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.
Best--------
Columbus, OH- great University, lots of stuff to do
Chicago, IL- world class.
Minneapolis, MN- just cool city.
Madison, WI- awesome college town
St. Paul, MN- just a cool city.
Alright------
Milwaukee, WI- nice.
Lincoln, NE- decent college town
Omaha, NE- nice.
Kansas City, MO- nice, pleasantly boring
Cincinnati, OH- grimy in a good way/ city with character
Boring/ Just plain suck----------- Indianapolis, IN- dull, no culture, box stores everywhere, annoying sprawl
Detroit, MI- ghetto hell
Cleveland, OH- trashy
St. Louis, MO- ghetto hell
Toledo, OH- trashy
Fort Wayne, IN- nothing but soccer moms and box stores. crappy, mean people.
Des Moines, IA- just flat out boring
Wichita (never been to)
you obiviously HAVENT been to Indianapolis.
Toxic Toast would probably agree with me.
Which cities are most attractive as a place to live, work, and play overall? My choices are highlighted in blue.
I mean ranking these cities based on the friendliness of the residents to newcomers, quality of life (attractive and safe with stable economy & housing market along with good schools), big city amenities, arts/culture, recreational opportunities, and the overall experience of a city.
I hope this helps.
Based on those criteria I would rank as follows, bearing in mind inner-ring suburbs should be factored as well:
1. Chicago
2. St Paul
3. Minneapolis
4. Detroit
5. Cleveland
6. Madison
7. St Louis
8. Kansas City
9. Columbus
10. Cincinnati
11. Des Moines
12. Indianapolis
13. Omaha
14. Lincoln
15. Wichita
16. Toledo
17. Fort Wayne
you obiviously HAVENT been to Indianapolis.
Toxic Toast would probably agree with me.
I grew up like an hour from Indianapolis. Ive been there MANY times. Bloomington, (10 times smaller) has ten times more to offer than that city. IMO. I would no hesitate to call it the more boring and lifeless major city in America.
1. Chicago
2. Minneapolis
3. Milwaukee
4. St Paul
5. St Louis
6. Madison
7. Des Moines
8. Cleveland
9. Detroit
10. Cincinnati
11. Lincoln
12. Kansas City
13. Omaha
14. Columbus
15. Toledo
16. Wichita
17. Indianapolis
18. Fort Wayne
I grew up like an hour from Indianapolis. Ive been there MANY times. Bloomington, (10 times smaller) has ten times more to offer than that city. IMO. I would no hesitate to call it the more boring and lifeless major city in America.
C'mon now, I love over the top hyperbole as much as the next guy, but we both know Bloomington does not offer 10 times more mystery fluff than Indianapolis does. Bloomington is a great city, but let's be real about it and what it offers.
c'mon now, i love over the top hyperbole as much as the next guy, but we both know bloomington does not offer 10 times more mystery fluff than indianapolis does. Bloomington is a great city, but let's be real about it and what it offers.
stop using this arguement against Indianapolis it really is old and outdated.
as Msamhunter said long ago and he is right. Indianapolis annexed and merged with Marion County in 1967. its 2012 now. So that arguement is old and outdated.
Indianapolis metro area grew by 15-20% in the last 10 years which is an amazing growth rate for any city/town in the midwest or northeast.
What argument, that Indy annexes land? It did!
Indianapolis has 830K people in 372 square miles, sporting a population density of 2,273 ppsm. Its metro area has 1.8M people, so the urban core of Indy represents roughly 46% of the metro area population.
Minneapolis has 385K people in 55 square miles, and St. Paul 285K people in 53 square miles, and the combined urbanized area of both is 670K people in 108 square miles, or 6,204 ppsm. The metro area has 3.4M people, so the urban core represents roughly 20% of the metro area population.
Since there is actually available land in the city of Indianapolis, the fact that it can and does grow is less amazing when you compare it to a more landlocked city like Minneapolis that has zero room for suburban-type growth -- it can only grow up, not out. As you can see, even though Indy has a larger city center, its land area is roughly 3.5 times larger than Minneapolis AND St. Paul (combined), so if you were just looking at gross data, this may lead one to believe Indy is a bigger city. When looking at both the metro area statistics and the population density statistics, you can see that Minneapolis-St. Paul is the larger city in just about every measurable way (except gross population of the city core). It's similar to saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than Miami, or is growing faster. Who cares! Jacksonville sprawls for hundreds of square miles and Miami is landlocked into like 35 square miles of urban concrete jungle and sports some of the best examples of urbanism in the country.
I just want to make that straight for the record, because a lot of people confuse city population with metro size or city greatness. That being said, just because Minneapolis-St. Paul is bigger and/or more urban does not NECESSARILY make it great(er), it's just one of several factors that go into deciding where to live. Just want to clear the air on that one a bit!
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 11-30-2012 at 02:01 PM..
Based on those criteria I would rank as follows, bearing in mind inner-ring suburbs should be factored as well:
1. Chicago
2. St Paul
3. Minneapolis
4. Detroit
5. Cleveland
6. Madison
7. St Louis
8. Kansas City
9. Columbus
10. Cincinnati
11. Des Moines
12. Indianapolis
13. Omaha
14. Lincoln
15. Wichita
16. Toledo
17. Fort Wayne
Wow, your list is extremely close to how I'd rank mine! Great minds, right?
stop using this arguement against Indianapolis it really is old and outdated.
as Msamhunter said long ago and he is right. Indianapolis annexed and merged with Marion County in 1967. its 2012 now. So that arguement is old and outdated.
Indianapolis metro area grew by 15-20% in the last 10 years which is an amazing growth rate for any city/town in the midwest or northeast.
Look who's talking lol. You use the same lame statistics in every Chicago related post so you can continue bashing Chicago.
Indianapolis has 830K people in 372 square miles, sporting a population density of 2,273 ppsm. Its metro area has 1.8M people, so the urban core of Indy represents roughly 46% of the metro area population.
Minneapolis has 385K people in 55 square miles, and St. Paul 285K people in 53 square miles, and the combined urbanized area of both is 670K people in 108 square miles, or 6,204 ppsm. The metro area has 3.4M people, so the urban core represents roughly 20% of the metro area population.
Since there is actually available land in the city of Indianapolis, the fact that it can and does grow is less amazing when you compare it to a more landlocked city like Minneapolis that has zero room for suburban-type growth -- it can only grow up, not out. As you can see, even though Indy has a larger city center, its land area is roughly 3.5 times larger than Minneapolis AND St. Paul (combined), so if you were just looking at gross data, this may lead one to believe Indy is a bigger city. When looking at both the metro area statistics and the population density statistics, you can see that Minneapolis-St. Paul is the larger city in just about every measurable way (except gross population of the city core). It's similar to saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than Miami, or is growing faster. Who cares! Jacksonville sprawls for hundreds of square miles and Miami is landlocked into like 35 square miles of urban concrete jungle and sports some of the best examples of urbanism in the country.
I just want to make that straight for the record, because a lot of people confuse city population with metro size or city greatness. That being said, just because Minneapolis-St. Paul is bigger and/or more urban does not NECESSARILY make it great(er), it's just one of several factors that go into deciding where to live. Just want to clear the air on that one a bit!
Awesome read. I learned a lot fro your post I did not know before. And it explains a lot about some cities and puts away some of the misconceptions that people have, like Indianapolis being the 12th most populous city in the country.
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.
