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.
Location: Originally Fayetteville, Arkansas/ now Seattle, Washington!
1,047 posts, read 3,946,025 times
Reputation: 382
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
Birmingham proper is under 300,000. But Birmingham's metro population is around 1,200,000, 50% higher than Omaha's.
I think you have to compare metro areas, rather than the core city. Otherwise, the comparisons based on population fluctuate wildly.
Yes this has been discussed many times that metro must be considered, otherwise Miami would be considered to be similar in population to Omaha!!! I still don't understand why Omaha is on here, I have only heard Omaha mentioned once in my whole life that i can think of (outside of city data) by someone from my hometown in Arkansas that was moving there because they had family or something of the sort. If Omaha is mentioned, Tulsa definatly should be (though OKC is already on here) Birmingham, Pittsburg...though for major cities I barely ever hear about B-ham or pittsburg, but way more than Omaha. And where are the Cali cities like San Diego and Sacramento??? On city-data you hear a lot about San Diego, but in the real world I don't here much about it nation wide. And Sacramento would have gotten my vote had it been on here, a very over looked, under rated city.
Birmingham proper is under 300,000. But Birmingham's metro population is around 1,200,000, 50% higher than Omaha's.
I think you have to compare metro areas, rather than the core city. Otherwise, the comparisons based on population fluctuate wildly.
Omaha's metro is right around 860,000. If you add in Lincoln which is about 40 minutes down I-80 that figure bumps to 1,200,000 as well. Even if you you do compare the metros of Omaha and Birmingham, Birmingham is certainly not 50 percent bigger. Maybe you used outdated stats for Omaha.
Yes this has been discussed many times that metro must be considered, otherwise Miami would be considered to be similar in population to Omaha!!! I still don't understand why Omaha is on here, I have only heard Omaha mentioned once in my whole life that i can think of (outside of city data) by someone from my hometown in Arkansas that was moving there because they had family or something of the sort. If Omaha is mentioned, Tulsa definatly should be (though OKC is already on here) Birmingham, Pittsburg...though for major cities I barely ever hear about B-ham or pittsburg, but way more than Omaha. And where are the Cali cities like San Diego and Sacramento??? On city-data you hear a lot about San Diego, but in the real world I don't here much about it nation wide. And Sacramento would have gotten my vote had it been on here, a very over looked, under rated city.
Well, if you live in the great plains or midwest, you hear about Omaha. OTOH, I NEVER hear about Birmingham, Louisville, Rochester, NY, etc. It is an important great plains city.
Omaha is not a major city and in my opinion it is very OVER rated on this forum.
So what if I like to boost my city, and we're talking about the real world here, not this forum. And why is Omaha getting all the heat? Des Moines, Madison etc. are also here. is it because Omahas in second?
Cities that i don't feel are underrated: Minneapolis, Portland (unless you mean Maine, which is very underrated imo), Des Moines, Omaha, Columbus, Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Madison, Seattle, and Charlotte. These cities are either constantly talked about (and im not talking about on the forum) or just deserve their reputation. Two cities that i feel should have been added are Ft. Worth and Pittsburgh. Ft Worth is a GREAT city! I definently didn't expect what i saw and Pittsburgh just amazing.
Omaha's metro is right around 860,000. If you add in Lincoln which is about 40 minutes down I-80 that figure bumps to 1,200,000 as well. Even if you you do compare the metros of Omaha and Birmingham, Birmingham is certainly not 50 percent bigger. Maybe you used outdated stats for Omaha.
If you're going to add Lincoln's 300,000 to Omaha's metro area, then Tuscaloosa and its 200,000 and Talladega's 100,000 should be added to Birmingham's metro area.
If you're going to add Lincoln's 300,000 to Omaha's metro area, then Tuscaloosa and its 200,000 and Talladega's 100,000 should be added to Birmingham's metro area.
Not to mention Anniston and Gadsden, both of which are about to collapse into the DMA. Probably 1,600,000 within another ten years.
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.
