THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS:
EVIDENCE FROM METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE1
Bernadette Hanlon2
Department of Public Policy
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Thomas J. Vicino
School of Urban and Public Affairs
University of Texas at Arlington
Abstract: This paper analyzes the transformation of Baltimore’s inner suburbs from 1980
to 2000. After developing a geographic definition of inner suburbs, we then spatially analyze
them using census place-level data. The analysis shows evidence of socioeconomic decline in
Baltimore’s inner suburbs, but the extent of this decline varies among these suburbs. Since 1980,
many declining inner suburbs had difficulty attracting new residents, White flight was the
prevailing trend, and the housing stock was outdated relative to the outer suburbs. The analysis
suggests three major influences on decline among the inner suburbs of Baltimore: labor market
restructuring, the nature of the local housing market, and income and racial segregation. This
paper concludes with a classification of Baltimore’s inner suburbs based on our understanding of
the processes of suburban decline in the region. [Key words: suburban decline, inner suburbs,
neighborhood change, Baltimore.]
INTRODUCTION
A recent article in The Baltimore Sun suggests that the population is continuing to shift
to the “far-flung” suburbs of Baltimore and Washington, DC, at the expense of the inner
suburbs (Green, 2004). This article is interesting in that it highlights a growing realization
among the popular media, policymakers, and the academic community that “something
bad is happening” in the inner ring.
Socioeconomic decline is no longer perceived as solely a city problem. According to
recent studies, suburbs are experiencing increases in poverty, economic segregation,
declining household incomes, overcrowding in schools, population loss, and declines in
homeownership (Baldassare, 1986; Lucy and Phillips, 2000, 2006; Bier, 2001; Smith et
1
Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency through grant numbers R-82818201-0 and CR83105801, it has not been
subjected to the Agency’s required peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views
of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. We also thank Royce Hanson, Donald F. Norris,
John Rennie Short, Todd Swanstrom, Amy G. Rynes, George Wagner, and three anonymous reviewers and the
editors for their insight and helpful comments. Both authors contributed equally to this paper.
2
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bernadette Hanlon, Center for Urban
Environmental Research and Education, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, TRC
Room 102, Baltimore, MD 21250; telephone: 410-455-1762; fax: 410-455-1769; e-mail: [email protected]
249
Urban Geography, 2007, 28, 3, pp. 249–275.
Copyright © 2007 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.
250
HANLON AND VICINO
al., 2001; Orfield, 2002; Hudnut, 2003; Jargowsky 2003; Swanstrom et al., 2006). In
some cases, suburbs are worse off than the central city. Lucy and Phillips (2006), in their
study of 2,586 suburbs in 35 large metropolitan areas, found that, during the 1990s, half
of suburbs declined in relative income. They assert that we have entered the “era of
suburban decline” (Lucy and Phillips, 2000).
Numerous scholars have noted that suburban decline is more prevalent in the older
suburbs of metropolitan America (e.g., Downs, 1973; Sternlieb and Lake, 1975; Listokin
and Beaton, 1983; Jackson, 1985; Hayden, 2003), and yet there is little empirical research
specific to these places. This neglect is partly a result of the focus on the multiple problems within central cities and viewing suburbia’s difficulties in terms of unfettered
growth rather than socioeconomic decline (Logan, 1978; Listokin and Beaton, 1983;
Baldassare, 1992). It is also a function of the prevelance of the city–suburban dichotomy
in the urban studies literature (Bourne, 1996; Hanlon et al., 2006).
This paper takes stock of suburban decline by analyzing 21 inner suburbs of the
Baltimore region. The central themes of this analysis are twofold. First, we measure the
prevalence of decline among inner suburbs and between inner and outer suburbs in the
region. Second, we characterize the processes of decline in the context of inner suburbs
of an older, deindustrialized region. Specifically, our objectives in this analysis are to: (1)
provide a definition of inner suburbs; (2) examine socioeconomic and demographic
changes between 1980 and 2000 in Baltimore’s suburbs; and (3) theorize the major influences on inner suburban decline in the region.
We chose Baltimore as a case study since it is illustrative of a secondary, deindustrialized region that has struggled to retool its economy around the postindustrial, information
age. In the past 50 years, the U.S. economy has witnessed a shift away from the traditional
manufacturing base to more specialized service and information-producing industries,
resulting in the decline of long-established manufacturing metropolitan areas such as
Baltimore (Bluestone and Harrison, 1982; Noyelle and Stanback, 1983; Sassen, 1990,
1991). The effects of this decline have been well-documented for the central cities of
older, deindustrialized regions (Beauregard, 2003), but there is less known about their
inner suburbs.
DEFINING THE INNER SUBURBS OF BALTIMORE
Before analyzing the socioeconomic changes and physical condition of Baltimore’s
inner suburbs, it is important to identify their location in the urban landscape. There are
many terms used to describe inner suburbs, including working class suburbs, automobile
suburbs, industrial suburbs, older suburbs, streetcar suburbs, and “suburbs as slums”
(Dobriner, 1963; Berger, 1968; Warner, 1978; Jackson, 1985; Knox, 1994; Harris and
Lewis, 1998; Hayden, 2003). Yet, there are few concrete spatial definitions of these
places.
One exception is that put forth by Lee and Leigh (2005) in their study of Philadelphia’s
suburbs. They suggest that inner suburbs are “low-density, single-family, residential suburban areas built between 1950 and 1969” (Lee and Leigh, 2005, p. 15), and, in the case
of Philadelphia, these suburbs lie within 20 miles of the central city. Inner suburbs, by
their nature, are located nearest the city and are the oldest suburbs in the metropolitan area
(Sternlieb and Lake, 1975; Jackson, 1985; Orfield, 2002). These suburbs were part of the
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
251
first wave of mass suburbanization after World War II. The older, tract housing that
developed during the 1950s and 1960s is a typical element of these areas (Baldassare,
1992; Knox, 1994; Hayden, 2003; Short et al., 2007), and in the case of the Baltimore
region, housing built even earlier is also characteristic. Housing age captures the temporal
criterion for these defining areas.
Leigh and Lee (2005), in developing their definition, identified clusters of housing
built between 1950 and 1969 within census tracts to identify those suburbs closest to the
city of Philadelphia. In this paper, we use place-level geography to define the boundaries
of inner suburbs in Baltimore. According to the Census, there are three types of places:
Census Designated Places (CDP), consolidated cities, and incorporated places. CDP
boundaries are delineated to collect data on unincorporated areas with concentrations of
population, housing, and commercial sites, and a degree of local identity. These boundaries are established in cooperation with local and state officials (U.S. Census, 1994).
Defining inner suburbs by the census designated place boundary has two important
implications. First, the Baltimore County government uses these boundaries to provide
resources to areas designated for revitalization. Second, these boundaries capture suburbs
with a cohesive community identity. In the context of Baltimore, local community groups
mobilize politically around these boundaries. For instance, residents of the suburb of
Dundalk formed the Dundalk Renaissance Corporation, a community development
corporation (CDC) aimed at revitalizing this older, industrial inner suburb (Neidt, 2006).
Using census designated place boundaries, we identified 21 inner suburbs. We chose
these 21 suburban places using two criteria. First, we classified the place as an inner suburb if the place shared a boundary with the central city, regardless of the age of housing.
Although we focused on the spatial component for city-bordering places, the vast majority of the housing stock in all but one place was built before the 1970s (Table 1). Second,
those suburban places that share a boundary with another suburban place that is adjacent
to the central city were classified as an inner suburb if more than 50% of the housing stock
was built before 1970. We used 1970 as a threshold year since the first-ring of housing
development in the region was well established by the early 1970s. Using our spatial and
temporal criteria, we found that in the case of Baltimore, inner suburbs lie within eight
miles of the border of the central city.
The 21 inner suburbs we identified comprise almost a quarter of the total number of
suburban places in the Baltimore region. All share a border with the central city except
for Edgemere, Ferndale, Essex, Hampton, Linthicum, and Middle River. However, these
six suburban places were included because more than half of the housing stock in each
was built before 1970. Figure 1 provides a map of suburban places in the Baltimore
region. All suburban places that are not classified as inner suburbs are classified as outer
suburbs. Overall, we analyzed socioeconomic change in 71 outer suburbs and 21 inner
suburbs for the Baltimore region.
CONCEPTUALIZING PROCESSES AND MEASURES OF SUBURBAN DECLINE
There are at least two theoretical models that inform us about the processes of decline
in suburban settings. First, the theory of suburban persistence holds that suburbs do not
change or decline over time; rather, differentiation persists as suburbs often match the
income status of incoming residents (Farley, 1964; Guest, 1978). Based on the historical
252
HANLON AND VICINO
TABLE 1. DEFINING BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS
Place
Temporal criteria
Spatial criteria
Arbutus
79%
Central city
Brooklyn Park
84%
Adjacent
Catonsville
65%
Central city
Dundalk
91%
Central city
Edgemere
70%
Adjacent
Essex
66%
Adjacent
Ferndale
56%
Adjacent
Glen Burnie
63%
Central city
Hampton
70%
Adjacent
Lansdowne
81%
Central city
Linthicum
70%
Adjacent
Lochearn
70%
Central city
Lutherville-Timonium
79%
Adjacent
Middle River
59%
Adjacent
Overlea
70%
Central city
Parkville
84%
Central city
Pikesville
44%
Central city
Pumphrey
61%
Adjacent
Rosedale
67%
Central city
Towson
75%
Central city
Woodlawn
55%
Central city
context, suburbs attract residents of a similar socioeconomic status as the current residents. A second model suggests the opposite. This model proposes that over time suburbs
do attract residents of different socioeconomic status. Choldin et al. (1980) determined
that suburbs change from high to low status as a function of age and declining incomes.
Studies of this nature apply lifecycle theory to the suburbs.
Lifecycle theory is based on the examination of neighborhood change in central cities.
This theory suggests that neighborhoods deteriorate over time as the population and housing ages, which results in the invasion of an increasingly poorer population (Hoyt, 1939;
Hoover and Vernon, 1962; Park et al., 1967; Leven et al., 1976; Short, 1978; Grigsby et
al., 1987). It assumes a number of tenets: that the city is growing; that residents prefer
newer to older housing; new housing is available for mostly high-income groups; and
income and ethnic variation exists to assist the “invasion” and “succession” process
(Bourne, 1981).
In the context of suburban Baltimore, the growth of large, expensive housing on the
fringe of the region means that new housing is available for high-income groups to relocate
from inner to outer suburbs. Lifecycle theory determines that the older housing of inner
suburbs of Baltimore has become commercially obsolete and “filtered” to low-income
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
253
Fig. 1. Baltimore metropolitan srea.
groups. The housing market of the region will be examined to determine the reality of this
process. We will also examine demographic and socioeconomic variation in the suburbs
of Baltimore because, theoretically, as these areas become more diverse by income and
254
HANLON AND VICINO
race, turnover is more prevalent. Division between income and racial groups is thus more
likely. Finally, there has been substantial out-movement of industry among the inner
suburbs of many metropolitan areas of the Midwest and Northeast of the United States
(Harris, 1994; Smith et al., 2001). An examination of the restructuring of the labor market
illuminates the impact of deindustrialization on the inner suburbs of Baltimore.
To examine these processes, we rely on a number of indicators. A large body of literature on central cities characterizes urban decline using a combination of measures such
as housing abandonment, dilapidation and declining values, racial segregation, poverty
concentration, family breakdown, decaying infrastructure, unemployment, and poorperforming schools (e.g., Wilson, 1987; Massey and Denton, 1988; Jargowsky, 1997;
Beauregard, 2003). These studies provide a picture of deterioration, focusing on neighborhoods in central cities. Suburban decline has a similar flavor, where similar socioeconomic measures of decay are applicable.
More recently, there are several specific studies on the decline of suburbs. Orfield
(2002), in creating a typology of American suburbs, used population size and poverty
rates to define at-risk, older communities in the suburbs. Also, Lucy and Phillips (2000),
in their study of 554 suburbs in 24 states, referred to suburban decline as income decline,
focusing on median family income in a local jurisdiction relative to metropolitan trends.
Additionally, Mikelbank (2004) used these measures to create a typology of U.S. suburbs. In a similar fashion to these studies, we use median family income ratios, population
change, and poverty rates in our variable selection.
The list of variables in Table 2 allows us to determine the magnitude and characteristics of suburban decline as it relates to income, race, family structure, housing age, tenure,
and value. The primary data source is the State of the Cities Data System 1970–2000,
produced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This publicly available dataset contains census place-level data for a variety of socioeconomic
measures. For select variables not found in the HUD dataset, we utilized data from the
U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary File 3. We also included land use as an important
variable, obtaining the data from Baltimore County local government.
Our analysis examines change from 1980 and 2000, focusing on the 20-year period
rather than each decade. This change-over-time analysis is facilitated by the fact that the
place-level boundaries for Baltimore’s inner suburbs have remained fixed since 1980. We
analyzed 92 census designated places in the Baltimore region that existed in 1980 and still
exist today. The analysis does not include eight places now part of the outer suburbs that
were not in existence in 1980.
FINDINGS
In this section, we discuss aggregate trends from 1980 to 2000 in Baltimore’s inner
suburbs. In particular, we examine changes in the demographic composition, income and
poverty dynamics, housing characteristics, and land use patterns.
Demographic Composition
The 92 suburban places in our analysis gained over 226,000 residents from 1980 to
2000, a population growth rate of 10% in the last two decades. Much of the population
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
255
TABLE 2. SELECTION OF VARIABLES BY CATEGORY
Variable
Population characteristics
Description
Percent of population Black
Percent of population White
Percent of population Hispanic
Percent of population other race
Percent of population foreign-born
Percent of population 17 and under
Percent of population between 18 and 64
Percent of population 65 and over
Income characteristics
Percent of persons living in poverty
Median family income
Ratio of MFI to MFI MSA
Median household income
Ratio of MHI to MHI MSA
Family structure
Percent of households in married-parent family with children
Percent of households in single-parent family with children
Educational attainment
Percent of population aged 25 years and older that did not graduate high school
Percent of population aged 25 years and older that high school graduate
Percent of population aged 25 years and older that college graduate
Housing characteristics
Percent of owner-occupied housing units
Percent of renter-occupied housing units
Percent of vacant housing units
Percent of housing units with 3 rooms or less
Percent of housing units with 4 to 6 rooms
Percent of housing units with at least 7 rooms
Percent of housing units built before 1939
Percent of housing units built between 1940 and 1949
Percent of housing units built between 1950 and 1969
Percent of housing units built between 1970 and 1989
Percent of housing units built after 1990
Land use
Industrial and residential properties for Baltimore County
growth occurred in the outer suburbs. The population of the outer suburbs grew by 65%
in the last two decades, gaining additional residents from both inside and outside the
region (Table 3). In contrast, the population of Baltimore’s inner suburbs remained relatively fixed at half a million people since 1980. In 12 of the 21 inner suburbs, the population declined from 1980 to 2000, with population loss as high as 14% in some places. In
other areas, growth occurred, although relative to the outer suburbs this growth was
small. Ultimately, the inner suburbs failed to attract additional population since 1980,
unlike outer suburbs.
256
HANLON AND VICINO
TABLE 3. RACE AND POPULATION CHANGE OF BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS,
1980 TO 2000a
Population
White
Place
2000
Arbutus
20,116
0%
–11%
–1,932
51%
Brooklyn Park
10,938
–5%
–14%
–1,398
81%
373
Catonsville
39,820
17%
8%
2,427
38%
1,770
Dundalk
62,306
–14%
–20%
–11,291
16%
744
9,248
2%
0%
34
8%
36
Essex
39,078
–1%
–31%
–8,960
85%
6,904
Ferndale
16,056
11%
–10%
–1,204
78%
1,907
Glen Burnie
38,922
4%
–6%
–1,970
36%
1,858
5,004
–4%
–5%
–218
90%
64
15,724
–7%
–36%
–4,181
82%
2,362
Edgemere
Hampton
Lansdowne
1980–2000
Black
%
#
%
#
632
Linthicum
7,539
1%
–3%
–240
47%
62
Lochearn
25,269
–6%
–195%
–8,904
33%
6,574
Lutherville-Timonium
15,814
–13%
–20%
–2,756
61%
311
Middle River
23,958
–12%
–29%
–5,678
70%
2,204
Overlea
12,148
–7%
–19%
–1,986
86%
917
Parkville
31,118
–13%
–43%
–9,634
70%
4,844
Pikesville
29,123
23%
13%
3,322
73%
1,798
Pumphrey
5,317
–7%
–9%
–366
–14%
–119
Rosedale
19,199
–4%
–28%
–3,914
63%
2,562
Towson
51,793
1%
–10%
–4,364
70%
2,703
Woodlawn
36,079
18%
–85%
–11,531
82%
15,198
All inner suburbs
514,569
0%
–16%
–74,774
142%
53,704
All outer suburbs
907,503
65%
143%
208,069
157%
91,272
a
The Black and White population does not reflect the entire population.
In every inner suburb except Catonsville and Pikesville, the number of White residents
declined from 1980 to 2000. In some suburbs, the decline in White population was quite
dramatic. As Table 3 reveals, Lochearn and Woodlawn, two traditionally Black suburbs
in the Baltimore region, lost White population with an exodus of over 20,000 Whites
from both suburbs since 1980. Other traditionally White, working-class inner suburbs
such as Parkville, Essex, and Dundalk also lost White population and, at the same time,
gained Black population in the last two decades. Essex increased its Black population by
almost 7,000, and Parkville by almost 5,000 during the 1980s and 1990s. Overall, the
trend in the inner suburbs was one of “White flight.” As inner suburbs became more
racially diverse between 1980 and 2000, the White population decreased.
The number of foreign-born and Hispanics increased in the majority of inner suburbs
in the Baltimore region. Overall, immigration during the 1980s and 1990s remained low
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
257
in suburban Baltimore compared to the neighboring suburbs of Washington, DC. By
2000, the foreign-born population still only represented 2% of the total regional population. One exception is the suburb of Pikesville, a hub for Russian immigrants. It experienced an influx of 3,376 new foreign-born residents since 1980. In summary, the increase
of the minority population in Baltimore’s inner suburbs resulted in the emergence of two
majority Black suburbs and one ethnic suburb in the midst of an otherwise White suburban landscape.
The population of the inner suburbs was disproportionately older than the metropolitan area as a whole. In 2000, 16% of the total population of the inner suburbs was over 65
years old compared to 12% of the population in the Baltimore metropolitan area. For
instance, in Middle River, there were 1,567 residents over the age of 65 in 1980, compared to 3,702 in 2000. The elderly population doubled in two decades. Similarly, there
was a 170% increase in residents over 65 years from 1980 to 2000 in Lansdowne. This
phenomenon was coupled by a decrease in the number of young people residing in the
inner suburbs. For instance, in Lochearn and Dundalk, the percentage change of residents
under 18 years from 1980 to 2000 was 33% and 16%, respectively. Overall, the data show
that the inner suburbs aged without a younger population to replace them.
Income and Poverty Dynamics
In the Baltimore region, the poverty rate declined from 13% in 1980 to 11% in 2000.
Today, poverty is still highest in the central city of Baltimore at 23% and has remained
consistently high since 1980. During the 1980s, the metropolitan area, the central city,
and the outer suburbs all experienced a decline in poverty, while the inner suburbs
experienced an increase in poverty. Likewise, during the 1990s, the inner suburbs had the
largest increase in poverty—becoming home to almost 40,000 poor people.
While the inner suburbs collectively witnessed increases in poverty from 1980 to
2000, there was marked variation in poverty rates among inner suburbs. For instance,
Lansdowne had a poverty rate of 14% in 2000 compared to Hampton and Linthicum
whose rates were 2% and 4%, respectively in 2000. Also, the increase in poverty was
highest for Lansdowne, Lochearn and Dundalk, and Catonsville was the only inner
suburb that saw a decrease in poverty from 1980 to 2000 (Table 4).
Another important indicator of suburban decay is income decline (Lucy and Phillips,
2000). The median household income for inner suburban residents remained static in the
1980s, and it dropped from $52,442 to $49,669 in the 1990s (in constant 1999 dollars). In
comparison, the median household income rose in the outer suburbs from $51,153 in
1980 to $57,773 in 2000.
There was considerable income variation among the suburbs. We measured the
income levels for inner suburban places relative to all suburban places in the Baltimore
region, calculating an income ratio for each suburb. As Table 4 reveals, 16 of the 21 inner
suburbs had income ratios less than one in 2000. This means that the level of income in
these suburbs was lower than the income level for all suburbs in the region. In every inner
suburb, the income ratios declined from 1980 to 2000, showing how these suburbs were
left behind as the outer suburbs continued to prosper.
258
HANLON AND VICINO
TABLE 4. INCOME DYNAMICS OF BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS, 1980–2000a
Poverty (%)
Place
1980
2000
Income ratio
Change
1980
2000
Household income ($)
Change
(%)
1980
2000
Change
(%)
Arbutus
5.68
6.85
21
0.88
0.82
–0.07
43,676 47,792
9
Brooklyn Park
6.15
8.03
30
0.89
0.76
–0.12
44,494 42,207
–5
10
Catonsville
5.97
4.62
–22
1.00
1.01
0.02
48,039 53,061
Dundalk
5.59
9.17
64
0.89
0.70
–0.19
46,740 46,928
4
Edgemere
5.41
7.02
30
0.94
0.84
–0.10
48,786 46,928
–4
Essex
9.72
12.18
25
0.83
0.64
–0.19
40,687 34,978
–14
Ferndale
5.68
7.80
37
0.90
0.77
–0.12
47,862 45,816
–4
Glen Burnie
7.51
7.74
3
0.91
0.78
–0.13
47,122 45,281
–4
Hampton
1.15
1.77
54
1.85
1.51
–0.34
98,660 95,546
–3
Lansdowne
8.42
13.83
64
0.74
0.63
–0.11
38,880 37,160
–4
Linthicum
2.60
3.59
38
1.16
1.10
–0.06
61,775 61,479
0
Lochearn
3.34
7.02
110
1.05
0.83
–0.22
52,444 46,517
–6
LuthervilleTimonium
2.07
3.57
74
1.34
1.13
–0.21
70,547 61,573
–13
Middle River
8.34
9.38
12
0.79
0.66
–0.13
42,163 37,900
–10
Overlea
3.97
5.18
30
0.98
0.86
–0.12
49,469 48,242
–2
Parkville
5.16
7.43
44
0.89
0.76
–0.13
44,131 41,410
–6
Pikesville
3.78
6.89
82
1.29
1.18
–0.11
62,005 58,598
–5
Pumphrey
5.01
7.86
57
0.95
0.88
–0.07
49,637 45,321
–9
Rosedale
4.15
5.39
30
0.97
0.80
–0.17
51,398 47,801
–7
Towson
4.15
7.72
86
1.19
1.15
–0.04
56,377 53,775
–5
Woodlawn
3.95
6.28
59
1.00
0.82
–0.17
50,646 48,878
–3
All inner suburbs
5.54
7.65
40
1.04
0.89
–0.15
52,168 49,669
–5
All outer suburbs
5.32
4.83
–9
0.99
1.03
–0.04
51,153 57,773
13
a
Adjusted to 1999 dollars.
Housing Characteristics
As Table 5 indicates, 45% of the housing stock of Baltimore’s inner suburbs was built
between 1950 and 1969, and quarter was built before 1950. The pre-1950s housing stock
made up at least a third of all housing in the inner suburbs of Arbutus, Brooklyn Park,
Catonsville, Dundalk, Edgemere, and Overlea. In the formerly industrial suburbs of
Dundalk and Middle River, almost a quarter of houses were built in the 1940s during the
peak of the wartime industrial boom. However, the pinnacle of the housing boom in the
inner suburbs was generally between 1950 and 1969. For instance, in Lutherville and
Hampton two-thirds of the housing stock was built during this period. The inner suburbs
with the newest housing are Woodlawn, Middle River, Pikesville, and Ferndale. Yet,
these suburbs were still comparatively older than the outer suburbs of Baltimore. In these
259
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
TABLE 5. AGE OF HOUSING STOCK IN BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS
Age of housing (as % of housing stock)
Place
Pre-1939
1940s
1950–1969
1970–1989
Post-1990
Arbutus
21
17
42
14
7
Brooklyn Park
14
34
36
13
3
Catonsville
21
12
32
21
14
Dundalk
13
25
52
7
2
Edgemere
22
17
31
21
9
Essex
8
19
39
26
8
Ferndale
4
6
46
36
8
Glen Burnie
4
13
46
27
10
Hampton
4
4
62
22
7
Lansdowne
13
10
58
13
6
Linthicum
11
9
50
20
10
Lochearn
5
10
55
24
6
Lutherville-Timonium
5
6
68
20
2
10
Middle River
6
25
28
31
Overlea
18
16
36
23
7
Parkville
8
19
56
15
2
Pikesville
4
4
37
36
19
Pumphrey
11
11
39
32
7
Rosedale
7
8
53
25
8
Towson
14
15
46
21
5
4
8
43
36
9
All inner suburbs
11
15
45
22
7
All outer suburbs
4
3
22
46
25
Woodlawn
outer suburbs, the majority of housing was built after 1970, with a quarter built in the
1990s. The newer houses in these outer suburbs were larger and more expensive than
houses in the inner suburbs.
The house values for inner suburbs declined relative to the outer suburbs over two
decades. Table 6 shows the house values in the inner suburbs relative to the suburbs as a
whole since 1980. In 16 out of 21 inner suburbs, the house value was considerably lower
compared to all suburbs in the Baltimore region. For instance, the value of a typical house
in Middle River and Dundalk in 2000 was $88,500 and $82,500, respectively, as compared to $144,455 in all suburbs and $151,892 in the outer suburbs that same year. In
some cases, the house values of the inner suburbs were almost half that of all suburbs. In
all cases, the ratio of the house value in the inner suburb relative to the house values in all
suburbs declined between 1980 and 2000.
The differences in housing values between outer and inner suburbs can be partly attributed to housing size. As Table 7 indicates, in 2000, a third of housing in the inner suburbs
260
HANLON AND VICINO
TABLE 6. HOUSING VALUE OF BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS, 1980–2000a
Value ratio
Place
1980
2000
Household value ($)
Change
1980
2000
Change (%)
Arbutus
0.97
0.78
–0.19
121,839
112,700
–8
Brooklyn Park
0.78
0.69
–0.09
97,931
99,200
1
Catonsville
1.09
0.98
–0.12
137,701
141,300
3
Dundalk
0.69
0.57
–0.12
86,897
82,500
–5
Edgemere
0.84
0.86
0.03
105,287
124,800
19
Essex
0.78
0.68
–0.10
97,701
98,400
1
Ferndale
1.05
0.88
–0.17
131,494
126,800
–4
Glen Burnie
0.97
0.83
–0.14
121,839
119,500
–2
Hampton
1.90
1.72
–0.18
238,851
248,000
4
Lansdowne
0.72
0.67
–0.05
90,115
96,400
7
Linthicum
1.19
1.04
–0.15
149,655
150,000
0
Lochearn
0.96
0.72
–0.24
120,920
104,600
–13
Lutherville-Timonium
1.40
1.18
–0.22
176,322
170,700
–3
Middle River
0.74
0.61
–0.13
92,874
88,500
–5
Overlea
0.92
0.74
–0.17
115,402
107,300
–7
Parkville
0.88
0.69
–0.19
111,264
100,200
–10
Pikesville
1.48
1.16
–0.32
186,437
168,000
–10
Pumphrey
0.98
0.88
–0.10
122,989
126,600
3
Rosedale
1.02
0.79
–0.23
128,736
114,100
–11
Towson
1.29
1.09
–0.20
161,839
157,100
–3
Woodlawn
1.06
0.76
–0.30
133,103
109,700
–18
All inner suburbs
1.03
0.87
–0.16
129,962
126,019
–3
All outer suburbs
1.05
1.13
0.08
141,816
151,892
7
a
Adjusted to 1999 dollars.
had seven rooms or more compared to almost half of the houses in the outer suburbs.
Among inner suburbs, those with the most expensive housing also had houses with the
most rooms. For instance, in Hampton, Linthicum, and Lutherville, 81%, 61%, and 59%
of respective houses had seven or more rooms. Each of these inner suburbs had housing
values above the suburban median. On the other extreme, houses in the inner suburbs of
Essex, Middle River, and Lansdowne had few rooms and low housing value compared to
other suburbs.
Housing style also matters and varies among inner suburbs. In Catonsville, for
instance, many houses are Victorian-style, some of which are the previous mansions of
the former elite of the Baltimore area. Similar high-quality housing exists in Hampton
and Lutherville. These houses are located in large plots of green space on tree-lined
streets. In contrast, Lansdowne, Middle River, and Dundalk have poor housing stock
comprised of mostly small, duplex homes with minimal or no yard space. They resemble
261
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
TABLE 7. SIZE OF HOUSING STOCK IN BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS
Size of housing (as % of housing stock)
Place
Arbutus
Brooklyn Park
Catonsville
Dundalk
Less than 3 rooms
4 to 6 rooms
More than 7 rooms
10
47
43
7
56
38
14
39
47
8
66
26
Edgemere
10
61
29
Essex
17
61
22
Ferndale
12
59
29
Glen Burnie
13
56
31
2
17
81
18
Hampton
Lansdowne
9
73
Linthicum
2
37
61
Lochearn
8
49
42
Lutherville-Timonium
7
34
59
12
67
21
Overlea
7
58
35
Parkville
12
57
31
Pikesville
14
46
40
Pumphrey
8
52
39
Rosedale
8
53
40
Towson
15
43
42
Woodlawn
11
47
42
All inner suburbs
12
54
34
All outer suburbs
9
43
48
Middle River
the cookie-cutter, tract housing style of the 1950s, once cherished but now outdated
(Short et al., 2007). In Catonsville, Hampton, and Lutherville, median housing values
were $141,300, $248,000, and $170,700, respectively in 2000. In comparison, housing
values in Lansdowne, Middle River, and Dundalk that same year were $96,400, $88,500,
and $82,500, respectively.
While decline in house values unnerves homeowners in the inner suburbs, the homeownership rate within these places remained relatively stable over time. The percentage
of owner-occupied housing in the inner suburbs in 2000 was 67%, a slight increase from
the owner occupied rate of 66% in 1990. However, these rates are still 4% below the rate
of owner-occupied housing in outer suburbs. In the outer suburbs, the owner-occupied
housing rate was 71% in 2000, a substantial increase from the 1980 rate of 65%.
Ultimately, there were more families and individuals renting in the inner suburbs than in
the outer suburbs. In some cases the percentage of renters was relatively high. For
instance, in the cases of Essex and Lansdowne, the percentage of rental properties in both
suburbs was almost 50% in 2000. Towson and Catonsville had relatively high rates of
262
HANLON AND VICINO
Fig. 2. Land use in Baltimore’s inner suburbs.
rentership, at 40% and 31%, respectively in 2000. These high percentages of renters are
best explained by the universities located in both Towson and Catonsville. Some of the
large, Victorian-style mansions in Catonsville are converted into a number of smaller
apartments, catering to local rental demand.
Environmental Characteristics
Baltimore’s inner suburbs are the heart of the region’s industrial base. These suburbs
have the highest concentration of industrial land in the entire region. Figure 2 illustrates
that most industrial land is located in the inner suburbs of Dundalk, Edgemere, and
Middle River in the southeast section of Baltimore County, with some parcels of industrial land concentrated in the southwestern section of the county.
As Table 8 indicates, the total land area of Baltimore’s inner suburbs is more than
7,500 acres. Of this land area, 866 acres, or 11%, is industrial land, and of this industrial
land, one-fifth is underutilized. Underutilized industrial properties, in this context, refer
to parcels zoned industrial but currently not in use or vacant.
Edgemere has the most acres of industrial land among inner suburbs, comprising
almost 30% of its total land area. Between Edgemere and Dundalk lies the Sparrows
263
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
TABLE 8. INDUSTRIAL LAND IN BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS
Land area
(acres)
Place
Arbutus
Brooklyn Park
Catonsville
Industrial
(acres)
510
74
N/A
N/A
809
4
Industrial
(%)
15
Underutilized
industrial (acres)
12
N/A
N/A
0.05
0.7
Dundalk
1,034
127
12
20
Edgemere
1,168
318
27
3
707
4
Essex
Underutilized
industrial
(% of industrial)
16
N/A
18
15
0.09
0.05
0
0
Ferndale
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Glen Burnie
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hampton
340
0
0
0
0
Lansdowne
254
52
2
13
26
N/A
N/A
336
8
Linthicum
Lochearn
N/A
N/A
2
6
Lutherville-Timonium
439
27
6
Middle River
491
110
22
0.7
63
N/A
78
2
57
Overlea
183
8
4
0.7
8
Parkville
252
2
0.09
0
0
Pikesville
738
3
0.03
0
0
Pumphrey
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rosedale
422
95
22
45
47
Towson
834
19
2
5
28
Woodlawn
All inner suburbs
569
15
3
7,681
866
11
0.4
171
2
20
Point site of the International Steel Company. This area was once home to Bethlehem
Steel Corporation, but now it is the location of one of the largest contaminated industrial
properties in the nation. While the furnace for producing steel burns every day, much
of the site is underutilized and is now part of the Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund program.
Middle River, one of the most industrialized areas in Baltimore’s suburbs, has 110
acres of industrial land, 22% of its total land area. Almost two-thirds of this industrial
land is idle. Similarly, half of the 45 acres of industrial land is underutilized in Rosedale.
While only 2% of Lansdowne’s land area is industrial, more than a quarter of this industrial land is currently vacant. The remnants of heavy industry are scattered throughout
Baltimore’s inner suburbs, presenting a major challenge to these areas.
INFLUENCES ON INNER SUBURBAN DECLINE IN BALTIMORE
Based on these findings, we theorize three major influences on socioeconomic decline
in Baltimore’s inner suburbs: labor market restructuring, the nature of the local housing
264
HANLON AND VICINO
market, and income and racial segregation. These influences are interrelated. We will
deal with each in turn.
Labor Market Restructuring
The Baltimore region witnessed dramatic labor market change during the last three
decades. As with other metropolitan areas, the massive shift in the economy from manufacturing to services transformed the region’s economy, population, and landscape
(Noyelle and Stanback, 1983; Sassen, 1990). In the region, over 20% of workers were
employed in manufacturing in 1969 compared to only 8% in 1999. During the same
period, employment in the service sector doubled. This restructuring of the labor market
transferred the concentration of economic activity from Baltimore City and hubs of
industry in the inner suburbs (specifically Dundalk, Middle River, Edgemere, Brooklyn
Park, Arbutus, Lansdowne, and Essex) to employment centers dispersed across the outer
suburbs. This demonstrates that, as is the case nationally, labor market restructuring has
consequences for the spatial form of the entire metropolitan area (Beauregard, 1989).
As Figure 2 illustrates, suburban industry is spatially concentrated in the inner suburbs
of the Baltimore region. The assumption that all suburbs are residential and white-collar
is swept aside by the industrial histories of inner suburbs such as Dundalk, Edgemere,
Middle River, and Lansdowne (Brooks and Rockel, 1979; Lewis, 2004). These inner
suburbs, located to the southeast of the city, were, for almost a hundred years, home to
Bethlehem Steel Corporation until the company filed for bankruptcy in 2001. During its
prime in the 1950s, Bethlehem Steel employed some 30,000 steel workers at its Sparrows
Point plant, yet by 2000 employment in the steel plant dwindled to a mere 4,000 workers.
Smaller distribution companies and light industry in the inner suburbs benefited from the
agglomeration of corporations such as Bethlehem Steel, General Motors, and Lever
Brothers. As these corporations scaled back operations in Baltimore’s inner suburbs,
smaller industries suffered, reinforcing a pattern of industrial decline.
The result of this capital flight is a decline in manufacturing jobs (Bluestone and
Harrison, 1982). Dundalk, Middle River, Essex, and other industrialized suburbs of
Baltimore experienced dramatic declines in manufacturing employment since the 1970s.
Dundalk witnessed a decline in manufacturing employment from 48% in 1970 to 17% in
2000. Edgemere, Essex, and Glen Burnie saw similar declines of 37%, 25%, and 15%,
respectively. Meanwhile, service employment in these suburbs increased. For instance,
the number of Dundalk residents employed in the service sector jumped from 13% in
1970 to almost 37% in 2000, a net increase of 2,367 jobs. A shift away from relatively
high paying, union jobs in manufacturing to often low paying, non-unionized service
jobs has impacted the local economies of deindustrialized communities (Reutter, 1988;
Bluestone and Harrison, 1989; Kuttner, 1989; Harvey, 2000). The income declines and
increased poverty experienced by the industrial inner suburbs of Baltimore can be
explained, in part, by deindustrialization and capital disinvestment. These inner suburbs
are part of the group of struggling, manufacturing suburbs identified by Mikelbank
(2004) in his national study of suburban types.
The loss of heavy industry has also meant the degradation of the environmental quality
of these industrial inner suburbs. Underutilized industrial properties present an environmental hazard to local residents and affect local property values (Adams and Watkins,
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
265
2002; Fitzgerald and Leigh, 2002). Examples of how these effects are played out can be
seen in Middle River and Rosedale, two places with the most underutilized industrial
properties. Both these suburbs have experienced some of the heaviest declines in housing
values from 1980 to 2000. Even in today’s tight housing market, these suburbs find it
difficult to attract homeowners to properties surrounded by vacant industry. Idle industrial land partially contributes to the decline of inner suburban areas.
Our analysis suggests one reason for suburban decline is a poverty-in-place argument
that emphasizes the role of capital disinvestment in the demise of inner suburbs (Smith et
al., 2001). In the context of Baltimore, many inner suburbs have witnessed a withdrawal
of capital by important local industries. Suburbs located on Baltimore County’s southeastern industrial belt witnessed a significant decline in the manufacturing base, and
subsequent declines in household income of residents.
Nature of the Housing Market
Housing is inextricably tied to the quality of neighborhoods (Downs, 1973), and the
quality of the local housing stock affects suburban stability (Sternlieb and Lake, 1975).
Yet defining housing quality is complex, and in many ways, a relative concept. Perceptions of housing standards vary depending on socioeconomic status and time period
(Lawrence, 1995).
In the context of the United States, housing standards have changed dramatically since
the 1950s, specifically as it relates to housing size (Joint Center for Housing Studies,
2003). A recent survey by the National Association of Homebuilders (2001) suggests that
Americans want large homes. Survey respondents preferred new houses to be 2,071
square feet. In 2000, a typical house built in the United States was 2,265 square feet.
Meanwhile, the typical house in 1950 was 1,000 square feet, and a decade later, 1,200
square feet (Salins, 1987).
As our analysis shows, in response to new housing market demands, there is an abundance of larger newer housing units in the outer reaches of the Baltimore region. The
current market for purchasing smaller houses built during the 1950s and 1960s is limited
to those who cannot afford the larger, more popular houses on the outer fringes of the
Baltimore metropolitan area. These small, older housing units, particularly in inner
suburbs such as Lansdowne, Dundalk, Middle River, Edgemere, Brooklyn Park, Arbutus,
and Essex, require major upgrading, expansion, and maintenance to compete with newer
housing units in Baltimore’s outer suburbs (Sternlieb et al., 1974; Bourne, 1981).
Unfortunately, however, many of Baltimore’s inner suburban residents lack the
resources for this much-needed investment. Yet, capital investment is required to
improve the housing stock, particularly by homeowners, but also by real estate agents and
developers, who rely heavily on assurances from the market. Homeowners with capital
do not invest in upgrading housing if there is market uncertainty caused by major neighborhood transition or a lack of investment by surrounding neighbors. Even though the
neighborhood as a whole benefits from housing investment, individual homeowners will
not invest because they realize there is no return unless everyone invests. Bourne (1981)
has referred to this phenomenon as the “prisoner’s dilemma,” a problem that leads to
aggregate disinvestment and a downward spiral in housing quality. A declining employment base, subsequent declining economic status of residents, and a deteriorating, aging
266
HANLON AND VICINO
housing stock combine forces to fuel the disinvestment process in Baltimore’s inner
suburbs. Ultimately, these areas grapple with an aging housing stock that lacks the hefty
size found in the outer suburbs or the architectural charm of the Baltimore City
“rowhouse” (Hayward et al., 2001). These inner suburbs compete against gentrifying
Baltimore City neighborhoods where much of the region’s oldest housing has been
upgraded to cater to the young, urban professional. Inner suburban residents and community development organizations often look to gentrification as key to revitalization
(Neidt, 2006). Thus far, gentrification on any major scale has not occurred in Baltimore’s
inner suburbs. Similarly, these areas, with the exception of Catonsville and Hampton,
unsuccessfully compete against the large-lot, large-house style of developments in
Baltimore’s prosperous outer suburbs.
Income and Racial Segregation
The literature on income segregation in central cities has largely focused on the isolation of residents in high-poverty city neighborhoods (Wilson, 1987; Jencks and Mayer,
1990; Jargowsky, 1997; Quercia and Galster, 2000). While we recognize that city neighborhoods and suburbs are not equivalent geographies, as our data show, the residents of
the inner suburbs are increasingly isolated in areas of high poverty and income decline.
As Baltimore’s inner suburbs continue to display these symptoms, decline is exacerbated
as these areas struggle to retain and attract middle- and upper-income residents. As industries and high-income groups continue to leave the inner suburbs, these areas become
increasingly more isolated in the suburban landscape. In contrast, as the outer suburbs
attract real estate and capital investment, they continue to flourish. As our explanation of
Baltimore’s suburbs suggests, this income segregation has a spatial dimension, as inner
suburbs become increasingly poorer relative to the outer suburbs. Income segregation
among suburbs in the Baltimore region fuels socioeconomic decline among inner suburbs, and as the inner suburbs deteriorate, poor residents in-migrate.
The effects of racial segregation are similar. Residential racial segregation reduces the
employment opportunities for Blacks (Parcel, 1979), and segregates Blacks into areas of
poor-performing schools, poor quality housing, and fewer resources and amenities
(Logan, 1978; Massey et al., 1987). Research on neighborhood change in central cities
notes that, once Blacks migrate to neighborhoods in significant numbers, these neighborhoods become increasingly segregated as Whites move out (Massey and Mullan, 1984;
Weiher, 1991). Suburbs, like city neighborhoods, can experience similar racial turnover
(Schnore et al., 1976; Keating, 1994). The inner suburbs of Baltimore are a case in point.
Since the 1980s, the two traditionally Black suburbs of Woodlawn and Lochearn have
witnessed dramatic increases in the Black population coupled with declines in the White
population. As Whites leave the inner suburbs of Baltimore, there is a greater likelihood
that the racial segregation between inner and outer suburbs will encourage further instability of Baltimore’s inner suburban places. The result is a racially segregated suburban
landscape that is exacerbated by the concomitant process of suburban decline.
One reason for suburban decline in Baltimore relates to a pattern of poverty deconcentration from the central city to inner suburbs (Goetz, 2003; Jargowsky, 2003). In 2000,
more than 50,000 residents aged five and older in Baltimore’s inner suburbs lived in
Baltimore City in 1995. One-fifth of these residents moved from the city to the inner
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
267
suburbs of Lochearn and Woodlawn. The re-segregation of poor minorities from the
central city to the inner suburbs is the potential outcome. As previous work has demonstrated, racial segregation in cities, especially when coupled with income inequality,
results in the spatial concentration of poverty (Massey and Denton, 1993; Phelan and
Schneider, 1996). If this rings true in a suburban context, the fate of the inner suburbs
appears bleak.
CLASSIFYING BALTIMORE’S INNER SUBURBS
The inner suburbs of Baltimore are now over 50 years old, and the aging housing stock
needs upgrading to compete in today’s market. The combined effects of increased segregation, labor market restructuring, and the subsequent lack of much-needed investment in
the deteriorating housing stock results in suburban decline. We contend that the dramatic
loss of manufacturing industries has had a profound impact on the stability of many inner
suburbs—indeed the very places that house the majority of the residents of inner suburban Baltimore. Moreover, the segregation of low-income residents and minorities fuels
associated problems.
The processes of inner suburban decline provide a dynamic picture of suburbia where
there is highly visible evidence of restructuring in the Baltimore region. This restructuring is manifest in different types of inner suburbs, and their different stages in the restructuring process. Based on this analysis, we classify Baltimore’s inner suburbs along a
continuum of suburban change. The 21 inner suburbs are classified as either growing,
stable, in decline, or in crisis based on where their position along the continuum. While
scholars have identified suburban types (Orfield, 2002; Mikelbank, 2004), few have
distinguished types of suburbs solely within the inner ring or identified an assortment of
inner suburbs at different phases of transformation.
The first phase we term the “growth stage.” This spans the initial development of
Baltimore’s suburban landscape. An extensive network of streetcars aided the growth of
Baltimore’s inner suburbs and housing tract developments well into the 1950s and 1960s
(Harwood, 2003). We define the “growth stage” by examining relative population growth
from 1980 to 2000. During this period, eight of the 21 inner suburbs experienced an
increase in population. However, relative to the outer suburbs, population increase was
minimal. In fact, the average population growth rate among inner suburbs was zero
between 1980 and 2000, compared to an average growth rate of more than 65% among
outer suburbs. If the population growth rate of an inner suburb was at least half the average outer suburban rate of 65% from 1980 to 2000, we classify it as a “growth” suburb or
in the “growth stage.” Based on this criterion, none of Baltimore’s inner suburbs fit this
classification.
The second phase we term the “stage of stability.” Building on Lucy and Phillips
(2000), we define “stability” using income ratio as our primary indicator. If the income
ratio of the inner suburb was 1.00 or more in both 1980 and 2000 it is considered stable.
This indicates that the median household income remained higher or consistent with the
suburban median household income over the two decades.
Figure 3 illustrates the location of six stable inner suburbs of Baltimore. Four of these
suburbs—Hampton, Lutherville-Timonium, Pikesville, and Towson—are located
directly to the north of Baltimore City. The northern section of the city is home to
268
HANLON AND VICINO
Fig. 3. Taxonomy map of Baltimore’s inner suburbs.
exclusive, historic neighborhoods such as Roland Park, a product of the Olmstead
Brothers. These elite neighborhoods, in essence, moved further northward into the suburban frontier, and subsequently buffered the suburbs of Towson, Hampton, LuthervilleTimonium, and Pikesville from any potential low-income out-migration from the city.
Towson renders additional stability as the hub for local government and the home of an
important regional university, Towson University.
The other two stable suburbs are Catonsville and Linthicum, west of Baltimore City.
Catonsville is a traditional streetcar suburb and the location of fine Victorian-style housing and tree-lined streets that are appealing in the current market for large housing. As
Lucy and Phillips (2006) aptly contend, housing quality among older suburbs can breed
success or failure.
Linthicum, another stable suburb, is the location of the Baltimore–Washington
International Airport (BWI), a critical hub of regional employment and commercial
exchange. Offices, conference facilities and warehouses emerged in the suburb of
Linthicum in recent decades, providing both jobs and stability to local residents. In short,
the stable inner suburbs of Baltimore are stable because of current housing market
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
269
demands, the historical elite quality of certain neighborhoods, and a healthy labor market
for government and high-quality service jobs.
The third stage we term the “decline stage.” We define “decline” using income ratio as
our primary indicator. If the income ratio of the inner suburb was 1.00 or less in 1980 and
declined further by 2000, it is considered a declining inner suburb. As Figure 3 indicates,
declining inner suburbs include Arbutus, Brooklyn Park, Dundalk, Edgemere, Ferndale,
Glen Burnie, Lochearn, Overlea, Parkville, Pumphrey, Rosedale, and Woodlawn. Most
of these suburbs are located east and southwest of Baltimore City. Many are classic manufacturing suburbs with large plots of industrial land and working-class rowhouses no
longer in synch with today’s housing market. Coupled with an aging housing stock, the
labor market effects of deindustrialization, and continuing environmental degradation as
industries leave, these declining suburbs struggle to compete in the urban hierarchy of
places. In the cases of Lochearn and Woodlawn, as majority Black suburbs, they suffer
from the dual consequences of racial and income segregation. Thus, declining suburbs
suffer as a consequence of a lack of capital disinvestment and shifts in demographic
structure.
The fourth stage of suburban development is the “crisis stage.” We define this stage
using income ratio as a primary indicator. We classify an inner suburb as “in crisis” if the
median household income fell to more than 30% below the suburban median by 2000.
Three of Baltimore’s inner suburbs, Essex, Lansdowne, and Middle River, reached this
stage by the end of the 1990s. As Figure 3 indicates, two of these suburbs—Essex and
Middle River—are located east of the city, and they are surrounded by declining suburbs.
These crisis suburbs have witnessed dramatic socioeconomic change in a short period of
time. The process of deindustrialization in these suburbs fueled the social problems of
poverty, unemployment, or underemployment. Lansdowne, the crisis suburb on the west
side, is plagued by an inferior housing stock to a greater extent than all other inner
suburbs. The housing units are quite small, most less than 1,000 square feet. Many are
attached row houses with one bedroom, a tiny yard, and front porch. The style is typically
bland, and lacks any distinct feature and green space. Essex and Middle River have
witnessed tremendous losses as a result of the loss of a one-time healthy manufacturing
base. These crisis suburbs experience such socioeconomic stress as a result of the extreme
levels of capital and housing disinvestment.
Along the continuum of suburban transformation, there can be government intervention. We posit three possibilities for the future of Baltimore’s inner suburbs. First, there
is the possibility of rejuvenation or revitalization of the inner suburb to its stable phase.
Second, decline may continue to crisis point and worsen, with or without intervention.
Last, incremental change via an intervention approach may partially stabilize the suburb,
yet the suburb may never return to its peak during the growth phase.
Baltimore County—the jurisdiction where the majority of inner suburbs are located—
is well aware of the need for intervention. Recent media attention has brought the problem of decline in the inner suburbs of Baltimore to a wider audience (Wheeler, 2005).
Beginning in the mid-1990s, Baltimore County government developed a strategy to systematically address the problem of suburban decline. The Baltimore Office of
Community Conservation was created in 1995 to “preserve, stabilize and enhance
the human, physical and economic conditions of the county’s urban communities”
(Baltimore County, 2000). This office is partially subsidized by the state of Maryland.
270
HANLON AND VICINO
Over the past decade, county redevelopment projects have addressed the problems of a
dilapidated housing stock and struggling commercial strips particularly in Dundalk,
Essex, and Middle River. In doing so, Baltimore County capitalized on Maryland’s
strong county government structure and utilized its large tax base to redistribute resources
to declining suburbs. However, we posit that unless there is a more concerted effort on
behalf of the state government to intervene, decline among the inner suburbs of Baltimore
is likely to continue.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we present one of the first comprehensive regional studies of suburban
decline. We provide a geographic definition of inner suburbs that identifies these places
in the suburban landscape. In order to assess suburban decline, it is necessary to move
beyond the common practice of analyzing data in simple central city–suburban categories. American suburbs are not monolithic, homogenous entities. As we demonstrate in
this paper, Baltimore’s suburbs are quite complex and varied, thus presenting several
research challenges. One challenge is the access to data at an appropriate scale. County
geographic census data are too coarse, and census tract geographic data are too microscopic, neglecting the political nature of suburbia and the identity of a suburb. In this
paper, we use more finely grained, place-level data. Using place-level data for further
research can help determine the possibilities for creating a uniform definition of inner
suburbs that works for other U.S. metropolitan areas.
Our analysis demonstrates that there is socioeconomic decline among many of
Baltimore’s inner suburbs, and the extent of this decline varies among these suburbs. The
implication is that poverty, housing degradation, and declining incomes are no longer
problems reserved for the American central city. They now affect suburbs. We must now
look beyond the image of suburbia as a place free of poverty and confront the challenge
and reality of suburban decline.
We suggest that there are three major influences on the decline of Baltimore’s inner
suburbs: the nature of the housing market; labor market restructuring; and income and
racial segregation. The loss of manufacturing employment has resulted in increased
unemployment and declining incomes in Baltimore’s inner suburbs. The lack of investment in the aging housing stock in these places also encourages a change in the socioeconomic status of local residents, and the subsequent income and racial segregation
exacerbates inner suburban decline. While the results of this analysis do not allow us to
conclusively determine a predominant theory of suburban decline, they do represent the
first step in characterizing the processes of suburban decline and identifying possible
influences or causes of this decline. Future work should build on the theories of neighborhood life cycle, capital disinvestment, and demographic migration shifts to uncover how
and why inner suburbs decline. A major contribution of this study is that the extent of
decline varies among inner suburbs. One size does not fit all, and the processes of suburban decline impacts each suburb differently and to a different degree.
Future work should also aim to better understand the relationship between local political fragmentation and decline in the inner suburbs. Research suggests that the political
nature of suburbia leads to further isolation of inner suburbs as high-income suburbs reinforce their higher status at the expense of these areas (Scott, 1975; Teaford, 1979; Logan
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
271
and Schneider, 1981; Miller, 1981; Lewis, 1996). Yet, there is a lack of empirical
research on the impact of local governmental structure on the demise of inner suburbs.
For instance, is inner suburban decline more severe in a highly fragmented metropolitan
area such as St. Louis or Philadelphia as compared to Baltimore, a region with strong
county governments? And if so, is this related to differences in political structures? Additional research might also explore whether inner suburbs and central cities face similar
problems. Orfield (2002) and Rusk (1999) have argued that inner suburbs share the same
fate as central cities, and therefore should cooperate politically to confront decline. Work
that empirically tests this hypothesis would be especially welcome.
Suburban decline is often synonymous with the older suburb. The growth on the
suburban fringe has reinforced socioeconomic disparities between outer suburbs, central
cities, and inner suburbs. Uneven patterns of growth shifted economic resources away
from inner suburbs and central cities so that the “favored” communities, employment
centers, and schools are all by and large located in the outer suburbs. Meanwhile, central
cities continue to receive substantial public and private dollars for revitalization efforts.
Inner suburbs are caught in the middle of these two strong, polarizing social forces of the
central city and the outer suburbs. As Listokin and Beaton (1983, p. xiii) suggested, the
inner suburb is the “forgotten frontier of America.” The fate of the inner suburbs depends
on the political willingness to confront patterns of systemic decline. Whether inner
suburbs experience a “renaissance” will depend on local, state, and federal policymakers
confronting the reality of poverty and decay in these areas.
REFERENCES
Adams, D. and Watkins, C., 2002, Greenfields, Brownfields and Housing Development.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Baldassare, M., 1986, Trouble in Paradise: The Suburban Transformation of America.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Baldassare, M., 1992, Suburban communities. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 18,
475–494.
Baltimore County, 2000, Strategic Conservation Plan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Beauregard, R. A., editor, 1989, Atop the Urban Hierarchy. Towata, NJ: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Beauregard, R. A., 2003, Voices of Decline: The Postwar Fate of U.S. Cities (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Berger, B. M., 1968, Working Class Suburb: A Study of Auto Workers in Suburbia.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bier, T., 2001, Moving Up, Filtering Down: Metropolitan Housing Dynamics and Public
Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Bluestone, B. P. and Harrison, B., 1982, The Deindustrialization of America. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Bluestone, B. P. and Harrison, B., 1989, The great American job machine: the proliferation of low wage employment in the U.S. economy. In D. S. Eitzen and M. Baca Zinn,
editors, The Reshaping of America: Social Consequences of the Changing Economy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 103–108.
272
HANLON AND VICINO
Bourne, L. S., 1981, The Geography of Housing. London, UK: E. Arnold.
Bourne, L. S., 1996, Reinventing the suburbs: Old myths and new realities. Progress in
Planning, Vol. 46, No. 3, 163–184.
Brooks, N. A. and Rockel, E. G., 1979, A History of Baltimore County. Towson, MD:
Friends of the Towson Library.
Choldin, H. M., Hanson, C., and Bohrer, R., 1980, Suburban status instability. American
Sociological Review, Vol. 45, 972–983.
Dobriner, W. M., 1963, Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Downs, A., 1973, Opening Up the Suburbs. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Farley, R., 1964, Suburban persistence. American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 1,
38–47.
Fitzgerald, J. and Leigh, N. G., 2002, Economic Revitalization: Cases and Strategies for
City and Suburb. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Goetz, E., 2003, Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Green, A., 2004, Maryland’s fastest-growing suburbs get farther from cities. Baltimore
Sun, April 9, p. 1A.
Grigsby, W., Baratz, M., Galster, G., and Maclennan, D., 1987, The dynamics of neighborhood change and decline. Progress in planning, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1–76.
Guest, A. M., 1978, Suburban social status: Persistence or evolution? American Sociological Review, Vol. 43, 251–264.
Hanlon, B. F., Vicino, T. J., and Short, J. R., 2006, The new metropolitan reality in the
US: Rethinking the traditional model. Urban studies, Vol. 43, No. 12, 2129–2143.
Harris, R., 1994, Chicago’s other suburbs. Geographical Review, Vol. 84, No. 4, 393–
410.
Harris, R. and Lewis, R., 1998, Constructing a fault(y) zone: Misrepresentations of
American cities and suburbs, 1900–1950. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, Vol. 88, No. 4, 622–639.
Harvey, D., 2000, Spaces of Hope. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Harwood, H. H., 2003, Baltimore Streetcars: The Postwar Years. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Hayden, D., 2003, Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820–2000.
New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Hayward, M. E., Belfoure, C., and Fitch, J. M., 2001, The Baltimore Rowhouse. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.
Hoyt, H., 1939, The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American
Cities. Washington, DC: Federal Housing Administration.
Hudnut III, W. H., 2003, Halfway to Everywhere: A Portrait of America’s First-Tier
Suburbs. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Jackson, K. T., 1985, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jargowsky, P. A., 1997, Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jargowsky, P. A., 2003, Stunning progress, hidden problems: The dramatic decline of
concentrated poverty in the 1990s. In B. Katz and R. E. Lang, editors, Redefining
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
273
Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, Vol. 2. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press, 137–172.
Jencks, C. and Mayer, S., 1990, The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn, Jr. and M. G. H. McGeary, editors, Inner City Poverty in
America. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 111–186.
Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2003, State of the Nation’s Housing. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Keating, W. D., 1994, The Suburban Racial Dilemma: Housing and Neighborhoods.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Knox, P. L., 1994, Urbanization: An Introduction to Urban Geography. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kuttner, R., 1989, The changing occupation structure. In D. S. Eitzen and M. Baca Zinn,
editors, The Reshaping of America: Social Consequences of the Changing Economy.
Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, 85–102.
Lawrence, R. J., 1995, Housing quality: An agenda for research. Urban Studies, Vol. 32,
No. 10, 1655–1664.
Leigh, N. G. and Lee, S., 2005, Philadelphia’s space in between: Inner-ring suburb
evolution. Opolis, Vol. 1, No. 1, 13–32.
Leven, C. L., Little, J. T., Nourse, H. O., and Reed, R. B., 1976, Neighborhood Change:
Lessons in the Dynamics of Urban Decay. New York, NY: Praeger.
Lewis, P., 1996, Shaping Suburbia: How Political Institutions Organize Urban Development. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Lewis, R., editor, 2004, Manufacturing Suburbs: Building Work and Home on the Metropolitan Fringe. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Listokin, D. and Beaton, W. P., 1983, Revitalizing the Older Suburb. Piscataway, NJ: The
Center for Urban Policy Research.
Logan, J., 1978, Growth, politics, and the stratification of places. American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 2, 404–416.
Logan, J. and Schneider, M., 1981, The stratification of metropolitan suburbs, 1960–
1970. American Sociological Review, Vol. 46, No. 2, 175–186.
Lucy, W. H. and Phillips, D. L., 2000, Confronting Suburban Decline: Strategic Planning for Metropolitan Renewal. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Lucy, W. H. and Phillips, D. L., 2006, Tomorrow’s Cities, Tomorrow’s Suburbs. Chicago, IL: APA Planners Press.
Massey, D., Condran, G. A., and Denton, N. A., 1987, The effect of residential segregation on Black social and economic well-being. Social Forces, Vol. 66, 29–56.
Massey, D. and Denton, N. A., 1988, Suburbanization and segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 3, 592–626.
Massey, D. and Denton, N. A., 1993, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making
of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Massey, D. and Mullan, B. P., 1984, Processes of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 89, No. 4, 836–871.
Mikelbank, B. A., 2004, A typology of U.S. suburban places. Housing Policy Debate,
Vol. 15, No. 4, 935–964.
Miller, G. J., 1981, Cities by Contract: The Politics of Municipal Incorporation.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
274
HANLON AND VICINO
National Association of Homebuilders, 2001, What 21st Century Homebuyers Want: A
Survey of Customer Preferences. Washington, DC: NAHB Economics Group.
Neidt, C., 2006, Gentrification and grassroots: Popular support in the revanchist suburb.
Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol. 28, No. 2, 99–120.
Noyelle, T. J. and Stanback, T. M., 1983, The Economic Transformation of American
Cities. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
Orfield, M., 2002, American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Parcel, T., 1979, Race, regional labor markets, and earnings. American Sociological
Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, 262–279.
Park, R. E., Burgess, E., and McKenzie, R., 1967, The City. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Phelan, T. J. and Schneider, M., 1996, Race, ethnicity, and class in American suburbs.
Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 31, No. 5, 659–680.
Quercia, R. G. and Galster, G. C., 2000, Threshold effects and neighborhood change.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 20, 146–162.
Reutter, M., 1988, Sparrows Point: Making Steel—The Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might. New York, NY: Summit Books.
Rusk, D., 1999, Inside Game, Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban
America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Salins, P., 1987, Housing America’s Poor. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Sassen, S., 1990, Economic restructuring and the American city. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 16, 465–490.
Sassen, S., 1991, The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Schnore, L. F., André, C. D., and Sharp, H., 1976, Black suburbanization, 1930–1970. In
B. Schwartz, editor, The Changing Face of the Suburbs. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 64–94.
Scott, T. M., 1975, Implications of suburbanization for metropolitan political organization. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 422,
37–44.
Short, J. R., 1978, Residential mobility. Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 2, No. 1,
419–447.
Short, J. R., Hanlon, B., and Vicino, T. J., 2007, The decline of inner suburbs: The new
suburban gothic in the United States. Geography Compass, Vol. 1, No. 3, 641–656.
Smith, N., Caris, P., and Wyly, E., 2001, The “Camden syndrome” and the menace of
suburban decline: Residential disinvestment and its discontents in Camden County,
New Jersey. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 36, No. 4, 497–531.
Sternlieb, G., Burchell, R. W., Hughes, J. W., and James, F. J., 1974, Housing abandonment in the urban core. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 4, No. 5,
321–332.
Sternlieb, G. and Lake, R. W., 1975, Aging suburbs and Black homeownership. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 422, 105–117.
Swanstrom, T., Casey, C., Flack, R., and Dreier, P., 2006, Pulling apart: Economic
segregation among suburbs and central cities in major metropolitan areas. In A.
THE FATE OF INNER SUBURBS
275
Berube, B. Katz, and R. E. Lang, editors. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press, 143–166.
Teaford, J., 1979, City and Suburb: The Political Fragmentation of Metropolitan America,
1985–1970. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
U.S. Census, 1994, Geographic Areas Reference Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau
of the Census.
Warner, S., 1978, Streetcar Suburbs. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiher, G. R., 1991, The Fractured Metropolis: Political Fragmentation and Metropolitan Segregation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wheeler, T., 2005, Baltimore’s inner suburbs show signs of aging. The Baltimore Sun,
May 12, p. A1.
Wilson, W. J., 1987, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and
Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.