Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm looking beyond universities as well. Just look at educational attainment in both metros:
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD Metro Area
Graduate or professional degree - 16.4%
Bachelor's degree - 21.3%
Less than high school graduate - 9.7%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area
Graduate or professional degree - 14.3%
Bachelor's degree - 21.0%
Less than high school graduate - 10.5%
Public schools are probably better in the Baltimore area (usually suburban Maryland) as well.
I'd say that's enough to at least put them even.
In regard to Temple university , Carnegie Foundation just raised Temple from an R2 research institution to a R1 ranking .Which means Temple is in the top tier of universities for research
I think Baltimore is pretty structurally dense. I personally have not been to a city that makes Baltimore feel spread out by any means.
Remember that Philly would need to lose over half a million people to be as dense as Baltimore. Brooklyn is nearly twice as dense. These differences are quite noticeable to me. The northern half of the city especially feels open compared to Philly, Boston, SF and NYC. Similarly, Richmond is open compared to Baltimore though their densities are closer to each other percentage-wise than Baltimore is to Philly and definitely NYC.
Midtown Manhattan? Lol jk no Baltimore is very structurally dense, it just suffers from urban blight and vacant buildings. If all those buildings left vacant were occupied again one day, I could easily see Baltimore being one of the densest cities in the country and one of the most popular destinations for transplants. It's already at 7,671.5/sq mi with 622,793 residents. In 1950, Baltimore had 949,708 citizens, which would have made a density of 11,739. That density would put it behind only NYC, SF, Boston, and Chicago, and ahead of Philadelphia. But, then again, if Philly returned to its peak population, it would be at 14,630.
True, all the cities in question are typically old and dense eastern cities, though they are not all of the same density. Balt is also less dense than DC (structure- and population-wise), but at least it is more green than Philadelphia is.
Remember that Philly would need to lose over half a million people to be as dense as Baltimore. Brooklyn is nearly twice as dense. These differences are quite noticeable to me. The northern half of the city especially feels open compared to Philly, Boston, SF and NYC. Similarly, Richmond is open compared to Baltimore though their densities are closer to each other percentage-wise than Baltimore is to Philly and definitely NYC.
I was speaking about structural density. Remember Baltimore's peak population density was roughly around Philly's peak density. Baltimore has lost 1/3 of its population since that time. Baltimore, in the last couple of years, has just started to gain population once again. Structures aren't as finicky as population.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,174,514 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by ialmostforgot
True, all the cities in question are typically old and dense eastern cities, though they are not all of the same density. Balt is also less dense than DC (structure- and population-wise), but at least it is more green than Philadelphia is.
Do you have a source for the bolded? Fairmount is one of, if not THE, largest urban parks in the country. Baltimore is nationally renowned for its harbor--green spaces rarely enter the conversation.
True, all the cities in question are typically old and dense eastern cities, though they are not all of the same density. Balt is also less dense than DC (structure- and population-wise), but at least it is more green than Philadelphia is.
I was speaking about structural density. Remember Baltimore's peak population density was roughly around Philly's peak density. Baltimore has lost 1/3 of its population since that time. Baltimore, in the last couple of years, has just started to gain population once again. Structures aren't as finicky as population.
No it wasn't. Philly was still much more dense than Baltimore even in 1950 (which is the peak for both cities).
Philly 2,071,605 in 134.1 sq miles = 15,448 people per square mile
Baltimore 949,708 in 80.9 sq miles = 11,739 people per sq mile
As you can see, Philly has always been considerably more dense than Baltimore. There has always been roughly a 4,000 ppsm gap between the two cities.
No it wasn't. Philly was still much more dense than Baltimore even in 1950 (which is the peak for both cities).
Philly 2,071,605 in 134.1 sq miles = 15,448 people per square mile
Baltimore 949,708 in 80.9 sq miles = 11,739 people per sq mile
As you can see, Philly has always been considerably more dense than Baltimore. There has always been roughly a 4,000 ppsm gap between the two cities.
Yep. DC was closer to Philly's density than Baltimore was. DC's peak density was 13,062 ppsm. I have observed a pattern in that poster trying to inflate Baltimore's standing in various threads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
