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.
No it's a stupid article. It doesn't tell the whole picture for many of these cities. For SC they used the top 20 cities as a metric, but then used Selma, AL which is like 35th in Alabama. Gladeview, FL is not even an actual city. It is Miami.
Baltimore is not pulling a DC or a Boston, but it's not dying in the way the article makes it seem. Baltimore had 4 towers over 300ft built last decade, with more towers proposed. Compare that with Detroit that had 0, Cleveland with 3, and Pittsburgh with 2. And while St Louis city has bled people for various reasons, most of them still live in "Saint Louis."
The article, blog, whatever, is disingenuous with it's approach and many of its pictures. As you even said, the picture of the building they chose for Spartanburg is old and the building has been renovated. It screams that someone was bored and needed to write up something for clicks. There is no substance in the article so that's what I'm calling it.
Baltimore is absolutely the right city for Maryland; it's in bad shape and is absolutely the fastest-shrinking city in Maryland by any measure. The metro might be in decent shape due to all of the federal and state installations in the suburbs and Annapolis, but the city is still very much in bad shape. Who cares if they had a few towers built over the past decade? The city still has very serious, intractable problems: people are still fleeing in droves, crime is getting worse, and their previous mayor was just sentenced to a three-year prison term, but you want to use a few towers being thrown up as evidence of its supposed healthy status??? Give me a break.
You're really going off the deep end and getting hysterical over the mention of Spartanburg in this article when what's REALLY to blame here are SC's archaic annexation laws. Spartanburg (and maybe only just a few others) is an outlier, which I've acknowledged, but for the most part, many of the cities listed for these states truly are shrinking and/or are in bad shape for various reasons.
Baltimore is absolutely the right city for Maryland; it's in bad shape and is absolutely the fastest-shrinking city in Maryland by any measure. The metro might be in decent shape due to all of the federal and state installations in the suburbs and Annapolis, but the city is still very much in bad shape. Who cares if they had a few towers built over the past decade? The city still has very serious, intractable problems: people are still fleeing in droves, crime is getting worse, and their previous mayor was just sentenced to a three-year prison term, but you want to use a few towers being thrown up as evidence of its supposed healthy status??? Give me a break.
You're really going off the deep end and getting hysterical over the mention of Spartanburg in this article when what's REALLY to blame here are SC's archaic annexation laws. Spartanburg (and maybe only just a few others) is an outlier, which I've acknowledged, but for the most part, many of the cities listed for these states truly are shrinking and/or are in bad shape for various reasons.
Baltimore is also a one of a kind city in Maryland. Even with its population losses, Baltimore is still half a million people larger than the next city. Same goes for Wilmington and Honolulu. Still doesn't tell the whole picture by just using some numbers.
Yes I used towers as an example, not the example. Towers are going up left and right in Austin, Nashville, Orlando, Tampa, Denver, why? Because there's still growth. Growth is more than population numbers. There is growth in Baltimore around Inner Harbor, Fells Point, and so on. If the whole city or area was in a state of decay and despair, there would not be tower growth. Same goes for Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. So yes I will use towers as an example.
I'm not blaming anyone, and no one is hysterical, calm down. I called the blog "stupid" and said the approach to writing it was lazy, you are the one who felt the need to come to its defense and get up in arms. Whoever wrote the blog should've did better research, that simple. They applied different metrics to different states, included places that aren't actually cities, and used dishonest pictures. A quick Google search would tell you Orangeburg would've been a better candidate than Spartanburg. It's laziness and I'm sticking by it.
Baltimore is also a one of a kind city in Maryland...what other city in Maryland is anything like it? Even with it's population losses, Baltimore is still 550,000 people larger than the next city. Same goes for Wilmington and Honolulu. So no s--t it's declining the fastest. Still doesn't tell the whole picture by just using some numbers.
Yes I used towers as AN example, not THE example. Towers are going up left and right in Austin, Nashville, Orlando, Tampa, Denver, why? Because there's still growth. Growth is more than population numbers. There is growth in Baltimore around Inner Harbor, Fells Point, and so on. If the whole city or area was in a state of decay and despair, there would not be tower growth. Same goes for Chicago. The city is bleeding people for obvious reasons, yet is still Crane Land, why? Because the growth is about more than population numbers. So yes I will use towers as an example.
I'm not blaming anyone, and no one is hysterical, calm down. I called the blog "stupid" and said the approach to writing it was lazy, you are the one who felt the need to come to its defense. Whoever wrote the blog should've did better research, that simple. They applied different metrics to different states, included places that aren't actually cities, and used dishonest pictures. A quick Google search would tell you Orangeburg would've been a better candidate than Spartanburg. It's laziness and I'm sticking by it.
The fact that you're criticizing the choice of Baltimore, which is by all accounts and measures is easily THE fastest-shrinking city in Maryland, shows that you're being hysterical about this and you're practically implying that the writer of the article has some sort of hidden agenda by choosing Spartanburg for SC. Poor choice for sure but geesh, calm down. It's really not that serious by any means. The entry for Spartanburg didn't even tie population shrinkage to municipal health, to its credit. I have no ties to the writer of the article and I don't even have any idea who it is, but you're going a bit overboard here. I would've been able to take your criticism more seriously had you not bashed the writer for highlighting one of THE poster children for declining big cities in the country. Nothing else in Maryland comes remotely close to a quickly shrinking city than Baltimore, not even an Appalachian city in the western part of the state like Cumberland which is also shrinking and struggling.
And yes, "fastest-shrinking city" is about population numbers, period. It doesn't tell the entire story about what's going on with a city (which I previously stated) but that's all this particular list is looking at. And just because they used a picture that's not really that old for Spartanburg hardly means it's a "dishonest" picture. It's barely been a year that the Montgomery Building has been restored and renovated....geesh! Stop acting as though Spartanburg is being especially targeted here or something because again, it's just not that serious.
The fact that you're criticizing the choice of Baltimore, which is by all accounts and measures is easily THE fastest-shrinking city in Maryland, shows that you're being hysterical about this and you're practically implying that the writer of the article has some sort of hidden agenda by choosing Spartanburg for SC. Poor choice for sure but geesh, calm down. It's really not that serious by any means. The entry for Spartanburg didn't even tie population shrinkage to municipal health, to its credit. I have no ties to the writer of the article and I don't even have any idea who it is, but you're going a bit overboard here. I would've been able to take your criticism more seriously had you not bashed the writer for highlighting one of THE poster children for declining big cities in the country. Nothing else in Maryland comes remotely close to a quickly shrinking city than Baltimore, not even an Appalachian city in the western part of the state like Cumberland which is also shrinking and struggling.
You are the one who needs to relax, dude. No one was talking to you. I said nothing about a hidden agenda. I said including Spartanburg was lazy. That is it. I did not say anything about the writer having it out for Spartanburg.
My criticism of the article as a whole is it making it seem like these cities are all in a complete state of hospice - and for using no clear metrics. You use top 20 cities in one state then use top 35 in another. You include a place that's not an actual city and never has been its own. Yes Baltimore has issues, but there's bright spots and still general growth and the article ignores that. They chose a very ugly picture on purpose.
So stop telling me to calm down. I called the article stupid and that was that. That triggered a nerve in you and you are the one who turned it into a debate. You're typing paragraphs because I called a blog post lazy and you have the nerve to call me hysterical, acting like I called for the website to get shut down and the writer fired without severance. Get off my case. It's my opinion.
Jackson will eventually see a turn around in population growth due to non whites population increasing. Greenville should of been on that list instead. About a 40% decline in population for that city.
I'm personally surprised Beaumont or a city in that area or Texas outside of the triangle is shrinking, While theirs lots of prosperity outside the Triangle something like 70-90% of growth is in the Triangle even though it's 70% of the population and just 10% of the land area (if you don't consider the central portions).
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.
