Submitted by mightyIllusion t3_zpr42b in baltimore
Comments
mightyIllusion OP t1_j0utexj wrote
> it seems like folks are ok with the human tragedies that result from the BS in this city with people shot in carjackings or from squeegee kids, but even if you don’t care about the victims of crimes
I’m not sure where this idea comes from? People aren’t okay with it, but it’s not something that can be easily curtailed by just “adding more law enforcement” or by having a “sense of urgency” because these problems are systemic to citizens of this city being put down by government malfeasance, redlining, and lack of opportunity resulting from those prior two issues. This requires a large change through education (the schools need improvement, that’s obvious) and government incentive (potentially UBI) to encourage a shift in attitude that will take the course of decades.
lolokaydudewhatever t1_j0uummy wrote
What are some examples of US cities that have successfuly undergone this large change?
PuebloEsNoBueno t1_j0uvhe5 wrote
DC and NYC improved via gentrification.
8bitliving t1_j0vcsvr wrote
Nashville? Atlanta? Pittsburg?
Illustrious_Listen_6 t1_j0vhbd8 wrote
Visited Pittsburgh recently, was very surprised. Beautiful! You could really feel the growth of the city
rockybalBOHa t1_j0vj1um wrote
Pittsburgh's population is dropping faster than Baltimore's. Also has more poverty. However, I do really like Pittsburgh. I say these things only to show that Baltimore isn't as bad as you might think.
lolokaydudewhatever t1_j0vxhhn wrote
Baltimore has 3x+ murder rate, 2x+ robbery rate, 2x+ assault rate, and nearly 4x car theft rate.
rockybalBOHa t1_j0xf0rh wrote
I wasn't talking about crime. Comment was re: beauty and growth of Pittsburgh.
Cheomesh t1_j0vufgl wrote
NYC, famously.
Cunninghams_right t1_j0v6oj0 wrote
> but it’s not something that can be easily curtailed by just “adding more law enforcement”
this is exactly what I'm talking about. people keep thinking of this as a 1-dimensional problem of more/less of our existing law enforcement. it does not have to be. I even enumerated 2 simple things that could make a big impact (Tile trackers and license plate scanners), that are not simply "more police" but could make an impact.
>problems are systemic to citizens of this city being put down by government malfeasance, redlining, and lack of opportunity resulting from those prior two issues. This requires a large change through education (the schools need improvement, that’s obvious) and government incentive (potentially UBI) to encourage a shift in attitude that will take the course of decades.
I don't disagree, but those things need tax revenue and time. that's kind of the point. people want things like UBI and better schools but don't think about how little things like dirt bikers, or squeegee kids, or carjackers, driving away jobs and tax revenue.
therbler t1_j0vg2h3 wrote
> this is exactly what I'm talking about. people keep thinking of this as a 1-dimensional problem of more/less of our existing law enforcement
No dude, this is exactly and specifically what you're doing. The answer to "why is a Danish company moving its US HQ to Times Square?" is only "free Tile trackers!" if you got slapped on the back at the wrong moment during a TED talk in 2014 or so.
The NYC property's going to be 1/3 the size of their square footage in Baltimore. Given what the last 2-3 years have been like specifically in terms of commercial real estate, it's reasonable to think this would be playing out the same way even if we'd built out the entire Baltimore metro network and most people were commuting in via transit.
Cunninghams_right t1_j0vlrno wrote
none of what you said makes any sense.
DfcukinLite t1_j0ybjeh wrote
It actually made perfect sense.
therbler t1_j0vpgby wrote
What part? The link's to the Commercial Observer about a pretty normal corporate relo. You've decided that this supports your (amply expressed) preexisting worldview, and I'm laughing at both the underlying leap in logic and the specific application here.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong: is there anything to suggest that this has anything to do with crime other than your/one's personal fixation on crime?
Cunninghams_right t1_j0vvvwq wrote
>The answer to "why is a Danish company moving its US HQ to Times Square?" is only "free Tile trackers!"
first off, I said that relocations happen often, but that we have to think about making sure the city is a place where people want to live and work since we don't know the motivations of moving, which may include the perception of the city by prospective employees.
second, I gave multiple examples of things we should be considering, not one, and I did not imply that the examples I gave were an exhaustive list.
>if you got slapped on the back at the wrong moment during a TED talk in 2014 or so.
is lacking any explanation, and the the implied explanation wouldn't even make any sense. if you want to illustrate a point, explain the point and support it, don't just make flippant allusions and expect it to be taken as a serious and coherent argument. well, if you're arguing just to hear your own argument, then that is fine. if you want to have a discussion or to add any value, then form a coherent argument with your reply.
>The NYC property's going to be 1/3 the size of their square footage in Baltimore.
and you give no explanation as to why the size of the space should matter so much. are you saying that baltimore has no office space for rent that is 1/3rd of the size of their current offices? you don't explain, so it makes no sense.
>Given what the last 2-3 years have been like specifically in terms of commercial real estate, it's reasonable to think this would be playing out the same way even if we'd built out the entire Baltimore metro network and most people were commuting in via transit
I don't think you can make that assumption. if it was easier, safer, and more pleasant to work in the city, I think companies would be more inclined to have offices here. you just state that for "real estate reasons" the demand for baltimore office space would have nothing to do with transit and imply that it would have nothing to do with the city's reputation, public safety, or general livability/workability of the city. I don't think that makes sense because I think it should be obvious that those things do have an impact, and you did not explain why the real estate market would obviate those factors.
so, each of your points don't make sense. maybe you can make them make sense, but as-stated, they're not adding anything to the conversation.
Japak121 t1_j0vl13e wrote
> these problems are systemic to citizens of this city being put down by government malfeasance, redlining, and lack of opportunity resulting from those prior two issues.
Corruption. One word sums it up. But, that won't change until the people do something to make it change. Voting in a favorite of one or the other party over and over again is never going to work. It hasn't in the past and it's naive to think it will in the future. We need to prop up those who genuinely care and have shown that they work for the people. This of course require the citizens of the city to put in the effort. In the meantime, while more law enforcement is not a perfect fix, it is an effective stop-gap in that it allows the local population to ease some stress, earn more money and turn there attention to doing something about ineffectual local government. After that, then you can roll back law enforcement as needed.
Waiting is exactly what got us into the mess we're currently in. All of our politicians keep saying "just wait, things will get better" and then they end up hitting term limits or whatever with little to know noticeable results and everyone forgets what's been happening and focus on the new people.
bril_hartman t1_j0v4kwe wrote
But isn’t it also bad PR and media coverage that’s allowed it to get to a point where more people leave the city than come in? If more people focus on what is good (which is a lot), we’ll have more quality individuals and thus, more taxpayer money. Not to mention the fact that people feel safer when they’re surrounded by more people (the old “safety in numbers). Hence why I always cringe when people let one shooting keep them away from Fells or Canton. Chicago and New Orleans are two cities with similar crime issues to us, yet they never get the reputation as the crime and murder cities, and have great tourism industries. I think that’s something that could definitely stand to change for the better.
Cunninghams_right t1_j0v8qcw wrote
we don't put as much money into our tourist districts or as much effort into making sure the criminals stay out of the tourist areas. cities with good tourism make more of an effort to keep armed squeegeers and dirtbikers out of the core tourist district.
Cheomesh t1_j0vux70 wrote
>Chicago and New Orleans are two cities with similar crime issues to us, yet they never get the reputation as the crime and murder cities
Chicago famously does - which is weird considering they're not even the most dangerous city in Illinois anymore, and haven't been for a while.
therbler t1_j0uvraa wrote
> Baltimore city residents spend far too little time thinking about economics
Proceeds to write 350 words about 'what if economics is really how people feel about crime?'
Scrilla_Gorilla_ t1_j0w51ec wrote
Hey, could you elaborate on the Tile Tracker thing in regards to policing? I haven't heard of it and when I tried Googling it just came back with people finding ones stalkers put on their car or whatever and taking them to police.
S-Kunst t1_j0we356 wrote
Much of what you say is correct. But, like any place unless the citizenry takes to the streets the politicians ignore the people's ideas until next election cycle. Currently city land is being cleared of the old and given away. Part of the citizens think new is better than old so they defend these actions. But the actions give nothing to the city or the city coffers. So the "leaders" are like so many from outside the city who sell its assets and give nothing back.
rfg217phs t1_j0uxk9f wrote
Pretty sure people in poverty are pretty much constantly thinking about economics and not too worried about business dealings of cheap jewelry but go off champ.
Cunninghams_right t1_j0v6xsd wrote
there is a difference between thinking about their own budgets vs thinking about how a city can add jobs and tax revenue.
havdecent t1_j0uk6lb wrote
Another one bites the dust.
EthanSayfo t1_j0voz1e wrote
Article says they are keeping the Baltimore office space, this is a move of "HQ" and an expansion of USA real estate.
not_a_legit_source t1_j0xd9ld wrote
Only until the lease is up in 2026
waldo_here t1_j10vvsh wrote
During which they are furiously trying to sublease, they ain't comin back
Thanatosst t1_j0x4jv6 wrote
>Pandora will keep its nearly 90,000 square feet in Baltimore, expanding its North American office footprint with its Times Square deal.
The 4th sentence in the article.
HorsieJuice t1_j0v5nfx wrote
Much of the American jewelry and fashion industry are already headquartered in NYC. If they’re looking to hire in-office talent, it makes sense to locate where they already are. Baltimore was kind of an odd choice for them in the first place.
1800TurdFerguson t1_j0ue81z wrote
How much you want to bet that they close the Baltimore office in 2024?
WinkyTheFrog t1_j0ui934 wrote
It says through 2026 so I’m guessing they’d have to break lease to do it
1800TurdFerguson t1_j0ukarh wrote
They could also sub-lease it. Maybe they’ll stick around, as they have other offices and facilities in the area. I’m skeptical because it’s typically not a great sign when a company moves its HQ out of state.
Cheomesh t1_j0vu4fi wrote
What even is in that building other than Pandora and the Starbucks anyways? It's enormous and can't possibly all be Pandora can it?
annapolitano t1_j0w5l3m wrote
UMMS has the top two floors and I think the 6th-9th floors as well. The Corporate Executive Office and some other corporate staff are there.
Cheomesh t1_j0z0p4m wrote
Thanks!
Similar_Coyote1104 t1_j0y2wad wrote
It’s common to expand into nyc and LA for executive offices / prestige and maintain less expensive locations for staff and operations in other cities. It wouldn’t surprise me if they kept the Baltimore office.
therbler t1_j0vjdx6 wrote
Absolutely impossible to know. If I had to guess, they don't need a suite the size of their current Baltimore offices under any circumstances anymore, but may well keep a smaller office here for local employees who aren't totally remote.
telmar25 t1_j0v5881 wrote
I think Baltimore City spends much too much time considering the needs (usually tax breaks) of large businesses and large developers, but very little time worrying about neighborhood level economies. There are very few large companies left in the city. But large business HQs in cities are also starting to become a thing of the past post-COVID. People don’t want to commute into downtown Baltimore and work in an office. But they also don’t want to trek into downtown Seattle or San Francisco (or even New York!) and work there either. These cities are hardly pictures of realty health right now, San Francisco office occupancy is something like 40%. The question is how to make Baltimore a more desirable place to live and a more economically productive place, and that starts by looking at economies at a neighborhood or even street by street level. Which start with residents and the businesses that serve and employ them.
Cheomesh t1_j0vvhvp wrote
> But large business HQs in cities are also starting to become a thing of the past post-COVID.
I think this is going to be the start of another, likely irreversible, era of urban flight like we saw in the 50s and 60s.
[deleted] t1_j0w5w32 wrote
[deleted]
TerranceBaggz t1_j0wjts9 wrote
I don’t think so. That was largely driven by the systemic destruction of public transit and the federal govt building sh*t tons of car first infrastructure. The younger generations aren’t big fans of cars in general and don’t get sucked into car culture like Boomers did.
Cheomesh t1_j0z03ah wrote
Time will tell. Millennials are in prime reproductive years and Gen Z is entering it - we'll see if they want that lawn mower culture.
TerranceBaggz t1_j1eprgm wrote
Wether they want it or not is irrelevant because for the vast majority of Millenials and Zoomers it isn’t attainable.
rmphys t1_j0xbw69 wrote
I think it will be flight from high CoL urban centers. Should actually be a boon for places like Baltimore. Becuase now people who want the job in Manhattan and the city life can do that job remotely in a cheaper city like Baltimore.
sassydragon23 t1_j0uxjdt wrote
Instead of catering to 4500 companies why don’t we build smaller, mixed commercial row homes, and court small businesses like fells point. Fed hill and hampden do? It’s unique, it’s “charming” and it’s more “eyes on the street” than random sky scrapers. Cities like Savannah and Charleston have done this- why can’t we be the Charleston of the North?
TerranceBaggz t1_j0wk8kx wrote
The density of sky scrapers is great for tax base though. Mixed use sky scrapers is the way to go.
Illustrious_Listen_6 t1_j0vhnf2 wrote
That’s a major blow to this city! If I were mayor, or a politician, I would be extremely embarrassed. Businesses are leaving. Scary.
rockybalBOHa t1_j0vjtc5 wrote
This business is leaving. There are other stories recently about businesses moving to Baltimore. Harbor Point, Canton Crossing, and Port Covington are all doing pretty well. Downtown needs to do better. However, it's challenging for downtowns all over the country right now.
Illustrious_Listen_6 t1_j0vn2rc wrote
I absolutely agree that downtown has to do better! Infrastructure is decaying, & so dated. I would seriously put my focus on revitalizing downtown Baltimore. It would attract many people to come visit and possibly want to live.
Cheomesh t1_j0vvoi3 wrote
A few years back Pandora was looking at closing all US offices anyways so yeah.
GovernorOfReddit t1_j0v8fv8 wrote
I remember years ago Hogan used to point to O’Malley and Dems being the reason Baltimore didn’t have a Fortune 500 (or something along those lines) yet in the final month of his Governorship, he’s losing a fairly large company in the city. Doubt this will stick to him in terms of legacy, but he certainly deserves to take some of the blame here as his predecessor.
lavazzalove t1_j0vbaxd wrote
T. Rowe Price is on this year's Fortune 500 list. Their HQ is in Baltimore https://troweprice.gcs-web.com/
RevRagnarok t1_j0vyc1v wrote
I thought it was in Owings Mills; they have a huge complex there.
lavazzalove t1_j0vz46w wrote
They do, but I guess the corporation itself lists Baltimore as its main address. Their new Harbor Point campus will be amazing https://www.harborpoint.com/t-rowe-price-global-headquarters
Primal47 t1_j0wmp89 wrote
I think Hogan’s responsible for the state, and not the city. A lot of the problems surrounding Baltimore MSA tie back to issues with City Governance, not state.
A good parallel to this is how may Ed Lee in San Francisco turned around an ailing San Francisco via the “Twitter Tax.” Not saying it was popular, but his vision led to a lot of economic prosperity for the city that helped impoverished and wealthy communities.
Cheomesh t1_j0vtxof wrote
I'd heard Pandora was closing all its US locations, though? Anyways they did mention this over a year ago.
telmar25 t1_j0xi69p wrote
That’s old news, most likely temporarily at the beginning of the pandemic. They did close 25% of them.
Big-Maintenance2971 t1_j0xg6un wrote
I'm no financial advisor, but I feel like that is an expensive nonsensical move.
[deleted] t1_j0u68rf wrote
[removed]
MeanMrBiter t1_j0u9cww wrote
I have this rock bottom theory about Baltimore that once we can go no further, then people will start to change. But man this city is dead
DfcukinLite t1_j0uaxia wrote
From the same source,
“Pandora will keep its nearly 90,000 square feet in Baltimore, expanding its North American office footprint with its Times Square deal.
Pandora plans to move into 1540 Broadway next year and keep its downtown Baltimore offices at 250 West Pratt Street until 2026, according to an announcement from Pandora.”
How about we read articles and process information before we go off on tangents.
bylosellhi11 t1_j0ubo7p wrote
Not really a tangent. They are keeping Baltimore office until 2026 when their lease expires. They will not renew. Is that office even occupied now? I know they already downsized it at one point. The building in Baltimore will have a giant hole in it with 90K SF gone and an employ base no longer there.
DfcukinLite t1_j0ucmhb wrote
Companies move all the time. Especially to NYC. Pandora has been here since 2009. At least they fulfilled their lease agreement. Good for them for expanding when other companies are completely remote. I don’t see this as a “Baltimore is doomed” situation.
therbler t1_j0vi4by wrote
Yup. Given the relative size and prices of the two properties, it's entirely possible that the reason behind this is just "Pandora would've always preferred to be in NYC, and now that their in-office staff has gotten small enough, they can afford it." In any case, there's no new ax to grind here.
mightyIllusion OP t1_j0uhwrj wrote
Companies come and go fairly often, trying to find the “next big place to be.” This isn’t a death knell for Baltimore, otherwise Pandora would’ve abandoned it and paid their lease break fee. Inner Harbor is definitely not conducive to businesses wanting to stay currently, but the changes will come without the liberal/conservative calls for the “death of Baltimore”
[deleted] t1_j0u9u2a wrote
[deleted]
DeliMcPickles t1_j0ue2iz wrote
It's true. With the loss of Pandora, there is no hope for this hellhole.
DistortedAudio t1_j0ugp4q wrote
They’re taking the actual concept of music with them too. So listen while you can.
IThinkThere4ImSad t1_j0uhki1 wrote
Wrong pandora, my friend!
PuebloEsNoBueno t1_j0ujdvk wrote
Different Pandora. This is the one that makes those little metal charm bracelets that your great aunt loves.
MotoSlashSix t1_j0utktt wrote
Sigh, I guess we'll no longer be battling Antwerp as the jewelry capitol of the world.
Cunninghams_right t1_j0urlwp wrote
while turnover of businesses is always going to happen, Baltimore city residents spend far too little time thinking about economics. if the city isn't a place people want to live and work, it will die. there is a "survivor bias" with us current residents. we, by nature of still being here, have accepted a certain amount of lawlessness and BS, so we tend to dismiss people's fears and annoyance with such things. however, we aren't the majority case. most people in the US don't want to live with the BS that happens in baltimore and will avoid the city, which includes people who work at large companies and make decisions about where their offices are located. the tax revenue lost by a squeegee kid shooting someone is astronomical. every carjacking is another huge loss. every gang shooting is a huge loss. if we want programs to help folks pull themselves out of poverty, we need tax revenue. it seems like folks are ok with the human tragedies that result from the BS in this city with people shot in carjackings or from squeegee kids, but even if you don't care about the victims of crimes, at least think about the economics of the situation and the revenue the city loses.
as unpopular is law enforcement is, it's a requirement for being a place where people live and work. we need to stop thinking about policing as a 1-dimensional line from "more shitty police or less shitty police" but start thinking about how to have better, more auditable, more effective police combined with evidence-based diversion, bond, and parole programs. the fact that we're not putting up more license plate scanners is a disgrace; that's the kind of police budget item that isn't corrupt. the fact that we won't try out a Tile program for tracking cars is ridiculous considering how little it would cost and how it puts the power in citizens' hands instead of the police's. there are actions we can take, but we're not taking them. we need a sense of urgency and we need a sense of "I'm not sure this will work, but lets give it a try"