Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
A little late on a couple of responses, so I'll try to address just a couple of points:
@slick - Inner Harbor is nicely done, but IMHO it takes more than downtown construction to revitalize a city. It entails improving neighborhoods, developing new economic strengths, etc. Unfortunately some cities seem to have focused primarily on the gleaming centers.
An admittedly opinion piece describing, even back in 2001, how Inner Harbor had not helped most of the city: "Baltimore goes from urban revival to angst" (DeWayne Wickham, USAToday, 7/2/2001).
While T. Rowe Price did relocate downtown in 1975 (an early Inner Harbor tenant), it was always a Baltimore business (i.e. not an example of Inner Harbor drawing new businesses to the city). Like Wall Street firms, it employs many more people in its back offices in the suburbs than in its downtown headquarters.
@davidrmoran: my reference to the Ford headline was intended as a pithy reminder that even the largest city in the country was facing bankruptcy in the 70s, with others not far behind. Different cities managed their way out differently - some have done better than others. Unfortunately, cities like Baltimore and Detroit have not done well for a variety of reasons.
I have not been to Baltimore but I wonder if the revitalization of the downtown attracted white collar businesses only? In Tacoma where I grew up, the downtown was the center of everything until the first mall went in. Located away from the downtown, it pulled almost all the businesses away from the downtown. What was left withered away as time went on.
The development has to be multi-pronged with businesses both large and small plus housing. People living downtown need markets and restaurants. A lot of downtowns focused on white collar business and after closing for the day, the area is a ghost town.
Tacoma finally realized this and was able to convince the Univ. of Wash. to put a branch campus downtown. Soon after, the restos, coffee shops and pubs came in. Condos are being built. Markets are starting to come back. It took a long time though as local govt fiddled around.
Has Baltimore's downtown experienced the same type of revival?
@JohnChisum Excellent point about mixed use. Apropos, this weekend 150 cities are holding annual Jane's walks. (Jane Jacobs was a journalist who advocated for mixed use, human scaled communities.) Highly recommended.
msf, Would it had been able to continue. Some things are beyond the help of policy, or almost, so yay JJacobs for sure. I spent a weekend in Rochester last fall (went to the U of R) and it is still suffering for real. Others undoubtedly are worse.
Comments
@slick - Inner Harbor is nicely done, but IMHO it takes more than downtown construction to revitalize a city. It entails improving neighborhoods, developing new economic strengths, etc. Unfortunately some cities seem to have focused primarily on the gleaming centers.
An admittedly opinion piece describing, even back in 2001, how Inner Harbor had not helped most of the city: "Baltimore goes from urban revival to angst" (DeWayne Wickham, USAToday, 7/2/2001).
While T. Rowe Price did relocate downtown in 1975 (an early Inner Harbor tenant), it was always a Baltimore business (i.e. not an example of Inner Harbor drawing new businesses to the city). Like Wall Street firms, it employs many more people in its back offices in the suburbs than in its downtown headquarters.
Its decision to stay in Inner Harbor may have been as much a matter of convenience (access for existing workers there) and simple economics ("[downtown] market already struggling with high vacancy rates") as a vote of confidence in the city as a whole.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-12-12/business/bs-bz-t-rowe-20131212_1_rowe-price-downtown-baltimore-harbor-east
@davidrmoran: my reference to the Ford headline was intended as a pithy reminder that even the largest city in the country was facing bankruptcy in the 70s, with others not far behind. Different cities managed their way out differently - some have done better than others. Unfortunately, cities like Baltimore and Detroit have not done well for a variety of reasons.
Here's a NYTimes opinion piece that leads with that idea, and goes on to discuss how Rochester "continues to grow at a healthy clip", despite the failure of Kodak.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/rochesters-survival-lessons.html?_r=0
The development has to be multi-pronged with businesses both large and small plus housing. People living downtown need markets and restaurants. A lot of downtowns focused on white collar business and after closing for the day, the area is a ghost town.
Tacoma finally realized this and was able to convince the Univ. of Wash. to put a branch campus downtown. Soon after, the restos, coffee shops and pubs came in. Condos are being built. Markets are starting to come back. It took a long time though as local govt fiddled around.
Has Baltimore's downtown experienced the same type of revival?
Would it had been able to continue. Some things are beyond the help of policy, or almost, so yay JJacobs for sure. I spent a weekend in Rochester last fall (went to the U of R) and it is still suffering for real. Others undoubtedly are worse.
ask them,don't be fooled...