Pinnacle / Swanson Site (10th and Capitol)

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

Moderators: nebugeater, Coyote, Omaha Cowboy, Brad

Out of the 3 proposals on Page 15, Which one is your favorite

Proposal 1: Shamrock
17
77%
Proposal 2: Buckingham
2
9%
Proposal 3: Nexus
3
14%
 
Total votes: 22

Maverick
Home Owners Association
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:54 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Postby Maverick » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:15 pm

So it looks like this is just going to be a flat parking lot for the Qwest and Ballpark now?  What a waste.

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28320
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:19 pm

Maverick wrote:So it looks like this is just going to be a flat parking lot for the Qwest and Ballpark now?  What a waste.


They have gone to great lengths to make sure they put, TEMPORARILY!  They have said many times that the site is too valuable long term for just parking!
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

User avatar
thenewguy
Planning Board
Posts: 2871
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby thenewguy » Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:47 pm

they said most likely after putting in the temp lot that they'd be putting in a hotel with a garage that could be used.  Just an FYI to ya Maverick :P

--Goose.
Go Cubs Go

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28320
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:47 pm

First vote on ballpark likely will be to demolish foods plant

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... d=10282513

Two Omaha City Council members said after meeting with Mayor Mike Fahey today that they'll have no problem saying yes on what's likely to be their first ballpark-related vote, demolishing a shuttered factory at 10th Street and Capitol Avenue.

Chuck Sigerson and Dan Welch said the city has to tear down the frozen-dinner plant with or without a new stadium downtown for the College World Series.

The council is likely to be asked later this spring to approve contracts to demolish the plant and build a parking lot as part of replacing parking that would be lost to ballpark construction on Qwest Center Omaha lots C and E.
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

the1wags
County Board
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Denver
Contact:

Postby the1wags » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:26 pm

Also from the World-Herald article....

"Asked about the frozen-food plant demolition, Gernandt said he'll oppose it, as well as any other contracts connected to the mayor's plan.

"Anything that's affiliated with a new downtown stadium, I will oppose," he said.'

What a fool, even without a ballpark, this piece of land is a key development site.

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3596
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:41 am

Yesterday morning they had southbound 10th St closed off by the site and they had a crane, looked like maybe they were getting ready to take some stuff off the roof.
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

NDizona
Library Board
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby NDizona » Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:24 am

Image

Once I learn Photoshop - I will be dangerous....very dangerous.

User avatar
OmahaJaysCU
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1975
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:00 pm

Postby OmahaJaysCU » Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:15 am

Nice.  I hope you can photoshop us a nice parking lot, because I have a feeling that is all this site will ever be.   :lol:

NDizona
Library Board
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby NDizona » Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:10 am

Image

Hope this helps

User avatar
nebport5
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Downtown

Postby nebport5 » Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:22 am

that's kinda sad...how about photo-shopping an anchor hotel with a parking garage.

User avatar
thenewguy
Planning Board
Posts: 2871
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby thenewguy » Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:33 am

Easy, easy...  yeah, it sucks, but i think what people are forgetting is that they have already alluded to was that there have been plans for a hotel on that property already.  I can't remember if it was mayor Fahey or not that said it, but it was mentioned at a press conference that the parking lot would only be temprorary (like 2 or 3 years-ish-----brad or dto can correct me if i'm wrong, i think dto had a clip of him talking to stinson from that conference) and that they'd be redeveloping it into a hotel with ground level retail and a parking structure.  Don't forget that hyatt regency rumor we haven't heard much about lately :;):
Go Cubs Go

NDizona
Library Board
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby NDizona » Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:22 am

nebport5 wrote:that's kinda sad...how about photo-shopping an anchor hotel with a parking garage.


I can only photoshop likely things...not fantasy world ideas.

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:35 pm

Their likely just going to put text on the site? Sad.
Image

stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Postby stabone99 » Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:59 am

the1wags wrote:Also from the World-Herald article....

"Asked about the frozen-food plant demolition, Gernandt said he'll oppose it, as well as any other contracts connected to the mayor's plan.

"Anything that's affiliated with a new downtown stadium, I will oppose," he said.'

What a fool, even without a ballpark, this piece of land is a key development site.


That's so disappointing.  There's zero logic in that statement.  It's nothing but a political game at work.  Gernandt sounds plain ignorant even saying that.

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28320
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:43 pm

stabone99 wrote:
the1wags wrote:Also from the World-Herald article....

"Asked about the frozen-food plant demolition, Gernandt said he'll oppose it, as well as any other contracts connected to the mayor's plan.

"Anything that's affiliated with a new downtown stadium, I will oppose," he said.'

What a fool, even without a ballpark, this piece of land is a key development site.


That's so disappointing.  There's zero logic in that statement.  It's nothing but a political game at work.  Gernandt sounds plain ignorant even saying that.


I thought he flipped on the Swanson site?
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Postby stabone99 » Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:07 pm

Brad wrote:
stabone99 wrote:
the1wags wrote:Also from the World-Herald article....

"Asked about the frozen-food plant demolition, Gernandt said he'll oppose it, as well as any other contracts connected to the mayor's plan.

"Anything that's affiliated with a new downtown stadium, I will oppose," he said.'

What a fool, even without a ballpark, this piece of land is a key development site.


That's so disappointing.  There's zero logic in that statement.  It's nothing but a political game at work.  Gernandt sounds plain ignorant even saying that.


I thought he flipped on the Swanson site?


He may have, I just didn't hear about it!  :mrgreen:

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28320
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:09 pm

stabone99 wrote:He may have, I just didn't hear about it!  :mrgreen:


I think it was last week when the forum was broken.
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

the1wags
County Board
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Denver
Contact:

Postby the1wags » Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:49 pm

Yes he has publicly changed his vote regarding the Swanson site since I posted that. Now we just need to work on him about his ballpark votes.  :;):

Ben
Human Relations
Posts: 799
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Westside

Postby Ben » Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:40 pm

All this crying about the lost parking due to the Stadium site, and needing to turn Pinnacle into another lot, drives me nuts.  I can see lot A (The one to the southeast, closest to the riverfront) from my window.  Even during major events, like this weekend's NCAA basketball, this lot is no more than half full.  About the only time lot A get full use is when the rodeo comes to town and they put up tents/stables all over the place.

User avatar
Uffda
Planning Board
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Omaha

Postby Uffda » Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:14 pm

About the only people i know that use lot a are the boosters of uno and creighton.

StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6936
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Postby StreetsOfOmaha » Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:14 pm

I think it's ridiculous, too.  Things like the baseball stadium are opportunities to ELIMINATE surface parking downtown. To me, the most absurd idea is building something on a surface lot downtown, and coming out with a plan to REPLACE the surface lot.

Now, I understand the "value" of this sort of thing when it comes to appeasing stupid Omahans that don't understand how you can have a functioning downtown without places to park your car, but to me, this is an opportunity to show the need for comprehensive public transportation to and in Downtown.  At the very least, dense, multi-use parking structures should be in the plan, at least in a "phased" way.  

I'm not saying there can't be parking (au contraire).  I understand that, especially in Omaha, even Downtown, you have to provide for Joe Suburbanite who wants to drive his SUV to a Qwest event, park it, and walk no more than five minutes to get to the arena. I'm just saying that any parking DOWNTOWN should be in the form of multi-level garages with active street-level uses.

As far as Urban Development goes, there's no term more disgusting than "surface lot."
"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

NDizona
Library Board
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby NDizona » Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:54 pm

Streets...Its more than just "replacing it with a surface lot" - its an opportunity to demolish the Swanson site and appease those arguing about parking - all part of a bigger plan.

If Omaha were to build parking garages now - it would cost around 10-25K/stall - probably more because the city pays too much for everything.

That's $$$ on top of the stadium, police pension, and sewer projects...

Financially this is not going to happen for quite a while.

Practically its just too much to expect Omahans to walk or ride the joke public transportation system.

Surface parking is a necessary evil if you expect a project to work downtown.  Rome wasn't built in a day.  Lets just focus on the DT stadium, killing this stupid recall election, and getting the bars open past 1 and I will join you on your quest to eliminate surface parking.

StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6936
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Postby StreetsOfOmaha » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:12 pm

Dude.  I realize all of that.  Did you read my post?

I realize it's a "necessary evil."  I just wish they were clear that this is TEMPORARY.

And like I said, this is an opportunity to show the need for better public transportation and walkable neighborhoods.
"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

NDizona
Library Board
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby NDizona » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:42 pm

Dude?

Am i that old ....

Define temporary?

Im guessing at least 10 years - probably more.

As for public transportation - 4 generations maybe 5.

StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6936
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Postby StreetsOfOmaha » Mon Mar 24, 2008 8:51 pm

Ha.  Well, my estimations would be a LITTLE less conservative than that.  Definitely less than five years, for both.
"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
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Swift » Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:13 pm

Yeah 4, or 5 generations is laughable, but then again, so is 90% of what you post. :P

20 years at the very, very most until viable LRT happens.

10 years with Swansen as a lot could happen, but only if the economy slips from recession into a major depression (which I haven't heard any insinuations that this could happen). Aside from the the heck as slow demolition time, look at how quickly the UP sight went from nothing to something. And you know what they say about real estate: location, location, location. The Swanson sight is much more prominently located: between two of the biggest attractions in the state (OM and Qwest).

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:56 pm

But it was just Easter Sunday. He got up don't you know?
Image

NDizona
Library Board
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby NDizona » Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:17 pm

Word on the street is that the site will be turned into a 4 level parking garage with $12 event parking.

You heard it here first.

the1wags
County Board
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Denver
Contact:

Postby the1wags » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:08 pm

Word on the street is wrong.

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28320
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:15 pm

the1wags wrote:Word on the street is wrong.


That's a big site... May be the parking garage is part of a bigger project.  May be the RFP must include a garage to be built first.
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

the1wags
County Board
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Denver
Contact:

Postby the1wags » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:29 pm

I would hope that a garage is part of any long term plan. I just don't see the city turning this into a parking garage only. Especially because the anti downtown ballpark people would have a heyday adding in the cost of any garage to the ballpark plan. I'm thinking 2-3 years of surface lot before it gets developed.

Big E
City Council
Posts: 7767
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Postby Big E » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:46 pm

If the best long term plan the city of Omaha can come up with for the Swanson site is parking, I'll be shopping for condos in Lincoln.  Same commute, same stupid |expletive|, half price home.

-Big E
"The above statement was not intended to be factual."

NDizona
Library Board
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:25 pm

Postby NDizona » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:34 pm

the1wags wrote:I would hope that a garage is part of any long term plan. I just don't see the city turning this into a parking garage only. Especially because the anti downtown ballpark people would have a heyday adding in the cost of any garage to the ballpark plan. I'm thinking 2-3 years of surface lot before it gets developed.


I speculate that the plans for the site have remained on the DL because of this very fact.  

Mark the thread in a time capsule and see if my source wasn't pulling my leg.

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:49 pm

I still don't see them putting a garage there unless it is part of a soon forth coming development.
Image

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28320
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:06 am

David Sokol said...

"We (Omaha and MECA) are going to jointly develop the pinnacle property first with parking and hopefully within the very near future a full service hotel"

AWESOME!
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:48 am

I'm glad but I'm a bit concerned that with Sokol's draconian parking lot demands that we won't see the site develop it's full potential. The hotel is great but I had always hoped this site would have mixed usage. I'll reserve judgement until I see the final product but I'm not completely thrilled.
Image

User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Swift » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:33 am

How does one become a board member of MECA? Is it something you run for, or are you appointed?

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28320
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:46 am

Swift wrote:How does one become a board member of MECA? Is it something you run for, or are you appointed?


They alternate.  One is pointed by the city council then the next by the mayor, then city council, then mayor and so on.  This time its the mayor's turn to replace Daub.
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

User avatar
Swift
Planning Board
Posts: 2944
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Swift » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:11 pm

I nominate myself!  :D

User avatar
Uffda
Planning Board
Posts: 3027
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Omaha

Postby Uffda » Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:48 pm

The system of alternating council and mayoral appointments was demanded by the council in 2000 as a way to get its support for MECA's management agreement with the city.

"I didn't think it was the wisest course," Daub said of the compromise. But it had to be done to win council approval, he said.

Under the system, the mayor appoints members in even-numbered years and the council in odd-numbered years. All appointments are for five years.


http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... d=10295971


Return to “Urban Omaha Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests