Des Moines vs. Omaha (Cedar Rapids, Davenport: appointed, credit, home)

[Minneapolitan]

Originally Posted by DSMGuy

Speaking of metros, the DM metro is growing faster than Omaha, the latest census estimate for 2000-2006 puts DM at over 11%, Omaha was around 8-9%.

As I am in favor of Des Moines over Omaha, I must say that this is mis-leading. 11% of DSM's metro population is still smaller than 8 or 9% of Omaha's. The raw numbers are what matter to me in this category.

Example: DSM may grow 'faster' than NYC...BUT, even if NYC grew at a rate of only .5%, it would still DOUBLE the raw numbers of DSM's 11% growth.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by Minneapolitan

As I am in favor of Des Moines over Omaha, I must say that this is mis-leading. 11% of DSM's metro population is still smaller than 8 or 9% of Omaha's. The raw numbers are what matter to me in this category.

Example: DSM may grow 'faster' than NYC...BUT, even if NYC grew at a rate of only .5%, it would still DOUBLE the raw numbers of DSM's 11% growth.

It's close for me. I am a Hawkeye fan, though from western Iowa.
They're both great cities. They have both matched each other in big city amenities.

Omaha has won sightly over Des Moines due to the air transportation access issue, College World Series, the Henry Doorly Zoo, and its close proximity to the Loess Hills.

Though Des Moines is not without advantages in its own right. I do like their Farmer's Market, their proximity to Chicago, and its diversified govt and private sector economy.

[DSMGuy]

I wouldn't say 11% vs 8-9% is misleading at all. Both percentages are roughly the same and represent about the same numbers in terms of raw population growth, but to say that this is misleading is not true. I do agree you should look at both the percent growth and raw numbers.

For example, metros in the northeast generally grow in the single digits while metros in the south & southwest grow in the double digits. Even though NYC might grow say 4% and have more raw numbers growth than say Atlanta where they grow around 30% or more, I would call Atlanta a boomtown and not NYC.

[Minneapolitan]

By that mentality, could I say that my hometown of 1,400 people is more 'booming' than Minneapolis, because they added 200 people in the last year? I mean, that IS a full 14% growth...right? Bunk.

Have you forgotten that Omaha is almost twice the size of DSM? Speaking from both a city-proper and metro perspective. So even though DSM is adding the larger percentage of people per year, it is still true that Omaha is flat-out growing more, and bigger.

Anyway, I think DSM really has a lot going for it, and it is amazing that it can actually hold its own against Omaha.

[DSMGuy]

Okay you win. Somewhere like NYC with 5% growth is a "boomtown" while Atlanta at 30% growth but smaller raw numbers is a slow growth backwater... makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, Omaha metro is about 820,000. Des Moines, 535,000. Twice as big as DM?? Hmmm.....

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by DSMGuy

Okay you win. Somewhere like NYC with 5% growth is a "boomtown" while Atlanta at 30% growth but smaller raw numbers is a slow growth backwater... makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, Omaha metro is about 820,000. Des Moines, 535,000. Twice as big as DM?? Hmmm.....

Well, I do think relative growth rates are important. But it depends how much more relative. If we're only talking 1-2% difference, it will be awhile before DSM catches up to Omaha, b/c Omaha is also growing, but if we talk 10, 15 20, 30, 40% difference, then yes.

Best example is Atlanta. Atlanta MSA is growing fast....it could conceivably overtake Houston in one scenario by 2025.

My metro area, however, DFW is holding its own, and will likely stave off atlanta in the next 25 years, but not by much.

http://www.demographia.com/db-msaproj2030.pdf

Anyway, both are great cities...

[Minneapolitan]

Originally Posted by DSMGuy

Okay you win. Somewhere like NYC with 5% growth is a "boomtown" while Atlanta at 30% growth but smaller raw numbers is a slow growth backwater... makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, Omaha metro is about 820,000. Des Moines, 535,000. Twice as big as DM?? Hmmm.....

I don't think Atlanta is slow-growth backwater. It is booming. I just don't think the difference between DSM's growth rate and Omaha's is anything to 'ooooh' and 'aaaaaah' about. Sorry, I have a problem with percents at times. Stats....blehk.

And I also appologize for exaggerating the difference between the populations of your metros. To be precise, Omaha's metro population is 314,000 more than yours (849,000 vs 535,000)...which is roughly 58% of the Des Moines metro. Again, my appologies.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by Minneapolitan

I don't think Atlanta is slow-growth backwater. It is booming. I just don't think the difference between DSM's growth rate and Omaha's is anything to 'ooooh' and 'aaaaaah' about. Sorry, I have a problem with percents at times. Stats....blehk.

And I also appologize for exaggerating the difference between the populations of your metros. To be precise, Omaha's metro population is 314,000 more than yours (849,000 vs 535,000)...which is roughly 58% of the Des Moines metro. Again, my appologies.

I am glad that both of you are using MSA's, b/c I do think MSA stats are more reflective of a region than city limits, of which if using that OMaha has 300 plus thousand (closer to 400K) and Des Moines is at 190's (too lazy to look up the exact stat).

Not many cities in American using city limits only clear 1 million. Case in point is Atlanta, which in its city limits only has 480,000 people (again, too lazy to look it up the exact numbers). So it's the metropolitan statistical area that really gives a good reflection. B/c everyone knows that Atlanta is much more major of a city than a place like Indianapolis, which has 700,000 in its city limits.

Urbanized area is another stat that I like.

CMSA, not a big fan of, b/c I think it stretches too far. For example, Pella, IA is included in Des Moines' CMSA stat, which I think is too much of a stretch...so MSA or UA is in my opinion the best.

So the big question for OMaha is what to do with Lincoln as the gap b/t the two cities is lessening.
Could Omaha/Lincoln be another Minneapolis/St. Paul or Dallas/Ft. Worth?

Not sure...but it's definitely been talked about.

As for Des Moines, I dont think it will be merging with Iowa City anytime soon...but, Ames, Iowa up north is a doable thing if they start building northward...however, Des Moines is building westward (aka JOrdan Creek).

We'll see.

I think Omaha and Des Moines are both great cities, though barely, by a very tiny sliver I give the edge to Omaha for the reasons I have previously listed.

[DSMGuy]

I don't think Atlanta is slow-growth backwater. It is booming. I just don't think the difference between DSM's growth rate and Omaha's is anything to 'ooooh' and 'aaaaaah' about. Sorry, I have a problem with percents at times. Stats....blehk.

I don't recall "oooh" -ing & "aaaah" -ing about this difference, but if you were, that's fine. I was just stating that the metro growth rate was faster in DM than Omaha, just a fact. In fact, I gave the overall edge to Omaha. Anyway, this is getting silly.

On to Metroplex's point about DM growing west. That is true. Also, Ankeny is pushing northward at a pretty good clip and it could possibly be growing faster than WDM. (Waukee is the fastest growing at 113% rate in the last 6 yrs.)

Ames, unfortunately, is pretty stagnant growthwise, which seems unusual given that ISU is rooted in technology and you'd think there would be more tech startups there which would spur growth. It is also unusual in light of the fact that the other university town, Iowa City & burbs are growing quickly. Not sure what is going wrong in Ames.

Anyway, I don't see Ames becoming a suburb of Ankeny anytime soon (also there are other towns btw Ankeny & Ames), but I think we'll see Ankeny getting within about 10 miles of Ames. We'll also probably see Ankeny (38,000) surpass Ames (50,000) in population soon.

[DBQer]

I think the main difference between the Des Moines/Omaha metros' growth rates is the City of Des Moines' sluggishness. If it were not for the flat growth in Des Moines proper, the DSM metro would be rapidly gaining on Omaha, even moreso than it is now. Greater Des Moines' growth since 2000 is ~11%, Omaha's is a little over 7%: not a huge difference, but important in the long-run.

Polk County enjoys growth by natural increase, domestic migration, AND international migration (all 3 components of change). Douglas County, Nebraska only grows by natural increase and immigrants. More people are leaving it than moving to it!

Also, keep in mind that Omaha's metro also includes 8 counties in two states (DSM has 5), and is artificially inflated by Council Bluffs, which has been a significant city in its own right for a long time. All of Des Moines' suburbs have basically grown from nothing. Also, Omaha has nearly twice Des Moines' area, and benefits from the fact that Nebraska is sparsely populated, and it has little in-state competition. Des Moines must compete with at least 9 cities over 50,000 in its own state.

Both areas are growing at very healthy rates, however.