Why does Indy have such poor walkability? (Indianapolis, Fort Wayne: apartments, how much)

[Taggerung]

Indy probably has one of the fewest amount of walkable neighborhoods for a city of its size in the entire nation. Or at least, that's the conclusion I've come to from doing a bit of research. I've compared Indy to it's two most similar cities- Kansas City and Columbus. Indy fares poorly against both of these cities in terms of dense and walkable neighborhoods.

Walkability:

Indy: https://www.walkscore.com/IN/Indianapolis
Not a single neighbourhood above 80, only 8 above 50.

Kansas City: https://www.walkscore.com/MO/Kansas_City
10 neighborhoods 80 or above, and 50 with a score of 50 and above

Columbus: https://www.walkscore.com/OH/Columbus
12 with a score of 80 or above and 60 with a score of 50 or above

Density

Indy:Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site

Only 3 neighborhoods with 5k+ density

KC: Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site

31 neighborhoods with a 5k + density

Columbus: Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site

About 34 neighborhoods with a 5k+ density

Indy even comes up short in walkability when comparing it the the smaller cities in Indiana:

Evansville: https://www.walkscore.com/IN/Evansville

22 neighborhoods with a score of 50+

Ft Wayne: https://www.walkscore.com/IN/Fort_Wayne

22 neighborhoods with a 50+ walk score, and 7 with a 70+ walk score. Indy only has one neighborhood (downtown) with a 70+ score.

Bloomington: https://www.walkscore.com/IN/Bloomington

10 neighborhoods with a 50+ score, and 2 with an 80+ score.

So what's the deal here? Are these statistics misleading in some way? Does Indy really have the very poor levels of walkability that the stats suggest, or are things on the ground different?

[Serious Conversation]

Indy has tons of sprawl. Due to the city/county merger, many parts of the "city" are suburban to even quasi-rural. You run into Marion County coming in on 74-W way before you start seeing any kind of development that looks urban. That's not helping the score.

[Taggerung]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

Indy has tons of sprawl. Due to the city/county merger, many parts of the "city" are suburban to even quasi-rural. You run into Marion County coming in on 74-W way before you start seeing any kind of development that looks urban. That's not helping the score.

Yes, but KC and Columbus have absurdly exaggerated "city limits" too. And so do most other Indiana cities. Which is why I looked at the number of walkable neighborhoods, rather than the overall walkability score.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by Taggerung

Yes, but KC and Columbus have absurdly exaggerated "city limits" too. And so do most other Indiana cities. Which is why I looked at the number of walkable neighborhoods, rather than the overall walkability score.

It's a good thing those city limits are "exaggerated" because that will guarantee the City will never be swallowed up by suburbs and a shrinking population with no room to grow. The middle clasd flees the city for the suburbs in droves, and what use to be a real nice city turns into an entire ghetto with very little hope.

Just look at cities that were dense and no room to grow in any direction. St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland. If they had room to expand, all of those cities would be in much better shape today than what they are. If Mayor Lugar had not "exaggerated" the city limits of Indianapolis by incorporating most of Marion County, Indianapolis of today probably would have been a town of less than 400,000. The Pacers would have left town and the Colts never would have come to Indianapolis. The cities with "exaggerated" city limits are among the most vibrant and prosperous cities in the nation with the brightest futures.

[Taggerung]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

It's a good thing those city limits are "exaggerated" because that will guarantee the City will never be swallowed up by suburbs and a shrinking population with no room to grow. The middle clasd flees the city for the suburbs in droves, and what use to be a real nice city turns into an entire ghetto with very little hope.

Just look at cities that were dense and no room to grow in any direction. St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland. If they had room to expand, all of those cities would be in much better shape today than what they are. If Mayor Lugar had not "exaggerated" the city limits of Indianapolis by incorporating most of Marion County, Indianapolis of today probably would have been a town of less than 400,000. The Pacers would have left town and the Colts never would have come to Indianapolis. The cities with "exaggerated" city limits are among the most vibrant and prosperous cities in the nation with the brightest futures.

All the expansion of city limits does is cover up problems of blight, disinvestment, crime, and poverty- not alleviate them. Perhaps disinvestment is why Indy has so few walkable neighborhoods. But sure, exaggerated city limits does make the city look better "on paper," compared to other rustbelt cities such as Cleveland and St louis.

[WestsideMac]

I'd say Indy area having no real geographical features to limit sprawl or increase density is the big reason. It's mostly flat farmland even after the exaggerated city limits. There was still lots of areas to develop into. And people could still have decent size yards. Whereas as you look at most other big cities they are limited by major water features or mountains, etc. Those cities then tend to start developing up and yes some out but not as much. There is a limit to how far people are willing to live from downtown when it comes to commute time. I would say Indy has come nowhere near that. Whereas Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Madison, St Paul, Louisville, Cleveland, Columbus and other cities limited by natural features (mostly water in these cases) started building up much sooner than Indy did. You get to certain cities or areas well outside these aforementioned cities and people are less likely to want to live there because even by train the commute is over an hour.

KC has a larger river running through it but also a state line (not a geographical feature, but a limiter nonetheless). Columbus also has multiple rivers through it that might be similar sized to White River, but they also have Ohio State University. OSU is huge and i'm sure creates lots of mixed development necessity for college students needing apartments. It is not located right next to downtown thus spreading out how many neighborhoods have density.

Indy has IUPUI but it is still seen as largely a commuter campus. That is slowly starting to change as numerous high density mixed use projects are starting to be built, but its a slow process. Again with how much rural land for development exists within Indy limits or only a short commute away, until people say the commute is too much and really demand either more dense, mixed use development or high speed transit Indy will always rank lower than most other areas of the midwest or country.

[W & C]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

It's a good thing those city limits are "exaggerated" because that will guarantee the City will never be swallowed up by suburbs and a shrinking population with no room to grow. The middle clasd flees the city for the suburbs in droves, and what use to be a real nice city turns into an entire ghetto with very little hope.

Just look at cities that were dense and no room to grow in any direction. St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland. If they had room to expand, all of those cities would be in much better shape today than what they are. If Mayor Lugar had not "exaggerated" the city limits of Indianapolis by incorporating most of Marion County, Indianapolis of today probably would have been a town of less than 400,000. The Pacers would have left town and the Colts never would have come to Indianapolis. The cities with "exaggerated" city limits are among the most vibrant and prosperous cities in the nation with the brightest futures.

I guess I am not sure what tangible difference it makes if you're living in some bland subdivision whether your address says Plainfield or Indianapolis on it.

And the cities you mentioned above do have professional sports so I'm not sure why Colts and Pacers wouldn't still be here.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by W & C

I guess I am not sure what tangible difference it makes if you're living in some bland subdivision whether your address says Plainfield or Indianapolis on it.

And the cities you mentioned above do have professional sports so I'm not sure why Colts and Pacers wouldn't still be here.

I would guess the property taxes in Plainfield are cheaper than the property taxes are in Indianapolis. Overall I imagine the schools are much better and safer in Plainfield than they are in Indianapolis.

I doubt the city and the entire region would have ever boomed like it has since Indianapolis incorporated nearly all of Marion County in the early 70's. It's alot harder to have nice things and be able to retain them if most of the local money has moved out to the suburbs and the city is left with old-money neighborhoods and the working poor and chronically poor to support the main city and it's infrastructure and lack of many cool amenities that comes with living in a big city/town..

St. Louis has lost 2 NFL teams, the Cardinals and the Rams and a NBA team, the Hawks since that city has been on the decline. The Detroit Pistons venue was moved to the Pontiac Siverdome and the Lions relocated to Auburn Hills. I don't know if the stadiums are still located out there or not, but they were out there for maybe 20 years. That's a lot of revenue the City of Detroit missed out on.

I wonder when Marion County will top a million, if it hasn't already?

[W & C]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

I would guess the property taxes in Plainfield are cheaper than the property taxes are in Indianapolis. Overall I imagine the schools are much better and safer in Plainfield than they are in Indianapolis.

I doubt the city and the entire region would have ever boomed like it has since Indianapolis incorporated nearly all of Marion County in the early 70's. It's alot harder to have nice things and be able to retain them if most of the local money has moved out to the suburbs and the city is left with old-money neighborhoods and the working poor and chronically poor to support the main city and it's infrastructure and lack of many cool amenities that comes with living in a big city/town..

St. Louis has lost 2 NFL teams, the Cardinals and the Rams and a NBA team, the Hawks since that city has been on the decline. The Detroit Pistons venue was moved to the Pontiac Siverdome and the Lions relocated to Auburn Hills. I don't know if the stadiums are still located out there or not, but they were out there for maybe 20 years. That's a lot of revenue the City of Detroit missed out on.

I wonder when Marion County will top a million, if it hasn't already?

I think you're right about the tax issue, I didn't consider that.

As far as schools, I don't think it would make the difference - meaning if someone were living in what would have been Plainfield (maybe a bad example) and that place were to be incorporated into Indianapolis during consolidation. Realistically day-to-day life would see little change, schools included - unless Indy schools would be somewhat better funded because of the tax issue.

But I think rest of your points are solid. I still think city doesn't necessarily have to decline just because they have little room to grow and refuse to swallow the suburbs. I might offer St. Francisco, Seattle (yes, Sonics left - nothing to do with city size - but NHL team is coming), Boston and others as example. Lastly, even if teams move to suburbs at times , the entire metro area still benefits. So perhaps Colts and Pacers would have just found homes in Carmel or Plainfield - I know, sounds pretty ridiculous, but who knows.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by Taggerung

Indy even comes up short in walkability when comparing it the the smaller cities in Indiana:

Evansville: https://www.walkscore.com/IN/Evansville

22 neighborhoods with a score of 50+

Ft Wayne: https://www.walkscore.com/IN/Fort_Wayne

22 neighborhoods with a 50+ walk score, and 7 with a 70+ walk score. Indy only has one neighborhood (downtown) with a 70+ score.

Bloomington: https://www.walkscore.com/IN/Bloomington

10 neighborhoods with a 50+ score, and 2 with an 80+ score.

So what's the deal here? Are these statistics misleading in some way? Does Indy really have the very poor levels of walkability that the stats suggest, or are things on the ground different?

The contrast between old Indianapolis and new Indianapolis, and the disconnect between walkable and nonwalkable areas of the city have been well discussed over the years on this forum.

I'm only going to comment on the comparison to Eville and Ft Wayne. Look at those areas that rank high for Evansville. There are three small neighborhoods in the top five that you could combine into one and it would still be smaller in size than some of the neighborhoods listed for Indy. Same with Fort Wayne. It is just silly to point to that and suggest somehow Evansville has more walkable neighborhoods than Indy. It doesn't. No one who has spent any amount of time in either city would think that.