OWH wrote:What's happening in Harvey Oaks, near 144th Street and West Center Road, is at the crux of a population shift rippling through Omaha and the metropolitan area over the last decade.
A World-Herald analysis of new U.S. Census Bureau population counts found that wide portions of the old suburbs are losing people. Drawn by new homes, the next generation of homeowners is leaping over those neighborhoods to the metro area's fringe.
It was inevitable, the areas that people once escaped to are now being abandoned again. What's going to happen when the areas around Oakview start to look like 24th and Ames; Left behind, decaying, and hopeless? Those of us who argue for sustainable growth have seen this happen in other cities and now it's happening here. Luckily we started to get on the ball with redevelopment but we haven't been nearly as aggressive in our goals or comprehensive in our approach to making a city that is urban and sustainable.
Last summer I worked part time for a moving company that had many clients out west. I was surprised by the number of times we'd show up to move families from the 140's to the 180's or Sarpy. It's not like the houses were even that much of an upgrade. I remember thinking a few of the "older" homes looked better (albeit still terribly sub-urban) than the new ones on cul-de-sacs further west or south.
My grandparents moved out to Harvey Oaks in the 90s to get into a ranch house that would be easier to live in than their 3 story Dundee home. Their newer house was built in 1978, and required more maintenance than their house in Dundee that was built in the 1920s. Overall, it was a very poorly built house. I think that a lot of those |expletive|-shack neighborhoods went up too fast. Only time will tell if the houses built in the current so-called fringe areas of the metro are better constructed. I think some will fare better than others.
As much as we like to think there is this amazing urban revival going on in Omaha other than directly DT not much progress if an has been made. Still a lot of work to do.
I think the images are a bit deceiving, in part, because there are broader demographic issues at play.
The baby boomers who built it are watching their kids move up and out, and then, as empty nesters, they're moving out themselves. They're making way for a new generation of families with kids.
But those new families are not having as many kids. The average number of children per family has steadily decreased since the Baby Boom (with a few exceptions). So in some sense, this shift was inevitable, as neighborhoods move into what will likely be their stable population.
The concern, of course, is that if those stable population numbers are not high enough to sustain the commercial corridors and schools in those areas, entire suburban neighborhoods could decay. However, I'd like to see more evidence of that before assuming that decay is inevitable.
DTO Luv wrote:It was inevitable, the areas that people once escaped to are now being abandoned again. What's going to happen when the areas around Oakview start to look like 24th and Ames; Left behind, decaying, and hopeless?
So long as we don't build a freeway right through the middle of Oakview Mall, that area should be fine.
What city, if any, is the model for this 'urban revival'? I'm just trying to get a picture of what is comparatively wrong with the development that Omaha has seen over the last few decades.
Fromaha wrote:What city, if any, is the model for this 'urban revival'? I'm just trying to get a picture of what is comparatively wrong with the development that Omaha has seen over the last few decades.
Baltimore, DC, NYC, Seattle, Minneapolis, KC...
Pretty much any city not named Omaha, LA, or Detroit.
I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a place to live, but Omaha doesn't have some of the problems that some of the aforementioned cities have, due in part, to their level of density. Not saying Omaha is flawless by any means, but some of the more 'urban' cities have a lot of bad that comes with the good.
Fromaha wrote:I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a place to live, but Omaha doesn't have some of the problems that some of the aforementioned cities have, due in part, to their level of density. Not saying Omaha is flawless by any means, but some of the more 'urban' cities have a lot of bad that comes with the good.
Fromaha wrote:I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a place to live, but Omaha doesn't have some of the problems that some of the aforementioned cities have, due in part, to their level of density. Not saying Omaha is flawless by any means, but some of the more 'urban' cities have a lot of bad that comes with the good.
Gotta call BS on that. The crimes you're talking about are in no way related to the density of the neighborhoods. If that were the case, all of Europe would be overrun with gangs and shootings and "some of the problems" you're talking about.
Not going to disagree with you that much/most of the crime in the US is in urban areas, but that is due entirely to white flight from said areas, and literally has nothing to due with construction methods.
Fromaha wrote:I guess it depends on what you are looking for in a place to live, but Omaha doesn't have some of the problems that some of the aforementioned cities have, due in part, to their level of density. Not saying Omaha is flawless by any means, but some of the more 'urban' cities have a lot of bad that comes with the good.
Gotta call BS on that. The crimes you're talking about are in no way related to the density of the neighborhoods. If that were the case, all of Europe would be overrun with gangs and shootings and "some of the problems" you're talking about.
Not going to disagree with you that much/most of the crime in the US is in urban areas, but that is due entirely to white flight from said areas, and literally has nothing to due with construction methods.
It simply isn't a causal relationship.
First, I didn't say anything about crime. Second, you are blaming crime in urban areas on minorities? Wow. Third, how can you say that density has nothing to do with it, when you have lower crime rates in less populated areas. More people within close proximity of one another definitely creates more opportunity for conflicts to occur.
First, I can't believe any of us find this article as some sort of a revelation... Of course neighborhoods with redundant designs and layouts mixed with shotty construction would, at some point, become less desirable. That was inevitable.
Second, Big E, please explain the KC example... KC is one of the biggest, sprawling suburban dumps I've ever seen.
If the 'urban revival' means higher unemployment, a higher poverty rate, a higher cost of living, and a higher violent crime rate, then you can keep it. Omaha is lower in all those areas than the cities previously cited as the bastions of urban living.
Fromaha wrote:If the 'urban revival' means higher unemployment, a higher poverty rate, a higher cost of living, and a higher violent crime rate, then you can keep it. Omaha is lower in all those areas than the cities previously cited as the bastions of urban living.
Well like mentioned above Omaha has a lower crime rate than 8% of the cities in this country so I don't see why that is something to brag about.
No one is forcing you into a condo DT that is the biggest problem with this topic I don't care if you don't want to live in an urban area. The suburbs will always be a part of American cities, but the reasons for the comforts and conveniences of suburban life come from a strong urban core. I really don't see why you are so upset about people wanting to make the city better.
Big E wrote:
In fairness, other than driving through the burbs of KC to get to downtown, I've never seen them so I can't really comment on them.
They are everything that you hate. Picture Omaha - times ten - far less density - sprawled along miles and miles of freeway - chains stores in strip malls galore. For example, if you are driving to St. Louis, notice how it takes you at least an hour or so to enter and completely escape the reaches of greater KC metro... For their population, that is completely absurd.
But yes, they do have a decent sized urban core, but probably less than should be expected from a population of 2.5 million. I compare KC with OKC, Jacksonville, Fl, Dallas, and Charlotte, as far as sprawl goes.
Big E wrote:
In fairness, other than driving through the burbs of KC to get to downtown, I've never seen them so I can't really comment on them.
They are everything that you hate. Picture Omaha - times ten - far less density - sprawled along miles and miles of freeway - chains stores in strip malls galore. For example, if you are driving to St. Louis, notice how it takes you at least an hour or so to enter and completely escape the reaches of greater KC metro... For their population, that is completely absurd.
But yes, they do have a decent sized urban core, but probably less than should be expected from a population of 2.5 million. I compare KC with OKC, Jacksonville, Fl, Dallas, and Charlotte, as far as sprawl goes.
Thats what having a massive beltway will give you. The KC metro has the most miles of highway per person in the country.
Big E wrote:
In fairness, other than driving through the burbs of KC to get to downtown, I've never seen them so I can't really comment on them.
They are everything that you hate. Picture Omaha - times ten - far less density - sprawled along miles and miles of freeway - chains stores in strip malls galore. For example, if you are driving to St. Louis, notice how it takes you at least an hour or so to enter and completely escape the reaches of greater KC metro... For their population, that is completely absurd.
But yes, they do have a decent sized urban core, but probably less than should be expected from a population of 2.5 million. I compare KC with OKC, Jacksonville, Fl, Dallas, and Charlotte, as far as sprawl goes.
Thats what having a massive beltway will give you. The KC metro has the most miles of highway per person in the country.
Yep, and I imagine that is why we are seeing some push back toward the enormous beltway proposed for the entire metro. That and the, also enormous, cost.
S33 wrote:Yep, and I imagine that is why we are seeing some push back toward the enormous beltway proposed for the entire metro. That and the, also enormous, cost.
Absolutely, spending $800 million on a belt way just blows my mind. Besides $800 would build a lot of streetcar track :D .
Fromaha wrote:What city, if any, is the model for this 'urban revival'? I'm just trying to get a picture of what is comparatively wrong with the development that Omaha has seen over the last few decades.
I've always thought that Cincinnati was a pretty urban city in general. Probably doesn't fit under urban revival, but still a good example of a city taking advantage of space.
Cincinnati is underrated for how big it is, look at some of those pictures! The one thing that Cincy is lacking at is public transportation, they only have buses and are now trying to play catch up by adding streetcars. Another reason for Omaha to be proactive on it's streetcars.
