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

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's always interesting to hear talk of cities in the "Bos-Wash corridor" and pick up on notions that these cities are somehow the same... or even similar... and that there is legitimate surprise when seemingly outlying characteristics of a certain city is brought up.

If this is in response to my mild surprise at the population growth data iheartthed posted, let me clarify that I was speaking strictly in terms of population growth/loss over the past two decades when I called Baltimore "the rustbelt of bos-wash".

I was not trying to make an argument that Baltimore is more similar to Cleveland or St. Louis than it is to, say, Philly, overall, because that would obviously be silly.

I knew that Baltimore is one of the most challenged major cities of bos-wash, but I really didn't know how our of step it is on population growth until I saw that data. That's all.

[edale]

Even though Baltimore often gets grouped with DC, I think it's more similar to Philly in many ways. It's a rough, gritty, blue collar city with lots of concentrated poverty in the core and very suburbanized wealth. There's little corporate presence in Baltimore, and tourism is a bit of a tough sell when they have to compete with DC and NYC (and to a lesser extent Philly). I don't see why it would possibly follow DC's trajectory when it doesn't have any of the same ingredients that made DC boom- namely being the seat of the Federal government, and having an amazing metro system gifted to it.

I wish Baltimore the best, and I can certainly see it's booming in some areas, which is great. I think it will probably continue to improve in areas while continuing to hollow out in others. It's got a bit of the same regional dysfunction as St. Louis, with the city being its own county. It has some unfavorable demographics for widespread gentrification that Austin and Nashville never had to overcome. I guess time will tell, but I see it on a path more like Detroit or Cleveland than Nashville.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by chimpskibot

Not going to lie, I don’t see what you see and that’s ok. Baltimore can still continue to lose population and there is no indication it has hit its nadir. In fact out migration ramped up between 2010-2020 relative to 2000-2010. I would also ask what is the draw of Baltimore vs other cities within the NEC?

Also regarding John’s Hopkins why would they demolish those beautiful homes if there is so much vacant land around the hospital. That should be a crime in of itself.

Net positive occupied housing is the nadir. More homes are being moved into than are being left and that the first time it’s happened since 1950 census.

Out migration has ramped up because families are moving out due to a combinations of crime, inflation, property taxes, CoL, etc.. Singles/empty nesters are what’s driving the 3-4k housing units U/C right now.

There is an infinite reason on why any one person could choose DC vs. Baltimore vs. Philly vs. NYC vs. Boston. They are all major cities that have their own unique/general props and cons.

It is a crime in the sense the hospital has full authority over land that it doesn't pay property taxes on (as it’s run as a non-profit) the hospital is going to sit on vacant land until construction inflation cost have come down.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

Net positive occupied housing is the nadir. More homes are being moved into than are being left and that’s been occurring for the last ~5 years now.

Out migration has ramped up because low income families are moving out due to a combination of crime/property taxes/CoL. Singles/empty nesters are what’s driving the 3-4k housing units the city has U/C right now.

There is an infinite reason on why any one person could choose DC vs. Baltimore vs. Philly vs. NYC vs. Boston. They are all major cities that have their own unique/general props and cons.

It's pretty unlikely to expect to see population growth when this is occurring.

[Crawford]

Just to illustrate the relative differences in Metro ridership:

Average weekday ridership, 1Q 2024

DC 506.6k
Baltimore 14.4
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...rship-APTA.pdf

They're neighbors, have similar rowhouse typologies, share the Chesapeake Bay influences, but are functionally very different cities.

One odd thing - traveling thru on Amtrak, Baltimore feels bigger. And Philly feels comparatively enormous. Baltimore is an older city, with more & tighter rowhouse neighborhoods. But it's more just how the route runs. You're from sprawl into DC core in basically no time, as PG County is leafy and not intensely developed and the parallel NY Ave. corridor in NE DC is sorta just a suburban corridor.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by edale

It's pretty unlikely to expect to see population growth when this is occurring.

The decline of families (particularly those with children) is really a big city phenomenon across the US, though, so I'm not sure how that singles out Baltimore.

Immigrants, empty-nesters and 20-/early 30-somethings account for any/all growth in any sizable urban locale. That's probably been the case for multiple decades now.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think, historically, you're right, but in recent decades there has been much more of a convergence, and really that whole area from NoVa to NH has some broad similarities.

Are Boston and Philly really that distinct? Both are heavily eds/meds legacy cities with great bones, slow growth, railroad suburbia, etc. Their appeal is pretty similar.

I should've chosen my words more carefully... I do realize that similarities you mention certainly exist. I'm probably talking more about the general conditions of the cities and experience on the ground. With the "rustbelt" term being mentioned, it got me thinking more about not only Baltimore, but the other cities in the mix.

From this standpoint, I think that yes, Boston and Philly are indeed quite distinct in terms of the conditions of their urban cores. I mean, let's get real here... while Baltimore can rightfully be described as the rustbelt of Bos-Wash due to its outlier population loss status, it's no also no big stretch to describe Philadelphia as rustbelt as well, in terms of the physical condition of a significant chunk of the core. Multiple, large portions of Philadelphia remain pretty damn crappy, blighted environments... and the same simply cannot be said for Boston. Nor for DC or NYC either. And anyone who would attempt to argue otherwise is either blind or fully delusional.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

If this is in response to my mild surprise at the population growth data iheartthed posted, let me clarify that I was speaking strictly in terms of population growth/loss over the past two decades when I called Baltimore "the rustbelt of bos-wash".

I was not trying to make an argument that Baltimore is more similar to Cleveland or St. Louis than it is to, say, Philly, overall, because that would obviously be silly.

I knew that Baltimore is one of the most challenged major cities of bos-wash, but I really didn't know how our of step it is on population growth until I saw that data. That's all.

No, I get what you are saying -- my post wasn't in direct response to your point about Baltimore's population loss being more like that seen in rustbelt cities... but more of a general observation that I've noticed in which people are quick to group the Bos-Wash cities together (which is understandable) to an extent where they are perceived as almost the same types of cities, when I, at least, perceive them as quite distinct. And again, this isn't suggesting anything about your perception.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by pj3000

it's no also no big stretch to describe Philadelphia as rustbelt as well, in terms of the physical condition of a significant chunk of the core. Multiple, large portions of Philadelphia remain pretty damn crappy, blighted environments... and the same simply cannot be said for Boston. Nor for DC or NYC either. And anyone who would attempt to argue otherwise is either blind or fully delusional.

I don't think anyone on this forum would argue that Philadelphia is in the same stage of revitalization/gentrification as Boston, NYC or DC. That's more than obvious to even the most optimistic of Philadelphians.

Nonetheless, you're referring to a 1.5 million, 134 square mile city. Center City and its surrounding neighborhoods are still on a relative scale very comparable to the footprint of Boston's and DC's most thriving core/surrounding neighborhoods. Therein lies the critical difference between Philly and Baltimore.

That being said, even though all 5 major BosWash hubs are on a continuum in terms of scale and "urban conditions," and Philly and Baltimore both still are categorized as having significant areas that are post-industrial/"Rust Belt" in character, it's still of the East Coast variety (i.e., much more intact and generally still densely populated).

You're not finding much "urban prairie" in either city, which is why they're much more primed for revitalization, even in their worst areas.

This and this is Midwest-styled "Rust Belt."

This and this is East Coast-styled "Rust Belt."

Big difference, in my view.

[Steely Dan]

^ Comparing Baltimore to Gary is a bit of dirty pool.

Gary is one of the most decimated places in the developed world.

At least keep it among peers (Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, etc.)

But yes, your general point stands. The full-on urban prairie phenomenon is much more pronounced in the inland rust belt cities vs. the east coast cities.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

I don't think anyone on this forum would argue that Philadelphia is in the same stage of revitalization/gentrification as Boston, NYC or DC. That's more than obvious to even the most optimistic of Philadelphians.

Nonetheless, you're referring to a 1.5 million, 134 square mile city. Center City and its surrounding neighborhoods are still on a relative scale very comparable to the footprint of Boston's and DC's most thriving core/surrounding neighborhoods. Therein lies the critical difference between Philly and Baltimore.

That being said, even though all 5 major BosWash hubs are on a continuum in terms of scale and "urban conditions," and Philly and Baltimore both still are categorized as having significant areas that are post-industrial/"Rust Belt" in character, it's still of the East Coast variety (i.e., much more intact and generally still densely populated).

You're not finding much "urban prairie" in either city, which is why they're much more primed for revitalization, even in their worst areas.

This and this is Midwest-styled "Rust Belt."

This and this is East Coast-styled "Rust Belt."

Big difference, in my view.

I mean, https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9332...5410&entry=ttu

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I mean, https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9332...5410&entry=ttu

Thats not Philly, but Camden. Municipal nuances aside areas like that ares outliers, not the norm in and around the central regions of Philly or Baltimore for that matter.

Despite their individual challenges both have retained substantially more of their proportional population than Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh etc.. did, and that's plainly evident on the ground whether it be intact urban vernacular, foot traffic or quantitive infill development.

[ChiSoxRox]

Closest to urban prairie is Park Heights in northwest Baltimore, a neighborhood that was mass demolished in 2017. Compare the 2012 view to the view now.

But it looks like Park Heights is finally getting infill.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Comparing Baltimore to Gary is a bit of dirty pool.

That's fair. It was just one of the primary examples that came to mind; certainly examples exist in more sizable Midwest cities, also.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I mean, https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9332...5410&entry=ttu

Yeah, Camden is one of the few East Coast locales where you can find a bit of "urban prairie" effect. I really don't think the scale is comparable, though. It's still more likely to have semi-intact areas that are primed for infill development: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zU6EhvTVg7RsnRfp6

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Closest to urban prairie is Park Heights in northwest Baltimore, a neighborhood that was mass demolished in 2017. Compare the 2012 view to the view now.

But it looks like Park Heights is finally getting infill.

Even thats old. This is from Sep 2023

Another 4 story building is now vertical across the street from these two. A 4th apartment building and a library are is scheduled to break ground later this year as well to that buildings immediate south & north.

[Crawford]

Excepting the NYC area, Baltimore is the only NE corridor city proper with a Jewish neighborhood. That's kind of odd.

Also, Baltimore does have an in-town favored quarter corridor of (mostly white) wealth. It's small but it's there. It's kind of an eastern St. Louis. Similar size, modest skyline, city-county arrangement, % black, hint of South and with white wedge of wealth.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

I don't think anyone on this forum would argue that Philadelphia is in the same stage of revitalization/gentrification as Boston, NYC or DC. That's more than obvious to even the most optimistic of Philadelphians.

Nonetheless, you're referring to a 1.5 million, 134 square mile city. Center City and its surrounding neighborhoods are still on a relative scale very comparable to the footprint of Boston's and DC's most thriving core/surrounding neighborhoods. Therein lies the critical difference between Philly and Baltimore.

That being said, even though all 5 major BosWash hubs are on a continuum in terms of scale and "urban conditions," and Philly and Baltimore both still are categorized as having significant areas that are post-industrial/"Rust Belt" in character, it's still of the East Coast variety (i.e., much more intact and generally still densely populated).

You're not finding much "urban prairie" in either city, which is why they're much more primed for revitalization, even in their worst areas.

This and this is Midwest-styled "Rust Belt."

This and this is East Coast-styled "Rust Belt."

Big difference, in my view.

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

Thats not Philly, but Camden. Municipal nuances aside areas like that ares outliers, not the norm in and around the central regions of Philly or Baltimore for that matter.

Despite their individual challenges both have retained substantially more of their proportional population than Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh etc.. did, and that's plainly evident on the ground whether it be intact urban vernacular, foot traffic or quantitive infill development.

I don't think anyone was comparing midwest rustbelt vs. east coast rustbelt, aside from you two.

My thoughts were about putting Philadelphia in league with Boston, in terms of condition of the urban core. And there is truly a distinction. As Baltimore can be pulled out of the Bos-Wash group in this regard, so can Philly (albeit likely to a lesser extent).

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Excepting the NYC area, Baltimore is the only NE corridor city proper with a Jewish neighborhood. That's kind of odd.

Also, Baltimore does have an in-town favored quarter corridor of (mostly white) wealth. It's small but it's there. It's kind of an eastern St. Louis. Similar size, modest skyline, city-county arrangement, % black, hint of South and with white wedge of wealth.

Baltimore & St. Louis are similar size on paper (MSA), not physically in real life. From a proportional population standpoint, St. Louis is to Baltimore as Baltimore is to Philly/DC, which is the fundamental difference between all these cities.

https://www.freemaptools.com/find-population.htm

Highest population I could find in 10 mile radius centered on downtown (but includes water)

St. Louis - 771k
Pittsburgh - 850k
Baltimore - 1.30 million
Boston - 1.79 million
DC - 2.18 million
Philly - 2.25 million

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

Baltimore & St. Louis are similar size on paper (MSA), not physically in real life. From a proportional population standpoint, St. Louis is to Baltimore as Baltimore is to Philly/DC, which is the fundamental difference between all these cities.

Nope, they're the same size. MSA is real life. UA is real life.

Making a random circle around a city and calling it a city population isn't real life. That would mean the biggest city in the U.S. is somewhere like Princeton, NJ and the biggest city in Europe is somewhere like Gelsenkirchen, Germany.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Nope, they're the same size. MSA is real life. UA is real life.

Making a random circle around a city and calling it a city population isn't real life. That would mean the biggest city in the U.S. is somewhere like Princeton, NJ and the biggest city in Europe is somewhere like Gelsenkirchen, Germany.

No they are not real life any more than city population is "real life". Population is completely meaningless without knowing the area said population is in, which is why city vs. city populations are apples to oranges and you'll get laughed out the door suggest Jacksonville is larger city than Miami.

A circle centered on a city downtown is not random. It allows uniform comparison of urban populations free of arbitrary administrative boarders. (A 10 mile radius by area is 314 sq/mi or the size of Austin, TX)

St. Louis MSA covers 8,261 sq/mi. To put that into context, the state of Massachusetts is 7,900 sq/mi in area. St. Louis MSA is geographically larger than Baltimore & DC's MSA's. Combined.

Urban Area.
Baltimore's UA is 2.2 million in 654 sq/mi
St. Louis UA is 2.1 million in 956 sq/mi

Baltimore is 35% denser as a region and it only skews worse the closer you get towards the central core which is why weighted density is an actual statistical metric.

Try again.

[craigs]

I think he meant that they were the same population size, not land size. In that sense (going by the UA metric) they are.