Submitted by locker1313 t3_124nl0b in baltimore
Shiny_Deleter t1_je0ts6h wrote
When was that building last occupied, and were residents displaced?
I hate the idea of more parking lots, but that area can be a real clusterF. Ideally, we’d have more reliable public transportation to access all these wonderful local businesses. The 21 and 94 ain’t cutting it.
Xanny t1_je1ekbm wrote
Hampden is extremely well suited biking. The problem is cycle infrastructure will have to largely replace either parking or car lanes, for example 32ed and 33rd could have one way bike lanes put in by reducing the size of the travel lanes. The community as a whole would have to get on board with taking full advantage of their mixed use built environment to make quality of life better for everyone living there this way, but all that is really stopping Hampden is willpower and the ability to get the DOT to do anything to enforce the complete streets ordinance.
I don't live in Hampden, I live in Mt. Clare, but I like to be an annoying buzzy bee with my bike lane and pedestrian protection map proposal. Do one for your neighborhood and talk about it more!
engin__r t1_je1no0m wrote
I wonder if it would be possible to make the Avenue one-way (probably eastbound?) for cars. If they took away a lane and some parking, there could be more space for a bike lane, pedestrian space, and outdoor dining.
YouAreADadJoke t1_je56ovh wrote
99.99% of people are not going to bike during the winter. It's also a nightmare with children or if you want to carry something heavy or in the rain or if you have a disability. You hipsters need a serious reality check on this topic. The constant posting absolutely reeks of ableist upper middle class privilege.
Xanny t1_je5926j wrote
40% of the city also doesn't drive, because they cannot afford a car and thus do not own one.
Transit is not one size fits all. Its providing as many options as possible to give as many people as possible access. Its multi-modal, and requires enablement of all kinds of different use forms - bikes are generally the optimal vehicle for an able bodied person living in a city, but bike lanes are also for powered chairs and scooters. Getting bikes off sidewalks make them safer for pedestrians and strollers. Reducing car lanes makes the whole outside built environment safer for people in general. Getting higher frequency more reliable busses lets people forsake car ownership and thus reducing crowding in the public space, again. Building an actual metro would make Baltimore a real first class city because it would get you around faster in the city than a car ever could.
YouAreADadJoke t1_je7rbo6 wrote
I agree about the metro. But you have completely sidestepped the issues I raised which shows just how detached you are from what the average person thinks.
HorsieJuice t1_je5oo1a wrote
Seriously. It's sort of gone beyond ableist privilege into straight absurdity. I'm a healthy adult and I live about a half mile from there, so it's well within walking distance for me - if I'm getting a bottle or two. But once you get up to a case (which is about the only way I buy beer), then it starts getting kind of cumbersome. A case + something else starts is pretty awkward regardless of the distance.
Xanny t1_je6hd0c wrote
Bikes to carry stuff exist and are called bakfiets. You can buy them in the US, they just aren't common, because as long as the infrastructure is so poor practically using one is challenging. NotJustBikes has a video about this.
Bikes are also perfectly fit for towing, though you would probably want an e-bike if you do that regularly. Still, the fed just announced a tax credit for ebikes, so they suddenly just became a lot more practical too.
bmore t1_je6cnse wrote
The majority of disabled Baltimoreans do not own a car. Hundreds more Baltimoreans are disabled every year as a result of crashes that could be prevented with safer street design that does not prioritize cars over pedestrian safety.
Designing neighborhoods to prioritize cars is ableist. Encouraging other options is not.
HorsieJuice t1_je6u1wk wrote
If you want to advocate for safer streets, go for it. The question at hand here is knocking down one single dilapidated house and replacing it with a parking lot. It’s not going to move the needle on pedestrian safety.
bmore t1_je6wuso wrote
Every time someone says advocate for safer streets they say "except for this exception here" lol. This will make that block less safe for pedestrians. That's bad, and worse than any value add of inducing demand for a paltry few parking spots.
adroit_maneuvering t1_je152ny wrote
I know the building is condemned and hasn't been lived in for a while (not sure exactly how long, but they made it sound like it's been a couple years at the HCC meetings about this.) I don't like the idea of it becoming a parking lot, but I understand that they're losing access to the lot neighboring this building, and that parking is in demand even with that lot, so I see why this is their solution. I hope they make some good decisions about it - like making it a permeable lot and including some native landscaping.
bmore t1_je4gs1m wrote
People were living in it when it was purchased. They were evicted.
The plan set submitted with the legislation is pavement.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments