Pet peeves.
We all have them. These are things that wouldn't normally bother other people, but really, really, really strike a nerve with you.
Like most people, I have my personal pet peeves. One of my biggest is dryer lint. I can't STAND when someone does a load of laundry and leaves their lint in the trap. It takes all of 30 seconds to clean out and yet, so many people do it. Just thinking about it pisses me off. Nevertheless, I digress.
So, as a professional planner, urban designer, and building planner I have pet peeves related to my career. For example, the use of buzzwords like "sustainable" and "green". "New" urbanism. People who follow the word of Corbu like it's the fucking Bible. Architects who follow every pencil sketch of Mies like it's the god damn gospel. I'm certain every profession has different irks, but I just feel like venting today, and, well--here it is.
Here are my top planning pet peeves as they relate to Indianapolis, in no particular order:
Lack of sidewalks.
Indianapolis lacks sidewalks. Even in urban neighborhoods, where the sidewalks have deteriorated to barely visible patches of concrete
Car-oriented development.
The automobile has literally changed the way we live our lives. Unfortunately, we've become too dependent on our vehicles in such a way that the lifestyles we live are not all that sustainable long term.
I speak from experience: trying to get anywhere in this town without personal transportation is a challenge if you aren't living in certain neighborhoods.
Surface lots.
In some parts of the city, there are surface lots in front of otherwise urban buildings. The NW quadrant of downtown, in particular, has several blocks that are complete parking lots. That's prime real estate waiting to be gobbled up!
Buildings that take up entire city blocks.
OneAmerica, Hyatt Regency, Regions Bank.
Ever wonder why these blocks are usually devoid of street activity despite being in the center of downtown?
Here's the answer: their building footprints take up an entire block.
I realize this isn't New York, but come on. Unless we're dealing with stadia or convention centers, no city block should be devoted to a single building. Building footprints need to be capped at like 260' x 260' or something like that.
The elevated highway system loop downtown.
Massive wtf. One of the loop segments is actually a street that cuts off the Mile Square from the university. The other three segments are elevated and unnecessarily wider than they need to be, cutting off neighborhoods and views. There's only like four exit ramps total downtown, and they feed into one-way off ramps that change street names one or two blocks in.
Height restrictions downtown.
I never really understood this one. Sadly, it is because of this that we don't have any pre-war skyscrapers. Just one Art Deco flatiron would do wonders for our cityscape. I read something about how they created this rule because they didn't want buildings casting a shadow on the Circle? I'm sorry, but that makes about as much sense as using a cluster of bank buildings to represent your city: none.
Poor and uninspiring urban design in the urban corridors.
Simple placemaking efforts such as the use of street trees, public seating, and public art tend to go unnoticed in even the most urban corridors. On that note, I feel as if the park system could be a bit better...
Suburban style development downtown.
This one really gets me frustrated. Downtowns need to be dense and vibrant by design. If you're creating a Fishers knock off with worse infrastructure, schools, and crime, can you blame people for moving there in droves?
We need the type of architecture that distinguishes Indianapolis from Anysuburb, USA. The townhomes at Walnut and Park are an excellent example of what we need to see in this city.
The canal.
What a waste of an opportunity. Too much housing plus non existent commerical activities equals the Indianapolis Central Canal. We lack a waterfront, and we don't acknowledge our river, so one would think that this would be a good idea to create something special in the city. As fate would have it...nope. The north end is basically a suburban office park.
I will say this, though--the gondola rides are cool and the museums at the opposite end add personality that the upper canal lacks.
Suburban-style office parks downtown.
When I was in college, I wrote a paper for one of my urban planning classes about how Anthem's headquarters donwtown were completely out of both character and taste for the area from a land-use perspective. I got a 103 percent. 'Nuff said.
I'll attack other peeves in a future post, including:
The obvious Lack of retail options in the center city (though some of this is market related, some of it is due to the auto oriented populace that are accustomed to suburban shopping, retail trends, etc)
Drive-thrus downtown
Largely clueless transit planning (this one's going to be controversial)
Urban renewal
Underused public spaces downtown
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Following by example
Taking a trip into various parts of the city, it is clear that the best and brightest this city has to offer are highly concentrated in certain areas.
The city of Carmel is a good example. Carmel stands out proudly amongst the northern suburbs as a community of progress. They've made great strides in creating the types of places that people want to live in, even by suburban standards. And, it has paid off for them--Carmel continues to attract area transplants from other cities and is growing in great numbers.
Carmel's success is a legacy of the northward trajectory of progressive Indianapolitans, many of whom are highly connected emotionally to the main city. Of course, being the city's largest, most well-known, and first donut county suburb doesn't hurt, either.
Is there a way to spread this sort of proactivity to other suburbs? What stops Brownsburg from becoming the primary edge city of the western suburbs? How about Greenfield as an exurb? These types of areas are extremely niche, yes--but that's precisely what sets them apart.
Meanwhile, in the city limits, Broad Ripple Village has acquired a similar connotation among city dwellers. It's hip, it's funky, it's liberal. Again, a very niche area in a city full of chain restaurants and underwhelming neighborhoods (and honestly, Ripple itself would probably be viewed as underwhelming to, say, a resident of New York). Still, that perception is there among Indianapolitans, and many people haven't even explored the city well enough to make generalizations about certain areas, be it positive or negative. Nevertheless, I digress...how do we implement that type of energy found in Broad Ripple Village in other city neighborhoods?
The city of Carmel is a good example. Carmel stands out proudly amongst the northern suburbs as a community of progress. They've made great strides in creating the types of places that people want to live in, even by suburban standards. And, it has paid off for them--Carmel continues to attract area transplants from other cities and is growing in great numbers.
Carmel's success is a legacy of the northward trajectory of progressive Indianapolitans, many of whom are highly connected emotionally to the main city. Of course, being the city's largest, most well-known, and first donut county suburb doesn't hurt, either.
Is there a way to spread this sort of proactivity to other suburbs? What stops Brownsburg from becoming the primary edge city of the western suburbs? How about Greenfield as an exurb? These types of areas are extremely niche, yes--but that's precisely what sets them apart.
Meanwhile, in the city limits, Broad Ripple Village has acquired a similar connotation among city dwellers. It's hip, it's funky, it's liberal. Again, a very niche area in a city full of chain restaurants and underwhelming neighborhoods (and honestly, Ripple itself would probably be viewed as underwhelming to, say, a resident of New York). Still, that perception is there among Indianapolitans, and many people haven't even explored the city well enough to make generalizations about certain areas, be it positive or negative. Nevertheless, I digress...how do we implement that type of energy found in Broad Ripple Village in other city neighborhoods?
Jumpstarting the local culture
As we discussed in a previous post, Indianapolis is a cultural melting pot. The city is in an awkward position because it has never been more relevant or as large as it is right now, despite sitting in the middle of an un-progressive and otherwise declining state. And, there's a general attitude among many city dwellers that "good enough is good enough". These days, things are much more competitive and the economy is much more global. And in a city that doesn't have much to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack, good enough just ain't cuttin' it.
So, we're working with multiple issues here. There's a bit of a brand issue, as the city is largely anonymous to even its own citizens. Again, much of this is due to the cultural melting pot effect. Secondly, there's also a perception issue, which, although not overwhelmingly negative, seems to imply a dullness or lack of edge to the city for its size. The factors behind these processes tend to be complex and not easily understood, and I'll attempt to touch on them in future posts.
The problem I have is that when people live up to these stereotypes, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cities don't have to be bound by perceptions. Detroit has wonderful neighborhoods. New York has plenty of friendly natives. Los Angeles has plenty of urbanity. And, Indianapolis has plenty of great local eateries, good architecture in certain parts of the city, and (gasp) scenic topography along its river valleys.
We've got plenty to be proud of. I'm not one to sugarcoat things or see things through rose-tinted glasses; rather, I think constructive criticism is appropriate to improvement and hitting things from an objective angle is a more effective strategy. Having said that, how about taking some bolder steps forward instead of the play it safe approach?
A wise man once said, "Make no small plans." We need to think big so that in effect, we can create a culture that doesn't otherwise exist and make the city an even more attractive place to live.
So, we're working with multiple issues here. There's a bit of a brand issue, as the city is largely anonymous to even its own citizens. Again, much of this is due to the cultural melting pot effect. Secondly, there's also a perception issue, which, although not overwhelmingly negative, seems to imply a dullness or lack of edge to the city for its size. The factors behind these processes tend to be complex and not easily understood, and I'll attempt to touch on them in future posts.
The problem I have is that when people live up to these stereotypes, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cities don't have to be bound by perceptions. Detroit has wonderful neighborhoods. New York has plenty of friendly natives. Los Angeles has plenty of urbanity. And, Indianapolis has plenty of great local eateries, good architecture in certain parts of the city, and (gasp) scenic topography along its river valleys.
We've got plenty to be proud of. I'm not one to sugarcoat things or see things through rose-tinted glasses; rather, I think constructive criticism is appropriate to improvement and hitting things from an objective angle is a more effective strategy. Having said that, how about taking some bolder steps forward instead of the play it safe approach?
A wise man once said, "Make no small plans." We need to think big so that in effect, we can create a culture that doesn't otherwise exist and make the city an even more attractive place to live.
Exploring geographies more in-depth
In my previous post, I discussed the cultural geographies that have left their imprint on the state and city. Now let's explore those regions in general:
Northern culture originated in the upper Hudson valley and New England. These settlers moved west in the 19th century and settled much of what we now call the Great Lakes Region/Upper Midwest. They founded cities along the Great Lakes, including Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago. This area received heavy immigration from Eastern and Central Europe during the 20th century.
Midland culture can be described as the "precursor" to a distinctly American culture. It is difficult to pinpoint the origin of this cultural region, but most scholars agree that it originated in the Mid-Atlantic region, particuarly in southeastern Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. These settlers moved west into Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and rapidly continued west to settle frontier states.
Southern culture also originated in the Mid-Atlantic region, but these settlers eventually moved into the Appalachian Mountains. From here two distinct sub regions emerged: an anti-slavery Upper South culture that spread into Kentucky and Tennessee (and into the Lower Midwest), and a pro-slavery Lower South culture along the eastern seaboard and into the Carolinas and Georgia.
Unlike the other "western" states, Indiana was settled from the bottom up by southerners. They made it about halfway up the state and were the first group to settle in Indiana in the early 19th century. Some time later, German immigrants and easterners brought their Midland culture into the state. They often lived side-by-side with their earlier Southern counterparts. The last section of the state to be settled was the swampy northern tier counties, which held what was left of the state's Native American population. New Englanders and New Yorkers settled here because the rest of the state's available land was taken already. They quickly took advantage of the area's proximity to the Great Lakes and abundant natural resources to found industrial cities.
Northern culture originated in the upper Hudson valley and New England. These settlers moved west in the 19th century and settled much of what we now call the Great Lakes Region/Upper Midwest. They founded cities along the Great Lakes, including Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago. This area received heavy immigration from Eastern and Central Europe during the 20th century.
Midland culture can be described as the "precursor" to a distinctly American culture. It is difficult to pinpoint the origin of this cultural region, but most scholars agree that it originated in the Mid-Atlantic region, particuarly in southeastern Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey. These settlers moved west into Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and rapidly continued west to settle frontier states.
Southern culture also originated in the Mid-Atlantic region, but these settlers eventually moved into the Appalachian Mountains. From here two distinct sub regions emerged: an anti-slavery Upper South culture that spread into Kentucky and Tennessee (and into the Lower Midwest), and a pro-slavery Lower South culture along the eastern seaboard and into the Carolinas and Georgia.
Unlike the other "western" states, Indiana was settled from the bottom up by southerners. They made it about halfway up the state and were the first group to settle in Indiana in the early 19th century. Some time later, German immigrants and easterners brought their Midland culture into the state. They often lived side-by-side with their earlier Southern counterparts. The last section of the state to be settled was the swampy northern tier counties, which held what was left of the state's Native American population. New Englanders and New Yorkers settled here because the rest of the state's available land was taken already. They quickly took advantage of the area's proximity to the Great Lakes and abundant natural resources to found industrial cities.
Cultural geography maps
I created these simple maps in MS Paint to illustrate the basic cultural regions of Indiana and Indianapolis.
Both areas are interesting from a geographer's point of view, since they represent the convergence of the three most distinct and influential culture regions on American culture.
First, the Indiana map:
Indianapolis is the only section of the state to exhibit all three culture regions at the metropolitan level:
The boundaries represent differences in various cultural parameters such as dialect, politics, architecture, ethnic groups, religious background, etc.
Both areas are interesting from a geographer's point of view, since they represent the convergence of the three most distinct and influential culture regions on American culture.
First, the Indiana map:
Indianapolis is the only section of the state to exhibit all three culture regions at the metropolitan level:
The boundaries represent differences in various cultural parameters such as dialect, politics, architecture, ethnic groups, religious background, etc.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Finding a brand for Indianapolis
This morning, the Urbanophile had a post on the brand promise of Indianapolis. Basically, how do we go about developing an identity for our city?
My response was as follows:
Looking more at this topic in detail, it is clear that this is one of the primary issues our city struggles with the most. There's a sense of needing to belong, like one of the "big boys". And yet, in the process, we haven't fully understood our own place among these cities.
Many cities have organic identities. But, what if that identity isn't readily apparent, as is the case here? My suggestion would be to emphasize the interesting and unique cultural aspects that makes our city such a great place to live. We obviously have a sense of progressivism as a melting pot; why not carry that on into international culture, for example?
My response was as follows:
Interesting analysis as always, Aaron. I have thought about this topic many times myself, and my own extensive research lends the following theory:
I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason why Indianapolis lacks a clear identity is because the city itself is a melting pot of cultures, and unlike most other American cities, no clear cultural group has ever emerged on top. The city’s attitudes are the result of blending Northern, Midland, and Southern cultures–more or less in equal proportions. All three cultures have manifested themselves in different ways; in historical terms, Indianapolis owes its industrial heritage to its Northern influence, its religious diversity to its Midland influence, and its conservatism to its Southern influence. Not coincidentally, Indiana functions exactly the same way on a larger scale, but I think the critical difference is that Indianapolis’s urban orientation adds a cosmopolitan dimension that encourages interaction between the groups (thus, progress) unlike the rest of the state, where each cultural group largely stays to its respective region of the state. Thus, Indianapolis grows more dissimilar to Indiana—and more progressive—with each passing day.
Of course, this is a gross oversimplification, but think about it this way: cities all around the country are in a period of continued divergence from their states, either by the strengthening of their existing identities (New York) or the creation of entirely new ones (Austin). In Indianapolis’s case, its identity is still a work in progress, which is why the city has not experienced its boom period yet and why the next two decades are critical to the development of a brand promise. Is the city going to take the suburban, cookie cutter, generic path, or the urban, smart growth, placemaking path? Unfortunately, I’m leaning towards the former, as much of the city’s recent development seems to be more in accordance with that strategy–although I’d like to be proven wrong!
Anyway, what does all this have to do with a brand promise? I’m not entirely sure, but I believe analyzing the underlying culture would be more helpful in figuring things out rather than looking at things in terms of a simple urban vs. rural point-of-view. So, I’d have to disagree with you in that Indianapolis should embrace “Hoosierness” as its brand; instead, perhaps the answer for Indianapolis should be to capitalize on its status as a cultural melting pot and develop its brand that way. We could become an emerging focal point for international culture in the “new Midwest”. We’re already seeing this phenomenon to some extent in certain neighborhoods in the city.
At the same time, we could also stand to do a better job of emphasizing local emblems more often. Our cityscape is not particularly impressive, and I hate to see it used by the media to market Indianapolis (no city should use its skyline as its identifying symbol, unless its name is New York). Why use an anonymous cluster of bank towers to represent Indianapolis when we have an awesome municipal flag and a legacy system of monuments that people can immediately associate with the city? Aesthetic details are important, too. I like your idea of city flags on street signs. Perhaps we can place small obelisks or similar monuments at the entrances to city neighborhoods (like the ones at 38th and Meridian). Our streets are wide, so perhaps we could install landscaped medians of international art, which would also uniquely identify our arterials. The possibilities are endless.
One more thing: the demonym for a person from Indianapolis is Indianapolitan (IN-dee-uh-nuh-PALL-ih-ten), a word that I use often as it helps instill pride amongst other Indianapolitans.
Looking more at this topic in detail, it is clear that this is one of the primary issues our city struggles with the most. There's a sense of needing to belong, like one of the "big boys". And yet, in the process, we haven't fully understood our own place among these cities.
Many cities have organic identities. But, what if that identity isn't readily apparent, as is the case here? My suggestion would be to emphasize the interesting and unique cultural aspects that makes our city such a great place to live. We obviously have a sense of progressivism as a melting pot; why not carry that on into international culture, for example?
Welcome!
The Indianapolitan is a general purpose blog devoted to planning issues and urban affairs in the greater Indianapolis area. I encourage you to leave feedback as often as possible. Thanks for stopping by!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)