Carmel as poster child of the new "aspirational suburb" in USA (Zionsville: rent, condos)

[ViolentDisasters]

Originally Posted by casualsurfer

Lightening? Or lightning?

I've lived in Carmel for 10 years and a year in Zionsville before that. I grew up in a very affluent suburb in SoCal, and once I got kids I can't think of a better place to raise a family than Carmel. My kids LOVE their schools and the schools rock for the kids. Do I like the fact that Carmel's politicians have GOP labels but act like Democrats when spending? No. But at least I can SEE the spending work for me, my family, and my home prices. Now if only the mayor would make Carmel more BIKE friendly it'd be the perfect city.

Well, it's definitely a "lightening" rod when you consider it's one of the least ethnically diverse places in the entire Indianapolis metro area.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by ViolentDisasters

Carmel is a model for what -- pretentious yuppies , unaffordability, and failed "urbanism"?

So sick of people conflating dense suburban living with urbanism. Urbanism isn't just about density, its about an organic street life, diversity, communal ties, and a rich history that can't just be replicated overnight by a city planner or architect or a bunch of real estate speculating NIMBY strangers moving to a neighborhood because its the hot new place to live. Just because you build a bunch of yuppie shops with a three foot setback and street parking as opposed to yuppie shops in a strip mall with a parking lot in front of it, it doesnt suddenly become an urban community. A pig with lipstick on it is still a pig.

Here's Exhibit A for what I'm talking about.

[MortonR]

Originally Posted by violentdisasters

carmel is a model for what -- pretentious yuppies , unaffordability, and failed "urbanism"?

So sick of people conflating dense suburban living with urbanism. Urbanism isn't just about density, its about an organic street life, diversity, communal ties, and a rich history that can't just be replicated overnight by a city planner or architect or a bunch of real estate speculating nimby strangers moving to a neighborhood because its the hot new place to live. Just because you build a bunch of yuppie shops with a three foot setback and street parking as opposed to yuppie shops in a strip mall with a parking lot in front of it, it doesnt suddenly become an urban community. A pig with lipstick on it is still a pig.

+1

rm

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by W & C

Carmel isn't a bad place to live at all when talking about Indianapolis area or central Indiana in general.

To be sure, all the negative stereotypes about suburbs apply here - bland, contrived, pretentious, unoriginal, etc...

But let's face it - what are we comparing it to ? Indy city proper isn't exactly a burgeoning cosmopolitan metropolis full of distinct walkable neighborhoods and complete with modern public transport. Some places aren't too bad but most of it is every bit as bland as Carmel or Fishers with higher crime to boot.

I've lived in both and can see both sides of the argument but in reality, the two sides are closer to each other than either wants to admit

I am not sure why there is this outright hostility toward the suburbs from the "urban" crowd. If you want a dense, walkable, bike friendly, super urban vibe, you probably wouldn't be in Indy in the first place. This isn't Philly, Chicago, NYC, or Boston.

I went down College Avenue to Broad Ripple from Carmel Saturday. Most of that area really doesn't feel urban at all - it is still car-centric suburban development, although older and perhaps "classier" depending on one's taste than the newer suburbs.

Originally Posted by casualsurfer

Lightening? Or lightning?

I've lived in Carmel for 10 years and a year in Zionsville before that. I grew up in a very affluent suburb in SoCal, and once I got kids I can't think of a better place to raise a family than Carmel. My kids LOVE their schools and the schools rock for the kids. Do I like the fact that Carmel's politicians have GOP labels but act like Democrats when spending? No. But at least I can SEE the spending work for me, my family, and my home prices. Now if only the mayor would make Carmel more BIKE friendly it'd be the perfect city.

Carmel is still a car-centric area. The bike lanes are not offset by a median or a curb, and butt up right against the edge of the lane. Driving by one of these bicyclists going down Rangeline in the morning can be harrowing. I wouldn't feel safe using those lanes as a bicyclist nor do I feel comfortable with the bicyclists using them as a motorist. If anything, those lanes need to be offset from the road by a curb, or outright prohibited. They are dangerous to cyclists and a liability to motorists as they currently are.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by Emigrations

I am not sure why there is this outright hostility toward the suburbs from the "urban" crowd. If you want a dense, walkable, bike friendly, super urban vibe, you probably wouldn't be in Indy in the first place. This isn't Philly, Chicago, NYC, or Boston.

I went down College Avenue to Broad Ripple from Carmel Saturday. Most of that area really doesn't feel urban at all - it is still car-centric suburban development, although older and perhaps "classier" depending on one's taste than the newer suburbs.

Indianapolis has consistently been rated as an increasingly bike friendly city of late and trending upward in that regard. I think it would be pretty exciting to have a more bike friendly metro area, Carmel included.

As far as hostility toward Carmel related to how urban or not urban Indianapolis is, really is of no consequence. Indianapolis is never going to be Philly, Chicago, NYC, or Boston. And that is ok. Indianapolis can only be the best Indianapolis it can be. If you need the differences explained to you between Indy and Carmel beyond cosmetics; then you just don't know one or both of them well enough.

[grmasterb]

I don't think Carmel is trying to become urban.

[bilgewater]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

I don't think Carmel is trying to become urban.

Did you read the article? How else to explain $800+ million in public debt? The aspiration is to be more than a traditional elite US suburban enclave. To be a magnet unto itself with its own urban styled amenities. Renn sees this as a sign of the times in terms of how class and residential segregation work these days in some of the country's more ambitious and famous suburbs. Love it or hate it, the trend is a sign of the times well worth contemplating. The article is quite good and extremely generous to carmel and it's new sub-urbanism visionary lleaders.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by bilgewater

Did you read the article? How else to explain $800+ million in public debt? The aspiration is to be more than a traditional elite US suburban enclave. To be a magnet unto itself with its own urban styled amenities. Renn sees this as a sign of the times in terms of how class and residential segregation work these days in some of the country's more ambitious and famous suburbs. Love it or hate it, the trend is a sign of the times well worth contemplating. The article is quite good and extremely generous to carmel and it's new sub-urbanism visionary lleaders.

In fact, I did read the article, and I stand by my statement. Bringing a dense element to Carmel does not mean it is trying to become urban in the way the urbanists here seem to want to define the term. Carmel will still have a lot of suburban developments. What Carmel is trying to do, seems to me, is to have a diversity of offerings that will allow it to attract a healthy mix of professionals, singles and families -- something sustainable for the long term. It is NOT trying to become socio-economically diverse.

[bilgewater]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

In fact, I did read the article, and I stand by my statement. Bringing a dense element to Carmel does not mean it is trying to become urban in the way the urbanists here seem to want to define the term. Carmel will still have a lot of suburban developments. What Carmel is trying to do, seems to me, is to have a diversity of offerings that will allow it to attract a healthy mix of professionals, singles and families. It is NOT trying to become socio-economically diverse.

Ahh, then we are in agreement. The aspiration is to graft certain urban elements (amenities, density) while holding back other urban elements (the people; socioeconomic diversity).

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by bilgewater

Ahh, then we are in agreement. The aspiration is to graft certain urban elements (amenities, density) while holding back other urban elements (the people; socioeconomic diversity).

That's Carmel in a nutshell. All the benefits of the urban area they fled, without all those pesky poor people getting in the way.