Chicago Downtown vs Manhattan, Chicago = Mini-NYC (populations, food, metro, live)
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.
But you said "built environment, urban culture, vibrancy, transportation, people" also.
Ok and?
I mean so Indianapolis is now not Midwestern because it's not like St. Louis or Minneapolis? Indianapolis is very much a midwest city just as St. Louis is just as Chicago is. My argument though is that Chicago also has a lot of aspects of the East Coast cities as well, that you don't find in any of the other Midwest cities for the most part.
And I'm saying Indianapolis has many aspects of the sunbelt, and it doesn't belong with your group B designation, as much as you saying Chicago doesn't belong with group B either. I'm playing by your rules here.
And I'm saying Indianapolis has many aspects of the sunbelt, and it doesn't belong with your group B designation, as much as you saying Chicago doesn't belong with group B either. I'm playing by your rules here.
Ok gotcha, well then exactly my point. While Indianapolis is midwest as well it also is more of a hybrid of midwest and sunbelt? Right? Then why can't Chicago by hybrid of East Coast and Midwest?
Its too bad the US disinvested in or dismantled most of its inner cities. There wouldn't be so much of an argument over what city belongs in what region. We would respect each region as being unique equals, much as Europe does with Scandanavian, Meditteranean, German, etc cities. No one region is held as being the zenith of urbanity as the East Coast is for the US.
Though, even without disinvestment of the inner cities, the east coast cities were always denser and more urban. Midwest cities (with the big exception of Chicago) were initially built lower density and a greater distinction between downtown and outside of downtown. This might be a good model of how each were traditionally, going out from the city center:
1) Northeast urban = Commercial downtown -> Mix of high and low end residential, and commercial, industrial mixed use -> Lower density residential neighborhoods, with few detached homes
2) Midwest urban = Commercial downtown -> Industrial single use -> Residential with more detached homes
Still, if there hadn't been inner city decline or inner city disinvestment, the gap would be much lower than today.
Yeah, thats what I meant, they'd still be vibrant enough to where you wouldn't notice it off the bat. There would be a lot more cities like say, Seattle, in the country. Cincinnati and St.Louis would be even more comparable too, along with Chicago.
Though, even without disinvestment of the inner cities, the east coast cities were always denser and more urban. Midwest cities (with the big exception of Chicago) were initially built lower density and a greater distinction between downtown and outside of downtown. This might be a good model of how each were traditionally, going out from the city center:
1) Northeast urban = Commercial downtown -> Mix of high and low end residential, and commercial, industrial mixed use -> Lower density residential neighborhoods, with few detached homes
2) Midwest urban = Commercial downtown -> Industrial single use -> Residential with more detached homes
Still, if there hadn't been inner city decline or inner city disinvestment, the gap would be much lower than today.
St. Louis would also be a glaring exception to this generalization. STL grew up parallel to its East Coast counterparts and was one of the most densely populated American cities for over 100 years. Though it has evolved into a more typical Midwestern urban model in recent decades, the city was extremely crowded from downtown and its density fanned out from all sides with an abunance of rowhousing and multi-family dwellings. Structurally, St. Louis looks more like Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Philadelphia than any city in the Midwest, including Chicago.
^ Visit all around Indianapolis and you'll see why. Its the third largest city because its like 600 Sq miles, but there's probably 5 sq miles of urbanity in the whole thing. Downtown is nice, along with a couple of neighborhoods, but its mostly sprawl with a freeway loop as the main for of transit. Its more like that group of Houston, Atlanta, Dallas
Mistakes are mistakes. However, Naptown is NOT 600 square miles, it's 365 square miles. Perhaps you have Houston on the brain.
LOL, Indianapolis seems like its that large though, hell I mistake the whole damn state of Indiana for Indianapolis sometimes. Visiting my grandfather growing up, he literally lived down the street from a FARM inside the city of Indianapolis.
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.