Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The biggest problem to all of this is city-wide demand. As an example DC saw rapid redevelopment because of the huge growth in its employment base. While as a region we have decent high paying employment growth, its nothing compared to other cities that have seen large booms (Charlotte, Seattle, DC, etc). Also most of the employment gains have been outside of the center city.
I should have also mentioned that developers have to be able to forecast a decent ROI. As someone who has worked on apartment redevelopment projects before, I know developers look for a few key ingredients.
-Expected occupancy at or above 95%. The easiest way to guess if you're going to get this is to look at other nearby apartments that are similar to what you're building.
-At least a 7 to 8 year return on your capital investment. The amount you spend redeveloping and then operating the property should be completely recouped by rent revenue within this time period. Taxes, the quality of development, and the population's willingness to pay your target rent are all critical components.
-Long term viability. Being near growing job centers or high amenity areas and capitalizing on demographic shifts can ensure long term financial return. Some developers will speculate on the growth of a neighborhood and will become trailblazers (there are a few properties in the west side of downtown like this). Sometime these gambles pay off huge since property in blighted areas tends to be cheaper. Other times the area doesn't improve as well as expected (again see the west side of downtown) and the developer only makes marginal profits if they make any at all.
Redevelopment tends to happen adjacent to already stable and/or attractive neighborhoods (in planning we call this the "edge effect"). In addition, adjacency to amenities (shopping, restaurants, transportation options, views of the water, parks) and a distancing from locally unwanted land uses (LuLu's) helps to speed the pace of redevelopment (common LuLu's in Baltimore include methadone clinics, homeless shelters, public housing complexes, large, always active MTA hubs etc). Lower crime, especially through geographic isolation, will also help (locust point for instance is somewhat protected from criminal spillover from the rest of the city because its isolated on a peninsula and is difficult to get to without a car).
When I combine these factors together the neighborhoods that seem the most set to redevelop are Remington, Woodberry, Station North/ Greenmount West, Highlandtown, Little Italy, Locust Point, and Downtown (especially the central and eastern portions).
Each neighborhood represents its own benefits and challenges and some are more fit for large developers and others for small private developers. I'd guess Downtown and Remington will probably happen the fastest since, at least in my opinion, they have the best combinations of incentives.
The biggest problem to all of this is city-wide demand. As an example DC saw rapid redevelopment because of the huge growth in its employment base. While as a region we have decent high paying employment growth, its nothing compared to other cities that have seen large booms (Charlotte, Seattle, DC, etc). Also most of the employment gains have been outside of the center city.
This brings me to my next conclusion. Baltimore is too large for its own good and needs to "right size itself". The ratios of people to jobs and infrastructure/ government services to the tax base are way off. Poor people and lower middle income families seeking to find better job opportunities will have an easier time doing so outside of city limits. This will end up improving the quality of life for almost everyone involved (excluding criminals and those too poor to own a private vehicle and non-project housing). Currently poor black people are leaving at approximately the same rate that yuppies (from all racial and ethnic backgrounds...but mostly white) and 1st and 2nd generation Asian and Hispanic immigrants are moving into the city. I don't see any reason for this pattern to change significantly (except for a slowing down of Hispanic immigration) for the remainder of the millennial population's demographic bubble. The bubble should start to wind down around 2024, giving the city ten more years of potential for higher pace socioeconomic restructuring... that is if they mange development, lulu's and incentives well.
I think DC also benefited from the perfect storm of Jobs and Traffic.. People wanted to move closer to their jobs because of the horrible traffic. As more people moved into the City.. retail, services, and commercial establishments followed to serve them and gave birth to "mixed use" developments with residential upstairs and retail on the ground floor (which is not a new phenomenon).
Baltimore does have bad traffic.. but not on par with what you see in places like DC, NYC, Philly, San Fran etc which coupled with decent public transit makes it easy to move into the City. People in these areas can give up their cars which the savings that can be transfered towards housing budget. In Baltimore , someone can easily live in Owings Mills, Columbia, Laurel, or Annapolis and commute into Baltimore with relative ease compared to DC though they may have to leave a little earlier or later depending on their commuting pattern.. Rush Hour in DC lasts from 3pm to often well past 7pm.... Baltimore is still only a few hours and only in certain stretches of the Beltway or 95 north of the City... So for Baltimore these combined factors with what we all know about crime, taxes, and schools.. make the City an unattractive option for many potential urbanites..though it is still attractive to the "Sinks" "Dinks" and Finks and whatever other demographic acronyms out there....
Redevelopment tends to happen adjacent to already stable and/or attractive neighborhoods (in planning we call this the "edge effect"). In addition, adjacency to amenities (shopping, restaurants, transportation options, views of the water, parks) and a distancing from locally unwanted land uses (LuLu's) helps to speed the pace of redevelopment (common LuLu's in Baltimore include methadone clinics, homeless shelters, public housing complexes, large, always active MTA hubs etc). Lower crime, especially through geographic isolation, will also help (locust point for instance is somewhat protected from criminal spillover from the rest of the city because its isolated on a peninsula and is difficult to get to without a car).
When I combine these factors together the neighborhoods that seem the most set to redevelop are Remington, Woodberry, Station North/ Greenmount West, Highlandtown, Little Italy, Locust Point, and Downtown (especially the central and eastern portions).
Each neighborhood represents its own benefits and challenges and some are more fit for large developers and others for small private developers. I'd guess Downtown and Remington will probably happen the fastest since, at least in my opinion, they have the best combinations of incentives.
The biggest problem to all of this is city-wide demand. As an example DC saw rapid redevelopment because of the huge growth in its employment base. While as a region we have decent high paying employment growth, its nothing compared to other cities that have seen large booms (Charlotte, Seattle, DC, etc). Also most of the employment gains have been outside of the center city.
This brings me to my next conclusion. Baltimore is too large for its own good and needs to "right size itself". The ratios of people to jobs and infrastructure/ government services to the tax base are way off. Poor people and lower middle income families seeking to find better job opportunities will have an easier time doing so outside of city limits. This will end up improving the quality of life for almost everyone involved (excluding criminals and those too poor to own a private vehicle and non-project housing). Currently poor black people are leaving at approximately the same rate that yuppies (from all racial and ethnic backgrounds...but mostly white) and 1st and 2nd generation Asian and Hispanic immigrants are moving into the city. I don't see any reason for this pattern to change significantly (except for a slowing down of Hispanic immigration) for the remainder of the millennial population's demographic bubble. The bubble should start to wind down around 2024, giving the city ten more years of potential for higher pace socioeconomic restructuring... that is if they mange development, lulu's and incentives well.
The 'edge effect' in in full effect around Patterson Park and has been working in Highlandtown and Greektown in particuliar..though these areas were not necessarily "bad" but the housing prices are going up from what would be considered working blue collar prices to more upper middle income. What will be interesting is to see if the edge effect works around Hopkins and north of Patterson Park where it appears to make a "hard edge" right at Orleans.. South of Orleans the rehabs are obvious.. but once you cross it.. it becomes harder to descern and the edge seems more stark. Hopkins certainly will be an oasis.. but not sure if people want to live off of that despite how attractive it may be to live next to or on the edge of it.. If a savy developer comes along and starts to buy up several homes in one block so that he is doing several renovations at one time.. that may help edge Patterson Park towards Hopkins on some of the north to south streets east of Washington but north of Orleans....
There is a large gentrification effort going into the Oliver neighborhood, which is primarily a black community. I was talking with some locals about the situation over there and they say just from the last 3 years the area has improved greatly. I think part of the reason is Hopkins live near your work program, but i think its a good start. But at the end of the day it takes people with enough money to move in to the vacant properties that will make the difference.
Redevelopment tends to happen adjacent to already stable and/or attractive neighborhoods (in planning we call this the "edge effect"). In addition, adjacency to amenities (shopping, restaurants, transportation options, views of the water, parks) and a distancing from locally unwanted land uses (LuLu's) helps to speed the pace of redevelopment (common LuLu's in Baltimore include methadone clinics, homeless shelters, public housing complexes, large, always active MTA hubs etc). Lower crime, especially through geographic isolation, will also help (locust point for instance is somewhat protected from criminal spillover from the rest of the city because its isolated on a peninsula and is difficult to get to without a car).
When I combine these factors together the neighborhoods that seem the most set to redevelop are Remington, Woodberry, Station North/ Greenmount West, Highlandtown, Little Italy, Locust Point, and Downtown (especially the central and eastern portions).
Each neighborhood represents its own benefits and challenges and some are more fit for large developers and others for small private developers. I'd guess Downtown and Remington will probably happen the fastest since, at least in my opinion, they have the best combinations of incentives.
The biggest problem to all of this is city-wide demand. As an example DC saw rapid redevelopment because of the huge growth in its employment base. While as a region we have decent high paying employment growth, its nothing compared to other cities that have seen large booms (Charlotte, Seattle, DC, etc). Also most of the employment gains have been outside of the center city.
This brings me to my next conclusion. Baltimore is too large for its own good and needs to "right size itself". The ratios of people to jobs and infrastructure/ government services to the tax base are way off. Poor people and lower middle income families seeking to find better job opportunities will have an easier time doing so outside of city limits. This will end up improving the quality of life for almost everyone involved (excluding criminals and those too poor to own a private vehicle and non-project housing). Currently poor black people are leaving at approximately the same rate that yuppies (from all racial and ethnic backgrounds...but mostly white) and 1st and 2nd generation Asian and Hispanic immigrants are moving into the city. I don't see any reason for this pattern to change significantly (except for a slowing down of Hispanic immigration) for the remainder of the millennial population's demographic bubble. The bubble should start to wind down around 2024, giving the city ten more years of potential for higher pace socioeconomic restructuring... that is if they mange development, lulu's and incentives well.
Has their been any talk about building up Westport? How is the initiative over in Reservoir Hill?
The Cleveland Fed today released a study of gentrification patterns and the effect of gentrification on residents' financial health.
Daniel Hartley, the author of the study, defines a neighborhood as gentrifying "if it is located in the central city of a metropolitan area and it goes from being in the bottom half of the distribution of home prices in the metropolitan area to the top half between 2000 and 2007", noting that housing prices are a good overall reflection of the economic health of a neighborhood.
"Though all cities experienced some gentrification, most saw less than a third of neighborhoods with the potential to gentrify do so," wrote Hartley.
"Four cities saw significant shares of the neighborhoods that could gentrify, do so: Boston (61 percent), Seattle (55 percent), New York (46 percent), and San Francisco (42 percent). In Boston, the gentrifying neighborhoods represented about a fourth of the entire city’s population. In other cities, the proportion was much smaller."
[LEFT]
Read more: MAP: The Cities With The Most Gentrified Neighborhoods - Business Insider
[/LEFT]
DC is number 5, and the truth is DC is going to need to gentrify completely before Baltimore becomes to really pick up steam. I am live in DC, I don't see it replicating in Baltimore, the two cities are two different. In addition Baltimore is going to transform in very different way than DC. I will be honest I know many artists from DC, NYC, and Boston, moving to Baltimore and Philly because they are the only two affordable cities on the east coast. They can actually start a small business in Baltimore and work a not so great day job, but actually afford the rent until their business picks up steam where it becomes their day job. This may be what finally lifts Baltimore, the fact it is an affordable city, one where somebody can be start a small business and be a small scale innovator like Peter Blasser, yet still afford to live in the city.
Again...Baltimore should not gentrify into the DC/Boston/NYC high-income knowledge class track, nor do I think it's a realistic expectation. Baltimore can go it's own way, and keep its quirky personality along the way. A creative middle class city with people starting businesses would be better for it, and more realistic. There are plenty of models of this in Baltimore too...Squidfire, Ciat-Lonbarde/shbobo, Knas, etc. Small cottage industries started in peoples homes which grew into viable businesses.
Again...this is if Baltimore actually bothers to see it's potential for growth and where it lies, and what makes it different.
I should note the tax rate does not drive gentrification or demand, or even development...Demand and jobs do. Baltimore is kind of set back there. It needs people creating businesses, and honestly small business grants may be the best route for that. Why isn't Baltimore talking to the innovators and looking into getting them investment to grow jobs in the city. Do they even have people identifying these people? Its drawing people in by the creative community already there, but may not be providing resources to expand, and grow their business, and hire people in the process.
The jobs and demand needs to be there before you even get the developer investment. Baltimore does not have the large federal workforce, contractors, legal offices, or nonprofits DC does. What it does have is people starting small businesses with almost no capital, and still somehow making a living and slowly expand their businesses, give them the means to expand faster. Because the reality this is the only way the demand question will be answered.
The amount of new projects that have come online in the last few years, as well as those currently underway, will change the face of downtown, Remington, south Charles Village, Brewers Hill, Paterson park, station north and will continue to grow the populations in fells point, canton, mt. Vernon, fed hill, harbor east, Charles village, and Hampden. The end result (say in 10-15 years) will be a continuous urban fabric of attractive neighborhoods connecting each of the areas I just listed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
