GGP Files for Bankruptcy Protection

It was official yesterday, but never unexpected. GGP filed for bankruptcy protection in federal court. Derek Simmonsen and Jennifer Broadwater have the details of the local connection of the filing. Largely, Columbia goes unaffected by the filing.

The Mall in Columbia, the master-planned community of Columbia, and the development in Columbia Town Center are not involved in the bankruptcy filings, according to information posted on the company’s Web site.

Other local GGP properties not involved in the filings are the American City Building in downtown Columbia, the Columbia Association building, Towson Town Center, Laurel Commons and Mondawmin Mall.

Some local properties owned by or affiliated with General Growth that are part of the bankruptcy filing include Gateway Overlook shopping center, on the eastern edge of Columbia, and the Hickory Ridge Village Center, in west Columbia.

GGP has said that it plans to continue with its ZRA 113 and General Plan Amendment submissions.

“As we have said many times, a good general plan and zoning will run with the land,” Hamm said. “Regardless of who owns it or what the circumstances are, a quality plan and all that comes with it survives transfers, survives economic ups and downs.”

County Executive Ken Ulman and the County Council were not surprised by the filing and are figuring out what to do about it.

As I said in my testimony to the Planning Board, this filing should continue regardless of GGP's health. If GGP does wind up having to include Columbia Town Center in its filings, then it will likely go to new ownership. That ownership may or may not consist of one company, continuing in the tradition of Rouse Company. Therefore, it is critical to devise a plan that will be (a) enforceable and (b) forward-looking.

At the same time, this gives the Planning Board some more serious considersations in their deliberations. Also, it gives our government officials more responsibility for developing a plan that will stand up regardless of ownership. This plan should be reviewed as though we, the taxpayers, would be on the hook for infrastructure change and development. It should be reviewed under a what-if scenario that we will not have an owner/developer like GGP, with whom we have a decent relationship.

This filing does not mean the death of ZRA 113 and the GPA. It actually means that this filing carries even more weight than before the filing. The economic future of our town center hinges upon it.

The Public Testimony on ZRA 113 Shows Clear Split

Derek Simmonsen has a post up on Explore Howard that links to the DPZ report on the public testimony submitted for ZRA 113 and the themes of it. Simmonsen says that the public is basically split down the middle on their opinion of the plan.

Digging a little deeper, 25 community organizations testified on ZRA 113. 32% (so, 8) organizations testified in support, 52% (13) recommended amendments, and the remainder - 4 - requested that GGP resubmit its proposal. Since Planning Board deliberation began in private on Monday, that last part was not going to happen.

Individuals told a more sorted tale. 50% of individuals who testified were in support of the plan as submitted. 24% - of which I was part - submitted testimony requesting modifications to the proposal. 11% asked for a resubmission. 15% were against the proposal altogether.

Derek refers to this as a 50-50 split among individuals. I wouldn't be inclined to call it that, but you couldn't either say that 74% support the proposal. 24% of respondents seem to support aspects of the GGP plan, but have trepidation about one or several key aspects. Given the breadth of this proposal, that should be expected.

Again, this is a small sampling of Columbia. Around 0.1% of Columbia responded with testimony. I'm not sure what that level of apathy says about the support for the plan. It is my hope, though, that the DPZ will provide us with meeting minutes and the like to get a better feel for the Planning Board deliberation and recommendations.

Public Testimony on ZRA 113

I attended the Planning Board meeting last week that was to be part two of the hearing on ZRA 113 and the General Plan Amendment proposed by GGP. This was a debacle of a session. The Planning Board started the meeting late, spent much too much time considering a motion from the HCCA that was ultimately shelved until later, and then wasted around two and a half hours asking inane questions of GGP and their representatives.

Remember, in this session, the public was supposed to be able to at least begin comment on the issue. Only four people were able to comment among a likely list of around 70. What a frustrating experience and an example of a busted bureaucracy. No matter where you stand on ZRA 113 and the GPA, you had to be angry about the Planning Board's lack of efficiency and honesty with the public.

Now, they have rescheduled the public testimony until February 5 and I cannot make it due to a prior engagement. So, I have to provide written testimony to have my voice heard. I hope you'll do the same either verbally or by pen. Here are my thoughts, though.

---

GGP has proposed a 30 year development project for downtown Columbia that would transform this space in a way that has not been seen since ground was first broken on Columbia a little over 40 years ago. They propose a huge undertaking that will mean up to 5000 new residential units, 5 million square feet of office space, hundreds of hotel rooms, and much more retail space.

On the surface, I am for the idea in principle. As a young person - 25 - I moved to Columbia just one year ago because I work here. I moved to downtown because it brought me within walking distance of my job and to the amenities in Town Center. Some amenities are great, including the walking trails, the lakes, and having a mall close by me.

Still, in a city of nearly 100,000 citizens, downtown Columbia is missing many hallmarks of a city. It is missing a grocery store, a real business district, a centerpiece that isn't a shopping mall, and a lakefront that is as vibrant as it could be.

GGP's proposal would allow for these things to happen. It would allow for a street grid that more resembles a city. We would have the opportunity to have a Symphony Woods that - albeit smaller in size - has more utility as a public space. Though there would be a drastic increase in the number of residential units, this would occur over a 30 year period and allow downtown Columbia to unfold as a suburban city leader for the 21st century. Building mixed-use, Green facilities would improve access to commerce and entertainment, and allow many of Columbia's workers to live, work, and play here.

Obviously, this will improve the tax base in Howard County by virtue of attracting employers and shops. Though the money aspect is of no real consequence to me, making Columbia into a more competitive regional employment option would be welcome.

Along with it, though, the GGP plan will bring new stresses to the infrastructure of downtown Columbia in the form of traffic, potentially a new school, and the exchange of undeveloped space for a more city-like feel. The county must hold GGP largely accountable for the financial cost of improving this infrastructure over the 30 year timeframe, and it must begin with phase one.

GGP cannot stall in making their infrastructure commitment real. Retrofitting infrastructure into developed spaces in what caused downtown Columbia to be what it is today. The Rouse planners admitted that they focused on Town Center last in their development. We must avoid that this time and that must be written into any legislation that the County adopts related to these two proposals.

Also, the General Plan Amendment must be enforceable through ties directly into the ZRA and its pursuant legislation. In GGP's original plan - the one it hopes the County adopts - there is not a clear enough connection between the ZRA and the GPA. I would happily take trade offs in the number of affordable units if the County links these two documents in an unmistakable fashion.

Some say that we should not be working on such a plan so quickly. The thing is that we have been working on this plan for years now. The part of the process that is the quickest is the bureaucratic process. Still, the public should have ample time to comment through the Planning Board, to the County Council and to Executive Ulman.

Ultimately, it is unlikely that our commentary will make that much of a dent in their deliberation. But, even if public commentary is a dog and pony show, it is critical that citizens feel like they have been heard. We may not own the land that GGP proposes to develop, but we live right next to much of it. For or against, this plan has a big impact on the future of Columbia and it is the responsibility of this generation of Columbia to ensure that the next generation is in good, well-planned hands.

There has also been uproar that our officials are working with GGP at a time in which their future as an organization and Columbia landowner is very uncertain. It is for that very reason that we must work with GGP now to develop a plan that is suitable for the citizens. If GGP fails and is forced to sell their stake in Columbia, it will either be to (1) an organization without an established relationship with the people of Columbia or (2) a confederation of owners that may have varying interests for the future of downtown.

In our own experience, we have seen the horrors of piecemeal zoning and bureaucracy. We should avoid that at all cost and develop a plan that will ensure a vibrant future downtown Columbia instead of one that could be ruined over time by a planning process that clearly lacks foresight. GGP, on the other hand, has an established relationship with Columbia - albeit much shorter than the one we had with the Rouse Companies. Still, I find it better to plan with a partner for any situation than to try the approach again with another developer whose vision may be more objectionable to this plan's critics. If the appropriate legislative ties are made between the ZRA and the GPA, then we have a plan with which we can work no matter the circumstances.

That plan should help restore Columbia as a leader in suburban city center design in the United States. Again, I look forward to a day when downtown really is a downtown. I await a time when our young people and families want to come downtown for more than just shopping and fireworks. I hope that our economy can be driven more by people that work and live here than by people that shop and commute here. These prospects will make Columbia a better place to live, a Greener place to live, and self-sufficient place to live.

Columbia's Current Development Challenges

Nearing the original intent for 100,000 people in just over 40 years, the demographics of Columbia and our County are changing. We have a population that is generally well-off. Our community seems to agree that we have better than average schools, relatively low crime, and a wealthy historic of economic development opportunities. Still, Columbia is facing a crossroads in its development and population.

As our city - yes, city - has grown, it has become apparent that many modern urban planning philosophies have been abandoned. Like many smaller cities in the state, we have chosen to develop our land in a way that does not jive with the concept of the modern city. Columbia is experiencing development on its fringes that do not particularly tie into the city as a whole. We are seeing sprawl on a daily basis in retail and commercial construction. It is adding to traffic issues and creates a community that is not citizen-friendly.

At the same time, our downtown area has never fully achieved its potential. Yes, it has components of achievement - the Lakefront, the Mall, Wilde Lake Park - but so many issues face downtown.

While there are sidewalks everywhere in downtown, much of it feels and is disconnected. Traffic speeds along the Little Patuxent Parkway and Governor Warfield Parkway loop, creating a downtown that is not friendly for a pedestrian to navigate. I can walk to the mall from Vantage Point Road, but crossing Little Patuxent to get to the entrance is a gamble.

Downtown Columbia should not just be a retail destination for people who do not live here. The Mall in Columbia is the engine that drives downtown. Its engine is sputtering, though. The development around the Mall in recent years has been less than thoughtful and doesn't exhibit modern integrated planning techniques. What we now have is a Mall Loop that lacks identity, purpose, and direction.

When I moved to Columbia, all of my friends told me that it was great that I would be halfway between Baltimore and D.C. The implication was that I wouldn't want to spend my play time in Columbia proper. For the most part I don't, though I am a patron of several bars and restaurants outside of downtown. Downtown of a city, though, should attract people to it for nightlife, entertainment, and culture. With the exception of Merriweather events and concerts or the occasional Lakefront event, downtown fails to meet that standard.

The implication of all of this is that Columbia is now in more advanced stages of working with General Growth Properties on finalizing their 30 year vision for Columbia's downtown. In effect, we are engaging in a discussion for the next generation of downtown Columbia. We have to choose how much we should harken to our past - its successes and failures - as a base for our future.

There are groups that feel that Columbia's downtown has achieved well and should be modestly preserved. In effect, they would more or less like to keep things as they are.

I am not of that ilk. I believe that cities grow and evolve. The city is a living thing. It can and should change and become better. It can become more responsive to the people that live in it. Columbia's downtown can grow and actually improve the life of the city in terms of commerce, environmental stewardship, and vibrance.

The plan that GGP has proposed isn't perfect, but it's a good start. With modest changes and careful zoning requirements, it can be a solid vision for this city to have a real downtown.

Welcome to Columbia Now

My name is Ryan Ballengee and I'm a resident of downtown Columbia, in the Town Center village. I've lived here since December 2007 and have worked for Enterprise Community Partners (formerly Enterprise Foundation) since 2005.

I'm a young man - 25 - and have lived in Maryland my entire life. I grew up in Pasadena, Maryland, in Anne Arundel County. I attended Mount St. Joe for high school and then went on the University of Maryland for five years to get an undergraduate degree in business management and a Master of Public Policy degree.

Politically speaking, I am fairly centrist. On social issues, I lean to the left. On fiscal issues, I lean more to the right. I believe that morality should have no lean.

It is from that context that I will write about the issues facing Columbia. Previously, I poked fun at the Choose Civility movement in the County because (a) it was an easy target for jokes and (b) civility is a weak standard for our County. It is my opinion that this County should strive for much higher standards in not only the behavior of its people, but in everything that it does.

I feel that it is time to start talking about ways to achieve that higher standard.