Joslyn District

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

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

User avatar
BRoss
IT Director
Posts: 10002786
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: West Central Omaha

Post by BRoss »

Downtown Makeover In The Works
KETV wrote:For decades, the area bound by 20th, 24th, Harney and Dodge streets has been half-filled and lacked focus.

As developers repurpose one of Omaha's tallest buildings, there's a growing effort to rebuild the blocks surrounding it.
...
A St. Louis firm is leading the neighborhood study, which kicks off in a couple of weeks.
...
Developers said work in that area could span years. The Highline project at 24th and Dodge should finish up in the spring of 2013.
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

^ Sounds worthy of its own thread.

Good news though. It looks like my wish for 2012 may come true.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

Agreed.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033429
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

ShawJ wrote:^ Sounds worthy of its own thread.
iamjacobm wrote:Agreed.
What was the name for this area in the master plan?  They Joslyan District?
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

Brad wrote:
ShawJ wrote:^ Sounds worthy of its own thread.
iamjacobm wrote:Agreed.
What was the name for this area in the master plan?  They Joslyan District?
Yeah.  Here is what they kind of envisioned.

Image

Edit: Bleh.  I didn't think this image would be this big.
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

I think that area was actually named "Capitol Heights" or something.

Here is what the master plan showed for the 24th street area by Farnam:

Image

Image

Of course, it's all very vague and conceptual.
Last edited by ShawJ on Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

Your right.  Anyways I am glad to see a developer investing so heavily in the area.  This study will no doubt show much room for improvement.

Ideally this would be a zone for a bit higher density development on the speculation of a streetcar line right through the middle of it eventually.
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

Yeah, this area of downtown needs the most work (maybe tied with 16th street). I know that other areas of downtown have kind of been labeled artsy areas, but I think this area has the most potential with Joslyn and The Rose.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

ShawJ wrote:Yeah, this area of downtown needs the most work (maybe tied with 16th street). I know that other areas of downtown have kind of been labeled artsy areas, but I think this area has the most potential with Joslyn and The Rose.
Actually, this part of downtown would be my first choice if the city ever decided to build a Modern Art Museum.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

From the above article:
He's renovating the old Northern Natural Gas building into the Highline, complete with nearly 200 apartments honoring the building's art deco style.
This is the first I've heard of the name "The Highline" and I don't understand the reference. Surely they're not just trying to piggy back the popularity of the project in New York. Secondly: Art Deco?? Are they serious? They might as well have called it neoclassical.
While it's too early to tell what may fill the storefronts, some goals are clear: making parking a priority and reduce speed limits to ease pedestrian traffic.
:banghead:

Reducing speed limits (hopefully along with additional, physical traffic calming treatments) to make the area safer for pedestrians is great. But I'm pretty sure that "making parking a priority" is partly what turned the area into the deserted pathetic disaster that it is.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

iamjacobm wrote:
Actually, this part of downtown would be my first choice if the city ever decided to build a Modern Art Museum.
Absolutely.
StreetsOfOmaha wrote: Reducing speed limits (hopefully along with additional, physical traffic calming treatments) to make the area safer for pedestrians is great. But I'm pretty sure that "making parking a priority" is partly what turned the area into the deserted pathetic disaster that it is.
I was a bit confused by that as well considering the area has become a wasteland of parking lots. But I think it's too early to make any conclusions.

Although until Omaha really gets serious about alternate forms of transportation (maybe the transportation study will help that), parking will always end up a priority. Hopefully any study that does come out will consider long term goals and other forms of transportation.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

I know. It's just so backassward to me. It's like, |expletive| duh the project will feature parking. They all do. So, given that there is no question as to the "urbanness" of the area, it's just insane to me that that kind of |expletive| shows up in these articles and studies. How about, given that this is not a suburban project, and the city has said time and time again through numerous studies that it wants to make areas more pedestrian friendly and to increase transportation options, they say "one thing is for sure, pedestrians, transit-users, and bicyclists will be a priority."

It really boggles my mind, the incoherence of it.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

^^ I agree.  In all reality this will never be a big shopping, dinning, or nightlife area.  If all residential projects cover their own tenants and they have on street parking there will be plenty to go around in this part of Downtown.  Heck the developer even mentioned coffee shops and small stores as his goals for the area.  Those have quick parking turnover and small parking demand.

North Downtown, Old Market and MTC will always be destinations in this city, they will need to account for extra parking in certain ways.  I can't see that even being a huge issue here.
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

Random idea: if this area starts developing down the road, how about a pedestrian bridge over Dodge street?
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Post by GetUrban »

When they say"making parking a priority" let us hope they mean to provide parking, but keep it out of sight and out of mind. As developers of viable design solutions, they have to acknowledge that providing parking is still a necessity in Omaha. Simply not providing parking will not convert the people of Omaha to users of mass transit and other means overnight.  On the other hand, I do hate to see downtown Omaha dominated by so many huge parking structures. I'm all for developing a light rail system and alternate forms of transport such as bike lanes and trails, but it's going to take time. It would be great if the parking structures could be dispersed far outside of downtown with transit connections into downtown.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

ShawJ wrote:Random idea: if this area starts developing down the road, how about a pedestrian bridge over Dodge street?
I like it!  :thumb:
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8018
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Which side floods?
Stable genius.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

iamjacobm wrote:
ShawJ wrote:Random idea: if this area starts developing down the road, how about a pedestrian bridge over Dodge street?
I like it!  :thumb:
Why would one be needed? Crosswalks, traffic calming, and traffic signals should do the trick just fine.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:
iamjacobm wrote:
ShawJ wrote:Random idea: if this area starts developing down the road, how about a pedestrian bridge over Dodge street?
I like it!  :thumb:
Why would one be needed? Crosswalks, traffic calming, and traffic signals should do the trick just fine.
It's probably not needed. Just a random idea if the area ever took off. I guess I don't see Dodge ever taming much with it being a main arterial through the city.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

It's not very "main" in this area of Downtown.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8018
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Dodge street is a maximum of 35 mph everywhere east of 72nd.  I have no idea why this is perceived as some uncrossable magic superhighway.
Stable genius.
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1554
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

Whatever. I'll build a bridge and prohibit any of you from using it!   :)
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Perfectly fine. Just buy property on both sides and purchase the air rights from the City. You can own and operate your own private pedestrian bridge.  :;):
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

I think it is more that there is a 4 block stretch without a cross walk.

A pedestrian bridge on~22nd that empties right into the sculpture garden could be a cool piece of public art and be useful once the area south of Dodge sees more action.  I mean Millennium Park in Chicago has a similar stretch of Columbus Dr. that doesn't have crosswalks for multiple blocks and used a pedestrian bridge to remedy the void.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

True enough; it could be a landmark piece of public art. But it could also be overkill if the goal is merely to offer pedestrians a safe means to cross the street.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Post by Seth »

GetUrban wrote:When they say"making parking a priority" let us hope they mean to provide parking, but keep it out of sight and out of mind. As developers of viable design solutions, they have to acknowledge that providing parking is still a necessity in Omaha. Simply not providing parking will not convert the people of Omaha to users of mass transit and other means overnight.  On the other hand, I do hate to see downtown Omaha dominated by so many huge parking structures. I'm all for developing a light rail system and alternate forms of transport such as bike lanes and trails, but it's going to take time. It would be great if the parking structures could be dispersed far outside of downtown with transit connections into downtown.
That's about the same well-reasoned and balanced attitude I have.  Ironically, in order to (re)build a viable urban area with car-free options, you really almost have to start with providing enough automobile access to attract the initial mass of visitors into the area.

I don't know if this was the intention of the "making parking a priority" statement, but maintaining plenty of well-designed on-street parking actually makes urban areas more pedestrian-friendly.  Any thriving, walkable-downtown has consistent on-street parking, while suburban arterials never do, but I'd hardly call them walkable!

Finally, there's no shortage of parking downtown, but most of it is managed horribly.  There are  thousands of empty garage spaces that sit empty on evenings and weekends while people drive directly past them hunting for free meter spaces.  I'm glad to see that they're at least working on solving this in Old Market, but as the rest of downtown becomes more active, this needs to be addressed on a larger scale.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

Seth wrote:
GetUrban wrote:When they say"making parking a priority" let us hope they mean to provide parking, but keep it out of sight and out of mind. As developers of viable design solutions, they have to acknowledge that providing parking is still a necessity in Omaha. Simply not providing parking will not convert the people of Omaha to users of mass transit and other means overnight.  On the other hand, I do hate to see downtown Omaha dominated by so many huge parking structures. I'm all for developing a light rail system and alternate forms of transport such as bike lanes and trails, but it's going to take time. It would be great if the parking structures could be dispersed far outside of downtown with transit connections into downtown.
That's about the same well-reasoned and balanced attitude I have.  Ironically, in order to (re)build a viable urban area with car-free options, you really almost have to start with providing enough automobile access to attract the initial mass of visitors into the area.

I don't know if this was the intention of the "making parking a priority" statement, but maintaining plenty of well-designed on-street parking actually makes urban areas more pedestrian-friendly.  Any thriving, walkable-downtown has consistent on-street parking, while suburban arterials never do, but I'd hardly call them walkable!

Finally, there's no shortage of parking downtown, but most of it is managed horribly.  There are  thousands of empty garage spaces that sit empty on evenings and weekends while people drive directly past them hunting for free meter spaces.  I'm glad to see that they're at least working on solving this in Old Market, but as the rest of downtown becomes more active, this needs to be addressed on a larger scale.
It would actually be wise of them to use meter prices as a means to encourage other areas activity.  If 16th's meters when it gets redone are considerably less expensive than the Old Market it may be an incentive for some people to break their mold and explore some different areas.  Maybe that wouldn't work though, just a thought.
User avatar
Linkin5
County Board
Posts: 4543
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:59 pm

Post by Linkin5 »

iamjacobm wrote:
Seth wrote:
GetUrban wrote:When they say"making parking a priority" let us hope they mean to provide parking, but keep it out of sight and out of mind. As developers of viable design solutions, they have to acknowledge that providing parking is still a necessity in Omaha. Simply not providing parking will not convert the people of Omaha to users of mass transit and other means overnight.  On the other hand, I do hate to see downtown Omaha dominated by so many huge parking structures. I'm all for developing a light rail system and alternate forms of transport such as bike lanes and trails, but it's going to take time. It would be great if the parking structures could be dispersed far outside of downtown with transit connections into downtown.
That's about the same well-reasoned and balanced attitude I have.  Ironically, in order to (re)build a viable urban area with car-free options, you really almost have to start with providing enough automobile access to attract the initial mass of visitors into the area.

I don't know if this was the intention of the "making parking a priority" statement, but maintaining plenty of well-designed on-street parking actually makes urban areas more pedestrian-friendly.  Any thriving, walkable-downtown has consistent on-street parking, while suburban arterials never do, but I'd hardly call them walkable!

Finally, there's no shortage of parking downtown, but most of it is managed horribly.  There are  thousands of empty garage spaces that sit empty on evenings and weekends while people drive directly past them hunting for free meter spaces.  I'm glad to see that they're at least working on solving this in Old Market, but as the rest of downtown becomes more active, this needs to be addressed on a larger scale.
It would actually be wise of them to use meter prices as a means to encourage other areas activity.  If 16th's meters when it gets redone are considerably less expensive than the Old Market it may be an incentive for some people to break their mold and explore some different areas.  Maybe that wouldn't work though, just a thought.
One thing that would help is if the parking garages would take credit cards, I couldn't believe the couple of garages I tried to park in that only took cash.  It may not seem like to big of a deal but it does make a difference.
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

from the Alley Poyner Macchietto FB page:   In reference to "The Federal District" which seems to be an alternate name for the Joslyn District....


Image
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Federal District? Is this some new exercise in micro-statecraft that I don't know about? I don't get the reference.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
l-dude
Home Owners Association
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Lincoln

Post by l-dude »

It's a stretch, as the Federal (Zorinsky) Bldg. and the Federal courthouse are outside (east) of this area, but the Omaha branch of the Federal Reserve (K.C.) Bank is between Farnam and Harney, 21st and 24th, on the south side of the area, inside the study boundry.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6864
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Yeah, it's a stretch. I guess I don't blame them. They need something that sounds better than "Post-World-War-Two-Berlin."

But seriously, why not call it the Joslyn District, Joslyn Heights, Capitol Hill... something to that effect. "The Federal District" just seems to come out of nowhere.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
nebport5
Planning Board
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: 5280

Post by nebport5 »

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Federal District? Is this some new exercise in micro-statecraft that I don't know about? I don't get the reference.

Aside from the Federal Reserve presence, I don't either.
User avatar
BRoss
IT Director
Posts: 10002786
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: West Central Omaha

Post by BRoss »

I personally like the name Joslyn District.

I hope they don't go with something stupid like the Federal District in the end.

(Btw, I didn't realize this would take off as much in a different thread, but I'm glad Brad separated it now.)
User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Post by Omababe »

OSILayer8Support wrote:I personally like the name Joslyn District.
We can call it the JoDi for short! :)
User avatar
TitosBuritoBarn
Planning Board
Posts: 3046
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: St. Louis

Post by TitosBuritoBarn »

Omababe wrote:
OSILayer8Support wrote:I personally like the name Joslyn District.
We can call it the JoDi for short! :)
I would be in high favor of that if the 'o' was an 'e' instead.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

I think the city or a developer should concentrate on getting an Aloft Hotel into this district.  

Something like this one in Minneapolis:
Image

Or this one being built in OKC:
Image

Would do wonders for the fairly desolate area that is the "Joslyn District."
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Post by Seth »

Wow, I really like the one in MN, although the rendering from OKC seems to capture the desolateness that it would occupy in Omaha a little better.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10391
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

Seth wrote:Wow, I really like the one in MN, although the rendering from OKC seems to capture the desolateness that it would occupy in Omaha a little better.
Haha, just saying I think this part would do well for a lot of mid-rise heavy residential.  May not create a ton of life on the street, but there is just so much open space for large scale residential.  Like:

Image

Image

Image

I mean they just announced a 300 unit apartment complex at Village Point, I have to think 300 would move equidistant from downtown and Midtown Crossing.  Plus the lower land costs compared to the rest of downtown would make a larger 5 floor project easier to get done.  I am guessing at least, just so much open land that needs developed.
User avatar
Garrett
County Board
Posts: 3538
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Post by Garrett »

Ohh... I like the 2nd and 3rd.... Can I haz?
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
Post Reply