Indys stagnet skyline. (Richmond, Speedway, Washington: theater, earthquake, living in)
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.
It does for the young and educated. Density means you have more bars, restaurants, things to do, people your age, and variety all walking distance from you. And you don't need a car which dabs money. And you can walk to work. Oh ya, and job options. If your a farmer I guess it doesn't mean higher quality of life.
I agree with you, that for the most part, density is great for young people, mainly because we have so many young people coming out of college anymore who need to consume alcohol at any and every social event. Plus with the age of first marriage being pushed higher and higher, many of these young people want to keep the drinking going. Even if they aren't really intoxicated at a .10BAC, they can't legally drive at that level so being able to have very cheap Uber rides or walking home is a big deal for many. Basically, they want to mimic their college years, which usually means living within walking distance of everything for the most part.
While I get that desire for the young people, especially singles, it shouldn't be upon the rest of the overall community to fund that style of living. Tax incentives shouldn't apply to just downtown core apartment complexes, and folks who really won't benefit from mass transit shouldn't pay an equal percentage if it really won't be an option for them. All these cities the size of Indy are all doing the same thing, making tax subsidized mini-NYCs, thinking all these young people will grow up to start families and stay. I get they hope that happens, but we shouldn't sink our tax revenue on that. If high density living was in such demand, the free market wouldn't be asking government to provide the land, give them tax breaks, etc..
I agree with you, that for the most part, density is great for young people, mainly because we have so many young people coming out of college anymore who need to consume alcohol at any and every social event. Plus with the age of first marriage being pushed higher and higher, many of these young people want to keep the drinking going. Even if they aren't really intoxicated at a .10BAC, they can't legally drive at that level so being able to have very cheap Uber rides or walking home is a big deal for many. Basically, they want to mimic their college years, which usually means living within walking distance of everything for the most part.
While I get that desire for the young people, especially singles, it shouldn't be upon the rest of the overall community to fund that style of living. Tax incentives shouldn't apply to just downtown core apartment complexes, and folks who really won't benefit from mass transit shouldn't pay an equal percentage if it really won't be an option for them. All these cities the size of Indy are all doing the same thing, making tax subsidized mini-NYCs, thinking all these young people will grow up to start families and stay. I get they hope that happens, but we shouldn't sink our tax revenue on that. If high density living was in such demand, the free market wouldn't be asking government to provide the land, give them tax breaks, etc..
I'll say this much, I'm not a regular heavy drinker and am a married parent of kids. I live in the city, and not one of the favored areas such as Mass Ave.
I prefer walkable neighborhoods over non-walkable. I'd love to walk to the grocery store, park, coffee shop, ice cream stand, etc. with my kids. I've taken my kids on the 8 bus both to downtown and to Irvington and points east. The older one loves it, and we'd welcome rapid transit. No, we won't get rid of our cars. However, that other option would be welcome.
I'll say this much, I'm not a regular heavy drinker and am a married parent of kids. I live in the city, and not one of the favored areas such as Mass Ave.
I prefer walkable neighborhoods over non-walkable. I'd love to walk to the grocery store, park, coffee shop, ice cream stand, etc. with my kids. I've taken my kids on the 8 bus both to downtown and to Irvington and points east. The older one loves it, and we'd welcome rapid transit. No, we won't get rid of our cars. However, that other option would be welcome.
Absolutely. One doesn't have to be a twenty-something professional trying to relive their college days by getting blasted every night of the week to prefer dense walkable neighborhoods.
There is just something really nice about having the city at your feet. Having to get into a car every time you leave your house for anything can make one feel somewhat isolated. There's just so many little things that you miss when driving as opposed to venturing out by foot.
I agree with you, that for the most part, density is great for young people, mainly because we have so many young people coming out of college anymore who need to consume alcohol at any and every social event. Plus with the age of first marriage being pushed higher and higher, many of these young people want to keep the drinking going. Even if they aren't really intoxicated at a .10BAC, they can't legally drive at that level so being able to have very cheap Uber rides or walking home is a big deal for many. Basically, they want to mimic their college years, which usually means living within walking distance of everything for the most part.
While I get that desire for the young people, especially singles, it shouldn't be upon the rest of the overall community to fund that style of living. Tax incentives shouldn't apply to just downtown core apartment complexes, and folks who really won't benefit from mass transit shouldn't pay an equal percentage if it really won't be an option for them. All these cities the size of Indy are all doing the same thing, making tax subsidized mini-NYCs, thinking all these young people will grow up to start families and stay. I get they hope that happens, but we shouldn't sink our tax revenue on that. If high density living was in such demand, the free market wouldn't be asking government to provide the land, give them tax breaks, etc..
You clearly have a hostility towards young professionals. You do realize that Indiana is working hard to keep young professionals from leaving the state don't you? You do realize that these are tax payers and future majority taxpayers? Every big city subsidizes downtown and mass transit. Its not anything new or abnormal. I guess your OK with taxpayers subsidizing social programs for non contributors aren't you? Stay in the suburbs if you don't like density like everyone else. 99.9% of Indiana is not dense or walk able to there are PLENTY of options that are cheap to live in and aren't subsidizing density.
You clearly have a hostility towards young professionals. You do realize that Indiana is working hard to keep young professionals from leaving the state don't you? You do realize that these are tax payers and future majority taxpayers? Every big city subsidizes downtown and mass transit. Its not anything new or abnormal. I guess your OK with taxpayers subsidizing social programs for non contributors aren't you? Stay in the suburbs if you don't like density like everyone else. 99.9% of Indiana is not dense or walk able to there are PLENTY of options that are cheap to live in and aren't subsidizing density.
From my 40ish years on this planet, most of it in Indiana, I've come to the realization that as these "young professionals" get older, they mostly care about one thing, what is best for them and their family. Yes, almost everyone is like this, people who move and those of us who have family roots that run deep where we live. Sometimes people are forced to move, but most of the young folks I see coming into Indy don't really care to put roots down. If they do, great, but look at all the threads on CD where people have no problem pulling older kids out of schools they might have known forever because it is just in the best financial position of the family to take a job somewhere else. The future downtown taxpaying resident might be the future Fishers taxpaying resident, but anymore it is just as likely they will be the future Texas, New York, or North Carolina taxpayer.
My issue is mostly with those who demand the the entire cake, so long as society is paying for the bulk of the cost and minimizing their contribution. I read on-line and people are in a fit because the government won't take more money from others to give them a fixed rail train, complete streets, etc.. BRT just isn't good enough for them. I remember overhearing a young woman complain to a young man at a sporting event downtown that Indy needs a train. Other than watching the game, the second most participated activity seems to be consuming alcohol, which I guess is why they were walking back towards the downtown area and not driving. That is only a theory. The thing is, why couldn't she pay for her own Uber, or taxi? Instead, the logic was we should jack taxes sky high for a billion dollar plus fixed rail trail for her benefit. I would guess her age to be mid to late 20s. That just seems to be the typical attitude among so many people, not just young people either. Everyone wants something, they want it 100%, and they want everyone else to pay for the bulk of it so their cost is as minimal as possible.
Also, the suburbs are no protection once the gimme class gets enough power. There is always talk of "regional" taxation to pay for this and that with claims that it is for the "greater good" and "everyone wins." For some things, maybe, for others, not so much. For example, I'm OK with a commuter tax, but every one of Indiana's 92 counties should be able to levy such a tax. It shouldn't just be for the larger counties. Indy complains about needing more taxes to fund police, yet they are constantly giving all sorts of tax breaks to new housing and retail developments? Why?
From my 40ish years on this planet, most of it in Indiana, I've come to the realization that as these "young professionals" get older, they mostly care about one thing, what is best for them and their family. Yes, almost everyone is like this, people who move and those of us who have family roots that run deep where we live. Sometimes people are forced to move, but most of the young folks I see coming into Indy don't really care to put roots down. If they do, great, but look at all the threads on CD where people have no problem pulling older kids out of schools they might have known forever because it is just in the best financial position of the family to take a job somewhere else. The future downtown taxpaying resident might be the future Fishers taxpaying resident, but anymore it is just as likely they will be the future Texas, New York, or North Carolina taxpayer.
My issue is mostly with those who demand the the entire cake, so long as society is paying for the bulk of the cost and minimizing their contribution. I read on-line and people are in a fit because the government won't take more money from others to give them a fixed rail train, complete streets, etc.. BRT just isn't good enough for them. I remember overhearing a young woman complain to a young man at a sporting event downtown that Indy needs a train. Other than watching the game, the second most participated activity seems to be consuming alcohol, which I guess is why they were walking back towards the downtown area and not driving. That is only a theory. The thing is, why couldn't she pay for her own Uber, or taxi? Instead, the logic was we should jack taxes sky high for a billion dollar plus fixed rail trail for her benefit. I would guess her age to be mid to late 20s. That just seems to be the typical attitude among so many people, not just young people either. Everyone wants something, they want it 100%, and they want everyone else to pay for the bulk of it so their cost is as minimal as possible.
Also, the suburbs are no protection once the gimme class gets enough power. There is always talk of "regional" taxation to pay for this and that with claims that it is for the "greater good" and "everyone wins." For some things, maybe, for others, not so much. For example, I'm OK with a commuter tax, but every one of Indiana's 92 counties should be able to levy such a tax. It shouldn't just be for the larger counties. Indy complains about needing more taxes to fund police, yet they are constantly giving all sorts of tax breaks to new housing and retail developments? Why?
You are totally missing the point. Indy is not desirable to live so young people aren't staying here and older professionals aren't moving here. It takes investment, vision, and the ability to see the big picture to make Indy desirable. Without a dense vibrant downtown Indy will never be desirable to most professionals. And no, a rail would be pointless right now in Indy. The point is to build Indy up enough so that you need a light rail. The only draw to Indy is the low cost of living. That is sad IMO. Mexico also has a low cost of living. That doesn't make it a desirable place to live.
You are totally missing the point. Indy is not desirable to live so young people aren't staying here and older professionals aren't moving here. It takes investment, vision, and the ability to see the big picture to make Indy desirable. Without a dense vibrant downtown Indy will never be desirable to most professionals. And no, a rail would be pointless right now in Indy. The point is to build Indy up enough so that you need a light rail. The only draw to Indy is the low cost of living. That is sad IMO. Mexico also has a low cost of living. That doesn't make it a desirable place to live.
The economy is good in Indianapolis, jobs are readily available, and wages are reasonably high vs. the cost of living. In some ways, it's a lot like a smaller Dallas or Atlanta, a city in flyover country that is generally unremarkable but has a good economy and people move there for the jobs.
The dense, vibrant downtown is great, but it's not all people care about. I would rather there be less crime than more high rise apartments to increase density for its own sake.
IMO, the city has more pressing concerns (crime, road quality) than trying to increase density for more walkability, public transit, what have you. Density will increase on its own if there is enough demand.
Here we go again comparing the 3rd and 5th largest cities in the United States with Indianapolis.
I compare it to Columbus, Louisville and Cincinnati and in my opinion Indy has the worst skyline of the bunch. Indy is a good city but the skyline is not representative of that. I'd even go so far as to say it's the worst of any major city I've been to.
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 10 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 978,865 times
Reputation: 1406
McDonald Indy - Stl, DC have many famous landmarks. DC urban area does have some taller skyline in Arlington, Bethesda, Alexandria, and Tysons. DC proper has a special rule limiting building height. Detroit has a much bigger skylines than Indy. The other cities on your list are smaller urban areas than Indy (except Pheonix, SA and Sacramento). Phoenix and SA are really spread out, and Sacramento may not be able to build as tall due to earthquake risk. Therefore we would expect they would have smaller skylines.
Indy has a skyline comparable for its size. It is similar to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, Louisville, Kansas City.
One urban area (700k) lacking a skyline - Allentown PA.
Also, San Diego's is very small for its size due to FAA regulations (must be under 500 ft) since their airport is downtown.
Indy has famous Landmarks as well.
Monument Circle. The Indiana statehouse. The War Memorial Plaza. The murat theater etc etc.
I love our local landmarks as much as anyone else, but come on. The landmarks in DC and STL are much more well known, they are national landmarks. The Indiana Statehouse is not a famous nationally known landmark. It's just a statehouse.
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.
