The Next Nashville? Billions In New Investment Could Put Baltimore Back On The Map

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm extremely confident that you can find a contiguous area of 141 miles and 1 million people in Metro Detroit. It would require excluding some of the depopulated areas inside the city of Detroit and combining some of the inner ring suburbs, but I'm certain you can get there.

Keep in mind that as much as 40 square miles of Detroit's land is vacant, so if you just add populated areas of Detroit, the enclave of Hamtramck, and Detroit's two largest bordering suburbs you get pretty close to 1 million in 159 square miles by subtracting 40 from Detroit's official land area. If you did this by census tract, it would be pretty straightforward to get there.

Detroit: 639,111
Warren, MI: 139,387
Dearborn, MI: 109,976
Hamtramck, MI: 28,433

Total pop.: 916,907
Estimated occupied land area: 159 square miles

Detroit isn't picking another +100k residents in 20 less sq/mi after Warren already cancels out the cities most dilapidated 24-40 sq/mi of land.

Baltimore
Baltimore - 585,708 / 80.95 sq/mi
Dundalk - 67,796 / 13.09 sq/mi
Towson - 59, 553 / 14.15 sq/mi
Catonsville - 44,701 / 13.96 sq/mi
Woodlawn - 39,986 / 9.54 sq/mi
Pikesville - 34,168 / 12.35 sq/mi
Parkville - 31,812 / 4.29 sq/mi
Millford Mill - 30,622 / 6.95 sq/mi
Lochern - 25,511 / 5.59 sq/mi

Total Population: 941,512
Land Area: 160.87

Thats with no gerrymandering and including all vacant land, park space/forest, industrial, port, etc.

Detroit isn't as dense as Baltimore, not because Baltimore is "bigger" but because it's lost 2/3rds of it's population.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

Detroit isn't picking another +100k residents in 20 less sq/mi after Warren already cancels out the cities most dilapidated 24-40 sq/mi of land.

Baltimore
Baltimore - 585,708 / 80.95 sq/mi
Dundalk - 67,796 / 13.09 sq/mi
Towson - 59, 553 / 14.15 sq/mi
Catonsville - 44,701 / 13.96 sq/mi
Woodlawn - 39,986 / 9.54 sq/mi
Pikesville - 34,168 / 12.35 sq/mi
Parkville - 31,812 / 4.29 sq/mi
Millford Mill - 30,622 / 6.95 sq/mi
Lochern - 25,511 / 5.59 sq/mi

Total Population: 941,512
Land Area: 160.87

Thats with no gerrymandering and including all vacant land, park space/forest, industrial, port, etc.

Detroit isn't as dense as Baltimore, not because Baltimore is "bigger" but because it's lost 2/3rds of it's population.

Detroit and Baltimore's urban areas have almost the same density. Anyway my point was not that Detroit was denser, or as dense as Baltimore. My point was that Detroit is a much bigger metro than Baltimore.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit and Baltimore's urban areas have almost the same density. Anyway my point was not that Detroit was denser, or as dense as Baltimore. My point was that Detroit is a much bigger metro than Baltimore.

Urban area doesn't capture accurate density. Regular population density (UA/MSA) computes the average number of people per unit area. Population weighted density shows the density the average (in some sense) person lives in. Theres a difference. Detroit & Baltimore UA's have a higher average density than Boston's, neither have a higher weighted density and to that point nobody contested that Detroit was bigger region than Baltimore though.

[craigs]

For those who don't know what UAs are or how they are determined, here is an explanation from Wikipedia:

An urban area is defined by the Census Bureau as a contiguous set of census blocks that are "densely developed residential, commercial, and other nonresidential areas".

Urban areas consist of a densely-settled urban core, plus surrounding developed areas that meet certain density criteria. Since urban areas are composed of census blocks and not cities, counties, or county-equivalents, urban area boundaries may consist of partial areas of these political units. Urban areas are distinguished from rural areas: any area not part of an urban area is considered to be rural by the Census Bureau. The list in this article includes urban areas with a population of at least 50,000, but urban areas may have as few as 5,000 residents or 2,000 housing units.

For the 2020 census, the Census Bureau redefined the classification of urban areas. The criteria were finalized on March 24, 2022, after a period of public input, and the final results of delineation were published on December 29, 2022. Key changes for the 2020 criteria included:

• The removal of the distinction between urbanized areas and urban clusters. Urbanized areas were previously defined as urban areas with at least 50,000 residents, and urban clusters were urban areas with less than 50,000. All qualifying areas are now designated as urban areas.
• The use of housing unit density as an alternative minimum for inclusion: either 2,000 housing units or a population of 5,000 may qualify an area as an urban area. Previously, this minimum was 2,500 in population.
• The lowering of the allowable "jump distance" from 2.5 to 1.5 miles. A jump is a distance along a road to connect two urban territories surrounded by rural territory.

[mhays]

Metro densities are worthless in the Western US, where "metro" counties can be thousands of square miles and mostly wilderness.

I wish UAs came in more than one gradient. The 1,000/sm standard is pretty low, basically scattered housing and horse farms. I'd love to see numbers at 2,000/sm, which would at least seem like low-end suburbia. Additional gradients like 5,000 could show dense suburban and urban areas.

Oh hell, let's geek out on this. Give me 10,000 and 20,000 too. And 50,000 for the top handful.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by pj3000

You're claiming that Philadelphia doesn't have the port legacy that Baltimore and St. Louis have. What's your definition of "port legacy"?

- The port of Philadelphia was founded in 1701.

- The first US Navy shipyard was founded in Philadelphia in 1776. It was operational until the mid 1990s.

- The port of Philadelphia was the largest and busiest in the nation in the colonial era.

- The port's Hog Island was the largest shipbuilding facility on the planet in the first half of the 20th century.

What I meant to imply is that Philly isn't overly reliant on it's port like Baltimore and St Louis are. That's what I meant by "port legacy". Sure Philly has the largest freshwater port, but it's more than just a large freshwater port. It's a rail and road hub, a major educational and medical center, the retail and financial center, and the largest city in PA as well as the Delaware Valley region.

Baltimore is the largest city in MD, and St Louis is the second largest city (and the largest metro area) in MO, but both cities don't have anything in the same breadth as Philly when it comes to education, medical, and even commerce. Let's not get it twisted.

Originally Posted by pj3000

The Mason-Dixon Line's western end is south of Pittsburgh, i.e, nowhere fucking near Missouri.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason–Dixon_line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_R..._states_border

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_River

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missou..._state_in_1821

Albeit the Mason-Dixon Line does end near the southern end of Pittsburgh, it's relevance does extend along the Ohio River, which was used as an extension of the Mason - Dixon Line, and even as far as MO. KS was a free state, but MO, and KY remained slave states until the end of the Civil War. KY was a part of the Confederacy, but MD and MO were the only two Union states that were also slave states. Whether the Mason - Dixon Line ended in SW PA or as far as MO, the point I was trying to make was that both MD and MO were both slave states and that both states were also associated with the Union.

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Definitely overlap between Detroit and L.A. too, particularly in the areas of each city built between 1930 and 1950. I think of Detroit as the last major prewar city, and L.A. as the first postwar city. And although Detroit and L.A. added the bulk of their populations after 1910, Detroit's layout was more of a product of the late 19th century than Los Angeles's.

There very much was/is overlap between Detroit and Philly, starting with the physical size and densities of the two cities, both of which are cities of roughly 140 square miles that topped out around 2 million in population. Both cities experienced a ton of white and corporate flight to the suburbs starting in the 1950s, and reverse commuting to jobs in the suburbs became the norm in both cities. Both cities are located on the western bank of a river in the southeastern corner of their respective states, located across a river from a different state/territory. The most affluent suburbs of each city are to the northwest of the city's core.

Detroit and Philadelphia had similar racial demographics in the mid-20th century. In 1960, Philadelphia was 72% white (and 26% Black) vs Detroit at 71% white (and 29% Black). In 1970 Philadelphia was 64% white (and 33% Black) vs Detroit at 56% white (and 44% Black). Both cities were very late to attracting Hispanic immigrants. Today Philadelphia is about 15% Hispanic, while Detroit is 8% Hispanic. White flight was absolutely far more thorough in Detroit, though. And Philadelphia preserved way more of its urban fabric.

I would say that between 1920 and 1970, Detroit and Philadelphia has a lot of similarities, but after the 1967 riots, and just as when the 70's hit, those similarities started to cease, as Detroit became blacker during the 70's, while it took Philly awhile to have a much larger black population, as high as 44% around 2014.

Philly nowadays is much more diverse than Detroit, with about 16% Latino and 8% Asian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia#Demographics), while Detroit is only 8% Latino and about 1.5% Asian. Also, Philly is still as Top 10 city, while Detroit, due to it's 70-year decline, ceased being a Top 10 city at around 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_U...#City_rankings), with 2000 being the last time Detroit was recorded anywhere within the Top 10 cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_U...#City_rankings).

Finally, it didn't help that Detroit's main industry has been the auto industry, while Philly's industries was much more varied (banking, textiles, railroads, iron and steel, food processing, etc.), therefore Philly suffered a much softer economic blow than Detroit during deindustrialization, as well as benefitting from being in the BosWash corridor in the Northeast, as opposed to being an isolated city in the vast Midwest.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

What I meant to imply is that Philly isn't overly reliant on it's port like Baltimore and St Louis are. That's what I meant by "port legacy".

St. Louis...is not situated on an ocean. Ocean-going vessels can navigate the Mississippi River only as far north as Baton Rouge, LA.

It's a rail and road hub,

Pretty much every city in the United States has a ton of railroads and roads. What does differentiate cities is the presence of a hub airport with many international flights. Detroit's fortunes changed in the 2010s because Delta bought Northwest and moved its Cincinnati hub to Detroit. Meanwhile, with maybe 1/3 of the domestic flights in 2024 than it had in 2004, and stripped of its 10+ daily non-stops to Europe, Cincinnati has been in relative decline. Several formerly dominant cities like Cleveland and St. Louis and Pittsburgh lost their airline hubs 10+ years before Cincinnati.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Philly is the east coast Detroit, IMO. The Detroit & Philly similarities were still glaringly obvious 20 years ago, but they've been trending in different directions since so I get why people don't pick up on it.

Philadelphia and Detroit are nothing alike.

The only people who kept calling Philadelphia "the next Detroit" were suburbanites who never set foot in the city and viewed the city through the Big Story each night on Action News.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

I would say that between 1920 and 1970, Detroit and Philadelphia has a lot of similarities, but after the 1967 riots, and just as when the 70's hit, those similarities started to cease, as Detroit became blacker during the 70's, while it took Philly awhile to have a much larger black population, as high as 44% around 2014.

Philly nowadays is much more diverse than Detroit, with about 16% Latino and 8% Asian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia#Demographics), while Detroit is only 8% Latino and about 1.5% Asian. Also, Philly is still as Top 10 city, while Detroit, due to it's 70-year decline, ceased being a Top 10 city at around 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_U...#City_rankings), with 2000 being the last time Detroit was recorded anywhere within the Top 10 cities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_U...#City_rankings).

Finally, it didn't help that Detroit's main industry has been the auto industry, while Philly's industries was much more varied (banking, textiles, railroads, iron and steel, food processing, etc.), therefore Philly suffered a much softer economic blow than Detroit during deindustrialization, as well as benefitting from being in the BosWash corridor in the Northeast, as opposed to being an isolated city in the vast Midwest.

Yes, Detroit clearly has declined far more than Philadelphia since the mid-century population peak. Detroit's population is down 65% from its peak in 1950, while Philadelphia is only down 23%. But if Detroit today was only 23% off of its mid-century peak, it would look a lot like Philadelphia today.

[Crawford]

I don't really get the Philly-Detroit comparison. Yeah, they both declined pretty badly, and they both have a lot of black people. That doesn't seem, by itself, to be a strong argument.

Most cities in Northeast & Midwest have a lot of black people, and had serious late 20th century decline. Why not Baltimore & Chicago, or Cleveland and DC? Makes about as much sense.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Philly is the east coast Detroit, IMO.

lol I kinda wish you didn't make this comparison in here. So many Philadelphians who know next to nothing about Detroit.

I don't view them as alike though tbh. Original colony city versus Midwest industrial boom town. Not much is similar. Detroit is more like Chicago than any other city really. And yeah yeah obviously less traditional urban fabric.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

What I meant to imply is that Philly isn't overly reliant on it's port like Baltimore and St Louis are. That's what I meant by "port legacy". Sure Philly has the largest freshwater port, but it's more than just a large freshwater port. It's a rail and road hub, a major educational and medical center, the retail and financial center, and the largest city in PA as well as the Delaware Valley region.

Baltimore is the largest city in MD, and St Louis is the second largest city (and the largest metro area) in MO, but both cities don't have anything in the same breadth as Philly when it comes to education, medical, and even commerce. Let's not get it twisted.

Well that's entirely not what you said. And the use of "port legacy" is a pretty shitty choice of words to imply what you're trying to convey about Philadelphia, which is basic knowledge to all of us anyway. No one is getting anything twisted except you.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, Detroit clearly has declined far more than Philadelphia since the mid-century population peak. Detroit's population is down 65% from its peak in 1950, while Philadelphia is only down 23%. But if Detroit today was only 23% off of its mid-century peak, it would look a lot like Philadelphia today.

You should articulate why they're so similar instead of relying us to refute that they're not.

Other than them being both somewhat black and industrial?

The built forms of the cities are literally nothing alike. The housing typologies, nothing alike. The transit systems, nothing alike. Regional accessibility, nothing alike.

So what exactly are you talking about?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

You should articulate why they're so similar instead of relying us to refute that they're not.

Other than them being both somewhat black and industrial?

The built forms of the cities are literally nothing alike. The housing typologies, nothing alike. The transit systems, nothing alike. Regional accessibility, nothing alike.

So what exactly are you talking about?

I did.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Definitely overlap between Detroit and L.A. too, particularly in the areas of each city built between 1930 and 1950. I think of Detroit as the last major prewar city, and L.A. as the first postwar city. And although Detroit and L.A. added the bulk of their populations after 1910, Detroit's layout was more of a product of the late 19th century than Los Angeles's.

There very much was/is overlap between Detroit and Philly, starting with the physical size and densities of the two cities, both of which are cities of roughly 140 square miles that topped out around 2 million in population. Both cities experienced a ton of white and corporate flight to the suburbs starting in the 1950s, and reverse commuting to jobs in the suburbs became the norm in both cities. Both cities are located on the western bank of a river in the southeastern corner of their respective states, located across a river from a different state/territory. The most affluent suburbs of each city are to the northwest of the city's core.

Detroit and Philadelphia had similar racial demographics in the mid-20th century. In 1960, Philadelphia was 72% white (and 26% Black) vs Detroit at 71% white (and 29% Black). In 1970 Philadelphia was 64% white (and 33% Black) vs Detroit at 56% white (and 44% Black). Both cities were very late to attracting Hispanic immigrants. Today Philadelphia is about 15% Hispanic, while Detroit is 8% Hispanic. White flight was absolutely far more thorough in Detroit, though. And Philadelphia preserved way more of its urban fabric.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, Detroit clearly has declined far more than Philadelphia since the mid-century population peak. Detroit's population is down 65% from its peak in 1950, while Philadelphia is only down 23%. But if Detroit today was only 23% off of its mid-century peak, it would look a lot like Philadelphia today.

Even more telling than the population stats is the difference in # of households over the past 7 decades between the two cities

Philly's population loss is 100% driven by the decrease in average household size (something legacy cities everywhere have had to contend with), as it actually has more households today than it did in 1950.

Detroit, on the other hand, has not only experienced population loss due to household size decrease, it's also lost an astonishing # of its actual households since 1950, roughly 50%. That double whammy is why detroit feels so much "emptier" today.

[pj3000]

One of my college roommates was from the wealthy suburbs of Detroit and the other was from the wealthy suburbs of Philadelphia. They both thought they were WAY tougher than they actually were.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Even more telling than the population stats is the difference in # of households over the past 7 decades between the two cities

Philly's population loss is 100% driven by the decrease in average household size (something legacy cities everywhere have had to contend with), as it actually has more households today than it did in 1950.

Detroit, on the other hand, has not only experienced population loss due to household size decrease, it's also lost an astonishing # of its actual households since 1950, roughly 50%. That double whammy is why detroit feels so much "emptier" today.

Within roughly a decade, the city of Detroit went from producing tens of thousands of new housing units per decade to producing virtually none, as the city had completely run out of land by about 1960. There was practically no new housing units produced in Detroit after about 1970. After 1970, practically every new unit of housing in Metro Detroit was built in a suburb, and new housing units were overwhelmingly built on farmland.

Chicago and east coast cities did manage to continue housing construction, albeit in much lower numbers than those cities had in the past. There was also better preservation of older housing stock in Chicago and east coast cities, which made them more attractive destinations for immigrants.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There was also better preservation of older housing stock in Chicago and east coast cities, which made them more attractive destinations for immigrants.

It seems like that's a little "chicken or the egg".

It's concurrently possible that those cities also have more preserved older housing stock because they had more immigrants to backfill housing vacated by the white and black flighters, whereas in Detroit, a lot more of it (% wise) was simply abandoned and left to crumble without nearly as many immigrant back-fillers.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

St. Louis...is not situated on an ocean. Ocean-going vessels can navigate the Mississippi River only as far north as Baton Rouge, LA.

Ocean-going vessel access is not the barometer for “is the city a port?”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._...Port_Authority

St. Louis is a major river port. Period.