Suburban revalorization: Residential infill and rehabilitation in Baltimore County’s older suburbs

Abstract

This paper is a critical examination of redevelopment in the older suburbs of Baltimore County, Maryland between 2000 and 2014. Using exploratory spatial analysis techniques and qualitative methods, we identify the location of concentrated forms of suburban redevelopment, capturing incremental changes to single-family suburban homes in the form of residential rehabilitation, and new construction as well as larger-scale infill in the form of single-family subdivisions and apartments. We find that redevelopment among older suburbs is multifaceted, encompassing reinvestment in single-family housing in old elite residential suburban neighborhoods; the replacement of publicly subsidized apartment complexes with market rate, single-family dwellings in formerly industrial suburbs; the replacement of waterfront postwar housing with more expensive structures in formerly industrial suburbs; and the densification of older edge suburban core areas. The local planning regime has been instrumental in the redevelopment process across suburban types. Based on our findings, we suggest that suburban planners take a more active role in considering the potential direct and indirect displacement of low-income residents from redeveloped suburban spaces. This is imperative as inner-ring suburban devalorization occurs and suburban poverty grows.

Keywords

Suburban redevelopment suburban retrofitting older suburbs

Introduction

In the United States, persistent suburban expansion over the past century has resulted in large swaths of low-density housing and commercial strips dispersed across an auto-centric landscape (Filion, 2015). This typical suburban sprawl is inconsistent with urban planning goals that seek to arrange the built environment to be more compact, walkable, transit-oriented and with a mix of different housing styles (Ewing and Hamidi, 2015; Knaap and Talen, 2005). To align with these goals, the urban planning community seeks to reimagine and redevelop the suburbs to make them, in many ways, more urban-like (Dunham-Jones and Williamson, 2011; Williamson, 2013).

Yet, as Talen (2015: 3) suggests in her recent book Retrofitting Sprawl, “not every place can reinvent itself as a walkable, mixed use neighborhood surrounded by connecting boulevards.” Even if one embraces the normative argument for suburban retrofitting, it is unlikely that all suburbs will undergo redevelopment in the way that results in more density or more walkable environments. In addition, individual suburban homeowners upgrade and reinvest in existing low-density residential development, regularly modifying their homes to accommodate new lifestyles and improve housing conditions (McManus and Ethington, 2007), and in some cases, homeowners tear down the original structures to build larger detached houses (Charles, 2014, 2013). Alongside calls for suburban retrofitting and higher density, therefore, is the consistent valorization of existing low-density suburbanization, a fact that this is rarely acknowledged by planning academics and the broader planning community.

In this paper, we examine residential redevelopment in older suburbs in Baltimore County, Maryland to identify varied forms, and the types of older suburbs where such redevelopment is concentrated. Older suburbs are defined as places close to the urban core—in this case Baltimore City—where the housing stock was built largely before 1970. The literature has noted that decline among these types of suburbs arises from disinvestment in housing and infrastructure in particular (Anacker and Morrow-Jones, 2008; Cooke, 2010; Hanlon, 2010; Lee and Leigh, 2005; Lucy and Philips, 1997, 2000; Madden, 2003). These suburbs are potentially ripe for revalorization.

As part of this analysis, we identify the types of older suburbs that experienced significant redevelopment over a 14-year period beginning in 2000. We identify the location of concentrated forms of this redevelopment using exploratory spatial analysis techniques, descriptive analysis, and qualitative methods. The findings capture incremental changes to suburban homes in the form of residential rehabilitation as well as significant residential infill that includes the construction of new apartments, townhouses, and detached housing. Overall, this study answers the following research questions: (1) what are the different forms of redevelopment that occurred among older suburbs in Baltimore County from 2000 to 2014? (2) are these different forms of redevelopment clustered in certain types of older suburbs?, and (3) are there specific planning practices and processes that encouraged the location of different forms of redevelopment?

Our analysis demonstrates that suburban redevelopment is multifaceted and uneven in ways that lead to a complex pattern of valorization and revalorization among the older suburbs of Baltimore County. Valorization occurs via incremental residential upgrading by homeowners in wealthier suburban neighborhoods where there has typically been no large-scale disinvestment overtime. In other cases, revalorization involves the demolition and replacement of low-income subsidized housing with market rate residential projects in attempts to completely transform declining suburban neighborhoods. The local government plays a significant role in these latter kinds of redevelopment projects, and such revalorization is complemented by the efforts of individual property owners who knockdown small postwar homes in waterfront working class communities only to replace them with much larger and more expensive housing. Finally, in certain older suburbs, there is little reinvestment at all.

To begin this paper, we outline a conceptual understanding of the processes of suburban redevelopment that help produce uneven patterns of reinvestment across Baltimore County. We find that the processes of suburban redevelopment are often contradictory since they include calls for more density by the urban planning community, a continued reinvestment in existing low-density housing by individual homeowners, and, in some cases, new infill development that results in less density not more. As part of this paper, we describe the reasons why Baltimore County is an ideal case study for an examination of suburban redevelopment and its contradictory processes. Next, we explain the methods and data we used for our investigation. In the remaining sections, we describe the results of our analysis and conclude with a discussion of our findings.

Conceptualizing suburban redevelopment

In this section, we offer a conceptual understanding of the production of suburban redevelopment that highlights three aspects most relevant to this paper: (1) an urban planning regime that embraces a New Urbanist, Smart Growth paradigm; (2) property owner reinvestment in the existing housing stock; and (3) suburban persistence and the continued prominence of a suburban ideal.

The New Urbanist, smart growth paradigm

Low-density, auto-centric suburban development has come under intense scrutiny by urban planners and policymakers over the past few decades. Often characterized as sprawl, this form of development has been decried as isolating, environmentally unsustainable and bad for public health (Frumkin et al., 2004; Squires, 2002). While concerns about sprawl in the U.S. go back at least to the 1950s (see Rome, 2001), concerted efforts among policymakers and planners to limit and alter suburban growth began in earnest in the 1980s and 1990s.

New Urbanism arose during this period with a focus on changing the physical form and design of development, creating mixed land uses with pedestrian and bicycle-friendly interconnected streets (Ellis, 2002). The Congress for the New Urbanism defines New Urbanism as “a planning and development approach based on the principles of how cities and towns had been built for the last several centuries: walkable blocks and streets, housing and shopping in close proximity, and accessible public spaces” (Congress for the New Urbanism, 2018). In the 1990s, Smart Growth emerged as a package of policies and strategies to prevent the spread of suburban sprawl by targeting growth to locations with existing infrastructure, housing, and employment through market-based tactics and government incentives (Benfield et al., 2001; Ewing, 1997). Maryland has been at the center of these efforts (Frece, 2009). The New Urbanist, Smart Growth paradigm is therefore the combined policy and planning efforts that seek to control and alter conventional, low-density suburbanization, and instead create higher-density, mixed-use, and pedestrian-friendly environments.

Suburban retrofitting and its goal of altering the typical suburb is part and parcel of the New Urbanist, Smart Growth paradigm. The extent of suburban retrofitting in the U.S. is currently unknown. In their book, Suburban Retrofitting, Dunham-Jones and Williamson (2013) document hundreds of examples of suburban redevelopment projects that include the adaptive reuse of old strip malls or reuse of commercial spaces, the “scraping” of large parcels to introduce mixed-use developments, and the re-greening of suburban parking lots. A recent Urban Land Institute report (2012) highlighted examples of retrofitting in eight suburbs across the United States that experienced increased density and mixed use. In their study of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Delmelle et al. (2014) note that, particularly since 2000, there has been a shift away from low-density suburbanization with a trend toward urban infill and higher density suburban development. A study of Atlanta found similar evidence of “new suburbanism” with the construction of multifamily housing and amenity-rich condominiums on the periphery (Atkinson-Palombo, 2010).

Such work suggests the possibility of decelerating sprawl, though the extent to which this is possible is in question (Landis, 2017). It is also unclear if growth management programs such as Smart Growth have had any effect at limiting suburban expansion (Goetz, 2013; Lewis et al., 2009). In addition, there are many critics of New Urbanism who doubt its ability to achieve its intended goals (Al-Hindi, 2001; Ellis, 2002; Harvey, 2005). Despite these assessments, however, the promotion of dense, mixed-use development has gained serious traction among planning practitioners and academics in the U.S. (MacLeod, 2013). For example, the American Planning Association (APA) recently published a series of Planning Advisory Service (PAS) reports to help planners across the country initiate practices and policies that support traditional neighborhood design (Arendt, 2004), New Urbanism (CNU, 2004), and mixed-use development (Mandelker, 2007). Some suburban planning departments across the country have introduced flexible zoning to encourage mixed-use development (Knaap et al., 2015; Talen, 2013), developers have received incentives to create denser suburban environments, and new planned communities in the suburbs are often built in the New Urbanist style (Moore, 2013).

While there remain significant challenges to creating suburban density and changing suburban zoning practice (Brewer and Grant, 2015; Grant, 2002; Hirt, 2013), local suburban planners and policymakers do seek to harness the potential market demand for redevelopment projects that align with the New Urbanist, Smart Growth paradigm (see Hanlon, 2015); this is particularly true in Baltimore County. Since the foreclosure crisis, the growing narrative in the field of urban planning suggests the market for low-density suburban housing has waned (Delmelle et al., 2014; Nelson, 2012). According to this perspective, there are a couple of reasons why this is the case. The first relates to changing U.S. demographics. The suburbs were built to accommodate a two-parent family structure, but the U.S. is no longer a nation of households with children. Household size has shrunk and “[t]he days of planning communities [to] meet the needs of households with children are over” (Nelson, 2012: 819). According to Nelson (2009), the future demand for housing will be largely driven by seniors who will make up 19% of the population by 2030, and planners will need to accommodate this new demographic.

The second reason relates more specifically to changing residential preferences. Surveys indicate that while most people prefer to live in low-density suburbs, there is potentially an increased demand for compact development, particularly among retired empty nesters or baby boomers (Myers and Gearin, 2001; Tian et al., 2015). Broad public support for living in dense and walkable communities is growing (Handy et al., 2008). This is part of a new and much broader discussion about suburbia’s future (e.g. De Jong, 2014; Grant et al., 2013), and the New Urbanist/Smart Growth paradigm creates the possibility of changing traditional suburban development in ways that align with such recent shifts in market demand.

Studies have noted how revanchist politics also plays a central role in this process, including, for example, a study of Roswell, Georgia. Roswell is a suburb of Atlanta that redeveloped using the principles of New Urbanism (Markley and Sharma, 2016). The area around Frazier Apartments was the target for redevelopment activity. A developer replaced the previously affordable apartments with higher-end housing. Markley and Sharma (2016) argue that suburban planners and policymakers were complicit in the project, supporting developers, approving plans, and failing to advocate for displaced low-income residents of the apartment complex. As we demonstrate later in this paper, the planning regime in Baltimore County has similarly embraced targeted forms of suburban infill in certain older suburbs. These efforts have not been deployed as a strategy to include more mixed-income housing or cater to growing suburban poverty (Kneebone and Berube, 2013) but instead reflect the classic suburban strategy of attracting and keeping middle class residents. This infill development includes the construction of high-end apartments and townhouses, as well as subdivisions of typical detached and low-density housing.

Property owner reinvestment in the housing stock

Property owner reinvestment in the housing stock is a necessary element of the redevelopment process, particularly in the context of older suburbs. Housing is fixed and has longevity but ages and depreciates over time. Owners of older housing make decisions about whether they should reinvest in their existing homes or move to newer structures that are typically in outer locations. Homeowners may be more likely to invest in and upgrade older housing if they are uncertain about moving, if they do not want to move, or if their neighbors similarly upgrade their homes and consequently improve neighborhood property values.

Homeowners, of course, must have the money to reinvest. Lenders may view low-income inhabitants of older, declining neighborhoods as risky and restrict access to home improvement loans. The, 1977 Community Reinvestment Act has encouraged banks to extend presence and credit to low-income neighborhoods, but higher-income neighborhoods continue to receive more investments from depository institutions (Pothering, 2017). During the housing boom, subprime refinancing provided some low-income and minority homeowners access to money, but with the housing market collapse, these same homeowners found themselves stripped of equity and, in some cases, in default (Crump et al., 2008). Estimates on how much refinancing during the boom cycle contributed to home improvements in older neighborhoods is unknown. Regardless, homeowner reinvestment is more likely to occur with old rather than new housing and is also more likely among high-income rather than low-income homeowners.

In some cases, housing does not need to be too old before such reinvestment happens. In Levittown, New York, one of the quintessential postwar suburbs developed in the 1940s and 1950s, homeowners began making modifications to their homes shortly after the suburb was built. Rehabilitation in Levittown was so extensive that it spurred the creation of an entire industry specializing in the modification of Levitt houses. From early on, homeowners expanded the original houses, adding rooms or stories (Kelly, 1993), a process captured photographically by the New York Times (2017) on the suburb’s sixtieth anniversary. As Kelly suggests (1993: 3), property owners in Levittown were in fact “co-producers” of the suburban landscape, remodeling their homes to actively reshape the neighborhood. The Levittown story demonstrates how homeowners reinvest in their homes to expand and alter them in ways that can change the entire neighborhood. Refinancing can provide the necessary capital for these types of housing modifications. For major reinvestments, homeowners sometimes utilize accumulated wealth or gain access to finance capital for repairs and alterations.

In some instances, homeowners will completely teardown the original housing and rebuild larger houses for themselves in a process called suburban mansionization, McMansion infill (Nasar et al., 2007), or, in the case of Australia, knockdown rebuild (Pinnegar et al., 2010). These teardowns often occur in older, wealthy suburbs (Charles, 2014, 2013) and in suburbs close to transit (Dye and McMillen, 2007).

As Charles’ (2014) work notes, teardowns also occur in modest-income suburbs. Studies in Sydney, Australia have similarly found that knockdown rebuild happens in disadvantaged middle-ring suburbs. According to Pinnegar et al. (2010), this type of reinvestment is not necessarily a form of gentrification since it does not occur alongside the invasion of high-income groups. Rather, they suggest it is the result of upwardly mobile residents living in these suburbs who demolish the original home, replace it with a much bigger structure, and remain in the neighborhood.

Like Charles (2014) and Pinnegar et al. (2010), we find evidence of mansionization or knockdown rebuild in modest-income suburbs, specifically in Baltimore County’s disadvantaged working-class communities along the waterfront.

Suburban persistence and the suburban ideal

What we described thus far are two contradictory processes. On the one hand, there is evidence of suburban infill where developers respond to market demand and planning practice to build new developments, in some cases adhering to the New Urbanist-style. On the other hand, there is evidence of individual property-owner reinvestment in the existing housing stock in low-density suburbs, sometimes creating less density rather than more. Lost in current urban planning discussions is the fact that low-density suburban housing is constantly being revalorized. This is a process that demonstrates the continued persistence of existing suburbs.

The suburban persistence model was one of the early theoretical models aimed at understanding the suburban change that was happening in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S. This model suggests that social status is fixed early in a suburb’s history and remains consistent over time (Farley, 1964). Recent evidence of suburban decline, particularly among older suburbs, has undermined the suburban persistence theory (Hanlon, 2010). Yet there is evidence of the persistence of old, high-status suburbs. In a study of exclusive planned suburbs built in the mid-nineteenth century, historian Mary Corbin Sies (1997) describes the ways in which, over the course of years, both local residents and local government comprehensive planning efforts maintained the quality of housing and the built environment in these elite suburbs. Old, exclusive suburbs embody the qualities of the suburban ideal, and according to Sies (1997), the status of these suburbs is likely to persist as residents and local governments alike seek to preserve the social characteristics and built environment. Governments are motivated to maintain a solid and significant tax base, and local residents are motivated because they embrace their community as an example of the elite suburban ideal. In our study, we find similar evidence of persistence in older exclusive suburbs of Baltimore County.

Baltimore county as an ideal case study

There are three reasons why Baltimore County is an ideal site for examining suburban redevelopment. First, the Baltimore County planning regime embraces the New Urbanist, Smart Growth paradigm. Since 1967, the county has had an urban growth boundary. Figure 1 illustrates the delineation of this boundary, referred to as the Urban Rural Demarcation Line (URDL). The county has also been vigorously engaged in Smart Growth planning since the 1990s. As one of the first to initiate a statewide Smart Growth program, Maryland incentivizes Baltimore County to limit suburban expansion. The area inside the URDL is the location of the county’s priority funding areas (PFAs). Since passage of Maryland’s Smart Growth legislation in 1997, the state, with some exceptions, provides infrastructure funding to local governments for new construction only if it occurs within PFAs.

Figure 1.

Older suburbs in Baltimore County.

In addition, Baltimore County seeks to create New Urbanist developments through flexible zoning. In 2005, the county enacted legislation permitting Planned Unit Development (PUD), a new code to enable mixed-use and denser development projects inside the URDL. Developers approach planners with ideas for a PUD project, and planners encourage projects that prioritize impervious surface reduction, incorporate green spaces, and increase density that might not be otherwise allowed by underlying zoning requirements (Baltimore County, 2010). In 2004, Baltimore County initiated its Renaissance Redevelopment Pilot project, designating Renaissance Opportunity Areas where redevelopment projects had to be pedestrian-friendly and abide by specific design standards in line with New Urbanist principles. The Renaissance Redevelopment Pilot Program ended in 2014, but much of this process still exists as part of the Planned Unit Development initiative.

Second, Baltimore County has a variety of different types of older suburbs (see Hanlon and Vicino, 2007), as noted in Figure 1. Table 1 provides some basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of these places. We highlight some important dimensions using census data (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2017). First, these older suburbs have experienced a decline in real income since 1990. Some suburbs experienced a loss of more than $20,000 in median household income between 1990 and 2010, affecting distinctly middle-class as well as much poorer suburbs. All of the older suburbs, with the exception of Essex, experienced an increase in poverty. Baltimore County’s suburbs are not alone in this regard. Suburban poverty is a problem noted by recent research on metropolitan regions across the U.S. (Kneebone and Berube, 2013). Similarly, with the exception of Hampton, all experienced an increase in the foreign-born population and a simultaneous decline in the white population. There is strong evidence that older suburbs in the county are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the older suburbs of Baltimore County, 1990 and 2010.

	Census 2010							Change from 1990 to 2010
Older suburb	Pop.	White	Black	Hispanic	Foreign Born	Poverty	Income	Pop.	White	Black	Hispanic	Foreign Born	Poverty	Income
Arbutus	20,483	78%	10%	3%	11%	9%	$65,127	+733	−12%	+5%	+2%	+5%	+3%	−$1183
Bowleys Qt.^a	6755	85%	11%	3%	2%	9%	$68,139	+441	−6%	+5%	+3%	+0%	+3%	−$248
Catonsville	41,567	75%	15%	3%	7%	7%	$75,361	+6334	−13%	+5%	+2%	+4%	+2%	$1309
Dundalk	63,597	81%	11%	5%	5%	14%	$48,860	−2203	−11%	+5%	+4%	+4%	+8%	−$9719
Edgemere	8669	94%	4%	1%	1%	10%	$54,940	−557	1%	−1%	+0%	+0%	+5%	−$12,726
Essex	39,262	69%	28%	5%	9%	11%	$51,714	−1610	−21%	+20%	+4%	+7%	−1%	−$25
Hampton	5052	92%	2%	2%	5%	7%	$103,160	+126	2%	+1%	+1%	−2%	+4%	−$24,423
Lansdowne	8409	70%	26%	8%	7%	23%	$46,006	−7100	−22%	+21%	+7%	+5%	+13%	−$11,792
Lochearn	25,333	15%	82%	4%	10%	10%	$53,890	+93	−16%	+15%	+3%	+6%	+5%	−$20,688
Lutherville	16,429	87%	4%	3%	12%	4%	$83,387	−13	−5%	+3%	+2%	+3%	+1%	−$13,113
Middle River	25,191	70%	25%	6%	12%	12%	$55,833	+575	−23%	+20%	+6%	+10%	+2%	−$2,044
Overlea	12,275	76%	20%	3%	7%	8%	$58,291	+138	−20%	+18%	+3%	+4%	+5%	−$10,007
Parkville	30,734	64%	33%	4%	10%	11%	$53,899	−883	−20%	+21%	+2%	+5%	+5%	−$8,675
Pikesville	30,764	78%	15%	3%	22%	9%	$73,107	+5949	−16%	+12%	+2%	+9%	+4%	−$18,047
Rosedale	19,257	60%	34%	5%	8%	12%	$55,962	+554	−27%	+23%	+5%	+4%	+7%	−$18,200
Towson	55,197	81%	11%	3%	11%	11%	$73,644	+5752	−12%	+7%	+2%	+6%	+5%	−$4,729
Woodlawn	37,879	26%	63%	6%	15%	8%	$64,974	+4972	−44%	+39%	+4%	+9%	+4%	−$12,092

^aData related to Bowleys Quarter are from the American Community Survey 2009–2014 and Census 2000. Therefore, in the case of this suburb, the change data are from 2000 to 2010.

The southeastern suburbs of Dundalk, Bowleys Quarters, Middle River, Edgemere and Essex are predominantly white, working-class communities, although they have experienced growth in the black population; in Essex and Middle River, the black population grew by 20% between 1990 and 2010. At the peak of its manufacturing history, this southeastern part of Baltimore County was the location of Bethlehem Steel Corporation, General Motors, and the soap and phosphate detergent producer Lever Brothers. The area was a major hub of heavy industry, trade, and distribution, providing ample employment for local residents. In recent decades, there has been little population growth, and these suburbs are showing signs of decline.

Yet, there is one large corporation in the area, Lockheed Martin. Located in Middle River, it uses the Glenn L. Martin Airport as an important asset for its aerospace and defense activities. This corporation relies heavily on its knowledge workers and innovative technologies, demanding a different type of worker than those involved in steel or soap production of the past. Today, the suburbs of the southeast portion of Baltimore County struggle to reimagine themselves within the framework of this new economy (Niedt, 2006).

The western suburbs of Lochearn and Woodlawn are two predominantly middle-class African-American suburbs. Both experienced a dramatic decline in their White population beginning in the 1980s and continuing through to 2010. Lochearn and Woodlawn suffered heavily from the foreclosure crisis as many residents of African-American communities in the Baltimore region were targeted for subprime loans (Smithsimon, 2015) and have seen real income decline dramatically. In Lochearn in particular, the median household income declined by $20,000 between 1990 and 2013.

Close to these suburbs is Pikesville, a middle-class community and hub for recent Russian immigration. This suburb experienced an influx of 3,376 new residents between 1980 and 2000, many of whom were foreign born. About a fourth of the population is from outside the U.S. In recent decades, Pikesville has become an enclave for the Jewish community, serving as a focal point for Jewish religious and commercial activity in the county and region.

Near Pikesville is the suburb of Towson. This is a well-established employment center, an older “edge city”, the seat of Baltimore County’s government offices, and home to the campuses of Towson University and Goucher College. Towson has large-scale retail, small businesses, and public and private employers concentrated along York Road, the arterial road running through this older suburb. Yet, Towson also has detached single-family housing. Because of the number of university students living in this suburb, the data on poverty and income do not completely reflect its middle-class nature. Like other older suburbs, Towson is diversifying with an increase in the black and foreign-born populations between 1990 and 2010.

Finally, there are a number of classic postwar suburbs in Baltimore County, including the suburbs of Arbutus, Overlea, Parkville, Rosedale, and Lansdowne. Built mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, these suburbs have experienced decline in recent decades, particularly Lansdowne. This suburb has the highest poverty rate amongst older suburbs in the county with almost a quarter of the population in poverty in 2010. These suburbs have also experienced a demographic change. For instance, the black population in Parkville and Rosedale increased by 21% and 23%, respectively, between 1990 and 2010. Overall, the older suburbs of Baltimore County are not a homogenous group but rather are very diverse in terms of population, social structure, and morphology. Some of these suburbs have experienced decline in recent decades.

This bring us to our third reason for focusing on Baltimore County. The county has actively intervened to reinvest in its older suburbs since in the mid-1990s until today. It is important to note that suburbs in the county are not incorporated municipalities but are census designated places (CDP) defined by their community boundaries. There are no incorporated cities in Baltimore County. This means that zoning and other land use planning decisions are made at the county level, encouraging comprehensive planning at the county scale and a fiscal structure that allows for resource sharing across the county’s suburbs.

In 1995, the county created the Office of Community Conservation to preserve and stabilize its older suburbs. Between 1995 and 2005, the county leveraged public and private dollars to invest more than $515 million in various housing, infrastructure, and planning projects (Vicino, 2008). The majority of these resources went to the working-class suburbs of Dundalk, Essex, and Middle River in the county’s southeastern section.

The State of Maryland supports the county’s strategy to reinvest in its older suburbs. In 2010, the Maryland General Assembly passed the Smart, Green and Growing legislation, otherwise referred to as the Sustainable Communities Act, requiring local jurisdictions to designate areas for reinvestment and revitalization. Many of the older suburbs in Baltimore County became approved sustainable communities in 2012, enabling the county to apply for state funding for revitalization efforts. These include suburbs such as Dundalk, Essex, Middle River, Towson, Catonsville, Parkville, Rosedale, and Overlea.

In 2013, the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development introduced the Baltimore Regional Neighborhoods Initiative as a project for strategic investment in the Inner Baltimore Beltway communities. These include the older suburbs of Baltimore County. The goal of the Baltimore Regional Neighborhoods Initiative is to use its grants as a catalyst for additional development in specific neighborhoods. In 2013, the Dundalk Renaissance Corporation (DRC) received $912,000, primarily for housing initiatives. The DRC allocated $467,000 of this funding for its Renovated Homes Market Boost program aimed at increasing the number of renovated homes and boost sales prices. It allocated $250,000 to its home renovation loan program. Other monies have been apportioned to this older suburb resulting in a $1.3 million campaign to attract new homeowners (Knezevich, 2014).

Recognizing the county’s desire for reinvestment in its older suburbs, we now turn to explaining the data and methods we used to identify the location and different types of redevelopment that have occurred among these suburbs.

Data and methods

As previously mentioned, we aim to answer the following research questions: (1) what are the different forms of redevelopment that occurred among older suburbs in Baltimore County from 2000 to 2014?, (2) are these different forms of redevelopment clustered in certain types of older suburbs?, and (3) are there specific planning practices and processes that encouraged the location of different forms of redevelopment?

The primary source of data we used to answer the first two questions was countywide residential permit data provided by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC), the metropolitan planning organization for the Baltimore region. We used permits issued for $50,000 or more and selected only those issued permits that were located in older suburbs. We focused on permits issued for at least $50,000 because we were particularly interested in significant and highly visible redevelopment activity in these older suburbs. In addition, based on conversations we had with staff at the BMC, we were told that the geographic information on data for permits issued for less than $50,000 was unreliable. We focused on the time period between 2000 and 2014 because of data availability.

We utilized these data in two ways. First, we mapped the permits using Geographic Information System (GIS). Among the permits we mapped, some were issued for new construction and others for the addition, alteration, and/or repair of existing structures. We classified those issued for new construction as examples of residential infill. Those issued for addition, alteration, and/or repair of existing structures we classified as examples of residential rehabilitation.

To answer the first question, we needed to identify more specific characteristics of these different types of development. We identified the address of each permit issued. Using Google Street View dated from 2011 to 2016 and conducting field visits to particular sites, we determined if residential infill involved, for instance, the construction of an individual home or a more substantial project that included the development of a subdivision of detached homes or townhomes or a large-scale apartment complex. Google Street View and field visits to specific locations allowed us to examine evidence of the teardown and rebuild process or significant additions to existing housing by identifying if a redeveloped property was a much larger and/or newer home than nearby structures. We provide more detail on the field visit locations and how we chose them below.

To supplement the basic mapping, we conducted exploratory spatial data analysis of the permit data. This part of the analysis allowed us to determine the types of suburbs where concentrated forms of redevelopment occurred over the study period, thus helping us answer question two above. We calculated local indicators of spatial autocorrelation (LISA) using Local Moran’s I (Anselin, 1995) and mapped statistically significant concentrations of both residential infill and residential rehabilitation. For ease of visualization, we aggregated the permit data to a quarter-mile grid. We used the number of permits rather than the permit rate (i.e. the number of permits/total number of housing units). While this may skew the results toward areas with more houses, it provides an indication of where reinvestment activity is taking place.

The calculated Local Moran’s I measured the degree of spatial autocorrelation of suburban redevelopment for each grid cell in the county. A high positive Local Moran’s I value indicates that an aggregated number of permits for residential infill (or residential rehabilitation) in a grid cell is similar in value to an aggregated number of permits for residential infill (or residential rehabilitation) in its neighboring grid cell.

We used the Local Moran’s I values to identify statistically significant spatial cluster patterns, which include high-high clusters where grid cells with high values in terms of the number of permits for residential infill (or residential rehabilitation) have neighboring grid cells with similarly high values in terms of the number of permits for residential infill (or residential rehabilitation). Spatial outliers include grid cells with a high number of permits surrounded by grid cells with low numbers of permits (high-low clusters) and grid cells with low number of permits surrounded by grid cells with a high number of permits (low-high clusters). We mapped the different spatial clusters for both residential infill and residential rehabilitation, focusing on the high-high clusters. The spatial methods explained here are very similar to those used by Charles (2014). Figure 2 shows the location of high-high clusters for residential rehabilitation. Figure 4 shows the high-high clusters for residential infill.

Figure 2.

Residential densification in the Baltimore County suburbs, 2000–2014.

There are a couple of weaknesses to using permit data to identify redevelopment activity. First, redevelopment may have occurred without a permit being issued and, as a result, we may be underestimating the extent of redevelopment taking place. However, since we are focused on those permits for $50,000 or more, we assume the permits were likely acquired. Often significant reinvestment of such large dollar amounts requires a professional contractor or construction company, and these entities may be more likely to obtain a permit for the work. In addition, with significant redevelopment, construction activity is more obvious to code enforcement, and neighbors might be more likely to report it. At the same time; however, it is important to note that because we only considered permits of $50,000 or more, there is redevelopment activity not captured in our analysis and, in this sense, we may be underestimating the total amount of money reinvested in housing over the study period.

The second data weakness is that issued permits do not guarantee that the permitted work was completed. As mentioned, we conducted field visits and searched Google Street View images to address this problem. For our field visits, we systemically visited locations where there were high-high clusters of both residential infill and residential rehabilitation as indicated by our exploratory spatial analysis. We visited five high-high clusters of residential infill (in Towson, Dundalk, Middle River, Catonsville, and Pikesville) and seven high-high clusters of residential rehabilitation (in Towson, Lutherville-Timonium, Dundalk, Middle River, Catonsville, Essex and Pikesville). We chose these locations because together they included most of the redevelopment activity in the county.

We took field notes and photographs and identified the type of redevelopment in each area. Between the exploratory spatial analysis, the field visits, and our analysis using Google Street View, we are confident that we identified the different types of redevelopment (i.e. residential infill or residential rehabilitation) that took place and the type of suburb where significantly clustered forms of redevelopment happened. In cases where much of the rehabbing may have been to the interior of the home, we can only assume the rehabilitation took place, another potential weakness in our methodology. Overall, we might be underestimating the extent of residential redevelopment in the county, but we are capturing redevelopment activity that is significant, extensive, and concentrated.

In addition to the spatial analysis and fieldwork, we employed qualitative methods to answer our third question about the role of planning practices in the redevelopment process. For this part of the study, we analyzed local government archival documents, including master plans, adopted community plans, meeting minutes for Baltimore County Planning Board and the Baltimore County Landmark’s Preservation Commission. We read these documents, noting text where county planning priorities and strategies were relevant to the redevelopment projects and initiatives we identified in our exploratory spatial analysis. These documents are publicly available online.

After field visits and the Google Street View analysis, we searched for information about specific sites of redevelopment in newspaper articles. To identify the most relevant articles, we searched the LexisNexis database system, using generic keywords such as “Baltimore County redevelopment”, “new housing construction”, “mixed use development”, “historic preservation” and “Baltimore County suburbs”, and more tailored keywords such as “Renaissance Square” to unearth more information about the planning process around specific projects. We identified about 65 newspaper articles for analysis; these articles came from newspapers such as the Baltimore Sun. This work enabled us to determine the particular planning practice most relevant to particular redevelopment projects.

To verify and delve deeper into this, we interviewed six planners from the Baltimore County Department of Planning. We recruited the planners through an e-mail invitation. Four of these interviews occurred in person and the final two were conducted remotely. While this is a small sample, the six planners constitute about a quarter of the countywide planning staff. They had employment tasks closely aligned with our interests, and they were particularly knowledgeable on issues that include housing, the environment, rehabilitation, master planning, demography, historic preservation, and planned unit development. The interviews were semi-structured, and included questions about the redevelopment process, the influence of Smart Growth policies, the impact of redevelopment on housing affordability, the degree of public support for large-scale projects, and what planning practices were employed. The interviews provided a holistic understanding of the planning department’s priorities and strategies for redevelopment in the county.

Results

Before we begin describing the results of our analysis, it is important to remind the reader that we examined only those permits issued for work in excess of $50,000 or more. According to our data analysis of these permits, the county issued 3965 permits for residential rehabilitation and 4860 permits to promote residential infill in older suburbs between 2000 and 2014. The county issued each permit for a specific dollar amount, totaling $528,340,812 for rehabilitation and around $1.13 billion for infill development. We will first examine residential rehabilitation in more detail.

Residential rehabilitation

Table 2 specifies the number and dollar amount for permits to conduct residential rehabilitation of both single family and multifamily housing. We found that most of the permits were issued for the rehabilitation of single-family dwellings (3767 permits) rather than multifamily units (198 permits). As this table indicates, Overlea, Rosedale, Lansdowne, Lochearn, and Woodlawn are the older suburbs with the lowest number of permits and the least amount issued for residential rehabilitation. The middle-class, older suburbs of Pikesville, Catonsville, and Towson encompassed the highest number of permits for residential rehabilitation and the highest amount of reinvestment money over the study period. In just these three suburbs, close to $304 million of permits were issued for residential rehabilitation between 2000 and 2014, over half of all permit amounts for rehabbing for the entire county. In Towson alone, permits totaling $144 million were issued for rehabilitation of single homes. Most of this reinvestment included the rehabilitation of older detached homes.

Table 2.

Permits and permit amounts for residential rehabilitation in older suburbs of Baltimore County, 2000–2014.

	Total number of permit	Total permit amount	Total number of single family units (in 2014)	Total number of permits for single family dwellings	Permit amount SFD	Total number of multifamily units (in 2014)	Total number of permits for multifamily buildings	Permit amount for multifamily dwellings
Arbutus	98	$8,086,026	6905	96	$7,336,026	1558	2	$750,000
Bowleys Quarter	170	$28,598,000	2419	167	$28,123,000	557	3	$475,000
Catonsville	471	$48,938,594	11,436	467	$48,693,594	4867	4	$245,000
Dundalk	252	$25,190,792	22,280	228	$20,029,792	3819	24	$5,161,000
Edgemere	186	$21,864,414	3127	185	$21,689,414	398	1	$175,000
Essex	239	$28,233,461	11,694	229	$26,995,661	4490	10	$1,237,800
Hampton	183	$28,076,694	1940^a	183	$28,076,694	0	0	$0
Lansdowne	58	$4,830,133	–	45	$3,708,660	–	13	$1,121,473
Lochearn	93	$9,055,508	7731	87	$7,284,757	2989	6	$1,770,751
Lutherville	290	$30,437,356	–	290	$30,437,356	–	0	$0
Middle River	117	$14,156,878	8734	101	$11,682,478	1821	16	$2,474,400
Overlea	33	$2,626,409	4186	32	$2,548,409	1159	1	$78,000
Parkville	104	$8,692,040	9994	99	$8,172,040	3433	5	$520,000
Pikesville	435	$60,414,396	8329	400	$56,203,140	6243	35	$4,211,256
Rosedale	52	$4,697,780	6152	51	$4,572,780	1135	1	$125,000
Towson	1087	$194,201,682	13,466	1016	$144,863,932	9109	71	$49,337,750
Woodlawn	97	$10,240,649	11,902	91	$7,640,649	3790	6	$2,600,000
Total	3965	$528,340,812	128,355	3767	$458,058,382	45,368	198	$70,282,430

Single Family Dwelling (SFD) includes detached homes, duplexes and townhouses. Multifamily dwellings include apartment buildings and condominiums. We provide the total number of multifamily units using data from 2010 to 2014 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates. A multifamily building contains many units but only one permit (e.g. 75-unit apartment building only has one permit).

^aThese data are from Census 2000.

One hundred and ten permits were issued for the rehabilitation of multifamily housing in Pikesville and Towson. This accounted for more than half of these types of permits for all the older suburbs combined. Much of the multifamily rehabilitation in these suburbs was for low-rise apartments most likely for middle-class residents, and, especially in the case of Towson, probably for graduate students and faculty in the nearby universities. In some cases, the apartment buildings included historic structures for high-income households. For example, a series of permits for $4.2 million each were issued in, 2006 to upgrade older apartment buildings in the high-end residential complex of Rodgers Forge.

The map in Figure 2 shows spatial clusters of residential rehabilitation in certain older suburbs. In the case Towson and Catonsville, much of the residential rehabilitation occurred in the older, streetcar suburban neighborhoods within these two suburbs. In these cases, residential rehabilitation improved and maintained historic homes. A prime example is the suburban neighborhood of Stoneleigh located within Towson’s boundary. Stoneleigh is a wealthy neighborhood built largely in the 1920s, with many historic Arts and Crafts style homes. According to our analysis of the permit data for just Stoneleigh, 51 out of about 490 houses or 10% of units were upgraded just in the 14-year period between 2000 and 2014, totaling $5.7 million dollars of investment. This is about $111,000 worth of upgrading per house. Unlike the process described by Charles (2014, 2013) in her study of Chicago, there was no evidence of any teardowns in this neighborhood. Rather, residents upgraded the original historic structures.

Stoneleigh and other similar examples of streetcar suburban neighborhoods in both Towson and Pikesville are listed as districts on the National Register of Historic Places, and both the county and state provide preservation tax credit incentives for homeowners within these designated districts. Baltimore County’s, 2020 master plan denotes historic preservation efforts as a priority (Baltimore County, 2010). These tax credits cannot be used for demolition of the original structure. Between 2000 and 2014, 328 Baltimore County homeowners were awarded tax credits with about 45% of these credits given to homeowners in Stoneleigh and Rodgers Forge, two streetcar suburban neighborhoods in Towson.

Reinvestment in these old streetcar neighborhoods is not coupled with any large-scale disinvestment. These places have always been solidly middle-to-upper-middle class. Suburban persistence and the continued desire to retain a suburban ideal influence the suburban reinvestment process in neighborhoods with older historic housing. Aided by government policy, residents seek to maintain and preserve the built environment and housing design of these places, a process noted by Sies (1997) in her study of similarly elite suburbs.

As Figure 2 demonstrates, residential rehabilitation is also clustered in the older suburbs of Dundalk, Bowleys Quarter, Essex, Edgemere, Middle River, and Parkville. As Table 2 notes, much of this rehabilitation was to single-family housing. In the case of Bowleys Quarters for example, a little over $28 million in permits was issued for reinvestment in rehabbing single-family dwellings. Dundalk, Essex, and Middle River experienced significant reinvestment in multifamily housing, although in dollar amounts significantly lower than what Towson experienced. In Dundalk, Essex, and Middle River, a number of garden apartments and low-rise apartment complexes experienced reinvestment in the form of alterations, and in some cases the construction of additional units. The most expensive project in Dundalk (at a total of $1.1 million) was for an addition to connect two separate apartment buildings. In the case of Essex, the most expensive rehabilitation for a multifamily complex (a total of $400,000) was related to fire damage. In Middle River, the Maple Crest Apartments were issued a permit for $250,000 for fire damage repair. This compares to the $4.2 million issued for rehabbing the historic multifamily housing in Towson.

The single home residential rehabilitation that occurred in Bowleys Quarters Dundalk, Essex, and Middle River between 2000 and 2014 includes the demolition and rebuilding of many waterfront homes. Figure 3 presents two different forms. In some cases, reasonable replacement homes lie next to smaller, original housing built during the 1940s and 1950s. In others, the knockdown rebuild results in for more luxurious homes than the initial postwar structures.

Figure 3.

Residential rehabilitation in the Baltimore County suburbs, 2000–2014.

Many waterfront homes in these suburbs were devastated when tropical storm Isabel passed through the area in 2003. In Bowleys Quarters, for example, 210 or 13% of houses were destroyed and an additional 632 or 40% of houses suffered major damage because of the storm (Nawrozki, 2005b). After Isabel, many rebuilt homes were elevated and also made much bigger. The newer structures typically ended up being much more expensive than the original homes. According to the Baltimore Sun, seven new homes built sometime after tropical storm Isabel appeared on the market for $1 million or more in 2005 (Nawrozki, 2005b). Displacement from this new construction is difficult to measure, but certainly the more luxurious homes being built are beyond the reach of more moderate-income households who may have been able to afford the original structures. While we cannot determine levels of direct displacement, we argue that there is indirect displacement resulting from this teardown process.

As mentioned, when compared to other older suburbs, Overlea, Lansdowne, Rosedale, Lochearn, and Woodlawn experienced little residential rehabilitation over the study period. The research for this paper is largely descriptive and therefore the reasons why reinvestment is negligible in these suburbs is difficult to determine. Like other older suburbs in the county, incomes have declined and poverty has increased. In Lansdowne, the poverty rates are very high, an indication that property owners may have few resources for residential reinvestment. In the case of Lochearn and Woodlawn, these suburbs are predominately African American. We know from previous research that both suburbs suffered disproportionately from the foreclosure crisis (Smithsimon, 2015). When a foreclosure occurs, homeowners have little motivation to maintain or upgrade the home under foreclosure. Others have noted the lack of government involvement in helping minority suburbs (Anacker, 2012; Anacker et al, 2012). These processes might explain some of the lack of residential investment in both these suburbs. More research, though, is needed to better understand why little rehabilitation occurred in predominately African-American suburbs, and in suburbs with rapidly growing minority populations.

Residential infill

Table 3 indicates the number and dollar amount for permits issued for new construction in each of the older suburbs of Baltimore County. We found that some permits were for the construction of a detached single-family home on interspersed vacant lots in the suburb. This accounted for 1703 permits. Other permits were issued for larger-scale projects that included the construction of residential subdivisions of townhouses or detached homes or blocks of new apartments. There were 3065 permits issued for the development of townhomes and detached housing, and 93 permits issued for apartment buildings.

Table 3.

Permit and permit amounts for residential infill for the older suburbs in Baltimore County.

	Total number of permits	Total permit amount	Total no of permits for single lot infill	Permit amount single lot infill	Total number of permits for large-scale development of SFD	Permit amount for large-scale development of SFD	Total number of permits of apartment construction	Permit amount for apartment construction
Arbutus	73	$10,800,597	73	$10,800,597	0	0	0	0
Bowleys Quarter	274	$57,043,150	189	$40,981,150	85	$16,062,000	0	0
Catonsville	311	$79,670,794	159	$32,691,794	146	$31,579,000	6	$15,400,000
Dundalk	496	$94,326,040	103	$34,349,040	389	$39,855,930	4	$20,121,070
Edgemere	195	$32,280,200	195	$32,280,200	0	0	0	0
Essex	672	$132,061,447	249	$40,335,447	416	$75,326,000	7	$16,400,000
Hampton	27	$10,615,500	27	$10,615,500	0	0	0	0
Lansdowne	79	$18,650,773	63	$6,472,000	15	$3,100,000	1	$9,078,773
Lochearn	204	$35,157,200	63	$9,382,200	141	$25,775,000	0	0
Lutherville	40	$8,793,150	40	$8,793,150	0	0	0	0
Middle River	991	$125,397,056	49	$10,532,356	941	$108,864,700	1	$6,000,000
Overlea	79	$10,132,000	41	$5,300,000	38	$4,832,000	0	0
Parkville	55	$7,137,800	55	$7,137,800	0	0	0	0
Pikesville	541	$174,731,368	87	$38,074,368	443	$113,807,000	11	$22,850,000
Rosedale	133	$17,721,200	84	$10,737,000	49	$6,984,200	0	0
Towson	380	$231,054,750	140	$48,350,500	195	$41,251,250	45	$141,453,000
Woodlawn	310	$83,834,400	86	$9,794,000	206	$43,288,400	18	$30,752,000
Total	4860	$1,129,407,425	1703	$345,900,839	3065	$510,725,480	93	$262,054,843

Large-scale development of SFD refers to the construction of townhomes, duplexes, and detached homes.

SFD: single family dwelling.

The older suburbs with the most suburban infill were the formerly industrial suburbs of Middle River, Dundalk, and Essex as well as in the older edge suburbs of Pikesville and Towson. Those suburbs with the least infill included the postwar suburbs of Arbutus, Lansdowne, and Parkville, and there was also little new construction in the largely built out and small residential community of Hampton.

Arbutus, Edgemere, Parkville, Lutherville, and Hampton experienced no large-scale infill over the study period. In contrast, most of the residential infill permits in Middle River, Pikesville, Essex, Dundalk, Woodlawn, Towson, and Lochearn were for these types of projects. In these suburbs, residential infill included the development of conventional detached suburban subdivision and townhomes. Middle River had the most large-scale projects by far, mostly in the form of conventional suburban housing and townhomes with only one permit for the construction of apartments. Residential infill in this and many of the older suburbs is not necessarily in the form of high-density apartment complexes. Those suburbs with the greatest permit activity for apartment construction included Towson, Woodlawn, and Pikesville. Towson had the most apartment construction at a cost of $141 million, accounting for more than half of the amount issued for residential infill in the suburb during the study period.

Figure 4 indicates where residential infill clustered in the older suburbs. There is evidence that residential infill concentrated in the formerly industrial suburbs of Bowleys Quarters, Middle River, Dundalk, and Essex. The new construction there consisted of large-scale projects as well as smaller single-lot development. In the case of Bowleys Quarters, most of the residential infill was for single-lot construction.

Figure 4.

Mansionization in the former industrial suburbs of Baltimore County.

One project that is indicative of the larger-scale infill development taking place among formerly industrial suburbs is the redevelopment of the Kingsley Park site in Essex (Nawrozki, 2005a). Built in the 1940s, Kingsley Park was a project-based Section 8 subsidized apartment complex that was torn down. The 18-acre site was redeveloped into the new residential community of Renaissance Square. Renaissance Square, built in 2009, consists of 48 townhouses, 67 detached houses, and an 81-unit apartment complex for seniors. In 1987, a property owner bought Kingsley Park for $5 million and renovated the complex at this time (Terhune, 2004). The property owner bought the property with a Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured mortgage loan administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 2003, the property owners’ loan was close to $10 million. During the early 2000s, there were many complaints by tenants of Kingsley Park about conditions in the complex. HUD conducted inspections in 2003 and found problems such as leaking faucets, holes in walls, defective appliances, defective wiring, rodents, and roaches. Residents and Baltimore County were concerned about drug activity and crime in the complex (Terhune, 2004).

In 2003, the property owner defaulted on the mortgage loan and rather than go forward with the foreclosure process, HUD forgave the $10 million loan, obtained the deed for the complex and sold it to Baltimore County for $10 (Terhune, 2004). Baltimore County, through its Renaissance Redevelopment Pilot Project program, demolished Kingsley Park, received bids for redevelopment of the site, and Renaissance Square was the result. Unfortunately, we could not determine an exact number of residents Kingsley Park that were displaced from the demolition of the property. The former tenants of the subsidized housing were provided with vouchers to rent in the private market. The apartment complex in Renaissance Square includes 81 units of affordable housing for seniors only. However, the remaining homes in the new development are market rate. This includes 48 townhomes and 61 detached houses. Some houses in Renaissance Square are priced around $312,000, with the least expensive housing models costing about $240,000 (see www.rensquare.com/new-homes-baltimore-essex/). The county provided $4.1 million in subsidies to the developer of Renaissance Square, Enterprise Homes, and Marks Building.

The teardown of subsidized apartments and their replacement with market rate development was common in the formerly industrial suburbs of Baltimore County. In 2005, the low-income complex of Villa Gardens in Middle River was replaced with the new residential community Miramar Landing, a complex of townhomes with an established homeowner’s association (HOA). In 2002, the subsidized apartment complex of Riverdale in Essex was torn down to make way for the new housing development of Waterview, a residential development of 175 detached homes and a community center. Vicino (2008) has written about these projects, noting the county government’s role in land acquisition and in the provision of developer incentives to make the redevelopment happen. We do not know exactly how many low-income families were displaced by these redevelopment projects, but we can assume many were forced to move elsewhere. In the case of Riverdale, this subsidized apartment complex consisted of 1140 units. The Waterview development that replaced it consists of 173 market-rate detached homes. Certainly, in this case, occupants of Riverdale could not remain in the immediate area.

As Figure 4 demonstrates, residential infill is also clustered in the suburbs of Towson and Pikesville. One major project in Towson included the development of two large apartment complexes—The Winthrop and The Quarters—close to the Towson Town Center, a revamped shopping mall in the middle of the suburb. The Winthrop consists of 295-unit luxury apartments with a health and fitness center, a swimming pool, and game room. The 175-unit Quarters complex is a similar development with comparable amenities. In total, the redevelopment of what was the old Dulaney Valley apartment site resulted in the construction of 470-unit apartments, renting for $1600–$2200 per month back in 2013 (Litten, 2013; Meoli, 2013a). The fair market rent for the Baltimore region was $1251 for a two-bedroom apartment at the time. It is important to note that there are no affordable housing units set aside within these redevelopment projects taking place in Towson.

These projects are part of a larger process of Towson’s densification, with much of it in the form of mixed-use development. In its master plan for 2020, Baltimore County envisions Towson as the urban center of the county, and has a large number of projects planned for the future (Baltimore County, 2010; Meoli, 2013b). The biggest is Towson Row, a mixed-use development that has been approved. This project will include 200,000 square feet of office space, 100,000 square feet of retail, including a Whole Foods, and 300 luxury apartments. The latest residential and commercial redevelopment reflects the extent to which Baltimore County Planning Department has embraced New Urbanist principles as far as density and mixed use. County planners highlight the increasing mixed-use and multi-family nature of new development, suggesting that people, and particularly young professionals, in the area are becoming more receptive to projects constructed in a New Urbanist style (Green, 2014). Certainly, the perception of increased market demand for mixed use, walkable neighborhoods is evident. Utilizing its Planned Unit Development initiative, the county encourages the creation of more compact development in Towson (Baltimore County, 2013).

A typology of suburban redevelopment

In Table 4, we summarize our results by indicating the type of older suburbs that experienced redevelopment, the type of redevelopment that occurred there, the various planning tools utilized, and the redevelopment process most instrumental. The first type we describe includes the old streetcar suburban neighborhoods. These are places with historic homes that require constant upkeep. Residents of these older communities can avail of the county’s historic tax credit program. In many respects, the rehabilitation taking place in these neighborhoods indicates a process of suburban persistence where the suburban ideal is highly valued by local homeowners.

Table 4.

Types of suburban redevelopment in different types of older suburbs.

Type of older suburb	Physical characteristics	Type of redevelopment	Planning tools	Redevelopment process
Old wealthy streetcar suburbs	Historic housing; arts and crafts and victorian architectural style	Residential rehabilitation in the form of reinvestment in historic building style	Historic preservation tax credits	Suburban persistence aided by local government actions
Formerly industrial suburbs	Remnants of manufacturing activity; economic decline; physical decline; waterfront	Residential rehabilitation in the form of teardowns; residential densification in the form of large-scale townhouse development on previously subsidized housing sites	Office of community conservation; Maryland Sustainable Communities Act; Baltimore regional neighborhoods initiative	Property-owner reinvestment for aging housing stock; Implementation of New Urbanist, Smart Growth agenda
Older edge cities	Commercial town centers or downtowns; surrounded by stable middle-class neighborhoods	Residential densification prompted by location of strong commercial center	Planned United Development; Maryland Sustainable Communities Act	Implementation of New Urbanist, Smart Growth agenda

The second type of older suburb that experienced redevelopment include the formerly industrial suburbs. Two redevelopment processes took place in these older suburbs. The first is rehabilitation that included the demolition of small postwar housing replaced by much larger single-family houses along the waterfront. The second is infill in the form of large-scale residential development that includes market-rate townhomes, detached houses, and senior apartments replacing subsidized apartment complexes. The county was heavily involved in these efforts through subsidizing demolition and redevelopment. The elements of the suburban redevelopment process most significant in the case of formerly industrial suburbs are the planning regime’s implementation of a New Urbanist, Smart Growth agenda alongside individual property owner’s capital investment and teardowns. The result, we argue, is significant displacement of low-income households because of the demolition of subsidized housing and its replacement largely with market-rate homes, and, we argue, a suburban form of gentrification where indirect displacement occurs as moderate-income families can no longer afford to purchase newly built and expensive homes along the waterfront.

The third type of suburb where redevelopment occurred include the old edge cities of Pikesville and Towson. Phelps (2015) and Phelps and Woods (2011) argue that edge cities or post-suburbs are governed by a development regime that has adopted a growth ethos similar to the traditional understanding of the growth machine (Logan and Molotch, 2007; see also Teaford, 1997). With older edge cities, we suggest there is a regrowth machine. In the case of Baltimore County, expansion is limited because of the urban growth boundary, and thus the focus is on increasing density inward. In the case of Towson, the large-scale redevelopment projects include densification with the construction of new apartment complexes. Nearby development of mixed use projects was aided by such planning tools as Baltimore County’s Planned United Development (PUD) flexible zoning.

Discussion and conclusion

Our analysis reveals that Baltimore County has largely been successful at encouraging redevelopment in particular suburbs, especially inside its urban growth boundary. This redevelopment takes on varied forms. It includes residential rehabilitation in the form of detached single-family housing modification, the teardown and rebuild process, and, to a much lesser extent, the rehab of multifamily housing. It also includes residential infill in the form of the construction of single homes on interspersed lots within a suburb or in the form of larger-scale construction projects that include the development of subdivisions of townhomes, detached houses, and new apartment blocks. Apartment block construction is taking place in only a few select suburbs, and so the extent to which redevelopment is leading to higher density development is questionable.

Residential rehabilitation has occurred in old wealthy streetcar suburbs. This consists of renovations of historic structures. Residential rehabilitation in the form of the demolition of small postwar houses and the rebuilding of much larger structures has occurred in formerly industrial suburbs.

Residential infill has occurred in suburbs that are strong centers of employment and areas of existing density that includes the old edge city of Towson in particular. In other cases, infill has occurred in formerly industrial suburbs, typically in conjunction with residential rehabilitation in the form of the teardown and rebuild process along suburban waterfront areas. We argue that the redevelopment of these working-class spaces is a revalorization process similar to what has occurred in the form of gentrification in inner cities.

Our results raise some interesting topics for future research. We believe that residential infill in formerly industrial suburbs has resulted in both the direct and indirect displacement of low-income families. Further research is needed to more accurately measure the direct displacement from subsidized apartments that were replaced with market rate residential development, and to determine if this is a process that has occurred in the suburbs of other regions in the U.S. In addition, we need to better understand if indirect displacement has occurred because of the teardown and rebuild process along the waterfront of formerly industrial suburbs. We believe it has since many of the teardown replacements are expensive homes unaffordable to modest income households typical of these working-class communities.

In addition, we found in this study that suburban redevelopment is uneven across the suburban landscape. However, this paper does not fully answer why this is the case. Why do some suburbs experience more reinvestment than others? What are some of the impacts of a lack of reinvestment on suburbs? What are some of the effects of redevelopment on the existing social landscape and morphology of suburbs? Our findings suggest that there are suburbs where there is little reinvestment in the existing housing stock. In this respect, planners may be too focused on large-scale projects in select suburbs rather than seeking incremental solutions such as grant programs for the repair of existing homes in declining communities.

Finally, we argue that planners must play a role in making sure that efforts to redevelop the suburbs do not lead to the exclusion and displacement of low-income groups or the neglect of minority suburbs and minority populations. This is especially important as suburbs continue to transform into more diverse places, as inner-ring suburbs become increasingly devalorized (Hackworth, 2005), and as suburban poverty grows.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Al-Hindi

(2001) The new urbanism: Where and for whom? Investigation of an emergent paradigm. Urban Geography 22(3): 202–219.

Anacker

(2012) Shaky palaces? Analyzing property values and their appreciation in minority first suburbs. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 36(4): 791–816.

Anacker

Morrow-Jones

(2008) Mature suburbs, property values, and decline in the Midwest? The case of Cuyahoga County. Housing Policy Debate 19(3): 519–552.

Anacker

Carr

Pradhan

(2012) Analyzing foreclosures among high-income Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino borrowers in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Housing and Society 39(1): 1–28.

Anselin

(1995) Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geographical Analysis 27(2): 93–115.

Arendt

(2004) Crossroads, hamlet, village, town: Design characteristics of traditional neighborhoods, old and new. Planning advisory service report nos. 523/524, May 1. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Atkinson-Palombo

(2010) New housing construction in Phoenix: Evidence of “new suburbanism”? Cities 27(2): 77–86.

Baltimore County (2010) Baltimore County Maryland Master plan 2020. Report for Baltimore County Department of Planning. Baltimore County, Maryland.

Baltimore County (2013) Living the downtown Towson life. In: Patch Towson. Available at: https://patch.com/maryland/towson/living-the-downtown-towson-life (accessed 13 February 2016).

10.

Benfield

Terris

Vorsanger

(2001) Solving sprawl: Models of Smart Growth in Communities across America. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Defense Council.

11.

Brewer

Grant

(2015) Seeking density and mix in the suburbs: Challenges for mid-sized cities. Planning Theory and Practice 16(2): 151–168.

12.

Charles

(2014) The spatio-temporal pattern of housing redevelopment in suburban Chicago, 2000–2010. Urban Studies 51(12): 2646–2664.

13.

Charles

(2013) Understanding the determinants of single-family residential redevelopment in the inner-ring suburbs of Chicago. Urban Studies 50(8): 1505–1522.

14.

Congress for the New Urbanism (2018) What is new urbanism? Retrieved from www.cnu.org/resources/what-new-urbanism

15.

Congress for the New Urbanism (2004) Codifying new urbanism. Planning advisory service report no. 526, 30 June. Chicago: American Planning Association.

16.

Cooke

(2010) Residential mobility of the poor and the growth of poverty in inner ring suburbs. Urban Geography 31(2): 179–193.

17.

Crump

Newman

Belsky

et al . (2008) Cities destroyed (again) for cash: Forum on the US foreclosure crisis. Urban Geography 29(8): 745–784.

18.

De Jong

(2014) New Suburbanisms. Oxford: Routledge

19.

Delmelle

Zhou

Thill

(2014) Densification without growth management? Evidence from local land development and housing trends in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. Sustainability 6(6): 3975–3990.

20.

Dunham-Jones

Williamson

(2011) Retrofitting Suburbia. Hoboken: Wiley.

21.

Dye

McMillen

(2007) Teardowns and land values in the Chicago metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Economics 61(1): 45–63.

22.

Ellis

(2002) The new urbanism: Critiques and rebuttals. Journal of Urban Design 7(3): 261–291.

23.

Ewing

(1997) Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association 63(1): 107–126.

24.

Ewing

Hamidi

(2015) Compactness versus sprawl: A review of recent evidence from the United States. CPL Bibliography 30(4): 413–432.

25.

Farley

(1964) Suburban persistence. American Sociological Review 29(1): 38–47.

26.

Filion

(2015) Suburban inertia: The entrenchment of dispersed suburbanism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39(3): 633–640.

27.

Frece

(2009) Sprawl and Politics: The Inside Story of Smart Growth in Maryland. Buffalo: SUNY Press.

28.

Frumkin

Frank

Jackson

(2004) Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

29.

Goetz

(2013) Suburban sprawl or urban centres: Tensions and contradictions of smart growth approaches in Denver, Colorado. Urban Studies 50(11): 2178–2195.

30.

Grant

(2002) Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association 68(1): 71–84.

31.

Grant

Nelson

Forsyth

et al . (2013) The future of suburbs. Planning theory and practice 14(3): 391–415.

32.

Green

(2014) Personal interview with D. Green, 26 September.

33.

Hackworth

(2005) Emergent urban forms, or emergent post-modernisms? A comparison of large U.S. metropolitan areas. Urban Geography 26(6): 484–519.

34.

Handy

Sallis

Weber

et al . (2008) Is support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence from two national surveys. Journal of the American Planning Association 74(2): 209–221.

35.

Hanlon

(2015) Beyond sprawl: Social sustainability and reinvestment in the Baltimore suburbs. In: Anacker

(ed) The New American suburb: Poverty, race and the economic crisis. Burlington: Ashgate, pp.133–152.

36.

Hanlon

(2010) Once the American Dream: Inner-Ring Suburbs in the Metropolitan United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

37.

Hanlon

Vicino

(2007) The fate of inner suburbs: Evidence from metropolitan Baltimore. Urban Geography 28(3): 249–275.

38.

Harvey

(2005) The new urbanism and the communitarian trap. In: Saunders

(ed) Sprawl and Suburbia: A Harvard Design Magazine Reader. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp.21–26.

39.

Hirt

(2013) Form follows function? How America zones. Planning Practice and Research 28(2): 204–230.

40.

Kelly

(1993) Expanding the American Dream: Building and Rebuilding Levittown. Albany: SUNY Press.

41.

Knaap

Hopkins-Brown

Lewis

(2015) Rezoning Montgomery: People politics and place. In: Talen

(ed) Retrofitting Sprawl: Addressing Seventy Years of Failed Urban Form. Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp.57–79.

42.

Knaap

Talen

(2005) New urbanism and smart growth: A few words from the academy. International Regional Science Review 28(2): 107–118.

43.

Kneebone

Berube

(2013) Confronting Suburban Poverty in America. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

44.

Knezevich

(2014) A new brand for Dundalk. The Baltimore Sun, 10 June.

45.

Landis

(2017) The end of sprawl? Not so fast. Housing Policy Debate 27(5): 659–697.

46.

Lee

Leigh

(2005) The role of inner ring suburbs in metropolitan smart growth strategies. Journal of Planning Literature 19(3): 330–346.

47.

Lewis

Knaap

Sohn

(2009) Managing growth with priority funding areas: A good idea whose time has yet to come. Journal of the American Planning Association 75(4): 457–478.

48.

Litten

(2013) $100 million, 470-unit Towson apartment project advances stalled development. Baltimore Business Journal, 1 August, 2013.

49.

Logan

Molotch

(2007) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press

50.

Lucy

Phillips

(2000) Confronting Suburban Decline. Washington DC: Island Press.

51.

Lucy

Phillips

(1997) The post-suburban era comes to Richmond: City decline, suburban transition, and exurban growth. Landscape and Urban Planning 36(4): 259–275.

52.

MacLeod

(2013) New urbanism/smart growth in the Scottish Highlands: Mobile policies and post-politics in local development planning. Urban Studies 50(11): 2196–2221.

53.

Madden

(2003) The changing spatial concentration of income and poverty among suburbs of large US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies 40(3): 481–503.

54.

Mandelker

(2007) Planned Unit Developments. Planning advisory service report no. 545, 13 April. Chicago: American Planning Association.

55.

Markley

Sharma

(2016) Gentrification in the Revanchist Suburb: The politics of removal in Roswell, Georgia. Southeastern Geographer 56(1): 57–80.

56.

McManus

Ethington

(2007) Suburbs in transition: New approaches to suburban history. Urban History 34(2): 317–337.

57.

Meoli

(2013a) Panel approves plans for Dulaney valley apartment. The Baltimore Sun, 14 March, 2013

58.

Meoli

(2013b) Development underway on Towson’s luxury apartments. The Baltimore Sun, 2 August, 2013

59.

Moore

(2013) What’s wrong with best practice? Questioning the typification of new urbanism. Urban Studies 50(11): 2371–2387.

60.

Myers

Gearin

(2001) Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 633–659.

61.

Nasar

Evans-Cowley

Mantero

(2007) McMansions: The extent and regulation of super-sized houses. Journal of Urban Design 12(3): 339–358.

62.

Nawrozki

(2005a) Miramar Landing development builds interest in Middle River. The Baltimore Sun, 20 July, 2005

63.

Nawrozki

(2005b) Embracing Isabel’s ‘silver lining.’ The Baltimore Sun, 24 October, 2005.

64.

Nelson

(2009) The new urbanity: The rise of a new America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 626(1): 192–208.

65.

Nelson

(2012) The mass market for suburban low-density development is over. The Urban Lawyer 44(4): 811–826.

66.

Niedt

(2006) Gentrification and the grassroots: Popular support in the revanchist suburb. Journal of Urban Affairs 28(2): 99–120.

67.

New York Times (2017) Levittown through the years. Available at: www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/10/12/nyregion/20071013_LEVITTOWN_SLIDESHOW_index-6.html (accessed 23 June 2017).

68.

Phelps

(2015) Sequel to Suburbia: Glimpses of America’s Post-suburban Future. Cambridge: MIT Press.

69.

Phelps

Wood

(2011) The new post-suburban politics? Urban Studies 48(12): 2591–2610.

70.

Pinnegar

Freestone

Randolph

(2010) Suburban reinvestment through ‘knockdown rebuild’ in Sydney. In: Clapson

Hutchinson

(eds) Suburbanization in a Global Society. Bingley: Emerald Insight, pp.205–229.

71.

Pothering

(2017) Are low-income communities getting their fair share under the Community Reinvestment Act? Impact Alpha. Available at: http://impactalpha.com/are-low-income-communities-getting-their-fair-share-under-the-community-reinvestment-act/ (accessed 20 March 2017).

72.

Rome

(2001) The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

73.

Sies

(1997) Paradise retained: An analysis of persistence in planned, exclusive suburbs, 1880–1980. Planning Perspectives 12(2): 165–191.

74.

Smithsimon

(2015) Punctuated equilibrium: Community reponses to neoliberalism in three suburban communities in Baltimore County, Maryland. In: Anacker

(ed) The New American Suburb: Poverty, Race and the Economic Crisis. Burlington: Ashgate, pp.187–212.

75.

Squires

(2002) Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences, & Policy Responses. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

76.

Talen

(2015) Retrofitting Sprawl: Addressing Seventy Years of Failed Urban Form. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

77.

Talen

(2013) Zoning for and against sprawl: The case for form-based codes. Journal of Urban Design 18(2): 175–200.

78.

Tian

Ewing

Greene

(2015) Desire for smart growth: A survey of residential preferences in the Salt Lake region of Utah. Housing Policy Debate 25(3): 446–462.

79.

Teaford

(1997) Post-suburbia: Government and Politics in the Edge Cities. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

80.

Terhune

(2004) Residents leave complex. The Baltimore Sun, 31 August, 2004.

81.

Urban Land Institute (2012) Shifting Suburbs: Reinventing Infrastructure for Compact Development. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

82.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2017) Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics U.S. Census Summary file 3 (2006-2010) American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Available at https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml (accessed 22 March 2017).

83.

Vicino

(2008) The quest to confront suburban decline political realities and lessons. Urban Affairs Review 43(4): 553–581.

84.

Williamson

(2013) Designing Suburban Futures: New Models from Build and Better Burb. Washington, DC: Island Press.