My recent trip home gave me a chance to evaluate (again) the state of our cities. It's always interesting because cities provide a similar function across the country, yet develop extremely differently from place to place. I use to compare cities by countries because the realm of development seemed to be more influenced on a country by country standard. Historical ramifications and their thoughts about the free market seemed to have the most influence. Yet I've discovered that there is a cultural/social fabric entangled deeply within all USA cities.

Let me step back a bit.

I view all current city development as a renaissance than a new creation (even working in the suburbs). All new development patterns can be directly linked to historical patterns. In the United States, cities are defined by the capitalistic nature of the country. Uses were closely linked, if not mixed. Neighborhoods tie directly into the adjacent commercial areas. Roads right of ways were defined by automobiles, pedestrians, public spaces, semi-public spaces, and private spaces. In my mind, this created functional cities that formed in the industrial eras on the eastern coast and Midwest. While functional, a sense of place was created at the street level. Specific duties are assigned to the urban form, and those duties play out within day to day development of the cities.

Indianapolis is one of those cities. Sure, I grew up with the (extremely) urban Chicago at my backdoor; and watching industrial cities like Detroit, Cincinnati, and St. Louis go through extreme, post-industrial transitions. But in a sense, Indianapolis is the (may I say) reject of the Great Lakes. It's seen as secondary every city in the Great Lake area. The city itself doesn't have a profound industrial base, and never experienced a huge expansion (or collapse). The state itself is a foundation of good 'ol boys Democrats, but considered a red state. Our background is mainly humble protestant upbringing. We don't drink on Sunday's and holidays; and follow rules like you wouldn't believe.

The City of Indianapolis earned it's mid-1900's nickname of Naptown.

So imagine my surprise when downtown Indianapolis started showing up on the (ever more famous) list of great downtown's. Ranking above the notorious 'awesome' cities of Portland, Boulder, Austin, etc.

While 'we' (Hoosiers) may have our "boring" ideals of the past, we've learned lessons throughout and have created a steady rise in our sense of understanding - that translates directly to a sense of place. Things are done for a reason; rules are considered necessary; and  the general good is always evaluated. Thus creating an urban environment that not only benefits everyone, but gives a clear direction of where the culture is going.

This became evermore apparent during Christmas when I saw preparations for the Super Bowl. Many cities host the Super Bowl, yet Indianapolis sees it as a huge win for their downtown. Which is strange because Indianapolis hosts lots of major events; and they always throw a good party. However they use any event to leverage themselves as a city. Downtown Indianapolis has a defined vision shared by everyone, and this common understanding is usually upheld by everyone. It's not fake. It's not perfect. But it has an amazing sense of understanding that cannot be replicated.

Everything I described in the last paragraph is the complete opposite of Southern Louisiana, except the last sentence.

So how can two entirely different places come to the same conclusion? The State of Louisiana doesn't have a common centralized approach, and cities battle other cities; while regions battle other regions. The City of New Orleans itself has no historical consistency in it's development. There are no common understanding of base rules for development patterns, and that ideal can be seen across southern Louisiana. In fact, most cities in southern Louisiana lack that sense of place you can find in New York, Chicago, or numerous small towns.

Two completely different functional cities arrive at the same conclusion: which is the physical development reflects directly to the local culture. New Orleans has engraved their-selves in their social base. You want to know and interact with people. It's ingrained in their understanding of life. The development of the city directly relates to this notion. Buildings are compact, street right of ways are narrow, and there are few private spaces. Alleys are none existent, replaced with common areas in the rear. Buildings are set close to the street, with little to no transition to the front door. This is true in the French, English, and Spanish portion of the cities.

I could go more into the interconnections... but I'd rather leave it there. I think it best explains the way city development can vary region by region.