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.
Oklahoma City as a whole isn't " all countrified " you have people from every state in the country there. OKC is a lot more conservatist when compared to the more progressive Omaha , and the countrifed vibe is more or less the "cowboy vibe " that OKC has pretty much like Dallas and to a lesser degree Houston.
Being from Dallas and having visited Houston and Norman, OK a few times, I just want to say that OKC has a slightly bigger cowboy vibe than Dallas. In fact, Dallas doesn't really have the Western, cowboyish vibe as much as the big city to the west, Fort Worth. So I think OKC is more comparable to Fort Worth.
Houston doesn't really have a cowboy vibe IMO. It wasn't really a big city for the cattle trade when that was around in 19th century. Heck, it really wasn't a big city then at all. Houston really came into the limelight when a) Galveston got destroyed and put nearly completely underwater by a hurricane in 1900 and b) oil was found in Texas.
Ah, the KC, KS thing was a joke. I've never been to Omaha, but I assume it is a great city, and I honestly would love to visit. I only mentioned KC, KS because no one had really mentioned previously. However, I still think that Omaha is being compared to the wrong cities here. As someone said before, I think it's better compared to Milwaukee or Des Moines. NOT KC, KS. So no hard feelings against Omaha.
Out of curiosity, what is in KC, KS? I don't know too much about the Midwest except some general stuff and what I see people arguing about on c-d haha.
KC, KS has been getting better lately. Legends Mall and the area surrounding it is really nice. They might have the best soccer only facility in the country. It is AMAZING. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7xaAuEY7U3...ing%2Bpark.jpg
Haven't spent enough time in the city to comment much more on it, but it seems much more blue collar than KC, MO.
Location: Midwesterner living in California (previously East Coast)
296 posts, read 438,291 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaySwelly
Ah, the KC, KS thing was a joke. I've never been to Omaha, but I assume it is a great city, and I honestly would love to visit. I only mentioned KC, KS because no one had really mentioned previously. However, I still think that Omaha is being compared to the wrong cities here. As someone said before, I think it's better compared to Milwaukee or Des Moines. NOT KC, KS. So no hard feelings against Omaha.
Out of curiosity, what is in KC, KS? I don't know too much about the Midwest except some general stuff and what I see people arguing about on c-d haha.
There is a big difference between KCMO and KCK. KCMO is the true urban part of the metropolitan area. It has majority of the national recognition. KCK is an industrial town next door. It has the Kansas Speedway, The Legends shopping area, and then the Livestrong Stadium (arguably the BEST soccer facility in the nation).
But in my opinion, most of KCK is run down, industrial decay.
However, don't make the mistake of confusing Kansas City, Kansas with the KC suburbs on the Kansas side of the border. They are two very different places. Most of those suburbs are in Johnson County, which is wealthy suburbia. KCK is in Wyandotte County.
Maybe I'm misreading, but I'm pretty sure the maps you posted show total population, not population density.
The NYT mapping the census data shows the people per square mile. So a census tract in downtown Indy, or KC (or wherever for that matter), might have twice as many people as a census tract in city X, but if the census tracts are not the same size -- and they are not -- then the density is obviously diluted.
For instance, StL's official downtown is about 2.25 square miles, KC's is 3, Indy's is 6.5. So downtown Indy would need over twice the population of KC and nearly 3 times the population of St Louis' to be as dense.
Does the Indy DT council have a figure for how many people lived in it's definition of downtown Indy as of the 2010 census? The NE quadrant of the area you circled is about 8K ppsm, the rest is quite a bit less dense, much like the part of KC's "downtown" which is light industrial, warehouse and railyards.
I don't really consider the Crossroads district in KC to be downtown, but the powers that be do, and I know the official downtown definition of Indy is 6.5 miles square, so it'd be interesting to see how many people live in that area.
Indy's has more darker tracts areas in it's core than KC marking downtown. The higher the population in those tracts the higher the density. I'm not sure what the 2010 census total is for downtown. I guessing over 25k.
Well, density stats are very misleading when looking at KCMO because the city limits covers such a huge area (much of it is suburban or even rural in parts).
The original city limits of KCMO has a respectable density of 5-9k per square mile. It's not boston or even St Louis, but it's not as low as the city wide density stats would have you believe.
I would assume the same can be said about Indy which is in a similar situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo
Well, density stats are very misleading when looking at KCMO because the city limits covers such a huge area (much of it is suburban or even rural in parts).
The original city limits of KCMO has a respectable density of 5-9k per square mile. It's not boston or even St Louis, but it's not as low as the city wide density stats would have you believe.
I would assume the same can be said about Indy which is in a similar situation.
You can say that for a myriad of cities whose borders have expanded over the years. KC is now what, 313 sq miles. Indianapolis is 373 once you add in the balance so you obviously need a lot more people to equal the density of smaller locales land wise.
Piggy backing:
Holiday World and now once again Kentucky Kingdom to the south. Kings Island to the East, Great America to the North and even six flags STL 4 hours to the West makes a very saturated amusement park market out here esp. with Kings Island and Kentucky Kingdom both being under 2 hours away.
Going thru amenities,
MrIndependent, go back and read the thread. My retort was to others stating all of the amenities KC has over Indianapolis in which I responded in kind. Not once did I state Indianapolis has more.
CCP, again, at the end of the day it's a shopping mall where people go and buy stuff, grab a bite to eat, walk around etc. It's an older Clay Terrace or Metropolis. It has European features in its construction but it's a mall and part of a mixed use development. Again, an older Clay Terrace. Missourians take pride in it and that's ok. It's a tourist attraction and that's to be expected (part of being a tourist is shopping). Also at the end of the day IMS is a racetrack. One big difference is CCP actually has everyday use for its residents, IMS definitely has more pageantry that go with it from the parade to the mini, to kids day, bump day, etc. It's not an everyday use facility outside of the museum like CCP.
The most known museum in Indianapolis is ICM, which just happens to be the 17th most visited museum in the US and really has no competitors in its genre. Houston's is catching up though but ICM has no direct competitor in quality or name recognition. IMA is actually the oldest as it's the 7th-9th oldest Museum nationally. It's a great museum that just happens to get overshadowed by the Children's museum known for its African art collection and immaculate grounds covering 152 acres. They actually have a couple of pieces on load to Atkins. If you have a free day, check it out. It's on 38th st (hard to get suburbanites to because it's well 38th).
Indiana War Memorial and Museum (lower level) covers all hoosiers through the various wars with the names of the fallen to boot. It's not going to have the name from someone from another state. All in all, KC still doesn't have anything on par that matches with Soldiers & Sailors which also houses a civil war museum on the lower level. State constitution prevents it from ever being torn down along with military park. It's completely intertwined with Indianapolis every day life from eating lunch on the steps to the Strawberry festival to the Circle of lights.
Oh and St Louis is not a deserted city by any stretch of the imagination. Parts of downtown still need some love. Downtown StL seems a bit behind downtown KC when it comes to converting all those warehouses into lofts etc, but so much of StL city is very vibrant and full of life. When I think of St Louis, blight and decay and vacant buildings does not even cross my mind because I think of all the vibrant areas it has. Even the north side has a lot of people in it and there are very few areas of StL that are just bombed out like what you would find in Detroit, but the areas they do have are almost entirely on the north side of the city. The midtown through west end and south sides of StL are really neat urban areas that anybody that likes cities in general should enjoy. What I like about StL is it's not just fake and manufactured. It's a real city. I love Portland and Denver etc, but StL has its own vibe and culture and you can feel it just by walking down the street. It's not just a bunch of new condo buildings filled with white people from the suburbs that could be in any gentrifying city usa.
St Louis is awesome.
This. Imo when people what to know about the best kept secret urban city, Portland and Austin show up on those lists. While those cities are nice, many times what people are looking for, cheap urban living, is found in st Louis.
Indy's has more darker tracts areas in it's core than KC marking downtown. The higher the population in those tracts the higher the density. I'm not sure what the 2010 census total is for downtown. I guessing over 25k.
Somebody else said 25K as of 2010. Which is great. No one is disputing the gross population of dowtown Indy is bigger. Somebody, I think you, got hung up on density figures and asked about KC's. I provided them. It just so happens that downtown KC is denser than DT Indy.
It's not a question of "counting" darker and lighter tracts. A "lighter" tract could be 1,001 ppsm or 4,999 ppsm. A dark tract could be 5,000 ppsm or 20,000 ppsm. Its a question of how many people live in your downtown's official borders divided by how big those borders are.
Indy has 25K in 6.5 square miles = 3,846 ppsm
Dt KC has 5,800+ ppsm and Dt StL has something like 6,000 ppsm.
It's not really surprising, St Louis is the densest of the three cities, it has a quite a few census tracts in the 5-10K ppsm range, and even a couple in the 12-13K range.
KC has mostly 3-7K range, with a smattering of 8-10K and one little pocket of the city with 11K. Indy's densest tract is that downtown quadrant with 8K ppsm. KC has a smattering of residential urban neighborhoods with higher density than that and StL has a couple pretty significant contiguous chunks of the city that are denser.
And KC and StL are both denser urbanized areas. (And Omaha is a significantly denser UA than both of them).
I'm not arguing that makes them better, or more lively. I think St Louis' downtown feels less busy than KC's, even during business hours, and that's despite a slightly higher residential density and I think significantly more employment. I think Omaha's downtown is more fun than either of them. As I said, there's more to factor in than just numbers, especially numbers in just one neighborhood or district of an entire city. Hell, Omaha has a tract with 15K ppsm, but even that tract is not more vibrant than the Plaza or the Central West End. And Columbus has a swath of tracts that are much, much denser than anything in St Louis, but I don't think Old North Columbus has half the charm of Tower Grove South. St Louis is denser and bigger than KC, yet I like KC better for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that I feel that, despite KC's small size, it's amenities and quality of life stack up nicely to cities the size of St Louis (in fact, especially StL, which I think is kind of the low end of its range).
Its fine to feel the same way about Indianapolis, without trying to fudge facts.
St Louis is denser and bigger than KC, yet I like KC better for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that I feel that, despite KC's small size, it's amenities and quality of life stack up nicely to cities the size of St Louis (in fact, especially StL, which I think is kind of the low end of its range).
are you able to qualify this perception? i personally think st. louis falls on the very, very high end of the spectrum for cities in its size bracket. i come from a philadelphia frame of reference.
Somebody else said 25K as of 2010. Which is great. No one is disputing the gross population of dowtown Indy is bigger. Somebody, I think you, got hung up on density figures and asked about KC's. I provided them. It just so happens that downtown KC is denser than DT Indy.
It's not a question of "counting" darker and lighter tracts. A "lighter" tract could be 1,001 ppsm or 4,999 ppsm. A dark tract could be 5,000 ppsm or 20,000 ppsm. Its a question of how many people live in your downtown's official borders divided by how big those borders are.
Indy has 25K in 6.5 square miles = 3,846 ppsm
Dt KC has 5,800+ ppsm and Dt StL has something like 6,000 ppsm.
It's not really surprising, St Louis is the densest of the three cities, it has a quite a few census tracts in the 5-10K ppsm range, and even a couple in the 12-13K range.
KC has mostly 3-7K range, with a smattering of 8-10K and one little pocket of the city with 11K. Indy's densest tract is that downtown quadrant with 8K ppsm. KC has a smattering of residential urban neighborhoods with higher density than that and StL has a couple pretty significant contiguous chunks of the city that are denser.
And KC and StL are both denser urbanized areas. (And Omaha is a significantly denser UA than both of them).
I'm not arguing that makes them better, or more lively. I think St Louis' downtown feels less busy than KC's, even during business hours, and that's despite a slightly higher residential density and I think significantly more employment. I think Omaha's downtown is more fun than either of them. As I said, there's more to factor in than just numbers, especially numbers in just one neighborhood or district of an entire city. Hell, Omaha has a tract with 15K ppsm, but even that tract is not more vibrant than the Plaza or the Central West End. And Columbus has a swath of tracts that are much, much denser than anything in St Louis, but I don't think Old North Columbus has half the charm of Tower Grove South. St Louis is denser and bigger than KC, yet I like KC better for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that I feel that, despite KC's small size, it's amenities and quality of life stack up nicely to cities the size of St Louis (in fact, especially StL, which I think is kind of the low end of its range).
Its fine to feel the same way about Indianapolis, without trying to fudge facts.
Nice post, but I'm curious to know why you think Omaha is more fun than KC or StL? I'm not disputing it, everybody has different interests. Like if you would rather bike along the river than go to a bar district for example. I like Omaha, just wondered why you would say their downtown is that exciting.
While I like StL better than KC, I think they both offer a ton of amenities and "big city" attractions/culture. For 2.1 million, KC has more than average. For 2.9 million, I can’t think of another city under 3 that has as much as StL. Maybe San Diego?
Indy is just a city that has never really got me too excited I guess. I think it’s a nice town, I would just much rather live in StL or KC. They are more my style. If it were not for its location, I would even choose Omaha over Indy. But I would have a hard time living a metro that small while being isolated at the same time. But Omaha is great.
Indy just doesn’t do anything for me. Even the new residential projects are just meh. I like the city, I just don’t think its built environment compares very well to StL or KC while it’s actually more in line with Omaha in overall feel and size of the urban portion of the city, while I realize the metro is twice as big. People will hate that I just said that, but that’s my opinion. Get above StL or KC in a helicopter and it’s freaking amazing how many pockets of urban dense areas there are with blocks of mid rise 1920’s apartments etc or new midrise districts, multiple skylines etc. Indy is about like Omaha when you get above it only I would say that Omaha’s midtown area is even something that Indy doesn’t have. Indy is just built differently for some reason.
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.
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.
I've never been to Omaha, but I assume it is a great city, and I honestly would love to visit. I only mentioned KC, KS because no one had really mentioned previously. 
However, I still think that Omaha is being compared to the wrong cities here. As someone said before, I think it's better compared to Milwaukee or Des Moines. NOT KC, KS. So no hard feelings against Omaha.
