Comments
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.
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).
Skontradiction t1_j8plv4l wrote
Really disappointed in Odette Ramos for all she did to kill this. Can’t wait to hear her complain about the lack of affordable housing some more with not a hint of awareness that she is contributing to the problem
Fit-Accountant-157 t1_j8rsvz7 wrote
The residents were very organized and those are her voters
maryellentokar t1_j8rvqd2 wrote
Where did you see that this would be affordable housing?
physicallyatherapist OP t1_j8s20ku wrote
They didn't say this was affordable housing. They're implying that less housing available in a desirable place to live will cause housing prices to rise overall in the area. But with NIMBYs in the area it wouldn't matter what you built. "Luxury" apartments? They need to be affordable. Let's build affordable apartments? No those should go in poor areas first.
AutoModerator t1_j8ne0ud wrote
Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a soft paywall to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.
It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.
In accordance with the subreddit rules, please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Philthesteine t1_j8rv33w wrote
Disgusting. Wish these people could look in the eye of the people they're stamping on further down the housing ladder.
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.