HDR and preservationists

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

Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss

Post Reply
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

HDR and preservationists

Post by CapitalGuy »

It's a shame that so many of you are still so butt-hurt over the fact that the preservationist movement backfired. Now we are grasping at anything we can think of to complain about HDR. Rest-assured that if HDR came out with a plan tomorrow to make capacity improvements to AV to handle more traffic that they would be further vilified for catering too much to the automobile. There is no winning with some around here.

It would be nice for once to get a positive comment about Omaha as it is instead of the constant bitching that Omaha isn't what some think it should be.
User avatar
Linkin5
County Board
Posts: 4535
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:59 pm

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Linkin5 »

CapitalGuy wrote:It's a shame that so many of you are still so butt-hurt over the fact that the preservationist movement backfired. Now we are grasping at anything we can think of to complain about HDR. Rest-assured that if HDR came out with a plan tomorrow to make capacity improvements to AV to handle more traffic that they would be further vilified for catering too much to the automobile. There is no winning with some around here.

It would be nice for once to get a positive comment about Omaha as it is instead of the constant bitching that Omaha isn't what some think it should be.
You have completely misunderstood the complaints or don't grasp this entire situation if you think this is just "people bitching about Omaha".
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by CapitalGuy »

If I am not understanding it Linkin, it is because a handful on here can't seem to find approval in anything that happens. The same folks that clamor for dense, urban development are now bemoaning a longer commute time. That is one of the most amusing things I have read on this board as those folks are the ones that are so quick to mock the suburban lifestyle. Now it comes across that they are just as beholden to that lifestyle as anyone else! LOL

Not sure what more HDR was supposed to do here. They can engineer a solution to traffic issues if that is what GetUrban wants, but it will undoubtedly entail more concrete. Any other option is not an engineering matter (like getting folks to take their bike or walk or ride a bus). They can only design to control human behavior to an extent. After that it is up for the humans to make the choices.

This development is a good thing. So was the last HDR proposal. Lets be grateful and not entitled for a change.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by GetUrban »

CapitalGuy wrote:If I am not understanding it Linkin, it is because a handful on here can't seem to find approval in anything that happens. The same folks that clamor for dense, urban development are now bemoaning a longer commute time. That is one of the most amusing things I have read on this board as those folks are the ones that are so quick to mock the suburban lifestyle. Now it comes across that they are just as beholden to that lifestyle as anyone else! LOL

Not sure what more HDR was supposed to do here. They can engineer a solution to traffic issues if that is what GetUrban wants, but it will undoubtedly entail more concrete. Any other option is not an engineering matter (like getting folks to take their bike or walk or ride a bus). They can only design to control human behavior to an extent. After that it is up for the humans to make the choices.

This development is a good thing. So was the last HDR proposal. Lets be grateful and not entitled for a change.
If you look at my posts earlier in this thread. I was applauding some of the qualities of HDR's proposed design for AK Village, such as its street presence along 67th, Parking behind the main building(s), retail at street level, pedestrian oriented, etc. The only negative I mentioned was increased traffic congestion, which was already coming as AK Village development filled-in the remaining vacant lots....maybe not at the density HDR will bring. Since they bill themselves as being on the cutting edge in their industries of practice, how can it be wrong to have high expectations of them as problem solvers? They want us to have high expectations and can handle the criticism, believe me. It remains to be seen if traffic really becomes a nightmare. Also, I don't believe historic preservation efforts backfired when HDR didn't locate at 11th & Dodge. That was just one of several factors affecting their decision. I thought one of the purposes of this forum was to contribute detailed critical discussion of the pros and cons of developments in general....not to simply praise every crumb of development that comes along.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
Omaha Cowboy
The Don
Posts: 1013167
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:31 am
Location: West Omaha

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Omaha Cowboy »

GetUrban wrote:I thought one of the purposes of this forum was to contribute detailed critical discussion of the pros and cons of developments in general....not to simply praise every crumb of development that comes along.
This.. And it is. Thank you!...

Also, I believe every person who contributes to this forum is pleased as punch that HDR decided to stay and build their corporate HQ's in Omaha. No one can deny that. But having a discussion with differing opinions about Omaha and the area is what makes our forum interesting and (at least to me) a bit addictive :) ..

Carry on...

Ciao..LiO...Peace
Go Cowboys!
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

HDR and preservationists

Post by guest2017 »

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:
loess hill lusting wrote:
guest2017 wrote:
loess hill lusting wrote:The paragraphs above are exactly why I wish Omaha would stop awarding urban design and master planning contracts to HDR; they aren't good at urban design.
16th Street Revitalization is one of the best designs in the city (and will be even more amazing when it's finished - you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry to have offended. Sure, 16th is a fine design, but I don't think fairly straightforward and formulaic sidewalk + planting/furnishing zone + parking w/ bulbouts rises to the level that would refute my "not good" claim. It's exceptionally clean and clear engineering/roadway design, but there isn't much to it in terms of urban design/program/image. I was mostly talking about contracts with broader scopes and/or at greater scales though.
I'm going to second this. It's not a bad design, but it's underwhelming. Sure there's now some parking to encourage activity, but the opportunity was there to make the street more multi-modal as it was intended to be (more or less) back in the day and they didn't really capitalize on it. Perhaps there were some budget constraints I'm not aware of, but some sort of bike infrastructure or attractive bus stops would have helped. Or, to be really innovative, they could have made the street into a woonerf. And it's almost completely without any fun little gimmicks (like the pagoda bus stop. why is the pagoda bus stop gone?!).
First off, what is done now was partially privately funded and they had to do what those companies (OPA and FNBO) wanted to do. You think First National wanted a more attractive place for their employees to smoke and OPA wanted not to clog the streets. That's why the design in front of those two places is what it is. Structurally, there is only so much to be done with the sidewalks because they have underground storage under them. Some were filled in with concrete, others were left as is, but that limits what you do on top of them.

For bus stops - why put in one-off bus stops was the problem with the area before? The bus stops were amazing - but they attracted homeless folks. The bus stops they got rid of were some of the neatest ones in Omaha. Also, they are getting rid of most of the bus traffic on 16th street because it's no longer going to be a transfer area.

The pagoda bus stops were removed because homeless people would buy (street name) "whoop |expletive|" at the Downtown Convenient Shop (which was also prevented by the city council from selling alcohol in large quantity single cans) because they were becoming a nuisance to residents of 16th street and Omaha Police. Since removing them (and forcing Downtown Convenient to stop selling single cans), crime and police calls have dropped significantly.

The street is designed for on-sidewalk cafe-style seating. It is the business owners that have to pay for that though, so while it's in the design, you won't see it unless the businesses put the money down for it.
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by CapitalGuy »

For the record, I have no problem with critical and thoughtful debate. However, I am troubled that some in this HDR discussion were so quick to literally tell those who were in favor of HDR's original downtown proposal that the supporters of that proposal were not intelligent enough to understand the nuances of passing on a $300 million dollar development that would have brought a 1,000 or more jobs to downtown in favor of saving a couple of older buildings. Regardless of what the Specht supporters think, there was considerable logic in supporting the HDR and OPAS proposal. While I am pleased with HDR's decision to relocate to AV (as they could have easily gone farther west), I will continue to be disappointed that a once in a couple decade opportunity to accelerate development in downtown Omaha was lost due to an emotional reaction that a year from now will be entirely forgotten. My biggest concern with this HDR decision is that it will further push new development in Omaha to the AV area and a way from downtown. I sincerely hope the preservationists have not overplayed their hand on this one to the long-term detriment of downtown Omaha.
User avatar
Omaha Cowboy
The Don
Posts: 1013167
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:31 am
Location: West Omaha

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Omaha Cowboy »

CapitalGuy wrote:For the record, I have no problem with critical and thoughtful debate. However, I am troubled that some in this HDR discussion were so quick to literally tell those who were in favor of HDR's original downtown proposal that the supporters of that proposal were not intelligent enough to understand the nuances of passing on a $300 million dollar development that would have brought a 1,000 or more jobs to downtown in favor of saving a couple of older buildings. Regardless of what the Specht supporters think, there was considerable logic in supporting the HDR and OPAS proposal. While I am pleased with HDR's decision to relocate to AV (as they could have easily gone farther west), I will continue to be disappointed that a once in a couple decade opportunity to accelerate development in downtown Omaha was lost due to an emotional reaction that a year from now will be entirely forgotten. My biggest concern with this HDR decision is that it will further push new development in Omaha to the AV area and a way from downtown. I sincerely hope the preservationists have not overplayed their hand on this one to the long-term detriment of downtown Omaha.
A very thoughtful, critical and insightful post.. :thumb: ..

And as it relates to corporate development (and development in general) downtown, I share your concern on this matter...

Ciao..LiO...Peace
Go Cowboys!
User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2780
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Boston

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by RNcyanide »

Whenever someone rags on the preservationists, I think they forget that the main source of ire was that OPAS originally proposed a parking garage there. No ground level retail, no offices, no mixed use. Just another |expletive| parking garage. Sure they came back around with some vague mixed use idea to save face, which I don't think they had any intention of following through on, but they already played kickball with the hornet nest. I don't blame the preservationists one bit in this. OPAS sunk the deal without their help.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride
User avatar
Linkin5
County Board
Posts: 4535
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:59 pm

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Linkin5 »

CapitalGuy wrote:For the record, I have no problem with critical and thoughtful debate. However, I am troubled that some in this HDR discussion were so quick to literally tell those who were in favor of HDR's original downtown proposal that the supporters of that proposal were not intelligent enough to understand the nuances of passing on a $300 million dollar development that would have brought a 1,000 or more jobs to downtown in favor of saving a couple of older buildings. Regardless of what the Specht supporters think, there was considerable logic in supporting the HDR and OPAS proposal. While I am pleased with HDR's decision to relocate to AV (as they could have easily gone farther west), I will continue to be disappointed that a once in a couple decade opportunity to accelerate development in downtown Omaha was lost due to an emotional reaction that a year from now will be entirely forgotten. My biggest concern with this HDR decision is that it will further push new development in Omaha to the AV area and a way from downtown. I sincerely hope the preservationists have not overplayed their hand on this one to the long-term detriment of downtown Omaha.
Agree to everything in this.
daveoma
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by daveoma »

iamjacobm wrote:My general thoughts on some of the "urbanists" comments made.

New Urbanism doesn't mean getting rid of everyones vehicles and making everyone walk or bike to everything that they need. The goal is to first, give the people that want to limit their vehicle use that option and second to create places that require parking once and completing a number of tasks.

In A/V an HDR employee can leave work and walk to the gym and workout or get their nails done or grab something as Spirit World before they hit the road to head home, it is a shame that Wholner's didn't make it b/c it would be great for people to grab some food before they head home. I would like A/V to get some more services like a dry cleaners to help make the area even more useful.

What that does for traffic and land use in the city is that a number of errands can be accomplished while using the parking spot you use for work. In the suburban model you need that space at work from 8-5 then a space at the nail salon, then one at the gym, then one at the liquor store ect. Inefficient use of land, creating more gridlock and wasting your time as you drive miles out of your way to get to all the things you need.
Thanks for the info Jacob. This definitely helps put things in perspective. :-)
Athomsfere
Planning Board
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:03 pm

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Athomsfere »

Omaha Cowboy wrote:
GetUrban wrote:I thought one of the purposes of this forum was to contribute detailed critical discussion of the pros and cons of developments in general....not to simply praise every crumb of development that comes along.
This.. And it is. Thank you!...

Also, I believe every person who contributes to this forum is pleased as punch that HDR decided to stay and build their corporate HQ's in Omaha. No one can deny that. But having a discussion with differing opinions about Omaha and the area is what makes our forum interesting and (at least to me) a bit addictive :) ..

Carry on...

Ciao..LiO...Peace
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

It's great to be in a city where we aren't 100% sure where the city will be in 10 years. To see some actual change and growth! I feel like we are in the Austin of the 90's and I hope through things like civic activists and this forum we can somehow avoid Austin's current problems with infrastructure (I35!!!!)
User avatar
Omaha Cowboy
The Don
Posts: 1013167
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:31 am
Location: West Omaha

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Omaha Cowboy »

Athomsfere wrote:
Omaha Cowboy wrote:
GetUrban wrote:I thought one of the purposes of this forum was to contribute detailed critical discussion of the pros and cons of developments in general....not to simply praise every crumb of development that comes along.
This.. And it is. Thank you!...

Also, I believe every person who contributes to this forum is pleased as punch that HDR decided to stay and build their corporate HQ's in Omaha. No one can deny that. But having a discussion with differing opinions about Omaha and the area is what makes our forum interesting and (at least to me) a bit addictive :) ..

Carry on...

Ciao..LiO...Peace
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

It's great to be in a city where we aren't 100% sure where the city will be in 10 years. To see some actual change and growth! I feel like we are in the Austin of the 90's and I hope through things like civic activists and this forum we can somehow avoid Austin's current problems with infrastructure (I35!!!!)
I couldn't agree with you more :thumb: ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace
Go Cowboys!
Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Erik »

CapitalGuy wrote:For the record, I have no problem with critical and thoughtful debate. However, I am troubled that some in this HDR discussion were so quick to literally tell those who were in favor of HDR's original downtown proposal that the supporters of that proposal were not intelligent enough to understand the nuances of passing on a $300 million dollar development that would have brought a 1,000 or more jobs to downtown in favor of saving a couple of older buildings. Regardless of what the Specht supporters think, there was considerable logic in supporting the HDR and OPAS proposal. While I am pleased with HDR's decision to relocate to AV (as they could have easily gone farther west), I will continue to be disappointed that a once in a couple decade opportunity to accelerate development in downtown Omaha was lost due to an emotional reaction that a year from now will be entirely forgotten. My biggest concern with this HDR decision is that it will further push new development in Omaha to the AV area and a way from downtown. I sincerely hope the preservationists have not overplayed their hand on this one to the long-term detriment of downtown Omaha.
The spect building supporters are not to blame. The process was moving along despite the outrage. The problem happened with HDR feeling spurned by OPA going back on their original offer by raising the demamds.

Let's not stoop to the historical revisionist level.
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by CapitalGuy »

From the World-Herald article where HDR announced the scrapping of their DT plans:
He said the primary reason for the decision was that the cost of the project had increased and the construction timetable had been delayed. In a statement, he tied the rising costs to the “loss of previously planned parking facilities nearby.” HDR wouldn’t elaborate.
Just to put this all together, the "previously planned parking facilities nearby" is clearly referring to the parking garage that was to be placed on the Specht site. Once that could not happen, HDR was forced to incur greater costs due to having to accommodate the parking demands of OPAS. Those demands were made of HDR because OPAS could not use the Specht site for parking.

It is certainly up for debate on whether a parking garage was a worthwhile project for the destruction of the historic buildings (as RN has). We can also certainly debate whether OPAS's parking demands were reasonable or whether they could have been met in some other manner. But, the quote above is indisputable evidence that the success of the preservationist effort to save the Specht site is what altered the HDR project to the extent that it became undesirable in the eyes of HDR to move forward.

Not revisionist at all.
User avatar
BRoss
IT Director
Posts: 10002763
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: West Central Omaha

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by BRoss »

CapitalGuy wrote:From the World-Herald article where HDR announced the scrapping of their DT plans:
He said the primary reason for the decision was that the cost of the project had increased and the construction timetable had been delayed. In a statement, he tied the rising costs to the “loss of previously planned parking facilities nearby.” HDR wouldn’t elaborate.
Just to put this all together, the "previously planned parking facilities nearby" is clearly referring to the parking garage that was to be placed on the Specht site. Once that could not happen, HDR was forced to incur greater costs due to having to accommodate the parking demands of OPAS. Those demands were made of HDR because OPAS could not use the Specht site for parking.

It is certainly up for debate on whether a parking garage was a worthwhile project for the destruction of the historic buildings (as RN has). We can also certainly debate whether OPAS's parking demands were reasonable or whether they could have been met in some other manner. But, the quote above is indisputable evidence that the success of the preservationist effort to save the Specht site is what altered the HDR project to the extent that it became undesirable in the eyes of HDR to move forward.

Not revisionist at all.
OPAS could have built around the Specht. They didn't need that building. The fallout downtown is on OPAS more than anyone else. I don't like that HDR pulled out of downtown and I don't really care too much about the Specht, but the preservationists are not to blame here. The greed of OPAS is.
mattgoett

Hdr reason

Post by mattgoett »

I am putting this here because I do not know how to respond in the other threads. Opas and HDR were both playing omaha for money to build their offices, parking garages and expansions. HDR was planning a suburban office in the middle of Daly work. They tried to grift from omaha and lost. Let them go to Aksarben where their average work is. It will be a great addition to Ak anyway.
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by CapitalGuy »

I don't disagree at all with your sentiments, HR. I am sure that putting cost aside there were plenty of alternatives OPAS could have explored. That being said, they did not want to entertain those alternatives. And, to my recollection they had an agreement in principle to purchase the buildings (although I could be misremembering this fact). They only discontinued those plans after the preservationists raised the issue of destruction of the buildings publicly.

Again, it is what it is. Those opposed to the destruction of the buildings made the moves that they felt were appropriate and just. But it is undeniable that those moves set into motion the eventual HDR change of plans from DT to AV. Frankly, if the cause was important enough to the preservationists, they would own the outcome. The fact that there is so much deflection regarding the effect of their actions makes me think that there is some regret on their part which I don't believe they should have any regret if they believed they were taking just action.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by iamjacobm »

CapitalGuy wrote:And, to my recollection they had an agreement in principle to purchase the buildings (although I could be misremembering this fact). They only discontinued those plans after the preservationists raised the issue of destruction of the buildings publicly.
The city was going to purchase the buildings and give them to OPA. When the city brought the taxpayers into those historic buildings they opened themselves up to strong public input. If HDR or OPA had put their own cash up and bought the buildings for $11+ million they would have been demoed. Both sides out played their hand when they got the city on the hook for a public purchase to destroy historic stock. That is a bad look all around.
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by CapitalGuy »

No doubt the optics of the city-backed purchase also harmed the project. The players should have come up with some sort of alternative financing arrangement that would not have made it appear that the city was directly funding the destruction of the historic buildings.
Professor Woland
Library Board
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: HDR Aksarben Office

Post by Professor Woland »

CapitalGuy wrote:No doubt the optics of the city-backed purchase also harmed the project. The players should have come up with some sort of alternative financing arrangement that would not have made it appear that the city was directly funding the destruction of the historic buildings.
My only concern about this was that the taxpayer was going to be on the hook for buying the buildings, I don't like redistribution, especially when it goes to people with more money than me. That said, I think the public outcry over the buildings was greater than the outcry about the taxpayer funding. Even if the owners had sold to either HDR or OPAS of their own free will with no taxpayer money involved, the gnashing of teeth would still have likely derailed the project. heck, look at the Clarinda fiasco. Mutual ponied up their own money and owners were overjoyed to sell the building. I've made no secret of my dislike for the Clarinda and my joy at seeing it come down, but a lot of people were seriously angry about it, despite having no skin in the game other than having the bad taste to think it was worth preserving. In this case there were three much better looking buildings at stake. I have to think that regardless of whether taxpayer money was involved or not things would have ended up the same way. In the end it's better for HDR to go somewhere else in the city if the only way they would build downtown would require cash handouts, but the primary reason they aren't building downtown is because of the preservationists. Kang beat Kodos.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

HDR and preservationists

Post by GetUrban »

The preservationists won because the buildings they wanted to save are still there. But in a sense, they also lost because HDR and OPAS weren't willing or didn't try hard enough to design around the buildings and create a solution that met their needs while keeping the historic structures intact. They wanted a clean slate for OPAS to work with, or nothing at all. (Clean slates cost less to work with, admittedly.) Historic buildings are most valuable when they survive and can be re-purposed into new uses over and over again. Each of those buildings has already been re-purposed several times.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by MTO »

Let's not get it twisted: OPA, HDR and the building huggers are to blame. My main concern at this point is how the business community perceives downtown. I just don't understand how in "one" city everything big and new goes downtown but here it doesn't.
15-17, 26, 32
Omaha1000
Home Owners Association
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:52 pm

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by Omaha1000 »

MTO wrote: I just don't understand how in "one" city everything big and new goes downtown but here it doesn't.
IMO, Part of the reason is that Omaha's downtown is at the edge of the city and not centrally located.

Edit to add: Yes, Chicago's extremely successful downtown is at the edge of that city, but there are big differences such as having a giant lake next to downtown.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by GetUrban »

MTO wrote:Let's not get it twisted: OPA, HDR and the building huggers are to blame.
Well, at least you acknowledge OPA & HDR are to blame. Their assumption that they could base their only plausible design solution on acquiring historically-designated properties that were not their own, without creating strong opposition, was flawed. Every design solution faces constraints the owner/designer has to deal with, such as gravity, climate, property lines & easements, soil bearing capacity, covenants, land acquisition ability, etc.

The primary reason their design wouldn't work is they couldn't acquire the additional property they wanted without constraints, and they were unwilling or unable to change their design to acknowledge that fact. (even though the city did everything they could to give them the property.)

That's like blaming your neighbors and their friends for making you move out to west Omaha because they wouldn't let you take their house and property to add on to yours.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1897
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by bigredmed »

Omaha1000 wrote:
MTO wrote: I just don't understand how in "one" city everything big and new goes downtown but here it doesn't.
IMO, Part of the reason is that Omaha's downtown is at the edge of the city and not centrally located.

Edit to add: Yes, Chicago's extremely successful downtown is at the edge of that city, but there are big differences such as having a giant lake next to downtown.
And in Downtown Chicago, the basic infrastructure of the city (banks, stores, human needs retailing (socks and underwear), and day to day cafes and other casual restaurants are open after business hours. Not really the case here in O town. Want to talk to a banker about a car loan after work? Better be in the middle of the city or points west, cause in the Big O, the downtown banks close real fast.
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by MTO »

Yeah that makes sense and this city sucks at everything but incongruent development. I'm going to enjoy watching our peers eat our lunch.
15-17, 26, 32
User avatar
Globochem
Home Owners Association
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:59 am
Location: Worldwide

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by Globochem »

Anyone crying that HDR was "lost" to AV needs to have their head examined. The deal was foul. Pure and simple. Let's recap:
1. Absolutely needless destruction of historic structure NOT RELEVANT TO THE BUILD SITE!
2. $40M in Public bond funding for this nonsense because one upset poor city "leader" simply refuses to compromise site planning on more than an acre of unused greenspace next to the Holland. Because...because...Gottschalk wanted it. And he was going to make the city pay for it.
3. The cost of 100 parking spots for a 30 year note do not torpedo a deal. No, something else was afoot. This was a filthy, backroom handshake deal built on the backs of Omaha taxpayers and at the cost of prime public space and the dismissal of historic structures. Like impudent children who don't get their way, OPAS and HDR took their "ball" and went home. If the so called preservationists won, than we should all jump out of our seats to give them a round of applause.
4. Free market people all over the city should be ecstatic. Grift, corruption, misuse of funds, all serving a multi-billion dollar company. That was the deal. Let them pay for their building like anyone else. Even if it's in AV.
User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2780
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Boston

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by RNcyanide »

Globochem wrote:Anyone crying that HDR was "lost" to AV needs to have their head examined. The deal was foul. Pure and simple. Let's recap:
1. Absolutely needless destruction of historic structure NOT RELEVANT TO THE BUILD SITE!
2. $40M in Public bond funding for this nonsense because one upset poor city "leader" simply refuses to compromise site planning on more than an acre of unused greenspace next to the Holland. Because...because...Gottschalk wanted it. And he was going to make the city pay for it.
3. The cost of 100 parking spots for a 30 year note do not torpedo a deal. No, something else was afoot. This was a filthy, backroom handshake deal built on the backs of Omaha taxpayers and at the cost of prime public space and the dismissal of historic structures. Like impudent children who don't get their way, OPAS and HDR took their "ball" and went home. If the so called preservationists won, than we should all jump out of our seats to give them a round of applause.
4. Free market people all over the city should be ecstatic. Grift, corruption, misuse of funds, all serving a multi-billion dollar company. That was the deal. Let them pay for their building like anyone else. Even if it's in AV.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32942
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by Coyote »

Globochem wrote:Let them pay for their building like anyone else.
Little detail, Noddle Bradford Holdings will own the building and get TIF, HDR will rent.
User avatar
Globochem
Home Owners Association
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:59 am
Location: Worldwide

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by Globochem »

Coyote wrote:
Globochem wrote:Let them pay for their building like anyone else.
Little detail, Noddle Bradford Holdings will own the building and get TIF, HDR will rent.
True, HDR was never going to own the building, but the financial backers of the deal are already invested in Wiatt Plaza in AV. Its possible/likely the downtown project was simply a trial balloon to see how much they could bilk the city.
guest2017
Home Owners Association
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 7:02 am

Re: HDR and preservationists

Post by guest2017 »

Globochem wrote:
Coyote wrote:
Globochem wrote:Let them pay for their building like anyone else.
Little detail, Noddle Bradford Holdings will own the building and get TIF, HDR will rent.
True, HDR was never going to own the building, but the financial backers of the deal are already invested in Wiatt Plaza in AV. Its possible/likely the downtown project was simply a trial balloon to see how much they could bilk the city.
...because Dana Bradford (the 'Bradford' in Noddle Bradford Holdings) owns Waitt. Waitt Plaza was going to be Waitt's 15 employees and the rest of the building rented out - it was to be the same place that HDR is going (the entire block). Basically, Waitt said, "Redesign the building to your likings (because you designed it in the first place), let us own it, and we'll rent back to you." Wouldn't surprise me if Waitt placed their employees in a small portion of HDR's building(s).

It's not likely the downtown project was a "trial balloon to see how much they could bilk out of the city" - downtown provided HDR a lot more visibility and benefits, but when you factor in that the cost would be twice or three times what Aksarben Village is, you understand why they went another direction.
Post Reply