W. Dale Clark Library

[damonhynes]

I like the idea of a new library, as it is kind of an "in" thing to get a new library downtown -- one that is fantastic in design. Our downtown library is nothing in the same league as Seattle's or Minneapolis's.

Um, to be fair Omaha isn't in the same league as Seattle or Minneapolis.

But we've got Chicago's corruption!

[damonhynes]

Do I have to picket downtown with a sign: "Don't Cover The Twins"

You wanna see the twins, go to the Spearmint Rhino!

[PotatoeEatsFish]

Geturban: I'm truly trying to picture how the view will look better with one tower blocked on the north side. I just can't see it. Those two, twin buildings are made to be an architectural statement as a whole -- like any twin set of buildings are. It's one thing to block the bottoms of the buildings (like the library does in Omaha, or like the World Financial Center did to the former twin WTC towers in NYC). But, you just don't block one twin, and not the other, and expect things to look overall better, imo.

To enhance my point, just imagine them building a 20-story tower on that library site, and the building blocks both the Woodmen & the twins from the park. Even being happy about a new, major building downtown, would we all really be happy about that move? I don't think we would.

I can understand where you're coming from if you truly like those twin buildings. It must be the symmetry you like and the way they frame the end of the park. I'm not terribly fond of those buildings and consider them background buildings, more than an amazing centerpiece, like capitol buildings often are. In my opinion, those building are not of the same caliber design-wise as say, I.M. Pei's National Gallery on the Mall in DC. Or the Nebraska State Capitol. Maybe I just don't like them because they were created for ConAgra, I don't know.

Anyway, the massing I was thinking of is represented by this quick model inserted into Google Earth. Don't take this image too literally. It obviously would need a lot more development to become a worthy design. This just shows what a 25 story (or so) building might look like and how it could be placed to enhance the view, not block everything. Once you seen one twin, your mind knows what the other one looks like. I guess you have to ask the question: are the twins so great that you should never ever mess with that part of the skyline again? I'd still rather see the old UP and 11th-12-Capitol-Dodge blocks filled-in first before the Library site is redone.

Maybe put a shorter tower to the other side of the library and leave a space inbetween them. HDR could have the taller one and the shorter one can be a hotel/condo building.

[yard salad]

Could someone remind me of why we are going to tear down the library?

it's an ugly castle with a moat that needs more repairs than it's worth.

[MTO]

Geturban: I'm truly trying to picture how the view will look better with one tower blocked on the north side. I just can't see it. Those two, twin buildings are made to be an architectural statement as a whole -- like any twin set of buildings are. It's one thing to block the bottoms of the buildings (like the library does in Omaha, or like the World Financial Center did to the former twin WTC towers in NYC). But, you just don't block one twin, and not the other, and expect things to look overall better, imo.

To enhance my point, just imagine them building a 20-story tower on that library site, and the building blocks both the Woodmen & the twins from the park. Even being happy about a new, major building downtown, would we all really be happy about that move? I don't think we would.

I can understand where you're coming from if you truly like those twin buildings. It must be the symmetry you like and the way they frame the end of the park. I'm not terribly fond of those buildings and consider them background buildings, more than an amazing centerpiece, like capitol buildings often are. In my opinion, those building are not of the same caliber design-wise as say, I.M. Pei's National Gallery on the Mall in DC. Or the Nebraska State Capitol. Maybe I just don't like them because they were created for ConAgra, I don't know.

Anyway, the massing I was thinking of is represented by this quick model inserted into Google Earth. Don't take this image too literally. It obviously would need a lot more development to become a worthy design. This just shows what a 25 story (or so) building might look like and how it could be placed to enhance the view, not block everything. Once you seen one twin, your mind knows what the other one looks like. I guess you have to ask the question: are the twins so great that you should never ever mess with that part of the skyline again? I'd still rather see the old UP and 11th-12-Capitol-Dodge blocks filled-in first before the Library site is redone.

I LIKEY!

[RockHarbor]

Imagine you had a long, narrow living room. And, at the end of it was a centered fireplace. And, on the mantel of the fireplace, you put a family picture, and on each end of the mantel shelf around the picture, you put the exact same tall, ornate candle holder & pillar. Would you then stick a tall, potted plant in front of the fireplace, covering up one candle holder & pillar, ruining the symmetry? NO. That would be silly. So, why do that on a much greater scale w/ a park and office buildings in the downtown of a major city?

Again, those twin office buildings weren't just put there, in that location, with that geometry, for no reason. They are meant to be viewed at the end of the long park. That's the key. They were designed specifically for that symmetrical statement at the end of long, open space -- just like the living room & fireplace example I gave. The buildings have a relationship with the park. If the twins sat a step forward on the block where the library now sits, then there would be no threat to covering them up, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If the long park & lagoon were filled-in, and returned to flat, build able city blocks again, then I wouldn't even care if some new building blocked, or partially blocked, their view. Again, it is the long park + their design that was meant to go together as a whole.

Any long, long hallway always invites something grand & eye-catching centered at the end of it. That park is like a long hallway, and those buildings are the grand element at the end of it. http://x.lnimg.com/photo/poster_1920/f8 ... 11c116.jpg

In human nature, people seem to like to take something good and screw it up -- or something. I know that, because I can feel the impulse sometimes, too, and I watch it happen around me. I hope that is not what any of this is.

Indianapolis has an alignment with their long, grassy war memorial, a moment, a historic building, and their tallest skyscraper. I'm sure they wouldn't dare mess with that. http://www.mwremediation.com/images/indianapolis-in.jpg

[MTO]

Imagine you had a long, narrow living room. And, at the end of it was a centered fireplace. And, on the mantel of the fireplace, you put a family picture, and on each end of the mantel shelf around the picture, you put the exact same tall, ornate candle holder & pillar. Would you then stick a tall, potted plant in front of the fireplace, covering up one candle holder & pillar, ruining the symmetry? NO. That would be silly. So, why do that on a much greater scale w/ a park and office buildings in the downtown of a major city?

Again, those twin office buildings weren't just put there, in that location, with that geometry, for no reason. They are meant to be viewed at the end of the long park. That's the key. They were designed specifically for that symmetrical statement at the end of long, open space -- just like the living room & fireplace example I gave. If the twins sat on the block where the library now sits, then there would be no threat to covering them up, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If the long park & lagoon were filled-in, and returned to flat, build able city blocks again, then I wouldn't even care if some new building blocked, or partially blocked, their view. Again, it is the long park + their design that was meant to go together as a whole.

Any long, long hallway always invites something grand & eye-catching centered at the end of it. That park is like a long hallway, and those buildings are the grand element at the end of it.

In human nature, people seem to like to take something good and screw it up -- or something. I know that, because I can feel the impulse sometimes, too, and I watch it happen around me. I hope that is not what any of this is.

Indianapolis has an alignment with their long, grassy war memorial, a moment, a historic building, and their tallest skyscraper. I'm sure they wouldn't dare mess with that. http://www.mwremediation.com/images/indianapolis-in.jpg

Oh well

[RockHarbor]

Oh well

I'm not sure I get what you mean by "Oh well." (???) Anyways, I've said enough here. I've made my point. I love Omaha, but I don't love all of its decisions lately. We have an elevated freeway through 114th & Dodge now, with curves and grades and angles that are almost reminding me of a roller coaster, that some call a "monstrosity." We finally get a tall building in Old Mill. But, does it look like one of the sparkling, sharp ones in beautiful Overland Park, KS (suburban KC)? No, it is a sea green-colored office building, with a speckling of windows all across the backside that reminds me of a comic book, completely clashing with all the office buildings & 1960's ranch homes around it. (The front side is wonderful, though, imo.) I'm not crazy about that little "bird cage" sitting a top the UP Building -- yet, it's not terrible, but it just could have been better, imo.

Most things are good here, though. Again, I just don't really see things I perceive as "mistakes" in Des Moines or Minneapolis, really, so I don't want to see those things in Omaha, either. (The only thing I question in Des Moines is the blue & white used on all those arched bridges over the freeway. I'm surprised by that choice, for some reason.) Anyways...

[NEDodger]

I like the idea of a new library, as it is kind of an "in" thing to get a new library downtown -- one that is fantastic in design. Our downtown library is nothing in the same league as Seattle's or Minneapolis's.

Um, to be fair Omaha isn't in the same league as Seattle or Minneapolis.

But we've got Chicago's corruption!

Not even close.

I do like the Twin Towers as a visual endcap to the Leahy Mall, but I think that if that's the only location that would work to keep HDR downtown....we make that trade. There was always a "Civic" building proposed for the Tetrad Development and I have the feeling that a new library was the plan all along - we've been hearing about a new main branch for a while (even for the Crossroads development).

[RockHarbor]

I like the idea of a new library, as it is kind of an "in" thing to get a new library downtown -- one that is fantastic in design. Our downtown library is nothing in the same league as Seattle's or Minneapolis's.

Um, to be fair Omaha isn't in the same league as Seattle or Minneapolis.

But we've got Chicago's corruption!

Not even close.

I do like the Twin Towers as a visual endcap to the Leahy Mall, but I think that if that's the only location that would work to keep HDR downtown....we make that trade. There was always a "Civic" building proposed for the Tetrad Development and I have the feeling that a new library was the plan all along - we've been hearing about a new main branch for a while (even for the Crossroads development).

One more thing said here: If that's the only lot that will keep HDR downtown, then that really surprises me. They would actually spend the money to tear down that large, 5-story library, and fill in that "moat" around it, but the parking (or whatever) was a big deal on the other lot? I respect HDR, but I hope their motive isn't to purposefully stick their building right in front of this town's "star architect" collection of buildings on the skyline -- including ones that were meant as an endcap (I like your word) to the park. Yes, the Woodmen, the twins, and the Tower at First National Center are all by Leo A. Daly. It's one thing to be in competition with other architects in town, as that is understandable human nature, but it is another to mess w/ the signature, postcard, "money shot" of the town (we all love, or should love) in the process.

I keep thinking: If the library moved, and the building was to be torn down, it would be cool to maybe have that single city block as a nicely landscaped open space for concerts or gatherings, a place to set a stage with room for a crowd, like Chicago has that neat open concert area downtown (by the Aon Center skyscraper). I'm not sure a city block is big enough for that, though. Yet, Omaha would not require the same large, open space Chicago would -- of course. It wouldn't be an extension to the mall, but it would fit right with it. And, those buildings would not be blocked.

[GetUrban]

Even though I know the design I posted could be explored to a much greater extent and improved upon immensely, I kind of agree with RockHarbor and question the wisdom of giving up what is now a public building site to satisfy a single company's wishes. (assuming they are even considering the site) It most likely should remain a proud civic building fronting the GLM, whether the library is revamped or some other civic/public building replaces it. We've given up too much in the past to satisfy a single company's whims. On the other hand, if the replacement could still provide a new library and house other multiple uses, such as a museum, retail, residential, and office space, it might be a worthwhile trade-off, if it also enhances the skyline. My favorite view of the skyline is from Abbott Drive as it transitions into Cuming st....anyway.

[MTO]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

[MTO]

Oh well

I'm not sure I get what you mean by "Oh well." (???) Anyways, I've said enough here. I've made my point. I love Omaha, but I don't love all of its decisions lately. We have an elevated freeway through 114th & Dodge now, with curves and grades and angles that are almost reminding me of a roller coaster, that some call a "monstrosity." We finally get a tall building in Old Mill. But, does it look like one of the sparkling, sharp ones in beautiful Overland Park, KS (suburban KC)? No, it is a sea green-colored office building, with a speckling of windows all across the backside that reminds me of a comic book, completely clashing with all the office buildings & 1960's ranch homes around it. (The front side is wonderful, though, imo.) I'm not crazy about that little "bird cage" sitting a top the UP Building -- yet, it's not terrible, but it just could have been better, imo.

Most things are good here, though. Again, I just don't really see things I perceive as "mistakes" in Des Moines or Minneapolis, really, so I don't want to see those things in Omaha, either. (The only thing I question in Des Moines is the blue & white used on all those arched bridges over the freeway. I'm surprised by that choice, for some reason.) Anyways...

Because it's not the first time a planned esthetic was foiled and it won't be the last.

[Midwestern]

This discussion is depressing. Is our downtown so crappy that we have only one signature-worthy angle of it?

I've always disliked that angle anyway. Doesn't even highlight or showcase many of the taller buildings.

Sure, those towers are a decent bookend to GLM, but we can't do any better than a triangular plain red building?

[bigredmed]

Could someone remind me of why we are going to tear down the library?

Because it offends the architectural sensibilities of the crowd, of course. Or something.

Got it. The urban planning brown shirts are at again. Will they do battle with the Jobber's Canyon crew that will wax poetic over the signature elegance of the WD Clark? Rumble in the Mall (tm).

[MadMartin8]

Could someone remind me of why we are going to tear down the library?

Because it offends the architectural sensibilities of the crowd, of course. Or something.

Got it. The urban planning brown shirts are at again. Will they do battle with the Jobber's Canyon crew that will wax poetic over the signature elegance of the WD Clark? Rumble in the Mall (tm).

That's my hope at least.

[RockHarbor]

I've always disliked that angle anyway. Doesn't even highlight or showcase many of the taller buildings.

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CXEGY2/the-cit ... CXEGY2.jpg

?????????????

[RockHarbor]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

????????????????

[ShaneofCal]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

[GetUrban]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

Well said! Thank you. It's getting to the point around here where if you even mention Jobbers Canyon people think you're a cry baby. Now that same attitude is spreading into condemnation of legitimate discussion about whether or not a site should be developed, the best options for development, or if it is even in need of improvement, and the pros and cons of each scenario. ....kind of spoils the fun of posting here, honestly.

[RockHarbor]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

[RockHarbor]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

Well said! Thank you. It's getting to the point around here where if you even mention Jobbers Canyon people think you're a cry baby. Now that same attitude is spreading into condemnation of legitimate discussion about whether or not a site should be developed, the best options for development, or if it is even in need of improvement, and the pros and cons of each scenario. ....kind of spoils the fun of posting here, honestly.

[MTO]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

Well said! Thank you. It's getting to the point around here where if you even mention Jobbers Canyon people think you're a cry baby. Now that same attitude is spreading into condemnation of legitimate discussion about whether or not a site should be developed, the best options for development, or if it is even in need of improvement, and the pros and cons of each scenario. ....kind of spoils the fun of posting here, honestly.

There's really not much difference between us except I lack sentimentality, I prefer numbers. Numbers make sense emotions don't.

[RockHarbor]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

Well said! Thank you. It's getting to the point around here where if you even mention Jobbers Canyon people think you're a cry baby. Now that same attitude is spreading into condemnation of legitimate discussion about whether or not a site should be developed, the best options for development, or if it is even in need of improvement, and the pros and cons of each scenario. ....kind of spoils the fun of posting here, honestly.

There's really not much difference between us except I lack sentimentality, I prefer numbers. Numbers make sense emotions don't.

Well, then...you don't truly understand architecture then, and the emotions it is meant to evoke. What do you think the "power of architecture" really is all about? Numbers? Nothing to do with emotions, senses? When a person is driving down Abbot Drive, and they love the view of Downtown Omaha, and love their hometown, what is that all about? Emotions or numbers? (It's not about numbers, unless you're looking at the mathematics behind the architecture & engineering of the skyline.) Thank goodness bankers & financial planners don't "call all the shots" around here, nor design the city or its buildings. Thank goodness Leo A. Daly isn't all about numbers, but is a man of vision & creativity & emotion.

I don't mean that rude, I mean in matter of fact. And, I don't know why I set some silly rule for me to be silent here. I felt I said enough here, and maybe I have, but I just can't be silent on this matter. Some of this stuff thrown out at us (like "you don't want progress...move far far away" and "numbers make sense, emotions don't") when we are talking about our own hometown, and the love for it, and the desire for its good, don't make sense AT ALL. I'm downright offended.

And P.S. If the view from Gene Leahy Mall doesn't supposedly showcase our city's buildings (or tallest buildings) well, then WHAT vantage point does showcase them better? I would love to hear it. I would love to know about this secret location I haven't got pictures of Omaha from yet. Please share.

[RockHarbor]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

Well said! Thank you. It's getting to the point around here where if you even mention Jobbers Canyon people think you're a cry baby. Now that same attitude is spreading into condemnation of legitimate discussion about whether or not a site should be developed, the best options for development, or if it is even in need of improvement, and the pros and cons of each scenario. ....kind of spoils the fun of posting here, honestly.

There's really not much difference between us except I lack sentimentality, I prefer numbers. Numbers make sense emotions don't.

And, another thing: I've read, or heard it said: "Good architecture improves the quality of life." And, thinking about that statement, I agree with it. When I drive to Downtown Omaha from any angle, and I see that Tower at First National Center, I'm delighted. It's just a great design that matches this town well -- period. It may help even keep me here. If Omaha still had only the Woodmen, I don't know if I would even be here.

Many people in cities like Minneapolis & Dallas think and agree their town has a beautiful skyline. And, on the opposite end of all this, there is a "worst building" list that exists. Many cities have a building people wish wasn't there. So, it's not just about numbers when we are talking about all this stuff. It's about feelings & emotions, too.

.

[GetUrban]

You guys have to be |expletive| kidding me! I get design standards and so forth but some of you will find any excuse to complain about progress. If you don't like change then move far far away

MTO, the stance you take with regard to development is similar to that which allowed for the destruction of Jobbers Canyon, as well as other notable structures in Omaha. Urban planners, thankfully, have by and large moved past the notion that any development is, in itself, "progress." This is especially true when the site under discussion is smack dab in the heart of Omaha's urban core and is publicly owned. So when the individuals who contribute to this forum discuss their "standards," they do so with the understanding that a lot is at stake. Thus the desire to maximize the potential for any site in Downtown Omaha (the heart of the city in which most of us live) is perfectly rational, not to mention reasonable.

Well said! Thank you. It's getting to the point around here where if you even mention Jobbers Canyon people think you're a cry baby. Now that same attitude is spreading into condemnation of legitimate discussion about whether or not a site should be developed, the best options for development, or if it is even in need of improvement, and the pros and cons of each scenario. ....kind of spoils the fun of posting here, honestly.

There's really not much difference between us except I lack sentimentality, I prefer numbers. Numbers make sense emotions don't.

I agree....we both want what's best for Omaha and want it to be a more exciting and impressive place to live. If you really dig into the numbers though, you could easily justify saving historic or even old things. The only reason to save things isn't just sentimental (which is a good reason too), but involves maintaining an overall higher quality of life and sense of identity in a community that still has a physical connection to its past. In downtown Omaha, I believe we've thrown away more good stuff than we've added or replaced it with, so far. We need to be more careful about what we throw away. Cities grow more impressively when they do it cumulatively and additively, rather than starting over with a blank slate every time something needs to change.

I've posted this link before, but this blog entry explains this point of view better than I can explain here in a brief post.....
http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2 ... w=magazine

[cdub]

Keep in mind, if the library goes, for HDR or anyone else, it won't exactly be a 'planner' that does it. Those types of projects are political. Second, even when the planners did have a say, in the downtown plan, using the library site was contemplated. I believe that a building far better than the twin bricks could be used to terminate the park view.

[EricHaley]

I understand what some of you mean regarding that "money shot" of the library, twin towers and Woodmen, but that was made largely irrelevant when First National Tower was constructed.

[Garrett]

My concern with this development isn't based on any cliche money shot. My hope is that we get something good with it, not another block with one building/parking garage.

[guy4omaha]

I haven't thought this through and I am not a planner, an architect, engineer or anything close to that realm. But . . . What about building the HDR mini-tower with some additional parking levels below it on top of the existing parking garage that used to be known as the Parkfair Mall. Bring back some ground level retail too. This would keep the signature shots and give HDR a prominent place in the centerpiece as I am assuming it would rise taller but behind the Central Park Plaza. I hear everyone complain about the SOB but that parking garage status of the old Parkfair is worse IMO in terms of what it does to 16th Street.

[choke]

Do I have to picket downtown with a sign: "Don't Cover The Twins"

You wanna see the twins, go to the Spearmint Rhino!

Okay, that's pretty funny

[MTO]

Do I have to picket downtown with a sign: "Don't Cover The Twins"

You wanna see the twins, go to the Spearmint Rhino!

Okay, that's pretty funny

Unless one of your girlfriends finds out.

[choke]

Do I have to picket downtown with a sign: "Don't Cover The Twins"

You wanna see the twins, go to the Spearmint Rhino!

Okay, that's pretty funny

Unless one of your girlfriends finds out.

Unless she works at the there

[RockHarbor]

I understand what some of you mean regarding that "money shot" of the library, twin towers and Woodmen, but that was made largely irrelevant when First National Tower was constructed.

See, I don't think so. It's not like every new building that is erected in Omaha has to position itself perfectly with the park/library/twins/Woodmen alignment. It is more: That alignment has been kept permanent so far, while other skyscrapers and buildings have risen around it. If anything, I think they look even better now, as there is now this glass & steel "wall" around the western sides of the park (w/ the 1200 Landmark Center on the left, and the UP building on the right). Because of the tall walls around the park, there is now this funneled vision (or "tunnel vision") more on the twins now, rather than the wide open spaces that used to be around them. (See the 80's photos I posted a page back...)

I'm not sure Leo A. Daly, who designed the Woodmen, the twins, and the Tower at First National Center, would mess-up that "money shot" if given the chance, because he helped create it. I don't know, though...

Again, those buildings were designed w/a certain relationship with the park. In fact, they could have sat well on the block the library sits on, to display the same effect they were meant for. But no, they were built a step behind the short library. Now, with the library possibly moving, that relationship between the twins & the park is in jeopardy.

The question now is: Is it right to ruin that relationship? Most of you don't seem to care, and I respect that, as I respect people for their individual viewpoints. But, I'm sorry: A new 15-story glass modern building downtown, that likely won't change anybody's perception of Omaha from coast to coast, isn't important enough to me, if it is going to ruin the long-enjoyed relationship between w/ the long, narrow park, and those symmetrical twins set perfectly at the end of it.

I'm all for new buildings downtown -- of course -- if they are designed right. But, again...preserving that "money shot" of Omaha is waaaay more important to me, personally, then some new average-height building that isn't going to "make" Omaha, but could help "break" Omaha (as in: break the nice, signature "money shot" we've enjoyed on postcards for nearly 40 years). I don't think anybody from NYC to Chicago to L.A. is going to think: "Wow, look at Omaha! It has arrived!" with a new 15-story building downtown -- especially when it blocks those symmetrical twins, and makes the town look less striking, less memorable, and less special-looking. Is it worth it, on that specific lot, is the question I ask.

P.S. In general, the move to cover one twin building of a complex, is not considered a right move -- anywhere. Would they build a skyscraper in West L.A., and completely cover up one of the twin, triangular towers of Century City from the wide, busy boulevard fronting them? Would NYC allow a skyscraper to be built, and obnoxiously block one of the towers of the Time Warner Center (from Columbus Circle)? Would Minnetonka, Minnesota allow a building to obnoxiously block one of the Carlson Center twins from the vantage point of the adjacent lake? I could go on w/ examples. The answer is: I don't think so.

[RockHarbor]

Also: Here's a quick picture before the 1982 twins, while the 1979 park is being built, with the 1975 library and 1969 Woodmen there (as of course they would be). Look how much the bulky, symmetrical, red twins helped the Omaha skyline's overall appearance out, by eliminating the awkwardness seen w/ the skinny side of the Woodmen rising tall above that short library. Imagine that view from the park. It is not as pleasing & memorable & signature & striking as it is now with the mirror-image twins set between the library and Woodmen Tower.

[Brad]

Mayor just said on a Grow Omaha that they want to rebuild the Library in the same spot, but with new development around it. It would be a branch and not the “main” library.

[GrandpaaSmucker]

I think Mayor Jean has morphed into a monster. She lied about ending the Restaurant tax to get herself elected. The real Mayor Jean would just as soon waste our tax money as look at us. Leave the library alone Mayor Jean and the building will last forever. There is no way on earth that tearing down that library is needed or a good idea.

[Coyote]

Mayor just said on a Grow Omaha that they want to rebuild the Library in the same spot, but with new development around it. It would be a branch and not the “main” library.

She also said that in the meantime the library would be moved somewhere...? and that the main branch should be more accessible in "Midtown". This was decided by the Library Committee, not the Mayor.

[iamjacobm]

Mayor just said on a Grow Omaha that they want to rebuild the Library in the same spot, but with new development around it. It would be a branch and not the “main” library.

She also said that in the meantime the library would be moved somewhere...? and that the main branch should be more accessible in "Midtown". This was decided by the Library Committee, not the Mayor.

I am pretty confident she means the middle of town and not Midtown.

[BRoss]

Mayor just said on a Grow Omaha that they want to rebuild the Library in the same spot, but with new development around it. It would be a branch and not the “main” library.

She also said that in the meantime the library would be moved somewhere...? and that the main branch should be more accessible in "Midtown". This was decided by the Library Committee, not the Mayor.

I am pretty confident she means the middle of town and not Midtown.

You'd think the mayor of all people would know the difference between central Omaha and Midtown. But it would not surprise me as most people don't realize that it is a static geographical location and not the "middle of town". It may have been years ago when they named it that, but that was long ago. I imagine Mid City Ave was also in the middle of the city at one time too.