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.
Joslyn District
Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss
Downtown Makeover In The Works
ShawJ wrote:^ Sounds worthy of its own thread.
What was the name for this area in the master plan? Â They Joslyan District?iamjacobm wrote:Agreed.
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
Website: www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradwphoto
Instagram: www.instagram.com/bradwilliamsphotography
YouTube: www.youtube.com/@bradwilliamsphoto
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:
Of course, it's all very vague and conceptual.
Here is what the master plan showed for the 24th street area by Farnam:
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.
Actually, this part of downtown would be my first choice if the city ever decided to build a Modern Art Museum.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.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
From the above article:
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.
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.He's renovating the old Northern Natural Gas building into the Highline, complete with nearly 200 apartments honoring the building's art deco style.
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.
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
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Absolutely.iamjacobm wrote:
Actually, this part of downtown would be my first choice if the city ever decided to build a Modern Art Museum.
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.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.
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.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
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.
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
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
^^ I agree. Â In all reality this will never be a big shopping, dinning, or nightlife area. Â 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. Â Heck the developer even mentioned coffee shops and small stores as his goals for the area. Â 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. Â I can't see that even being a huge issue here.
North Downtown, Old Market and MTC will always be destinations in this city, they will need to account for extra parking in certain ways. Â I can't see that even being a huge issue here.
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. Â 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.
...and then they were gone.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
Why would one be needed? Crosswalks, traffic calming, and traffic signals should do the trick just fine.iamjacobm wrote:I like it! :thumb:ShawJ wrote:Random idea: if this area starts developing down the road, how about a pedestrian bridge over Dodge 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
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
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 wrote:Why would one be needed? Crosswalks, traffic calming, and traffic signals should do the trick just fine.iamjacobm wrote:I like it! :thumb:ShawJ wrote:Random idea: if this area starts developing down the road, how about a pedestrian bridge over Dodge street?
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
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. Â :;):
"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
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
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. Â 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.
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. Â 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.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
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
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
- Seth
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood
That's about the same well-reasoned and balanced attitude I have. Â 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.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.
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. Â 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. Â 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. Â Maybe that wouldn't work though, just a thought.Seth wrote: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.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.
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.
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. Â It may not seem like to big of a deal but it does make a difference.iamjacobm wrote: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.Seth wrote: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.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.
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.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
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
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
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.
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
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
- TitosBuritoBarn
- Planning Board
- Posts: 3046
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: St. Louis
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: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.
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.