Downtown HDR Corporate Headquarters

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:49 pm

I think that one is going to be about 170-180'.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:51 pm

2Adam29 wrote:those mock renderings are nice, but they seem to ignore the tower in the shamrock project thats only a little shorter than the hotel on the opposite end of that block...

I was thinking the same thing....the apt tower is supposed to be 12 stories tall, so it should also help to fill in that gap.

Athomsfere · Post by **Athomsfere** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:28 pm

Maybe we should just start a render thread, lol.

If I had all the specs handy and good renderings I could Earth them all together

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:27 pm

As far as renders there are plenty on the shamrock thread throughout but as far as official heights etc your guess is as good as ours. There are also descent renders on the civic auditorium tetrad thread but again no official numbers other than floor counts.

Athomsfere · Post by **Athomsfere** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:15 am

I was more thinking along the lines of, in rumors we could start a thread for what guesses we have and fill in the skyline of 2020-2025 or whatever we might be getting to get basic representations.

Instead of getting too far off on rendering Lanaho, HDR, Tetrad, Capital, Wallstreet.... here.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:04 pm

Am I the only one who thinks that a 16 level building located in a downtown area hardly constitutes a "tower"?

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Sat Nov 07, 2015 7:30 pm

nativeomahan wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that a 16 level building located in a downtown area hardly constitutes a "tower"?

Are you new here?

PotatoeEatsFish · Post by **PotatoeEatsFish** » Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:03 pm

RNcyanide wrote:
nativeomahan wrote:Am I the only one who thinks that a 16 level building located in a downtown area hardly constitutes a "tower"?
Are you new here?

OutoftheCanyon · Post by **OutoftheCanyon** » Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:01 am

Do we know when HDR will be releasing their plans yet?

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:30 am

OutoftheCanyon wrote:Do we know when HDR will be releasing their plans yet?

It was mentioned last summer that it would be sometime next month.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:17 pm

I think something similar was posted earlier, but idk if it was the same image. This is straight from the document the city has.

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:26 pm

Wow, the tower is going to take up a whole 20-25% of the lot.

MadMartin8 · Post by **MadMartin8** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:01 pm

Preliminary thought: Disappointing.

NEDodger · Post by **NEDodger** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:31 pm

Let's wait to see an actual rendering. The displays of their current work on the first page of this thread showed some fairly skinny towers that still looked good.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:45 pm

skinzfan23 wrote:Wow, the tower is going to take up a whole 20-25% of the lot.

If it took up the whole lot, it would only need to be about 5 stories. With that size footprint, 264' lot width x (264/3) = 23,232 sf/flr x 16 floors = 371,712 gsf which is about the amount of space they said they need.

They probably want those historic buildings to the south gone so they can also control their view. How convenient to be the architect of the Holland expansion too.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:08 pm

Absolutely the smaller the footprint the higher the building. I'm wondering how well they'll dress up the parking facility.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:23 pm

The narrow tower will allow more natural daylight to penetrate deeper into the interior too, which will earn them some LEED points and make it a more pleasant place to work. The lighting will most likely be self-adjusting when sufficient daylight is available, saving electricity.

Midwestern · Post by **Midwestern** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:14 pm

I don't mind the thin tower at all whatsoever, the only thing I question is why they need an entire city block then?

Why does everyone in Omaha's CBD need entire city blocks?

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:49 pm

Midwestern wrote:I don't mind the thin tower at all whatsoever, the only thing I question is why they need an entire city block then?

Why does everyone in Omaha's CBD need entire city blocks?

Thats what I have constantly asked. I don't see that all the time with every other development in other cities. I just feel like every major building downtown anymore takes the entire block. Gavilon is the perfect example. Did they really need a full block?

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:51 pm

skinzfan23 wrote:
Midwestern wrote:I don't mind the thin tower at all whatsoever, the only thing I question is why they need an entire city block then?

Why does everyone in Omaha's CBD need entire city blocks?
Thats what I have constantly asked. I don't see that all the time with every other development in other cities. I just feel like every major building downtown anymore takes the entire block. Gavilon is the perfect example. Did they really need a full block?

In that instance, they did, but they could have done so much more with the space. They left their old digs because everyone on the trading floor was on top of each other.

Midwestern · Post by **Midwestern** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:56 pm

Well I guess we can at least be thankful that this full city-block project is way, way better than the Gavilon one. Taller office tower, more square footage, parking on-site, and ground-level retail (and most likely a very good design) vs. 4 stories of just office space. No contest.

But seriously though, the whole city-block thing needs to end. It cannot be seen as good urban-planning for a CBD?

From looking at other cities' central business districts, it looks like they have way less of this phenomenon.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Sat Nov 21, 2015 8:27 am

Good points. Hopefully the retail space on the Capitol side will also wrap around the corners on 11th & 12th and have a variety of different tenants. It would be great if the parking could be kept more internal to the block with only narrow entry points fronting the streets. Downtown Omaha blocks have lost so much of the variety of different tenants and businesses fronting the streets that it once had.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:23 am

GetUrban wrote:The narrow tower will allow more natural daylight to penetrate deeper into the interior too, which will earn them some LEED points and make it a more pleasant place to work. The lighting will most likely be self-adjusting when sufficient daylight is available, saving electricity.

You know what else lets in more daylight big |expletive| windows like 18 foot tall windows.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:21 pm

Yeah, people seem to forget how big the windows are on some of the historic buildings too. At least 12-16 ft high on some of the storefronts in the old market at street level. The P.E. Eiler building on the south side of Howard has huge windows all the way up. Floor to ceiling glass curtain walls are pretty common nowadays too, as HDR has on their current buildings.

PotatoeEatsFish · Post by **PotatoeEatsFish** » Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:26 am

nativeomahan wrote:I was given to understand that the final design would be settled on by December.
I was also told that the next door neighbor, the Holland Center, has medium term plans to add a third theatre space in the next 4-5 years, plus a parking garage, to the east of their existing structure. Some existing structures would come down for the garage to be built. The theatre space would be designed for Broadway type shows that don't need the Orpheum's massive seating.

Woah, all that has happened so hopefully the renderings will come out too in December!

Joe_Sovereign · Post by **Joe_Sovereign** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 10:57 am

GetUrban wrote:The narrow tower will allow more natural daylight to penetrate deeper into the interior too, which will earn them some LEED points and make it a more pleasant place to work. The lighting will most likely be self-adjusting when sufficient daylight is available, saving electricity.

You know what doesn't allow any sunlight in? Building a 7 story parking garage against the back of your building. Why aren't they putting the 16 story building on top of the 7 story parking garage?

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:34 pm

Joe_Sovereign wrote:
GetUrban wrote:The narrow tower will allow more natural daylight to penetrate deeper into the interior too, which will earn them some LEED points and make it a more pleasant place to work. The lighting will most likely be self-adjusting when sufficient daylight is available, saving electricity.
You know what doesn't allow any sunlight in? Building a 7 story parking garage against the back of your building. Why aren't they putting the 16 story building on top of the 7 story parking garage?

They'll probably locate some of the functions not requiring daylight in the locations abutting the parking garage, such as mechanical/electrical/server rooms, large conference rooms and maybe an auditorium. Or they could provide an atrium or light well between the garage and office tower, similar to how alleys used to be. You just want more height, correct?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:34 pm

The parking facility will be on the north side while the tower will be fronting the southern sky with its largest walls facing the sun.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:40 pm

MTO wrote:The parking facility will be on the north side while the tower will be fronting the southern sky with its largest walls facing the sun.

It used to be that north light was much better for drawing, but not as much of an issue now with everything being drawn on computers.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:44 pm

GetUrban wrote:
MTO wrote:The parking facility will be on the north side while the tower will be fronting the southern sky with its largest walls facing the sun.
It used to be that north light was much better for drawing, but not as much of an issue now with everything being drawn on computers.

That makes sense I grew up in a CAD world would have never thought of that.

Joe_Sovereign · Post by **Joe_Sovereign** » Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:26 pm

GetUrban wrote:
Joe_Sovereign wrote:
GetUrban wrote:The narrow tower will allow more natural daylight to penetrate deeper into the interior too, which will earn them some LEED points and make it a more pleasant place to work. The lighting will most likely be self-adjusting when sufficient daylight is available, saving electricity.
You know what doesn't allow any sunlight in? Building a 7 story parking garage against the back of your building. Why aren't they putting the 16 story building on top of the 7 story parking garage?
They'll probably locate some of the functions not requiring daylight in the locations abutting the parking garage, such as mechanical/electrical/server rooms, large conference rooms and maybe an auditorium. Or they could provide an atrium or light well between the garage and office tower, similar to how alleys used to be. You just want more height, correct?

Height is part of it but I don't like Parking Garages that don't have multiple uses. The garage will have ground level retail, but will it have a green roof or a patio on top?

S33 · Post by **S33** » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:33 pm

Midwestern wrote:I don't mind the thin tower at all whatsoever, the only thing I question is why they need an entire city block then?

Why does everyone in Omaha's CBD need entire city blocks?

I thought the idea was length AND girth? No?

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:34 am

S33 wrote:
Midwestern wrote:I don't mind the thin tower at all whatsoever, the only thing I question is why they need an entire city block then?

Why does everyone in Omaha's CBD need entire city blocks?
I thought the idea was length AND girth? No?

Always worthy considerations...

Post by **Coyote** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:40 am

Omaha City Council OKs amendment key to HDR downtown headquarters plan

Maybe I read the article a little too fast, but did it mention just what this key amendment was?

Linkin5 · Post by **Linkin5** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:01 am

Coyote wrote:Omaha City Council OKs amendment key to HDR downtown headquarters plan

Maybe I read the article a little too fast, but did it mention just what this key amendment was?

No you didn't miss it, that is a lazily written article.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:52 pm

Hard to write about something as vague as what the City Council actually approved. I like how Carpenter said the HDR HQ will blend in well with its surroundings, especially the Holland Expansion. Sure it will, once the adjacent land is wiped clean.

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:31 pm

Blend in well. That's not what I was hoping to hear.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:11 pm

So if we connect a few dots it'll look similar to The Holland. I can understand the modern look but this thing should stand out and stand out even in larger cities.

bmt · Post by **bmt** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:27 pm

RNcyanide wrote:Blend in well. That's not what I was hoping to hear.

So the HDR building will be a scaled up version of the Specht building?

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:07 pm

bmt wrote:
RNcyanide wrote:Blend in well. That's not what I was hoping to hear.
So the HDR building will be a scaled up version of the Specht building?

Specht building? What makes you think that will still be there?