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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I read this as "bring in with the intention of smoking" - in which case, no. Bringing it in and not using it, nobody gives a damn.

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.

Great pic. I just wish that skate park was positioned better. The way it is the skaters are often on the path to get a running start before they even get into the skate park itself.

Where did you see that this would be affordable housing?

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.

Disgusting. Wish these people could look in the eye of the people they're stamping on further down the housing ladder.

Depending on your age and what you think is fun, you either want Federal Hill (10 min walk from inner harbor, college-y bars), Fells Point, Canton (similar, maybe skews a little older), or maybe Mt Vernon for either gay nightlife or just an older crowd.

I live here. We walk everywhere! And we regularly walk to Camden Yards, which is the best! It takes about 20 minutes to walk from where you will be staying to the ballpark.

As someone else said, no one thinks of Baltimore as hilly, but it really is!

>Hampden

100 percent THIS! Concise and worded well. Definitely not NIMBYism in my opinion.

The residents were very organized and those are her voters

Shot with: Olympus OM-1, Zuiko 28mm f/2.8, Fujicolor C200

if you’re interested in seeing more of my photos, check out my website here: https://jakesaltzberg.smugmug.com/

IG: @jakesaltzberg

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdd8eXO6aAGG90blSEC67CjccgJMwVofERY-ryJAD9eVk5QYg/viewform

Urban sprawl and the lack of public transportation are the reasons why people rely on roads and cars.

Even if people want to use public transportation, they can't if it DOESN'T EXIST

Have you considered that roads are a barrier to people walking places, reducing the amount of foot travel and therefore demand? You could very well see an uptick in business if people feel confident that they can get there safely and directly.

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.

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.

Execution is key here, but im not opposed to an appropriate fee.

Restaurant owners are using public land to help drive economic activity to their businesses.This is good for everyone

Paying a reasonable % of their increased profits to pay parklet fees is not unreasonable.

With that said, im 99% confident that the city will find someway to fuck this up.

So you want to reduce demand? What does that mean? Less people frequenting baltimore businesses?

Build the public transportation first, then shut down those streets. It should happen in that order, that is all.

Induced demand my dude

You can’t get people to use public transpo when using a car is always more convenient. Need both the carrot and the stick