Midtown Crossing

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:36 am

That 7 story building should be saved. It is a cool building and I think will help blend the new buildings with the existing neighborhood around it. Is there anything structurally wrong with it? I also hate to see the mortuary go as well. Cool building even though it is low density.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:50 am

Mortuary is going but that 7floor building is staying.

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:55 am

Cool!!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:22 am

I don't know about the morturary but that 7 story building is definantly going. It's one of Mutual's buildings that not getting used. I think it used to be like a Mutual hotel for traveling employees like the Blackstone is for Kiewit.

j4nu · Post by **j4nu** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:37 pm

The mortuary was specifically mentioned as a building they wanted to keep during the original announcement.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:56 pm

I wish I could retract my former post. Sorry about that but I was really really drugged up when I posted that I could barely read anything that night don’t even know how I got my computer turned on. But yes I was wrong.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:30 pm

I wish they could keep the 7 Story building.

MrWh1t3 · Post by **MrWh1t3** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:17 pm

I don't think they have any 3 bedrooms but there is a 2 bedroom 1000 something sq feet for like 130 or something around there. I think its on the 7th floor.

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:24 pm

I think it is a mistake to take down that 7 story building!! If I had to guess...was it built in the late 40's or early 50's?? Any ideas?

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:35 am

It is a defunct building. Mutual doesn't use it so it just sits empty. Why leave an empty unused building up and replace with newer, similiar buildings that will get used? Arguing to keep this building is beyond stupid.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:00 pm

Ha! That's a little insulting, D'Shawn.

The question I'm asking, is why tear down an exemplary mid-century modern building, which provides significant density, and has potential to be restored into a fabulous mixed-use building which would compliment Mutual's urban, mixed-use development?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:06 pm

Hey if it’s not broke don’t fix it. If they decided to leave if up and just fix a few things I don’t see anything wrong with that. Usually when they tear down old |expletive| it’s because it is decrepit or full of asbestos. Plus think about how much money it would save them if they didn’t have to destroy the entire building and rebuild an entire building.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:15 pm

And have that one building sticking out like a sore thumb? That'll look great.

No one wanted to keep UP but you all want to save this? Hmm. Just think of it as trading in a '99 Honda for an '06 Honda. Same thing but newer and improved. Plus the units in the building are hotel sized. You'd have to totally remodel it for residential. It be easier to tear it down, which is what they're doing.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:19 pm

Actually its still A LOT easier to gut a building and rebuild for another purpose than tear the entire thing down… And of course I’m for destroying the old UP building DAH we are getting a 32 story freaking building!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:33 pm

What Mutual is doing is essentially an upgrade to this building. Leaving it there would be a void. It wouldn't have any street level use like the rest of the buildings and it wouldn't match.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:39 pm

What do you know about matching do you ever look in the mirror before you leave the house? Ever been downtown their sure is a lot of mismatches there.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:52 pm

This place in particular will look the same. It's not at all like DT. This building would look ugly and dated compared to the new ones.

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:57 pm

You mean like the big Mutual of Omaha building will look when it sits next to this whole development.

Using this building in the development will help tie it with the rest of the MOA campus next to it. IMO

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:31 pm

Do you all understand that keeping this building is not an option? Yes it's a decent building but the people that own it are the same people that are redeveloping it. There's no way in heck that they would spend all of this money improving the area to keep that structurally insignifigant building around. As it stands now we don't even know for sure what the development will look like.

I know it's always nice to imagine but I think you all are taking it a bit far. File this building next to UP, Medical Arts, WOWT, and Hotel Fontanelle.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:30 pm

D'Shawn, you're being terribly short-sighted, which is really out of character for you.

Having diversity of buildings, old an new, is what makes many urban environments attractive. Any 'urban-minded' individual, as you claim to be, should know that the "tear it all down and start with a clean slate" mentallity doesn't fly.

And for the record, I don't think the old UP building should be torn down.

Regardless of how imminent this building's demise may be, we are simply discussing the issue. The fact that you know this building will be torn down doesn't nullify anyone's opinion.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:28 pm

Streets, as I do agree with you on some level, I don't really see any special reason to save it. If it has a significant historical background, then don't touch it. But it's unused and not a very good looking building. It probably really won't fit in with the overall development which would make it unprofitable unless they changed the building a lot, it probably wouldn't even look the same if the did that. Choose your battles for the important buildings that shouldn't be torn down. It seems like every time a building gets torn down you put up a fit. (on a broader sense)If we didn't tear anything down then we would be stuck with all older builders and suburbia as far as you can see.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 5:32 pm

So you know for sure this building has structural problems?

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:18 pm

I actually think it's a nice building... and it would be a shame to tear it down just to build just a similarly sized or smaller structure in it's place. Let's start being a little more conservation minded.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:42 pm

Conservation minded? Most torn down structures are recycled. This is a way for the developers to make up some extra money. We should be both economic and conservation minded. It's a fine balance, but honestly I don't see what you guys see in this building. It's bland, boring, and has no historical value. Let them tear it down and use the property for what they invisioned it to be.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:47 pm

I guess if our recycling efforts were 100% efficient, that would be saying something.

I think it's a shame that we're going to level the UP building as well, but at least it's for something more substantial. Whatever they build in it's place in this instance will likely be a smaller building.

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:11 pm

Saving the average building is every as important if not more so than saving the "grand Post Offices, train stations etc...". What would Omaha be if we didn't have some people getting cranky every time demolition was suggested. Well, chunks of the old market would be missing. I know what you are thinking but at the time those buildings were not considered important nor historical and it was far from a tourist destination. Heck, we wouldn't have a chunk of Dundee, Joslyn Castle and other historic/older nieghborhoods either.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:06 pm

adam186 wrote: and has no historical value.

There's a certain point in the life of every building at which it is not historic.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:45 pm

adam186 wrote:Streets, as I do agree with you on some level, I don't really see any special reason to save it. If it has a significant historical background, then don't touch it. But it's unused and not a very good looking building. It probably really won't fit in with the overall development which would make it unprofitable unless they changed the building a lot, it probably wouldn't even look the same if the did that. Choose your battles for the important buildings that shouldn't be torn down. It seems like every time a building gets torn down you put up a fit.

Do you not miss Jobbers Canyon? The Old Post Office? Hotel Fontenelle? The Medical Arts Building? The Old WOW Building? The list goes on.

Because you could have said EXACTLY what you just said about any one of those buildings as an excuse to tear them down.

And what kind of historical significance are you looking for? What makes a building important? Is the fact that it's exemplary of it's architectural period and in good condition not enough?

adam186 wrote:If we didn't tear anything down then we would be stuck with all older builders and suburbia as far as you can see.

I don't even know where to begin with this one....

Tell that to cities like New York, Paris, or Chicago. You tear things down when you have to, and as far as I'm concerned, if you can find a parking lot ANYWHERE in urban Omaha, there's no excuse to tear ANYTHING down.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:58 pm

I'm done arguing this thing. I have my opinion and you guys have your opinions. We both think we are right and trying to convince each other otherwise in vain. We both have excellent and valid points. I'm out. Oh, and peace...

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:30 am

Wow, could my previous point be any more vague!

That's what happens when you're in a hurry.

My point was this: Most buildings are considered ugly at some point in their life. It's usually about 50 to 75 years after they were built, when the style of architecture that was popular at the time is no longer popular (during the first half of the twentieth century, the big movement in architecture was to get away from the "ugly" ornateness of victorian et al styles from the 1800s). Eventually though, styles come back around again, and people don't think they're so ugly anymore (see my previous example).

Buildings can become historic in two ways. One is that some great event happens in the building. I.e. someone famous does something infamous, or whatever. the Second way is to let it just sit there and get heck |expletive| old. Like other people have said, the Old Market and Jobber's Canyon weren't seen as being of any historic value from the 50's-80's, henve Jobber's Canyon is gone.

But people inherently are drawn to old things (specifically buildings) and thus buildings generate their own historical significance just be being old.

By the way, I don't find this building attractive at all, but I still think it should remain. A building is more than a thing, it's a gift to future generations.

And in closing, if you vote for me for student body president, you won't only be helping me, you'll be helping yourselves! Go Team!!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:33 am

Well I guess I'll just laugh even harder when they knock this building the |expletive| down.

This isn't the Blackstone.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:27 am

<<<<
as far as I'm concerned, if you can find a parking lot ANYWHERE in urban Omaha, there's no excuse to tear ANYTHING down.
>>>>

AMEN to that. Vote Pedro.

-Big E

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:54 pm

Yes. Let's explore the options. Should we bulldoze it, implode it, explode it, the wrecking ball, or tornado?

This building will not fit with what's planned for the lots. The future buildings will be LONG that take up the length of the block. This current building would impede the new ones. It's not going to be saved. Don't get your hopes up becuase it stands Democrats chance in the Nebraska governors race.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:57 pm

So what you’re saying that building staying up is like Joe Shmo and tearing it down is Dr. tom?

midtown charlie · Post by **midtown charlie** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:56 pm

Finn, well said.

DTO, even though we disagree you still made me chuckle!!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:38 pm

Well said, Finn.

DTO....severe lack of vision here....surprising.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:01 pm

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Well said, Finn.

DTO....severe lack of vision here....surprising.

Finn, you really know how to explain your stuff.

Streets, I don't think you can judge someones vision. But then again, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I actually think keeping the building would be lack of vision, but that's just me.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:22 pm

Kind of related...

Rush Hour Connections
hosted by Destination Midtown and Mutual of Omaha

Tuesday, April 11
Mutual of Omaha

Gather your business cards and join us for refreshments, hors d'oeuvres and networking.

Plus, you can view the exciting Destination Midtown developments and see the newly redesigned Mutual of Omaha Dome.

4 - 6 p.m.

Mutual of Omaha Dome
3300 Mutual of Omaha Plz
Omaha, NE

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:55 am

Delay in getting the blight tag approved.

Lacking the votes to support a plan to designate part of midtown as "blighted and substandard," the City Planning Board delayed a decision until May or June.

Link to the World Herald article.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=2146385

omahastylee459 · Post by **omahastylee459** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:40 am

Two other board members were absent.

"I was hopeful that it would pass today, but I am confident it will pass at the next meeting when we have a full board present," he said.

So can I skip out on work as well? Who are these people!?

I have seen this happen before several times, decisions being made (or not made) while some board members are absent, whether it be the city council or planning board or whatever. How can we expect to get things done in a city when things are constantly getting delayed over and over again because of the "approval" process? This REALLY gets under my skin.