I am a resident on E. 3rd st. I am happy to see movement on this property, but I urge the planning commission to throughly consider how this style and density of development will impact the lives of the current residents on the 200/300 blocks of E. 2nd and 3rd streets. Specifically, I am concerned about:
1) The additional traffic strain points at Austin alley and E. 2nd st at East. Those are both already dangerous intersections for both cars and pedestrians, and this level of density will only make it worse.
2) The change in aesthetic on East st. The proposed 2 over 2 buildings will dwarf both the nearby housing and businesses, changing both the lighting and ambiance of the block. We purchased housing (and pay taxes) because we like the aesthetic of the East street area with tree-lined streets and traditional low height brick and wood buildings.
“Urban renewal” where modern car-centered architecture retrofitted inadvertently decimated the character of many smaller towns and cities. While development is unavoidable, I encourage planning commission scale back the size of this development given it's location within it's proximity to the historic district and not repeat the same mistakes that devastated other small cities 50 years ago.
I am a resident of. E 3rd street. While I agree that something meaningful needs to be done with this vacant space, I believe this planned development is not in the best interest of the community in the historic district. These homes should be required to comply with the architectural style of the current buildings in the area. Downtown Frederick is appealing to residents and tourists alike due to the preserved historic architecture of the buildings, and constructing tall, high density, and modern buildings like this will take away from the charm that draws people in and keeps our local businesses open and thriving. Just as current residents in historic buildings are required to adhere to specific guidelines, new construction should be held to the same standard.
I’m excited to see new investment in downtown Frederick, but the plans for the former Roads & Rails Museum site should reflect both the history of the property and the unique character of East Street. This street is defined by its early 20th-century homes with welcoming front porches, grassy front yards, and a human scale that makes it feel friendly and walkable. Those features encourage neighborly interaction and soften the look of the street. Any new building here should pick up on that rhythm with real setbacks, green space, and porches or stoops that connect to the neighborhood’s style, like you see at Shab Row or Pistarro’s.
Right now it feels like every square foot is being packed with housing, but there’s a real opportunity to create meaningful green space. I can imagine a public sculpture garden or landscaped courtyard, using pieces of the old museum building as part of the design. Brick walls, beams, or old rail elements could become seating areas, art displays, or even a small pavilion. That would keep a piece of the site’s history alive and give people a reason to visit beyond just living there.
This spot is also an important link in East Street’s future as a walkable, connected corridor. Sidewalks, bike access, and open views into green spaces would make it an inviting part of the neighborhood instead of a closed-off block.
This project could be so much more than another apartment building. If it embraced front porches, kept real green space, and worked the existing museum structure into something visually appealing and welcoming, it could be a place we’d all be proud of—something that fits into East Street’s next chapter while keeping its character intact.
As a nearby resident, I am thrilled to see proposed housing here that would replace a vacant building with more urgently needed homes. Despite inevitable complaints from a vocal minority who reflexively oppose any housing and want to wish away economic reality, we need more housing, of all types, as soon as possible. Dense housing that is built out in the walkable city core is an objectively better option for the community than continued car-centric sprawl. Please move ahead with this project.
Let's encourage 2 over 2 if they increase density, and lower the average home price in Frederick. Maybe this will help alleviate the missing middle. I hope the city requires preservation and modification of the existing structure.
I am a resident on E. 3rd st. I am happy to see movement on this property, but I urge the planning commission to throughly consider how this style and density of development will impact the lives of the current residents on the 200/300 blocks of E. 2nd and 3rd streets. Specifically, I am concerned about:
1) The additional traffic strain points at Austin alley and E. 2nd st at East. Those are both already dangerous intersections for both cars and pedestrians, and this level of density will only make it worse.
2) The change in aesthetic on East st. The proposed 2 over 2 buildings will dwarf both the nearby housing and businesses, changing both the lighting and ambiance of the block. We purchased housing (and pay taxes) because we like the aesthetic of the East street area with tree-lined streets and traditional low height brick and wood buildings.
“Urban renewal” where modern car-centered architecture retrofitted inadvertently decimated the character of many smaller towns and cities. While development is unavoidable, I encourage planning commission scale back the size of this development given it's location within it's proximity to the historic district and not repeat the same mistakes that devastated other small cities 50 years ago.
I am a resident of. E 3rd street. While I agree that something meaningful needs to be done with this vacant space, I believe this planned development is not in the best interest of the community in the historic district. These homes should be required to comply with the architectural style of the current buildings in the area. Downtown Frederick is appealing to residents and tourists alike due to the preserved historic architecture of the buildings, and constructing tall, high density, and modern buildings like this will take away from the charm that draws people in and keeps our local businesses open and thriving. Just as current residents in historic buildings are required to adhere to specific guidelines, new construction should be held to the same standard.
I’m excited to see new investment in downtown Frederick, but the plans for the former Roads & Rails Museum site should reflect both the history of the property and the unique character of East Street. This street is defined by its early 20th-century homes with welcoming front porches, grassy front yards, and a human scale that makes it feel friendly and walkable. Those features encourage neighborly interaction and soften the look of the street. Any new building here should pick up on that rhythm with real setbacks, green space, and porches or stoops that connect to the neighborhood’s style, like you see at Shab Row or Pistarro’s.
Right now it feels like every square foot is being packed with housing, but there’s a real opportunity to create meaningful green space. I can imagine a public sculpture garden or landscaped courtyard, using pieces of the old museum building as part of the design. Brick walls, beams, or old rail elements could become seating areas, art displays, or even a small pavilion. That would keep a piece of the site’s history alive and give people a reason to visit beyond just living there.
This spot is also an important link in East Street’s future as a walkable, connected corridor. Sidewalks, bike access, and open views into green spaces would make it an inviting part of the neighborhood instead of a closed-off block.
This project could be so much more than another apartment building. If it embraced front porches, kept real green space, and worked the existing museum structure into something visually appealing and welcoming, it could be a place we’d all be proud of—something that fits into East Street’s next chapter while keeping its character intact.
As a nearby resident, I am thrilled to see proposed housing here that would replace a vacant building with more urgently needed homes. Despite inevitable complaints from a vocal minority who reflexively oppose any housing and want to wish away economic reality, we need more housing, of all types, as soon as possible. Dense housing that is built out in the walkable city core is an objectively better option for the community than continued car-centric sprawl. Please move ahead with this project.
Rebekah Bydlak, Frederick, MD
Let's encourage 2 over 2 if they increase density, and lower the average home price in Frederick. Maybe this will help alleviate the missing middle. I hope the city requires preservation and modification of the existing structure.