Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Dusty · Post by **Dusty** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:51 pm

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/

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:51 pm

Thanks for sharing.

Post by **BRoss** » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:47 pm

From the article:

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:42 am

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.

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:20 am

Yep. Omaha is a small city alright..Density? Shmensity.. LOL..

Thanks for posting that link Dusty

...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

riceweb · Post by **riceweb** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:35 pm

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.

Dundeemaha · Post by **Dundeemaha** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:09 pm

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.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:14 pm

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

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:18 pm

Nerd

Busguy2010 · Post by **Busguy2010** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:36 pm

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.

Omaha Forums

Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Spac

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space

Re: Omaha's Population Density vs Land Space