keenerperkins t1_j8rnfja wrote
Ignoring the chimney swifts, as I think that is a separate issue that would have needed proper mitigation to move forward (and I do think mitigation is possible), the parking situation (which I believe is the real issue here [no I don't think a lot of these people campaigning against it cared about the chimney swifts or historic character]) and it's tiresome that this keeps happening, neighborhood by neighborhood. It's just not realistic to stall all development and cap housing because of "parking" and "too many people". That's not a sustainable argument, particularly if we want people to move into this city and pay city taxes. And if we require all redevelopment to have tunneled parking garages, that just drives up the cost of the housing. The question should turn to "why isn't our neighborhood or community supported by more reliable, direct public transit?" You'd be amazed what can happen if a politician and/or community association backs transit and pedestrian travel initiatives. It's not an immediate fix, but it's a step forward as opposed to "lets just not redevelop abandoned buildings or land."
​
The sad thing is, is that Hampden is becoming a desirable neighborhood to live in and, if there's no new multi-unit housing entering the market to feed that demand, home prices will continue to rise there and more and more people will be priced out of living there. People are moving to Hampden regardless of whether there is housing and those with money can put more money into bidding wars. I guess it's good for those who live there and want to make $$$ when they sell their house, but it's abysmal for the neighborhood and city.
maryellentokar t1_j8rvmle wrote
I see your points; I work in the transportation field so I am familiar with Baltimore's lack of efficient transit. I see your question and raise you a question -- if Hampden dwellers don't have more reliable, direct public transit right now (or at least have promising upcoming plans), how can we expect Hampden dwellers to back off of projects like these? I agree that backing transit and pedestrian initiatives are important, but until there is real progress being made in bringing these initiatives to reality, I can see why these two items aren't mutually exclusive -- backing public transit/multi modal transit while being against massive development in the meantime.
​
Plus, if you look at the location, there simply isn't enough room on the streets for the cars that would be brought to the area. I agree it's not realistic to "stall all development" but that's not what's happening here -- this physical location wasn't going to work and until Hampdenites see reliable public transit, I don't think we can expect them to be okay with increased congestion and traffic.
keenerperkins t1_j8s0mf4 wrote
Yea, but unfortunately transit takes a while to correct and implement due to studies and public input (we're talking 3-6 years at best in many cases). And, I'd imagine if Hampden was offered efficient, proper BRT lanes up Falls Road or Keswick, the community would strongly reject them. Thus, it becomes a vicious cycle of maintaining a car-oriented city community that becomes less and less inclusive due to a housing squeeze.
physicallyatherapist OP t1_j8s17h7 wrote
Exactly. I feel like if more public transportation was actually offered in the area then it would also be shot down
When I emailed Odette about this she replied "I just wish these developers would come to my Black communities to build". It's like.. it's not mutually exclusive. You can build in both areas and both SHOULD be built
maryellentokar t1_j8s307p wrote
I guess I just have to disagree with the first statement that if public transpo was offered it would be shot down. And comparing the two options -- an affordable and reliable transit system -- with a massive luxury apartment complex in a cramped neighborhood -- aren't super comparable for many reasons.
As for the email from Odette, no real comment on that -- not sure where she is referring to so can't really make any educated opinions on that
physicallyatherapist OP t1_j8t2s4i wrote
NIMBYs, which the areas is full of, wouldn't want either. They think pubic transportation will bring crime or "those people" to the area. It's also a tell when they say they are celebrating not having anything there rather than saying.. you know what, it's too big and only luxury, if you do 80 apartments with 30-40 affordable then sure let's do it. But no. They want nothing except an empty crappy building so they don't have to worry about their precious parking.
"I have to tell you, I’m really mad about this,” she told The Banner. “Hampden is oversaturated with development. People are trying to add as many units as possible in a tiny area. Why are developers only looking to develop in white neighborhoods? Why aren’t developers looking to develop in our Black neighborhoods?"
She says the same garbage when she was interviewed back in December.. https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/former-hampden-bookbindery-being-considered-for-potential-landmark-designation-6M4TKLSHIFD6FOKWWSK3XIZAFE/
It's not oversaturated. People want to live here and we should provide housing for them. They should be building housing everywhere in all areas.
maryellentokar t1_j8s2deu wrote
I know it takes a while, that's kind of what I was saying -- until there are effective solutions in the works I don't think we can blame Hampden residents for wanting parking and ultimately safe roads (as someone stated above, these roads are one-car width as it is, with multiple blind turns in both directions out of the neighborhood). I agree it's a vicious cycle in ways -- but I don't think that a massive, 160 luxury apartment complex is an easy ask in the meantime. It's too much and we can't blame Hampden residents for the lack of public transit.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8rzmfm wrote
Yes, I think this is how I feel as a resident. I don't see how more people and cars can fit until some underlying issues such as parking and better transit are addressed. Lack of parking is a quality-of-life issue for residents and if business patrons had options to get here that didn't involve driving that would be even better.
The other part of the equation is to abolish exclusionary zoning in other desirable neighborhoods. I think other parts of the city can absorb more apartment buildings in the meantime Hampden already has a good number of them.
SpaghettiOsPolicy t1_j8s6ecb wrote
Becoming a desirable neighborhood? When was it not?
I can't afford a house in Hampden (along with the other desirable neighborhoods). And there's little reason to cram more housing there when so much of the city is full of vacant properties with space for new housing and even parking.
Yes we need more public transport so I don't have to drive to Hampden every time, but what we really need is to expand outside the white L and make all of our communities more livable and desirable. I'm tired of watching the wealthy white people bicker over parking spaces.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8xpl34 wrote
I wish I could like this 50 times
timmyintransit t1_j8s2n6g wrote
Hello hi yes I lived in Hampden for over a decade, even owning for 7 years, and last year when moving out of the starter home we were priced out of Hampden (or more like that decent 1200 sq ft house is not worth $375k. Sorry).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments