Omaha ranked 43rd as of July 1, 2005 with 414,521. An increase of 5,502 over 2004. (1.3% increase).
I would like to know how Atlanta went from 419,000 in 2004's figures to 470,000 in 2005? They have completely revised that cities population figures since 2000. I want an audit. I was looking forward to surpassing them next year. Also New Orleans was at 454,000. It won't be until next year that we know how the mass exodus, due to Katrina, impacted their population.
Still good news that Omaha is growing at 5,000 a year.
Congrats to Omaha for showing a sustained growth for this decade.
You are actually one of the fastest growing major city in the MidWest and Great Plains. Lincoln looked good also.
I think that by the 2010 census, the city of Omaha will either be nipping the heels or surpassing KCMO's population.
None of the is a mistake, looking at Omaha on my visit last month, a lot has gone into your town. Just from conversations with waiters to getting directions from strangers, I saw a pride in what you have created. Like I mentioned in a previous post there is a lot to be excited about in Omaha, seeing it emerge from a medium sized city to a major player on the national level.
I look forward to come back for a visit in the near future.
Um, the statistics showed Omaha to be the 82nd fastest growing city of the 254 American cities of at least 100,000 population, since 2000. Forgive me if I leave my Champagne corked. I think that the metro population is much more telling than the core city population, in any event. Omaha is holding its own in that regard, having grown 4.8% in the 51 months since 4-1-2000. Fully 1/3 of the reported growth in that period is due to net in-migration. And 90% of the in-migration is international!That is a good sign for our cultural diversity.
GuyInLenexa wrote:Congrats to Omaha for showing a sustained growth for this decade.
You are actually one of the fastest growing major city in the MidWest and Great Plains. Lincoln looked good also.
I think that by the 2010 census, the city of Omaha will either be nipping the heels or surpassing KCMO's population.
None of the is a mistake, looking at Omaha on my visit last month, a lot has gone into your town. Just from conversations with waiters to getting directions from strangers, I saw a pride in what you have created. Like I mentioned in a previous post there is a lot to be excited about in Omaha, seeing it emerge from a medium sized city to a major player on the national level.
I look forward to come back for a visit in the near future.
Great stuff as usual Guy!..
And overall, this healthy growth for the Omaha city proper continues without recent annexation..This is good news!..
So was 2005's growth w/o any annexations? I can't remember if any SIDs were annexed last year. If not that's great to hear our core is growing and we're not just fooling ourselves by annexing a few sids a year.
Elkhorn is the focus now. Once that has been decided the focus can switch back to SIDs and things. The problem, however, is that the SIDs are so burdened with debt that there arent many areas the city wants right now...
They want the new hi tax paying commercial developments and not the those debt ridden SIDs. Hence the checkerboard annexations. I don't blame them. But maybe this Elkhorn thing will give them SIDS a chance to reduce the debt a little and we can gobble some more up and clean up or edges.
projectman wrote:Omaha ranked 43rd as of July 1, 2005 with 414,521. An increase of 5,502 over 2004. (1.3% increase).
I would like to know how Atlanta went from 419,000 in 2004's figures to 470,000 in 2005? They have completely revised that cities population figures since 2000. I want an audit. I was looking forward to surpassing them next year. Also New Orleans was at 454,000. It won't be until next year that we know how the mass exodus, due to Katrina, impacted their population.
Still good news that Omaha is growing at 5,000 a year.
OmahaJaysCU wrote:So was 2005's growth w/o any annexations? I can't remember if any SIDs were annexed last year. If not that's great to hear our core is growing and we're not just fooling ourselves by annexing a few sids a year.
projectman wrote:Omaha ranked 43rd as of July 1, 2005 with 414,521. An increase of 5,502 over 2004. (1.3% increase).
I would like to know how Atlanta went from 419,000 in 2004's figures to 470,000 in 2005? They have completely revised that cities population figures since 2000. I want an audit. I was looking forward to surpassing them next year. Also New Orleans was at 454,000. It won't be until next year that we know how the mass exodus, due to Katrina, impacted their population.
Still good news that Omaha is growing at 5,000 a year.
Do you all really have 800,000 in your metro as your chamber site says? That may overtake Tulsa in 20 years if they don't get their act together...
projectman wrote:Omaha ranked 43rd as of July 1, 2005 with 414,521. An increase of 5,502 over 2004. (1.3% increase).
I would like to know how Atlanta went from 419,000 in 2004's figures to 470,000 in 2005? They have completely revised that cities population figures since 2000. I want an audit. I was looking forward to surpassing them next year. Also New Orleans was at 454,000. It won't be until next year that we know how the mass exodus, due to Katrina, impacted their population.
Still good news that Omaha is growing at 5,000 a year.
Atlanta annexed the Sandy Springs area just north of Buckwood. I don't know if you're from the South, but are you familliar with those areas?
praymojo420 wrote:Well there's always Bellevue to swallow.
No there isn't. You don't want to be like OKC in the sense that isn't so great. 606 square miles of joy. A metro of almost 3,500 square miles and a Top Ten ranking by SprawlCity's Top Ten Most Sprawl-Endangered Cities. Think about it.
The MSA is over 805,000. The CSA is around 860,000 now.
If we did annex Bellvue we wouldn't be sprawling much. Bellevue is older than Omaha so it's still fairly dense.
It's funny you mention OKC's sprawl. I think OKC itself is over 500 sq miles (roughly Douglas and Sarpy County). Omaha is around 120 and Douglas County is 331 sq. miles. If Omaha had a city the size of OKC and it's metro, it would reach to Lincoln. It sucks that one city can sprawl so much and boost it's population but we can't have Lincoln. Kind of a double standard.
606 square miles, right off the top of my head. About 350 is urbanized.
The population density of Omaha is 3370/sq. mi. and the city is slightly growing still, and if the city ever needs to annex more land it can annex land to the north and west, if need be. There is no reason at all to annex like mad just to one-up the suburbs. Besides, Norman is a lot closer than Lincoln and is actually connected by a 6-lane freeway lined with development, for Omaha to touch Lincoln would be much more of a stretch.
Keep in mind that that's land that you all would have to provide services for as well, which would far excede the tax base benefit you get from a rural/sub-suburban area.
There half way through the 6 lane connector though. I actually wouldn't want to see |expletive| all the way up to Lincoln, but as far as having them in our CSA, there right there so I don't see why we can't have them.
KCMO is boxed in. The area is still growing though. They are just under 2 million in population for their entire metro area according to census estimates. They've got great momentum now in downtown KC, Northland area, and near NFM on the Kansas side.
I've seen in some almanacs (which I rarely actually peer in) like Places Rated (and other books actually written pre-MAPs and pre-KC renaissance) that did in fact include Lincoln with Omaha.
Being boxed in isn't necessarily so evil. As long as you are an urban, well-developed city you can always, and easily, redevelop yourself. If you are boxed in and consisting of mostly crappy 1960s tract housing (now slum in most cities) then you aren't so groovey baby.
By the way, I've always been in Luv with DTO's sig...
Interesting stuff to know. Also as far as Atlanta gaining people it's not just Katrina victims there taking in but alot of people especially folk from Northern cities who's families left the south a long time ago and are now coming back.
projectman wrote:Can't take Bellevue because they are in Sarpy County. The Elkhorn annexation(if it goes through) will add an instant 8,000.
Just curious, does NE have laws prohibiting cities or municipalities occupying two or more counties? KC occupies two or possibly three counties (Jackson, Clay, possibly Cass.
State law prohibits Omaha from annexing any SID or city outside of the county it resides in (Douglas)..Although Bellevue is in the Omaha metro, it is in Sarpy county, thus safe from an Omaha annexation..Elkhorn, being in Douglas county, and with a population just under 10,000 can (and eventually will) be annexed by Omaha..
OPlaya wrote:Interesting stuff to know. Also as far as Atlanta gaining people it's not just Katrina victims there taking in but alot of people especially folk from Northern cities who's families left the south a long time ago and are now coming back.
Also New Orleans was at 454,000. It won't be until next year that we know how the mass exodus, due to Katrina, impacted their population. 
..