Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8od127 wrote
I live in Hampden and the Nimby-ism that succeeded here is pretty embarrassing. Yes, there is a parking problem in the neighborhood, I live a few blocks from this building. But the parking pressures are from the Avenue business and blocking development isn't going to fix the issue of not enough parking for people that come here to shop and dine.
I wish the residents would organize against the Hampden Merchants Association which continues to block parking improvements in this area. Residents aim their ire in the wrong direction, at developers, and the parking issues never get resolved.
todareistobmore t1_j8otehp wrote
The parking pressures are from basic geometry--most cars are longer than rowhouses are wide. The only way street parking can ever work in a neighborhood like Hampden is if there are enough people who don't own cars.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8q7b2z wrote
I don't agree we should have zoned parking passes that restrict parking to residents at certain hours. There are plenty of neighborhoods in the city that have it. Our Merchants Association actively blocks any efforts to get zoned parking and we have to absorb all the parking for the businesses which is not right. The businesses should provide parking for their patrons. The Wine Source is building a parking lot right now because it's the right thing to do and the #1 complaint from customers.
And until we have a better public transit system people aren't going to stop driving. I do support better public transit in Baltimore it would greatly improve things.
HorsieJuice t1_j8rfy0y wrote
We have zoned parking in Wyman Park and it’s great. Hopkins gets the west half of keswick during the day, while residents get everything else.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8rygz9 wrote
Yes, I've seen your parking signs and I'm so jealous. The only issue I have with living close to The Ave is the parking I really wish we could get zoned restrictions.
drillpublisher t1_j8w65tp wrote
There is a massive parking garage at the Rotunda. Baring disability people are just unaware/lazy.
If every business razed otherwise useful buildings/lots into surface parking ala the Wine Source the Avenue would fucking suck.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8wc9ok wrote
I would love it if people visiting Hampden would park at the Rotunda and just walk to The Ave but they don't. If we had zoned parking restrictions people would probably do that.
Even more reason why we need zoned parking for residents. The Hampden Merchants Association is the problem.
drillpublisher t1_j8xia96 wrote
I definitely glazed over the resident parking portion and honed in on "demolishing housing to build a surface parking lot" as "the right thing to do" part of your post.
Maybe residential parking permits help, but in the broader context of more apartments, I don't see how that sways residents to allow more residences...
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8xsjo0 wrote
Someone else commenting here with a transportation background stated it best but I agree with their point that if there's no plan to fix parking or improve public transit it's ridiculous to expect Hampden residents to not oppose more development projects. Why would we want a less pedestrian-safe, less driver-safe, more congested community by choice? It's just not common sense to expect that of people.
I'm focusing on the zone parking issue because it feels achievable to me as a resident and it would improve the day-to-day lives of me and my neighbors. And I mentioned the parking lots because it's the only thing I see happening and I applaud that business for trying to improve the situation not because I think it's the optimal choice. Of course, I don't want to turn the neighborhood into a bunch of parking lots. The best option is a state-of-the-art public transit system but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
I could also get into other structural issues such as exclusionary zoning in other desirable neighborhoods which should be abolished but I'll stop there.
drillpublisher t1_j8y2ete wrote
>Someone else commenting here with a transportation background stated it best but I agree with their point that if there's no plan to fix parking or improve public transit it's ridiculous to expect Hampden residents to not oppose more development projects. Why would we want a less pedestrian-safe, less driver-safe, more congested community by choice? It's just not common sense to expect that of people. >
Because Hampden is largely self-contained. It meets almost all, if not all of, the requirements for the 15-minute city. It almost feels as a small city or town in and of itself with I83 and JHU as the boundaries. Obviously those are blurred, but it is one of the easier places to live in the City car-free or car-lite (1 per house instead of 1 per resident).
>I'm focusing on the zone parking issue because it feels achievable to me as a resident and it would improve the day-to-day lives of me and my neighbors. And I mentioned the parking lots because it's the only thing I see happening and I applaud that business for trying to improve the situation not because I think it's the optimal choice. Of course, I don't want to turn the neighborhood into a bunch of parking lots. The best option is a state-of-the-art public transit system but that's not going to happen anytime soon. >
Like it or not but by celebrating the Wine Sources decision you're absolutely advocating for turning the neighborhood into a bunch of parking.
I'm skeptical a parking permit solves much around the Avenue, but can respect that people would want it. I've not lived within a block or two of the Ave, but have lived in Hampden with/without RPP and haven't seen a huge difference so I understand I'm bias.
vcelloho t1_j8pijm5 wrote
I think this building was a bit different from typical NIMBY objections that part of Hampden isn't on the street grid and there are only three routes out Falls Cliff, which is 2 ways but only one car at a time, a one-way blind turn on Singer and Keswick, and Chestnut and Falls Rd also only one car at a time. If the building hadn't been proposed as a 78' tall building I don't think it would have been met with as much resistance. The Fox building conversion to apartments went through for example as did the Crittenton development and apartment conversation.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8q5m15 wrote
I agree that the project was too big. But I do think the approached used to block it, historical preservation and wildlife protection, are very typical NIMBY tactics.
keenerperkins t1_j8rmrzq wrote
Yes, particularly historic preservation. I work in the field and see it get tossed out as a last ditch effort too often to prevent housing and "undesirables" from moving in.
HorsieJuice t1_j8s1shj wrote
It's amazing that, even after the project has fallen through, people are still trying to get landmark status for an unremarkable building built in 1930.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8s2h13 wrote
The building is an eyesore lmaoooo it's so bad
maryellentokar t1_j8rukvr wrote
>Hampden
100 percent THIS! Concise and worded well. Definitely not NIMBYism in my opinion.
physicallyatherapist OP t1_j8ooeij wrote
Yeah, I was quite disappointed they didn't build it. I think the "issues" people were bringing up weren't really big problems. You covered parking well. Plus with the chimney thing... maybe I'm ignorant on the subject but just can't you require the new building to have a similar chimney for the birds to migrate and nest in? Also, people get caught up in the term "luxury" but it's a term you can use for anything and isn't regulated. It's like using the word natural in foods.
DisgruntledHeron t1_j8p2qnq wrote
Other places have found just putting up a new chimney doesn’t usually work. They think it might be due to porous condition of the old bricks or something. There was some discussion of making a cast of the inside of the chimney for a new chimney, which would be an innovative experiment but apparently the owner wasn’t happy with the idea of “inviting a bunch of birds to shit on the property.”
physicallyatherapist OP t1_j8rldnd wrote
Interesting. Yeah or just transferring the old chimney may work. Again I'm speaking from ignorance so I wasn't sure how legit of a complaint it was so I appreciate your input. Also, for the developers, i don't think anyone is going to be looking on top of the roof
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8q7poa wrote
And now the owner is trying to figure out what to do with the building by sending around a survey. Lol I'm going to suggest a park or something.
physicallyatherapist OP t1_j8rlfqk wrote
Post/send the survey if you can
Typical-Radish4317 t1_j8okju6 wrote
Nimbyism isnt really demolish old buildings to put up parking lots. It's usually literally the opposite - demolish to put up more high capacity living spaces.
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8q61yj wrote
Huh? I havent heard anyone propose that the building be replaced with a parking lot.
And when you mention those in favor of high capacity living spaces you might be thinking of YIMBY because NIMBY tends to oppose any new development.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments