Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ice_cold_fahrenheit t1_ixx10h4 wrote

Reply to comment by okdiluted in Five houses targeted for demolition in Mount Vernon historic district by Rubysdad1975

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).

3

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!

3

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.

3

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

3