As noted previously, although Downtown residents appreciate the area’s many amenities,

the lack of shopping options is an often-cited concern. When asked specifically about
Downtown retail, residents mentioned a total number of 1,112 stores or types of stores
that they would like to have open in the near future. The most frequently cited types of
stores included grocery stores (80%), high-end retail/chain/department stores (41%),
restaurants/bars (25%), home improvement/hardware stores (18%), movie theatres
(15%), and clothing stores (15%) (see Table 35). Examples of grocery stores included
Trader Joe’s, Giant, and Whole Foods. Examples of retail stores included Nordstrom,
Target, and Wal Mart. Examples of home improvement/hardware stores included Home
Depot and Lowes and examples of clothing stores included the Gap and Banana Republic.
Table 35
What Type of Businesses You Would Like to See
Located Within Downtown Baltimore?
Downtown Baltimore Retail Assessment
Background
Downtown Partnership of Baltimore in conjunction with the Baltimore Development
Corporation (BDC), Baltimore City Department of Planning (DOP), and the Charles Street
Development Corporation, formed a Strategy Team to develop a comprehensive retail
strategy and marketing program. While the plan would serve all of Baltimore, its main
focus areas will be Downtown and select neighborhood retail districts.
To develop the report, the Strategy Team required a comprehensive understanding of the
national retail marketplace and Baltimore’s positioning within it. Accordingly, this retail
market assessment was developed and will serve as the foundation for the retail strategy
by enabling intelligent and creative decisions based on data, information, and market
realities.

Number of Percent Key Takeaways

Responses of Total The U.S. Urban Retail Market
Total Responses 470 x Demographics Drive Retail Location Decisions: While retailers consider a wide
No Response 34 7% variety of factors in making location decisions, decisions are driven primarily by
Total Valid Responses 436 demographics, population, employment, and income. If the demographic data
and trends in a location do not meet predetermined requirements, retailers are not
Grocery Stores 347 80% as likely to give the location further consideration, no matter how strong its other
Retail/Chain/Department Stores 178 41% characteristics.
Restaurants/Bars 109 25%
Home Improvement/Hardware Stores 78 18% x Different Location Factors for Different Retail Types: Within cities, high-end
retailers are typically attracted to areas in and near downtowns since this is where
Movie Theaters 66 15% the greatest number of high-income residents, employees, and visitors are on a
Clothing Stores 66 15% day-to-day basis. However, when mid-level and big box retailers, such as Target,
Coffee Shops 41 9% Marshalls, and Home Depot, locate in cities, they tend to locate outside the center
Small Specialty Stores 24 6% city in less expensive areas that offer easy access to a broad range of residents.
Boutiques 18 4% These areas often provide easy parking and/or mass transportation linkages.
Book Stores 17 4% Home Depot, Toys ‘R’ Us, and Target (among others) have opened prototype
stores in Manhattan, however, this is more of an urban experiment than a trend.
Bakeries 15 3%
Furniture/Home Goods 14 3% x National Retail is Limited in Center Cities: Typical location models for major
Other 139 32% national retail chains do not favor center cities. Suburban areas continue to be the
preferred location for most national retail chains. While the argument could be
made that many major cities are ‘under-retailed’ by national chains based on
population, most cities do not have the other critical demographic criteria and
attributes that retailers believe they need to be successful.

Of the 40 national chains studied for this project, about half have locations in the

48 53

top 8 retail cities identified below. For cities below the top 8, the presence of
high-end and other national chains is much more limited. The mid-tier cities tend to
have stores such as Gap, Banana Republic, Talbots, Barnes & Noble, Borders, and
perhaps one department store.
x National Retailers Cluster Together: Whether in suburban or central city areas,
national retailers cluster near one another and other high-end local retailers in
enclosed malls, open air malls, or designated shopping districts. Many national
retailers have a pre-determined list of other retailers with whom they prefer to co-
locate.
x Changing Urban Malls: While most cities in the top 25 metro areas have a major
shopping mall of 400,000 square feet or more, many of these are in decline, such
as Philadelphia’s Gallery (1 million square feet) and St. Louis’ City Centre
(900,000 square feet). Popular, newer developments in central cities are quite
different from traditional enclosed malls and may include: mixed-use facilities,
open-air malls, and street-level storefronts in neighborhood-type shopping
districts. Louisville recently converted its former Galleria Mall into an outdoor
Urban Entertainment Center similar to Baltimore’s Power Plant. Examples of newer
urban shopping districts or open-air malls include Philadelphia’s Walnut Street,
Minneapolis’ Nicollet Mall, and Atlanta’s Atlantic Station (a 138-acre mixed-use
project on the site of a former midtown steel mill).
x Top U.S. Retail Cities: Among major U.S. metro areas, there are only about 8
strong retail center cities (based on high retail sales, high consumer spending, high
retail employment and/or a large presence of major national chains in the center
city): New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Washington, D.C.,
Philadelphia, and Portland, OR. While other cities, such as Minneapolis, Denver,
and San Diego, are improving their retail bases, most cities in the top 25 metro
areas are struggling to retain and attract national retail chains.
x What Top Cities Have in Common: Most of the cities listed above have a number
of commonalities: 1) large metro area populations; 2) high center city population
densities; 3) high center city daytime employment; 4) high center city average
incomes; 5) at least one large mall or shopping district (400,000 to 1.5 million
square feet) in the center city; 6) good public transportation; 7) good public
safety either real or perceived. It is the combination of all of these traits together
in a core area that seems to drive success, as opposed to having only one or two
traits.
x Experience and Authenticity: In urban areas, national retail (and high-end
locally-owned stores) tends to locate in neighborhoods or areas that offer a
unique experience relative to typical suburban neighborhoods. This includes the
presence of small parks and squares, sidewalk cafes, clustered amenities, and a
pedestrian-friendly non auto-dominated environment that encourages people to
linger. Urban areas are also capitalizing on their authenticity by using historic
assets, architecture, cultural offerings, and unique urban settings to create a
desirable environment for residents, employers, and visitors. Rittenhouse Square
(Philadelphia), Magnificent Mile (Chicago), and Newbury Street/Public Garden
(Boston) are all areas that pull these traits together.
x Department Stores: With retail trends favoring big box stores, low-price
warehouses, and open-air or ‘main street’ malls, department stores have been
losing their long-held anchor position in the retail market. Department stores are
being forced to re-invent themselves (Sears, JC Penney), consolidate with other
stores (the Federated takeover of May), eliminate stores (Federated, Lord &
Taylor) or go out of business (Wards, Bradlees, Caldor). However, among the 25
largest metro areas, 18 have at least one department store in or near downtown.
Six of the eight top tier retail cities listed above have at least 4 or more
department stores, with only Philadelphia (2 stores) and Washington, D.C. (1 store)
lagging the group. The department stores that are located in these center cities
tend to be higher-end, including Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Macy’s, Saks Fifth
Avenue, Barney’s, Lord & Taylor, and Bloomingdales.
Pittsburgh provides a sobering example of the difficulty of to secure a department
store to spur high-end retail growth. The city was successful in using incentives to
lure high-end Lazarus and Lord & Taylor stores to serve as anchors for a planned
shopping avenue. However, both stores closed within 2 years of opening, citing
sales figures that fell below 50% of projections.
x Incentives: While a handful of cities have created incentive programs to attract
retail, research on this project was unable to find any significant and successful
retail incentive programs in major cities. Pittsburgh, as discussed above, provided
$50 million for new Lazarus and Lord & Taylor stores, only to see both downtown
stores close within two years of opening. The city is now responsible for paying
off that debt. Washington, D.C. has enabled TIF legislation for retail, however, it
has produced no favorable results. Only one small store has taken advantage of
Detroit’s retail grants incentive. Buffalo used significant state and local grants to
attract Bass Pro Shops to anchor a downtown redevelopment project, however, this
is viewed largely as an act of desperation by a city in need of an economic spark.
Research and many retail development professionals conclude that incentives for
retail are bad policy not only because they tend to be risky, but also because they
do not seem to produce desired results. The best incentive for retail appears to be
the creation of a city environment that supports retail through infrastructure,
amenities, government support and incentives targeted to the project developer

54 55
 for the overall project, as opposed to potential project tenants. In other words, an
abundance of public incentives is not enough to compensate for a weak
marketplace.
x Retail as Economic Development Effort: Historically, most cities have taken the
position that retail is a follower of other economic activity. Therefore, cities and
regions have not considered attracting and supporting retail to be an economic
development priority. However, recent trends, such as renewal of center cities and
the quest for improved amenities, have driven a new focus on retail as a key
amenity in supporting quality of life.
Few cities, however, have placed much in the way of resources towards a retail
attraction and support effort. Some cities have created retail incentives (see
above) with minimal results. San Jose, Austin, and Portland have each developed
retail strategies while Philadelphia has pieced together highly professional
marketing materials to promote its retail neighborhoods. But none of these cities
has a program, staff, or organization that is dedicated to retail attraction and
support.
x Transportation and Parking: While parking for retail is viewed as a must in the
suburbs, it plays a different role in urban centers. The top 8 retail cities each have
good public transportation systems (including subway and light rail) and a daytime
population base that is already downtown for other reasons (e.g., residents,
employees, visitors). Philadelphia representatives stated that their retailers do not
complain about the lack of parking nearby because they recognize that their
business will come from people who are in town for other reasons and will shop
while they are there. If people do come downtown to shop, it is for the experience
or a unique item, not for convenience. This is why the existing demographics are so
important. Cheap, easy parking is not typically a necessary part of the successful
urban retail district.
x General Retail Development Trends: Current retail developments tend to revolve
around mixed-use, ‘lifestyle’ centers (often open-air ‘main street’ malls), and urban
entertainment centers (UEC). Few traditional enclosed malls are being developed
today, although many argue the existing ones still have a place in the market.
Mixed-use developments are those that include office, retail and residential space.
They often entail pedestrian-friendly environments, lifestyle-oriented
merchandising, main street ambience, convenient access, and scaled-down big-box
stores.
According to the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), lifestyle centers
typically have an open-air configuration and 150,000 to 500,000 square feet of
56
served by national retail chains.
Of the 40 national retail chains evaluated for this project, only 8 have
locations within 1 mile of Baltimore’s city center. They are: Banana Republic,
Barnes & Noble, ESPNZone, Gap, Office Depot, Safeway, Talbots, and Whole
Foods. Most of the other chains have multiple locations in suburban Maryland,
however, some have no Maryland locations, including Barney’s, Cole Haan,
Marshall Fields, Neiman Marcus, and West Elm.
x Characterized by Small, Local Retail: While the presence of high-end
national chains is fairly limited in Baltimore’s Downtown area, the city does
have a large number of small, street-level, local retailers. Among the top 25
markets reviewed, Baltimore City is among the top 10 for the number of retail
establishments but it has the lowest average employment per establishment
(i.e. lots of stores with small staffs). These independent shops contribute to the
sense that Baltimore is a unique or ‘authentic’ shopping destination.
One challenge Baltimore must over come in order to attract larger retail stores
is that its existing building footprints and frontage are too small or otherwise
unsuitable for national retailers.
x What’s Been Holding Baltimore Back?: Baltimore’s effort to attract national
retail chains has been held back by: 1) demographics that have only recently
begun to become attractive to retailers; 2) daytime Downtown employment
that is well-below top markets; 3) no large, clustered shopping district or mall
in or near Downtown; 4) lack of adequate space to group retailers together
and provide desired footprints and store frontage; 5) stiff competition from
Columbia and wealthy surrounding suburbs; 6) easy access to high-end urban
shopping experiences in New York, Philadelphia, and Washington; 7)
inadequate and poorly connected public transportation system; 8) the
perception of crime; 9) lack of comprehensive information and marketing data
about the Baltimore market and how it compares to other cities and suburban
markets.
x Reasons for Optimism in Baltimore: Baltimore has a number of reasons to be
optimistic about its position to attract and support a strong retail base. The
City: 1) is arguably one of the nation’s top downtowns given its dense
clustering of residents, businesses, visitors, institutions, sports facilities, and
events; 2) meets many factors that are driving national retail chain locations in
top tier cities; 3) has high population density; 4) has a high number of high
income earners in the city center; 5) is realizing a booming demand for high-
end residential units; 6) has a high hotel occupancy rate with many new hotels
in the pipeline; and 7) has the authenticity (architecture, culture, distinct
58
retail space, with at least 50,000 square feet occupied by upscale national chains.
The tenant types are typically apparel, home goods, and books and music.
Restaurants, entertainment, and design ambience (including sidewalk cafes, open
space, and other desirable settings) also make the complex a destination for more
than just shopping. Many of these ‘main street’ projects are anchored by mega-
plex movie theaters and offer outdoor dining, fountains and park benches
designed to replicate the environment of old time city shopping districts.
Urban Entertainment Centers (UEC) are developments that mix destination,
entertainment, and retail. These projects bring together unique tenants and sense
of place to encourage visitors to extend their stay. They are often theatrical, with
one developer describing them as, “Disneyland without the rides.” To become
successful, UECs require a strong tourist and local market. They also need some
type of over-arching theme. The Cordish Company in Baltimore has become a
signature developer of downtown UECs, with Baltimore’s Power Plant, Louisville’s
4th Street Live, Kansas City’s Power and Light District, as well as projects in
Orlando, Norfolk, and other cities.
The Baltimore City Market and Retail Potential
x Demographic Power in 1-Mile Radius of Core: Baltimore arguably has one
of the nation’s top center cities. The mix of residents, employers, tourists, and
amenities supports its emergence as a top-tier downtown. Among the top 25
U.S. metro areas, Baltimore ranks 8th for population (36,980) and 8th for the
number of households earning $75,000 or more.
x Demographic Decline in 3- and 5-Mile Radius: Like many major U.S. cities,
Baltimore has a solid Downtown at its core, surrounded by struggling areas.
While Baltimore’s population in a 3- and 5-mile radius remains among the top
10 cities nationally, income, growth, and other critical measures fall-off
dramatically. Like Baltimore, most major metro areas used to resemble a
‘doughnut,’ with the entire city in decline and the surrounding suburbs showing
great strength and growth. Today, large metro areas are starting to resemble
‘bullseyes,’ with redevelopment and a rising middle- and upper-class in the
center city and outer suburban areas, but with continued decline in other city
areas and inner-ring suburbs.
x Underserved by National Retail Chains? Yes and No: Given its improving
demographics in the city center and in demographic comparison with city
centers in other metro areas, it could be argued that Baltimore is underserved
by national retail chains. However, like most cities, Baltimore’s city center still
does not fare well when compared to surrounding suburban jurisdictions given
their strong demographics, flexible real estate, and parking access. The
overall retail market in Greater Baltimore and nearby Washington is very well
57
neighborhoods, diverse populations) that is driving urban renewal in many
major markets.
x Suburbs Win Demographic Battle with City: While Baltimore and nearby
Washington, D.C. are performing fairly well against other central cities for
desired demographic attributes, the surrounding Maryland suburbs perform
much better. Within a 5-mile radius of their cores, Washington, Silver Spring,
Baltimore, and Bethesda have by far the highest populations and employment
levels in the region. However, growth, incomes, and consumer spending are
much higher in the suburban towns than in Baltimore. The median household
income within a 5-mile radius of Downtown Baltimore is $31,976, while it is
more than $80,000 in Columbia and Bethesda. All other jurisdictions, including
Washington, D.C., average more than $50,000. Combined with other key
factors considered in retail location models, such as available land, parking,
and public safety, and it is easy to see why retailers tend to cluster in suburban
areas.
x Light Street to Canton is Strongest City Area: Among the Baltimore
neighborhoods reviewed, the areas around the Inner Harbor (from the
intersection of Light and Pratt Streets, through Harbor East and into Canton)
show the greatest potential for attracting national retail. Federal Hill
possesses fairly strong demographics and provides possibilities, however it is
not as central to the business and tourism core as the other areas and does not
have large buildings or land parcels to meet national retail needs. Incomes
and household growth would likely deter high-end national chains from
considering Mt. Vernon, the East Side/JHU, and the West Side/UMMS, even
though these neighborhoods have the largest populations within a 1-mile
radius. These neighborhoods should be considered for local, boutique, and
small national or regional retail chains.
Primary Implications of Findings for Baltimore
x If Demographics Rule: Baltimore’s efforts to attract high-end national retail must
focus on the neighborhoods within a 1-mile radius of Downtown. This is the area of
the City that provides the demographics and attributes that are proving attractive
to high-end chains in other cities. Baltimore must also begin to produce
demographics and marketing materials based on the entire City Center (e.g., 1-
mile radius) and not a limited definition of what constitutes ‘Downtown’. If
Baltimore doesn’t put its best foot forward in attempting to attract national retail,
it is much less likely to be successful.
x If Cities Don’t Fit Retail Models: Baltimore must creatively package and market
itself to desired retailers guided by a well-conceived plan. Otherwise, the existing
models will serve to pass the City by. Baltimore must also identify ways to
59
 differentiate itself from surrounding suburbs.
x If National Retailers Cluster; If All Successful Cities Have Dedicated Shopping
Districts and/or Malls: Baltimore must identify and promote areas where retailers
can co-locate and cluster together in large numbers.
x If Retailers Want Certain Footprints and Frontage: Baltimore must either find
space that meets retailer models or work creatively with retailers to help them
adapt their models to unique urban environments.
x If Authenticity Matters: Baltimore must preserve and leverage its unique
neighborhoods, markets, and architecture.
x If The Experience Matters: Baltimore must consider sidewalk cafes,
parks/squares, and places to linger which are not dominated by automobiles when
determining where retail will thrive.
x If Access Matters; If Top-Tier Retail Cities Don’t Prioritize Easy Parking:
Baltimore must consider retail access in housing, transportation, and other growth
planning. The City must also ensure its designated shopping districts are
pedestrian friendly since most urban shoppers arrive on foot.
x If Department Stores Aren’t Anchors Anymore, but Part of the Mix; If Most
Downtown Department Stores are High End: Baltimore should continue to
explore the possibilities department stores may provide to the overall retail
environment and mix Downtown, but attraction of a department store should not
be viewed as a panacea that, by itself, will move the city ahead. The city should
focus Downtown efforts on higher-end department stores.
x If Retail Incentives Aren’t Effective: Baltimore must consider the entire set of
factors that are proving to drive attraction of targeted national retail chains, as
opposed to looking for an incentive that will serve as a silver bullet. The city must
also focus on attracting and working with experienced developers that have the
proven ability to attract desired retail to their projects.
x If Baltimore has a Strong, Diversified Center City, but has Limited Presence of
National Retail: Baltimore has the opportunity to move into the top tier of U.S.
downtowns for retail if it markets and manages its assets well.
x If Most Cities Don’t Have Dedicated Retail Marketing Programs: Baltimore has
the opportunity to achieve success and be a first-mover among mid-tier markets,
given its dedicated retail staff at Downtown Partnership, focus on commercial
60
associated neighborhoods firsthand.
City Comparisons: Apples and Oranges
The problem in comparing cities is that they are political jurisdictions that are very
different in size (land area) so the information obtained does not provide for apples-to-
apples comparisons. For example, Phoenix has a city population of 1.39 million and
Baltimore City has a population of 643,000. So it is commonly assumed that Phoenix (6th
largest U.S. city) is over twice as big as Baltimore City (18th largest). However, Phoenix
City has a land area of about 475 square miles, whereas Baltimore City has only 81
square miles. Baltimore City actually has a population density three times greater than
Phoenix.
Even downtowns are difficult to compare. The Team uncovered studies that compared
‘downtown’ areas in many cities, however most of the data was self-reported and the
downtowns varied in size and definition.
Therefore, instead of using the top 25 cities for comparison, the Team decided to start by
identifying the 25 largest metro areas, which represent true markets. Then, to ensure
apples-to-apples comparisons of city centers, Claritas software was used to collect
demographic data for a 1-, 3- and 5- mile radius from each city center. Using this data,
Baltimore ranks 8th among the top 25 U.S. metros for population within a 1-mile radius of
its City Center while Phoenix ranks 17th.
This approach more accurately portrays how national retailers make location decisions
and helps to explain why Phoenix, in spite of officially being the nation’s 6th largest city,
has limited retail downtown. It also more accurately reveals the true strength of
Baltimore’s downtown and nearby areas.
Population and Households
It is important to recognize the importance of household growth, in addition to monitoring
population trends, when evaluating a market. In Baltimore’s case, while population in
certain neighborhoods has declined the number of households within those neighborhoods
actually increased. Incomes are also rising in many city neighborhoods. In neighborhoods
in and around Downtown and the Inner Harbor, homes that used to house lower-income
families of 5, are now middle- to upper-class households of one or two people. The city is
also seeing significant infill development. So, population may decline, but number of
households, median household incomes, property values, and tax revenues in many
neighborhoods are going up.
62
revitalization at BDC (including Main Streets) and existing center city attributes
and demographics.
x If Site Selection for Retail Varies by Size and Type: Baltimore must address the
strategy to meet the different needs of primary retail types: 1) high-end national
chains; 2) mid-level national chains; and 3) smaller, local retailers. High-end retail
must focus primarily on the high-income core (1-mile radius); mid-level retail (e.g.,
Target, Kohls, Marshalls) must focus on neighborhoods that provide lower cost,
easy access to a wide variety of residents; and smaller, local retail must focus
primarily on the city’s many unique neighborhoods.
Background: Project Approach
To develop a successful assessment and strategy, the Team wanted to understand how
retail location decisions are being made, the key factors involved in the location process,
how Baltimore and other places compare given these key factors, current and future retail
trends, and the recent experiences of other cities. To attain this understanding, the Team
approached the project from a variety of different angles:
x Understanding Retail Location Decisions: Forty national retailers were
evaluated to determine where they have actually located stores and how they
make location decisions. The 40 retailers represent a cross section of retail types
including department, grocery, specialty, and big box stores.
x Comparing Center Cities in the Top 25 Metro Areas: Each of the top 25 U.S.
metro areas and their core cities were evaluated to determine their demographics.
The cities were also studied to determine which national retail chains are located in
or near downtown.
x Determining Retail Trends: A wide variety of articles and reports were reviewed
to determine the latest retail trends.
x Comparing Baltimore and Its Surrounding Suburbs: Baltimore was compared to
surrounding suburban towns to determine the difference in demographic
characteristics and other factors most critical to retail location.
x Comparing Baltimore Center City Neighborhoods: Key demographics were
evaluated using a 1-mile radius of 7 different neighborhoods in or near Downtown
Baltimore. The areas studied include: Canton, East Side/JHU medical campus,
Federal Hill, Harbor East, Mt. Vernon, Pratt & Light Streets, and the West
Side/University System of Maryland.
x Visiting a Top Retail City: Members of the project team visited Philadelphia to
meet with local officials and to experience the City’s retail shopping districts and
61
Retail Strategy for Downtown Baltimore
Executive Summary
Downtown Baltimore is emerging as a leading destination for local and national retailers.
The pace of new store openings is quickening as more residents move into Downtown,
more housing developments open with a ground-floor retail component, and as the city
moves forward with high-profile new projects. This combination of new residents,
additional hotel rooms and new attractions has excited retailers about Downtown over the
past few years.
Where once there was a “chicken and egg” relationship between residential and retail
development in Downtown Baltimore – residents were reluctant to live where their access
to goods and necessities was limited, while retailers would not locate where the customer
base was small – now there is a symbiotic relationship between residential development
and retail growth.
This began to change over the past ten years as The Partnership’s Downtown Housing
Initiative, together with major public and private sector investments, helped dramatically
increase the number of Downtown residents to more than 37,000. While the new
residential developments have been coming online, The Partnership and Baltimore
Development Corporation (BDC) were laying the groundwork for new Downtown retail
investments.
According to The Partnership’s annual State of Downtown Reports, Downtown employment
is up 6.8 percent to more than 100,000. Development projects worth $3.17 billion are
underway through 2008. Reflecting the need for both service and goods-oriented retail,
more than 60 new retailers recently committed to Downtown, including top national brands
such as:
x Best Buy;
x Bedrock;
x Chipotle;
x Cosi;
x Filene’s Basement;
x Office Depot;
x Starbucks; and,
x Urban Outfitters.
63
All signs point to sustained residential growth Downtown driven by young professionals
and retiring baby boomers. According to recent data, collected by The Sage Policy
Group for The Partnership, this growth will be aided significantly by the addition of more
than 17,000 new jobs from the federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, the
new biotech facilities opening at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins medical
campuses, as well as the expansion of the four Downtown area hospitals.
To better attract retailers and direct retail investment, The Partnership has initiated a
multi-stage retail planning process. In October 2005, The Partnership, in conjunction with
BDC, the Baltimore City Department of Planning, and the Charles Street Development
Corporation released Part One of this effort: the 2005 Downtown Baltimore Retail Market
Assessment (Addendum 1). The Assessment established baseline demographic information
and examined key factors in retailers’ location decision-making process, as well as future
retail trends. The data that emerged from the Assessment illustrates Downtown’s retail
strength.
Within a 1-mile radius of the Downtown core, the 2005 Assessment found that:
x Downtown Baltimore ranks 8th in the country for population density (37,000) and in
the number of households (3,145) earning $75,000 or more, making Baltimore
comparable to Denver, Boston, and Washington, D.C. These numbers are echoed
in the more recent Demographic Analysis conducted by The Partnership and the
Jacob-France Institute of the University of Baltimore (JFI) in the summer of 2006.
x Baltimore City ranks 10th among the top 25 U.S. metro areas with a per capita
income of $35,556, making the region comparable to Philadelphia and Chicago.
x Downtown Baltimore ranks 16th for total employment with 102,812 jobs, similar to
Cincinnati and Atlanta.
x The economic data routinely used by developers and retailers when deciding
where to locate new stores is insufficient to show the dramatic recent improvements
to Baltimore’s demographic profile.
x In 2001, housing demand was estimated at approximately 5,300 new units over a
five year period. Since then, 4,000 units have been built or are currently under
construction. Rents are in an uptrend and sales prices are also rising steadily, a
strong indication that demand is outpacing supply. The 2006 update for housing
demand estimates that 7,400 new units need to be delivered by 2011.
The Partnership is utilizing the 2005 Downtown Retail Market Assessment as the foundation
upon which to build the detailed retail development strategy outlined in this report. The
strategy focuses on the following main themes:
64
Complete pedestrian counts for key existing and future retail intersections in order to
provide further information for recruitment purposes.
x Potential intersections could include:
o Charles and Saratoga Streets;
o Eutaw and Baltimore Streets;
o Pratt and Calvert Streets;
o Pratt and Light Streets;
o Pratt and Market Streets.
Review CoStar traffic counts.
x Select intersections, including those used for pedestrian counts.
x Incorporate into documentation.
Create an interactive/GIS mapping system for existing retail development in Downtown,
that includes:
x Downtown retail totals as the first layer of each map;
x Demographic break-downs for each neighborhood within Downtown;
x Annual totals from the State of Downtown report (e.g. number of employees,
residents, students, etc.);
x Development pipeline (e.g. housing units under construction, in planning; hotels
under construction, in planning, etc.);
x Number of retailers, types of retail, lists of high-end or well-known retailers,
square footages, rental rates, etc.
x (Note: this information could be completed first as a Power Point document.)
Distribute information via website, print materials and conferences. Encourage developers
and brokers to utilize these materials in recruitment efforts.
Marketing
As stated in the Demographics section above, all marketing materials should reflect a 1-
mile radius of Downtown’s core and recognize that adjacent neighborhoods can contribute
users of Downtown retail and locations for future retail expansions. Specific marketing
recommendations include the following:
Continue Baltimore’s presence at ICSC.
x Encourage developers and brokers to include agency staff as part of initial
discussions with retailers.
x Coordinate retailer meetings to best target specific retailers for locations and
avoid any overlap or confusion for the retailers.
66
x Demographics & Marketing;
x Retail Recruitment;
x Retail Clustering;
x Retail Building Program;
x Authenticity & Placemaking;
x Incentives; and,
x Site Specific Recommendations.
Demographics & Marketing
Retailers make location decisions based upon the dominant demographics and expected
growth of any given area. The new data emerging about Downtown Baltimore’s
demography should make it very competitive to new retail, particularly within a one-mile
radius of Downtown’s core. To maximize this effectiveness, economic development officials
and real estate professionals should aggressively market the data to retailers as outlined
below.
Demographics
Utilize the 1-mile radius demographics established in the Retail Assessment (October 2005)
x Create marketing materials focusing on the strength of 1-mile radius from
Downtown’s core to recruit retailers.
x Encourage everyone involved in retail recruitment or promotion of Baltimore,
including developers, brokers, elected officials, economic development officials,
and BACVA, to utilize this standard set of data.
x Send updates and provide respective marketing materials to users.
x Distribute demographic data to retailers and brokers at International Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC) conventions and individual meetings.
x Include demographic data in any print mailings to retailers and brokers.
x Make all information available on the Downtown Partnership website.
Research, review, and assess the demographics and buying power of neighborhoods
adjacent to Downtown (Federal Hill, Fells Point, Canton, etc.) and incorporate this
information into retail recruitment marketing materials. Residents in these neighborhoods
will shop Downtown.
65
Increase amount of advertising in national retail publications.
x Create comprehensive and attractive insert on Downtown retail for national retail
publications.
x Broaden presence on web.
x Determine additional national retail websites to which Downtown Partnership can
link.
Implement a public relations campaign to tell Downtown Baltimore’s emerging retail story.
x Research and select appropriate national publications, including non-retail
publications.
x Contact respective members of the publication to pitch story.
x Include demographics, retailers’ success stories, and overall quality of life.
Initiate an umbrella marketing campaign, geared to shoppers, to encourage Downtown
shopping.
x Identify best means and methods of reaching Baltimore metro area shoppers.
x Capitalize on the sense of place and uniqueness within Downtown, and its distinct
shopping experience, to draw more consumers.
x Create incentives for shoppers such as free/reduced parking, discounts, etc.
x Work with retailers to identify the needs and interests of the target audience.
x Increase outreach to hotels and their guests.
x Partner with existing agencies and organizations, such as:
o Baltimore Area Convention & Visitors Association;
o Baltimore Development Corporation;
o Baltimore Main Streets;
o Historic Charles Street Association;
o Market Center Merchants Association;
o Restaurant Association of Maryland; and
o Westside Renaissance.
Retail Recruitment
For decades, retailers did not locate in urban areas because the suburbs offered
inexpensive land close to more densely populated suburban markets. Slowly, retailers
are returning to downtowns, although many struggle with reinventing their successful
suburban retail models (e.g. pad sites, mall locations, and parking). Cities require
retailers to develop new models that maximize the space and frontage available to them
in urban areas. Accordingly, Baltimore must market itself in ways that overcome
perceived obstacles to opening stores Downtown. This marketing should stress Downtown
Baltimore’s demographic strengths and differentiate Downtown from the surrounding
suburbs. Specific recommendations include:
67
Create a targeted list of potential retailers that Baltimore’s residents would like to have
located in Downtown.
x Include national and regional chains, local or independently owned and operated
restaurants, boutiques, specialty stores, and services. While department stores,
particularly higher-end department stores and/or mid-range multi-service stores
such as Target, will be part of the recruitment list, they are not to be considered as
the sole focus for a retail anchor.
x Assess each retailer’s needs (space requirements, median household income,
parking, etc.).
x Determine potential Downtown locations for each retailer on the list.
x Include appropriate broker or corporate contact.
Gather sales per square foot information for existing Downtown retailers.
x Obtain information for major national retailers.
x Provide confidentially upon request to retailers, brokers and developers.
Create informational sharing opportunities to expand recruitment efforts.
x Hold quarterly meetings with developers and brokers.
x Strive to hold meetings at a time and location, including in the counties, which is
convenient for developers and brokers located outside of Downtown.
x Review available space, retailers seeking a Downtown location and updated
demographic information.
Expand outreach beyond retailers to include those with experience in retail real estate.
x Pursue local and national developers who have contacts and a successful history
with retail clients and tenants.
x Establish relationships with a broader variety of brokers who have extensive retail
experience.
x Collaborate with architects and contractors who have worked on retail
developments.
68
Create GIS system (within neighborhood GIS mapping referenced above) of vacant retail,
as well as retail under construction and in planning.
x On an ongoing basis, work with developers, building owners, and brokers to
collect all retail information, including floor plans, photos, terms, timeframes, and
contact information.
x Highlight the program on Downtown Partnership and agency websites, and market
it to outside sources.
Partner with CoStar on retail inventory to reach more prospective retailers.
x Highlight Downtown properties regularly.
x Host retail inventory on Downtown Partnership website with link to BDC and
CoStar.
x Work with brokers to utilize and update listing opportunities for all retail locations
in Downtown.
Continue working with groups such as Historic Charles Street Association, Market Center
Merchants Association, WestSide Renaissance, and Main Streets to strengthen and better
coordinate efforts.
Existing and future clustering areas could include:
x Inner Harbor – long the center of retail and tourist activity, the area continues to
thrive by reinventing itself. The Inner Harbor currently has the greatest capacity to
attract national and high-end retailers due to its easy access and popularity with
residents, employees, and visitors. The majority of Downtown’s national retail is
currently located along the Inner Harbor. Additional retail should be considered,
including vending/kiosks, to augment the pedestrian and retail experience around
the Harbor to Fells Point. Both 10 Inner Harbor (the former McCormick site) and
300 E. Pratt Street are creating continuous retail opportunities both along Pratt
Street and the respective side streets. For most properties in the Inner Harbor
retail should be considered on both the water and street sides to improve the
aesthetics and pedestrian experience.
o Pratt Street – currently, the area has predominantly national retailers with
some independents (mostly food). There are opportunities at existing
buildings where retail could/should be added. Maximizing ground-level
spaces for retail is critical to creating pedestrian flow and improving the
connectivity of existing, scattered retail.
Retail additions, as well as placemaking, will be explored as part of the
Pratt Street Design process. Work with the selected design team and
stakeholders group should be ongoing throughout the process. Marketing
materials (e.g. maps, renderings, and vision) should be used heavily in
70
Strengthen and coordinate agency recruitment efforts.
x Include Downtown Partnership, BDC, the Baltimore Mayor’s Office, and the
Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED).
x Hold quarterly meetings to discuss available space, retailers seeking a Downtown
location, and to update demographic information.
x Coordinate marketing efforts including publication advertisements, press releases,
and attendance at ICSC conferences.
x Coordinate visits with prospective tenants/brokers that include tours and
informational sessions.
x Review incentives offered at the State, City and Downtown level (see further detail
in section below).
Retail Clustering
Retailers prefer to cluster together to better capture a larger audience of shoppers.
Many successful cities have dedicated shopping districts within their downtown areas.
Baltimore must identify and promote areas where retailers can co-locate and cluster
together in large numbers. Specifically, it should:
Identify streets, and blocks within streets, where retailers can co-locate to create a critical
mass. Foster connectivity between existing and future locations.
x Market clusters of retailers, utilizing GIS mapping and demographics.
x Include other existing retailers in that area, as well as vacant locations and those in
development.
(A comprehensive list of Downtown neighborhoods, including current and potential
clustering options, is explored in greater detail below.)
Work with developers and building owners within these nodes to create improved and
contiguous retail opportunities.
x Where holes exist in the retail flow, encourage the building owner to renovate or
create space and recruit potential retailers.
x If the building owner neglects its property or violates City codes, encourage BDC
to assemble large parcels where prospective developers already are in place;
require ground floor retail as part of the development program.
x Where possible, encourage multi-building purchases under the control of one
developer to create a thematic, non-conflicting cluster of retail possibilities.
x Review ways to discourage non-retail uses on ground floors.
69
recruitment efforts as this is a very attractive area, demographically, for
most national retailers.
o Harbor East – is a mix of high-end national retailers, smaller national
boutiques, and unique independent retailers. The area connects the Harbor
area to Fells Point creating a continuous shopping/pedestrian experience.
Ongoing recruitment efforts should focus on the creation of a neighborhood
through a variety of retail options, including further service retail. The
build-out of current plans is critical to momentum in this area.
x City Center – historically the region’s leading business district, City Center is dotted
mostly with food shops and accessory services, such as dry cleaners and drug
stores. This is changing due to an influx of new residents over the past few years.
Existing retailers are extending their hours while new retailers are moving in to
serve this fast-growing base of customers. The new Superfresh at Charles and
Saratoga Streets will serve as a key anchor to attract new retailers in this area.
Space will need to continue to be renovated to meet more retailers’ needs.
Where buildings are converted to residential or hotel uses, retail space should be
incorporated into the building, particularly at key corner locations.
o Center, Charles, and Hopkins Plazas – located along the Charles Street
corridor, the plazas will function as a linear series of parks and retail
enclaves. All three plazas will be renovated by the end of 2007. Fully
leasing the retail space at Charles Plaza, anchored by the Superfresh, will
do much to connect City Center with Mount Vernon. Center Plaza can
perform well as a destination retail location with predominantly food
offerings, a dry cleaners, and health club – all of which appeal to office
workers and nearby residents. As the site of the former Mechanic Theatre
is renovated and reoccupied, attention should be directed to the inclusion
of Hopkins Plaza as an asset to the new retailers, particularly for outdoor
dining.
o Power Plant Live – is almost exclusively a food and entertainment venue
for locally- and nationally-owned businesses. There is room for additional
food/entertainment/retail as new developments are built. When existing
buildings experience turnover, close attention should be paid to recruiting
viable restaurant options. More effort should be placed on attracting
business lunch customers, as well as tourists, to augment the current customer
base of mostly evening and weekend attendance.
71
 o Charles Street – is characterized by predominantly independent uses
including food and boutique, with additional retail opportunities in the
southern City Center blocks. Charles Street can become a connector
between the Inner Harbor, City Center, Mount Vernon, and Westside
neighborhoods. Continued placemaking efforts by the Historic Charles
Street Association should be supported and encouraged. The Mechanic site
is critical as a location for large scale anchor tenants around which
additional retailers will want to locate.
x Mount Vernon – has mostly independent uses in smaller historic buildings and is
anchored by cultural institutions. Additional work is necessary to convert older
buildings into usable retail space. Currently, side streets offer clusters of unique
retail experiences and attention should be given to highlighting these areas, as
well as creating connections to existing retail locations such as Antique Row and
along Charles Street. Developments in the northern portion of the neighborhood,
such as State Center and UB Bolton Yards, must include large retail floorplates,
including opportunities for grocery stores and national retailers to capitalize on a
captive audience and access from I-83, Penn Station, and Light Rail.
x Westside – has predominantly independent uses and is anchored by the Lexington
Market, Hippodrome, and Centerpoint. Retail opportunities abound for small and
large tenants, national and independent. Improving the existing buildings around
Lexington Market is critical, as is creating connectivity to the University of
Maryland Baltimore and the University of Maryland Medical Systems. Creating
connections between Camden Yards and points north is imperative. Where
possible, additional retail should be added to existing buildings and vacant lots,
or surface parking, i.e. “filling in the gaps.” Completion of the Superblock is
critical to creating a connection between City Center, Mount Vernon, and the
Westside. Larger retail floorplates should be considered for the buildings in order
to create an opportunity for mid-level national retailers. Smaller side streets such
as Saratoga and Park, currently dominated by independent retailers, should be
the focus of an outreach for signage and façade improvements. While not
displacing current tenants, Lexington Market should upgrade offerings as existing
tenants’ leases expire.
72
Endorse two-story stores where the location is right, but the building is logistically difficult
and multi-building purchase is not possible.
x Identify potential two-story store sites.
x Work with architects to draw basic concept plans and development costs.
x Review and evaluate developer financial proformas and match with potential
alternate funding sources, such as BDC, the Maryland Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD), and Baltimore Community Funding.
x Market these locations to potential retailers.
Work with for-sale buildings to create whole block development (e.g. St. James
properties, 400 block of N. Howard, Water/Light Street properties).
x Maintain an updated list of for-sale and RFP development opportunities.
x Make the list available on Downtown Partnership’s website.
x Distribute updates to retail-friendly and proactive developers and building
owners.
Expand Downtown Partnership’s Façade Improvement Program (FIP).
x Extend boundaries of the existing program.
x Market the program more effectively and to a broader audience, including
building owners, developers, and brokers.
x Offer further architectural assistance.
x Hire an on-call architect to design improvements with approval from BDC & The
Partnership.
x Seek to offer FIP grants to a row or block of building owners/tenants for maximum
aesthetic impact.
x Select a high-visibility area to perform this sample.
x Assist in increased funding of selected area.
x Publicize the results.
Energize the vision for future retail space.
x Work to improve overall architecture in any renovated or newly constructed
buildings.
x Continue to participate in Department of Planning and UDARP meetings.
x Investigate the possibility of inclusion of retail design criteria in Urban Renewal
Plans.
Authenticity & Placemaking
When compared with the suburbs, downtowns offer the promise of a more authentic
experience and provide a sense of place not found in cookie-cutter suburban malls or
retail villages. In order to promote Downtown as a unique shopping experience, Baltimore
must preserve and leverage its distinctive neighborhoods, markets, and architecture.
74
x Station North – some small, independent retail is present. Designated as an Arts
& Entertainment District, the area is anchored by the Charles Theater and Penn
Station. The redevelopment of the Chesapeake Restaurant site is imperative to
adding retail to this area, as is redevelopment of the Railway Express building
and the Amtrak surface lots. The A&E District advantages should be marketed
more heavily and work should be ongoing with owners and developers of large
floorplate buildings to retrofit them for retail. Smaller buildings should work on
adding art galleries, small live music venues and accessory retail (coffee shops,
wine bars, etc.). Stores serving artists’ needs should also be considered for
recruitment. More attention should be paid to making the intersection at Charles
Street and North Avenue a primary retail and entertainment destination at the
crossroads of the City.
Retail Building Program
The majority of existing Downtown buildings do not meet retailers’ standard models in
terms of square footage, frontage, and other associated requirements. Baltimore must
find space that meets retailer models or work creatively with retailers to help them adapt
their models to unique urban environments. Specifically, Baltimore should:
Work with developers to create larger retail floor plates in new developments and
renovations.
x Continue participation with BDC and City Department of Planning, including the
Urban Design and Architecture Review Panel (UDARP), to support first floor retail
as part of Downtown developments.
o Assess the development of stronger code and design criteria for retail
development.
o Review setback regulations for new construction.
x Encourage multi-building purchases in order to combine 1st floor spaces for one
retail tenant.
x Support the hiring of a retail architect from the start of a project’s planning phase.
x Promote limiting lobby and entrance space in mixed-use buildings.
x Discourage blank walls and garage entrances near major intersections.
73
Baltimore must demand high quality architecture by creating a symbiotic relationship
between both historical and modern structures. Specific recommendations include:
Authenticity
Create active (non-static or print) marketing materials that reflect Baltimore’s unique
neighborhoods.
x Use existing demographic information and planned GIS mapping systems for
production of neighborhood marketing materials.
x Produce concise descriptions of neighborhoods with demographics, cultural
attractions, attributes, and retailers. Include photos.
x Encourage developers, brokers, and CoStar to include Downtown Partnership’s
neighborhood marketing materials as part of the marketing for any sites within
that neighborhood.
x Include vacant retail sites or sites in development within each neighborhood.
x Link to The Partnership, BDC, and CoStar websites.
x A large map of Downtown should be divided into neighborhoods and include the
aforementioned information.
x Ensure that all information can be easily updated.
Encourage preservation groups to find creative uses for historic buildings.
x Connect preservation groups with proactive historic developers and retailers.
Expand marketing of Maryland Smart Codes.
x Hold seminar for economic development staff, developers, and brokers to better
understand use of Smart Codes as a tool to assist incoming retailers.
x Advocate for the State to market Smart Codes more widely.
Placemaking
Downtowns offer a different kind of shopping destination and maximizing this difference
is key to getting shoppers to come Downtown and to keep coming back. Baltimore must
consider sidewalk cafes, parks/plazas, and places to linger, (which are not dominated by
automobiles), when determining where retail will thrive. Additionally, Downtown should
strive for a pedestrian-friendly environment and unique experience. To do this, Baltimore
should:
Improve the overall design, aesthetic, and pedestrian experience of Pratt Street. Create
a grand boulevard with greater retail choices and better pedestrian aesthetics.
Strengthen Pratt Street’s existing amenities and create new opportunities for Downtown’s
“front yard.”
x BDC, in conjunction with The Partnership and City’s Departments of Planning and
Transportation, issued a Request for Qualifications for consultant services (October
2006) to provide a comprehensive Concept Plan for the public spaces along the
75
 Pratt Street Boulevard corridor in Downtown – 16 blocks from Martin Luther King,
Jr. Boulevard to President Street.
x The new concept plan for Pratt Street should rethink improve the use of open
spaces, enhance the aesthetic and functional design of the street’s usage, activities
and attractions, better activate the spaces and provide more pleasant and
exciting pedestrian experiences.
x The Concept Design chosen for implementation will be used to generate public and
private sector support, identify necessary funding required to implement the
project and provide an implementation strategy.
Support major catalyst development projects.
x Advocate for funding of a new Downtown arena with retail on all street fronts,
entertainment, and housing uses.
x Assess future proposals and developments for economic impacts and potential to
be a retail driver.
Increase and promote sidewalk cafes and outdoor dining.
x Create an easier permit process.
x Review the permit processes and success in outdoor dining in Boston and
Philadelphia (particularly in Philadelphia’s Center City).
x Evaluate existing costs of permit process to retailer.
x Create sliding scale minor privilege fee in conjunction with BDC and City’s Minor
Privilege Permits office.
x Encourage developers designing new space or renovating existing locations to
include an area for outdoor dining. Preferably, outdoor dining space should be
part of the property owner’s area so as to remove the need for a minor privilege
permit.
x Create landscape standards as part of outdoor dining review permit.
x Encourage the use of heat lamps to extend the outdoor dining season.
76
Improve parks and plazas throughout Downtown through maintenance, activities and
branding. Prioritize distribution of resources to the parks and plazas based upon the
potential for success, greatest impact and highest usability.
x Determine ownership and responsibility (e.g. mowing, planting and cleaning) for
all parks and plazas.
x Create maintenance and planting plan and design standards, including signage,
lighting, benches and trash cans, for all plazas and parks.
x Dedicate staff to landscape and maintain, as well as provide safety or serve as
hosts.
Activate parks and plazas through programming, events and vending.
x Provide regular activities. Users should be able to rely on a semblance of a set
schedule of events, i.e. First Thursdays.
x Create a parks programming task force to include representatives from city
agencies, Downtown Partnership, BACVA, building managers, community groups
and employers.
x Identify activities, funding and scheduling.
x Promote and advertise all activities.
Create a brand for Downtown parks and plazas.
x By consistently designing, maintaining and programming the parks and plazas,
users will begin to identify that they are in a public green/open space.
x Utilize existing marketing/advertising agencies and associations to create taglines
and campaign.
Seek new opportunities for areas to function as green or public spaces.
x Potential locations include:
o President Street
o The Fallsway
o Along the Jones Falls from Lombard Street south to the Inner Harbor
o Liberty Park, (at Liberty Street and Park Avenue)
o St. Paul Plaza
o Areas on the Westside
o Others to be determined
78
Increase amount of outdoor displays, carts and kiosks associated with a specific retailer’s
location, (not individual kiosks on plazas as is discussed below).
x Review permits or legislation for outdoor displays and carts (e.g. fresh flowers).
x Provide potential funding as part of a push for existing retailers to include outdoor
displays as part of their marketing and merchandising efforts.
x Choose a few retailers (preferably clustered in one area like a block of Charles,
Pratt or Saratoga Streets) to support financially and help design the outdoors
wares/displays.
x Market and highlight the effort.
Promote more aesthetically pleasing and relevant window displays for retailers.
x Encourage windows to be open, not cluttered, so that pedestrians can see into the
store and easily recognize what is being offered.
x Hire a window display or retail consultant for those retailers who are interested in
receiving advice and assistance.
x Consider expanding the consultant program to include renovation of the entire
façade.
x Ensure that all aspects of the window display are directly related to the
merchandising and marketing of the store.
x For window displays, begin with seasonal/holiday displays, similar to Historic
Charles’ Street Association’s holiday theme and competition.
x Assist in funding the competition.
x Give awards for the best designed, most relevant, most improved, etc.
x Market and highlight the event.
x Review other cities’ signage and window display ordinances (e.g. Scottsdale,
Arizona).
x Consider incorporating retail design criteria (e.g., no paper signs in windows) into
respective Urban Renewal Plans.
Endorse improved and effective signage.
x As part of FIP grant, encourage new and more attractive signage.
x Review extension of new Central Business District Urban Renewal Plan area
signage regulations to all of Downtown.
x Encourage projecting (blade) signs, as well as signs which create a sense of depth.
x Expedite sign permits for retailers within Downtown.
x Formalize sign permit review process for Downtown retailers. (Signs to be
reviewed by Planning, BDC and Downtown Partnership.)
x Identify sign designers and companies willing to work with Downtown retailers at
an expedited or reduced rate.
77
Implement a comprehensive vending and kiosk program for Downtown.
x Work with City’s Board of Hucksters, Hawkers and Peddlers, as well as existing
vendors.
x Select locations – parks and plazas, as well as intersections with larger sidewalks.
x Focus on areas where vending and kiosks will not only pull employees out of
buildings, but also encourage pedestrians to walk up streets that have additional
retail.
x Encourage existing retailers to open a second location, perhaps as a preliminary
test-run for expansion.
x Support small and minority businesses (through Small Business Resource Center and
Bridging the Gap) in opening vending or kiosk locations.
x Ensure that vending, particularly in parks and plazas, is consistent in both days and
times.
x Recruit and schedule vending for parks and plazas early in each season.
x Provide clear demographics as part of a vending and kiosk recruitment package.
x Review health permit and city vending regulations carefully and provide any
potential participants upon request for application.
Improve Downtown streetscapes, landscaping and greening efforts.
x Continue reconstruction of all Downtown streetscapes through City and Downtown
Partnership.
x Urge a consistency in the design and materials for all Downtown.
x Expand streetscapes capital renovations program and speed of the projects.
x Identify funding sources to maintain and repair streetscapes, including power
washing sidewalks.
x Increase the amount of street trees throughout Downtown.
x Improve the maintenance and care of street trees.
x Advocate for pedestrian-style lights on every block Downtown.
Encourage building owners to improve the exteriors of buildings and sidewalks.
x Continue code enforcement program for the worst offenders.
x Promote power washing of sidewalks and buildings.
x Continue The Partnership’s Best Kept Property Awards and actively publicize.
79
Expand the “greening” of individual buildings.
x Create a Downtown “greening” packet made available to building owners, tenants
and developers.
x Utilize a landscape architect to create a variety of planting options including trees
in large planters, flowers pots, small gardens and water features.
x Select a few buildings (preferably near one another geographically) that will
implement “greening” plans created by the landscape architect.
x Identify a nursery or wholesaler to assist in supplying the planters or plant
material, top soil, etc.
x Upon completion of the plantings, use these buildings as examples, with before
and after photos, in the “greening” packet.
x Market and highlight the program.
x If necessary, identify funding for some portion of the program.
Increase The Partnership’s planters program.
x Identify the best locations to make a recognizable impression with the additional
plantings.
x Market and promote the program.
Expand public art throughout Downtown.
x Increase the number of sculptures both on public and private property.
x Create more interactive art, e.g. the fountains in Millenium Park in Chicago.
x Expand the existing program of painting murals on vacant buildings’ 1st floor
windows.
x Continue to support the existing Art Exposure program in 1st floor storefronts.
x Encourage further use of vacant 1st floor spaces as art galleries or artists’ work
spaces (e.g. Current Art Gallery on S. Calvert Street).
o Identify additional City owned properties which are currently in RFP or
developer awarded status.
o Seek out additional opportunities with private developers and property
owners.
Include street entertainers throughout Downtown.
x Licensed street entertainers enliven streets in specific locations Downtown, thus
entertaining pedestrians, creating a sense of ease and encouraging further
exploration of Downtown.
x Licensed street entertainers should be encouraged to participate frequently and at
key corners for highest visibility.
x This program should be expanded to encourage street entertainers around all
retail areas Downtown.
80
Expand work with Baltimore City Parking Authority and private garages for special
parking rates geared toward shoppers and diners.
x Continue special holiday parking rates and expand number of businesses
supporting the payment of meters on behalf of customers, as well as garages
offering reduced rates.
x Identify new days, times and events when reduced parking rates will assist in
eliminating the use of parking cost as a reason for not coming Downtown to shop
or dine.
Work with Baltimore City Parking Authority to improve valet parking.
x Review existing valet parking regulations.
x Research other cities’ valet parking regulations and assess for suggested inclusion,
(e.g. X amount of percentage of restaurant sales required in order to have valet
parking).
x Evaluate existing valet parking locations and operations.
x Identify potential locations for multi-tenant/shared valet parking.
Assess the expansion of on-street parking with City Department of Transportation and
Baltimore City Parking Authority.
Determine further streets for conversion to two-way with City Department of
Transportation and Baltimore City Parking Authority.
Incentives
As the 2005 Retail Assessment shows, retail incentives by themselves are not effective in
recruiting and retaining major retailers. Rather, there is a range of factors that attract
and sustain retailers. Instead of looking for a magic bullet incentive that will serve as the
linchpin of retail recruitment, Baltimore must directly market its strong demographics and
other assets to retailers, and it must work with property developers that have the proven
ability to attract desired retail to their projects. Specifically, Baltimore should:
Improve the knowledge of and expand the variety and dollar amount of financial
incentives available to retailers. Incentives to be pursued should include a package of
grants, low-interest rate loans and matching dollars available to retailers, rather than tax
increment financing (TIF) directly for retail.
x Update and expand the existing Baltimore Main Streets’ “Resources Available for
Small Business in Baltimore City; Financial, Technical Assistance, and Tax
Incentives.”
x Hold seminars for economic development officials, retailers and brokers on the
existing programs offered by the state, city and private institutions.
x Market the existing programs, such as:
o Enterprise Zone
82
Transit & Parking
Easy access matters to retailers when making location decisions, however top-tier retail
cities do not put a priority on providing easy parking. As with these top tier cities,
shopping districts in Baltimore should be easily accessible to residential areas where
shoppers could easily walk, or be developed around transportation links. Whether
shoppers arrive on foot, or by car or MTA, the retail district should offer a positive
pedestrian experience, making it easy and enjoyable to stroll between shops and
restaurants.
Elected and economic development officials, as well as residents and businesses must all
continue to advocate for improved public transit.
x Coordinate with MTA to review and assess bus lines, as well as bus stops.
x Coordinate with MTA on design and construction of Red Line; identify any effect
the recommendations for type and route may have on Downtown residential,
retail, and office uses.
x Push for Downtown circulator, either free or inexpensive to riders.
x Encourage the continued study of a trolley in the Charles Street Corridor to connect
the Inner Harbor and Downtown with the Mt. Vernon Cultural Institutions, Penn
Station, and Johns Hopkins University.
Continue to support the housing initiative, realizing that building and occupying the new
developments is not the end result. Rather, residents must become a more important focus
of constituent services and outreach events.
x Expand activities and marketing efforts to Downtown residents.
x Encourage elected officials to meet regularly with Downtown residents.
Encourage developers and brokers to understand the parking for their respective
buildings as pertains to retail.
x Review 3-block radius demographics for retail locations, thus reinforcing the
pedestrian shopper possibilities for that location to the retailer.
x Encourage a variety of parking options.
x Facilitate, between developers/brokers/retailers and parking garage owners, the
creation of parking validation.
x Assess existing valet parking and future valet parking options.
x Decide on most effective regulations for valet parking, including locations best
suited for valet.
81
o Maryland Capital Access Program
o Neighborhood Businessworks Loan Program
o Strategic Assistance Consulting Fund
o Baltimore Community Funding
Execute a comprehensive review of the retail permitting process, including health
inspections, signage, etc.
x Create a retail permitting booklet made available through Baltimore City’s Permits
Office, Planning Department, BDC and DPOB.
x Research cost reductions for various retail permits for retailers within Downtown
area.
x Apply a sliding scale for signage fees and minor privilege permits for new
retailers.
x Expedite the permitting process for retailers within Downtown area.
Consider PILOTs and TIFs, in accordance with established City policy, only when
development of the project would otherwise be cost prohibitive to include retail. Offer
these incentives to the developer contingent upon certain pass-throughs, e.g. tenant
buildout or reductions in cost, to the prospective retailer.
Site Specific Recommendations
As detailed previously, retailers prefer to cluster together to better attract large numbers
of shoppers. High density, mixed-use developments with substantial residential and retail
components should be encouraged for all new development and redevelopment
Downtown. Sites Downtown which should be considered imperative for retail attraction
include:
10 Inner Harbor (Inner Harbor) – one of the last remaining open development sites along
the Inner Harbor, the location is essential to connecting Federal Hill/South Baltimore with
City Center. The Charles Street frontage should be considered for neighborhood retail,
such as a much-needed grocery store. Additional major retail should be addressed on
Conway and Light Streets, including restaurants and other amenities for the residents of
the development, as well as pedestrians.
300 E. Pratt Street (Inner Harbor) – the site’s premiere location on Pratt Street begs for
additional retail opportunities. The site is adjacent to the Gallery and across from
Harborplace, both of which are established retail destinations in Downtown. As part of
the development program, retail along both Pratt and Lombard Streets should be
considered. Large floorplates and potentially multi-level retail should be part of the
retail mix also, so as to create a consistent retail flow along Pratt Street.
400 Block of W. Baltimore Street (Westside) – the 400 block is the pivotal connector
between the University of Maryland, Baltimore and the remainder of Downtown.
83
Currently, the area is an inhibitor for pedestrians’ further exploration eastward, including
the Abell Building and Centerpoint where retail exists or is planned. The 400 block should
be assembled in order to provide a consistent flow of retail, including restaurants, to
capitalize on the existing student and employee base and visitors to the Hippodrome. The
employees, students and visitors at the campus are in need of further retail options and a
level of comfort in leaving the campus.
Abell Building (Westside) – the renovation of the building to include residential and retail
is pivotal for the completion of the intersection. Retail in this building should be unique
and complementary to the existence of the Hippodrome, as well as the increasing
residential population. A high-end restaurant ought to be pursued for the corner so as to
build upon the audiences at the Hippodrome.
Amtrak surface lots (Station North) – the surface lots directly north of Penn Station
currently provide a very visible barrier to the pedestrian flow to and from the north. The
site should include first floor retail, congruent with the changing neighborhood’s needs, as
well as the main anchor, Penn Station. The lot is of sufficient size to incorporate a large
floorplate for a mid-level national retailer to serve the growing residential base, as well
as the existing neighborhood to the south.
Center Plaza (City Center) – the plaza’s renovation is a marked improvement to the core
of Downtown and will serve as connector between City Center and Westside. The retail
locations facing the plaza should be filled predominantly with restaurants capitalizing on
the large green space. Outside dining should be highly encouraged for these tenants.
Signage will need to be carefully considered. The plaza, with the right tenant mix, will be
a destination retail location for employees, hotel guests and the increasing number of
residents.
Chesapeake Restaurant Site (Station North) – the renovation and reuse of the site, as
well as the surrounding block is pivotal to the recreation of the emerging area. Anchored
by the Charles Theatre and a few stable restaurants, there is a need for further dining
and entertainment options, as well as retail serving the increasing artist population.
Cityscape (City Center) – the completion of the project is imperative to drawing
pedestrians north along Calvert Street. Currently, the block is an impediment to
connecting City Center to the Inner Harbor. Development of Cityscape should include
retail along the length of the Calvert Street side, as well as addressing the Water Street
corridor, particularly where it faces the existing Water Street retail, to create a constant
flow and neighborhood feel.
Harbor East & Harbor Point (Inner Harbor) – the ongoing development of the
neighborhood with its inclusive retail allows for continuity in the pedestrian experience
from Pratt Street to Fells Point. The Four Seasons condominium project is to include high-
end national retailers along the waterfront. The remaining developments include varying-
sized floorplates attractive to both national and independent retailers of all levels.
Harbor Point plans should include destination retail and should maximize waterfront views
through outdoor dining and the creation of open spaces which tie into the Promenade.
Hotel Row, Baltimore/Light/Redwood Streets corridor (City Center) – the area is
currently transitioning from Class B office to numerous national and boutique-style hotels.
Sites should include first floor restaurant and retail space as much as possible, particularly
at corner locations. The developments have the opportunity to create a transition between
two areas of City Center with the addition of more life on the street, usable buildings and
retail options. One Light Street must be developed and should include retail along
Baltimore, Light and Redwood streets as part of its program. The retail space at the
Hampton Inn should be marketed and a new and positive use for the Redwood Trust be
demanded.
Mechanic Site (City Center) – the site is one of the few where large floorplates can be
built in the Downtown core. This key intersection, with its proximity to public transit is an
ideal location for a national retail anchor. The addition of such a retailer would in turn
attract other national retail tenants in other adjacent buildings. The site should also seek
to incorporate and activate Hopkins Plaza as part of its program, offering outdoor dining
and display areas.
Oldtown Mall (East Baltimore) – the size of the site provides a unique opportunity for
large floorplates ideal for national retail anchor tenants, including a grocery store.
Oldtown’s proximity to Downtown and Johns Hopkins East Baltimore Medical Campus and
presence along Route 40, a key commuter route, allows it to draw from a large customer
base. The site should be expanded and explored as a possible urban retail village.
State Center (Mount Vernon) – the transit-oriented development has the opportunity for
large floorplates attractive to national retail anchor tenants. The site has access not only
by light rail, metro and bus, but also I-83, and lies adjacent to well-established residential
areas of multi-leveled incomes. The existing employment base also bodes well for retail
needs. Large scale retail should be heavily recruited, as well as restaurants to capitalize
on the daytime employees, cultural visitors and residents.

84 85

Superblock (Westside) – the redevelopment of this area is imperative to connecting Label1

Westside with City Center and Mount Vernon. The development program must include
office and residential space which will provide customers for the first floor retailers.
Existing retail plans should be expanded to create larger floorplates desired by mid-level
national retailers. Restaurant options should also be considered for this development.
Along Lexington Street, outside dining and displays should be strongly encouraged due to
the wide sidewalks.
UB Bolton Yards (Mount Vernon) – the site is ideally situated to capitalize on the existing
student base, established neighborhoods and varied transit options, including I-83, Penn
Station and Light Rail. Large retail floorplates should be included in the development and
recruitment efforts should be focused on grocery stores, as well as anchor tenant retail
and restaurants.
The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of
Hospital Expansions, Bioparks, & BRAC on Downtown Baltimore
Executive Summary
Baltimore’s renaissance will continue. Though there are many uncertainties that linger over
the city’s economic future, most recently because of the national downturn in housing, this
analysis concludes that the economic and fiscal impacts associated with 1) hospital, 2)
biopark and 3) BRAC-related investments in and around Downtown Baltimore may be
enough in and of themselves to sustain the city’s economic momentum for the next decade.
These three sources of economic activity will collectively unleash roughly $3 billion in new
construction by 2012. By the end of the construction phase, these three sources of
investment will by themselves have increased Downtown Baltimore’s job base by at least
13 percent and the city’s total employment base will have increased by over 17,000.1
These jobs will increase aggregate income opportunities in Baltimore City by nearly $1
billion2 and business sales will be enhanced by $2.2 billion. Exhibit E1 summarizes the
economic impacts associated with planned investments in hospitals, bioparks, and BRAC-
related activities in Baltimore City.

Exhibit E1: Economic impacts of construction and operations, 2004-2012

(annual effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Jobs Supported Associated Business revenue/sales
(full & part-time jobs) Income (millions)
(millions)
2004 1,561 $80.3 $171.4
2005 2,046 $105.1 $223.3
2006 9,644 $499.7 $1,072.9
2007 12,657 $654.6 $1,406.5
2008 15,668 $807.3 $1,732.0
2009 21,278 $1,130.3 $2,490.8
2010 19,414 $1,082.0 $2,446.3
2011 16,357 $925.1 $2,086.4
2012 17,584 $987.5 $2,214.2
Note: Construction is assumed to end in 2014. Source: SPG

1
Of course, other development in and around Downtown not analyzed by this study will have the affect of
further boosting Downtown and citywide employment levels.
2
In 2006 dollars.

86 87
These economic impacts are associated with substantial new streams of revenue for the
City of Baltimore. By the end of 2012 when planned construction activities will be largely
complete, the City’s tax base will be expanded by more than $49 million per annum. The
tax revenue implications of these three forms of investment are summarized in Exhibit E2.
Exhibit E2: Fiscal impacts of construction and operations, 2004-2012
(cumulative, ongoing annual effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Property tax Income tax Total
(millions) (millions) (millions)
2004
$0.4 $1.6
2005 $0.8 $2.1
2006 $2.8 $9.9
2007 $4.3 $13.0
2008 $5.2 $16.0
2009
$14.8 $23.1
2010 $25.4 $23.0
2011 $26.7 $19.9
2012 $28.1 $21.1
Source: SPG
Finally, these investments will also substantially increase the size of the city’s scientific
population, its professional services population and by implication its purchasing power.
When considered in conjunction with other planned investments in and around Downtown,
the implication is that the city’s ongoing renaissance will remain in place and may
accelerate going forward. The investments studied here will also have the effect of
unleashing the economic activity necessary to support a number of Downtown development
projects that continue to await financing or broader economic support, including
condominium, apartment and hotel developments.
x Category 2: Baltimore as a Global Medical Research Center
A second emerging health-related economic engine includes the biotechnology-oriented
research parks connected to Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and the University of
Maryland, Baltimore (UMB). Together these bioparks will account for over $1 billion in
facility investment in the Downtown area over the next decade to decade and a half.
The bioparks will help to accelerate the commercialization of technologies developed at
Baltimore’s leading institutions and has the potential to attract dozens of leading-edge
technology firms, venture capital and scientific/technical talent. In short, the bioparks will
help elevate Baltimore’s role in the modern world economy while helping to improve the
quality of life in one of the city’s most challenging communities. The bioparks will also
produce hundreds of jobs for those with less formal educational attainment, providing jobs
in health and health research that offer well-defined career paths and legitimate
opportunities for upward mobility.
x Category 3: An Opportunity for Baltimore to Participate More Fully in Homeland
Security and Defense Activities
The third category of economic opportunity in Baltimore City is the base realignment and
closure (BRAC) activities that will result in over ten thousand new jobs at federal military
facilities in central Maryland. The major changes in federal employment will occur at
three Central Maryland facilities: Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Meade, and Andrews
Air Force Base.
Although these relocating federal government jobs will not be situated in Baltimore City,
the spillover effects of these new jobs will generate employment and other economic
benefits for the city. The new BRAC jobs will create demands for companies that can
provide goods and services to the companies and federal agencies that will expand their
employment at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Meade, and Andrews Air Force Base.
These suppliers represent an indirect effect of the new BRAC jobs. In addition, the workers
who will fill the new BRAC jobs and jobs at private suppliers will create additional
demand for housing, consumer goods and services, which will support the creation of
induced employment, income and business sales impacts.
The analysis below addresses the period from 2004 through 2012. Currently, some
investments in the bioparks are expected to continue past 2012. As a result the growth
and consequent economic and fiscal impacts discussed below are expected to expand
after the end date of this analytical framework.
Introduction
Baltimore’s renaissance has continued to accelerate and broaden in recent years to
include a growing number of neighborhoods. Once thought and feared to be a
phenomenon limited only to the city’s glittering waterfront, the renaissance has catapulted
neighborhoods as diverse and distant as Patterson Park, Reservoir Hill and Charles
Village toward growing prominence and prosperity. Data indicate an upswing in
investment, household formation, income levels and property values throughout much of the
city, including Downtown.
But can it last or were the past several years merely a reflection of the housing boom that
$2.0 swept across much of the United States but is now winding toward a hard landing? This
$2.9 report seeks to address this from the narrow perspective of three sources of new
$12.7 Downtown-oriented investment and opportunity that collectively possess the capacity to
$17.3 keep Baltimore’s renaissance in place and under the right circumstances could lead to its
$21.2 acceleration. Specifically, this analysis uses standard econometric modeling software to
assess the likely economic impact of three categories of major anticipated investments in
$37.9 and around Downtown Baltimore over roughly the next decade.3
$48.4
$46.6 Some of these investments have already begun to take place, but most remain in front of
$49.2 us. Importantly, this analysis does not consider numerous other potential sources of
investment that may take place Downtown in recent years, including proposed
condominium/hotel towers, the ongoing, broader West Side Renaissance, and the
continued build-out of the area stretching from Harbor East through Canton. The economic
and fiscal impacts of these additional investments will merely supplement those quantified
by the research and analysis summarized in this report.
Three Emerging Downtown Development Drivers
x Category 1: Baltimore as a Global Health Center
The first category of development analyzed by the study team includes the planned
expansions of Downtown hospitals/medical complexes. In 2004, the Johns Hopkins
Hospital began a $1.2 billion renovation and expansion of its medical campus to be
completed by 2009. Neighboring Kennedy Krieger Institute will invest $50 million over
the next few years. On the west side, the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC)
is beginning construction of its new $329 million ambulatory care center. Just blocks from
the Inner Harbor, Mercy Medical Center has announced plans for a new $258 million
clinical tower as well as major investments in equipment and renovations.
3
Rather than trying to project inflation rates into the next decade, this analysis presents all monetary values
in 2006 dollars. This assumes that real values of property, income, and other economic variables will not
increase over time. To the extent that there are in fact real, inflation-adjusted increases in these values, the
following discussion is conservative and underestimates the real value of these impacts.
88 89
Economic Impacts of Construction
Even before facilities become operational or households move to Baltimore, there are
impacts related to the construction of new structures. These impacts are temporary, lasting
as long as construction activities occur.
Category 1: Hospital and Related Facilities
Exhibit 1 details almost $2 billion in health and medical complex investments by Johns
Hopkins Hospital, the Kennedy Krieger Institute, Mercy Medical Center, and the University
of Maryland Medical System. These investments include both upgrading of existing
facilities and expansions/new facilities.
Exhibit 1: Investment in Downtown hospital projects (in 2006 dollars)
Project Total construction cost
(millions)
Johns Hopkins Hospital Replacement (1) $750.0
JHH Wilmer Eye Institute Expansion (1) $88.0
JHMI Medical School Addition (1) $45.0
Johns Hopkins Medical Campus Upgrades (2) $317.0
Kennedy Krieger - New Outpatient Building $40.0
Kennedy Krieger Administrative Support Building $10.0
Mercy Medical Center Clinical Tower $258.4
Mercy Medical Center Renovations and Upgrades $65.5
UMMS Ambulatory Care Center $328.7
Total, all projects $1,902.6
(1) Part of $1.2 billion planned Hopkins Medical campus upgrades and expansions; (2) Remainder of JHMI
campus upgrade, includes Orleans street garage completed in 2005 and adjacent Children's center.
Sources: Downtown Partnership, web sites for JHU and UMB, University of Baltimore reports
90 91
 Category 2: Biotechnology Park Facilities
While Johns Hopkins began to upgrade its medical campus in 2004, most of the
investment in hospitals and other medical care facilities is just getting started. As shown in Exhibit 4 provides projected investments in the two Downtown bioparks over their entire
Exhibit 2, all of this investment will take place by the end of the current decade. development periods. In total these investments are estimated at more than $1 billion.

Exhibit 2: Construction schedules for Downtown hospital projects Exhibit 4: Investment in Downtown biopark projects (in 2006 dollars)
Project Start year End year Project Total construction cost
Johns Hopkins Hospital Replacement (1) 2006 2009 (millions)
JHH Wilmer Eye Institute Expansion (1) 2007 2009 East Baltimore Biopark (1) $800.0
JHMI Medical School Addition (1) 2006 2008 UMB Biopark (2) $300.0
Johns Hopkins Medical Campus Upgrades (2) 2004 2009 Total, all projects $1,100.0
Kennedy Krieger - New Outpatient Building 2006 2008 (1) Bio Building 1 under construction, 288,000 SF; (2) Building 1 and garage completed in 2005, building 2
under construction. Sources: Downtown Partnership, web sites for JHU and UMB bioparks
Kennedy Krieger Administrative Support Building 2007 2008
Mercy Medical Center Clinical Tower 2006 2010
The new bioparks will develop over relatively long periods, 11 years for the UMB
Mercy Medical Center Renovations and Upgrades 2006 2009
biopark and 9 years for the East Baltimore biopark.4 Exhibit 5 summarizes the planned
UMMS Ambulatory Care Center 2006 2009 construction schedules for each biopark.
Sources: Downtown Partnership, web sites for JHU and UMB, University of Baltimore reports

The investment in hospitals and other medical centers will create tens of thousands of jobs,
Exhibit 5: Construction schedules for Downtown biopark projects
income, and business sales over the period from 2004 through 2010. These impacts,
presented in Exhibit 3, are one-time effects for each of the years shown in the exhibit. Project Start year End year
The created jobs will be a mix of full-time and part-time positions (on average each East Baltimore Biopark (3) 2006 2014
created job is close to a full-time job). Each job is also the equivalent of a position lasting UMB Biopark (4) 2004 2014
Sources: Downtown Partnership, web sites for JHU and UMB bioparks
a year. Over the 7-year construction period for hospitals and medical facilities, over
25,000 such jobs are created with income of $1.3 billion and business revenue of $2.8
billion.

Exhibit 3: Economic impacts of hospital construction, 2004-2010

(one-time effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Jobs Income Business revenue/sales
(full & part-time jobs) (millions) (millions)
2004 701 $36.3 $77.8
2005 701 $36.3 $77.8
2006 4,944 $255.8 $549.0
2007 5,606 $290.0 $622.6
2008 6,340 $328.1 $704.2
2009 5,852 $302.8 $649.9
2010 1,089 $56.3 $120.9
Total 25,233 $1,305.6 $2,802.2
Source: SPG
4
The construction period extends beyond the 2012 end date of this analysis. This means that construction
impacts estimated here underestimate the total construction impacts created by the development of these
bioparks.

92 93

The billion dollar investment in bioparks will also create thousands of construction jobs over
the period from 2004 through 2012. These jobs, income, and revenue impacts, presented
in Exhibit 6, are one-time effects for each of the years shown in the exhibit. The created
jobs will be a mix of full-time and part-time positions which on average are close to full-
time jobs. Each job is the equivalent of a position lasting one year. Over the 11-year
construction period, 11,915 such jobs are created with income of $616 million and
business revenue of $1.3 billion.
Exhibit 7 summarizes the estimated investment in residential and commercial construction
that would be stimulated by BRAC. The residential demand represents half of the
projected number of households that would move to Baltimore City by 2010. The value of
construction is based on standard mortgage underwriting guidelines.5 The majority of jobs
that BRAC will create in the city are in office-based businesses such as information
technology and administrative services. Demand for and value of commercial space is
based on typical conditions.6

Exhibit 6: Economic impacts of biopark construction, 2004-2012 Exhibit 7: BRAC-related construction investment, Baltimore City (in 2006 dollars)
(one-time effects, 2006 dollars) Type of construction Number of units Unit cost Total cost
Type of impact Jobs Income Business revenue/sales (millions)
(full & part-time jobs) (millions) (millions) Residential 1,073 residences $388,500/residence $416.7
2004 375 $19.4 $41.6 Commercial 200,610 square feet $185/square foot $37.1
2005 375 $19.4 $41.6 Total $453.8
2006 1,595 $82.5 $177.2 Source: RESI of Towson University, BRAC Task #3 Report, draft, June 15, 2006 and SPG.
2007 1,595 $82.5 $177.2
2008 1,595 $82.5 $177.2 While the first effects of BRAC occur in Baltimore in 2006, almost all (97 percent) will
occur in 2009 and 2010. Demands for constructing new residential and commercial
2009 1,595 $82.5 $177.2 buildings are expected to generate almost 6,000 jobs with over $300 million in income
2010 1,595 $82.5 $177.2 and nearly $700 million in sales for city businesses. Please see Exhibit 8.
2011 1,595 $82.5 $177.2
2012 1,595 $82.5 $177.2 Exhibit 8: Economic impacts of BRAC-related construction, Baltimore City, 2009-2010
Total 11,915 $616.3 $1,323.6 (one-time effects, 2006 dollars)
Source: SPG Type of impact Jobs Income Business revenue/sales
(full & part-time jobs) (millions) (millions)
Category 3: BRAC 2009 2,801 $142.8 $321.4
2010 3,195 $162.9 $366.6
The presence of more households and more employment in Baltimore City as a result of
Total 5,996 $305.7 $688.0
BRAC will create a demand for more housing and more commercial space. While the
Source: SPG
current housing stock and existing commercial structures may be able to absorb a
significant share of this demand, it is likely that this infusion of demand will also spark new
residential and commercial development. This analysis assumes that half of this new
demand will be met with existing housing and commercial properties and half with new
construction. For the housing market, half of the demand represents over 1,000
residences, presumably a mix of single-family and multi-family units. Indeed, this spike in
demand may well be the tipping point that can launch a number of Downtown residential
projects including the high-rise towers near City Hall and the Fallsway project east of Mt.
Vernon.

5
The average household income for BRAC households moving to Baltimore City is estimated at over
$95,000. The average cost of a residence for these households assumes a 20 percent down payment, a 30-
year fixed rate mortgage at 6.5 percent and 25 percent of income devoted to mortgage payments.
6
The average space for an office worker is estimated at 180 square feet. Construction costs for this space
are based on recent projects in the Baltimore-Washington region.

94 95
Economic Impacts of Occupancy and Operations Exhibit 10 summarizes the total cumulative operational economic impact of the investment
Once construction of a given project is completed, a new phase of impacts begins. These in hospitals/medical centers. The reader should note that the job estimates presented in
impacts are a permanent result of the operations of facility users and occupiers. this exhibit include direct, indirect and induced impacts. By 2010, investments and
expansions of Downtown hospitals are expected to create in Baltimore City 4,457 jobs
Category 1: Hospital and Related Facilities with income of $228 million and $513 million in business revenue. These are ongoing,
essentially permanent economic impacts.
Once construction of the hospital-related facilities described above is complete, almost
3,000 new permanent direct jobs at these facilities will be supported. Exhibit 9 provides Exhibit 10: Economic impacts of hospital operations, 2004-2010 (cumulative, ongoing
estimates of permanent direct jobs created by the investment in planned hospitals. annual effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Jobs Income Business revenue/sales
(full & part-time jobs) (millions) (millions)
2004 129 $6.6 $14.9
Exhibit 9: Jobs resulting from Downtown hospital projects 2005 258 $13.2 $29.8
Project Permanent direct jobs (*)
2006 1,073 $54.9 $123.5
Johns Hopkins Hospital Replacement 750
2007 2,173 $111.1 $250.2
JHH Wilmer Eye Institute Expansion 100
JHMI Medical School Addition 100 2008 3,273 $167.4 $376.9
Johns Hopkins Medical Campus Upgrades 500 2009 4,246 $217.2 $488.9
Kennedy Krieger - New Outpatient Building 100 2010 4,457 $227.9 $513.2
Kennedy Krieger Administrative Support Building 30 Source: SPG; including direct, indirect and induced jobs
Mercy Medical Center Clinical Tower 544
UMMS Ambulatory Care Center 750 Category 2: Biotechnology Park Facilities
Total, all projects 2,874
(*) Includes direct, net new employment only and excludes indirect and induced employment. As totally new complexes, the two bioparks are projected to create even more jobs than
Sources: Downtown Partnership, web sites for JHU and UMB bioparks will be created by the investment in hospitals. As shown in Exhibit 11, when all projected
biopark investments are made, these projects are estimated to create 7,500 permanent
direct jobs.

Exhibit 11: Jobs resulting from Downtown biopark projects

Project Permanent direct jobs (1)
East Baltimore Biopark 5,000 (2)
UMB Biopark 2,500
Total, all projects 7,500
(1) Includes direct, net new employment only and excludes indirect and induced employment.
(2) This estimate represents the midpoint of a range of 4,000 to 6,000 permanent direct jobs that are
projected for the East Baltimore Biopark.
Sources: Downtown Partnership, web sites for JHU and UMB bioparks

96 97

The ongoing investment in bioparks will generate a growing economic impact in Baltimore Category 3: BRAC
City. Exhibit 12 summarizes the jobs, income, and business sales impacts at each year
from the first investment in 2004 through the year 2012 when the bioparks are expected The final operational source of economic growth is represented by BRAC activities. These
to support 9,303 jobs, $473 million in income, and almost $1 billion in sales for the city’s are expected to begin in 2006 and to be completed by 2010 when all BRAC-related
businesses. The reader should note that because investments in these bioparks are changes in employment at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Meade, and Andrews Air Force
expected to continue through 2014, there is expected to be an even larger economic Base have occurred. Exhibit 13 presents data on the BRAC-related jobs and households
impact in the city in that year when both bioparks are completely developed. that are expected to be located in Baltimore City as well as estimates of the income
associated with these jobs and households
Exhibit 12: Economic impacts of biopark operations, 2004-2012 (cumulative, ongoing
annual effects, 2006 dollars) Exhibit 13: BRAC-related jobs, households, and income for Baltimore City
Type of impact Jobs Income Business revenue/sales (in 2006 dollars)
(full & part-time jobs) (millions) (millions) Type of impact Indirect Induced Total/Average
2004 356 $18.1 $37.1 Jobs 1,839 390 2,229
2005 713 $36.2 $74.2 Income per job $67,289 $47,816 $62,585
2006 1,940 $98.6 $201.9 Households 1,770 375 2,146
2007 3,167 $160.9 $329.6 Income per household $102,691 $59,915 $95,207
Source: RESI of Towson University, BRAC Task #3 Report, draft, June 15, 2006 and SPG.
2008 4,394 $223.3 $457.3
2009 5,621 $285.7 $585.0 While the first shifts of BRAC jobs begin in 2006, most of the changes are not expected to
2010 6,849 $348.0 $712.8 take place until 2009 and 2010. As shown in Exhibit 14, in 2006 there are only 93 total
2011 8,076 $410.4 $840.5 jobs with income of $7.9 million and $21 million in business revenue in Baltimore City
2012 9,303 $472.8 $968.2 supported by BRAC operations. After three years of relatively modest impacts, there are
Source: SPG; includes direct, indirect and induced jobs sharp increases in 2009 and 2010. In that final year, Baltimore City will benefit from an
estimated 2,229 jobs, $204 million in income, and $556 million in business revenue/sales
as a result of BRAC activities. Because there are no direct BRAC-related jobs in the city,
these impacts are the sum of all the indirect and induced economic impacts that occur in
Baltimore.

Exhibit 14: Economic impacts of BRAC operations in Baltimore City, 2006-2010

(cumulative, ongoing annual effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Jobs Income Business revenue/sales
(full & part-time jobs) (millions) (millions)
2006 93 $7.9 $21.3
2007 116 $10.0 $26.9
2008 65 $6.0 $16.5
2009 1,162 $99.4 $268.3
2010 2,229 $204.2 $555.6
Source: SPG

98 99
Collective Economic Impact of the Three Categories bioparks would represent a 13 percent increase over that level. Any indirect and induced
The combined and cumulative impact of BRAC and the hospital and hospital research- jobs that end up Downtown would entail an even larger percent increase.
related investment is substantial. Exhibit 15 summarizes all these impacts combining the
one-time construction impacts with the accumulating and ongoing impacts from the Exhibit 16 summarizes the collective job impacts of the categories of development in
expanded operations of the hospitals, bioparks, and federal facilities affected by BRAC. graphical form. The impacts associated with construction, hospitals, bioparks, and BRAC
The exhibit begins with the first year of construction and operational impacts (2004) and are separately identified for each year. As the exhibit indicates, there is a peak of job
concludes with 2012—the last year in the framework for this analysis. creation in 2009 as the BRAC impacts begin to occur. The job effects shown in 2012 are
below earlier peaks, the consequence of declining job creation from construction. Biopark
Exhibit 15: Economic impacts of construction and operations, 2004-2012 job creation, however, is compensating for much of the declining construction employment.
(annual effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Jobs Income Business Exhibit 16: Job impacts over time, 2004-2012
(full & part-time jobs) (millions) revenue/sales
(millions) 22,000
2004 1,561 $80.3 $171.4 20,000
2005 2,046 $105.1 $223.3 18,000
2006 9,644 $499.7 $1,072.9
16,000
2007 12,657 $654.6 $1,406.5
2008 15,668 $807.3 $1,732.0 14,000
12,000

Jobs
2009 21,278 $1,130.3 $2,490.8
2010 19,414 $1,082.0 $2,446.3 10,000
2011 16,357 $925.1 $2,086.4 8,000
2012 17,584 $987.5 $2,214.2
6,000
Source: SPG
4,000
By 2012, when almost all of the investment related to Downtown hospitals and bioparks 2,000
will have been made and after all BRAC-related effects have been realized, there will be 0
an additional 17,584 jobs in Baltimore City, linked to income of $1 billion and business
sales in the city of $2.2 billion. These jobs include direct jobs at the hospitals and 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
bioparks, indirect jobs at suppliers and induced jobs at retailers and other businesses
serving consumers. The indirect and induced jobs include the BRAC-related jobs. Construction Hospital Operations
Biopark Operations BRAC Operations
While the indirect and induced jobs will be distributed across the city, all the direct jobs—
or almost three out of five of the total jobs—will be Downtown. An additional, but
unknown, share of the indirect and induced jobs will be Downtown as well.

Only a small share of these impacts in 2012—less than 10 percent—will be linked to

construction. Alternatively, over 90 percent of these impacts are tied to the permanent
and ongoing operations of the hospitals, bioparks, and BRAC-affected federal facilities.

The impacts summarized in Exhibit 15 represent a significant increase in Downtown

employment. In 2004, the Census Bureau counted about 81,600 jobs in the two primary
Downtown zip codes—21201 and 21202. The new direct jobs at the hospitals and

100 101

Annual income impacts for the period 2004 through 2012 are shown in Exhibit 17. As
with the chart of job impacts this exhibit illustrates the impacts from the first year when
construction is the primary source of income to the ongoing permanent conditions that
dominate the last years shown in the exhibit. As with estimates of job creation, there is a
peak in estimated income generation in 2009 and 2010 resulting from BRAC, but the
long-term income impact represented by income generation in 2012 is rising and is only
slightly below earlier levels. Again, this is due to the ramp up in economic activity at the
bioparks, which roughly offsets the effects associated with the end of construction
activities.
A final illustration of economic impacts over time is presented in Exhibit 18 below. This
chart presents the value of annual revenue and sales received by businesses, hospitals,
and other organizations from the start of construction to the conditions in 2012 when
almost all construction is completed and the temporary effects of construction activities
have little effect. The trends in business sales mirror those of jobs and income with a
BRAC-related spike in 2009 and 2010 and an effect in 2012 only slightly lower than
earlier levels.
Exhibit 18: Business revenue/sales impacts over time, 2004-2012

Exhibit 17: Income impacts over time, 2004-2012 $2,500

$1,200
$2,000
Sales (millions)

$1,000
$1,500
Income (millions)

$800
$1,000
$600

$400 $500

$200 $0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Construction Hospital Operations
Biopark Operations BRAC Operations
Construction Hospital Operations
Biopark Operations BRAC Operations
Fiscal Impacts
The economic impacts discussed above also give rise to fiscal impacts in the form of new
tax revenue streams to government. Among the most important of these impacts are new
income tax and property tax revenues. The former is the inevitable consequence of the
new jobs created by hospitals, bioparks, and BRAC. The generation of property tax
revenue is somewhat more complex. Many hospitals are nonprofit organizations and this
is true of the three hospital/medical centers treated in this analysis. As extensions of JHU
and UMB, the bioparks may also include tenants exempt from property tax. For example,
university-related or government-related research organizations operating as nonprofits
or otherwise tax-exempt organizations may come to form a significant fraction of the
biopark tenant base. The analysis of property tax impacts discussed below makes the
following assumptions: (1) all hospital and medical facilities will be exempt from

102 103
Baltimore City property tax; and (2) half the tenants of the bioparks and half the value of Type of impact Income tax (millions)
property developed at the bioparks will be exempt from Baltimore City property tax. 2009 $2.8
2010 $3.2
Over the entire 11-year construction period $44 million in income tax will be generated
by construction activities. Construction activities at the hospitals and bioparks are Total $6.0
expected to generate $26 million and $12 million, respectively, in income tax for Source: SPG
Baltimore City over this construction period. BRAC-related construction will add another
$6 million in income tax revenue in 2009 and 2010. The annual income tax generated by The income tax generated for Baltimore City as a result of expanded hospital operations
hospital, biopark, and BRAC construction activities for each year of the construction period is presented in Exhibit 22. This exhibit shows the accumulating annual estimated tax
is shown in Exhibits 19, 20, and 21, respectively. receipts from 2004, the first year that hospitals began to expand, through 2010, the year
when the hospital expansions are projected to be completed. Starting in 2010, tax
Exhibit 19: Fiscal impacts of hospital construction, 2004-2010 (one-time annual effects, receipts related to hospital expansions reach a plateau of $4.5 million. Thereafter the
2006 dollars) City will continue to receive income tax revenue at that level.
Type of impact Income tax (millions)
Exhibit 22: Fiscal impacts of hospital operations, 2004-2010 (cumulative, ongoing annual
2004 $0.7 effects, 2006 dollars)
2005 $0.7 Type of impact Income tax (millions)
2006 $5.0
2007 $5.7 2004 $0.1
2008 $6.5 2005 $0.3
2009 $6.0 2006 $1.1
2010 $1.1 2007 $2.2
Total $25.7 2008 $3.3
Source: SPG 2009 $4.3
2010 $4.5
Exhibit 20: Fiscal impacts of biopark construction, 2004-2012 (one-time annual effects, Source: SPG
2006 dollars)
Type of impact Income tax (millions)
2004 $0.4
2005 $0.4
2006 $1.6
2007 $1.6
2008 $1.6
2009 $1.6
2010 $1.6
2011 $1.6
2012 $1.6
Total $12.0
Source: SPG

Exhibit 21: Fiscal impacts of BRAC-related construction, 2009-2010 (one-time annual

effects, 2006 dollars)

104 105

Biopark operations are expected to generate both property and income tax revenue for
Baltimore City. As shown in Exhibit 23, this revenue is estimated to have totaled $0.7 BRAC activities will also generate new tax revenue for Baltimore City. Estimated
million in 2004 when biopark operations began. This annual revenue from biopark revenues will total $24 million by the end of the 5-year period during which jobs will be
operations is projected to grow to $19 million when the bioparks are almost completely relocated to Maryland. Exhibit 24 provides an estimate for each year’s City tax
developed in 2012. As noted above, these estimates assume that half of all biopark generation during the BRAC transition period. As was true with the BRAC economic
space is tax exempt. If a greater proportion of the total space is subject to City property impacts, there is a drop off in tax revenues in 2008 relative to the prior year. This is a
tax, then this estimate will be conservative and underestimate the value of tax revenue consequence of a net loss of jobs in 2008 at the three federal military facilities that will
generated for the City. affect Baltimore City. The majority of the impacts occur only at the end of the BRAC
transition period in years 2009 and 2010. The $24 million in tax receipts that the City
Exhibit 23: Fiscal impacts of biopark operations, 2004-2012 (cumulative, ongoing annual will receive in 2010 is a level that will continue relatively unabated into the future.
effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Property tax Income tax Total Exhibit 24: Fiscal impacts of BRAC operations, 2006-2010 (cumulative, ongoing annual
(millions) (millions) (millions) effects, 2006 dollars)
2004 $0.4 $0.4 $0.8 Type of impact Property tax Income tax Total
2005 $0.8 $0.7 $1.5 (millions) (millions) (millions)
2006 2006 $0.7 $0.2 $0.9
$2.1 $1.9 $4.0
2007 $0.9 $0.3 $1.2
2007 $3.4 $3.2 $6.6
2008 $0.5 $0.2 $0.7
2008 $4.7 $4.4 $9.1 2009 $8.8 $2.8 $11.6
2009 $6.0 $5.6 $11.6 2010 $18.1 $5.7 $23.8
2010 $7.3 $6.9 $14.2 Source: SPG
2011 $8.6 $8.1 $16.7
2012 $10.0 $9.3 $19.3
Source: SPG

106 107
Total Fiscal Impacts A graphic representation of Baltimore City property tax receipts is provided in Exhibit 26.
The total fiscal impacts from construction, expanded hospitals, new bioparks, and BRAC Only the bioparks and BRAC are expected to be sources of new property tax revenue for
are summarized in Exhibit 25. This data covers the entire impact period from 2004 when the City. As the chart illustrates, the impact of BRAC-related activities has a dramatic
the first construction and operational activities occur, through 2012. Annual tax receipts effect on City property tax receipts in 2009 when the first substantial influx of BRAC-
for 2012, estimated at $49 million, largely constitute the value of new property and related jobs and households is expected. While the chart indicates that the majority of
income tax revenue for the City attributable to the ongoing operations of the hospitals, this tax revenue will ultimately be derived from BRAC, this will depend on the extent to
medical facilities, bioparks, and BRAC-related firms. which biopark tenants are nonprofit organizations exempt from City property tax. If the
ultimate mix of profit to nonprofit entities is weighted in the direction of profit-making
Exhibit 25: Fiscal impacts of construction and operations, 2004-2012 (cumulative, ongoing businesses, total receipts and the relative contribution of the bioparks would increase.
annual effects, 2006 dollars)
Type of impact Property tax Income tax Total Exhibit 26: Annual property tax over time, 2004-2012
(millions) (millions) (millions)
2004 $0.4 $1.6 $2.0 $30
2005 $0.8 $2.1 $2.9
2006 $2.8 $9.9 $12.7 $25

Property Tax (millions)

2007 $4.3 $13.0 $17.3
2008 $5.2 $16.0 $21.2 $20
2009 $14.8 $23.1 $37.9
2010 $25.4 $23.0 $48.4
$15
2011 $26.7 $19.9 $46.6
2012 $28.1 $21.1 $49.2
Source: SPG $10

$5

$0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Biopark Operations BRAC Operations

108 109

Exhibit 27 presents a chart of income tax receipts over the period from 2004 through
2012. As all workers are subject to income tax, the contributions from construction,
hospitals, bioparks, and BRAC are included in the chart.
Exhibit 27: Annual income tax over time, 2004-2012
Exhibit 28 combines the data included in the prior two exhibits and shows total Baltimore
City income and property tax receipts for each year from 2004 through 2012. By the
later stages of the development period, the construction-related fiscal impacts will be
overshadowed by the operation-related impacts, particularly those related to the new
bioparks and BRAC.

$25 Exhibit 28: Annual total tax over time, 2004-2012

$50
$20
Income tax (millions)

$40
$15
Total tax (millions)

$10 $30

$5 $20

$0 $10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$0
Construction Hospital Operations
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Biopark Operations BRAC Operations
Construction Hospital Operations
Biopark Operations BRAC Operations

110 111
Conclusion
Over the next decade, the three sources of new investment in and around Downtown
analyzed in this study will increase Downtown employment by at least 13 percent and will
generate a stream of new tax revenues for Baltimore City government conservatively
estimated at more than $49 million per annum in 2006 dollars. All told, the investments in
hospitals/medical centers in and around Downtown, in bioparks and in BRAC-related
activities will translate into roughly $3 billion in new construction over the course of the
next decade.
These investments will also substantially increase the size of the city’s scientific population,
its average income levels, and its purchasing power. When considered in conjunction with
other planned investments in and around Downtown, the implication is that the city’s
ongoing renaissance will remain in place and may accelerate going forward. The
investments studied here will also have the effect of unleashing the economic activity
necessary to support a number of Downtown development projects that continue to await
financing, including condominium, apartment and hotel developments.
Appendix: Sources and Methods
The principal sources of data used in this analysis of hospital expansions, biopark
development, and BRAC are the following:
x Downtown Partnership. The Downtown Partnership compiled data on the value
of investments in hospitals, medical facilities, and bioparks as well as the
permanent jobs associated with each of these investments. These data were in turn
collected from officials at these facilities, press reports, and web sites.
x Reports by the University of Baltimore. Three reports by the University of
Baltimore evaluated the economic impacts of the ambulatory care building and
parking garage at the University of Maryland Medical Center and a parking
facility and clinical tower at Mercy Medical Center.
x RESI report. RESI of Towson University analyzed the impacts of BRAC on
Maryland and its jurisdictions. For Baltimore City, the analysis estimated both jobs
and households that would be located in the city as well as related income and tax
revenue.

These sources were supplemented by current data on the web sites for the bioparks
(forestcityscience.net for the JHU park and umbbiopark.com for the UMB park) and the
web site for Johns Hopkins Hospital. Current data resulted in some revisions to the
development periods and expected job generation reported in the three principal sources
cited above.

Measuring Economic and Fiscal Impacts

The economic activity created by the surge in downtown development generates a
multiplier effect that extends throughout the economy of the Baltimore City (as well as the
State of Maryland) and expands the benefits created directly by the development. In the
language of economics, these additional economic activities are termed the indirect and
induced effects of the jobs, income, and sales generated directly by the development.

The jobs created by the hospital expansions and biopark development, for example,
during construction or when new businesses open at the bioparks, are considered a direct
effect. Indirect effects occur when the contractors building the project or new businesses
purchase goods and services from other firms in Baltimore City. These businesses purchase
everything from nails to advertising services from local firms. In turn, these suppliers will
buy office supplies and electric power among many other items and services from other
local firms. In its totality this succession of purchases by suppliers and suppliers of
suppliers creates the indirect effect.

The wages and income received by the direct employees, contractors and owners and by
their suppliers linked to the development create additional effects. Substantial portions of
associated wages are spent in Baltimore City on a broad range of consumer purchases

112 113

from housing and groceries to entertainment and holiday shopping. The economic activity
associated with these purchases is termed the induced effect.

These direct, indirect, and induced economic effects can be measured along three
dimensions: employment (measured in full-time and part-time jobs), income (measured in
dollars), and output or sales of goods and services (measured in dollars). These effects
are estimated using proprietary software and a computer model created for this
analysis.7

This analysis calculates impacts for one jurisdiction. Because the development occurs in
Baltimore City, the economic and fiscal impacts on the city are examined. While the
economic effects extend beyond the city and also provide additional benefits to
businesses and residents in other parts of the state, these additional benefits and impacts
are not estimated.8

Two broad categories of impacts are assessed. The construction of the hospitals and the
bioparks creates a series of one-time effects. Once the expanded facilities are open,
business are located in the bioparks, and BRAC related firms are supplying goods and
services to the direct BRAC facilities, a second set of ongoing impacts occurs. These
impacts are measured in terms of economically permanent, annual effects.

Finally, in addition to economic impacts, the development and occupation of the project
will create fiscal impacts, defined as new streams of tax revenue for the City of Baltimore.
This analysis includes estimates of property tax based on the current rate of property tax
and income tax based on the average ratio of income to the city’s share of the Maryland
income tax.

The timing of development and BRAC-related activities was an important consideration.

Estimated investment schedules for individual projects listed in Exhibit 3 were used to
distribute investment dollars over the total development period. For BRAC-related
activities, timing was based on the changes in BRAC jobs at the three facilities that affect
the economy of Baltimore City—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Meade, and Andrews Air
Force Base.

The RESI report estimated jobs and income related to BRAC, but did not make estimates of
business sales (i.e. output) related to BRAC. Using IMPLAN’s ratio of income to output for
all sectors in Baltimore City, this analysis includes an estimate of the value of sales of
goods and services that city businesses would enjoy because of BRAC-related activities.

7
The analysis is based on software and data created by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. IMPLAN has
become the industry standard for this type of input-output analysis. Using IMPLAN data, a customized
economic and fiscal impact model specific to this analysis and specific to Baltimore City was generated.
8
It is highly likely that these impacts will be concentrated in neighboring jurisdictions such as Anne
Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, and Howard counties.

114