Here's an interesting one: Seems that urban living is so hot in Baltimore that someone is going to build another downtown. Seriously.
A Baltimore developer who envisions creating a second downtown along the shores of the Middle Branch unveiled ambitious plans yesterday to transform a 50-acre industrial swath of Westport into a $1.4 billion community with 2,000 homes, shops, offices, a hotel, bicycle trails and a beach anchored by a 65-story skyscraper.
Developer Patrick Turner hopes to start next summer on a project that in six to seven years would reverse the blight in a once solidly blue-collar neighborhood. The tower would be the tallest building in the city, but would be among a wave of skyscrapers that have recently been proposed.
The article only mentions government spending on streets and infrastructure. Which is interesting. But so is this:
But at a time when many proposed developments across the country are being halted as the housing market has weakened, Turner cautioned that the pace of development would be driven by demand in the housing market and from office and retail tenants.
... The developer envisions housing for people with a mix of incomes, including teachers, firefighters and corporate executives. Ultimately, about 2,000 to 3,000 people could live on Westport's waterfront, he said.
Wow. Downtown living for firefighters and teachers. That's quite a bit different than Pittsburgh's plan. I wonder if it will work. I assume by "fire fighters and teachers" they are talking about families. It will be interesting to see where they fit into the mix.
Did we mention that 65-story tower will be the tallest building in Baltimore?
That's a real shift for new waterfront development, isn't it? Seems like most places put in the familiar high-end townhomes on the hot waterfront lots.
So some broad questions: Is this something that urban advocates support? That is, a lot of the affinity for "downtowns" seems attached to architecture and tradition. Can you have a shiny new downtown? Would it be better to build this contiguous to the current downtown? Baltimore is an interesting case in that regard, as its "downtown" (the area with the largest buildings) is about as small as I have ever seen. It takes about four minutes to walk across it.
And there have been a lot of open areas down there. They just knocked down a bunch of projects right next to Little Italy. And replaced them with townhouses, I think. And the waterfront out in Canton is townhouse central.
And if putting low-density development out in the weeds is hell on roads and schools, what is this going to do to the mix?
Is it OK to have two downtowns?
At least it's an interesting idea.
Update: Final question. I just did another read through. Does 2,000 homes on 50 acres count as "dense"? And doesn't it matter if they are 3-bedrooms versus studios? How dense is Pittsburgh's downtown? How dense will it be? How dense should it be? How dense is, say, Bloomfield? I will look it up. But in the meantime, just wondering.
Comments