Page 1 of 1

Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:51 am
by Dusty
Found this article on population density of Omaha. I constantly hear from out-of-towners that Omaha is a small city in terms on land. But in terms of population density, should land size really matter? Thought I would pass along...

https://www.sparefoot.com/self-storage/ ... n-density/

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:51 pm
by skinzfan23
Thanks for sharing.

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:47 pm
by BRoss
From the article:
Image

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:42 pm
by Garrett
This reminds me... google maps really needs to fix the city limits of Omaha. It's like they took the annexation of Elkhorn has annexing the entire school district.

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Spac

Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:20 pm
by Omaha Cowboy
Yep. Omaha is a small city alright..Density? Shmensity.. LOL..

Thanks for posting that link Dusty :thumb: ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:35 am
by riceweb
That's a bit of an unfair comparison, since San Francisco is just a small part of the greater San Fran metro area. Same thing with most of the cities mentioned.

When you account for the large swatch of suburbs we've annexed, Omaha's density doesn't seem very low.

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:09 pm
by Dundeemaha
Definitely an interesting series of graphics. Like everyone is saying it does also illustrate how hard it is to compare cities with different annexation policies. It makes me wonder a little what Omaha would be like if Sarpy County had not been split out of Douglas County.

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:14 pm
by Garrett
riceweb wrote:That's a bit of an unfair comparison, since San Francisco is just a small part of the greater San Fran metro area. Same thing with most of the cities mentioned.

When you account for the large swatch of suburbs we've annexed, Omaha's density doesn't seem very low.
It is possible to do this accurately. The Census bureau tabulates what it called "weight population density" which takes into account the suburbs without including vast swaths of undeveloped land. With this metric, Omaha was the 47th densest metro in 2010, around 1/3 as dense as Chicago, 1/4 as dense as LA and SF, and 1/10 as dense as New York.

http://www.austincontrarian.com/austinc ... nsity.html

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:18 pm
by Coyote
Nerd :yes:

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:36 pm
by Busguy2010
If these comparisons actually do take into account the whole metro, we could extrapolate how many more people need to move into a given area to necessitate a stellar transportation system.