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.
If Springfield is bigger, then why does citi-data show that Lincoln is considerably bigger? Or does Springfield simply feels bigger to you?
Springfield's metro area is bigger, but the city is smaller. It's all offset by Lincoln's proximity to Omaha though. Springfield's nearest big city is 3 hours to Kansas City or 4 to St. Louis if you're going the speed limits.
Lincoln will be a good bit colder in winter, but not exactly the north pole. They're both susceptible to extremes from time to time.
Springfield's metro area is bigger, but the city is smaller. It's all offset by Lincoln's proximity to Omaha though. Springfield's nearest big city is 3 hours to Kansas City or 4 to St. Louis if you're going the speed limits.
Lincoln will be a good bit colder in winter, but not exactly the north pole. They're both susceptible to extremes from time to time.
Springfield is like 2.5 hours from Tulsa, which is pretty nice, and quite urban as well.
I keep forgetting about Tulsa. Not sure it offers much more to do than Springfield, certainly not in the way KC and St. Louis does.
Springfield is way more similar to Northwest Arkansas than it is Tulsa. Pretty much an overgrown small college town. Tulsa is a small major city. I suppose "things to do" is a matter of interpretation but when you are in downtown Tulsa vs downtown Springfield you are in two completely different environments. And when you are driving around town you can sure tell the difference.
Here's the thing: I lived near Springfield a few years and pretty much no one went to Tulsa for anything unless maybe if they had family there.
They went to KC and St. Louis all the time. Museums, sports, shopping... no offense to Tulsa, but while it might be a step up from Springfield, it's as close to being like that than it is to being like those larger cities. For close-by touristy stuff, Springfield has Branson next door.
Anything more than an hour or so is going to be a weekend trip anyway, and the bigger Missouri cities are much more of a draw for that than Tulsa.
As for Lincoln, Omaha is right there very close, and it's also about 3 hours from Kansas City. If a person wants more outdoorsy stuff like fishing, Springfield is in the middle of all that.
When it's all said and done, a person still has to live in the town they choose day to day. For that, Lincoln just seems like a nicer place.
If I were to move to Nebraska, I'd live in the northwestern part of the state - Chadron, Scottsbluff, or Valentine. Some pretty country in that part of the state. Healthcare and jobs would be tough sledding there, though. But I digress...
Springfield is considerably more verdant than Lincoln if trees are important to you.
Given the need/desire for quality medical care your final two options are quite limited and wonder how you wound up with those two given better options similarly priced. Columbia MO has the well-regarded U of Missouri Medical Center and is about the same cost as Springfield. Tulsa OK is even cheaper than your two options and has the Oklahoma State U Medical Center which is of higher quality as well.
Thanks for all the good replies. Colombia I think is much higher in rent costs than Springfield, but I agree probably has much better medical. Tulsa is also higher than either Springfield or Lincoln. I have been to both and they are nice cities. But you're right, both probably superior for healthcare.
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.