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.
We've seen a list of Omaha's cool things. But it appears to have no dense areas, which every city on the typical "cool" city has, even Nashville and Austin.
Everyone from Boise to Buffalo has cool things too. Boise has a bigger downtown-adjacent university, a better river, a bike culture, and skiing close enough for evenings after work. Buffalo has centuries of history, a waterfall, and a lake.
We've seen a list of Omaha's cool things. But it appears to have no dense areas, which every city on the typical "cool" city has, even Nashville and Austin.
.
This is not accurate. Omaha was incorporated as a city in 1854.. And it has a much more significant built up downtown core and urbanized area than most who’ve never spent any real time in this city can even imagine.. Is it New York, Philly, Chicago, or even St Louis? No, lol. But for a metro of 1 million that’s been around for awhile.. It punches above its weight for “dense areas”..
Do research on Omaha’s Old Market area just south of the downtown core. Check the near south side and near north side areas in both directions from the downtown core. Check the midtown area, the Blackstone district, the Gold Coast and Cathedral neighborhoods.. Look into the Benson district, the Dundee area.. This will give you a nice sample size of “cool” dense areas in “uncool” Omaha.
In the 2018 ACS, Omaha had one census tract at 13,970 residents per square mile, plus three between 9,000 and 11,000. That beats some places, but it's well behind the typical "cool" places. Residents aren't the only factor in density, but they're a big one.
Austin had three in the 23,000 to 29,000 range (around UT), plus Downtown where the numbers weren't high at 7,000/sm in 2018 but they should be spiking today.
Nashville had three in the 18,000 to 30,000 range. Its greater Downtown area was really low, but again it would be spiking in 2020 and in a more localized way.
Buffalo had five adjacent tracts in the 15,000 to 17,000 range, plus other large areas consistently in the five figures.
In the 2018 ACS, Omaha had one census tract at 13,970 residents per square mile, plus three between 9,000 and 11,000. That beats some places, but it's well behind the typical "cool" places. Residents aren't the only factor in density, but they're a big one.
Austin had three in the 23,000 to 29,000 range (around UT), plus Downtown where the numbers weren't high at 7,000/sm in 2018 but they should be spiking today.
Nashville had three in the 18,000 to 30,000 range. Its greater Downtown area was really low, but again it would be spiking in 2020 and in a more localized way.
Buffalo had five adjacent tracts in the 15,000 to 17,000 range, plus other large areas consistently in the five figures.
Boise was pretty bad. It doesn't pass my test.
Cincinatti...three in the 22,000 to 30,000 range.
Richmond...three in the 16,000 to 20,000 range.
The bigger issue for Omaha is that it's in Nebraska... There just aren't that many people that have been exposed to that place, regardless of how cool it might be.
The bigger issue for Omaha is that it's in Nebraska... There just aren't that many people that have been exposed to that place, regardless of how cool it might be.
I've been to Omaha, and it's definitely underrated by people who haven't been there. It's hilly, has dense areas, sits on a major river, has lovely, leafy neighborhoods, and a healthy economy. If someone bashes it, just because of where it sits, that's their problem. I predict Omaha will grow in the future, as the popular cities that are growing now, become more and more expensive. Wait for it.
In the 2018 ACS, Omaha had one census tract at 13,970 residents per square mile, plus three between 9,000 and 11,000. That beats some places, but it's well behind the typical "cool" places. Residents aren't the only factor in density, but they're a big one.
Austin had three in the 23,000 to 29,000 range (around UT), plus Downtown where the numbers weren't high at 7,000/sm in 2018 but they should be spiking today.
Nashville had three in the 18,000 to 30,000 range. Its greater Downtown area was really low, but again it would be spiking in 2020 and in a more localized way.
Buffalo had five adjacent tracts in the 15,000 to 17,000 range, plus other large areas consistently in the five figures.
Boise was pretty bad. It doesn't pass my test.
Cincinatti...three in the 22,000 to 30,000 range.
Richmond...three in the 16,000 to 20,000 range.
I realize that density is important to creating somewhat of a "cool" vibe, but I'm not convinced that it tells the whole story. I realize that you pointed that out, but I'd take it further. I'm not convinced that the densest areas are even the coolest areas of a city, nor do the densest areas necessarily make a city cool. For example, when you get to 15,000-20,000/sq mi it can often mean that there are numerous residential towers in a small area, but it definitely doesn't guarantee that the street-level activity is more lively or fun. I also doesn't mean that the scale is more pedestrian friendly or even that transportation options are necessarily that much better.
A good example is PDX. I think the Alberta Arts District and North Mississippi District are some of the cooler areas of PDX. And yet....their surrounding neighborhoods generally have densities of around 8,000-10,000/sq mi- substantially less than parts of the city in and around downtown that I'm not nearly as enamored with. A number of Omaha's neighborhoods you referenced are in that 8-10 range.
Of course, everyone's definition of "cool" varies. You may prefer the feel of the densest areas, or being surrounded by skyscrapers. Personally I like urban areas but frequently find low-rise, mixed-use, mixed-architecture older neighborhoods with all kinds of businesses and storefronts to be the most appealing type of areas.
So obviously density is important, but like a walkscore, it doesn't substitute for a physical visit. Full disclosure: In this case, I haven't visited Omaha since I was a teenager. But several of my friends who live in the region these days and swear up and down that it's much cooler than people realize, and I believe them. Like Enean said, the fact it's in Nebraska is probably a big reason it's not on more radars.
Last edited by bartonizer; 03-05-2020 at 04:03 AM..
But Portland's Alberta and Mississippi examples are low-intensity districts. If you're happy with a few restaurants, a coffee shop, and a few other stores within a short walk, plus a decent bus line or two, they're great. They're like bearded small towns.
Stepping back a bit... The best retail streets aren't necessarily multi-story and might not have much new. Single use buildings have a lot of advantages for retail...stores can use the full depth of the building, they don't need to worry about kitchen exhaust annoying people upstairs, they can be noisier at night, they might not cover the whole site so there's room for a patio or a few parking spaces in back, and so on.
But solid retail for any distance requires a LOT of customers. There are two ways to do this: 1. Draw people from outside the walking radius, typically through a mix of transit/uber/driving, and/or 2. Have tons of people inside the easy walking radius. If the retail is a half-block deep, it's helpful for at least the next few blocks (and a half) to be very high density, like 30,000 or 60,000 residents/sm instead of 10,000. The walk needs to be easy and pleasant. If the retail itself has other uses on top, that can add intensity and broaden the activity, while possibly adding some hurdles to the retail.
Highly-active districts also mix other uses. Add a college, offices, and a few hotels and you'll be active every day and evening. The Portland examples probably don't get big lunch crowds.
That's very different from 1920. Back then most retail dollars were spent in the neighborhood. Today you might capture 1/4 or 1/2, the latter probably requiring a supermarket. So figure 20 square feet per resident since we average 40 today.
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.
