Combined, Washington-Baltimore now outsizes Chicago as America’s 3rd largest CSA

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's different when there's a single dominant core, like Dallas over FTW, Seattle over Tacoma, or SF over Oakland or San Jose.

"Dominance" is relative. When you say "core," are you referring to built environment or name recognition?

Not only is DC's core orders of magnitude more important than Baltimore's, it's grand, iconic, intact, extremely presentable (to a fault, IMO), and carries metonymic value. By contrast, "Silicon Valley" is domiciled 30 miles away in vast suburban office parks ("Googleplex," "Apple Park") surrounded by nondescript sprawl. The economic might of Silicon Valley is one of the main reasons why people are lured to the Bay Area, even if they do end up in SF.

DC is more akin to NYC, where power is concentrated in a relatively small geographic area and radiates in all directions. Baltimore just so happens to be within that sphere of influence while also not being important and independent enough (unlike Philadelphia) to avoid the grab of its more dominant neighbor.

[JManc]

When people say 'city' in the Bay Area, it's San Francisco they are referring to. San Jose is just San Jose. Which most people i met prefer over SF where they hardly visit.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I've never felt that was operative in the Washington/Baltimore corridor to the same extent. Maybe I'll feel differently, if DC residents start calling each other "Hon" on a regular basis. You still hear that all over the place around Baltimore. https://baltimorelanguage.com/welcom...e-hon-podcast/

It's not about "feeling."

Baltimoreans' insistence on having a distinct cultural identity and harboring resentment toward Washington/ians is precisely because they know on an immediate, visceral level that DC casts a shadow over them. That's because DC is only 30 miles (city border to city border) away. Two siblings that are half a generation apart and estranged still belong to the same family nonetheless. Two metros with different personalities but shared proximity, infrastructure, institutions, and employment are the same region — separate television markets notwithstanding.

But for all the talk about Baltimore and DC being different, there are lots of historical connections:


• Thurgood Marshall, a native Baltimorean, went to Howard.

• Johns Hopkins grew up in Anne Arundel County (present-day Crofton, closer to DC), and his mother was from Loudoun County, VA.

• Georgetown University was founded by John Carroll, once the Archbishop of Baltimore and whose family played an important role in Baltimore's founding. Carroll grew up in Upper Marlboro, MD (Prince George's County).

• Baltimore is named after the 2nd Baron Baltimore, whose great-great-great-grandson founded the University of Maryland in College Park.

• Francis Scott Key (a Baltimorean), who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner in the aftermath of the Battle of Baltimore, established his career in Washington. A bridge crossing the Potomac linking Georgetown and Arlington is named after him.


Baltimore is in Washington's DNA, and (modern-era) Washington is in Baltimore's DNA. Fort Meade is located where it is because of its proximity to both cities. The SSA is headquartered in Baltimore because the Candler Building "was among only a few sites in the Baltimore-Washington area that could house the enormous volume of records and equipment required for this operation."

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Yeah, I think a fair number of DC baseball fans used to go up to Baltimore back in the day, especially after Camden Yard opened. It made for a nice outing. I even went to see the Orioles in the last year they played at Memorial Stadium. Boy was that place a big old barn of a stadium. I don't think there are many Baltimore folks coming down to see the Nats. I don't think the Ravens have ever had a large following from DC neck of the woods, but I am really out of touch with pro football in that part of the country.

Eastern cities steeped in history and established tradition tend to maintain independent cultural identities, and that is especially true when it comes to sports fandom. I have a colleague from Hartford, CT who roots for all the Boston teams except for the Bruins because he grew up a Whalers fan.

Baltimore roots/supports the Wizards (once the Baltimore Bullets) and Capitals (just Google it). Division among football/baseball allegiance is more common, especially given the complicated history of the NFL and MLB in that region. If I had to guess, there's probably more Ravens/Orioles fans in DC than Commanders/Nationals fans in Baltimore. But while the Ravens and Nationals have enjoyed more recent success, the Commanders (Redskins) and Orioles have the richer history. It's kind of a wash.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Quixote

"Dominance" is relative. When you say "core," are you referring to built environment or name recognition?

Not only is DC's core orders of magnitude more important than Baltimore's, it's grand, iconic, intact, extremely presentable (to a fault, IMO), and carries metonymic value. By contrast, "Silicon Valley" is domiciled 30 miles away in vast suburban office parks ("Googleplex," "Apple Park") surrounded by nondescript sprawl. The economic might of Silicon Valley is one of the main reasons why people are lured to the Bay Area, even if they do end up in SF.

DC is more akin to NYC, where power is concentrated in a relatively small geographic area and radiates in all directions. Baltimore just so happens to be within that sphere of influence while also not being important and independent enough (unlike Philadelphia) to avoid the grab of its more dominant neighbor.

I don't think I am wrong about this, but throughout most of US history, Baltimore was bigger and as important as DC for the area because it had a big manufacturing base. If you look at Wiki populations history, Baltimore city was bigger than DC up until 1980. DC was the nation's capital, but it had a distinctly 'southern city' ethos. DC became more important and dominant as the Federal administrative state continued to expand and traditional manufacturing cities like Baltimore went into a decline. DC also went into a decline but because much (if not most) of the Fed workforce in DC is white collar and average pay is above well above the median US, it was able to turn around quicker than Baltimore. Baltimore is in a tough spot now because it is having a hard time replacing its industrial base and its sandwiched among other Midatlantic cities that it must compete with for business. It sort of like Newark competing with NYC, or Harford competing with Boston now.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

Baltimore is in a tough spot now because it is having a hard time replacing its industrial base and its sandwiched among other Midatlantic cities that it must compete with for business. It sort of like Newark competing with NYC, or Harford competing with Boston now.

Hartford is much more in NYC's orbit than in Boston's orbit.

Baltimore benefits from proximity to DC. It's actually a very prosperous, highly educated metro, with a huge number of federal/contractor/research jobs, obviously due to proximity to DC. It's one of the wealthiest, best educated metros in the U.S. People need to look past the ghetto porn. Even DC proper had pretty terrible ghetto porn 20-30 years ago. I remember Benning Road in the 1990's. Horrible. But DC has been super-wealthy and educated since forever.

Hartford, BTW, is even wealthier and better educated than Baltimore. Another metro that has a reputation that doesn't match reality.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by DCReid

If you look at Wiki populations history, Baltimore city was bigger than DC up until 1980.

actually, going by city-propers, Baltimore was bigger than DC all the way up until census 2020.

year --- Baltimore --- DC

1900 ---- 508,957 --- 278,718
1910 ---- 558,485 --- 331,069
1920 ---- 733,826 --- 437,571
1930 ---- 804,874 --- 486,869
1940 ---- 859,100 --- 663,091
1950 ---- 949,708 --- 802,178
1960 ---- 939,024 --- 763,956
1970 ---- 905,787 --- 756,510
1980 ---- 786,741 --- 638,333
1990 ---- 736,016 --- 606,900
2000 ---- 651,154 --- 572,059
2010 ---- 620,961 --- 601,723
2020 ---- 585,708 --- 689,545



now, at the MSA level (the better comparison), DC has been bigger than Baltimore since 1950.

[Crawford]

While DC is obviously 1 bazillion times more important, I'd argue that just passing through the cities, by road or rail, Baltimore "feels" bigger.

DC is so leafy and postwar suburban sprawly that you barely notice you're in a big metro until you're nearly downtown. It definitely has that Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh "is this a hilly forest with random houses or a real city" thing. In contrast, Baltimore has more prewar infrastructure, big port infrastructure and tons of postindustrial grit, alongside very tight, Philly-like urban landscapes.

Also, if you travel into DC by Acela or down I-95, you're passing through the least developed sprawl, so it's basically woods, and then you're a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

But for all the talk about Baltimore and DC being different, there are lots of historical connections:


• Thurgood Marshall, a native Baltimorean, went to Howard.

• Johns Hopkins grew up in Anne Arundel County (present-day Crofton, closer to DC), and his mother was from Loudoun County, VA.

• Georgetown University was founded by John Carroll, once the Archbishop of Baltimore and whose family played an important role in Baltimore's founding. Carroll grew up in Upper Marlboro, MD (Prince George's County).

• Baltimore is named after the 2nd Baron Baltimore, whose great-great-great-grandson founded the University of Maryland in College Park.

• Francis Scott Key (a Baltimorean), who wrote the Star-Spangled Banner in the aftermath of the Battle of Baltimore, established his career in Washington. A bridge crossing the Potomac linking Georgetown and Arlington is named after him.

Baltimore has also previously served as the U.S. capital.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Baltimore has also previously served as the U.S. capital.

technically, yes, but it was for like 2 months back in 1777 to escape british forces who were advancing upon philadelphia during the revolutionary war.

once the threat to philly subsided, congress moved right back up to independence hall.

baltimore was merely a temporary "safe-house" location, not a permanent seat of power.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

While DC is obviously 1 bazillion times more important, I'd argue that just passing through the cities, by road or rail, Baltimore "feels" bigger.

DC is so leafy and postwar suburban sprawly that you barely notice you're in a big metro until you're nearly downtown. It definitely has that Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh "is this a hilly forest with random houses or a real city" thing. In contrast, Baltimore has more prewar infrastructure, big port infrastructure and tons of postindustrial grit, alongside very tight, Philly-like urban landscapes.

Also, if you travel into DC by Acela or down I-95, you're passing through the least developed sprawl, so it's basically woods, and then you're a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

I wouldn't say D.C. is quite to the level of Atlanta/Charlotte/Raleigh, but yes, the housing stock in Baltimore looks much older than D.C.'s and seems like there is more row house stock. Honestly, Baltimore's housing stock looks to be the oldest of all the major NE corridor cities.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

technically, yes, but it was for like 2 months back in 1777 to escape british forces who were advancing upon philadelphia during the revolutionary war.

once the threat to philly subsided, congress moved right back up to independence hall.

baltimore was merely a temporary "safe-house" location, not a permanent seat of power.

Yes, it was short lived, but it's still a member of a small club.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I wouldn't say D.C. is quite to the level of Atlanta/Charlotte/Raleigh, but yes, the housing stock in Baltimore looks much older than D.C.'s and seems like there is more row house stock. Honestly, Baltimore's housing stock looks to be the oldest of all the major NE corridor cities.

Baltimore should be growing by now. The Northeast Corridor had a superb decade, growing very fast, specially the urban cores and Baltimore still managed to lose population.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Baltimore should be growing by now. The Northeast Corridor had a superb decade, growing very fast, specially the urban cores and Baltimore still managed to lose population.

I don't believe Baltimore has ever shown population loss. It has pretty consistent growth, for a slow-growth part of the country.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Baltimore should be growing by now. The Northeast Corridor had a superb decade, growing very fast, specially the urban cores and Baltimore still managed to lose population.

Maryland still seems like a pretty sprawl friendly state. It's probably the most sprawl friendly state in the northeast corridor.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't believe Baltimore has ever shown population loss.

the Baltimore MSA has never seen a loss:

1950: 1,337,373 (+23.5%)
1960: 1,820,314 (+36.1%)
1970: 2,089,092 (+14.8%)
1980: 2,199,531 (+5.3%)
1990: 2,382,172 (+8.3%)
2000: 2,552,994 (+7.2%)
2010: 2,710,489 (+6.2%)
2020: 2,844,510 (+4.9%)



the city proper, on the other hand:

1950: 949,708 (+10.5%)
1960: 939,024 (−1.1%)
1970: 905,787 (−3.5%)
1980: 786,741 (−13.1%)
1990: 736,016 (−6.4%)
2000: 651,154 (−11.5%)
2010: 620,961 (−4.6%)
2020: 585,708 (−5.7%)

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't believe Baltimore has ever shown population loss. It has pretty consistent growth, for a slow-growth part of the country.

I meant city proper. Metro area wise, since the WWII, only Washington has grown faster than Baltimore.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Quixote

By contrast, "Silicon Valley" is domiciled 30 miles away in vast suburban office parks ("Googleplex," "Apple Park") surrounded by nondescript sprawl. The economic might of Silicon Valley is one of the main reasons why people are lured to the Bay Area, even if they do end up in SF.

"Silicon Valley" includes a huge chunk of the SF MSA, and is also used as a term for the Bay Area tech industry in general, of which a large part is based in SF proper.

It's kind of pointless to make a distinction between the two, IMO, especially in 2022.

Originally Posted by JManc

San Jose is just San Jose. Which most people i met prefer over SF where they hardly visit.

Most people I've met say the opposite lol. Seems to me that people who prefer a more suburban environment, would tend to prefer San Jose. Both cities also have all the amenities one could need, so you typically don't have to visit the other one unless it's for fun or work or sports or whatever.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by tech12

"Silicon Valley" includes a huge chunk of the SF MSA, and is also used as a term for the Bay Area tech industry in general, of which a large part is based in SF proper.

The traditional geography of Silicon Valley is in San Jose. The only towns in SF MSA that could plausibly be in Silicon Valley are Menlo Park and Redwood City, and they're adjacent to the San Jose MSA (which is the point, as MSAs aren't divided by counties; if they were divided by census tracts, they'd be in San Jose).

San Jose is basically a tech-dominated geography. San Francisco is a geography where tech is very important. There are pretty big cultural, economic and demographic differences. But it's all obviously a single CSA.

[mhays]

Very misleading. The fulcrum of jobs is between the two. And the workers certainly come from both. Read up on the armada of company buses (augmenting regular transit) sometime.