St. Paul vs Des Moines vs Omaha

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by northstar22

I voted for St. Paul, but I didn't realize Omaha was so big. I've never been there -- might have to take a trip down there someday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha,_Nebraska
Actually, just for reference, the City of Omaha is 400,000 and a metro of 880,000. The city of Omaha is larger than St. Paul mainly due to the history of annexing suburban development west of I-680 whereas St. Paul and Des Moines have remained roughly the same size over the last 50 years while most of their growth has been in their suburbs.'

Omaha does have some good things happening in the central part of the city though with riverfront development and the addition of the first national building. It puts its skyline ahead of St. Paul IMO, but I still like Des Moines skyline better for some reason. For older architecture like the 1st bank building and the cathedral, St. Paul definitely has both beat.

[normcrok8]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Omaha is a great town. There are about 800,000 in Omaha proper, so about the size of Minneapolis and St. Paul together.

Major correction. Omaha proper (the city limits) have 400,000, not 800,000, and is slightly larger than Minneapolis itself but nowhere near large enough as Minneapolis and St. Paul combined. If you want to look at a city with 800K in the city proper, you would have to look at Indianapolis, Jacksonville and San Francisco, the nations' 11th, 12 and 13th largest cities.

[iamjacobm]

Originally Posted by normcrok8

Major correction. Omaha proper (the city limits) have 400,000, not 800,000, and is slightly larger than Minneapolis itself but nowhere near large enough as Minneapolis and St. Paul combined. If you want to look at a city with 800K in the city proper, you would have to look at Indianapolis, Jacksonville and San Francisco, the nations' 11th, 12 and 13th largest cities.

Exactly. Omaha is the 42nd largest city, but the 59th largest metro area. Nebraska's liberal annexation laws have allowed Omaha to grow at a healthy pace and not be strangled by suburbs over the years.

[dober1]

Ok, I'll get involved in this vote. I was born and raised for the first 17 years in west Des Moines. Then my parents moved us to their home town of Omaha where I lived for another 6 years before moving to various central and western towns in Nebraska. I later made the move to Commiefornia where I am trapped till this day.
All of my family on both sides came from Omaha (at least for the past 100 years).
I cannot comment on St. Paul but having lived in the other 2 locations and still returning to Omaha at least once a year I have an opinion. Des Moines was very nice but my experience was pretty much only on the westside. My friends who still live there say Des Moines has changed so much since I left I would not even recognize it. However my childhood in Windsor Heights was fantastic, it was like "Leave it to Beaver". I also lived on the westside of Omaha and every time I go back it has grown further to the west.
Anyway that said I think for a younger working person Omaha probably has more to offer. The economy seems pretty good there compared to alot of the country and they have all the stores and things to do that much bigger cities have. Housing is still reasonable and traffic at least to a So Cal guy is not bad at all.
Both are good places but if I was young with a lifetime of work ahead of me I would pick Omaha. Oh, one draw back to Omaha I think the property taxes are high. Another thing concentrate on the west side of Omaha, if you go east toward the Missouri river and south or north close to downtown things change dramatically

[wherespankakehouse?]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

I know I know, it is hard to seperate Mpls/St. Paul but we'll just pretend. For instance St. Paul metro would just have the Minnesota Wild Hockey and the St. Paul Saints etc. but just like St. Paul does not officialy have the Gophers (play in Minneapolis), Omaha does not have the Huskers (play in Lincoln).

I like the question that's being posed, but it's just too much of a mind-bender for me. If we're talking about completely wiping out Mpls, the west suburbs, and all burbs directly north and south, and taking the remaining "St. Paul metro area" at face value present day.... then I would probably have to vote for Des Moines or Omaha. Those are complete cities, whereas St. Paul would be incomplete and imbalanced.

The lost institutions from Minneapolis and "its suburbs" would leave gaping voids for the remaining section of St. Paul. The St. Paul U of M campus would have to build out rapidly, or maybe some combo of Mankato/St. Cloud/Duluth would pick up the slack and become the big state university/universities. Residents would be under-served in areas that otherwise would have filled in the St. Paul side if Mpls was never there.

Likewise, many of the remaining institutions in St. Paul would lose a huge segment of the market. I'm guessing the SPCO probably wouldn't be what it is. Xcel wouldn't get as many concerts. It's debatable whether this brave new St. Paul would have NHL hockey given the 900K figure.

Are we also wiping out the residents of the western half of the Twin Cities in this science experiment? Or are they allowed to resettle on the eastern side? If so, I'm sure you'd have many of the 900K moving out because of what has been lost, but you would have many from the west moving in. After a decade, the new St. Paul metro population might settle in at 1.5- 2M.

What becomes of this lost section? Barren land? A giant lake 50xs the size of Minnetonka would be pretty cool. Or how about a bottomless pit to Perth, Australia? I might change my vote to St. Paul if I get to live in a giant pitfront estate. What are the property taxes on that?

[iamjacobm]

Originally Posted by dober1

Another thing concentrate on the west side of Omaha, if you go east toward the Missouri river and south or north close to downtown things change dramatically

I would agree things change dramatically. Except I would argue things change for the better. Save the small area where gang activity is located east Omaha kicks the snot out of west Omaha.

[dober1]

Originally Posted by iamjacobm

I would agree things change dramatically. Except I would argue things change for the better. Save the small area where gang activity is located east Omaha kicks the snot out of west Omaha.

To each his own. You can keep the snot.

[Govie]

Originally Posted by northstar22

I voted for St. Paul, but I didn't realize Omaha was so big. I've never been there -- might have to take a trip down there someday.

Nothing special, IMO. One second you're in a corn field and the very next you're in downtown Omaha, literally. My cousin and I didn't like it at all when we went there for a Dylan concert several years back.

[MPLS_TC]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Omaha is a great town. There are about 800,000 in Omaha proper, so about the size of Minneapolis and St. Paul together. It's very similar to Minneapolis with the river, topography, etc. The zoo there is amazing. Flights out of Omaha are generally less expensive then they are out of the Twin Cities too. If you are a baseball fan, it's a hotbed for baseball. The College World Series is held there every year.

Wow 800,000 people in city proper!! That would make Omaha the second largest city in the midwest behind Chicago