Urban Indy? (Indianapolis, Columbus, Carmel: living in, prices, housing)
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.
Compared to his apparent beloved city of Las Vegas, Indianapolis is EXTREMELY urban.
Vegas is a **** hole, but the population on the strip at all times has got to be pretty high -- imitating something of an urban feel (though, I'd say it's more akin to the vibrancy of Disney World that an actual city).
Quote:
The U.S. Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)."
Eh. That might be how the government defines it, but in real life an area with 1,000 ppsm isn't going to feel very vibrant. I don't think it really hits a critical mass until there are 10,000+ ppsm. I live in a neighborhood of 66,000 ppsm and while there are people out and about all the time and a good amount of street traffic, it hardly feels overwhelmingly dense. I can't imagine a 1/60 of that is going to feel much like a city at all.
The majority of neighborhoods of Chicago, DC, Boston, Philly, SF are between 10k-70k ppsm, while many Manhattan 'hoods hit 100k+ ppsm. Even your smaller cities like Denver, Oakland, Portland, OR and Minneapolis have many 15K+ ppsm neighborhoods. Indy has not a single neighborhood that reaches 10k ppsm (hell, even Bloomington's core hits 12k ppsm). It's just not that urban. But, like I said, that's not the point.
[quote=SuperTramp1;25252790]Eh. That might be how the government defines it, but in real life an area with 1,000 ppsm isn't going to feel very vibrant. I don't think it really hits a critical mass until there are 10,000+ ppsm. I live in a neighborhood of 66,000 ppsm and while there are people out and about all the time and a good amount of street traffic, it hardly feels overwhelmingly dense. I can't imagine a 1/60 of that is going to feel much like a city at all.
The majority of neighborhoods of Chicago, DC, Boston, Philly, SF are between 10k-70k ppsm, while many Manhattan 'hoods hit 100k+ ppsm. Even your smaller cities like Denver, Oakland, Portland, OR and Minneapolis have many 15K+ ppsm neighborhoods. Indy has not a single neighborhood that reaches 10k ppsm (hell, even Bloomington's core hits 12k ppsm). It's just not that urban. But, like I said, that's not the point.
Since we're splitting hairs, Mong Kok has a population density of 340,000 ppsm which will hardly make Manhattan feel overwhelmingly dense.
Indianapolis is a little more spread out, but its density doesn't drop off as quickly as some other similar cities. It averages in at 2,279 per square mile similar to that of Detroit and Columbus, and actually higher than some other more "urban" cities. Nevertheless, Indy still has a very large population surrounding it with people who come downtown to eat, shop, work, relax (and so on). This is probably why Indy's amenity clustered downtown keeps the streets active.
I can't imagine having 66,000 ppsm, let alone 340,000...That is too much in my opinion. The prices would be insane. Something like one kidney per square foot...
Since we're splitting hairs, Mong Kok has a population density of 340,000 ppsm which will hardly make Manhattan feel overwhelmingly dense.
I hardly think comparing Indianapolis to other cities in the same country that are known to be dense and urban to put it in context is splitting hairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefallensrvnge
Indianapolis is a little more spread out, but its density doesn't drop off as quickly as some other similar cities. It averages in at 2,279 per square mile similar to that of Detroit and Columbus, and actually higher than some other more "urban" cities.
I call this the L.A. Phenomenon. Downtown L.A. and its inner neighborhoods aren't nearly as dense as Manhattan, but when you take into account the whole metro, L.A. is far denser.
Quote:
Nevertheless, Indy still has a very large population surrounding it with people who come downtown to eat, shop, work, relax (and so on). This is probably why Indy's amenity clustered downtown keeps the streets active.
This is a key fact. Vibrancy isn't just created by those who live in an area, but by those who visit it. I would imagine during the workday/weekends downtown Indy soars well above 10,000 ppsm as it's an entertainment hub for the region.
Quote:
I can't imagine having 66,000 ppsm, let alone 340,000...That is too much in my opinion. The prices would be insane. Something like one kidney per square foot...
Eh, it's really not so crazy (except for prices -- studio apts go for up to $2000). People from Manhattan often find it charmingly slow-paced. For me, it's about as dense of an area as I'd ever want to live in. I want a house and a yard (not huge, though), but I still want to be able to walk and bike around the neighborhood to bars and restaurants. Probably looking in the 10k-20k ppsm neighborhoods for that.
I hardly think comparing Indianapolis to other cities in the same country that are known to be dense and urban to put it in context is splitting hairs.
How convenient. You can dismiss a United States of America definition of an urban area but when I compare Manhattan to an area several times as dense I'm taking it out of context? The OP texted, that the U.S. Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)," but you summarily dismissed that definition by replying, "1,000 ppsm isn't going to feel very vibrant." You then compared Indianapolis to one of the most densely populated cities in the nation. No one is saying Indianapolis is as densely populated as Manhattan or has the urban flavor of Chicago or San Franciscoso so why bring it up? Btw, Manhattan isn't as densely populated as Guttenburg, Union City, or West New York which are all in New Jersey. If you like I can name over 70 cities that have population density greater than Manhattan. In doing so would that necessarily mean Manhattan isn't going to feel (your words not mine) "very vibrant?" Vibrant compared to what? So yes you are splitting hairs because the original question posed is whether Indy has an urban environment which it does by definition provided by a United States government agency.
Once AGAIN, if this little TOWN has to have a discussion about IF it's urban then it's not. Yes, you went out and got a definition of urban but Naptown doesn't feel urban like some posters have said.
This thread is just as silly as the one about Naptown being the 11th or 12th largest city in the country. If you have to talk or try to brag about it, then you have an inferiority complex. Naptown definitely has that.
Once AGAIN, if this little TOWN has to have a discussion about IF it's urban then it's not. Yes, you went out and got a definition of urban but Naptown doesn't feel urban like some posters have said.
This thread is just as silly as the one about Naptown being the 11th or 12th largest city in the country. If you have to talk or try to brag about it, then you have an inferiority complex. Naptown definitely has that.
I don't live in Indy. I think it is absurd for anyone to suggest that Indianapolis does not have an urban feel to it. And even more laughable is that certain people choose to ignore the official population densities used to determine whether or not an area is urban, suburban or rural. Must be the new math...
How convenient. You can dismiss a United States of America definition of an urban area but when I compare Manhattan to an area several times as dense I'm taking it out of context? The OP texted, that the U.S. Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)," but you summarily dismissed that definition by replying, "1,000 ppsm isn't going to feel very vibrant." You then compared Indianapolis to one of the most densely populated cities in the nation. No one is saying Indianapolis is as densely populated as Manhattan or has the urban flavor of Chicago or San Franciscoso so why bring it up? Btw, Manhattan isn't as densely populated as Guttenburg, Union City, or West New York which are all in New Jersey. If you like I can name over 70 cities that have population density greater than Manhattan. In doing so would that necessarily mean Manhattan isn't going to feel (your words not mine) "very vibrant?" Vibrant compared to what? So yes you are splitting hairs because the original question posed is whether Indy has an urban environment which it does by definition provided by a United States government agency.
Absurdities abound.
Union City has 52k ppsm, Guttenberg has 57k and West New York has 49k. Manhattan has 70k (and that's *including* Central Park). Feel free to look it up. So, before you go naming all "70 cities", try getting the first three right.
You can quote official definitions all you want, doesn't help your case in the real world. The Milwaukee suburbs have more than 1000 ppsm, does that make them urban b/c an arbitrary US Government definition says so? Clinging to that reeks of the worst kind of desperation.
You talk about Manhattan, but forget I also mentioned Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, OR and Oakland in my past post? Am I not allowed to compare Indianapolis to those cities either?
Downtown Indy (a few square blocks) has an urban flavor during times of the day when there are a lot of visitors -- but when those people leave, the few residents that remain roll up the sidewalks and head to bed. But, who cares? Indy's calling card has never been being an urban city (trust me, no one outside of it thinks it is). What attracts people there is the low cost of living and simplicity of life. Once you start creating dense neighborhoods that goes out the window so I don't understand why it would be desired. Stick with its strengths.
Union City has 52k ppsm, Guttenberg has 57k and West New York has 49k. Manhattan has 70k (and that's *including* Central Park). Feel free to look it up. So, before you go naming all "70 cities", try getting the first three right.
You can quote official definitions all you want, doesn't help your case in the real world. The Milwaukee suburbs have more than 1000 ppsm, does that make them urban b/c an arbitrary US Government definition says so? Clinging to that reeks of the worst kind of desperation.
You talk about Manhattan, but forget I also mentioned Minneapolis, Denver, Portland, OR and Oakland in my past post? Am I not allowed to compare Indianapolis to those cities either?
Downtown Indy (a few square blocks) has an urban flavor during times of the day when there are a lot of visitors -- but when those people leave, the few residents that remain roll up the sidewalks and head to bed. But, who cares? Indy's calling card has never been being an urban city (trust me, no one outside of it thinks it is). What attracts people there is the low cost of living and simplicity of life. Once you start creating dense neighborhoods that goes out the window so I don't understand why it would be desired. Stick with its strengths.
I don't trust you. I don't live in Indy. I'm outside of Indy. My perception of Indianapolis is that it is indeed an urban environment with a fairly dense downtown core.
Your elitist and condescending tone is awful. Simplicity of life? The people I've met from Indy over the years are more sophisticated than most of the local people I've encountered in the Kansas City area.
And since you claim it is not a real city, I get an even bigger kick out of your last comment about why you cannot fathom the desire by some to see some more densely packed neighborhoods in the city. In your mind, Indy MUST REMAIN as it is an alleged perpetual suburb and should not be allowed to "grow up".
For someone that tries to give the illusion that he possesses some wisdom or education in urban planning, anyone that has some common sense can see otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 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.
The OP texted, that the U.S. Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)," but you summarily dismissed that definition by replying, "1,000 ppsm isn't going to feel very vibrant." You then compared Indianapolis to one of the most densely populated cities in the nation. No one is saying Indianapolis is as densely populated as Manhattan or has the urban flavor of Chicago or San Franciscoso so why bring it up? Btw, Manhattan isn't as densely populated as Guttenburg, Union City, or West New York which are all in New Jersey. If you like I can name over 70 cities that have population density greater than Manhattan. In doing so would that necessarily mean Manhattan isn't going to feel (your words not mine) "very vibrant?" Vibrant compared to what? So yes you are splitting hairs because the original question posed is whether Indy has an urban environment which it does by definition provided by a United States government agency.
I don't live in Indy. I'm outside of Indy. My perception of Indianapolis is that it is indeed an urban environment with a fairly dense downtown core. 
