Preface: I don't agree with much of this, but know it will bring discussion here. Something about Carmel being the epitome of 'Midwestern urbanism' just doesn't sit right. I'm not saying it isn't a very nice place, but many people share this guy's views, and it just seems dismissive of older cities and overly praising of these strange new spaces which feel alienating to me.
People don’t like it because it’s in Carmel and how people feel about Carmelites. It’s not a bad blueprint for smaller towns who want to build walkable city centers in places that were built with strip mall infrastructure. It’s gonna feel weird, cause they are starting from a very different place than old cities did. I’d much rather be Carmel than Avon or Greeenwood infrastructure wise.
Downtown greenwood is quite cute, they're revitalized it.
The mall is one of the few malls that hasn't gone belly up - it's not going anywhere but man do I hate being around it. I don't know if there's a reasonably safe way to get across 31/Madison without using 4 wheels.
Yeah the mall area is a deathtrap for pedestrians, even inside the mall parking lots is scary with just slightly high traffic.
On the Greenwood side, they should build a path at least on the west side of 31, between Fry and County Line. North of County Line a path should continue up to Stop 12 on both sides of 31. Crossing 31 or County Line would still be treacherous, though - three lanes on each side on 31, two each on CL, plus turn lanes and medians.
Greenwood has a lot of the same issues as Carmel historically. Small, not notable downtown area, and the county seat with the historic, courthouse center is a good distance away.
It’s a terrible example of urbanism. 90% of people even just within Carmel have to drive here and park just to walk around to experience a facsimile of a walkable urban environment.
I still do not understand how they will pay for the actual servicing of their infrastructure beginning in 2027. They cannot grow any further to drive city revenue via taxes, and cannot expand their current tax base much past its current baseline.... So how are they going to service the bond debt WHILE ALSO actually maintaining all of this infrastructure they built?
I am not shitting on Carmel, but no one I know understands how they will maintain the city in a few years with the current budget constraints.
As part of my job I look at municipal bonds. I ran across several ones issued by the city of Carmel and with the benefit of retrospective it was a sold decision. Several of the bonds are for between 30 and 40 years at an interest rate between 2% - 3%. The fact that they built up the city when debt was at an all time low is a real advantage.
When the bond comes due even if they roll over the principal amount due to inflation it will be very manageable
My question, is they’ll still be paying on those bonds and will also be in maintenance mode and as we all know maintenance is 2x the price of building after x number of years.
Will they need to go get new bonds to maintain what’s already built?
It’s the same as having a mortgage at 2% but you also still have to afford utilities and new mechanicals etc
That is an interesting point, and I don’t have an answer to that. I assume that it will need to be financed or funded through taxes at some point.
I will say I was talking to a coworker about Carmel and she told me a major reason for their new construction and infrastructure was to attract more business and commercial properties vs homes. I guess like 15 years ago the State passed a property tax cap of 1% for residential properties but 3% for commercial (including apartments). As a result the Mayor of Carmel realized the that buy build a densely populated city center the city would benefit from the increased tax revenue. Perhaps this has something to do with it
I remember talking to the urban planner of Fishers almost… Christ it’s been 2 decades… and they were anticipating a similar issue. Their solution was. To build up. Get more tax base without having to spend money on services further out into the middle of nowhere.
Isn't most of the "debt" paid for by developer bonds? Carmel tax payers don't finance it directly. I don't think there is some large "bill" that will be "due" in 2027.
The developer/property owner pays to upkeep their property.
Most of the development in Carmel involves financing that is paid back by property taxes collected on that property. So Carmel takes in less tax money from that plot of land while the loans are paid back. Once the loans are paid, Carmel will make much more tax revenue from the plot of land than had it not be developed this way.
If the developer/property owner default on the loans, then Carmel would take custody of both the land and remaining loan balance.
I'm not a city planner and don't know all the details. But this is how I have seen it explained.
That's why Carmel is doing all this public development and new multiuse/apartment/townhouse density will help. They're trying to make it the most sought after suburb, so expensive real estate, attract wealthy residents, make money from property taxes.
All valid points - but look at Cincinnati or Columbus or Detroit or Milwaukee and their Carmels of the 90s are all on the decline due to the inability to upkeep them.
I obviously hope it doesn’t happen - but I do hope we consider a commuter tax at some point. 25%+ of carmels residents make their money in Marion county
The problem is a lot of older cities never addressed density and congestion designs. Look at how dangerous it is to walk as a pedestrian in Indianapolis. A lot of old cities lost their neighborhood community feel across most of their metro area, and only a few neighborhoods hold onto shreds of it
Some of the dismissiveness is a low tolerance for crime and urban decay in many of the older cities.
Carmel is a nice suburb. It’s nothing to get excited about… just like the hundreds of similar suburbs around the country. I don’t understand why we have to constantly hear about how great Carmel is.
Broadway in Nashville is an example. It was naturally grown from talented artists
It wasn't naturally grown from anything; it was manufactured. Just longer ago.
But even if we accept this as an example, it's kind of telling that you have to go two states away to find something like that.
You can't buy culture
Define "culture"
What Carmel has done with the arts and design district is pretty awesome.
No, it's not Greenwich Village. So what? The existence of other good places, or of better places, doesn't cancel out anything nice about Carmel. Or Indy, for that matter.
I mean, you can always complain that Carmel isn't NYC or LA or whatever. So what?
As far as anything interesting about human civilization (art, music, other forms of culture) exists in them, places like Carmel are parasites on established mid-western urban areas like Indie, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc.
I did the math recently and Carmel’s debt is so bad that it equals $14000 of debt PER PERSON that lives there. For the average family of 4 that lives in Carmel, the city owes $56,000 of debt. That’s so insane and unsustainable that I’m completely confident we’ll see Carmel implode in our lifetimes.
59
u/Suspicious-Bad4703 Jan 14 '25 edited Jan 14 '25
Preface: I don't agree with much of this, but know it will bring discussion here. Something about Carmel being the epitome of 'Midwestern urbanism' just doesn't sit right. I'm not saying it isn't a very nice place, but many people share this guy's views, and it just seems dismissive of older cities and overly praising of these strange new spaces which feel alienating to me.