Mike Rowe and David Simon Debate Baltimore's Image (Catonsville, Pikesville: middle-class, section 8)

[picardlx]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

Are you happily married?!

I don't mean to encourage bad behavior, but this reply was pretty good/funny.

[Tinawina]

Originally Posted by picardlx

I don't mean to encourage bad behavior, but this reply was pretty good/funny.

LMAO. I have to admit I chuckled. I find dude amusing


[quote=pwduvall;37339431]And when I said that Baltimore should be compared to St. Louis, Philly, and Chicago I didn't mean that it would necessarily compare favorably - well with St. Louis maybe. What I meant is that Baltimore should be compared to whole cities and not just their worst sections (as David Simon seems to do.) That kind of comparison is inherently unfair and destructive.
[quote]

I know, you said those cities have bad crime issues in sections too but they are not known only for their crime. I was just saying that part of the reason Baltimore has it's rep is because there's proportionately more crime ridden areas here than those cities. It's not just because of The Wire (though that didn't help), it always had a bad rep. That's why places like Detroit and St Louis and Flint have their bad reps IMO. This is higher than the usual level of crime.

Personally I think "higher than normal crime levels" does not automatically equal "impossible to live" or "automatic death for all" LOL, which is why I think Baltimore's problems frequently get overstated because despite the high crime people can still live well.

[Infinite_heights77]

Amusing like some monkey with a tin cup?!


[quote=Tinawina;37341078]LMAO. I have to admit I chuckled. I find dude amusing


[quote=pwduvall;37339431]And when I said that Baltimore should be compared to St. Louis, Philly, and Chicago I didn't mean that it would necessarily compare favorably - well with St. Louis maybe. What I meant is that Baltimore should be compared to whole cities and not just their worst sections (as David Simon seems to do.) That kind of comparison is inherently unfair and destructive.

I know, you said those cities have bad crime issues in sections too but they are not known only for their crime. I was just saying that part of the reason Baltimore has it's rep is because there's proportionately more crime ridden areas here than those cities. It's not just because of The Wire (though that didn't help), it always had a bad rep. That's why places like Detroit and St Louis and Flint have their bad reps IMO. This is higher than the usual level of crime.

Personally I think "higher than normal crime levels" does not automatically equal "impossible to live" or "automatic death for all" LOL, which is why I think Baltimore's problems frequently get overstated because despite the high crime people can still live well.

[ktaadin]

Yeah it's about the percentage. Even Detroit has better areas, as does Bmore. Honestly, I think it's kinda narrow when people say "well, if you spend your whole life in four safe neighborhoods then XYZ city is great, safe, and fun..." No ****. The point is that in most cities you don't have to spend all your time in a little, tightly policed bubble hugging the waterfront. Look at a map of Bmore. Fed, Locust Point, Canton, Fells near the water, Mt Vernon near Charles/St Paul, and some yuppie stuff up near Homewood/Loyola etc. That's it. 5-10% of the land area in the city that contains virtually all attractions, virtually all safe neighborhoods for showing friends/family around or hanging out in. It's one of the things that amazed me when I went to major cities out west, they didn't have the block after block after block of abandoned, rotting neighborhoods that we do here. To look at that, look at us, and say "well every city has it's bad spots" is to completely ignore questions of degree, extent, and other important factors.

[Infinite_heights77]

I'm reading all of these 3,000 + comments following Mr. Rowe's post.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by ktaadin

Yeah it's about the percentage. Even Detroit has better areas, as does Bmore. Honestly, I think it's kinda narrow when people say "well, if you spend your whole life in four safe neighborhoods then XYZ city is great, safe, and fun..." No ****. The point is that in most cities you don't have to spend all your time in a little, tightly policed bubble hugging the waterfront. Look at a map of Bmore. Fed, Locust Point, Canton, Fells near the water, Mt Vernon near Charles/St Paul, and some yuppie stuff up near Homewood/Loyola etc. That's it. 5-10% of the land area in the city that contains virtually all attractions, virtually all safe neighborhoods for showing friends/family around or hanging out in. It's one of the things that amazed me when I went to major cities out west, they didn't have the block after block after block of abandoned, rotting neighborhoods that we do here. To look at that, look at us, and say "well every city has it's bad spots" is to completely ignore questions of degree, extent, and other important factors.

That's a good point. And when you are out on West Coast cities, and someone warns you of parts of Portland Oregon, for example, where there are a ton of junkies and homeless and on and on....and it seems so lame and tame.

ESPECIALLY when I look at the West Coast homeless populations. How annoying they are, with this sense of entitlement, etc. I've always felt like you could put a few of those guys on any East COast city, and they'd be eaten alive. Homeless in East Coast cities are just on such an overwhelmingly harder level through and through. And usually WAY more humble about it as well.

[Tinawina]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

Amusing like some monkey with a tin cup?!

Well yea, basically. LOL

Originally Posted by ktaadin

Yeah it's about the percentage. Even Detroit has better areas, as does Bmore. Honestly, I think it's kinda narrow when people say "well, if you spend your whole life in four safe neighborhoods then XYZ city is great, safe, and fun..." No ****. The point is that in most cities you don't have to spend all your time in a little, tightly policed bubble hugging the waterfront. Look at a map of Bmore. Fed, Locust Point, Canton, Fells near the water, Mt Vernon near Charles/St Paul, and some yuppie stuff up near Homewood/Loyola etc. That's it. 5-10% of the land area in the city that contains virtually all attractions, virtually all safe neighborhoods for showing friends/family around or hanging out in.

I think it's more than 5-10%.

I don't actually spend a lot of time around the harbor or downtown. I live in North Baltimore and work in Charles Village, but we have friends everywhere... West Baltimore, Northeast Baltimore, etc. and we visit them often. I've found good places to eat in little corners of the city, stores here and there... I don't feel restricted. Especially when I factor in Pikesville or Catonsville or all the places on Liberty Road we go... it's not like a magic barrier pops up that says YOU ARE NO LONGER IN THE CITY OF BALTIMORE (LOL). Half the time I don't even know if I'm still technically in the city or not. I get around plenty and feel safe.

Maybe because I'm African American? I might go some places or feel comfortable some places most white people around here wouldn't/don't visit, or are not really aware exist. I don't know. All I know is that I feel like I have a lot of malls, stand alone stores, restaurants, move theaters, museums, coffee shops, friend's houses etc to visit without feeling like I'm in a war zone.

Don't get me wrong, there ARE huge areas of blight here unlike what I've seen practically anywhere else, and no you just can't plop yourself down in a decent neighborhood and walk for miles without knowing where you are going. I agree there is proportionally more crime within city limits. I just feel like even with all that, there are plenty of places to go for a good time.

[pwduvall]

Originally Posted by Tinawina

Well yea, basically. LOL





I think it's more than 5-10%.

I don't actually spend a lot of time around the harbor or downtown. I live in North Baltimore and work in Charles Village, but we have friends everywhere... West Baltimore, Northeast Baltimore, etc. and we visit them often. I've found good places to eat in little corners of the city, stores here and there... I don't feel restricted. Especially when I factor in Pikesville or Catonsville or all the places on Liberty Road we go... it's not like a magic barrier pops up that says YOU ARE NO LONGER IN THE CITY OF BALTIMORE (LOL). Half the time I don't even know if I'm still technically in the city or not. I get around plenty and feel safe.

Maybe because I'm African American? I might go some places or feel comfortable some places most white people around here wouldn't/don't visit, or are not really aware exist. I don't know. All I know is that I feel like I have a lot of malls, stand alone stores, restaurants, move theaters, museums, coffee shops, friend's houses etc to visit without feeling like I'm in a war zone.

Don't get me wrong, there ARE huge areas of blight here unlike what I've seen practically anywhere else, and no you just can't plop yourself down in a decent neighborhood and walk for miles without knowing where you are going. I agree there is proportionally more crime within city limits. I just feel like even with all that, there are plenty of places to go for a good time.

I actually took some time to look at Policy Map over the weekend to try to get a handle on these percentages. I came to the conclusion that about 25% of the city is doing well/in growth mode. On the flip side, about 25% of the city is clearly failed/failing. The other 50% (including big parts of Northeast, Northwest, and some big industrial areas) is kind of indeterminate - liveable/viable but not showing much signs of investment or growth. Long term, the indeterminate area is a potential liability for the city. Homeowners will die and their houses are aging without much in the way of renewal or investment. It would be wrong to call these areas failed at this point, but I worry about where they are going.

[ktaadin]

I actually took some time to look at Policy Map over the weekend to try to get a handle on these percentages. I came to the conclusion that about 25% of the city is doing well/in growth mode. On the flip side, about 25% of the city is clearly failed/failing. The other 50% (including big parts of Northeast, Northwest, and some big industrial areas) is kind of indeterminate - liveable/viable but not showing much signs of investment or growth. Long term, the indeterminate area is a potential liability for the city. Homeowners will die and their houses are aging without much in the way of renewal or investment. It would be wrong to call these areas failed at this point, but I worry about where they are going.

What metrics did you use to determine which category a neighborhood falls in to? Thanks for taking the time to try to quantify this! Which areas/zip codes/neighborhoods fall into which categories, or is maybe a map a better way to show it?

[pwduvall]

Originally Posted by ktaadin

What metrics did you use to determine which category a neighborhood falls in to? Thanks for taking the time to try to quantify this! Which areas/zip codes/neighborhoods fall into which categories, or is maybe a map a better way to show it?

Policy Map uses census tracts. For failed/failing areas I looked for areas of high "other vacancy" along with high levels of overall vacancy. Other Vacancy measures empty units that are not for sale or rent. For thriving/growing areas I looked at high/growing levels of education. While you wouldn't think that education levels would necessarily match up with good neighborhoods, that seems to be the case. Policy Map has a free signup (which gives you most of the site) if you want to totally nerd out.