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.
Implying that the citizens of Indianapolis are a bunch of farmers riding around on tractors--that's not exactly a nice comment. And I would be happy to share with you my opinions about the fine city of Milwaukee, although they would probably be about as misinformed as are yours concerning Indianapolis.
The Indy Chamber of Commerce promo theme used to be "Indianapolis: Only 3 Hours to Chicago". Just Kidding. Indy is a fine city!!
Yes, Indianapolis is part of the Rust Belt...it extends into central Indiana, exactly where Indy is located:
Rust Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you even read the article where that map came from? The word Indianapolis doesn't appear once in the entire article. Gary, Hammond, and Michigan City are definite part of the Rust Belt, but Indianapolis is not, and has never been, a part of the Rust Belt region.
Excuse me, but the Indiana Hoosiers won the national championship in 1988 and a few before that. And lets not forget that its former head coach, Bobby Knight, was the winniest coach in NCAA men's basketball history.
Rust Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you even read the article where that map came from? The word Indianapolis doesn't appear once in the entire article. Gary, Hammond, and Michigan City are definite part of the Rust Belt, but Indianapolis is not, and has never been, a part of the Rust Belt region.
The map includes Indianapolis...and the article doesn't mention every Rust Belt city - it mentions a few examples.
Why is this so important to you? I would hate to be THAT insecure about my city.
For someone to say that Indianapolis is part of the Rust Belt is incorrect. Gary-Hammond, South Bend and possibly Fort Wayne, yes, but not Indy. Indy and central IN are too far south and west to be considerd the Rust Belt. Besides, Indy's and Central Indiana's local economy are much better and progressive to even be considered "Rust Belt." If you want to talk about Rust Belt, try talking about Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, most of Michigan, most of Pennsylvania, and western New York especially Buffalo, BUT NOT INDY.
As far as thinking Milwaukee is "better" than Indy, whatever. Indy is a larger city (800,000 and 13th largest US city) compared to Milwaukee (600,000) and a larger metro area. Although the state of Wisconsin is a bit more progressive than the state of Indiana, Indianapolis is the bigger and better city. Besides, Milwaukee is way to close to Chicago and in its shadow--only 90 miles--to be ranked high in anything and have its own identity than Indy does. Also, the Super Bowl will be in Indianapolis in 2012. Milwaukee will never be able to make that claim.
As far as thinking Milwaukee is "better" than Indy, whatever. Indy is a larger city (800,000 and 13th largest US city) compared to Milwaukee (600,000) and a larger metro area. Although the state of Wisconsin is a bit more progressive than the state of Indiana, Indianapolis is the bigger and better city. Besides, Milwaukee is way to close to Chicago and in its shadow--only 90 miles--to be ranked high in anything and have its own identity than Indy does. Also, the Super Bowl will be in Indianapolis in 2012. Milwaukee will never be able to make that claim.
A. Milwaukee doesn't technically have an NFL team, although we claim the Green Bay Packers as our home team.
B. The Green Bay Packers would never play in a dome stadium, because they're men.
B. The Green Bay Packers would never play in a dome stadium, because they're men.
Colts don't play in a dome anymore. Furthermore, they did just fine in the rain against the supposedly-tougher Bears in Super Bowl XLI.
I don't know why you continue posting in this thread. As another said, it's pretty pathetic that you seem to be so insecue about Milwaukee that you feel the need to tear Indy down with ignorant statements. I have nothing against Milwaukee myself. What little of it I've seen seemed nice.
Minneapolis and Indianapolis definitely have the best downtowns. I don't know about Milwaukee so much, but Columbus has an awful downtown. Although the arena district is getting better.
One thing you never hear people talk about is their rivers, since the Twin Cities are on a river and a big at that you don't hear a lot of talk about how great the fact that the Twin Cities are on a river. Now take Milwaukee for instance, locale on a great lake where it looks like the ocean from shore since you cannot see the other side. Milwaukee also has a lot of waterways connecting to the lake and the Milwaukee river has a lot of bars and restaurants right on the river, unlike Chicago. Milwaukee has a lot of bars and restaurants with docks that you can pull up your yacht or runabout. Milwaukee has a huge lake and a nice river scene as well. Since I spend a ton of time on the water I think I should know.
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.
