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.
Yes, we already went over the downtown populations, and densities, several pages ago, then you made the assertion that KC's "urban core lacks vibrancy compared to Indy", so I provided some data relevant to the two cities' urban cores.
Here's a recap of all of it so far:
Indy has a larger downtown population, but that population is not dense as KC's downtown population.
In fact, downtown Indy is not even as dense as the entire urban core of Kansas City, which is not a paragon of density by any stretch. What's more the single densest census tract in Indy (one of 3 that comprise it's downtown), is still less densely populated than a considerable number of KC urban core neighborhoods outside downtown.
As I said then, density isn't the be-all-end-all measure of a city any more than raw population data is. A personal could still prefer Indianapolis over KC for a host of legitimate reasons. It may well be that Indianapolis punches above its weight in quality of life aspects that the numbers do not bear out.
However, again, for the record: Downtown Indy is not as densely populated as Downtown KC. It is bigger, however, both in terms of population and geographic area. The urban core of Indy is not as densely populated as KC, either, and it is smaller in terms of population. And finally, Indianapolis' urbanized area is not as dense as KC, and it is less populated as well.
Feel free to reread for comprehension, or to revisit this post as an answer to all the rest of your posts in this vein.
Yes, we already went over the downtown populations, and densities, several pages ago, then you made the assertion that KC's "urban core lacks vibrancy compared to Indy", so I provided some data relevant to the two cities' urban cores.
Here's a recap of all of it so far:
Indy has a larger downtown population, but that population is not dense as KC's downtown population.
In fact, downtown Indy is not even as dense as the entire urban core of Kansas City, which is not a paragon of density by any stretch. What's more the single densest census tract in Indy (one of 3 that comprise it's downtown), is still less densely populated than a considerable number of KC urban core neighborhoods outside downtown.
As I said then, density isn't the be-all-end-all measure of a city any more than raw population data is. A personal could still prefer Indianapolis over KC for a host of legitimate reasons. It may well be that Indianapolis punches above its weight in quality of life aspects that the numbers do not bear out.
However, again, for the record: Downtown Indy is not as densely populated as Downtown KC. It is bigger, however, both in terms of population and geographic area. The urban core of Indy is not as densely populated as KC, either, and it is smaller in terms of population. And finally, Indianapolis' urbanized area is not as dense as KC, and it is less populated as well.
Feel free to reread for comprehension, or to revisit this post as an answer to all the rest of your posts in this vein.
Here let me hold your hand to give you this illustration of the point I made earlier of downtown Indy being denser than KC's. Just to be fair I added up the tracts until the both reach similar populations.
Starting from both downtown city centres Indy's tract # 3542 (5,791) is a bit smaller in area but larger in population than KC's tracts # 11, 157, and 159 (5,278) combined. Let me know when you find a tract in KC smaller in size than Indy's tract # 3542 in the core that is higher in population.
What do you think the boundaries of Indy's urban core are? I know there's the little finger of single-family urban development up around Butler in Washington, but by the time you get to Broad Ripple, that township is pretty suburban in character, more comparable to the municipalities of northeast Johnson County in KC. The rest of Washington township is very suburban, more like KC's vast Northland. In fact, even Center has its share of suburban-style development.
Center seemed like a pretty good proxy since its about the size of the old KC city limits and contains the vast majority of the prewar Indianapolis.
In KC there is a large swath of Kansas-side neighborhoods that are contiguous with KCMO's urban core and are as dense as most Center or Washington townships. They include those northern and eastern Johnson County cities as well as urban KCK, and are no farther from downtown KC than Broad Ripple is from Downtown Indianapolis. I didn't count those in KC's core numbers either, despite the fact that they hold 150K people at densities between about 3K ppsm to as much as 8K ppsm.
Let me know when you find a tract in KC smaller in size than Indy's tract # 3542 in the core that is higher in population.
That's kind of the point: census tracts are not the same size, and they don't always line up with downtown boundaries.
KC's downtown is 3 square miles. 17675 people live there. That's 5892 ppsm
Indy's downtown is 6.5 square miles. Looking at you map I can see how, that area west of the River is huge and not really the kind of built environment I think of as a "downtown" (not even by the relatively loose standards KC's downtown council employs). What's more, I'm kind of wondering how Indy figures it has 25K people living downtown. The census tracts you listed only have 19K people in 5.78 square miles (which would be 3278 ppsm). To get to 25K, there would have to be 6,000 people living in .72 square miles somewhere abutting the downtown tracts you've listed.
That would be a population density of 8333 ppsm, or another tract the approximate size of and density of the densest tract in all of Indianapolis and the most populous tract is its downtown, 3542. Seems unlikely.
But even if that figure was accurate somehow, it'd still only be 3846 ppsm, or 2046 FEWER people per square mile than downtown KC.
And it's pretty easy to find smaller areas with more population than Indy's tract 3542 in KC. That tract in Indy has in 5791 people in .72 square miles.
The two contiguous tracts 71 and 73 (which comprise part of the Plaza, pretty simliar to Downtown Indy in that it is KC's densest and most prestigious urban neighborhood) have a land area of only .57 square miles and a combined population of 5845.
The KC boosters really need to stop trash talking other metros and trying to make false arguements to boost KC over Indy. its getting old
Ill cheerlead for Indy but i wont bring down other metros to bring up Indy.......... thats just wrong
What do you think the boundaries of Indy's urban core are? I know there's the little finger of single-family urban development up around Butler in Washington, but by the time you get to Broad Ripple, that township is pretty suburban in character, more comparable to the municipalities of northeast Johnson County in KC. The rest of Washington township is very suburban, more like KC's vast Northland. In fact, even Center has its share of suburban-style development.
Center seemed like a pretty good proxy since its about the size of the old KC city limits and contains the vast majority of the prewar Indianapolis.
In KC there is a large swath of Kansas-side neighborhoods that are contiguous with KCMO's urban core and are as dense as most Center or Washington townships. They include those northern and eastern Johnson County cities as well as urban KCK, and are no farther from downtown KC than Broad Ripple is from Downtown Indianapolis. I didn't count those in KC's core numbers either, despite the fact that they hold 150K people at densities between about 3K ppsm to as much as 8K ppsm.
I would consider Indy's core to be the pre-Unigov city limits, which I believe correlate to today's IPS boundaries.
Guy A: "My city has the largest population and therefore is the greatest."
Guys B,C,D: "Not so fast!!"
Every place on earth has equal good and bad things about it. Take for instance a random tiny town in a random place: Wetmore, Michigan. I'm sure that although much different, it has just as many positive things about it as Midtown Manhattan NY. Life may or not be better in Greenwich Village than wetmore. Any place to any place is apples to oranges. Having the most pretentious young D-Bags spending their dad's cash jammed into one square mile does not make it great. Neither does a million tall buildings. Because i'm sure all 2+ million people in a city sit around at home on a wednesday night and think to themselves "Man, I love living here because our skyline looks great and I would have no problem spending 900 dollars on a handbag."
This being said, I really enjoy reading these threads lol
I actually thought this thread was rather reasonable compared to some of the other flame wars of C-D. Lots of differing opinions, but I did learn a lot about Indy I hadn't known before which is always nice.
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.
