Comparing Omaha's demographics to other cities'

[Golden Eagle]

I wrote up a blog post in comparing OKC and Tulsa's demographics to a few of the "ideal" cities, considering Omaha an "ideal" city. I chose about ten categories to compare OKC and Tulsa to these cities that have been on a positive trajectory, if only just recently, or for a while: Portland, Charlotte, Austin, and Omaha. In case anyone is questioning my motives.. I realize Omaha isn't exactly in these cities' league, but I do sort of consider Omaha to be the "Charlotte of the Third Tier." I consider OKC to be the newest Tier Two city. I consider Tulsa to be a..sort of a lost wayward relative of OKC's. Portland, Charlotte, and Austin speak for themselves and have an impeccable identity.

http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/ ... ities.html

You'd be surprised how high crime is in Charlotte and how high it used to be in Portland, as well as how low incomes are in Portland while real estate is twice as expensive as OKC and Omaha. In fact, Portland's demographics are much more like OKC and Omaha's, and less like Austin and Charlotte's. This begs the question: What did Portland do to make themselves probably the star city on this list, and how should OKC and Omaha follow suit? Apparently great cities do not require great demographics, dispelling the excuse of, "Well we're OKC, or Omaha, we don't need to be fancy like Portland."

[Stargazer]

It's really hard to compare the -city- of Omaha with other cities... due to our liberal annexation laws.  I don't know about the other cities you sampled here... but Omaha's numbers really have been 'diluted' by annexation of many newer affluent suburbs.

[Golden Eagle]

Um. And you are saying we can't compare that to OKC and Austin?  :;):

Most of these are demographics. If anything, it ends up helping Omaha because they can annex tiny affluent suburbs like Elkhorn, yet OKC can only annex over 600 square miles of land it thinks will be developed, while all of the affluent neighborhoods are built in Edmond, Moore, Yukon. Austin has annexed a lot of land out towards Lake Travis. Probably the best area of the Austin metro--the Arboretum area--is in Austin city limits. Omaha's not going to get its demographics "diluted" by annexation, if anything, it has probably helped by discouraging other city's from developing a business community and cushioning the blow of lower income areas like by the airport.

I don't know if you've looked at Charlotte on a map, but it isn't really bordered by its suburbs. All of its suburbs like Concord, Monroe, Matthews, etc are a ways away from Charlotte, probably so they don't get annexed, too. *ANY city that the main city of a major metro experiences 10-20% growth in a decade, you know that they're annexing and sprawling just as bad as their suburbs are (with the obvious exception of Portland, Denver, etc). In fact, Tulsa is fixing to have to realize they need to build up now because they are out of land and their population change for this decade is -3%. Meanwhile, Tulsa is surrounded by the 4 fastest growing cities in Oklahoma--Bixby, Jenks, Glenpool, and Owasso.

[DTO Luv]

I realize Omaha isn't exactly in these cities' league,

[Stargazer]

Most of these are demographics. If anything, it ends up helping Omaha because they can annex tiny affluent suburbs like Elkhorn, yet OKC can only annex over 600 square miles of land it thinks will be developed

Exactly... what a shocker, huh... I'm saying this helps Omaha... when compared with most larger cities, although I agree... most of those you've selected for comparison are not 'land locked' either... and continue to add to their tax rolls as well.

I just think the whole 'city vs city' comparison in general is rather difficult to do, more often than not is apples vs oranges... one would do better to compare urbanized areas... though I realize information is much more difficult to come by.

[Golden Eagle]

Oh, I thought you were defending something in Omaha's demographics, which I thought were actually pretty good.

I realize Omaha isn't exactly in these cities' league,

I don't think that smiley represents what you think it does.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

This begs the question: What did Portland do to make themselves probably the star city on this list, and how should OKC and Omaha follow suit?

You don't have to have a city of affluent people to initiate good planning practices. Somehow Portland and the Pacific Northwest in general has been very attractive to the very liberal. The very liberal seem to have a strong desire for the most efficient planning practicies (although this theory seems to be lost on why Seattle has just now opened an LRT).

[Stargazer]

They didn't abandon their inner city to the same degree which many other cities did (including Omaha).

[ricko]

When you step away from the 'numbers' side of demographics and look at the ethnic/economic/cultural/historical/political/religious parts of the demographic equation, I think that Omaha has far more in common with Milwaukee, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Paul, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh than it does with any of the other cities mentioned in the thread.  I've lived in both OKC and Omaha.  Despite the geographic proximity (less than 500 miles separate them), they are very different places.

[Golden Eagle]

Portland is still the exception to everything. Their racial makeup is almost 80% white. OKC is 65% white. Portland DID abandon their inner city--between the 70s and the 90s, Portland had some of the highest crime rates in the nation. Beaverton and other suburbs is where people who wanted some distance from the incoming granola heads fled to. And I tend to have more hope for America, politically, than to say 'very liberal' only places can be like Portland. In that case explain why California doesn't have a clue.

Portland is just the result of a few visionaries coming together, nothing more. And I seriously doubt that Portland had the density or traffic problems that compelled it to invest in light rail, so it shouldn't take great density or traffic problems in order for a city to get real about transit. Portland is truly the American equivalent of Prague, which might not be the wealthiest city in Europe, but is still known as one of the best.

[Stargazer]

I don't recall the lynchings, race riots and burning in Portland.  They may have largely vacated their inner city... but they didn't isolate it/decimate it as they have in Omaha.  Portland is only 6% black... and I'll bet a good portion of that migrated there in the past few decades (drawn by what is likely a much more accepting populous).  Our black population has been here for many decades, left to rot on it's own.  My wife and I took a little sight seeing trip up into northeast Omaha over the weekend.  It is truly astonishing just how sad it is... how entirely separated from the rest of the city it remains.  You can actually still see in it's neighborhoods, some remnants of what was likely among some of the more affluent parts of Omaha (Fontenelle Boulevard has so much potential alone).  How do you turn around such a vast, neglected part of a city like this?

[Golden Eagle]

That is the second biggest problem that will face city planners this century, in line right behind coping with 21st century transportation needs.

But still, Omaha is 78.39% white. That is.. quite white. lmao

[ricko]

The astonishing thing to me is that the boundaries of the north Omaha black community are roughly the same as they were in the early 70's, while South Omaha's black community has nearly vanished.  I remember reading an article in the OWH about Omaha's struggle to keep its college educated minorities and middle class, who keep moving away.  If that's the case, I think the larger community needs to at least make the attempt to find out why this is so.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

And I tend to have more hope for America, politically, than to say 'very liberal' only places can be like Portland. In that case explain why California doesn't have a clue.

You must be joking...

California does have their political issues, like how to agree on a budget, but I think their head is in the right spot. LA is has been devoid of reasonable transit options between the '60s up until the '90s or today, depending on your definition of reasonable. But they were once a transit oriented town, before the oil companies or auto industry (I forget which) bought up all of their rail lines.

But besides that...

-The state of California has been the first to approve a real high speed rail line.

-Arnold has recently approved a state wide smart growth bill aimed at reducing sprawl, although it will need reinforcements to make a tremendous amount of change.

-The inner cities are not facing the kind of decay and abandonment that is being seen in most other large cities

-Density. Even in wealthy new money suburban areas, development is dense. (Newport Beach has a greater population density than Portland)

-Street front big boxes/shopping malls.

-Their auto emissions standards have been forcing auto makers to cater to the state. Certain models of diesel cars, for example, cannot be sold or registered in the state. In contrast, California was the only state where the GM EV-1 electric vehicle and the hydrogen powered Honda FCX Clarity have been available for lease.

-All major cities have an extensive LRT or are served by a regional transit line

But now it is 2:30 in the morning and I've run out of ideas

[Stargazer]

I think this is all great too, although one must keep in mind, in the case of California, this largely all came about as a result of necessity.

[Big E]

And let's face it... with the exception of San Francisco, the VAST majority of California was developed after the ubiquity of the automobile.  It's not like there was a downtown Los Angeles in 1880 that had risen up during the industrial revolution.

For the most part, at least functionally, California is the nation's suburb.

[DTO Luv]

At work we have an old picture of DTLA from around 1890. It's makes Omaha circa 1890 look like Manhattan.

[Big E]

At work we have an old picture of DTLA from around 1890. It's makes Omaha circa 1890 look like Manhattan.

A quick wiki shows that the LA City Hall (while a nice structure) was the tallest in LA until height restrictions were lifted in 1964.

Think about that, Lincoln... all you have to do is remove the height restrictions and you could be the next LA!  

[DTO Luv]

Which by proxy would make us NYC! Do it Lincoln!

[Big E]

Does that make Gretna Chicago and Ashland Omaha?

edit: I take it the audit is over?

[DTO Luv]

Yes. The audit is over.

[Golden Eagle]

And I tend to have more hope for America, politically, than to say 'very liberal' only places can be like Portland. In that case explain why California doesn't have a clue.

You must be joking...

California does have their political issues, like how to agree on a budget, but I think their head is in the right spot. LA is has been devoid of reasonable transit options between the '60s up until the '90s or today, depending on your definition of reasonable. But they were once a transit oriented town, before the oil companies or auto industry (I forget which) bought up all of their rail lines.

But besides that...

-The state of California has been the first to approve a real high speed rail line.

-Arnold has recently approved a state wide smart growth bill aimed at reducing sprawl, although it will need reinforcements to make a tremendous amount of change.

-The inner cities are not facing the kind of decay and abandonment that is being seen in most other large cities

-Density. Even in wealthy new money suburban areas, development is dense. (Newport Beach has a greater population density than Portland)

-Street front big boxes/shopping malls.

-Their auto emissions standards have been forcing auto makers to cater to the state. Certain models of diesel cars, for example, cannot be sold or registered in the state. In contrast, California was the only state where the GM EV-1 electric vehicle and the hydrogen powered Honda FCX Clarity have been available for lease.

-All major cities have an extensive LRT or are served by a regional transit line

But now it is 2:30 in the morning and I've run out of ideas

Move there then. Anaheim, Orange County, Inland Empire, Fresno/Sactown, none of those areas are high on my list to move. Only San Diego and San Francisco are the only places in Cali that I would ever consider visiting, let alone admiring. In fact, these days you see soooo many people fleeing California despite the population growth, moving to the South. We got a lot of ex-Californians in OKC, but not nearly as many as Dallas.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Move there then. Anaheim, Orange County, Inland Empire, Fresno/Sactown, none of those areas are high on my list to move. Only San Diego and San Francisco are the only places in Cali that I would ever consider visiting, let alone admiring. In fact, these days you see soooo many people fleeing California despite the population growth, moving to the South. We got a lot of ex-Californians in OKC, but not nearly as many as Dallas.

I tried moving there. Had two job interviews. Got turned down my the first one, but then decided to cancel the second one after I took a position here.

There are a lot of ex-Californians everywhere. Last year 144,000 more people moved OUT of California to other states than vice versa. The immigration population is what keeps the state growing each year. Those who left, more so than not, were trying to bite off more than they could chew. It's definitely not for everyone, but your opinion that it sucks does not make them any less efficient planners, which was the point I was trying to make.

Perhaps you should visit the state before you deem it in its entirety (save for San Diego and San Francisco) not admirable. Sacramento is the most OKC-ish of the cities you've mentioned so I fail to see why you are opposed to it. Did The Grapes or Wrath leave a bad taste in your mouth?

BTW: Anaheim is in Orange County.

[Omaha Cowboy]

But still, Omaha is 78.39% white. That is.. quite white. lmao

Not anymore it isn't..Wait until the 2010 census numbers flow in. I suspect in reality, that number is actually about 70% in 2009..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

[Stargazer]

And this IS an example where Omaha's free annexation reign does dilute those numbers... we're absorbing white suburbs at a considerably higher rate than most cities.

[Golden Eagle]

But still, Omaha is 78.39% white. That is.. quite white. lmao

Not anymore it isn't..Wait until the 2010 census numbers flow in. I suspect in reality, that number is actually about 70% in 2009..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

Well, we'll see. Can you explain what would cause Omaha's minorities to grow, not in prominence as I think we'd all hope for, but in population? I mean there's a big difference between growing in prominence and population. I can easily see Omaha's minorities growing in prominence as the city DID vote for Obama I believe, but I definitely don't see them growing in population. Especially with annexing Elkhorn and all that.

[DTO Luv]

What? Because every time a suburb is annexed a black person disappears?

[Erik]

But still, Omaha is 78.39% white. That is.. quite white. lmao

Not anymore it isn't..Wait until the 2010 census numbers flow in. I suspect in reality, that number is actually about 70% in 2009..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

Well, we'll see. Can you explain what would cause Omaha's minorities to grow, not in prominence as I think we'd all hope for, but in population? I mean there's a big difference between growing in prominence and population. I can easily see Omaha's minorities growing in prominence as the city DID vote for Obama I believe, but I definitely don't see them growing in population. Especially with annexing Elkhorn and all that.

The population growth of white people is lower than blacks, hispanics, asians and etc... Also we have a large international net-in migration on top of the national net-in migration..

In other words, the ratio of white to all other races is declining very very rapidly...

[DTO Luv]

And Halfricans like me can't possibly be helping things for white people.

[Omaha Cowboy]

Golden eagle-

Omaha's Latino population is growing at a VERY fast rate..It exploded in the 90's and was reflected in the 2000 census..

While the growth rate has cooled a bit from last decade, Omaha's Latino population will probably reflect a larger overall number (for the first time ever) than the African-American population (which is also growing at it's usual steady clip)..

These numbers will be reflected in the official 2010 census..Thus, it will reflect a decrease in the overall 'white' majority population %..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace