Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Anonymous random Internet lies? Seriously? Grow up.
I can post Street View links right now of the blocks I've walked around in Cincinnati and you would not be able to find anything half as bad in Indianapolis or Columbus.
If you don't agree with someone else's opinions, either agree to disagree, or explain why you don't agree--backed up with facts, not childish retorts.
Spare the holier-than-thou admonitions, please. If those neighborhoods are so bad, why would you, as a visitor, be walking around them? Do you actively go looking for trouble in cities that you visit?
And your comparison is silly. That's like saying Omaha, Neb., doesn't have the "bad neighborhoods" that Cincinnati does. Newer cities tend to not have the blight that a lot of America's older cities (particularly those in the eastern half of the country) have.
There are plenty of other cities with neighborhoods worse than anything you'd find in sterile Indy or Columbus, including, but not limited to, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, New York, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Miami, Tampa, Kansas City, etc. What's your point? Neither Indy or Columbus beats any of those cities either.
And in other ways you wouldn't find anything half as good either.
Cincinnati has a much stronger cultural identity and sense of pride than the other two, especially Columbus, which I wouldn't trade for anything.
Also it has about 8 times the history of both cities combined.
Perhaps, but it's very telling on Cincinnati's part that it has allowed cities with fewer assets to kick its ass in terms of developing an attractive metropolitan area.
It's very hard for older cities to remain competitive unless they reinvent themselves by being progressive, planning for the future, add jobs, etc...which is why Columbus and Indy are growing while Cincinnati isn't.
All the historical architecture in the world doesn't mean anything if there's no jobs, the quality of life sucks, etc (not necessarily talking about Cincinnati here), plus most people just aren't city geeks like us in the first place. That is not to say that having an attractive built environment isn't important in a city, but that there are other issues that need to be looked at for the big picture to make sense.
Spare the holier-than-thou admonitions, please. If those neighborhoods are so bad, why would you, as a visitor, be walking around them? Do you actively go looking for trouble in cities that you visit?
And your comparison is silly. That's like saying Omaha, Neb., doesn't have the "bad neighborhoods" that Cincinnati does. Newer cities tend to not have the blight that a lot of America's older cities (particularly those in the eastern half of the country) have.
There are plenty of other cities with neighborhoods worse than anything you'd find in sterile Indy or Columbus, including, but not limited to, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, New York, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Miami, Tampa, Kansas City, etc. What's your point? Neither Indy or Columbus beats any of those cities either.
I'm not allowing you to take my comments out of context.
We're not talking about Atlanta or Cleveland. We're talking about Columbus, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis.
You still have yet to prove how Cincinnati doesn't have more of a blight problem than Indianapolis or Columbus. But you can't, so your tactic thus far has consisted of the following:
- spinning the comments of others
- personal attacks
Needing to win and civic pride is clearly more important than honesty and logic to you.
Ha, Indianapolis and Columbus are cool, but to suggest that Cincy isn't growing is..... no. The metropolitan area saw steady growth from 2000-2010, securing our metropolitan area as the largest in the state. I don't see how Indianapolis is a more attractive metro area, I mean that honestly. Indy is practically my second home, and while it's come a long ways, it's suburbs are NO better than Cincinnati, and it's urban neighborhoods and core leave much to be desired.
While Cincy does have a problem with blight, for every blighted neighborhood, there are 4 that make up for it. That just comes with the territory of being an older industrial city. Cincy's economy is as diversified as can be, and private sector jobs continue to grow. The UC, uptown, medical district is a HUGE ecoomic source, and is rapidly growing.
Its seems like alot of people posting here haven't been to these cities, and I can tell for sure most of you haven't been in Cincy lately. I visit all 3 of these cities multiple times a year, and can see progress in every one of them, but Cincy is about to take off, as we're final recognizing our true potential.
Once again, how is Indianapolis more attractive??? No university campus life or district, no urban neighborhoods, even more sprawled out burbs, worse public transportation, barely any sidewalks, no amusement park..... whatever. I guess winning championships really does alot to boost your image in the national spotlight. Downtown Indy is great though, and so is your new airport.
Depending on taste this is very true
Indy is known for hosting Large Events every year and periodically like the Super Bowl.
Columbus hasnt hosted a Super Bowl but Indy has and will probably get another one later this decade.
So hosting a Super Bowl makes a city better? I guess when you have nothing else going on, you have to promote one-time events.
Columbus lacks a dense urban downtown core compared to Indy. It has nothing that compares to a more compact public Monument Circle or the historic wall to wall buildings lining along Meridian or Washington or Maryland Streets bustling with street pedestrians. Downtown Indy also has Circle Centre that is still teaming with retail traffic where in Columbus City Center failed being demolished so you have to drive waaaaaaaaay out to the Polaris or Easton malls through more suburban sprawl. Downtown Columbus may have more highrises but lacks urban active substance and density on street level. Columbus has better neighborhoods but that's about it. Only Cincy has a denser compact urban core than Indy but as far having the most vibrant active downtown Indy is years ahead of both cities because it started it's urban rival projects much earlier. Cincy still has more in common with Detroit with the segregation issues between city and burbs over regional projects as most people who live Indy metro live in the 'city' of Indianapolis. Downtown Indy brings a city together better than both combined because of it's more vibrantly centralized.
Every year Indy hosts the world's largest sporting event in capacity attendance in the world's largest sporting stadium IMS and that doesn't even include Lucas Oil which hosted the nation's Superbowl. IMS also hosted opening and closing ceremonies for the Pan Am Games. Indy has more capacity to even host an Olympic event if one where ever held here.
Columbus' downtown was a long-time weak spot in the urban core, but starting about 10 years ago, there's been a steady improvement including population moving in, new restaurants, parks, etc. I know there have been at least 3 dozen new restaurants there (not including the Arena District) just in the last few years. There are also dozens of new residential projects in the area (with thousands of units coming), a riverfront that will continue to be remade and redeveloped, etc. It still has a ways to go, but it's moving in the right direction quickly. Columbus' greatest strengths right now, however, continue to be the urban core ring neighborhoods, which are far superior to anything Indianapolis has. Once you leave the Monument Circle area, the urban vitality quickly falls apart.
And downtown malls were a failed experiment nearly everywhere. Even in Indy where it hasn't yet been, the mall still sucked retail away from other areas. In Columbus, City Center was a failure from the start, even when the crowds came. It killed most of the other Downtown retail and only brought in people who parked in the garage and went into the mall. There was otherwise no other pedestrian traffic. Another thing that hurt Downtown retail was that the city removed on-street parking through High and Broad, which was the primary retail corridor, mostly to accomodate buses. The city is now working to reverse this and move buses to other routes. They are also going to completely renovate Broad and High through Downtown to add walking/biking trails, tree-lined medians and fewer lanes for auto traffic to promote more pedestrians. Eventually it will include light rail, but Governor Kasich still wants to prevent public transit as much as possible in Ohio, so it might have to wait awhile longer.
Indianapolis is nowhere near as dense as Columbus. Not in overall city/county, not in old-city boundaries, and not even at individual census tract level. I looked at them a few months back and could not find a single Indianapolis census tract that had a density of 10,000 ppsm or over. Columbus has several, mostly from Downtown through the University District. The Census designated urban area is also the densist in Ohio, and denser than Indianapolis as well, which goes against the idea that Columbus is made up mostly of low-density sprawl.
In recent population estimates as well as economic information, Columbus is now growing faster and has a better economy than Indianapolis.
Once again, how is Indianapolis more attractive??? No university campus life or district, no urban neighborhoods, even more sprawled out burbs, worse public transportation, barely any sidewalks, no amusement park..... whatever. I guess winning championships really does alot to boost your image in the national spotlight. Downtown Indy is great though, and so is your new airport.
I grew up near Cincy, live in Indy now, and have spent about 4 hours total in Columbus. This being the case, i'm just going to leave Columbus out of it. I think its fair to say that people from all three of these cities have been dominating this thread with personal bias to the point where my head is spinning. To make the assertion that any of the three cities is invariably better than any other is to argue Coke vs. Dr. Pepper vs. Root Beer. I like all 3, but I can't claim that any one is definitely better than the other with any amount of certainty of authority. I do have my preference, but thats all it is. In regards to the quoted area above...Indy does have university campus life, as well as urban neighborhoods. Is it on the level of Cincy or Cbus? Probably not, but to say that it doesn't exist is misleading, and quite frankly, wrong. You're definitely right about transit though. I think each city probably leaves a little to be desired that one of the other two has an abundance of. Beyond that, I'm happy living in Indy. And i'd be happy living in Cincy. And from what i've seen, i'd be happy in CBus. Lets just all agree to be thankful that none of us live in Louisville and call it a day. (JK, I like Louisville too)
Perhaps, but it's very telling on Cincinnati's part that it has allowed cities with fewer assets to kick its ass in terms of developing an attractive metropolitan area.
It's very hard for older cities to remain competitive unless they reinvent themselves by being progressive, planning for the future, add jobs, etc...which is why Columbus and Indy are growing while Cincinnati isn't.
All the historical architecture in the world doesn't mean anything if there's no jobs, the quality of life sucks, etc (not necessarily talking about Cincinnati here), plus most people just aren't city geeks like us in the first place. That is not to say that having an attractive built environment isn't important in a city, but that there are other issues that need to be looked at for the big picture to make sense.
You know next to zero about Cincinnati. To suggest that it's not an attractive metro, to say the quality of life sucks and to spew your other garbage shows you have no idea what you're talking about. It's a growing metro with amenities that Indianapolis could only dream of; it's a bigger metro than Indy or Columbus; it has a major waterway unlike Indy or Columbus; it has varied topography unlike Indy or Columbus; and it is part of a diverse Tri-state metro that only adds to its attractiveness. Indy is a pool table-flat vanilla wafer of a suburban, chain restaurant-choked city surrounded by endless farm land in every direction.
And your claim that you were just walking around some of Cincinnati's most blighted neighborhoods not two weeks ago is so ridiculous and a classic case of wild, anonymous Internet claims that it defies most any logic. It devalues everything you wrote and makes it not worth responding to. Oh, and with a name like Colts, you're hardly an objective observer comparing Indy to Columbus or Cincinnati.
Quite frankly, Indy can't match Cincinnati or Columbus. I don't care how many Super Bowls it hosts. Jacksonville has also hosted a Super Bowl ... is that a great city?
We were only stating a fact that the city does host large events every year. What's wrong with that? No city in the world outside of Indy host the world's largest sporting event in attendance in the world's largest sports stadium. The Indy500 hosts racing teams and fans from other countries around the world. This large event happens every year. If Indy can host the 500 every year the Superbowl should be no problem because we have the capacity to handle it. That is fact. What is good or not good is merely subjective.
All 3 hold large events. Columbus has the golf Memorial, it's getting the NHL All-Star Game next year, etc. None of these events, including the Superbowl, make or break a city. It's about the whole picture.
All 3 hold large events. Columbus has the golf Memorial, it's getting the NHL All-Star Game next year, etc. None of these events, including the Superbowl, make or break a city. It's about the whole picture.
The Super Bowl is a roving event that goes to just about any warm weather city or city with a dome that wants it. Indy fits that criteria, but so does Jacksonville, Detroit, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, New Orleans, Tampa, Miami, San Diego and Dallas - all of which have hosted Super Bowls in the last 15-20 years. Come to think of it, the only domed NFL city NOT to host a Super Bowl is St. Louis. So Indy is hardly unique, no matter how many Hard Rock Cafes or Hooters they stuff into their otherwise lackluster downtown to cater to unimaginative sports fans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
