Is Indy ahead for its size? (Indianapolis, South Bend: live, yard, cities)

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by msamhunter

Cleveland's land mass is it's land mass. No matter how you chop it up. It's a very small footprint esp. for the midwest. Notice also, I said land and not water. Nothing wrong with that. It is what it is. Also, Cleveland is 77 sq mi of land. Indianapolis is 360 sq miles of land since when was 77 > 360?

You kill your credibility when you say that Indy is a larger metro area than Cleveland. Drive both.

As far as Indianapolis having a great downtown. You do realize, Indianapolis has been the model for downtown revitalization for almost a decade now.

Anybody can say anything. I see no Indy in San Fran. Manhattan or Chicago. Say what you want; there's nothing special in Indy's downtown. Even your downtown mall is collapsing, like so many downtown malls in smaller towns, as they are unwanted bad ideas.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by msamhunter

Wow zip line tickets SOLD OUT again!

How many were sold? My guess: no more than 250.

[indy18]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

You kill your credibility when you say that Indy is a larger metro area than Cleveland. Drive both.



Anybody can say anything. I see no Indy in San Fran. Manhattan or Chicago. Say what you want; there's nothing special in Indy's downtown. Even your downtown mall is collapsing, like so many downtown malls in smaller towns, as they are unwanted bad ideas.

Who ever said Indy's downtown was comparable to San Fran, Chicago, or freaking Manhattan? Anyone who expects that is delusional.

I live in Downtown Indy. By no means am I going to claim that it's a wonderful urban paradise. But if you have modest expectations then there is plenty here to suit you. There are a lot of solid restaurants and some very fun bars. The downtown bar-scene is always very lively. And if sports is your thing then you can have fun with the Pacers and Colts. If you don't like sports then yeah, I wouldn't expect those things to excite you.

[GregHenry]

Originally Posted by indy18

I live in Downtown Indy. By no means am I going to claim that it's a wonderful urban paradise. But if you have modest expectations then there is plenty here to suit you.

Your statements are correct, but the people here who are calling Indy's downtown a model for other cities don't think there's anything modest about Indy's downtown. They think it's a benchmark. They need to travel more before they boast.

[msamhunter]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

You kill your credibility when you say that Indy is a larger metro area than Cleveland. Drive both.

Learn to read. I didn't say Indianapolis metro had more people. WE were talking about land mass since I brought it up and YES, Indianapolis HAS more LAND mass than Cleveland PERIOD. Cleveland Metro 2,723 sq mi. Indianapolis Metro 3,169. Again since when was 2723 > 3169?

Anybody can say anything. I see no Indy in San Fran. Manhattan or Chicago. Say what you want; there's nothing special in Indy's downtown. Even your downtown mall is collapsing, like so many downtown malls in smaller towns, as they are unwanted bad ideas.

You know nothing about this city. First and foremost, Indianapolis isn't Chicago or San Francisco OR Manhattan. Only outsiders try to quantify that as being something valid. It isn't. Each city is its own and they all have their own personality.

GTR Newspapers | Find Local Tulsa, Bixby, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Union, and Owasso News, Sports, and Entertainment:Regional Leaders Study Practices in Indianapolis

NYC.gov

"Downtown Indianapolis suffered from years of urban decay, with disinvestment, population flight and difficulties with crime. As Mayor of Indianapolis, Deputy Mayor Goldsmith was the leading force behind the rebirth of downtown Indianapolis, rebuilding long-neglected neighborhoods and spurring major investment. He oversaw more than $1.5 billion in new or rehabilitated parks, streets, sidewalks and sewers, all while reducing the City’s tax rate four times through improved efficiencies. The turnaround of downtown Indianapolis is widely cited as the model for the revitalization of downtrodden urban neighborhoods."

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/dt/finalreport.pdf

Even Dolce is using the Alexander opening up at the end of the year as its new Urban hotel model.

As far as Circle Center, the mall isn't in bad shape at all and still averages about 800k visitors a month. Like I said, you know nothing about this city.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by msamhunter

I'm not knocking the Lou at all. It's a nice area. Done my best hotel haggling there so I wouldn't have to pay as much. I just brought a mere observation between the two cities. STL has better neighborhoods, outside of downtown albeit they have more blight compared to Indianapolis once you factor in physical size. Indianapolis lacks in the neighborhood department especially in the outlying townships where they're just not geared to that lifestyle.....Indianapolis and STL chose different routes. Funny thing is now Indianapolis is starting to focus on the neighborhoods and STL has started focusing on their downtown.

As an Indy native and someone who lives in STL now, this is pretty dead on.

I think there are a couple of distinctions in why both have been rehabilitated the way they have.

1) STL has much better urban housing stock centered on walkable commercial strips. The houses you can buy for $150,000 in decent neighborhoods make my family drool when they come to visit. Indy's downtown was the obvious starting point. STL's downtown has the potential to be better in the long run thanks to the same built environment advantages, but they'll probably never get the same clean, unified, sidewalks full at lunch hour feeling of Indy because the business community is more dispersed.

2) Economically, it has been easier for Indy to adjust over the last 30 or 40 years. Indianapolis was never a "pure" rust belt town. It's similar to Columbus, KC, and Minneapolis in that respect. It's easier to become a post-industrial city in the Midwest when you weren't as industrial to begin with. Of the "pure" rust belt cities, Chicago has always been very diversified and it stands alone. STL, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati are slowly moving on the right course. Pittsburgh is still losing a ton of people, but they went with the "rip the bandage off at once" approach. Their economy has been really good about promoting banking, IT, research, etc. The just dumped their rust belt cargo and changed course immediately and are probably the closest thing to a post-industrial rust belt city. Then there are the laggards: Detroit, Cleveland and most of northern OH, Buffalo, and Rochester.

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by msamhunter

Keep in mind a few things. 1. By the time those numbers are released it's outdated since it runs 2 years behind. GDP is nothing more than goods/services produced x population over a given period of time in a nutshell. Larger MSAs should always have a larger gdp which is why I never use it. MSP is supposed to have a higher gdp than Indianapolis since it has twice the people just like Chicago is supposed to have a higher gdp and MSP. It can get iffy with like populations like MSP/Detroit or Indianapolis/CBus. One could have a higher gross gdp but the other still have a better local economy as GDP isn't sales, only what's produced and any good/service can be sold at any time. The Iowa cities have small GDPs as well as Madison but in the midwest they have the best local economies out of everyone. As far as the major metros, MSP is #1, followed by Indianapolis when looking strictly at the numbers once you factor in per capita.

Correct. Probably a more accurate gauge of worker productivity would be to break this down by GDP per employed worker in each area vs. what I would guess here is the total population. Thus, an area with a higher number of unemployed will have a more unfavorable figure than an area with lower unemployment rates and a higher percentage of the population that is working.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

Correct. Probably a more accurate gauge of worker productivity would be to break this down by GDP per employed worker in each area vs. what I would guess here is the total population. Thus, an area with a higher number of unemployed will have a more unfavorable figure than an area with lower unemployment rates and a higher percentage of the population that is working.

Unfortunately, the employment base by metro isn't available for everyone through 2010, but something else that will remove some noise is: population by metro by age. 18 to 64 pop more closely corresponds to the available labor force by eliminating retirees and children.

Of the 100 largest MSAs, Indy is 15th at $95,134 per working age inhabitant. They trail only:
Bridgeport, Hartford, Boston, New York, and DC out east.
Tech centers San Jose, San Francisco, an Seattle.
Oil and gas driven Houston.
New stars Denver, Charlotte, Salt Lake City, and Durham NC
Big surprise: Des Moines.

Top 50 employment-aged metros. I combined a few here (Raleigh+Durham, the Bay Area, LA+Riverside) and rounded:

Bay Area 121,900
Washington DC 115,200
Hartford 114,500
New York City 105,700
Boston 105,500
Houston 101,900
Seattle 101,300
Charlotte 101,000
Salt Lake City 95,400
Denver 95,300
Indianapolis 95,100
New Orleans 94,900
Minneapolis 94,600
Dallas 92,700
Philadelphia 91,700
Raleigh-Durham 89,100
Chicago 88,700
Milwaukee 86,600
Portland 86,200
Honolulu 84,900
San Diego 84,900
Kansas City 83,400
Baltimore 83,000
Cleveland 82,500
Atlanta 80,100
Richmond 79,200
Columbus 78,600
Memphis 78,600
Pittsburgh 78,500
Nashville 78,400
Los Angeles 78,000
Orlando 75,900
Birmingham 75,600
Austin 75,300
Cincinnati 75,100
VA Beach 74,300
Miami 74,200
Phoenix 74,100
Detroit 73,600
Oklahoma City 73,600
St. Louis 73,400
Las Vegas 72,300
Louisville 72,200
Jacksonville 70,000
Rochester, NY 68,500
Sacramento 68,500
Tampa 66,400
Providence 64,700
Buffalo 63,500
San Antonio 61,600

The personal income numbers don't look nearly as good for Indy. This is due to the lower cost of living/wage requirements for the same work. Unemployment differences aren't going to skew the results that much. For example, if unemployment was twice as high in Milwaukee as it was in Indianapolis, the two would be roughly even. These kinds of disparities don't exist though. If you could scrape out the non-workers, the ranking for a given city might go up or down 5 to 6 slots at the very most. Generally, the change would be <+/-3 in either direction.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

[tollfree]

Another article to mention Indy alongside much larger cities...and no other purpose.

The self-pandering never ends. Most of the country doesn't even know it exists. Not seen as a destination at all, by anyone, unless from rural Indiana. I'd say to most people, there's NY, LA, Vegas, and Florida in terms of relevant places. Dallas, Houston, SF, Boston and Atlanta are well known too.

[Broadrippleguy]

Originally Posted by RonnieJonez

Another article to mention Indy alongside much larger cities...and no other purpose.

The self-pandering never ends. Most of the country doesn't even know it exists. Not seen as a destination at all, by anyone, unless from rural Indiana. I'd say to most people, there's NY, LA, Vegas, and Florida in terms of relevant places. Dallas, Houston, SF, Boston and Atlanta are well known too.

Go away with your lies.
You forget Super Bowl 46 and how NYC yes NEW YORK CITY praises Indianapolis as a host city. You forget the Media all over the world too that praised Indy.
The Indy 500
The Brickyard 400.
NCAA Mens Final Four
Big Ten Championship Tournament.
So really go troll somewhere else.