The Clarinda and The Page

[skinzfan23]

I agree with you Brad. I think that both of them can be saved. It is going to take someone that has proper finances and the know-how to get it done.

[iamjacobm]

Tearing down only the Page is a lose lose. It doesn't give mutual what they want and it lessons the historic stock that the preservation crowd want.

[Busguy2010]

I think the balconies on The Page mess with the look since they are just slabs jutting out of the building. I just think it looks off.

Just by looking at it it looks like The Clarinda and The Page were built at the same time and part of the same project, but were built with different income levels in mind. Just my thought.

[jessep28]

I think the balconies on The Page mess with the look since they are just slabs jutting out of the building.  I just think it looks off.

Just by looking at it it looks like The Clarinda and The Page were built at the same time and part of the same project, but were built with different income levels in mind.  Just my thought.

One of the OWH article quoted someone who said that the building is a poor example of the type of architecture.

[windsor]

While it may be poor, its still rare in this city. We have destroyed building after building in this town. I don't care if its not the best example, at least its an example.

[Professor Woland]

While it may be poor, its still rare in this city.  We have destroyed building after building in this town.  I don't care if its not the best example, at least its an example.

There are great examples of homes in this style in the Dundee/Happy Hollow area, they are much better designed and a great deal more attractive. The Clarinda is the architectural equivalent of a clown on velvet or "Disco Duck". While I fully support anyone's right to be as outraged as they want to be about anything they choose, I feel nothing but contempt for the idea that anyone gets to tell a property owner that it can't tear down a building it owns. M of O owns the building, it doesn't belong to the community (whatever one takes that to mean) or the neighborhood or any other entity. If they want to tear the Clarinda down and replace it with surface parking, that's their right. I might try to persuade them to do something else (though in this case a surface lot would be more attractive than that grotesque), but I'd rather die a thousand deaths than think I or anyone else has the right to have armed goons prevent them from doing it. End rant.

[ShawJ]

I'm absolutely clueless when it comes to architecture, but even if it is a bad example of that particular style I still view it as an interesting building with character and history. I'd rather see these types of buildings incorporated with development rather than bulldozed for generic looking structures with prefab brick.

[iamjacobm]

I'm absolutely clueless when it comes to architecture, but even if it is a bad example of that particular style I still view it as an interesting building with character and history. I'd rather see these types of buildings incorporated with development rather than bulldozed for generic looking structures with prefab brick.

Where is that from?

[ShawJ]

I'm absolutely clueless when it comes to architecture, but even if it is a bad example of that particular style I still view it as an interesting building with character and history. I'd rather see these types of buildings incorporated with development rather than bulldozed for generic looking structures with prefab brick.

Where is that from?

It's from the "Save the Clarinda" Facebook page. However, it's just a very conceptual idea of what Mutual envisions for the land.

[iamjacobm]

Ahh, Ok. I do think if there were firm plans announced there wouldn't be as much of a backlash. I just can't support tearing down yet another building in the hopes development comes.

[jessep28]

I'm sure if they could raise the money to move the building, Mutual would let them take it.

[cdub]

While it may be poor, its still rare in this city.  We have destroyed building after building in this town.  I don't care if its not the best example, at least its an example.

There are great examples of homes in this style in the Dundee/Happy Hollow area, they are much better designed and a great deal more attractive. The Clarinda is the architectural equivalent of a clown on velvet or "Disco Duck".  While I fully support anyone's right to be as outraged as they want to be about anything they choose, I feel nothing but contempt for the idea that anyone gets to tell a property owner that it can't tear down a building it owns.  M of O owns the building, it doesn't belong to the community (whatever one takes that to mean) or the neighborhood or any other entity.  If they want to tear the Clarinda down and replace it with surface parking, that's their right.  I might try to persuade them to do something else (though in this case a surface lot would be more attractive than that grotesque), but I'd rather die a thousand deaths than think I or anyone else has the right to have armed goons prevent them from doing it.  End rant.

Keep in mind one meaningful factor. The owner, at one point, allowed (or even asked) that this building be added to the local landmark register. Its a little like volunteering your land into a nature preserve and then trying to get it out when you later decide you need to sell for more money. This is not to say that it absolutely has to be saved at all costs (I'm still torn a bit), but it is definitively not an unwarranted restriction.

[MDWLAW13]

While it may be poor, its still rare in this city.  We have destroyed building after building in this town.  I don't care if its not the best example, at least its an example.

There are great examples of homes in this style in the Dundee/Happy Hollow area, they are much better designed and a great deal more attractive. The Clarinda is the architectural equivalent of a clown on velvet or "Disco Duck".  While I fully support anyone's right to be as outraged as they want to be about anything they choose, I feel nothing but contempt for the idea that anyone gets to tell a property owner that it can't tear down a building it owns.  M of O owns the building, it doesn't belong to the community (whatever one takes that to mean) or the neighborhood or any other entity.  If they want to tear the Clarinda down and replace it with surface parking, that's their right.  I might try to persuade them to do something else (though in this case a surface lot would be more attractive than that grotesque), but I'd rather die a thousand deaths than think I or anyone else has the right to have armed goons prevent them from doing it.  End rant.

I guess you are not a professor of law. States, counties and municipalities all over the country do this under their police power, home rule or Dillon's rule. These rules essentially allow governments to enact laws to protect and enhance their physical environments for the welfare of the citizens. Governments closely regulate property - this is nothing new. If you don't believe me, try building a plywood skyscraper on your lot in Papillion. Also, Mutual does not own the building. They have a purchase agreement with a contingency clause dependent upon landmark status being rescinded. Reading skills, Professor!

[Professor Woland]

While it may be poor, its still rare in this city.  We have destroyed building after building in this town.  I don't care if its not the best example, at least its an example.

There are great examples of homes in this style in the Dundee/Happy Hollow area, they are much better designed and a great deal more attractive. The Clarinda is the architectural equivalent of a clown on velvet or "Disco Duck".  While I fully support anyone's right to be as outraged as they want to be about anything they choose, I feel nothing but contempt for the idea that anyone gets to tell a property owner that it can't tear down a building it owns.  M of O owns the building, it doesn't belong to the community (whatever one takes that to mean) or the neighborhood or any other entity.  If they want to tear the Clarinda down and replace it with surface parking, that's their right.  I might try to persuade them to do something else (though in this case a surface lot would be more attractive than that grotesque), but I'd rather die a thousand deaths than think I or anyone else has the right to have armed goons prevent them from doing it.  End rant.

I guess you are not a professor of law.  States, counties and municipalities all over the country do this under their police power, home rule or Dillon's rule.  These rules essentially allow governments to enact laws to protect and enhance their physical environments for the welfare of the citizens.  Governments closely regulate property - this is nothing new.  If you don't believe me, try building a plywood skyscraper on your lot in Papillion.  Also, Mutual does not own the building.  They have a purchase agreement with a contingency clause dependent upon landmark status being rescinded.  Reading skills, Professor!

You know, I must have missed the part about the purchase agreement, as I understood it they already had title. Mea culpa, not that it changes the substance of my argument. I never claimed to be a professor, the name comes from a Bulgakov novel. While I don't expect you to have read it, when you see a handle like "Professor Woland" on a message board, it's pretty likely that the person posting under it is not actually named "Professor Woland" so before being snarky maybe it would be a good idea to google the name and see what it refers to. You also managed to ascribe an argument to me that I didn't make; at no point did I deny that municipalities had the statutory rights you mentioned, I merely expressed contempt for the idea that they do. I will charitably attribute this to carelessness on your part and not dishonesty. So at the very least you should feel ridiculous about criticizing someone else's reading skills, though the manner in which you did indicates you could certainly be the type of person who would purposely misconstrue someone else's argument to score a point. There is very little point arguing first principles so there isn't much to address in your post.

[Professor Woland]

While it may be poor, its still rare in this city.  We have destroyed building after building in this town.  I don't care if its not the best example, at least its an example.

There are great examples of homes in this style in the Dundee/Happy Hollow area, they are much better designed and a great deal more attractive. The Clarinda is the architectural equivalent of a clown on velvet or "Disco Duck".  While I fully support anyone's right to be as outraged as they want to be about anything they choose, I feel nothing but contempt for the idea that anyone gets to tell a property owner that it can't tear down a building it owns.  M of O owns the building, it doesn't belong to the community (whatever one takes that to mean) or the neighborhood or any other entity.  If they want to tear the Clarinda down and replace it with surface parking, that's their right.  I might try to persuade them to do something else (though in this case a surface lot would be more attractive than that grotesque), but I'd rather die a thousand deaths than think I or anyone else has the right to have armed goons prevent them from doing it.  End rant.

Keep in mind one meaningful factor.  The owner, at one point, allowed (or even asked) that this building be added to the local landmark register.  Its a little like volunteering your land into a nature preserve and then trying to get it out when you later decide you need to sell for more money.  This is not to say that it absolutely has to be saved at all costs (I'm still torn a bit), but it is definitively not an unwarranted restriction.

That's fine, but I still have no sympathy. If someone wants a building preserved a way that would accomplish it without completely screwing future owners would be to establish a trust to hold the building. If the city is so bloody interested it can raise funds and buy and maintain it itself, otherwise, in a just society it can jolly well bug off.

[Linkin5]

Lol, why are you talking like a 19th century Englishman?

[MadMartin8]

Lol, why are you talking like a 19th century Englishman?

I was wondering that too ole Chap.

[Joe_Sovereign]

How cool would it be if they could build a structure that incorporated the old building into a new design like the example posted earlier in the thread. Is there a huge price difference? It seems it might be worth some additional cost to create a truly unique structure blending old with new than building another bland steel and glass low rise that is totally indistinguishable from 10,000 other low rise office buildings in every other city in the world.

It boggles my mind the thinking of the imaginationless drones who bulldoze history because it is a few pennies cheaper than building something nice.

[Professor Woland]

Lol, why are you talking like a 19th century Englishman?

I really don't know. Blimey, I feel like the ludicrous popinjay.

[lisanstan]

It frustrates me that they want to tear down a 100+ year old interesting looking building to put a bland West O office park building and parking garage. No attempt in the rendering posted or the one I saw elsewhere to at least make it not look like a bland cube. I moved this this area of Omaha because I like the interesting architecture.

[GetUrban]

It frustrates me that they want to tear down a 100+ year old interesting looking building to put a bland West O office park building and parking garage. No attempt in the rendering posted or the one I saw elsewhere to at least make it not look like a bland cube. I moved this this area of Omaha because I like the interesting architecture.

I agree that these should be saved and worked-in to compliment whatever else is built, but people need to start demanding new architecture built in Omaha does NOT become the "bland West O" variety. Don't automatically assume anything new has to be bland! Demand better!

[iamjacobm]

http://www.ketv.com/politics/commission ... s/24941020

The Omaha Landmarks Heritage Preservation Commission voted Wednesday to keep the landmark status for the Clarinda/Page Apartments.

The historic Midtown apartment building has stood on the corner of Turner Boulevard and Farnam Street for the last 100 years, but has recently sat partially empty.

Mutual of Omaha wanted the landmark status removed so it could demolish the buildings and build new office space.

The Omaha City Council will have the final say.

[MadMartin8]

So much for development.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

So much for development.

They have plenty of room to work around it. Or if they're really clever, they could integrate it.

[iamjacobm]

Honestly still a decent chance it loses it's landmark status anyways. Obviously The Omaha Landmarks Heritage Preservation Commission is going to lean heavily toward preservation. The city council is another matter all together, Mutual obviously will let them know what plans they have.

[Garrett]

If Mutual announces a good development that they intend on starting more or less immediately if they get the land, I would be all for it.

[SaveOmaha]

The problem is, tI don't believe there is a developer lined up. I'm a self-proclaimed preservationist, but the main problem with "our" side of the argument according to the "other" side is that there is no developer lined up to save the Clarinda. And I do understand that.

[iamjacobm]

The problem is, there is no developer lined up. I have talked to Molly Skold, VP of sales at Midtown a couple times, and she has reiterated to me that Mutual will not be developing the sites. They are clearing land in hopes that someone will come along and develop office space. I'm a self-proclaimed preservationist, but the main problem with "our" side of the argument according to the "other" side is that there is no developer lined up to renovate the Clarinda if in fact it is saved. And I do understand that. The fact that it's a registered landmark in the first place (so that it wouldn't be torn down in this event) is not enough apparently.

Exactly. I am opposed to demolition in the hopes someone develops, I am tired of that. If a developer comes in and says hey here are plans we want to do on that land and they improve the neighborhood then a lot of the opposition will fall away.

[Brad]

Rendering on Leo A Daly's FB Page, shared by the Restore Omaha FB Page:

In response to the idea that “It’ll never work”, designers from our Omaha office recently held a charrette to create a hypothetical solution for integrating the historic Clarinda-Page building into a future mixed-use development. The 5-story office building is 120,000 sq. ft., the 4-story parking garage has 500 stalls, and the retail space is 20,000 sq. ft. What do you think?

[Coyote]

Sweet. I could handle that!

[iamjacobm]

Thank you Leo A Daly!!! This is an incredible vision for the area!

[RNcyanide]

Oh wow that's awesome!!!

[BRoss]

That would be freaking awesome!

[GetUrban]

That rendering is excellent! This should go a long way in communicating to doubters what could be done without the help of a wrecking ball.

I know someone who worked in Omaha Mayor Bernie Simon's office before Conagra decimated Jobber's Canyon, and she said there were renderings that explored how they could have utilized the existing warehouse buildings or integrated them into an urban campus. The renderings didn't do any good in that case....you know the rest of the story. Mike Harper (Conagra CEO) threatened to leave Omaha if he could not get rid of the 19 historic "big ugly red brick buildings".... as he called them, and to build a suburban campus downtown.

[NovakOmaha]

That rendering is excellent! This should go a long way in communicating to doubters what could be done without the help of a wrecking ball.

I know someone who worked in Omaha Mayor Bernie Simon's office before Conagra decimated Jobber's Canyon, and she said there were renderings that explored how they could have utilized the existing warehouse buildings or integrated them into an urban campus. The renderings didn't do any good in that case....you know the rest of the story. Mike Harper (Conagra CEO) threatened to leave Omaha if he could not get rid of the 19 historic "big ugly red brick buildings".... as he called them, and to build a suburban campus downtown.

Late in the game Marty Shukert who was with the planning department did some renderings that would have kept the warehouses and put a tall tube like office building on the east side of the property. The renderings were in the OWH. By that time Harper had already threatened to move to either a lake north of 680 or Knoxville. Shukert's drawings were pretty cool but Harper's mind was made up.

[RNcyanide]

What was up Harper's |expletive|?

[guitarguy]

What was up Harper's |expletive|?

Clearly a couple of Pinecones..

[RNcyanide]

What was up Harper's |expletive|?

Clearly a couple of Pinecones..

Clearly.

It's just a little baffling. If he wanted a suburban campus, why not just move out west? Up a little, it was said that he would go north of 680.

[NovakOmaha]

What was up Harper's |expletive|?

Clearly a couple of Pinecones..

Clearly.

It's just a little baffling. If he wanted a suburban campus, why not just move out west? Up a little, it was said that he would go north of 680.

I think Conagra had already bought land or maybe just optioned it by Lonergan Lake. I don't think he had anything up his |expletive|. The fact is that there was a battery plant on the river where the Heartland of America park is and it was closed and a polluted eyesore. In addition, quite a few of the buildings were either empty or close to it. Others were companies that were outgrowing their space and wanted to move anyway. Remember, downtown wasn't what it is now. It may be sexy to develop a bunch of 100 year old warehouses but these were huge buildings and there wasn't exactly a line of investors waiting to do the job. The only people yelling for saving jobbers canyon were people whose wallets were closed.
You may not like the end product but hundreds of jobs were kept in Omaha and it was a huge investment.

[RNcyanide]

I'm not particularly hurt by the loss of some of the buildings. I remember hearing somewhere that many were trashed on in the inside and had fire damage from vagrants lighting fires inside. What I'm more confused about is why Harper insisted on a suburban style campus in downtown. I mean, either way we kept a great company, lots of jobs, and got a neat park out of it to boot, which I think was cleaned up on ConAgra's dime.

At least we got to keep the Greenhouse, which was part of Jobber's.