Partnerships in Shrinking Cities: Making Baltimore ‘Liveable’?

  • Madeleine PillEmail author


The governance imperative to increase the City of Baltimore’s population and thus alleviate its ‘fiscal squeeze’ has brought the liveability of this shrinking city to the fore. City government has long engaged in seeking partnership with private (corporate and non-profit) actors to develop and deliver a policy agenda to stabilise and grow the city. Drawing from empirical research into collaborative governance in Baltimore, this chapter focuses on neighbourhood policy to examine the range of (explicit and implicit) liveability policies and initiatives. By considering the challenge of making Baltimore ‘liveable’ in terms of for whom and where/which neighbourhoods, the research reveals the challenges posed by the city’s deep inequities and exclusionary governance to the realisation of ‘liveability’ for all. It thus challenges how the liveability concept elides the trade-offs regarding who (and where) is included and excluded from the policies which result.


  1. (BNIA-JFI) Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance-Jacob France Institute. (2016). Evaluation of the Baltimore City Vacants to value program: Quantitative analysis. Baltimore: BNIA-JFI.Google Scholar
  2. Barnekov, T., Rich, D., & Warren, R. (1981). The new privatism, federalism, and the future of urban governance: National urban policy in the 1980s. Journal of Urban Affairs, 3(4), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broadwater, L. (2016, September 19). City Council approves $660 million bond deal for port Covington project. The Baltimore Sun.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, L. (2016, June 28). Two Baltimores: The white L vs. the black butterfly. The City Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Castells, M. (1989). The informational city: Information technology, economic restructuring and the urban-regional process. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. City of Baltimore. (2013). Change to grow: A ten-year financial plan for Baltimore. Baltimore: Baltimore City.Google Scholar
  7. City of Baltimore Office of Sustainability. (n.d.). Green Network. Accessed 5 July 2019.
  8. Clarke, A., & Cheshire, L. (2018). The post-political state? The role of administrative reform in managing tensions between urban growth and liveability in Brisbane, Australia. Urban Studies, 55(6), 3545–3562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coates, T. (2014, June). The case for reparations. The Atlantic. Accessed 5 July 2019.
  10. Ehrenhalt, A. (2013). The great inversion and the future of the American city. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  11. Fainstein, S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobson, J. (2015). Vacants to value. The Abell Report, 28(5), 1–28. Accessed 5 July 2019.Google Scholar
  14. Kline, G. (2007). Thompson v. HUD: Groundbreaking housing desegregation litigation, and the significant task ahead of achieving an effective desegregation remedy without engendering new social harms. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 7(1), 172–191.Google Scholar
  15. Lasswell, H. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when and how. New York: Whittlesey House.Google Scholar
  16. Martinez-Fernandez, C., Audirac, I., Fol, S., & Cunningham-Sabot, E. (2012). Shrinking cities: Urban challenges of globalization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McArthur, J., & Robin, E. (2019). Victims of their own (definition of) success: Urban discourse and expert knowledge production in the liveable city. Urban Studies, 56(9), 1711–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCann, E. (2007). Inequality and politics in the creative city-region: Questions of livability and state strategy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(1), 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCann, E. (2013). Policy boosterism, policy mobilities, and the extrospective city. Urban Geography, 34(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peck, J. (2005). Struggling with the creative class. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 740–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pill, M. (2018). Philanthropic foundations in the city policy process: A perspective from the United States. In W. Xun, M. Howlett, & M. Ramesh (Eds.), Policy capacity and governance: Studies in the political economy of public policy (pp. 313–335). Cham: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ross, B. (2014). Dead end: Suburban sprawl and the rebirth of American urbanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Stoker, R., Stone, C., & Worgs, D. (2015). Neighborhood policy in Baltimore: The postindustrial turn. In C. Stone & R. Stoker (Eds.), Urban neighborhoods in a new era: Revitalization politics in the postindustrial city (pp. 50–80). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stone, C. N. (1993). Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Szanton, P. (1986). Baltimore 2000: A choice of futures. Baltimore: Goldseker Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). QuickFacts Baltimore City, Maryland. Retrieved from,US/PST045217#qf-headnote-a. Accessed 5 July 2019.
  27. Williams, R. Y. (2005). The politics of public housing: Black women’s struggles against urban inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Government and International RelationsUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations