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

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

Baltimore has ~930k people living inside the 695 Beltway (141 sq/mi of land + 11 sq/mi of water) which is 30% more than Detroit (630k in 139 sq/mi of land).

So ye, a smaller “city” can absolutely have a bigger metro, case in point Baltimore vs. Detroit, Atlanta vs. Philly or Osaka vs. NYC.

The issues is there’s zero distinction/definition on what’s city vs. suburb vs. rural. UA blends all of it together into one area which is cool and all but that does nothing to help compare specific areas in said region.

You can draw a 141 square mile box in Metro Detroit that has a population of 1 million people.

[pdxtex]

Baltimore is east coast Oakland.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

Baltimore is east coast Oakland.

I feel like Jersey City is a much closer comparison to Oakland than Baltimore.

Almost identical demographic mix. Neighborhoods run the gamut from gentrified to run down and dangerous, strong redevelopment due to high metro-area housing prices, etc.

There's no west coast analogue to Baltimore.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Baltimore's traditional core is pretty terrible. Great bones, but terminally ill. The old shopping district and the urban renewal Charles Center area are all a mess. The areas surrounding the core are all doing well tho.

Baltimore had core issues pre-Covid, but it now isn't alone. There are lots of cities with really strong gentrification where the traditional downtown seems in bad shape, esp. post-Covid. St. Louis, Oakland, maybe Pittsburgh, maybe Portland. Even arguably SF (bad shape for SF standards).

I have a few knocks against Baltimore.

1. As an outsider, Hopkins seems to be a very passive civic institution. I'm sure it has billions in its endowment...you would think it would do more to stabalize larger parts of the city. In Philly, Penn has been VERY involved in the neighborhoods in West Philadelphia. It views its own success as being intertwined with that of the surrounding community.

Penn provides a number of benefits to Penn employees like mortgage assistance, downpayment assistance, and forgiveness for employees that buy in certain zones of West Philadelphia. Further, as prices increase, it tweaks the amounts and areas that are eligible. It's not an insignificant beneft has Penn has about 40K employees across the university and it's miscellaneous hospitals. It also provides tiered support to local elementary schools, both monetarily and in terms of teacher training and assistance, explicitly. At its most generous, Penn actually built the physical plant of a new neighborhood elementary school (about two decades ago) which is now one of the highest rated elementary schools not just in Philadelphia, but in the state. Even there, it provides monetary support to an additional 5 or 6 elementary schools beyond the catchment of this one school.

My assumption is that Hopkins has the ability to do all of this and not sure if it does or not.

2. People in Baltimore don't seem to go out, even in safe neighborhoods. The last time I was in Baltimore, myself and a group of friends spent a night walking around a few of the nicer close in neighborhoods (Fells Point, Federal Hill) and literally nobody was outside. Even in walkable areas, there doesn't seem to be a culture of going outside and or patronizing local establishments. The atmosphere was very striking to me...bordering on making it feel unsafe. We walked up and down block after block of super tidy well tended row house neighborhoods and it seems as though every door was closed and people were inside. Sure, going about their lives, but the restaurants and bars literally a few blocks away were empty. It struck me as notable...in Philly and NYC there's much more bustling activity in stable higher income residential areas which feels completely lacking in Baltimore.

That's it. On the plus side, from an institutional standpoint, everyone nods to Hopkins, but it should be noted that over the years, UMBC has turned itself into something of a STEM powerhouse, particulary for graduate programs. There is probably something the city can do to leverage UMBC's new found relevance but I'm not close enough to the city or school to understand the nuance.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by 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.

You can find plenty of places in Baltimore that are full blown prairie though. And if not then most of it is just abandoned. Baltimore is infamous for entire blocks of abandoned row homes. And they're still demolishing them by the block too like it's the 80's. So I don't see how it's better. Blight is a lot more dangerous and costing to cities than grass lots.

[PhilliesPhan]

I was just in Baltimore two weeks ago for the Phillies-Orioles series. I took Amtrak down from Philly, walked from Union Station to my Airbnb in Federal Hill, tried a few breweries in Pigtown before catching the game that we eventually lost, and spent the night after the game bar hopping in Fells Point and Canton (especially Walt's Inn for karaoke!). I spent the next day exploring Riverside, Locust Point, Hampden, Remington, Charles Village, and Hollins Market.

I truly enjoyed my trip there. Baltimore has a lot of great restaurants and awesome breweries. If I had to move to Baltimore, I'd choose South Baltimore hands down. I also really like Fells Point, Canton, Hampden, Bolton Hill, and Reservoir Hill. With that said, I do hope the situation in Baltimore changes soon. It possesses the urban bones to be a great city, but it needs a lot of work. For example, it seemed as though Downtown Baltimore never truly recovered from the pandemic. I don't think I've ever seen as desolate of a downtown area as Baltimore's. Howard Street, which hosts the light rail, had tons of abandoned buildings. I've also never taken a subway line as empty as the Green Line. I was the only person at a Shot Tower stop that was clearly designed to serve thousands of people an hour. Finally, MLK Drive is a major chasm between Downtown and the western neighborhoods.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

I disagree with this assessment. St Louis is a river port city, while Baltimore has a major port, in which it's river empties into a major body of water. Philadelphia, while also a major port city, doesn't have the port legacy that St Louis and Baltimore has.

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.

Originally Posted by wanderer34

Also, Philadelphia is above the Mason-Dixon Line while MD and MO are considered to be below the Line.

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

[eschaton]

Philly is the East Coast Chicago.

Yeah, there are some differences. Philly has nothing like the Gold Coast in terms of wealth concentration, and Center City's commercial area has never been the employment draw of the area around The Loop. Philly has a tighter, more pedestrian-friendly street grid. Chicago has way more Latinos.

Yet both cities are similar in that they are the two "second tier" U.S. cities (i.e., below NYC) where you can find a neighborhood at any price. Anything from 100% gentrified neighborhoods with multimillion condos to dirt-cheap neighborhoods with blight that can rival the Rust Belt. In both cases I think it's safe to say, given their sheer expanse, essentially everyone can find a neighborhood they'd be comfortable with at a price point they can afford, if they look hard enough.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Philly is the East Coast Chicago.

Rowhouses vs. 3-flats

FIGHT!!!

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Philly is the East Coast Chicago.

Yeah, there are some differences. Philly has nothing like the Gold Coast in terms of wealth concentration, and Center City's commercial area has never been the employment draw of the area around The Loop. Philly has a tighter, more pedestrian-friendly street grid. Chicago has way more Latinos.

Yet both cities are similar in that they are the two "second tier" U.S. cities (i.e., below NYC) where you can find a neighborhood at any price. Anything from 100% gentrified neighborhoods with multimillion condos to dirt-cheap neighborhoods with blight that can rival the Rust Belt. In both cases I think it's safe to say, given their sheer expanse, essentially everyone can find a neighborhood they'd be comfortable with at a price point they can afford, if they look hard enough.

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.

[eschaton]

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.

There's absolutely nothing similar about Philly and Detroit. Not built vernacular of the city. Not demographics. Not the layout of the greater Downtown area.

Even before the last 20 years, the in-town areas surrounding Downtown/Midtown in Detroit were mostly depopulated and/or institutional. Center City Philly is notable for being completely on the other extreme - the urban core stayed mostly residential, with very few highways (other than the sunken 676) cutting through it. Indeed, it's one of the few places outside of NYC and SF where you can walk directly from office towers to residential areas without any significant gap caused by urban renewal, highways, warehouse areas, etc.

Now, Detroit and Los Angeles actually do share a good deal in common, due to booming at a similar age. The vernacular is quite different, but the neighborhood layouts are quite similar.

[PhilliesPhan]

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.

Maybe it's because I was 8 when it was glaringly obvious, but I didn't understand the Philly-Detroit comparison during my first visit last year when I ran the International Half-Marathon. I liked Detroit a LOT more than I expected to (I can't wait for my next visit), but it didn't remind me of Philly at all. Philly is more compact, diverse, has a larger and livelier downtown, has a larger student population, and has a more educated population. Detroit also didn't have any apparent wealthy quarters like Chestnut Hill, Rittenhouse Square, or Spruce Hill.

IMO, Detroit reminded me of LA in a weird way. The wide roads, detached single-family homes, emphasis on car culture, and lack of citywide transit coverage reminded me of a Midwestern LA.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

IMO, Detroit reminded me of LA in a weird way. The wide roads, detached single-family homes, emphasis on car culture, and lack of citywide transit coverage reminded me of a Midwestern LA.

This is about the only comparison of the last bunch in this thread that makes sense to me, lol. In my opinion, Detroit is very much proto-LA, and they pretty much are the same "generation" or "class" of city to borrow a naval term.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

It's noticeable when theres a +35% density difference. Case in point Vancouver, BC.

Vancouver's UA/MSA is almost identical to that of Baltimore's or St. Louis in population, but it's 2x as dense as Baltimore and 3x denser than St. Louis.

Well sure, a place being denser than another is noticeable. But the point is, what we're noticing is the difference in density rather than the difference in size which is something else. It's like if you compare two houses that have basically the same floor area and interior volume but with one house being three stories and the other being single level. The two have a noticeable difference in an important characteristic, but they're the same size.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

This is about the only comparison of the last bunch in this thread that makes sense to me, lol. In my opinion, Detroit is very much proto-LA, and they pretty much are the same "generation" or "class" of city to borrow a naval term.

I guess Oakland County is a lot like LA, mostly car-centric and with walkable urban nodes scattered around main corridors.

The city proper is obviously an older Midwestern style place. Actually Detroit has an identical grid to Chicago with the mile road system. I don't see how it's being singled out for wide roads, the roads aren't really any wider than a typical Midwestern city like Cleveland, Minneapolis, Chicago.

[edale]

Originally Posted by eschaton

There's absolutely nothing similar about Philly and Detroit. Not built vernacular of the city. Not demographics. Not the layout of the greater Downtown area.

Even before the last 20 years, the in-town areas surrounding Downtown/Midtown in Detroit were mostly depopulated and/or institutional. Center City Philly is notable for being completely on the other extreme - the urban core stayed mostly residential, with very few highways (other than the sunken 676) cutting through it. Indeed, it's one of the few places outside of NYC and SF where you can walk directly from office towers to residential areas without any significant gap caused by urban renewal, highways, warehouse areas, etc.

Now, Detroit and Los Angeles actually do share a good deal in common, due to booming at a similar age. The vernacular is quite different, but the neighborhood layouts are quite similar.

While I agree that Philly and Detroit have next to nothing in common, I don't see the comparison to Chicago, either. Other than being relatively affordable big cities, I don't get much similarity between the two at all. Philly and Chicago have very different urban forms. Chicago's core feels much bigger and more spacious than Philly's intimate, crowded streets. Chicago's neighborhoods are dominated by flats and detached housing, Philly is a rowhouse city through and through.

Also, isn't Philly's analogue to the Gold Coast Rittenhouse Square or Society Hill?

Definitely agree that LA and Detroit are siblings, or at least cousins. The one story commercial corridors, wide streets, detached housing, polycentric metro area, car culture all make them feel oddly similar. If you squint and ignore the palm trees and mountains, many of LA's wide commercial corridors could be stand ins for Detroit's big, radial blvds.

[Steely Dan]

Detroit is a bridge between Milwaukee and LA.

[Notonfoodstamps]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You can draw a 141 square mile box in Metro Detroit that has a population of 1 million people.

No, you actually can’t. It’s not dense enough outside the city proper.

https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-a...oit/Population

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by edale

While I agree that Philly and Detroit have next to nothing in common, I don't see the comparison to Chicago, either. Other than being relatively affordable big cities, I don't get much similarity between the two at all. Philly and Chicago have very different urban forms. Chicago's core feels much bigger and more spacious than Philly's intimate, crowded streets. Chicago's neighborhoods are dominated by flats and detached housing, Philly is a rowhouse city through and through.

The built environment is quite different, but IMHO when looking at the second tier of urban city, they share more in common with one another than either does with DC, Boston, or San Francisco. Both tend to have not only a mix of crazy wealth and poverty, but have different income levels and ethnicities concentrated on certain "sides" of the city, where many cities have either wealth/poverty in pockets, or just a good side/bad side). Also, the worst neighborhoods in Boston, DC, and San Francisco are still really fucking expensive.

Originally Posted by edale

Also, isn't Philly's analogue to the Gold Coast Rittenhouse Square or Society Hill?

If you're talking about the Gold Coast proper, sure. But Chicago's North Side is almost entirely Census tracts with $100,000+ household income now. Center City isn't like this - it's mostly middle class these days, but not as universally rich. Of course, it's a difference of degree, rather than kind, but still.

Also, Philly has a second favored quarter (much of Northwest Philadelphia - Chestnut Hill, Roxborough, Manyunk, East Falls, etc.) Chicago really lacks this.

[Centropolis]

I feel like when Detroit and LA are compared as somewhat analogous - at least in comparing pre-1950 extents - its still sometimes seen as an insult to Detroit or to what it once was, somehow. But if you've walked LA, or even driven or rode cross city and are also reasonably familiar with Detroit I don't (personally) see how it can be seen this way.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8cZUnJAk93CDtbRb7

And you know Wilshire and Woodward sort of seem like one is an echo of the other.