I’m an Indianapolis resident and I love the city of Chicago. But your comparison of Indy and Chicago gave me a good chuckle. It reminded me of the days in the early 1990s when the Pacers-Knicks rivalry was at its zenith and New York media couldn’t help but bash “Hicksville USA,” a.k.a. Indianapolis. At least your editorial wasn’t outwardly insulting.
Why do you feel compelled to compare the two towns? We have a friendly, navigable metropolis of 1.6 million residents with plenty of entertainment options. You have an almost-as-friendly, semi-navigable (“Avoid the Ryan!”) megalopolis with, justifiably, myriad entertainment options. Apples and oranges, really.But since you have broached the idea, let’s throw out a few comments and questions.
In Indianapolis, I can drive downtown and enjoy a full day of walking to excellent restaurants, nightclubs, concerts and cultural attractions. The price of parking? Usually about $3. And in Chicago, it is what? OK, fair enough, some may believe the Indianapolis Museum of Art is not the Art Institute of Chicago, but we hold our own with our collection of works by Rembrandt, Seurat, Hopper, etc., thank you. And in Indianapolis, I can find a three-bedroom home in a quiet suburb for $160,000 or less. That might get me the outdoor water closet at an estate in Hinsdale.
My wife (a former Chicago resident) and I visit often. But at the end of the day, Chicago is indeed a great place to visit, while Indy is a great place to live, work and play.
Go Colts!
