Indianapolis or Pittsburgh (Richmond, Washington, Brooklyn: houses, calculation, live in)

[chalcedony]

Originally Posted by domergurl

see ... I say Indy is nice and I get "you're so condescending" and "bashy" ... phooey! I say plenty of nice things about Indy. Do I "bash" the colts ... hecks yea! But my saying that Indy (and I'm talking Marion County and the collar counties surrounding it because so many people work in Indy and live in the metro area) is homogenous is true. There aren't any ethnic centers in Indy as say ... uhhhh, Pittsburgh. Indy is a lot like Columbus Ohio. I've often tempered my "bashing" to the fact that Indianapolis is one of the newest, if not THE newest cities in the country, definitely the midwest. It was created with a stroke of Dick Lugar's pen a couple decades ago. Indy is still finding itself. Pittsburgh is an established old city that has it's soul and feel.

Thanks for getting back to me Domergurl. I agree with your postings in spirit about Indy's "newness", though it's hardly the newest city in the country: almost any city in the South or West is newer, and even Chicago was technically founded later than Indianapolis. Lugar's "stroke of the pen" (an apt description) has been mimicked by several other cities: Nashville, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Louisville most recently--that was really just a glorified annexation in almost every case, while some very old cities (Philadelphia and New Orleans among them) had their city and county consolidate decades before Indy.

The one thing where I disagree with you wholeheartedly is calling Indy homogeneous. Yes, in comparison to Los Angeles or New York, you're probably right. But I'm failing to recall those ethnic centers of Pittsburgh--great neighborhoods yes, and a distinctive Eastern European vibe without a doubt. But Pittsburgh has had virtually no immigration in the past thirty years due to its terrible economy and the result is a city that seems quite white-and-black to me, and to others I know who have visited. I'm amazed when I come back to Indy and visit what once was the lilly-white Greenwood Park Mall to see the strong ethnic contingent that now shops there. And you might not see tight dense ethnic neighborhoods like you would in Chicago (or Pittsburgh of a century ago), but that's more because Indianapolis doesn't have that density. One could hardly deny the Hawthorne neighborhood on West Washington has become a Hispanic enclave, and I was first introduced to an emergent Koreatown along Lawrence's Pendleton Pike through Wikipedia (a visit there has confirmed a noticeable Korean commercial presence in the area).

Perhaps it's a testament to Indianapolis' strong affordability that there aren't MORE ethnic enclaves. There will probably never be a Chinatown (much as Mayor Ballard would love to delude himself into thinking otherwise), but Chinatowns are almost always quite poor and inhabited by very unassimilated immigrants with little education. They aren't as representative of the mythic "American dream" as the fact that many immigrants in Indy are thriving in the same suburbs that embody the aspirations of the white middle class. Frankly, I can't say there's a distinctive "white" or "black" side of town, whereas Chicago and Louisville have clear-cut racial dividing lines. Just some thoughts to hopefully complicate the comparisons between these two cities, both of which I think are likable on very different terms.

[Colts]

I wouldn't call Indy a "new" city in the same way Sunbelt cities are new; it's always been in the top 25 cities or so in terms of relevance for roughly 100 years. I think what you may have meant to say is that while most other Midwestern cities fell off in the last 40 years, places like Indy, KC, and Columbus continue to move up, therefore giving them a sense of "newness".

I agree that Indy isn't as distinct as the Burgh, however, but to say that the town has no identity or whatever is ludicrous. I can usually tell the difference between Indy and Fort Wayne, for example.

[Colts]

Originally Posted by chalcedony

Thanks for getting back to me Domergurl. I agree with your postings in spirit about Indy's "newness", though it's hardly the newest city in the country: almost any city in the South or West is newer, and even Chicago was technically founded later than Indianapolis. Lugar's "stroke of the pen" (an apt description) has been mimicked by several other cities: Nashville, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Louisville most recently--that was really just a glorified annexation in almost every case, while some very old cities (Philadelphia and New Orleans among them) had their city and county consolidate decades before Indy.

The one thing where I disagree with you wholeheartedly is calling Indy homogeneous. Yes, in comparison to Los Angeles or New York, you're probably right. But I'm failing to recall those ethnic centers of Pittsburgh--great neighborhoods yes, and a distinctive Eastern European vibe without a doubt. But Pittsburgh has had virtually no immigration in the past thirty years due to its terrible economy and the result is a city that seems quite white-and-black to me, and to others I know who have visited. I'm amazed when I come back to Indy and visit what once was the lilly-white Greenwood Park Mall to see the strong ethnic contingent that now shops there. And you might not see tight dense ethnic neighborhoods like you would in Chicago (or Pittsburgh of a century ago), but that's more because Indianapolis doesn't have that density. One could hardly deny the Hawthorne neighborhood on West Washington has become a Hispanic enclave, and I was first introduced to an emergent Koreatown along Lawrence's Pendleton Pike through Wikipedia (a visit there has confirmed a noticeable Korean commercial presence in the area).

Perhaps it's a testament to Indianapolis' strong affordability that there aren't MORE ethnic enclaves. There will probably never be a Chinatown (much as Mayor Ballard would love to delude himself into thinking otherwise), but Chinatowns are almost always quite poor and inhabited by very unassimilated immigrants with little education. They aren't as representative of the mythic "American dream" as the fact that many immigrants in Indy are thriving in the same suburbs that embody the aspirations of the white middle class. Frankly, I can't say there's a distinctive "white" or "black" side of town, whereas Chicago and Louisville have clear-cut racial dividing lines. Just some thoughts to hopefully complicate the comparisons between these two cities, both of which I think are likable on very different terms.

Agree 100%!

[domergurl]

Unigov was created in 1970 ... you are missing my point. On January 1st, 1970, the city of Indianapolis's population increased by 50%, essentially creating a new city. So by my calculations, the city of indianapolis, as we know it is less than 40 years old. Therefore, the city, as it is today, is one of the youngest in the nation. How many other cities increased their populations by 50% via annexation? I don't know ... anyone??? This lends to it's HOMOGENOUS nature ... I'm not saying it's a good or bad. I, personally like cities with character, soul and history, that's all.

Pittsburgh has more character.

[chalcedony]

Originally Posted by domergurl

Unigov was created in 1970 ... you are missing my point. On January 1st, 1970, the city of Indianapolis's population increased by 50%, essentially creating a new city. So by my calculations, the city of indianapolis, as we know it is less than 40 years old. Therefore, the city, as it is today, is one of the youngest in the nation. How many other cities increased their populations by 50% via annexation? I don't know ... anyone??? This lends to it's HOMOGENOUS nature ... I'm not saying it's a good or bad. I, personally like cities with character, soul and history, that's all.

Pittsburgh has more character.

Thanks for the heads-up, Colts!

Domergurl, I would agree with you that Pittsburgh has more "character", but "soul", "history", and all that stuff are amorphous, highly subjective things that usually tie to the age of a place. Pittsburgh is an older city than Indianapolis with neighborhoods graced with the accompanying patina. That said, Indianapolis has more "character" than Houston or Albuquerque or Las Vegas. More soul and history too.

Louisville did the exact same thing as Uni-Gov back in 2000, making the city more than double in size. I believe its population was about 300,000; now it boasts its the 16th or 18th largest city in the country!

Consolidated city-county - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Colts42]

I would choose Indy over Pitt.

My wife is from Pitt, so we go there often. Nice city with great hills, however seems like its kind of dying.

Indy seems to be thriving more. Indy lands large events (Super Bowl, Final Fours, huge conventions, etc).

Pitts downtown is kind of dead after 5 pm, Indy's is developing a nice scene.

[LIS123]

Originally Posted by Colts42

I would choose Indy over Pitt.

My wife is from Pitt, so we go there often. Nice city with great hills, however seems like its kind of dying.

Indy seems to be thriving more. Indy lands large events (Super Bowl, Final Fours, huge conventions, etc).

Pitts downtown is kind of dead after 5 pm, Indy's is developing a nice scene.

I was under the impression that Pittsburgh was 'kind of dying' 10-20 years ago, btu hasn't its Economy actually diversified and strengthened recently with Healthcare, Robotics and other areas?

[WVUPharm2007]

LMAO at people thinking Pittsburgh has "culture." Maybe back in the 70s. Now all of the talented young people have left in droves running on 30 years straight and all we have in a half-empty town. But at least we have a Dave and Busters. Oh...Indy has one of those now, too? Hmm. And as the person above said...we are night people...Yinzer town is DEAD after supper time.

I also doubt severely that Indianapolis has the crime the areas around where I work have. Hell, there is a straight up violent drug war going on between the youths of Donagal and Monessan in Southern Allegheny County. Once a week some idiot either gets shot or shot at.

Interestingly I'm looking to maybe move to Indianapolis. My wife can't find a job as a pharmacist anywhere in Pittsburgh or around where I work in the Southern 'burbs. At least in Indy every hospital on the North side of town is hiring pharmacists...and we need two pharmacist jobs. Hard to do in this economy, but Indianapolis is where its at, I guess.

[Naptowner]

Unigov doesn't have diddly to do with what Indianapolis is today. All it did was consolidate city and county services and include the many, many people who lived outside the city limits in the city population. It didn't change anything significant about the way the city worked or its character - ask someone living at 75th and Meridian in 1968 where they lived and they'd tell you Indianapolis. Pointing to Unigov as evidence of the "newness" of Indianapolis is correct in a sense, but paints an inaccurate picture of Indy as a 40 year old city.

What differentiates Indianapolis from some of its older brethren is that Indy was not as densely developed in the era of river and rail traffic. As a result, it never had a dense residential downtown, and although it had tremendous ethnic diversity 100 years ago (home to several German-language newspapers and thriving Italian, Irish, and other European communities), the Germans went underground in WWI and never really came back to prominence, the influx of Kentuckians after WWII and the destructive path taken by 65 and 70 through downtown split up and destroyed these neighborhoods. White flight continued to change the character of the central part of the city, causing Center Township to lose half of its population between the 1950s and today. Unigov did little more than recapture this lost population.

[Davante]

I live a couple minutes away from pittsburgh, and i dislike the city in some ways, but ultimately, i heart CLEVELAND