Omaha Forums

DTO Luv wrote:

nebport5 wrote:here's a few bullet points from the latest DID meeting...


HDR presentation:

-Move buses off 16th St. to location just north of 480(as seen in downtown master plan)

-parallel parking, no diagonal

I think these are both bad ideas. Say what you want about the buses but I don't think that moving them away from the core of DT is the best idea. Is there some sort of plan for the buses beyond moving them to essentially the middle of nowhere north of 480? I don't see this helping anything transportation, it seems to be more about aesthetics. I went to the 16th St. Master Plan meeting awhile back and most people's complaints about the buses were people riding the buses. Well excuse people for needing public transportation.

The buses on 16th run close to many important places that people now have convenient access to. OPPD, MUD, the courthouse, library, etc. This doesn't seem to be well thought out. You're moving all of that activity away from 16th St. which is one place that needs all the help it can get. I see this coming back and biting us in the |expletive| in the future.

Also, parallel parking on 16th? Do people just want 16th St. to be a failure? There needs to be parking in the area but they could add so more with diagonal. This is just more of what DT already has problems with. Lack of public transportation and misuse of parking. It looks like I gave up hope in this city at the right time though.

I think you're passing judgement on this plan a bit too soon.  I only list a brief thumb nail which Regis Resident expanded upon.  However, you should really listen and see the whole plan in its entirety as each part play off another.  As RR stated, the idea is to remove the move the idle buses from coughing up exhaust, on an already narrow traffic crowded street, all day in an area where we want more pedestrian traffic.  Retaining this approach and adding more parking (diagonal) isn't going to make this area more pedestrian friendly.  HDR also identified certain stretches of 16th street where more parking could be added (such as in front of OPPD and near the fire station) by having a narrower median with center of the street parallel parking.  The relocated hub would only be 3 blocks to the north, where maybe a possible streetcar hub could be as that wouldn't be likely on 16th St.  It would make a lot of senses to have a bus hub and streetcar hub close together.  The 480 location isn't alaways going to be "in the middle of nowhere" and as north downtown continues to develop.

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:I also really don't like the "festival lighting". I think it looks tacky and trashy.

Does the Plaza in KC look tacky?  or the holiday lights in Leahy?  I disagree and thing this could be aesthetically pleasing.  I envision it as an extension of the type of lights under the Orpheum marquee.

Yes. And although the "Holiday Lights" are not "festival lighting", I think they look tacky, too. For the record, I thought the lights in Turner Park at Midtown Crossing looked stunning and were very well done.

Even similar "festival lighting" that I've seen in Paris and elsewhere in France appears tacky to me. It's just my opinion.

All in all (and I'm reserving judgment on the NDT bus transfer center), I think this is an excellent vision for 16th St. I love the large landscaped median. It has the potential to be a beautiful centerpiece for the street, and it will also serve as a great stopping point for pedestrians crossing the street.

I look forward to the release of more detailed renderings, especially for the Orpheum plaza.

DTO Luv wrote:I work much closer to the OM than most big office buildings and there aren't nearly as many people from DT in the OM as you may think. It's kind of out of the way from most buildings (unlike 16th). Even when I've been down there you can walk around and see most spots open except from about noon to 1:30 then it clears out again until the evening.

If 16th St. had even less parking than the OM I doubt you'd be able to attract the same amount of businesses. The OM is the night time center of DT, but in the day it's 16th St. I think limiting parking in that area, even if it is an increase, isn't the best idea since a SC is so far down the road, if at all.

I don't see 16th as a must for a Streetcar line. The streetcar could share 15th Street with Light Rail. Hope springs eternal.  So many cars, so little space. I don't think you can get enough parking on 16th, although diagonal would provide more. I sure make use of the diagonal parking around 15th & Farnam. Maybe the no-fare circulator bus or streetcar shuttling people from nearby parking ramps/lots?

I heard some sad news today... last week when the Urban Design Review Board saw the 16th St. plan but instead of passing the plan they argued about it and basically kicked it back to the drawing board. From what I heard the Planning Department changed their criteria for the design at the last minute (after all the public meetings, stakeholder meetings, HDR work, and presentation to the DID) and didn't stand up for the plan with the UDRB. I guess Rick Cunningham (the new big $$$ Planning Director) sat back and watched while his staff was chewed up at the meeting and didn't say a word.

The design study was funded by a private investor so I'm not sure what is going to happen since the private investor probably isn't interested in paying for another study just because the UDRB doesn't like the plan and the Planning Department changed their criteria after the study was completed.

I should add that the UDRB includes one of the people who oversaw the 16th street plan from the 80's and doesn't want to see it change (still thinks it should be a pedestrian mall). I'm pretty sure that nobody from the UDRB attended any of the meetings about the study/plan when HDR was gathering information and feedback from the public. I heard that they don't want a median, turning lanes, or parallel parking- they want reverse diagonal parking.

RegisResident wrote:I heard some sad news today... last week when the Urban Design Review Board saw the 16th St. plan but instead of passing the plan they argued about it and basically kicked it back to the drawing board. From what I heard the Planning Department changed their criteria for the design at the last minute (after all the public meetings, stakeholder meetings, HDR work, and presentation to the DID) and didn't stand up for the plan with the UDRB. I guess Rick Cunningham (the new big $$$ Planning Director) sat back and watched while his staff was chewed up at the meeting and didn't say a word.

The design study was funded by a private investor so I'm not sure what is going to happen since the private investor probably isn't interested in paying for another study just because the UDRB doesn't like the plan and the Planning Department changed their criteria after the study was completed.

I should add that the UDRB includes one of the people who oversaw the 16th street plan from the 80's and doesn't want to see it change (still thinks it should be a pedestrian mall). I'm pretty sure that nobody from the UDRB attended any of the meetings about the study/plan when HDR was gathering information and feedback from the public. I heard that they don't want a median, turning lanes, or parallel parking- they want reverse diagonal parking.

Sad indeed!  What a waste of private funding.  So some fossil on the UDRB wants status quo?  There's nothing about being hassled for bus change on a wide sidewalk that constitutes a pedestrian mall.  Any word on the exact change in criteria?  I can only imagine the reverse diagonal parking pertains to the potential for streetcars.

Ok, seriously.  Nobody on the UDRB is trying to maintain status quo.  The board also did approve the plan, with conditions, as is typical of City boards.  The construction plans, whenever they start, need to consider more parking, addition of landscaping at or nearer the sidewalk, and removal of the landscaped medians in favor of parking or reconfigured travel lanes.  The 'big deal' block between Orpheum and OPPD was well liked by the board.  And the only criteria that really changed was the possibility or turn lanes.  If you ask an engineer, of course they will say they'd like turn lanes to be an option.  They aren't needed though and that allows other options within the travel zone.

cdub wrote:Ok, seriously.  Nobody on the UDRB is trying to maintain status quo.  The board also did approve the plan, with conditions, as is typical of City boards.  The construction plans, whenever they start, need to consider more parking, addition of landscaping at or nearer the sidewalk, and removal of the landscaped medians in favor of parking or reconfigured travel lanes.  The 'big deal' block between Orpheum and OPPD was well liked by the board.  And the only criteria that really changed was the possibility or turn lanes.  If you ask an engineer, of course they will say they'd like turn lanes to be an option.  They aren't needed though and that allows other options within the travel zone.

So basically what you are saying is that the UDRB approved the design with most of the major design elements removed or changed?

If I remember correctly, the landscaped median was a pretty big part of the design- why get rid of it? The whole idea behind it was to still have trees on 16th St. but to leave enough space on the sidewalk so that businesses could expand onto the sidewalk (ie. sidewalk cafes, outdoor displays, etc.) while still having space for pedestrian traffic to walk by (think about the Old Market sidewalks & restaurants). If the trees are moved from the median to the sidewalk, there is a lot less space for the businesses to be creative with their sidewalk space while still leaving room for pedestrian traffic. If there is additional landscaping between the sidewalk and the parking, it just creates more obstacles for people trying to get to/from their cars. There is also some great historic architecture on 16th St- if the trees are in the median, pedestrians will be able to see the great buildings, if the trees are on the sidewalk, the view of the buildings is obstructed. The turn lanes are a necessity- I think anyone who lives on 16th St. or spends any amount of time here on any day will tell you- without the turn lane the intersections will be a bottleneck (as they are today).

IMHO, the "big deal block" is not between OPPD & the Orpheum (both are already successful and create foot traffic), but the rest of 16th St. where there are empty storefronts and opportunities for new businesses.

The 16th St. study and plan went through an extremely long process that included feedback and input from the public and stakeholders- based on that feedback HDR came up with a plan that will work for the area. What I heard is that UDRB decided to make this process go back to the drawing board even though there were a number of stakeholders at the meeting that were there to support the plan and its approval, in its original form.

If it sounds like I'm frustrated... I am. A lot of people (including myself, and many of the other stakeholders) spent a lot of time giving feedback and attending meetings to help the group of experts get the plan right, the first time. The plan has made the news a number of times and the feedback I always heard was- lets do it.... not lets make a whole bunch of changes and then do it.

RegisResident wrote:

cdub wrote:Ok, seriously.  Nobody on the UDRB is trying to maintain status quo.  The board also did approve the plan, with conditions, as is typical of City boards.  The construction plans, whenever they start, need to consider more parking, addition of landscaping at or nearer the sidewalk, and removal of the landscaped medians in favor of parking or reconfigured travel lanes.  The 'big deal' block between Orpheum and OPPD was well liked by the board.  And the only criteria that really changed was the possibility or turn lanes.  If you ask an engineer, of course they will say they'd like turn lanes to be an option.  They aren't needed though and that allows other options within the travel zone.

So basically what you are saying is that the UDRB approved the design with most of the major design elements removed or changed?

Yeah, seriously?!!! What the heck? The landscaped median is the single most important element of the plan (IMO). And they want to take it out to add more parking??!!!

Is there blood coming out of my ears?

How do they plan on fitting parking spaces, a median and potentially a future streetcar line on 16th and still allow a sidewalk large enough for all these sidewalk cafes that people are talking about? There just doesn't seem to be enough room.

Seems to me the simple solution would be to nix the median, put in diagonal parking and make the street wide enough that it could accommodate any future street car lines. You could probably do that and still leave sufficient sidewalk space.

There was probably public input in the 70s too.  Great project that came out of that.  

A median in an urban setting configured like this one is a poor idea.  Street trees in the curb zone would still allow for enough pedestrian space and outdoor patio space.  At worst you could put about 3 trees per block in nodes and still get some landscaping without bifurcating the streetscape with an element that is more suburban in nature.  

When I said, 'big deal' it was reference to the big wigs not the relative actual importance of the particular block.  Lastly, if a landscaped median was the make or break point on this plan, someone got screwed.

Are you kidding me, cdub?! Medians are suburban now? This isn't a |expletive| highway median. It's on a major urban corridor, and, especially in this context, does wonders for offering pedestrians an eden midway when crossing the street.

The plan, as presented by HDR, with the generous sidewalk space, parallel parking, and the landscaped median, is great the way it is.

I don't think more parking makes or breaks the plan either.  But I'm skeptical of how effective reverse diagonal parking wold be.  People have a hard enough time with parallel or even straight parking.  Parallel parking works in the Old Market because people drive slower on the bricks and there a few stop signs.  Other places its not so great, like backing out on farman along Leahy is dangerous with a-holes wizzing by at 50mph.

I think with parallel parking and a turn lane on 16th there'd be less incidents of stupidity.

StreetsOfOmaha wrote:does wonders for offering pedestrians an eden midway when crossing the street.

Seriously dude?

I definitely agree that reverse diagonal parking is a bad idea, and I hope it is not going to be brought back to the drawing board. This would be the only place in the city that has reverse diagonal and that would cause problems because nobody would know how to use it. For the parking to be successful, it needs to be something that people have seen before and are comfortable doing. I don't agree with front-in diagonal parking for 16th- it only adds a couple of parking spaces for all of 16th St. (I think it was something like 6), and if it takes away the median it definitely isn't worth it.

Cdub... Why hire urban design consultants to develop a great plan if the UDRB is just going to water it down? Anyone could have told you that parking needs to be added to 16th St. but the consultants are the ones who figured out how to integrate parking while making the area aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian friendly. Where was the UDRB when someone turned the Parkfair mall into a parking garage with the entrance on 16th St. and let Brandeis put an entrance to their underground garage on 16th? That just killed a city block and definitely took up 6-8 parking spaces (when parking is finally added to the street).

I'm not a city planner or an urban designer but I recognize that HDR came up with a great plan that the majority of stakeholders supported.

Yes, this median is more suburban that urban.  Providing corner nodes that allow a pedestrian a 24' crossing is fine without cutting it further to 12' each.  How in the world does everyone survive crossing the 60' that exists in most of downtown?

The UDRB was 30 years away from being created when the other 16th St things were done that most now think were a bad idea.  

Back in diagonal works, whether or not people are used to it shouldn't be the criteria for evaluation.  Omaha drivers were also not used to roundabouts and single point interchanges 10 years ago but they work well now in the right places.  

As for hiring HDR, the UDRB didn't do that.  What they did do was the job they were appointed to do.

cdub wrote:Yes, this median is more suburban that urban.

Unless you're going to provide support for why you hold this ridiculous opinion, I'm just going to dismiss it.

cdub wrote:How in the world does everyone survive crossing the 60' that exists in most of downtown?

Haha. Well yes! Exactly!

cdub wrote:As for hiring HDR, the UDRB didn't do that.  What they did do was the job they were appointed to do.

And this just plain doesn't make sense.

cdub wrote:Yes, this median is more suburban that urban.  

How so? I've seen the design a number of times and it didn't look suburban to me- there really isn't enough space for it to look suburban.

Here are a couple examples of other urban medians:

cdub wrote:The UDRB was 30 years away from being created when the other 16th St things were done that most now think were a bad idea.  

That might be true but there is at least one person on the UDRB who was heavily involved in the original 16th St. design- I find it hard to believe that that person would be able to look at the new plan objectively since it would be undoing everything he supported.

cdub wrote: Back in diagonal works, whether or not people are used to it shouldn't be the criteria for evaluation.  Omaha drivers were also not used to roundabouts and single point interchanges 10 years ago but they work well now in the right places.  

I think roundabouts and single point interchanges are a little different than reverse diagonal parking. There are multiple roundabouts and single point interchanges around the city- will there be other parts of the city that will have reverse diagonal parking? Most people are not comfortable backing up- just watch how many people pull into a parallel parking space instead of backing into it.

Just out of curiosity, was pedestrian safety (on the sidewalk) ever discussed for reverse diagonal parking? If someone sucks at backing up (which a lot of people do), things could go very badly, as they did 3 times in a month in downtown Chico (where they have reverse diagonal parking). At least with parallel parking if someone sucks at backing up the worst that will happen is they will bump the car behind them.

Why not just stick to something that people know and are comfortable doing- either parallel or front-in diagonal? There is no need to reinvent parking.

As for hiring HDR, the UDRB didn't do that.  What they did do was the job they were appointed to do.

The person that hired HDR did so with the support of the planning department and the DID. The city didn't have the money to fund the 16th St. study so a private investor did and now that investor's money has basically been wasted because the UDRB didn't like the plan. The plan was supported by the planning dept (who was heavily involved in the creation of the plan) and involved the public and stakeholders... Did any member of the UDRB attend any of the meetings for the 16th St. plan? Also, how much time do you, or any other members of the UDRB spend on 16th?

If you are on the UDRB, I would love to actually speak with you in person. I was hoping to make it to the UDRB meeting when the 16th St. plan was presented, but I got tied up with work.

I could not really find much about 16th street in Omaha. I think this part of the city has great potential from Howard St. to the double tree. What i would love to see is something similar to the 16th Street pedestrian mall in Denver

The 16th Street Mall is a pedestrian and transit mall in Denver, Colorado. The mall, 1.25 miles (2 kilometers) long, runs along 16th Street in downtown Denver, from Wewatta Street (at Union Station) to the intersection of 16th Avenue and Broadway (at Civic Center Station). 16th Street Mall

Built in 1982, the Mall is a tree-lined, pedestrian promenade of red-and-gray granite that runs through the center of Downtown and is lined with outdoor cafes, renovated historic office buildings, sparkling glass-walled skyscrapers, shops, restaurants and retail stores. Numerous fountains and plazas offer a variety of daily special events and entertainers. Free shuttle buses cruise the mile-long Mall seven days a week..

http://www.omaha.com/article/20111022/N ... 6th-street

This week, the city's Urban Design Review Board signed off on plans to slim down 16th Street's overly wide sidewalks, create a plaza in front of the Orpheum Theater, return parking to the street and install decorative pavement, landscaping and street lights.

The city's 2012 budget allocates $800,000 to formalize the design and tentatively earmarks $1.5 million for 2013 to start construction.

They can't get that transit center done soon enough, those bus stops attract way too many shady characters. The reverse angle parking concept is interesting as well, I can't count how many times someone has backed out in front of me on Farnam street. And it's not their fault, they can't freaking see when there's a ginormous SUV parked next to them.

Bugeater wrote:They can't get that transit center done soon enough, those bus stops attract way too many shady characters. The reverse angle parking concept is interesting as well, I can't count how many times someone has backed out in front of me on Farnam street. And it's not their fault, they can't freaking see when there's a ginormous SUV parked next to them.

The new transit center is a big one.  It is kind of funny, they need to move it to improve one area and the new area it moves to will benefit from it.

Omaha_Gabe wrote:What i would love to see is something similar to the 16th Street pedestrian mall in Denver

That's what Omaha designed theirs off of.  However they ended up with something Completely different.  Denver's is alive and vibrant!

Brad wrote:

Omaha_Gabe wrote:What i would love to see is something similar to the 16th Street pedestrian mall in Denver

That's what Omaha designed theirs off of.  However they ended up with something Completely different.  Denver's is alive and vibrant!

Nicollet Mall here in Minneapolis would be another good model to follow.  If you just looked at it, you'd think it was a normal street.  They didn't put a median in the middle or anything like that.  But the only motorized vehicles allowed on it are buses, cabs, and police (of course).  Otherwise, it's a pedestrian/bike corridor that is lined with shops and restaurants and bars and large scale national retail (Macys, Target, etc.)...and office buildings too obviously.  Residential buildings are within close proximity, but not really right on the mall itself for the most part.  






Anyway, you get the idea.  Omaha needs something like this downtown.  Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

One major difference between the two mentioned and Omaha's.

Those two had established department stores when they converted the area to a mall.  Omaha's is going to need a courageous or ambitious(probably both) national anchor to come in and give other retail a reason to join in on the fun.

I am really curious to see how this one plays out.

iamjacobm wrote:One major difference between the two mentioned and Omaha's.

Those two had established department stores when they converted the area to a mall.  Omaha's is going to need a courageous or ambitious(probably both) national anchor to come in and give other retail a reason to join in on the fun.

I am really curious to see how this one plays out.

That's definitely a drawback of 16th street for Omaha vs. Mlps and Denver.  And since the one building that was actually set up to be a major, multi-story, downtown department store, is now condos.....it seems unlikely that anything like the DT Mlps Macy's will materialize in Omaha to be a catalyst for 16th street.

But perhaps there are other ways to go about it.  Commercial developers are a resourceful and creative bunch by nature.  It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

As much as I'd like to see it, I just don't see an major anchor store like Macy's coming downtown.  Not enough population density down there plus it's too spread out.  I guess the biggest retail area is away from 16th in the Old Market, then you have North Downtown with CenturyLink and TD on the opposite end.  If those areas were closer it might be a long shot?

Greg

Retail is coming back to urban areas and it is dying in the suburbs (because that whole arrangement is unsustainable and doesn't have a future). These "resourceful and creative" developers will be looking for a new strategy, or, rather, a "back-to-the-basics of human existence" strategy, to find new markets in urban areas---which are increasingly where people want to be.

I would definitely not rule out a few new "flagship" or "anchor" retailers wanting to enter the Downtown/Midtown market.

I was in downtown Denver recently, and the lights on Larimer Square reminded me of the proposal for lights above 16th street. I know some on here don't like the idea, but I think it would look pretty cool.

http://www.16thstreetproject.com/

A few interesting things on there.

Work on Dodge-Douglas Street was scheduled to start in September.  Anyone know if that is still the plan or has it been delayed?

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:Adding parking creates a pedestrian atmosphere because then the pedestrians have a way to get there without walking a bajillion blocks. Think of all the places you are most likely to find pedestrians walking around...like the Old Market, Village Pointe....all have relatively close parking.

Oak View does have a pedestrian atmosphere, its inside the mall...

Better approach would be better public transit, and less parking.   Portland, OR has far superior city planning than Omaha, and they did it by largely removing the parking space in the downtown area, and other happening places.   Even people with MB600s ride the lightrail or bus to get to downtown.     Park and ride.   Parking is plenty and free in the suburb.  So people leave their cars in the parking lot next to main lightrail or bus stations and go to downtown or other happening places and once get there, they walk.

RegisResident wrote:I think the trick is to make it seem like there is parking directly in front of retailers, even if the majority of parking is a short walk away... if you think about village point, there are a very limited number of spots down the main street and the majority of parking is outside of the main strip. People always drive down the main strip because the close spot might be open but usually end up in the bigger parking lots. I think this will be the same idea once they add parking to 16th- there will be limited parking on 16th but most people will end up on one of the other streets (harney, farnam, douglas, howard) or in one of the surface lots but the retailers will still get the traffic/parking they want. Along with parking the city will have to do some other things to clean up 16th, but at least they are developing a plan.

This is nothing more than a bandaid solution.    You cannot have a cake and eat it at the same time.   More parking spaces mean less development space, and increased real estate prices, which means less tenants being able to move in to create business, which creates the vicious circle of not enough people coming in to the area so businesses do not want to move there.

Plus the bottleneck all these individual cars coming and going will create, which means increased wait time for people both riding and walking.

Hyok Kim wrote:

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:Adding parking creates a pedestrian atmosphere because then the pedestrians have a way to get there without walking a bajillion blocks. Think of all the places you are most likely to find pedestrians walking around...like the Old Market, Village Pointe....all have relatively close parking.

Oak View does have a pedestrian atmosphere, its inside the mall...

Better approach would be better public transit, and less parking.   Portland, OR has far superior city planning than Omaha, and they did it by largely removing the parking space in the downtown area, and other happening places.   Even people with MB600s ride the lightrail or bus to get to downtown.     Park and ride.   Parking is plenty and free in the suburb.  So people leave their cars in the parking lot next to main lightrail or bus stations and go to downtown or other happening places and once get there, they walk.

...I wrote that?

My perspective has changed a lot more than I thought it had.

Or maybe I just wanted to make Streets angry.

Probably the latter one.

mrdwhsr wrote:
I'd be skeptical too considering the quality of service offered by MAT .. but I'm all for more public transit investment - streetcars and light-rail - and obviously there will need to be connections between the new transit and the bus routes.  :)

I am with you there.   MAT is most definitely the worst public transit system I ever tried, and that includes LAX public transit.   Despite what some people may say about LAX public transit, LAX is leagues beyond MAT.   I know, I tried them both.

TitosBuritoBarn wrote: ...I wrote that?

My perspective has changed a lot more than I thought it had.

Me, too.  I used to be a libertarian.

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:The only Kevin on the board is Kevin Merritt - Vice President, Large Property Representative of First National Bank. Here's his e-mail kmerritt@fnni.com  :)

Well, makes sense, all these buildings demolished, so new construction can begin with loans from First National.

Brad wrote:
Just because they work for the city doesn't mean they know how to "do things right".   Omaha is really bad at "This is the way its always been".  Its your job as a progressive young citizen to go to these meetings and inform them that there are better ways of doing things.   That's what happens when you use "The good ol boy" system(example, Suttle hiring a friend that was not even qualified).  Its great that the guy from HDR is in charge of these meetings, as proof with the downtown masterplan, he filters out all the garbage.

You hit the nail right on the head.

DTO Luv wrote:Well there's got to be places for them to eat and drink at first.

Like Costner's 'Field of Dreams', if they build it, they will come to Block 16.   I've seen many from UP walking all the way to Block 16, even though they have a pretty good cafetaria (and those working in UP get 5% discount), and bypass all those new restaurants on Farnam, Douglas, to get food from Block 16.

Having just returned from Portland, I concur that the city has excellent public transportation, and almost zero parking on streets in the CBD.  The streets have lots of pedestrian traffic, because there are lots of restaurants and stores to patronize downtown.  Putting parking on 16th street is precisely the WRONG thing to do.  Par for the course for Omaha, sad to say.