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.
Almost nobody would be something like a virtual 95% capture or along those lines, right? I'm pretty sure that's complete bunk, and I'll try to explain why.
Being along the northeast corridor and getting migration from there while still having access is absolutely, unequivocally one of the draws of Baltimore. Similarly, having access to the Bay Area is one of the draws of Sacramento and Sacramento does take a decent amount of outflow from there. I'm much more familiar with the Bay Area and NYC than I am with either of the cities in this topic, and I certainly know people who have respectively moved from the Bay Area to Sacramento as well as from NYC to Baltimore. A friend of mine who moved out to Sacramento seems to have made friends with people who are majority Bay Area transplants. It'd be ridiculous to not consider that, and that certainly is not atypical as there is such a thing as pricing pressures on one hand and trying to stay within a daytrip distance to friends or family.
Now it's just the location of Baltimore by itself, because it's insufficient. My argument was strongly based on the best / better neighborhoods in Baltimore. If we're restricting ourselves to the city area and not the greater metropolitan area, then it's pretty reasonable that someone moving into Baltimore from elsewhere, lest they're moving in as a desperate refugee, would only be doing so with the means to live in a fairly good to great neighborhood. Who really picks up to move to the worst neighborhoods in Baltimore? That seems pretty unreasonable, doesn't it? Ask yourself, given the relatively high paying jobs available in the area for a variety of professions and the relatively cheap real estate, why would a middle class professional moving from *outside* of Baltimore end up not choosing one of the best neighborhoods in Baltimore? Remember, Sacramento's cost of living is significantly higher than that of Baltimore and much of that is in *housing* costs while the commutable jobs from a Baltimore location for a middle class white collar professional are generally much better paying unless you were doing a supercommuter thing into the Bay Area. For Baltimore to DC-area jobs, unless it's well into the other side of the Washington metropolitan area, wouldn't generally be supercommuting, but one into the Bay Area from San Francisco absolutely will be.
If the cost of housing low in Baltimore because nobody wants to live there or because they build a ton of housing? It very much is the former
Most of what you are saying is technicalities. Nobody moves to Baltimore to be close to New York. You’d move, to New York (or Newark or something) the value of things beyond maybe 90 minutes have extreme diminishing returns as something over 3hrs away I’d a weekend trip anyway and might as well be 6. (Which a 6 hr trip time could be a flight from Sac to Denver or something)
Baltimore population is dropping despite being cheaper than growing Sacramento. That reeks you a lot about their relative desirability.
Interesting comparison. Are we considering metro areas, here?
Although I think Baltimore has better bones, I do understand that Sacramento is generally more "functional" of a city, with fewer social challenges.
However, when you expand that scope the broader metro area, I believe this is where Baltimore has a strong edge. I remember being in the Sacramento area and being kind of taken aback at how much it seemed to resemble a place like Oklahoma.
I'm just not particularly a fan of Western-styled suburbs that look like nonstop subdivisions and strip malls, with FAR less interspersed open space and are much more paved over, generally. The Baltimore area is hilly and lush, with much more preserved nature by comparison. The difference is palpable:
That's a bit overly generous of an area, don't you think? There's a decent amount of industrial and parkland in there as well as some neighborhoods that I think are kind of on the cusp. Parts of downtown weren't too great the last few times I was there. I think it's very much some of the neighborhoods near downtown where Baltimore does well. I think splitting the difference between your estimate and btownboss is about fine. The last time I was in Baltimore was in spring of this year, so while I do think the summer did likely bring a lot of people into downtowns for fun, I'm not sure how much of a rebound there could have been in just several months.
I don't think downtown is where Baltimore shines at the moment except for a few tourist areas whereas it is where Sacramento does alongside Midtown. However, some neighborhoods part of greater downtown or near downtown are fantastic.
He's not being generous enough. He can actually draw the line further south across to the other side of the Hanover Street Bridge. He can also head further east on the northern periphery of the border, which encompasses the first Google maps link that he posted.
If the cost of housing low in Baltimore because nobody wants to live there or because they build a ton of housing? It very much is the former
Most of what you are saying is technicalities. Nobody moves to Baltimore to be close to New York. You’d move, to New York (or Newark or something) the value of things beyond maybe 90 minutes have extreme diminishing returns as something over 3hrs away I’d a weekend trip anyway and might as well be 6. (Which a 6 hr trip time could be a flight from Sac to Denver or something)
Baltimore population is dropping despite being cheaper than growing Sacramento. That reeks you a lot about their relative desirability.
It's both. The average housing cost for Baltimore is low because there are some very undesirable neighborhoods that bring down the average and the associated push effect that has extends to other neighborhoods that are quite nice and makes them cheaper than they would have been. Meanwhile, in a lot of the urban core in and around downtown as well as around the more prized neighborhoods I've mentioned, there's been a spate of new construction. That's where and how you're seeing population growth even as household sizes are low. However, those areas aren't gaining population as rapidly as the areas losing population are, so the city as a whole currently nets negative.
I'm not following you on what you mean by technicality. You don't move to Baltimore to be close to New York (or Philadelphia or DC). You maybe move there for some combination of lower cost of living, chance of home ownership in a nice urban neighborhood, for a job opportunity, for career advancement to study at JHU or some such, etc. However, the move becomes more manageable because it's less of a haul to stay in touch with your homebase of sorts. This isn't an exact science, but every time I've moved there was generally more than just one singular thing I considered. Proximity does make a difference, and it's not solely by chance that so many transplants in Baltimore are from the Northeast Corridor or those in Sacramento are from the Bay Area.
Baltimore population is most certainly dropping overall. It's dropping in the neighborhoods pretty much no one making a voluntary move to Baltimore as a middle class professional would move to. Meanwhile, those neighborhoods they would move to are *growing* in population. It's maybe a bit confusing, but cities are often a fairly large collection of different neighborhoods with very different conditions from each other.
He's not being generous enough. He can actually draw the line further south across to the other side of the Hanover Street Bridge. He can also head further east on the northern periphery of the border, which encompasses the first Google maps link that he posted.
I probably misinterpreted his intent. He's outlining census tracts with population growth rather than this being the area that are great to live in.
That's a bit overly generous of an area, don't you think? There's a decent amount of industrial and parkland in there as well as some neighborhoods that I think are kind of on the cusp. Parts of downtown weren't too great the last few times I was there. I think it's very much some of the neighborhoods near downtown where Baltimore does well. I think splitting the difference between your estimate and btownboss is about fine. The last time I was in Baltimore was in spring of this year, so while I do think the summer did likely bring a lot of people into downtowns for fun, I'm not sure how much of a rebound there could have been in just several months.
Not really.
The some total of industrial area in that area highlight is negligible and the data backs the area up. Station North, Pigtown, and eastern fringes of DT would be the only neighborhoods on the “cusp” and even those neighborhoods you going to fined 6 figure income people.
The area highlighted is what’s referred to as Baltimore’s “white L” it’s where the highest income and statistically safest neighborhoods reside and the demographics are shockingly contrast to neighborhoods adjacent to it.
The some total of industrial area in that area highlight is negligible and the data backs the area up. Station North, Pigtown, and eastern fringes of DT would be the only neighborhoods on the “cusp” and even those neighborhoods you going to fined 6 figure income people.
The area highlighted is what’s referred to as Baltimore’s “white L” it’s where the highest income and statistically safest neighborhoods reside and the demographics are shockingly contrast to neighborhoods adjacent to it.
I'm trying to understand what you're outlining. Are you talking about total area where you think people would happily live in and arguably better than any neighborhood in Sacramento (e.g. better than the best neighborhoods in Sacramento) which is what btownboss and myself had been discussing, the area where the census tracts are growing in population, or something else entirely?
I was talking about the first of that list, and it makes sense that I would have thought you were doing the same since you were responding in that chain of arguments. If that's the case, then the industrial areas and the parks are not livable areas because you cannot live in them. I also think a pretty large chunk of blocks within the downtown area would be unpleasant to live in with the shuttered shops and some pretty desperate seeming people on the streets and I would take parts of downtown Sacramento, midtown Sacramento, and North Oak Park over such. So in that sense, you saying "not really" doesn't make much sense to me unless we are talking about different things. I thought perhaps your post would make more sense if that was just about census tracts that had growth.
Inner Harbor is quite nice! It'd be nice if Baltimore invested in much of the rest of its downtown as that would better connect it to adjacent neighborhoods that are quite nice. From what I saw, a good chunk of downtown was very much shuttered (again, this was in spring of this year, so maybe it's gotten a lot better) and there were a lot of people that seemed down on the luck sitting or wandering around on the sidewalks.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-09-2023 at 09:27 AM..
If the cost of housing low in Baltimore because nobody wants to live there or because they build a ton of housing? It very much is the former
Most of what you are saying is technicalities. Nobody moves to Baltimore to be close to New York. You’d move, to New York (or Newark or something) the value of things beyond maybe 90 minutes have extreme diminishing returns as something over 3hrs away I’d a weekend trip anyway and might as well be 6. (Which a 6 hr trip time could be a flight from Sac to Denver or something)
Baltimore population is dropping despite being cheaper than growing Sacramento. That reeks you a lot about their relative desirability.
Raw numbers and headlines don't give context. Yes, the population is dropping, but who is leaving? That's what determines the desirability. If you're tearing down a bunch of housing projects in an undesirable neighborhood, pushing inhabitants out to the suburbs to make way for a fancy apartments, yes the population is gonna go down.
I can show you neighborhoods in the city where gentrification is taking place in Real Time.
It's both. The average housing cost for Baltimore is low because there are some very undesirable neighborhoods that bring down the average and the associated push effect that has extends to other neighborhoods that are quite nice and makes them cheaper than they would have been. Meanwhile, in a lot of the urban core in and around downtown as well as around the more prized neighborhoods I've mentioned, there's been a spate of new construction. That's where and how you're seeing population growth even as household sizes are low. However, those areas aren't gaining population as rapidly as the areas losing population are, so the city as a whole currently nets negative.
I'm not following you on what you mean by technicality. You don't move to Baltimore to be close to New York (or Philadelphia or DC). You maybe move there for some combination of lower cost of living, chance of home ownership in a nice urban neighborhood, for a job opportunity, for career advancement to study at JHU or some such, etc. However, the move becomes more manageable because it's less of a haul to stay in touch with your homebase of sorts. This isn't an exact science, but every time I've moved there was generally more than just one singular thing I considered. Proximity does make a difference, and it's not solely by chance that so many transplants in Baltimore are from the Northeast Corridor or those in Sacramento are from the Bay Area.
Baltimore population is most certainly dropping overall. It's dropping in the neighborhoods pretty much no one making a voluntary move to Baltimore as a middle class professional would move to. Meanwhile, those neighborhoods they would move to are *growing* in population. It's maybe a bit confusing, but cities are often a fairly large collection of different neighborhoods with very different conditions from each other.
Yes so on balance Sacramento is clearly the nicer city almost across the board.
Baltimore is effectively a city of like 125,000 in terms of where the middle class would actually want to live. It’s quite limited.
I’ve been to Baltimore before. West Baltimore, Downtown Baltimore, stink. Federal Hill/Locust Pt. is nice, Up by Penn Station is nice, Fells point is nice, but these are fairly disconnected areas that border on crap.
What I was trying to say Baltimore has *maybe* 3sq miles that exceed anything in Sacramento than the other 80sq mikes Sacramento meets or exceeds Baltimore equivalents so on balance it’s much nicer.
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.
