U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Indiana > Indianapolis
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2011, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
3,900 posts, read 2,082,644 times
Reputation: 957

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by msamhunter View Post
I know they are tearing up some lots for 16 Tech which there is some road construction going on now and the renovation to Victory Field should be starting soon. I don't think anyone in the city thought east downtown would be a big parking lot after MSA was torn down but it seems every development project for that area has fallen through for whatever reason. I would prefer underground parking to above ground any day of the week.

As far as rider density, I think the city could pull it off. IndyGo sucks but they have more riders than buses to accommodate the ridership. It would also connect other areas of the city to one another. Let's face it, people stick to their part of town unless they go downtown because the city is large land wise and people don't want to burn the gas. Efficient Public transportation can easily be business incubator because it can add foot traffic to areas that wouldn't normally have it.
ya. Also as far as for paying for it. How about raise taxes on Cigarettes and Alcohol to pay for the Lucas Oil Stadium faster and then use that stadium tax for mass transit instead? That way taxes really don't have to be raised. or changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2011, 05:08 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 902,313 times
Reputation: 1111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadrippleguy View Post
Well one of my plans to help enlarge and boost the Downtown is to remove all the stupid parking *Lots* and replace them with developable land. Knowing how Indy's Downtown is a prime location for business. Heck just a few months ago the American College of Education is relocating its HQ from Chicago to an office building on Ohio Street. Such moves like that bring more people to downtown to work everyday. We need to be very presistant in attracting businesses from around the country to come and set up shop in downtown Indy. CME group already has said they are interested in leaving Illinois due to Quinns Tax Hike. Why Mitch Daniels and Greg Ballard aren't pursuing them to come here is beyond my understanding. Heck a 3 hour move isn't that bad lol.

Also to add. Adding a 10 story Parking Garage downtown allows us to open up 10 lots for development.
Completely agree with you on this. The trick will just be in attracting businesses (or residences) needed to fill those lots. I was just down in Indy last weekend with my wife. We had a drink over at Bourbon St. and I showed her the two parking lots I love to hate most: the two on opposite corners of New York and Capitol. Such a waste right at the bottom of AUL (or whatever they're calling it these days).

CME Group to Indy is a complete pipe dream though. First, you need an awful lot of intitutional financial knowledge in a location and a lot of people already in the new location qualified to do the work. Next, you need a location where existing Chicago personnel would want to relocate to in droves. And lastly, you need really, really quick data connectivity for trade execution. Indy is far down the list on all three. If they want to stay in the midwest, they'll go to the Twin Cities. If not, they'll run to Philly, Boston, NJ, NY or to the Bay Area. Maybe Atlanta or Dallas. Personally, I think it's a lot of bluster on the CME's part. Chicago, given its resources, is still a really, really cheap place to do business. If you look at the financial centers listed in the USA and Canada below, Chicago is still the cheapest to do business:

Financial centre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Back on subject:
Yes, Indy needs to do a better job of going at and soliciting companies as there are a lot of nice perks to doing business there. At the same time, I think there needs to be a bigger overall push to change the culture to promote more startup incubators. There needs to be an specific area where entrepreneurial types can share office space and ideas. A lot of things happen organically when people working on similar things are put into close proximity to one another. That's how businesses take off. You avoid mistakes you otherwise would have made. Examples:

"Don't distribute through that channel, it's too expensive/inefficient. I know a guy you need to meet."
"You probably don't want to go with that type of IT platform given what you're trying to do. Here are the problems I ran into."

When you put 50 groups of all kinds of people (finance, engineering, IT, medical/technical, distribution, marketing, etc.) together in close proximity who are trying to start their own thing, ideas get refined a lot quicker and jobs get created a lot faster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
3,900 posts, read 2,082,644 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
Completely agree with you on this. The trick will just be in attracting businesses (or residences) needed to fill those lots. I was just down in Indy last weekend with my wife. We had a drink over at Bourbon St. and I showed her the two parking lots I love to hate most: the two on opposite corners of New York and Capitol. Such a waste right at the bottom of AUL (or whatever they're calling it these days).

CME Group to Indy is a complete pipe dream though. First, you need an awful lot of intitutional financial knowledge in a location and a lot of people already in the new location qualified to do the work. Next, you need a location where existing Chicago personnel would want to relocate to in droves. And lastly, you need really, really quick data connectivity for trade execution. Indy is far down the list on all three. If they want to stay in the midwest, they'll go to the Twin Cities. If not, they'll run to Philly, Boston, NJ, NY or to the Bay Area. Maybe Atlanta or Dallas. Personally, I think it's a lot of bluster on the CME's part. Chicago, given its resources, is still a really, really cheap place to do business. If you look at the financial centers listed in the USA and Canada below, Chicago is still the cheapest to do business:

Financial centre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Back on subject:
Yes, Indy needs to do a better job of going at and soliciting companies as there are a lot of nice perks to doing business there. At the same time, I think there needs to be a bigger overall push to change the culture to promote more startup incubators. There needs to be an specific area where entrepreneurial types can share office space and ideas. A lot of things happen organically when people working on similar things are put into close proximity to one another. That's how businesses take off. You avoid mistakes you otherwise would have made. Examples:

"Don't distribute through that channel, it's too expensive/inefficient. I know a guy you need to meet."
"You probably don't want to go with that type of IT platform given what you're trying to do. Here are the problems I ran into."

When you put 50 groups of all kinds of people (finance, engineering, IT, medical/technical, distribution, marketing, etc.) together in close proximity who are trying to start their own thing, ideas get refined a lot quicker and jobs get created a lot faster.
Those parking lots i hate so much i could use 1 of those parking lots turn it into a 10 story garage that takes up a block and remove 10 blocks of parking lots and have the same parking space!

Well thats the point chicago76 it only takes 3 hours to drive from Chicago to Indy. Much Easier to move the employees from Chicago to Indy which is 3 hours away than say Texas which is more than a days drive away. Plus our city has an international airport for businesses and Freeways in every direction.

Last edited by Broadrippleguy; 09-23-2011 at 06:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 08:22 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 902,313 times
Reputation: 1111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadrippleguy View Post
Well thats the point chicago76 it only takes 3 hours to drive from Chicago to Indy. Much Easier to move the employees from Chicago to Indy which is 3 hours away than say Texas which is more than a days drive away. Plus our city has an international airport for businesses and Freeways in every direction.
The physical move isn't the problem. It's getting a lot of that talent and personnel to want to move to Indianapolis that is, and that's not a knock on Indy.

Think of it this way, to support the CME, you need hundreds of floor traders, thousands of desk traders, accountants who specialize in derivative instruments, analytics and research support economists, lawyers, insurance underwriters who specialize in this sort of thing, etc. It is an entire culture. A lot of those traders are multigenerational families who are life long Chicagoans. Same goes for the underwriters, etc. Traders by their nature are adrenaline junkies who want to be in the hustle and bustle. Chicago also happens to have probably the two best business schools in the midwest (U of C and Kellogg), plus U of C as an economics pipeline, plus 2 of the 3 best law schools in the midwest (same schools). These are the students that the CME relies upon to run the show. Trading is also a high burnout job and a lot of these guys will wind p quitting and looking for another finance job...and the pickings are much slimmer in Indy than in a place like Chicago, NY, SF, etc.

The mentality is an awful lot about style. A couple of decent comparisons: the Pacers have never landed big free agent names, even when they were a great team. Prima donna talent likes the glitz. That's why a guy like Lebron James "takes his talents to S. Beach"--gag. And traders are prima donnas. The other one is the old United Maintenance Hub. A big reason that didn't succeed (despite tax subsidies and an aggressive courtship) was because they couldn't convince enough engineers to stay. Those guys wanted to be in the northeast or in the northwest (Seattle/SF in particular). The San Francisco maintenance hub stayed, while Indy's closed. It made no sense, with Indianapolis being much more centrally located and less expensive to operate, but that's the way it is sometimes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 10:32 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 902,313 times
Reputation: 1111
Edit: just realized CME isn't going to relocate the trading functions. They're selling that off and leasing it back...so it looks like corporate is the only thing moving. That could work in Indy. Unfortunately, it looks like they're either staying put or going with the very lowest cost states (Texas, Fla, etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
3,900 posts, read 2,082,644 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
Edit: just realized CME isn't going to relocate the trading functions. They're selling that off and leasing it back...so it looks like corporate is the only thing moving. That could work in Indy. Unfortunately, it looks like they're either staying put or going with the very lowest cost states (Texas, Fla, etc.)
Still having the HQ in Indy is a great idea. as i said only a 3 hour move and plus our cost of doing business is very low. But unlike Texas and FLA where they might have no income tax they make up for it with brutal property and sales taxes and corporate taxes. Our Taxes are low and balanced across the board and the proof is in our Balanced Budget (Which Illinois could only dream of). My Man Mitch lol.
Also Texas and Fla have budget deficits which could mean tax increases. Not going to happen in Indiana heck we just reduced our corporate business tax from 8.5% to 6.5% it will be fully phased in 2015.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC
638 posts, read 523,850 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
Just about any mass transit outside of perhaps BRT would be a financial boondoggle given current density levels. To support even a hybrid version of commuter light rail, you need sizeable nodes with at least 5000K per square mile. Currently, Indy doesn't have that.

A decent comparison would be St. Louis, which does have a hybrid light/commuter rail system. You can select density maps at the NYT site here and zoom in to both cities at the tract level:

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com

Indy has small pockets of 5K+ density, but they're usually only a census tract or two containing maybe 5 or 6 thousand people at most. The biggest nodes are a relatively small corridor between 38th and 56th up college of 20K people (but no RR right of way to build on) and another area on the near east side that contains maybe 20-30K, but not exactly in the best area. That's it.

St. Louis built their initial line from downtown to their airport. The line travels though long stretches of neighborhoods and inner suburbs meeting the density threshholds: downtown to midtown to the Central West End, to DeBalliviere to U-City, and so on. These areas of density contain maybe 200K, which is enough to support a viable, but not great, line.

I like Indy (having grown up there and having tried last year to move back), but density is the problem. Compared to other MW cities of roughly similar size (Columbus, Cincy, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Milwaukee), Indianapolis (like KC) lacks the density of those others. You can zoom in on any of them in the NYT mapper and see that dark purple zone that Indy doesn't have.
I don't totally buy this argument totally. While greater density is a factor in the overall success of a transit system density is not always the key factor. I have listed Indy’s overall population density with city square mileage below along with cities (that have rail system) that fair comparably in the population category.

Indy:
365 sq miles
2,273 people (per sq mi)

Edmonton, Alberta
264 sq miles
2,764 people (per sq mi)

Denver
153 sq miles
3,874 people (per sq mi)

Calgary, Alberta
280 sq miles
3,522 people (per sq mi)

Salt Lake City
109 sq miles
1,666 people (per sq mi)


Again every city (outside of Indy) on this listing has a rail transit system. While some cities listed here are further along in their respective rail pursuit, none could be said to be light years ahead of Indy in terms of their urban offerings (outside of perhaps Denver). Most of these cities started with population densities much lower prior their rail build outs (Denver in particular), however with their respective build outs they experienced a positive associated with the establishment of transit permanence and that was urban density. Many of these cities have experienced large property value increases along the lines built (and with value increase density). Additionally most of these cities have experienced ridership levels in excess of twice the projected values when initially built. Salt Lake comes to mind in this regard. The first week their line opened one of the light rail cars broke down due to excess weight from passengers. They had to quickly put more cars into circulation to prevent a repeat of the previously overcrowded car.

The benefits of rail are tangible and can be realized in a market such as Indy. As another poster stated, “if you build it they will come”. That in many ways is true. Indy is sprawlville. There is no questioning that. What one should question however is the why? Land is cheap and there is little in way of incentives to live within a more heavily populated corridor. A permanent rail line begins to erase that situation however. As people enjoy the convenience of said line, property values increase and so does density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 01:34 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 902,313 times
Reputation: 1111
I agree that people will settle along lines and increase density, but the figures you're using are a bit misleading because of the use of city population. Indy is a geographically large city with a lot of land dedicated toward residential. The city itself is not vey dense (as shown in your figures) and there are no areas of really high density. Many of those other cities are smaller geographically with a greater share of their residential density outside of the city limits.

Looking at urban areas to normalize the political boundaries at 2000:

Denver 1.99 million people at 3977 per square mile. Good for the 7th most dense urban area in the United States among those 800K or larger).

SLC 888K at 3844 per square mile. 8th in the US in terms of density.

Calgary 988K at 3632 per squre mile. Would be 12th most dense in US.

Edmonton 866K at 2615 per square mile. Would be 29th most dense in US.

Indy 1.22 million at 2204 per square mile. Is 37th most dense.

Other things to consider:
-not only are these areas more dense, but all but Edmonton are quite a bit more dense. The first 4 are more dense than DC, and 3 of the first four are more dense than the Chicago urban area.

-All also have more pockets of medium (5K/sq mi) to high (10K/sq mi) density), making it easier to secure foot traffic/customers for rail.

-Indy has far fewer people per expressway mile than all of these areas, making congestion lower. For example: neither Calgary nor Edmonton even have a full loop of expressway engulfing the city and Edmonton doesn't even have expressway access to its city center. The relative cost of driving, in terms of minutes/mile traversed is higher in these places, so rail is more attractive elsewhere by comparison.

-Gas is much more expensive in Canada, providing a financial incentive for commuters in places like Edmonton and Calgary to use public transit.

-Canada has deeper pockets when it comes to subsidizing transit than the US. Some of this is policy driven, but a lot of it stems from the broader policy of developing urban areas in a more dense manner. Examples:

-Montreal is more dense than any urban area in the US outside of LA and the Bay Area (despite being much less populated than many less dense areas in the US). This density is the reason why Montreal trail transit ridership rates are off the charts good.

-The Toronto UA is roughly 70% more dense than its best comparison UA (Chicago), again, despite it being much less populated as a region than Chicago.

Relative convience/cost is the key here:
-More dense areas = more walkability to/from stations and good access to things when you exit a station.
-More traffic congestion = closer parity when it comes to rail travel times vs. car.
-expensive gas and parking = advantage for rail.

The Indy market offers none of these things better than any of the 4 cities you've mentioned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC
638 posts, read 523,850 times
Reputation: 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
I agree that people will settle along lines and increase density, but the figures you're using are a bit misleading because of the use of city population. Indy is a geographically large city with a lot of land dedicated toward residential. The city itself is not vey dense (as shown in your figures) and there are no areas of really high density. Many of those other cities are smaller geographically with a greater share of their residential density outside of the city limits.

Looking at urban areas to normalize the political boundaries at 2000:

Denver 1.99 million people at 3977 per square mile. Good for the 7th most dense urban area in the United States among those 800K or larger).

SLC 888K at 3844 per square mile. 8th in the US in terms of density.

Calgary 988K at 3632 per squre mile. Would be 12th most dense in US.

Edmonton 866K at 2615 per square mile. Would be 29th most dense in US.

Indy 1.22 million at 2204 per square mile. Is 37th most dense.

Other things to consider:
-not only are these areas more dense, but all but Edmonton are quite a bit more dense. The first 4 are more dense than DC, and 3 of the first four are more dense than the Chicago urban area.

-All also have more pockets of medium (5K/sq mi) to high (10K/sq mi) density), making it easier to secure foot traffic/customers for rail.

-Indy has far fewer people per expressway mile than all of these areas, making congestion lower. For example: neither Calgary nor Edmonton even have a full loop of expressway engulfing the city and Edmonton doesn't even have expressway access to its city center. The relative cost of driving, in terms of minutes/mile traversed is higher in these places, so rail is more attractive elsewhere by comparison.

-Gas is much more expensive in Canada, providing a financial incentive for commuters in places like Edmonton and Calgary to use public transit.

-Canada has deeper pockets when it comes to subsidizing transit than the US. Some of this is policy driven, but a lot of it stems from the broader policy of developing urban areas in a more dense manner. Examples:

-Montreal is more dense than any urban area in the US outside of LA and the Bay Area (despite being much less populated than many less dense areas in the US). This density is the reason why Montreal trail transit ridership rates are off the charts good.

-The Toronto UA is roughly 70% more dense than its best comparison UA (Chicago), again, despite it being much less populated as a region than Chicago.

Relative convience/cost is the key here:
-More dense areas = more walkability to/from stations and good access to things when you exit a station.
-More traffic congestion = closer parity when it comes to rail travel times vs. car.
-expensive gas and parking = advantage for rail.

The Indy market offers none of these things better than any of the 4 cities you've mentioned.
Which again is why I listed the city proper square mileage. If you look at the immediate sq mileage of each of the cities I listed none with the exception Salt Lake and Denver are dramatically smaller in area than Indy. While the greater metro area is indeed less dense than the other cities I listed I was not utilizing metro data, but city boundaries. Looking again at boundaries none of the cities are too far off (and have overall densities that are similar to boot). Additionally utilizing the very same measures utilized beforehand, DC is light years ahead of the cities I listed with a sq mileage land area of 68.3 and a density of 9.800 people per sq mi. Not attempting to split hairs here, however we are utilizing two very different measures of cities.

Additionally I am well aware of the added subsidies that the Canadian government provides to transit. The only item I am highlighting is the differences in the way the cities listed approached the issue of transporting people around their respective land areas. The other cities listed did so with population statistics that are similar.

Of further note I personally am fearful of our collective economic futures. Gas will continue to become more expensive and will become increasingly difficult to procure. Cities built on the premise of cheap gas and land (most American cities) will wither on the vine as this process continues. The future is here and it has come in the form of a bus, train, and trolley. Indy should wake up to the new reality before it is left behind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis
3,900 posts, read 2,082,644 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by WDCJoe View Post
Which again is why I listed the city proper square mileage. If you look at the immediate sq mileage of each of the cities I listed none with the exception Salt Lake and Denver are dramatically smaller in area than Indy. While the greater metro area is indeed less dense than the other cities I listed I was not utilizing metro data, but city boundaries. Looking again at boundaries none of the cities are too far off (and have overall densities that are similar to boot). Additionally utilizing the very same measures utilized beforehand, DC is light years ahead of the cities I listed with a sq mileage land area of 68.3 and a density of 9.800 people per sq mi. Not attempting to split hairs here, however we are utilizing two very different measures of cities.

Additionally I am well aware of the added subsidies that the Canadian government provides to transit. The only item I am highlighting is the differences in the way the cities listed approached the issue of transporting people around their respective land areas. The other cities listed did so with population statistics that are similar.

Of further note I personally am fearful of our collective economic futures. Gas will continue to become more expensive and will become increasingly difficult to procure. Cities built on the premise of cheap gas and land (most American cities) will wither on the vine as this process continues. The future is here and it has come in the form of a bus, train, and trolley. Indy should wake up to the new reality before it is left behind.
That Depends on the city. For Example Indy's Gasoline is 70 cents cheaper than Chicago. That may not sound like alot but add on the extra 5-10$ your average person pays to fill up their tank of gasoline times the metro population of chicago having 9.5M people and lets just (assume that 2.5M of those people either are to poor to have a car or use the mass transit). Also lets cut that in half assuming half the population of Chicago metro is kids/teens that can't drive or really old people.
3,500,000 people commuting to Chicago or around its metro daily and each person pays on average 5-10$ to fill up. lets assume every commuter in Chicago that drives fills up once a week. ill be fair and just use 7$ 50 cents as an average increase in cost. comes out to an extra 4M dollars a DAY that Chicago has to spend on Gasoline. People can live in a fantasy world but the fact is our economy is fueled by gasoline/Diesel (which of course is more expensive). The Trucking Industry though is always hit the hardest and everyone will notice it when their grocery bills contiune to go up. Everything that had to be transported by truck will go up in cost.
So Basically it depends on the metro area and the gasoline prices. And contray to Obamanomics we will not stop using gasoline or diesel overnight and swich to green tech. It takes years to phase it out and the best approach is to first convert to Natural Gas which is Cleaner and 90% is produced in America for Jobs in our country not China or the Middle East. Then as Technology advances and the price goes down for green Tech THEN phase into that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Indiana > Indianapolis
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:12 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top