Tower District - Papillion (84th and 370)

West Omaha, Sarpy and Nebraska metro counties.

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

Post Reply
WBR_Tom
Home Owners Association
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:02 pm
Location: Papillion, Omaha, and Everything in Between

Tower District - Papillion (84th and 370)

Post by WBR_Tom »

Preliminary plat approved by the Papillion City Council last night. Lockwood Development is behind this; it's the northwest corner of 84th & 370, which is currently farm land.
The 110 acres would include multi-family housing, a hotel, an assisted living facility, daycare facility as well as a trail system and a park. There would also be 164,000 square feet of retail, no store larger than 40,000 square feet, as well as 80,000 square feet of office space.
http://www.omaha.com/sarpy/papillion/mi ... 05839.html
User avatar
skinzfan23
City Council
Posts: 9134
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Omaha/Bellevue

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by skinzfan23 »

Image
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by nativeomahan »

As I live and breathe! I started my legal career across the street at the Sarpy County Courthouse, back in 1981. To my knowledge it was the only courthouse in Nebraska sitting across the street from a cornfield.
I retired from my legal career on December 31, 2017, at the Sarpy County Courthouse. It was still the only courthouse in Nebraska sitting across from a cornfield. I never ever thought that progress would come so slow to that busy intersection.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10376
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by iamjacobm »

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/million ... 243b5.html
As a result, they voted to add a non-compete agreement to prevent existing Papillion retailers of a certain size from moving to the new development during its first few years.

Jobeun pushed back against the idea of a non-compete agreement, saying the development would not be pursuing existing retailers anyway.

“I don’t think it’s the place of the council to pick winners and losers. And if you do truly believe in the free-market system, how could you ever agree to a non-compete?” Jobeun said.

The council voted 4-3 in support of the amendment. Existing retailers, however, could go to the council to get approval to move. Troy Florance, James Glover, Gene Jaworski and Lu Ann Kluch voted to support the amendment, and Bob Stubbe, Jason Gaines and Tom Mumgaard voted against it.

Jobeun called the move “incredibly unorthodox.”

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said, and it could cause a “monster problem” for the development.
Interesting decision by the City Council. Has to be protecting Shadow Lake.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by GetUrban »

Those non-compete agreements can really cripple a development. I believe there was a similar agreement of some type like that barring a grocery store and big box home improvement store (such as Lowes) from being allowed to be included in Sorensen Park Plaza. It was intended to protect the earlier development at 72nd & Ames, which included a Home Depot and Bakers grocery store, from having competition from new competing development at Sorensen. At least they were allowed to have a Target, but not a Super Target. Sorensen would be much more successful today if it had a much-needed grocery store. I'm not sure if it was an above-board agreement or some behind-the-scenes maneuvering to secure votes.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
Joe_Sovereign
Library Board
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:57 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Joe_Sovereign »

So a strip mall, a suburban office park, an apartment complex, a assisted living facility and a day care, surrounded by fast food outlets and a gas station. Each and every one surrounded by surface parking.

This is the same old |expletive| as always, but if you propose the completely separate office, retail, and residential areas all at the same time it becomes mixed-use.


Instead how about a street grid with office buildings above retail with an attached parking garage, row houses, residential above retail, a park, a entertainment district, multilevel urban big box store with attached parking. With online shopping being what it is today each one of these projects are starting to feel like the last enclosed shopping mall.
User avatar
TitosBuritoBarn
Planning Board
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by TitosBuritoBarn »

Good move by Papillion. There's enough retail space, used and unused, in this area. There's no need to waste tax dollars on building and maintaining more infrastructure for a development that will simply cannibalize existing developments.
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
omaha79
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1194
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by omaha79 »

I'm ok with the non-compete. I'm also of the mind that Papillion doesn't need another development such as this unless it can stand on its own without cannibalizing every other development.

There are too many struggling retail developments in Papillion already. Shadow Lake has a ton of empty bays including anchor sized spots. There are a number of bays at Midlands Place that have never been filled. Branching out further, you have Southport in La Vista, the new development at the former Wal-Mart, and the old existing Brentwood shopping Center. There's also the Wal-Mart Development on 72nd. Nothing that exists is currently full, and you're adding the new one with the former Wal-Mart area. Even the Gretna Outlet Mall took away from Shadow Lake to an extent, so this is a very real concern.

If this new area doesn't have the non-compete in place, I see a further mass exodus from Shadow Lake effectively starting a death spiral for that development which could negatively impact property values for home owners in that area. Papillion simply cannot support all of this retail (keep in mind there is still the long talked about Pennant Place that may or may not take shape in the future as well).

Papillion hasn't shown the ability to support all of this retail.
User avatar
Garrett
Planning Board
Posts: 3487
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Garrett »

If this were a true mixed use development like what they're doing in La Vista, I would be more for it, but as is it's pretty meh.
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
omaha79
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1194
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by omaha79 »

and, as for the developer talking about the council picking winners and losers, I think it is appropriate. Taxpayers are often asked to indirectly foot the bill on these developments through both infrastructure work and TIF's.

Shadow Lake is only about 13 years old. Yet, it's already in the struggling mall phase of its existence. I'm guessing there may be some public interest in ensuring that the existing developments remain viable. If not, the taxpayers will be on the hook for redeveloping them.

The article says that Papillion is being asked to contribute $2.4 million in infrastructure improvements on this new development. That, again, comes out of the taxpayers coffers.

So, you could end up with taxpayers paying to prop up a dying mall in Shadow Lake along with having paid for infrastructure for this new development and if they cannibalize each other, neither will be what they are supposed to be (and this doesn't even factor in Midlands Place). They want the city to pump money into projects that may not be in the taxpayers best interests, but have no restrictions on anything on their end. It's typical. As always, we are told to socialize the losses and privatize the gains so business comes out ahead while the taxpayer picks up the pieces.

The amount of entitlement by some of these developers is breathtaking. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Trips
Library Board
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:50 pm

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Trips »

Did someone end up buying Shadow Lake in the last few months or did they defaulting on a loan for $100 million or so?
User avatar
U R my Helix
Human Relations
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:54 pm

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by U R my Helix »

Zooming in The apartment portion of this project looks to be 300 units. Have not found the approved plat yet though.

Image
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by RockHarbor »

Mmmm. :) Me likey.
I can get pushed out because I'm "too much" for some. Then, an observer of me comes suddenly swooping in to "fill my shoes." People are always more accepting of the new one, because their feathers aren't truly ruffled by them. (Yawn) I can count on it every time.
ita
County Board
Posts: 4365
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by ita »

It has a name: the Towers. I heard it on Grow Omaha. Here is a listing for the development. According to the rendering, there will be a bunch of 4-5 story "towers". Apparently a portion is already called for:
Image

Image
Louie
County Board
Posts: 3758
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: Dundee

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Louie »

Towers, ha.
bldgengineer2015
Home Owners Association
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by bldgengineer2015 »

Looks like it is actually called the "The Tower District" in reference to the Water Tower that sits on the site.
User avatar
Omaha Cowboy
The Don
Posts: 1013167
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:31 am
Location: West Omaha

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Omaha Cowboy »

bldgengineer2015 wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 1:55 pm Looks like it is actually called the "The Tower District" in reference to the Water Tower that sits on the site.
That makes sense..

This is an impressive looking development overall...

Ciao..LiO...Peace
Go Cowboys!
User avatar
Taco
Human Relations
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Taco »

It's pretty rich praising their walkability when over half of the land is used for surface parking.
Louie
County Board
Posts: 3758
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: Dundee

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Louie »

Taco wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 8:14 am It's pretty rich praising their walkability when over half of the land is used for surface parking.
You can walk forever on those parking lots, though. Maybe that's what they meant.
ita
County Board
Posts: 4365
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by ita »

Louie wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 8:36 am
Taco wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 8:14 am It's pretty rich praising their walkability when over half of the land is used for surface parking.
You can walk forever on those parking lots, though. Maybe that's what they meant.
Hey, hey, hey, they said you will be able to walk between zones, not in them. /s.
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033311
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Brad »

Walkability isn't about removing the car or removing parking. Walkability is about improving the walking experience. While some of you think that removing the car would improve the experience, that's not true for the majority of people. This projects has sidewalks connecting the buildings to the streets and trails, sidewalks and trails connecting the to the different zones, and sidewalks and trails connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods. You should be able to walk building to building without walking through a parking lot (You will still cross driveways and streets). A walkable development won't have sidewalk gaps. This project will also have a lot of landscaping which will also improve the walking experience.

This should be a great development for Papillion.
User avatar
skinzfan23
City Council
Posts: 9134
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Omaha/Bellevue

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by skinzfan23 »

Is the land going to be leveled, I believe that right now it is very hilly on the site.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by GetUrban »

As far as sidewalks being provided for pedestrians, it looks like they have it well-covered for connectivity between the elements. It’s comparable to a typical street grid system from the past, although not a typical grid. It would be interesting to compare the previous coverage vs. non-pervious coverage calculations (paved vs. non-paved) They’ll certainly have to deal with the storm water run-off from the paved areas with detention basins or pervious paving in the parking areas, as required by code or ordinance.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
TitosBuritoBarn
Planning Board
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: St. Louis

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by TitosBuritoBarn »

Brad wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 11:30 am Walkability isn't about removing the car or removing parking. Walkability is about improving the walking experience. While some of you think that removing the car would improve the experience, that's not true for the majority of people. This projects has sidewalks connecting the buildings to the streets and trails, sidewalks and trails connecting the to the different zones, and sidewalks and trails connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods. You should be able to walk building to building without walking through a parking lot (You will still cross driveways and streets). A walkable development won't have sidewalk gaps. This project will also have a lot of landscaping which will also improve the walking experience.

This should be a great development for Papillion.
All very true in defining walkability, but I would argue that the possible level of connectivity and the possible level of appeal are not met here. I say this based on two things:

1). The meandering sidewalks (mostly along 370). I know they look pretty on paper and if you’re walking somewhere you want a visually appealing environment, but without any topographic or structural reason for the curves, they’re just a waste of time. If you’re going someplace, you don’t want to bother with unnecessary extra length during your journey (and you’re probably going to wear a goat path in the grass, cutting the corners).

2. The exposed parking lots. This goes against the visual appeal for walking. No one wants to walk next to what is effectively storage space. Parking is better if enclosed by buildings in a courtyard configuration. It doesn’t have to be covered, but a utilitarian function should not be a large visual component of a transportation mode like walking that thrives on visual appeal. European cities are often thought of as functioning with less parking than American ones. This isn’t as much the case as it is that they hide it better and this is typically done by place it in middle of an enclosed block of buildings.
"Video game violence is not a new problem. Who could forget in the wake of SimCity how children everywhere took up urban planning." - Stephen Colbert
User avatar
Taco
Human Relations
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:34 am

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Taco »

Brad wrote: Tue May 18, 2021 11:30 am Walkability isn't about removing the car or removing parking. Walkability is about improving the walking experience. While some of you think that removing the car would improve the experience, that's not true for the majority of people. This projects has sidewalks connecting the buildings to the streets and trails, sidewalks and trails connecting the to the different zones, and sidewalks and trails connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods. You should be able to walk building to building without walking through a parking lot (You will still cross driveways and streets). A walkable development won't have sidewalk gaps. This project will also have a lot of landscaping which will also improve the walking experience.

This should be a great development for Papillion.
Brad, I agree with you to a point. I like how they at least make efforts to create a pedestrian environment, but I think there is more than just the presence of sidewalks and decorative landscaping. Also, I'm not expecting them to build a manhattan out in Papillion, but I think an aksarben village-level walkability should be the goal. These massive parking lots create excess distance between the residences and the commercial buildings and the ease of parking reduces the impetus to walk a short distance. If they dedicated more surface area to buildings and put the parking into garages the walking distance between places would be a lot shorter, which would also improve walkability. My guess is the majority of the people who live here will still drive to the nearby commercial buildings because that is what this development emphasizes.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32937
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Papillion Commons Mixed-Use Development (84th and 370)

Post by Coyote »


Sprawling mixed-use development launches on longtime Sarpy County farm site
Developer expects value of ‘Tower District Papillion’ to be roughly $300 million


PAPILLION — A sprawling, 120-acre greenspace in the midst of this Sarpy County seat is about to sprout a neighborhood of hundreds of homes, offices, commercial spaces and trails oriented toward the city’s iconic water tower. Dubbed the Tower District Papillion, the new subdivision north of Highway 370 between 84th and 90th Streets is expected to result in roughly $300 million in taxable property valuation, said development team partner Jesse Calabretto.

By the time it’s completely built in about a decade, the district is to include 900 dwellings with designs ranging from luxury estates to market-rate apartments, some above retail storefronts. There will be an assortment of commercial spaces, including office buildings and what Calabretto described as bed-and-breakfast-looking properties occupied by businesses and service providers. “We’re creating a city within a city,” Calabretto said. “We’re real excited. It’s a true mixed-use development catering to all price points and demographics.”

Image

The Tower District is to be developed on about 120 acres north of Highway 370 between 84th and 90th Streets in Sarpy County. (Courtesy of HDR)
User avatar
skinzfan23
City Council
Posts: 9134
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Omaha/Bellevue

Re: Tower District - Papillion (84th and 370)

Post by skinzfan23 »

Glad to see this development, but I don't know about the park space for the tree lighting in the middle, isn't there already Shadow Lake for that?
ChadJK
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Tower District - Papillion (84th and 370)

Post by ChadJK »

skinzfan23 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:50 am Glad to see this development, but I don't know about the park space for the tree lighting in the middle, isn't there already Shadow Lake for that?
I seem to remember one of the concerns of this development was it stealing tenants, customers, and events from Shadow Lake. I wonder how (or if) they resolved those concerns.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32937
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Tower District - Papillion (84th and 370)

Post by Coyote »

Groundbreaking held for new mixed-used development in Papillion



KMTV 3 News Now

A groundbreaking was held for new mixed-use development in Papillion on Tuesday. It's near 84th and Highway 370 leaders want to add more options for all people.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32937
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Tower District - Papillion (84th and 370)

Post by Coyote »

Papillion Now - Groundbreaking Tower District




CityofPapillion

The Trumble Farm has been at the corner of Hwy 370 and 84th for generations. Soon it will be the site of a mixed use development that includes a variety of homes, new businesses, senior living and more. The official groundbreaking for Tower District Papillion was hosted by the Sarpy County Chamber.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: Tower District - Papillion (84th and 370)

Post by nativeomahan »

This development should further help bolster Papillion’s prestige.
Post Reply