Midtown Crossing

Post by **Coyote** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:39 pm

Omaha World Herald wrote:Matthew Stelly was the only person to speak against the blighted designation. He said it's a way for the city to abuse tax incentives.

"The city gives a carte blanche to developers at the taxpayers' expense," Stelly said.

Stelly, who is currently running for north-central Omaha's District 8 seat in the Legislature, said he instead supports raising taxes to develop the property.

This can't possibly be the Matthew Stelly that was one of the lone black activists at UNO when I was studying Political Science there in the early 80's could it be? District 8 is only 17% black. This has to be some other Matthew Stelly.

Post by **Coyote** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:23 pm

This may help the Mutual of Omaha project:

LR 272CA - Basically removing the term 'blighted' from TIF consideration was advanced today and sent on to the November 2006 ballot for a Constitutional Amendment to amend Article VIII section 12.

Sen. Landis pointed out that Lincoln's Cornhusker Hotel was declared 'blighted' in order to qualify for TIF and renovate it while it was at its highest valuation.

LR 272CA: a constitutional amendment resolution relating to tax increment financing proposing to amend Article VIII, Section 12 to remove the current requirement that property subject to tax increment financing (TIF) be “substandard and blighted”.

The proposal would repeal the current requirement that property in a redevelopment project be “substandard and blighted” as “determined by law” before tax increment financing authority could be exercised and applied to the property in the redevelopment project.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Thu May 04, 2006 7:46 am

The blight tag gets approval from the planning board, 6-0. Now just needs City council approval.

"The area for which the designation is sought is generally bound by Dodge Street and Woolworth Avenue, from Interstate 480 to 33rd Street.

Once the area is labeled as "blighted and substandard," developers with projects costing more than $250,000 qualify for incentives such as tax-increment financing."

Link to the full World Herald article.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=163 ... nd=5858186

Great news for potential midtown development.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:06 pm

GOOD NEWS!!!!

The feasability study is done and they are talking about it in our paper here at work. It's in a pdf so I can't paste it and since it's internal I can't link it. It's not real long so I can type it out later.

It will be a year ago on the 17th that we first heard about this. It was only my second day at Mutual so I remember it real well.

Part of the study I can leave you with is that they are working on more detailed building concepts and construction drawings of what the area will look like.

And I guess it's officially called the "East Campus".

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:38 pm

Nice work DTO, I hope you have no plans of leaving mutual anytime soon, we need your inside info. Thanks for the update!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:07 pm

I don't plan on leaving Mutual but I do have a wandering eye...

If anyone would like a paper copy of this article and the original from last year, let me know.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:41 pm

“east campus” does that mean their will be some more office space for Mutual itself a long with everything else?

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri May 12, 2006 5:42 pm

Not that I know of. Oh wait you're standing right here I could have told you that. ;)

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:12 pm

Sweet, I can't wait to see the inside info DTO.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:30 pm

and it looked like from the "artist rendering" that they will tear down that old hotel.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:35 pm

Uh oh, don't bring that up again.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sun May 14, 2006 4:41 pm

oops

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:16 am

There were surveyors all over the lots yesterday. Looks like things are still going.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:16 pm

The building some of you were wanting to keep on the corner isn't going to stay. I reread the original press story and they talked specifically about that building not staying even though it's in use now. There was no mention of the mortuary though, but in the renderings it is absent.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:22 pm

I think Aaron already has his posters made up.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 2:09 pm

If all the financing is in place they will start tearing down buildings this fall and start construction next spring. Also last week there were more surveyors all over the place.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:21 pm

I was eating Chinese food at House Of Lee right across Farnam from the site, and I was reminded of how much I DON'T want them to tear down that substantial structure.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:00 pm

Lets move on already.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 8:20 pm

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:I was eating Chinese food at House Of Lee right across Farnam from the site, and I was reminded of how much I DON'T want them to tear down that substantial structure.

You've got to be kidding me? First of all its not substantial. Second if they want to and they have the money then by all means.

Linkin5 · Post by **Linkin5** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:17 pm

does anyone have pictures of this "substantial structure?"

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:11 pm

Its that thing in the middle of the picture.

Trust me it really doesn't stand out being in MTO and all.

Linkin5 · Post by **Linkin5** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:35 pm

are.......you.......serious......that building is piece of |expletive|, tear it down.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:50 pm

Gosh...you guys make me feel like such a loner these days.

Linkin5 · Post by **Linkin5** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:30 pm

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Gosh...you guys make me feel like such a loner these days.

Sorry streets, my intent wasn't to isolate anyones opinions. I just really don't like that building, it looks ugly to me.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:45 pm

I think that building could work in the redevelopment with a bit of a makeover. Tear out that dark brown and put some new windows in all the way across. If cost effective, its worth saving. If not, boom.

Regardless, I'm just glad this project sounds like a go either way.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:17 pm

On this, I'm with you Aaron.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:07 pm

Yeah right, Mr. Devil's advocate.

Post by **Brad** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:11 pm

What would be the point in saving it.

1. Its not Historic.

2. It has very little character.

3. It dosen't fit the style of the new development.

4. They would have to build around it.

5. They already have the master plan done without it.

6. It would take a substancial renovation.

Blow it up!

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:28 am

Brad wrote:What would be the point in saving it.

1. Its not Historic.

2. It has very little character.

3. It dosen't fit the style of the new development.

4. They would have to build around it.

5. They already have the master plan done without it.

6. It would take a substancial renovation.

Blow it up!

I don't think it's a very pretty building...but people said those exact same things about Jobber's Canyon, and any other of the countless buildings that were torn down--that we now wish we still had.

Post by **Brad** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:23 am

Jobbers canyon was built at the turn of the century not 1970. I look at the "significant" building you guys are talking about and all I can think is the Jeffereson's

Movin on up to the east side, I got my delux appartment in the sky......

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:15 am

Had Jobber's Canyon been demolished in 1925 and something even more significant built in it's place in 1926, no one would be shedding a tear (at least not me).

-Big E

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:49 am

I'm sure what ever will replace it is will make us just as happy if not more.

OPlaya · Post by **OPlaya** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:25 pm

Oh my that place is hideous. Yes I agree tear it down.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:33 pm

This again. Brad, you're list in right on.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:14 pm

I certainly didn't mean to come across as though I thought this building had some architectural significance. Although I think it looks fine.

My only interest in retaining this building, is in simply in material preservation. I think it is ridiculous to tear down a perfectly usable structure in order to replace it with something which in all likelyhood, will be no larger, or even smaller still.

Indeed, we ARE the throw away nation... I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over this latest waste item.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:25 am

I agree with you on this, too Jeff.

Brad wrote:What would be the point in saving it.

1. Its not Historic.

2. It has very little character.

3. It dosen't fit the style of the new development.

4. They would have to build around it.

5. They already have the master plan done without it.

6. It would take a substancial renovation.

Blow it up!

1. Who are you to decide? The building was built in 1952 and is an excellent example of post-war modern architecture in America. The building is structurally sound.

2. Compared to what? I'd contend that it has phenomenal character.

3. That's backwards. If anything, the NEW development should fit in with the existing neighborhood stylistically. Furthermore, the mixing of architectural styles is a hallmark of diverse, urban neighborhoods in America.

4. Yeah.......so? Again, nature of urban infill.

5. Poor planning. No excuse.

6. What, like all the AWESOME condo rennovations going on in historic buildings downtown? That's what you do with historic buildings....you rennovate and reuse them.

All that said, I'm not losing any sleep over it, either. The building should be saved and incorporated into the project. However, the project is such a great move in the right direction that it somewhat removes the bitter taste of tearing down a significant, structurally sound building.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:36 am

Ha he got you (us) there, makes a good argument.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:48 am

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:1. Who are you to decide? The building was built in 1952 and is an excellent example of post-war modern architecture in America.

And becomes relevant only from a "what not to build" standpoint. ;) That's a period best relegated to the recycle bin. There were plenty of aesthetics from that era worth keeping. Architecture ain't one of 'em.

-Big E

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:11 pm

Big E wrote:
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:1. Who are you to decide? The building was built in 1952 and is an excellent example of post-war modern architecture in America.
And becomes relevant only from a "what not to build" standpoint. ;) That's a period best relegated to the recycle bin. There were plenty of aesthetics from that era worth keeping. Architecture ain't one of 'em.

-Big E

But Big E, people in the 60's and 70's said the same thing about buildings built in the late 1800's-1930's. And now we're wishing they hadn't torn all those gorgeous buildings down. Just because they're "out of style" now doesn't mean that they won't be considered beautiful in a decade or two.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:41 pm

What I don't get is some of you saying they should remodel this building to look like the surrounding area. We're not even sure what it's going to look like. And if you're going to spend that much time and money remodeling you might as well build a new building, which is what's happening.

Also this building has no public uses so I don't get what you are all going to 'miss'.