Submitted by Rubysdad1975 t3_z5dhaw in baltimore
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_ixwq9v3 wrote
Unpopular opinion: while seeing history go away is a loss, trying to preserve every single historical building mutates into the NIMBYism that holds America back.
okdiluted t1_ixwudx8 wrote
tearing unique historic buildings that could easily be used for housing down, potentially structurally compromising other historic buildings (it's not easy to tear down just one/one chunk of row houses!) to make a private prayer garden/"hard scape space" (so like... concrete slab?) in the middle of a very dense urban area is the opposite of helpful, though! it's not NIMBYism to say that a tax-exempt, wealthy religious institution with a congregation that comes from mostly outside of the city may not have the priorities or the needs of actual city residents in mind. like sure, if you want to fall into whataboutism what you're saying could feasibly be true somewhere, but the material reality at hand here makes it inapplicable to this situation.
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_ixx10h4 wrote
Yeah, the fact that it’s housing being replaced with a private park rather than more housing (or even a public park) is what makes this more gray for me. Unfortunately it seems like these cannot be “easily used for housing” due to decay (as opposed to a total teardown and replacement).
okdiluted t1_ixx4uz8 wrote
from what i've been hearing, the "decay" isn't really that extensive and is really just beyond what the church is willing to put into maintenance! they say they've put like $91,000 into these houses, but that was over the course of several years, which shook out to just a few thousand dollars per year per house (which is way, way less than basic upkeep costs for houses like this should be.) unique, very easily habitable historic properties like this being left empty and neglected by a private entity for the purposes of total demolition is just an entirely different issue than some potential NIMBYism. in a case like this, historic preservation and housing density go hand in hand, because preserving these houses would also preserve density in the neighborhood, and the net benefit would be that a dying form of architecture is preserved and maintained while also being used to its full potential for living space. it's important to evaluate the nuances of each individual situation when we can!
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_ixxdx01 wrote
Ok I will state I don’t know the details of the buildings’ decay - I’m just going off of what I read from the other comments. If what you said is true though, it is symptomatic of Baltimore’s age old problem of absentee landowners not maintaining their properties.
I will admit my initial post was a knee-jerk reaction to seeing this thread, since so many times NIMBYs would use historical preservation as an excuse to block new housing (or transit). But since in this case it’ll result in less nominal housing stock, not more, I can see why this situation would be different.
okdiluted t1_ixxlxy9 wrote
i understand the reaction! i feel like as someone in the building trades i feel both suspicious of NIMBYs and YIMBYs at times—typically restoring historic housing in streetcar cities and row house neighborhoods is a better move than tearing it down and replacing it with rickety, cheaply made 5-over-ones, because inadequate housing is nearly as bad as no housing at all and i know firsthand how quickly shitty new "luxury" housing falls to moisture issues and mold and mildew, how its thin walls make life hell for people (and their heating/cooling costs), and how they encourage short-stay tenancy for young couples and single people rather than providing long term family housing. i think most people don't go that deep into the minutia and i don't fault them for being as boring as i am, but i do definitely get passionate about it! row homes and historic houses like this are fantastic for housing density without encouraging too much car dependency (bc too much car dependency leads to an actual lack of true density bc things like schools and grocery stores are pushed too far away to access on foot/via public transport bc of parking needs, so cost of living goes up, etc etc etc, shit, i'm rambling again) so my drive for density is also coupled with a strict need for dignity/quality of life for low income residents. lots of things in the balance!! i get heated!! sorry for the massive walls of text there! this situation is a mess, damn
SkyeMreddit t1_ixx72e0 wrote
If you’re tearing it down for a big new building or something that actually benefits the neighborhood, you have a point. But the church wants to flatten these for a “prayer garden”. Quit hollowing out all the neighborhoods for empty space
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_ixxe8t9 wrote
Reading through your and others’ comments I see your valid points. If this was a public park this would totally fall under “benefits for the whole neighborhood.” But since it’s not then yeah.
Trulyfoolycooly t1_ixwvmdu wrote
I agree with you. Change in moderation can be revitalizing, even if it's a bit counterintuitive for a historic district. That block in particular feels lifeless. Though instead of demolishing places I wish they would build on top of all of those parking lots in Mount Vernon. It's ridiculous how many there are.
bmore t1_ixwwwlf wrote
There will be one more when they demolish this. They just are being clever by calling it "hardscaping."
ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_ixx0nl3 wrote
Exactly. Not to mention that these houses are blighted beyond repair (even if it doesn’t look like it). That said I do wish they would replace it with additional housing.
Cunninghams_right t1_ixy12qv wrote
I'm about as anti-NIMBY as it gets, but this is complete horse shit. those buildings would go for hundreds of thousands of dollars each and a developer would make them structurally sound and sell or rent them, preserving the nicer than average architecture. cutting out a bunch of buildings from the center of a block and putting ugly concrete block along the occupied ones will be a net negative to everyone.
how about the church auctions them off. if nobody bids on them, they can tear them down.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments