When I read comments on this thread, people are constantly comparing OKC to cities like LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc...But these cities are 40-50 years ahead of OKC in development. A more feasible comparison is Omaha, NE. Omaha is comparable in location, population size, and demographic.

Like OKC, Omaha is also experiencing growth and development, Omaha also is making top Forbes lists, but more recently is #1 in most affordable city in America.

Like OKC, Omaha is experiencing skyscraper development, in last 10 years, they have constucted two new high-rises (One First National Center, 2002) and (Union Pacific Center, 2004). They also have a couple that have recently been approved (WallStreet Tower, 2010).

Population growth in Omaha has averaged above 16% over the last 20 years.

Based on this, I think Omaha is a true competitor to Oklahoma City, given size comparison.

I think OKC can learn a lot from cities that aren't necessarily much bigger. Des Moines, for example, has a great downtown area and is really a nice city.

However, Omaha is absolutely not the same size as OKC. Our MSA is 50% bigger and growing faster. Omaha is much closer in size to Akron, Albany and Knoxville than OKC.

Besides, what city ever sets it's sights on a smaller one?

While there are a lot of comparisons to much bigger cities, there are also lots of comments about Charlotte, Austin, Portland and Kansas City and they are not out of our ballpark.

Some Omaha Pics:

Downtown Omaha

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/8025493.jpg

Omaha's Qwest Center

http://www.cityofomaha.org/cityclerk/images/stories/QwestCenterOmaha.jpg

New Riverfront Development with Condos

http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles26107.jpg

I think OKC can learn a lot from cities that aren't necessarily much bigger. Des Moines, for example, has a great downtown area and is really a nice city.

However, Omaha is absolutely not the same size as OKC. Our MSA is 50% bigger and growing faster. Omaha is much closer in size to Akron, Albany and Knoxville than OKC.

Besides, what city ever sets it's sights on a smaller one?


While there are a lot of comparisons to much bigger cities, there are also lots of comments about Charlotte, Austin, Portland and Kansas City and they are not out of our ballpark.


Omaha has population of around 460,000 not far from OKC's 560,000, moreover Omaha's MSA is knocking on 1 million people, to OKC's 1.3 million, so I wouldn't say that there is a big disparity.

Not sure I understand the question. What exactly are we competing head-to-head for? Are representatives from each city making a bid for something? I'm not aware of anything like that. Maybe a more appropriate thread is to compare/contrast the two? I can see similarities...two healthy metros on the plains. Would be interesting to break down the factors that are making each successful then ask the question whether our city can implement what others are doing.

The reason for the question is that why would a new corporation chose us over Omaha, or vice versa. In the past Omaha has been under the radar, but now is growing, and becoming a major
Also, Omaha ranks eighth among the nation's 50 largest cities in both per-capita billionaires and Fortune 500 companies. Didn't know that!....

As of 2008, MSA comparison (population and growth rate since 2000)

Oklahoma City 1,227,278 12.04%
Omaha 849,517 10.57%

These figures have likely diverged further in the last 3 years since OKC is one of the few thriving cities in this down economy, but even so that represents a 45% difference which is more than significant.

Tuscon, Tulsa, Fresno, Albuquerque, Rochester and Albany are all bigger than Omaha. Dayton, Bakersfield and Baton Rouge are not far behind. Among the 100 largest MSA's, Omaha's growth rate is right in the middle of the pack, so it's not like it's a boom town.


As I said, you can learn things from just about any city and it looks like Omaha has a lot going for it. But I don't think it is in OKC's league when it comes to competing for much of anything. If nothing else, our weather is a massive advantage.

Three letters - N.B.A.

There are only 28 cities in our league and Omaha is not one of them. That doesn't make it a bad place though. I'm sure Omaha is nice and the people that live there love it bot no one in the world is asking the family, where do you want to vacation, Omaha or Oklahoma City?

By the way, Omaha isn't getting any new towers any time soon. The WallStreet Condos are a dead deal..been dead for 3 years at least. It is a very nice city.

I think Tulsa's MSA is considerably bigger than Omaha's, as well. Tulsa and Omaha seems like a more appropriate comparison. The extent to which Omaha sprawls to the west is incredible...kind of like how Tulsa sprawls in one direction to the SE.

Our proximity to Texas cities also helps.

As of 2008, MSA comparison (population and growth rate since 2000)

Oklahoma City 1,227,278 12.04%
Omaha 849,517 10.57%

These figures have likely diverged further in the last 3 years since OKC is one of the few thriving cities in this down economy, but even so that represents a 45% difference which is more than significant.

Tuscon, Tulsa, Fresno, Albuquerque, Rochester and Albany are all bigger than Omaha. Dayton, Bakersfield and Baton Rouge are not far behind. Among the 100 largest MSA's, Omaha's growth rate is right in the middle of the pack, so it's not like it's a boom town.


As I said, you can learn things from just about any city and it looks like Omaha has a lot going for it. But I don't think it is in OKC's league when it comes to competing for much of anything. If nothing else, our weather is a massive advantage.

But if you compare density to land area, Omaha has us beat, if OKC's city limits didn't stretch so far, their populations would be the same:

Oklahoma City:

Area
- City 621.2 sq mi (1,608.8 km2)
- Land 607.0 sq mi (1,572.1 km2)
- Water 14.2 sq mi (36.7 km2)
- Urban 322.3 sq mi (834.9 km2)

Population (2009)
- City 560,333 (31st)
- Density 923.1/sq mi (356.4/km2)
- Urban 747,003
- Metro 1,206,142


Omaha:

Area
- City 118.9 sq mi (307.9 km2)
- Land 115.7 sq mi (299.7 km2)
- Water 3.2 sq mi (8.2 km2)

Population (2009)
- City 427,872
- Density 3,370.7/sq mi (1,301.4/km2)
- Metro 849,517

City populations are pretty meaningless in terms of comparison.

If we go down that road, then OKC is almost exactly the same size as Portland, Washington D.C. and Boston and is bigger than Atlanta and Kansas City.

MSA's measure the size of the total community and it doesn't matter that some live within the city limits or not. Most growth in any city is in the suburban areas.

By the way, Omaha isn't getting any new towers any time soon. The WallStreet Condos are a dead deal..been dead for 3 years at least. It is a very nice city.

I think Tulsa's MSA is considerably bigger than Omaha's, as well. Tulsa and Omaha seems like a more appropriate comparison. The extent to which Omaha sprawls to the west is incredible...kind of like how Tulsa sprawls in one direction to the SE.

Recent news suggests that they will resume with plans...

City populations are pretty meaningless in terms of comparison.

If we go down that road, then OKC is almost exactly the same size as Portland, Washington D.C. and Boston and is bigger than Atlanta and Kansas City.

MSA's measure the size of the total community and it doesn't matter that some live within the city limits or not. Most growth in any city is in the suburban areas.

my intentions are comparing development and growth...

But if you compare density to land area, Omaha has us beat, if OKC's city limits didn't stretch so far, their populations would be the same:


You are assuming people would still choose to live in the sticks if city services such as paved roads, water, sewer, police, and fire service were not available. You might get some loners but subdivisions would not be popping up out there.

Recent news suggests that they will resume with plans...

Didn't realize that. Good for Omaha.

As of 2008, MSA comparison (population and growth rate since 2000)

Oklahoma City 1,227,278 12.04%
Omaha 849,517 10.57%

These figures have likely diverged further in the last 3 years since OKC is one of the few thriving cities in this down economy, but even so that represents a 45% difference which is more than significant.



The difference in growth rates is pretty slight. And if the growth rates have changed since 2009, it’s likely that Omaha’s is now better than Oklahoma City’s. Omaha’s current unemployment rate is a stunning 4.6% as compared to OKC’s really good rate of 6.2%.

The difference in growth percentage might not be that great, but because OKC is significantly larger it means we added in excess of 56,000 more people than Omaha for that period. From 1990 to 2000, OKC also grew faster in percentage and of course in raw numbers. OKC moved from the 48th largest MSA in 1990 to 44 in 2008, while Omaha only climbed one spot from 60 to 59.

My point was that we are already much larger and growing more quickly no matter how you measure it, so I don't see how anyone can use population to make the point that Omaha is becoming more competitive with us. In fact, the gap is widening and has been for at least 20 years.


Subjective categories are a bit more debatable but I feel pretty confident that wouldn't be much of a contest either.

This is dumb. lets try to not to parallel ourselves with Omaha.

Wikipedia show faster growth rate over last 20 years in Omaha:

Omaha:

1950 251,117 12.2%
1960 301,598 20.1%
1970 346,929 15.0%
1980 313,939 −9.5%
1990 335,795 7.0%
2000 390,007 16.1%
Est. 2009 454,731 16.6%

Oklahoma City:

1960 321,599 32.1%
1970 368,164 14.5%
1980 404,014 9.7%
1990 438,922 8.6%
2000 506,132 15.3%
Est. 2009 560,333 10.7%

Again, we are talking about Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) not cities which, as I already explained, are pretty meaningless for comparison sake.

I take it G Walker is a big fan of Omaha and seems intent on proving it is better. That doesn't make it our competitor though.

So, if the question is "Is Omaha OKC's new competitor?" the answer has to be NO.

Again, we are talking about Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's) not cities which, as I already explained, are pretty meaningless for comparison sake.

Agreed. Here is data for OKC vs. Omaha MSAs:

OKC:

1990 971,042
2000 1,095,421
2009 est. 1,227,278

Omaha:

1990 685,797
2000 767,041
2009 est. 849,517

Isolating just the last few years, there is a noticeable difference in the growth trajectories of the two MSAs:

Average annual growth of OKC MSA from 2006-2009: 18,720
Average annual growth of Omaha MSA from 2006-2009: 9,756

In terms of raw numbers, OKC is growing considerably faster than Omaha.

As was pointed out before, I think OKC compares better to cities like Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, Indianapolis, etc.--not Omaha.

It does indeed look like Omaha is doing lots of things right.

America is always looking for it's next boom town... Places like Phoenix and Las Vegas and Austin and Charlotte and Portland were all once in a similar situation. But... The areas of big growth have all been in warmer / nicer climates.

The annual Best Cities to Live lists are filled with beautiful little towns in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Michigan but they never experience real, sustained growth because almost no one will move from a warm climate to a cold one. This trend has been undeniable since WWII.

This is why I think OKC is so beautifully positioned... It's very similar in profile to a lot of the recent break-out cities and is a warm climate.

I am not a fan of Omaha, never been to Omaha, and probably never go, but I am a fan of city economic development, and it seems that Omaha has the upper hand right now on OKC, with its new high-rises, Qwest Center, TD Ameritrade Park, and Midtown Crossing, and Riverfront development, it seems what Omaha has already done, we are trying to do now, that is why I say there is a comparison.

Their Qwest Center by far blows away Cox Convention Center right now, given that we do have plans to build new convention center, not to mention their new ballpark.

TD Ameritrade Park
A new $126-million, 24,000-seat stadium, to open in
2011 adjacent to Qwest Center Omaha, will be the new
home of the NCAA’s Men’s College World Series. The
NCAA signed a long-term contract to hold the series
in Omaha through 2035.

http://www.tdameritradeparkomaha.com/images/stories/images/hp_stad_1.jpg

How far is Lincoln from Omaha?If I'm not mistaken Lincoln has over 300k in it's metro!These two combined would almost equal OKC's metro population!

I am not a fan of Omaha, never been to Omaha, and probably never go, but I am a fan of city economic development, and it seems that Omaha has the upper hand right now on OKC, with its new high-rises, Qwest Center, TD Ameritrade Park, and Midtown Crossing, and Riverfront development, it seems what Omaha has already done, we are trying to do now, that is why I say there is a comparison.

Their Qwest Center by far blows away Cox Convention Center right now, given that we do have plans to build new convention center, not to mention their new ballpark.

TD Ameritrade Park
A new $126-million, 24,000-seat stadium, to open in
2011 adjacent to Qwest Center Omaha, will be the new
home of the NCAA’s Men’s College World Series. The
NCAA signed a long-term contract to hold the series
in Omaha through 2035.

http://www.tdameritradeparkomaha.com/images/stories/images/hp_stad_1.jpg
Well Maps3 and The Devon tower alone are over 1.5 BILLION Dollars combined,and I'm leaving out Boathouse row,Ford cnter Improvements,Bricktown housing,Bricktown Hotels,Midtown redevelopments,I-40 realignment,project 180!I say there is NO comparison!

G. Walker, I hope you understand I am not trying to give you a hard time and I'm really enjoying the debate. I think the point you originally raised -- that we often get too caught up in comparing OKC to really big cities -- is a good one. And I do think there is much to learn from many other communities and at the same time, we have to keep moving forward because every single town in the U.S. is working to improve and compete for employers, conventions, and everything else.

It's also true that Oklahoma City has a long way to go and that larger cities might not see us as competition, either. It sometimes depresses me to go to someplace like Milwaukee or Pittsburgh and see they are light years ahead in terms of urban development.


Regarding that Omaha ballpark, it's very nice. But of course we've had a beautiful facility for 13 years and the capacity of 12,000 is plenty for our purposes. I'm sure that for other than that one week of the CWS, most of those 24,000 seats will never be used. I'm glad we found other uses for the $90 million difference in cost.

dmoor.....about 50 miles...not that far...

I am not a fan of Omaha, never been to Omaha, and probably never go, but I am a fan of city economic development, and it seems that Omaha has the upper hand right now on OKC, with its new high-rises, Qwest Center, TD Ameritrade Park, and Midtown Crossing, and Riverfront development, it seems what Omaha has already done, we are trying to do now, that is why I say there is a comparison.

Their Qwest Center by far blows away Cox Convention Center right now, given that we do have plans to build new convention center, not to mention their new ballpark.

TD Ameritrade Park
A new $126-million, 24,000-seat stadium, to open in
2011 adjacent to Qwest Center Omaha, will be the new
home of the NCAA’s Men’s College World Series. The
NCAA signed a long-term contract to hold the series
in Omaha through 2035.

http://www.tdameritradeparkomaha.com/images/stories/images/hp_stad_1.jpg

It seems more to me like Omaha is doing what OKC has already done or is doing (Ford Center, Bricktown Ballpark, Devon Tower, downtown redevelopment). They might have the upper hand on civic projects right now because they are just catching up. Does Omaha have anything of the scale of "core to shore" or projects like a streetcar on the horizon? Are they getting a major league sports franchise?

I will say this!Having been to Omaha a couple of times I can say it is a very nice city that has Awesome urban areas and some great density,but on The other hand Omaha doesnt have Metro city's that can compete with Norman,Edmond,Moore,MWC!imo

My brother used to live in Lincoln, and my uncle lives in Omaha. There is very little interaction between the two cities, besides the fact that much of Lincoln uses the Omaha airport. I would never consider the two a metropolitan area.

Riverfront Place 555 Riverfront Plaza
This $68-million project, located directly on the riverfront, consists of two elegant condominium towers framed by contemporary townhomes. Homes range from $250,000 to $2 million. The first tower, with 13 stories, opened in 2006 and the second tower, with 15 stories, is scheduled to open in the summer of 2011.

http://kmtv.images.worldnow.com/images/11413644_BG1.jpg

about 50 miles...not that far...

That is too far for anyone to live one place and work another. I doubt very seriously many people living in Lincoln work in Omaha or vice versa, which is why Lincoln and Omaha are in separate MSA's.

Norman is stretching it at about 20 miles. Our MSA sometimes contains the Shawnee area, but it's often left out because it is over 30 miles away.

Omaha isn't in the same class as tier 2 OKC. They are a tier 3 city and have quite a ways to go to make it to tier 2. Add Omaha & Wichita together and then you are talking.

^^ Shawnee is in OKC's CSA!50 miles is like driving from Moore to Pauls Valley!

But Shawnee isn't that far from the outter reaches of OKC. It might be 30 miles from downtown OKC but the far eastern part of OKC to Shawnee isn't that far at all. This is why Shawnee should be part of metro OKC IMO.

Only thing Omaha really has on OKC is their air service. I.E. no debate necessary. Although they are a smaller city and metro, they beat our airport in passengers flown by over 1 million passengers a year.

Omaha’s $70-million, 450-room Hilton Hotel is
connected to Qwest Center Omaha by a skywalk over
10th Street. A $35 million addition with150 rooms,
meeting space and parking will open in spring 2012.

http://www.fgould.com/media/managed/usa/projects/Omaha-Hilton_1.jpg

Riverfront Place 555 Riverfront Plaza
This $68-million project, located directly on the riverfront, consists of two elegant condominium towers framed by contemporary townhomes. Homes range from $250,000 to $2 million. The first tower, with 13 stories, opened in 2006 and the second tower, with 15 stories, is scheduled to open in the summer of 2011.

http://kmtv.images.worldnow.com/images/11413644_BG1.jpg

This is nice stuff but OKC's MAPS 3(777 million) is a for sure deal and will happen, and The Devon Tower/project 180(~900 million) that is approaching 2 BILLION alone!I might buy That Omaha is developing more smaller infill projects(maybe?)but so is OKC!We need someone to draw up a diagram or list comparing development and demographic statistics to really see if The two stack up or not!

But Shawnee isn't that far from the outter reaches of OKC. It might be 30 miles from downtown OKC but the far eastern part of OKC to Shawnee isn't that far at all. This is why Shawnee should be part of metro OKC IMO.

^^It Is in The (CSA) Combined statistical area,but not in The MSA of OKC!I agree with you though!

Look,Omaha is a nice small city. OKC is a nice medium size city. That's just the way it is.

The western gateway into downtown is Midtown Crossing, a $325-million-mixed-use development with more
than 1 million square feet of space, which includes upwards of 225,000 square feet of restaurant and retail
space. At the center of it all is an expanded and revitalized Turner Park, a space that hosts a series of outdoor
markets, concerts and community-wide events

http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com/images/MTC_AERIAL2.jpg

Only thing Omaha really has on OKC is their air service. I.E. no debate necessary. Although they are a smaller city and metro, they beat our airport in passengers flown by over 1 million passengers a year.

^^Maybe because Omaha is The only major airport in The whole state/area?Or maybe because OKC competes with Tulsa,Mid Continent,and The Monster DFW?

The western gateway into downtown is Midtown Crossing, a $325-million-mixed-use development with more
than 1 million square feet of space, which includes upwards of 225,000 square feet of restaurant and retail
space. At the center of it all is an expanded and revitalized Turner Park, a space that hosts a series of outdoor
markets, concerts and community-wide events

http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com/images/MTC_AERIAL2.jpg

^^Now that is some nice development!!!!!!

http://www.wallstreettoweromaha.com/

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4556/wallstreetiz6.jpg

See, that’s kinda funny, so the takeaway here is that OKCs peer cities are Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, Indianapolis and not Omaha based on the fact that Omaha is so much smaller than OKC.

But while Omaha is not a peer city because Omaha is 44.5% smaller than OKC, Oklahoma City is 42.2%, 28.9%, 42.1% and 38.9% respectively smaller than it’s peer cities. So it seems that the line between peer and non peer is set at right at a 43% difference, in MSA only (please don’t look at CSA). In that case you would have to at least admit that Tulsa is a peer city to Oklahoma City, because Tulsa is only 32.1% smaller than Oklahoma City.

Boy, that’s not gonna fly on this board.

Another note on OKCs real “peer” cities, Charlotte added 40k people just last year, three of these peer cities had growth rates of over 20% last decade and two added over 400k people with growth rates over 40%. And if you do look at CSA, Indianapolis’s CSA is 59% larger than Oklahoma City’s and Charlotte’s is 84% larger. At current growth rates Austin will pass the two million mark in the next five years or so.

Oklahoma City has a lot more in common with Tulsa and Omaha than it does with Austin, Indianapolis or Charlotte. Austin used to be a peer city of Oklahoma City, but not anymore.

Prices look to be close to $300 a square foot for townhouses. So, most likely Oklahoma Cityans cannot afford a development like those.

^^Now that is some nice development!!!!!!

There is no private mixed-use development on this scale in OKC or Tulsa. Chesapeake campus and Classen Curve is close, and could be one day if Nichols Hills Plaza is factored in, but not right now.

Neither city has this type of condo development either (Tulsa had the 10 story Utica Place finished in 2007 but that was mostly office with just a few floors of condos)
http://kmtv.images.worldnow.com/images/11413644_BG1.jpg

For a smaller metro they are doing some great things, and OKC (and Tulsa) should both be paying attention. Des Moines is a similar city that is doing great things despite being even smaller than Omaha.

I LOVE the new pedestrian bridge in Omaha!
http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles36902.jpg

Maybe because Omaha is The only major airport in The whole state/area?Or maybe because OKC competes with Tulsa,Mid Continent,and The Monster DFW?

Yes, there is nothing even remotely close geographically.

It's a very isolated city in general. I'd bet that almost no one on this thread has been to Omaha simply due to this fact. It's not on the way to anywhere people go with any regularity.

It is one of the very few American cities I have never visited.

OKC has a similar catchment area, pretty much all of western Oklahoma until you get closer to Amarillo. Also, OMA competes with Kansas City -- also a monster. Lincoln also has an airport.

First National Center Omaha

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journalstar.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/b/ae/df0/baedf0c8-d79e-11df-8035-001cc4c03286-revisions/4cb71293a82f1.image.jpg

I'm just not sure what has happened in Oklahoma City that would make a developer confident that a project like any of these pictured would succeed. Aren't we currently on the 'rental or downtown housing has to be less than $150 a square foot' bandwagon right now? If these developments are or will be successful, then I think we have to say we're behind Omaha in terms of urban development, at least as far as downtown housing is concerned. Obviously we're a bigger city, but perhaps we're a bigger city with a less progressive attitude.

On the other hand.......you couldn't pay me enough money to live in Omaha, and I'm pretty happy here.

See, that’s kinda funny, so the takeaway here is that OKCs peer cities are Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, Indianapolis and not Omaha based on the fact that Omaha is so much smaller than OKC.

But while Omaha is not a peer city because Omaha is 44.5% smaller than OKC, Oklahoma City is 42.2%, 28.9%, 42.1% and 38.9% respectively smaller than it’s peer cities. So it seems that the line between peer and non peer is set at right at a 43% difference, in MSA only (please don’t look at CSA). In that case you would have to at least admit that Tulsa is a peer city to Oklahoma City, because Tulsa is only 32.1% smaller than Oklahoma City.

Boy, that’s not gonna fly on this board.

Another note on OKCs real “peer” cities, Charlotte added 40k people just last year, three of these peer cities had growth rates of over 20% last decade and two added over 400k people with growth rates over 40%. And if you do look at CSA, Indianapolis’s CSA is 59% larger than Oklahoma City’s and Charlotte’s is 84% larger. At current growth rates Austin will pass the two million mark in the next five years or so.

Oklahoma City has a lot more in common with Tulsa and Omaha than it does with Austin, Indianapolis or Charlotte. Austin used to be a peer city of Oklahoma City, but not anymore.

thank you, you get it!

Yes, there is nothing even remotely close geographically.

It's a very isolated city in general. I'd bet that almost no one on this thread has been to Omaha simply due to this fact. It's not on the way to anywhere people go with any regularity.

It is one of the very few American cities I have never visited.

I’ve been to Omaha. It’s really a great city, very wealthy. Feels a lot like Tulsa. The downtown is very well developed and they have a long established riverfront urban core that is well beyond what Tulsa or Oklahoma City has. They have zero need for a “core to shore” plan.

And Omaha is not that isolated. It’s less than an hour to Lincoln, two hours or so to Des Moines, about two and a half hours to Kansas City. Seven hours to Chicago and the Twin Cities.

See, that’s kinda funny, so the takeaway here is that OKCs peer cities are Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, Indianapolis and not Omaha based on the fact that Omaha is so much smaller than OKC.

No, what people are saying is that we don't see Omaha as a much a competitor and we'd rather set our focus on the likes of the bigger fish you mentioned, which are ahead but not out of our sights.

It's not just where cities are, it's about the current trajectories. See dozens and dozens of articles and polls (tons linked on this site) from just the last few years about how OKC is being regarded nationally. It's not just a bunch of homers on a message board looking at things through rose-colored glasses.


Tulsans don't sit around comparing themselves to Baton Rouge and Fresno -- and both places are way closer in population than OKC and growing at a faster rate than T-town.

But, G. Walker, we've got an NBA team, and that, to me, is far more of a statement that we've arrived as a city than a few downtown developments. There are only 30 cities with one, and that pushes us up into the stratosphere of bigger cities. I value our team a lot more than a few fancy buildings too. Eventually, I suspect we will catch up with what seems like the rest of the country, in terms of our attitude towards urbanism. When Omaha and Des Moines have more going on with downtown residential living than we do, that means we're behind, relative to our size. The pony express carrying the news that it's cool to live downtown hasn't arrived here yet, for most people. Theoretically, it will.

The Lofts at SoMa in Old Market district of downtown Omaha.

http://www.jlofts.com/images/static1.jpg

The Lofts at SoMa in Old Market district of downtown Omaha.

http://www.jlofts.com/images/static1.jpg

Those look almost identical to LEVEL.

But, G. Walker, we've got an NBA team, and that, to me, is far more of a statement that we've arrived as a city than a few downtown developments. There are only 30 cities with one, and that pushes us up into the stratosphere of bigger cities. I value our team a lot more than a few fancy buildings too. Eventually, I suspect we will catch up with what seems like the rest of the country, in terms of our attitude towards urbanism. When Omaha and Des Moines have more going on with downtown residential living than we do, that means we're behind, relative to our size. The pony express carrying the news that it's cool to live downtown hasn't arrived here yet, for most people. Theoretically, it will.

Don't be surprised if Omaha lands an NBA team soon, as New Orleans and Memphis will be looking for new cities!