Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2012, 01:54 AM
 
113 posts, read 306,913 times
Reputation: 79

Advertisements

Hi if we compare Raleigh to Omaha in terms of 1-Cost of life 2-job market 3- safety 4- summer weatherwhich city winsthanks in advance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2012, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Charlotte
1,355 posts, read 2,680,995 times
Reputation: 639
Well for starters, the Raleigh metro is twice as large as Omaha's.

I don't know what you mean by "cost of life", but I'm assuming you meant cost of living. Raleigh is continuously ranked as one of the best places to live in America, and you can get a lot for your money.

Raleigh, and the Triangle all together have a very strong job market. It's mostly centered around technology/medicine. The area is very sophisticated and has some of the highest ranked universities in America as well.

As for safety, IMO most parts are fairly safe. Never really had a problem with safety in Raleigh. Omaha's crime rate is lower than the average rates for cities it's size.

From my experience, Raleigh and the surrounding area is always a little more warmer than the rest of the state. While in Omaha, you'll be in the dead center of Tornado Alley, which is something that'd take the city off of my list very fast.

The decision is obviously yours, but I think Raleigh is the best choice for your criteria.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2012, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,895,906 times
Reputation: 6438
Like KC, Omaha has basements and tornadoes are actually rare, especially those that do damage. Tornadoes are pretty much a non issue in KC and I'm sure it's the same in Omaha.

Also, Omaha might be a smaller metro, but it sure doesn't feel like it. Omaha actually feels considerably larger than Raleigh to me.

I would probably choose Raleigh over Omaha purely based on location though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 12:23 AM
 
Location: Charlotte
1,355 posts, read 2,680,995 times
Reputation: 639
A city that has 18 tornadoes in the same month obviously are an issue. Having stayed in both Kansas City for a year and Omaha for about 7 months, every thunderstorm made me very alarmed. If the OP is use to tornadoes, then it isn't really a problem.

The Raleigh metro is over twice as large as Omaha's and I'm pretty sure Omaha has more land.

Although I know Raleigh isn't very well know for having much entertainment and such, it definitely beats out Omaha. You feel too isolated from the rest of the world, so yes, Raleigh's location gives another reason for a better choice.

Raleigh has a better economy without a doubt and most of the jobs are very high paying.

For the criteria, Raleigh without a doubt. Not even sure why Omaha out of all cities was choose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 12:31 AM
 
93,411 posts, read 124,052,832 times
Reputation: 18273
Omaha has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and is a growing metro area as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 01:35 AM
 
Location: Charlotte
1,355 posts, read 2,680,995 times
Reputation: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
Omaha has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and is a growing metro area as well.
Omaha- 4.4
Raleigh- 7.1

Omaha: 877,110
Raleigh: 1,795,750

Lower numbers are to be expected.

Raleigh is #2 in the Nation upon fastest growing. Omaha is not on the list.

Not saying Omaha isn't growing, just not as fast as Raleigh.

There's no competition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,196,055 times
Reputation: 4407
Rate of growth does not necessarily equate to city greatness, and it never will be a strong indicator by itself. Rate of growth has the most to do with taking advantage of an opportunity (usually weather and income/COL -- just two of many important factors for choosing where to live). The BEST kind of growth is sustainable growth, which would indicate that resources and supply can keep up with demand with little/no interruption.

That being said, I'm not sure which city I'd prefer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,196,055 times
Reputation: 4407
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltonc12 View Post
A city that has 18 tornadoes in the same month obviously are an issue. Having stayed in both Kansas City for a year and Omaha for about 7 months, every thunderstorm made me very alarmed. If the OP is use to tornadoes, then it isn't really a problem.

The Raleigh metro is over twice as large as Omaha's and I'm pretty sure Omaha has more land.

Although I know Raleigh isn't very well know for having much entertainment and such, it definitely beats out Omaha. You feel too isolated from the rest of the world, so yes, Raleigh's location gives another reason for a better choice.

Raleigh has a better economy without a doubt and most of the jobs are very high paying.

For the criteria, Raleigh without a doubt. Not even sure why Omaha out of all cities was choose.
For your first point (I don't consider the tornado discussion as a point, since it's ridiculous and subjective), there is no way this is true, and I'd venture to guess that Raleigh sprawls more than Omaha.

Secondly, Raleigh does not have a clear and obvious locational advantage that I can see, as it's at least as far if not further to an Alpha World City (New York for Raleigh vs. Chicago for Omaha), and although Raleigh is close to Charlotte, Richmond, D.C. and Atlanta; Omaha is close enough to Kansas City, Minneapolis, Chicago, and St. Louis -- not exactly a "slam dunk" for Raleigh at all!

Finally, your last point about Raleigh's economy makes no sense to me. Not only does Raleigh have a higher unemployment rate, but Omaha has this Global HQ of -- you may have heard of it -- Berkshire Hathaway.............and yet Raleigh has the better economy? Omaha is also a major railroad hub and home to Union Pacific's HQ, as well as Mutual of Omaha and ConAgra Foods. Raleigh has Process Energy and Pantry (who??). As a businessman myself, I can clearly see that the potential for high paying jobs is more prevalent in Omaha, at least at the surface level.

So in spite of all this, I'm not willing to go out on a limb and say Omaha blows Raleigh out of the water in this competition, even though I can come up with (objective) reasons why it should. You should probably consider toning down the homerism for Raleigh though!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX and wherever planes fly
1,907 posts, read 3,231,068 times
Reputation: 2129
Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill hands down. Omaha isn't even in the same league. When push comes to shove. Plus the mountains and beach are 2-3 hours either side of Raleigh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,895,906 times
Reputation: 6438
Raleigh sprawls way more than Omaha. The Raleigh metro absolutely does not feel like a metro over 1.5 million. As I mentioned earlier, it actually feels smaller than Omaha to me on the ground.

When you look up the urbanized population, they are nearly the same with Omaha at 725k and Raleigh at 885k. I still find Omaha is be more compact and dense than Raleigh.

But Raleigh and Omaha are quite comparable, much more than I think people in Raleigh would like to admit.

Both are nice metros, but I wouldn't want to live in either though. Both are too small and far from larger metros for my tastes.

Last edited by JMT; 11-06-2012 at 03:28 PM.. Reason: Removed off topic comments
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top