The Clarinda and The Page

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:00 pm

How DC is preserving a similarly sized old brick building with new modern construction.

MTC could do something entirely unique for the city and really the region by incorporating a new apartment building into the history of our city. Stop tearing down buildings for progress. It really makes it progress with an asterisk.

MadMartin8 · Post by **MadMartin8** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:00 pm

iamjacobm wrote:How DC is preserving a similarly sized old brick building with new modern construction.

MTC could do something entirely unique for the city and really the region by incorporating a new apartment building into the history of our city. Stop tearing down buildings for progress. It really makes it progress with an asterisk.

That's pretty funky, yet I like it!

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:00 pm

I hope this rumor is false. What a way to p iss off a ton of people for no |expletive| good reason.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:03 am

Should it stay or go? Mutual of Omaha, preservationists disagree on Clarinda-Page building

From the story: (I know a few of us were talking about this at the forum meet)

Demolition of buildings that share a block with the Clarinda-Page, including structures that housed Godfather's Pizza, Little King and Casablanca restaurants, could begin in late spring, he said.

I think that the Clarinda/Page buildings are worth saving. Sure there is some work to be done (what do you expect with buildings over 100 years old) but these buildings are what give Omaha and many other communities the makeup and fabric of the neighborhoods. Sure we could just demolish every building in the area, but do we want it to look like downtown and North Downtown with the many parking lots that sit vacant throughout most of the year. If there was a development that had secured all their financing and was ready to start building near Midtown Crossing, it may be another scenario, but I don't think it should be demolished in "hopes" of securing a development. That would probably mean years of the land sitting vacant.

matthewgoett · Post by **matthewgoett** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:19 am

I say tear it down. I did not forsee the whole midtown crossing happening especially during the mortgage meltdown but it happened. I think that something better is planned, even though I am out of the loop.

riceweb · Post by **riceweb** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:20 am

Garrett wrote:
MDWLAW13 wrote:
Coyote wrote:Quietly not really secretly, we've been already talking about this for a while... the main issue being, what do they plan for the Clarinda?
Midtown Crossing has now acquired the Clarinda and plans to tear it down. It is an Omaha Landmark and so there will be a hearing.
Can they do that? Since they're condos and everything...

Came here to say the same... I can't imagine the Clarinda is going anywhere after all the work that's been done. Now, the neighboring building that's still empty...

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:27 am

riceweb wrote:Came here to say the same... I can't imagine the Clarinda is going anywhere after all the work that's been done. Now, the neighboring building that's still empty...

The article link says Mutual would buy out all of the owners of each unit and the owners are in favor of it.

Omaha_Gabe · Post by **Omaha_Gabe** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:15 am

I am leaning more towards tearing it down. Its a nice looking building but would love to have all that area looking contemporary.

guitarguy · Post by **guitarguy** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:44 am

That DC development would look amazing with the Clarinda as the base! Wow

riceweb · Post by **riceweb** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:14 pm

iamjacobm wrote:
riceweb wrote:Came here to say the same... I can't imagine the Clarinda is going anywhere after all the work that's been done. Now, the neighboring building that's still empty...
The article link says Mutual would buy out all of the owners of each unit and the owners are in favor of it.

I was surprised that there is no HOA and only two units have been sold? Further, not even all the Clarinda units were renovated?

Crazy. Glad I never bought a unit there.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:17 pm

riceweb wrote:
iamjacobm wrote:
riceweb wrote:Came here to say the same... I can't imagine the Clarinda is going anywhere after all the work that's been done. Now, the neighboring building that's still empty...
The article link says Mutual would buy out all of the owners of each unit and the owners are in favor of it.
I was surprised that there is no HOA and only two units have been sold? Further, not even all the Clarinda units were renovated?

Crazy. Glad I never bought a unit there.

It sounds like a low quality developer. If someone with experience renovating historic buildings into brand new apartments got a hold of it, like Urban Village, I bet we would see waiting lists for these properties.

Professor Woland · Post by **Professor Woland** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:22 pm

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this building is ugly. The columns, the southwest corner, the roof: all terrible. There are a number of beautiful old buildings in Omaha, this is not one of them. If they are talking about tearing down the Brandeis or the Broomfield Row House or the Joslyn, I'll complain. Not every building that is slated for demolition is the Fontenelle Hotel or the Old Post Office, and that is certainly the case with the Clarinda and Page. The best thing that could happen would be if the residents were to move out and get all of their stuff out and then lightning hit the building and destroy it so there wouldn't be any gnashing of teeth over the removal of this eyesore.

MDWLAW13 · Post by **MDWLAW13** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:06 pm

Professor Woland wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this building is ugly. The columns, the southwest corner, the roof: all terrible. There are a number of beautiful old buildings in Omaha, this is not one of them. If they are talking about tearing down the Brandeis or the Broomfield Row House or the Joslyn, I'll complain. Not every building that is slated for demolition is the Fontenelle Hotel or the Old Post Office, and that is certainly the case with the Clarinda and Page. The best thing that could happen would be if the residents were to move out and get all of their stuff out and then lightning hit the building and destroy it so there wouldn't be any gnashing of teeth over the removal of this eyesore.

While beauty is subjective, I think you are certainly in the minority. "Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water and stupid men." Richard Nickel

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:11 pm

I wouldn't exactly call this building an eyesore. There are at least a few thousand other buildings around the metro (mostly anything built between 1960-1980) that could be classified as such and should be removed well before this building. I'll admit, I didn't know that The Page was in as sad of shape as it is, but if someone that knew what they were doing restored this building, it could fit in well. I am just so sick of all the modern, square buildings being built that have no character. About the only thing going for them is that they have steel and glass construction.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:13 pm

The building to the south of the Clarinda in this picture.....go ahead and tear it down.

Post by **Brad** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 1:49 pm

Here is a Google Street View Image:

NovakOmaha · Post by **NovakOmaha** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:13 pm

Mutual's track record is pretty clear that they aren't interested in a typical Omaha tear it down & make a surface lot development. Doug Hiner did quite a few rehabs in the 70s & 80s. He was a small investor who did a lot of his own work. My sense is that Mutual has some pretty specific plans for the area. Yes it would be nice to see the Clarinda saved & made part of the development but in the grand scheme of things isn't there a greater good to be had by the wholesale speedy redevelopment of that part of town? Hasn't Mutual proven that they are the exact type of developer Omaha sorely needs? Any other city would give their left AND right nut for a company like Mutual.

mcarch · Post by **mcarch** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:01 pm

iamjacobm wrote:How DC is preserving a similarly sized old brick building with new modern construction.

MTC could do something entirely unique for the city and really the region by incorporating a new apartment building into the history of our city. Stop tearing down buildings for progress. It really makes it progress with an asterisk.

I love that! Omaha isn't smart enough to do something like this. Most of the time they lack imagination. However, lately I've been surprised, but I've yet to see those surprises come to fruition. 1. 10th & Capitol Site & 2. Lanoha Tower (watch, will probably be built at 10 floors, needs to be 30 to at least top over the Union Pacific).

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:04 pm

skinzfan23 wrote:I wouldn't exactly call this building an eyesore. There are at least a few thousand other buildings around the metro (mostly anything built between 1960-1980) that could be classified as such and should be removed well before this building. .

Here's what I'm trying to figure out: In 2050, are we going to regret the demolition of the "historic" 60's-80's architecture? Remember, not too long ago, we held the Victorian/turn-of-the-century architecture to the same regard.

guitarguy · Post by **guitarguy** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:09 pm

Yeah but at least the Victorian architecture is beautiful.. The buildings from the 60-80's will never be easy to look at!

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:29 pm

Plow Romeo's, Godfather's, Little King and the Casablanca Cafe buildings and there is MORE than enough room to build office to meet the demand on that block. It isn't like we have a million SF of pent up demand in Midtown. This just seems like a power play by Mutual to control everything around them to make sure they get to make every decision on the block.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:39 pm

iamjacobm wrote:Plow Romeo's, Godfather's, Little King and the Casablanca Cafe buildings and there is MORE than enough room to build office to meet the demand on that block. It isn't like we have a million SF of pent up demand in Midtown. This just seems like a power play by Mutual to control everything around them to make sure they get to make every decision on the block.

I'm getting the impression that MTC has some pretty aggressive plans for the entire area, not just that block.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Mon Jan 27, 2014 10:11 pm

S33 wrote:
skinzfan23 wrote:I wouldn't exactly call this building an eyesore. There are at least a few thousand other buildings around the metro (mostly anything built between 1960-1980) that could be classified as such and should be removed well before this building. .
Here's what I'm trying to figure out: In 2050, are we going to regret the demolition of the "historic" 60's-80's architecture? Remember, not too long ago, we held the Victorian/turn-of-the-century architecture to the same regard.

The biggest difference is the materials used to build these buildings. If you were to investigate the old saying "they don't build them like they used" I am sure that you would find this is the case. And I know they definitely weren't referring to anything built from the timeframe specified. The turn of the century buildings were built to stand the test of time, and in the case they weren't, they are not here anymore. There is a reason that those buildings are still standing.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:47 am

S33 wrote:
iamjacobm wrote:Plow Romeo's, Godfather's, Little King and the Casablanca Cafe buildings and there is MORE than enough room to build office to meet the demand on that block. It isn't like we have a million SF of pent up demand in Midtown. This just seems like a power play by Mutual to control everything around them to make sure they get to make every decision on the block.
I'm getting the impression that MTC has some pretty aggressive plans for the entire area, not just that block.

That area is huge. Maybe I am underselling the market in Omaha, but if all of their land holdings are redeveloped into the same 8 story scale as MTC is currently it would be probably larger than the original $350 million project that stands today. Maybe Midtown needs another 500K in office space, 500 res units, 2500 parking garage stalls and 100K in retail. B/c that is probably what it would take to fill up their current land holdings.

I am still not sure that we have that kind of market in Midtown, but I am no expert. Mutual for sure has more than enough power to pull off another massive project if they are happy with MTC's stance right now.

I still think they could do everything they want while leaving that sliver of history alone. They would add an unmeasurable amount of character to all of the new modern construction popping up.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:27 pm

guitarguy wrote:That DC development would look amazing with the Clarinda as the base! Wow

I agree totally. New office development would be great at bringing employment back to the city core, but I don't see why it couldn't be done with maintaining those buildings on the corner.

guy4omaha · Post by **guy4omaha** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:38 pm

These things are, as always, so subjective. From the curb, though, I think the Clarinda is really, really cool looking. To me, it just fits that corner and neighborhood perfectly. Would love to see it saved and become part of MofO's overall plans. I wish there were more Clarinda-like buildings in that area to save. One guy's trash is another's treasure, but damn, I don't see how this one is ugly. I have been on the tear the damn thing down side of sentiment in the past. This time I am a preservationist I guess.

Globochem · Post by **Globochem** » Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:27 pm

When I see all of the amateur photographers cramming into the alleyways of the Old Market I'm reminded how little inventory there is of buildings precisely like Clarinda and from that timeframe. The Clarinda will almost certainly be felled and we will be the poorer for it. Mutual (assuming it is even their desire to develop that space) is a goliath, and much like the Med Center, no one will impede their "progress" whatever direction that takes. It would be a tremendous statement and a magnificent benefit to Turner if the Clarinda could be integrated into a new structure as so often happens in cities that take architectural preservation seriously. And don't forget the massive amount of unused acres of parking and demolished, fallow, fenced off lots that could house these newcoming buildings. But first of all, where are the plans? What is to be placed there? No one knows. It is ever bit as likely that the entire area from Turner to 480 could remain undeveloped indefinitely. That would be anything but measurable progress. It is senseless to demolish the building for prospective, undeclared use in any event.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:39 am

I'm just gonna drop this here, because I think a lot of people are forgetting this:
http://omahaalternativesanalysis.org/do ... 20313a.pdf

SaveOmaha · Post by **SaveOmaha** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:55 am

If anyone is interested, a preservationist has started a page called "Save the Clarinda-Page" on Facebook. Pretty interesting situation going on.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 12:45 pm

I'd like to see the preservationists win one for a change against the big boys, if only as a payback for battles lost, such as Jobber's Canyon, etc. Too many gems have been lost over the years. There's no reason, with some creativity, these buildings can't be worked into a new development. Midtown Crossing has been a huge improvement over what was there before, but that was mainly parking lots and mediocre Mutual of Omaha office buildings.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:01 pm

S33 wrote:
skinzfan23 wrote:I wouldn't exactly call this building an eyesore. There are at least a few thousand other buildings around the metro (mostly anything built between 1960-1980) that could be classified as such and should be removed well before this building. .
Here's what I'm trying to figure out: In 2050, are we going to regret the demolition of the "historic" 60's-80's architecture? Remember, not too long ago, we held the Victorian/turn-of-the-century architecture to the same regard.

The answer to your question is a resounding Yes, efforts are being made to save significant mid-20th century architecture! Just read articles appearing in the National Trust for Historic Preservation's publication. I admit there are many not-so-fine examples that should go, but who should decide?...developers alone?

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:06 pm

What would we do about a historic building from the early 20th century ruined by 60's architecture? Like, say ... the AT&T building downtown?

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:15 pm

RNcyanide wrote:What would we do about a historic building from the early 20th century ruined by 60's architecture? Like, say ... the AT&T building downtown?

Depends on who the Architect was....someone famous, keep it. Not so famous, strip it back down to the early 20th century or cover it up with a 2014 master piece!

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:48 am

The Godfathers building was originally a bridal shop. The corner window was a very attractive display.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:27 pm

http://www.omaha.com/article/20140212/M ... 19531/1685

The Omaha Landmarks Heritage Preservation Commission postponed a decision Wednesday on removing the landmark status for the century-old Clarinda-Page apartment complex in midtown Omaha.

There weren't enough members to take a decisive vote on the issue, after one member had to leave, citing a family emergency.

The vote to postpone a decision until March followed two hours of testimony. About 60 people, most opposed to removing the landmark status, attended the public hearing at City Hall.

Professor Woland · Post by **Professor Woland** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:36 pm

iamjacobm wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20140212/M ... 19531/1685

The Omaha Landmarks Heritage Preservation Commission postponed a decision Wednesday on removing the landmark status for the century-old Clarinda-Page apartment complex in midtown Omaha.

There weren't enough members to take a decisive vote on the issue, after one member had to leave, citing a family emergency.

The vote to postpone a decision until March followed two hours of testimony. About 60 people, most opposed to removing the landmark status, attended the public hearing at City Hall.

Ah yes, the architectural equivalents of the "Preserve Traditional Marriage" crowd.

Busguy2010 · Post by **Busguy2010** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:40 pm

Man, I would be really disappointed if the Clarinda got torn down. I don't even think I'd take a high rise over preserving that building.

The Page, however, I think the Clarinda would be better without it.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:51 am

I thought that these (at least the Clarinda) was recently renovated.

cdub · Post by **cdub** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:51 am

Supposedly the rehab was mediocre and maintenance since has been entirely underfunded. Unfortunate that lack of wise ownership is now being cited as a reason to tear down, but thats one of the main points being made by MofO. This thing is probably toast as I don't see this board standing in the way of such a major corporate interest. I'm sure they are working other officials in case there is any question.

Post by **Brad** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:09 am

Its interesting to see people differences between The Clarinda and The Page. To me, I always have and probably always will just think of them as the same building. Other than one half is fixed up and the other half has not been fixed up, I really see no difference in the two.

Granted the The Clarinda has the big columns and The Page does not, but other than that, its the same brick, with the same brick details, in the same patter. Also has the same foundation line, same windows, same everything. I am not sure why you would save one over the other.