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.
ND is not the northeast quadrant of the united states.
It includes all the great lake states and the northeast if your wondering. The plains are NOT included in the Northeast Quadrant.
???
I repeat: What Universe do you live on???
Msamhunter said, and I quote:
"Indianapolis grew 15.16% census to census followed by CBus at 13% census to census. The next 10 years may be a different story but as of now, it grew the fastest. Just as Indiana was the fastest growing state in the MW census to census."
Now, unless you Indy people have some coded language that instantly proves every point you have correct (which I'm starting to think is the case....awful easy to play the game when you get to make the rules and change them at whim, huh?), I am guessing that MW stands for Midwest.
South Dakota absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, definitely IS in the Midwest. This is according to the Census Bureau's definition-- the same people who calculated your growth rate for Indiana, apparently a reliable source.
Even if SD-- by some absolute miracle-- were not part of the Midwest, Minnesota is *still* ahead of Indiana in overall growth....unless, maybe....you wanna change your asinine, arbitrary definition of Midwest again so it doesn't include Minnesota? In fact, Minnesota has outgrown Indiana for some time now, I believe....
I have no idea what this "Northeast Quadrant" nonsense you are spouting off about is. I can only hypothesize. I suspect it is a geographical boundary that you have MADE UP-- not legitimate in any court of government, politics, culture, economy, academia, or popular opinion-- to prove your point. I prefer the CENSUS definitions of a region, when debating CENSUS related data. So sue me.
I'm going to ask one more time.....read very, very carefully: In what twilight-zone, topsy turvy, through the looking glass, upside down UNIVERSE do you reside where Indiana is the fastest growing state in the Midwest, while two other Midwestern states simultaneously outgrew it???
I think St. Paul's skyline, while not as tall as Mpls', has more character.
When I lived there, I went back and forth between which skyline I liked better.
St. Paul has some really great old, pre-War architecture. A lot of it just isn't as visible on the skyline from far out, because it's so short. Lowertown, though, is filled with beautiful old brick buildings around 10 stories, and there are taller ones in the core that get blocked out by Wells Fargo, First National (beautiful in its own right) etc. Pioneer and Endicott come to mind...
Dude, that's messed up. Messing with other people's opinions. I'm losing respect for you fast. Between this thread and the Chicago thread, I think you are doing more harm than good if your goal is to rep Indy.
My vote is for St. Louis. It doesn't look very impressive or dense when viewing it from Illinois looking west. But, when you look at it from the west, you see that St. Louis has an impressive and sprawling skyline. I think it's very underrated!
And the lack of skyscrapers in the middle-ground is Forest Park, one of the largest urban parks in the country (larger than Central Park!).
I've always heard that about St. Louis, and seeing pictures, I agree. No offense, but it is a little "blah" in shots from the river. Looks much denser from the west.
I do think it would be even better if all of those highrises around Forest Park were concentrated downtown instead, however.
Dude, that's messed up. Messing with other people's opinions. I'm losing respect for you fast. Between this thread and the Chicago thread, I think you are doing more harm than good if your goal is to rep Indy.
I'm not sure what broadripple's deal is....?
One thing I love about KC is the concentration of pre-War and art deco skyscrapers. I think of KC and Detroit as sort of meccas for that, although Pittsburgh is pretty good, too....
I really didn't find St. Louis that great, besides the Arch. Reminds me so much like driving out of the Fort Pitt Tunnel in Pittsburgh and the skyline just hitting you... Cincinnati driving around Cut-in-the-Hill is awesome! Cincinnati has a nice mix of modern/classic in its skyline, and when it lights up, it is something else!
I'm not getting this at all. First off, no city skyline hits you like Pittsburgh does as you exit the FP Tunnel, no matter what direction you enter STL, the skyline is in full view for quite some time. I guess you must be trying to use the drive into StL from IL.
Have you ever driven into StL from the west via 64? It's quite impressive as you pass by several dense districts with their own skylines and the city builds till you finally hit the downtown area.
Many people take 70 through StL and you just don't see much of the city along that route. Mostly the arch and a few buildings behind it.
Last edited by JMT; 08-07-2012 at 05:33 AM..
Reason: If you want to send me a message, send it to me via DM.
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.
