where is the wealth in Baltimore? (California: sale, real estate, neighborhood)

[dogpark]

Originally Posted by MrRational

I'll grant that these events occurred close together but I won't go so far as to say lack of
annexing is causal. In fact, that proposition is quite absurd in the face of the OTHER evidence
of what else was occurring here nd everywhere else in the wake of the WW2 booms
and subsequent industrial slowdown into the 60's... let alone the social upheavals then and into the 80's.

Nope. His conclusions and you're pique are quite misplaced.


The civic decay that ensued was not in the number of those in that exodus but their quality
and especially so in proportion to those who did not (or could not) join that exodus.

More pointedly, had something constructive been done to shift total population BACK to the pre war levels that industry of the period could still support, much of the exodus wouldn't have happened.
But this is still just more of that hindsight speculation.

Mr Barante.... you're up.

My point is that if Baltimore city was part of Baltimore county, the wealth would be within those borders still, not less in the city and more in the county. And yes, I know that deindustrialization was a major cause of job loss/wealth migration, along with the VA financing homes along the newly built post war highways. Basically, the money left and stranded its poor, elderly and low skilled people in the city.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by dogpark

My point is that if Baltimore city was part of Baltimore county, the wealth would
(have still been) within those borders, not less in the city and more in the county.

Sorry, still not buying. Or at least not as any sort of absolute.

And yes, I know that de-industrialization was major cause of...

Nope. The reduction at that time was limited to war material.
We were still making all manner of civil use products rebuilding Europe and Asia.

The de-industrialization didn't happen for another two decades.

Basically, the money left and stranded its poor, elderly and low skilled people in the city.

Basically, the people least able to provide for themselves created successive generations
far out of proportion to the ever declining number of jobs they were qualified for.

Baltimore City is probably still overpopulated.
Certainly on the basis of percentage of net consumers in those numbers.

[dogpark]

Originally Posted by MrRational

Sorry, still not buying. Or at least not as any sort of absolute.


Nope. The reduction at that time was limited to war material.
We were still making all manner of civil use products rebuilding Europe and Asia.

The de-industrialization didn't happen for another two decades.


Basically, the people least able to provide for themselves created successive generations
far out of proportion to the ever declining number of jobs they were qualified for.

Baltimore City is probably still overpopulated.
Certainly on the basis of percentage of net consumers in those numbers.

All good points. Pardon me for oversimplifying.

Anecdotally I've been hearing for years from county folks how bad the city sucks, yet these were families that moved out of the city. Of course the city had has too many net public service consumers if the taxbase moves away - its a self fulfilling prophecy. Now a lot fo the poor are moving out to the first tier/older suburbs. I imagine the trend for cities will follow Europe, where the poor live in the suburban ring and the wealthy move back into the city (Paris, London etc).

Remember too that the economy wasn't great right after WW2 and was crappy thru Korea, didn't really start to get good for the new American consumer middle class until the mid 1950s.

It'd be more fun to discuss over a beer (preferably at a corner bar so IH_77 avoids it!), but I'm still at work for a while yet...

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by Crazee Cat Lady

Why are you looking for the wealth?

[Tallybalt]

The highest concentration of "serious" money, whether old or new, in the Baltimore metropolitan area is Anne Arundel County due to the waterfront. It's an odd county from that perspective, because while the immediate waterfront can be extremely expensive, just across the street inland you will find ordinary people living in ordinary houses, so there are few uniformly wealthy neighborhoods. Severna Park is a prime example.

Following Anne Arundel would be certain areas of Baltimore County.

[BMoreJuice]

Originally Posted by MrRational

Throughout the city as a whole (and the inner/oldest County neighborhoods) there are many pockets
of wealth... some pockets are bigger than others and some are the real deal old money.

Here is a link to some old atlas maps of the area that show some well known family names
on their land holdings before most of the "modern" development took place:
Historic Atlas: Baltimore County 1877 Maryland - Historic Map Works

A more "recent" set:
Historic Atlas: Baltimore County 1915 Maryland - Historic Map Works

Thanks. I always knew the Lakeside neighborhood was owned by a man who had 86 acres.

[trickymost]

Originally Posted by dogpark

All good points. Pardon me for oversimplifying.

Anecdotally I've been hearing for years from county folks how bad the city sucks, yet these were families that moved out of the city. Of course the city had has too many net public service consumers if the taxbase moves away - its a self fulfilling prophecy. Now a lot fo the poor are moving out to the first tier/older suburbs. I imagine the trend for cities will follow Europe, where the poor live in the suburban ring and the wealthy move back into the city (Paris, London etc).

Remember too that the economy wasn't great right after WW2 and was crappy thru Korea, didn't really start to get good for the new American consumer middle class until the mid 1950s.

It'd be more fun to discuss over a beer (preferably at a corner bar so IH_77 avoids it!), but I'm still at work for a while yet...

The european model will not happen here, at least not in anyone who posts on this forum's lifetime. And you can't make a case it's better over there, I would argue it is exponentially worse. Europe is a serious recession away from being forced to confront tax issues, serious and very deeply ingrained racism and fear of outsides (like 1k+ years of this), and societal integration for immigrants.

If jobs are in places where schools are good, taxes are lower and the cost of living is lower, people will always live there. Nobody owes anything to Baltimore City and should not be making life decisions on a debt to history unless you're talking about genocide.

With an automated transport system, fractional ownership of cars and the ability to generate and store energy coming in the next 3-10 years, it's hard to see what could force people to decide the suburbs need to be abandoned. If anything, the failures of pushing those without means to the suburbs should continue to reverse as the poor find it easier to get services and life an affordable lifestyle in the city.

JMO.

[pokeable]

Originally Posted by dogpark

Now a lot fo the poor are moving out to the first tier/older suburbs. I imagine the trend for cities will follow Europe, where the poor live in the suburban ring and the wealthy move back into the city (Paris, London etc).

The US is not Europe, and there has always been a fascination with space here in the United States. Big cars, big houses, big people () wide open spaces.

While there is a certain demographic that longs for a car-free, centralized urban lifestyle, recent statistics have demonstrated that there is more growth in the suburbs. And that the fastest growing areas in the US (Texas, specifically Houston, Dallas, and Austin regions) are gigantic suburban areas.

Urban Headwinds, Suburban Tailwinds - Trulia TrendsTrulia Trends

I like visiting DC and Baltimore (Fells, Harbor East) for the day. Would not mind a pied a terre in the Capitol Hill district of DC for long weekends. But love having my own yard, plenty of space, without shared walls here in E.C.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by dogpark

I imagine the trend for cities will follow Europe, where the poor live in the suburban
ring and the wealthy move back into the city (Paris, London etc).

A few points:
1) Too many confuse usages for the terms wealth vs income.
It's happened a lot in just this thread.

2) The well employed children of the US suburbs ARE moving closer to the cities.
Being in walkable distance of common services and third places is important to them.

If the schools can be sorted out more will and they'll probably all want to remain.
Getting them to remain will require sorting out the schools.

Making or allowing this change to happen (aka gentrification) REQUIRES a displacement
of the former residents and the lower earning and the downright poor to move out.

Where they'll move to will probably depend most on how large a number they are.
Which is the more important goal going into the future: REDUCE that number.

[dogpark]

Originally Posted by trickymost

The european model will not happen here, at least not in anyone who posts on this forum's lifetime. And you can't make a case it's better over there, I would argue it is exponentially worse. Europe is a serious recession away from being forced to confront tax issues, serious and very deeply ingrained racism and fear of outsides (like 1k+ years of this), and societal integration for immigrants.

If jobs are in places where schools are good, taxes are lower and the cost of living is lower, people will always live there. Nobody owes anything to Baltimore City and should not be making life decisions on a debt to history unless you're talking about genocide.

With an automated transport system, fractional ownership of cars and the ability to generate and store energy coming in the next 3-10 years, it's hard to see what could force people to decide the suburbs need to be abandoned. If anything, the failures of pushing those without means to the suburbs should continue to reverse as the poor find it easier to get services and life an affordable lifestyle in the city.

JMO.

Never said Europe was better and that was the way to go - I said the trend is towards young people coming into the cities.

City schools are improving slowly but have a long way to go. A lot of parents that stayed/got stuck in the housing crash are the reason. Source - we're in that peer group and know the system pretty well, wife is a teacher.

Originally Posted by pokeable

The US is not Europe, and there has always been a fascination with space here in the United States. Big cars, big houses, big people () wide open spaces.

While there is a certain demographic that longs for a car-free, centralized urban lifestyle, recent statistics have demonstrated that there is more growth in the suburbs. And that the fastest growing areas in the US (Texas, specifically Houston, Dallas, and Austin regions) are gigantic suburban areas.

Urban Headwinds, Suburban Tailwinds - Trulia TrendsTrulia Trends

I like visiting DC and Baltimore (Fells, Harbor East) for the day. Would not mind a pied a terre in the Capitol Hill district of DC for long weekends. But love having my own yard, plenty of space, without shared walls here in E.C.

But cities are cities. London and Paris both sport a wealthy, dynamic core and poor, declining suburbs. Baltimore's first tier suburbs have looked better - a book on topic: Transforming race and Class in Suburbia By Thomas J. Vicino =, a study on Baltimore

Originally Posted by MrRational

A few points:
1) Too many confuse usages for the terms wealth vs income.
It's happened a lot in just this thread.

2) The well employed children of the US suburbs ARE moving closer to the cities.
Being in walkable distance of common services and third places is important to them.

If the schools can be sorted out more will and they'll probably all want to remain.
Getting them to remain will require sorting out the schools.

Making or allowing this change to happen (aka gentrification) REQUIRES a displacement
of the former residents and the lower earning and the downright poor to move out.

Where they'll move to will probably depend most on how large a number they are.
Which is the more important goal going into the future: REDUCE that number.

Said above, city schools (at least in the gentrifying neighborhoods) are improving.

Folks "displaced" by this gentrification are largely white working class and these folks were glad to sell their houses for big bucks as they wanted to move to the counties anyway - been watching this for 20 years in SoBo. Renters are the ones that really lose out when a neighborhood gets hot. To answer IH_77 from earlier - poor blacks are not being gentrified out of Baltimore.