Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not saying it competes, but people love to tout KC's history as a "jazz city", and rightfully so. However, I think one of the saddest things about Indy is how we have largely ignored, and certainly not marketed our history as an important, contributing city to jazz history. People tend to overlook the fact (or never realized) that Indy produced Freddie Hubbard (perhaps the most technically proficient jazz trumpeter from the hard bop era), Wes Montgomery (arguably the most innovative jazz guitarist ever), JJ Johnston, Slide Hampton, David Baker, Steve Allee, etc. The "midwest sound" was born and played here before Chicago and Indiana Avenue at its peak was one of the most culturally significant African American neighborhoods in the country. Its a damn shame what the city did to it, and many feel that had they not bulldozed it to put up IUPUI, it would be synonymous with Bourbon and Beale Street as one of the most musical streets in America. Again, i'm certainly not claiming that our jazz history is up there with KC ( I would trade a lifetimes worth of experiences to have been in a KC club with Basie leading his band for 10 minutes), or St. Louis with its blues for that matter, but we aren't exactly a slouch either.
The BEST indicator of downtown population "hustle and bustle" would be population density though, because when downtowns like Indy's are 5 or 6 square miles in area, you have to consider that size along with the resident population. Population density adjusts for size of downtown, making it an apples-to-apples comparison. Use this when comparing downtown residential populations instead of total population.
Also, even though cities like St. Louis are currently not as densely populated, STRUCTURALLY, they are as dense or moreso than just about any city in the country. At one point St. Louis had over 3X as many people living in the same area as its current population does. Population densities averaged over 20K ppsm in its heyday, unlike most cities today.
Something to consider when you think of density AND "urban feeling"!
A lot of that infrastructure and development is gone or crumbled now, so I don't know if the structural density argument applies anymore. It seems like the brick thieves (or whatever they're called) did a huge number on the vacant houses.
I'm not saying it competes, but people love to tout KC's history as a "jazz city", and rightfully so. However, I think one of the saddest things about Indy is how we have largely ignored, and certainly not marketed our history as an important, contributing city to jazz history. People tend to overlook the fact (or never realized) that Indy produced Freddie Hubbard (perhaps the most technically proficient jazz trumpeter from the hard bop era), Wes Montgomery (arguably the most innovative jazz guitarist ever), JJ Johnston, Slide Hampton, David Baker, Steve Allee, etc. The "midwest sound" was born and played here before Chicago and Indiana Avenue at its peak was one of the most culturally significant African American neighborhoods in the country. Its a damn shame what the city did to it, and many feel that had they not bulldozed it to put up IUPUI, it would be synonymous with Bourbon and Beale Street as one of the most musical streets in America. Again, i'm certainly not claiming that our jazz history is up there with KC ( I would trade a lifetimes worth of experiences to have been in a KC club with Basie leading his band for 10 minutes), or St. Louis with its blues for that matter, but we aren't exactly a slouch either.
Doesn't Indy have significant Negro League baseball history too? I'm not sure why, but I think of that when I think of Indy. I think the negro league baseball museum in KC has a lot about Indy in it.
The BEST indicator of downtown population "hustle and bustle" would be population density though, because when downtowns like Indy's are 5 or 6 square miles in area, you have to consider that size along with the resident population. Population density adjusts for size of downtown, making it an apples-to-apples comparison. Use this when comparing downtown residential populations instead of total population.
Also, even though cities like St. Louis are currently not as densely populated, STRUCTURALLY, they are as dense or moreso than just about any city in the country. At one point St. Louis had over 3X as many people living in the same area as its current population does. Population densities averaged over 20K ppsm in its heyday, unlike most cities today.
Something to consider when you think of density AND "urban feeling"!
"Structural density"? Sheeyit. There's a reason Portland is more vibrant and "urban feeling" by every conceivable metric than St Louis, Cleveland, KC, Milwaukee, etc....and it isn't structural density. People make a city, not buildings, especially vacant ones. "Structural density" - "population density" = "ghost town".
Which isn't to imply that St Louis is a ghost town, or isn't urban, or isn't, in a lot of ways, cooler than Portland. But it isn't more vibrant or urban. Swaths of it are still very dense and functional, and even the depopulated chunks often have good bones, but without people on stoops and in shops, they are just that, bones, and until there's meat on them, they don't really add anything to the urban experience but blight porn.
I haven't spent enough time in Indy to really weigh in on whether or not I think it's "better" or "worse" than KC, but I know enough to know they are certainly very close peers, with a great deal in common (though I would argue Indy's closest peer is Columbus and KC's is Cincy).
Regardless, I don't judge cities based just on their downtowns, or on their skylines, or exclusively on their solid but often quiet neighborhoods, or on their sports venues, or on their arbitrary and sometimes capricious city limits, but on a more holistic approach that tries to balance and prioritize those things and others - both tangible and intangible - then I figure out which combination works the best for me. Which in this case is KC. I'd rather live here than any of the other 4 listed, with Omaha and St Louis tied for a distant second and Indy not even on the table. That's not a value judgement, it's just a preference. Indy would seem like a totally lateral move, while both Omaha and St Louis would provide some slightly advantages and disadvantages to living in KC, itinerant mostly on their population differences.
I think Omaha is in the next tier down, but is a high performer for a metro of only one million, and while St Louis is in the next tier up from KC/Indy, it's at the lower end of that spectrum, population wise, and it certainly lacks some of the momentum that a lot of its newer peers seem to have.
You can parse this out a million ways and argue about little stuff, but I'm going to go out on a ledge here and say I don't think there's and real difference in quality of life or culture between KC, Indy, Cincy, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Columbus and very little to set those places apart from places like Omaha on one end of the spectrum and StL on the other.
Most people prefer whichever one they know the best, or came from, or wound up in, or are moving to, myself included.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,877,648 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis
"Structural density"? Sheeyit. There's a reason Portland is more vibrant and "urban feeling" by every conceivable metric than St Louis, Cleveland, KC, Milwaukee, etc....and it isn't structural density. People make a city, not buildings, especially vacant ones. "Structural density" minus "population density" = "ghost town".
Which isn't to imply that St Louis is a ghost town, or isn't urban, swaths of it are still very dense and functional, and even the depopulated chunks often have good bones, but without people on stoops and in shops, they are just that, bones.
I haven't spent enough time in Indy to really weigh in on weather or not I think its better than KC, but I know enough to know they are certainly peers, with a great deal in common.
I don't judge cities based on their just on their downtowns (Indy), or on their skylines (KC), or exclusively on their many solid but quiet neighborhoods (StL), or on their sports venues, but on a more holistic approach that tries to balance and prioritize those things and other, both tangible and intangible and figure out which combination works the best for me.
I think Omaha is in the next tier down, but is a high performer for a metro of only one million, while St Louis is in the next tier up from KC/Indy, it's at the lower end of that spectrum, population wise, and it certainly lacks some of the momentum that a lot of its newer peers seem to have.
You can parse this out a million way and argue about little stuff, but I'm going to go out on a ledge hear and say I don't think there's and real difference in quality of life or culture between KC, Indy, Cincy, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Columbus and very little those places and places like Omaha on one end of the spectrum and StL on the other.
Most people prefer whichever one they know the best, or came from, or wound up in, or are moving to.
Thanks for that rant.....what is your downtown population density then -- if people make a city??
"Structural density"? Sheeyit. There's a reason Portland is more vibrant and "urban feeling" by every conceivable metric than St Louis, Cleveland, KC, Milwaukee, etc....and it isn't structural density. People make a city, not buildings, especially vacant ones. "Structural density" minus "population density" = "ghost town".
I wholeheartedly agree since St Louis and Detroit's core have plenty of historic structural density but with less vibrancy compared to Indy or Portland. Those older cities had peaked in their heyday but today they aren't what they use to be.
indianapolis has a relatively vibrant downtown, but its "urban" (by st. louis standards would be considered suburban) neighborhoods are much quieter than the vibrant urban neighborhoods in st. louis. there is no comparison. indianapolis has nothing on the level of the central west end, soulard, lafayette square, delmar loop, the hill, benton park/cherokee street, south grand or several other urban neighborhoods in st. louis. not even in the same ballpark. the misconception that st. louis is wrought with widespread vacancy is also exaggerated. the city is comprised of mostly multi-family dwellings and much of it has been converted to lower density housing. it's not as if there are vacant buildings everywhere you turn, a lot of them just house fewer people than in decades past. most of the vacancy is concentrated in a two or three zip codes. the rest are as inhabited as any major city in st. louis' peer set.
Thanks for that rant.....what is your downtown population density then -- if people make a city??
5,800 ppsm, as of 2010. 17,675 people in 3 square miles.
What's Indy's? I know their downtown is listed as 6.5 square miles, but I can't find a 2010 pop.
I guess you kind of missed the part of the "rant" where I was pretty clear that a downtown does not "make a city", in my opinion. It makes part of a city.
Last edited by SPonteKC; 05-22-2012 at 12:27 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
