4 ms·
> creating being the rich neighbourhood of a larger urban area When I was five, Carmel was a nothingville with two stop lights we lived in a house my dad could
by indymike 2y ago
> creating being the rich neighbourhood of a larger urban area
When I was five, Carmel was a nothingville with two stop lights we lived in a house my dad could afford buying as a college student. It had all the growth problem of a small Indiana town during the industrial decline of the 70s and 80s. That it got escape velocity from being another broke Indiana town is pretty remarkable.
> easier to be competent when money is not an issue
If it was easy, then everywhere could do it - and the Carmel miracle was getting the money needed to fuel it's growth.
There was a strategy, and a very long-term focus on building a nexus of business and attracting the right support people (i.e. investors, healthcare, education, lawyers...) to attract the kind of people that those businesses needed. The mayor used a book "The Geography of Jobs" as one of his guiding strategies.
- EasyMark 2y agoI think the point is did the city simply evict the poor people and build nice things to attract rich people? Forget all the escape velocity stuff, I assume they’re talking about gentrification. So what is the diversity of Carmel? Were some of the poor people elevated because they lived in a growing city, or they were they simply pushed out because doctors, lawyers, execs, and engineers moved there because they set up pretty parks and good schools for kids?
- allturtles 2y agoI don't think gentrification really makes sense as a mental model for a rapidly growing suburb/exurb. Carmel's population has gone up 4x in the last 30 years. What has been 'evicted' is mostly farms. Almost the entire population is 'new arrivals' relatively speaking. There was no pre-existing working-class population to displace.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- inquirerGeneral 2y ago[dead]