Omaha Forums

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

According to the June MECA meeting they are currently working on covenants for the future development with the city. Tough to find much detail with MECA though.

New core sampling happening in Lot B this week.

While getting a website address for another post on this forum, I found this... Check out Denver's version of Lot B! (you can see the ballpark in the upper right had corner of the rendering so its literally the same lot as in Omaha)

https://denverinfill.com/blog/2017/11/c ... d-use.html

Wow, I would if we could get something even 1/2 that size.

skinzfan23 wrote:Wow, I would if we could get something even 1/2 that size.

Isn't that kinda sorta the size of Capitol? Maybe I'm off a bit.

I just think something like this would not be out of the realm of possibility should the area continue to take off.

MadMartin8 wrote:Isn't that kinda sorta the size of Capitol? Maybe I'm off a bit.

I just think something like this would not be out of the realm of possibility should the area continue to take off.

Their 20th & Wazee is our 10th and Webster. Their TDA is a MLB Stadium. What they don't have nearby is a CenturyLink Center, but they do have the Union Station, which is obviously the deal maker in this case.

Realistically, we in Omaha could take this project as inspiration and dedicate 1/2 of it to a parking garage because we don't have 1/10th the transportation system they do and we are a much smaller city.

Brad wrote:While getting a website address for another post on this forum, I found this... Check out Denver's version of Lot B! (you can see the ballpark in the upper right had corner of the rendering so its literally the same lot as in Omaha)

https://denverinfill.com/blog/2017/11/c ... d-use.html

Another article on it.

https://303magazine.com/2017/11/coors-f ... velopment/

I know this was always going to be a long project, but at the March MECA board meeting it was stated that nothing would happen for a minimum of 3 years here.

Chairwoman Duren added that it has been about two years now since MECA started the discussion about Lot B being given up for development, and the resulting discussion about what needs to happen to replace the Lot B parking. That was when Mr. Ken Stinson stepped in and convened a group consisting of the City, a variety of community members and MECA. It’s been a good process and now MECA is in the final steps of making sure everything has been covered, in regards to all the covenants and restrictions being recorded. The Chairwoman thanked Mr. Noddle for all his hard work on this project as it certainly was appreciated.

Mr. Tom Kelley inquired if Mr. Noddle had a sense on what the City’s resolve is to construct the parking facility from a timing standpoint, or if it is completely open ended. Mr. Noddle stated that he believed it is open-ended. From what the Committee can foresee, there is quite a bit of planning and work that needs to be done to Lot D infrastructure, which will take some time. The approval of the Agreement may trigger a little more focus by the Public Works Department on Lot D, specifically the utilities. It may be a couple of years before the planning and actual work can be done on Lot D. Mr. Noddle does not expect the City will be in a big hurry to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP); however, if someone is searching the Omaha area, Lot B could look very attractive next to the Riverfront initiative and other things that are happening downtown. Interest could be spawned very quickly, but it will probably be three years at minimum before anything starts happening on Lot B.

iamjacobm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:00 am I know this was always going to be a long project, but at the March MECA board meeting it was stated that nothing would happen for a minimum of 3 years here.

Of course, they have to issue a study to assess if the first 3 studies are correct.

skinzfan23 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:43 am

iamjacobm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:00 am I know this was always going to be a long project, but at the March MECA board meeting it was stated that nothing would happen for a minimum of 3 years here.

Of course, they have to issue a study to assess if the first 3 studies are correct.

Hmmm. Should they do that? Sounds like something that needs to be studied before really committing to it

Garrett wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:47 pm

skinzfan23 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:43 am

iamjacobm wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:00 am I know this was always going to be a long project, but at the March MECA board meeting it was stated that nothing would happen for a minimum of 3 years here.

Of course, they have to issue a study to assess if the first 3 studies are correct.

Hmmm. Should they do that? Sounds like something that needs to be studied before really committing to it

Woah, you are getting a little ahead of yourself. We need to wait 60-90 days first.

I want a study on a new garage first, with ground floor retail.

That Lot B in Denver is sure cool.

Busguy2010 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:10 amTheir 20th & Wazee is our 10th and Webster. Their TDA is a MLB Stadium. What they don't have nearby is a CenturyLink Center, but they do have the Union Station, which is obviously the deal maker in this case.

The Pepsi Center is ±8 very flat, walkable blocks away with more than one regular bus option.

Big E wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:38 pm

Busguy2010 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:10 amTheir 20th & Wazee is our 10th and Webster. Their TDA is a MLB Stadium. What they don't have nearby is a CenturyLink Center, but they do have the Union Station, which is obviously the deal maker in this case.

The Pepsi Center is ±8 very flat, walkable blocks away with more than one regular bus option.

Somebody said "Denver's lot B" in reference to a development adjacent to their baseball stadium. I was trying to compare differences between Omaha's and Denver's arena/baseball field immediate areas, and why Omaha couldn't support what is being done in Denver. Denver and Omaha are incomparable in terms of public transportation and this is why a development like that couldn't happen here. I think we're in agreement on that, point just got misconstrued.

Coyote wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:42 pm I want a study on a new garage first, with ground floor retail.

That would be dissapointing if they built a garage on Lot D without something on the first floor.

What's funny is when I first saw the Denver Lot B rendering/aerial, I was WOWed and surprised, and subconsciencely thought it seemed out of Omaha's current league. THEN I saw it was Denver's. I think because Omaha is not as big as Denver or Seattle, our projects are just not as beefy & big, and although still sharp & designer-looking, there is not enough bulk to work with, therefore designers can't quite come up with as good of stuff. When Omaha is bigger, and bigger projects are justified & demanded, then designers can come up with things on par w/ places like Denver & Seattle.

Brad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:58 pm While getting a website address for another post on this forum, I found this... Check out Denver's version of Lot B! (you can see the ballpark in the upper right had corner of the rendering so its literally the same lot as in Omaha)

https://denverinfill.com/blog/2017/11/c ... d-use.html

Are you kidding me, if they built that here it would fill. They just need a roof top dog park, and a roof top pool. Retail and apartments.

IMO you don't need the activity in the center. Park in there and let the activity be on the public sides.

We all knew that this development was going to take years to come, but I'm curious what you guys think the effect of Millwork Commons will be on the timetable. Does the surrounding development help or hurt the potential development of Lot B?

buildomaha wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:46 pm We all knew that this development was going to take years to come, but I'm curious what you guys think the effect of Millwork Commons will be on the timetable. Does the surrounding development help or hurt the potential development of Lot B?

I think it helps but thats just an opinion. Normalizing daily traffic down there with offices will make it more attractive.

I want nothing more than this development to be spectacular... But I think it will take a very long time to get what we want here. Just look at the capitol district lot, and consider how long it took, and how parts of it were downsized.. And that lot is half the size of this one.

What ever happened to this plan for Lot B?