Lot B Development

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

Moderators: Brad, nebugeater, Coyote, Omaha Cowboy

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8678
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Re: Lot B Development

Postby iamjacobm » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:32 pm

My thought process on the timeline. These findings are just for a master plan of sorts. They still need to work through who knows how many traffic and engineering studies to figure out feasibility. Then the city needs to find $$$ for a very large garage, then a developer needs to be found that can pull this off, then the garage has to be built before Lot B can be touched, then Lot B needs to be torn up and broken ground. Thats a lot of work to do. Wouldn't be shocked to see this take longer than 3 years.

As for the location of the garage in Lot D. We don't know what the new riverfront plans have done to the potential of the Baby Bob. They could be taking connectivity in a different direction entirely.

Also I wouldn't get super hung up on anything specific shown, this is all preliminary and subject to change once the city and developers and MECA get their hands on it.

User avatar
GetUrban
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Lot B Development

Postby GetUrban » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:59 pm

iamjacobm wrote:As for the location of the garage in Lot D. We don't know what the new riverfront plans have done to the potential of the Baby Bob. They could be taking connectivity in a different direction entirely.


Fahey St. is the obvious best connection point to the main Bob from the TDA and CLINK and would also be a good secondary connection to the riverfront. Optimally, if there could also be a vehicular connection from Fahey to Riverfront Dr. that would be even better, but the grades may be difficult to work with to provide enough clearance over the railroad tracks, unless the tracks could be lowered, or eliminated entirely.

The original 2001-2003 design for the Bob Kerrey bridge envisioned a ped connection to Webster St. (now Fahey St.). But unfortunately the whole riverfront area has been developed in a piecemeal haphazard way up to this point. There is renewed hope though!...if it can all be coordinated effectively.
Last edited by GetUrban on Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.

Spatial77
Home Owners Association
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:41 am

Re: Lot B Development

Postby Spatial77 » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:43 pm

It is difficult for me to get too excited about this right now. Let's see: Lot B, Tetrad, Crossroads, ConAgra, Midtown Crossing east, Wall Street Tower site, The Farm, plus we are throwing the library site into the mix, and NEDO... That is an a lot of development to be accomplished!

I think it was George Hartzog who said "A plan without funding is just conversation" It seems like we have quite a few conversations going on, without much funding to back them up, IMHO.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." -- Niels Bohr

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7804
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Lot B Development

Postby MTO » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:45 pm

Why not just erect the parking structure in the center of that huge lot provisioning for future projects that'll go around it.

As far as Lot B proposals go I think the second one without the streets is a more appropriate option. I like the water feature on 10th in the first one but those streets are just stupid, the city needs to be reminded why grids are important. Also the second option has the civic component on the most appropriate corner for cohesion between the ballpark and CLink while the high rises on the side leading to the denser part of DTO. It creates a nice flow almost to the point it would feel natural as if there wasn't ever a Bonneville salt flat sized parking expanse used to be there. And shockingly this is cheaper than Shamrock? does that include the Parking ramp on Lot D? either way that's still good news.
15-17, 26, 32

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Lot B Development

Postby Garrett » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:14 pm

I feel like at this point we may as well have a "perpetually proposed" and "actually under construction" section of the forum haha
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

User avatar
GetUrban
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1817
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Lot B Development

Postby GetUrban » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:52 am

Now that all of these proposed plans are in the works for Lot B, Riverfront, Baby Bob, Civic (Tetrad), NEDO, ConAgra redevelopment, Wall Street Tower site, and possibly the Dale Clark Library Site, the opportunity exists for the planning department and Mayor to do their job and make sure the plans are cohesive and coordinated well together to achieve the goals of the city's master plan.

Of the two options shown for Lot B, the one with the angled streets seems a bit strange and contrived. It would help if they zoomed-out a bit in the aerial views so you could see more of the surrounding context. I agree that the conventional "grid" option for the internal streets is probably the best. Hopefully the designs will continue to evolve. I'm not sure they have achieved the best design possible for the site yet. Whichever option is chosen, I hope they maximize the "public street feel" and provide plenty of space for gatherings. The last thing we need is having it feel like a private enclave for the 450+ apartment dwellers.

I think the "Museum" feature still might best be located on the Rick's site, assuming they can deal with the lead cap and provide a strong connection from Fahey St. to the riverfront. Lot B, Lot D and the riverfront need to have a real strong connection, in my opinion. I like MTO's idea of locating the proposed Lot D Garage further north on Lot D to allow future denser development there too. That will be a hard sell to MECA though. They're probably wanting that garage to be as close as possible to the CLINK. But a garage on the south end of Lot D will really detract from the potential Fahey St, Connection to the riverfront if not done right. There is some other clean-up needed near the northeast corner of the CLINK too, if not the whole east side of the CLINK.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.

User avatar
choke
Human Relations
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:46 am
Location: North Omaha

Re: Lot B Development

Postby choke » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:46 pm

GetUrban wrote:Now that all of these proposed plans are in the works for Lot B, Riverfront, Baby Bob, Civic (Tetrad), NEDO, ConAgra redevelopment, Wall Street Tower site, and possibly the Dale Clark Library Site, the opportunity exists for the planning department and Mayor to do their job and make sure the plans are cohesive and coordinated well together to achieve the goals of the city's master plan.

Of the two options shown for Lot B, the one with the angled streets seems a bit strange and contrived. It would help if they zoomed-out a bit in the aerial views so you could see more of the surrounding context. I agree that the conventional "grid" option for the internal streets is probably the best. Hopefully the designs will continue to evolve. I'm not sure they have achieved the best design possible for the site yet. Whichever option is chosen, I hope they maximize the "public street feel" and provide plenty of space for gatherings. The last thing we need is having it feel like a private enclave for the 450+ apartment dwellers.

I think the "Museum" feature still might best be located on the Rick's site, assuming they can deal with the lead cap and provide a strong connection from Fahey St. to the riverfront. Lot B, Lot D and the riverfront need to have a real strong connection, in my opinion. I like MTO's idea of locating the proposed Lot D Garage further north on Lot D to allow future denser development there too. That will be a hard sell to MECA though. They're probably wanting that garage to be as close as possible to the CLINK. But a garage on the south end of Lot D will really detract from the potential Fahey St, Connection to the riverfront if not done right. There is some other clean-up needed near the northeast corner of the CLINK too, if not the whole east side of the CLINK.


Any MECCA land east of 10th Street is off limits from what I am told.

buildomaha
Home Owners Association
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 7:06 pm

Re: Lot B Development

Postby buildomaha » Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:05 pm

choke wrote:
GetUrban wrote:Now that all of these proposed plans are in the works for Lot B, Riverfront, Baby Bob, Civic (Tetrad), NEDO, ConAgra redevelopment, Wall Street Tower site, and possibly the Dale Clark Library Site, the opportunity exists for the planning department and Mayor to do their job and make sure the plans are cohesive and coordinated well together to achieve the goals of the city's master plan.

Of the two options shown for Lot B, the one with the angled streets seems a bit strange and contrived. It would help if they zoomed-out a bit in the aerial views so you could see more of the surrounding context. I agree that the conventional "grid" option for the internal streets is probably the best. Hopefully the designs will continue to evolve. I'm not sure they have achieved the best design possible for the site yet. Whichever option is chosen, I hope they maximize the "public street feel" and provide plenty of space for gatherings. The last thing we need is having it feel like a private enclave for the 450+ apartment dwellers.

I think the "Museum" feature still might best be located on the Rick's site, assuming they can deal with the lead cap and provide a strong connection from Fahey St. to the riverfront. Lot B, Lot D and the riverfront need to have a real strong connection, in my opinion. I like MTO's idea of locating the proposed Lot D Garage further north on Lot D to allow future denser development there too. That will be a hard sell to MECA though. They're probably wanting that garage to be as close as possible to the CLINK. But a garage on the south end of Lot D will really detract from the potential Fahey St, Connection to the riverfront if not done right. There is some other clean-up needed near the northeast corner of the CLINK too, if not the whole east side of the CLINK.


Any MECCA land east of 10th Street is off limits from what I am told.

MECA's job is to maintain the facilities...Why do they have so much more say in these decisions than the city and others?

twiztid1
Home Owners Association
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Lot B Development

Postby twiztid1 » Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:03 am

With the garage proposed in Lot D, has MECA given up on expansion? They were against the stadium in this lot as it would have prevented future expansion of the convention center. I think it's interesting how much their position has changed in the last seven years or so. I can't see this proposal happening any time soon, but I'm happy MECA is finally willing to let go of their lots.

Joe_Sovereign
Library Board
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:57 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Lot B Development

Postby Joe_Sovereign » Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:10 pm

twiztid1 wrote:With the garage proposed in Lot D, has MECA given up on expansion? They were against the stadium in this lot as it would have prevented future expansion of the convention center. I think it's interesting how much their position has changed in the last seven years or so. I can't see this proposal happening any time soon, but I'm happy MECA is finally willing to let go of their lots.


The only planned expansion for The CenturyLink is in the grass lot between the convention center and Fahey Drive. The area proposed as a new surface lot in this proposal.

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8678
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Re: Lot B Development

Postby iamjacobm » Wed Jan 18, 2017 4:54 pm

Lets go steal the College Baseball HOF from Lubbock and make it part of this development. If anything on the planet made sense that would be it.

Linkin5
County Board
Posts: 3789
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:59 pm

Re: Lot B Development

Postby Linkin5 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:41 pm

iamjacobm wrote:Lets go steal the College Baseball HOF from Lubbock and make it part of this development. If anything on the planet made sense that would be it.


Or have a CWS HOF and museum.

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20090
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Lot B Development

Postby Coyote » Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:11 am

David Brown was discussing Lot B on Grow Omaha this morning. He said there will not be any development on Lot B fr at least two years, until the new parking garage is built. Secondly, they will not consider businesses until the Conagra reuse is underway, the Civic Center Tetrad development plans are out and Capitol District is in use.They want to make sure that there are not competing businesses in the districts. Also it sounds like the ConAgra plans will be released soon. The allied about these four projects almost as one massive project along with the Missouri River Commons project.
Image

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7804
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Lot B Development

Postby MTO » Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:17 am

That's a very smart approach I'm glad they're doing it this way and not letting them compete which could take a long time to figure each other out.
15-17, 26, 32

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20090
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Lot B Development

Postby Coyote » Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:30 am

David Briwn also said that the Tetrad site looks like it will have more of a "Civic" content...
Image

buildomaha
Home Owners Association
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 7:06 pm

Re: Lot B Development

Postby buildomaha » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:51 pm

Was just thinking about this, but when they build a parking structure on lot d, why not throw some retail at ground level. Would this cause some over saturation? Although with some pretty ambitious plans for the riverfront it could complement both the ballpark/arena area and the riverfront area when it ends up (hopefully) being redeveloped.

daveoma
Human Relations
Posts: 778
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: Lot B Development

Postby daveoma » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:33 pm

buildomaha wrote:Was just thinking about this, but when they build a parking structure on lot d, why not throw some retail at ground level. Would this cause some over saturation? Although with some pretty ambitious plans for the riverfront it could complement both the ballpark/arena area and the riverfront area when it ends up (hopefully) being redeveloped.

I think it would be a fine place for a residential tower.


Return to “Urban Omaha Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests