DOCSLIB.ORG

Learning from Boston: Implications for Baltimore from Comparing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems of Baltimore and Boston

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Learning from Boston: Implications for Baltimore from Comparing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems of Baltimore and Boston Learning from Boston: Implications for Baltimore from Comparing the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems of Baltimore and Boston A report for The Abell Foundation prepared by Sean Pool and Matt Van Itallie, Canterbury Road Partners 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Methodology and Structure of the Report ............................................................................................... 7 Limitations of this Report, and Statement of Potential Conflict of Interest ............................................... 8 Terminology ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Framework: Logic Model of an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem .................................................................... 10 Actors ............................................................................................................................................ 11 Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Outputs ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Factors ................................................................................................................... 13 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 13 Outputs of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ............................................................................................ 14 Actors in the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ............................................................................................... 16 1. Active and Potential Entrepreneurs................................................................................................ 16 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 16 Data review ................................................................................................................................... 16 Detail on selected Boston programs and institutions:..................................................................... 20 2. Experienced Mentors ..................................................................................................................... 22 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 22 Data review ................................................................................................................................... 23 Detail on selected Boston programs and institutions:..................................................................... 24 3. Investors ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 25 Data review ................................................................................................................................... 26 4. Universities .................................................................................................................................... 31 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 31 Data review ................................................................................................................................... 32 Detail on selected Boston programs and institutions:..................................................................... 38 5. Established Technology Companies................................................................................................ 39 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 39 Data review ................................................................................................................................... 39 6. Support Platforms .......................................................................................................................... 42 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 42 Data review and detail on selected Boston programs: .................................................................... 44 7. Cheerleaders ................................................................................................................................. 46 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 46 Data review ................................................................................................................................... 47 Detail on selected Boston programs and institutions:..................................................................... 48 Environmental Factors of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ...................................................................... 49 1. Policy incentives ............................................................................................................................ 49 2. Density and transportation ............................................................................................................ 51 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 51 Data review ................................................................................................................................... 52 3. Culture and Creativity .................................................................................................................... 54 Definition and context ................................................................................................................... 54 2 Data review and summary ............................................................................................................. 54 Comparisons of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems ................................................................................... 54 Boston’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is “Established.” ........................................................................ 54 Baltimore’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is “Emerging,” and has the potential to become “Established.” .......................................................................................................................................................... 56 Specific comparisons ......................................................................................................................... 58 Guiding Principles for Recommendations .............................................................................................. 58 1. Invest in core activities. .............................................................................................................. 59 2. Go short and go long. ................................................................................................................. 59 3. Make the most of existing assets. .............................................................................................. 59 4. Think holistically. ....................................................................................................................... 59 5. Look at the bang for the buck. ....................................................................................................... 59 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 60 1. Create, find or hire more entrepreneurs. ....................................................................................... 61 2. Expand early stage investment....................................................................................................... 62 3. Identify and codify existing entrepreneurship ecosystem-related programs and projects. .............. 63 4. Create an Innovation District. ........................................................................................................ 63 5. Leverage existing pools of technology. ........................................................................................... 64 6. Consider regulatory and tax reforms. ............................................................................................. 64 7. Pursue short-term investments in supporting public transit. .......................................................... 65 8. Invest in measurement of Baltimore’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. ................................................ 65 9. Consider an “Entrepreneurial Moon Shot”—a dramatic, comprehensive investment in Baltimore’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FFAB Technology Transfer Report: Resources for Business Development in the State of Maryland
    FFAB Technology Transfer Report: Resources for Business Development in the State of Maryland This report summarizes the various resources in the State of Maryland for Technology Transfer and Commercialization. These resources include: financial resources for early-stage ventures as well as tax incentive programs that encourage firms to locate in the state to conduct business in strategic areas such as energy, biotechnology and cybersecurity; business development organizations and resources, both privately-run and at the county level; federal tech transfer offices; tech transfer resources within the state’s educational institutions; and a summary of Maryland’s research parks and business incubators. Maryland Federal Facilities Advisory Board Technology Commercialization Workgroup Created in January 2010, the 19-member Federal Facilities Advisory Board (FFAB) works to foster greater interaction and collaboration between the State of Maryland, federal facilities, and private companies, in order to support and strengthen federal mission objectives and to enhance business opportunities for Maryland companies. One of the five FFAB workgroups, the Technology Commercialization Workgroup is tasked with coordinating with area research institutions, universities and colleges, and the private sector to develop a strategy for connecting researchers with federal and state resources and funding opportunities to aid new business development. The Workgroup believes that the pathway to increased technology commercialization involves better connections between academia and industry, as many of today’s most challenging global problems require both invention and innovation. As invention is strongly supported by academic and/or research institutions and innovation is best supported by industry, this report lists both institutional resources and industry groups that foster entrepreneurship.
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Funding Sources for EU XR Technologies
    This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement N° 825545. XR4ALL (Grant Agreement 825545) “eXtended Reality for All” Coordination and Support Action D5.1: Map of funding sources for XR technologies Issued by: LucidWeb Issue date: 30/08/2019 Due date: 31/08/2019 Work Package Leader: Europe Unlimited Start date of project: 01 December 2018 Duration: 30 months Document History Version Date Changes 0.1 05/08/2019 First draft 0.2 26/08/2019 First version submitted for partners review 1.0 30/08/2019 Final version incorporating partners input Dissemination Level PU Public Restricted to other programme participants (including the EC PP Services) Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the EC RE Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the EC) This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement N° 825545. Main authors Name Organisation Leen Segers, Diana del Olmo LCWB Quality reviewers Name Organisation Youssef Sabbah, Tanja Baltus EUN Jacques Verly, Alain Gallez I3D LEGAL NOTICE The information and views set out in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. © XR4ALL Consortium, 2019 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. D5.1 Map of funding sources for XR technologies - 30/08/2019 Page 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RESI Boston Program Guide 09-26-2017 Digital
    SEPTEMBER 26 , 2017 BOSTON, MA Early stage investors, fundraising CEOs, scientist-entrepreneurs, strategic partners, and service providers now have an opportunity to Make a Compelling Connection ONSITE GUIDE LIFE SCIENCE NATION Connecting Products, Services & Capital #RESIBOS17 | RESIConference.com | Boston Marriott Copley Place FLOOR PLAN Therapeutics Track 2 Investor Track 3 & track4 Track 1 Device, Panels Workshops & Diagnostic & HCIT Asia Investor Panels Panels Ad-Hoc Meeting Area Breakfast & Lunch DINING 29 25 30 26 31 27 32 28 33 29 34 30 35 Breakfast / LunchBreakfast BUFFETS 37 28 24 27 23 26 22 25 21 24 20 23 19 22 exhibit hall 40 15 13 16 14 17 15 18 16 19 17 20 18 21 39 INNOVATION 14 12 13 11 12 10 11 9 10 8 9 7 8 EXHIBITORS CHALLENGE 36 38 FINALISTS 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 Partnering Check-in PARTNERING Forum Lunch BUFFETS Breakfast / Breakfast RESTROOM cocktail reception REGISTRATION content Welcome to RESI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 RESI Agenda - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 BOSTON RESI Innovation Challenge - - - - - - - 5 Exhibiting Companies - - - - - - - - - - 12 Track 1: Therapeutics Investor Panels - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 Track 2: Device, Diagnostic, & HCIT Investor Panels - - - - 29 Track 3: Entrepreneur Workshops - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38 Track 4: Asia-North America Workshop & Panels - - - - - - 41 Track 5: Partnering Forum - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 45 Sponsors & Media Partners - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46 1 welcome to resi On behalf of Life Science Nation (LSN) and our title sponsors WuXi AppTec and Johnson & Johnson Innovation JLABS, I would like to thank you for joining us at RESI Boston. LSN is very happy to welcome you all to Boston, the city where it all began, for our 14th RESI event.
    [Show full text]
  • Position Specification US Letter
    Position Specification Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 2021 © 2021 Korn Ferry. All Rights Reserved. POSITION SPECIFICATION Position Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Organization Venture For America (VFA) Location The CEO may be based in NYC HQs or one of VFA’s Cities: Baltimore • Birmingham • Charlotte • Cleveland • Detroit • Kansas City • Miami • New Orleans • Philadelphia • Pittsburgh • San Antonio • St. Louis • Tulsa Reporting Relationship Board of Directors Website https://ventureforamerica.org/ THE OPPORTUNITY Venture For America (VFA) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating economic opportunity in American cities by mobilizing the next generation of entrepreneurs and startup leaders and equipping them with the skills and resources they need to create jobs. By bringing together some of the nation’s most aspiring, young, forward-thinking talent to the startup ecosystem, VFA is able to impact and transform emerging cities across the nation through fast- paced startups and entrepreneurial experiences. Fellows acquire the hands-on skills and guidance while companies gain access to a talented pool of start-up future leaders. Venture for America started in 2011 with little more than a bold vision, a handful of tirelessly dedicated team members, $200,000 in funding and the audacious belief that these ingredients could create something transformative. After six years in operation, with a budget that had grown over 30x, hundreds of incredible Fellows and Alumni, and a full-time team of over 30, the VFA team set out on a new strategic planning process to assess progress and formally chart a path forward. Vision 2020: Setting Our Sights on the Future resulted in a new mission statement, the identification of three key program pillars to achieve this mission, the creation of a strategy screen used to evaluate all new and existing initiatives, and much more.
    [Show full text]
  • 19-1189 BP PLC V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BP P. L. C. ET AL. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1189. Argued January 19, 2021—Decided May 17, 2021 Baltimore’s Mayor and City Council (collectively City) sued various en- ergy companies in Maryland state court alleging that the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted. The defendant companies removed the case to federal court invoking a number of grounds for federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. §1442. The City argued that none of the defendants’ various grounds for removal justified retaining federal ju- risdiction, and the district court agreed, issuing an order remanding the case back to state court. Although an order remanding a case to state court is ordinarily unreviewable on appeal, Congress has deter- mined that appellate review is available for those orders “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of [Title 28].” §1447(d). The Fourth Circuit read this provision to authorize appellate review only for the part of a remand order deciding the §1442 or §1443 removal ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Divided Baltimore
    UNDERSTANDING DIVIDED BALTIMORE How Data, Especially Mapped Data, Informed the Course WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO • Divided Baltimore was a UB response to the events of April 2015. • We wanted to share information widely with students and with interested community members with hope that we could catalyze interest in learning how Baltimore became so divided. • Presentations built around a community forum • Graduate, undergraduate, and dual enrollment high school students were enrolled in sections of the course with their own instructor. THE NEW YORK TIMES CAPTURED HOW WE ORGANIZED THE COMMUNITY FORUM http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003 973175/uniting-a-divided-baltimore.html October 20, 2015 - By A.J. CHAVAR - U.S. - Print Headline: "Uniting a Divided Baltimore“ USING DATA AND MAPS IN THE COURSE • Today, we want to report on how we relied on the good work of BNIA and many of you in compiling data and maps that help immeasurably in comprehending the issues we face in Baltimore in achieving a fair society. HISTORICAL DATA AND MAPS— BETSY NIX • UB History Professor Betsy Nix developed a lecture on the history of segregation in Baltimore that she has now presented to a range of agencies and groups from Annie E. Casey to OSI to the last round of Baltimore City Police recruits. 1860 212,418 residents 25,500 or 12% free people of color from Freedom’s Port 1937 Redlining Map The Baltimore Chop The Baltimore Chop Map from Study for East-West Expressway, 1957. Johns Hopkins University, Sheridan Libraries. Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance,
    [Show full text]
  • Small Business Incubator Certification Program Annual Report 2020
    Small Business Incubator Certification Program 2020 Annual Report Incubator Certification Program Overview Business incubators nurture the development of Oklahoma Business Incubator entrepreneurial companies, helping them survive Association and grow during the startup period, when they The Oklahoma Business Incubator Association are most vulnerable. These programs provide their (OkBIA) was formed more than 20 years ago. The client companies with business support services purpose of the OkBIA is to provide information, and resources tailored to young firms. The most networking, guidance and assistance to incubator common goals of incubation programs are creating operators, as well as to work with the Legislature jobs in a community, enhancing a community’s to promote and benefit business incubators and entrepreneurial climate, retaining businesses in a tenants. community, building or accelerating growth in a local industry, and diversifying local economies. Oklahoma Business Incubators Incubators vary in the way they deliver their In 1988, the Oklahoma Legislature passed the services, in their organizational structure and in Oklahoma Small Business Incubators Incentives the types of clients they serve. As they are highly Act. The Act enables the tenants of a certified adaptable, incubators have differing goals, including incubator facility to be exempt from state tax liability diversifying rural economies, providing employment on income earned as a result of occupancy for up for and increasing wealth of depressed inner cities, to five years. In 2001, the legislature amended the and transferring technology from universities and act to extend the tenant’s tax exemption from five major corporations. Incubator clients are often at to 10 years. The exemption remains in effect after the forefront of developing new and innovative the tenant has graduated from an incubator.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gender Gap in Startup Catalyst Organizations
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2017 The Gender Gap in Startup Catalyst Organizations: Bridging the Divide between Narrative and Reality Alice Armitage UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Robin Feldman UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Alice Armitage and Robin Feldman, The Gender Gap in Startup Catalyst Organizations: Bridging the Divide between Narrative and Reality, 95 Or. L. Rev. 313 (2017). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1591 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OREGON 2017 VOLUME 95 LAW NUMBER 2 REVIEW Articles ROBIN FELDMAN,* ALICE ARMITAGEt & CONNIE WANGT The Gender Gap in Startup Catalyst Organizations: Bridging the Divide Between Narrative and Reality I. The Catalyst Phenomenon: Function and Typology..............314 A. Co-Working Spaces.........................315 B. Incubators................................ 317 C. Accelerators ........................ ...... 318 II. The Gender Gap in Entrepreneurship and Technology..........320 III. Research Design and Methodology ................. 323 IV. Results ........................... ............... 326 *Harry & Lillian Hastings Professor and Director of the Institute for Innovation Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. t Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Startup Legal Garage, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. I Research Fellow at the Institute for Innovation Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Jobs and Growing Businesses Through Entrepreneurship Roundtable
    S. HRG. 112–617 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM: CREATING JOBS AND GROWING BUSINESSES THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP ROUNDTABLE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 18, 2012 Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 75–347 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Ranking Member CARL LEVIN, Michigan DAVID VITTER, Louisiana TOM HARKIN, Iowa JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MARCO RUBIO, Florida JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut RAND PAUL, Kentucky MARIA CANTWELL, Washington KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JERRY MORAN, Kansas KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina DONALD R. CRAVINS, JR., Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel WALLACE K. HSUEH, Republican Staff Director BRIAN VAN HOOK, Democratic Policy Director MEREDITH WEST, Republican Senior Professional Staff (II) CONTENTS OPENING STATEMENTS Page Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., Chair, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana .................. 1 Brown, Hon. Scott P., a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts .................................. 4 Moran, Hon. Jerry, a U.S. Senator from Kansas .................................................. 20 Risch, Hon. James E., a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Seed Accelerator Model*
    Accelerating Entrepreneurs and Ecosystems: The Seed Accelerator Model* Yael V. Hochberg Rice University, MIT & NBER† Conference Draft: April 3, 2015 Recent years have seen the emergence of a new institutional form in the entrepreneurial ecosystem: the seed accelerator. These fixed-term, cohort-based, "boot camps" for startups offer educational and mentorship programs for startup founders, exposing them to wide variety of mentors, including former entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, and corporate executives; and culminate in a public pitch event, or "demo day," during which the graduating cohort of startup companies pitch their businesses to a large group of potential investors. In practice, accelerator programs are a combination of previously distinct services or functions that were each individually costly for an entrepreneur to find and obtain. The accelerator approach has been widely adopted by private groups, public and government efforts, and by corporations. While proliferation of accelerators is clearly evident, with worldwide estimates of 3000+ programs in existence, research on the role and efficacy of these programs has been limited. In this article, I provide an introduction to the accelerator model and summarize recent evidence on their effects on the regional entrepreneurial environment. * Many people provided helpful conversations and comments on the research summarized herein. I am particularly indebted to my collaborators at the Seed Accelerator Rankings Project, Susan Cohen and Dan Fehder; to Fiona Murray, Scott Stern and the Innovation Initiative at MIT; and to the managers of dozens of accelerator programs in the U.S. and worldwide, all of whom have made invaluable contributions to this research agenda. I am am also grateful for the financial support of the Kauffman Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for a Public-Private Partnership to Increase The
    A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Innovation for Our Energy Future Enhancing Commercial Technical Report NREL/TP-110-40463 Outcomes from R&D May 2007 A Framework for a Public–Private Partnership to Increase the Yield of Federally Funded R&D Investments and Promote Economic Development L.M. Murphy Manager, Enterprise Development Programs National Renewable Energy Laboratory P. Jerde Executive Director Robert H. and Beverly A. Deming Center for Entrepreneurship, Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder L. Rutherford Venture Partner Vista Ventures R. Barone 2008 MS/MBA Candidate Department of Environmental Studies and Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 Enhancing Commercial Technical Report NREL/TP-110-40463 Outcomes from R&D May 2007 A Framework for a Public–Private Partnership to Increase the Yield of Federally Funded R&D Investments and Promote Economic Development L.M. Murphy Manager, Enterprise Development Programs National Renewable Energy Laboratory P. Jerde Executive Director Robert H. and Beverly A. Deming Center for Entrepreneurship, Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder L. Rutherford Venture Partner Vista Ventures R. Barone 2008 MS/MBA Candidate Department of Environmental Studies and Leeds School of Business University of Colorado, Boulder Prepared under Task No. 1100.1000 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle Contract No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayor and City Council of Baltimore V. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company, 65 A. 353, 104 Md. 485 (Dec
    Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company, 65 A. 353, 104 Md. 485 (Dec. 19, 1906) Russell K. George I. INTRODUCTION Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company1 concerns the condemnation by the City of Baltimore of properties owned by the Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company ("BPSC"). After the Great Fire of 1904, which destroyed most of the Baltimore business district, the City embarked on an effort to make various urban improvements. Among other things, the City endeavored to widen Pratt Street fifty feet to the south by condemning wharves at the corner of Light and Pratt Streets that were owned and leased by the Steamboat Company.2 The Burnt District Commission awarded the Company minimal damages for the property that was condemned, and instead assessed benefits against the Company for the widening of Pratt Street.3 The Company appealed to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, where Judge Henry Stockbridge essentially reversed the Commission awards, giving the Company much more compensation than it initially received. Both the City and the Company cross- appealed. The Maryland Court of Appeals rendered its decision on December 19, 1906, affirming Stockbridge's awards. The case represents a microcosm of the improvement efforts in Baltimore following the fire. The litigation pursued by the Steamboat Company shows how property owners posed an obstacle to urban improvements. Christine Rosen discusses this in The Limits of Power: Great Fires and the Process of City Growth in America, 1 65 A. 353 (1906). 2 See Diagram, attached. 1 concluding that the progressive nature of Baltimore, which had developed prior to the fire,4 helped the City to overcome various obstacles to change, including private property ownership and political deadlock.5 In addition, the case presents issues concerning the condemnation value of waterfront property, particularly the value of certain riparian rights and the question of whether they are to be included in the fair market value of the property.
    [Show full text]