This is a different group putting on this one than the previous Asian might market in the Bromo Arts District, FYI.

Yes, you are correct!

True. I guess OP should realize the point that those two are mutually exclusive criteria to a degree.

I'm aware of this, but I can personally make the decision to avoid it if I want. I'm not saying I'm saving the world here, and I do understand the need for larger industries/corporations to do their direct part in changing their business processes, but that doesn't mean I want to stop be conscious of it on account that it won't make a dent. It's more a psychological thing, really.

Howard County is not cheap by any means, though.

I'm always disappointed with Aldi's packaging of products. Yes, it's cheap, but there's soooo much plastic used for their produce or refrigerated items. Like, why do my bell peppers have to be wrapped in a sealed plastic bag!? It's so wasteful it almost makes the cheap prices not worth it.

(Full disclosure: my resolution for this past year ways to be more sustainable/environmentally conscious, so I've been a bit more observant about how much plastic grocery store products use for no reason.)

Perkins Homes is completely vacant and preparing to be transformed into a mixed-income community: https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-kelly-perkins-20220108-3my3upkvzngnffufk7t4emegn4-story.html

Baltimore could be a "big city" if the county and city were to formally merge and create some more cohesive urban form between the two. I think you could do this by focusing more growth/development on the former arterial corridors like York Road, Edmondson Ave, Harford Road. I mean, you're looking at over 1.4 million people who live within the city limits AND within the County's Urban/rural demarcation line. If that's not a "big city" I don't what is. I can't think of another place in the Western world where that wouldn't be considered such.

If you are really concerned about crime (as anyone should be), but still can't budge on the max price, have you tried looking a condominiums as an option? You're gonna be able to own a home, but I will be honest that the condo market is not as great of a return on investment as rowhomes/single family homes in the metro area. While you didn't give us much to go on in terms of size and other features, here's a couple options to get you started on considering a condo as an option. (I am assuming you have one child in addition to your partner.)

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Baltimore/501-W-University-Pkwy-21210/unit-G3/home/22014157

https://www.redfin.com/MD/BALTIMORE/7121-PARK-HEIGHTS-AVE-21215/unit-608/home/11175221

Again, you may not be able to find anything because your criteria is severely constrained. That's not you're fault, but an unfortunate byproduct of the society we have created for ourselves. Safety, affordability, and availability are all mutually exclusive criteria for housing. That's a national trend.

EDIT:

OMG, I can't believe I didn't even get into the biggest red flag you should be considering when making any type of property purchases right now: interest rates. They are constantly being increased by the Fed and that's gonna make loans much much harder to come by as I assume you don't have the case lying around to purchase the home. You honestly are 99% better off renting, especially in a city that doesn't get the best return on investment for cheaper properties.

My wife always buy some at Sprouts.

IF you could do this, and that's a big "IF", you'd have to go through the Board of Municipal Zoning and Appeals since it is not allowed to block a public right-of-way "by right".

Yeah, you won't find anything around that price in the suburbs, unless of course you rent with a roommate and that's few and far between. Mt. Vernon is probably the best option in terms of affordability + safety, but of course the tradeoff is commute time. If you do look in the city, avoid Bay Property Management like the plague.

On the other hand, I kind of wish they could have come up with a bridge alternative that would have avoided Ft. McHenry, but still gave the city some benefits beyond transportation. Bridges are such an iconic piece of culture and architecture for a city and we honestly miss out on that A LOT. Look at examples like Pittsburgh and the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC and Chicago and San Fran and how their bridges really define their cities and how people associate the image of the city with the bridge and vice versa.

Apparently, there was another bridge crossing planned for I-895 which would have been very similar to the Francis Scott Key Bridge: https://www.dcroads.net/crossings/harbor-tunnel/img18.gif

Wow, missed opportunity with all that parking! We now know how much cars LOVE to go swimming and take strolls along the waterfront promenade!

I was about to comment the same sentiment, but to answer your question... You also need to think of this in the context of convenience and arrogance from the point of view of the high-modernist, technocratic planner of the mid-20th century. By that point, there was so much pollution and degradation of the natural elements of our cities' waterways, that many US cities thought the easiest and most efficient way to get value out of them was to do with what they had and felt was the cool, new thing: the automobile. With deindustrialization slowing rotting away - literally and figuratively - at the core of our waterfront infrastructure, a lot of these docks and wharfs were just vacant real estate. It can be easy and efficient to build something that costs a lot, like highways and automobile infrastructure, on land that is "vacant" instead of occupied. (Not that they didn't do that though! See, the Highway to Nowhere.

EDIT:

Provided some helpful links for further reading if anyone is interested.

Don't feed the trolls, OP.

Wow, if that's not a hyperbolic comparison I don't know what is.

Nah, taxes don't need to subsidize something like this. I'm ALL FOR public sector services and intervention, but that's just ridiculous. It's like $20 for a basic helmet.

Fair enough. I still don't know what the person responding was trying to say here, but if you think it is sufficient then okie dokie!

This doesn't help OP without any elaboration or context.

I assume its because the housing stock is bigger, therefore there is not a need (i.e. forced) to expand your "living space" into the outdoors. Furthermore, the proximity to the water and ability to view that water from said rooftop decks also may play into this. In North Baltimore there is no way to see the harbor, so decks may not be as popular. Additionally, the proximity to water adds immense value to the home and the market forces may play a role in people's decision to add one - and add an extra, say, $10k onto their house - if they go that route.

:Yawn:

As if every public works project in this country doesn't have cost overruns.