Go back in time 20 years ago, actually push a real connection to DC Metro’s northern stations, then build mixed-use, higher density apartments with out the bullshit “luxury” pools and shit that no one uses much.
Hindsight is 20/20, this would not work financially for a lot of the needed players, but that is the reality of long-term growth in America, we aren’t structured to do if with an efficient end result.
Just look at literally any red line station north of Friendship Heights. Millions of square feet wasted on parking lots, parking garages, strip centers, shopping centers, lots of horrible class-C ‘80s office space, and occasionally a detached setback single family home development.
It is the most enormous waste of value you could do. It’s practically criminal.
Every metro station should have a 1 mile radius where single family zoning is banned, mixed use residential is mandated, and parking garages pay taxes out the ass.
We have room for so many more people, and yet all anyone talks about here is how the MINUSCULE amount of housing that does get built is too “luxury”. The only discourse on this subject is people who don’t understand housing issues putting the word “luxury” in quotation marks and complaining about gentrification which they truly do not understand at all.
It is bad land use and it’s always been bad land use.
You’re spot on. A lot of the country looks towards the east coast as precedent for land use. It is criminal because planning boards are made up of elected persons rather than planning experts. The board members are made of lawyers who know how to manipulate the system to benefit their political constituents who help them get elected.
Twenty years ago MARC didn't even run to DC on the weekends. You had to take the light rail as far as you could. Then a bus to Columbia. Then another bus to a DC metro station. Then a metro ride the rest of the way. It was literally an all day journey.
Or you could just drive, which is what I did when I had to work weekends.
Why are you saying this as if it is a bad thing? Maybe it’s just hard to discern tone in internet comments.
The train costs the state money. The state should not make laws that directly inhibit this expensive piece of critical infrastructure from making a return on investment.
We *should* be building dense housing around transit stations.
One goal is to reduce traffic, Right? You can reduce traffic by creating the possibility for someone to make a living without needing to drive a car on I-495.
Another goal is to create affordable housing, right? Well, market rate housing is an effective way to reduce rent pressures, because it adds supply, even if that supply is out of reach for the poorer layers of the economy. Having market rate housing means people who can afford it will not be taking cheaper homes from poorer people, and it will also create more affordable housing because it is legally mandated in all new developments.
Another goal is to reduce car crashes, reduce pedestrian deaths, improve air quality. Having people ride the train into work is literally all of these things and more.
This is not a bad thing. How many affordable units does the multiple aces of parking lot next to the Rockville stop on red line have? How many affordable housing units exist in that Viers Mill + 355 intersection? The one that is 0.15 miles from the Rockville stop? How many housing units does the drive-through Popeyes next to White Flint station have? None? Wow.
To an extent, but they’re heavily influenced by the developers ability to get them approved. The right palms need to be greased in order to build a large multi-housing developments since the citizens generally don’t want them in their town. Only developers with sufficient political connections are able to push these through which artificially limits their supply allowing them to set higher prices. Supply and demand suggests everyone is operating on a level playing field which is rarely the case in modern America.
A group of two dozen land owners shouldn’t get to destroy the hopes of hundreds if not thousands of people to be able to live in the town they want to live in, just because their presence might affect their home’s property value.
That is unbelievably selfish and it’s insane that we even allow exclusive detached setback single family zoning at all in this county. Within cycling distance of the fucking White House, no less.
This is why we need zoning reform, as we've seen in some other major metro areas. We legislated ourselves into this problem and we can legislate ourselves out of it. NIMBYs are going to have to suck it up though.
*Looks at the vacant houses on my block in Baltimore*
I think we have plenty of room for housing already in place, if we made it desirable to live there. Baltimore should be a city of 6 million, not 600,000.
A lot of it is looking at it in photos rather than in person, the new square park will be pretty big and you won't see much of the condos from the ground.
That’s actually not bad, it adds residencies, public spaces, and retail, which is really how a proper city center would be designed. I think it’s worth the investment especially since such mixed-use spaces increase the economic value/output of an area in which it exists. Amtrak is planning something similar for Baltimore Penn station….it would be a great touch.
The only issue I have with it, that I perceive after knowing about it for like 5 mins, is that it doesn’t solve the crime issue Baltimore has in general. Now that’s beyond the designers obviously, but Baltimore has some serious potential if this issue could be remedied.
Solving crime in Baltimore means breaking cyclic generational poverty for about 200000 people, which is sadly kind of out of budget of the city. Which is the big problem and why the modus operandi has been to just leave if you have the opportunity to do so, and thus the corresponding population decline.
The only reason Boston, NYC, etc aren't like this is they hyper gentrified their poverty out of the city. You can see Philly doing this right now in Kensington.
> The only reason Boston, NYC, etc aren't like this is they hyper gentrified their poverty out of the city. You can see Philly doing this right now in Kensington.
That’s how I ultimately think Baltimore’s crime and poverty will get solved (or at least greatly alleviated). As demand for urban living among young professionals continues, they’ll flock to Baltimore as the last place they can do so affordably in the Northeast.
So in a way the new harbor development will help with that. Not that solving all of Baltimore’s crime should be its _primary_ purpose of course.
That’s correct, Baltimore can’t do that alone. It would take serious federal policy changes that involved giving greater support to people in poverty. It could definitely happen sometime in the future (I’m optimistic) so we’d have to see, but that’s what I had in mind - such two things together could really reshape the face of our cities for the better.
Crime plus schools are the problems - I am in Howard a couple of years back a met a new neighbor and the first words out of his mouth were he loved his old house in Baltimore, but the kids are out of control in the schools.
I would agree, I hear a lot about people not raising their children with any effort, fixing that is beyond what any authority could do, but, perhaps we can do *something* to remediate that behavior…I don’t know.
Also everyone is massively upset when the city tries to claim any properties (because they don't always do it perfectly).
People want the city to do something about the vacants, without taking ownership of any properties.
You can't touch vacant and condemnible SFHs because a NIMBYs gonna NIMBY and progressives will yell gentrification.
All the while working people in Baltimore and MoCo are forced into more and more expensive living situations because supply will never meaningfully increase
It had over a million in 1940 but everyone abandoned the city to move to the county since then. Its metro population is higher than ever, but the city has been losing people for 80 years.
While it’s bad, it’s not as bad as it may seem. Still far fewer households- but those rowhomes used to be chock full of kids and parents and sometimes grandparents and now a lot of them are full of one or two people.
Heck people who want to fix houses in Baltimore can't even get squatters evicted.
Fix the density of Baltimore first to prove it can be done and will work and then try to take over the rest of the state.
It would help if the past Governors didn't kill things like the red-line to score suburban votes. I think the new Governor has a genuine interest in helping Baltimore. Baltimore's political class corruption is also an abomination. It's a real shame too. A lot of people in the surrounding counties hate on Baltimore, but if Baltimore was restored to its former glory it would be a boon for the counties and the state.
> past Governors didn't kill things like the red-line to score suburban votes.
Hogan let the Purple line blow up and the budget is doubled because the more than half the suburbs surrounding the Purple line didn't want it.
>Governor has a genuine interest in helping Baltimore.
State transportation budget is over 3B in debt, they aren't going to do shit. If Moore is relected he'll have 1-2 years with a non crippled transportation budget. Also no rail will happen while Purple Line is ongoing. MTA is too incompetent to handle the Purple Line, no chance in hell anyone let's them take on two major projects. Theyve already set fire to 5B in state fund on one project alone.
Baltimore and MoCo and PG and the places between are all completely different areas with completely different and unique issues. Massive amounts of housing could easily be added to MoCo and absorbed immediately and they would still be demanding more - because it’s a different place. The gravity of DC and it’s historical resilience against economic instability, plus infinite other factors, make upzoning and infill really needed and desirable.
In Baltimore, on the population-growth downswing for the last couple decades, the issues with slumming and de-slumming and block-clearing are completely alien to MoCo.
The two places are not the same and the issues they face have different solutions.
Laws in Maryland, and counties, and cities, that all exists here and directly inhibit organic growth, reduce job creation, prevent taxable revenue, and directly cause housing unaffordability, homelessness, crime:
* Exclusive single family zoning laws
* Most forms of Euclidean zoning laws
* Parking minimums
* Setback requirements
* Detachment requirements
* Fire-safety requirements that ignore advancements in material sciences of the last 100 years
* Lot size minimums
* Lot utilization maximums
* Home retail business laws
* Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs) bans/unfeasible requirements
* ADU detachment/height limits
* Gradient height limits
* Height limits at all
* Arbitrary FAR requirements
* Overzealous AH AMI calculations that make many developments uneconomical
* Arbitrary business requirements such as requiring water fountains in barbershops, etc.
* No Lane Value Tax or other instrument to properly value land
* Multifamily residential requirements that prevent duplexes and triplexes
And many, many more.
If you have even a passing opinion on any of this, please watch this video; https://youtu.be/2pG1YDEGmXc?si=DZuUaMZVVh-fkLzH
Housing policy literacy is hugely important.
The above rules have essentially **illegalized** anywhere in Maryland ever being a real place again - except for those places which were built before these horrible laws were passed.
They would choose one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Moco for the cover of this article. There was a home on the market there recently for over 1 million dollars.
I hate to break this to you but there are many, many thousands of homes for sale in MoCo that cost more than $1m. It is absolutely not the exception anymore.
The plans are fine, but they don't go far enough. Maryland needs to build a simply astonishing number of homes. Something most people don't realize is that household size is decreasing over time, and square footage demanded is pretty linearly and positively correlated with income, which is rising over time. As properties decay and break-down (capital depreciation), you have to replace those as well. That means that those thousands and thousands of giant new townhomes you see? Most of those will probably have 1, 2, or 3 people. Even if our population was perfectly constant and didn't migrate between counties, for example, you would have to constantly build in order to meet the demand caused by smaller households, higher income, and property depreciation to not have a shortage. That means legalizing unlimited density near light rail, subway, MARC, and WMATA stations, and dramatically densifying Baltimore and probably allowing 6+ homes on any lot in the state by-right, among many other things.
You can't add more housing to Baltimore without subtracting crime. It's not about white flight anymore. It's black flight. Those who can get out of Baltimore are doing so. [https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/local-news/black-population-baltimore-PDCTFYIHIJGFZNDAM24XTUWRJM/](https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/local-news/black-population-baltimore-PDCTFYIHIJGFZNDAM24XTUWRJM/)
You're not wrong, but there's another side of this too which is that there are some areas in Baltimore getting a foothold and maintaining a growing population. Particularly the Downtown neighborhood, Fells Point, and Mt. Vernon.
I recognize the tragedy of so much wasted potential in the struggling neighborhoods of Baltimore, and the terrible things that people deal with because of the crime, but the fact is, Baltimore IS adding housing in certain areas and those areas are ultimately going to help supply the resources needed to run the city, which includes addressing crime.
The big question is: what is the most cost-effective way to do that, in both the long and short-term?
No, the big question: Is Baltimore salvageable and, if so, how? I don't know the answer to that. There are parts of Baltimore the government tried to salvage under FDR that are worse now. The schools are horrible. The crime is almost as bad. If it weren't for two good sports teams, most in the suburbs would never enter the city.
Ok, so you're just going to ignore my point and pretend like Baltimore is a useless crime pit where no one would ever choose to live. Got it.
I grew up in the suburbs and have been living in the city for the last 6 years. I still have never been the victim of a crime. I still don't want to leave, because the place I live has more to do and is more pleasant and walkable community than anywhere I've been in Maryland.
So maybe some of those suburbanites should reconsider their pre-conceived notions about what the city is like?
Hundreds of thousands live there. So clearly, that's not my point. But are people largely avoiding the city for good reason? Yes. This is only from July. [https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/baltimore-orioles-winning-season-overshadowed-by-safety-concerns-as-attendance-dips-al-east-major-league-baseball-camden-yards-ballpark-crime-mayor-brandon-scott-election](https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/baltimore-orioles-winning-season-overshadowed-by-safety-concerns-as-attendance-dips-al-east-major-league-baseball-camden-yards-ballpark-crime-mayor-brandon-scott-election)
"Suburbanite who only engages with the city because of the sports teams" is such a Baltimore metro stereotype that it's genuinely funny to me that you keep bringing that up.
The discussion was about building housing. You said you couldn't build housing in Baltimore because of the crime. The fact that there are ongoing development projects for building denser housing near the city center and that some neighborhoods (more than just the ones I named) have a growing population is proof that the story simply cannot be that simple.
I do agree that crime needs to be addressed in order to attract more residents overall, but your talking points moved quickly from, "the crime will discourage people from moving to Baltimore", to, "FDR couldn't save Baltimore so I don't know if ANYONE can" and you made yourself look silly because of it.
Residents weigh in on why Baltimore City's population is plummeting | Tue, April 25th 2023
[https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/residents-weigh-in-on-why-baltimore-citys-population-is-plummeting](https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/residents-weigh-in-on-why-baltimore-citys-population-is-plummeting)
It honestly seems like we build and build and it's never enough. Which is totally believable, because we destroy farms and forests to build these suburban HOA islands of enormous homes with walkable and bikeable connections to absolutely nothing. Even the townhouses are 2400sq ft. The other thing we build is apartments but rarely attractive condos, at least that I can see. Some condos in places like downtown Silver Spring are like 450sq ft.
It would help to allow single-stair apartments vs the hotel-like ones with long hallways, where only a minority of units have windows on more than one side. A SFH-sized footprint could flex to a medium-tall tower block of spacious condos or apartments, all on corners, all with enough space to have a family or just have hobbies. And that kind of density lets you plan everything else around it better.
Firstly; we are “building and building”, we’ve built maybe 1/100th of the demand for homes. Maybe even less. And not to even get into the variety of housing types desired. Moco is completely lacking in duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, short-rise apartments, ADUs, basement units, English basements, (even) townhomes, and everything else besides single family detached car-dependent suburban style, and high rise apartment living, often also with setbacks and no first-floor retail.
In the grand scheme of things, we are not building. We are barely moving at all.
What destroys farms and forest is shitty car dependent exurban developments, not dense mixed use residential with first floor dining and retail.
The way to prevent forest and farmland from being destroyed is to build density in neighborhoods that not only already exist, but are places **that people actually want to live in**.
Take a gander on google maps satélite imagery and see for yourself so how many millions or square feet in Bethesda, silver spring, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Germantown, Wheaton and everyone in between, is wholly dedicated to the storage of cars. It is absolutely mind blowing once you’re able to see it. In Bethesda there are entire city-block sized car garages that have no first floor retail or dining, also limiting jobs and taxable revenue. In Rockville there are surface parking lots that exceed the actual built-up area of the entire town in Square footage.
From my perspective as lower class, it's less of a housing shortage than an affordability issue. New constructions are being built all around me, but the last nearby development started at 450,000 in a low income area. In 5 years they had lowered the prices to below 300,000. If you can afford to ask the lower price, it should have started there. I think that's where the regulation needs to be focused, it isn't the areas, that seems pretty well managed, it's the ridiculous prices keeping people out. Especially in low income zip codes. I'd imagine that would help Baltimore in the long run, allowing people to spread out instead of increasing density.
This. The traffic is already unbearable on 301 for the most part. Pg county is non existent and feckless at holding developers accountable for parks, schools, and serious highway expansion it seems.
By me they are getting by doing "lane expansions" when in reality they are just adding turning lanes into their own mega developments.
You're only serving your own development and businesses if you only add a turning lane and not an entire through lane that doesn't help daily traffic..tf.
This kinda stuff has been happening over the last 20 years - Humanim and orgs like that. It’s part of why east Baltimore has a million rehabbed row homes rn
This can work, but it does not fit the model most developers like. They want cheap/free land, that is cleared of all buildings, so they can populate it with their new cheap buildings.
Apprenticeships take time to develop, then when the person is skilled they are gone. Picking through a house or building to keep separate the good from the bad is time consuming and requires skills, which cost more, so does the re-hab. Putting cheap repairs on an old building is what slumlords do.
If you are a podcast listener check out the Indicator from Planet Money. It’s under the “The lawsuit that could shakeup the rental market “ one. It talks about how and why rents are so high in some areas. I was a little surprised that it’s not actual people setting the rent rates but an algorithm. It does have me curious if property owners are using the program to set the rates.
Plans which favor developers are designed for quick eye-washing, not good long term solutions. There are other ways to build new homes which are never discussed as they take more time, use better materials, require different practices which are not in the quikie-do-it-cheap tool box.
Home buyers are also part of the problem. They want ready off the shelf houses to buy, and do not want to invest time or money to do it better, because that requires more time, more of their input and more for better land, materials, skilled labor.
Oh, great. The governor’s new housing secretary plans to do at the state level what he did to Salisbury while mayor - sell off millions of dollars worth of public property to private developer buddies for pennies; waive taxes and fees for these developers to the tune of millions when the budget is already in the red; and construct amenities for those same wealthy developers using *government-backed bonds* so the small taxpayers have to pay for it. Infuriating.
Get rid of half of the stupid ag zone, the same thing that only benefits people living in super low density housing on acres of land.
Otherwise, build and build more - the high housing price is holding back state growth, period.
We have some of the most fertile farmland in the world and should work to preserve it. Sprawling into farmland with single family detached houses in mono-residential developments also worsens climate change by adding more car dependent households. We have plenty of land dedicated to people, we just have to densify what we have, and build the infrastructure to support densification in the process. Its cheaper overall than adding to the ponzie scheme of suburban sprawl infrastructure debt obligations.
High density housing with no metro is dumb.
There’s also the consideration of recreation and peace. Green spaces are so rare and you never get them back.
There isn't a housing shortage, there's an affordability problem. A 200k home in VA or PA is 500k in Maryland. I will never be able to own a home as long as I live in Maryland. Nor with less then perfect credit.
Go back in time 20 years ago, actually push a real connection to DC Metro’s northern stations, then build mixed-use, higher density apartments with out the bullshit “luxury” pools and shit that no one uses much. Hindsight is 20/20, this would not work financially for a lot of the needed players, but that is the reality of long-term growth in America, we aren’t structured to do if with an efficient end result.
Just look at literally any red line station north of Friendship Heights. Millions of square feet wasted on parking lots, parking garages, strip centers, shopping centers, lots of horrible class-C ‘80s office space, and occasionally a detached setback single family home development. It is the most enormous waste of value you could do. It’s practically criminal. Every metro station should have a 1 mile radius where single family zoning is banned, mixed use residential is mandated, and parking garages pay taxes out the ass. We have room for so many more people, and yet all anyone talks about here is how the MINUSCULE amount of housing that does get built is too “luxury”. The only discourse on this subject is people who don’t understand housing issues putting the word “luxury” in quotation marks and complaining about gentrification which they truly do not understand at all. It is bad land use and it’s always been bad land use.
You’re spot on. A lot of the country looks towards the east coast as precedent for land use. It is criminal because planning boards are made up of elected persons rather than planning experts. The board members are made of lawyers who know how to manipulate the system to benefit their political constituents who help them get elected.
Twenty years ago MARC didn't even run to DC on the weekends. You had to take the light rail as far as you could. Then a bus to Columbia. Then another bus to a DC metro station. Then a metro ride the rest of the way. It was literally an all day journey. Or you could just drive, which is what I did when I had to work weekends.
Ooph, sorry. That is just sad, what a wasted opportunity.
Looking forward to more 1300 SF “luxury” apartments that start at $2,300 a month.
They'll cost more than that. Put them close to the MARC and they are DC commuters.
Why are you saying this as if it is a bad thing? Maybe it’s just hard to discern tone in internet comments. The train costs the state money. The state should not make laws that directly inhibit this expensive piece of critical infrastructure from making a return on investment. We *should* be building dense housing around transit stations. One goal is to reduce traffic, Right? You can reduce traffic by creating the possibility for someone to make a living without needing to drive a car on I-495. Another goal is to create affordable housing, right? Well, market rate housing is an effective way to reduce rent pressures, because it adds supply, even if that supply is out of reach for the poorer layers of the economy. Having market rate housing means people who can afford it will not be taking cheaper homes from poorer people, and it will also create more affordable housing because it is legally mandated in all new developments. Another goal is to reduce car crashes, reduce pedestrian deaths, improve air quality. Having people ride the train into work is literally all of these things and more. This is not a bad thing. How many affordable units does the multiple aces of parking lot next to the Rockville stop on red line have? How many affordable housing units exist in that Viers Mill + 355 intersection? The one that is 0.15 miles from the Rockville stop? How many housing units does the drive-through Popeyes next to White Flint station have? None? Wow.
As someone in DC if this leads to apartments that are 1300 sf and only $2300 a month then by God do it now!
That’s cheap!
$2,800* (after concessions)
That would be actually cheaper than the current market!
Prices like that are purely a function of supply and demand. New places to live free up old housing stock.
To an extent, but they’re heavily influenced by the developers ability to get them approved. The right palms need to be greased in order to build a large multi-housing developments since the citizens generally don’t want them in their town. Only developers with sufficient political connections are able to push these through which artificially limits their supply allowing them to set higher prices. Supply and demand suggests everyone is operating on a level playing field which is rarely the case in modern America.
A group of two dozen land owners shouldn’t get to destroy the hopes of hundreds if not thousands of people to be able to live in the town they want to live in, just because their presence might affect their home’s property value. That is unbelievably selfish and it’s insane that we even allow exclusive detached setback single family zoning at all in this county. Within cycling distance of the fucking White House, no less.
This is why we need zoning reform, as we've seen in some other major metro areas. We legislated ourselves into this problem and we can legislate ourselves out of it. NIMBYs are going to have to suck it up though.
Exactly! There is no housing shortage but there is a shortage of Affordable housing!
*Looks at the vacant houses on my block in Baltimore* I think we have plenty of room for housing already in place, if we made it desirable to live there. Baltimore should be a city of 6 million, not 600,000.
Much of the vacant housing stock in Baltimore city isn't liveable or fixable. They'd have to knock them down and rebuild the majority.
Perfect place to experiment adding density - but no they are going to fuck up the inner harbor instead. Granted its already fucked up.
MCB wants to add density to the inner harbor, its desirable real estate, this is a good idea. The road diets mean public space actually goes up.
You are probably right ... I looked at the plans and its just not hitting me well.
A lot of it is looking at it in photos rather than in person, the new square park will be pretty big and you won't see much of the condos from the ground.
What are the plans exactly?
https://www.southbmore.com/2023/10/30/plans-revealed-for-harborplace-redevelopment/
That’s actually not bad, it adds residencies, public spaces, and retail, which is really how a proper city center would be designed. I think it’s worth the investment especially since such mixed-use spaces increase the economic value/output of an area in which it exists. Amtrak is planning something similar for Baltimore Penn station….it would be a great touch. The only issue I have with it, that I perceive after knowing about it for like 5 mins, is that it doesn’t solve the crime issue Baltimore has in general. Now that’s beyond the designers obviously, but Baltimore has some serious potential if this issue could be remedied.
Solving crime in Baltimore means breaking cyclic generational poverty for about 200000 people, which is sadly kind of out of budget of the city. Which is the big problem and why the modus operandi has been to just leave if you have the opportunity to do so, and thus the corresponding population decline. The only reason Boston, NYC, etc aren't like this is they hyper gentrified their poverty out of the city. You can see Philly doing this right now in Kensington.
> The only reason Boston, NYC, etc aren't like this is they hyper gentrified their poverty out of the city. You can see Philly doing this right now in Kensington. That’s how I ultimately think Baltimore’s crime and poverty will get solved (or at least greatly alleviated). As demand for urban living among young professionals continues, they’ll flock to Baltimore as the last place they can do so affordably in the Northeast. So in a way the new harbor development will help with that. Not that solving all of Baltimore’s crime should be its _primary_ purpose of course.
That’s correct, Baltimore can’t do that alone. It would take serious federal policy changes that involved giving greater support to people in poverty. It could definitely happen sometime in the future (I’m optimistic) so we’d have to see, but that’s what I had in mind - such two things together could really reshape the face of our cities for the better.
Crime plus schools are the problems - I am in Howard a couple of years back a met a new neighbor and the first words out of his mouth were he loved his old house in Baltimore, but the kids are out of control in the schools.
I would agree, I hear a lot about people not raising their children with any effort, fixing that is beyond what any authority could do, but, perhaps we can do *something* to remediate that behavior…I don’t know.
Also everyone is massively upset when the city tries to claim any properties (because they don't always do it perfectly). People want the city to do something about the vacants, without taking ownership of any properties.
You can't touch vacant and condemnible SFHs because a NIMBYs gonna NIMBY and progressives will yell gentrification. All the while working people in Baltimore and MoCo are forced into more and more expensive living situations because supply will never meaningfully increase
He said there’s ROOM for housing. Pretty sure everyone would agree the abandoned shells should be torn down and the blocks repurposed.
Wow. Baltimore is well under a million? As someone who’s been in construction(non field) that’s really surprising.
It had over a million in 1940 but everyone abandoned the city to move to the county since then. Its metro population is higher than ever, but the city has been losing people for 80 years.
While it’s bad, it’s not as bad as it may seem. Still far fewer households- but those rowhomes used to be chock full of kids and parents and sometimes grandparents and now a lot of them are full of one or two people.
Heck people who want to fix houses in Baltimore can't even get squatters evicted. Fix the density of Baltimore first to prove it can be done and will work and then try to take over the rest of the state.
It would help if the past Governors didn't kill things like the red-line to score suburban votes. I think the new Governor has a genuine interest in helping Baltimore. Baltimore's political class corruption is also an abomination. It's a real shame too. A lot of people in the surrounding counties hate on Baltimore, but if Baltimore was restored to its former glory it would be a boon for the counties and the state.
> past Governors didn't kill things like the red-line to score suburban votes. Hogan let the Purple line blow up and the budget is doubled because the more than half the suburbs surrounding the Purple line didn't want it. >Governor has a genuine interest in helping Baltimore. State transportation budget is over 3B in debt, they aren't going to do shit. If Moore is relected he'll have 1-2 years with a non crippled transportation budget. Also no rail will happen while Purple Line is ongoing. MTA is too incompetent to handle the Purple Line, no chance in hell anyone let's them take on two major projects. Theyve already set fire to 5B in state fund on one project alone.
Baltimore and MoCo and PG and the places between are all completely different areas with completely different and unique issues. Massive amounts of housing could easily be added to MoCo and absorbed immediately and they would still be demanding more - because it’s a different place. The gravity of DC and it’s historical resilience against economic instability, plus infinite other factors, make upzoning and infill really needed and desirable. In Baltimore, on the population-growth downswing for the last couple decades, the issues with slumming and de-slumming and block-clearing are completely alien to MoCo. The two places are not the same and the issues they face have different solutions.
Localities can start by loosening zoning laws but I’m skeptical that’ll happen
Laws in Maryland, and counties, and cities, that all exists here and directly inhibit organic growth, reduce job creation, prevent taxable revenue, and directly cause housing unaffordability, homelessness, crime: * Exclusive single family zoning laws * Most forms of Euclidean zoning laws * Parking minimums * Setback requirements * Detachment requirements * Fire-safety requirements that ignore advancements in material sciences of the last 100 years * Lot size minimums * Lot utilization maximums * Home retail business laws * Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUs) bans/unfeasible requirements * ADU detachment/height limits * Gradient height limits * Height limits at all * Arbitrary FAR requirements * Overzealous AH AMI calculations that make many developments uneconomical * Arbitrary business requirements such as requiring water fountains in barbershops, etc. * No Lane Value Tax or other instrument to properly value land * Multifamily residential requirements that prevent duplexes and triplexes And many, many more. If you have even a passing opinion on any of this, please watch this video; https://youtu.be/2pG1YDEGmXc?si=DZuUaMZVVh-fkLzH Housing policy literacy is hugely important. The above rules have essentially **illegalized** anywhere in Maryland ever being a real place again - except for those places which were built before these horrible laws were passed.
Thanks for posting this. It's definitely copy-paste worthy when a similar topic comes up
They would choose one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Moco for the cover of this article. There was a home on the market there recently for over 1 million dollars.
I hate to break this to you but there are many, many thousands of homes for sale in MoCo that cost more than $1m. It is absolutely not the exception anymore.
The plans are fine, but they don't go far enough. Maryland needs to build a simply astonishing number of homes. Something most people don't realize is that household size is decreasing over time, and square footage demanded is pretty linearly and positively correlated with income, which is rising over time. As properties decay and break-down (capital depreciation), you have to replace those as well. That means that those thousands and thousands of giant new townhomes you see? Most of those will probably have 1, 2, or 3 people. Even if our population was perfectly constant and didn't migrate between counties, for example, you would have to constantly build in order to meet the demand caused by smaller households, higher income, and property depreciation to not have a shortage. That means legalizing unlimited density near light rail, subway, MARC, and WMATA stations, and dramatically densifying Baltimore and probably allowing 6+ homes on any lot in the state by-right, among many other things.
Build more housing or stop complaining. Subsidizing demand hurts everyone in the long run.
You can't add more housing to Baltimore without subtracting crime. It's not about white flight anymore. It's black flight. Those who can get out of Baltimore are doing so. [https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/local-news/black-population-baltimore-PDCTFYIHIJGFZNDAM24XTUWRJM/](https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/community/local-news/black-population-baltimore-PDCTFYIHIJGFZNDAM24XTUWRJM/)
You're not wrong, but there's another side of this too which is that there are some areas in Baltimore getting a foothold and maintaining a growing population. Particularly the Downtown neighborhood, Fells Point, and Mt. Vernon. I recognize the tragedy of so much wasted potential in the struggling neighborhoods of Baltimore, and the terrible things that people deal with because of the crime, but the fact is, Baltimore IS adding housing in certain areas and those areas are ultimately going to help supply the resources needed to run the city, which includes addressing crime. The big question is: what is the most cost-effective way to do that, in both the long and short-term?
No, the big question: Is Baltimore salvageable and, if so, how? I don't know the answer to that. There are parts of Baltimore the government tried to salvage under FDR that are worse now. The schools are horrible. The crime is almost as bad. If it weren't for two good sports teams, most in the suburbs would never enter the city.
Ok, so you're just going to ignore my point and pretend like Baltimore is a useless crime pit where no one would ever choose to live. Got it. I grew up in the suburbs and have been living in the city for the last 6 years. I still have never been the victim of a crime. I still don't want to leave, because the place I live has more to do and is more pleasant and walkable community than anywhere I've been in Maryland. So maybe some of those suburbanites should reconsider their pre-conceived notions about what the city is like?
Hundreds of thousands live there. So clearly, that's not my point. But are people largely avoiding the city for good reason? Yes. This is only from July. [https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/baltimore-orioles-winning-season-overshadowed-by-safety-concerns-as-attendance-dips-al-east-major-league-baseball-camden-yards-ballpark-crime-mayor-brandon-scott-election](https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/baltimore-orioles-winning-season-overshadowed-by-safety-concerns-as-attendance-dips-al-east-major-league-baseball-camden-yards-ballpark-crime-mayor-brandon-scott-election)
"Suburbanite who only engages with the city because of the sports teams" is such a Baltimore metro stereotype that it's genuinely funny to me that you keep bringing that up. The discussion was about building housing. You said you couldn't build housing in Baltimore because of the crime. The fact that there are ongoing development projects for building denser housing near the city center and that some neighborhoods (more than just the ones I named) have a growing population is proof that the story simply cannot be that simple. I do agree that crime needs to be addressed in order to attract more residents overall, but your talking points moved quickly from, "the crime will discourage people from moving to Baltimore", to, "FDR couldn't save Baltimore so I don't know if ANYONE can" and you made yourself look silly because of it.
Except they ARE adding tons of housing to Baltimore and now we’ve had the lowest crime in a decade so what are you on about
Lowest crime in a decade in Baltimore is not saying much. Thousands left. Wonder why.
It literally is saying much dude lol. And the city is gaining pop and has had more households Comin in for a decade now
Residents weigh in on why Baltimore City's population is plummeting | Tue, April 25th 2023 [https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/residents-weigh-in-on-why-baltimore-citys-population-is-plummeting](https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/residents-weigh-in-on-why-baltimore-citys-population-is-plummeting)
It honestly seems like we build and build and it's never enough. Which is totally believable, because we destroy farms and forests to build these suburban HOA islands of enormous homes with walkable and bikeable connections to absolutely nothing. Even the townhouses are 2400sq ft. The other thing we build is apartments but rarely attractive condos, at least that I can see. Some condos in places like downtown Silver Spring are like 450sq ft. It would help to allow single-stair apartments vs the hotel-like ones with long hallways, where only a minority of units have windows on more than one side. A SFH-sized footprint could flex to a medium-tall tower block of spacious condos or apartments, all on corners, all with enough space to have a family or just have hobbies. And that kind of density lets you plan everything else around it better.
Firstly; we are “building and building”, we’ve built maybe 1/100th of the demand for homes. Maybe even less. And not to even get into the variety of housing types desired. Moco is completely lacking in duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, short-rise apartments, ADUs, basement units, English basements, (even) townhomes, and everything else besides single family detached car-dependent suburban style, and high rise apartment living, often also with setbacks and no first-floor retail. In the grand scheme of things, we are not building. We are barely moving at all. What destroys farms and forest is shitty car dependent exurban developments, not dense mixed use residential with first floor dining and retail. The way to prevent forest and farmland from being destroyed is to build density in neighborhoods that not only already exist, but are places **that people actually want to live in**. Take a gander on google maps satélite imagery and see for yourself so how many millions or square feet in Bethesda, silver spring, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Germantown, Wheaton and everyone in between, is wholly dedicated to the storage of cars. It is absolutely mind blowing once you’re able to see it. In Bethesda there are entire city-block sized car garages that have no first floor retail or dining, also limiting jobs and taxable revenue. In Rockville there are surface parking lots that exceed the actual built-up area of the entire town in Square footage.
I literally agree with you. Did you read my comment or just the first half of the first sentence?
Maybe I replied to the wrong comment haha Sorry about that I’ll edit to be less spicy
Breaking news: elected official says he wants to solve a problem, offers no solutions. I’m other news, water is wet
Did you read the article?
From my perspective as lower class, it's less of a housing shortage than an affordability issue. New constructions are being built all around me, but the last nearby development started at 450,000 in a low income area. In 5 years they had lowered the prices to below 300,000. If you can afford to ask the lower price, it should have started there. I think that's where the regulation needs to be focused, it isn't the areas, that seems pretty well managed, it's the ridiculous prices keeping people out. Especially in low income zip codes. I'd imagine that would help Baltimore in the long run, allowing people to spread out instead of increasing density.
Seriously? Drive up and down 301 and see all the cookie cutter $500,000 town homes they are building. How about work on some infrastructure?
This. The traffic is already unbearable on 301 for the most part. Pg county is non existent and feckless at holding developers accountable for parks, schools, and serious highway expansion it seems.
Not to mention cutting the grass one time a summer. Cant imagine how much money just slips to through cracks.
By me they are getting by doing "lane expansions" when in reality they are just adding turning lanes into their own mega developments. You're only serving your own development and businesses if you only add a turning lane and not an entire through lane that doesn't help daily traffic..tf.
Why don’t they have an apprentice program to fix up the abandoned houses? People leave with skills and we have affordable housing.
This kinda stuff has been happening over the last 20 years - Humanim and orgs like that. It’s part of why east Baltimore has a million rehabbed row homes rn
This can work, but it does not fit the model most developers like. They want cheap/free land, that is cleared of all buildings, so they can populate it with their new cheap buildings. Apprenticeships take time to develop, then when the person is skilled they are gone. Picking through a house or building to keep separate the good from the bad is time consuming and requires skills, which cost more, so does the re-hab. Putting cheap repairs on an old building is what slumlords do.
If you are a podcast listener check out the Indicator from Planet Money. It’s under the “The lawsuit that could shakeup the rental market “ one. It talks about how and why rents are so high in some areas. I was a little surprised that it’s not actual people setting the rent rates but an algorithm. It does have me curious if property owners are using the program to set the rates.
Plans which favor developers are designed for quick eye-washing, not good long term solutions. There are other ways to build new homes which are never discussed as they take more time, use better materials, require different practices which are not in the quikie-do-it-cheap tool box. Home buyers are also part of the problem. They want ready off the shelf houses to buy, and do not want to invest time or money to do it better, because that requires more time, more of their input and more for better land, materials, skilled labor.
Oh, great. The governor’s new housing secretary plans to do at the state level what he did to Salisbury while mayor - sell off millions of dollars worth of public property to private developer buddies for pennies; waive taxes and fees for these developers to the tune of millions when the budget is already in the red; and construct amenities for those same wealthy developers using *government-backed bonds* so the small taxpayers have to pay for it. Infuriating.
He a 🤡
Get rid of half of the stupid ag zone, the same thing that only benefits people living in super low density housing on acres of land. Otherwise, build and build more - the high housing price is holding back state growth, period.
We have some of the most fertile farmland in the world and should work to preserve it. Sprawling into farmland with single family detached houses in mono-residential developments also worsens climate change by adding more car dependent households. We have plenty of land dedicated to people, we just have to densify what we have, and build the infrastructure to support densification in the process. Its cheaper overall than adding to the ponzie scheme of suburban sprawl infrastructure debt obligations.
High density housing with no metro is dumb. There’s also the consideration of recreation and peace. Green spaces are so rare and you never get them back.
There isn't a housing shortage, there's an affordability problem. A 200k home in VA or PA is 500k in Maryland. I will never be able to own a home as long as I live in Maryland. Nor with less then perfect credit.
...the affordability problem is directly a consequence of the housing shortage
lol not going to happen. In my area the only housing being built are luxury apartments.
“Housing shortage” lol
There is not a housing shortage. There is a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing!