Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To me Omaha definitely has more of a "Midwest" flavor than Lincoln does. Lincoln has more of a "Plains" flavor. Omaha probably has more of a regional influence that encompasses a larger area that includes a bigger portion of the Midwest area. The economy is strong in Omaha so that leads to quite a bit of in-migration from other parts of the country as well. Also, the population closer to the Midwest core tends to be more liberal than what you would find in most of the central plains where Lincoln is located.
Did you see the article Thursday in the Wall Street Journal about Youngstown, OH? It basically noted how they've got a 10-year plan there to tear down old homes, beautify neighborhoods, and give the town a more rural feel. It's so hard for me to imagine--coming from baby-crazy Colorado--but it's probably the best plan.
Whenever I travel through western and northern sections of Kansas I am shocked at all of the decay and abandoned businesses and buildings on the landscape. Their are a large number of ghost towns in Kansas as well. When I traveled along I-70 recently it was shocking to see how few Kansas license plates there were in comparison to the Colorado license plates. It just shows that the population is becoming even more concentrated in urban areas over time. The rural economies in these areas of Kansas are also doing quite poorly, so even more younger residents have to find jobs elsewhere.
Do a comparison and check out the demographics of rural counties in western and northern counties of Kansas compared with the rural counties of Colorado. The differences are unbelievably stark. Younger residents want the diversity, excitement, and job opportunities that an urban area provides. Most towns in the great plains can not provide that experience at all. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/kansas_map.html
This lists the demographic data for every county in Kansas. Consolidation must happen soon based on the data I am seeing.
I would agree that Lincoln has a bit more of a small town feel. However, that's only compared to Omaha. The two cities are only about 30 to 40 minutes apart, so I wouldn't really describe Lincoln as being anymore on the plains than Omaha (in a geographic sense). I think most people's opinion of Lincoln is related to there I-80 drive-by of the city. 95% of the town is south of I-80 and, unfortunately, the older run down areas are off the interstate. When you compare Lincoln to any other city in Nebraska it feels like a big city.
That said, Omaha does have a bit more of a metro feel to it and I've always said that. My whole issue with Mattden's posts are that he's taking the absolute worst area of Lincoln and acting as though the entire city shares that same makeup. Its really just laughable and anyone who has been in Lincoln knows that and, in short, its really just insulting, demeaning, and pretentious. For example:
...but Lincoln has a very large population of very poor people who have lots of babies
The statement is just ridiculous and anyone who has spent any amount of time in Lincoln knows that. The statistics (per capita income, birth rates, cost of living...etc.) don't support his argument either. He comes to conclusions like this because HE lives in one of the poorest neighborhoods in town, so when he looks out the window he sees some run down houses and families who probably had few too many children. However, 95% of Lincoln is nothing like this depiction.
I could pick a horrible part of L.A. (let's say Compton) and then conclude that all of L.A. is riddled with gang warfare and drugs. Obviously, that depiction is pretty silly, but this is completely analogous to what Mattden is trying to do.
The bottom line is the stats, even when twisted, don't support his assertions, so he just resorts to insulting a city's entire population.
I would agree that Lincoln has a bit more of a small town feel. However, that's only compared to Omaha. The two cities are only about 30 to 40 minutes apart, so I wouldn't really describe Lincoln as being anymore on the plains than Omaha (in a geographic sense). I think most people's opinion of Lincoln is related to there I-80 drive-by of the city. 95% of the town is south of I-80 and, unfortunately, the older run down areas are off the interstate. When you compare Lincoln to any other city in Nebraska it feels like a big city.
That said, Omaha does have a bit more of a metro feel to it and I've always said that. My whole issue with Mattden's posts are that he's taking the absolute worst area of Lincoln and acting as though the entire city shares that same makeup. Its really just laughable and anyone who has been in Lincoln knows that and, in short, its really just insulting, demeaning, and pretentious.
I could pick a horrible part of L.A. (let's say compton) and then conclude that all of L.A. is riddled with gang warfare and drugs. Obviously, that depiction is pretty silly, but this is completely analogous to what Mattden is trying to do.
The bottom line the stats, even when twisted, don't support his assertions, so he just resorts to insulting a city's entire population.
Lincoln is a University town and is also the state capitol of Nebraska. Lincoln does have a slight metro feel but Omaha definitely does have a greater amount of in-migration from other states besides Nebraska and Iowa. Omaha also continues to have a stronger economy compared to Lincoln so that in turn accounts for differing groups and types of people in the Omaha metro. Although, Lincoln does have some much needed diversity because of the University presence.
Lawrence Kansas is also a University town located along I-70 in Kansas. It faces a similar situation compared with Lincoln. About 95% of the population of Lawrence lives south of I-70, and the areas of town that are near the interstate and north of it are not in good shape at all. The area to the north of the interstate is in a floodplain and contains a railroad, abandoned car lots, vacant stores, rusted out signs, crumbling streets, a massive coal plant built in the 1950s, and a lightly used municipal airport. I do not think the residents living in the floodplain have basements either. That is not a good thing if you live in Kansas.
Last edited by GraniteStater; 05-06-2007 at 11:14 PM..
Reason: Adding info
Agreed, Omaha does feel much more midwestern then Lincoln.
Omaha just seems culturally different then the rest of Nebraska. Its far more diverse, politically moderate with a large concentraton of liberals on the east-side of the city.
Omaha feels like a smaller-version of Indianapolis with far less social problems and more hills. So it does have a more midwestern feel. Also the people of Omaha are similar personality as people in the Indianapolis area from my experiences.
Lincoln is more like a Topeka, Kansas it is just much more of a very conservative great plains city then Omaha.
Lincoln is a bit ahead of Topeka but not by much. Both cities are falling behind in the region economically compared to places like Jefferson City, Sioux Falls and Fargo. Just a quick look at the numbers shows this.
The University of Nebraska Lincoln is less then 10% of the entire Lincoln population so I really wouldnt call Lincoln a college town. Lawrence, Boulder, St. Cloud and Fargo are much more college towns then Lincoln.
Anyway, the per-capita income for 2005 showed Lincoln 3% below the national average on per-capita income's while Omaha was 20% above this was from the Bureau of Economic analysis. So Omaha is far ahead of Lincoln on economic prosperity.
I wouldn't argue with anything you said in your last post. The cities do have different feels to them. My argument was that I completely disagree with the assertion that Lincoln was full of a bunch of welfare families with 6 kids and living in shacks. We both know that is not the "norm" in Lincoln.
At any rate, I agree Omaha, as a city, is more progressive and is ahead of the curve. Lincoln government made some serious missteps in the early 90's and they have been trying to make up for those mistakes. However, with the announcement of 3 major development plans in the downtown/university area and continued emphasis on developing freeway systems the city is headed in the right direction.
As far as per-capita income, by the same statistical source you quote (BEA), Omaha reports a per-capita income of $37,400 and Lincoln reports an income of $33,600. This ranks Omaha at #41 and Lincoln at #97 in terms of U.S. metro areas. Also, it should be noted that the BEA report give data for 361 metro areas. That means both Lincoln and Omaha are in the top 1/3 of metro areas in terms of per-capita income. In addition, you must also couple the with cost of living to get an idea of quality of life. When you do that the difference between Omaha and Lincoln shrinks even more. That is basically my point. Omaha is ahead of the curve and Lincoln will always be the little brother, due to Omaha's much larger size, but the economic conditions between the two are not significantly different.
Last edited by mattpoulsen; 05-07-2007 at 02:01 AM..
The Bureau of Economic analysis also puts per-capita income in Douglas County at 120% the national average and Lancaster County at 97%.
This is from 2005
Additionally, Cuyahoga County, Ohio is 108% the national average and is home to poorest city in the nation Cleveland, Ohio. I guess if Cuyahoga County, Ohio did and annex almost an entire counties population base it could be well-off also.
Anyway, I guess different economic reports can be read different. Lancaster County is 3% below the national average on per-capita income but is #97 as far its metropolitan area per capita income.
I think its ironic how someplace can be #97 out of 360 metro areas and still be below the national average. I guess the rich metro areas are getting richer and the poor areas are getting poorer.
The Census Bureau website is been doing weird things. They posted the 2006 population numbers for all states and counties and have now taken the data down! The numbers are only from 2005 now.
Just too funny, poor, poor Omaha. Sounds like a big ole' bully getting picked on. If you're all fired up about it Mattden, why don't ya just move to Ohio like your profile says ya are.
WOW, who is this person who has lived in Lincoln for 9 months and has such "insight" of the city? I grew up in Omaha, I've also lived in Minneapolis and I'm now in Lincoln. I would take Lincoln over Omaha any day of the week. It has nothing to do with the property taxes, I think they are way too high, but I will deal with the high property taxes just to live in Lincoln which is much safer than Omaha. There is rarely an evening I can turn on the Omaha news and not hear about another shooting. My parents house in central Omaha has been burglarized more times than I can count, their car was stolen out of their driveway. I look back at the Omaha Public School I attended, when I attended it was a bit rough, now there is no way I would attend that school let alone feel comfortable sending my children there.
Yes, I agree Lincoln Public Schools needed to build more schools, but because they encourage young girls to have babies is absolutely absurd. The reason LPS needs more schools is because many families are choosing to move to Lincoln because of the low crime rate, healthy family values in the community and safer public schools. Have you looked at the housing industry in Lincoln? How about taking a drive down 27th street from North to South Lincoln and see ALL of the neighborhoods. Detour into some of these neighborhoods and you will see all walks of life, just as you do in Omaha.
If Lincoln is so anti-gay, why would Lincoln High School allow a Gay Pride dance? I know it has existed as my straight son attended with his gay friends. If Lincoln was so anti-choice, why would LPS invite representatives from Planned Parenthood talk to students? Before you jump to the conclusion that Planned Parenthood encourages students to have babies; let me point out that they talk about abstinence, they educate about STD's and try to steer students into making healthy choices about their bodies. Oh, and before I go eat my pound of daily potatoes, let me point out that LPS teaches students how to eat healthy, they do still teach the food pyramid in health class, the kids go to PE class. Yes, we have overweight kids in our school, but you need to look at the US as a whole, we are an overweight country. And by the way, I am a mom of 4 and have managed to raise my children without being on welfare. My oldest daughter has managed to make it to the age of 20 without adding to our population, as a matter of fact, she is serving our country in the USAF and is scheduled to be deployed soon. Hmmmmm....I guess she put her baby making machine on hold for her country. My oldest son is working full time and saving money for college....Hmmmm....I don't see him trying to receive welfare either. My younger twin boys are in high school and "oh my gosh" they still believe in helping out their neighbors by mowing and doing snow removal for some of the older, retired people in the neighborhood, and heaven forbid that I have allowed them to play with a boy who has gay parents.
Can you tell you've struck a nerve? Know the facts before you stereotype a city. Lincoln may have some problems, but EVERY medium/large city in the country has problems.
Now let me ask you, if you hate Lincoln so much, how did you last 9 months? You better move on before we warp your mind!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.