlies the skin of the Chrysalis and enables the Chrysalis to support theatrical, wind, and other loads. This article explains how the complex and dynamic topography of the Chrysalis shell was made real, and how the colored aluminum shingles forming the skin of the Chrysalis were fabricated and attached to that topography. It features the work of A. Zahner Company of Kansas City, Missouri.

A. Zahner Company

In typical construction practice a building is first designed and then contractors submit bids to do the actual construction—the so-called “design-bid-build” process. This process assumes that once a suitable design has been created any contractor will suffice to construct it, as long as they are suitably competent at their trade.

However, given its unusual design the Chrysalis is far from being an ordinary building; the typical contractor would be at sea trying to figure out how to build it. Thus for the Chrysalis shell (i.e., everything above the relatively conventional structural concrete subfloor) the Inner Arbor Trust instead followed the “design-build” paradigm, in which a single contractor bears responsibility for the detailed design of the structure and all phases of its construction. That single contractor was A. Zahner Company of Kansas City, Missouri, commonly known as “Zahner.”

How did Zahner come to be given this task? Its origin dates to the turn of the 20th century: Andrew Zahner, the son of a German immigrant, started a small business in Missouri that made metal cornices for buildings, tin ceilings, and metal ductwork for heating systems—one of hundreds of similar businesses across the United States. His son Leo Zahner and his grandson Leo Zahner, Jr., continued to operate it as a local Kansas City business under the names A. Zahner & Company and A. Zahner Sheet Metal Company.

After Leo Zahner, Jr., returned from serving in World War II he expanded Zahner’s work in so-called ”architectural metal” products, including metal roofs, decks, siding, and façades. The year 1958, when his son Bill was still a toddler, saw A. Zahner & Company put in the lowest bid to replace the roof of the Liberty Memorial museum in Kansas City (now the National World War I Museum and Memorial), for a total price of $2,293—only $1,998 if Zahner were allowed to keep the copper panels from the old roof.

Zahner’s evolution from a local and regional business began after Bill Zahner graduated from college and joined the company. Although he majored in civil engineering, Bill Zahner was and is as much an artist as an engineer, including working as an amateur sculptor. Just as in the 1930s Ove Arup became enthused about modern architecture and its use of reinforced concrete, in the 1980s Bill Zahner became excited about the possibilities of using architectural metals in contexts beyond the mundane—going so far as to later write two books on the topic.¹ He began promoting Zahner’s capabilities at national industry trade shows and reaching out to visionary architects like Frank Gehry (then relatively unknown).

Bill Zahner’s artistic bent was key to how Zahner evolved as a company and conceived of its mission. After he became the president of Zahner in the late 1980s, the soon-renamed A. Zahner Company began working on projects with ever higher profiles and ever more difficult challenges, like the American Heritage Center in Laramie, Wyoming (completed in 1993), with its distinctive dark copper roof, or the Museum of Science and Industry in Tampa, Florida (completed in 1995), with its doubly-curved stainless steel roof.

Bill Zahner’s friendship with Frank Gehry also bore fruit in a series of projects, including a 1988 exhibit for the 100th anniversary of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, a collaboration for the Weissman Art Museum in Minneapolis (completed in 1993), and then, and most significantly, in the creation in Seattle of the Experience Music Project (completed in 2000), a museum funded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.

Engineering for uniqueness

The Experience Music Project Museum (now known as the Museum of Pop Culture) posed challenges well beyond those of previous Zahner or Gehry projects. The building featured a radically curved set of exterior metal surfaces in both stainless steel and aluminum, with almost all parts of the surfaces required to be unique in some way. (See the figure above.)

In solving the problem of how to marry such surfaces to the underlying building structure, Zahner invented the Zahner Engineered Profile Panel Systems, or ZEPPS®. The ZEPPS process was made possible by the same technological trends later leveraged by Marc Fornes and his colleagues, including in particular the development of advanced 3D modeling software and its ability to interface to machine tools via Computer Numeric Control (CNC).

Zahner used these technologies to simplify the task of fabricating and installing the complex metal surfaces by reducing them to a set of customized individual panels, each of which could be separately fabricated and installed onto the building structure. The ZEPPS process and related technologies formed the basis of Zahner’s growth in both revenue and reputation in the 21st century.² The fifth generation ZEPPS process was key to creating the Chrysalis.

Designing ZEPPS panels

Viewed in isolation an individual ZEPPS panel is a relatively prosaic object: a set of pieces of aluminum (referred to as “profiles,” and resembling trusses or purlins in traditional structures), with one side of each profile attaching to the underlying structure and the other side attaching to a sheet of metal forming part of the exterior surface.

The true sophistication of the ZEPPS process is apparent only when contemplating a collection of ZEPPS panels fabricated for a particular structure, and the underlying computer technology that makes their fabrication and installation possible: In a structure like the Experience Music Project Museum or the Chrysalis each and every part of the exterior metal surface may have a different degree of curvature, may be curved in two directions and not just one, may attach to the underlying structure at different angles, may impose a different set of loads, and may need customized instructions for how to install it.

Zahner designs ZEPPS panels using the CATIA software discussed in a previous article: given a 3D model of the underlying structure and a 3D model of the desired metal surface, Zahner determines how many ZEPPS panels are needed, what shapes they must take, and other characteristics. For example, the individual profiles within a panel must be spaced at a suitable distance in order to bear the weight of the metal skin. Based on the loads imposed on the ZEPPS panels, they may also be made out of slightly different material, for example, lower-strength aluminum vs. higher-strength aluminum.

In some cases the underlying structure itself may need to be modified somewhat in order to account for the need to fit panels together in a certain way, for example, for ease of installation. This was required for the Experience Music Project Museum, among others, and helps explain Zahner’s typical practice of working very closely with the architect and often taking the role of a design-build contractor. Finally, since ZEPPS panels are typically fabricated at Zahner’s shops, they must be designed so that they can be easily shipped to the work site. (Zahner does additional computer work to find the optimal way to load multiple ZEPPS panels onto each truck.)

Installing ZEPPS panels

In total the Chrysalis features 88 ZEPPS panels containing a total of over 300 profiles. Most of the panels were fabricated at Zahner and shipped to the Chrysalis site, but 16 were fabricated on site: those covering the seven triangles formed by the steel frame and those making up the segments of the nine legs of the Chrysalis from the level of the stage floor down to the ground.

Each ZEPPS panel was pre-positioned on the ground and tilted to the correct angle before being hoisted to its designated position on the steel frame. The orientation of the panels was further adjusted while they were suspended (using a system of chains and pulleys), so that when the workers guided them into place they would match up with the underlying steel frame as closely as possible.

Each of the ZEPPS panels was then attached (using self-tapping galvanized screws) to the primary and (in the case of the seven triangles) secondary steel of the steel frame. Special curved saddle brackets were used to mate the profiles of the panels with the curvature of the steel tubes; this allowed the panels to be attached at any angle with respect to the steel. (See the figure above.)

The panels installed in the Chrysalis also have clear anodized aluminum sheet metal attached to them. (See the figures above and the figure below.) Although this appears superficially similar to the external metal surfaces of other Zahner projects, it instead forms a substrate on which can be attached the true outer surface of the Chrysalis, factory-painted aluminum shingles in various shades of green, as well as an interior surface as discussed below.

Normally the ZEPPS panels themselves are invisible, residing between the underlying opaque building walls and the equally opaque exterior metal surface. In the Chrysalis, on the other hand, the steel tubes of the frame, the aluminum profiles of the ZEPPS panels, and the underside of the anodized aluminum sheet metal covering the panels are visible to anyone looking up, and contribute to the overall visual aesthetic of the structure. Among other things, this led the Inner Arbor Trust and Zahner to choose to use a matte finish on the sheet metal of the panels to provide a clean appearance and avoid glare from theatrical lights.³

The Chrysalis shingles

In the Experience Music Project Museum and other Zahner projects the metal skin is intended to appear as an unbroken surface to the viewer. The goal therefore is to minimize as much as possible the appearance of any seams between the metal sheets attached to the ZEPPS panels. The Chrysalis skin, on the other hand, is designed to have a highly scaled texture and variegated coloring. Hence it is formed of overlapping shingles, with the boundary between one shingle and the next quite apparent.

In order to securely attach the shingles they were riveted to the underlying aluminum sheets that were part of the ZEPPS panels. (See the figures above and below.) Zahner pre-drilled each shingle in the shop to hold four aluminum rivets, and placed the holes so that the rivets attaching each shingle to the underlying ZEPPS panel would be located only at the upper end of the shingle. The rivets of a given shingle would then be covered by the overlapping lower end of the shingle above it in the structure. The result is that although thousands of rivets (more than 45,000 in all) were used in attaching the shingles, none of them are visible to the eye of the viewer standing on the ground.⁴

While the shingles break up the surface of the Chrysalis into thousands of pieces (8,200 shingles in all), through their color they also unify the whole of the structure into a single organic form. As noted in a previous article, the shingles are painted in four different colors of green, with the various colored shingles placed on the structure to provide the appearance of a smooth color gradient from a darker green at the bottom to a lighter green at the top (a technique known as “dithering”).

Because the shingles will be exposed to the elements and (in the lower sections of the Chrysalis) to human beings, they are painted using Valspar Fluropon, a special architectural coating designed for exterior metal surfaces to provide resistance to UV rays, dirt and stains, and graffiti while retaining its original color and gloss over the years.

The shingles also had to be fabricated in 11 different shapes and sizes to account for the various positions on which they would be installed on the Chrysalis, which combined with the four possible colors made for up to 44 possible varieties of shingles. To assist the installers each shingle was imprinted with an alphanumeric code indicating what type of shingle it is, and thus at what points it could be installed on the structure. (See the figure below.)

The skin of the Chrysalis, including the ZEPPS panels and the shingles, thus forms a giant three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, with all pieces needing to be precisely designed and fabricated so that they will come together easily without gaps or misalignments and be installable by a relatively small group of people. Unlike a jigsaw puzzle, the skin must also bear loads without failure or any significant deformation, adapt to changing temperatures throughout the four seasons, and retain its structural integrity and visual beauty over the years. Zahner is arguably one of the few contractors, if not the only contractor, that could have accomplished this task within the timeframe and budget allotted to it.

The next article in this series will discuss the structural concrete subfloor of the Chrysalis and related construction on the site.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online sources, including the following:

• For more on A. Zahner Company, its work on the Chrysalis project, and related topics, see the following:

  • “William Zahner markets metal company on complex know-how,” by Don Lee, Kansas City Star, February 11, 1992 [paywalled]. An article from soon after Bill Zahner became president of A. Zahner Company.
  • “Zahner celebrates 100 years proving their mettle in metal,” by Randolph Heaster, Kansas City Star, November 25, 1997 [paywalled]. Discusses the past and present of A. Zahner Company on the occasion of its celebrating its centenary.
  • “Transcript from Interview with L. William Zahner & Crosby Kemper III”. A 2015 interview in which Bill Zahner discusses the history and working methods of A. Zahner Company.
  • “Kansas City, Powerhouse of American Architecture,” by Kriston Capps, The Atlantic, November 2015. A profile of A. Zahner Company. See also earlier profiles in Wired and Metropolis.
  • “Math of Architecture, Architecture of Math” [67-minute video]. An event on November 3, 2015, sponsored by the Inner Arbor Trust to promote the Chrysalis project. Includes a presentation by Bill Zahner starting at 46:44, discussing various Zahner projects, including most notably the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles.
  • “Full STEAM Ahead” [62-minute video]. An event on November 3, 2015, sponsored by the Inner Arbor Trust to promote STEM topics associated with the Chrysalis. Includes a brief presentation by Bill Zahner starting at 50:20 discussing the work of A. Zahner Company and the use of architectural metals.
  • “ZEPPS®”. An overview of Zahner’s ZEPPS technology, including a link to a 144-page document containing more details and a portfolio of projects.
  • “A. Zahner Company Customer Story”. A video and written case study describing how Zahner used Dassault Systèmes’s 3DEXPERIENCE platform (including CATIA) and its Design for Fabrication on Cloud service to fabricate the Chrysalis.
  • “Design-build”. A Wikipedia article providing an overview of the design-build concept.

• For more on the Chrysalis amphitheater and its origins in the Inner Arbor concept plan, see the following:

  • Michael McCall presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [33-minute video] (September 20, 2013).
  • The Chrysalis portion of the Inner Arbor presubmission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014).

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I explore the steel frame underlying the skin of the Chrysalis, as designed by the structural engineering group of Arup.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous article in this series discussed the demanding structural loads imposed on the Chrysalis by its function as a professional performance stage. In this article I explore the steel frame that underlies the skin of the Chrysalis and enables the Chrysalis to support those and other loads, as designed by Arup and fabricated and erected by the Walters Group and its subsidiary Metropolitan Walters.

Arup and structural engineering

The previous article in this series discussed the role of Arup’s theater consulting group. However, Arup began life as a consulting firm specializing in structural engineering, the task of which, according to founder Ove Arup, is “to design stable and economical structures of different kinds to meet the requirements for which these structures are needed”. In other words, the job of the structural engineer is to translate the vision of the architect into a structure that is fit for the purposes for which it is intended.

After beginning his career working on marine structures (e.g., piers, quays, and breakwaters), Ove Arup became interested in both modern architecture and the then-new technology of reinforced concrete that made new types of structures possible. He set out on his own in 1946, founding Arup and Associates as an independent consulting engineering firm. He and his colleagues soon found themselves working at the cutting edge of architectural practice, as exemplified by the firm’s work on the Sydney Opera House.

In the 1950s the government of the state of New South Wales in Australia set out to create a new center for the arts on a prominent site jutting out into Sydney Harbour. The selection committee for the design competition found itself entranced by an entry from Danish architect Jørn Utzon that featured a series of sail-like shells enclosing the two main performance spaces. (See the figure above.) Eager to get the project underway, the government authorized the start of construction, although no one had yet figured out how to build the shells Utzon had envisioned.

As the consulting engineers for the project, Arup the firm found itself at the center of the controversy over how to build what became known as the Sydney Opera House, including most notably how to analyze proposed designs to ensure their safety and stability. Working with Utzon, Arup engineers eventually found a workable solution: converting Utzon’s shells into a series of pre-cast concrete ribs of varying sizes, with the ribs arranged in sequence to form a shell-like roof.

To make the structural analysis tractable (especially given the limited computer technology available at the time), the ribs were designed so that both the sides of the arches formed by the ribs (looking at them head on) and the profile when they were connected (looking at them from the side, as in the figure above) were composed of circular arcs.¹

Although the Sydney Opera House was dogged by controversies, delays, and cost overruns, the structure was eventually completed and subsequently hailed as one of the world’s iconic structures—and, along with the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the symbol of Sydney to the world. It also bolstered the reputation of Arup as a “go to” firm for clients working with world-class architects to get visionary projects built.

That reputation in turn helped Arup in its competition to attract and retain the best engineering talent. As Ove Arup said in his “Key Speech” describing his vision for Arup and principles for its operation, in practice the work of Arup or any other engineering firm can devolve into a series of mundane and potentially boring tasks: “designing endless reinforced concrete floors, taking down tedious letters about the missing bolts, changing some details for the nth time, attending site meetings dealing with trivialities, . . .—what is exciting about that?”

Thus while the Inner Arbor Trust valued Arup for its proven excellence in working with cutting edge designers to manifest totally unique structures, the Chrysalis was for Arup an opportunity to engage its staff in an interesting and innovative project, even though the scale of the Chrysalis was much smaller than that of the projects that formed the bulk of Arup’s portfolio.

Analysing the structure

The responsibility for structural engineering for the Chrysalis fell primarily on those in Arup’s Washington DC office, including the young structural engineer Jordan Woodson and his senior mentors at Arup, Matt Larson and Brian Markham. Woodson had wanted to work at Arup ever since he was a freshman in college, and joined the firm soon after completing his graduate degree. In his time with Arup he had worked on projects ranging from the new Mexico City international airport (comprising 8 million square feet, over a thousand times the size of the Chrysalis stage) to the proposed 11th Street Bridge Park project in DC.

The task assigned to Woodson and his colleagues was to determine how the Chrysalis could be built in a manner that would maintain the artistic integrity of Marc Fornes’s design, handle the various loads placed upon it (including the skin itself, the natural forces of wind and snowfalls, and theatrical point loads), and fit within the budgetary and other constraints of the project.

This included looking at possible failure scenarios under load—as Woodson remarked, “To understand how something stands up you have to understand how it might fall down”. The high asymmetrical arch at the rear of the stage, one of the most visually striking features of the Chrysalis, required particular attention in order to ensure the overall stability of the structure.

Arup considered multiple ideas for instantiating the Chrysalis shell, including riveted aluminum or steel shingles (as in the “Pleated Inflation” structure discussed in a previous article), shingles supplemented by various types of structural reinforcements, and “sandwich panels” of metal sheets placed back to back.

In the end the configuration chosen as best meeting structural, budgetary, and other constraints was a “rib cage” or “skeleton” of steel tubes (“hollow structural section” or HSS pipe) to provide a frame underneath the shell skin, bearing the weight of the skin above and of theatrical loads hanging below. The form of the frame somewhat resembles that of the geometric mesh in the “mesh inflation” process used to create the form of the Chrysalis, with large “primary steel” tubes resembling the “lengthwise” curves of the mesh and smaller “secondary steel” tubes resembling the “crosswise” lines of the mesh.² (See the first figure above.)

In designing the steel frame Arup performed analyses to determine the effects of various types of load, dividing the primary and secondary steel of the frame into 2-inch straight sections to simplify the computations. Under Arup’s direction BMT Fluid Mechanics of London performed extensive wind tunnel testing on a model of the structure, looking at wind forces of up to 60,000 pounds from each of the eight compass directions (north, northeast, east, and so on).

Arup then combined the pressure profiles produced from the wind tunnel testing with 33 different types of theatrical loading of up to 42,000 pounds, arising from the various configurations of the alpha and beta stages discussed in the previous article. In total the final analysis covered 350 different load scenarios.

The results of the load simulations then determined the size of the structural elements in the frame: places in the structure where the loads were greatest called for larger diameter tubes, with smaller diameter tubes used in areas with lesser loads. The final frame includes 1,700 feet of tubes for the frame, with the primary steel being 10 inches in diameter and the smaller crosswise secondary steel 8 inches in diameter.

The primary steel tubes at the bottom of the frame (comprising the “touch down” points of the shell’s arches) are attached to concrete piers, which in turn are attached to a structural concrete subfloor. The subfloor acts as a “diaphragm” to provide further rigidity to the overall structure and resist the thrust of the arches. (See the first figure above and the last figure below.) The subfloor supports the stage floor itself (comprised of hardwood panels), while underneath is located a space for storage and electrical equipment.

Fabricating and erecting the frame

With Arup having designed the steel frame underlying the Chrysalis shell, the next step was to build it. The Inner Arbor Trust had tasked A. Zahner Company of Kansas City, Missouri, with overall responsiblity for the construction of the portion of the Chrysalis structure above the concrete subfloor. (The next article in this series will discuss Zahner’s role in more detail.)

Zahner then turned to the Walters Group of Hamilton, Ontario, a group of companies primarily focused on creating complex structural steel for commercial and industrial construction projects throughout North America, and its subsidiary, New York City-based Metropolitan Walters, specialists in erecting complex steel structures. (Metropolitan Walters and Arup had worked together previously on other projects, including Alice Tully Hall at the Juillard School of Music in New York City.)

As discussed above, as designed by Arup the Chrysalis frame included both long curved elements (the primary steel forming the arches of the Chrysalis and following the line of the pleats in the skin) and shorter straight elements (secondary steel) binding together the curved elements. The primary steel tubes were too long to be fabricated as single pieces, especially given their degree of curvature. Instead they were fabricated as combinations of less-curved shorter tubes, with the tubes then joined on-site to form the final curves of the frame.

Steel structural elements can be either welded together or bolted together. In order to simplify erection of structures and lower costs, the preferred procedure is to minimize the amount of welding to be done on-site. Metropolitan Walters followed this practice for the Chrysalis: the curved elements were fabricated with circular flanges welded in the shop to the 10-inch primary steel tubes and pre-drilled with holes for bolts. Matching elements were then bolted together after they arrived at the construction site.

A similar practice was followed for the secondary steel forming the straight cross pieces: in the shop short sections of 8-inch tubes with circular flanges were welded to the 10-inch primary steel tubes, matching circular flanges were welded to the ends of the straight 8-inch secondary steel tubes used for the cross pieces joining the larger elements, and holes drilled in the flanges. Bolts were again used to connect together the secondary steel and primary steel elements at the construction site.

Those familiar with traditional arches will recall that the two sides of an arch have to be supported during construction. Only after adding the top element of the arch (the “keystone” for stone arches) is the arch stable and able to stand on its own. From this viewpoint the Chrysalis steel frame is “all arches”: the entire structure was unstable while being erected until the point where it was (almost) complete. To address this, Metropolitan Walters used 16 temporary towers and supplemental guy wires to hold up partially-erected sections of the frame during construction.

Often when steel structural elements are joined they are designed so that the two elements are able to rotate somewhat relative to each other. In contrast, the bolted connections between the individual tubes of the Chrysalis frame are “moment connections”³ designed to remain rigid and act as a continuous element under load. Since the lowest elements in the frame are connected to the concrete piers and the structural concrete subfloor for the stage, the combined structure (frame plus piers plus subfloor) forms a single rigid structure able to resist loads with a minimum of deflection.

Theatrical steel and strong points

The primary and secondary steel tubes form an overall skeleton providing structural integrity for the Chrysalis. However they do not directly support the actual Chrysalis skin, nor (with some exceptions) do they directly bear theatrical loads.

As discussed in the previous article, theatrical loads for Chrysalis productions are to be hung from a set of “strong points” on the structure, each rated to bear a certain amount of load (2,200 pounds of vertically suspended weight for strong points serving the alpha stage). The strong points are designed to form a rectangular grid, but the arrangement of primary and secondary steel tubes is in no way grid-like.

The desired geometry is provided by the separate “theatrical steel,” a set of (relatively) thin steel tubes each of which runs from the front of the frame to the rear of the frame. The theatrical steel is bolted to the primary steel, using flanges welded in the shop for this purpose. The strong points themselves are in the form of small steel loops welded to the theatrical steel at regular intervals. (See the figure below.)

As hinted above, there are also a few strong points attached directly to the primary steel, mainly to support speakers to be hung at the sides of the main arch for the alpha stage. (See the strong point diagram linked to in the “For further exploration” section below.)

The combination of primary steel, secondary steel, and theatrical steel making up the frame is capable of supporting up to 58,000 pounds of equipment, assuming use of the alpha stage strong point grid, the attach points for speakers for the alpha stage, and the beta stage strong point grid.

In the steel frame of the Chrysalis Arup has provided an efficient and effective solution to the problem of handling structural loads while retaining the overall aesthetic virtues of the Chrysalis’s design. The frame also adds visual interest to the underside of the shell, complementing the dynamic green color of smooth aluminum shingles on the outer skin with the silver-gray industrial aesthetic of galvanized steel tubes and flanged, bolted splices.

The next article will discuss the outer skin of the Chrysalis and how it is attached to and supported by its steel frame.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online sources, including the following:

• For more on Arup, its work in structural engineering in general, and on the Chrysalis project in particular, see the following:

  • Arup’s structural engineering practice
  • Ove Arup’s “Key Speech” outlining Arup’s philosophy, mission, and organizational practices
  • Ove Arup’s 90th birthday issue of The Arup Journal. Contains several articles and speeches by Ove Arup, including “What is a Structural Engineer.”
  • “Sydney revisited,” by Jack Zunz, in The Arup Journal, 1988, Issue 1. A 1987 lecture by Arup’s lead on the Sydney Opera House.
  • “Engineering is Not a Science,” by Patrick Sisson. A 2016 Curbed article that includes a good summary of Ove Arup’s life and work.
  • “How Arup Became The Go-To Firm for Architecture’s Most Ambitious Projects,” by Ian Volner. A 2013 ArchDaily article that discusses Arup’s more recent projects.
  • “Full STEAM Ahead” [62-minute video]. An event on November 3, 2015, sponsored by the Inner Arbor Trust to promote STEM topics associated with the Chrysalis. Includes a presentation by Jordan Woodson of Arup starting at 29:40 discussing structural analysis of the Chrysalis.
  • “Chrysalis Theatre Loading Plan”. A diagram showing the location of strong points and instructions for their use.

• For more on the Walters Group, Metropolitan Walters, their role in fabricating and erecting the steel frame of the Chrysalis, and structural steel in general, see the following:

  • “Walters Group”. Corporate “about” page.
  • “Metropolitan Walters selected as partner in Columbia Maryland’s Chrysalis project”. Press release.
  • “Tubular Transformation”. A 2016 article in Modern Steel Construction describing the steel frame of the Chrysalis.
  • “Erecting the Chrysalis steel” [8-minute video]. Offers a glimpse at the process of erecting the Chrysalis steel frame.
  • “Structural Steel Connections,” by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). A presentation discussing the various ways to connect structural steel members. Slides 16 and 17 address moment connections.

• For more on the Chrysalis amphitheater and its origins in the Inner Arbor concept plan, see the following:

  • Michael McCall presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [33-minute video] (September 20, 2013).
  • The Chrysalis portion of the Inner Arbor pre-submission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014).

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I discuss how the Chrysalis will function as a professional stage, as designed by the theater consulting group of Arup.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous article in this series focused on the overall architectural form of the Chrysalis amphitheater, designed to function as a stage, pavilion, and sculpture for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. In this article I discuss in more detail those aspects of the Chrysalis relating to its function as a professional performance stage.

Arup and theaters

Arup Group Limited, usually known simply as “Arup,” is a large consulting firm with more than 13,000 employees and offices in almost 100 locations around the world, including New York and Washington DC. Originally founded in 1946 by the British engineer Ove Arup, Arup the firm is known in particular for its collaboration with leading architects to create innovative and iconic structures, including (among others) the Sydney Opera House, the Centre Pompidou in Paris, the Øresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden, the Lloyd’s of London headquarters and 30 St Mary Axe (“The Gherkin”) in London, the National Stadium (“Bird’s Nest”) and National Aquatics Center (“Water Cube”) built for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, and the China Central Television (CCTV) headquarters, also in Beijing.

For the most part eschewing the role of project architect, Arup instead concentrates on all the other design and engineering consulting work needed to translate architects’ visions into reality. In particular this includes practices in theater consulting, acoustic consulting, structural engineering, and lighting design, with Arup having worked on several dozen projects worldwide involving concert halls, indoor and outdoor theaters, and similar structures.

Given Arup’s broad range of expertise and their reputation for working with leading architects, Arup was a natural choice for the Inner Arbor Trust to include on the design team for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods and for the Chrysalis in particular. Raj Patel of Arup’s New York office–Arup principal,¹ global lead for theater and acoustic consulting, and arts, culture, and entertainment business leader for the Americas—was introduced by the Trust at the “Designers of Delight” presentation in November 2013. Patel discussed several Arup theater projects, from the Snape Maltings Concert Hall (see the figure above) to the recent Jerome Robbins Theater in the Baryshnikov Arts Center in New York City.

Alpha and beta

The purposes that the Chrysalis is to fulfill influenced its overall design. As noted previously, Michael McCall of the Inner Arbor Trust described the Chrysalis as a combined stage, pavilion, and sculpture. Setting aside the functions of pavilion and sculpture, the simple word “stage” contains a host of questions regarding what types of performances the Chrysalis might host, how the sights and sounds of those performances are to be conveyed to the audiences, how many and what kinds of people are part of the audiences, how those people experience the performances, and so on.

For an example of how the answers to these questions influence the form of a performance space, look no further than Merriweather Post Pavilion, neighbor to the Chrysalis. When it was originally constructed Merriweather Post Pavilion was conceived of as a summer home for the National Symphony and a venue for other “high culture” performances, including dance. Thus the audience area was relatively small and featured conventional seats, and the venue and stage were designed for acoustical performances. However, after the National Symphony went bankrupt Merriweather Post Pavilion eventually evolved into a venue for popular acts featuring amplified music, with the seating area expanded and additional audience seating space used on the lawn above the pavilion.

Some of the decisions about the Chrysalis were made early on, as part of the development of the Inner Arbor concept plan and prior to the design of the Chrysalis itself. In particular, the concept plan included provision for both indoor theaters and an outdoor stage, the so-called Treehouse amphitheater, in a proposed “performance park” area of Symphony Woods. The role of the indoor theaters was eventually taken over by the cultural arts center now being proposed for a site across the street from Merriweather Park to house Toby’s Dinner Theatre and other functions, leaving the outdoor amphitheater to be addressed by the revised Inner Arbor plan.

Since the amphitheater was to be located in a more forest-like section of Symphony Woods, and since an explicit goal of the Inner Arbor plan is to preserve as many trees as possible, the Inner Arbor Trust opted not to install fixed seats or benches in Symphony Woods itself. Instead audiences will sit on the lawn or (for larger events) stand.

Also, since the amphitheater was only a few hundred feet from South Entrance Road and the proposed route of a future larger street, the ambient noise level dictated the use of amplification for performances. This in turn opened up more possibilities for the amphitheater structure itself, which did not need to take the traditional form of an acoustic shell. The result was the unconventional form of the Chrysalis as we know it today.

The combination of lawn seating and sound amplification matched up well with the planned uses of the Chrysalis as a secondary stage for Merriweather Post Pavilion (for example during music festivals) or as a primary stage for events like Wine in the Woods. The hill facing the Chrysalis, which serendipitously has a gently sloping natural 5% grade, can easily accommodate audiences of up to 2,000 people if seated (see the figure above) and many more than that if standing.

At the same time there are other possible events that generally play to smaller audiences—local groups and solo performers, small plays, and the like—and will not need that much stage space. Rather than force these performances to use a large stage, the Chrysalis was designed to have a second or “beta” stage facing a different part of the hill, one that can accommodate audiences from 100 to 1,000 people if seated, and more if standing. Unlike the main or “alpha” stage, the beta stage also has terraced steps forming a thrust stage to provide a more informal and intimate relationship between the performers and the audience.

Configuring the stages

However, even the addition of the beta stage did not address the full range of demands that are likely to be placed on the Chrysalis. Some performances and other events will be so small scale that they may need to accommodate an audience of only a few dozen to a couple of hundred people. For many such events, such as book readings or lectures, it may also be preferable to provide formal seating arrangements for the audience, as opposed to having them sit or stand on the lawn.

To address these requirements the Chrysalis is designed so that the stage can also be used as a seating area for the audience in addition to a performance space, with the whole event then taking place under the canopy of the Chrysalis. This also provides the audience at least partial protection from any inclement weather.

The resulting Chrysalis stage as designed and constructed is quite large: about 4,500 square feet for the main stage floor, with a “performance zone” for the alpha stage about 50 feet wide and 40 feet deep—roughly comparable to the stage at Carnegie Hall and to the old Merriweather Post Pavilion stage prior to the construction of the new stagehouse. There are also additional areas “in the wings” at stage left and stage right of the alpha stage, as well as an area of over 500 square feet for the terraced levels of the beta stage that project outside the Chrysalis proper.

The resulting venue can accommodate a wide variety of events and associated stage configurations:

• Popular music acts on the alpha stage, including rock or hip hop performance (see the figure above) or DJs playing electronic dance music (EDM), with the audience seated or standing on the lawn.
• Theater, dance, orchestral, and chorus performances on the alpha stage, with the stage being large enough to support a symphony orchestra with close to 100 performers and a backing chorus of comparable size.
• Smaller performances with the audience seated on the alpha stage itself, with 100-150 people seated in one or two banks of seats and the performers either at center stage or at stage right (near the beta stage).
• Larger events with 300-400 or more people seated on the stage, for example for a lecture or book reading (see the figure above).
• Performances on the beta stage with audiences seated or standing on the lawn.

In practice each event will be slightly different, with the size and shape of the Chrysalis stage providing the flexibility for creative presenters and event organizers to select the configuration that best helps them achieve their particular artistic and business goals.

Expected technology, unexpected form

Of the possible configurations and their requirements, the most demanding are those needed to accommodate popular music acts like those that form the majority of the performances at Merriweather Post Pavilion and its associated music festivals.

One aspect of the public image of major rock stars is that they make whimsical and often nonsensical demands of the venues in which they perform. Of these the most famous is the “no brown M&Ms” rule associated with the rock band Van Halen: that they be served a bowl of M&M candies in their backstage dressing rooms, with all brown M&Ms removed.

On the surface this portrays the members of Van Halen as divas of the highest order, but in reality the purpose of this contract clause was much more prosaic: Van Halen’s stage show used a lot more equipment than many of the venues they played at were used to, and they wanted to ensure that the venue staff were fully aware of Van Halen’s technical needs and prepared to meet them. The “no brown M&Ms” provision thus served as a test of whether the venue staff had actually read Van Halen’s contract in full, including the associated “hospitality rider” and “technical rider.” As Van Halen’s leader singer David Lee Roth put it, “If I saw a brown M&M in that bowl … [we’d] line-check the entire production.”

Thus when designing the stage the Chrysalis team looked at technical riders for acts that might play at Merriweather Post Pavilion and had particularly stringent requirements. One result was the choice of stage size mentioned earlier. Another was the height of the Chrysalis, designed to provide a 60 feet wide and 36 feet tall proscenium opening at the front of the alpha stage, and a performance “box” 30 feet in height (and 50 feet wide by 40 feet deep) even before allowing for rigging above the stage.

Yet another was the electrical facilities for the two stages. (The term “electrical outlets” doesn’t do justice to the size and complexity of the setup.) The Chrysalis features four “company switches” at stage level each capable of providing 400 amps, or 1,600 amps in total, with two other switches each providing 200 amps on isolated circuits for audio equipment, and yet another switch to drive motorized chains for the stage rigging. The total capacity of over 2,000 amps is roughly equivalent to that provided for the new stage at Merriweather Post Pavilion, designed to serve the needs of the most power-hungry acts. (In comparison, a typical medium-size home has 100 amps of electrical service.)

The Chrysalis and its stage are designed to address many other issues, including providing a sturdy stage floor that can also be easily repaired as needed, drainage for the stage, fire suppression, ADA access to the stage for people using wheelchairs or otherwise having limited mobility, sturdy but attractive railings to prevent falls, a loading dock and lift to bring equipment from the dock to stage level, storage under the stage for unused equipment, and so on.

The most important requirement, and a major influence on the final form of the Chrysalis, is to support elaborate rigs for lighting, speakers, suspended scenery, and related elements. The Chrysalis structure supports several dozen “strong points” and multiple “line sets” for hanging production elements.² Each strong point on the alpha stage is rated to support up to 2,200 pounds of vertically suspended weight, almost as much as a typical subcompact car. (Beta stage strong points are rated to support 1,000 pounds.) The entire set of strong points and line sets, including strong points at the front of the alpha stage for speakers, can support up to 46,000 pounds, equivalent to ten SUVs.

The end result is a professional theater and stage that provides “expected technology in an unexpected form,” as Ed Arenius, Associate Principal of Arup, put it: all the features needed for modern musical acts and other performances in a flexible and beautiful structure that is a far cry from the typical outdoor amphitheater.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online sources, including the following:

• For more on Arup and its work in theater design and consulting, see the following:

  • “About Us” page from the Arup web site.
  • Ove Arup’s “Key Speech” outlining Arup’s philosophy, mission, and organization practices.
  • Arup’s theater consulting and acoustic consulting practices.
  • “Unabashed Designers of Delight” [121-minute video] (November 18, 2013). A presentation introducing the design team for the Inner Arbor plan. It includes a presentation by Raj Patel beginning at 1:39:30 that discusses a number of Arup theatrical projects.

• For more on technical requirements for acts playing concert venues, and theatrical requirements in general, see the following:

  • “Brown Out.” Snopes.com investigates Van Halen’s “no brown M&Ms” demand.
  • “Merriweather Post Pavilion Production Information.” Includes detailed technical specifications of the stage and other features for acts playing at Merriweather Post Pavilion.
  • “How to Make the Perfect Tech Rider for Your Band.” A good example of what goes into a typical technical rider, although it doesn’t make much mention of lighting requirements.
  • “Fly system.” A Wikipedia article that provides a good overview of the components and complexity of the equipment needed for a modern stage production.
  • “Stagecraft Industries Site Glossary.” A glossary of technical terms used in the context of theaters and theatrical productions.

• For more on the Chrysalis amphitheater and its origins in the Inner Arbor concept plan, see the following:

  • Michael McCall’s presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [33-minute video] (September 20, 2013).
  • The Chrysalis portion of the Inner Arbor pre-submission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall’s presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014).

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I explore the design of the Chrysalis amphitheater, the work of its designer Marc Fornes of THEVERYMANY, and the concepts underlying the design.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous articles in this series focused on the history of Symphony Woods, the site of the Chrysalis amphitheater, and the overall design of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. With this article I finally turn to the Chrysalis amphitheater itself, the structure after which this series is named. In particular I discuss the concepts and techniques underlying the innovative way in which the form of the Chrysalis was designed, and explore the work of its designer, Marc Fornes of THEVERYMANY, in the years leading up to the creation of the Chrysalis. (Later articles will cover other aspects of the Chrysalis design and other members of the design team, including the work of Arup Group Limited and A. Zahner Company.)

This post is more technical than others in this series, because it’s difficult to get a sense for the significance of what Marc Fornes and his associates have achieved without delving a bit into the mathematics and programming techniques that make those achievements possible. I encourage you to check out the videos and interactive demos to which I link, and to lightly skim over sections if the going gets rough.

Nonlinear beginnings

Marc Fornes is an architect using advanced computer techniques to create structures based on complex nonlinear forms. In a way his work, and that of others like him, represents a coming-together of two ancient ways of building.

The first, dating back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors and continued with nomadic and small-scale agricultural societies, is the long tradition of “folk architecture” built along natural and organic lines, including most notably tents and tent-like structures in their various forms: wigwams, wikiups, tipis, yurts, and so on. These structures were (and are) typically small scale (built as family residences), based on natural forms and materials (wood bent to shape, cloth under tension), constructed by small teams working quickly, and often explicitly intended as temporary (since a group might spend only a relatively short time in one place).

As such these structures were not “architected” in the sense of being based on detailed specifications created by an architect for use by those who build the structures—there was no real need to do so, since the “architect” and “builder” were one and the same (and often were the user of the structure as well). In any case the nonlinear form of the structures made it difficult to describe them using conventional architectural plans as we think of them today. Instead such structures were constructed using methods worked out by trial and error over many years and taught by one generation of builders to the next.

We can think of these methods, each producing a specific type of structure, as being algorithms—not algorithms that were written down but algorithms that were transmitted verbally and then executed by the builders to create each structure. The algorithms were not arbitrary, but were constrained by the type of material used and the general type of structure to be produced. The final form of the structure was then determined by the algorithm, the materials, and the interplay of forces of compression and tension acting on those materials as they happened to be arranged.

Leveraging the natural forms and properties of the underlying materials also produced structures that were optimized in terms of their use of materials, neither using too much material (and thus wasteful of effort) or too little material (and thus failing to fulfill their intended functions as shelter, etc.). The structures’ materials naturally assumed an organic form determined by the forces acting on them, and if additional forces (e.g., due to wind and weather) caused a structure to fail in certain places then builders learned how and where to use additional materials to reinforce the structure.

Building blocks and linear thinking

Although hunter-gatherers, nomads, and small-scale farmers can be thought of as being informal architects, the way of building we most think of as “architectural” in character dates back several thousand years to the beginnings of large-scale hierarchical societies, when bricks and cut stone blocks began to be used in the construction of structures both small and large.

In particular bricks and blocks were ideal for constructing large-scale structures, since builders could leverage techniques of mass production: have a large work force create bricks or cut blocks in parallel, and then have a second work force assemble the bricks or blocks into finished structures.

However this meant that “master builders” needed some method by which workers could be instructed to lay the bricks or blocks in accordance with the builders’ mind’s-eye vision for the structure. This was especially important for large structures that might take multiple decades to build, long enough that the original master builders might be gone from the scene by the time the structures were completed.

In response to this need builders created the concepts students learn today in geometry class—straight lines, right angles, rectangles and triangles, and so on—to represent various architectural forms, along with simple but powerful tools to help workers embody those forms in physical structures—for example, plumb bobs to create vertical lines, or wooden triangles with sides in the proportion of 3 to 4 to 5 to create right angles.

These basic techniques to create various linear forms, along with additional techniques to allow construction of circular segments for arches and domes, served builders well for many centuries and became deeply embedded in the architectural and contruction practices of agricultural and (later) industrial societies. (The tale of the three little pigs and their respective houses captures this dynamic, promoting the superiority of linear forms constructed using solid materials over folk architecture using straw or sticks.)

Ducks, splines, and lofts

The use of arbitrary nonlinear forms in architecture was thus, for the most part, abandoned as societies became more complex and constructed larger and more elaborate structures. One major exception was in shipbuilding. Kingdoms, empires, and nation states creating large navies needed to construct large numbers of relatively identical ships, each of which required a relatively large construction force.

However the hulls of ships must be composed of streamlined curved forms that cannot be described in terms of linear or even circular segments, so naval architects needed to find other ways to define hull shapes in ways that could be reliably translated by ship builders to create the actual vessels.

One time-honored way in which this is done is to use flexible wooden strips (“splines”) in combination with multiple lead weights (“ducks”). The ducks are attached to a spline and force it to flex into a particular shape; the ducks are then moved around until an appropriate smooth curve is produced. The resulting curves are then followed in producing plans for the ship’s hull. Since the plans are full size (i.e., using a 1-1 scale) they need to be constructed in a large open space or loft, hence the name “lofting” for the overall process.

Mathematics to the rescue

Manual lofting continued to be used for ships well into the 20th century, and was later adapted for use in designing and constructing other streamlined forms, including airplanes and automobiles. However the process was very labor intensive and difficult to get right, so as electronic computers came into more widespread use after World War II automakers and aircraft manufacturers sought to enlist them in the design process, especially in conjunction with computer-driven machine tools that could take numeric instructions and create finished parts or molds.

At the same time traditional architecture was beginning to liberate itself from the constraints of linear forms, as the use of steel, reinforced concrete, and other new materials made it possible, at least in theory, to produce new types of structures that went beyond rectilinear and circular forms. But, as in designing ships, airplanes, and automobiles, it was easier to imagine new nonlinear forms than to describe them in detail sufficient to guide their construction—not to mention the problem of analyzing such structures to determine whether they would be structurally sound.

Using computers to create forms with complex curves and surfaces required finding compact mathematical ways to represent complex curves, programming computers to accurately and efficiently draw such curves, and (last but not least) making these techniques usable by people who didn’t have specialist mathematical or programming knowledge.

This was the challenge faced by Paul de Faget de Casteljau in 1959 when, fresh from earning a PhD in mathematics, he joined the French automaker Citroën. The recently-introduced Citroën DS model was acclaimed for the elegance of its curved unibody design, a form that was produced in a traditional way using clay and wood models. The models’ dimensions were then transferred to paper blueprints used in producing the body panels and related parts. All of these steps required painstaking manual work.

De Casteljau’s assigned task was to find a simpler way to represent the curves of an automobile’s body and parts, one that would be easier to use with the computer-controlled machine tools then coming into use at Citroën and elsewhere—a task made particularly urgent because while de Casteljau was working on the problem the wood modelers at Citroën went out on strike.

From points to curves

De Casteljau found a way to represent curves using a fixed set of mathematical expressions (known as Bernstein polynomials¹) in combination with a set of variable control points (see the figure above), each having horizontal (x) and vertical (y) values jointly specifying its position.

For example, if four control points are to be used then we start with the standard set of four Bernstein polynomials. The four control points can then be placed anywhere on the flat surface on which the curve is to be drawn (i.e., they can have arbitrary x and y values); each control point is associated in turn with one of the four Bernstein polynomials being used.

The problem of drawing a curve is then reduced to the following procedure, which can be thought of as occurring over an interval of time running from zero to one (e.g., from zero to one minute):

1. Start at the initial value of time (t = 0), evaluate the given mathematical expressions (the Bernstein polynomials) for that time value, and use the resulting values in conjunction with the control points’ x and y values to derive the position for the first point on the curve.²

2. Advance the time by a small increment, recompute the Bernstein polynomials for that new time value t, and again use the resulting values in conjunction with the control points to derive the position for the next point on the curve.

3. Repeat step 2 until you arrive at the final value of time (t = 1), at which point the final point on the curve is derived and the curve is complete.

The number of control points used determines the type of mathematical expressions used and the type of curves that can be drawn: using two points produces a line segment, using three points produces a segment of a parabola (the type of curve produced by a ball thrown into the air), using four points produces a cubic curve (so-called because the underlying parameter is multiplied by itself and then multiplied by itself again, as is done in computing the volume of a cube), and so on.

Because of the way the Bernstein polynomials are defined and associated with the control points, the curve produced is guaranteed to start at the first control point, to end at the last control point, and to pass (relatively) close to each intermediate control point. Changing the shape of the curve, or its starting and ending points, can be done by moving the positions of the control points (analogous to moving the ducks attached to a traditional spline). More complicated curves can be created by using more control points (analogous to adding more ducks) and correspondingly more complicated mathematical expressions (Bernstein polynomials of higher degree).

Note that this is not the only way to draw such curves. In particular, de Casteljau invented an elegant way to find points on a given curve using a geometric process involving lines between the control points. (See the figure above for a more in-depth explanation.) What is now known as the de Casteljau algorithm is mathematically equivalent to computing curve points using the Bernstein polynomials.

De Casteljau’s work saw immediate application at Citroën in the early 1960s, and was considered so important that Citroën treated its mathematical foundations as a trade secret for many years. However in the meantime engineers at rival French automaker Renault heard rumors about what was happening at Citroën and set out to implement a similar system.

Renault engineer Pierre Bézier independently discovered a representation for complex curves later shown to be mathematically equivalent to that of de Casteljau. Bézier’s associate Daniel Vernet independently invented de Casteljau’s geometric algorithm. Bézier, Vernet, and others at Renault then used these techniques to develop UNISURF, one of the first widely-used computer programs for what came to be known as computer aided design or CAD.

Unlike Citroën, Renault took a more relaxed attitude towards publicizing the technical achievements of its employees, and allowed Bézier and Vernet to publish various papers about their work in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Bézier also promoted Renault’s accomplishments in personal visits to other CAD researchers in academia and industry. As a result curves created using Bernstein polynomials are now universally known as Bézier curves.³

Beyond Bézier

The invention of Bézier curves and their application in engineering marked the beginning of the discipline of CAD (also known as computer aided geometric design or CAGD), and the 1960s and 1970s saw a steady flow of improvements and refinements of the work done at Citroën, Renault, and elsewhere.

Designing real-world artifacts required ways to generate surfaces (not just curves), as well as ways to generate more complicated curves than could be represented using simple Beziér curves. Let us first focus on the issue of generating more complex curves, and look at two ways to create such curves using Bézier curves.

The first approach is simply to use more control points (corresponding to higher-degree Bernstein polynomials). The problem with this approach is that in a Bézier curve each of the control points has at least some influence over essentially all of the curve. This makes it difficult to tweak a Bézier curve to match a pre-defined idea of what the curve should look like: if you move one of the control points in an effort to make a change in one portion of the curve, that movement will end up affecting other portions of the curve that you don’t want to change.

A second way to create a more complex curve is to build it out of multiple Bézier curves joined end to end. The problem with this approach is that it is difficult to get the resulting composite curve to smoothly transition from one of the underlying Bézier curves to the next, as is required in applications like auto body design.⁴

Greater smoothness can be obtained by constraining the control points of one of the underlying Bézier curves relative to the control points of the previous or next curve, but for reasons mentioned above this can lead to difficulties when trying to tweak the shape of the overall curve in certain places.

The solution to this problem was to replace Bernstein polynomials with more general functions known as basis splines. In mathematics “splines” are functions pieced together out of multiple polynomial expressions, with each expression being non-zero only on a particular interval. They are named by analogy to traditional wooden splines, since the expressions and their associated intervals are chosen such that the curve produced by the function flows smoothly from one interval to the next.

“Basis splines” or B-splines form a special set of spline functions that can be combined to represent any spline function created using polynomial expressions of the same level of complexity, or order.⁵

A fixed set of B-spline functions is then combined with a set of variable control points to draw a curve, similar to what was described above for Bernstein polynomials and Bézier curves. The underlying parameter used in the B-spline functions goes from some minimum value to some maximum value. Unlike Bézier curves the minimum value may be different than zero, and the maximum value different than one.

A set of numbers known as knots then defines a set of intervals for the parameter between its minimum and maximum values. If the knots are chosen appropriately then a particular B-spline function will have non-zero values only on a few adjacent intervals, and will be zero on all other intervals.

When the B-spline function associated with a given control point has non-zero values only on certain intervals of the underlying parameter, moving that control point affects only the parts of the curve drawn over those intervals. This addresses the first deficiency of Bézier curves discussed above.

The second concern (smoothness of the curve between the intervals) is addressed by the mathematical definition of the B-spline functions: their shape is such that their influence (and thus the influence of their associated control points) tails off smoothly at the beginning and/or end of the intervals for which they are non-zero.

By varying the knot values the curve can be constrained and shaped in various ways. For example, setting multiple knot values to be the same at the beginning of the knot series can be used to constrain the curve to start at the first control point, while setting multiple knot values to be the same at the end of the knot series can be used to constrain the curve to end at the last control point. The curve also varies depending on whether the knot values are evenly spaced (uniform) or otherwise (non-uniform). For example, setting multiple knot values equal to each other in the middle of the knot series can be used to produce kinks in the resulting curve.

Finally, the control points themselves can be given differing weights when combined with their B-spline functions. A control point with a higher weight will have a greater influence on the curve, so that the curve will pass closer to the control point in question. Another control point may have a lower weight and thus only a fraction of the influence of other control points, so that the curve passes relatively further away from the point. Another word for fraction is ratio, and thus B-splines with differing control point weights are known as rational B-splines.

In the most general case the knot values are non-uniform, and the control points have different weights. The resulting curve is referred to as a non-uniform rational B-spline curve, or a NURBS curve for short.

From curves to surfaces

The mathematical formalisms underlying practical applications of NURBS curves were worked out in the 1960s and 1970s. Among other things, it was discovered that Bézier curves are just a special case of NURBS curves. It also turned out that NURBS curves could be used to represent conic sections, that is, curves like circles and ellipses formed by slicing a plane through a cone. NURBS curves thus became a universal standard for representing 2-dimensional curves of almost any type.

What about 3-dimensional curves and surfaces? Extending NURBS curves into three dimensions is very simple: just use control points with three coordinates instead of two (in mathematical terms, adding a z value to the previous x and y values). Creating 3D surfaces from NURBS curves is somewhat more complicated.

One way to do it is to use a grid of (3-dimensional) control points (and associated weights), two different parameters (instead of the one parameter used for a NURBS curve), two sets of B-spline functions (which can be of different orders), and two sets of knots.

One set of B-spline functions and knots is used with the first parameter (u) and the x-y-z coordinates of the control points running in one direction on the grid, with the second set of B-spline functions and knots then used with the second parameter (v) and the coordinates of the control points running in the other direction on the grid. A point on the surface is then computed for a given pair of parameter values u and v, using an expression that involves both sets of B-spline functions and both sets of knots along with the control point coordinates.

Computer aided design

In practice designers creating NURBS curves and surfaces are not concerned with the detailed mathematical computations underlying these objects. Instead they create curves and surfaces using special CAD software products that abstract away as much of the underlying mathematical complexity as possible, and provide relatively intuitive interfaces to define the curves and surfaces.

For example, using CAD software a designer can create a NURBS curve by explicitly placing control points and defining knot values and weights, or they can draw a curve freehand and then have the software determine the control points, knots, and weights needed to approximate the freehand curve. In either case a designer can further tweak a curve as needed, for example by dragging control points to new positions, deleting existing control points or adding new ones, changing knots and weights, and so on.

Once NURBS curves are defined they can then be used to create NURBS surfaces. For example, if four NURBS curves are connected together to form a four-sided shape, the software can use the four edges to interpolate a four-sided NURBS surface between. (See the figure above.) Multiple such surfaces can then be patched together to form a larger surface.

The earliest major CAD programs were developed internally at major automotive and aerospace companies. They include Renault’s UNISURF as well as similar software created at General Motors and elsewhere. It was no coincidence that these companies also employed many of the researchers working on NURBS curves and surfaces and related techniques, and also collaborated with academic researchers in the same area.

One such program worth noting is CATIA, originally developed in the 1970s by the French aircraft manufacturer Avions Marcel Dassault. Instead of keeping CATIA in-house, Dassault turned it into a commercial product and sold it to other aerospace companies (including Boeing), automotive companies, and others.

In the 1990s the architect Frank Gehry (co-designer of Merriweather Post Pavilion) and his firm adopted CATIA for use in designing his breakthrough commission, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain (completed in 1997), and subsequent high-profile projects. Among these were the Experience Music Project in Seattle (completed in 2000) and the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles (completed in 2003).

(The EMP in particular was one of the first major collaborations between Gehry and A. Zahner Company, another member of the Chrysalis design team, which fabricated the building’s skin. Zahner’s work on the Chrysalis will be discussed in a future article in this series.)

Gehry’s success produced a lot of excitement about the possibility of using advanced nonlinear forms in architecture. However there were at least two factors that limited the adoption of CATIA and similar software by architects and made the impact of CAD software on architectural practice less revolutionary than it might otherwise have been.

First, CATIA and similar products and the computers needed to run them were very expensive: just the hardware alone for the Guggenheim Bilbao project was over half a million dollars at 1990s prices. (Gehry could afford it only because IBM loaned him the necessary graphics workstations.) Even today a full installation of CATIA or similar high-end CAD software can cost several thousand dollars per “seat,” that is, for each person using the product. Thus only the largest architectural firms could afford to employ such advanced technology.

Second, CAD software was primarily used as an adjunct to traditional architectural drafting and modeling techniques. Gehry himself boasted of his inability to use a computer. Instead he created designs like the Guggenheim Bilbao by first modeling them in paper or cardboard. He then handed them off to more junior architects to create more refined models to be digitized and imported into CATIA for final refinement and generation of the actual instructions for builders and fabricators. (These are not necessarily paper blueprints. Instead the models are typically translated into instructions for computer-controlled tools.)

Thus although Guggenheim Bilbao and similar projects offered a glimpse of a new way of doing architecture, fully realizing that new way would await a new generation of powerful but low-cost hardware and software, and a new generation of architects, “digital natives” prepared to fully exploit the possibilities inherent in these new technologies.

Form finding

The road that led to Marc Fornes’s work on the Chrysalis began in the early years of the 21st century, as the trends bringing faster, cheaper, and easier-to-use software and hardware gathered momentum. Fornes studied as an architect in France and then at the Architectural Association Design Research Lab in London, graduating in January 2004 with a Masters in Architecture and Urbanism.

After graduating from the DRL Fornes joined Zaha Hadid Architects in London, where he worked for over two years on a project to design a “médiathèque” (media library) for the French city of Pau, including an innovative self-supported roof constructed from a carbon fiber composite material. Although the Pau médiathèque project was ultimately cancelled for political reasons, much to the frustration of Fornes and his colleagues, it sparked his interest in complex curved surfaces and led him to begin experimenting with computational methods to design such surfaces.

That experimentation continued as Fornes moved to New York in the fall of 2006. Working under the project name “THEVERYMANY,” Fornes took advantage of multiple technological advances, of which the most important was the creation of the PC-based 3D modeling software Rhinoceros, popularly known as Rhino or Rhino 3D.

Rhino was created by Robert McNeel & Associates (“McNeel”), a Seattle-based company that was founded in 1980 as an accounting firm and spent most of the 1980s and 1990s as a reseller of the CAD product AutoCAD and a marketer of AutoCAD add-on software. Eventually McNeel developed and sold Rhino as its own Windows-based 3D modeling product, with version 1.0 released in 1998.

McNeel followed several business practices unusual for traditional vendors of proprietary CAD software, practices more akin to those of then-new Internet companies like Netscape or developers of free and open source software: McNeel not only priced Rhino at a level affordable to small companies, including “boutique” architectural firms and individual architects, it allowed liberal downloads of evaluation copies at no charge. McNeel also followed the open source dictum “release early, release often” and distributed “beta” copies of new versions in development almost as soon as the previous versions were released, soliciting ideas for new features from its customers.

As a result Rhino quickly acquired an installed base of over a hundred thousand users, and (among other things) became the tool of choice for an emerging community of experimental architects and designers, including Marc Fornes. That community in particular explored the possibilities opened up by one key feature of Rhino, namely its ability to be driven by a computer program rather than by a human designer.

Each operation executed through Rhino’s graphical user interface has an equivalent operation invoked by a textual command. Rhino supported the ability first to group multiple such commands together to execute a sequence of operations, and then provided full programmability using a scripting language (RhinoScript) and an associated application programming interface (API).⁶

Beginning in the mid-2000s Fornes and others pioneered techniques for form finding, that is, using the computer to generate potential structural forms from scratch, instead of using it simply as a way to digitally instantiate forms originally created by hand. They proselytized this new way of working through traditional in-person workshops and conferences as well as via the new medium of Internet blogs, including Fornes’s own blog theverymany.net.

Fornes conceived of this work as experimental: starting with certain premises, assuming certain constraints, and then finding ways to create designs within those constraints. The designs were created using “very clear protocols, sets of mathematical relationships, algorithms, [and] geometrical transformations” (in other words, what Fornes referred to as an “explicit” way of working), which in turn were instantiated (or “encoded,” as Fornes put it) in text files written in a particular computer programming language.

These designs also featured what Fornes referred to as “precise indetermination”. “Precise” meant that the programs made little or no use of randomness (the example in the figure above is a rare exception) and thus produced consistently reproducible output from run to run (especially important for fabrication of the resulting design). However the designs were also “indeterminate,” because the inherent complexity of the programs (including the interaction between different subprograms and their algorithms “fighting against each other”) made it difficult for the designer to predict ahead of time exactly how a design would turn out.

At first Fornes’s experiments were in digital form only, and in most cases they bore little resemblance to real-life structures. (See for example the above figure.) Many resembled nothing so much as exercises in advanced mathematics, which in a sense they were.

Following on from the original academic and industry researchers who created the mathematics and associated algorithms for NURBS curves and surfaces, Fornes and others used software like Rhino to play with the application of mathematical concepts to design: recursive definitions of surfaces and solids, fractals and L-systems, cellular automata, vector fields, Voronoi tesselations and Delaunay triangulations, and so on.⁷ Fornes’s blog posts in 2006 and 2007 document this work, typically pairing striking images with the RhinoScript code or pseudocode that produced them.

Fornes also combined his day-to-day work as an architect with an increasingly heavy schedule of academic work at Columbia University in New York, the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, die Angewandte (the University of Applied Arts) in Vienna, and elsewhere, as well as instructional classes in RhinoScript programming for McNeel and related activities at workshops, conferences, and exhibitions.

Iterative improvement

Although the designs produced by Marc Fornes and others could be viewed as striking works of art, Fornes conceived of himself not as an artist but as an architect, someone whose designs were actually built, or at least buildable.

Thus beginning in 2008 Fornes and his associates in THEVERYMANY began work on a series of what he called “prototypical structures”: structures not intended for permanent use by actual inhabitants, but rather created to explore various design techniques and methods for fabrication and assembly. Fornes and his team both designed the structures and assembled them, thus echoing the ancient tradition of folk architecture based on nonlinear forms, in which the roles of the “architects” and the “builders” were blurred.

In creating these prototypical structures Fornes and his associates also adopted an approach reminiscent of both traditional architecture and the Silicon Valley dictum “fail fast, fail often”. (Fornes hyberbolically referred to several of these projects as “big-time failure[s].”) Any problems encountered in creating the structures were treated not as fatal errors but as opportunities to learn what went wrong and fix it for the next iteration.

One of the first problems that presented itself was translating the curved surfaces of the design into flat elements that could be fabricated (e.g., in sheet plastic or aluminum) and then assembled. Because at the time there was no automated way to do this for arbitrary elements, Fornes created ways to design surfaces that both provided for three-dimensionality (necessary to create self-supporting structures) and also were composed of a relatively small number of unique regular elements that could be relatively easily arrayed on a sheet of material and then cut out and riveted together.

But even though the parts were relatively easy to fabricate, assembling them into an actual structure proved very difficult, requiring constant referral to the original digitally-rendered design in order to determine which elements attached to which others. In the end Fornes and his team were never able to complete the assembly of one such structure—although as it turned out the gallery for which it was intended had never seen the correct rendering, liked the structure as is, and even invited them to create another one.

In order to reduce assembly time Fornes and his associates adopted the practice of tagging the individual fabricated elements with encoded information regarding the other elements to which they connected. This reduced the need to refer back to the digital model and decreased assembly time by an order of magnitude.

Still other problems soon presented themselves. In scaling up to larger structures Fornes used thicker materials for the structural elements. This caused the weights of the structures to increase, which in turn made it more difficult for the structures to bear their own “dead load” and stand up by themselves. Because all elements of the structures had to be riveted to each other using pre-made holes, Fornes and his team of assemblers also encountered problems when tiny misalignments in connecting the elements built up and caused problems when assembling the final elements in the structures.

Advances in CAD software helped with some of the problems previously encountered, as the popularity of the Rhino 3D modeling product spurred the growth of a “ecosystem” of add-on products and related capabilities. For example, McNeel’s Grasshopper add-on provided a visual programming language to supplement traditional RhinoScript programs, while the third-party product RhinoNest optimized the process of “nesting” arbitrary structural elements onto flat sheets to be laser cut or milled with minimal wasting of material.

These advances were not panaceas. Fornes and his designers might now be able to create designs featuring arbitrarily-large numbers of unique structural elements and to nest those elements onto sheets for cutting or milling, but assembling such elements was still time-consuming—so time-consuming as to often be impractical for a small team working against a deadline.

One way Fornes reduced assembly time was to combine multiple individual elements into one elongated element, producing strips of material to be further combined into structural components. (See the figure above, in which painting some of the strips made this technique visible as colored stripes on the final structure.) But building a structure out of long strips could lead to other problems, as Fornes found when he designed a structure to be made of wood veneer and accidentally nested the strips in a way that went against the grain of the wood, thereby weakening them. (The resulting structure collapsed while being transported to the exhibition site.)

Nonetheless Fornes and his associates perservered in their pursuit of learning through failure and iterative improvement, and succeeded in creating more and more striking and successful projects: structures large enough to be experienced as spaces rather than just as sculptures, structures whose unassembled elements were small and light enough to be transported halfway around the world in the team’s suitcases (echoing the experiences of nomads who carried their homes with them), structures designed for easy storage when necessary, structures made of aluminum, or plastic, or carbon fiber—all leveraging an increasingly sophisticated repertoire of design, fabrication, and assembly techniques.

The genesis of the Chrysalis

As the second decade of the 21st century began, Marc Fornes received increasing attention as an architect to watch. In 2010 he quit his day job at a large architectural firm and converted THEVERYMANY from an informal project into an independent design studio, gaining more freedom to pursue his own projects. (As he put it to writer Terri Peters, “I realized nobody is ever going to commission me to do what I want to do, so I thought, what can I commission myself to do?”)

The years 2011 and 2012 saw a number of new projects for THEVERYMANY, including for the Centre Pompidou (shown above), FRAC Centre, and Atelier Calder in France, and Washington University at St Louis and Art Basel Miami in the US. Those years also marked the beginning of the events that would eventually lead to the creation of the Chrysalis.

As previously described, after his appearance at the Columbia Association resident “speak out” in September 2011 Michael McCall of Strategic Leisure began thinking seriously about creating a concept plan for a new park in Symphony Woods. Throughout 2012 McCall created a series of presentations outlining such a plan.

When creating Columbia, Jim Rouse had sponsored the work of Frank Gehry when Gehry was just starting his career; the results included Merriweather Post Pavilion and the Rouse Company headquarters building. In creating his concept plan for Symphony Woods (at the heart of Columbia), Michael McCall, formerly a Vice President at Rouse’s Enterprise Development Corporation, saw the opportunity to emulate his mentor by calling upon the talents of a new generation of promising architects. Thus when McCall created his concept plan presentations, to inspire his audiences and show how the plan might be implemented he highlighted the work of various innovative architects and artists, including in particular Marc Fornes.

In February 2013 McCall made a public presentation of the new “Inner Arbor” concept plan proposed by the Columbia Association as an alternative to the previous “Paumier plan”. Again this presentation mentioned Marc Fornes, in the context of the “Treehouse amphitheater” element of the concept plan.

In the subsequent months the Inner Arbor Trust was officially established and began the process of selecting designers for the various plan elements. In a presentation to Leadership Howard County in September 2013 McCall again mentioned Fornes as one of the designers who were candidates for possible commissions.

In that same presentation McCall also laid out the goals of the amphitheater element of the Inner Arbor plan: to serve as a stage for performances (including as a secondary stage for Merriweather Post Pavilion), as a pavilion for family reunions, church picnics, weddings, and similar events, and as a sculpture that would be a beautiful addition to the park during other times.

In November 2013 the Inner Arbor Trust formally announced the selection of Marc Fornes as part of the design team for the Inner Arbor plan, what Michael McCall termed the “Designers of Delight”. Shortly thereafter, at a community meeting on December 2, Fornes presented the design for what was now referred to as the “Chrysalis.”

Mesh inflation

The design of the Chrysalis was created using a process Fornes called “pleated inflation,” a variant of “mesh inflation”. The technique of mesh inflation was made possible by the increasingly sophisticated applications built on the Rhino modeling software, including the Grasshopper visual programming language, the Kangaroo physics simulation add-on to Grasshopper, and similar tools.

In mesh inflation the tools start with a flat surface of a certain shape specified by the designer. The form of the surface will determine the final form of the structure. For example, in the Chrysalis mesh inflation (see the first figure above) the initial surface (outlined in yellow) has nine “projections” or “peninsulas” that will end up as the legs of the Chrysalis.

The tools then divide up the surface to create a mesh of four-sided shapes (quadrilaterals). In the case of the Chrysalis the lines of the mesh run “lengthwise” along the projections (purple in the first figure above) and “crosswise” across them (blue in the figure). The way those projections (or more specifically, the lengthwise lines of the mesh) join to each other then determines the way the “vaults” of the Chrysalis intersect with each other.

Once the mesh is defined, the tools then treat the lines of the mesh (the sides of the quadrilaterals) as if they were springs (of varying degrees of stiffness) connecting together the vertices of the mesh (the places where the lines of the mesh cross) and providing tension between them. The exact simulated stiffnesses can be tweaked by the designer to achieve various effects.

Some vertices at the edge of the mesh are constrained to remain attached to the “ground”. These places are to be the bases of the “legs” of the final structure. (For the Chrysalis these vertices are the ones at the ends of the nine projections of the initial surface.)

The tools then simulate an upward force applied to the vertices of the mesh. The simulated force causes the vertices to move vertically into the “air,” but they are constrained by the tension placed on them by the simulated springs between them, or (for designated vertices at the edge) by their attachment to the “ground.”

Other simulated forces can be applied in other directions, most notably outward from the surface as it evolves. The net effect is that the initially flat mesh “inflates“ into a 3-dimensional structure, analogous to a balloon being blown up or an inflatable tent being filled with air.

Fornes used the mesh inflation technique (what he called “a computationally derived dynamic spring network with behavioral attributes”) in designing the sculpture “Vaulted Willow” for Borden Park in Edmonton, Alberta. The first figure above and its linked video show a similar technique as used in creating the Chrysalis design.

The Chrysalis design as presented in the pre-submission meeting and to the Design Advisory Panel was more complicated than could be produced using the same type of mesh inflation used for the Vaulted Willow project. Instead Fornes used a variant technique he called “pleated inflation,” previously used in designing a structure of the same name in Argelès-sur-Mer in France.

In the pleated inflation technique certain “lengthwise” lines through the original mesh and their associated vertices are marked out as special. During the inflation process the simulated forces and/or tensions are varied such that the resulting surface is not smooth, but instead assumes a corrugated or pleated appearance, with the peaks of the pleats running along the previously marked lines.

In the Argelès-sur-Mer amphitheater, which is built solely from flat aluminum shingles folded and then riveted together, the resulting pleats supply stiffness to the overall architectural form and help ensure the integrity of the structure. The pleats in the Chrysalis also provide structural integrity, supplemented by additional elements as discussed below. In addition the Chrysalis pleats help channel rain water and snow melt off the structure.

Sculpture, pavilion, stage

Recall again the three roles of the Chrysalis: as a sculpture, a pavilion, and a stage. As a sculpture the Chrysalis follows in the tradition of previous THEVERYMANY projects in its nonlinear form, though its shape is relatively simple and straightforward compared to projects like Y/Surf/Struc (shown above).

Though the Chrysalis design has a simpler shape than that of Y/Surf/Struc, it makes more sophisticated and subtle use of color. In structures like Y/Surf/Struc color was used mainly to highlight the underlying plan of the design—as Marc Fornes remarked, “It’s not for [the color] that we got invited [to the Centre Pompidou].”

Fornes used color more imaginatively and playfully in later projects like Vaulted Willow, befitting its role as a public art piece for a park. The aluminum shingles forming the structure go from predominantly purple and blue at the base to blue and green and then to green and yellow at the top, with the eye perceiving a gradient of color built from a series of single-color shingles.

The Chrysalis uses a similar scheme, albeit with a more restricted range of colors (being similar to the Pleated Inflation structure in that respect). As a larger structure in a wooded setting, its colors span a range of greens to echo its surroundings. As with Vaulted Willow, the Chrysalis as constructed (see the figure above) shows the effect of a sophisticated “dithering” technique, designed to use a limited color palette (only four colors of shingles in the Chrysalis) to simulate a broader range of colors. The end effect as perceived by the eye is a relatively smooth gradient running from a darker green at the bottom to a lighter green at the top.

In its role as a pavilion the Chrysalis differs from previous THEVERYMANY projects mainly in being designed to provide a solid shell. Previous projects, including the Pleated Inflation amphitheater, used shingles that were perforated in various ways, using a technique to determine the shape and location of the perforations that Fornes calls “agent-based porosity”. Since the Chrysalis is intended for uses such as picnics and weddings that might be held in inclement weather, its surface is solid and designed (using the pleats) to channel water away from participants.

The Chrysalis is also considerably larger than any other THEVERYMANY project, easily twice the width, depth, and height of its “little brother,” the Pleated Inflation structure. This means that the area under the shell (about five thousand square feet in total) is much larger than that associated with the other projects, providing sufficient room to shelter fairly large gatherings.

The final role of the Chrysalis, as a performance stage, put the most demands on the design. The Chrysalis stage is actually two stages in one: the larger or “alpha” stage facing west, and a smaller “beta” stage facing south. These stages were not intended just for community and school plays and concerts and other relatively small-scale events. Instead the alpha stage was also intended to serve as a secondary stage for Merriweather Post Pavilion, for example during large music festivals.

Over the years the increased appetite of concert-goers for elaborate productions has led acts to impose ever greater technical requirements on the venues seeking to host them: more stage space, greater electrical capacity, and—most important—the ability to hang ever larger and heavier lighting rigs and audio equipment.

In the case of Merriweather Post Pavilion this trend led to the eventual replacement of the existing stage and stagehouse with larger facilities. In the case of the Chrysalis it greatly increased the loads that the Chrysalis would have to bear, as specified in the technical requirements worked out among the Inner Arbor Trust, I.M.A. (the operators of Merriweather Post Pavilion), and other parties.

In particular the Chrysalis shell would have to support a much greater load due to hanging equipment (up to 40,000 pounds in total per the technical requirements), and a correspondingly greater risk of having “point loads” damage the structure. (For example, think of roadies inadvertently attaching heavy equipment at one place on the structure without balancing the load at attach points elsewhere.)

This load was in addition to the static load of the structure’s own weight, potential additional load due to snowfalls, and potential dynamic loads due to high winds hitting the structure from various angles. The total surface area upon which wind can act is much greater for the Chrysalis than for other THEVERYMANY projects, and the resulting wind force correspondingly larger. The planned-for wind load, at about 60,000 pounds, is actually higher than the anticipated load due to theatrical equipment.

Given the anticipated and planned-for loads, the Chrysalis does not rely solely on pleated metal shingles to provide structural integrity. The Chrysalis design uses pleated shingles for the outer surface and then supplements them with an inner framework of curved steel elements underneath the shingles. (See future articles in this series for more information on this steel framework and the means by which the shingles are attached to it.)

The significance of the Chrysalis

The Chrysalis is special in many ways. First, it represents the largest structure yet designed by Marc Fornes, and in its role as a modern performance stage must meet more demanding real-life requirements than any previous THEVERYMANY project. Its creation marks another step in the evolution of Fornes as an architect and THEVERYMANY as a studio, consistent with his goal to “learn, grow, and grow in scale.”

Second, for the Inner Arbor Trust the Chrysalis is the first element of the Inner Arbor plan to take tangible form. Its successful completion confirms the wisdom of the Columbia Association in investing the Inner Arbor Trust with the responsibility of creating a new park for Symphony Woods, and helps position the Trust for future success in carrying out the remainder of the Inner Arbor plan.

Finally, for the people of Columbia and Howard County, who funded the design and construction of the Chrysalis and will be its primary users, the Chrysalis is a unique and beautiful addition to downtown Columbia, fully capable of fulfilling its roles as stage, pavilion, and sculpture, and a structure that—along with a renovated Merriweather Post Pavilion—will serve as an anchor around which the vision of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods can be realized.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online sources, including the following:

• For more on Bézier and NURBS curves see the following:

  • “On the Spline: A Brief History of the Computational Curve,” by Alastair Townsend. A non-mathematical explanation of the historical and technical aspects of Bézier and NURBS curves.
  • “A History of Curves and Surfaces in CAGD,” by Gerald Farin. A more technical history of computer aided geometric design.
  • “My Time at Citroën,” by Paul de Casteljau. An autobiographical article that provides some amusing insights concerning de Casteljau and the environment in which he worked at Citroën.
  • “NURBS-Calculator.” An interactive web-based demo that allows you to manipulate and create NURBS and Bézier curves. (You can even use it on smartphones and tablets.)

• For more on architectural design software and associated techniques see the following:

  • “The Software Behind Frank Gehry’s Geometrically Complex Architecture,” by Lian Chang. Outlines the history behind the adoption of CATIA for Frank Gehry’s projects.
  • “The Way of Rhino” (part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4), by Randall Newton. A 2007 series of articles providing an in-depth look at Robert McNeel & Associates, creators of Rhino, and their impact on the CAD market.
  • “Rhino Grasshopper,” by Martyn Day. A 2009 article describing the then-new Grasshopper add-on to Rhino for visual scripting of geometry.
  • “Grasshopper Primer,” by Mode Lab. For readers who are programmers this offers an interesting glimpse into a visual programming language specialized for manipulation of geometric objects.

• For more on Marc Fornes and his work see the following:

  • theverymany.com is the most comprehensive source of information on Fornes and the work of THEVERYMANY. In addition to the projects highlighted on the main page, the archived blog posts on theverymany.com form a continuous record of Fornes’s work from late 2005 to 2014. (Keep scrolling to read earlier posts.) The posts in 2006 and 2007 are particularly interesting for their inclusion of sample RhinoScript code.
  • “Marc Fornes Creates Spaces He Has Never Seen Before,” by Terri Peters. A 2010 article that provides a good summary of Fornes’s design philosophy and working methods.
  • “Tech Specs: Marc Fornes, Founder of THEVERYMANY,” by Mason Currey. A 2015 article in which Fornes discusses the computer software and other tools he uses in his work.
  • scriptedbypurpose. A 2007 exhibition curated by Fornes, its website contains many examples of experimental designs produced by RhinoScript code.
  • (n)Certainties (original, v2.0, v3.0, v4.0, and v5.0). A series of workshops held at Columbia and USC from 2007 to 2009 by Fornes, Francois Roche, and Stephan Henrich, their websites also contain many experimental designs with accompanying RhinoScript code.
  • “D01 06 Marc Fornes Structurant Bark” [40-minute video]. A presentation by Marc Fornes at the symposium “PROTO/E/CO/LOGICS 002: The Field is Open,” held September 1-2, 2012, in Rovinj, Croatia. It includes discussions of the series of “prototypical structures” and lessons learned in creating them.
  • “Unabashed Designers of Delight” [121-minute video] (November 18, 2013). A presentation introducing the design team for the Inner Arbor plan. It includes a presentation by Marc Fornes beginning at 58:26 that discusses a number of THEVERYMANY projects, including the amphitheater at Argelès-sur-Mer.
  • “The Art of the Prototypical” [74-minute video] (October 26, 2015). A presentation by Marc Fornes at his alma mater, the Design Research Lab of the Architectural Association in London. It includes a discussion of more recent projects, including brief comments on the Chrysalis.

• For more on the Chrysalis amphitheater and its origins in the Inner Arbor concept plan, see the following:

  • Michael McCall’s presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [33-minute video] (September 20, 2013).
  • The Chrysalis portion of the Inner Arbor pre-submission community presentation (December 2, 2013).
  • Michael McCall presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [20-minute video] (February 26, 2014).
  • “Chrysalis mesh inflation” [68-minute video]. A video showing the process of mesh inflation for the Chrysalis. Note that most of the video is blank, with the only content being the initial two minutes and from 41:40 on.
  • “Mesh pleated inflation, Argeles” [2-minute video]. A brief video showing the process of mesh inflation for the “Pleated Inflation” amphitheater in Argelès-sur-Mer, including the creation of the pleats in the surface (not shown in the equivalent Chrysalis video).

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I discuss the various institutional activities related to implementation of the Inner Arbor plan, with a focus on the Columbia Association, the Inner Arbor Trust, and the Howard County government, including its planning process.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous article in this series described the vision and strategy for creating a new park in Symphony Woods according to the Inner Arbor plan. This article picks up where the first article in the series left off, describing the process that led to the Columbia Association’s adopting the Inner Arbor plan and creating the Inner Arbor Trust as an independent organization to implement it, along with the history of the Inner Arbor Trust and related events up to the present.

Organizations and their roles

As in the previous events relating to downtown Columbia development in general and Symphony Woods in particular, multiple organizations played a role in this history in addition to the Inner Arbor Trust itself:

• The Columbia Association was at the center of the story, at least initially, due to its ownership of the Symphony Woods, its plan in progress for developing a park on that property, and its creation of and ongoing relationship with the Inner Arbor Trust.
• The Howard County government served variously as a promoter of downtown Columbia development (both formally through the Downtown Columbia Plan and informally in various ways), the regulator of such development (through the Department of Planning and Zoning, the Planning Board, and the Design Advisory Panel), a funder of Symphony Woods development (through the County Executive and County Council), and a future user of park features (through the Department of Parks and Recreation and its sponsorship of the Wine in the Woods festival).
• The Howard Hughes Corporation had by this time assumed the role previously filled by General Growth Properties (and before GGP the Rouse Company) as the owner of Merriweather Post Pavilion, situated within and surrounded by Symphony Woods. Howard Hughes and It’s My Amphitheater, Inc. (the operators of the pavilion) played key roles in promoting integration of Symphony Woods development with redevelopment of Merriweather Post Pavilion. They were joined by the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission, the county-created nonprofit organization slated to take over ownership of the pavilion property from Howard Hughes.
• Other players included the state of Maryland (which had previously provided a grant to CA for Symphony Woods development) and the Columbia Festival of the Arts (a future user of park features).

2012: Rethinking

As of the fall of 2012 the Columbia Association was faced with a decision on what to do about Symphony Woods development. Although the Howard County Planning Board¹ had nominally approved the CA-created Final Development Plan for Symphony Woods Park (FDP-DC-MSW-1, based on the so-called “Paumier plan”), the Planning Board had attached recommendations to that approval that in practice required a major rethink of the original plan.

At that point after two years of work the Columbia Association had a diagram for a pathway system and a concept design for a fountain, but no detailed designs for other park features. CA was in the position of having to make significant changes to its existing design prior to taking them to the next stage of the county planning process (i.e., in the form of a Site Development Plan), as well as having to flesh out those parts of the design yet unfinished. Besides the impact on CA staff, the financial stakes were also high since the costs of preparing and implementing an SDP would be considerably greater than those incurred for the FDP.

The Columbia Association had been urged for some time to coordinate its plans with those being created by the Howard Hughes Corporation. The previous April Howard Hughes had recommended that CA look at a new concept plan being created by Michael McCall for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood. This advice was apparently being echoed by others.²

The CA board considers alternatives

On October 5, 2012, Columbia Association President and CEO Phil Nelson recommended that the CA board devote time in its first October meeting to discussing various questions relating to Symphony Woods development, including the possibility of partnering on Symphony Woods development with another organization, and of revising the Symphony Woods plan to take into account planned redevelopment of Merriweather Post Pavilion.

On October 11 the Columbia Association Board of Directors held a work session at which Phil Nelson discussed options for Symphony Woods development and the CA board took a number of straw polls on how to move forward. Those board members present (all except Cynthia Coyle) expressed unanimous support for the idea of forming a separate organization to develop Symphony Woods. Although the work session was public, no one spoke during the Resident Speak Out portion of the meeting—in fact no one from the general public attended the board meeting at all (according to a later recollection by board member Andy Stack).

Thus the possibility that the Columbia Association might change its strategy for Symphony Woods development, as well as the behind-the-scenes work to create a new concept plan, went unnoticed and unremarked for the most part, as the CA board devoted its meetings to other topics the rest of the year.

2013: Creating

That period of relative quiet ended in late January 2013 with the public unveiling of the Inner Arbor concept plan created by Michael McCall of Strategic Leisure. (See the previous article in this series for an in-depth discussion of this concept plan.)

Implementing the Inner Arbor plan via a separate organization

After the Columbia Association released information on the concept plan on January 18, at the January 24 CA board meeting CA President Phil Nelson presented several recommendations to the board:

• That the Columbia Association adopt the Inner Arbor concept plan as the overall framework to guide future development of Symphony Woods as a whole.
• That CA adopt Symphony Woods as the preferred location for a new CA headquarters. This proposal had been discussed back in 2005, and was included in the Inner Arbor concept plan as a suggestion for the eastern part of Symphony Woods.
• That the CA board instruct CA management to establish a separate “Trust” to carry out development of Symphony Woods on behalf of CA.³
• That CA enter into a perpetual easement agreement providing the trust organization the necessary rights to carry out development according to the Inner Arbor concept plan.
• That CA transfer to the trust organization funds that CA had allocated for Symphony Woods development in its current and future budgets.

Nelson also noted that, per the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning, development of the northern section of Symphony Woods could proceed according to the already-approved Final Development Plan. (As previously discussed, the northern section of Symphony Woods encompassed the “public park” envisioned in the Inner Arbor concept plan, as distinguished from the “performance park” and “curated park” in the eastern and southern sections. The approved FDP incorporated not only a pathway system but also various proposed park elements in addition to a fountain, including an amphitheater, café, play area, and public art.)

On January 31 Michael McCall presented the Inner Arbor concept plan at a public meeting sponsored by the Columbia Association. On February 7 CA President Phil Nelson sent a memo to the CA board with an expanded and refined set of recommendations, proposing that CA

• adopt the Inner Arbor concept plan;
• create a separate nonprofit organization that could qualify for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status as the vehicle to carry out the plan;
• negotiate a perpetual easement on the Symphony Woods property with the new organization; and
• provide initial funding of $1.6 million to the new organization (representing CA’s already budgeted amount for Symphony Woods development).

Nelson subsequently sent a revised memo to the Columbia Association Board of Directors on February 13, formalizing the recommendations made in the February 7 memo in preparation for the board’s consideration of them.

On February 14 the Columbia Association Board of Directors voted 8–2 to accept Nelson’s recommendations and move forward with the creation of a separate “Symphony Woods Trust”. Voting in favor were Regina Clay, Ed Coleman, Tom Coale, Michael Cornell, Gregg Schwind, Andy Stack, Suzanne Waller, and Shari Zaret; voting against were Cynthia Coyle and Alex Hekimian.

Inner Arbor supporters and opponents

However this overwhelming approval by the Columbia Association Board of Directors did not end the dispute over CA’s change in direction regarding Symphony Woods development. The ensuing controversy in some ways mirrored the previous controversy in 2005 over General Growth Properties’s proposed master plan for downtown Columbia.

Several opponents of the previous GGP plan, including former CA board members Barbara Russell and Russ Swatek and community activist Alan Klein of the Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown, argued against the Inner Arbor concept plan for its proposal to put buildings in Symphony Woods, and also charged that the process of adopting the plan did not reflect adequate time for public input and discussion. They were joined in their opposition by Cy Paumier and some of his associates, who lobbied the CA board both privately and publicly for retention of the prior plan for Symphony Woods Park that they had created.

Beyond the Columbia Association Board of Directors itself, strong Inner Arbor plan supporters first and foremost included county elected officials, with Howard County Executive Ken Ulman making a public statement in support of the concept plan when it was first unveiled. Howard County Council members Calvin Ball and Mary Kay Sigaty followed up with a public letter referring to it as a “bold vision” in line with the Downtown Columbia Plan’s vision of a “cultural park where the landscape becomes a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses,” and County Council member Jen Terrasa argued in another public letter that the plan “invites the community back and creates a heart for Columbia right in Symphony Woods.” Other expressions of support came from people and organizations previously promoting downtown Columbia development, including George Barker of Bring Back the Vision, Brian Dunn of Columbia 2.0, Phil Engelke of the New City Alliance, and Ian Kennedy of Awesome Columbia, as well as from various local bloggers, including Dennis Lane, Julia McCready, and Bill Woodcock, and (last but not least) from the editorial board of the Baltimore Sun.

The Columbia Association Board of Directors election on April 20, although marked by typical low turnout,⁴ was seen by some as a referendum on the Inner Arbor plan. Plan opponent Russ Swatek and the relatively neutral Nancy McCord defeated plan proponents Ed Coleman and Regina Clay. However although reduced the pro-Inner Arbor plan majority on the CA board remained intact, with at least six of ten board members counted as clear supporters.

(In June later that year Tom Coale, one of the highest-profile champions of the Inner Arbor plan, resigned from the Columbia Association Board of Directors in order to run for the Maryland House of Delegates seat in District 9B. He was replaced by Tom O’Connor, also a supporter of the Inner Arbor plan. Thus the relative balance between supporters and opponents on the CA board remained unchanged.)

Creating the Inner Arbor Trust and ensuring its independence

Meanwhile creation of the separate trust organization proceeded as previously approved by the Columbia Association Board of Directors back in February. On April 26 lawyers representing CA incorporated the new organization in Maryland as the Inner Arbor Trust, Inc., “to promote and support the revitalization of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood” in a manner compatible with IRS regulations relating to 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. On May 10 the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors first met and adopted a set of bylaws.

As originally envisioned by the Columbia Association Board of Directors, and as specified in the articles of incorporation, the Inner Arbor Trust had a five-member board, with two members being elected from the CA board and the CA President being a third member. On March 28 the CA board elected Ed Coleman and Gregg Schwind to be its representatives on the Inner Arbor Trust board, with CA President Phil Nelson also taking a Trust board seat by virtue of his position as CA’s President and CEO. (The first at-large Trust board members were Deborah Ellinghaus and Kent Humphries.)

However one of the first actions of the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors, taken at its initial meeting, was to expand the board from five members to seven, including four independent directors not associated with the Columbia Association. According to CA General Counsel Sheri Faranoff this was motivated by a need to show that the Inner Arbor Trust board was independent of and not controlled by the CA board in order to make a case to the IRS for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.⁵ At the May 10 meeting this change was approved unanimously by the Inner Arbor Trust board, including the CA-associated board members, and reflected in the bylaws as signed and dated May 13.

The Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors then proceeded to elect two new members not associated with the Columbia Association, Gill Wylie and Beverly White-Seals. White-Seals, a former attorney for the Rouse Company, was also appointed Secretary for the Trust. Ed Coleman remained on the Trust board despite losing his CA board seat only a few weeks before, as the CA board did not appoint a new representative to take his place. Finally at its second meeting on May 30 the Trust selected as its Treasurer Rafia Siddiqui, the former Chief Financial Officer of the Columbia Association.

Once created the Inner Arbor Trust turned to the various tasks before it—negotiating an easement with the Columbia Association, applying for IRS 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, acquiring funding, and refining the Inner Arbor plan—under the direction of Michael McCall, who had been appointed President and CEO of the Inner Arbor Trust, and whose firm Strategic Leisure, Inc., had been retained by the Inner Arbor Trust to provide support for Trust activities.

Howard County funding of the Inner Arbor project

May 2013 also saw the Howard County Council—via an amendment by Council member Mary Kay Sigaty with the support of Howard County Executive Ken Ulman—unanimously appropriate up to $3.5 million in the FY14 budget for “planning, design, engineering, and construction costs for an amphitheater located in Symphony Woods”. This was on top of the previous commitment by CA to provide $1.6 million in initial funding for the Inner Arbor Trust. (An initial $450,000 of this commitment was paid by CA to the Trust prior to July 31.)

Designing the public park

During the summer of 2013 the Inner Arbor Trust began selection of design firms and architects for the various proposed park features. On September 20, as part of a presentation to Leadership Howard County, Michael McCall announced the selection of Martha Schwartz Partners as landscape designers and artists and Baltimore firm Mahan Rykiel Associates as the landscape architect of record, along with the Burtonsville firm Gutschick, Little & Weber as the civil engineers. (Mahan Rykiel and GLW had previously been involved with the work leading to the Final Development Plan.)

Two months later, on November 18, Michael McCall introduced the full design team (dubbed by him the “Designers of Delight”), adding THEVERYMANY (Marc Fornes), nArchitects (Mimi Hoang and Eric Bunge), and Arup (represented by Raj Patel) to Martha Schwartz Partners (represented by Martha Schwartz) and Mahan Rykiel Associates (represented by Scott Rykiel).

The Inner Arbor Trust closed 2013 with three important milestones:

First, on December 2 the Trust made its first public presentation of its plan for the northern “public park” portion of Symphony Woods, including the Chrysalis amphitheater, Butterfly guest services building, Caterpillar sculptural berm (embodying the “Art of Bounds” theme), and other park features. This presentation marked the “pre-submission meeting” stage of the Howard County planning process prior to submittal of a formal Site Development Plan. The meeting featured presentations from all members of the design team, as well as a presentation by Biohabitats, the firm hired by the Inner Arbor Trust to assist with environmental issues, including stream restoration.

The easement agreement between CA and the Inner Arbor Trust

Second, on December 11, 2013, the Inner Arbor Trust reached an agreement with the Columbia Association for a perpetual easement for the 37 acres of Symphony Woods, as well as for an additional 15 acres of open space in the Crescent property to be donated to CA in future by the Howard Hughes Corporation. The easement grant was split into multiple phases:

Phase 1 included the “public park” portion of Symphony Woods outlined in the concept plan, along with additional acreage adjacent to Merriweather Post Pavilion to the east, south, and west. (The inclusion of this additional land would prove critical in later dealings of the Inner Arbor Trust with the Howard Hughes Corporation.) Phase 2 roughly corresponded to the “performance park” portion of the concept plan, phase 3 to the “curated park” portion, and phase 4 to the future Crescent acreage from Howard Hughes. (The easement agreement was subsequently revised on March 14, 2014, to include a thin strip of land along Little Patuxent Parkway—part of so-called “Lot 9B”—that had been inadvertently left off the original agreement.)

The easement agreement granted the Inner Arbor Trust an extensive set of rights, including rights to construct park features (including taking proposed features through the county planning process), to operate park features and hold park events (and realize revenue from such), and to enter into a broad range of legal agreements with third parties, including agreements supporting integration of the park with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

The Inner Arbor Trust did not immediately acquire that full set of rights for all four easement areas. The Columbia Association granted the full set of specified rights for the Phase 1 easement area upon the signing of the agreement. However granting of full rights outlined in the agreement for the other three easement areas—including in particular the rights to construct and operate new park features—was made contingent on the Trust completing construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater (which the agreement referenced under the name “Treehouse Stage” used in the concept plan) or another designated park feature in the Phase 1 easement area, as well as on other events unique to each phase.

Granting of full rights specified in the agreement for the Phase 2 easement area was also made contingent on “substantial completion” of the pathway system in the Phase 1 easement area, as well as on progression through step 9 of the county planning process (including approval of a Final Development Plan) for a structure in the Phase 2 easement area, as part of the “performance park” portion of the concept plan.

For Phase 3 granting of full rights under the agreement was also made contingent on the Inner Arbor Trust having sufficient funding to create and submit a Final Development Plan for a sculpture garden or botanical garden in the Phase 3 easement area as part of the “curated park” portion of the concept plan. Finally, granting of full rights for the Phase 4 easement area was also made contingent on the actual transfer of the Phase 4 acreage from Howard Hughes to the Columbia Association.

Although the phases were numbered sequentially, Phases 2 through 4 were in fact made independent of each other: Once the Inner Arbor Trust had completed the Chrysalis or other designated park feature in the Phase 1 easement area, granting the Trust the full rights specified in the agreement in any other easement area was dependent only on the requirement(s) for that particular area. (Thus, for example, the Trust could acquire full rights under the easement agreement for the open space transferred to the Columbia Association by the Howard Hughes Corporation prior to any work being done on the “performance park” or “curated park” portions of the concept plan.)

Permitted uses under the easement agreement were specified as those for “arts, cultural and civic purposes as broadly illustrated by the Concept Plan,” including performances, arts and cultural attractions, sculpture and art installations, gardens, various park features (including picnic areas and fountains), construction and operation of buildings to support the permitted uses, food and beverage sales, and temporary retail operations (e.g., for festivals).

The first Howard County grant agreement

Finally, on December 18 the Inner Arbor Trust entered into a grant agreement with Howard County under which the county agreed to provide funding in support of the design and construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater, as previously approved by the County Council in May. The first grant under this agreement was in the sum of $300,000, and supplemented the $1.6 million of committed CA funding. (In fulfillment of this commitment CA made a second payment of $450,000 prior to January 31, 2014.)

2014: Planning

The main theme of 2014 was the steady progression of the Inner Arbor plan through the Howard County planning process over organized opposition, including from some Columbia Association board members. For the Inner Arbor Trust this was in fact a race against time to meet key deadlines in the perpetual easement agreement signed with CA the previous December.

Deadlines for the Inner Arbor Trust

The first deadline met was actually the one that was furthest in the future, namely the achievement of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The easement agreement required this to be done by June 30, 2015, but it was actually accomplished on January 31, 2014, just over a month after the signing of the agreement. This was the first step in enabling the Inner Arbor Trust to more actively raise funds from donors for whom the tax deductibility of donations was important. (Under Maryland law the Trust could not actively solicit donations until it was certified by the state. This did not occur until October 22 later that year.)

However the easement agreement with the Columbia Association also required the Inner Arbor Trust to submit a Site Development Plan for the “Phase 1 easement area” (the northern section of Symphony Woods) by April 30, 2014, and to obtain county approval for that plan by November 30 of the same year. If it failed to meet one of these deadlines then the Trust would have to go back to CA to obtain an extension. If it could not obtain an extension then the Trust would risk being deemed in violation of the easement agreement.

Review by the Design Advisory Panel

The Inner Arbor Trust started the formal planning process on February 4, 2014 when it submitted a complete Inner Arbor design to the county for consideration by the Howard County Design Advisory Panel.⁶ This design formalized the park design presented the previous December and addressed the recommendations made by the Planning Board in its approval of the Final Development Plan previously submitted by the Columbia Association (FDP-DC-MSW-1).

The design as submitted contained two relatively minor revisions to the plan presented in December. The first was the addition of the Merriground, a play area for children. Such a play area was originally envisioned in the Final Development Plan, and in the first Inner Arbor plan was in the form of a “play maze” located across Little Patuxent Parkway relatively close to the entrance drive to The Mall in Columbia. The Merriground replaced this concept with a more “sculptural” set of features located further to the east of the northern section of Symphony Woods, in the location of the “iconic sculpture” originally envisioned by the Inner Arbor concept plan.

The other new feature was the Merriweather Horns, a set of sound sculptures designed by local artist William Cochran for the four proposed park entrances and along the park’s pathways. The Merriweather Horns replaced the Word Art and Letter Garden features in the plan presented in December, and were proposed as the public art component of the park as envisioned in the Final Developmemt Plan.

On February 26 Michael McCall of the Inner Arbor Trust and various members of the design team took the Howard County Design Advisory Panel through a 236-slide presentation covering all aspects of the park and the proposed park features. The presentation went very well: The Design Advisory Panel voted unanimously in favor of the plan, raising only a relatively minor concern about the width of some of the pathways, and individual panel members were enthusiastic in their praise of the plan.

Opposition on the CA board

Meanwhile, as the Inner Arbor Trust prepared for the next step in the planning process opponents of the Inner Arbor plan stepped up their activities. During the previous year the changed composition of the Columbia Association Board of Directors had had relatively little effect on its relations with the Inner Arbor Trust. (The CA board had limited itself mainly to consideration of the easement negotiated with the Inner Arbor Trust, and a revision of the CA conflict of interest policy to clarify that it did not preclude CA board members from serving on the board of the Inner Arbor Trust.)

That period of relative quiet ended in the spring of 2014. The first issue to gain traction related to the name of the park: In its submissions to the county planning process the Inner Arbor Trust used the new name “Merriweather Park” (instead of the previous “Symphony Woods Park”) to emphasize the integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion and leverage public recognition of the “Merriweather̦” name.

Various members of the Columbia Association Board of Directors objected to the Inner Arbor Trust dropping the use of “Symphony Woods,” and on March 13 the CA board voted unanimously to formally request of the Inner Arbor Trust that the name “Symphony Woods” be retained. Later that spring the Inner Arbor Trust attempted to address this controversy by renaming the project “Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods” (similar to the strategy the Baltimore Orioles followed in naming their new stadium “Orioles Park at Camden Yards”).

More serious in its implications for the Inner Arbor project was the April 26 election of the Columbia Association Board of Directors. As they were in 2013, opponents of the Inner Arbor plan were successful in electing new CA board members in another relatively low turnout election.⁷ Plan opponents Jeanne Ketley and Alan Klein won in contested elections against incumbent board member Suzanne Waller and new candidate Bob Fontaine (both plan supporters). Plan opponent Alex Hekimian announced his intent not to run just prior to the filing deadline and was replaced by Reg Avery, who was allegedly recruited by Hekimian and ran unopposed.

Although he was a supporter of the Inner Arbor plan, re-elected incumbent Gregg Schwind, one of the Columbia Association’s representatives on the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors, expressed concern about public reception of the plan and indicated his willingness to consider “reworking” it. Finally, just prior to the election the CA board finally replaced Ed Coleman (defeated the previous year in the CA board election) as one of the CA representatives on the Trust board, in a 6-3 vote selecting Nancy McCord (who was relatively neutral in her public statements on the Inner Arbor plan) over Inner Arbor supporter Michael Cornell.

Meeting the SDP deadline

In the midst of all this controversy the Inner Arbor Trust met a second key deadline, as it submitted a 83-sheet Site Development Plan (SDP-14-073) to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning on April 28, only two days before the April 30 deadline set by the easement agreement with the Columbia Association.

More Howard County funding for the Inner Arbor project

In further good news for the Inner Arbor Trust, Howard County continued its financial support of the Inner Arbor project, with the County Council on May 21 appropriating an additional $1.5 million for Chrysalis construction and related activities in the county’s FY15 budget (Council Bill 24-2014), as requested by County Executive Ken Ulman. (The $1.5 million was in the form of a challenge grant requiring the Trust to provide matching funds, although at the time the Trust was not yet authorized to solicit donations.)

The CA board’s endorsement of the Inner Arbor plan

However opposition to the Inner Arbor project from some Columbia Association board members continued. The primary strategy by which Inner Arbor opponents pursued their goal was a claim that the Trust had violated the terms of the previously-negotiated easement agreement for Symphony Woods by making “material changes” to the Inner Arbor concept plan.⁸ After discussing the easement issue in public meetings on May 27 and 28, in its June 12 meeting the Columbia Association Board of Directors narrowly approved by a 5–4 vote a last-minute agenda change to formally consider whether an easement violation had occurred. However the actual motion to hold the Inner Arbor Trust in violation failed on a 3–7 vote, with only Reg Avery, Alan Klein, and Russ Swatek voting in favor.

One question raised in connection with the easement controversy was whether or not the Columbia Association needed to, or at least should, formally approve the Inner Arbor plan in its current form (i.e., beyond the concept plan referenced in the easement agreement). At the July 10 CA board meeting the board considered this question, with Michael McCall of the Inner Arbor Trust present to answer questions posed by the CA board. After discussion the CA board voted 6–4 to endorse the Inner Arbor plan as submitted in the Site Development Plan, with Nancy McCord joining previous Inner Arbor supporters Michael Cornell, Brian Dunn, Tom O’Connor, Andy Stack, and Gregg Schwind in the majority, and Reg Avery, Jeanne Ketley, Alan Klein, and Russ Swatek on the losing side of the vote.

Meanwhile the Columbia Association had completed its original commitment to fund the Inner Arbor Trust: CA paid the Trust an additional $510,000 in the spring of 2014, for a total of $1,410,000 up to that point. The final $190,000 came from what was left of the $250,000 grant that the state of Maryland had made to CA for the original Symphony Woods Park project. ($60,000 of that money had already spent on design work for that project.) On June 18 the state approved CA reassigning the remaining $190,000 to the Inner Arbor Trust.

After the July 10 endorsement of Inner Arbor project by the Columbia Association Board of Directors the CA board transitioned into a role of providing oversight of the Inner Arbor Trust, for example through joint board meetings with the Trust on October 8 and subsequent dates. CA did not commit any further funding to the Inner Arbor Trust once the original $1.6 million commitment was satisfied.⁹

Review by the Planning Board

Instead the focus shifted again to the Howard County planning process, as the Inner Arbor Trust went before the Planning Board¹⁰ in November 2014 to request approval of SDP-14-073, the Site Development Plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, with the clock ticking toward the November 30 deadline specified in the easement agreement with the Columbia Association.

The Planning Board first held a meeting to consider the Site Development Plan on November 6 but held off making a decision that night. Partly this was to allow more time for the many people who wanted to testify for and against the plan. In the end over forty people spoke about the plan, with opponents outnumbered 2–1 by supporters, who included new Columbia Association President and CEO Milton Matthews (who had replaced Phil Nelson in June) and Howard County Council Chair Mary Kay Sigaty (who referred to the plan as “an exceptional design” and urged the Planning Board to “vote it with enthusiasm”). Many others submitted written testimony, with County Council members Calvin Ball, Greg Fox, and Jen Terrasa writing in support of the plan along with Council member-elect Jon Weinstein.

The Planning Board also held up its deliberations to address concerns raised by the Howard County Citizens Association about allowing adequate time after publication of the Department of Planning and Zoning Technical Staff Report on SDP-14-073. Final consideration was postponed to two weeks later, for the last meeting of the Planning Board in November.

At the November 20 meeting, only ten days before the easement agreement’s deadline, the Planning Board rendered its decision, voting unanimously to approve the Site Development Plan. As requested by the Inner Arbor Trust the Planning Board’s decision encompassed not only the first two phases of park development, namely constructing the Chrysalis amphitheater and a pathway system, but the remaining five phases as well, including all other park features proposed in the revised Inner Arbor plan for the northern part of Symphony Woods. Phases 1 and 2 were approved without further conditions, while phases 3–7 were approved subject to further review and approval of final design details by the Department of Planning and Zoning and the Planning Board prior to beginning construction.

Speaking about his own decision, Planning Board Chair Josh Tzuker thanked Inner Arbor opponents Cy Paumier, Barbara Russell, and others for their roles in the creation of the community of Columbia—“probably the second most influential thing in my life [after my parents]”—but noted that “We’re on a precipice. . . . It’s time for something new and fresh.” In comparing Columbia to other Washington-Baltimore suburban communities “competing to create a cosmopolitan cultural center,” Tzuker noted that “We have Merriweather—that’s what sets us apart. . . . Merriweather is going to be this cultural touchstone that I think will bring people to Columbia.” He concluded by stating that the Site Development Plan submitted by the Inner Arbor Trust met the Planning Board’s criteria for Merriweather-Symphony Woods development, and that the board set the criteria the way it did because it wanted to promote a “holistic” vision of downtown Columbia—“the vision we all wanted to see.”

The county’s approval of the Site Development Plan meant that the Inner Arbor Trust had met all three of the key deadlines in the easement agreement with the Columbia Association. The Trust thus ended 2014 free to move forward with the project of developing Symphony Woods according to the Inner Arbor plan.

2015: Building

With the Howard County Planning Board having approved the Site Development Plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, in 2015 the Inner Arbor Trust began the work of realizing that plan, both in terms of building the actual foundation for the Chrysalis amphitheater and also in terms of strengthening the organizational foundation for the Trust moving forward. A great deal of that work involved solidifying the Inner Arbor Trust’s relationships with the other entities involved in Merriweather-Symphony Woods development, in pursuit of tighter integration between the Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion properties.

The I.M.A. agreement

On March 6, 2015, the Inner Arbor Trust entered into a long-term agreement with It’s My Amphitheater, Inc., the operators of Merriweather Post Pavilion. This agreement provided for an ongoing stream of payments from I.M.A. to the Trust for the use of Symphony Woods for Merriweather Post Pavilion events, amounting to a total of $1.7 million in Trust revenue for the first ten years of the agreement. (This $1.7 million was counted by Howard County as satisfying the matching requirement associated with the $1.5 million grant in 2014.) The agreement also provided for the use of public areas of the Merriweather Post Pavilion by park visitors during times when no events were being held there, in line with the theme of “operational elasticity” promoted by Michael McCall in his original Inner Arbor presentations.

On April 15 the Inner Arbor Trust Board of Directors assumed its present form as Dave Sciamarelli was elected to replace Paul Monteiro, who had in turn succeeded original board member Beverly White-Seals. The next-newest board member, Karen Newell, had previously been elected on August 7, 2014, to replace Deborah Ellinghaus. This left Gregg Schwind and Gill Wylie as the longest-serving Inner Arbor Trust board members, both having been on the board since the first board meeting on May 10, 2013.

Meanwhile on April 25 the Columbia Association again held an election for its Board of Directors. While still present, the controversies over the Inner Arbor plan were more muted in this election than in prior ones. Inner Arbor opponent Dick Boulton replaced supporter Tom O’Connor, Inner Arbor supporter Ed Coleman (running for an open seat) was defeated by Janet Evans, and Dr. Chao Wu replaced Inner Arbor supporter Michael Cornell, who did not run again. On May 14 the CA board selected Dick Boulton to replace Nancy McCord as one of CA’s representatives on the Inner Arbor Trust, with Gregg Schwind again selected for that role as well.

Continuation of Howard County funding

In May Howard County continued its financial support of the Inner Arbor Trust, as County Executive Alan Kittleman proposed, and the Howard County Council approved, $1.395 million of additional funding for the Trust as part of the FY16 budget. (The relevant legislation, Council Bill 23-2015, was introduced May 4, approved May 22, and signed into law June 1.) With this additional funding the county increased its support of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods and the Chrysalis amphitheater to a total of $6.395 million, almost four times the funding contributed by the Columbia Association. (The relevant grant agreement was signed later that year on September 18, the third consecutive agreement between Howard County and the Inner Arbor Trust.)

The Howard Hughes agreements

On May 27, 2015, the Inner Arbor Trust continued its activities relating to integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion by entering into a reciprocal easement agreement with Howard Hughes Corporation subsidiaries Merriweather Post Business Trust and Howard Research and Development. This agreement provided for the Trust and Howard Hughes to coordinate activities relating to development of land and facilities intended for joint use between Merriweather Post Pavilion and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, as envisioned by the downtown Columbia plan and the design guidelines for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood.

(This agreement was made possible only because the Trust already had an easement from the Columbia Association for the land adjacent to Merriweather Post Pavilion on which the joint uses would occur. That adjacent acreage had been included in the Phase 1 easement area in the Trust’s previous easement agreement with CA.)

The next day, May 28, the Inner Arbor Trust appointed Nina Basu as its first General Counsel—a reflection of the increasing number of legal agreements the Trust was entering into and the increased amount of legal activity associated with the upcoming park construction and related activities. The Trust also appointed a new Treasurer, Kirsten Coombs. (Coombs replaced previous Treasurer Noreen Qureshi, who in turn had replaced Rafia Siddiqui, the Trust’s original Treasurer.)

On September 1 the Inner Arbor Trust entered into a trademark license agreement with Howard Hughes Corporation subsidiary Merriweather Post Business Trust. This agreement allowed the Trust the perpetual royalty-free use of the word mark “Merriweather” in connection with the naming and marketing of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. The Trust could thus leverage not only the existing broad public recognition of the Merriweather name, but also future marketing efforts by Howard Hughes in support of its own development activities in what it had taken to calling the “Merriweather District.”

Further integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion

On September 3, 2015, the Howard County Planning Board unanimously approved a new Final Development Plan, FDP-DC-MSW-1A, a revision of the Final Development Plan FDP-DC-MSW-1 originally submitted by the Columbia Association for Symphony Woods Park. While FDP-DC-MSW-1 covered only a 16-acre portion of Symphony Woods (the “public park” envisioned in the Inner Arbor concept plan), FDP-DC-MSW-1A covered a total of 35 acres including the entire Merriweather Post Pavilion property as well as additional portions of Symphony Woods comprising the “performance park” of the Inner Arbor concept plan. (The concept plan’s “curated park” in southern Symphony Woods—the proposed location for a sculpture garden—was not addressed by FDP-DC-MSW-1A.)

Specific changes in FDP-DC-MSW-1A included an increase in the height limit for the Merriweather Post Pavilion stagehouse, provision of ADA-compliant parking spaces, and a shared-use restroom in Symphony Woods. However FDP-DC-MSW-1A was equally significant for marking a new level of formal coordination in Merriweather-Symphony Woods planning among the various parties responsible for the properties, and even tighter integration between Merriweather Post Pavilion renovation projects and the development of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. (FDP-DC-MSW-1A was followed up in December by SDP-16-018, a Site Development Plan for renovations to both properties.) Finally, FDP-DC-MSW-1A replaced the original CA-submitted Final Development Plan (FDP-DC-MSW-1) and eliminated any lingering consistencies between that plan and the subsequent Site Development Plan SDP-14-073 approved by the Planning Board.

Together these and other relationships among the various organizations involved in downtown Columbia development formed the basis for a new identity for downtown, with Merriweather Post Pavilion at the center, Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods surrounding it, and both within a newly-named Merriweather District combining the Merriweather-Symphony Woods and Crescent neighborhoods—all within the context of the broader Columbia planned community.

Breaking ground on the Chrysalis

This heightened level of cooperation was celebrated on September 12, 2015, at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Chrysalis amphitheater, which featured representation from all the major players involved in the creation of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, including the Inner Arbor Trust, the Columbia Association, Howard County Executive Alan Kittleman and members of the Howard County Council, the Howard Hughes Corporation, I.M.A., the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission, and the state of Maryland.

Also represented was the Columbia Festival of the Arts, whose executive director Todd Olson publicly announced the festival’s intent to host future performances at the Chrysalis amphitheater when completed—moving from the previous venue at the lakefront, Columbia’s traditional downtown, to the heart of Columbia’s future downtown. Finally, the ceremony featured participation by the Howard County Public School System, in the form of a student team from Oakland Mills High School that used the Minecraft world-building software to create a virtual model of the Chrysalis amphitheater and other planned features in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

The beginning of Chrysalis construction

The months after the groundbreaking saw the plans for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods started to be realized, as Whiting-Turner (the construction contractor selected by the Inner Arbor Trust) began the work of preparing the Chrysalis site. Appropriately enough, given the past controversies over tree preservation in Symphony Woods, Whiting-Turner’s first task was to carefully prune tree roots in areas to be excavated and place mats to protect critical root zones. Subsequent weeks saw the laying of water lines, construction of an underground cistern to control storm water runoff, and the beginnings of the foundation for the Chrysalis amphitheater.

As 2015 ended the visible evidence of the Chrysalis amphitheater’s presence was still below ground. 2016 will see the Chrysalis rise above the surface of Symphony Woods. Future articles in this series will describe the people and organizations bringing the Chrysalis to life and how their work will contribute to the final structure and the park surrounding it.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online sources, including the following:

• Newspaper articles from the Baltimore Sun online archives for 2013, 2014, and 2015, including the following:
  • “CA board approves concept plan for Symphony Woods” (February 15, 2013)
  • “Details of Symphony Woods arts park revealed” (December 1, 2013)
  • “Inner Arbor plans ‘wow’ Howard design panel” (February 27, 2014)
  • “CA board endorses plans for Symphony Woods” (July 11, 2014)
  • “Howard Planning Board gives green light to Inner Arbor” (November 20, 2014)
  • “Downtown Columbia celebrates Chrysalis groundbreaking in Symphony Woods” (September 14, 2015)
• Newspaper articles from the Columbia Flier online archives
• Various Inner Arbor Trust documents, including the following:
  • IAT-CA easement (amended to include Lot 9B) [PDF] (March 14, 2014)
  • Letter to Hickory Ridge Village Manager Jessamine Duvall [PDF] (May 27, 2014) (summarizes history of the Inner Arbor Trust up to that time)
  • A Brief History of the Inner Arbor Trust [PDF] (October 2015)
• Various Howard County planning and legislative documents:
  • Downtown Columbia Plan: A General Plan Amendment [PDF] (February 1, 2010)
  • Land Development Review Process for Downtown Columbia Revitalization [PDF] (November 2010) (Outlines the 16-step county planning and zoning process applicable to the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood)
  • Howard County Planning Board Decision and Order, Case No. PB 394 [PDF] (September 6, 2012) (Planning Board recommendations for changes to Symphony Woods Park plan, FDP-DC-MSW-1)
  • DPZ Technical Staff Report on SDP-14-073 [PDF] (October 30, 2014)
  • Planning Board decision on SDP-14-073 [PDF] (November 20, 2014) (Approval of Site Development Plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods)
  • DPZ Technical Staff Report on FDP-MSW-1A [PDF] (August 20, 2015)
  • DPZ Technical Staff Report on SDP-16-018 [PDF] (December 3, 2015)
  • Council Bill 25-2013 (May 2013) ($3.5 million appropriation for Chrysalis design and construction)
  • Council Bill 24-2014 (May 2014) ($1.5 million appropriation for the Inner Arbor Trust along with a requirement for the Trust to provide matching funds)
  • Council Bill 23-2015 (May 2015) ($1.395 million appropriation for the Inner Arbor Trust)
• Various Columbia Association documents, including in particular the following with specific materials as noted:
  • FDP-DC-MSW-1, “Downtown Columbia Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood Final Development Plan” [PDF] (the original Symphony Woods Park plan as submitted to Howard County)
  • Board agenda for August 23, 2012 [PDF] (Jan Clark memo re Howard Hughes Corporation plans and their impact on CA)
  • Board agenda for October 11, 2012 [PDF] (Phil Nelson memo of October 5, 2012)
  • Board minutes for October 11, 2012 [PDF] (Phil Nelson presentation and straw polls)
  • Board minutes for January 24, 2013 [PDF] (Michael McCall presentation on the Inner Arbor concept plan)
  • Board agenda for February 14, 2013 [PDF] (Phil Nelson memo of February 7, 2013, “Formation of a Trust for Symphony Woods Development”)
  • “Formation of a Trust for Symphony Woods Development” [PDF] (Phil Nelson memo of February 13, 2013, updating the February 7 memo)
  • Board minutes for February 14, 2013 [PDF] (Approval of Inner Arbor concept plan, creation of independent 501(c)(3) organization, granting of easement)
  • Board minutes and related material for April 25, 2013 [PDF] (Discussion of the need to maintain an “arms-length distance” between CA and the Inner Arbor Trust)
  • Board work session on May 28, 2014 [PDF] (Appearance by Michael McCall and Inner Arbor Trust board members to discuss the project and questions concerning it)
  • Board minutes for June 12, 2014 [PDF] (Vote on whether the Inner Arbor Trust had violated the easement on Symphony Woods)
  • Board minutes for July 10, 2014 [PDF] (Vote on CA endorsement of the Inner Arbor plan)
  • Board Operations Committee agenda for November 14, 2015 [PDF] (Sheri Faranoff memo discussing guidelines for CA board members serving on the Inner Arbor Trust board)
• Various local blogs and blog posts, including in particular:
  • HocoRising (Tom Coale)
    • “Symphony Woods” (January 22, 2013)
    • “CA Board Recap: January 24, 2013 Board of Directors Meeting” (January 25, 2013)
  • Dr Chao Wu
    • “Background on CA and Inner Arbor Trust” (October 7, 2015) (Re-post of an article “Background on CA Board & Inner Arbor” by Andy Stack, dated September 15, 2015)

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I explore the vision for a new park in Symphony Woods and the strategy to implement it.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

The previous article in this series recounted the history of Symphony Woods up to the fall of 2012. At that time the Columbia Association Board of Directors, at the suggestion of CA staff, decided to re-evaluate its plans for creating a park in Symphony Woods. That process ultimately led to CA’s adopting a new approach, dubbed the Inner Arbor plan, and creating a new organization, the Inner Arbor Trust, to implement that plan. This article describes the vision motivating the plan and the strategy to implement that vision as it was created and refined by Michael McCall, now President and CEO of the Inner Arbor Trust.

The roots of the Inner Arbor plan

Meetings of the Columbia Association Board of Directors feature a “Resident Speak Out” period during which Columbia residents and other users of CA services can briefly address the CA board on topics relevant to the Columbia Association. On September 22, 2011, one of the people speaking during the board meeting was Columbia resident Michael McCall.

McCall spoke of reading newspaper articles about the Design Advisory Panel meeting on the Symphony Woods Park Final Development Plan, and noted his agreement with the panel members’ concerns: “There’s not a vision for the whole park—not just the front that faces Little Patuxent [Parkway], but the entire ‘doughnut’, . . . the whole thing.” He went on to note, “We have to start with the end in mind: What do we want Symphony Woods to be twenty years from now? What is its strategic purpose? What is the guest experience? What is it that we want, what is it we aspire to?”

Columbia Association board member Suzanne Waller, alluding to the draft Symphony Woods Park vision statement that the board was considering (and would adopt at the next board meeting), responded that “in fact we do have a vision”. McCall replied, “That’s wonderful. However [in] the plans that I could download . . . and an RFP for a fountain, I did not see or hear or read or feel a vision. . . . A fountain is a tactic, and I’m looking for the strategy.”

Although it went mostly unremarked at the time, McCall’s appearance at the Columbia Association Board of Directors meeting that night marked the beginning of a major shift on the part of the CA board, a shift that ultimately resulted in CA’s adoption of the Inner Arbor plan, the creation of the Inner Arbor Trust, and the beginnings of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

How did Michael McCall come to be involved with Symphony Woods? Originally from Rochester, Minnesota, in 1982 McCall moved to Columbia to join the Enterprise Development Company, the for-profit arm of the Enterprise Foundation (now Enterprise Community Partners), a non-profit organization created by Jim Rouse and his wife Patty in 1981 to help develop affordable housing in the US. After working on several Enterprise Development projects, including a “stealth” joint venture with the Walt Disney Company, in 1992 McCall started Strategic Leisure, Inc., a consulting firm working on development projects in the US and overseas.

Although he had lived in Columbia for thirty years, McCall had been relatively uninvolved in Columbia and Columbia Association affairs. As he noted in his Resident Speak Out comments, “I’ve never focused on where I live, because when you’re dealing with the Corps of Engineers in Tennessee [for a project in Pigeon Forge] you just kind of want to relax when you’re home.” Thus the perception of McCall by some that he was an outsider as far as Columbia downtown planning was concerned, not a true heir to the vision that Jim Rouse had for the community.

However a more accurate way to put it is that McCall, with his catchy slogans and talk of the “guest experience,” simply represented another aspect of Jim Rouse’s legacy—not just Rouse the earnest liberal reformer concerned with diversity and social justice, but also Rouse the enthusiastic developer who once claimed that “the greatest piece of urban design in the United States today is Disneyland.”

Prompted by the Design Advisory Panel’s verdict on the existing plan for Symphony Woods, McCall decided to take a look at the problem himself. After two decades of unsuccessful attempts to enhance Symphony Woods and almost a decade of community in-fighting over downtown Columbia development, McCall brought a different but still Rouse-like perspective on the problem, and circumstances were such that others were willing to consider that perspective and enter into conversations with him about the future of Symphony Woods.

The result of those conversations was a concept plan for what McCall called the “Inner Arbor” project—a punning name by which he sought to emphasize that the development of Merriweather-Symphony Woods, together with the simultaneous development of the Crescent property, could have as positive an impact on downtown Columbia as the Inner Harbor festival marketplace and associated developments had on downtown Baltimore.¹ The Inner Arbor plan embodied both a vision and (over time) an increasingly more detailed strategy for enhancing Symphony Woods in the context of the overall Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighorhood.

A vision in words and pictures

Contrasting a vision statement with a mission statement, local blogger James Howard noted, “The mission statement tells what we are doing. The vision statement tells why we are doing it. It [is] finishing the sentence that begins, ‘We imagine a world where . . .’”

The canonical vision for Merriweather-Symphony Woods is from the Downtown Columbia Plan. That vision can be re-expressed in Howard’s phrasing as follows: “We imagine a world where Merriweather-Symphony Woods is a new kind of cultural park, where the landscape becomes a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses.”

This is brief and to the point—something recommended for vision statements—and also reflects the community consensus on the future of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood that was forged through the Howard County planning and legislative processes. It is the vision that informed the initial Inner Arbor concept plan presented by Michael McCall, and continues to inform the work of the Inner Arbor Trust to create Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

However this vision statement in and of itself is not as emotionally resonant as it might be. It works well in the context of a planning document, but less well as a vision to excite people. In contrast to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s advice on building a ship, it is more about collecting wood and assigning tasks and less about getting people to “long for the endless immensity of the sea.”

The Inner Arbor concept plan remedied this lack not by trying to rewrite the “official” Merriweather-Symphony Woods vision statement, but rather by using images and analogies to supplement it and make it more vivid. In particular, one key question addressed in the concept plan presentation is the following: If you wanted to create a “new kind of cultural park” for “arts, cultural, and civic uses,” and you had 45 acres of land to work with (the combined area of Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion), what kind of park could you create?

The answer given by the concept plan presentation was that you could create something like Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen (20 acres), or Millennium Park in Chicago (25 acres)—and the presentation then went on to elaborate on that answer by showing several pictures of what Tivoli Gardens and Millienium Park actually look like to visitors. This made the Merriweather-Symphony Woods vision more visceral and appealing: If the pictures were translated into words then those words might be, “We imagine a world where Merriweather-Symphony Woods is to Columbia what Tivoli Gardens is to Copenhagen, or Millennium Park to Chicago.”

Re-expressing the Merriweather-Symphony Woods vision in these terms has several implications for what the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood might be, indeed what it must be in order for the vision to be realized:

The world we imagine in the vision for Merriweather-Symphony Woods is one where

. . . Merriweather-Symphony Woods is loved by Columbia and Howard County residents in the same way that Tivoli Gardens and Millennium Park are loved by residents of Copenhagen and Chicago—the sort of place you might go to meet your friends even if you don’t have definite plans, just because it’s a great place to be.

. . . Merriweather-Symphony Woods is known by people well outside the area—the sort of place where if you’re in town and able to go there you take a selfie of yourself and your friends, because you want other people to know you’ve been there.

. . . Merriweather-Symphony Woods has something–whether one thing or a combination of things–that can’t be found anywhere else.

Looking at the Merriweather-Symphony Woods vision statement in this alternative formulation also has implications for the strategy discussed in the next section:

First, realizing the Merriweather-Symphony Woods vision will be a long-term effort. For example, Tivoli Gardens has been the beneficiary of over 170 years of evolution. It shouldn’t take 170 years to fully realize the vision for Merriweather-Symphony Woods, but it certainly will take more than two or three years.

Second, realizing this vision will require an intensive design effort. Some people have looked at Symphony Woods simply as an exercise in preservation—that at the extreme it’s simply a matter of not cutting trees down or otherwise disturbing the woods. But the comparison to Tivoli Gardens and Millennium Park implies that preservation of trees, intelligent restoration of the landscape, and sensitively-designed park structures are all needed—Merriweather-Symphony Woods is too small a site, is in too built-up a setting, and supports too intensive a set of uses for a simple “hands off” strategy to work.

Finally, realizing the Merriweather-Symphony Woods vision requires looking outside Columbia to find the best and most appropriate design talents for the task at hand, wherever in the world they might be found.

Is this a realistic vision? The answer implied by the Inner Arbor concept plan presentation is yes, given a reasonable amount of time, money, and design talent. As Michael McCall noted in his Resident Speak Out comments, the key is to have the right strategy.

A strategy for the whole park

The vision of a “new kind of cultural park” that could be the equivalent of Tivoli Gardens or Millennium Park in a Columbia context is a compelling one. What was needed next was a suitable long-term strategy for making that vision a reality. As Michael McCall wrote in a column for the magazine Entertainment Management, “Strategy, like winning, is not everything; it is the only thing that counts until it is right.”

In the case of Symphony Woods there was a vision, along with proposed tactics (pathways, a fountain, a café), but no clear strategy. As McCall wrote in the same column concerning the “math of success,” “Lacking Strategy + Good Execution = Disappointment.” In the case of Symphony Woods the key to creating a good strategy was to not focus on just the section of Symphony Woods covered by the then-current Columbia Association plan, but rather to go up a level and consider the entire Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood—the “whole park,” as McCall put it in his Resident Speak Out remarks, the “whole thing.”

The strategy embodied in the Inner Arbor concept plan is to treat Merriweather-Symphony Woods as three parks in one, or a “concerto in three parks” in McCall’s phrase:

The northern section of Symphony Woods, the 16-acre area covered by the Columbia Association’s previously-submitted Final Development Plan, is to be the “public park”. This is in line with people’s traditional conception of Symphony Woods: It is the part of Symphony Woods most familiar to Columbia and Howard County residents (including as the site of the Wine in the Woods festival), the part previously threatened by the intensive development contemplated in the original GGP draft downtown plan, and the part that the Columbia Association was already focusing on prior to the creation of the Inner Arbor plan.

The combination of Merriweather Post Pavilion and a relatively open adjacent area in the eastern part of Symphony Woods is to be the “performance park”. This combined area forms a natural east-west axis south of the public park, with the Symphony Woods portion having been previously considered as the site for a new Columbia Association headquarters, and is potentially suitable for other “arts, cultural and civic uses.”

Finally, the southern portion of Symphony Woods, just north of the Crescent property, is to be the “curated park,” with a focus on public art. Due to poor public access that area has been even more neglected and unused than the northern section of Symphony Woods. However with the planned build-out of the Crescent property the southern section of Symphony Woods will assume more importance, and arguably will one day be as prominent a gateway into the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood as the northern section. It also has a small pond to provide a focal point for the area and a backdrop for art works.

The Inner Arbor concept plan also contains a number of suggested ways to realize the “concerto in three parks” strategy: In the performance park, an “arts village” hosting new indoor theatrical venues to replace the existing Toby’s Dinner Theatre facility. In the curated park, a sculpture garden with “organic art” to complement the natural landscape. In the public park, an “iconic sculpture” and a “treeline” boardwalk to connect to the performance park. And finally, a bridge to tie Merriweather Post Pavilion and the arts village to a parking structure and transit facility suggested for outside of Symphony Woods on the current Toby’s Dinner Theatre site.

A strategy for the public park

The original Inner Arbor concept plan did not suggest any structures for the section of Symphony Woods just north of Merriweather Post Pavilion and just south of Little Patuxent Parkway. That area was already the subject of Columbia Association planning efforts for Symphony Woods Park, and there was already a set of proposed park features submitted as part of the Final Development Plan previously approved by the Howard County Planning Board. However the Planning Board had called for key changes to the FDP, including in particular rerouting paths to avoid trees and pursuing a closer integration of the park with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

The next step in the evolution of the Inner Arbor plan was to focus on that northern section of Symphony Woods, the section containing the public park envisioned in the Inner Arbor concept plan. This made sense for several reasons:

First, this was the aspect of Symphony Woods development that was furthest along. The Howard County planning process for downtown Columbia requires a total of 16 steps: eight steps for a Final Development Plan, and a further eight steps for a Site Development Plan. As noted in the final slides of the public presentations of the Inner Arbor concept plan, development of the northern public park section of Symphony Woods was already at step 9, having completed FDP review, while development of the performance park and curated park in the eastern and southern sections was at step 1.

Thus the Symphony Woods easement agreement between the Columbia Association and the Inner Arbor Trust prioritized development of the public park over development of the performance park and curated park. (See the next article in the series for more information on this agreement.)

Second, given the concurrent planning for the renovation of Merriweather Post Pavilion, developing a plan for integration of the pavilion property with the northern section of Symphony Woods was a high priority.

Finally, development of the performance park and curated park was and is conditional on the pace of development of the Crescent property surrounding Symphony Woods to the south and east: Public use of the performance park and associated arts village envisioned in the Inner Arbor concept plan assumes implementation of new facilities for public parking outside of Symphony Woods, while public use of the curated park assumes conversion of the existing private Symphony Woods Road south of Symphony Woods into a public street. Both of these developments will take some time to come to fruition.

Given these factors, Michael McCall’s chosen next task was to create an improved strategy for the “public park” aspect of the Inner Arbor concept plan, building on the previously-approved Final Development Plan together with the associated recommendations by the Planning Board for meandering paths and integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

Achieving better integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion was seemingly the tougher challenge, especially given the traditional practice of enclosing Merriweather Post Pavilion with a fence and entirely closing Symphony Woods during Merriweather events. McCall’s refined strategy for the public park in northern Symphony Woods was built on two principles, “operational elasticity” and “beyond the berm”:²

First, the Merriweather Post Pavilion property would be treated as an extension of the public park, and be opened to visitors year-round during times when the pavilion did not host ticketed events. In return access control for Merriweather Post Pavilion would be provided by a new boundary feature located in Symphony Woods proper, replacing the current fence at the property line on the north side of the pavilion site. The general public would then be allowed access to the portion of Symphony Woods north of this new boundary even during Merriweather Post Pavilion events.

These actions would open up a transition area on the east-west ridge line between the Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion properties, a transition area in which a variety of “arts, cultural and civic uses” could be accomodated. In particular, this area could be used for the “Fountain Plaza” envisioned by the downtown Columbia plan, only located on the pavilion site rather than in Symphony Woods.³

In comparison to integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion, incorporating the “meandering paths” recommendation into the strategy seemed relatively straightforward. At the highest level it mainly required abandoning the relatively rigid cruciform arrangements of paths specified in the Final Development Plan and moving to a curved pathway system that respected the existing trees and the topography in which they were situated.

However in practice this aspect of the public park required significant thought as well, in particular to address the “industrial engineering” aspects discussed by Michael McCall in his original Resident Speak Out comments: Would the pathway system adequately handle circulation for the largest events at Merriweather Post Pavilion, as well as events like Wine in the Woods? How would the pathway system function to draw people into the public park? What park features would be most effective in attracting visitors, and how would the pathways most effectively direct people to those features?

Tactics for the public park

As it evolved the Inner Arbor plan for the public park reflected the answers to those questions, answers embodied in the various tactics by which the new park strategy was to be implemented. Michael McCall’s approach was to take the list of previously proposed “tactics,” i.e., the park features outlined in the approved Final Development Plan, and enlist each of them in the service of this new strategy.

As noted above, the fountain called out in the Final Development plan as being located in Symphony Woods was instead proposed to be relocated on the Merriweather Post Pavilion site as part of the transition area between the pavilion site and the Symphony Woods property.

A new feature not specifically called out in the Final Development Plan was the Caterpillar “green berm” stretching east to west just north of Merriweather Post Pavilion. The Caterpillar’s primary function is to provide access control from the northern section of Symphony Woods into the transition area bordering Merriweather Post Pavilion. It serves in place of a traditional fence, like the one presently separating Merriweather Post Pavilion from Symphony Woods, and makes for a much more visually attractive barrier—the “art of bounds,” as McCall put it.

The remaining features were relocated from their position in Symphony Woods as called out in the Final Development Plan to new positions elsewhere in Symphony Woods:

The children’s activity area, now named the Merriground, was originally proposed to be right next to the Merriweather VIP parking lot. It was moved to a more scenic location further north in the woods. The shared use café, the Butterfly in the Inner Arbor plan, was then moved to the activity area’s former location next to the Merriweather VIP parking lot, near the east entrance of Merriweather Post Pavilion, so that its shared use with Merriweather Post Pavilion would be more convenient.

Finally, the proposed shared use amphitheater, what is now to be the Chrysalis, was moved slightly to the east. This took it down a hill somewhat compared to the location in the FDP, providing more space for the audience and more separation from Merriweather Post Pavilion.

The Final Development Plan also referenced public art in the park. That function is fulfilled in the Inner Arbor plan by the Merriweather Horns sound sculptures, which replaced other art features proposed in an earlier iteration of the Inner Arbor plan.

The Inner Arbor plan has thus evolved from the earliest concept plan to the latest site development plan for the northern section. The concept plan of late 2012 and early 2013 provided an overall framework for developing the whole of Symphony Woods as a component of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood, the more detailed plan of late 2013 provided a framework for developing the public park component of Merriweather-Symphony Woods, and the revised plan of early 2014 locked down the detailed site design that now drives the development of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

The next article in this series will look at the processes and institutions by which and through which the vision and strategy discussed in this article are being realized in the current construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online sources, including the following:

• Newspaper articles from the Baltimore Sun online archives, including in particular the following:
  • “McCall invokes Rouse in design for Symphony Woods Park”
• Newspaper articles from the Columbia Flier online archives
• The Strategic Leisure web site, including in particular the following article:
  • “The Strategic Math of Success” [PDF]
• Various Inner Arbor Trust documents, including the following:
  • Michael McCall’s presentation of the Inner Arbor concept plan to Leadership Howard County [video] (September 20, 2013)
  • Inner Arbor Trust presentation to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [video] (February 26, 2014)
• Various Howard County planning documents:
  • Downtown Columbia Plan: A General Plan Amendment [PDF] (February 1, 2010)
  • Howard County Design Advisory Panel minutes, July 13, 2011 [PDF]
  • Howard County Planning Board Decision and Order, Case No. PB 394 [PDF] (September 6, 2012)
  • Land Development Review Process for Downtown Columbia Revitalization [PDF] (November 2010)
• Various Columbia Association documents, including in particular the following:
  • FDP-DC-MSW-1, “Downtown Columbia Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood Final Development Plan” [PDF]
• Jim Rouse comments on Disneyland
• James Howard’s blog post on vision statements
• Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s full quote in English and the original French

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: I recap the history of Symphony Woods and the various attempts over the years to develop it as a park.

This article is one in a series exploring in depth the creation of the Chrysalis amphitheater in Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. For the complete list of articles please see the introduction to the series.

Symphony Woods is a tract of (mostly) wooded land in the heart of Columbia, Maryland, and the site of the future Chrysalis amphitheater. The Chrysalis itself is located in the eastern part of Symphony Woods, in a relatively more hilly area than the more lawn-like northern section. (The Chrysalis is located near the bottom of one such hill, with the hillside providing space for the audience at Chrysalis events.)

This article in the “Creating the Chrysalis” series explores the long and tangled history of attempts to create a park in Symphony Woods prior to the adoption in 2013 of the so-called Inner Arbor plan, which aims to create a new park for downtown Columbia, Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

This 50-year history can be divided somewhat arbitrarily into three periods:

• 1963–2007. From the creation of Columbia to the transition from the Rouse Company to General Growth Properties as the developer of downtown Columbia, a long era in which Symphony Woods remained undeveloped and (for the most part) out of the spotlight.
• 2008–2009. An intense period of controversy over GGP’s plans for downtown Columbia in general and Symphony Woods in particular (as part of what GGP called the “Merriweather” neighborhood), and the beginnings of the Columbia Association’s own efforts to create a park in Symphony Woods.
• 2010–2012. The beginning of the present era of downtown Columbia development, with the adoption by Howard County of the Downtown Columbia Plan, including designation of the combined “Merriweather-Symphony Woods” neighborhood, the transition from General Growth Properties to the Howard Hughes Corporation, and the continuation of and ultimate hiatus in the Columbia Association’s project to develop a Symphony Woods park.

1963–2007: Symphony Woods

In October 1963 developer Jim Rouse surprised Howard County officials and residents by announcing his intent to build a planned community on almost 14,000 acres of land recently acquired by a joint venture between his company and Connecticut General Life Insurance. Of those almost 14,000 acres, approximately 150 acres, or just over 1% of the total land area, were reserved for the downtown area of what was to become Columbia, Maryland.

Among the promised amenities for the planned community of Columbia was an extensive system of pathways, open space, and parks, including a 40-acre tract of wooded land in Columbia Town Center that evolved into what we know today as Symphony Woods. However the simple story told in the marketing material was complicated by the decisions made by Rouse and his associates.

First, within the woods at the town center Rouse planned an amphitheater proposed as a summer home for the National Symphony and a venue for other cultural events. In hopes of soliciting donations from Washington heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post, when completed in 1967 this amphitheater was christened Merriweather Post Pavilion—although in the end Post did not contribute any funds to construct or maintain it. The surrounding wooded land, now named Symphony Woods and comprising 37 acres, enclosed the 10-acre Merriweather Post Pavilion site on all sides, so that all access to the amphitheater required traversing Symphony Woods.

Second, while deeding Symphony Woods itself to the newly-formed Columbia Association, Rouse retained ownership of the Merriweather Post Pavilion site as well as a crescent-shaped property to the west and south of Symphony Woods, bordered by Broken Land Parkway and US 29. This latter property, in a prime location for intensive office, retail, or residential development, was kept as open space pending the future build-out of downtown Columbia.

These two decisions determined the fate of Symphony Woods for the next several decades. On the northern part of the property (next to Little Patuxent Parkway) the woods were treated as simply an extension of and access point to Merriweather Post Pavilion. This was especially true after a series of gatecrashing incidents at Merriweather rock concerts in the 1970s led to Symphony Woods being closed to non-ticket-holders while events were being held at the pavilion.

Meanwhile the western and southern parts of the wooded area (what we know today as the Crescent property) resembled a public park to some extent but were actually Rouse-owned land, with only private roads across Rouse property providing easy vehicular access to these parts of the woods.

The result was underuse of the general Symphony Woods and Crescent areas outside the context of Merriweather Post Pavilion. A children’s petting zoo operated in those areas during the summer month in the 1970s and early 1980s before closing due to lack of business. The annual Maryland Renaissance Festival was also hosted there during roughly the same time period, before it was moved to a dedicated site in Anne Arundel County.

No new uses emerged to replace them until the early 1990s, around the 25th birthday of Columbia. In 1993 the first Wine in the Woods festival was held, while in 1994 the Symphony of Lights Christmas display was created. The former was held in Symphony Woods itself, while the latter mainly occupied the Crescent property, with only a relatively small portion of the display in Symphony Woods proper.

1993 and 1994 also saw the first attempts to develop Symphony Woods as a true park, as the Columbia Association contracted with Land Design Research (later renamed LDR International), a landscape design firm founded by former Columbia planner Cy Paumier and his associates, to study ways to increase the use of Symphony Woods.

LDR International recommended creation of a pathway around Symphony Woods (i.e., circling the Merriweather Post Pavilion property), with a more formal park entrance and boardwalks over environmentally sensitive areas, a formal garden and separate wildflower plantings, seating for picnickers, and a “sound garden” with hidden speakers or fountains. The Columbia Association chose not to pursue this plan. Five years later in 1999 LDR International again presented a Symphony Woods proposal to CA, and again no action was taken.

However the general idea that more could be done with Symphony Woods persisted. For example, the Howard County General Plan 2000 mentioned it as an “attractive open space resource that could be used more fully” and recommended that Symphony Woods “be augmented for Columbia residents and for all those who come to Downtown Columbia to work, shop or spend leisure time.”

More years passed until 2003, when in April discussion of downtown Columbia development was revived by a Rouse Company request to Howard County to increase limits on residential density to support up to 2,100 new residences in Columbia, including new residential development on the still-unused Crescent property. Later that year Howard County Council member (and future County Executive) Ken Ulman and Columbia Association board¹ member Joshua Feldmark attempted to revive the idea of developing Symphony Woods as a park. Again, nothing substantial resulted.

In 2004, eight years after Jim Rouse’s death, the Rouse Company was purchased by General Growth Properties. As a consequence of the acquisition GGP assumed the Rouse Company’s privileged role with respect to planning and zoning in Columbia: Under the ”New Town” zoning scheme originally created by Howard County, only the Rouse Company, and now GGP, could request zoning changes in Columbia, even in the case of properties like Symphony Woods that were owned by others.

That same year, amidst uncertainty over the future of Merriweather Post Pavilion, a citizens advisory panel produced a report that recommended “positioning Merriweather as a center for the arts, education and culture and making it an important regional and cultural force.” The next year, in 2005, the Columbia Association board considered moving CA headquarters to Symphony Woods, in part as a money-saving measure.

However the most important event in 2005 with respect to Symphony Woods was the beginning of a formal planning process for Columbia Town Center, including two “town hall” meetings sponsored by General Growth Properties in May and June and a “charrette” in October, a week-long series of meetings to solicit public comments on the future of downtown Columbia.

The charrette and related meetings resulted in the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning publishing in February 2006 a draft Columbia Downtown Master Plan. This plan treated Symphony Woods, Merriweather Post Pavilion, and the adjoining Crescent property as a single neighborhood for planning purposes, and envisioned it as “a cultural, residential, service retail, and office district.”

As for Symphony Woods itself, while envisioning the area as remaining “largely unchanged” the draft master plan noted “opportunities for public amenities such as plazas, pathways, public art, cultural monuments, and a skating rink,” and possibly small buildings “limited to civic or recreational uses”. For various reasons, including a lack of consensus around the details of downtown development, Howard County did not carry this master plan forward past the draft stage.

(In connection with this, during 2006 and 2007 there was also intense controversy over the Plaza Residences, a 22-story luxury condominium tower proposed to be built in downtown Columbia near the lakefront. The controversy was marked by accusations that the Howard County Planning Board had illegally approved the project, as well as more general concerns about high-density development in downtown Columbia. The project was essentially abandoned in 2008 due to the recession and the bankruptcy of its developer, WCI, but litigation relating to the project was not finally resolved until 2011. Although not directly related to Symphony Woods, the Plaza controversy energized anti-development activists and influenced attitudes toward subsequent proposals for downtown Columbia.)

Instead of a master plan the Department of Planning and Zoning sponsored the creation of a more general “framework” document, Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision. Released in draft form in September 2007 and in final form in December 2007, this document stated that “Symphony Woods needs to be preserved and enhanced as the ‘Central Park’ within Downtown” and concluded that “selected new recreational features may need to be added and activities may need to be programmed”. It also recommended “woodland restoration” and the addition of public art.

During this period General Growth Properties held its own private meetings with various civic and business groups to discuss its ideas for downtown development. However the Columbia Association was not among them: After having been criticized in October 2005 for having a private meeting related to the downtown Columbia charrette, the CA board in March 2006 prohibited CA President Maggie Brown and other CA staff members from having private discussions with General Growth Properties and Howard County regarding the development of downtown Columbia.

Columbia Association board members cited a provision of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act that (except for special circumstances, such as discussions of litigation), “all meetings of the homeowners association, including meetings of the board of directors or other governing body of the homeowners association or a committee of the homeowners association, shall be open to all members of the homeowners association or their agents”. The CA board interpreted (or extended) that provision as covering meetings of CA staff with GGP and Howard County in addition to meetings involving the board members themselves. CA board members subsequently reiterated to GGP in October 2007 their decision to discuss matters of mutual interest regarding downtown Columbia only in public meetings.

2008–2009: Merriweather

In April 2008 General Growth Properties presented to the public its own proposed master plan for downtown Columbia. Like the draft Columbia Downtown Master Plan, the GGP draft plan treated Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods as a single area for planning purposes (splitting out the Crescent property as a separate neighborhood), and envisioned the combined area, now christened “Merriweather,” as “a new kind of cultural park where the landscape becomes a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses.”

The draft GGP plan proposed more integration between Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods, with the Merriweather infrastructure “designed to open outward supporting other planned and programmed events in Symphony Woods,” and recommended that the park “be designed for daily use with flexible spaces to be enjoyed in a variety of ways, including places of retreat and isolation from the urban context.”

More controversially, the plan proposed development of multiple civic and cultural buildings and other facilities within the northern section of Symphony Woods just south of Little Patuxent Parkway, including “a new Columbia Association headquarters, library, museum, galleries, and sculpture garden”. It also proposed a new east-west street crossing Symphony Woods south of Little Patuxent Parkway and north of Merriweather Post Pavilion, and a pedestrian promenade from the Mall in Columbia “[leading] to a new Fountain Plaza which connects directly to Merriweather Post Pavilion.”

A public meeting between General Growth Properties and the Columbia Association had occurred in early April less than three weeks before, after lengthy negotiations between CA and GGP relating to the time, place, and public nature of the meeting. The meeting itself covered only general discussions about matters relating to downtown Columbia and Symphony Woods, and did not address specific features of GGP’s plan. After the first public unveiling of the draft GGP master plan later that month, Columbia Association board members expressed surprise at GGP’s proposals for Symphony Woods and asserted CA’s right to determine how Symphony Woods should be developed.

Beginning in May 2008 and continuing during the summer General Growth Properties held a series of “Vision in Focus” public presentations describing the proposed master plan, as well as a separate “Community Discussions” series to solicit comments on the plan. During the same period the Columbia Association Board of Directors began the process of creating its own alternative proposals for Symphony Woods and downtown Columbia in general.

In June the CA board adopted a 17-point position statement that articulated CA’s position on desired outcomes for downtown development, including that “Symphony Woods will be protected and will serve as Columbia’s Community Park,” and in July it adopted guidelines for CA staff discussions with GGP regarding Symphony Woods, including that there be “provisions for a gathering place for individuals and community events” and “limited new roadways or buildings of a park-related scale.”

However at this time the Columbia Association did not yet have an actual alternative plan for Symphony Woods, although CA board member Cynthia Coyle apparently created an informal concept plan featuring a carousel, a children’s garden and arboretum, and some sort of water feature.² In the fall of 2008 the Columbia Association was again approached by Cy Paumier, John Slater, and their associates, who had previously worked with CA in the 1990s on plans for Symphony Woods. After meeting with representatives of General Growth Properties in October regarding GGP’s downtown Columbia plans, in December the CA board approved having Paumier, Slater, and their associates create a CA-sponsored concept plan for Symphony Woods.

In the meantime the formal Howard County planning process relating to the General Growth Properties plan had begun, with a submission by GGP to the Department of Planning and Zoning in October 2008. In November the DPZ provided a response to that submission in the form of its Technical Staff Report, intended as a set of recommendations to the Howard County Planning Board.

The Department of Planning and Zoning staff report noted that the General Growth Properties plan “[included] significant reduction of parkland in Symphony Woods” and “[did] not provide for sufficient preservation of existing trees”. The report’s list of “Key Recommendations” included a recommendation that “The Plan should provide for an acre-to-acre replacement plan of parkland for each acre of Symphony Woods where new buildings are planned; or, the plan should suggest other locations for proposed arts, cultural and community facilities if the Columbia Association does not authorize such facilities on their land.”

The DPZ staff report also included comments from other Howard County agencies about the General Growth Properties proposal. The Howard County Library System was “excited” about “the concept of a new, state-of the-art Central Library . . . that would serve as both an anchor and a draw to the ‘Cultural Center Avenue’ described in General Growth Properties’ proposed plans for a revitalized Columbia Town Center,” while the Howard County Arts Council noted that the plan’s arts and culture sections were consistent with the arts recommendations in previous Howard County planning documents, including Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision.

However the Howard County Office of Environment Sustainability warned that the General Growth Properties plan “would reduce the natural areas within Symphony Woods and includes building and road construction which would damage or remove prime areas of healthy mature forest,” and went on to note that, “While there are many strong environmental enhancements included in the plan, it also calls for the removal of 48% of the trees in the Merriweather and Crescent areas (588 of 1214 trees).”

Having received the Department of Planning and Zoning report, the Howard County Planning Board held off on making an immediate decision on the General Growth Properties plan, and instead started a series of public work sessions. These sessions, including testimony by interested parties, began on January 8, 2009, with GGP’s response to the DPZ staff report and ran through the winter, spring and summer.

As of April 9, 2009, a total of 25 organizations and over a hundred individuals had provided testimony to the Planning Board. Organizations supporting General Growth Properties’ submission included activist groups such as Bring Back the Vision, Columbia 2.0, and Columbia Tomorrow, as well as more established groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Columbia Center for Theatrical Arts, Columbia Orchestra, and the Business Alliance. The activist groups Alliance for a Better Columbia, the Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown, and the Howard County Citizens Association organizations urged GGP to submit a new plan, as did the League of Women Voters.

The Columbia Association, along with various Columbia village boards, was recorded as being somewhere in the middle, requesting various types of amendments to the plan but not requesting that it be resubmitted. In particular, with respect to Symphony Woods CA expressed concern that “the two large buildings, underground parking, and several roads proposed for Symphony Woods are in direct contradiction to CA’s vision,” that “CA is very concerned about the removal of many trees in Symphony Woods and wants to preserve the integrity of the parkland,” and therefore “CA does not agree with exchanging existing land in the heart of Symphony Woods for other land” (as proposed by GGP).

While the Planning Board was taking public testimony the Columbia Association continued its efforts to produce its own plan for Symphony Woods. On March 26, 2009, the Columbia Association Board of Directors reviewed an initial Symphony Woods concept plan (one of three created by Cy Paumier, John Slater, and associates), approved it, and directed that it be presented to the public. The CA board followed up on August 27 later that year by unanimously approving sending a letter to the Howard County Planning Board notifying it of CA’s intention to present a concept plan for Symphony Woods.

A new wrinkle was added to the controversy of Columbia downtown planning in April 2009 when General Growth Properties declared bankruptcy. GGP’s Columbia operations were not part of the bankruptcy petition, and GGP declared its intent to move forward with its proposed plan. However GGP’s financial problems introduced new uncertainty into the long-term development of Columbia according to the proposed plan.

On September 17, 2009, after several months of public work sessions and testimony, the Howard County Planning Board finally made its formal recommendations to the Howard County Council regarding the Downtown Columbia Plan proposed by General Growth Properties and the associated zoning regulations (ZRA-113).

Concerning Symphony Woods, the Planning Board unanimously recommended “downtown development standards to protect large, mature, specimen trees in Symphony Woods,” that “Symphony Woods be maintained and used as Columbia’s downtown park for passive recreational uses only”,³ and that “there be no buildings on Columbia Association-owned land except for ancillary use facilities, like a small café, to support passive recreational uses”. The board also recommended that “pedestrian connections to the Mall and from Merriweather Post Pavilion be improved to facilitate frequent usage within Symphony Woods” and that “the County Council request a presentation by the Columbia Association regarding its plan for Symphony Woods.”

The day before, on September 16, the Columbia Association presented to the public the concept plan developed by Cy Paumier, John Slater, and associates for development of Symphony Woods (a plan CA originally promised to release in April). Shortly thereafter the Columbia Association Board of Directors voted 7-2 to approve the plan for Symphony Woods as presented by Paumier, Slater, and associates.

What became known as the “Paumier plan” (more formally, the plan for “Symphony Woods Park”) rejected General Growth Properties’ idea of cultural and civic buildings in the northern section of Symphony Woods in favor of “a plaza to include an interactive water feature and a small café with restrooms” as well as “a children’s play area, sculptures, and future park related uses” (the latter being unspecified in the original Paumier plan). Like the GGP plan, the Paumier plan retained the idea of a north-south alignment to “reinforce the visual axis connecting Town Center with the Pavilion”. The pathway system was proposed to be circular, with the “center of the circle, with a modest amount of tree thinning, [being] a special outdoor room for the community to gather.”

2010–2012: Merriweather-Symphony Woods

November 2009 saw the Howard County Council begin its consideration of the proposed downtown plan, as Council Chair Mary Kay Sigaty introduced two proposed pieces of legislation, Council Bill 58 (CB58-2009) to adopt a downtown Columbia plan as an amendment to the Howard County General Plan 2000, and Council Bill 59 (CB59-2009) to implement the necessary changes to Howard County zoning regulations to enforce the plan’s provisions. The Council held public hearings on the bills in November and again in January 2010 before moving to final consideration of the legislation at the beginning of February.

With respect to Symphony Woods the final version of Council Bill 58 made a number of substantive changes from the bill originally introduced (which reflected the General Growth Properties plan). Amendment 7 (together with Amendment 1 to Amendment 7, which made additional technical corrections) retained the language in the GGP plan calling for “a new kind of cultural park where the landscape becomes a setting for arts, cultural and civic uses,” but emphasized the integration of Symphony Woods into this vision by designating the combined Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods properties as the “Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood.”

Amendment 7 also removed the language in the General Growth Properties plan referring to buildings in the northern section of Symphony Woods, and replaced it with language referencing “compatible commercial uses such as a café in the park or museum shop”. Similarly, language referring to “park drives” through Symphony Woods was replaced with language referencing “a new system of paths and infrastructure [that] will support festivals and other events in the park,” with “access through Merriweather-Symphony Woods that connects the civic and cultural uses [that] will be compatible with the topography”. However Amendment 7 retained language from the GGP plan referencing “a new north/south axis from Market Square at The Mall” and “a new Fountain Plaza which connects to Merriweather Post Pavilion.”

CB58-2009 and CB59-2009 were unanimously approved by the Howard County Council on February 1, 2010, with the Columbia Flier singling out Council Chair Mary Kay Sigaty as “largely credited with leading council members through revising the plan”. Both bills were subsequently signed by Howard County Executive Ken Ulman on February 3, and the new plan from CB58-2009 officially published as the document Downtown Columbia Plan: A General Plan Amendment.

Adoption of the Downtown Columbia Plan did not quell opposition however. Opponents of the 5,500-unit allowance for residential units in downtown Columbia started a drive to force a referendum on that part of the plan, while others planned a challenge to Mary Kay Sigaty in the Democratic primary for Howard County Council that year. (Both efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.)

In the meantime the Columbia Association continued to move forward with the Paumier plan for Symphony Woods Park. In April 2010 the CA board directed staff to prepare for a groundbreaking in May, and on May 18 CA leaders thanked local legislators Sen. Edward Kasemeyer and Del. Elizabeth Bobo for their help in securing a $250,000 grant from the state of Maryland, and welcomed the promise of another $250,000 grant from what the Baltimore Sun termed a “mysterious area nonprofit” from outside Howard County that wished to remain anonymous.

However on May 20 Columbia Association President Phil Nelson informed the CA board of a potential roadblock to CA’s development of Symphony Woods, due to new Howard County planning processes imposed by CB58-2009 and CB59-2009, including so-called “CEPPA” requirements (for “Community Enhancements, Programs and Public Amenities”).

While some board members thought the Columbia Association was exempt from such requirements (board member Cynthia Coyle remarked, “The curiosity I have is why would we be held up by a CEPPA”), Nelson recommended on June 29 that “CA work through the development process that the County has imposed in CB58 and CB59“, warning that “by demanding and being granted an exemption from the rules and regulations that the County Council feel are in the best interests of the residents of Columbia and Howard County, CA will be the one that opens the door to the possibilities of bad planning and judgment.”

In July the Columbia Association put out an request for proposals for consultants to work on the design and development of Symphony Woods Park, including creation of the Final Development Plan, Site Development Plan, and related documents needed for the planning process.⁴ By November planning work was well under way, with construction projected to start in late 2011. One complicating factor arose with the planned fountain, namely that the Howard County Bureau of Environmental Health advised that “restrooms must be provided in order to receive Health Department approval for a building permit for an interactive fountain.”

November 2010 also saw a major change in the world of downtown Columbia development as the newly-created Howard Hughes Corporation was spun out of General Growth Properties as a separate company to handle GGP’s planned community portfolio. In addition to ownership of Merriweather Post Pavilion and the Crescent property, Howard Hughes also assumed GGP’s responsibilities for planning in Columbia Town Center.

Planning work continued on Symphony Woods Park. As of December 15 a “Phase 1 & 2 Design Development Plan” being considered by the Columbia Association Planning and Strategy Committee had changed the circular pathway system of the concept plan to an elliptical pathway, with a fountain and accompanying snack shop with restrooms (presumably to satisfy health department requirements) on the southwest side of the ellipse. The snack shop backed up against the Merriweather Post Pavilion fence, with access to the pavilion still through the traditional east and west gates.

As in the concept plan there was a grand staircase down to the pathway system from Little Patuxent Parkway across from the mall access road, in line with the Downtown Columbia Plan language about “a new north/south axis from Market Square at The Mall”. However the staircase design did not include any ramps to address accessibility concerns.

This design was used in the preparation of a draft Final Development Plan prepared for review by the Columbia Association Board of Directors in March 2011 in advance of a future public pre-submission meeting for the project. At about the same time Cy Paumier created and submitted an alternative design drawing for review by the board.

In April the Strategic Implementation Committee of the Columbia Association reviewed a new alternate “Plan B” layout for development of Symphony Woods, presumably based on Cy Paumier’s new design. This new design eliminated the elliptical pathway system of the previous design in favor of a cruciform system in which a north-south pathway ran from the grand staircase at Little Patuxent Parkway (retained from the previous design) south to a point across the Merriweather Post Pavilion fence from the Merriweather restrooms. An east-west path crossed the north-south path at a circular plaza with a fountain at its center. The snack shop was no longer in the design, but a location for a possible future café was noted at the south end of the north-south path next to the Merriweather fence. As in the previous design, the grand staircase at Little Patuxent Parkway lacked an accompanying ramp.

In early May the Strategic Implementation Committee recommended that “the CA Board of Directors approve the Staff to redirect the work of the project team” to produce a Final Development Plan for the new Plan B design, and on June 9 the CA board unanimously adopted the new design. CA subsequently presented this design to the public on June 16 in a so-called “presubmission meeting” prior to submitting the new Final Development Plan to Howard County.

By July 2011 the schedule for the groundbreaking on the Symphony Woods Park project had been pushed back to March 2012. In the next stage in the process the Columbia Association presented the new design to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel on July 13. The 36-page presentation included two plan renderings of the new cruciform pathway system, a drawing of the proposed staircase from Little Patuxent Parkway down to the north-south path, and a concept drawing of the fountain and café marked “for discussion purposes only.”

At the July 13 meeting various Design Advisory Panel members criticized the design as lacking a suitable vision and “strength of design,” and the panel as a whole recommended (among other things) defining a “specific vision for this site” and providing “more clarity to a theme for the neighborhood.”

Taking stock after the presubmission meeting and Design Advisory Panel meeting, Columbia Association staff noted that key issues raised at the presubmission meeting included “accessibility, restrooms, the fountain, circulation inside the park, connectivity to the park, parking, and [the] master plan” and made a number of recommendations, starting with adding a ramp to the staircase into the park.

As for the Design Advisory Panel meeting, CA staff agreed that the DAP motions “[reflected] the feeling . . . that the ‘big picture’ for the park must be more fully developed and shared with the community” and noted that “we have all been focused on getting phase 1 constructed”. The staff concluded that “it would be beneficial to develop a clear and inspirational vision statement that reflects the site attributes, the Board’s desired outcomes and the context in Town Center.”

At the September 8 Columbia Association board meeting the Planning and Strategy committee recommended adopting a new vision statement for Symphony Woods. The 11-paragraph draft statement began, “Symphony Woods Park will be Columbia’s central park one day and will be a place of music, the arts and nature.” The statement went on to note, “The central issue in designing Symphony Woods Park is to create access through the woods in a way that protects the trees and the natural landscape while supporting use of the park by greater numbers of people.”

The CA board subsequently approved a vision statement on October 13 after amending it in various ways.⁵ The vision statement envisioned Symphony Woods as “Columbia’s central park,” “a breathtaking gateway to Merriweather Post Pavilion,” and “a place that celebrates music, arts and nature”. The statement also envisioned Symphony Woods as providing “venues for energetic, creative activities such as community fairs, cultural events, art & craft vendors, local artists and spaces for reflective respite.”

Work on the park project continued, with a contract awarded later that fall for the design of the planned fountain. At a meeting of the Columbia Association Board of Directors on January 26, 2012, various options for the fountain were presented to the board, with the board members offering their respective critiques of the designs.

Meanwhile Columbia Association staff were working with the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning to progress the Symphony Woods Park project through the county planning process. On March 5, 2012, CA submitted a Final Developmemt Plan for the park to the county, along with other required documents. The first Howard County Planning Board meeting on the FDP and related submissions was scheduled for June 21.

On June 28 the Department of Planning and Zoning issued a Technical Staff Report on the Columbia Association’s Final Development Plan for development of a park in the 16-acre northern section of Symphony Woods, FDP-DC-MSW-1. This FDP included not only the pathway system, fountain, and café previously discussed, but also a “shared use pavilion” and “shared use amphitheater” to be available for both Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion events, as well as a “play activity area” and “woodland garden area.”

The pathway system was the north-south/east-west cruciform geometric arrangement from the Plan B design, with other paths leading in curved arcs from Little Patuxent Parkway to the proposed shared use pavilion at the Merriweather fence and then back out to Little Patuxent Parkway. Other than mention of the shared use facilities the FDP as presented showed minimal integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion, with the entrances into the pavilion some distance from the proposed features, and the proposed north-south pathway dead-ending at the Merriweather Post Pavilion fence across from the Merriweather restrooms.

The DPZ Technical Staff Report recommended approval of the Final Development Plan subject to addressing various technical comments. However it also referenced the Design Advisory Panel’s recommendations regarding design guidelines, and added, “Subsequent plans should reflect careful coordination with Merriweather Post Pavilion to maximize the importance of the entire Neighborhood as a cultural and community centerpiece.”

The Planning Board held a public meeting on the Columbia Association’s proposals on July 12, with testimony from both CA representatives and the general public. Concern over the trees in Symphony Woods was a major theme of the testimony, with several people objecting to the removal of mature trees. According to CA testimony the estimated number of trees to be removed was 64 in a “worst-case scenario” involving the proposed pathway configuration; however this did not address trees to be removed within the area of Merriweather Post Pavilion or (apparently) in the Symphony Woods locations where the shared use amphitheater, pavilion, café, play activity area, and other as-yet-undesigned features were to be located.

On July 19, 2012, the Planning Board voted 5-0 to approve the Final Development Plan, but did not release its final “decision and order” until September 6 after a vacation break. That decision reiterated comments made by Planning Board members in the July 19 meeting, and formally recommended that the Columbia Association make certain key changes to its proposals. One of these was to reroute pathways to avoid removal of trees, “consider[ing] existing topography and vegetation, and adjusting paths to meander around healthy trees to increase the number of trees that may remain.”

The other change was to develop a plan for integration of Symphony Woods with Merriweather Post Pavilion, with the Planning Board emphasizing “the need for the development of Symphony Woods Park to coordinate with the redevelopment of Merriweather Post Pavilion,” recommending that the plan “maximize potential interaction with Merriweather Post Pavilion with shared use facilities and cross access between the sites,” and noting that “concepts employed in the park should increase opportunities for year-round use.”

In the meantime a Columbia Association staff report (dated August 17) and an accompanying presentation at the CA board meeting on August 23 discussed how to proceed in the light of the Planning Board decision. The staff report noted, “This point in the process is an opportune time to consider the park plan in light of other recent planning efforts,” citing parallel efforts by the Howard Hughes Corporation to redevelop Merriweather Post Pavilion, including “a dramatically different concept for Merriweather-Symphony Woods that includes many new uses on CA land and on HHC land that will, if implemented, make the neighborhood more like the cultural park envisioned in the Downtown Plan.”

Columbia Association staff presented three possible courses of action: “stay the course” (i.e., continue with the existing design), “pause until plans for Merriweather take shape” (as part of a collaborative effort with Howard Hughes), or “pause but increase programming and enhancements” (i.e., to encourage increased use of Symphony Woods). The staff recommended the third option, including collaboration with Howard Hughes on a Merriweather-Symphony Woods master plan, noting that “it would allow for the best possible chance for a design solution to create an integrated Merriweather-Symphony Woods Park destination.”

On October 11, 2012, the Columbia Association Board of Directors meeting featured a public presentation of such a new design concept for Merriweather and Symphony Woods. That concept included a new vision for what Symphony Woods could be and a new strategy for realizing that vision, as part of what became known as the “Inner Arbor” plan.

The next article in this series will address that vision and strategy, and how they ultimately led to the current design for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, of which the Chrysalis amphitheater will be the first element.

For further exploration

This article is based on material from a variety of online sources, including the following:

• Newspaper articles from the Baltimore Sun online archives
• Newspaper articles from the Columbia Flier online archives
• The original Columbia “marketing brochure” created by Community Research and Development (later Howard Research and Development) (courtesy of the Columbia Archives):
  • Columbia: A New Town for Howard County (November 11, 1964)
• Various Howard County planning documents:
  • Howard County General Plan 2000
  • The Columbia Downtown Master Plan (Preliminary Draft) (February 27, 2006)
  • Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision (December 2007)
  • Howard County DPZ Technical Staff Report on ZRA 113 (November 13, 2008)
  • “Proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Regulation Amendment 113 - Public Comment” (April 9, 2009)
  • Howard County Planning Board recommendation on the General Plan Amendment for Downtown Columbia (September 17, 2009)
  • Downtown Columbia Plan: A General Plan Amendment (February 1, 2010)
  • Howard County Design Advisory Panel minutes, July 13, 2011
  • Howard County DPZ Technical Staff Report, Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood, Case No. PB 394 (June 28, 2012)
  • Howard County Planning Board Decision and Order, Case No. PB 394 (September 6, 2012)
• Howard County Council legislation relating to the Downtown Columbia Plan
  • CB58-2009, An Act adopting the Downtown Columbia Plan, a General Plan Amendment for the purpose of revitalizing and redeveloping Downtown Columbia; . . . (introduced November 2, 2009; passed with amendments February 1, 2010; signed February 3, 2010)
  • Amendment 7 to CB58-2009 and Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 (February 1, 2010)
• Various General Growth Properties documents from the defunct web site columbiatowncenter.info, now preserved by the Internet Archive:
  • Draft Columbia master plan web site
  • “Making a Special Place” (February 18, 2009 snapshot)
  • “Sustaining the Environment” (February 19, 2009 snapshot)
  • “Balancing and Phasing Growth” (February 19, 2009 snapshot) (see page 53)
  • “Exhibits” (October 7, 2009 snapshot)
• Various Columbia Association documents and other documents relevant to CA’s actions:
  • CA board orientation documents, including “The Evolution of the Columbia Association”
  • CA board agendas, minutes, and related materials, including documents provided to the board for the following board meetings, with items of interest as noted:
    • December 21, 2010 (first design)
    • March 31, 2010 (draft FDP)
    • June 9, 2011 (Plan B design)
    • July 28, 2011 (minutes of the June 16 pre-submission meeting, review of DAP comments)
    • September 22, 2011 (draft vision statement, staff update including tree impact)
    • October 13, 2011 (vision statement)
    • November 22, 2011 (fountain contract awarded, resubmittal of FDP and related documents)
    • December 22, 2011 (progress of FDP, update on fountain design)
    • August 23, 2012 (CA staff report and presentation discussing possible ways to proceed with Symphony Woods development)
    • September 13, 2012 (draft minutes for the August 23 board meeting)
  • CA testimony to the Howard County Planning Board regarding ZRA-113 (February 5, 2009)
  • CA response to DPZ key recommendations (February 5, 2009)
  • CA presentation to the Design Advisory Panel (July 13, 2011)
  • CA vision statement for Symphony Woods Park (reconstructed) (October 13, 2011)
  • Section 11B-111 of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act
• Selected blog posts from the following blogs and bloggers:
  • “Columbia Compass” (Bill Santos)
  • “Howard County Blog” (Evan Coren and Cynthia Coyle)
  • “Tale of Two Cities” (Dennis Lane)
• Selected documents from the following civic groups:
  • Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown
  • Columbia 2.0

For my own opinions on various aspects of the long-running controversies around development of Symphony Woods prior to the creation of the Inner Arbor plan, see the following blog posts:

• “A walk in Symphony Woods”
• “GGP, CA, Cy Paumier, and the battle over Symphony Woods”
• “Looking back at the Paumier plan for Symphony Woods”
• “How not to save Symphony Woods”

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: In this series I explore the conception and construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

April 22, 2017 marked the official opening of the Chrysalis amphitheater, the first element of the Inner Arbor plan to be constructed as part of the planned Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods in Columbia, Maryland. The series “Creating the Chrysalis”

• explains in detail the design and construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater in layperson’s terms;
• highlights the various organizations on the “Chrysalis team” and the parts each of them have played or are playing in its creation.
• describes the place of the Chrysalis amphitheater within the plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods and the overall history of Symphony Woods itself; and
• includes and provides context for more visual material relating to the Chrysalis, including detailed renderings, excerpts from engineering drawings, and photographs of construction and fabrication.

“Creating the Chrysalis” includes the following articles (I’ll update this list with links as I publish new articles):

1. Symphony Woods: The history of Symphony Woods and the various attempts over the years to develop it as a park.
2. Vision and strategy: The initial vision for a new park in Symphony Woods and the strategy to implement that vision, as developed from the initial Inner Arbor concept plan to the current county-approved plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.
3. Politics and process: The various institutional activities related to implementation of the Inner Arbor plan, with a focus on the Columbia Association, the Inner Arbor Trust, and the Howard County government, including its planning process.
4. Design: The overall form of the Chrysalis and how that design came to be.
5. Theater: The theatrical functions of the Chrysalis, including the stage, sound system, theatrical lighting, and “back of house” functions.
6. Shell structure: The steel framework supporting the Chrysalis skin and the theatrical equipment.
7. Shell skin: The skin forming the external surface of the Chrysalis.
8. Subfloor: The structural concrete foundation/basement or “subfloor” of the Chrysalis, and related construction.
9. Details, details: The final details of the Chrysalis and its surroundings.
10. Attracting the public: How the Chrysalis and other features of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods will accomodate the general public and attract visitors.
11. What comes next: Future features of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, including the Butterfly, the Merriground, the Picnic Table, the Caterpillar, and the Merriweather Horns.
12. Timeline: A detailed timeline, with references, of the events and activities from the creation of Symphony Woods up to the public opening of the Chrysalis amphitheater.

This series is based on material published by the Inner Arbor Trust and others, as well as on my previous blog posts about the Inner Arbor plan and its various features. Any opinions expressed are solely mine as an individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the Inner Arbor Trust, its contractors and partners, or any other person or organization.

All material created by me for this series is available for use by others under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Please attribute any reused or adapted material using a notice similar to the following:

This work contains material from “Creating the Chrysalis” by Frank Hecker, originally published at frankhecker.com and released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

For further exploration

For more of my opinions on and explanations of various aspects of the Chrysalis and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, see the Inner Arbor-related posts in the series “The Inner Arbor plan takes shape” and elsewhere on this blog. (Note that some of these posts contain outdated information relating to park features that were later dropped or revised.)

tl;dr: As construction of the Chrysalis amphitheater begins, I look again at the structure and its architect.

Tomorrow is the groundbreaking ceremony for the Chrysalis amphitheater, the first element of the Inner Arbor plan to be constructed as part of the planned Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. In the coming weeks and months I hope to be able to go into more detail about the Chrysalis and its construction, but for now I thought it would be nice to both summarize the current state of the Chrysalis and discuss where it stands in the overall body of work by its designer, Marc Fornes, and his firm THEVERYMANY.

The overall form of the Chrysalis has not changed since the very first post I devoted to it, but the exact way it’s put together has been refined since then. As I noted in my second article on the Chrysalis, its surface is created using a technique employed by Fornes in his other work: a curved surface is generated by computer and then instantiated by riveting together thin plates cut from flat sheets of the chosen material (in this case aluminum). The individual plates are each painted a given color, and the juxtaposition of plates within the overall structure then produces its final appearance. As can be seen in the picture above, the individual plates are relatively small (perhaps a square meter or two in the case of the Chrysalis), so creating the entire Chrysalis surface will require at least a thousand of them (in my estimation).

The Chrysalis is to my knowledge the largest structure Fornes has designed to date, and as such presents challenges beyond his earlier designs. Compare it for example to “Vaulted Willow” (more informally known as the Willow), a public sculpture in Borden Park in Edmonton, Alberta. Vaulted Willow is a relatively small structure at about 20 feet tall (note the person standing under it in the picture). It is not designed to bear any weight other than itself, and thus the surface of riveted plates can be self-supporting with no other associated structural framework required.

If you look closely you can see that the plates in Vaulted Willow are perforated, so people standing inside it get a variegated visual experience looking up at the sky. The “legs” of the structure are concave on the inside, so you can stand in them; from some of the pictures it looks to be a popular place for children to play hide and seek. (Not surprising perhaps—one person wrote that Vaulted Willow “had a dream-like quality to it inside and out, like something from a children’s fairy tale.”)

In contrast the planned “Over Path” public sculpture in San Antonio is a more “spidery” structure; at 20 feet its height is similar to that of Vaulted Willow but it extends over a much larger area. Note the differing construction technique; although Over Path is also constructed out of thin metal panels, rather than simply being overlapped the panels are bent and then joined together so that parts of the panels stick out to create a spine-like form. Some parts of the panels are perforated and some are not, so the overall surface offers a pleasing contrast.¹

A larger Fornes design is a structure (almost a cross between a large sculpture and a small amphitheater) recently constructed for Lycée Christian Bourquin, a new school in Argelès-sur-Mer, France.² I don’t have exact dimensions for it, but it appears to be at least 25 feet high, large enough to support small-scale performances but still light enough to not require a supporting frame. Note that, like Over Path, the surface is constructed using what appears to be a somewhat different technique than the overlapped riveted plates used in Vaulted Willow and the Chrysalis. (See THEVERYMANY’s web site for more pictures showing this.)

The Argelès-sur-Mer structure can be thought of as the little brother of the Chrysalis. The Chrysalis is considerably larger, and as a full performance stage must support lighting rigs and speaker stacks not found in its smaller and lighter sibling. Unlike the Argelès-sur-Mer structure the Chrysalis is also designed to keep rain off the performers or the audience (when seating is provided on the stage itself), so its surface is solid rather than perforated, and hence relatively heavier. The combination of these factors necessitates providing a supporting framework under the outer shell of the Chrysalis, as seen in the above graphic.

Altogether the Chrysalis occupies a special place in Fornes’s body of work, as (to my knowledge) it’s the first time he’s taken his design and manufacturing techniques and applied them to a truly large-scale commission. In so doing I think there are both losses and gains: The sheer size of the Chrysalis means that it does not have the same human scale of pieces like Vaulted Willow, and the need to support theatrical equipment and protect it and the performers from the weather means that it does not have the same degree of lightness and delicacy found in Over Path and the Argelès-sur-Mer structure. However the Chrysalis is still considerably lighter and more graceful in form than typical conventional amphitheaters, and will provide both an attractive and functional performance space for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods.

I’ve previously mentioned that Marc Fornes is a very promising young architect, and bids fair to become a major one. In the coming years I anticipate he and his firm further refining his innovative techniques and becoming more skilled in applying them to architectural structures well beyond the sculptures, installations, and experimental pieces of his early career. I’m thus sure we will see works from him even better than the Chrysalis, but at the same time we have the satisfaction of having one of his first major structures almost in our very backyards. Please join me and others tomorrow morning at 10 am to help celebrate the beginning of its construction.

I was fortunate enough to be able to attend and testify at the Howard County Planning Board meeting last night at which the Board unanimously approved site development plan SDP-14-073 [PDF] for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, the project otherwise known as the Inner Arbor plan. Here’s a lightly-edited copy of my testimony:

Good evening. I’m speaking in support of SDP-14-073. I previously submitted written testimony to the Board; tonight I want to comment some more on the plan.

I did not closely follow the Board’s consideration of the final development plan, but since then I’ve read the documents relating to its decision. I believe the Board made the right call in putting conditions on its approval of that plan. It’s just common sense: We need a park design that works with the natural landscape rather than against it, and one that’s well integrated with Merriweather Post Pavilion.

Almost a year ago I attended the pre-submission meeting for the Inner Arbor plan. At that time I saw a plan that retained elements present in the final development plan but also fully addressed the Board’s conditions. It featured an extensive pathway system that followed the lay of the land and minimized tree removal, an imaginative alternative to the existing Merriweather fence, and attractive and well-sited shared-use structures.

That design, with some refinements, is in the site development plan you’re considering tonight. It’s a very attractive design, a design that’s much better than I would have expected given the previous history of proposed projects for Symphony Woods. The design in SDP-14-073 incorporates the elements of the final development plan except for the fountain, which the Inner Arbor Trust now proposes be built on the Merriweather property. I understand the reasons for siting the fountain there as part of the Merriweather/Symphony Woods integration. At the same time I understand why this change might disappoint people for whom constructing a fountain was the primary attraction of the original plan for Symphony Woods.

However I believe that the goal of this multi-year effort is not to put a fountain in Symphony Woods. The fountain is simply one part of an overall effort to provide a “unique cultural and community amenity” for downtown Columbia, to quote from the Board’s previous decision. I believe that SDP-14-073 together with the proposed Merriweather Post Pavilion enhancements will meet that goal. The Board challenged CA to meet the conditions associated with its approval of the final development plan, and create a great park for downtown Columbia. The Inner Arbor Trust has more than met that challenge. I strongly urge the Board to approve SDP-14-073. Thank you.

The Planning Board meeting on November 6 saw proponents of the plan slightly outnumbering opponents;¹ in comparison, last night’s meeting was a landslide, with 16 people in favor and three people speaking in opposition. Of course this won’t put a rest to the controversy. In an earlier post I compared Inner Arbor opponents to “Obamacare” opponents in their exploitation of the issue as a way to stoke outrage among their base. I don’t expect the Planning Board’s decision will change that dynamic at all. As with the Affordable Care Act, I’m sure the opposition will continue to pursue any and all means to sabotage the development of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, with yet more contrived legal arguments (thanks go to Bill Woodcock for highlighting the latest example), complaints about the process, accusations of defiling Jim Rouse’s legacy, and dire warnings of a “disaster of biblical proportions.” (I’m only half kidding about the last one; one person testifying last night used language that was almost that extreme.)

However the analogy to the Affordable Care Act fails in a major way: We’re not talking here about a complicated government program where it’s almost comically easy to raise fear, uncertainty, and doubt among those who haven’t closely followed the issue. It’s a park, with pictures (lots and lots of pictures [187MB PDF]). It’s pretty easy to understand, and you either like it or you don’t. As it happens, all of the members of the general public I’ve talked to (for example, at Wine in the Woods) have liked it a lot. Now that the plan is approved and construction on phase 1 can start, more people will be able to see for themselves what Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods is all about, and I think we’ll find that that experience is repeated.

Finally, before this next phase of the Inner Arbor project begins and Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods starts to take shape, some (I hope) last comments on what went on before. In my year of blogging about the Inner Arbor plan and the associated controversy I have been variously enlightened, delighted, amused, critical, and indignant. However I have never been shocked until last night, while listening to the testimony of Brad Canfield, director of operations at Merriweather Post Pavilion. Assuming I’m correctly recollecting his remarks, in talking about the integration of Merriweather and Symphony Woods he mentioned that Cy Paumier and the original design team had never taken the time to talk to people at Merriweather, except for one phone call a few months after the Columbia Association had rejected the original park design in favor of the Inner Arbor concept.

I quite honestly find that to be mind-boggling. On the one hand you have Merriweather Post Pavilion, the most well-known and best-loved feature of Columbia to the world at large, and a key element in making Howard County an attractive place for businesses and residents. (I believe it was Dick Story who last night noted that while other jurisdictions promoting economic development have universities to help them stand out from the crowd, Howard County has Merriweather.) On the other hand you have Symphony Woods, a largely under-used property whose main function over the past 40+ years has been to serve as a surrounding environment and gateway to Merriweather. If a design team working on a plan for Symphony Woods seemingly doesn’t show any interest whatsoever in working with the Merriweather Post Pavilion operators to figure out ways they could mutually enhance the combination of properties, that speaks volumes to me about that team’s insularity, misplaced priorities, and inability to create a design worthy of what downtown Columbia could become.

Thank goodness there were other people more in touch with the realities of present-day Columbia and Howard County, people who were willing to go out of their way to imagine a better future for Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods, and did the work and took the risks to start us on a path to making that future a reality. Thank you, everyone, I’m excited to see where we go from here.

As previously noted by Bill Woodcock and Julia McCready, tonight (Thursday, November 6 at 7 pm) is the meeting [PDF] of the Howard County Planning Board to consider (among other things) SDP-14-073, the site development plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, otherwise known as the Inner Arbor plan, as submitted by the Inner Arbor Trust. I hope to be able to be at the meeting to express my support of the plan, but just in case I’m not able to do that I also submitted written testimony to the Planning Board earlier today, as follows:

To the members of the Howard County Planning Board:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on SDP-14-073, the site development plan for Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods. As a longtime independent observer of the work of the Inner Arbor Trust I believe that SDP-14-073 provides a complete and detailed blueprint for a beautiful and functional cultural park. This blueprint more than fulfills the vision and requirements laid out in the Downtown Columbia Plan and the neighborhood design guidelines. In particular SDP-14-073 represents a considerable advance over the final development plan FDP-DC-MSW-1 previously reviewed by the Planning Board. The plan respects the natural landscape of the site and its status as a special place within downtown Columbia, and the various park features display a consistent degree of design excellence, as attested to by the unanimous approval of the Design Advisory Panel and the comments made by its members.

With respect to the conditions put on approval of FDP-DC-MSW-1 by the Planning Board, SDP- 14-073 meets not only the letter of those conditions but their spirit as well. Not only does the plan minimize tree removal through careful siting of the various park features, it provides an extensive system of meandering paths on which visitors can fully enjoy the natural setting of those features. In sum, the plan works with the landscape, not against it.

SDP-14-073 also shows the result of the requested coordination regarding integration of the park and its features with Merriweather Post Pavilion, making the overall Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood the “unique cultural and community amenity” referred to in the previous Planning Board decision. The Chrysalis shared-use amphitheater proposed for Phase 1 will provide a suitable second venue to Merriweather Post Pavilion, the Butterfly guest services building is well-sited to serve visitors to both the pavilion and the Chrysalis (and displays an architectural excellence not found in the existing Merriweather outbuildings), and the Caterpillar “living berm” is an imaginative solution to the problem of controlling access to Merriweather Post Pavilion during events while providing access to the pavilion property during other times.

I’ve previously blogged about the parking situation at Merriweather Post Pavilion. [See here and here.] I agree with the DPZ staff that the parking arrangements proposed with SDP-14-073 are adequate for the various uses detailed. Although some may be concerned about increased traffic and parking needs associated with the development of Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods, those concerns cannot be fully addressed in the context of the park itself, since to a large degree they arise from joint uses with Merriweather Post Pavilion. In that regard I recommend the Planning Board carefully review parking proposals submitted with any development plans for the rest of the Merriweather-Symphony Woods neighborhood and (especially) for the Crescent neighborhood.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the Planning Board to approve SDP-14-073, including both phases 1 and 2 and the subsequent phases 3 through 7, subject to further review as noted. I also urge the Planning Board to adopt the DPZ staff recommendation and allow the access drive from the Merriweather VIP Lot to the Chrysalis amphitheater to extend below the southeastern boundary specified in the final development plan. Among other things, mandating an alternate routing would be inconsistent with the previous Planning Board conditions relating to minimizing tree removal. Finally, I urge the Planning Board to refrain from putting any conditions on the site development plan, now or in the future, where such conditions might compromise the integrity of the park design or otherwise result in the park not fulfilling its promise as a unique and valuable cultural and community amenity for the residents of Columbia and Howard County.

Frank Hecker Ellicott City, Maryland

Marc Fornes, the designer of the Chrysalis, the amphitheater planned for Symphony Woods as part of the Inner Arbor plan, and his firm THEVERYMANY are one of two winners of the 2014 WAN 21 for 21 award sponsored by World Architecture News, “an initiative aiming to highlight 21 architects who could be the leading lights of architecture in the 21st century.”

(This actually happened back in the spring, but I was only recently alerted to this when I was checking out who linked to my blog and saw a Rhino News blog post that mentioned the award. I’ve previously written about the Chrysalis, Fornes, and his firm THEVERYMANY as part of my ongoing coverage of the Inner Arbor plan; see in particular my initial post and my follow-up post discussing the structure of the Chrysalis in more detail.)

THEVERYMANY and 2014 co-winner sP+a (Sameep Padora + Associates) were selected from a total of 94 entries submitted, of which 42 were selected for more detailed consideration. The accompanying story notes that “As soon as Marc Fornes’ work was set on the table it was clear that a unanimous agreement [among the judges] was brewing” and quotes one of the architects judging the awards praising Fornes as “an absolute leader” and “the rising star of the 21st century.”

So what’s all the fuss about? The entry submitted by THEVERYMANY highlighted the Chrysalis, and discussed the firm as a “studio committed to the design and construction of prototypical architecture via custom computational methods.” The language of the submission is somewhat dry and abstract, so I’ll try to describe Fornes’s methods more informally:

Traditional architectural practice is based on architects conceiving of a structural form or set of forms in their minds, putting pen to paper to refine the design through drawings, and then using computers primarily as an aid to the rest of the process: creating more detailed drawings to nail down the final look of the structure and make sure everything will fit together as envisioned, doing structural analysis to see if the structure can handle loads, producing good-looking renderings for clients, and so on.

THEVERYMANY turns that process on its head: Don’t use the computer as a simple drawing tool, a substitute for pen and paper. Use it for what it’s truly capable of, including exploring the space of possible three-dimensional structures. More concretely: Start with sophisticated 3D modeling applications (like Rhino, the one Fornes uses). Extend them with powerful programming languages that can be used to drive the 3D modelers (Fornes uses Python as implemented in Rhino). Leverage applications that can take complex 3-dimensional surfaces and join them together into structural elements and then into complete structures (see for example RhinoNest). Add code that can analyze such structures for soundness, and that can produce instructions for computer-controlled machinery to create individual pieces that can then be assembled into the finished structure. Finally (and most importantly), find people like Fornes and his associates who have the knowledge, discipline, and aesthetic sensibility to incorporate these techniques into the heart of their architectural practice.

As the submission entry states, “The desire is not to generate models, nor installations, but rather 1:1 scale structures, prototypical architectures.” Fornes has been developing such prototypes for many years now, and “continually pushes constraints at larger scales.” The result of this work is the Chrysalis amphitheater as you see it here, a beautiful airy structure that looks as if it had emerged naturally from the earth. I hope it won’t be long before we see it in real life as part of Symphony Woods, replacing the temporary stage that’s been used this year during Wine in the Woods and other events. If all goes well it will be in place sometime next year, and Columbia can (as it did with Frank Gehry) once again boast of hosting the early work of an architect who seems destined for great things.

Julia McCready - 2014-06-30 12:26

You and I seem to have the same subject on our minds today!

hecker - 2014-06-30 22:23

Indeed. Looking forward to the completion of your Millennium Park post …

Good evening. My name is Frank Hecker. I’m currently a resident of Ellicott City, and I’ve been a member of various Columbia Association programs. I’ve also blogged extensively about the Inner Arbor plan, and I’m a strong supporter of it. However I’m not here tonight to talk about my thoughts on the Inner Arbor plan; you can go to frankhecker.com if you want to read those. Instead I want to talk about other peoples’ opinions of the plan.

The weekend before last I spent Saturday afternoon at the Inner Arbor Trust tent at Wine in the Woods. I had the opportunity to talk to several dozen people about the Inner Arbor plan, many of them Columbia residents, some from elsewhere in Howard County, and a few from out of the area. Every person I talked to, without exception, was enthusiastic about the plan and eager to see it come to fruition. They liked the Chrysalis amphitheater and thought it would be in a great location, right where the Wine in the Woods Purple stage was located. They thought having food and restrooms available at the Butterfly was an excellent idea, and that the building itself was very beautiful. When I explained what the Picnic Table was for they got it instantly, and thought it would be a great place to hang out during Wine in the Woods or at other times. Finally, they even understood the purpose of the Caterpillar in providing an improved entrance to Merriweather and an alternative to the current fence, and thought it very attractive.

The lesson here is that while our attention has been distracted by the views of those who are vocal opponents of the Inner Arbor plan,  other Columbians and Howard County residents constitute a vast unheard supermajority who like the Inner Arbor plan and want to see it completed as soon as possible. I suggest those of you who are just listening to the small group of opponents go out and discover the depth of support that the Inner Arbor plan has from ordinary Columbians once you have their attention and they have a good chance to learn more about it. That concludes my remarks. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak tonight.

I saw many other supporters of the Inner Arbor plan there as well, several of whom also spoke. I hope to see others blogging about the meeting itself, as I’m curious as to what happened after I left.

Trevor Greene (trevordentist@gmail.com) - 2014-05-29 15:03

Frank, it was great to see you at the meeting. After you left, Michael McCall reviewed some details of the plan. He even included a photo from this blog and thanked you for the picture. I found that part of the presentation to be really interesting, but I think several of the people in the room have seen it before and were getting frustrated. During the presentation Reginald Avery and Alan Klein asked several pointed questions. It is clear that they were looking for any way possible to criticize the plan. At one point Alan Klein said, “no where did it say that you were to put meandering paths in the plan.” About 5 minutes later Brian Dunn pointed out that the planning board requested meandering paths. That shot Alan Klein down pretty good. I really appreciate how Brian Dunn points out the flaws in the detractors’ statements and backs it up with written documentation. About 10 more people spoke after McCall’s presentation. I wasn’t counting (this is an estimation), but I think of the 20 or so people that spoke, 17 were in favor of the Inner Arbor. One of the last few speakers said something very poignant. He said, “We are witnessing history.” He added that the pioneers had their time to lead Columbia and create something new. But now, another generation is taking the lead in Columbia and creating their own new Columbia. You really could feel a shift in the tone of the discussion at the meeting. There certainly were a grumpy few making snide remarks every minute or two, but a vast majority of people in the room were in favor of the Inner Arbor, and in favor of change. It was the first CA meeting I’ve attended, and was quite exciting. I’m really positive about the future.

hecker - 2014-05-29 18:45

Trevor, thanks very much for stopping by and writing an “eyewitness report”! (And of course thank you for showing up and speaking last night as well.)

Yesterday I had the pleasure of talking about the Inner Arbor plan to visitors to the Inner Arbor Trust tent at Wine in the Woods. (Full disclosure: I paid my own way into Wine in the Woods, but I did drink three bottles of the free water the Inner Arbor staff were handing out to all comers, to help combat my hay fever cough.) It was a fun afternoon, and prompted a few thoughts:

People like the plan. First, and most important, without exception all of the several dozen people I talked to loved the overall plan, thought the proposed features looked great, and asked me how soon they’d see them realized. Other people staffing the tent had the same experience; apparently only one person stopped by who had negative things to say. Despite the impression you might get reading Columbia Flier letters to the editor, there appears to be a very large (albeit mostly silent) base of support for the Inner Arbor plan. The issue right now is that most people haven’t been following events closely, and don’t have a good feel for the progress that’s been made in putting together a solid plan for enhancing Symphony Woods.

Taking to strangers about the plan is a good way to better understand it. In my job I’ve worked a lot of trade shows promoting my company’s products. Since my company is but one of many with a presence at a show, it’s important to be able to crisply sum up to people why it’s worth their stopping to talk to me instead of walking on by. It was the same here. In talking to people I was forced to boil down the thousands of words I’ve written about the Inner Arbor plan into a few short sentences. My best attempt: The Inner Arbor plan is all about making Symphony Woods a place you’d enjoy visiting even when it’s not Wine in the Woods. Then I’d talk about the path system and explain the various proposed park structures. It helped a lot that the tent was stuffed to the gills with poster-sized renderings of everything. However I found that people got confused sometimes about the renderings until I put them in context and explained more about what they were showing.

Talking about the Caterpillar. People generally thought the Caterpillar was cool and liked the way it looked (again, contrary to the letter writers, who seem to have a special hate for the Caterpillar). However I personally found it harder than with the other park features to crisply sum up what the Caterpillar was. I think that’s because the Caterpillar isn’t an amenity that stands alone, but instead is tied up with the overall strategy of more tightly integrating Merriweather Post Pavilion with Symphony Woods. So in explaining the Caterpillar I had to explain the strategy, which took more time. The best short explanation I came up with is that the Caterpillar is what’s going to replace the unattractive fence currently enclosing Merriweather.

The Chrysalis is going to have a great location. Wine in the Woods has two temporary stages for musical acts, the Green Stage and the Purple Stage. As it happens the Purple Stage is in the exact location where the Chrysalis amphitheater is planned to be built. As you can see from the accompanying picture, the Purple Stage was a popular place for people to hang out and listen to music. (In fact, it was apparently so popular that vendors at that end of the park were doing a booming business.) The Chrysalis will likely prove to be just as popular if not more so, and it will be much better looking than a temporary stage. It’s also worth noting that the hill on which people sit amongst the trees does a good job of isolating the stage visually and aurally from Merriweather Post Pavilion. It confirmed for me the wisdom of the Inner Arbor plan siting the Chrysalis further away from Merriweather (and further down the hill) than the amphitheater proposed in the Cy Paumier plan.

All in all it was a fun experience volunteering, and the time went by pretty quickly (to be honest, much more quickly than at the trade shows I do at work). The Inner Arbor Trust tent will be open again today, near the northwest entrance near the volunteer tent, so if you’re going to be attending Wine in the Woods please take a couple of minutes to stop by, say hello to the folks there, get a free bottle of water, and find out more about what’s being planned for Symphony Woods.

NIna Basu - 2014-05-18 11:17

I did talk to one very drunk man who hated trees, and wanted to know what we could do to get rid of trees and their pollen. I was surprised - happily so - at the number of young people and your parents who stopped me to say they wanted to get involved to bring this plan to fruition.

hecker - 2014-05-18 18:18

Nina, thanks for stopping by to comment, and thanks for inviting me to help staff the tent. I hope you all have another pleasant day at WITW.

Michael Cornell (michaelcornell@comcast.net) - 2014-05-29 10:50

To those in attendance at the joint CA IAT meeting on the Inner Plans for Marriweatehr Park at Symphony Woods: I can’t begin to express my delight and renewed optimism with the people who showed up for CA’s meeting last night with the IAT. Your’s are the voices we need to hear more of, marching to the drumbeat of change and vision. The energy you create and share is a highlight in my 7+ years of serving the community on the CA Board. Thank you! Michael Cornell, River Hill

hecker - 2014-05-29 11:27

Michael, thanks for stopping by to comment. I was happy to finally have a chance to express my support of the Inner Arbor plan in person, as opposed to just on my blog.

Previously I rendered my own verdict on Cy Paumier’s plan for Symphony Woods, and relayed the verdicts of the Howard County Design Advisory Panel [PDF] and then the Planning Board [PDF]. Note that the Planning Board actually approved the overall Final Development Plan for the Merriweather-Symphony Woods Neighborhood presented by the Columbia Association, including having the area host a system of walkways and various other proposed features like a café, an outdoor amphitheater, a children’s play area, and (last but not least) a fountain. However they recommended moving to a system of meandering paths rather than formal walkways, and urged closer integration of the park with the Merriweather Post Pavilion property.

After the Planning Board decision CA went into somewhat of a holding pattern with respect to Symphony Woods, with the CA staff suggesting plans be put temporarily on hold, and the CA board considering more formal coordination with Howard Hughes Corporation and Howard County. This period of relative inactivity was broken with the announcement that CA had decided to adopt a new concept plan for Symphony Woods proposed by Michael McCall, like Cy Paumier a Columbia resident and former Rouse associate.

This “Inner Arbor” plan as originally presented was not an exact replacement for the Paumier plan, but was instead a high-level plan for the entire northeast and eastern portion of Symphony Woods; thus it included elements (like a replacement for Toby’s Dinner Theater and a new CA headquarters) that were never part of the Paumier plan. However since then the Inner Arbor plan has evolved into a plan specifically for the northern portion of Symphony Woods, the same area covered by the Paumier plan, and in an important sense it can be thought of simply as a continuation of and improvement on the Paumier plan, addressing that plan’s deficiencies as identified by the Planning Board and Design Advisory Panel.

The best place to start to appreciate that point is not with the Inner Arbor structures but rather with the walkway system proposed as part of the current Inner Arbor plan as recently presented to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel.¹ Note that the plan fully implements the Planning Board recommendation to use meandering paths. This allows paths to be routed to avoid trees and thereby minimize the number of trees needing removal.

Using meandering paths also means that the paths can follow the “lay of the land” and thus avoid steep slopes and the need for stairs as much as possible. As shown in the image above, most of the walkways (shown in green) are from 1% to 5% grade and are thus fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or who otherwise have difficulty walking. Most of the remaining paths (shown in blue), though having somewhat steeper grades in some places, still fall within the relevant ADA guidelines as applied to park trails. Only a few paths (shown in red) have steeper slopes that might require stairs. (One of the places requiring stairs is the entrance across from the mall access road, as in the Paumier plan, although unlike the Paumier plan this entrance is not the primary focal point of the design.)

The Inner Arbor plan also replaces the relatively awkward north-south alignment of the Paumier paths with a more natural east-west alignment that better conforms to the shape and orientation of the northern part of Symphony Woods. This change in alignment allows for longer paths that provide more opportunities to walk within the park, including the more scenic forest in the eastern and northeastern area of the park, which was to a large degree a “no go” area in the Paumier plan. This is made possible in part by an elevated boardwalk that allows visitors to enter at the northeastern corner of the park, at the intersection of Little Patuxent Parkway and South Entrance Road, near the Central Branch library and on the multi-use pathway to Lake Kittamaqundi. The boardwalk carries them through the northeastern portion of the park above the forest floor, and allows them to reach the Chrysalis amphitheater over a fully-accessible route.

Speaking of the Chrysalis, as noted previously the Final Development Plan based on the Paumier design envisioned various park features in addition to the walkways, including a pavilion and café (combined or separate), a fountain (interactive or otherwise), a children’s play area, public art, and an outdoor “shared use” amphitheater that could be used for both Merriweather events (e.g., as a second stage) or for events in Symphony Woods proper (e.g., Wine in the Woods). The current Inner Arbor plan makes provision one way or the other for all those elements, and (unlike the Paumier plan) includes detailed designs for almost all of them.² Put another way, almost every element in the current Inner Arbor plan is referenced in the Final Development Plan previously approved by the Planning Board.

The major difference from the Paumier plan is thus not the proposed park features themselves, but rather that the park features were moved to different locations within Symphony Woods, in order to improve integration with Merriweather Post Pavilion and/or to address other issues.

In particular, the Paumier plan proposed a pavilion and café located halfway between the two Merriweather entrances, next to the Merriweather Post Pavilion restrooms. In the Inner Arbor plan the corresponding structure, the Butterfly, is moved next to the Merriweather VIP parking lot, near the east entrance of Merriweather Post Pavilion, so that its shared use with Merriweather does not require opening up a new entrance (as the Paumier plan would have).

In the Paumier plan the children’s play area was proposed to be located in the Butterfly’s location; in the Inner Arbor plan the corresponding feature, the Merriground, is moved into the park proper, in a more natural setting. Finally, in the Paumier plan the proposed shared-use amphitheater was to be located next to the children’s play area, relatively close to Merriweather. In the Inner Arbor plan the corresponding structure, the Chrysalis, is moved to the east. This takes it down a hill somewhat, providing more space for the audience and decreasing possible bleed-over of sights and sounds from the Merriweather Post Pavilion to the Chrysalis and vice versa (e.g., when the Chrysalis is used as a shared stage).

The Paumier plan referenced possible public art in the park. That function is fulfilled in the Inner Arbor plan by the Merriweather Horns sound sculptures. The fountain envisioned in the Paumier plan is not in the Inner Arbor plan proper, because the proposal is to put the fountain not in Symphony Woods itself but rather within the Merriweather Post Pavilion property as part of a strategy to integrate the two areas (as recommended by the Planning Board).

Another part of that integration is a proposal to tear down the current Merriweather fence (at least on the north side) and provide a substitute for it in the form of the Caterpillar, a tubular berm intended to separate the area of Symphony Woods close to Merriweather from the main area of the park. The Caterpillar thus provides access control for Merriweather Post Pavilion itself during Merriweather events, and also bounds a shared space for a possible fountain and other amenities in the area straddling the Merriweather/Symphony Woods boundary, making the fountain and its associated plaza accessible to visitors to Symphony Woods on days when there are no events at Merriweather Post Pavilion.

In conclusion: The Inner Arbor plan is more respectful of the alignment and topography of Symphony Woods than the Paumier plan, provides a better walking experience for visitors, sites the various park amenities more intelligently, integrates Symphony Woods much better with Merriweather Post Pavilion, and (last but certainly not least) requires significantly fewer trees to be removed (particularly when the park amenities are accounted for).

Finally, thanks to the comprehensive and detailed work that has been done by the Inner Arbor team (work that for whatever reason was never done for the Paumier plan), the current Inner Arbor plan is an example of the design excellence that can be produced by talented local firms working in concert with leading designers and architects from around the world, and meets the challenge that Del. Elizabeth Bobo set for those designing the future of Columbia Town Center:

There is great anticipation in the community of bold, creative public spaces …. Where are the grand designs that excite the spirit and capture the soul, becoming material for textbooks to train future architects and planners? Columbia, Mr. Rouse’s “next America” and arguably the most successful new town in the world, is a perfect home for them.

This concludes my series on the Paumier plan and the Inner Arbor plan as compared to it. In future posts I’ll briefly revisit the Inner Arbor plan as presented to the Design Advisory Panel, and comment on some of the changes since my original series of Inner Arbor posts.

Jessie Newburn - 2014-04-27 21:07

Thank you, Frank, as ever and always for your thoughtful, diligent analysis and observations. Your thinking helps my thinking.

Sacred lands and the facts don’t always get along. Recently the Inner Arbor Trust released a document (“Merriweather Park at Symphony Woods: By the Numbers” [PDF]) that attempts to correct misconceptions about the Inner Arbor plan. It’s a good document (though at almost 180MB it takes a while to download), and if and when I have time I’ll blog more about it in detail. However I suspect it’s also probably a wasted effort as far as many people are concerned: When people come to think of land as sacred they often stop thinking about the reality of the land as opposed to its sanctity, and the facts are then often ignored, overlooked, or distorted.

For example, in my last post I wrote about a controversy in New York City relating to 9/11; you have probably heard it referred to as “the mosque at Ground Zero,” but in fact it was neither: not an actual mosque but an Islamic community center with a prayer space (albeit a fairly large one), and not at Ground Zero but rather two blocks away. But the emotion around the 9/11 attacks was (and is) so intense that the juxtaposition of “mosque” and “Ground Zero” was much more memorable than the actual reality, and once that juxtaposition lodged in people’s minds it was difficult to impossible to get it out.¹

Those who preach a land’s sanctity aren’t always saints. Going back to the example above, did people just happen to innocently get the facts wrong and decide a mosque was going to be built right where the twin towers stood? Well, no, not exactly. There were plenty of people who worked to actively spread this idea because they themselves stood to benefit if others believed it were true: news channels trying to increase their ratings, politicians trying to attract votes, advocacy groups trying to raise money, and so on.

There’s no reason why Columbia should be exempt from this phenomenon, and based on reports from others some reasons to think that Columbia and CA have their own versions of it. (For example, consider the case of the elderly CA voter who was convinced Julia McCready was running for the CA board in order to run old people out of Columbia.) I would not be surprised to hear that some Columbians are now firmly of the opinion that the Inner Arbor plan will result in wholesale cutting of trees in Symphony Woods, because someone else saw fit to put that idea in their heads. (In actual fact the Inner Arbor plan as proposed will result in many fewer trees being removed than in the previous Columbia Association plan, also known as the Cy Paumier plan after its lead designer.²)

This is all Jim Rouse’s fault, really. Recently Robert Tennenbaum, the former chief architect and planner for Columbia, quoted Jim Rouse’s words about Symphony Woods from the 1964 presentation “Columbia: A New Town for Howard County”: “Today a magnificent stand of trees, this 40 acre woods will be permanently preserved and cultivated as a quiet, convenient and strikingly beautiful asset of the town.” All well and good; however I think it’s also useful to consider what Jim Rouse did and not just what he said.

First, as I’ve previously mentioned, Jim Rouse saw fit to put a large outdoor amphitheater smack in the middle of the “magnificent stand of trees” in question. Second, Jim Rouse also saw fit for the Rouse Co. to retain ownership of the Crescent property surrounding Symphony Woods, as opposed to deeding it to CA or to the county. Did he do this because he planned for that property to be “permanently preserved and cultivated as a quiet, convenient and strikingly beautiful asset of the town”? Given that Rouse was a canny and successful businessman, I presume instead that he did it because the Crescent was a potentially-valuable piece of centrally-located property that the Rouse Co. or its successors could at some point profitably develop for high-density office, retail, or residential use.

So if you’re concerned that “Symphony Woods” (i.e., including the wooded area next to US 29 and Broken Land Parkway) will soon start looking much smaller, and that Symphony Woods itself (i.e., the CA property) is going to be across the street from 20-story condo towers, be aware that this is not because evil outsiders invaded Columbia and betrayed Jim Rouse’s vision, it’s because Rouse himself took the actions that made these developments possible, and perhaps inevitable. (However, in Rouse’s defense there are in fact areas in the Crescent that will remain undeveloped, for example between Area 1 and Area 2 and between Area 2 and Area 3. So more woods will remain than one might think, and it’s possible that given appropriate easements and paths that they could be used as an extension of Symphony Woods itself.)

There is no “let’s not build stuff” plan for Symphony Woods. Many people think of the choice for Symphony Woods as between a new plan involving radical changes and a prior plan preserving Symphony Woods pretty much as is. This is in fact not the case: The previous CA plan by Cy Paumier envisioned as many new park features in Symphony Woods as the Inner Arbor plan, just in different places. To be specific, as presented to the Howard County Planning Board [PDF] the plan “proposed future parkland improvements, including a network of pathways, a fountain, a shared use pavilion, a shared use amphitheater, a shared use cafe, play activity area, woodland garden area, [and] parking within a 16.1 acre project area ….”

Almost all of these features have direct counterparts in the Inner Arbor plan: The shared use amphitheater became the Chrysalis, the shared use café and pavilion were combined to become the Butterfly, and the play activity area became the Merriground. The Inner Arbor plan has no fountain in Symphony Woods proper, but the Inner Arbor Trust has proposed locating one in a plaza next to Merriweather Post Pavilion. The Paumier plan had no equivalent to the Caterpillar, presumably because unlike the Inner Arbor plan the Paumier plan assumed that Symphony Woods would be closed to the general public during most Merriweather events. (A primary purpose of the Caterpillar is to control Merriweather access closer to the pavilion itself, rather than at the park boundaries.) There also was no direct equivalent to the Merriweather Horns in the Paumier plan, although the plan did state that “[The] entire park is a potential site for future public art.”

Being “Disneyesque” is not necessarily a bad thing. One of the persistent charges against the Inner Arbor plan is that it is “Disneyesque” and turns Symphony Woods into an “amusement park” with “attractions” (in scare quotes) unsuitable for the wooded setting. This seems an odd accusation for several reasons. First, as noted above the Paumier plan had pretty much the same set of “attractions” as the Inner Arbor plan. Second, given that Jim Rouse was apparently quite the admirer of Walt Disney—he said in 1963 that “the greatest piece of urban design in the United States today is Disneyland”—I suspect he would have thought the term “Disneyesque” to be more a compliment than an insult.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that preserving Symphony Woods for future generations to enjoy will require more than a bit of the same sort of design thinking that went into Walt Disney’s theme parks. In particular, once the Crescent property is developed the remaining area of Symphony Woods is going to seem relatively small: the Inner Arbor plan preserves almost 80% of Symphony Woods as a natural wooded area, but that’s still only 14 acres or so—about the size of a small subdivision in western Howard County (land of 3-acre lots). A prime task is then to make Symphony Woods seem bigger to visitors than it actually is—the same problem faced by theme parks like Disneyland, and one that their creators did a good job of addressing through artful design.

The Paumier plan with its straight paths does a poor job of this in my opinion; in particular the main path through the park makes it glaringly obvious how short the distance is from Little Patuxent Parkway to Merriweather Post Pavilion. The Inner Arbor plan instead has lots of “meandering paths” (as called for by the Howard County Planning Board after the Design Advisory Panel found fault with the Paumier plan), together with access roadways forming about two miles of walking surfaces within the confines of the park, and featuring over two thousand places to sit along the way. But I suspect people will probably prefer to walk than to sit, since as with the best theme parks walking will continually bring new sights to visitors’ attentions, between the natural beauty of the woods and the various attractive park features.

That concludes my thoughts on Symphony Woods, at least for now. I hope to come back later with more thoughts on the Crescent development.

Karen Lynn - 2014-04-11 22:11

Frank, thank you for your outstanding posts on the Crescent, Symphony Woods, and downtown development in general. They have been very helpful to me in understanding the various parts of the plan and how they fit together. Terrific work!

hecker - 2014-04-11 23:03

Thanks much for reading and commenting. I’m glad you find these posts useful.

Edwin Baker (catslidefarm@gmail.com) - 2014-04-17 22:07

Frank, I’m retired, but I don’t have as much time as you for this stuff, thank you for what you do. More of my thoughts on your five, from a “true” Columbian (I was a Columbia planner for Rouse from 1965 through 1975). My concern, however is not “what would Jim Rouse think,” but what will work in Columbia. Symphony Woods is a relatively small park in an area which is urbanizing. It surrounds the Merriweather Post Pavilion, which visually and topographically is a part of the Park (more on that later). What do people want in relatively small urban parks? Trees, shade, bird habitat and a beautiful vista; Lawn, someplace to lie in the sun on a beautiful Summer day and get a few rays; Benches/chairs, some of us are better off sitting on furniture than the lawn; a Water feature, shallow pools and fountains are people magnets, and many are being designed for active use, not just visual; and finally, a Place to get an espresso, a glass of wine (I wish) and a snack sandwich or a sweet (is gelato too much to ask for). While I’m not advocating for “Cy’s Plan,” it seems to fill those requirements. It appears to me that the Inner Arbor Plan misses the boat on almost all counts. Its elements are active not passive, they are overly clever (I believe that I have used Disneyesque), more amusement park than urban park. In order for the Inner Arbor elements to succeed, people will need to drive there, they are not designed for the surrounding (or soon to be surrounding) population. And finally (for the Inner Arbor) they are outrageously expensive ($30 mil. or so?) design gimmicks that will be extremely expensive to maintain. But for me the clincher is that they are a distraction from the Frank Gehry designed Pavilion which in another few years will be eligible for landmark status. The Pavilion is an early Gehry building and represents his attraction to and appreciation of the minimalist art of its time. Unfortunately, the Pavilion has been badly maintained and it need a thorough restoration. The outbuildings on the site are abominable and should be removed and replaced with well designed facilities. If I were a wealthy donor, I would be happier donating money to restore a historic landmark than to the development of a “picnic table” or “caterpillar.” The interface between the Pavilon and the Park needs to be redesigned, your fear of guards at the chain link fence should not be the feeling a Park visitor is given. The land just outside the fence does relate to the Pavilion and the land inside the fence relates to the Woods. I believe that keeping Symphony Woods as an urban park which is enhanced by the Pavilion and is the appropriate setting for the Pavilion is the appropriate solution. For that to happen, the designers need to work together, not separately. And finally, the design of the Crescent and the Tobey’s property along the South Entrance should be considered at the same time. I’m afraid that that, however, would take the vision of a Jim Rouse.

hecker - 2014-04-18 02:11

Thanks again for commenting! (Although if you keep leaving such long comments I’ll have to set you up with your own blog :-) I’ll likely address most of these points in a future post, but to comment quickly on a couple: First, as I understand the Inner Arbor plan, it has all the elements you mention, including a cafe, a fountain (proposed as part of a plaza on the Merriweather property as opposed to in Symphony Woods itself), and lots of standard-type benches along the pathways (per the “by the numbers” document) in addition to the Picnic Table feature. Second, I’ll respectfully disagree about the Inner Arbor structures detracting from Gehry’s pavilion. I think the much greater distraction is the motley collection of structures that you mention, the ones surrounding the pavilion on the Merriweather property itself. Based on my walk I suspect the topography is such that the Inner Arbor structures would not be that visible from the pavilion proper, or vice versa. In any case, I’m on vacation this week, hence the many posts; expect two or three more before I’m done.

My personal thinking on this topic has evolved. As readers of this blog are well aware, I’ve been a big supporter of the Inner Arbor plan, and I remain a supporter. While I’ve tried not to demonize them, I have not been particularly sympathetic to those who opposed the plan, an opposition that in my opinion was misguided and not in the best interests of Columbia and Howard County. I even felt a touch of schadenfreude when I read that some current CA board members were upset about the Inner Arbor Trust referring to “Merriweather Park” instead of “Symphony Woods”—“reduced to arguing about a name,” I remember thinking.

But, but… as I myself drove by the woods on my way through Columbia and looked more into the Crescent development plan, I came to realize how small Symphony Woods the property was in relation to what I had traditionally thought of as “Symphony Woods.” I had been used to thinking of the entire area bounded by Broken Land Parkway, Little Patuxent Parkway, US 29, and the South Entrance Road as encompassing a relatively unchanging “Symphony Woods.” It certainly looks that way from the road, and also when I ventured into the area for events like Wine in the Woods and Symphony of Lights. So I was surprised and a bit disturbed to find that much I had thought of as “Symphony Woods” wasn’t really Symphony Woods at all, but simply undeveloped commercial property that had been originally acquired by Jim Rouse and passed down by the Rouse Co. to GGP and now to the Howard Hughes Corporation, ultimately to be the site of the intensive development represented by the current Crescent proposal.

My consternation didn’t end there. In reviewing the Crescent plans I compared them to current maps of the area and went looking for Symphony Woods Road, what I thought of as the current and future boundary between the Crescent development and Symphony Woods itself. But there is no Symphony Woods Road in the Crescent plan—or if there is it is reduced to a mere stub of what it once was. In its place is a ring road named “West Crescent” after the development itself. It’s another symbolic encroachment on the idea of “Symphony Woods,” even if it leaves Symphony Woods (the property) itself undisturbed.

At about the same time I read an article by Peter Turchin (whose writings I’ve previously recommended) explaining why (in his opinion) Vladimir Putin and indeed the vast majority of Russians were so intent on wresting control of Crimea from Ukraine. In essence Turchin’s argument is that evolutionary dynamics since the invention of agriculture have favored those who defend their core territories—their “sacred lands”—with an intensity that is impossible to account for as a “rational” weighing of costs and benefits. In Turchin’s view Crimea is such a place for Russians, sanctified by a history that includes the Crimean war and the siege of Sevastopol, the Crimean capital.

The example of Crimea may be off-putting given Putin’s reputation as an authoritarian and corrupt leader. But (as Turchin writes in a follow-up post) almost all countries have their own sacred lands and sacred ground—consider for example the vehement opposition to building an Islamic community center near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers.

I believe that Symphony Woods—or, if you will, “Symphony Woods”—is in a strong sense “sacred land” for some Columbians, especially including many Columbia “pioneers.” It is in the heart of Columbia, and because of its location is not seen as being part of any one village (as, for example, Lake Elkhorn is part of Owen Brown) but rather as part of Columbia as a whole. And because of its ownership by CA it both literally and symbolically belongs to all Columbians in a way that a commercial development like the Mall in Columbia (or, for that matter, the Crescent development) never could. Note also that much of the opposition to the Inner Arbor plan is couched in terms of sanctity and disgust, honor, invasion by an alien presence, and so on—“deeply disturb me,” “bizarre sights,” “Disneyesque,” “disrespect,” “betrayal,” “a threatening … insect looming over the pathways”—a clear sign that more is at work here than a measured weighing of pros and cons.

So where do we go from here? My first thought is for myself: Whether I agree with Inner Arbor opponents or not, the distress they express is for the most part sincerely felt and deserving of respect. (I say “for the most part” because in every controversy there are always people on both sides who enjoy controversy for its own sake, or for the opportunities it brings them to advance their own agendas.) It’s also good to remember that my own reasons for supporting the Inner Arbor plan are also in large part emotional and “irrational.” (For example, I’d like to see Columbia and Howard County be a site for good contemporary architecture. I’m sick and tired of the former Rouse building and Merriweather Post Pavilion being the only well-known examples of architectural distinction in the county— that was forty years ago, folks, and there are good architects other than Frank Gehry.)

My next thought is for the Inner Arbor Trust and the Howard Hughes Corporation: Don’t be so quick to discard the “Symphony Woods” name in pursuit of your own branding strategies. Names aren’t simply names: The one who names a place exerts (symbolic) ownership over it, and the one who renames a place is symbolically seizing ownership of that place from those who formerly called it their own. Yes, retaining the “Symphony Woods” name may be only a symbolic concession, but this is a situation in which symbolism is, if not everything, at least a great deal.

My final thought is for everyone: To wait and see what happens, especially in the case of the Inner Arbor, for which the need for additional funding means that the plan will be (can only be) realized in many steps over many years. The first phase of the Inner Arbor plan will be the Chrysalis outdoor amphitheater. As it happens, a “shared-use small outdoor amphitheater on CA land” was also proposed as part of the former plan, so in that sense the Chrysalis is in the spirit of an alternate approach touted by Inner Arbor opponents.

And maybe it will turn out that they and others will like it. It’s not uncommon for new works of architecture to be derided before being embraced—consider for example the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall, now almost universally praised but condemned before its construction as a “black gash of shame” and a “nihilistic slab of stone.” I wouldn’t put the Chrysalis and the other Inner Arbor features up there with Maya Lin’s design, but I think they are solid examples of good architecture, respectful of the Symphony Woods setting, and potentially great additions to Columbia and Howard County. They deserve a fair judgment on their merits, and I hope will receive it. In the meantime no more schadenfreude from me.

First is Jiffy Lube Live (formerly Nissan Pavilion) in Prince William County, Virginia. Jiffy Lube Live is notable as Merriweather Post Pavilion’s most serious local competitor for outdoor summer concerts. With a total capacity of 25,000 (10,000 in the pavilion proper, and 15,000 on the lawn) it is significantly larger than Merriweather, and thus tends to attract the very largest shows. As can be seen from the aerial view of Jiffy Lube Live, the venue is located in a primarily rural area, with plenty of space for open-air parking.¹

Despite that, Jiffy Lube Live has persistent and at times horrendous problems with parking and traffic, as evidenced by the large number of complaints on Yelp and elsewhere. To quote from the very first reviewer: “The parking lot … is a total and utter nightmare! Every freaking show it takes HOURS to get out.” He went on to note: “Merriweather parking is so much easier!” Part of the problem is that although Jiffy Lube Live is close to I-66 it can be reached only via a two-lane road, and there is apparently only one main entrance and exit to the parking lots. However traffic management seems to play a role as well; one Yelp reviewer vented at length to the venue operators:

I have to say that without a doubt, the exit out of the parking lot was the worst I’ve ever seen at a concert. I’ve been to Merriweather Post and Wolf Trap several times—and your venue wins the prize for the most amateurish traffic and parking lot management in the [DC/Maryland/Virginia area]. It took us 1.5 hours to get out—that was longer than [the] actual set. …

Your “senior” staff abdicated responsibility to a bunch of pimply faced teenagers with no training, who had no idea what they were doing. Worse yet, what few of them there were—all stayed bunched together at the very end of each parking zone. They did NOTHING to help manage traffic flow out of the parking lots. They just stood around, checking their phones and talking to each other.

Ouch. I may be cherry-picking bad reviews to some extent, but overall people apparently have pretty negative feelings about parking, traffic, and other aspects of the Jiffy Lube Live experience; the average Yelp rating for the venue is only two-and-a-half stars (out of five), compared to three-and-a-half stars for Merriweather.²

Let’s now turn from a rural setting to a very urban setting, and look at the Jay Pritzker Pavilion in Millennium Park in Chicago. The Pritzker Pavilion has two Merriweather connections: First, like Merriweather it was designed by Frank Gehry, although unlike Columbia Chicago got the benefit of the mature Gehry style.³ Second, the Pritzker Pavilion and the surrounding Millennium Park occupy roughly the same land area as Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods, and the Inner Arbor Trust has used Millennium Park as an example of the sort of structures and activities that could be fitted in the combined “Merriweather Park” footprint.

As can be seen from the aerial view of the Jay Pritzker Pavilion, there is essentially no open-air parking available anywhere near the pavilion and the surrounding park. However there is a complex of underground parking garages providing over 9,000 spaces in total, most of them within a quarter mile of the pavilion, and there are also nearby rail and bus transit stops. The Pritzker Pavilion is wildly popular (rated at four and a half stars on Yelp), and in reading nearly a hundred reviews I found only one complaint about parking—and that seemed to be as much about the cost as about the availability. (Note also that I found many reviewers commenting on how clean the bathrooms were.)

Unfortunately (or not, depending on your perspective) Columbia is not a major city like Chicago and thus doesn’t have the transit infrastructure to supplement on-site or nearby venue parking. Probably a better comparison is thus to the Cythnia Woods Mitchell Pavilion (also known as the Woodlands Pavilion) in The Woodlands outside of Houston. Like Columbia, The Woodlands is a planned community and is of roughly similar size (just over a hundred thousand residents). (The pavilion itself is named after the wife of George Mitchell, who as the original developer of The Woodlands played a role similar to that of Jim Rouse in Columbia.) As you can see from the aerial view of Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion, like Merriweather the pavilion is located in an exurban location that is heavily car-dependent, with the pavilion itself surrounded by office, residential, and retail developments, including a nearby regional mall. Both pavilions have roughly similar maximum capacities as well, at around 19,000 people (including both pavilion and lawn).⁴

In fact, the parallels between Merriweather Post Pavilion and the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion are so close that in 2005 the Citizens Advisory Panel on Merriweather Post Pavilion specifically referenced the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion as one of the case studies in their final report [PDF]. Of particular interest in this context are comments by Jerry MacDonald, president and CEO of The Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion Center for the Performing Arts, regarding parking:

MacDonald believes that parking is generally not a problem for the pavilion during most concerts, but there are a few major concerts a year, attracting up to 12,000 people, where parking needs are at a premium. MacDonald has agreements with surrounding office buildings to use 5,000 parking spaces and the pavilion has a 932-space garage adjacent to its facility. MacDonald said parking generally fills up in the mall corner nearest the pavilion, but there are many unused spaces on the north side of the facility. He suggested shuttles could be used to distribute parking more evenly.

This sounds like a good guide to the future of parking at Merriweather: leverage parking at nearby office buildings, make use of mall parking when needed, and employ shuttles to more remote parking lots (e.g., on the north side of the Mall in Columbia or at Howard Community College in the case of Merriweather) for the very largest events. The one element not currently present at Merriweather is an on-site parking garage; however the Columbia Association’s original Inner Arbor conceptual plan included exactly such a garage with a capacity of 1,750 cars, almost twice that of the on-site garage at the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion.

The Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion has been a very successful venue. In addition to hosting popular music concerts it’s the summer home of the Houston Symphony (similar to how Merriweather was to be the summer home of the NSO), and with total annual attendance of over 300,000 in 2010 was second only to the Filene Center at Wolk Trap among outdoor amphitheaters that year. (I couldn’t find recent figures for attendance at Merriweather, but according to the Citizens Advisory Panel report total attendance was about 180,000 in 2004.) Its Yelp ratings (reviewed both as the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion and the Woodlands Pavilion) are three and a half stars and three stars respectively, similar to that of Merriweather, and like Merriweather most people thought traffic and parking were not problems.

Will Merriweather Post Pavilion continue its own tradition of ease of access and convenient parking once construction in the Crescent area begins in earnest? If I can I’ll be attending the Crescent development presubmission community meeting on March 31, and that’s one of the things I hope to be able to ask about.

I have no inside knowledge of this whole affair, but I presume that private discussions between the county and Howard Hughes didn’t bear fruit, so that negotiations are now being conducted via press release and lawsuit. I also have no firm opinion as to which side has the better case, so I’ll refrain from commenting on the merits of their respective positions, leaving that to Bill Woodcock and others.

My concern in this post is much more mundane, namely the future of parking at Merriweather Post Pavilion. If you check out people’s opinions about Merriweather Post Pavilion on Yelp there are three things that stand out. First, they like the wooded setting. Not surprising, that’s why all the future plans proposed for the Merriweather area have envisioned preserving the natural character of Symphony Woods. Second, a lot of people don’t like the bathrooms. Again, not surprising; I guess that’s one reason why both the county and Howard Hughes agree on the need for renovating Merriweather (even as they disagree on the estimated cost).

Finally, people like the ease of access to Merriweather Post Pavilion and the ease of parking. As one person noted, “[Merriweather] is easy to get to off Rt. 29, and the parking is simple, free and relatively good in terms of easy in, easy out.” Another person expanded on this:

There is also parking right on site in a big lot out back, and though we waited to leave until after the performance was fully over, we still got out of there in a completely reasonable amount of time. To be honest, we were impressed with how efficiently the parking lot exodus was that night.

You can see that “big lot out back” in the above aerial view of Merriweather Post Pavilion and the surrounding area; it’s the open area immediately to the south of Symphony Woods Road, to the south of the pavilion and the southern portion of Symphony Woods. Note that it’s less than a quarter-mile from that lot to the stage of the pavilion, say a five-minute walk or so.

But let’s suppose that Merriweather gets renovated and secures a renewed lease on life. Let’s also suppose that development of the Crescent area surrounding Merriweather on the west and south proceeds along the lines proposed by the Howard Hughes Corporation. The “big lot out back” currently used for Merriweather parking is not part of Symphony Woods itself, nor is it part of the Merriweather property that is proposed to be turned over to the Downtown Columbia Arts and Culture Commission. Rather it’s part of the so-called Crescent Area 3 proposed to be developed by Howard Hughes, and per the downtown Columbia plan could eventually be the site of buildings up to 15 to 20 stories tall. At the point when construction starts in earnest in Area 3 (which could be as early as 2015 or 2016) Merriweather is going to experience a severe parking crunch assuming nothing else is done.

What to do about parking at Merriweather? This is by no means a new concern. Almost ten years ago (during the Jim Robey administration) the Citizens Advisory Panel on Merriweather Post Pavilion (established to look at a possible county purchase of Merriweather) had this to say in the executive summary of their final report [PDF]:¹

A major concern of the Panel is the expected loss of approximately 4,600 on-site parking spaces when [General Growth Properties, the predecessor to Howard Hughes] develops the adjacent “Crescent” property on which most of that parking is located. The panel recommends that the County replace those spaces by formalizing the use of existing spaces at the GGP office buildings along the north side of Little Patuxent Parkway and the southern portion of the Mall parking near Merriweather; by constructing a parking garage on nearby property owned by the Columbia Association; or by constructing a parking garage jointly with GGP at the Columbia Mall. Another possible solution could be presented if the Crescent parcel is developed as a mixed-use project such that up to 2,000 vehicles could be accommodated for evening events as part of the eventual build-out of the property.

The panel went on to say:

Failure to formalize the available parking agreement with GGP would jeopardize the County’s ability to lease out Merriweather to an operator and would severely limit the long-term viability. Without solving the parking capacity issue, the County should not proceed with the purchase of Merriweather.

How much parking is needed? The panel report estimated that at least 3,700 parking spaces would be needed for a typical 10,000 person show at Merriweather (assuming 2.7 people per space), while the largest Merriweather events at 19,000 people would require at least 7,000 spaces.

Where will this parking come from? It’s worth noting that the panel report was somewhat pessimistic about gaining access to parking spaces at The Mall in Columbia (and in any case, note that most of those spaces are more than a quarter mile from Merriweather). They believed that approximately 3,700 spaces could be cobbled together using parking easements at various existing GGP office properties around Symphony Woods and at the Columbia lakefront (e.g., at the American City Building). They also recommended construction of an up-to-2,500-car parking garage on CA property in Symphony Woods. Finally they looked to the Crescent development to provide even more parking, as noted in the quote above.

How does this match up with current plans for the Crescent area and Symphony Woods? According to the recent Baltimore Sun article on the Crescent Area plans, the entire Crescent development (including Areas 1, 2, and 3) might contain up to 4,360 spaces. On the face of it this seems like enough spaces to replace those lost to development.

However there are a couple of potential problems: First, using the per-area breakdown listed in the Baltimore Sun article (500 spaces for Area 1, 600 spaces for Area 2, and 1,200-1,900 spaces for Area 3) the total parking provided in the first phase of development will be only 2,300-3,000 spaces, well short of the 4,360 figure claimed for the full development and not nearly enough to replace the current spaces that will be lost as soon as construction in the Cresecent area begins. Finally, it’s not clear how many of these spaces, whether in the first phase or later, might be made available for use by Merriweather patrons, or under what terms.

What about other sources of parking? Recall that the original Merriweather advisory panel suggested constructing a parking garage in Symphony Woods on Columbia Association property. That idea reappeared in the original CA Inner Arbor concept presentation, though scaled down somewhat to a 1,750-car facility (in conjunction with a transit center). If constructed this garage would likely be sufficient to handle visitors to Inner Arbor facilities such as the Chrysalis amphitheatre, as well as to any future cultural facilities proposed for Symphony Woods itself, such as a replacement for the current Toby’s Dinner Theatre. However it comes nowhere close to satisfying all of Merriweather’s parking requirements. The associated transit center could help reduce the parking requirements, for example via a shuttle bus system that could allow people to park at more remote locations. However that would require further agreements with other organizations like Howard Community College, and it’s not clear at this time how popular and effective such a service might actually be.

It’s also possible that future parking easements could be secured for the various office buildings around the mall and along Little Patuxent Parkway (as also recommended by the Merriweather advisory panel). However note that the task of gaining easements is more complicated than previously because ownership of those buildings is now split between Howard Hughes (which owns 70 Corporate Center and the American City Building, among others) and GGP (which retained ownership of 10 Corporate Center through 60 Corporate Center).

Where does that leave us? The short answer is that regardless of whether and when ownership of Merriweather Post Pavilion itself is transferred to the Downtown Arts and Culture Commission, the pavilion has no future unless the parking problem is addressed. In turn the Merriweather parking problem can be completely addressed only with the cooperation of Howard Hughes Corporation, regardless of whether or not Howard Hughes actually ends up developing the Crescent property. Parking thus serves as a potential bargaining chip for Howard Hughes in its dispute with Howard County, just as issuance of building permits is a bargaining chip for the county.

In the end realizing people’s dreams for a vital and vibrant downtown Columbia depends on the cooperation of many different players, including not only Howard County and Howard Hughes, but also the Columbia Association, the Inner Arbor Trust, GGP and other property owners, and those private organizations and individuals who can help provide the financing to turn paper plans into attractive built and natural environments. As I wrote above, I have no idea who is “right” in the dispute between Howard County and the Howard Hughes Corporation, and in some sense the idea of either side being “right” or not is beside the point. I simply hope the county and Howard Hughes can find a mutually acceptable resolution to their differences, and that as downtown Columbia evolves both residents and visitors alike can enjoy visits to Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods without having major problems just trying to park.

However I want to step back a bit and look at a more fundamental question: Exactly what role does and should Symphony Woods play in Columbia, and what vision should guide its future? After reading Gehry’s letter I did some googling for “history of Symphony Woods”; one of the first results I found was a blog post on the subject that Bill Santos published over five years ago. At the time Bill was proposing that Symphony Woods wasn’t necessarily the old-growth forest that some people apparently talked it up as being, and might just have sprung up as new growth after a local sand and gravel operation shut down. After Bill said his piece an anonymous commenter took him to task in an extended treatise on the likely history of the area, with evidence brought in from geology, old US Army maps, aerial photography, and the like, all in an effort to prove that Symphony Woods had likely been a mature forest since at least the early to mid 19th century, and possibly quite longer.

For what it’s worth I think our anonymous expert had the better of the argument in terms of the age of Symphony Woods. But it was his or her final paragraph that intrigued me:

Franklin Township, NJ, ranked higher on Money Magazine’s list of small cities than Columbia, has succeeded in preserving a 500-acre old-growth virgin forest. Here we are now, finding it difficult to maintain just one small portion of ours, only 40 years ago designated as “permanent open space,” that designation not because those wild spaces were created just then at Columbia’s outset, but because they predated Columbia and were rightly recognized at the time as being an environmental asset worthy of preservation. I think we can do better.

The implication was that Columbia, unlike its “betters,” was in essence destroying its precious natural heritage in the name of “progress.” This story intrigued me. Although I’ve been through Franklin Township I’d never heard of the forest in question (the William L. Hutcheson Memorial Forest, to give it its full name), and I thought it was worth investigating. After all, maybe the anonymous commenter was right: Maybe in our haste to improve the Symphony Woods “experience” we in Howard County were and are throwing away our chance to preserve the last of an aeons-old forest.

It turns out that the story is more interesting and nuanced than it might appear at first glance, and the lessons it holds for Columbia are not nearly as straightforward as one might think. First, consider the size of the forest. Bill’s anonymous commenter was somewhat misleading (or misled): The actual area of old-growth forest in Hutcheson Memorial Forest is only 65 acres, not 500, per the Wikipedia article he or she linked to; the rest of the 500 acres is a combination of new-growth forests, abandoned farmland, and fields used as test plots by Rutgers University. (See the Rutgers web site for more information.) The image I’ve included in this post (courtesy of Google Maps) is a satellite view of the area surrounding Hutcheson Memorial Forest. The total area in the image is almost four square miles or almost 2,500 acres. The 500 acre preserve is in the upper center of the image, below NJ 514 (Amwell Road), with the old growth forest comprising 65 acres in the midst of that. Beyond Hutcheson Forest proper is more open space, including a golf course and park north of Amwell Road. That’s important, because it gives the old-growth forest a buffer from encroaching development and means the entire forest has a better chance of being a sustainable ecosystem for the long term.

Now let’s turn to a satellite view of Symphony Woods and its surrounding area, at the same scale and covering the same expanse, almost 2,500 acres. Looks a little different, doesn’t it? First, note that although the entire “Merriweather Park” area is over 46 acres, Merriweather Post Pavilion takes about 10 acres of that, so Symphony Woods itself covers only about 36 acres—a bit more than half the area of the core old-growth forest in Hutcheson Memorial Forest. And of course Symphony Woods has no new-growth forest, farmland, or other open space as a buffer—it’s right up against a four-lane highway, four-lane local streets, mid-rise office towers, and a regional mall. From that perspective pointing to Hutcheson Memorial Forest for inspiration is highly misleading; if Symphony Woods was indeed a thriving primeval forest and sustainable ecosystem then it was doomed from the moment Jim Rouse put shovel to earth at Columbia’s founding.

But maybe it’s not too late. Maybe there’s a possible vision for the future of Symphony Woods that takes seriously the rhetoric about it being a precious natural asset, an ancient forest and oasis of calm in the heart of Columbia that should be preserved in a pristine state and not sullied by “out-of-scale ‘attractions’” (to quote Gehry). If so then arguably the first element of that vision should be eliminating the largest and most out-of-scale ‘attraction’, namely Merriweather Post Pavilion itself. Perhaps the original intent of the pavilion was justifiable, as a place to host classical music and dance performances for relatively small and well-behaved audiences in a beautiful wooded setting. But now that Merriweather Post Pavilion is wholly given over to popular music, what justification remains? I doubt they’d let even local heroes like Bruce Springsteen or Bon Jovi hold concerts in the middle of the Hutcheson Memorial Forest, so why should we allow Symphony Woods to be polluted by the presence of random rockers and rappers and their rowdy and often inebriated fans? Surely it would be better to demolish the Merriweather Post Pavilion structure, remove all outbuildings, fences, roads, and other intrusions, and let that area slowly return to its natural state, broken only by the occasional dirt or gravel path.

Next, if we follow this logic then we should immediately discontinue Wine in the Woods and prohibit any other large-scale events on the Symphony Woods and the (by now former) Merriweather Post Pavilion properties. How can we justify the potential for damage inherent in packing thousands of people into a few acres of fragile forest ecosystem? The woods should be for a few wanderers in nature, not for the teeming masses.

Finally, in this vision we scrap the development plans for downtown Columbia, most notably the Howard Hughes proposals for the Crescent area immediately to the south of Symphony Woods. We then consider taking any public or private funding that might go to the estimated $30 million cost of the Inner Arbor plan and purchasing as much of that land as possible from the Howard Hughes Corporation, to be incorporated into a new Symphony Woods nature preserve. There’s not enough land in the area to create a 500-acre park, but we could at least provide a bit of buffer to protect the woods from the surrounding suburban and semi-urban development.

This is a radical vision to be sure, but it can be justified as the natural conclusion of viewing the eternal preservation of Symphony Woods in a pristine state as the first and foremost priority when considering its future.

On the other hand, there’s another vision for Symphony Woods: Accept that Columbia is not western Howard County, where sufficient open space still exists to create woods and nature preserves the size of the Hutcheson Memorial Forest. Accept that Merriweather Post Pavilion is going to remain where it is. People enjoy going to concerts there, it’s a major draw for visitors to Howard County and Columbia, and the immediate area is an appropriate place for further cultural and arts attractions that can complement what Merriweather Post Pavilion has to offer—a smaller alternate performance venue, a gallery and café, a playspace, and attractive and accessible paths to tie them together. Rather than disturbing the woods anew every time an event like Wine in the Woods is held, install permanent infrastructure that can provide essential utilities like power, water, networking, and event access control across a wide expanse of the park, infrastructure that enhances the attractiveness of the natural setting rather than detracting from it. And finally, accept the paradox that given its size and situation Symphony Woods is going to have to be actively managed on an ongoing basis in order to maintain its “natural” and “pristine” appearance for future generations to enjoy.¹

So there we have it: two very different visions for the future of Symphony Woods. The second vision is the one previously adopted by the Columbia Association, supported by Howard County government and local political, business, and culutral leaders, and now being implemented by the Inner Arbor Trust with the help of a team of talented designers. The first vision has no one willing to advocate for it, even among those opponents of the Inner Arbor plan who cast themselves as the champions of Symphony Woods. Why is that?

I don’t profess to know the hearts of Inner Arbor opponents, but it may simply be that they believe that the original Columbia plan for Symphony Woods and environs was the true and correct one, and that any deviations from it are a violation of the Columbia vision. Or to put it less charitably: Since Jim Rouse saw fit to put a 15,000-person amphitheater and grounds in the middle of a mature forest, it’s OK. Since Jim Rouse (or one of his disciples) didn’t propose the Inner Arbor plan, it’s not OK. They have a perfect right to take that attitude, but at this point I have my own right to conclude that it doesn’t have all that much to do with preserving the environmental integrity of Symphony Woods, or for that matter the core question of what vision for Symphony Woods is best for Columbia’s future, as opposed to its past.

Chris Bachmann (chris@chrisbachmann.com) - 2014-03-10 16:51

Well, Rouse did say, “Or will we provide new communities sensitively designed to meet the real needs of people; shaped to be in scale with people — communities in which people feel important and uplifted —where there is some hope of matching growth in numbers with growth in human personality, character, and creativity.” http://www.columbiaassociation.org/home/showdocument?id=5442 So I’d day that the Inner Arbor plan is addressing that concept. Matching the area to the modern needs.

hecker - 2014-03-10 23:58

Thanks for stopping by, Chris! Of course, an Inner Arbor opponent could always reply to you, “Even the devil can quote scripture.” :-)

Jessie Newburn - 2014-03-11 02:11

Great (excellent!) post, as always, Frank.

Walter Carson (wcarson@columbiaunion.net) - 2014-03-11 14:08

I need to speak with Frank Hecker directly. How do I do so? Thank you. Best wishes. [I’ve removed Mr Carson’s contact information and reached out to him separately.]

Edwin Baker (catslidefarm@gmail.com) - 2014-04-03 20:00

Mr. Hecker, You pose two “visions” of Symphony Woods; let me try a third. The Pavilion stays, is restored to something resembling its original condition. Ownership of the Pavilion is changed from “make as much as we can” to a music and arts venue for Howard County residents. The part of Symphony Woods between the Pavilion and the Mall are improved with a light touch benefiting the Pavilion and the residents of Columbia and visitors to the Pavilion. Other arts and cultural facilities are provided in areas that don’t interfere with the Park and Pavilion, and are truly “arts and cultural” facilities, not the Disnyesque playground structures currently proposed (try to explain the cultural value of the “catapiller”). I’ll vote for this, I bet Frank would as well. The Pavilion is nearing 50 years old and will soon be qualified for Historic Register status, it deserves it. Ted Baker

hecker - 2014-04-04 01:09

First, thanks for reading the blog and especially for leaving a comment. Second, you can call me Frank–this is a blog after all. Now, to address your comment: I don’t think Merriweather will work as a local-only resource. The citizens advisory panel looked at a similar question back in 2004-2005 in the context of enclosing Merriweather and downsizing it, and they concluded there was no real demand for such a venue–it would face severe competition from similar spaces in the Baltimore/Washington corridor, and it wouldn’t really address the problems that local arts groups had with existing spaces in the county. So why commit at least $15M (the low-end of renovation estimates) plus ongoing funding to keep Merriweather operating just for the few local events that might be suitable for it? Better to use that money to build an alternative purpose-built venue. Merriweather is what it is: A large-capacity outdoor amphitheater with a proven track record of successfully hosting popular music events. If we don’t want to use it for that then we might as well tear it down.

The panel members varied in the extent to which they expressed their opinions on the plan, but I think it’s fair to say that their opinions were pretty favorable overall. Rob Hollis was one of the most enthusiastic; it’s worth quoting from his comments:

First of all, wow! I’m very impressed with the scope of the presentation, the variety, the thought that’s gone into every component of this. . . . We’ve never seen anything this intense, this well put together. . . . The way in which you’ve put this team together is a flashback to the 60s: You’ve brought in talent from the outside to let a vision out. . . . People from everywhere know about Columbia for what this vision was [that was] set forth many years ago. I think this park is a microcosm of that. . . . It’s sort of a tribute to Columbia, and a tribute to your team. It’s great!

Since I’m just an opinionated blogger and have zero pretensions to journalistic objectivity, I feel no compunction about appropriating Rob’s words to express my own thoughts about the evening: “Wow! . . . It’s great!”

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.

First, though, some words about the architect of the Chrysalis, Marc Fornes of THEVERYMANY. Recently Fornes and THEVERYMANY were selected as one of ten architects and firms comprising the Architectural Record Design Vanguard 2013. To quote from the site:

Architectural Record’s annual Design Vanguard issue brings together the architects who are already doing some of the most innovative work in the field and will lead the profession in the future. They are the firms at the forefront of design and the architects are the ones to watch.

This harks back to a point I made earlier about the Inner Arbor design team: From my perspective a key goal in putting together the team was/is/should be not to pursue a laundry list of current “household name” architects (including having Frank Gehry revisit Columbia fifty years on), it’s to find talented architects who are doing exciting things and are poised to break out to greater fame, and then give them the opportunity to help achieve that fame by designing something significant for downtown Columbia.

In my opinion Marc Fornes and THEVERYMANY are very much in that mold. If you look through the feature Architectural Record did on him and his firm, and especially the accompanying slideshow, note that his works thus far have mostly been relatively small-scale and almost experimental designs, many closer to sculpture than to traditional buildings. The Chrysalis is the first large-scale commission for THEVERYMANY and could be a landmark in the firm’s evolution.

Now, back to the details of the Chrysalis itself. Fornes has constructed previous structures out of small pieces of aluminum (or, for some structures, carbon fiber or plastic) cut from larger sheets using computer-controlled machines (so-called “Computer Numerical Control” or CNC systems). These pieces are then riveted or bolted together to built the structure, with a given structure containing up to several thousand of such pieces. In many cases submodules of the structure are constructed independently and then joined together at their seams. For examples of the process see the slide show referenced in the Architectural Record feature, for example, slides 2 through 5 describing the Double Agent White structure, or slides 16 to 18 showing Y/Surf/Structure. See in particular slide 17 showing a close-up view of the riveted pieces of one small section of Y/Surf/Structure; note that pieces of different colors are used to produce colored stripes on the completed structure.

As shown by a 1/15-scale structural model created by THEVERYMANY and depicted on its web site, the Chrysalis will be constructed in a similar way. From a distance the Chrysalis model appears to have a smooth (or almost smooth) surface. However as you get closer you see that the model is composed of multiple small pieces, each consisting of what appears to be an initially flat element (presumably cut from a larger sheet together with other pieces) that is then creased in multiple places. (Viewed end-on each piece would then have an appearance similar to the letters “W” or “M,” albeit more flattened and with perhaps more creases, or like a section of a corrugated metal roof.) Flaps extending from the lower side of each piece are then riveted to the upper side of the piece below it, with that piece in turn being riveted to the piece below it, and so on until you reach the ground. The bottom pieces then attach to the foundation of the structure (in this case, the Chrysalis stage).

The close-up view appears to show between a few dozen and a hundred or so pieces; the estimate depends on the size of each piece, which is difficult to tell in the image. The close-up shows just one leg of the overall structure; the entire Chrysalis could contain from several hundred up to a few thousand pieces, again depending on the size of each piece. Although I can’t recall where I read this, my understanding is that the pieces of the Chrysalis are to be made of aluminum; the structural color effects shown in the original Inner Arbor images would then be achieved by painting each piece a slightly different color. In the lower parts of the Chrysalis the difference in color between adjacent pieces would be relatively great, producing pronounced horizontal stripes of color. In the upper parts of the structure the color of the pieces could become lighter and the differences between pieces could be made less pronounced, producing a more subtle gradient of color.

As a side note, we can calculate a rough estimate for the weight of each piece of the Chrysalis. Per Marc Fornes in the pre-submission meeting, the thickness of the Chrysalis shell is less than an inch. If we assume that the maximum thickness corresponds to two pieces riveted together, each piece would then be about one centimeter in thickness. (An inch is defined to be exactly 2.54 centimeters.) The density of aluminum is 2,700 kilograms per cubic meter, so a sheet of aluminum one meter square and one centimeter thick would weigh 27 kilograms. I’m guessing that a typical piece of the Chrysalis would be in the range of two to four square meters, and thus would weigh roughly 55-110 kilograms or about 120-240 pounds, about the weight of a person. (Many of Fornes’s structures are perforated to reduce the total weight, but of course this would not be possible with the Chrysalis, which has to provide at least some shelter from the rain.)

Previous Fornes structures were assembled by small groups working with simple tools, but the Chrysalis would call for heavier equipment. As noted above, some previous structures were assembled first into subcomponents that were then connected together; it’s not clear whether that would done for the Chrysalis or whether the structure would be assembled piece by piece on site. In any case the construction of the Chrysalis will be like assembling a large 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle; I look forward to seeing it come together.

A final thought: I mentioned in my earlier blog post that the Chrysalis is computer-generated and not just computer designed: It is the end product of sophisticated algorithms created to explore complex new 3-dimensional forms and then translate them into buildable structures using advanced computer-driven manufacturing techniques. It’s a cliché of populist art criticism to say “my kid could have done that.” Well, I think it’s highly unlikely that your kid could have created something like the Chrysalis, not to mention other even more complex Fornes-designed structures. However in this time of increased emphasis on STEM education I also think it would be a great idea to have students learn about simplified versions of the techniques Fornes uses, perhaps as part of the HiTech initiative sponsored by the Howard County Library System. They might learn some skills that would stand them in good stead in the 21st century workplace, and at the same time gain a greater appreciation for the design achievement that is the Chrysalis.

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.

On a more interesting topic (for those of us who are not nonprofit lawyers), the Inner Arbor Trust has published some revisions to the Inner Arbor plan in advance of its presenting the design to the Howard County Design Advisory Panel.¹ (The Inner Arbor Trust had previously submitted its site development plan to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning in early February.) The new plan includes two major changes, the replacement of the Play Maze feature and the addition of several new soundscape features.

As seen in the above graphic, the Play Maze feature was originally proposed for the northern part of the park, immediately northeast of the Picnic Table. As seen in the graphic below, the area of the Play Maze is now proposed to be left as open space. To fulfill the function of the Play Maze the Inner Arbor Trust has proposed the Merriground, a new feature located in a space the original plan had earmarked for a “to be determined” feature referred to as the Nest.

The original plan also had two features near the northwest and west entrances to the park, the Word Art and Letter Garden respectively. The new plan shows soundscape features at all four entrances to the park; the features are collectively referred to as the Merriweather Horns. The revised plan does not show the Word Art and Letter Garden features, but the accompanying press release [PDF] doesn’t explicitly mention them as being replaced. Presumably this will be clarified at the Design Advisory Panel meeting.

I’ll have more to say on the revised plan in my next post. In the meantime for more information see the original press release [PDF], the Baltimore Sun story by Luke Lavoie, and the Washington Post story by Dan Beyers; for more opinions see the blog post by Bill “Marshmallow Man” Woodcock.

Social media scorecard for #HoCoPolitics, party Thursday and Hecker takes on the #InnerArbor | HoCoBlogs in the Community - 2014-02-25 02:54

[…] Frank Hecker takes on the Inner Arbor for his next series If you remember Frank Hecker’s HoCo Redistricting exegis, which he eventually turned into an ebook, you know he can *go deep!* He’s now taken on the Inner Arbor as a subject and his pieces are worth a look. […]

1. Addressing concerns raised at the pre-submission meeting
2. An overview of the Inner Arbor plan, and more comments and concerns
3. Word Art, the Letter Garden, and the Maze
4. The Picnic Table and the Lily Pads
5. The Caterpillar
6. The Chrysalis
7. 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?

The Butterfly is located in the southeast portion of the Symphony Woods parcel that’s covered by the initial Inner Arbor plan, between Merriweather Post Pavilion and the Chrysalis amphitheater. Like the Chrysalis, the Butterfly is beyond the east Gateway of the Caterpillar for visitors coming from the northeast or northwest park entrances, in the area of Symphony Woods intended for cultural events as opposed to play and picnicking. In addition to being convenient to Merriweather Post Pavilion and the Chrysalis, the Butterfly could also be easily reached from the “arts village” and Columbia Association headquarters proposed for the eastern part of Symphony Woods in the original Inner Arbor concept plan.

The Butterfly is a café and gallery space. In some ways it is the successor to the outdoor café proposed as part of the Cy Paumier plan for Symphony Woods, but its siting and intended audience are quite different. The café in the Paumier plan was to be located in the northern part of Symphony Woods next to the proposed fountain, and was intended in large part as a way to draw people into Symphony Woods. Whether or not it would have actually done so is an open question.¹

The Butterfly, on the other hand, is sited not in the northern “play and picnicking” part of Symphony Woods, but adjacent to Merriweather Post Pavilion (right up against the property line, in fact) and the Chrysalis amphitheater, as well as to any future developments in the proposed Arts Village area of Symphony Woods. Its main customer base would thus be people attending concerts and cultural events, supplemented by other visitors to the park or (if the CA headquarters is moved to Symphony Woods) by CA employees.

As a café the Butterfly has two main areas proposed to serve food and drink (if I recall the plans correctly), in two of the four “wings” of the building, and either two or three areas in which to consume them: Perhaps a small area within the building itself, on an outside deck on the Chrysalis side of the building, and on the roof. Based on the overhead view rendering (see below), the outside deck could accommodate at least a dozen or more tables and several dozen people, and the roof area could easily host one or two hundred people, either standing or sitting on steps built into the roof over one wing.² So the building and the immediate area could likely host up to a few hundred people. (By comparison, the listed capacity of Merriweather Post Pavilion is 15,000 people, and daily attendance at Wine in the Woods is about that large as well.)

The building itself would be accessible from both the Merriweather Post Pavilion side and the Chrysalis side, with glass walls providing a view through the building and a visual connection between the pavilion area and the woods. The roof could be reached from stairs on two of the wings (shown most clearly in the two images below), as well as by elevator. (The elevator is not shown on the images but is presumably in one of the two rooms that open onto the roof; the high-resolution image for the overhead view shows a person in a wheelchair on the roof.)

As noted above the building itself would contain gallery space in one or two of the wings. The roof could also be used for performances, with the audience either sitting on the steps of one wing or standing in the others. (The high-resolution image shows a dance performance in the center of the roof.)

While it’s not as immediately visually striking as the Chrysalis, in my opinion the Butterfly could end up the most beautiful structure in Symphony Woods, despite its relatively mundane purpose. Frank Gehry once modestly referred to the Rouse building as an “elegant warehouse”; similarly the Butterfly can be thought of as an “elegant concession stand.” In the rendering it appears as a very light building that almost floats above the earth, with glass walls at the two main entrances and a wooden roof.

The Butterfly echoes Merriweather Park Pavilion in its use of natural materials and the amphitheater-like configuration of the roof, while echoing the curved forms of the Chrysalis—the concave upward swoop of the roofline mirroring in reverse the convex roof of the Chrysalis. Meanwhile the reflective metal surfaces of the exterior walls at the ends of the four wings literally mirror the surrounding woods, while the concave forms of the mirrored surface echoes the concavity of the roofline. (You can see the slight concavity of the walls in the high-resolution image of the westerly view above.)

What could go wrong in terms of maintainability or cost? One major issue that could compromise the elegance of the design is the need to put utility structures on the roof for air conditioning, heating, and other purposes. (These would also get in the way of rooftop visitors, of course.) The presenters at the pre-submission meeting speculated on the possibility of using a geothermal energy system in order to lessen this problem, but that would add additional complexity to the design that could drive up costs. There are also other practical considerations that could mar the clean lines of the roof and walls, such as the need for exhaust fans in kitchens if cooking is to be done on site. I’m not an expert in these matters, so I’ll just have to wait for further refinements to the design to be released in order to see how such practicalities get addressed.

This concludes my initial thoughts on the Inner Arbor designs, though I may revisit my comments as the designs are refined and more information is released by the Inner Arbor Trust. In the meantime if you see errors of fact in anything I’ve written or disagree strongly about my conclusions, please feel free to let me know in the comments or otherwise.

I want to close by talking a bit more about why the Butterfly is my favorite design of all those proposed for Symphony Woods. In line with the theme of metamorphosis some might see the Butterfly standing at the end of a sequence that begins with the Caterpillar and continues with the Chrysalis. That’s a valid metaphor, especially since the Butterfly seems almost poised to take flight. However I also see the Butterfly as standing both literally and metaphorically between the Merriweather Post Pavilion, a symbol of Columbia’s past, and the Chrysalis, a vision of Columbia’s and Howard County’s potential future as a community in which the fine arts and high technology do not just co-exist and flourish together, but inspire and cross-pollinate each other.

About fifty years ago Columbia was found and Howard County irrevocably changed from a rural area of farms and forests to a thriving suburban community of subdivisions and office parks. Some of us were alive when that happened; many of us will not be alive when Columbia celebrates its one hundredth birthday, and will never know what Columbia could become by then. The development of downtown Columbia is a critical step toward building Columbia’s and Howard County’s future, and the Inner Arbor plan is a critical step toward building Columbia’s downtown. Even if I don’t survive to see Columbia’s 100th birthday, I hope to be able to raise a toast to its 50th in the café at the Butterfly.

The Chrysalis is located on the southeast portion of the Symphony Woods parcel that’s covered by the initial Inner Arbor plan. From the perspective of how visitors move through the park, the Chrysalis is beyond the east Gateway of the Caterpillar for visitors coming from the northeast or northwest park entrances. It is thus in the area of Symphony Woods intended for cultural events as opposed to play and picnicking. For visitors coming from Merriweather Post Pavilion the Chrysalis lies beyond the Butterfly; in their walk they will first encounter the Butterfly, walk around (or through) it, come to the sloping lawn for the amphitheater, and then to the Chrysalis itself. (The sequence of images below illustrates the view along the way.)

The purpose of the Chrysalis is very straightforward: It serves to cover the stage for a new outdoor amphitheater proposed for Symphony Woods. From one point of view this amphitheatre can be thought of as a smaller version of Merriweather Post Pavilion, with no permanently fixed seating and no roof for the audience—like what Merriweather would be like if everyone sat on the lawn. However the Chrysalis is much more bare bones than the pavilion, open on all sides and with limited or no permanent fixtures other than the structure itself. In that sense it is more comparable to the stage at the downtown Columbia lakefront or the stage in Centennial Park, although somewhat larger than both of these.

One issue not addressed by the Inner Arbor presentation was how the Chrysalis would support sound and lighting equipment used for performances. Clearly the amphitheater isn’t going to be hosting full-blown Merriweather-style light shows and sound stacks, and some such equipment can simply be temporarily installed to the back or sides of the stage. However if the amphitheater is to be used for evening performances (which certainly makes sense) then some provision has to be made for a reasonably comprehensive lighting setup. The images released by the Inner Arbor Trust don’t show any such thing, but images released by the designer, Marc Fornes of THEVERYMANY, on his web site help resolve the mystery, showing a horizontal truss structure suspended from the underside of the roof of the Chrysalis, to which lights and sound equipment could be attached.

Although the Chrysalis’s amphitheater area does not feature a roof over the audience, it does have shade from the trees of Symphony Woods, which the plan envisions preserving in place. (See the above graphics.) Although this means that some sight lines from the seating area to the stage will be partially blocked, the advantage is that the audience will be shaded from the sun (more so than at the amphitheaters at the lakefront or Centennial Park) and even in light rain they should be relatively protected from the elements. When there are no concerts or other events at the amphitheater the Chrysalis doubles as a place for people to meet and sit (e.g., on the steps to the side of the stage).

As I noted previously, from a visual point of view the Chrysalis is the most striking of all of the proposed Inner Arbor features. It’s no accident that all of the news stories about the unveiling of the Inner Arbor plan have featured the rendering of the Chrysalis as their main illustration. The design is even more beautiful when seen from additional angles and from above, as shown on Marc Fornes’s web site. Forget straight lines, the structure doesn’t have even approximate axes of symmetry; its separate parts seem to simply flow out of the ground and join together, like a plant or (perhaps more appropriately) a force field.

The structure is designed to be very thin and rest lightly upon the earth; I recall Marc Fornes at the pre-submission meeting claiming that it was less than an inch thick (although I may have misheard this). One interesting aspect is the color: It starts out a solid green color at the base, then turns into interspersed elements of green and white, and then becomes progressively lighter the higher one goes, fading somewhat into the sky. The architectural renderings show the structure against a white background, which is somewhat misleading. It would be interesting to see a rendering against the actual woods, to determine if the color chosen works as well in that setting.

One question left unanswered at the pre-submission meeting (at least to my recollection) is what exact material would be used to construct the Chrysalis, and whether the color would be inherent to the material (as with plastics) or externally applied (as with aluminum). Many if not most of Fornes’s other works seem to have been designed for display in galleries or other indoor settings, and it’s an open question as to what level of maintenance the Chrysalis would need in order to look its best over the years. As for the cost, the budgeted amount is apparently $3.5M (already committed by Howard County); whether there will be cost overruns, and how severe they will be, remains to be seen.

Rather than conclude on a matter of dollars and cents, I’ll close with some thoughts about the Chrysalis in the context of the site and the times. As noted above, the Chrysalis in effect serves the same function as the existing Frank Gehry-designed Merriweather Post Pavilion, but otherwise is very different from the pavilion and in a sense engages in conversation with it: Where the pavilion is angular and uses wood and other materials to effect a natural appearance, the Chrysalis is completely curved and (as currently envisioned) uses materials and colors that stand out from the landscape. The Chrysalis is a structure of the early part of the 21st century, as Merriweather Post Pavilion was one of the mid-to-late 20th century.

In its general appearance the Chrysalis brings to mind examples of biomorphic architecture, a style that goes back as far as the late 19th and early 20th centuries and Antoni Gaudí’s Sagrada Família church, but which has become more popular in the late 20th and early 21th century as advanced computer modeling and analysis have made such structures easier to design and build. (Frank Gehry’s own post-Columbia buildings, including the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, are also examples of this trend.)

However despite its appearance and its name I think the significance of the Chrysalis lies not just in its resemblance to organic forms but also in its status as a structure that was computer-generated as opposed to simply being computer designed (i.e., with the aid of computer-based drawing and modeling programs). Marc Fornes uses computer-executed algorithms that encode certain rules in order to generate and explore complex new 3-dimensional forms, to join such forms together and nest them within and next to each other, and to determine how such forms can be made into buildable structures.¹

The Chrysalis and the working methods behind it are a natural fit for an area like Howard County that is home to a relatively high percentage of mathematicians and IT professionals and is working to promote STEM education and advanced manufacturing.² If the Merriweather Post Pavilion and other Frank Gehry-designed structures in Columbia evoke the fondly-remembered past of Columbia, the Chrysalis points to its potentially-exciting future.

In my next and final post in this series I’ll discuss the last of the proposed Inner Arbor features, the Butterfly.

Virginia Duran - 2013-12-09 09:39

Interesting article!

The Caterpillar is the single most extensive feature proposed for the park, about twice as long as the Picnic Table. It stretches over about a third of central Symphony Woods from east to west. (If it were straight rather than curved it would cover about half the width of the park.) See the above graphic to get a better idea of how the Caterpillar relates to the rest of the proposed Merriweather Park.¹

The Caterpillar is designed to serve multiple functions (almost too many, as I’ll discuss below). However its primary purpose is very simple: to provide an attractive visual and physical barrier between Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion. The feature itself is 12 feet high, high enough to (hopefully) discourage rowdy visitors from climbing over it, but low enough to remain roughly human-scaled; see the graphic above for a sense of how it would appear in relation to people.² Gateways at either end (where the Caterpillar structure arches over the paths) are designed to funnel pedestrian traffic between Symphony Woods and the pavilion.

Note that the Caterpillar would not entirely substitute for a fence. For one thing, it does not cover the entire property line between Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion; at its eastern end it actually turns away from the property line and heads northeast. For another, it is located some distance north of the property line, and thus divides a significant part of Symphony Woods closest to Merriweather from the area further north. This arrangement appears to be due to the design team’s desire to integrate the Symphony Woods property with the existing Merriweather property: The area just south of the Caterpillar is intended as a transition zone containing both features in Symphony Woods (the Caterpillar Plaza) and features in Merriweather proper (including a proposed oval-shaped feature that I believe is intended to be a fountain).

On the eastern end the Caterpillar and its Gateway don’t strictly speaking divide Symphony Woods from Merriweather Post Pavilion. Instead they divide the northern part of Symphony Woods (intended primarily for recreational activities like play and picnicking) from the eastern part of Symphony Woods, which contains features like the Chrysalis and the Butterfly that are intended as complements to Merriweather. (This eastern area also provides a transition into the area east of Merriweather Park Pavilion proposed for the Arts Village and related cultural activities.)

In addition to acting as an attractive visual and physical barrier, the Caterpillar also helps with the prosaic problem of providing utilities for events such as Wine in the Woods. The structure is hollow, and thus could contain electrical lines, water lines, computer network cables, and anything else needed to support events in Symphony Woods. Some of the space immediately north and south of the Caterpillar could be used for event tents and other temporary structures, the fronts of which would face the paths and the backs of which would be next to any power or other utility outlets embedded in the Caterpillar. The Caterpillar could also support wireless access points to provide WiFi signals to a good portion of Symphony Woods and to the transition area between the woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion.

The Caterpillar could also support a number of other uses: At either end it could contain information booths for visitors to the park or the pavilion. Since the structure supports potted plants as the main visual element it could be used as a sort of community garden to raise flowers or herbs, and since it’s intended to be lighted from within it could be used for visual art of various sorts. In the pre-submission meeting Martha Schwartz mentioned other uses as well, including having “portals” through which people could view artworks or educational displays, supporting “audioscapes” either natural (e.g., activated by the wind) or artificial (using speakers), or having the structure interact with visitors via smartphone or tablet apps.

A concern I have with these ancillary uses (which I tried but perhaps failed to clearly express in a question I asked at the meeting) is that having the Caterpillar simultaneously support too many functions could cause visitors to be confused as to what the Caterpillar is supposed to be for and how they should interact with it. (It’s a similar problem to that seen in many interactive art installations.) Perhaps one way to mitigate this concern would be to treat the Caterpillar as a platform capable of supporting multiple activities, but to limit the activities at any one time to a reasonable number. For example, different seasons could call forth different uses of the Caterpillar, or one end of the Caterpillar could support one activity while another activity would be supported at the other end or in the middle section.

The Caterpillar is intended to be attractive, with its plants and interior lighting. Could it be beautiful as well? Quite possibly, if good taste is exercised in the selection of plants and the arrangement of the lighting. However it could also end up looking tired and bedraggled if it were not well-maintained. The Caterpillar is essentially a lighted garden arranged as a narrow strip and wrapped around a metal tube; it would require at least as much maintenance as any other garden, and likely more due to the difficulty of getting to the top part of the structure. Watering and spraying the plants, rain and snow, and the occasional insults from ill-behaved visitors would also take their toll on the structure and any activities intended to be supported by it.

To re-use the analogy I used above, anyone who’s visited interactive art installations (and I’ve been to more than my share) is familiar with installations where half the features are completely inoperative and the other half are misbehaving in some way. Whatever the initial cost of the Caterpillar might be, it’s likely to be outweighed by the long-term operational expenses of keeping up its appearance and making sure that all its functions are working properly.

In the next post I’ll continue with the life cycle of metamorphosis and look at perhaps the showiest feature of the Inner Arbor plan, the Chrysalis.

The proposed Picnic Table feature is located near the Word Art and Play Maze features discussed in the previous post. It is a relatively long and narrow feature, and stretches across a good portion of the north central portion of Symphony Woods, running from northwest to southeast. The proposed Lily Pads feature is located near the northeast entrance to the park, the entrance closest to the existing Central Branch library. See the above graphic to get a better idea of how these features relate to the rest of the proposed Merriweather Park.

The Picnic Table is a clever solution to a significant problem: On the one hand, people going to Symphony Woods are going to want someplace to sit down, stretch out, and perhaps enjoy some food and drink, especially when attending major events like Wine in the Woods. On the other hand, people would also like to be surrounded by the natural beauty of the woods in a setting more reminiscent of a primeval forest than a suburban lawn. Unfortunately, primeval forests have significant disadvantages for sitting and stretching out: The forest floor is littered with leaves, twigs, and other detritus, there are bushes and other low plants in the way, there are rocks, tree roots, and generally uneven ground to pain the sensitive rump, and the ground is often cold, damp and even muddy.

The traditional solution to this problem is to provide groups of conventional picnic tables—the sort of thing you’ll find in many parks in Howard County and elsewhere, not to mention at interstate rest stops. Alternatively, there might be no picnic tables at all, with guests forced to bring their own chairs or blankets in order to be able to sit dry and comfortably.

The proposed Picnic Table feature eliminates or at least minimizes the need for such ad hoc solutions, by providing what is in effect an artificial forest floor. It is elevated high enough (about 22 inches) so that people near the edge of it could sit on it as they might sit on a (backless) park bench, but not so high as to require handrails for people walking on the Picnic Table surface. People in the middle of the Picnic Table could stretch out with or without a blanket, out of contact with the dampness or muddiness of the ground. Rather than a conventional wood, metal, or concrete table surface it is covered in high-quality artificial turf. The turf would be at least semi-porous, so it might help eliminate the problem of rainwater pooling in lower-lying areas of the feature (a problem often seen with conventional surfaces).

Is it a beautiful feature? No, but it would likely be more attractive than the typical park or rest stop picnic table. And in any case the use of a natural color artificial turf (as opposed to the bright green variety seen in some football stadiums) would help the feature blend in with the surrounding trees and plants. In effect the Picnic Table reverses the approach of the Cy Paumier plan: Where that plan called for a central grassy area (the Central Park Commons), essentially pushing the trees aside in favor of something like an over-sized suburban lawn, the Picnic Table keeps the trees where they are and puts a narrow simulacrum of such a lawn around and next to them—with no lawnmowing required.

Will the Picnic Table prove to be durable? I think it will get a lot of use (and thus abuse), particularly during high-traffic events like Wine in the Woods. However unlike most artificial turf installations people would likely be sitting on it more than walking on it, and this may help lengthen its life. As for its potential cost, I’m not sure. If I’m understanding this Howard County Times story correctly, when Howard County deliberated in 2011 over funding conversion of grass football fields to artificial turf, the price tag was on the order of $1M per field. The Picnic Table is considerably smaller in area than a football field (about as long but much narrower), but may use higher-quality turf, requires a support structure underneath it, and would be constructed in an environmentally-sensitive area.

In any case the Picnic Table almost certainly won’t be anywhere near the costliest feature proposed for the park. There have been extras proposed for it, most notably Martha Schwartz speculating at the pre-submission meeting about heating the structure so that it could remain snow-free in winter. However such extras aren’t central to the overall concept and purpose of the Picnic Table, and could be discarded or scaled back if budget concerns need to take precedence.

As the Word Art does at the northwest entrance to the proposed Merriweather Path, the Lily Pads serve to greet visitors arriving via the northeast entrance (for example, coming from Lake Kittamaqundi or the Central Branch library); they are a transition point into the area of Symphony Woods containing the new features proposed as part of the Inner Arbor plan.

Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the presentation slides from the pre-submission meeting, nor do I have good notes relating to the Lily Pads. Therefore I don’t have much to say about the Lily Pads beyond than what Andrew Metcalf noted in his article. Per the article the Lily Pads will feature a raised boardwalk from which to view the woods; this boardwalk is shown in the master plan graphic above. (I don’t have enough information to say one way or the other, but this boardwalk may be the evolution of the “treeline” elevated walkway proposed in the original Inner Arbor plan.)

The Merriweather Park master plan (see above graphic) also shows something called “The Nest” right next to the Lily Pads. As I noted previously, this may be the “iconic interactive sculpture” referred to in CA’s original Inner Arbor presentation. If so, the Lily Pads would ultimately serve as a spot from which to view the Nest and (assuming this is allowed) to also enter it. As pictured the Lily Pads structure itself is relatively simple, almost comparable to a high-end backyard deck; its point would be to complement the Nest and not attract attention on its own. The Nest itself would be a major sculptural commission (for inspirations see the CA Inner Arbor Plan) and thus not something we’d expect to see designs for at this stage of the Inner Arbor effort.

The Lily Pads are wooden platforms and walkways roughly analogous to the current walkway by Lake Kittamaqundi, as well as to boardwalks in Ocean City and other resort communities, and thus we could expect the cost and durability of the Lily Pads to be comparable to those other walkways. The Inner Arbor plan as presented appears to have a lot of wooden walkways: not just around the Lily Pads but also at the three gateways next to Little Patuxent Parkway, near the eastern entrances to Symphony Woods (the Entry Plaza in the master plan), near Merriwether Post Pavilion (the Caterpillar Plaza), and elsewhere in the park.

If budget concerns grow then the pressure to economize on the use of wood will likely become intense, with critics calling for concrete and asphalt to be used instead wherever possible, My personal opinion is that this would be a false economy; the use of wood is much more compatible with the overall vision for the park. I’ll note here that communities like Ocean City with extensive wooden boardwalks have chosen to stick with wood despite the higher cost, and many have even considered upgrading to more durable (and thus more expensive) types of wood. We should look to their examples.

With that I’ll conclude this post. I’ll next look at the larger and more showy structures envisioned in the Inner Arbor plan, beginning with the Caterpillar.

UPDATE: Corrected the spelling of Andrew Metcalf’s name.

Does it work? In other words, does the feature address the problem for which it apparently was designed? Will people use it in the intended way? Are there other interesting and beneficial uses that people might find for it?

Is it beautiful? Or, if not truly beautiful, is it at least attractive? (How can we tell what’s beautiful rather than attractive? By our reactions: We ooh, we aah, we spontaneously break into applause, we stop in our tracks when we encounter it.)

Will it last? Over time how might the feature no longer work for people, or fail to retain its beauty or attractiveness?

What’s its cost? Does the feature look like it might be especially expensive due to its materials, complexity of construction, or other factors?

I can’t provide complete answers for all these questions, of course. I’m just an amateur critic, and don’t have any special insight into issues like construction costs and schedules. However I’ll try to at least make a start.

The graphic above shows all the proposed features and their relationship to the current Symphony Woods and Merriweather Post Pavilion. Note that a few of these features, most notably the Word Art and the Letter Garden, were presented at the pre-submission meeting but were not mentioned in Andrew Metcalfe’s breakdown of plan features. Other features are proposed but have yet to be designed; these include the Nest, which I’m guessing is intended to be the “iconic interactive sculpture” mentioned in the original CA Inner Arbor plan presentation, as well as some unnamed features proposed for the Merriweather Post Pavilion property. Finally, note that the road to the left side of the graphic is not Broken Land Parkway, but is a planned road that would be built in future between Symphony Woods proper and yet-to-be-built downtown Columbia developments on the east site of Broken Land Parkway.

The Word Art and Letter Garden features are intended to function as “arrival art,” something to welcome you to the park. The Word Art feature in particular is intended to highlight events taking place in the park for people arriving via the northwest entrance. (See for example the above graphic, with the letters announcing “ART IN THE WOODS TODAY.”) The letters would be made of dichroic film sandwiched between inch-thick glass; the film would cause the letters to appear in different colors when viewed from different angles. Letters not used for the Word Art feature would be kept in the Letter Garden near the (small) parking lot for the park.

These features fulfill their basic function of welcoming visitors to the park and providing an attractive bit of color at the entrance and parking lot. During the Q&A period of the pre-submission meeting one person suggested improving this feature by allowing for words in other languages such as Spanish; this could also include languages with non-Latin scripts (e.g., Korean or Arabic). I think this is an excellent suggestion (as did the presenters apparently); besides being a nice nod to the diverse populations of Howard County, it would go beyond the relative monotony of capital Latin letters to provide a more varied and attractive experience. It would also echo other multi-language signs and design features elsewhere in the county, such as the advertisement for Johns Hopkins Medicine at the play lot in the Mall in Columbia, and the “Welcome” banners on the walls of the Miller Branch library.

The Word Art and Letter Garden features should be reasonably durable, although I suspect the glass of the letters might get scratched and cloudy over time. One person at the pre-submission meeting raised a concern about people stealing the letters or moving them around (for example, to spell out obscenities); however the letters would be locked in place and should be resistant to at least casual theft. Any letters that do get damaged or stolen could be replaced individually.

The cost of these features is a direct function of the number of letters deployed. Creating words in non-Latin scripts could significantly raise the cost, since given the large number of glyphs in some such scripts (e.g., Chinese, which has thousands) the only practical approach would be to commission new characters on a custom basis as they were needed.

Another feature near the northern park boundary is the Maze (or Play Maze); it is shown on the overview but I don’t have a separate image for it. This would consist of multiple mazes overlaid on top of each other: At the bottom level a maze (or multiple mazes) would be inlaid into the rubber surface forming the floor of the feature. (This sounds reminiscent of the labyrinth paths found in some religious contexts, for example at St. Johns Episcopal Church in Ellicott City.) Next would come a maze formed by semi-transparent scrims. These scrims could support art of various types, either created by park users or curated as part of a formal exhibition. Screen doors of various styles (invoking suburban homes, presumably) would be set into the maze walls. Above the scrims and doors would be a reflective roof.

This feature seems intended to provide a “play space” in the general sense: not a conventional playground or “tot lot” but something that’s more oriented to teens and adults. As Julia McCready put it, relating the reactions of her teenaged daughter,

As a young teen, she often feels it would be uncool to play on a traditional playground. And yet the energy and desire to play don’t automatically shut off at a predetermined age. The designers of the park have conceived a play space which is so beautifully open-ended that it will encourage play, participation, and interaction from a wide range of ages.

Her daughter went on to say, “It would be a great place to shoot a music video.”¹ I think that captures pretty well what the Maze could be at its best: A stage on which people could express themselves and create things for the enjoyment of themselves, their friends, and the general public. It wouldn’t necessarily be a beautiful place in and of itself, but beauty could be created there.

My major concern with the Maze is maintainability, in particular how durable the scrims forming its walls would be. Depending on the material of which they’d be made, one can imagine them over time being torn, dirtied, and generally ripped to shreds. The screen doors would also constitute multiple moving parts that would likely break (or be broken) over time. Hopefully the cost of the overall feature would be low enough that periodic repairs would be relatively cheap to make.

This post is getting a bit long, so I’ll call it a night. In the next post I’ll move on to other proposed features.

UPDATE: Corrected the spelling of Andrew Metcalf’s name.

Michael Grant - 2013-12-09 13:12

I posted this comment with the Washington Post article and then found your blog and thought it germane to re-post it here. I grew up in Columbia in the 70s and 80s. This park has always been a special place. I’m both happy and sad that they are developing it. I have been to many developed parks around the world now, including Kew Gardens, parks in Australia, all over the UK and in Europe. I hope that the designers of this park also go and see some of these gardens in real life because I get the feeling that they’re designing this from a text book. Though they say there will be a cafe in this X shaped building, there needs actually to be a few small cafes around the garden. I see why they want to build a caterpillar but it looks pretty ugly to me. I wonder if a wooden barrier with lots of foliage wouldn’t look better. It could still water itself too. The raised platform is a terrible idea. Not only will it obscure the forest floor, but beneath it will be a hive for rats and other unwanted rodents in a public area. And how many people want to go sit on artificial grass? Just plant real grass! The bus system should have a stop within the park. Not for car traffic. Something I’ve seen in Australia which I always thought an excellent idea are the gas BBQs. In Australia, they’re virtually all free, but there are some models which you pop a coin in. What a great idea, how convenient. This park needs to be better integrated into the walkway system in Columbia making it easier and more desirable to walk to it and through it. Not just a place you go on special occasions. One big difference between this and gardens like Kew is that Kew is a botanical park almost like a museum and with many green houses. However, there are many parks (like the “jardins de ville” in France and across Europe that are not specifically botanical in nature and really work to draw people in, but they work primarily because they are in the middle of the town and not off in some less used corner between the freeway and a shopping area.

hecker - 2013-12-09 15:45

Thanks for stopping by to comment! I don’t have time to discuss your points right now, but may do a separate blog post addressing your and others’ comments. (Remember, I have no association whatsoever with the Inner Arbor Trust, so this is all just my opinions.)

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.

I think this is an understandable but perhaps unfortunate exaggeration of what the Inner Arbor plan might evolve to be. To take but one example, Millenium Park cost almost half a billion dollars to build, and was a financial stretch even for a major US city of several million people. The Inner Arbor plan has to be funded in a county of 300,000 people with few large corporations and no resident billionaires; this phase is projected to cost in the neighborhood of $30M or so, with about a tenth of that committed thus far. We’re not talking Millenium Park, but more something that’s in the spirit of Millenium Park but scaled in cost and ambition appropriately to Columbia and Howard County.

The selected design team also has to be judged in that light. The amount of funding and the associated ambition of the design is not sufficient to attract designers and architects who are household names. In other words, we’re not getting Frank Gehry back to design something for Columbia again. But that’s OK: When Gehry designed Merriweather Post Pavilion and the Rouse building he wasn’t “Frank Gehry, star architect,” he was just a young(ish) architect with talent who was looking to get his designs built and make a name for himself.¹ Unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend the meeting in which the design team was introduced, but based on a few minutes of googling it looks as if Eric Bunge and Mimi Hoang of nARCHITECTS and Marc Fornes of THEVERYMANY in particular fall in that category as well. Everyone on the team seems to be doing good work elsewhere, and they appear well-qualified to take on these commissions.

Turning to the design itself, let’s first consider the overall master plan for what the Inner Arbor Trust is calling “Merriweather Park”—essentially a rebranding of the combination of the existing Merriweather Post Pavilion and the proposed new Symphony Woods. Note that this phase of the plan does not address the entire area covered in the original Inner Arbor conceptual plan. It focuses on the northern Symphony Woods parcel (about 16.5 acres) and its relationship to the Merriweather property, and leaves out the eastern parcel (where the conceptual plan proposed an “arts village” and a new Columbia Association headquarters) and the southern parcel (where the conceptual plan included a proposed sculpture garden).

At the pre-submission meeting the primary criticisms of the overall plan were that it lacked a central focus and that the structures were not stylistically consistent. (One person gave as an example of such consistency the design of Howard County parks such as Blandair, Centennial, etc.) To quote Cy Paumier, these critics felt that “there is no ‘there’ there.”

The response from the presenters on the focus issue was two-fold. First, that the true focus of the area was and should be Merriweather Park Pavilion itself, given its central location and its status as the place that would continue to attract the most visitors. I happen to agree with this point, although as I noted in my last post treating Merriweather as the focus implies a fairly high degree of integration between the Merriweather property and the Symphony Woods property, and achieving this level of integration is ultimately dependent on cooperation from the Howard Hughes Corporation.

If I recall correctly, a second response from the presenters was that the overall focus of Symphony Woods proper should be on the woods themselves, and that no single structure should pull focus away from them. I agree with this argument as well. I think one of the major flaws of Cy Paumier’s plan was that it attempted to impose a rigid geometrical layout (almost an English formal garden look) on the Symphony Woods landscape, to the point where the woods themselves became subordinate to the design. Whatever else what one might say about the Inner Arbor design, the meandering paths and spread-out structures (none truly massive) help ensure that it coexists with the woods rather than dominating them.

As for the consistency argument, I think in one sense stylistic consistency is overrated. For example, Tivoli Gardens, which has been held out as a model for the Inner Arbor plan, is a mismash of different architectural styles, both from different periods in European history and from countries beyond. And as with the issue of focus, the woods themselves provide a consistent backdrop throughout the park, assisted by common elements such as wooden paths. The proposed structures within those woods and next to those paths provide what I think is a welcome variety. To have all those structures be stylistically similar to each other would be too much of a muchness. Finally, from a conceptual point of view the idea of metamorphosis (caterpillar to chrysalis to butterfly) does provide a common theme for the main structures, with all the structures recognizably paying homage to that theme even though their forms are very different.

The proposed approach also has practical advantages. First, it means that the Inner Arbor Trust doesn’t have to put all its eggs in one basket in choosing architects and designers, entrusting the entire design primarily to one firm. Instead it can enlist multiple smaller firms, giving them freer rein and letting them experiment a bit within the constraints of the overall site landscape and design themes. I think this approach is far more likely to produce interesting results, and helps ensure that any bad design choices that might slip through don’t impact the entire park.

Having multiple smaller structures of different styles could also make it easier for the Inner Arbor Trust to find sponsors willing to fund construction: The smaller size of the structures means that each individual park feature could be funded primarily by one individual funder (much as Howard County is funding the Chrysalis amphitheatre), and the stylistic variety would mean that each such funder would have a unique feature to highlight their contribution. Finally, since park construction would likely stretch over several years (up to one or two decades, according to Michael McCall), as each new structure is completed the public would have something new and different to experience, as opposed to just seeing more of the same.

That concludes my discussion of the overall plan. In my next post I’ll discuss the proposed structures and other park features.

UPDATE: Corrected the spelling of Andrew Metcalf’s name, corrected a reference to Frank Gehry’s age, and fixed a typo.

First, my overall impression: I think the plan proposed is very promising overall. It does well on several of the key criteria by which people will judge the Inner Arbor development (and the Inner Arbor Trust itself), and contains some individual elements that I think are potential standouts. In this post I’ll discuss some of the overall issues around the proposal, and then in a follow-up post I’ll comment on the proposal itself.

Along the way there have been several concerns raised about the Inner Arbor plan, and pretty much all of them came up last night, many raised by the very people you’d expect to raise them. To deal with them one by one:

Cy Paumier spoke about—well, I’m not exactly sure what his intended point was. His remarks struck me as in large part a complaint that his original Symphony Woods plan (for a fountain, cafe, and walkways) had been replaced with the Inner Arbor plan, after a fair amount of time and expense had been spent on the original plan. I don’t know Cy Paumier personally, but I understand where he’s coming from on a gut level. I work in a sales group, and have been involved in deals where we put in a lot of work and thought we would win, only to have a competitor swoop in at the last minute and make the sale. It sucks to be in that position, but it happens.

From an objective standpoint I think the Inner Arbor plan as presented Tuesday is a significant improvement on the original Symphony Woods plan, so I think the CA board made the right decision. I think the fact that a lot of time and expense had been spent on the original plan is irrelevant; preceding with that plan would have just been an example of the sunk cost fallacy. I appreciate the work Cy Paumier and his associates put in on the original plan, and wish them success on the next venture they undertake.

Part of the advocacy behind the original Symphony Woods plan seemed less related to the plan itself and more to the idea that it was being put together by a long-time Columbian. It’s an example of people emphasizing how things are done, sometimes to the detriment of what things get done. That focus on process over product showed up in Alan Klein’s remarks, in which he once again complained about the alleged lack of transparency on the part of the Inner Arbor Trust (and as a bonus, put in a little dig about the Inner Arbor Trust not being an actual trust in the legal sense). I’d be more exercised about concerns around transparency if there were any real suspicion that Michael McCall and other people associated with the Inner Arbor Trust were actually abusing their positions in some way.

As best I can tell, the main non-public activities of the Inner Arbor Trust have been the selection of the design team and (I presume) negotiations with potential funders. The latter I think should clearly be exempt from public disclosure until there’s actually something to announce. As for selection of the design team, I am an elitist when it comes to art and architecture: I think some people clearly have better taste than others, and I would rather put my trust in people with taste to do the right thing, as opposed to following a process-driven democratized approach to design. And this way the Inner Arbor Trust is more accountable for the success of the proposed design, as opposed to being able to blame major design flaws on an overly-interfering public.

Alan Klein and others did make a good point about the likely inadequacy of the proposed parking associated with the plan. However I think the response by Michael McCall was appropriate: In the final analysis the problem of parking near Symphony Woods is a shared problem, with the Howard Hughes Corporation and the Howard County government having as much if not more responsibility for solving it. After all, except for relatively infrequent events like Wine in the Woods the major demand for parking in the vicinity of Symphony Woods will come from events at Merriweather Post Pavilion, and also from a new library if one is built. (Even the existing Central Branch is short on parking, as I discussed in an earlier post, and constructing a new facility closer to Symphony Woods, as suggested in the Inner Arbor conceptual plan, will make the problem even worse.)

Let’s conclude by looking at two of the biggest issues raised in connection with plans for Symphony Woods, namely what happens to the trees, and how the area will relate to Merrieather Post Pavilion. On the tree issue I’ll note three points:

First, the Inner Arbor Trust is clearly aware of people’s sensitivities regarding the trees and has taken many steps to address them. Martha Schwartz (the first of the design team presenters) emphasized up front that the site was already beautiful and that “the trees come first.” The plan details show lots of care being taken to minimize the impact of the proposed new structures.

Second, Scott Rykiel (of the landscape design firm Mahan & Rykiel) made the observation that the woods were not ecologically sustainable in their current form, basically consisting of just the tree themselves with mowed grass underneath. Thus the goal has to be not just simple preservation but rather reconstituting a natural ecology in the woods, including new plantings under the trees and naturalization of streams running through the woods.

Finally, in response to a question from Russ Swatek regarding whether the Inner Arbor Trust would commit to a maximum limit on trees removed, Scott Rykiel noted that the current plan as presented would require the removal of only 15 trees. Given that the original Symphony Woods plans envisioned removing significantly more trees, I found this pretty impressive—as did Russ Swatek, judging from his reaction.

The bottom line is that I think the Inner Arbor Trust is addressing concerns about the trees of Symphony Woods to the satisfaction of everyone except those who’d be opposing the project for other reasons in any event.

I’m not quite as sanguine about the other major issue, namely working with Howard Hughes Corporation to integrate the Inner Arbor plan with Merriweather Post Pavilion. From the Inner Arbor Trust side there was a lot of talk about trying to integrate the new park with Merriweather in various ways, and in particular making it possible for park visitors to traverse the Merriweather space during times when no events were scheduled.

Whether that enthusiasm will be reciprocated remains to be seen. John DeWolf was quoted in the Baltimore Sun as finding the Inner Arbor plans “interesting” and “applaud[ing] their efforts”; he then went on to say “They are going to have to give us some due deference on Merriweather. Right now, we don’t feel as compelled to think about it as one neighborhood.” I may be over-reacting, but I thought this comment introduced rather a sour note into the overall atmosphere of optimism over the future of Symphony Woods; at the very least I wouldn’t consider it to be a “buying signal,” to use a sales analogy. If I were a potential major funder of the Inner Arbor Trust I’d quite possibly see the need for cooperation from the Howard Hughes Corporation as a potential risk factor threatening the success of any investment in the Inner Arbor effort.

DeWolf’s comment certainly contrasted with Ken Ulman’s comments in the same article that “We need to think big about Merriweather and Symphony Woods.” Howard County politicians in general have been vocally supportive of the Inner Arbor effort as its unfolded. Perhaps one of them could have a quiet chat with the folks at the Howard Hughes Corporation and encourage them to be a little more enthusiastic in their public comments, especially given the major positive effect a successful Inner Arbor plan could have on the value of Howard Hughes developments in downtown Columbia. It would certainly be ironic if the high-flying visions for Symphony Woods were to ultimately crash not through the efforts of anti-development Columbian activists but through the indifference of and lack of cooperation from the Howard Hughes Corporation.

But enough of naysaying and potential problems; in my next post I’ll look at the proposal itself.

Jessie Newburn - 2013-12-04 15:56

As always, thoughtful, informing, valuable. Rock on, Frank!

Harry Schwarz - 2013-12-05 00:52

I think this is my first comment on your blog, Frank. It’s an honor and thank you for your keen analysis and thoughtful commentary. If Howard Hughes is going to be a hindrance to the success of Symphony Woods, can we get them out of the way? It is my understanding that they’re supposed to turn Merriweather over to an independent body sometime in the future anyway. What’s the possibility that we can hasten that?

hecker - 2013-12-05 04:42

Thanks for stopping by, Harry. Unfortunately I know very little about the history or possible future of the Howard Hughes Corporation’s involvement with Merriweather Post Pavilion. You’d be better off asking people like Bill Woodcock or Bill Santos who were around when all of that went down.

Cookies, tech and HoCo students rally with hashtags | HoCoBlogs in the Community - 2013-12-09 23:39

[…] 2. Local blogger extraordinaire, Frank Hecker, is writing a seven-part series on the Inner Arbor. His first piece is here and you can find the rest of his series on his blog. You (especially the introverts among […]