Is Omaha OKC's new competitor?

[G.Walker]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[G.Walker]

Some Omaha Pics:

Downtown Omaha



Omaha's Qwest Center



New Riverfront Development with Condos

[G.Walker]

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.

[earlywinegareth]

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.

[G.Walker]

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!....

[Pete]

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.

[Kerry]

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?

[Spartan]

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.

[OKCMallen]

Our proximity to Texas cities also helps.

[G.Walker]

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

[Pete]

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.

[G.Walker]

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...

[G.Walker]

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...

[Kerry]

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.

[Spartan]

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

Didn't realize that. Good for Omaha.

[Swake2]

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%.

[Pete]

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.

[benman]

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

[G.Walker]

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%

[Pete]

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

[Rover]

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.

[semisimple]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[G.Walker]

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.