Is Baltimore a northester city like Philly or a southern city like Atlanta (populations, living)

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by moorlander

It's a shame that the younger generation these days associates OLD with dingy/dirty/bad and NEW with shinny/clean/good.

I think part of this is that many younger folks never really experienced all that urban living has to offer. I know myself the appreciation has increased with age. I grew up in the burbs outside of Philly. Today my two favorite locales are the core of the city and the rural river valley just outside the burbs, Bucks County.

[KodeBlue]

Nice pics.. do u think atl is more urban than baltimore overall?

[VA7cities]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Here are some of Baltimore

Yeah these are a lot better. I havent been to baltimore in a while but it was cool. Its more of a northern city to me too.

[VA7cities]

Originally Posted by moorlander

It's a shame that the younger generation these days associates OLD with dingy/dirty/bad and NEW with shinny/clean/good.

I dont know if this is directed to me in whole because of my post or if this is just a statement from your experience that was prompted by my post, but thats not the association I made.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by MrRedd

Nice pics.. do u think atl is more urban than baltimore overall?

I never said it was, nor do I believe that.

You have to understand saying that Atlanta is urban or bigger in comparison to Baltimore does not mean it is "more urban" than Baltimore.

Baltimore is certainly more old school urban than Atlanta. That is without question. But I think some are making the fallible (and illogical) conclusion, using that fact, to mean that Atlanta is something other than urban.

America basically has two types of cities, with a set of cities that fall somewhere in the middle.

On one end you have your straight up old school urban cities:

-Baltimore
-Boston
-Philadelphia
-New York City
-Pittsburgh
-Cincinnati
-St. Louis
-Providence
-New Orleans
-Charleston
-Savannah

Most of those cities have been around since colonial times and began to develop in the pre-industrial revolution. This means they are much more compact than other cities in America because there was only so far you could move large amounts of goods and people before the train or automobile, not because of some sort of precognition that living in a nice compact city would someday be "cool".

On the other end, you have the post industrial revolution cities:

-Chicago (despite what some people think, Chicago is not an old city. It is actually the same age as Houston and Atlanta)
-Miami
-Los Angeles
-Detroit
-Atlanta
-Houston
-Dallas

By the time these cities started to develop the industrial revolution was in full swing and they were not limited to the constraints of the pre-industrial revolution cities in terms of where people could live and how large the city could be built to be. Most of these cities also developed along the use of street railways, not the automobile as so many people make the mistake of thinking and thus developed in a more outward motion.

Also, these cities developed when the ability to own land was not constrained to the extremely rich. This meant that your average everyday Joe could purchase a piece of land and put down whatever type of house they saw fit. Much different than the first set of cities where people (even of means) were usually only able to purchase the building (or a small piece of it) and someone else owned the land underneath. This was particularly prevalent in early Baltimore (and still is if I'm not mistaken) where people own their rowhouse, but pay a yearly rent for the land the house is on top of. This drove the house to be constructed vertically as the larger the area the house occupied, the higher the rent would be.

Basically, what you'll have to do is step back and be willing to see these cities as being in a different configuration, not in black and white "urban" and "not urban". The latter simplifies it way too much.

[waronxmas]

And to whom ever left me this comment:

Great Pics, Looks like houston (very suburban). Seems like you have a high black popuulation too.

Thanks for the rep points, but why do you have to be all scared to post this in the thread?

I swear, the punk ash mentality on this site kills me (in a funny 'ha ha' way) sometimes.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

And to whom ever left me this comment:



Thanks for the rep points, but why do you have to be all scared to post this in the thread?

I swear, the punk ash mentality on this site kills me (in a funny 'ha ha' way) sometimes.

Yeah, this new development of posting trollish comments in the rep comments is rather annoying. If you don't have enough courage in your convictions to post them for scrutiny in an open forum, don't bother.

[kidphilly]

I agree - use of rep comments in this fashion is very childish - either stand by your convictions or not, but cowardice is silly. This forum is probably teken too seriously in some contexts but use of these comments for these purposes is of poor character

To answer the OP question - Baltimore is more like philly than it is like Atlanta - the closer to the DC burbs the built up area starts to more closely resemble Atlanta as does a lot of DC area outside the district

[$mk8795]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

It is not culturally. And that's what matters to most people. If someone visits Baltimore, they will experience a mostly northeastern (or east coast) city, not a southern city.

Define Culturally????????????

[$mk8795]

Originally Posted by moorlander

fwiw, I've visited Baltimore 2x in the past few months for business. I had free time explore the city and I never once felt the Southern vibe.

And in my travels to Atlanta I never have gotten the impression of it being urban. It's just like all the other sunbelt cities. Great city, but too autocentric/suburban for my liking.

Next time your in Maryland, take a venture travel to Southern Maryland and the Maryland Eastern Shore.............