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.
There is no string of cities anywhere in the nation that can compete with the jewels of the Northeast Corridor. Lined up almost in a straight line, they run, going southwest, in order: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington.
But of the 5, Baltimore appears to be the outlier, a great city with many attractions, but just not in the same league or having the same vibrance as the other four.
Given its incredible location and given the value placed on that very Northeast Corridor, can Baltimore ever be expected to rise to the level of the type of cities the other four represent?
I think it's possible, but Baltimore has to find its niche. Baltimore also has to do a better job of marketing itself. For example, each of the other 4 cities market their historic past, but Baltimore doesn't; however, the Star Spangled Banner was practically written about Baltimore. The Baltimore area has one of the fastest growing economies in the country, why isn't that being played up? Or why isn't it marketing itself better? The riots last year seems to be the most notable thing about Baltimore lately and that's a shame. The city leaders are an embarrassment as well. I will say that the Downtown area is very vibrant, and there is really no lack of activities and events going on.
I know you guys are really down in Baltimore, but there's only a handful of cities on a tier above it. For all their growth, you'd still be hard-pressed to argue that Austin, Denver, Minneapolis and the like are more "vibrant" or "major" than Baltimore.
Baltimore isn't in the best shape, but is on an upward trajectory. Boston really benefits from being in a region by itself. Baltimore is too far away from DC to be a twin city, and two major, historically speaking, to be a satellite. That said, it's too close to DC and Philly to be a regional anchor city.
Last edited by gladhands; 09-03-2016 at 12:14 PM..
I know you guys are really down in Baltimore, but they're only a handful of cities on a tier above it. For all their growth, you'd still be hard-pressed to argue that Austin, Denver, Minneapolis and the like are more "vibrant" or "major" than Baltimore.
Baltimore isn't in the best shape, but is on an upward trajectory. Boston really benefits from being in a region by itself. Baltimore is too far away from DC to be a twin city, and two major, historically speaking, to be a satellite. That said, it's too close to DC and Philly to be a regional anchor city.
Having all of these cities so close together is a gift and a curse. Boston is an anchor, NYC is, well, NYC, come to think of it, how did Philly blow up the way it did? And Baltimore is the odd man out.
That wasn't a shot a Philly btw.
I think one problem with Baltimore is that the people here take it for granted.
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.
