[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by joeyrindone

i know omaha is generally a pretty cheap place to live but wow 41st. thats pretty bad seeing as our average salary per capita is 20th in the nation. makes me wonder how much some of the big guys like buffet throw that statistic tho?

He is just one person (Warren Buffet). He won't throw the stats much, if at all.

[WhiteSandsYucca]

I know Omaha well, and have been to Atlanta. My sister-in-law's sister (from Elkhorn, NE) moved from Omaha to Atlanta around 15-20 years ago. I talk to her occasionally, so I know some things.

The differences that I know of:

Omaha is a lot smaller than Atlanta, with millions and millions of less people. Omaha is sprawling for its size, but with less people, and built on an orderly farmland grid, it sprawls much less then the Atlanta metro. It only takes only around 25 minutes to get across town (with decent traffic).

In Omaha, your eyes will have to adjust to less trees and buildings, being on the edge of the Great American Prairie (Great Plaines). Omaha has plenty of trees, and is very green in the summer, but it isn't what you see in the Eastern USA. As you know, Atlanta is very foresty, and heavily wooded. Being a huge financial center and with a lot more industry, Atlanta has a lot more big, fancy buildings and skyscrapers than Omaha. However, architecture in Omaha is definitely improving, and is impressive.

Omaha has a slower pace. The mentality in Omaha is more midwestern, and people are some of the friendliest, being less jaded, and less self-centered acting than what you can commonly encounter in people in Eastern/East Coast cities. There is much less crime in Omaha, than Atlanta.

The winters are much colder in Omaha, than Atlanta (of course). However, with this climate change, the winters seem noticably milder in Nebraska and Iowa than in the past.

Omaha has a much lower cost of living than Atlanta. You will probably be able to go a lot more house in Omaha. Omaha has a lot of beautiful real estate. The city's western side has large areas of new, crisp housing, and I feel the suburbs are pretty and kinda open, and clean-cut feeling. I feel the NE area of town offers the prettiest landscape, with gently rolling farmland and wooded ravines and creeks.

Despite a much smaller scale than Atlanta, Omaha has a lot to offer. In fact, I would say Omaha is the best city in the USA in that particular size category (800,000 metro pop). The downtown is hopping with the creative/artsy Old Market, and has a beautiful park system (with lakes and lagoons). The city has a kind, friendly face, and is easy to get around. The jobs are plentiful, and the city is mostly a "white collar" feel. I feel it really is a little "gem" of the Midwest, especially for those looking to raise a family.

I hope that helps in some way!

[Dave1215]

Originally Posted by WhiteSandsYucca

Omaha is sprawling for its size, but with less people, and built on an orderly farmland grid, it sprawls much less then the Atlanta metro. It only takes only around 25 minutes to get across town (with decent traffic).

I will have to disagree with the "sprawl" comment. Smart Growth America ranks Atlanta #4 as far as the metropolitan areas with the most sprawl and ranks Omaha as #6 for most compact.

Top 10 metros for SPRAWL
1) Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
2) Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC
3) Raleigh-Durham, NC
4) Atlanta, GA
5) Greenville-Spartanburg, SC
6) West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Delray Beach, FL
7) Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk-Danbury, CT
8) Knoxville, TN
9) Oxnard-Ventura, CA
10) Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

Top 5 metros for COMPACTNESS
1) New York City,
2) Jersey City
3) Providence,
4) San Francisco,
5) Honolulu
6) Omaha
7) Boston,
8) Portland
9) Miami
10) New Orleans.

[WhiteSandsYucca]

^I know "sprawl" is a sensitive word, and I realize Omaha is great about controlling sprawl, not allowing new subdivisions to "leap frog" here and there. However, for its size, I do feel like Omaha does sprawl quite a bit, and I've even seen an article in the World Herald about it. Most of the city west of 72nd-84th Street (about half the urban area of the current metro), has been built in the last 50 years. Nobody considers Omaha a "new town" (like Phoenix), but really, much of it is not an "old town" either. Not too far back, I drove Omaha's western edge, and I could not believe how far the town is pushing out, and how many new homes have been constructed in the last decade. It was the first time I felt strange in West Omaha, realizing lots of new people were moving in, being surrounded by an obviously quickly changing landscape (where it was hard to sometimes recognize what streets I was on).

But, I see your point. And, that list shows that compared to other cities, Omaha is very compact, and smart about controlling sprawl.

[pajohnson]

Thanks for your insights, they are very helpful to us!