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.
Indianapolis' population density: 2,310 people per square mile
Louisville's population density: 1,861 people per square mile
Minneapolis' population density: 7,275 people per square mile
In visiting (or living in) 2 of the three cities, Indy is closer to Louisville than Minneapolis. But neither of these cites is a "perfect" stand-in for any other.
I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. Active and healthy people, all else equal, are more productive workers that cost public services less. Health initiatives improve the quality of life in a region. Fiscal responsibility, economic productivity, and quality of life issues are all core functions of government. This is why physical fitness initiatives are widely embraced by conservatives and liberals alike at the local, state, and national levels in this country.
No one is stating that Indianapolis hasn't made tremendous strides in the region's offering of health and fitness amenities. I also don't think anyone is suggesting that we mandate physical fitness for the region's residents. The issue is that the majority of people in the metro rely upon the use of a car to arrive at the venues you mention. Marion county ranks very poorly in terms of park amenities and acreage of parks when compared to markets with similar levels of sprawl. Land - Indianapolis Parks Foundation
Indy ranks 47th (tied) among the 50 largest cities in the country when looking at percent of land used for parks and park expenditures: ParkScore
So while you may think the parks and greenspaces in Indianapolis are sufficient, the numbers don't really bear that out.
One thing you forgot to take into account. Indy is subdivision heavy (more than most), especially in the outer townships, a good chunk of them maintain their own community park/trails not part of indy parks and practically every new subdivision going up, its part of the plan. If we were referring only to the older neighborhoods in center township, yes but there is ample parks in the city. They might not be state or indyparks and the residents might ignore their subdivision parks but they are there. So again, no excuse why people can't get out and their kids get exercise and play instead of on fb and xbox other than they don't want to. Not the city's fault nor its responsibility why all of these little kids are grossly overweight today.
I have an 8 year old daughter. As a father I try to have her engage in physical activities like walking around downtown or Eagle Creek. I would like to spend more time at the gym with her to help her improve on her swimming. I plan on getting back to triathlon racing so she may be inspired to do the same when she's older. The metro area has enough parks and gyms that are useful. It's not like we have to have a visa to travel from one part of the metro to another. It's all about will power and action to make it become reality.
Indianapolis' population density: 2,310 people per square mile
Louisville's population density: 1,861 people per square mile
Minneapolis' population density: 7,275 people per square mile
In visiting (or living in) 2 of the three cities, Indy is closer to Louisville than Minneapolis. But neither of these cites is a "perfect" stand-in for any other.
It doesn't matter as none of them are exactly the same.
msamhunter is right though. It's ultimately the individual's responsibility for being healthy. Rather Indy ranks #47 or #1 for parks had no baring when I lost 122 lbs.. If I was using that as an excuse not to exercise then it would have never happened. You also have gyms but not everyone is going to go to them let alone parks if they don't want to exercise. I use to use the excuse when I first moved up here back in the 90's that there weren't enough sidewalks. It was by my choice that I decided to make that happen simply by getting my butt to a gym and changing what I ate. Now when I was in the military you had be in shape because that's what I signed up to do and it was a requirement. It was not only my choice to do it but personal responsibility to make it happen. However, in the civilian world not everyone wants that type of lifestyle. Here's another point. I lost another 50 lbs as a truck driver spending more time on the road than the average Joe in a car. It wasn't a result from having enough parks or a government pamphlet. Now how did I do that? I did it because I "wanted" to. If the desire wasn't there the 122 lbs lost would not have happen. I lived all over the country (and outside) to know this regardless of how many parks are available out there. Losing weight and staying active requires nutritional research, knowing your body, proper exercise techniques and most importantly the will to do it. I know what it takes to lose 100 lbs because I've done it before and am doing it again. (another 45 to go) I'm actual living proof of it.
No, he's not right, because the point that it is the individual's job for being healthy is irrelevant. By building a few more parks, no one is dictating that people become healthier. The city would just be providing another form of health/wellness to citizens who live in close proximity to the park. It would be up to the them to use it.
Childhood obesity is a pretty awful problem in this country. My wife sees 5 year old, 120 lb kids show up with major cardiovascular, respiratory, and sleep disorders all the time. Most of them are on public assistance, and you would be shocked how much they cost the state and county for services over 5 years. Home visits/periodic nursing at 15K/year. Single mom can't work due to kid being sick, so welfare at 20K/year. Often another 100K to 200K of hospital bills. I'm not saying that a neighborhood playground will cure obesity, but in a lot of cases, it could make a big difference for some kids. Studies show that children who grow up in close proximity to a park are less likely to be obese (controlling for other factors). Studies have also shown that living across the street from a park increases property values roughly 5%, which means that in a medium-density urban neighborhood, a one acre park will bring in more tax revenue than it costs to maintain.
I mean, ultimately, its everyone's individual responsibility to do everything, right? So if that logic really held, why does the government do anything?
I think the answer you're looking for is neither. Here are two things you can compare. Indianapolis is like Minneapolis for two reasons. They both end in apolis and they both have a lot of skywalks downtown. Indianapolis is like Louisville in the sense that....I really don't know. They're closer together geographically and population wise? Honestly, I don't know a ton about either city, but I feel like Indianapolis feels a good amount larger than Louisville and a lot smaller Minneapolis.
Really? Both cities end in polis therefor they have more in common.
Polis comes from the Greek word meaning city. Indianapolis = Indiana City and Minneapolis = Minnesota City, that's all it means.
Minneapolis is over twice the size of Louisville and a little over 25% larger than Indianapolis. Minneapolis is one of the most liberal and progressive cities in the country, pretty much in the same realm as cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle. It has more Fortune 500 companies than either city, and probably both cities combined. There are quite a few more universities in the Minneapolis Metro area than there are in Indy or Louisville. Minneapolis has more of an urban vibe.
Indianapolis is definitely the largest in square miles, at roughly 370 squre miles it's larger than Minneapolis and Louisville combined. Its downtown core is rather urban, but beyond downtown Indy feels like a midsized town, nothing truly unique about the city. It's a very generic city, Louisville and Minneapolis have more unique values and trendy neighborhoods.
In summary though my vote goes to Indy and Louisville, they are separated by little more than 100 miles, are relatively close in size and feel, and are more moderate to conservative cities.
Really? Both cities end in polis therefor they have more in common.
Polis comes from the Greek word meaning city. Indianapolis = Indiana City and Minneapolis = Minnesota City, that's all it means.
Minneapolis is over twice the size of Louisville and a little over 25% larger than Indianapolis. Minneapolis is one of the most liberal and progressive cities in the country, pretty much in the same realm as cities like San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle. It has more Fortune 500 companies than either city, and probably both cities combined. There are quite a few more universities in the Minneapolis Metro area than there are in Indy or Louisville. Minneapolis has more of an urban vibe.
Indianapolis is definitely the largest in square miles, at roughly 370 squre miles it's larger than Minneapolis and Louisville combined. Its downtown core is rather urban, but beyond downtown Indy feels like a midsized town, nothing truly unique about the city. It's a very generic city, Louisville and Minneapolis have more unique values and trendy neighborhoods.
In summary though my vote goes to Indy and Louisville, they are separated by little more than 100 miles, are relatively close in size and feel, and are more moderate to conservative cities.
I know where the word polis comes from....It's called sarcasm. Everything else that I said is exactly what I meant. Indianapolis has better shopping than Louisville, more amenities, bigger suburbs, and a more vibrant Downtown. Minneapolis also has way more of those things than Indianapolis does. That is why I said Minneapolis feels much larger than Indianapolis, while Indianapolis feels a decent amount larger than Louisville. If I had to put it graphically, this is how I would rate the three cities:
Minneapolis>>>>>>>Indianapolis>>>Louisville
I'm not going to sit here and say that Indianapolis is definitely better than Louisville. Everyone has their preferences and it isn't as if Indianapolis blows it out of the water, but it certainly offers more as far as mid-sized metro areas go.
No, he's not right, because the point that it is the individual's job for being healthy is irrelevant. By building a few more parks, no one is dictating that people become healthier. The city would just be providing another form of health/wellness to citizens who live in close proximity to the park. It would be up to the them to use it.
Childhood obesity is a pretty awful problem in this country. My wife sees 5 year old, 120 lb kids show up with major cardiovascular, respiratory, and sleep disorders all the time. Most of them are on public assistance, and you would be shocked how much they cost the state and county for services over 5 years. Home visits/periodic nursing at 15K/year. Single mom can't work due to kid being sick, so welfare at 20K/year. Often another 100K to 200K of hospital bills. I'm not saying that a neighborhood playground will cure obesity, but in a lot of cases, it could make a big difference for some kids. Studies show that children who grow up in close proximity to a park are less likely to be obese (controlling for other factors). Studies have also shown that living across the street from a park increases property values roughly 5%, which means that in a medium-density urban neighborhood, a one acre park will bring in more tax revenue than it costs to maintain.
I mean, ultimately, its everyone's individual responsibility to do everything, right? So if that logic really held, why does the government do anything?
Every child is going to live in different environments but it's up to the parents to set an example for their kids. I like taking my daughter out for walks or swimming instead of sitting behind a TV all day but another parent may not care enough to do it. There are enough parks and gyms are out there but you have to go to them. The government can't live an active life style for you.
I plan on make another trip to the Twins again. I will fly up there from Indy for a weekend get away. Any of you locals ever been up there. I would like to get a hotel within walking distance of the light rail line from the terminal 1 or 2 or Mall of America down in Bloomington. Any suggestions?
I plan on make another trip to the Twins again. I will fly up there from Indy for a weekend get away. Any of you locals ever been up there. I would like to get a hotel within walking distance of the light rail line from the terminal 1 or 2 or Mall of America down in Bloomington. Any suggestions?
The last time I went I stayed at the Hilton on American Blvd. It was a hike from the light rail station, but they've but in a new station close to this hotel since I was there at American Blvd and 34th Ave. The hotel was a bit pricy, but the rooms were large with windows that were somewhat bayed out. And you could have a view of the wildlife preserve across the street (which makes for a nice hike) or St Paul or Minneapolis in the distance. It's right off I-495 by the Mall of America and there are several other hotels in that area, too.
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.
