Omaha Forums

My guess, is that they did that so the pool faces south. There is supposed to be a pool in the courtyard.

Ben wrote:Anyone else think its odd that this courtyard opens to the street, and not the alley? Maybe they did this for the southern facing sunlight into the courtyard and balconies, but just seems backwards to me. From an urban planning perspective, flipping the building around would have put height right up at the street side, creating the feeling of density. Plus the courtyard would be much quieter/more private facing inwards...

A nicely designed building surrounding a courtyard is great for the public ROW. It gives the residents something to watch and can provide some liveliness for the streetscape. This was the right way to go here. The south facing aspect is useful as well.

cdub wrote:A nicely designed building surrounding a courtyard is great for the public ROW. It gives the residents something to watch and can provide some liveliness for the streetscape. This was the right way to go here. The south facing aspect is useful as well.

Yeah, it's actually a lot like some buildings from a century ago (e.g. 2464 Harney). I think it looks nice, and with some good landscaping will really make this stretch of sidewalk look good.

No pic, but they've started to dig for the pool here.

I'm going to be dropping off my deposit and proof of income tomorrow to Highline for an apartment in the new complex.

Pretty excited to live in a swanky brand new place with an outdoor pool.

Thanks for the updates! It looks really nice so far!

I am not in the Real Estate development business, so maybe someone who is can answer this question.

What is the primary factor that makes a developer on a project like this build a four story building instead of a six story building? I know that over a certain height building techniques are different with very different costs. Is the primary limiting factor market demand studies saying a larger facility would be harder to rent, or is it budget and risk, not having the money or not wanting to risk investing more money? It seems that most of these projects error on the small side which seems odd because land and so many other costs are sunk building a four story building it seems that proportionally extra floors would lower the construction costs per unit.

I would guess you'd need an elevator if it's over four stories.

This building has an elevator (at least an elevator shaft from construction photos). The type and amount of elevators will depend on building height. The more floors you have the more elevators you will need as folks are less likely to use stairs to access their floor.

Hydraulic elevators are generally used on buildings less than 6 stories. They are less costly to install and maintain, but are slow. The piston and lift works sit at the bottom of the elevator. It works on the same principle as the car lift your mechanic uses at the garage.

Taller buildings use traction elevators. These are the elevators with cables and the lift works are at the top of the shaft. There are many more moving parts on this type of system, and you have to build a mechanical room above the top floor of the building to house the elevator works and provide room for the technicians to maintain the works. These operate at a much higher speed than the hydraulic elevators.

As building heights go up there may be the need for larger or additional stairways to handle emergency egress from the building. Construction materials and methods may also have to be altered as height increases: spread footings vs. pilings, light weight framing vs. poured concrete or steel frame, fire protection systems, plumbing, HVAC, etc. These, and more, are affected as building height increases.

The developer has to factor in market factors, construction costs, financing costs, etc. I think the "safe" way to go for most developers is a low to mid-rise building. New high rise will generally be the prestige projects and apartments in those developments will demand higher rents.

HR Paperstacks wrote:I would guess you'd need an elevator if it's over four stories.

In new construction, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act 1990) requires an ADA compliant elevator if your building is over 3 stories, or has more than 3,000 SF per floor.

Someone on here once mentioned over four or five floors requires concrete..

MTO wrote:Someone on here once mentioned over four or five floors requires concrete..

Yeah I asked this question once and the answer was that you could use wood framing all the way up.

Photo Update:

I really like it, but the "fake" balconies look kind of ridiculous. Not sure you could even step with one foot out there.

skinzfan23 wrote:I really like it, but the "fake" balconies look kind of ridiculous. Not sure you could even step with one foot out there.

Hopefully they have a rooftop deck to make up for it.

skinzfan23 wrote:I really like it, but the "fake" balconies look kind of ridiculous. Not sure you could even step with one foot out there.

PotatoeEatsFish wrote:

skinzfan23 wrote:I really like it, but the "fake" balconies look kind of ridiculous. Not sure you could even step with one foot out there.

I assume you realize he actually meant those on the other side

skinzfan23 wrote:I really like it, but the "fake" balconies look kind of ridiculous. Not sure you could even step with one foot out there.

Usually those are big windows that they can open and have the railing for safety.

thenewguy wrote:

PotatoeEatsFish wrote:

skinzfan23 wrote:I really like it, but the "fake" balconies look kind of ridiculous. Not sure you could even step with one foot out there.

I assume you realize he actually meant those on the other side

How do those even look like balconies? They look like a railing.

Those rails are relatively useless. You have to assume you're renting an apartment without a balcony, but you get to peek your head out the window whenever you feel like doing that...

Busguy2010 wrote:Those rails are relatively useless. You have to assume you're renting an apartment without a balcony, but you get to peek your head out the window whenever you feel like doing that...

That is why I can't understand why they even put sliding doors there, might as well have just put some big Windows.

I bet they are "better than nothing" on a nice warm spring day when you want to have your sliding door open Like someone else mentioned, you could stick you head (or camera ) out.

As for why they are that way, I am sure that building is built on the lot line and you can't overhang the Right-of-Way.

I've seen smaller... I know a lot of people in bigger cities that use those micro balconies for a micro garden or grilling where otherwise they'd use a fire escape.

They're called Juliette Balconies.

These pictures shows how they can be beneficial compared to a window, though obviously not as nice as actual balconies. Anyone know why you can't overhang the right of way? Seems kind of silly.

Dundeemaha wrote:They're called Juliette Balconies.

These pictures shows how they can be beneficial compared to a window, though obviously not as nice as actual balconies. Anyone know why you can't overhang the right of way? Seems kind of silly.

Not sure why, but I know that the newer building in the Old Market that contains the apts above Plank is the same way.

I imagine if a balcony hung over a sidewalk, issues such as rainwater runoff, snow removal, cigarette butts, and any personal items falling would commit inconvenience, and even present a level of danger to the public.

I would rather have the Juliette Balcony than just a window. However in this location you are going to be getting some pretty good street noise especially those second floor apartments.

Can't have a balcony hang over a zero-setback property line. Canopies and signage are allowed to though.

GetUrban wrote:Can't have a balcony hang over a zero-setback property line. Canopies and signage are allowed to though.

Both you and Brad have said this but it seems silly to not allow them. I didn't have any luck searching for the appropriate Omaha municipal code preventing balconies overhanging the sidewalk, other cities have codes specifically allowing balconies so maybe the lack of a code prevents it?

NYC code wrote:3202.2.1.3 Balconies. Balconies, including railings and supporting brackets, no parts of which are less than 10 feed (3048 mm) above the ground or sidewalk level, may be constructed to project not more than 22 inches (559 mm) beyond the street line. When permitted by the provisions of this code, fire escapes that are part of a required exit may be constructed to project not more than 4 feet 6 inches (1372mm) beyond the street line provided no part, including any movable ladder or stair, is lower than 10 feet (3048 mm) above the ground or sidewalk level when not in use.

The simplest answer is that the ROW does not belong to them, thus they can't put permanent fixtures in it. Same reason you can't build your garage on your neighbors lot I suppose.

Except that if you're on the 2nd story of a building you're not really interfering with the ROW unlike adding a ground level structure.

It's about air rights. If there is no setback, they don't have the right to build over what is technically public space.

First tennants moving in by April 1st. Pool scheduled to be done around July 1st and it will be shared with the Highline residents.
The Highline 1.0 also wll be sharing its gym with the residents of the 2.0; that's why they are building a new cardio and yoga rooms.

Now that Highline 2.0 is almost done let's do a third one.

Garrett wrote:It's about air rights. If there is no setback, they don't have the right to build over what is technically public space.

Exactly. But there are exceptions for things like signs and canopies which meet the governing standards/rules. Occupied space, such as a balcony, or building perimeter walls, are not allowed to extend over a property line or setback. If that was allowed to happen, limits would have to be set on how far things could extend over the line, plus you would likely have to pay property tax on the space.

GetUrban wrote: If that was allowed to happen, limits would have to be set on how far things could extend over the line, plus you would likely have to pay property tax on the space.

Sounds good to me, here's some good text we could amend the city code with:

Balconies, including railings and supporting brackets, no parts of which are less than 10 feet (3048 mm) above the ground or sidewalk level, may be constructed to project not more than 22 inches (559 mm) beyond the street line.

Great pics, Coyote. I drove past here yesterday and was glad to see how nicely the buildings fit in.

I moved in at the start of this month and I absolutely LOVE living here, even though construction wakes me up every morning.