Omaha Forums

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:14 pm**

Man, I've never seen a freeway have a 90-degree turn like that (and not only one, but two turns). Wow, that's unbelievable... I'm so glad they softened those two curves out in Chicago.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:18 pm**

RockHarbor wrote:Man, I've never seen a freeway have a 90-degree turn like that (and not only one, but two turns). Wow, that's unbelievable... I'm so glad they softened those two curves out in Chicago.

Just like none of use have ever seen a forum member take a 90-degree turn on a thread topic like you do.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:34 pm**

Toto wrote:
RockHarbor wrote:Man, I've never seen a freeway have a 90-degree turn like that (and not only one, but two turns). Wow, that's unbelievable... I'm so glad they softened those two curves out in Chicago.
Just like none of use have ever seen a forum member take a 90-degree turn on a thread topic like you do.

Another person attacking me. Yawn.

Why is that?

I would love to see your examples of all my supposed 90-degree turns.

BTW, you're the one causing the 90-degree turn here. So, you're just as guilty... You could have IMED me, and not put this here, if the "preservation of threads" was so, so precious to you. But, no...

And, I KNEW somebody would jump on me later & take a jab, the minute I said "Back to the Crossroads development..." on the Crossroads thread today. You fulfilled that. People are so predictable to me. I'm very psychologically-orientated, with no apology whatsoever.

Branching off topic now & then is inevitable, because branching-off information relates to the core topic.

I'm going to watch EVERY move you make on here now. You better stay on PERFECT course -- every time. Or, you'll likely be viewed as just a "major hypocrite" in people's eyes. You've done it to yourself. Not my problem.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:57 pm**

Anyone else read where the article claims Omaha has the world's largest zoo? I mean subjectively the world's best zoo is better than the objectively largest (which it isn't).

And Rockharbor, you crack me up. You tend to ramble and talk about all six sides of a dice at the same time. I don't think anyone doesn't appreciate your input here though...?

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:17 pm**

Why don't they clean the graffiti underneath the 480 bridge? I think that might draw more people to the riverfront.

While they're at it they should create an art contest for local artists to paint underneath the viaduct.

Posted: **Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:35 pm**

Athomsfere wrote:Anyone else read where the article claims Omaha has the world's largest zoo? I mean subjectively the world's best zoo is better than the objectively largest (which it isn't).

And Rockharbor, you crack me up. You tend to ramble and talk about all six sides of a dice at the same time. I don't think anyone doesn't appreciate your input here though...?

I like how you said that ("six sides of a dice"). Perfect way to say it... I am that way. I think about things -- in depth. I can't help it. If I "dumb myself down" people often seem happier with me. But, I shouldn't have to "dumb myself down." Working for different companies, in the pre-hiring process, I've taken plenty of intelligence-level tests that have shown plenty of good things I'm personally happy about...w/out me ever thinking I'm the smartest guy around. I'm definitely not. Also, I don't have to take "punches" (jabs) from people on here, when I'm not jabbing anyone -- period. I'm plenty cordial, respectful, and a "team player" on this forum. I simply like to discuss things, I acknowledge other people's points, I don't always think I'm right, and I'm not afraid of being wrong -- and that's more than I can say for a lot of people I observe in life. So, there shouldn't be any problem.

Anyways, I've heard Omaha's zoo is #1 in the nation now, even over San Diego. That's impressive & something to be proud of. Funny, I grew up around such a top-notch zoo that whatever US city I visit, I don't even think about visiting their zoo, unless I'm in San Diego -- because I know I won't be impressed.

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:23 am**

RockHarbor wrote:
Anyways, I've heard Omaha's zoo is #1 in the nation now, even over San Diego. That's impressive & something to be proud of. Funny, I grew up around such a top-notch zoo that whatever US city I visit, I don't even think about visiting their zoo, unless I'm in San Diego -- because I know I won't be impressed.

According to Trip Advisor's survey it was #1 in the world, lol.

I haven't been to San Diego's, never made it that far south from LA but, been to a few other zoos and I always thought I hated zoos. Until I was dragged to Omaha's and LOVED it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:35 am**

On the topic of Henry Doorly being the largest, it is one of the largest with over 17,000 animals and 962 species.

Posted: **Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:22 pm**

Omaha's zoo is FAB -- period. If you argue that, you better have a better zoo lined-up to show us.

Oh, wait... There isn't one.

Point made.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:01 pm**

I am glad they are putting more of an effort toward events, but the riverfront looks sad right now with the empty lot. They really should bite the bullet and at least sod the former Rick's site until a plan comes along because it looks bad right now.

Posted: **Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:49 pm**

That's good, first things first we need to get events going on down there as often as possible. It's not as exciting as The Fifth but it's more important and in time it can go a long way with helping future aspirations.

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2017 9:13 pm**

Still so strange seeing it gone:

: image.jpeg (56.51 KiB) Viewed 14695 times

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2017 8:24 am**

Coyote wrote:Still so strange seeing it gone:

I agree. Seems like such a waste. I still don't understand how a building that was only 10 years old was in such bad shape.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2017 10:01 am**

skinzfan23 wrote:I still don't understand how a building that was only 10 years old was in such bad shape.

Was the building in bad shape? I hadn't heard that before.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2017 10:10 am**

I thought I heard that it had mold in it and some other problems.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2017 11:37 am**

I thought there was something wrong with the sewer system too.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2017 3:14 pm**

I guess you guys are right, from omaha.com

Mayor Jean Stothert had said last fall that the building should be demolished because it’s too big, too isolated and in bad shape.

Bench said the building’s problems include a bad roof, faulty plumbing, heating and air conditioning, and a sewer setup that chronically caused odors.

Posted: **Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:50 am**

http://www.nonpareilonline.com/news/reg ... 35f4b.html

“We need to make the riverfront a destination and we’re well on the way on our side,” he said. “We have a park and new developments. I think what Council Bluffs has done on its side has made Omaha take notice to activate their side.”

Nevertheless, to the north and south of the Tom Hanafan’s River’s Edge Park that Walsh referred to are wooden areas that could see some improvements for public use, he said. And, there are opportunities for more revitalization on the Omaha side, he added.

With that in mind, a meeting is being held on Monday in which the public can offer input on future plans for the Council Bluffs/Omaha riverfront. The mayors of both communities, along with a group of community leaders have been working together with other government officials and stakeholders to improve both sides of the river.

A nationally-known firm, OJB Landscape Architecture has been hired to develop a master plan in and around Gene Leahy Mall, Heartland of America Park and Lewis and Clark Landing in Omaha, and the River’s Edge from north of Hanafan Park to the Union Pacific Bridge in Council Bluffs, according to Walsh.

“It’s a three-mile stretch of the riverfront,” he said.

The meeting will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Holland Performing Arts Center in downtown Omaha. A formal presentation on riverfront possibilities will be held at 6:30 p.m.

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:46 pm**

Did a little looking at OJB Landscape and they designed both Klyde Warren Park in Dallas and Myriad Botanical Gardens in OKC among others. The two names have been given major awards the past few years regarding urban park design.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:40 am**

I was planning on going last night, but something came up. Per the OWH article it sounds like this was mostly an early input session anyways with more meetings in October and January.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:57 am**

iamjacobm wrote:I was planning on going last night, but something came up. Per the OWH article it sounds like this was mostly an early input session anyways with more meetings in October and January.

The TV coverage just had a lot of soundbites of people going on about wish lists and using lots of buzz words. The B-roll on Channel 7 was people putting colored dots on pictures they liked. Sounds like you didn't miss much.

Honestly, they want to reengage us with the river. We tried that at Boyer Chute. Once the river flooded, they just quit trying to fix the place and after 2011, they completely hung up on the place. I would love to see us build a working marina in downtown that would allow boat traffic up and down the river. I would like to see some compelling reason to go there. Parks are nice, but these will either be cop-consuming money pits or will be hobo towns (or both).

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:13 am**

Someone who went to the meeting - was there any discussion of ideas to increase the population base around the river?

Imo the caliber of firm they've picked to create this plan is certainly a good sign, but the ideas being discussed are really just the same concepts with the previous revitalization effort. Obviously better implementation would be a huge new step, but I'd like to see something more than just a restaurant or food trucks by the river.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am**

I agree, I think you nailed it. Increasing the population base near the river is going to be key. I know in the city's master plan there were designs showing condo/apt towers near 480 and ConAgra. With CB at least adding some residential and possibly a few apt towers, it would be nice for Omaha to do the same. Increasing the population base will help to keep the area afloat instead of just having people down there for a few hrs a day.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:14 pm**

If all we end up with on the riverfront after years of "studies" and thousands of dollars spent is just some more food kiosks and outdoor performance space then it will be our generation's shame and a colossal waste of everyone's time, creativity and resources. Sadly, it appears that's where we're headed.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:41 pm**

Aspire Omaha wrote:If all we end up with on the riverfront after years of "studies" and thousands of dollars spent is just some more food kiosks and outdoor performance space then it will be our generation's shame and a colossal waste of everyone's time, creativity and resources. Sadly, it appears that's where we're headed.

I kind of disagree. It is the fault of Asarco and a few generations ago for this shame and colossal waste.
They had no idea that their plant would determine the future use of this stretch of riverfront development, nor the toxic wasteland it would leave us.
But, Asarco and the UP Rail Shops did take up space that 'conserved' land for future use.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:46 pm**

I'm sure I am not the only one who remembers coming from Eppley on Abbott only to end up nowhere downtown.
Going over that bridge with Asarco billowing in your left and UP tracks down below.
What we have now is nothing short of development miracle, given what city planners were left.

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:11 am**

Yes, Omaha's riverfront has improved in comparison to 30 years ago and there are unique development challenges with the property. However, we only need to look at what is happening with peer cities to realize how much is yet unrealized here. Why aim low? Following is a sample of how other U.S. cities have capitalized on their riverfront properties:

www.memphisriverfront.com
www.louisvillewaterfront.com
www.knoxvilletn.gov/southwaterfront
www.baltimorewaterfront.com
www.riverlifepgh.org www.friendsoftheriverfront.org
www.nashvilleriverfront.org
www.rivercitycompany.com
www.riverfrontwilm.com
www.sacramentoriver.org
www.peoriariverfront.com
www.stcrivercorridor.org
www.riverstreetsavannah.com
http://www.richmondgov.com/planningandd ... tplan.aspx
www.cityofdubuque.org/1583/mississippi-riverwalk
www.downtowndavenport.com
www.riverfront.org
www.detroitriverfront.org
www.goriverwalk.com
www.capitalriverfront.org

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:59 am**

Omaha Magazine posted pictures from the Riverfront Revitalization on Facebook last night. Not in a format that I could figure out how to post on my phone, but hopefully they show up on omaha.com or another site.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:08 am**

Louie wrote:Omaha Magazine posted pictures from the Riverfront Revitalization on Facebook last night. Not in a format that I could figure out how to post on my phone, but hopefully they show up on omaha.com or another site.

This one?

: 23519086_10155272780252893_6355283367284854966_n.jpg (54.33 KiB) Viewed 12764 times

https://www.facebook.com/OmahaMagazine/

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:56 am**

Finding bits and pieces of info. They should post all their material to http://riverfrontrevitalization.com/ soon.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:17 am**

Seems extremely underwhelming. I don’t k is who they expect to spend time on the riverfront when no one will live near it...

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:42 am**

buildomaha wrote:Seems extremely underwhelming. I don’t k is who they expect to spend time on the riverfront when no one will live near it...

Agreed. Unless the soil toxicity doesn't allow for it, they should throw up some mid-rises on the sports field/event lawn on the west.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:59 am**

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:
buildomaha wrote:Seems extremely underwhelming. I don’t k is who they expect to spend time on the riverfront when no one will live near it...
Agreed. Unless the soil toxicity doesn't allow for it, they should throw up some mid-rises on the sports field/event lawn on the west.

Could also be a flooding concern. But there definitely needs to be more than just empty space.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:18 pm**

I see that there are 4 plats on the north side of the interstate and one more to the south that are slated as development location. Perhaps these could have some size to them?

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:29 pm**

Looking at this again I really hope this gets stopped ASAP. To me it looks like whoever planned this said "Let's just bulldoze everything and call these worthless spots event spaces" There's zero value for the downtown real estate here and its worth the price to develop the riverfront.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:43 pm**

buildomaha wrote:Seems extremely underwhelming. I don’t k is who they expect to spend time on the riverfront when no one will live near it...

Aww, but I live about 4 blocks from it now.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:49 pm**

Found this PDF on the OWH:

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnew ... 21.pdf.pdf

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/riverfr ... dc7d8.html

: Riverfront.JPG (147.9 KiB) Viewed 12518 times

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:01 pm**

Likely echoing the thoughts of others here, but the southern plan is much more exciting than the north. It is nice they are cleaning up another portion of the riverfront - the more use we can get out of our only natural resource the better! The Farnam st pier seems like a great idea and should work well with an assumed expansion of the Old Market into some of the Con Agra land.

North would really benefit from increased density of development, especially housing, though maybe CB is taking the reins on this? If I were to critique the southern portion of the plan it's that the parcel "available for development" seems like an undesirable parcel of land they couldn't think of a good use for and better connectivity over the railroad tracks would be preferred.

Northern portion: 3/10 underwhelming and unimaginative
Southern portion: 8/10. Doing exactly what needs to be done.
Overall: 5.5, would benefit if an extension of the OM was announced.

Posted: **Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:15 pm**

Eh... I just hope that isn't the baby bob they decided on. Other than that, I guess it's underwhelming because there is so much space down there and I doubt enough people would live there for it to make sense erecting a bunch of residential buildings. Maybe the buildings they did mention a possibility of will be big enough and house enough people to where all this seemingly excessive green-space will be welcome. But, I personally never did believe the riverfront had much going for it.

Posted: **Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:59 am**

http://riverfrontrevitalization.com/|expletive| ... Slides.pdf

http://riverfrontrevitalization.com/|expletive| ... _11X17.pdf

What was presented at the meeting. Includes the concepts for the mall too.

Omaha Forums

Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)

Re: Missouri River Commons (Riverfront Development)