Omaha Forums

buildomaha wrote:

GetUrban wrote:It's funny how people on this site seem to get more excited about cranes than the permanent buildings themselves.

Completely accurate, I couldn't care less about a tower cran...

Agreed. It's an eyesore to me.

Brad wrote:

GetUrban wrote:It's funny how people on this site seem to get more excited about cranes than the permanent buildings themselves.

I don't care about the crane more than the building. To me its one of the milestones on major projects.

This- ^^^^^^^^

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Starting to assemble the aforementioned tower crane that everyone loves so much:

Busguy2010 wrote:

ryan311 wrote:

OmahaOmaha wrote:It looks like they took a 1960's design, but to try to make it look different, they took a wedge out of the bottom corner. I'm not impressed.

Completely agree with this opinion. Not impressed.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what is a good design and what would you expect here, specifically from HDR? Just asking because there has been mostly complaints about our architecture lately and I'm trying to understand what's so wrong with it.

I would expect an architectural firm's headquarters building be an architectural masterpiece, not something that has been done before. Plus, I also know for a fact, that the building itself does not contain enough square feet to contain ALL of HDR's current Employees located in Omaha. HDR has shown that it cannot build a building that contains enough space to contain ALL of its employees. Yes, yes, I know, they do their "studies" as they did with their current Green Glass Building, but the day they cut the ribbon, it was too small, plus not very energy efficient, especially in the glass stairwells, where they needed to add heaters to the first floor to keep the first couple of floors warm, but go to the top of the stair well and you're smoldering hot. If you are a current employee, you know EXACTLY what I mean.

mcarch wrote:

Busguy2010 wrote:

ryan311 wrote:

OmahaOmaha wrote:It looks like they took a 1960's design, but to try to make it look different, they took a wedge out of the bottom corner. I'm not impressed.

Completely agree with this opinion. Not impressed.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what is a good design and what would you expect here, specifically from HDR? Just asking because there has been mostly complaints about our architecture lately and I'm trying to understand what's so wrong with it.

I would expect an architectural firm's headquarters building be an architectural masterpiece

What is an architectural masterpiece? What are some examples of buildings they've designed that are better than their own?

Again I don't want to come off as a buttwipe, I'm trying to gain some perspective about something I know very little.

One thing I do like about it is the clipped corners. I can imagine they complicate "things" quite a bit more than most people would realize. I like how I'll be able to stand under them and look up to see just building. As it's going up, I'm having an ever harder time seeing what was initially and what continues to be wrong with it.

One thing I know puts me in the minority is that I borderline love the design of the TD Ameritrade building and that is another of the buildings that took a ton of flack on here. Just to me there's not really such a thing as a "bad" design when we're talking purely about the looks of a building. Design is subjective and every design is only perfect to the person who dreamed it up at the instant it is put onto paper. As a woodworker, I've designed many pieces where I've even gotten halfway through building a piece and thought "maybe it would look better if I did this, or that" But then again, my original design is what I liked at the time and that was good enough. I'm looking at one of my finished pieces right now and I was considering cutting a crazy "out there" design in it to make it totally unique. But then It would probably be harder to find a customer, so I just went with a traditional tried and true cut. It's more conservative, but I know it will sell. So in the end it is still a "good" design.

It's just to me it's very hard to identify a "perfect" design since it is so subjective. As long as the functional objective is met, it is up to only the designer to determine what looks good. Hence all the quotation marks in my post.

I'm still trying to figure it out.

Busguy2010 wrote:

mcarch wrote:

Busguy2010 wrote:

ryan311 wrote:

OmahaOmaha wrote:It looks like they took a 1960's design, but to try to make it look different, they took a wedge out of the bottom corner. I'm not impressed.

Completely agree with this opinion. Not impressed.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what is a good design and what would you expect here, specifically from HDR? Just asking because there has been mostly complaints about our architecture lately and I'm trying to understand what's so wrong with it.

I would expect an architectural firm's headquarters building be an architectural masterpiece

What is an architectural masterpiece? What are some examples of buildings they've designed that are better than their own?

Again I don't want to come off as a buttwipe, I'm trying to gain some perspective about something I know very little.

One thing I do like about it is the clipped corners. I can imagine they complicate "things" quite a bit more than most people would realize. I like how I'll be able to stand under them and look up to see just building. As it's going up, I'm having an ever harder time seeing what was initially and what continues to be wrong with it.

One thing I know puts me in the minority is that I borderline love the design of the TD Ameritrade building and that is another of the buildings that took a ton of flack on here. Just to me there's not really such a thing as a "bad" design when we're talking purely about the looks of a building. Design is subjective and every design is only perfect to the person who dreamed it up at the instant it is put onto paper. As a woodworker, I've designed many pieces where I've even gotten halfway through building a piece and thought "maybe it would look better if I did this, or that" But then again, my original design is what I liked at the time and that was good enough. I'm looking at one of my finished pieces right now and I was considering cutting a crazy "out there" design in it to make it totally unique. But then It would probably be harder to find a customer, so I just went with a traditional tried and true cut. It's more conservative, but I know it will sell. So in the end it is still a "good" design.

It's just to me it's very hard to identify a "perfect" design since it is so subjective. As long as the functional objective is met, it is up to only the designer to determine what looks good. Hence all the quotation marks in my post.

I'm still trying to figure it out.

See I 100% disagree with you. I think being conservative in design is how you blend in with the crowd and don't get any recognition. And that is not just with architecture but anything in life. If you're going to be cookie cutter and average you'll have average results and everything will be "Okay". To succeed, you must think outside the box and bring something new to the table. Not saying its completely essential for HDR right now (even if I would like them to do something exciting as a company with experience in architecture) but it would be a lot better overall if they could've brought something more than a typical glass box with some cuts in the side. And yes those little cuts make things more difficult, so why waste time doing something as boring as that when it could've been dedicated to something much more interesting.

It was mentioned in the paper that HDR still has plans for another building. Hopefully that other building comes to fruition and complements the building currently being built.

buildomaha wrote:it could've been dedicated to something much more interesting.

What is that something? That's what I'm trying to understand.

Add me to the list of people that like the design. Really cool idea, IMO.

Honestly, I like this one more than what was proposed downtown. I even showed it to my boyfriend in Boston and he really liked it. Assuming that they still keep with some kind of retail on the bottom (or am I making that up), it'll be even better. I like designs that modify simple shapes, like having the clipped corners, or the popped out parts around the top and bottom. I think what really turned me off the downtown option was the north side of the building and the gigantic parking facility that rose up nearly half of the building.

Coyote wrote:

image.jpeg

Ta Da! Everyone happy now?

What a skimpy tower crane! j/k

RNcyanide wrote:I think what really turned me off the downtown option was the north side of the building and the gigantic parking facility that rose up nearly half of the building.

Because that design sucked too. It seems Omaha doesn't know how to hide the parking garages in 1.either the CENTER of the block or have some sort of retail on the first floor. Des Moines is getting a residential tower with parking on the bottom floors with retail and the tower sitting above.

GetUrban wrote:
What a skimpy tower crane! j/k

Agreed. The tower crane in Des Moines is taller and has more girth than the one in Omaha.

MadMartin8 wrote:The tower crane in Des Moines is taller and has more girth than the one in Omaha.

That's what she said ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

mcarch wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:I think what really turned me off the downtown option was the north side of the building and the gigantic parking facility that rose up nearly half of the building.

Because that design sucked too. It seems Omaha doesn't know how to hide the parking garages in 1.either the CENTER of the block or have some sort of retail on the first floor. Des Moines is getting a residential tower with parking on the bottom floors with retail and the tower sitting above.

I’m afraid to ask but how tall will that be?

mcarch wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:I think what really turned me off the downtown option was the north side of the building and the gigantic parking facility that rose up nearly half of the building.

Because that design sucked too. It seems Omaha doesn't know how to hide the parking garages in 1.either the CENTER of the block or have some sort of retail on the first floor. Des Moines is getting a residential tower with parking on the bottom floors with retail and the tower sitting above.

Omaha doesn't know how to park developments at urban ratios, so you end up with large garages that are designed to suburban requirements, and are unable to be hidden elegantly. Some quality transit would be nice right about now, maybe something like a streetcar.

Chungus wrote:

mcarch wrote:

RNcyanide wrote:I think what really turned me off the downtown option was the north side of the building and the gigantic parking facility that rose up nearly half of the building.

Because that design sucked too. It seems Omaha doesn't know how to hide the parking garages in 1.either the CENTER of the block or have some sort of retail on the first floor. Des Moines is getting a residential tower with parking on the bottom floors with retail and the tower sitting above.

Omaha doesn't know how to park developments at urban ratios, so you end up with large garages that are designed to suburban requirements, and are unable to be hidden elegantly. Some quality transit would be nice right about now, maybe something like a streetcar.

Here here! ! And welcome to the forum

Fifth floor steel going up today.

mgoett wrote:It was mentioned in the paper that HDR still has plans for another building. Hopefully that other building comes to fruition and complements the building currently being built.

Here's a photo from that article showing what appears to be a mirror image or very similar to what they're building now, for the second building to the north....

Busguy2010 wrote:

mcarch wrote:

Busguy2010 wrote:

ryan311 wrote:

OmahaOmaha wrote:It looks like they took a 1960's design, but to try to make it look different, they took a wedge out of the bottom corner. I'm not impressed.

Completely agree with this opinion. Not impressed.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what is a good design and what would you expect here, specifically from HDR? Just asking because there has been mostly complaints about our architecture lately and I'm trying to understand what's so wrong with it.

I would expect an architectural firm's headquarters building be an architectural masterpiece

What is an architectural masterpiece? What are some examples of buildings they've designed that are better than their own?

Again I don't want to come off as a buttwipe, I'm trying to gain some perspective about something I know very little.

One thing I do like about it is the clipped corners. I can imagine they complicate "things" quite a bit more than most people would realize. I like how I'll be able to stand under them and look up to see just building. As it's going up, I'm having an ever harder time seeing what was initially and what continues to be wrong with it.

One thing I know puts me in the minority is that I borderline love the design of the TD Ameritrade building and that is another of the buildings that took a ton of flack on here. Just to me there's not really such a thing as a "bad" design when we're talking purely about the looks of a building. Design is subjective and every design is only perfect to the person who dreamed it up at the instant it is put onto paper. As a woodworker, I've designed many pieces where I've even gotten halfway through building a piece and thought "maybe it would look better if I did this, or that" But then again, my original design is what I liked at the time and that was good enough. I'm looking at one of my finished pieces right now and I was considering cutting a crazy "out there" design in it to make it totally unique. But then It would probably be harder to find a customer, so I just went with a traditional tried and true cut. It's more conservative, but I know it will sell. So in the end it is still a "good" design.

It's just to me it's very hard to identify a "perfect" design since it is so subjective. As long as the functional objective is met, it is up to only the designer to determine what looks good. Hence all the quotation marks in my post.

I'm still trying to figure it out.

All designed by HDR. Go to their website www.HDRinc.com and look at their portfolio

Update:

mgoett wrote:It was mentioned in the paper that HDR still has plans for another building. Hopefully that other building comes to fruition and complements the building currently being built.

...In a long time. Most of their growth is not in Omaha - it took them 20 years to outgrow the green building, which would be substantially smaller than the expansion at the new site. Look for this "new building" in 3 decades.

mcarch wrote:

Busguy2010 wrote:

mcarch wrote:

Busguy2010 wrote:

ryan311 wrote:

OmahaOmaha wrote:It looks like they took a 1960's design, but to try to make it look different, they took a wedge out of the bottom corner. I'm not impressed.

Completely agree with this opinion. Not impressed.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what is a good design and what would you expect here, specifically from HDR? Just asking because there has been mostly complaints about our architecture lately and I'm trying to understand what's so wrong with it.

I would expect an architectural firm's headquarters building be an architectural masterpiece

What is an architectural masterpiece? What are some examples of buildings they've designed that are better than their own?

Again I don't want to come off as a buttwipe, I'm trying to gain some perspective about something I know very little.

One thing I do like about it is the clipped corners. I can imagine they complicate "things" quite a bit more than most people would realize. I like how I'll be able to stand under them and look up to see just building. As it's going up, I'm having an ever harder time seeing what was initially and what continues to be wrong with it.

One thing I know puts me in the minority is that I borderline love the design of the TD Ameritrade building and that is another of the buildings that took a ton of flack on here. Just to me there's not really such a thing as a "bad" design when we're talking purely about the looks of a building. Design is subjective and every design is only perfect to the person who dreamed it up at the instant it is put onto paper. As a woodworker, I've designed many pieces where I've even gotten halfway through building a piece and thought "maybe it would look better if I did this, or that" But then again, my original design is what I liked at the time and that was good enough. I'm looking at one of my finished pieces right now and I was considering cutting a crazy "out there" design in it to make it totally unique. But then It would probably be harder to find a customer, so I just went with a traditional tried and true cut. It's more conservative, but I know it will sell. So in the end it is still a "good" design.

It's just to me it's very hard to identify a "perfect" design since it is so subjective. As long as the functional objective is met, it is up to only the designer to determine what looks good. Hence all the quotation marks in my post.

I'm still trying to figure it out.

All designed by HDR. Go to their website http://www.HDRinc.com and look at their portfolio

Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan.JPG

1 Denison.jpg

Chris O'Brien Lifehouse.jpg

Cool, thanks. After viewing their portfolio I have a better understanding of what you were hoping for. But I find after seeing all the others, I appreciate this design even more and can better identify its own character and distinguishing features... Just me I suppose.

Well it is all good in my opinion. Omaha is booming and another ten years Douglas county should be full. Maybe not north but prolly to the Platte. Awe heck prolly North too.

Daly seems to have a better portfolio. HDR is all about government grift imo

Starting on the 7th and 8th floors:

First glass in, on the 2nd floor east side of the building:

First angled glass:

Steel going up for the 9th and 10th floors. The mixture of midrises and low rises in the area looks really good.

A rainy day pic:

Wow, haven't seen it in a while... looking pretty massive.

Thanks for taking a picture from the E side. We have been trying to figure out what was being done there for the parking garage.

Here are a few photos I took, this one looks to be topped out:

mgoett wrote:Well it is all good in my opinion. Omaha is booming and another ten years Douglas county should be full. Maybe not north but prolly to the Platte. Awe heck prolly North too.

Umm. Not hardly. Douglas County won't run out of developable land during the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

nativeomahan wrote:

mgoett wrote:Well it is all good in my opinion. Omaha is booming and another ten years Douglas county should be full. Maybe not north but prolly to the Platte. Awe heck prolly North too.

Umm. Not hardly. Douglas County won't run out of developable land during the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

The last MAPA number I saw was 30-40 years of land supply left in DC at the current pace.

OmahaJaysCU wrote:

nativeomahan wrote:

mgoett wrote:Well it is all good in my opinion. Omaha is booming and another ten years Douglas county should be full. Maybe not north but prolly to the Platte. Awe heck prolly North too.

Umm. Not hardly. Douglas County won't run out of developable land during the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

The last MAPA number I saw was 30-40 years of land supply left in DC at the current pace.

Does this number take into account what gets built in sarpy instead of Douglas?

Louie wrote:

OmahaJaysCU wrote:

nativeomahan wrote:

mgoett wrote:Well it is all good in my opinion. Omaha is booming and another ten years Douglas county should be full. Maybe not north but prolly to the Platte. Awe heck prolly North too.

Umm. Not hardly. Douglas County won't run out of developable land during the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

The last MAPA number I saw was 30-40 years of land supply left in DC at the current pace.

Does this number take into account what gets built in sarpy instead of Douglas?

I'd hope so since MAPA covers Douglas, Sarpy and most of Pottawatomie.