state of the region final print

8/3/2019 State of the Region FINAL Print

1/60

Greater Baltimore

State of the Region Report 2011

Baltimore

Metropolitan

Council


2/60


3/60

Greater BaltimoreState of the Region Report

2011

Produced Jointly by

Greater Baltimore Committee

Charles O. Monk,ChairDonald C. Fry, President & CEO

Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, ChairLarry Klimovitz, Executive Director

Data Analysis by

Regional Economic Studies InstituteTowson University


4/60


5/60

Table of Contents

Introduction .........................................................1

Summary of Findings ............................................4

Demographics & Market Characteristics .............11

Population ....................................................12

Market, Income and Area ............................15

Economy ............................................................19

Employment Sectors.......................................20

Employment Growth by Sector.......................24

Tourism and Conventions ............................27

Innovation and Productivity ........................29

Commercial Real Estate ...............................30

Education & Workforce ........................................33

Transportation ....................................................37

Auto .............................................................38

Commute......................................................39

Public Transportation ...................................40

Air Travel ....................................................41

Quality of Life......................................................43

Cost of Living .....................................................43

Homeownership ............................................44

Health Care..................................................45

Arts, Culture and Recreation ........................47

Community..................................................47

Social Distress and Crime.............................48

Energy..........................................................50

Air Quality and Climate..............................51

Government .................................................52


6/60


7/60

2011 GBC State of the Region Report 1

Introduction

Te Greater Baltimore State o the Region 2011 reportexamines the relative health and economic perormanceo our region as compared to a group o metropolitaneconomies throughout the United States.

Tis report is the latest edition o reports startingin 1998 and updated in 2000, 2003, 2005, and2007. Tis 2011 edition is a joint initiative betweenthe Greater Baltimore Committee, the regionspremier business leadership organization, and theBaltimore Metropolitan Council.

Te project was launched in 1997 with counseland input rom the Johns Hopkins Institute orPolicy Studies. Tis report oers baseline and ollow-up inormation on key measurements o the regionseconomic health and business climate. Its purpose is

to provide an objective look at our regions competi-tive advantages and challenges as we work to developregional strategies or success in the national andglobal economies.

Te U.S. Bureau o the Census defnition o theBaltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) isused in this report, and identifes the Greater Balti-more region as Baltimore City, and the surrounding

counties o Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harord,Howard, and Queen Annes. Te terms metropolitanarea and region are used interchangeably throughoutthis report.

Since the purpose o this report is to provide aresource or strengthening the business climate oGreater Baltimore, data rom the Greater Baltimoreregion and the Washington, D.C. region are measuredseparately in most cases. We recognize, however, thatthe two are also widely recognized as an economicallypowerul combined metropolitan statistical area

that comprises one o the nations largest marketsand we support business and government team-work to strengthen the business climate o thecombined region.

Seattle

Portland

San Diego

Denver

Minneapolis

Saint Louis

Indianapolis

Cleveland

Boston

Philadelphia

BaltimoreWashington

Richmond

Charlotte

Pittsburgh

Dallas

Austin

Raleigh

Atlanta

Tampa

Metropolitan Areas Studied in the 2011 State of the Region Report


8/60

2011 GBC State of the Region Report2

Te most up-to-date, nationallypublished data and inormationsources covering metropolitan regionshave been used in this report. Te

results provide a context or ramingkey questions about our community.How does the Greater Baltimoreregion compare to other regions asa place to live, work, and operate abusiness? What does the data suggestabout where we are and where weare going? Is the Greater Baltimoreregion well positioned to participateully and competitively in the presentand uture economy? What do weneed to do to improve our ability tocompete in the global economy?

Tere have been numerouschanges since the frst report. Tebreadth, scope, and number o indi-cators have increased. Additionally, while most o thebenchmark regions have remained the same, severalhave changed either due to the ability to update theindicators or because the defnitions or metro areashave changed.

Signifcant changes have also occurred withinthe region since 1998. Many o the suburban countieslooked very dierent than now. Howard County hasbecome one o the top places to live and wealthiestcounties in the nation and Anne Arundel has grownthrough the continued development o BWI TurgoodMarshall Airport and the deense contracting andhigh technology businesses. Harord Countyhas and will continue to grow due to AberdeenProving Ground. Carroll County has grown with itsincreasing residential base. Baltimore County has seen

signifcant change in many o its communities includingowson, Owings Mills, Hunt Valley, White Marsh,and Middle River. Baltimore City has experiencedsignifcant change in the growth and developmento housing, businesses, and residents now locatingwithin its neighborhoods. From 2000 to 2010,Baltimore Citys population loss slowed dramatically.

Each o the regions counties hasgrown, developed, and evolved. Since2000, the population o the regionhas grown by more than 157,000 per-

sons. Te region has remained highlycompetitive and is a leader in manyo the indicators tracked. Key indicatorswhere the Greater Baltimore regionhas improved its ranking among theregions studied since the last State othe Region report in 2007 include: Per Capita Personal Income; from6th to 4th

Median Household Income; from4th to 3rd

College Education Attainment(persons 25 years and older); rom14th to 8th

Te growth and developmento the region has come at a price

though. Greater Baltimore has become a morecongested and costly place to live. Te region nowhas one o the longest commuting times or all othe comparison metro areas. Homeownershiprates have decreased rom 72.9 percent in 2006 to

66.6 percent in 2010. Te median home price hasdropped rom $274,100 to $246,100 rom 2008 to2010. In 2007, the Greater Baltimore region was oneo the more expensive places to live with a cost oliving 18 percent above the national average. oday,the region remains among the more expensive placesto live with a cost o living nearly 19.3 percent abovethe national average.

Tese changes, both positive and negativerepresent opportunities and challenges as we workto shape the development o the region. Trough

regional cooperation and promoting the region as awhole, the Greater Baltimore metro area will be ableto shape its uture and compete both nationallyand globally.

The most up-to-date,

nationally published data and

information sources covering

metropolitan regions have

been used in this report. The

results provide a context for

framing key questions about

our community. How does

the Greater Baltimore region

compare to other regions

as a place to live, work, and

operate a business? What

does the data suggest about

where we are and where we

are going?

Introduction


9/60


Selecting Regions for Comparison

wenty metropolitan regions, including Baltimore,were selected rom across the country in order tocompare a wide variety o actors that relate to the

economy and quality o lie. Te metropolitan areasstudied include some o the astest growing, mostdynamic regions in the nation, along with someolder metropolitan areas that are going througheconomic transition.

Metro areas studied in the 2011 State o theRegion Report:

Te largest U.S. metro-politan areas, such as NewYork, Chicago, and Los

Angeles, were not includedbecause their size woulddramatically skew thecomparison.

Tis report presents a seto indicators published bycredible third parties that areimportant to gauge the healthand perormance o urbanregions. Te indicators donot tell us why something

is the way it is, nor do theyprovide a detailed explana-tion o the conditions we areexamining.

Te Greater BaltimoreState o the Region projectbrings together the goals and interests o the GreaterBaltimore Committee and the Baltimore MetropolitanCouncil. Te two organizations share the belie that

strengthening regional ties and collaboration willbeneft the entire region.

Te Baltimore Metropolitan Council compiledthe data in this report with assistance rom the

Greater Baltimore Committee. Te data wascompiled between February 2011 and June 2011.Te data was reviewed and analyzed by the RegionalEconomic Studies Institute o owson University(RESI) and a team rom all three organizations. TeGreater Baltimore Committee managed production,composition and editing o this report.

Major changes since the 2007 State o theRegion Report include:

New and changed tables: Several tables and one new

section have been added to this years report: Top 20 Metro Areas by Population.

Top 20 Metro Areas by Median Household Income.

New Economy Index.

Average Scores in National Assessment ofEducational Progress, Science.

Postsecondary Awards inScience, echnology, Engineeringand Mathematics.

Health Insurance Coverage.

Within Quality of Life, a newsubsection on Energy includesthree tables:

Price of Electricity.

Price of Natural Gas.

Alternative Energy Use.

Deleted tables: wo tables romthe previous State o the Region

Report have been removeddue to availability o data ornon-comparability:

Transit Farebox Recovery.

Financial Practices of Charities.

Atlanta, GAAustin, XBaltimore, MD

Boston, MACharlotte, NCCleveland, OHDallas-Fort Worth, TXDenver, COIndianapolis, INMinneapolis-St. Paul, MN

Philadelphia, PAPittsburgh, PAPortland, OR

Raleigh, NCRichmond, VASan Diego, CASt. Louis, MOSeattle, WAampa, FLWashington, D.C.


10/60


Summary of Findings

By Daraius Irani, Ph.D., DirectorTe Regional Economic Studies Institute, owson University

As the nation slowly recovers rom the worsteconomic downturn since World War II, a ewdisheartening acts are emerging. First, the nationlost over eight million jobs throughout the recessionand ailed to create nearly three million jobs to keeppace with population growth or a total job loss onearly eleven million. Second, housing values con-tinue to struggle to fnd a bottom, urther delayingeconomic recovery. Tird, frms are unwilling to hirenew employees, relying instead on productivity gainsto accommodate increases in demand. Fourth, whilethe fscal stimulus was successul in the sense that it

prevented urther job losses, it clearly was not asuccess in terms o stimulating economic growth.Finally, in light o the fscal stimulus and the debtand defcit crisis, there does not seem to be the po-litical will to increase government spending beyondwhat is necessary, which urther slows the nascenteconomic recovery.

All o these actors will have an impact on theGreater Baltimore regions economy and in somecases the impact o these acts will be disproportion-ate. It has oten been said that the regions economy

is based on Eds, Meds, Feds, and Beds, and in thedarkest period o the economic downturn, thesesectors kept the region rom alling urther into theeconomic abyss. However, with the fscal challengesat the ederal level and at the state and local level,the Greater Baltimore region may be entirely morevulnerable than its benchmark regions. Specifcally,the three largest sectors o the Greater Baltimoreregions economy government, education andhealthcare are either directly or indirectly dependenton the ederal government.

What is important to establish rom the rankingsprovided is whether or not the groundwork or asustainable economic recovery is present in the region.Te proximity to Washington, D.C. has been both ablessing and a curse or the region. It has providednumerous well-paying, secure jobs which have attractedwell-educated households to the region. However,a disproportionate share o the regions workorce is

Baltimore Metro Area Top Five Rankings

Indicator Rank

Academic Research and Development Expenditures 1

Change in Housing Starts 1

Best Hospitals 1

Cancer Hospitals 1

Ofce Lease Rates Non-Central Business District 2

Health Care Cost o Living 2

Physicians 2

Local Government Units 2007 2

Local Government Units per 100,000 Population 2007 2

Per Capita Personal Income Percentage Change 2007-2009 2

Women Owned Firms 2

Median Household Income 3

Manuactur ing Employment Change 2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010 3

Transportation Ranking 3

New Economy Index 3

Black or Arican-American Owned Firms 3

Population Density 4

Transit Ridership Bus 2010 4

Per Capita Personal Income 2009 4

Suicide Rate 2008 (rom lowest to highest) 4

Educational and Health Services Employment (as percent of total) 2008 and 2010 5

Government Employment (as percent o total) 2008 and 2010 5

Total Non-Farm Employment Change 2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010 5

High Tech Employment Change 2007 vs. 2009 5

Total Air Passengers Change 2007 and 2009 5

Workers 16 and Older Using Public Transportation 5

Transit Ridership Heavy Rail 2010 5

Transit Ridership Per Capita 2010 5

Health Insurance 5

Families with income below poverty rate (rom lowest to highest) 5

Baltimore Metro Area Bottom Five Rankings

Indicator Rank

Manuacturing Employment (as percent o total) 2008 and 2010 19

Trafc Congestion: Annual Wasted Fuel per Auto Commuter 2009 19

Trafc Congestion: Annual Delay per Auto Commuter 2009 19

Average Travel Time to Work 18

Roadway Miles Per Capita 2008 18

Inant Mortality Rate 18

Violent Crime 2009 18

Land Area 17

Convention Center Size 2009 16

Information and Technology Employment (as percent total) 2008 and 2010 16

Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment (as percent total) 2008 and 2010 16

Manuacturing: Total Value Added 2007 16

Property Crime Percent Change 2007 to 2009 16

Demographics that focused on racial traits have been omitted.

Rankings that are in the bottom, such as land area, could be considered strengths.


11/60


employed directly by the ederal government, anda large portion o the regions small- and medium-sized businesses are contracting with the ederalgovernment to provide essential services. Addition-

ally, while billions o dollars in ederal grants andexpenditures have enabled the regions universities toachieve world rankings in numerous basic researchelds, the regions share o commercialization isnear the bottom when compared to other statesand regions.

Overview of Rankings

While these rankings are important measures ofthe regions perormance, it should be noted thatthe rankings are relative rather than absolute. As aresult, the Greater Baltimore region may not beperorming as badly in some o the categories as thesample regions.

O the 109 categories measured in this report, the

Greater Baltimore region achieved top ve rankingsin 30 categories. Conversely, the region ranked in thebottom ve in 13 categories. Some actors, such asracial demographic make-up, should not be evaluated

as being either strengths or weaknesses. On the otherhand, some rankings, such as land area and averagetemperature, could be considered strengths.

Changes from the 2007 Report

Te changes in rankings rom the 2007 State o theRegion Report reect characteristics o a region thathas remained relatively economically strong duringthe recovery rom the recent economic downturn,as increased personal income rankings attest. Teregions increasing transit use and transportation

rankings, especially in the light rail sector, suggestthat Greater Baltimore region has a solid base uponwhich to continue transportation inrastructureimprovements.

Te attraction o a highly skilled labor orce isevident in this years rankings, as Greater Baltimoreremains competitive with the surrounding regionsjob market. Te uctuation in rankings continuesto underscore the challenges in transitioning roma manuacturing employment base to one drivenby service and knowledge-based sectors such as

government, education, and healthcare.Te Greater Baltimore regions strong govern-

ment employment base continues to reect theregions proximity to Washington, D.C. Tegovernment sectormore specically, ederalgovernmentis a major employer or the GreaterBaltimore region and one o the ew industries topost a positive growth rate since the 2007 report.

Region at a Crossroad

As the nation begins the arduous task o recovery,

the Greater Baltimore Region nds itsel at a cross-roads. Despite the nationwide economic downturn,the region staved of sharp increases in unemploy-ment compared to many o the benchmark regions.Employment in the Greater Baltimore regioncontracted between 2008 and 2010 by 1.6 percent,a rate comparatively lower than that o benchmarkregions such as St. Louis (-2.4 percent) and Cleveland

Positive Change in Rank

Indicator Rank

Housing Starts 18 to 11

Total Manuacturing Employment 16 to 14

Manuacturing Employment Change 2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010 15 to 3

Financial Activities Employment Growth 2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010 16 to 14

Education and Health Svs. Employment Change 2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010 15 to 12

Proessional and Business Services Employment Change2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010

13 to 6

Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment Change 2006-2008 vs.

2008-2010

16 to 12

Government Employment Change 2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010 13 to 4

Leisure and Hospitality Employment Change 2006-2008 vs.

2008-2010

13 to 11

Manuacturing Productivity Value Added per Worker 2007 13 to 10

Change in Ofce Vacancy Rate 2006-2008 and 2008-2010 10 to 6

Median Home Prices 2008 and 2010 15 to 14

Government Employment (as percent o total) 2008 and 2010 6 to 5

Ofce Vacancy Rate 7 to 6

Health Care Cost 13 to 2

Negative Change in Rank

Indicator Rank

Financial Activities Employment (as percent o total) 2008

and 2010

12 to 14

Inormation Employment Change 2006-2008 vs. 2008-2010 2 to 6

Annual Unemployment Rate 4 to 6

Education and Health Services Employment as Percent o Total

Non-Farm Employment 2010 vs. 2008

4 to 5

Leisure and Hospitality Employment (as percent total) 2008

and 2010

14 to 15

Ofce Vacancy Rate Downtown 2008 and 2010 11 to 14


12/60


(-3.2 percent). Te only sectors posting positivechanges in employment were high tech and govern-ment. Sectors such as proessional and business

services and nancial activities saw modest declines,while manuacturing saw the most signicant declineto date.

Te regions modest annual contraction inemployment refects its dependency on the govern-ment sector. Instead o posting employment declinessimilar to those o the benchmark regions, Marylandcontinued to thrive in a comparative sense primarilydue to ederal government employment growth. Teederal government employment base is second onlyto the education and health services sector. In 2010,

18.2 percent o the regions employment was concen-trated in ederal government, and 18.7 percent waslocated in the education and health services sector.

Looking ahead, the Greater Baltimore region willneed to careully consider its approach to its eco-nomic uture. Te region can continue to encouragethe trend o a growing ederal government sector andhope that this will continue to generate more jobswithin the region through Base Realignment and

Closure (BRAC) and/or the creation o new ederalagencies. Conversely, it could ollow new initiativesto break the state and region rom dependency on

ederal government employment. Initiatives such asInvest Maryland and Science, echnology, Engineer-ing, and Math (SEM) education and workorcedevelopment, as well as growth o the biotechnologysector and the green economy will help the regionstand on its own amid the slow recovery and buildor uture economic growth.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)

Te movement o several military installations intoMaryland rom bases outside the region as a resulto BRAC Commission decisions has helped cushion

the eects o the economic downturn within thestate. Numerous contractors have opened new ocesaround Aberdeen Proving Ground and Fort Meade.By September 2011, it is estimated that BRAC willhave brought approximately 22,000 on-base andembedded contractor jobs into the area. An additional23,000 indirect and induced jobs will be supportedas a result, though the timing o these jobs may ormay not coincide with the arrival o the on-base or

Key Locations Around the Baltimore Metropolitan Area

Summary of Findings


13/60


embedded contractor jobs. Te eects o the recessionmay reduce this latter number.

However, with BRAC, the Cyber-SecurityCommand, and the National Security Agency, the

region is becoming a center or cyber-related jobsand business opportunities, though heavily orientedtowards the ederal government. In light o theongoing budget debate, this orientation may exposethe region to a degree o uncertainty in terms oeconomic growth. Te strong presence o the ederalgovernment in the region has driven economicopportunities or the private sector, but it has beenat the expense o the private sector not necessarilypursuing nongovernmental opportunities.

Te movement o mainly high-skilled jobs will

be welcomed and presents a challenge to the regionseducational institutions to ensure that the studentso today are well prepared to ll these positions. TeGreater Baltimore region has a strong oundation uponwhich to organically create and provide the neededpersonnel through nationally ranked universities.

With a high school educational attainmentrate o more than 85 percent, Maryland is a prime

candidate or uture high-skilled and high-techindustries. Te infux o jobs related to BRAC willencourage the inclusion o programs ocusing onscience, technology, engineering, and math (SEM)

into the regions educational curriculum as Marylandrises to meet the demand or this new workorce.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)

Te region continues to buckle under the combinedweight o slow recovery and job growth decay. Teinfux o BRAC and BRAC-related jobs has helpedstave o urther declines, but the need or highlyskilled employees is still present. Implementing edu-cational programs to strengthen skills and knowledgein technology, science, engineering, and math eldsamong K-12 students will ensure that the regions

workorce can meet the current and uture needs oboth established and developing industries withinthe region.

While Marylands public schools consistentlyrank in the top tier o all public schools in thenation, some graduates still need remediation inboth math and English. Marylands labor orce acesseveral challenges. Specically, some portion o the

Colleges and Universities of the Baltimore Metropolitan Area


14/60


labor orce is lacking middle skills, urthering thechallenges o promoting economic growth in theregion. o overcome these challenges, an investment,such as certifcations in specifc felds like engineer-

ing and technology support, needs to be madewithin educational programs. Although challengesremain, the implementation o programs to osterstudent growth in company-specifc programsattracted more than 13,000 students in 2010 alone.

Te SEM Coalitions continued grant supporto Maryland school systems can help the regionbecome competitive with other benchmark regionsby ocusing curriculum around core principles andinnovation within these felds. o date, all o Mary-lands 24 counties are currently receiving grants rom

SEM to oster programs in robotics, proessionaldevelopment in SEM-related curriculum, andscholarships in engineering and science or Marylandstudents. en o Marylands counties are directlyaected by BRAC, so programs reinorcing science,technology, engineering, and math in the classroomsurther cultivate the highly-skilled workorce thatwill be needed in the near uture. SEM programscan bridge the gap within the region betweenlow- and high-skilled workers and create a largermiddle-skilled workorce.

New Economy Index

Te Kauman Foundations State New EconomyIndex or 2010 ranked Maryland 3rd nationallyoverall or the second time in a row. Indicatorswithin this study are designed to measure a statescapacity to continue competing in the new globaleconomy. States with high rankings oten attracttechnology frms and corporate headquarters, shitingprevious employment opportunities rom manuac-turing to high-wage, high-skilled employment. Te

surge rom SEM programs into Maryland schoolscoupled with BRAC-related jobs should assist inbeginning to create the building blocks or a morediversifed economy in Maryland.

Other than education, indicators used within theNew Economy study indicate that Maryland willneed to consider reviewing its business climate i it isto post positive growth coming out o the recession.Indicators in the economy dynamism category o the

State New Economy Index show that the region isstill lacking in its ability to compete with businesseson a global scale. In the report, Maryland was notlisted anywhere among the top fve throughout most

o this category.Although Maryland, home to several prestigiousresearch institutions, ranked within the top fvestates or the number o Deloitte echnology Fast500 and Inc. 500 frms as a share o total frms inthe state, it is still lacking in new entrepreneursand start-ups. Gas prices and electricity prices, twodistinct actors businesses review beore investing ina new region, are relatively high in the region com-pared against other benchmark regions. Withoutsome movement toward policy changes to promote

new businesses, the state may experience a surplus ohigh-skilled labor and a shortage o jobs, particularlyas BRAC jobs are absorbed into the economy. Into2012 and beyond, Maryland would be wise to con-sider review and potential revision o its policies toalter the perception o its unriendly business climateand encourage business growth across the state.

New Image

Moving into the next year, high-level educationalattainment and employment opportunities can

bolster Marylands economy. According to the NewEconomy State Index, Maryland is poised to moveupward i policy makers review the barriers to entryor new businesses and provide incentives that createa more welcoming business climate. A new businessclimate will attract frms looking or a high-skilledlabor orce and easy market entry. As Marylandcontinues to lead the way in academic research andhospital services, the state must continue movingorward with the development o middle- and high-skilled employment and the supporting educational

programs.Economic growth will require a review o policies

surrounding new businesses and SEM-ocusededucational programs. Without movement towardthe continued growth o a strong workorce and abreakdown o some barriers aced by new businesses,the road to recovery will be longer and more dicultthan necessary.

Summary of Findings


15/60


Demographics and Market

Population:With more than 2.71million people, Greater Baltimoreranks among the top 20 largest metro-

politan areas in the United States and11th among the 20 benchmark metroareas included in this study.

Per capita income: Ranking 17thnationally and 4th among the 20benchmark metros or per capitapersonal income at $47,962, theBaltimore metro area experienced animprovement rom 2005, where theregions rankings were 20th and 6th, respectively.

Per capita income growth: Greater Baltimore had thesecond highest per capita personal income growthrom 2007 to 2009 compared to the 20 benchmarkmetros, at 2.9 percent. Washington D.C. experi-enced the ourth largest growth rate rom 2007 to2009 at 1.3 percent.

Housing starts:While Baltimore improved its rankrom 18th to 11th since 2007, the total number onew home starts declined by nearly 700 units. Tisis due to the economic recession and troubles in

the housing market, but additional actors includegrowth restrictions placed by many o the suburbancounties and the amount o land that is availableor development.

Economy

Total employment: Te Baltimore metro areacontinues to rank 9th among the benchmark regionsor total nonarm employment with all regionsexperiencing a decline in jobs rom 2008.

Educational and health services:Among the 20

benchmark regions, Greater Baltimore ranks 5th oreducation and health services with 18.7 percent oemployment in these sectors.

High-tech employment: As o 2009, Baltimore ranks10th in total high tech employment with 2,855 hightech workers per 100,000 persons. op marketsinclude Washington D.C. (5,350), Boston (4,790)and Seattle (4,262).

Minority and women-owned businesses:A signifcant percentage o frms in theGreater Baltimore region are womenand minority-owned. Baltimore is 2nd

among the comparison metros in thepercentage o women-owned frms(32.3 percent), 3rd in the percentageo minority-owned frms (16.5 per-cent), and 14th in the percentage oHispanic-owned frms (2.4 percent).

Tourism

Leisure and hospitality employment:Despite the regions leisure and

hospitality employment declining between 2008 and

2010, this sector accounts or 8.8 percent o totalemployment within the Greater Baltimore regionwith a ranking o 15th. Te Baltimore metro areas32,329 hotel rooms ranks it 14th among the bench-mark regions.

Commercial Real Estate

Ofce vacancy rate: Te Greater Baltimore regionranks 6th among the study regions or oce vacancyin the metro area with an index o 17.1 an increaseo 3.4 percent rom the 2008 study. In addition,

the oce vacancy rate or downtown Baltimore is21.2 percent.

Ofce market size: Te Baltimore metro area hasthe 21st largest oce market size nationally, and isranked 8th among the 20 benchmark regions.

Education

College attainment: Te metro area ranks 8th amongthe benchmark regions in the percentage o personswith a Bachelors degree or higher (34.7 percent),increasing two ranks rom 2006. Washington D.C.,

being close in proximity, is ranked 1st

with 47.3percent having a Bachelors degree or higher.

High school attainment: More than 88 percent o per-sons in the Greater Baltimore region have completeda high school degree or above, moving the region tothe 11th spot among the 20 benchmark regions.

Academic research and development: GreaterBaltimore maintained its 1st place ranking or

Key Findings by Category

The Kauffman Foundations

State New Economy Index

for 2010 ranked Maryland 3rd

nationally overall. Indicators

within this study are designed

to measure a states capacity

to continue competing in the

new global economy.


16/60


academic research and development expenditureswith nearly $2.2 billion invested in 2008.

Transportation

Commuting: On average, each person in the region

travels a total o 23.9 miles daily, ranking Baltimore10th among the 20 benchmark metros. Greater Bal-timore remained ranked 18th among the benchmarkmetros in average travel time to work (29.7 minutes),an increase rom 28.9 minutes in 2006.

Transit ridership:With 6.2 percent of persons aged16 and over using public transportation in 2009,Greater Baltimore ranks 5th among the benchmarkmetros, while Washington, D.C. ranks 1st with 14.1percent and Raleigh ranks 20th at 1.0 percent. Te

Baltimore metro area ranks 6th or all modes oaverage weekday trips, 6th or combined heavy andlight rail (93,100 average weekday trips) and 4th orbus (303,500 weekday trips). Baltimores combinedrail transit fgures have increased signifcantly inthe last several years, up rom 65,900 weekday tripsin 2007.

Quality of Life

Cost of living:At 119.3 Greater Baltimores cost oliving index or 2010 exceeds the national average,

while its competitive ranking in the region is 14th

among the benchmark regions. Te cost o living inGreater Baltimore increased slightly rom 2007 to2010, while many othe other metroareas experienceda decline.

Median home priceand change: Temedian home pricein Greater Balti-more is $246,100ranking the region14th among thebenchmark regions.Home sales prices inGreater Baltimorehave decreased 10.2percent rom 2008-

2010, placing Greater Baltimore 13th among the 20benchmark regions.

Health care: Greater Baltimore ranks 2nd among thebenchmark regions or health care cost and is below

the national average. Pittsburgh has the lowesthealth care costs and Boston has the highest healthcare costs.

O the 20 metro areas, Baltimore ranks 5th orcitizens with health insurance, signifcantly higherthan the national average. Te Greater Baltimoreregion ranks 2nd in the number o physicians per100,000 persons, among the 20 benchmark regions.Only Boston ranks higher.

Arts destination:While the Greater Baltimore region

ranks 6th in AmericanStyle magazines 2011 readerspoll or arts destinations; it is also in close proximityto several other major arts destinations. Washington,D.C. and Philadelphia both ranked higher thanBaltimore in the poll coming in at 1 st and 4th,respectively.

Poverty: Compared to the 20 benchmark regions,Greater Baltimore has the 5th lowest level o poverty,with only 6.8 percent o amilies having incomebelow the poverty level in 2009. Tis is higher than

the 6.1 level o poverty the area had in 2006 but stilllower than the national average o 10.5 percent.

Violentcrime:Despite adecrease inthe regionsviolent crimerate, GreaterBaltimore re-mains at the

bottom othe rankingsor violentcrime amongthe 18regions orwhich data isavailable.

Key Findings by Category

Roads and Transportation Centers in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area


17/60

Demographics andMarket Characteristics

GBC State of the Region Report

With more than 2.71 million people, Greater Baltimore ranks among the top 20 largestmetropolitan areas in the United States and 11th among the 20 benchmark metroareas included in this study.

A key feature of the region is its diversity. Te Greater Baltimore region ranks 3rdfor black population, 11th for Asian population, and 18th for Hispanic population.

Ranking 17th nationally and 4th among the 20 benchmark metros for per capitapersonal income at $47,962, the Baltimore metro area experienced an improvement

from 2005, where the regions rankings were 20th and 6th, respectively. Of the 20metros, Washington, D.C. and Boston continue to have the highest incomes, whereasten of the other benchmark metros have remained or fallen under the national averageas of 2009.

Top 20 Metropolitan Areas in the U.S. by Population2010

Name Rank Population

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area 1 18,897,109

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area 2 12,828,837

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area 3 9,461,105

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area 4 6,371,773

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area 5 5,965,343

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area 6 5,946,800

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area 7 5,582,170

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area 8 5,564,635

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area 9 5,268,860

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area 10 4,552,402

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area 11 4,335,391

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area 12 4,296,250

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area 13 4,224,851

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area 14 4,192,887

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area 15 3,439,809Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metro Area 16 3,279,833

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area 17 3,095,313

St. Louis, MO-IL Metro Area 18 2,812,896

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area 19 2,783,243

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area 20 2,710,489

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Bureau


18/60


Te regions annual population growth of 0.5percent from 2005 to 2010, ranking the region15th among the benchmark regions, was belowthe national average of 0.9 percent. Tree metros

experienced population growth rates higher than3.0 percent, with Raleighs population experienc-ing the highest growth rate (3.7 percent) amongthe benchmark regions. Despite maintaining itsranking of 15th, the population growth rate forthe Baltimore region slowed from the annual rateexperienced from 2000 to 2005 (0.8 percent).

Te median age for all benchmark regionsincreased from 2000 to 2010, indicating a con-tinuing trend of an aging population. GreaterBaltimores median age of 38.1 as of 2010 ranksit 14th among the 20 regions, compared to 15thin 2007. In addition, 12.6 percent of the regionspopulation is 65 or older, slightly less than thenational percentage of 13.0 percent, but morethan the percentages reported for 13 of the 20benchmark metro areas.

Population

Demographics and Market Characteristics

Metropolitan Population

2010 vs. 2000

RegionBenchmark Rank in

2010 2010 Population National Rank in 2010Benchmark Rank in

2000 2000 Population

Dallas 1 6,371,773 4 2 5,161,544

Philadelphia 2 5,965,343 5 1 5,687,147

Washington, DC 3 5,582,170 7 3 4,796,183

Atlanta 4 5,268,860 9 5 4,247,981

Boston 5 4,552,402 10 4 4,391,344

Seattle 6 3,439,809 15 6 3,043,878

Minneapolis 7 3,279,833 16 7 2,968,806

San Diego 8 3,095,313 17 8 2,813,833

St. Louis 9 2,812,896 18 9 2,698,687

Tampa 10 2,783,243 19 12 2,395,997

Baltimore 11 2,710,489 20 10 2,552,994

Denver 12 2,543,482 21 13 2,179,240

Pittsburgh 13 2,356,285 22 11 2,431,087

Portland 14 2,226,009 23 15 1,927,881

Cleveland 15 2,077,240 28 14 2,148,143

Charlotte 16 1,758,038 33 17 1,330,448

Indianapolis 17 1,756,241 34 16 1,525,104

Austin 18 1,716,289 35 18 1,249,763

Richmond 19 1,258,251 43 19 1,096,957

Raleigh 20 1,130,490 48 20 797,071

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Bureau


19/60


Median Age

2010 vs. 2000

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2000 2000

Austin 1 32.6 1 30.1

Dallas 2 33.5 2 32.0San Diego 3 34.6 4 33.2

Atlanta 4 34.9 3 33.1

Raleigh 5 34.9 5 33.3

Charlotte 6 35.4 6 34.1

Indianapolis 7 35.5 9 34.4

Denver 8 35.7 7 34.2

Minneapolis 9 36.0 8 34.2

Washington, DC 10 36.1 11 34.9

Portland 11 36.7 10 34.8

Seattle 12 36.8 12 35.2

U.S. 37.2 35.3

Richmond 13 38.0 15 36.1

Baltimore 14 38.1 16 36.3

Philadelphia 15 38.1 17 36.3

St. Louis 16 38.2 13 36.0

Boston 17 38.5 14 36.1

Cleveland 18 40.5 18 37.3

Tampa 19 41.2 20 40.0

Pittsburgh 20 42.6 19 40.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

Population Growth

2005-2010 vs. 2000-2005

Region

Rank in

2005-2010

2005-2010

Average

Rank in

2000-2005

2000-2005

Average

Raleigh 1 3.7% 1 3.9%

Austin 2 3.4% 2 3.4%Charlotte 3 3.1% 4 2.8%

Dallas 4 1.9% 5 2.5%

Denver 5 1.6% 9 1.6%

Seattle 6 1.5% 13 1.0%

Richmond 7 1.4% 11 1.4%

Portland 8 1.4% 8 1.6%

Indianapolis 9 1.4% 10 1.6%

Washington, DC 10 1.3% 7 1.8%

Atlanta 11 1.3% 3 3.3%

Tampa 12 1.1% 6 2.0%

San Diego 13 1.0% 14 0.9%

Minneapolis 14 0.9% 12 1.1%

U.S. 0.9% 1.0%

Baltimore 15 0.5% 15 0.8%

Boston 16 0.4% 18 0.3%

Philadelphia 17 0.4% 16 0.6%

St. Louis 18 0.3% 17 0.6%

Pittsburgh 19 -0.1% 20 -0.5%

Cleveland 20 -0.4% 19 -0.3%


Population Age 20 to 64

2010

Region Rank % of Population

Seattle 1 63.7%

Washington, DC 2 63.6%

Austin 3 63.5%

Denver 4 62.6%

Portland 5 62.5%

Boston 6 62.3%

San Diego 7 62.1%

Raleigh 8 62.1%

Atlanta 9 61.8%

Minneapolis 10 61.8%

Richmond 11 61.6%

Baltimore 12 61.5%

Charlotte 13 61.3%

Dallas 14 60.7%

Philadelphia 15 60.4%

Indianapolis 16 60.3%

St. Louis 17 60.1%

U.S. 60.0%

Pittsburgh 18 59.8%

Tampa 19 59.0%

Cleveland 20 59.0%


Population Age 65 and Over

2010

Region Rank % of Population

Austin 1 8.1%

Dallas 2 8.8%

Atlanta 3 9.0%

Raleigh 4 9.0%


Denver 6 10.0%

Charlotte 7 10.1%

Minneapolis 8 10.7%

Seattle 9 10.8%


Portland 11 11.3%

San Diego 12 11.4%

Richmond 13 12.1%

Baltimore 14 12.6%

U.S. 13.0%

Boston 15 13.1%


St. Louis 17 13.3%

Cleveland 18 15.2%

Tampa 19 17.2%

Pittsburgh 20 17.3%



20/60

2011 GBC State o the Region Report14


Asian, Hawaiian or Other Pacifc Islander

2010

Region Rank % o Population

Seattle 1 12.2

San Diego 2 11.4

Washington, DC 3 9.3

Boston 4 6.5

Portland 5 6.2

Minneapolis 6 5.8

Dallas 7 5.5

Philadelphia 8 5.0

U.S. 4.9

Austin 9 4.9

Atlanta 10 4.9

Baltimore 11 4.6

Raleigh 12 4.5

Denver 13 3.8

Charlotte 14 3.2

Richmond 15 3.2

Tampa 16 3.0

Indianapolis 17 2.3

St. Louis 18 2.2

Cleveland 19 2.0

Pittsburgh 20 1.8


Hispanic or Latino Population

2010


San Diego 1 32.0

Austin 2 31.4

Dallas 3 27.5

Denver 4 22.5

U.S. 16.3

Tampa 5 16.2


Portland 7 10.9

Atlanta 8 10.4

Raleigh 9 10.1

Charlotte 10 9.8

Boston 11 9.0

Seattle 12 9.0

Philadelphia 13 7.8

Indianapolis 14 6.2

Minneapolis 15 5.4

Richmond 16 5.0

Cleveland 17 4.7

Baltimore 18 4.6

St. Louis 19 2.6

Pittsburgh 20 1.3


White Population

2010


Pittsburgh 1 87.8

Minneapolis 2 81.0

Portland 3 81.0

Boston 4 78.8

Tampa 5 78.8

Denver 6 78.0

Indianapolis 7 77.0

St. Louis 8 76.5

Cleveland 9 74.1

Austin 10 72.9

U.S. 72.4

Seattle 11 71.9

Philadelphia 12 68.2

Raleigh 13 67.5

Dallas 14 65.3Charlotte 15 65.1

San Diego 16 64.0

Baltimore 17 62.1

Richmond 18 62.0

Atlanta 19 55.4



Black or Arican American Population

2010


Atlanta 1 32.4

Richmond 2 29.8

Baltimore 3 28.7


Charlotte 5 24.0

Philadelphia 6 20.8

Raleigh 7 20.2

Cleveland 8 20.1

St. Louis 9 18.4

Dallas 10 15.1

Indianapolis 11 15.0

U.S. 12.6

Tampa 12 11.8

Pittsburgh 13 8.4

Austin 14 7.4Minneapolis 15 7.4

Boston 16 7.3

Denver 17 5.6

Richmond 18 62.0

Atlanta 19 55.4




21/60


Market, Income and Area

Greater Baltimore had the second highest per capitapersonal income growth rom 2007 to 2009 com-pared to the 20 benchmark metros, at 2.9 percent.D.C. experienced the ourth largest growth rate rom

2007 to 2009 at 1.3 percent. In addition, in terms omedian household income, the Balti-more region ranks third ($65,392) andthe D.C. region ranks frst ($85,168).Te Baltimore and Washington regionsrankings among the wealthiest nation-ally are tied to the strong presence othe ederal government and governmentcontractors within the area.

None o the 20 benchmark regionsexperienced growth in the total numbero new housing units authorized, pri-marily due to the eect o the economicrecession on demand in the construction industry.Home starts and sales continue to be down nation-ally, and Baltimore has not been immune to this

trend. While Baltimore improved its rank rom 18thto 11th since 2007, the total number o new homestarts declined by nearly 700 units. Tis is partiallydue to growth restrictions placed by many o the

suburban counties and the amount o land thatis available or development, inaddition to the aorementionedeect o the most recent economicrecession. With suburban land ordevelopment becoming scarcer,Baltimore Citys availability ordenser housing development andits available units continues toenhance its potential as a locationto support growth in the GreaterBaltimore region. Despite thedecreased retail sales rom 2007

to 2010, Greater Baltimore experienced a rise inGDP rom 2005 to 2009 ranking 10th among thebenchmark regions and 19th nationally.

With suburban land for de-

velopment becoming scarcer,

Baltimore Citys availability for

denser housing development

and its available units contin-

ues to enhance its potential as

a location to support growth in

the Greater Baltimore region.

Top 20 Metropolitan Areas in the U.S. by Median Household Income

2009

Region Rank Estimated Income

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Area 1 $85,168

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area 2 $84,483

Bridgeport-Stamord-Norwalk, CT Metro Area 3 $79,063

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area 4 $73,825

Anchorage, AK Metro Area 5 $72,712

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA Metro Area 6 $71,723

Trenton-Ewing, NJ Metro Area 7 $71,650

Fairbanks, AK Metro Area 8 $70,610

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area 9 $69,334

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area 10 $69,148

Napa, CA Metro Area 11 $68,541

Honolulu, HI Metro Area 12 $67,744

Vallejo-Fairfeld, CA Metro Area 13 $65,783

Hartord-West Hartord-East Hartord, CT Metro Area 14 $65,698

Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area 15 $65,392

Manchester-Nashua, NH Metro Area 16 $64,751

Norwich-New London, CT Metro Area 17 $64,148

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area 18 $64,028

Boulder, CO Metro Area 19 $63,431

Worcester, MA Metro Area 20 $63,360

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey 2009


22/60


Income and Housing Starts


Per Capita Personal Income

2009

Region

Benchmark

Rank National Rank

Per Capita Personal

Income

Washington, DC 1 4 $56,442

Boston 2 6 $53,713

Seattle 3 15 $48,976

Baltimore 4 17 $47,962

Denver 5 24 $45,982

Minneapolis 6 25 $45,750

San Diego 7 27 $45,630

Philadelphia 8 28 $45,565

Pittsburgh 9 48 $42,216

Richmond 10 57 $41,242

All U.S. Metropolitan Areas $40,757

St. Louis 11 61 $40,342

Dallas 12 72 $39,514

Cleveland 13 75 $39,348

Portland 14 89 $38,728

Indianapolis 15 93 $38,339

Raleigh 16 110 $37,849

Charlotte 17 119 $37,372

Tampa 18 131 $36,780

Atlanta 19 134 $36,482

Austin 20 155 $35,522

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Per Capita Personal Income Percentage Change

2007-2009 vs. 2003-2005

Region

Rank in

2007-2009

% Change

2007-2009

Rank in

2003-2005

% Change

2003-2005

Pittsburgh 1 3.9% 4 5.3%

Baltimore 2 2.9% 2 6.3%



St. Louis 5 0.2% 20 3.2%

Cleveland 6 -0.1% 13 4.4%

San Diego 7 -0.6% 1 6.6%

Boston 8 -0.7% 6 5.1%

Indianapolis 9 -0.8% 16 4.2%

U.S. -1.2% 4.8%

Richmond 10 -1.4% 10 4.9%

Tampa 11 -1.5% 9 4.9%

Seattle 12 -1.7% 17 3.8%

Portland 13 -1.8% 14 4.3%

Minneapolis 14 -2.4% 15 4.2%

Denver 15 -3.2% 11 4.8%

Dallas 16 -4.2% 12 4.5%

Austin 17 -5.2% 7 5.0%

Raleigh 18 -5.5% 18 3.8%

Atlanta 19 -5.8% 19 3.4%

Charlotte 20 -6.8% 5 5.1%


Change in Housing Starts

2010 vs. 2007

Region Rank % Change

Total Units

Authorized

2010

Total Units

Authorized

2007

Baltimore 1 -11% 5,653 6,336

Pittsburgh 2 -27% 3,410 4,700

Indianapolis 3 -29% 5,904 8,280

Boston 4 -41% 6,448 10,982

Minneapolis 5 -42% 5,715 9,877

Washington, DC 6 -44% 12,955 22,970

St. Louis 7 -47% 5,452 10,349

Tampa 8 -47% 6,500 12,341

Philadelphia 9 -47% 7,116 13,529

Richmond 10 -50% 3,520 6,982

Cleveland 11 -52% 1,950 4,053

San Diego 12 -53% 3,494 7,458

Dallas 13 -54% 19,535 42,161

Seattle 14 -61% 9,981 25,460

Austin 15 -62% 7,548 19,944

Denver 16 -65% 5,012 14,234

Portland 17 -66% 4,485 13,105

Raleigh 18 -68% 5,229 16,249

Charlotte 19 -73% 5,593 20,479

Atlanta 20 -83% 7,627 44,686


Median Household Income

2009

Region Rank

Median Household

Income

Washington, DC 1 $85,168

Boston 2 $69,334

Baltimore 3 $65,392

Seattle 4 $64,028

Minneapolis 5 $63,114

San Diego 6 $60,231

Philadelphia 7 $60,065

Raleigh 8 $59,316

Denver 9 $59,007

Austin 10 $56,218

Richmond 11 $55,609

Portland 12 $55,521

Atlanta 13 $55,464

Dallas 14 $54,539

St. Louis 15 $51,691

Charlotte 16 $51,267

Indianapolis 17 $50,410

U.S. $50,221

Pittsburgh 18 $46,349

Cleveland 19 $45,395

Tampa 20 $44,061

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey 2009


23/60


Land, Sales and GDP

Population Density

2010

Region Rank Population per Square Mile

Boston 1 1,298.2

Philadelphia 2 1,288.5

Tampa 3 1,089.8

Baltimore 4 1,038.9

Cleveland 5 1,036.3


San Diego 7 737.0

Dallas 8 708.8

Atlanta 9 629.0

Seattle 10 583.6

Charlotte 11 567.4

Minneapolis 12 541.0

Raleigh 13 534.3

Indianapolis 14 454.6

Pittsburgh 15 446.3Austin 16 406.3

Portland 17 333.0

St. Louis 18 325.2

Denver 19 304.3

Richmond 20 220.3


Retail Sales

2010 Estimate

Region Rank Retail Sales (millions)

Philadelphia 1 $80,393

Washington, DC 2 $70,902

Dallas 3 $70,703

Atlanta 4 $66,000

Boston 5 $59,221

Seattle 6 $50,014

Minneapolis 7 $44,251

San Diego 8 $38,826

Tampa 9 $37,283

St. Louis 10 $36,656

Austin 11 $35,747

Baltimore 12 $34,355

Denver 13 $34,315

Pittsburgh 14 $28,875

Portland 15 $27,407Cleveland 16 $24,876

Charlotte 17 $23,554

Indianapolis 18 $21,647

Richmond 19 $16,018

Raleigh 20 $14,979

Source: Te Nielsen Company

Land Area

2000

Region Rank Square Miles

Dallas 1 8,989.6

St. Louis 2 8,649.3

Atlanta 3 8,376.5

Denver 4 8,357.4

Portland 5 6,684.1

Minneapolis 6 6,063.1

Seattle 7 5,894.0

Richmond 8 5,711.8

Washington, DC 9 5,627.1

Pittsburgh 10 5,279.6

Philadelphia 11 4,629.6

Austin 12 4,224.0

San Diego 13 4,199.9Indianapolis 14 3,863.4

Boston 15 3,506.8

Charlotte 16 3,098.3

Baltimore 17 2,609.1

Tampa 18 2,554.0

Raleigh 19 2,115.8

Cleveland 20 2,004.4


Gross Domestic Product

2009

Region Benchmark Rank National Rank GDP (millions)

Washington, DC 1 4 $407,463

Dallas 2 6 $356,615

Philadelphia 3 8 $335,112

Boston 4 9 $298,256

Atlanta 5 10 $264,700

Seattle 6 12 $228,797

Minneapolis 7 14 $189,801

San Diego 8 16 $171,471

Denver 9 17 $152,868

Baltimore 10 19 $138,420

St. Louis 11 20 $124,558

Portland 12 21 $117,006

Pittsburgh 13 22 $111,597 Tampa 14 23 $111,377

Charlotte 15 25 $110,427

Cleveland 16 27 $103,020

Indianapolis 17 29 $98,799

Austin 18 38 $78,426

Richmond 19 45 $61,447

Raleigh 20 50 $52,556



24/60


25/60


26/60


Employment Sectors

Economy

Manufacturing Employment as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment

2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008

Cleveland 1 11.7% 1 13.1%

Portland 2 11.1% 2 11.9%


Seattle 4 10.2% 4 10.7%

U.S. 8.9% 9.8%

Dallas 5 8.7% 5 9.7%

St. Louis 6 8.2% 6 9.5%

Charlotte 7 8.2% 7 9.2%

Boston 8 8.0% 8 8.7%

Pittsburgh 9 7.8% 9 8.6%

San Diego 10 7.6% 10 7.9%


Austin 12 6.2% 12 7.4%


Atlanta 14 6.3% 14 6.9%

Richmond 15 5.5% 15 6.4%

Raleigh 16 5.5% 16 6.1%

Tampa 17 5.2% 17 5.9%

Denver 18 5.1% 18 5.6%

Baltimore 19 4.9% 19 5.3%


Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Among the 20 benchmark regions, Greater Baltimoreranks 5th or education and health services with 18.7percent o employment in these combined sectors.

According to U.S. News and World Reports Best

Colleges, the Greater Baltimore area has severalschools which made the top o the list in dierentcategories. Some o the colleges and universitiesinclude Johns Hopkins University, Universityo Maryland, University o Maryland BaltimoreCounty, St. Marys College o Maryland, and theUnited States Naval Academy. Te Baltimore metroarea is also home to several high-ranking hospitalssuch as the top-ranked Johns Hopkins as well as theUniversity o Maryland.

Just shy o the national average o 5.9 percent,

Greater Baltimore ranks 14th among the 20 regionsin the fnancial services (5.7 percent). Charlotte(8.7 percent) and Dallas (8.0 percent) lead thebenchmark regions. Among the benchmark regions,Greater Baltimore ranked 16th or employment ininormation and technology sectors with 1.7 percent,slightly below the national average. Tese sectors

comprise publishing, internet, television, and otherinormation services. op markets or these sectorsinclude Seattle, Denver, and Atlanta. As o 2009,Baltimore ranks 10th or high-tech employment with

2,855 high tech workers per 100,000 persons. opmarkets include Washington, D.C. (5,350), Boston(4,790), and Seattle (4,262).

Ranking 13th among the 20 benchmark regions,the Baltimore metro area has 14.5 percent o totalemployment in its proessional and business servicessector, above the U.S. average o 12.9 percent.

Greater Baltimore ranks 16th out the 20benchmark regions in wholesale and retail tradeemployment as a percent o total nonarmemployment (14.4 percent).

Due primarily to its proximity to the Washington,D.C. area, the Greater Baltimore region ranks 5thamong the benchmark regions in total governmentemployment (18.2 percent). With more than oneo every fve jobs in the area being governmentjobs, Washington, D.C. is ranked 1st among thebenchmark regions.

Photographer:StephenSpartana/SpartanaLand


27/60


Financial Services Employment as Percent of

Total Non-Farm Employment

2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008

Charlotte 1 8.7% 1 8.7%

Dallas 2 8.0% 3 7.8%


Tampa 4 7.8% 2 8.1%

Denver 5 7.6% 5 7.7%


Boston 7 7.2% 7 7.5%

Richmond 8 7.0% 8 7.0%

Cleveland 9 6.4% 10 6.5%

Portland 10 6.4% 9 6.6%

Atlanta 11 6.2% 11 6.4%

St. Louis 12 6.1% 14 5.9%

Pittsburgh 13 6.1% 13 5.9%

U.S. 5.9% 6.0%

Baltimore 14 5.7% 12 6.0%

Austin 15 5.5% 15 5.8%

San Diego 16 5.5% 16 5.8%

Seattle 17 5.4% 17 5.8%

Raleigh 18 5.4% 18 5.3%




Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment as Percent of


2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008

Atlanta 1 17.2% 1 17.5%

Charlotte 2 16.6% 2 16.6%

Tampa 3 16.4% 3 16.6%

Dallas 4 15.9% 4 16.3%

Portland 5 15.9% 6 16.1%

Austin 6 15.8% 5 16.2%

Raleigh 7 15.4% 7 15.6%

Pittsburgh 8 15.3% 8 15.5%

U.S. 15.3% 15.5%

Denver 9 15.3% 9 15.5%

St. Louis 10 15.3% 10 15.4%


Richmond 12 15.1% 13 15.0%

Cleveland 13 15.0% 12 15.3%

Seattle 14 15.0% 14 15.0%

Minneapolis 15 14.6% 15 15.0%

Baltimore 16 14.4% 16 14.9%

Boston 17 14.0% 18 14.2%

San Diego 18 13.9% 17 14.4%

Washington, DC 19 10.7% 19 11.2%




28/60


Economy

Educational and Health Services Employment as Percent of


2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008

Pittsburgh 1 21.0% 1 20.0%

Philadelphia 2 20.7% 2 19.3%Boston 3 20.5% 3 19.1%

Cleveland 4 19.0% 5 17.0%

Baltimore 5 18.7% 4 17.4%

St. Louis 6 17.3% 6 15.6%

Tampa 7 15.9% 8 14.3%


U.S. 15.1% 13.8%

Portland 9 14.4% 9 12.8%

Richmond 10 14.1% 10 12.8%

Seattle 11 12.7% 12 11.4%

Dallas 12 12.4% 14 11.0%

Raleigh 13 12.3% 11 11.5%

Atlanta 14 12.2% 15 10.9%

Washington, DC 15 12.1% 13 11.3%

San Diego 16 12.1% 17 10.6%

Denver 17 12.0% 16 10.7%

Austin 18 11.4% 18 10.4%

Charlotte 19 10.1% 19 9.2%



Government Employment as Percent of Total

Non-Farm Employment

2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008


Austin 2 22.2% 2 20.9%Richmond 3 18.7% 3 17.7%

San Diego 4 18.5% 5 17.3%

Baltimore 5 18.2% 6 17.1%

Raleigh 6 18.1% 4 17.4%

U.S. 17.3% 16.5%

Seattle 7 16.0% 7 14.9%

Portland 8 15.3% 8 14.2%

Denver 9 14.9% 9 13.9%

Charlotte 10 14.4% 13 13.1%

Atlanta 11 14.4% 10 13.7%

Minneapolis 12 14.1% 11 13.6%

Cleveland 13 14.1% 12 13.5%

Tampa 14 13.9% 15 12.7%

Dallas 15 13.8% 14 12.9%

St. Louis 16 13.3% 16 12.5%


Boston 18 12.6% 18 12.2%

Pittsburgh 19 11.4% 19 11.0%



Professional and Business Services Employment as Percent of


2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008


Tampa 2 17.2% 5 16.8%

Raleigh 3 17.1% 4 17.0%

San Diego 4 17.0% 3 17.1%

Denver 5 17.0% 2 17.2%

Atlanta 6 16.8% 6 16.8%

Charlotte 7 16.2% 8 15.8%

Boston 8 16.2% 7 16.6%

Richmond 9 15.4% 9 15.8%


Minneapolis 11 14.9% 12 14.8%Dallas 12 14.9% 11 15.1%

Baltimore 13 14.5% 13 14.7%

St. Louis 14 14.3% 14 14.5%

Austin 15 14.2% 15 14.3%

Pittsburgh 16 14.0% 16 13.9%

Seattle 17 13.5% 17 13.8%

Cleveland 18 13.1% 18 13.5%

Portland 19 13.1% 19 13.2%

U.S. 12.9% 13.0%




29/60


Information and Technology Employment as Percent of


2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008

Seattle 1 5.4% 1 5.1%

Denver 2 3.7% 2 3.9%Atlanta 3 3.5% 3 3.4%

Raleigh 4 3.3% 4 3.3%

Boston 5 3.0% 6 3.0%

Dallas 6 2.7% 7 3.0%


Charlotte 8 2.6% 9 2.6%

Austin 9 2.5% 8 2.7%

St. Louis 10 2.3% 14 2.3%

Portland 11 2.3% 12 2.4%


Tampa 13 2.3% 10 2.5%

U.S. 2.1% 15 2.2%

San Diego 14 2.1% 11 2.4%


Baltimore 16 1.7% 17 1.8%

Pittsburgh 17 1.6% 16 1.8%

Cleveland 18 1.6% 18 1.7%

Richmond 19 1.6% 19 1.6%



High Tech Employment

2009

Region Rank

Employment per

100,000 PopulationWashington, DC 1 5,350

Boston 2 4,790

Seattle 3 4,262

Austin 4 3,838

San Diego 5 3,634

Denver 6 3,485

Raleigh 7 3,295

Minneapolis 8 3,015

Portland 9 2,933

Baltimore 10 2,855

Dallas 11 2,712

Atlanta 12 2,257

Philadelphia 13 2,249

Pittsburgh 14 2,045

Tampa 15 1,963

St. Louis 16 1,837

Richmond 17 1,683

Charlotte 18 1,669

Indianapolis 19 1,664

Cleveland 20 1,512

Source: Cybercities 2010

Annual Unemployment Rate

2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008Washington, DC 1 6.2 1 3.8

Austin 2 7.1 3 4.4

Minneapolis 3 7.2 9 5.1

Richmond 4 7.7 2 4.2

Boston 4 7.7 5 4.8

Baltimore 6 7.9 4 4.7

Pittsburgh 7 8.0 9 5.1

Dallas 8 8.3 8 5.0

Raleigh 9 8.7 6 4.9

Denver 10 9.0 6 4.9

Philadelphia 10 9.0 13 5.3

Indianapolis 12 9.2 9 5.1

Cleveland 12 9.2 20 6.8

Seattle 14 9.3 9 5.1

U.S. 9.6 5.8

St. Louis 15 10.0 18 6.5

Atlanta 16 10.2 16 6.2

Portland 17 10.6 14 6.0

San Diego 17 10.6 14 6.0

Charlotte 19 11.6 17 6.3

Tampa 20 12.1 18 6.5



30/60


Economy

Employment Growth by SectorFrom 2008 to 2010, all o the 20 regions experiencedoverall job losses. Seven o the regions saw declines omore than 3 percent annually.

Te Greater Baltimore area experienced positive

job growth in two major sectors o the economy.Among the benchmark regions, Greater Baltimoreranks 12th in educational and health services employ-ment growth (2.0 percent) and 4th in governmentemployment growth (1.4 percent). Greater Baltimoreexperienced declining employment in our othermajor categories measured.

Due to the robust presence o the ederal govern-ment and numerous ederal laboratories, the Baltimoremetro area experienced a 1.3 percent growth in high-tech employment across all sectors between 2007 and2009. Greater Baltimore was one o eight jurisdictionsthat registered an increase in this category.

A signifcant percentage o frms in the GreaterBaltimore region are women- and minority-owned.Baltimore is 2nd among the comparison metros in thepercentage o women-owned frms (32.3 percent),3rd in the percentage o minority-owned frms (16.5percent). Ranked 6th out o the 20 regions, Baltimoresannual unemployment rate was 7.9 percent in 2010an increase o 3.2 percent since 2008.

Educational and Health Services Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average

Dallas 1 4.1% 7 4.5%


Austin 3 4.0% 5 4.7%

San Diego 4 3.6% 3 4.9%

Denver 5 3.4% 8 4.3%


Richmond 7 2.7% 1 6.5%

St. Louis 8 2.6% 19 2.1%

Cleveland 9 2.5% 17 2.5%

Portland 10 2.4% 9 3.8%

Boston 11 2.2% 16 2.9%

Baltimore 12 2.0% 15 2.9%

U.S. 1.9% 2.8%

Atlanta 13 1.9% 10 3.8%

Seattle 14 1.9% 11 3.7%

Tampa 15 1.7% 12 3.6%



Pittsburgh 18 1.3% 20 1.6%

Charlotte 19 1.1% 4 4.8%

Raleigh 20 1.1% 2 5.1%


Total Non-Farm Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006- 2008

2006-2008

Average

Austin 1 -0.6% 1 3.6%

Washington, DC 2 -0.6% 9 0.6%

Pittsburgh 3 -1.1% 10 0.5%

Boston 4 -1.4% 8 0.9%

Baltimore 5 -1.6% 13 0.3%


Dallas 7 -1.9% 5 2.1%

Philadelphia 8 -2.0% 15 0.2%

Richmond 9 -2.3% 12 0.4%

Raleigh 10 -2.3% 2 3.1%

St. Louis 11 -2.4% 16 0.2%

Denver 12 -2.5% 6 1.6%

U.S. -2.5% 0.3%

Minneapolis 13 -2.7% 17 -0.0%

San Diego 14 -3.0% 18 -0.1%

Cleveland 15 -3.2% 19 -0.8%

Portland 16 -3.3% 7 0.9%

Seattle 17 -3.5% 4 2.1%

Atlanta 18 -3.5% 11 0.5%

Charlotte 19 -3.5% 3 2.1%

Tampa 20 -3.6% 20 -1.7%


Manufacturing Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average

Boston 1 -5.0% 6 -1.6%

San Diego 2 -5.1% 2 -0.5%

Baltimore 3 -5.3% 15 -2.7%

Seattle 4 -5.4% 1 1.7%

Pittsburgh 5 -5.5% 3 -0.9%

Minneapolis 6 -6.2% 8 -1.7%

Denver 7 -6.3% 7 -1.6%

Dallas 8 -6.5% 9 -2.0%

Philadelphia 9 -6.6% 12 -2.5%

Portland 10 -6.7% 4 -1.3%

Indianapolis 11 -6.8% 13 -2.5%

Washington, DC 12 -6.9% 11 -2.1%

Raleigh 13 -7.0% 14 -2.6%

U.S. -7.0% -2.6%

Atlanta 14 -7.6% 16 -2.9%

Cleveland 15 -8.1% 17 -3.0%

Austin 16 -8.7% 5 -1.4%

Charlotte 17 -8.7% 10 -2.1%

St. Louis 18 -9.0% 18 -3.5%

Richmond 19 -9.3% 19 -3.8%

Tampa 20 -9.6% 20 -4.5%



31/60


Information Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average

Seattle 1 -0.7% 1 4.7%

Boston 2 -1.3% 9 0.8%

Raleigh 3 -1.5% 5 1.2%

St. Louis 4 -1.6% 6 1.2%

Charlotte 5 -2.0% 11 0.0%

Baltimore 6 -3.2% 2 2.3%

Atlanta 7 -3.2% 14 -1.1%

Minneapolis 8 -3.3% 10 0.2%

Austin 9 -3.8% 15 -1.8%

Denver 10 -4.1% 8 0.8%

Richmond 11 -4.3% 19 -4.0%

U.S. -4.6% -0.9%

Portland 12 -4.7% 4 1.3%



Dallas 15 -5.2% 13 -0.8%

Cleveland 16 -5.6% 18 -3.2%

Pittsburgh 17 -6.0% 20 -4.4%

Washington, DC 18 -6.8% 17 -3.0%

Tampa 19 -7.6% 16 -2.4%

San Diego 20 -9.9% 12 -0.5%


Financial Services Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average

Pittsburgh 1 0.4% 5 -0.4%

St. Louis 2 -0.6% 4 0.4%

Dallas 3 -1.0% 3 0.8%

Raleigh 4 -1.5% 1 3.9%

Minneapolis 5 -1.8% 9 -1.0%


Richmond 7 -2.4% 17 -2.5%

Washington, DC 8 -2.5% 15 -2.3%

Austin 9 -3.1% 2 2.1%

U.S. -3.2% -1.1%

Boston 10 -3.4% 6 -0.6%

Denver 11 -3.5% 11 -1.7%

Cleveland 12 -3.7% 19 -3.4%

Charlotte 13 -3.7% 8 -0.9%

Baltimore 14 -3.7% 16 -2.4%


Portland 16 -4.4% 12 -2.0%

Atlanta 17 -4.9% 14 -2.1%

Tampa 18 -5.1% 18 -2.7%

San Diego 19 -5.4% 20 -5.1%

Seattle 20 -6.6% 10 -1.6%


Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average

Austin 1 -1.7% 1 4.8%

Pittsburgh 2 -1.8% 14 -0.7%

Richmond 3 -2.1% 10 -0.2%

Boston 4 -2.3% 12 -0.5%

Washington, DC 5 -2.4% 15 -0.8%


Raleigh 7 -2.8% 2 2.9%

Dallas 8 -2.9% 6 0.9%


St. Louis 10 -2.9% 7 0.5%

Denver 11 -3.1% 5 1.1%

U.S. -3.2% -0.1%

Baltimore 12 -3.5% 16 -1.0%

Charlotte 13 -3.5% 3 2.3%

Seattle 14 -3.5% 4 1.3%

Portland 15 -3.8% 8 0.4%

Minneapolis 16 -3.8% 17 -1.2%

Cleveland 17 -4.0% 18 -1.3%

Atlanta 18 -4.2% 9 -0.1%

Tampa 19 -4.2% 19 -1.5%

San Diego 20 -4.7% 20 -1.7%


Professional and Business Services Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average


Austin 2 -0.8% 1 5.7%

Pittsburgh 3 -1.0% 3 4.0%

Raleigh 4 -1.9% 10 1.8%

Charlotte 5 -2.3% 2 4.6%

Baltimore 6 -2.4% 13 1.1%

Minneapolis 7 -2.4% 18 0.5%

Boston 8 -2.6% 7 2.3%

Dallas 9 -2.7% 4 4.0%

Tampa 10 -2.7% 20 -3.1%


Denver 12 -2.9% 5 3.8%

U.S. 13 -3.0% 0.5%

St. Louis -3.0% 14 0.9%


San Diego 15 -3.2% 16 0.7%

Richmond 16 -3.3% 9 1.9%

Atlanta 17 -3.4% 15 0.8%

Portland 18 -3.6% 17 0.7%

Seattle 19 -4.4% 6 3.2%

Cleveland 20 -4.5% 19 -0.4%



32/60


Economy

Minority & Women Owned Firms

High Tech Employment Change

2009 vs. 2007

Region Rank 2007-2009 Average Change

Denver 1 6.2%

Seattle 2 5.8%

San Diego 3 2.8%

Boston 4 1.5%

Baltimore 5 1.3%

Charlotte 6 1.1%

Philadelphia 7 0.7%


Pittsburgh 9 -0.2%

Raleigh 10 -0.2%

Dallas 11 -1.1%

Indianapolis 12 -1.1%

Minneapolis 13 -2.1%

Cleveland 14 -2.4%

Atlanta 15 -3.5%

St. Louis 16 -3.7%Portland 17 -5.8%

Richmond 18 -6.6%

Tampa 19 -6.9%

Austin 20 -8.8%

Source: Cybercities 2010

Women Owned Firms

2007

Region Rank % of Firms


Baltimore 2 32.3%

Atlanta 3 31.8%

Portland 4 30.6%

Boston 5 30.2%

San Diego 6 29.9%

Denver 7 29.6%

Charlotte 8 29.2%

Seattle 9 29.1%

Tampa 10 28.9%

Richmond 11 28.8%

U.S. 28.8%Dallas 12 28.7%

Minneapolis 13 28.7%

Raleigh 14 28.6%

St. Louis 15 28.4%

Austin 16 28.4%



Cleveland 19 27.0%

Pittsburgh 20 26.7%

Source: Bureau of the Census, Survey of Business Owners

Black or African-American Owned Firms

2007


Atlanta 1 23.1%


Baltimore 3 16.5%

Richmond 4 14.7%

Charlotte 5 12.0%

Raleigh 6 11.6%

Dallas 7 9.5%

Cleveland 8 8.9%

Philadelphia 9 8.7%

St. Louis 10 8.2%

U.S. 7.1%

Indianapolis 11 6.4% Tampa 12 6.1%

Boston 13 3.8%

Austin 14 3.7%

Minneapolis 15 3.6%

Pittsburgh 16 3.4%

San Diego 17 2.9%

Seattle 18 2.9%

Denver 19 2.5%

Portland 20 1.7%


Hispanic Owned Firms

2007


San Diego 1 15.2%

Austin 2 13.3%

Tampa 3 12.3%

Dallas 4 11.7%


U.S. 8.3%

Denver 6 7.0%

Atlanta 7 4.5%

Charlotte 8 3.7%

Raleigh 9 3.7%

Boston 10 3.4%

Philadelphia 11 3.2%Portland 12 3.2%

Seattle 13 3.0%

Baltimore 14 2.4%

Richmond 15 2.1%


Cleveland 17 1.3%

St. Louis 18 1.3%

Minneapolis 19 1.2%

Pittsburgh 20 0.7%


Government Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008-2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average

Austin 1 2.6% 4 3.3%


Dallas 3 1.8% 7 2.6%

Baltimore 4 1.4% 13 1.1%

Charlotte 5 1.2% 1 5.1%

Denver 6 1.1% 8 2.2%

St. Louis 7 0.8% 16 0.2%

Tampa 8 0.7% 12 1.3%

Pittsburgh 9 0.6% 19 -0.2%

Richmond 10 0.5% 20 -1.0%

Portland 11 0.3% 6 2.9%

Boston 12 0.2% 14 1.1%

Seattle 13 0.2% 10 1.6%

San Diego 14 0.2% 9 1.7%

Philadelphia 15 0.1% 18 -0.2%

U.S. -0.1% 1.2%


Raleigh 17 -0.6% 2 3.9%

Minneapolis 18 -0.9% 17 0.1%

Cleveland 19 -1.2% 15 0.8%

Atlanta 20 -1.2% 5 2.9%



33/60


Tourism and Conventions

Greater Baltimore experienced a decrease in leisureand hospitality employment by an average annualrate o 1.7 percent rom 2008 to 2010, rankingthe region 11th among the 20 benchmark regions.

Given the efects o the recession on the tourismindustry nationwide,it is worth noting thatthis decline resulted in achange o ranking rom13th to 11th relative to thebenchmark regions.

Despite leisure andhospitality employmentgrowth declining between2008 and 2010, thissector accounts or 8.8percent o total employ-ment within the Greater

Baltimore region, ranking it 15th. Te Baltimoremetro areas 32,329 hotel rooms ranks it 14thamong the benchmark regions. At 300,000 squareeet o exhibit space, Baltimores conventioncenter is ranked 16th when compared to the majormunicipal venue or benchmark regions, althoughsome have additional venues that can afect

convention site selection.

Given the effects

of the recession on

the tourism industry

nationwide, it is worth

noting that this decline

resulted in a change

of ranking from 13th

to 11th relative to thebenchmark regions.

Leisure and Hospitality Employment as Percent of


2010 vs. 2008

Region

Rank in

2010 2010

Rank in

2008 2008

San Diego 1 12.7% 1 12.6%

Austin 2 10.9% 2 10.5%St. Louis 3 10.7% 6 10.4%

Charlotte 4 10.7% 4 10.5%

Denver 5 10.7% 5 10.4%

Tampa 6 10.6% 3 10.5%

Raleigh 7 10.2% 9 9.6%

U.S. 10.0% 9.8%

Dallas 8 9.8% 10 9.5%

Atlanta 9 9.8% 7 9.6%

Portland 10 9.7% 8 9.6%

Pittsburgh 11 9.6% 11 9.4%

Seattle 12 9.4% 12 9.4%

Boston 13 9.2% 15 8.8%


Baltimore 15 8.8% 14 8.9%

Cleveland 16 8.8% 17 8.6%


Richmond 18 8.6% 18 8.4%




Leisure and Hospitality Employment Change

2008-2010 vs. 2006-2008

Region

Rank in

2008- 2010

2008-2010

Average

Rank in

2006-2008

2006-2008

Average

Austin 1 1.5% 3 4.8%

Raleigh 2 0.9% 1 6.0%

Boston 3 0.3% 9 2.0%


Pittsburgh 5 -0.2% 15 0.8%

Dallas 6 -0.3% 4 3.6%


St. Louis 8 -1.0% 18 -0.5%

Richmond 9 -1.2% 12 1.3%

Denver 10 -1.3% 10 2.0%

U.S. -1.5% 1.2%

Baltimore 11 -1.7% 13 1.1%


Cleveland 13 -2.3% 20 -1.8%

Charlotte 14 -2.6% 2 5.7%

Minneapolis 15 -2.6% 16 0.5%

Portland 16 -2.7% 5 2.8%

Atlanta 17 -2.8% 11 1.5%

San Diego 18 -2.9% 8 2.4%

Tampa 19 -3.0% 19 -1.4%

Seattle 20 -3.1% 7 2.5%



34/60


Economy

Total Hotel Rooms, Metropolitan Areas

2011*

Region Rank Hotel Rooms

Rank Among

Major Markets

Atlanta 2 93,907 7

Dallas 3 76,777 8

San Diego 4 57,850 12

Boston 5 50,086 16

Tampa 6 44,015 21

Philadelphia 7 43,316 24

Seattle 8 40,577 30

Denver 9 39,882 31

St. Louis 10 38,885 35

Minneapolis-St. Paul 11 38,208 37

Indianapolis 12 32,498 51

Charlotte 13 32,419 52

Baltimore 14 32,329 53

Austin 15 29,529 62

Portland 16 25,996 74

Raleigh 17 25,904 75

Pittsburgh 18 23,456 89

Richmond 19 22,610 93

Cleveland 20 21,457 98

*Data as o May, 2011

Source: Smith Travel Research, Inc.

Convention Center Size

2009

Region Rank Sq Ft Exhibit Space

Dallas 1 1,019,142

Atlanta 2 800,000

Washington, DC 3 703,000

San Diego 4 615,701

Denver 5 584,000

Minneapolis 6 559,000

Indianapolis 7 535,533

Boston 8 516,000

St. Louis 9 502,000

Philadelphia 10 440,000

Cleveland 11 409,000

Charlotte 12 375,000

Austin 13 374,255

Portland 14 315,000

Pittsburgh 15 313,000

Baltimore 16 300,000Seattle 17 268,700

Richmond 18 207,543

Tampa 19 200,000

Raleigh 20 150,000

Source: Red 7 Media

Note: Chart reects space in the major municipal venue or each region. Some regions haveadditional municipal venues or privately-owned venues that can afect convention site selection.


35/60


Innovation and Productivity

Maryland was ranked 3rd nationally in the new econ-omy index due to the states concentration of highlyskilled workers. Te Baltimore region ranked 16th

among the benchmark

regions for value addedper manufacturing pro-duction worker basedon the 2007 EconomicCensus. Dallas, Phila-delphia, and Seattle rankas the top three marketsfor productivity. GreaterBaltimore ranked 10th inmanufacturing produc-tivity value added perworker among the 20benchmark regions.

Manufacturing: Total Value Added

2007

Region Rank Value Added by

Manufacture (billions)

Dallas 1 $53,241,729

Philadelphia 2 $47,023,017

Seattle 3 $36,280,895

Boston 4 $35,901,315

Minneapolis 5 $31,999,118

Portland 6 $31,290,780

St. Louis 7 $27,860,400

Atlanta 8 $25,511,888

Charlotte 9 $22,683,420

Indianapolis 10 $21,915,815

Cleveland 11 $21,150,367

Pittsburgh 12 $19,285,394

Austin 13 $16,816,791

San Diego 14 $16,407,838

Richmond 15 $14,313,198

Baltimore 16 $12,701,340

Denver 17 $12,308,017

Raleigh 18 $10,848,229

Washington, DC 19 $10,529,764

Tampa 20 $9,259,334

Source: Bureau of the Census, 2007 Economic CensusNew Economy Index

2010 vs. 2007

State

Benchmark

Rank in

2010

National

Rank in

2010

Benchmark

Rank in

2007

National

Rank in

2007

Massachusetts 1 1 1 1

Washington, DC 2 2 3 4

Maryland 3 3 2 3

California 4 7 4 5

Virginia 5 8 5 8

Colorado 6 9 6 9

Minnesota 7 13 7 11

Oregon 8 14 9 17

Texas 9 18 8 14

Georgia 10 19 10 18

Florida 11 21 12 23

Pennsylvania 12 22 11 21

North Carolina 13 24 13 26

Ohio 14 25 14 29

Missouri 15 33 16 35

Indiana 16 35 15 31

Source: Te 2010 State New Economy Index, Te Information echnology & InnovationFoundation

Manufacturing Productivity Value Added per Worker

2007

Region

Value Added

Per Production

Worker Rank

Value Added

Per Production

Worker

Value Added Per

Manufacturing

Worker Rank

Value Added Per

Manufacturing

Worker

Raleigh 1 $603,182 1 $394,610Austin 2 $563,490 2 $353,071

Richmond 3 $473,727 3 $336,654

Portland 4 $424,777 5 $282,538

Charlotte 5 $412,156 4 $300,363

Indianapolis 6 $370,726 6 $246,814

Seattle 7 $362,280 7 $218,987

Boston 8 $321,357 11 $183,300

Philadelphia 9 $320,253 9 $209,473

Baltimore 10 $296,656 13 $181,191

St. Louis 11 $296,141 8 $210,807

Pittsburgh 12 $285,055 10 $189,543

Dallas 13 $279,096 14 $174,672

Washington, DC 14 $276,423 15 $164,666

San Diego 15 $269,334 16 $160,597

Denver 16 $264,916 12 $181,947

Minneapolis 17 $258,769 17 $159,477

Atlanta 18 $222,909 18 $158,441

Tampa 19 $214,451 20 $140,410

Cleveland 20 $212,834 19 $149,826

Source: Bureau of the Census, 2007 Economic Census

Photograp

her:StephenSpartana/SpartanaLand


36/60

2011 GBC State o the Region Report30

Economy

Commercial Real Estate

Greater Baltimore has the 21s

state of the region final print

Documents