Is Omaha OKC's new competitor?

[leprechaun]

As others have pointed out, we should not take offense to comparisons between Omaha and other smaller cities. From an overall standpoint, OKC has more going for it, but there are certain areas where we are significantly trailing cities of similar size or even smaller. I agree with MikeOKC that Omaha seems more urban. If Omaha had an equal metro population to OKC, based on what I've seen Omaha would be far ahead of us in terms of urban development. I don't think its necessarily something that we can learn from them, but like Betts pointed out, for some reason there is a serious lack of regard for urbanism in OKC. Even having grown up here, I am still perplexed at the lack of demand for an urban lifestyle, especially considering our size.

OKC has so many great public and private projects lined up on a scale that is probably unmatched relative to cities of similar size, but I thought this would have led to a lot more private investment than what has occurred so far. Of course we should look up to cities like Austin, Nashville, Charlotte, and Kansas City, but realistically I feel as though we still have more in common with cities like Tulsa and Omaha. Even after all of the MAPS 3 projects come to fruition, I feel as though we will have just caught up where cities of similar size are now.

[dmoor82]

How about this both cities have things that The other doesnt,Omaha is more dense while OKC has a larger population!I might be wrong but I think Oklahoma has twice The population as Nebraska and The Metro of OKC(1.3 mill) is only 500k smaller than The ENTIRE population of The State of Nebraska!Omaha wasnt built around The Automobile like OKC,and OKC is a very young city!

[betts]

Gallup Campus
Gallup’s decision to relocate its headquarter operations to Omaha launched an expanded riverfront development effort north of Interstate 480. This massive relocation and clean-up project paved the way for Gallup to open their $81-million riverfront campus in 2003. A $27 million, 100,000-square-foot expansion was opened in the fall of 2009.

This looks like something that could be built anywhere and much like a bunch of stuff along Memorial here. If it's on the river, that's fine, but it doesn't look any better than the Dell campus to me, which is also riverfront. I agree, we don't have anything like some of the other pictures you've posted, but this doesn't impress me.

[dmoor82]

wiki link for Omaha http://serp.freecause.com/?rm=y_clic...6e42ded475a1d6 and OKC http://serp.freecause.com/?rm=y_clic...12c50099e79a1d

[mcca7596]

Early on, however, Oklahoma City was built around a streetcar system. Also, as has been previously mentioned, there is no sizable geographic feature that prohibits growth in any direction around OKC.

[Pete]

OKC has so many great public and private projects lined up on a scale that is probably unmatched relative to cities of similar size, but I thought this would have led to a lot more private investment than what has occurred so far.

Devon Tower and everything associated with that -- including bringing another big employer to the city -- is a massive private investment, just in itself representing almost a billion dollars. And it would never would have happened without all the groundwork that has been laid through MAPS.

And Chesapeake is pushing a billion in it's various real estate investments around 63rd & Western.

I think we'll see much more private investment in the near future, especially as the financial institutions shake the jitters. It's pretty amazing what has occurred given the national recession, and I think even bigger/better things lie directly ahead.

[betts]

I think our Health Sciences Center development is pretty incredible too, given the economy. We had five new buildings going up over the last several years. There are rumors of a new dental school, on 8th St. as well. I suspect there aren't a lot of cities with that kind of construction going on at their medical center.

[betts]

Bottom line for me: given a choice, would I rather live in Omaha (which I know well, having multiple relatives living there) or Oklahoma City? I wouldn't hesitate for one minute to decide and the answer is not Omaha. I love my Thunder and I'd live in Rochester, Minnesota to see them play 41 times a year. But, even without them, I'll take OKC.

[Decious]

Omaha is a nice city. There's no debating that. Why can't that stand on it's own? Why is it a shock that everything that Omaha has isn't duplicated here? I just don't get it. Every pic that is thrown up of Omaha development is going to be something that OKC doesn't have. Duh. We aren't the same place. So, what now? Do we now paste in images that show every single thing that OKC has? I'll bet if we do it'll look REALLY impressive. I understand the sentiment, but threads like this are ambiguous and are used like scripture. They can make any case any person wants them to make. It's always weird when broad ideals or entities are somewhat personified and then pitted against each other. Just weird. Human nature, but weird. At least some good will come of it.... any Omaha inhabitant who is browsing this forum will get to start a new thread at eomahaforums.com or city-data.com and spread the good news that a larger city (identified as a singular personable entity) is jealous of us (any Omaha inhabitant who reads the thread). Ha ha ha! I'll be glad when OKC, for the most part, grows beyond this stuff. OKC has grown and prospered because of the internal pride that we have concerning who we are and what we can do. That's what has fueled its motor so to speak. This afterglow of comparative gloating and sulking is exhaust. You can usually only "see" the exhaust of run down, cheap cars. Hmmmm....

[dmoor82]

I'd say Tulsa and Omaha are pretty good peers!Both have new Arena's and Baseball parks,and They are almost equal in population!IMO

[Pete]

The constant comparisons are somewhat inevitable because cities do in fact compete with each other all the time and on many fronts. Also, you can learn much from the success and failure of those in similar circumstances.

I used to be much more defensive about Oklahoma City but I don't feel that way much any more because any time someone speaks negatively I have lots of facts and third-party evidence to the contrary. Just about every single town can claim "nice people" and the like but when you can point to Bricktown or Devon Tower or the Thunder or even the national rowing events and facilities on the river... Well, those speak for themselves.


I've felt for quite a while that OKC has three big things going for it that is going to make a real difference in the long term: 1) Strong political and private leadership that have great vision and passion; 2) citizens that really want the community to be bigger and better; and 3) the capacity (land, freeway system, etc.) to grow quickly without destroying the present quality of life.

You'd think those things are common -- especially #2 -- but they are surprisingly rare.

[Spartan]

See, that’s kinda funny, so the takeaway here is that OKCs peer cities are Charlotte, Nashville, Austin, Indianapolis and not Omaha based on the fact that Omaha is so much smaller than OKC.

But while Omaha is not a peer city because Omaha is 44.5% smaller than OKC, Oklahoma City is 42.2%, 28.9%, 42.1% and 38.9% respectively smaller than it’s peer cities. So it seems that the line between peer and non peer is set at right at a 43% difference, in MSA only (please don’t look at CSA). In that case you would have to at least admit that Tulsa is a peer city to Oklahoma City, because Tulsa is only 32.1% smaller than Oklahoma City.

Boy, that’s not gonna fly on this board.

Another note on OKCs real “peer” cities, Charlotte added 40k people just last year, three of these peer cities had growth rates of over 20% last decade and two added over 400k people with growth rates over 40%. And if you do look at CSA, Indianapolis’s CSA is 59% larger than Oklahoma City’s and Charlotte’s is 84% larger. At current growth rates Austin will pass the two million mark in the next five years or so.

Oklahoma City has a lot more in common with Tulsa and Omaha than it does with Austin, Indianapolis or Charlotte. Austin used to be a peer city of Oklahoma City, but not anymore.

So, may I ask just what story line it is that OKC and Tulsa have in common? The two cities aren't even close to being brothers in terms of their built environment.

There are similar story lines to these larger cities that have had a lot of success. Austin is similar with the university and state government as a key piece of their economic development. Indy is similar with the importance of the correlation between their downtown development and their convention business. Nashville is another similarly-sized state capital that's doing a lot of cool stuff downtown. Charlotte is similar to OKC in terms of the sheer dollar amount of downtown development. Large new towers.

With the exception of Austin, these are all also pro sports cities. OKC is a pro sports city. We have the Thunder and Sooners, basically an NFL team. Tulsa has nothing, 60 miles to Stillwater. Austin has the Longhorns, also basically an NFL team, and an NBA team right now. Charlotte has the Panthers and Bobcats. Nashville has the Titans and the Preds.

Think of some other cities without pro teams that could be comparable...

Albuquerque..just don't see a story line there. UNM? Yeah right. Downtown Albuquerque? Yeah it's an alright place, the but the investment activity is not even in the same universe.

Louisville..there is a possible story line there. New arena downtown, some reasonable hopes of landing a franchise. Great downtown, probably a similar level of investment, but only if you include the last ten years for Louisville. Similar national profile. Similar size.

Omaha..I just don't see the story line here, other than that both Omaha and OKC are having a lot of success right now. But is it similar success? Omaha benefits from having a prominent white collar corporate base. OKC does not have that. The downtowns are very similar, but Omaha doesn't have as much investment activity as OKC. And it is considerably smaller and colder, more Midwestern.

I would say there are other cities out there that have a lot in common with OKC and could be considered on the same level. Memphis comes to mind immediately as a very close sister city, but not really a competitor. The only difference between the two cities is that OKC is a much more successful city right now. Jacksonville, Raleigh-Durham, Birmingham, Columbus, Buffalo, Louisville, Austin, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Nashville, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, et al I would say are all acceptable peer cities of OKC.

Larger cities that deserve our attention: Portland, Denver, Dallas, possibly LA
Similar cities that deserve our attention: Ft. Worth, Salt Lake, Sacramento, Raleigh-Durham, Louisville
Smaller cities that deserve our attention: Des Moines, Little Rock, Sioux Falls, maybe some others?

I just think this has more to do with amenities than anything else. Some cities can box above their weight if they have the right amenities. It would seem that OKC, with its downtown, has the potential to do this.

[Spartan]

Those other cities are also all in states that were founded far earlier than Oklahoma. In addition, none of them had I.M. Pei "help" them gussy their downtown up like we did.

On the other hand, if they're charging $300 a square foot for townhouses in Omaha, perhaps the prices charged here aren't so outrageous and we need to not be so strident in our criticism of developers. If we want development, we may have to allow developers to make a decent profit.

I would say it's just important that what is built is eventually occupied. I could care less what income level calls downtown home, it's really just not important to me. If the idea that "We have to maximize demand at the top of the totem pole before we branch out to other demographics" had a shred of economic validity, I would be all for it, as I once was. The problem is that we've been disappointed in how a lot of the higher-priced units didn't sell. A lot of them still haven't sold, 2-3 years after being built. Not every project can be like the Centennial and be a strategic corporate investment for their clients. A lot of projects didn't even get off the ground because there wasn't enough interest in their high-priced units.

Yes, there should be more interest in high-priced urban living, and no, allowing a developer to make a profit off of a unit with more amenities is far from outrageous, it's the way it should be done. But it isn't getting it done here in OKC, reasons aside, because the facts that these units just aren't selling tell a different store. However the lower-priced units are selling very well, and even more, the reasonably priced apartment units hitting the market are. Downtown's apartment occupancy rate is 97%. Projects like the Deep Deuce Apts have a long waiting list to get in.

So wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to just go with what works well? I think right now, trying to get more high-priced units downtown, until most of the brownstones and lofts and Block 42 units and The Hill units have sold, is just forcing it. At least not until Devon and Project 180 is finished. I think the demand for the higher-priced units is still there, and those units will sell much better in the coming months as the economy expands again, but right now I think the current "cooling period" is going to benefit everyone.

The Downtown Ford redevelopment site will likely have a large amount of high-end units. No telling what the timeline on that is, or when C2S infill development will start happening. So there is no doubt that there will be more high-end units eventually, because there is still a market for them.

It's just as good a market right now. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to say "Eau contraire" to the housing affordability argument. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that argument because the facts right now support it well. Cheaper stuff is selling like hot cakes. More expensive stuff is taking years to move. These are facts. Apartments do the best of any housing type.

[Decious]

The constant comparisons are somewhat inevitable because cities do in fact compete with each other all the time and on many fronts. Also, you can learn much from the success and failure of those in similar circumstances.

Of course.

On a much smaller scale, I made my own decision as to whether or not I would choose to live in OKC or stay in LA. Well, I chose OKC. Of course there were/are a myriad of reasons that I came to this conclusion. The summation of my thoughts did not equate to OKC is better than LA. There were sacrifices to be made in leaving. There were opportunities to be gained in coming. There is a gray area that my decision and most decisions rest on and OKC being absolutely better didn't have to be a reality for me to choose living here. Look, I understand that getting an Anthropologie is cool because they're unique...ish. There is value in that. I understand that getting an Anthropologie before "they" do is cool too. I realize that getting an Anthropologie because we now have one too is cool as well. But at some point.... it's just cool to have another place to shop. They have some cool ****. I can feel all of those motivations, but I should also be able to just be happy that an option was added to my shopping experience. Trivial as that may be. Look... I think that this is a great city. Great city compared to what? To where? To ME! I haven't lived as long as most of you but I've lived long enough to know that you have to be able to be happy and content via your own experience. The arch theme of this board used to rest on that. It did not derive it's purpose through the envy of faceless names in locales far away. I or anyone else can wax objective and pragmatically say that competition is necessary and it's the way we push forward and learn and.... well... country's also compete in the Olympics and a decade later find themselves competing on battlefields. Just sayin'... people in this city live in a great place in a great time to do so. We should enjoy it and appreciate it a lil more than we do. It's worth shouldn't be defined by the wanton glaces of outsiders. I grew up in "not the best" area of LA... I know all about territorial spats. It's funny that people see things in others so much easier than they see the same character traits in themselves. We just got another awesome outlet for this anyway!! Go Thunder! We're gonna DESTROY New Orleans tonight. lol!

[G.Walker]

Omaha is a nice city. There's no debating that. Why can't that stand on it's own? Why is it a shock that everything that Omaha has isn't duplicated here? I just don't get it. Every pic that is thrown up of Omaha development is going to be something that OKC doesn't have. Duh. We aren't the same place. So, what now? Do we now paste in images that show every single thing that OKC has? I'll bet if we do it'll look REALLY impressive. I understand the sentiment, but threads like this are ambiguous and are used like scripture. They can make any case any person wants them to make. It's always weird when broad ideals or entities are somewhat personified and then pitted against each other. Just weird. Human nature, but weird. At least some good will come of it.... any Omaha inhabitant who is browsing this forum will get to start a new thread at eomahaforums.com or city-data.com and spread the good news that a larger city (identified as a singular personable entity) is jealous of us (any Omaha inhabitant who reads the thread). Ha ha ha! I'll be glad when OKC, for the most part, grows beyond this stuff. OKC has grown and prospered because of the internal pride that we have concerning who we are and what we can do. That's what has fueled its motor so to speak. This afterglow of comparative gloating and sulking is exhaust. You can usually only "see" the exhaust of run down, cheap cars. Hmmmm....

The purpose of this thread was to open one's mind, and venture outside of the box, and explore good public and private development outside of our own. But to think that a city smaller in size, is more urbanized and progressive, and fosters good white collar industry, baffles some people. People have to realize that we have to move beyond Devon Tower, Project 180, etc...I mean can someone in Oklahoma City write an article about downtown development, without mentioning Devon Tower or Project 180...

I mean how long are we going to ride the white horses of Devon and Chesapeake?

When was the last time a major company decided to locate their headquarters in OKC downtown area, that are NOT from Oklahoma?

The notion here is that Omaha is progressive and they have some things we can learn from, but what people are saying on here about us over Omaha, I am pretty sure people in Austin, Charlotte, Dallas are saying the same thing.

Oklahoma City needs to humble themselves and realize, we still have a long way to go, but I love living in a city that is on the right track, we can only move forward, and never look back.

[Decious]

Oklahoma City needs to humble themselves and realize, we still have a long way to go, but I love living in a city that is on the right track, we can only move forward, and never look back.

I agree.

[flintysooner]

I mean how long are we going to ride the white horses of Devon and Chesapeake?

As opposed to Berkshire Hathaway.

[betts]

I would say it's just important that what is built is eventually occupied. I could care less what income level calls downtown home, it's really just not important to me. If the idea that "We have to maximize demand at the top of the totem pole before we branch out to other demographics" had a shred of economic validity, I would be all for it, as I once was. The problem is that we've been disappointed in how a lot of the higher-priced units didn't sell. A lot of them still haven't sold, 2-3 years after being built. Not every project can be like the Centennial and be a strategic corporate investment for their clients. A lot of projects didn't even get off the ground because there wasn't enough interest in their high-priced units.

Yes, there should be more interest in high-priced urban living, and no, allowing a developer to make a profit off of a unit with more amenities is far from outrageous, it's the way it should be done. But it isn't getting it done here in OKC, reasons aside, because the facts that these units just aren't selling tell a different store. However the lower-priced units are selling very well, and even more, the reasonably priced apartment units hitting the market are. Downtown's apartment occupancy rate is 97%. Projects like the Deep Deuce Apts have a long waiting list to get in.

So wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to just go with what works well? I think right now, trying to get more high-priced units downtown, until most of the brownstones and lofts and Block 42 units and The Hill units have sold, is just forcing it. At least not until Devon and Project 180 is finished. I think the demand for the higher-priced units is still there, and those units will sell much better in the coming months as the economy expands again, but right now I think the current "cooling period" is going to benefit everyone.

The Downtown Ford redevelopment site will likely have a large amount of high-end units. No telling what the timeline on that is, or when C2S infill development will start happening. So there is no doubt that there will be more high-end units eventually, because there is still a market for them.

It's just as good a market right now. I see absolutely no reason for anyone to say "Eau contraire" to the housing affordability argument. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that argument because the facts right now support it well. Cheaper stuff is selling like hot cakes. More expensive stuff is taking years to move. These are facts. Apartments do the best of any housing type.

My point wasn't that higher priced units are what we should be building. My point was that there has been rather strident criticism of price per square foot of what has been built, implying they are overpriced, not simply that they're not the price points people are looking for AND criticizing developers for thinking that people might be willing to pay those prices. But, when you look at places like Omaha that have prices that are significantly higher than what is being criticized here, it certainly makes one think perhaps people living here aren't necessarily being realistic about what it is costing developers for their developments. Or, perhaps a mistake was made thinking people who could pay those price points would be willing to gamble, buying downtown homes without a lot of reassuring surrounding development. Regardless, perhaps it may be presumptuous to expect better prices without a corresponding significant decrease in quality of building materials. It's hard to believe land costs, materials and labor are exorbitantly higher than here.

[dmoor82]

top 5 fastest growing cities http://journalrecord.com/2010/10/14/...ica-by-forbes/

[progressiveboy]

In my opinion, when making comparisions between cities, I would have to say that Fort Worth, Memphis, Kansas City as being on par for the most part with OKC. Omaha is a very average city, nothing great or bad, however, I never have been particularly fond of Midwest Cities with the exception of Chicago. I think OKC's long term future is brighter than Omaha. For one thing, OKC has milder winters, longer growing season, better attractions in addition to the NBA. It's population base is much larger and is geographically smack in the middle of the country which makes it better located logistically.

[dmoor82]

The purpose of this thread was to open one's mind, and venture outside of the box, and explore good public and private development outside of our own. But to think that a city smaller in size, is more urbanized and progressive, and fosters good white collar industry, baffles some people. People have to realize that we have to move beyond Devon Tower, Project 180, etc...I mean can someone in Oklahoma City write an article about downtown development, without mentioning Devon Tower or Project 180...

I mean how long are we going to ride the white horses of Devon and Chesapeake?

When was the last time a major company decided to locate their headquarters in OKC downtown area, that are NOT from Oklahoma?

The notion here is that Omaha is progressive and they have some things we can learn from, but what people are saying on here about us over Omaha, I am pretty sure people in Austin, Charlotte, Dallas are saying the same thing.

Oklahoma City needs to humble themselves and realize, we still have a long way to go, but I love living in a city that is on the right track, we can only move forward, and never look back.

^^Do you work for The greater Omaha Chamber?I think if Devon or Cheasapeake were in Omaha,they would be riding those white horses as well!Omaha has 5 Fortune 500 companies while OKC has two,but OKC's GDP is alot larger!And as far as urbanized areas Omaha has OKC beat by a few hundred ppl/sqmile,but OKC has Omaha beat by a WIDE margin in total urbanized population!this list shows OKC ahead of Omaha even without Norman which is also on this list! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_urban_areas

[Pete]

When was the last time a major company decided to locate their headquarters in OKC downtown area, that are NOT from Oklahoma?

SandRidge about a year or two ago. Moved from Amarillo first to The Tower on NW Expressway then purchased the old Kerr McGee properties and are in the process of investing hundreds of millions and expanding rapidly.

And I don't know why you would stipulate "not from Oklahoma" if only to exclude the likely relocation of Continental Resources, which is a big deal I don't care where they come from. They certainly would not be moving to downtown and probably not even OKC if not for everything that has led us to this point.


What the heck is wrong with riding Devon or CHK?? On one hand you want big corporations to invest in the city (which they both have done to the tune of a billion dollars each) and bring high-paying, white collar jobs... Then you also somehow want to discount this.

Emerging cities usually hit the next level due to one or two big companies that are driving an industry and that in turn results in lots of players. Think HP in the Silicon Valley or Wachovia / BofA in Charlotte or Dell in Austin.

The presence of Devon & CHK has already brought SandRidge and likely Continental. I'm sure there will be others.


The creation of jobs in Oklahoma has been nothing short of incredible. Not only is our unemployment rate among the best anywhere, this happened with a horrible national economy AND we lost a huge GM plant and two other massive manufacturing concerns. The fact we absorbed these losses tends to minimize them but it's really incredible if you think about it.

[redrunner]

top 5 fastest growing cities http://journalrecord.com/2010/10/14/...ica-by-forbes/

I love that pic they use for downtown OKC. I always have to take a second look because it doesn't look like OKC at first glance.

[dmoor82]

You wanna know what is real interesting?Take a glance at this and compare OKC's urbanized population and density compared to Charlotte and Nashville!This might suprise some! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_urban_areas I seem to remember someone in this forum questioning LA's urbanity but according to urbanized density it's #1!

[Decious]

Emerging cities usually hit the next level due to one or two big companies that are driving an industry and that in turn results in lots of players. Think HP in the Silicon Valley or Wachovia / BofA in Charlotte or Dell in Austin.

The presence of Devon & CHK has already brought SandRidge and likely Continental. I'm sure there will be others.


The creation of jobs in Oklahoma has been nothing short of incredible. Not only is our unemployment rate among the best anywhere, this happened with a horrible national economy AND we lost a huge GM plant and two other massive manufacturing concerns. The fact we absorbed these losses tends to minimize them but it's really incredible if you think about it.

^^
This.

There is a new couple at the church that my wife and I attend. They relocated here from Midland Texas this past summer. What's crazy is that they moved here WITHOUT JOBS in hand! Garland, the husband, is a great guy and has specifically sited the presence of Devon, CHK, and the Thunder as his reasons for feeling good about the move. They decided to move here because of Midland was too small for their pre-teens and because DFW they felt was too large. However, the reason they felt "comfortable and hopeful" making the move was directly related to the stability and exciting progress that they extracted from the growth of those energy companies and the presence of the Thunder. I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT understand how these community assets can be painted as if they were negatives or "fools" gold. Doesn't make sense. They love it here.