Wrecking ball discussion

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

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

User avatar
agibson95
Home Owners Association
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:45 am

Post by agibson95 »

ShawJ wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:
thenewguy wrote: I'm going to see if i can't come up with something that would show Pacific Life, Wall Street Tower, and a hotel on Swanson to go with Woodmen and First National.  I can't wait for it to be like 3 years from now.
You mean something like this?

Image
That would be an interesting looking downtown. You usually don't see the tall buildings separated as much as that. Hope it happens!
What is the yellow building at the bottom left corner? Conagra should purchase that building and make a nice little park area that extends the river front.

Adam
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

agibson95 wrote:What is the yellow building at the bottom left corner? Conagra should purchase that building and make a nice little park area that extends the river front.
Agreed.  They've really been dropping the ball on destroying Omaha's architectural heritage for the last 20 years or so. :roll:

-Big E
Stable genius.
User avatar
thenewguy
County Board
Posts: 3729
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Council Bluffs

Post by thenewguy »

DTO Luv wrote:
thenewguy wrote: I'm going to see if i can't come up with something that would show Pacific Life, Wall Street Tower, and a hotel on Swanson to go with Woodmen and First National.  I can't wait for it to be like 3 years from now.
You mean something like this?

Image
yeah, something like that.  A lot better than my paint version :;):  And in regards to the tall buildings being spread out:  most of it has to do with perspective; it's hard to get the renderings in exactly the place they need to go.  I think that the proposed hotel on Swanson could go to the left a hair (still a good rendering, i just was looking on mapquest and it seems to be a little more to the left--you can kind of see the air conditioning type unit on top of Swanson if you look closely).  Also, from different angles, i don't think it'd look that spread out.  If you were coming down abbot, the skyline would be sweet from there.  Also, one of my favorite points of view is from I-29 heading towards Omaha from the 25th street exit in Council Bluffs.  I'd show a picture of it, but i just can't find one.  Anyway, from that angle, having all those buildings oriented in that way would look really impressive.
Go Cubs Go
Hawkeye
Home Owners Association
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul

Post by Hawkeye »

Very cool rendering.  But in the interest of accuracy, please understand that WSTO is not going to be anywhere near that much taller than the UPHQ.

UPHQ is 319 feet.  WSTO is slated to be between 363 and 373 feet.  That's only about a 40-50 foot difference.  What you show, while very pleasing to the eye (especially for those of us charter members in the Height-Obsessed Club) is significantly more than 40-50 feet difference.  

Anyway, just thought it was worth pointing out....but otherwise, it's neat to imagine what the city COULD look like a decade from now.
User avatar
agibson95
Home Owners Association
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:45 am

Post by agibson95 »

Big E wrote:
agibson95 wrote:What is the yellow building at the bottom left corner? Conagra should purchase that building and make a nice little park area that extends the river front.
Agreed.  They've really been dropping the ball on destroying Omaha's architectural heritage for the last 20 years or so. :roll:

-Big E
I'm not sure that yellow building qualifies as an important part of Omaha's architectural heritage, however I have no idea what that building is. This architectural heritage stuff is standing in the way of progress. If they can tear down the Indian Hills for a parking lot, I have no problem with them tearing down a little yellow building on the riverfront for a park.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

agibson95 wrote:I'm not sure that yellow building qualifies as an important part of Omaha's architectural heritage, however I have no idea what that building is. This architectural heritage stuff is standing in the way of progress. If they can tear down the Indian Hills for a parking lot, I have no problem with them tearing down a little yellow building on the riverfront for a park.
There are so many things wrong with that sentiment I have no idea where to start, but I'll take a stab at it.
agibson95 wrote:I'm not sure that yellow building qualifies as an important part of Omaha's architectural heritage, however I have no idea what that building is.
Hey, don't let ignorance stand in the way of progress (or a bulldozer), either, I suppose.  Let's get the sod truck ready!

What I was alluding to is ConAgra has bulldozed enough of Omaha's past, to the point where people don't even understand why other people get upset about tearing down any buildings downtown.  At least give someone else the opportunity to be the soul-less corporate giant, and do a little research before you doom a building.  (For the record, I have no idea what it is, either, but I'd be willing to look it up before I knocked it down.)

And for another |expletive| park?  Get real.
agibson95 wrote:If they can tear down the Indian Hills for a parking lot, I have no problem with them tearing down a little yellow building on the riverfront for a park.
That's some pretty solid reasoning.  If they can tear down Indian Hills and Jobber's Canyon and the original Woodmen and the Fontenelle Hotel and the Medical Arts building and everything that was on Leahy Mall and every third building downtown and the Old City Hall and Old Post Offic, then I have no problem with them dozing the whole |expletive| Old Market.

-Big E
Stable genius.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

Are you talking about the old power plant right on the river when you talk about the "yellow building"?
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Brad wrote:Are you talking about the old power plant right on the river when you talk about the "yellow building"?
I think so.

And, before we all say "what good is an old power plant?", I'll refer you to none other than Baltimore's Inner Harbor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Plant_Live!
The Power Plant now contains the first ESPN Zone in the country (opened July 11, 1998), a Hard Rock Cafe (opened July 4, 1997), a multi-story Barnes & Noble, a Gold's Gym, and loft offices. It is considered one of the top tourist attractions on the Inner Harbor.
Yet another example of a building that had long ago outlived its effectiveness.

http://www.powerplantlive.com/

FYI, Power Plant Live! is an area across the street from the actual old power plant referenced above in downtown Baltimore - another ugly old red brick building on a river.

-Big E
Stable genius.
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105418
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Post by almighty_tuna »

Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

..

Post by Erik »


You can't have another organization when I have one myself!

http://www.hangfaheyandhistraditionaldestroyingwaysandbeingabigbadbullytoallthesmallcitiesintheareaandsavetheriverfrontpowerplant.org
User avatar
agibson95
Home Owners Association
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:45 am

Post by agibson95 »

Big E wrote:
Brad wrote:
The Power Plant now contains the first ESPN Zone in the country (opened July 11, 1998), a Hard Rock Cafe (opened July 4, 1997), a multi-story Barnes & Noble, a Gold's Gym, and loft offices. It is considered one of the top tourist attractions on the Inner Harbor.
Yet another example of a building that had long ago outlived its effectiveness.

http://www.powerplantlive.com/

FYI, Power Plant Live! is an area across the street from the actual old power plant referenced above in downtown Baltimore - another ugly old red brick building on a river.

-Big E
I would be all for them fixing up the old power plant and making it similar to Baltimore's. I think having nightlife on the river would be great. It just stood out to me as out of place and I thought it would be a good thing if they did something different.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

agibson95 wrote:I would be all for them fixing up the old power plant and making it similar to Baltimore's. I think having nightlife on the river would be great. It just stood out to me as out of place and I thought it would be a good thing if they did something different.
The only thing out of place down there is the ConAgra campus and the Gene Leahy Mall.  Credit our "progressive"-minded city leaders from the 70s and 80s for that. [/:sarcasm:]

-Big E
Stable genius.
Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Post by Erik »

Big E wrote:
agibson95 wrote:I would be all for them fixing up the old power plant and making it similar to Baltimore's. I think having nightlife on the river would be great. It just stood out to me as out of place and I thought it would be a good thing if they did something different.
The only thing out of place down there is the ConAgra campus and the Gene Leahy Mall.  Credit our "progressive"-minded city leaders from the 70s and 80s for that. [/:sarcasm:]

-Big E

The only problem I have with that statement was that we were still recovering from losing another fortune 500 company by the name of (ironically) Enron.

Omaha was hit hard economically and was still recovering from that when Conagra was looking to relocate out of the state which brought the whole city to its knees.

And the worst thing is that, it was something Conagra 'had to do' because as a business it was much more viable at the time to leave the city and do what is best for them as an entity, which was what Enron had to do...

Basically, there was little negotiating, it was either save that portion of Jobbyer's canyon or lose our 2nd fortune 500 company in 3 or 4 years.  Sometimes, you have to give up something to survive, and at that time that is what we had to do.

And you can see the results now, the city and state not only have learned how to prevent losing corporations to other places, but to actually attract them and build here from other places..

Economically, it would have devastated the city and state if we lost them..
Blade1655
Home Owners Association
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:48 pm

Post by Blade1655 »

I am a little young, and don't really remember the "Jobbers Canyon" area.  Was this just a continuation of the Old Market style of historic buildings, and architecture?  I have heard that the area was very rundown at the time of the ConAgra development decision.  I actually think the Heartland of America Park is nice area and it is neat to walk around there on a nice summer night while enjoying dinner and drinks in the nearby Old Market area.  Does it fit the urban scene and development that we all desire?  Not really, but I think it is a nice addition to the area, and a nice destination for events in the summer that attract the suburbanites downtown.  I wish they had more live music, art, and other cultural events in the park throughout the year.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Erik wrote:The only problem I have with that statement was that we were still recovering from losing another fortune 500 company by the name of (ironically) Enron.
Agreed, but is it perhaps possible that the non-progressive mindset prior to losing Enron had more to do with ConAgra's manipulations than we think?  Everyone acts like ConAgra's posturing to leave Omaha began the day Enron left.
Erik wrote:Basically, there was little negotiating, it was either save that portion of Jobbyer's canyon or lose our 2nd fortune 500 company in 3 or 4 years.
Agreed, when you are talking about that specific situation.  The city put itself in that position over the previous 30-40 years. And it's not like there wasn't 10 square blocks of useless land anywhere to the north of downtown for them to build a campus, either.  Harper had a hard-on for wrecking Jobber's Canyon for some reason, and the city's lack of vision (again, not during that single moment in time) allowed it to happen.

Did you know that Omaha offered to GIVE ConAgra the buildings if they renovated them?  Did you know that ConAgra only leases the current land of their campus for $1/year?  Did you know that the buildings that ConAgra are currently in are almost identical in function to what was already there, with a huge portion of the space being underground?
Blade1655 wrote:I am a little young, and don't really remember the "Jobbers Canyon" area.  Was this just a continuation of the Old Market style of historic buildings, and architecture?
Yes, but on a much larger scale.  The Greenhouse and the Old Market Lofts are examples of what was there.  The Old Market was dwarfed by these buildings in height, density and square blocks.
Blade1655 wrote:I have heard that the area was very rundown at the time of the ConAgra development decision.
Yes, but nothing a little investment and creativity wouldn't have fixed.  Again, look at the buildings I mentioned above.  They are perfect examples of what could have been.  It's not like those 100-yr-old monsters were threatening to cave in.

And yes, I agree with what others have said... EVERY building was not practical to save for extended use.  I do think that more than 2 or 3 of the 20+ buildings could have made a go of it, and you're bull shitting yourself if you say otherwise.
Blade1655 wrote:I actually think the Heartland of America Park is nice area and it is neat to walk around there on a nice summer night while enjoying dinner and drinks in the nearby Old Market area.
I don't disagree.
Blade1655 wrote:I wish they had more live music, art, and other cultural events in the park throughout the year.
Yeah, too bad Omaha spent most of post WW2 through the mid-90s knocking its downtown down so that there was nothing else around to support all of that music, art and other cultural events.

So yeah, I'm a broken record on Jobber's Canyon and historical preservation.  Someone has to be.

-Big E
Stable genius.
Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

..

Post by Erik »

If I had it my way, Jobber's Canyon would still be there..

Your right Big E, the previous 30 years is a black eye to the community, at least in my opinion.  I must say that I can't wait to fast-forward another twenty years so that those years are LONG gone!

With that said, Conagra was being pretty tough about getting what they want and because of the previous years (as you correctly stated), we were not only on our hands and knees, but on the bubble as we had nearly destroyed our economy AFTER we had destroyed almost all of our civic pride, reputation and many years of potential while we sat on our hands..

The seventies and eighties were some awefull years in our history, and as much as I hate to think back on those years we cannot forget about that time frame, because if we do, we might repeat it!

Losing a significant portion of Jobber's Canyon was a terrible thing in my opinion, and as you stated was in result of the previous years... But, in the very end, when it comes down to it, we needed Conagra to stay and absolutely had to give them everything they wanted..

The good thing though, was that whole situation led to our current opportunistic style of city-government.. Without the events that occured in the mid-eighties, and the many bad events, we would not see being done to our city what we are currently seeing.  I've never seen such a big turnaround in my life, well okay, I have that was from Clinton to Bush LOL  :P
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

I will give you that losing Jobber's Canyon was a BIG wake-up call, kind of a "HOLY CHRIST WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST HALF-CENTURY?" moment.  

It's still unforgivable that it came to that point, though - on both ConAgra's and Omaha's shoulders.

-Big E
Stable genius.
Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Post by Erik »

Big E wrote:I will give you that losing Jobber's Canyon was a BIG wake-up call, kind of a "HOLY CHRIST WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST HALF-CENTURY?" moment.  

It's still unforgivable that it came to that point, though - on both ConAgra's and Omaha's shoulders.

-Big E

With everything said, it is unforgiveable and that era (even though I only remember the last 6 years of it) is to blame for Jobber's Canyon and (like I said before, ironically) Enron..  It also was to blame for a very slow increase of population during the entire 25 years, an increase that we saw in just 10 years in the 90's..  It was the reason why that we had to re-vitalize.. It was a reason why there was a brain drain during that time span..

Things are way different now, and it is our responsibility to make sure it NEVER happens again..
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Post by CapitalGuy »

Oh, what the heck, it has been a long time since I have jumped in one of these.
Yes, but nothing a little investment and creativity wouldn't have fixed.  Again, look at the buildings I mentioned above.  They are perfect examples of what could have been.  It's not like those 100-yr-old monsters were threatening to cave in.

And yes, I agree with what others have said... EVERY building was not practical to save for extended use.  I do think that more than 2 or 3 of the 20+ buildings could have made a go of it, and you're bull |expletive| yourself if you say otherwise.
There are many problems with this:

1. Who are we kidding, this undertaking was going to take more than a little investment.

2. And about that little investment, who was going to make this hypothetical little investment? Was it going to be Big E, Capital Guy, etc.? Again, this isn't Sim City, you don't click a mouse and the wheels begin to turn. Market forces drive these things.

3. While we were waiting for this "little investment" what were we supposed to with these buildings? Leave these buildings decaying on the city doorstep until somebody invests the money? Let them become homes for homeless and magnets for crime? Allow them to become risks for fire and risk the lives of firefighters fighting them? (And don't give me the BS about how this is completely speculative, because so is your theory that these buildings would become an urban utopita)

4. What would leaving these buildings in place have done to what has occurred in the Old Market? Not all condo buyers want the old factory buildings, some like new construction.
Historic Omaha
Home Owners Association
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:59 pm

Post by Historic Omaha »

There were several historic tax credit projects starting when ConAgra and the city wanted the area demolished.  Not to mention that the entire area was listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

Capital Guy... are you Harper's great grandson?
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Post by CapitalGuy »

Capital Guy... are you Harper's great grandson?
LOL!!!!  :lol:
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

CapitalGuy wrote:There are many problems with this:

1. Who are we kidding, this undertaking was going to take more than a little investment.
Agreed. Finding a "little investment" :roll: is much harder than sitting on your |expletive| and telling people their ideas won't work... constantly.  But, considering the fact that my theory has played out time after time after time after time in almost every urban historic district in the country in the last 20-30 years, I'm claiming the tie-breaker.
CapitalGuy wrote:2. And about that little investment, who was going to make this hypothetical little investment? Was it going to be Big E, Capital Guy, etc.? Again, this isn't Sim City, you don't click a mouse and the wheels begin to turn. Market forces drive these things.
I know some of the individuals that owned property there (or shares of property via LLCs) at the time.  They are just as guilty as the traditional scapegoats.  For whatever reason - greed being the likely suspect - they allowed this to happen as well, preventing other development opportunities from coming into the area.
CapitalGuy wrote:3. While we were waiting for this "little investment" what were we supposed to with these buildings? Leave these buildings decaying on the city doorstep until somebody invests the money? Let them become homes for homeless and magnets for crime? Allow them to become risks for fire and risk the lives of firefighters fighting them? (And don't give me the BS about how this is completely speculative, because so is your theory that these buildings would become an urban utopita)
Again, see my tie-breaker above.  And stop with the straw grasping.  No, you don't sit around (again, see my sitting on your |expletive| theory from above).  You (meaning the city) go out and bring in investment.  

I can see the headlines now:

Fahey Leads group for North Downtown Development"

Mayor Mike Fahey announced bold plans this afternoon: "Yeah, we're pretty much going to sit on our |expletive| and hope that a convention center, baseball stadium, concert venue, entertainment district, streetcar and urban neighborhood fall down from the |expletive| sky and start generating tax revenue.  It's a very progressive thing to do."
CapitalGuy wrote:4. What would leaving these buildings in place have done to what has occurred in the Old Market? Not all condo buyers want the old factory buildings, some like new construction.
Because had Omaha not torn down Jobber's Canyon there would be absolutely nowhere in or near downtown to build new, right?  And an Old Market that's about 10 times the size of the current one would be a horrible thing, right?  Or because a corporate headquarters in a historic district that might actually have some value 50 years from now would be a bad thing, too, I suppose?

-Big E
Stable genius.
DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9678
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by DTO Luv »

I don't know my liver could support 10 more upscale wineries and martini bars! Good thing Conagra was looking out for me.
DTO
User avatar
Linkin5
County Board
Posts: 4535
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:59 pm

Post by Linkin5 »

Don't you ever underestimate your liver again, go take 5 shots for even thinking such a thing.
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Post by CapitalGuy »

I guess if we just wish it, it will happen. Why the heck didn't you tell me this before I spent a bunch of money on grad school. All along you had the answers!

Market forces are real simple. You finally acknowledged the best part of it all. It really wasn't Conagra's choice to tear down JC it was actually the doing of the very same people you would have relied on to renovate these buildings.

By the way did you tie yourself to the Road to Omaha statute in front of Rosenblatt?

Did you handcuff yourself to a bed frame at the old Travel Inn?

Funny how you make yourself the patron saint of historic architecture, unless it doesn't fulfill your agenda. Then of course, it is all in the name of progress.
DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9678
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by DTO Luv »

I wouldn't exactly call the Travel Inn historic unless you take into account the Mass Hobo Knifing of '83.
DTO
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Post by CapitalGuy »

I wouldn't either, but I am also trying to figure out what the criteria are for historic buildings. I just hope PacLife's new HQ isn't built over an old port-a-potty. Big E might just run you down on his bike as he is riding to Patrick's to pick up some fixins' for his all day observance on the site that is believed to be where the Amato's Cantaloupe warehouse once stood.
Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Post by Erik »

CapitalGuy wrote:I wouldn't either, but I am also trying to figure out what the criteria are for historic buildings. I just hope PacLife's new HQ isn't built over an old port-a-potty. Big E might just run you down on his bike as he is riding to Patrick's to pick up some fixins' for his all day observance on the site that is believed to be where the Amato's Cantaloupe warehouse once stood.

LOL, awesome!  :lol:
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Big E, I've never agreed with you more.  Well said on all accounts.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

CapitalGuy wrote:I guess if we just wish it, it will happen.
Nope. But you do have to think it up first.  Then there's the work part.  Most don't bother with Step 1.  Most that do get get stumped by Step 2.

How many business plans have you ever read that somehow, some way didn't start with someone saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if....?"
Market forces are real simple. You finally acknowledged the best part of it all. It really wasn't Conagra's choice to tear down JC it was actually the doing of the very same people you would have relied on to renovate these buildings.
It wasn't their "doing".  There would have been no "doing" had ConAgra not held the city's chestnuts over an open fire.  The owners were certainly a roadblock to progress, though, as they were doing very little to nothing with the buildings.  Ultimately, the difference between the Old Market and Jobber's Canyon was the Mercers had a little vision and patience, and the owners of the JC buildings did not.
By the way did you tie yourself to the Road to Omaha statute in front of Rosenblatt?
No, because there is nothing remotely economically viable about continuing to maintain that venue.  It's the very definition of lipstick on a pig.  Take away the facade added a few years ago, and you have grass and some bleachers that most high schools wouldn't take as a donation.  Want to bring the history downtown?  Bring over as much sod as you can, bring the foul poles, bring the statue.  Outside of that, you're looking at a building about that is not historically significant or long-term economically viable. The same thing can not be said about Jobber's Canyon.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me the economic impact Rosenblatt has had on the surrounding area.  The one downtown isn't even built yet and people are scrambling to develop around it.
Funny how you make yourself the patron saint of historic architecture, unless it doesn't fulfill your agenda. Then of course, it is all in the name of progress.
Agenda?  Not destroying a city's heritage is an "agenda"?  Protecting nearly 2 million square feet of buildings on the National Register is an "agenda"?  

Let's say that WalMart is looking to expand in the area of, say, southwest of 132nd and Dodge.  Some might take an exception to plowing under Boys Town to put in a big box store, no?  Especially when the same store cold be built 8 blocks to the east. (New Costco, anyone?) That's the trade we made with CA and JC.
I am also trying to figure out what the criteria are for historic buildings.
Wow, if Jobber's Canyon doesn't fit a definition of historic, I don't know what would.  You also have to take into account the replacement project.  UP's HQ replacement is certainly nothing to sneeze at, although we all would have liked to see a surface lot be used instead.  The same will probably be said about the Swanson site's eventual development.  I think we can all agree the Holland site was a sacrifice worth making.  Post Office for the DoubleTree?  Not hardly.  Medical Arts for First National Tower? Debatable.  Good Christ... look how much was destroyed by I-480, and the resulting economic separation caused buy that.   History can be left in the past when the future is a huge improvement.  I put Rosenblatt in that category.  Jobber's Canyon is not.

Honestly, I don't mind you disagreeing with me.  Obviously, I'm used to a lot of people not agreeing with me.  But please, take a moment and come up with SOMETHING resembling a thought-out argument... because you've added ZERO to this debate.  Your four initial arguments against saving Jobber's Canyon can basically be summed up by:

1) It would be hard
2) You don't know where to get capital
3) You have no vision for the area
4) You wouldn't like it when it was done

You say that my idea is purely speculative.  Every business endeavor in the history of capitalism has been speculative.  I'll take my chances on that the proper people would have been able to make this one work.  Unfortunately, the right people were not in the right place at the right time.

And for the record, I usually walk to Patrick's.  When was the last time you walked to a grocery store?
Stable genius.
CapitalGuy
Human Relations
Posts: 552
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:32 am
Location: Lincoln, NE

Post by CapitalGuy »

I've added nothing to the argument but pointing out the obvious constraints. I like how ConAgra held us at gunpoint. As best I can recall, they were going to either build DT or out in NW Omaha in the Cunningham Lake area I believe. So they would have stayed in the Omaha area regardless, correct? The fact that the owners of those buildings sold out at the time was very telling. Had they thought the buildings were worth what you thought they were worth, they would have stayed. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the hypotheticals of how Omaha is different if these buildings stay is relevant. Maybe they would have been developed immediately and maybe they wouldn't. Also, I would agree there have been losses along the way that have been questionable at best. The post office would be a really good example. However, this happens everywhere. It is a small price to pay for progress all things considered.

And actually Big E, I walked to the grocery store in the last month. Unlike people downtown, I don't walk to things only within 2 blocks of where I live. Better question for you, is when you last walked to work? Admittedly, I usually bike to school not walk, but I am guessing you do neither.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

CapitalGuy wrote:I've added nothing to the argument but pointing out the obvious constraints.
What one person calls obvious constraints, I call excuses and justifications.  Whatever you call them, there are ways around them in any situation.
CapitalGuy wrote:I like how ConAgra held us at gunpoint. As best I can recall, they were going to either build DT or out in NW Omaha in the Cunningham Lake area I believe. So they would have stayed in the Omaha area regardless, correct? The fact that the owners of those buildings sold out at the time was very telling. Had they thought the buildings were worth what you thought they were worth, they would have stayed.
I think from the beginning I've been pretty clear in stating that ConAgra (more accurately Mike Harper), the property owners and the city (and state) legislators, all deserve some of the blame.  ConAgra certainly bears the brunt of it for pushing through what the final result was, and therefore waves the banner as the bad guy in most discussions.

But you make my entire point for me: "I like how ConAgra held us at gunpoint. As best I can recall, they were going to either build DT or out in NW Omaha in the Cunningham Lake area I believe. So they would have stayed in the Omaha area regardless, correct?"

MY POINT EXACTLY.  Game. Set. Match.

Why in the heck did we have to knock down half a city to keep this company?  THAT has been my entire point forever in this argument, every time I've made this argument.  There was zero need to knock down JC to keep ConAgra.  ZERO.  There was ample space downtown, for that matter.  THAT is why I blame Mike Harper, the legislators and the property owners.  
CapitalGuy wrote:And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the hypotheticals of how Omaha is different if these buildings stay is relevant. Maybe they would have been developed immediately and maybe they wouldn't. Also, I would agree there have been losses along the way that have been questionable at best. The post office would be a really good example. However, this happens everywhere. It is a small price to pay for progress all things considered.
It HAPPENED everywhere.  It stopped happening everywhere else long before Omaha was knocking down JC (and the rest of its history).  This was one of of the most |expletive|-backwards things Omaha has done in its entire history.
CapitalGuy wrote:And actually Big E, I walked to the grocery store in the last month. Unlike people downtown, I don't walk to things only within 2 blocks of where I live.
I walk to the grocery store three times a week.  I walk to restaurants and bars another three times a week.  I walk to the Qwest and Rosenblatt and Holland and Orpheum and Civic time and weather permitting.  That's kind of the whole point of living downtown.  Everything is within two blocks of where you live.  Heck, one can live in NYC and never walk more than four blocks total to get to anything.
CapitalGuy wrote:Better question for you, is when you last walked to work? Admittedly, I usually bike to school not walk, but I am guessing you do neither.
Yeah, I appreciate the irony in how my urban "agenda" contrasts with my 80 mile commute.  I'm still doing a thousand times more to promote urban/downtown living than those that live in the suburbs and point that irony out in every discussion.

-Big E
Stable genius.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

I like how we argue about something that happened 20+ years ago!  Its about as pointless as beating my head in the wall.  I just turned 30 so I was less than 10 at the time Jobbers was torn down.  I barely remembering going to the Carpenter Paper implosion.  Looking at the positive we still have a F500 company, we have a beautiful oasis in an urban concrete jungle, where people can take a walk after dinner in the old market and get away from the office over lunch.  

If you are upset about Jobbers, use that anger towards the future and future destruction, not something you can't change two decades later.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

Brad wrote:If you are upset about Jobbers, use that anger towards the future and future destruction, not something you can't change two decades later.
Of course.  Forgetting the past is a time-honored method of planning for the future.

I do think the thread started out as a pretty reasonable discussion about historical preservation.  I can't help it if people want to hold on to the same tired old arguments.  And I can't help myself when trying to set them straight.

-Big E
Stable genius.
StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

Brad wrote:I like how we argue about something that happened 20+ years ago!  Its about as pointless as beating my head in the wall.  I just turned 30 so I was less than 10 at the time Jobbers was torn down.  I barely remembering going to the Carpenter Paper implosion.  Looking at the positive we still have a F500 company, we have a beautiful oasis in an urban concrete jungle, where people can take a walk after dinner in the old market and get away from the office over lunch.  

If you are upset about Jobbers, use that anger towards the future and future destruction, not something you can't change two decades later.
It's not pointless to talk about the mistakes of the past until there's no more talk of tearing down buildings when there are plenty of vacant/underused lots Downtown.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
User avatar
agibson95
Home Owners Association
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 1:45 am

Post by agibson95 »

Big E wrote:
Brad wrote:If you are upset about Jobbers, use that anger towards the future and future destruction, not something you can't change two decades later.
Of course.  Forgetting the past is a time-honored method of planning for the future.

I do think the thread started out as a pretty reasonable discussion about historical preservation.  I can't help it if people want to hold on to the same tired old arguments.  And I can't help myself when trying to set them straight.

-Big E
I wanted to let you know that I do agree with your on Jobber's Canyon. It was a great piece of Omaha history that should have been developed, not demolished. I remember the CEO of Con Agra issued a statement about tearing down the buildings and it was something like 'They are just a bunch of old brick buildings'. To this day that is the largest group of historic buildings to be torn down at a single time.

My initial statement about the yellow building wasn't meant to start a discussion like this. I was basically stating that without that building you could extend a walk way along the riverfront and maybe add a park or something similar. However, I would be just as happy if they could develop that yellow building into a club or restaurant or museum or whatever. When I see the riverfront I see possibilites. I enjoy walking along the river and taking in the view. I would love having an extended piece of river to walk along. It would be great if it could extend to Bellevue and beyond. It would be even better if there were shops and restaurants and such along the river. Im all about progression, but not necessarily about demolishing our past.

I am bitter about certain things in our history that have been taken away. Peony Park, Indian Hills, Jobber's Canyon, etc. When I made my statement about the yellow building I didnt feel a connection with it. You are right, that shouldnt matter. I shouldnt want to remove a building without knowing its past. It was meant to be a what-if not a 'lets tear down all the old buildings in Omaha because they dont matter.' statement.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8017
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

agibson95 wrote:
Big E wrote:I do think the thread started out as a pretty reasonable discussion about historical preservation.  I can't help it if people want to hold on to the same tired old arguments.  And I can't help myself when trying to set them straight.

-Big E
I wanted to let you know that I do agree with you on Jobber's Canyon... etc
Don't worry.  The first part of my statement above was directed toward you, not the rest of it.

-Big E
Stable genius.
DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9678
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by DTO Luv »

Why is it in Omaha that when we talk about riverfront development it's always greenspace? We have enough "natural" areas Downtown, but remember this is DOWNTOWN not Valley. If we want to have a riverfront model I think we should go more Chicago River than Missouri River 300 years ago.
DTO
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033312
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

Central Park in NYC - f in huge.... Green space is good for about 99% of the world, you must be in the 1%
DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9678
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Post by DTO Luv »

That is HARDLY a fair comparison. I don't see them tearing down riverfront property in NYC to put up a suburban office building (a la Gallup).

Plus in Manhattan green space like that is non existant. Here it seems like putting up parks that close at 9 is some people's answer to Downtown development. I think we could stand to turn some of that greenspace in HOA park and by Gallup into more urban areas and usage.
DTO
Post Reply