The Yard (15th & Cuming)

Downtown, Midtown, and all parts east of 72nd.

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:But Brad, it would seem to me that the more money that is being made with the property on a year-round basis, the more disincentive there is to develop it for its proper use in the hopefully near future.
The biggest disincentive right now is the economy.  Most of us on this forum know that North downtown could and should be the next big.  However banks are being very tight with the money and most don't want to lend to an "unproven concept", which North Downtown Omaha is for the area.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

cdub wrote:Then blame the great partners because they refused to do the project without beer.
What does Beer have anything to do with it.  I can go to so many places with in walking distance of that lot and get beer.  Why build a place where you could potentially have wedding receptions and corporate picnics and not allow beer.  Who has a wedding reception with out beer?
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

cdub wrote: Then blame the great partners because they refused to do the project without beer.
Unfortunately...excuse me, fortunately, alcohol is a very important part of our social fabric. How does one plan to succeed in a business providing a platform for social events and gatherings while disallowing alcohol?

I don't get all these stick-as$es and their war on beer.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

S33 wrote:
cdub wrote: Then blame the great partners because they refused to do the project without beer.
Unfortunately...excuse me, fortunately, alcohol is a very important part of our social fabric. How does one plan to succeed in a business providing a platform for social events and gatherings while disallowing alcohol?

I don't get all these stick-as$es and their war on beer.
I don't either.  In general, not referring to the yard, its not where the booze is, its how you manage it.  There are tiny little bars that have tons of problems and there are huge bars with no problems, its all about running your establishment and not letting the establishment run you.  The Qwest Center serves thousands of drinks at every event, but they are on top of it, the staff is in place and trained and they have no problems.  Unfortunately its not about personal responsibility anymore its just worthless and ineffective band-aid approach.  Pot is not legal, I don't smoke it, but give me an hour and I bet I can score some.
User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Post by Omababe »

S33 wrote:I don't get all these stick-as$es and their war on beer.
This "War On Beer" is most definitely real. I remember getting the "less beer" vibes very strongly a few years back when they first started talking about abandoning The Blatt and building the new park in N-o-d-o. (Wow, I managed to use "The Blatt" and "N-o-d-o" in the same sentence!) :) I definitely get the impression that one of NCAA's goals for the new stadium was to leverage all they could into making the atmosphere less conducive for tailgating and beer-gardens and such.

Add to this the ubiquitous self-appointed guardians of what is good for us and you get a partnership very much opposed to hard-core partying at CWS and other events.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Omababe wrote:
S33 wrote:I don't get all these stick-as$es and their war on beer.
This "War On Beer" is most definitely real. I remember getting the "less beer" vibes very strongly a few years back when they first started talking about abandoning The Blatt and building the new park in N-o-d-o. (Wow, I managed to use "The Blatt" and "N-o-d-o" in the same sentence!) :) I definitely get the impression that one of NCAA's goals for the new stadium was to leverage all they could into making the atmosphere less conducive for tailgating and beer-gardens and such.

Add to this the ubiquitous self-appointed guardians of what is good for us and you get a partnership very much opposed to hard-core partying at CWS and other events.
Wanna build our own stadium with free-flowing taps to every isle? I've got a couple shovels and a hammer or two. I hear if you build it, they will come. Who "they" are, who knows. Prob just a few crack heads, but at least it will be our own.  :)
Last edited by S33 on Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cdub
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: Tempe. AZ

Post by cdub »

They could have had beer at wedding receptions, just not a public beer tent during CWS.  They found that unacceptable.  I can respect the neighborhoods concern about competition and about the potential longevity of the 'temporary' use.  It might have also worked out well and been worth the risk, but in the meantime, a paved lot is certainly not throwing out the downtown plan as some have indicated.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

cdub wrote:They could have had beer at wedding receptions, just not a public beer tent during CWS.  They found that unacceptable.  I can respect the neighborhoods concern about competition and about the potential longevity of the 'temporary' use.  It might have also worked out well and been worth the risk, but in the meantime, a paved lot is certainly not throwing out the downtown plan as some have indicated.
I was only being half sarcastic.  The other half is genuine concern, sure this developer may be holding out for a better economy, but what happens when an investor buys up land without the intent of building?  Also with a lot of people in this city they will think hey all this parking next to TD is nice and make an uproar when land does start to become developed around the stadium.  

All this parking lot is going to be is a momentum killer for north downtown.
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

I think we can officially change the name of this thread to "The Parking Lot" as they're halfway to completing a F'ing eyesore.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

nebport5 wrote:I think we can officially change the name of this thread to "The Parking Lot" as they're halfway to completing a F'ing eyesore.
The parking lot is still going to be called "The Yard".  I think they are going to have signs up too.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

nebport5 wrote:I think we can officially change the name of this thread to "The Parking Lot" as they're halfway to completing a F'ing eyesore.
Well the "place-holder" could have been a nice, open-air green area, but no, the all-or-nothing crowd had to b*tch and moan until they were rewarded with a parking lot. I think it's funny.
Finn
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:54 pm
Location: DC

Post by Finn »

I'm with S33! We have plenty of people that think they know what is best for a site but have no idea of the economics / business acumen involved!
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Finn wrote:I'm with S33! We have plenty of people that think they know what is best for a site but have no idea of the economics / business acumen involved!
Whoa...  where have you been hiding?
Stable genius.
User avatar
Globochem
Home Owners Association
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:59 am
Location: Worldwide

Post by Globochem »

Finn wrote:I'm with S33! We have plenty of people that think they know what is best for a site but have no idea of the economics / business acumen involved!
What are you talking about?!!!!   I suppose that your "business acumen" allows you to comment on things outside of your creative vision.  How in any way does that sufficiently refute the staggering disappointment of a ONE CITY BLOCK parking lot that flies directly in the face of the downtown master, the goal of a urban walkable environment, the intentions and vision of the original property owners and of course the evidence that although certain development opportunities change it doesn't mean that there are altogether none.  Apartments anyone?  Followers championing this utterly stupid parking lot do not get this: parking lots DO NOT DRAW PEOPLE.  Stuff like events and shops and homes draw people.  But if this parking lot makes sense, then lets dial back the clock to 1965 and pave over the old market.   I'm sure that would help draw people downtown.  Ugh.
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

S33 wrote:
nebport5 wrote:I think we can officially change the name of this thread to "The Parking Lot" as they're halfway to completing a F'ing eyesore.
Well the "place-holder" could have been a nice, open-air green area, but no, the all-or-nothing crowd had to b*tch and moan until they were rewarded with a parking lot. I think it's funny.

I don't think most had a problem with the "place holder" concept but rather the duration of ten year permit.  Comments from Jerry Banks leads me to the conclusion that he's a heartless speculator, which its entirely his right to be one.   The Urban friend crowd isn't telling anyone how to spend their money but lamenting the lack of vision and leadership in developing this neighborhood (however long it takes).  Banks could give a shat about what's good for the area because his vision doesn't extend beyond the construction of a dirty green mountain.  Again, it's his right to not care about little more than his money, but that shouldn't stop the city and its people from having an interest in the quality of North Downtown development.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

nebport5 wrote:
I don't think most had a problem with the "place holder" concept but rather the duration of ten year permit.  
That is true. But look at the alternative - A parking lot which also doubles for the same use as The Yard would have during CWS. So, not only does it still generate revenue during the CWS, but it will generate revenue year-round. Don't kid yourself, permit or no permit, that parking lot is going nowhere now.

nebport5 wrote: but that shouldn't stop the city and its people from having an interest in the quality of North Downtown development.
Again, absolutely true.
cdub
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: Tempe. AZ

Post by cdub »

I think most decided they'd rather deal with the parking and maintain a more specific financial interest in actual development then to have the 'interim' use that just might prove more lucrative and thus push real development out farther.  Plus it might act in the meantime as more competition.  

I think the sad part is that this block could absolutely develop more quickly if Lozier wasnt holding out for a huge all at once type deal.  

Plus, there is actually a chance that this lot facilitates some other action in the meantime by providing a little ancillary parking for those who might have felt they couldn't quite provide enough.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Ah, Lozier...

Yeah, that parking lot is going nowhere until someone is ready to pay a premium. And that premium will not be decided upon until the area has been established for years and years. Mixed-use didn't stand a chance from the get go, that property value has only begun to go up, imo. ( I would also sit on the property for as long as I could get away with it)
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

S33 wrote:
nebport5 wrote:
I don't think most had a problem with the "place holder" concept but rather the duration of ten year permit.  
That is true. But look at the alternative - A parking lot which also doubles for the same use as The Yard would have during CWS. So, not only does it still generate revenue during the CWS, but it will generate revenue year-round. Don't kid yourself, permit or no permit, that parking lot is going nowhere now.



nebport5 wrote: but that shouldn't stop the city and its people from having an interest in the quality of North Downtown development.
Again, absolutely true.



I can appreciate the lot as a nominal alleviant for the POC (parking obsessed crowd) though I hope the real silver lining is a boost for the Slowdown businesses, who thus far feel let down by the city.  Perhaps it will bolster foot traffic beyond two weeks in June, such as regular Qwest events.  True, parking may always be a component of this block, but lets hope it morphs into a mixed-use garage form.
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

cdub wrote:I think most decided they'd rather deal with the parking and maintain a more specific financial interest in actual development then to have the 'interim' use that just might prove more lucrative and thus push real development out farther.  Plus it might act in the meantime as more competition.  

I think the sad part is that this block could absolutely develop more quickly if Lozier wasnt holding out for a huge all at once type deal.  

Plus, there is actually a chance that this lot facilitates some other action in the meantime by providing a little ancillary parking for those who might have felt they couldn't quite provide enough.

Yes.
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

cdub wrote:I think most decided they'd rather deal with the parking and maintain a more specific financial interest in actual development then to have the 'interim' use that just might prove more lucrative and thus push real development out farther.  Plus it might act in the meantime as more competition.  

I think the sad part is that this block could absolutely develop more quickly if Lozier wasnt holding out for a huge all at once type deal.  

Plus, there is actually a chance that this lot facilitates some other action in the meantime by providing a little ancillary parking for those who might have felt they couldn't quite provide enough.

That da m n Lozier holds up everything, like that time Peter got stuck behind him at the airport...


[youtube][/youtube]



Oh wait, that was "Loggia".
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

I don't get how it went from a 1.1 million dollar project when it was "The Yard."  To a 3 million dollar project now that it is "The Parking Lot."  I wonder how basic the original plans were when the price tag nearly tripled when it changed to a parking lot.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

S33 wrote:
nebport5 wrote:I think we can officially change the name of this thread to "The Parking Lot" as they're halfway to completing a F'ing eyesore.
Well the "place-holder" could have been a nice, open-air green area, but no, the all-or-nothing crowd had to b*tch and moan until they were rewarded with a parking lot. I think it's funny.
So I went back and re-read the thread.  

Am I missing something?  This seems like pretty much the same thing that was originally planned and mostly quashed by the NCAA, only to re-emerge without landscaping?

Both uses suck and will be gone as soon as someone with the ching to buy the land comes along and develops it, the same as always, as it doesn't seem the current owner ever had any more intention than the original plans.
Stable genius.
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

iamjacobm wrote:I don't get how it went from a 1.1 million dollar project when it was "The Yard."  To a 3 million dollar project now that it is "The Parking Lot."  I wonder how basic the original plans were when the price tag nearly tripled when it changed to a parking lot.

Pavement, which I imagine makes it easier to sardine more vehicles into than the original topography.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

I think there is a big difference between a nice, "open-air" green area and a slab of cement. Also, this gives Lozier less incentive to develop the block because now he gets a steady stream of revenue throughout the year, rather than just during CWS.

I guess this is what we get when we let the NCAA decide how we develop our land or take no proactive measures determining development standards for the neighborhood.

Either way, at least now I have a place to park my F-250.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

nebport5 wrote:
iamjacobm wrote:I don't get how it went from a 1.1 million dollar project when it was "The Yard."  To a 3 million dollar project now that it is "The Parking Lot."  I wonder how basic the original plans were when the price tag nearly tripled when it changed to a parking lot.

Pavement, which I imagine makes it easier to sardine more vehicles into than the original topography.
Was the original all landscaping then?  If it costs 3 million to pave it how much could 1.1 really landscape?  It sounds to me like it went from the plan being a gravel lot with an area for a beer garden to a paved parking lot not a ton different in my eyes.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

S33 wrote:I think there is a big difference between a nice, "open-air" green area and a slab of cement.
I would agree, but it's still just quibbling over degrees of suck.
S33 wrote:Also, this gives Lozier less incentive to develop the block because now he gets a steady stream of revenue throughout the year, rather than just during CWS.
The original article (as I read it) implied that it was always intended to be used year round as an event space of some sort:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100827/MONEY/708279907
The space could be leased for such events as wedding receptions, company picnics or outdoor concerts. Banks said it also could hold events in connection with the College World Series, Nighthawk football, the U.S. Swim Trials or other Qwest Center attractions.
If anything, I'd guess it being just a parking lot will give them more incentive to get it developed sooner.  Ultimately, I see no relevant difference between the two as far as long-term development is concerned.

Either that or I'm missing a piece of the puzzle somewhere along the line.
Stable genius.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

iamjacobm wrote:If it costs 3 million to pave it how much could 1.1 really landscape?
My question is what the |expletive| kind of diamond encrusted concrete are they using?

I've done significant concrete projects before, and holy Jesus H. Christ that seems expensive.
Stable genius.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Perhaps there would have been a handful of events held in that lot throughout the year, but still, there was no parking. Parking lots @ 7 bucks a car, filled many, many times throughout the year, generate a lot of revenue. He basically maximized his revenue potential per square foot with that space by going with the slab of "gold-encrusted" cement. That says to me that he has all the incentive in the world to sit on that until he is presented with an offer he can't refuse...


That said, if he were to make even the slightest gesture to the community with green space, I think it would have been great for the area. The area could develop significant density, add many residents of various demographics [children included], and that green space would have been well appreciated and used by all.

Besides, I would much rather drink my booze from an ubiquitous red dixie cup on soft grass rather than a 300 degree slab of concrete.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

S33 wrote:Perhaps there would have been a handful of events held in that lot throughout the year, but still, there was no parking.
Original article from above said it would be a third parking, specifically 164 stalls.
Stable genius.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

Big E wrote:
S33 wrote:Perhaps there would have been a handful of events held in that lot throughout the year, but still, there was no parking.
Original article from above said it would be a third parking, specifically 164 stalls.
Yes, I went back and looked at the plans at work today, it was the south 1/3+ that was parking.  The Cuming street side had nice entrances with flagpoles for the 8 teams, stone pillars and other landscaping features.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

Quick Cell Phone Pic of the Yard
Image
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Fuhkyea.  America for the win.
Stable genius.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

Or 2/3 of that could have be a tree-lined green area. Huge difference.
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Post by Seth »

Is it just me, or does that picture give the feeling you were standing in the entrance of a Wal-Mart when you took it?
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

Seth wrote:Is it just me, or does that picture give the feeling you were standing in the entrance of a Wal-Mart when you took it?

Don't give Ben Gray any ideas.   :evil:
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

It looks really close to done.  All the spots are painted probably just have to put their fence up and do a few finishing touches and it will be done.  Probably in time for the MVC tourney.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

iamjacobm wrote:It looks really close to done.  All the spots are painted probably just have to put their fence up and do a few finishing touches and it will be done.  Probably in time for the MVC tourney.
They striped it yesterday.  Actually they are planning on using it this weekend.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

Brad wrote:
iamjacobm wrote:It looks really close to done.  All the spots are painted probably just have to put their fence up and do a few finishing touches and it will be done.  Probably in time for the MVC tourney.
They striped it yesterday.  Actually they are planning on using it this weekend.
Actual info is always better than a guess.  Thanks.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

iamjacobm wrote:
Brad wrote:
iamjacobm wrote:It looks really close to done.  All the spots are painted probably just have to put their fence up and do a few finishing touches and it will be done.  Probably in time for the MVC tourney.
They striped it yesterday.  Actually they are planning on using it this weekend.
Actual info is always better than a guess.  Thanks.
There is still a lot of work to do until it is completely done.  I am not sure what the weather will do to the plan either.
Post Reply