Today there are 600,000 in the same space.
Baltimore currently faces the same problems as most older US cities--crime, decay, maintaining infrastructure--
but could it be that trying to solve these problems in our underpopulated city spaces is made more difficult because of all this empty space?
-- much like a single person trying to repair a crumbling house that's far too big?
What about the strategy of shrinking the city to better serve a shrunken population?
These questions spurred me to discover the historical city boundaries of Baltimore.
~
Baltimore became an independent city in 1851, breaking away from Baltimore County.
In The History of Baltimore City and County, from the earliest period to the present day: including biographical sketches of their representative men by John Thomas Scharf, published in 1880,(and found here on google books) I found a map showing Baltimore Town in 1730 and its original 60 or 80?(hard to make out..) acres.
(note that the 'boundaries' are 1880 boundaries--much smaller than in 2010.)
And here's an 1880's map, with historic limits and some unusual tract names. It's funny to recognize some names, like Mt. Royal (a contemporary neighborhood), amid the other wild ones--I wish there were still a 'haphazard' neighborhood!
These early maps all show a relatively small Baltimore in from 1852-1880's.
Baltimore's 1852 population was about 500,000.(census data)
An 1852 map:
Here are Baltimore's Limits today with its 1852 limits (the map above) superimposed:
~
In 1888 the city annexed 2 miles to the north limit of the city (Additions included the areas that now include lake montebello and druid hill park) and 2 miles to the west limit, adding 36,000 people and increasing the city space by about 18.5 square miles (my rough calculations) to ~30 square miles.
Before the 1888 annex Baltimore had a population of 380,825 , area of 11.6 sq/mi, and density of ~32,000 persons per square mile.
In 1889 the population was boosted to ~417,000, area 30.1 sq/miles, and density was 13,853 persons per square mile.
(from Baltimore: its history and its people, Volume 1 By Clayton Colman Hall)
The new city 1888 limits looked like this:
~
Another large annexation occurred in 1919 (Baltimore, Volume 11) that nearly tripled the size of the city:
Baltimore's 1919 annexation:
A link to more details. (Baltimore County police, 1874-1999. via google books.)
~
In 1910 Baltimore had 558,000 residents and was 30 square miles,
population density 18,500 person/square mile.
In 1920, after the annex, it had 733,000 residents in 79 square miles,
and average density fell to 9,200 person/square mile.
And today?...
Its difficult to discern what has happened to the limits since, if anything.
Baltimore now has 80.8 sq/mi of land within city limits--awfully close to the 79 sq/mile total after the 1919 annex.
Perhaps there were was another very small annex, or perhaps land was built into the harbor.
As of 2009, Baltimore has a density of 7,882 persons per square mile--even less than after the 1919 density-dropping annex.
~
Some musings:
From a satellite, there is a visible area of notable development within Baltimore. Maybe this should be the 'city limit'? It pretty much coincides with the city limits in the 1910's:
Doubts:
-Maybe we have more parks today, which drives down density but increases happiness.
-Too many parks can be a bad thing.
-What if current density can't be recollected into a smaller, leaner city?
-Can a city contain a more urban core and a 'suburbanish' fringe and not betray or underserve one group?
-Do cities need the tax dollars from suburbs-within-city-limits to pay for the actual city-within-city-limits?
What might resizing to a smaller Baltimore do for its residents, budget, demeanor and quality of life?
3 comments:
There's overwelming evidence that a low population density is bad for a city.
Any business - a local store for example - needs a certain number of customers to survive. Here in the UK, most people using a local "corner shop" walk there. If the population density is too low, there aren't enough people within walking distance - and when people have to get into their car, they tend to happily drive the extra couple of minutes to drive to a big supermarket, so the corner shop disappears.
This principle goes for most things. Public transport only works if there are enough people within walking distance of a stop. If not, the pulic transport isn't viable and becomes less regular and poorer in quality. That's fine for those that have cars, but impoverishes those without. They in turn begin to suffer joblessness, crime rises, the richer members of society leave and the downward spiral continues.
I live on the edge of the southwest city boundry. My property is located about 150 feet inside the city boundry depending on where exactly you measure. My house is about 200 feet inside the city boundry.
The city may have plenty of parks in some areas but there are none within a walking distance (minimum 3/4 of a mile and you'd have to walk most of that on Patapsco Ave which has, for the most part, no sidewalk) of my home. However, there are no less than 2 county parks closer... one of which is only about 750 feet away.
I like the idea of recollecting the current density into a leaner city... although I think the only way of doing that is to scale back the boundries.
I do not believe this city can contain a more urban core and a "suburbanish" fringe without underserving one group. At least, in the five years I have lived here it does not seem able to do so. As previously mentioned the city parks are not convenient. The rec centers are even less convenient. I have never seen a city snow plow on my street. (The county plows simply finish the small portion of the street that is in the city since it is easier for them than to attempt to turn around. There is another small portion on this street on the other side of Patapsco Ave that the city never plows... usually it just melts away at some point.) I have never seen a street sweeper on this street unless I specifically request it to be sweeped. I have seen other, even underprivileged areas of the city, get weekly street sweeping but they are more in the city urban core.
As for whether cities need the suburban tax dollars for the urban core, I believe this answer is likely yes. However, is it fair to collect tax dollars from the suburban fringe and underserve them in respect to the urban core? Driving through my neighborhood you have no idea you are entering the city unless you look at the small sign on the street. Otherwise, you would believe you are still within the Baltimore Highlands area of Baltimore County. In fact, this was once a complete neighborhood known as English Consul Estates prior to being annexed by the city in, I believe, 1919.
I would like to think that resizing Baltimore City to a smaller, leaner city would help it to be able to focus better on the city's needs as it is not doing a good job of serving the urban city and suburban city. They could focus city services where they are needed most without underserving a large portion of their population and Baltimore County could benefit from my tax dollars since it is their services (parks, plows, etc) that I tend to utilize the most.
I live on the North East edge of the city. Our neighborhood is half in Baltimore County and Half in Baltimore City. We have incredible difficulty with receiving city services and our neighborhood has little in common with a city/urban lifestyle. We have mused about having the county annex the remainder of the neighborhood, but have no idea how to even start a process like that.
Post a Comment