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.
Omaha is over a 100 sq. miles (it's land area is actually larger than Minneapolis-St. Paul combined) and its density is somewhere around 3600 per square mile. That's hardly dense.
I wasn't speaking of density. I was speaking of city planning which is not conducive to suburban sprawl. (Creating multiple city centers, Freeway designs, infrastructure layout, annexation, etc)
Omaha has a higher population than Minneapolis, what did you expect? The Minneapolis suburbs surround the city and they have taken the form of sprawl for them.
In Omaha's case, they have annexed many surrounding suburbs to keep themselves from being enclosed and therefore have absorbs some of the sprawl that was present.
It's hard to explain, but an Omaha/Minneapolis comparison just doesn't work.
I wasn't speaking of density. I was speaking of city planning which is not conducive to suburban sprawl. (Creating multiple city centers, Freeway designs, infrastructure layout, annexation, etc)
Omaha has a higher population than Minneapolis, what did you expect? The Minneapolis suburbs surround the city and they have taken the form of sprawl for them.
In Omaha's case, they have annexed many surrounding suburbs to keep themselves from being enclosed and therefore have absorbs some of the sprawl that was present.
It's hard to explain, but an Omaha/Minneapolis comparison just doesn't work.
I wasn't talking about suburban sprawl either. I stated the listed cities are a sprawling mess meaning they are very large in terms of land area and also in terms of development.
BTW, saying that city of over 100 sq. miles (Omaha) has a larger population than a city that is 55 sq. miles (Minneapolis) doesn't mean much. Anyway, you're right, an Omaha/Minneapolis comparison doesn't work as the two cities are in different leagues.
I wish I could have added Jersey City and Austin to this poll. San Antonio was left out because it already is a "big" city, to some people. Nashville and Memphis too were left out because they are nice sized cities but are pretty well-known and popular. I couldn't think of any cities in the mid-west by Minneapolis to put on here so that there would be an even geographic representation. I appreciate all the responses so far and I am amazed at how many have picked Charlotte. I figured Jacksonville and OK City would give it a run for the money.
Actually. It's not way bigger at all. They are roughly the same size. Now historically, San Antonio is the bigger city. But Austin has made up ground within the past 20 years.
Bexar County (San Antonio) 1,392,000
Travis County (Austin) 812,000
Cameron/Hidalgo Counties (Rio Grande Valley) 909,000, plus 929,000 in adjacent Matamoros and Reynosa, Mexico, total 1,838,000. Pretty close to the size of Austin and San Antonio put together.
I wasn't talking about suburban sprawl either. I stated the listed cities are a sprawling mess meaning they are very large in terms of land area and also in terms of development.
BTW, saying that city of over 100 sq. miles (Omaha) has a larger population than a city that is 55 sq. miles (Minneapolis) doesn't mean much. Anyway, you're right, an Omaha/Minneapolis comparison doesn't work as the two cities are in different leagues.
HAHA, do you absolutely insist on NOT knowing what you are talking about? Do you even have a good understanding of what sprawl really is? It's not as simple as population vrs. land area.
Sprawlmanac Metro Fact Sheet (http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/factsheet_omaha.html - broken link)
"At the other end of the scale, the metro area with the highest overall score is, not surprisingly, New York City, closely followed by Jersey City just across the Hudson River. (New York and Jersey City are such extreme “outliers” that they were excluded from most of the comparative analysis discussed later in the report.) Providence, San Francisco, and Honolulu round out the top five most compact metros, followed by Omaha, NE, Boston, Portland, OR, Miami, and New Orleans. "
I was just thinking about that. Here's some smaller cities that seem on the verge of big things...
Sioux Falls, SD
Boise, ID
Asheville, NC
Wichita, KS
Des Moines, IA
Madison, WI
Odessa-Midland, TX
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.
Do you even have a good understanding of what sprawl really is? It's not as simple as population vrs. land area. 
