HDR Proposed Downtown Office

Proposed Development Projects that got Minarded.

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

hatwate
Library Board
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:25 pm
Location: Aksarben Village

Re: HDR

Post by hatwate »

I don't know if this is just standard procedure, my misunderstanding of what the time schedule was, or has something to do with HDR, but after completion of moving all that dirt to the vacant block in AV there are now several tractors setting over there ready to seed and sod. I thought someone was ready to build so was surprised seeding or sodding would be done. Thoughts??
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: HDR

Post by MTO »

hatwate wrote:I don't know if this is just standard procedure, my misunderstanding of what the time schedule was, or has something to do with HDR, but after completion of moving all that dirt to the vacant block in AV there are now several tractors setting over there ready to seed and sod. I thought someone was ready to build so was surprised seeding or sodding would be done. Thoughts??
Well they planted grass on the midtown triangle to combat mass wasting so maybe they're doing that here.
15-17, 26, 32
Spatial77
Home Owners Association
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:41 am

Re: HDR

Post by Spatial77 »

geturban-unlogged-in wrote:
MTO wrote:Our downtown is becoming a novelty anymore and I'm beginning to loath AV thankfully it's almost full.
Agreed. If they won't go downtown, I'd prefer to see them go to Mid-Town Crossing, rather than Ak Village. Ak doesn't need any more office density, imo. I hate thinking about all of the potential tenants that have been drawn away from DT, as other's have mentioned.

It seems more likely they'll go somewhere out west though...if they caved to internal employee pressure to steer clear of downtown due to the perceived difficulty commuting to and parking downtown. One thing for sure...HDR won't now be perceived as a cool place to work by young architects and engineers looking for an exciting urban environment to work in. :eyes:
Seems to me that if the objection to commuting downtown was so strong, that the objection to Mid-town Crossing would be equally strong. There would only be 5 minutes, or less difference in commute times between the two. Definitely feel west is where they are heading.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." -- Niels Bohr
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: HDR

Post by S33 »

They are not locating to AV, or MTC, or anywhere in the interior of 680. They're going to scoop up some cheap land out west, enough land for 30 acres of surface lot parking, end of story.

Neither AV or MTC would satisfy their commute and parking demands, at least not what marginal improvement it would have been from getting free land downtown.

Pretty big blow for DT. Marriott, WST, ConAgra, and now HDR.

This also doesn't negate what an absolute pile of sh*t downtown was pre-Hal Daub era, and the subsequent multi-billion dollar investments it's seen since.

When you've had as much going on as Omaha has, for a city this size, you're going to lose every now and again.

I think everyone's expectations for this city are more ambitious than what this city is capable of. Relatively stagnant economic and population growth leaves fewer opportunities than most cities for these types of developments.

It is what it is
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: HDR

Post by MTO »

Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
15-17, 26, 32
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: HDR

Post by S33 »

MTO wrote:Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
I think it'll come eventually, but it seems like there's going to be a cooling off period for growth, unless the city can somehow create an effective campaign to lure more business into town.

Even then, you're engaging into a competition with a host of other cities for this very same thing, as we are seeing this done around the country on a scale not seen before. So, once the city has given everything away, what's the net gain? And how would the legacy corporations react to this favoritism with the new businesses?

Kinda getting off track there, but the point is that the city has come close to exhausting opportunities for substantial, local expansions and headquarter relocations downtown, and it could be another decade before we see another high rise break ground.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: HDR

Post by iamjacobm »

S33 wrote:
MTO wrote:Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
I think it'll come eventually, but it seems like there's going to be a cooling off period for growth, unless the city can somehow create an effective campaign to lure more business into town.

Even then, you're engaging into a competition with a host of other cities for this very same thing, as we are seeing this done around the country on a scale not seen before. So, once the city has given everything away, what's the net gain? And how would the legacy corporations react to this favoritism with the new businesses?

Kinda getting off track there, but the point is that the city has come close to exhausting opportunities for substantial, local expansions and headquarter relocations downtown, and it could be another decade before we see another high rise break ground.
I am still confident Tetrad gets their project vertical. Lots of $$ and connections there.
User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2780
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Boston

Re: HDR

Post by RNcyanide »

iamjacobm wrote:
S33 wrote:
MTO wrote:Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
I think it'll come eventually, but it seems like there's going to be a cooling off period for growth, unless the city can somehow create an effective campaign to lure more business into town.

Even then, you're engaging into a competition with a host of other cities for this very same thing, as we are seeing this done around the country on a scale not seen before. So, once the city has given everything away, what's the net gain? And how would the legacy corporations react to this favoritism with the new businesses?

Kinda getting off track there, but the point is that the city has come close to exhausting opportunities for substantial, local expansions and headquarter relocations downtown, and it could be another decade before we see another high rise break ground.
I am still confident Tetrad gets their project vertical. Lots of $$ and connections there.
I have some confidence in both Tetrad and Lanoha, but more Tetrad.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: HDR

Post by GetUrban »

MTO wrote:Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
I don't feel as bearish as others might. Maybe the answer lies in luring 20-30 small start-ups to downtown, like Hudl used to be, instead of the big fish that have been around for decades. North downtown is a perfect place for that kind of thing, and also infilling the remaining lots that aren't already being hoarded by the big players, if you can still find them. The city could acquire them. If we still had blocks that were still divided up into smaller 24' or 66' wide lots, they could be sold to smaller start-ups. Of course a developer could build a larger building and lease pieces of that too. There is a glut of empty office space working against us too though. But predicting it will be 5 or 10 years before anything else significant happens downtown seems a bit far-fetched, imo.

I think we'll start hearing the internal culture of HDR turned against people wanting to work downtown, more than the city not bending far enough over backwards for them. Before OPA backed out and even after that, HDR really had a pretty sweet deal coming their way including TIF. Why did they give that up? Besides the negative pressure OPA was feeling over their future plans, there wasn't any parking-related issue that couldn't have been overcome. HDR's withdrawal had to be more location/culture related.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
CatfishBlack
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:11 pm

Re: HDR

Post by CatfishBlack »

Just my opinion and maybe it is sour grapes, but to heck with 'em. They could've had an iconic building downtown in the city they were built and they backed out ostensibly because of parking. Makes them sound ridiculous. Someone else will build on that land eventually and HDR will have a building in the middle of nowhere that no one cares about.
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32938
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: HDR

Post by Coyote »

HDR site-selection team hasn't ruled out downtown HQ, says it will make its choice quickly
Cindy Gonzalez - World-Herald staff writer wrote:Previously available sites that HDR considered include midtown Omaha’s Aksarben Village and a stretch of land east of Midtown Crossing that is being assembled and cleared by Mutual of Omaha for future development. Possible sites farther west include undeveloped property at Boys Town.

Newer contenders would include a parking lot in north downtown next to the CenturyLink Center and TD Ameritrade Park, known as Lot B. That lot, operated by the Metropolitan Entertainment and Convention Authority, is being pushed by Mayor Jean Stothert as a downtown alternative.

Ultimately, HDR couldn’t come to sale terms with the owner of the majority of the lot, Omaha Performing Arts, which runs the Holland Center across the street from the lot.
Another hit on OPAS as being the villain to our story... Did the OWH also throw Gottschalk under the bus?
NEDodger
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:19 am

Re: HDR

Post by NEDodger »

That's what I figured it was. They had an apparent sweet deal with the city to pay them a fortune for the three buildings, that got squashed, and so they jacked up the price on HDR for the parking lot. Ridiculous.

Hopefully it goes to phase two of Midtown Crossing or Lot B....
Midwestern
Home Owners Association
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:08 pm

Re: HDR

Post by Midwestern »

Too bad they are on such a quick timeline, because 10th & Farnam on the old ConAgra land would be a great location for them.

What about the 13th & Howard Chamber of Commerce parking lot? Too small of a lot?

Or how about the 10th & Dodge lot that was originally supposed to be part of the Shamrock development? Great visibility, close to all kinds of hotels for visitors.

Maybe team up with Lanoha on the old UP lot?

I guess Lot B would be preferable to a West O location, but that's definitely not my preferred selection.
User avatar
BRoss
IT Director
Posts: 10002763
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: West Central Omaha

Re: HDR

Post by BRoss »

Is it not possible to do a short-term extension on their current lease so they can have a little more time to get this right? I get that it would likely be more expensive, but at least they wouldn't have to rush this.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: HDR

Post by iamjacobm »

HR Paperstacks wrote:Is it not possible to do a short-term extension on their current lease so they can have a little more time to get this right? I get that it would likely be more expensive, but at least they wouldn't have to rush this.
Depends what their lease says. Anything is possible, but the owner/property manager probably wants a hard date for them to leave b/c they need to start marketing the property at the very least a year out.
stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Re: HDR

Post by stabone99 »

HR Paperstacks wrote:Is it not possible to do a short-term extension on their current lease so they can have a little more time to get this right? I get that it would likely be more expensive, but at least they wouldn't have to rush this.
It is possible and will likely happen. There's just no way that HDR can select a location and still hit the desired timeline.
stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Re: HDR

Post by stabone99 »

GetUrban wrote:
MTO wrote:Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
I don't feel as bearish as others might. Maybe the answer lies in luring 20-30 small start-ups to downtown, like Hudl used to be, instead of the big fish that have been around for decades. North downtown is a perfect place for that kind of thing, and also infilling the remaining lots that aren't already being hoarded by the big players, if you can still find them. The city could acquire them. If we still had blocks that were still divided up into smaller 24' or 66' wide lots, they could be sold to smaller start-ups. Of course a developer could build a larger building and lease pieces of that too. There is a glut of empty office space working against us too though. But predicting it will be 5 or 10 years before anything else significant happens downtown seems a bit far-fetched, imo.

I think we'll start hearing the internal culture of HDR turned against people wanting to work downtown, more than the city not bending far enough over backwards for them. Before OPA backed out and even after that, HDR really had a pretty sweet deal coming their way including TIF. Why did they give that up? Besides the negative pressure OPA was feeling over their future plans, there wasn't any parking-related issue that couldn't have been overcome. HDR's withdrawal had to be more location/culture related.
While I do know that a large % of the employees didn't want to be downtown, I don't believe that played into the decision. I think it's the most obvious answer, that OPA raised their price substantially in addition to the need for additional parking which further increased costs for that site.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10377
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: HDR

Post by iamjacobm »

My biggest knock about them going by Boys Town is the lack of TIF for them. Unless the city "blights" the West Dodge Corridor right near Linden Estates they will probably have to miss out on ~$20 million in subsidies. For that reason alone I think A/V, MTC or Lot B get a leg up.

That being said the city did blight Old Mill for TDA so that possibility is out there for HDR, not sure HDR wants to take on another messy public campaign like that though...
Ben
Human Relations
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Westside

Re: HDR

Post by Ben »

Midwestern wrote: I guess Lot B would be preferable to a West O location, but that's definitely not my preferred selection.
I'm sorry, I might be in the minority, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I would be 100% disappointed if the city did something rash and "gave" them lot B, as a way to keep them moving downtown.

ALL of the studies that have been done around downtown/North Downtown development say that Lot B needs to be mixed use, or along the line of entertainment, to fit in with the "Entertainment District" concept. A large office building would stick out like a sore thumb in this area, and would do more to hinder the overall development of North Downtown than help it.

Lot B done right is key to North Downtown. The city only gets 1 shot at this, please don't screw it up, the entire neighborhood is dependent on it.
User avatar
Garrett
Planning Board
Posts: 3487
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Re: HDR

Post by Garrett »

Ben wrote:
Midwestern wrote: I guess Lot B would be preferable to a West O location, but that's definitely not my preferred selection.
I'm sorry, I might be in the minority, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I would be 100% disappointed if the city did something rash and "gave" them lot B, as a way to keep them moving downtown.

ALL of the studies that have been done around downtown/North Downtown development say that Lot B needs to be mixed use, or along the line of entertainment, to fit in with the "Entertainment District" concept. A large office building would stick out like a sore thumb in this area, and would do more to hinder the overall development of North Downtown than help it.

Lot B done right is key to North Downtown. The city only gets 1 shot at this, please don't screw it up, the entire neighborhood is dependent on it.
Agreed. If they can be part of a successful mixed use development, I'm all for it. But if they just build an office building, even if it has ground floor retail, you can basically kiss development in the area goodbye
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
MadMartin8
Planning Board
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

Re: HDR

Post by MadMartin8 »

Ben wrote:
Midwestern wrote: I guess Lot B would be preferable to a West O location, but that's definitely not my preferred selection.
I'm sorry, I might be in the minority, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I would be 100% disappointed if the city did something rash and "gave" them lot B, as a way to keep them moving downtown.

ALL of the studies that have been done around downtown/North Downtown development say that Lot B needs to be mixed use, or along the line of entertainment, to fit in with the "Entertainment District" concept. A large office building would stick out like a sore thumb in this area, and would do more to hinder the overall development of North Downtown than help it.

Lot B done right is key to North Downtown. The city only gets 1 shot at this, please don't screw it up, the entire neighborhood is dependent on it.
Thank you! I agree completely!
No posts exist for this topic
Guest

Re: HDR

Post by Guest »

I work at Boys Town and we received a company wide email this evening that we have sold our farm west property (144th and dodge) and that a land use study determined that the property is not crucial for future expansion (duh..). The email also stated to look towards Omaha.com tomorrow for details about the sale and future plans.

To me this is a no brainier that HDR is pouncing at the boys town location... Barf..

:grr:
User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2780
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Boston

Re: HDR

Post by RNcyanide »

Someone beat me with the article. Oops.
Last edited by RNcyanide on Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride
User avatar
skinzfan23
City Council
Posts: 9136
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Omaha/Bellevue

Re: HDR

Post by skinzfan23 »

Hate this location for them. Going to be a suburban office park similar to what they currently have. Way to stand out from the rest HDR.
User avatar
Garrett
Planning Board
Posts: 3487
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Re: HDR

Post by Garrett »

You never know. It sounds more like a move by First Data to me.
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
User avatar
skinzfan23
City Council
Posts: 9136
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Omaha/Bellevue

Re: HDR

Post by skinzfan23 »

Garrett wrote:You never know. It sounds more like a move by First Data to me.
That would be ok. As mentioned in another thread, maybe they will move their HQ's here.
MadMartin8
Planning Board
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:48 pm
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

Re: HDR

Post by MadMartin8 »

skinzfan23 wrote:
Garrett wrote:You never know. It sounds more like a move by First Data to me.
That would be ok. As mentioned in another thread, maybe they will move their HQ's here.
Not happening.
No posts exist for this topic
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: HDR

Post by S33 »

stabone99 wrote:
GetUrban wrote:
MTO wrote:Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
I don't feel as bearish as others might. Maybe the answer lies in luring 20-30 small start-ups to downtown, like Hudl used to be, instead of the big fish that have been around for decades. North downtown is a perfect place for that kind of thing, and also infilling the remaining lots that aren't already being hoarded by the big players, if you can still find them. The city could acquire them. If we still had blocks that were still divided up into smaller 24' or 66' wide lots, they could be sold to smaller start-ups. Of course a developer could build a larger building and lease pieces of that too. There is a glut of empty office space working against us too though. But predicting it will be 5 or 10 years before anything else significant happens downtown seems a bit far-fetched, imo.

I think we'll start hearing the internal culture of HDR turned against people wanting to work downtown, more than the city not bending far enough over backwards for them. Before OPA backed out and even after that, HDR really had a pretty sweet deal coming their way including TIF. Why did they give that up? Besides the negative pressure OPA was feeling over their future plans, there wasn't any parking-related issue that couldn't have been overcome. HDR's withdrawal had to be more location/culture related.
While I do know that a large % of the employees didn't want to be downtown, I don't believe that played into the decision. I think it's the most obvious answer, that OPA raised their price substantially in addition to the need for additional parking which further increased costs for that site.
if a large percentage of my employees were concerned with increased commenting times,
It would absolutely be a motivating factor for me to locate the new headquarters to a more desirable location for my employees.

I wouldn't underestimate that as one of their primary factors they considered.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
MTO
City Council
Posts: 7806
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: HDR

Post by MTO »

If any of my employees were that stressed over a longer commute than they can find another job. I don't want pussies working for me because that's life in the big city.
15-17, 26, 32
stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Re: HDR

Post by stabone99 »

S33 wrote:
stabone99 wrote:
GetUrban wrote:
MTO wrote:Ok (and I'm not harping on you in particular) what the heck can we, the city or anyone do? This isn't rhetorical I'm seriously curious how do we get business downtown without mass transit but how do we get mass transit without business? I just don't see what's a solution would look like.
I don't feel as bearish as others might. Maybe the answer lies in luring 20-30 small start-ups to downtown, like Hudl used to be, instead of the big fish that have been around for decades. North downtown is a perfect place for that kind of thing, and also infilling the remaining lots that aren't already being hoarded by the big players, if you can still find them. The city could acquire them. If we still had blocks that were still divided up into smaller 24' or 66' wide lots, they could be sold to smaller start-ups. Of course a developer could build a larger building and lease pieces of that too. There is a glut of empty office space working against us too though. But predicting it will be 5 or 10 years before anything else significant happens downtown seems a bit far-fetched, imo.

I think we'll start hearing the internal culture of HDR turned against people wanting to work downtown, more than the city not bending far enough over backwards for them. Before OPA backed out and even after that, HDR really had a pretty sweet deal coming their way including TIF. Why did they give that up? Besides the negative pressure OPA was feeling over their future plans, there wasn't any parking-related issue that couldn't have been overcome. HDR's withdrawal had to be more location/culture related.
While I do know that a large % of the employees didn't want to be downtown, I don't believe that played into the decision. I think it's the most obvious answer, that OPA raised their price substantially in addition to the need for additional parking which further increased costs for that site.
if a large percentage of my employees were concerned with increased commenting times,
It would absolutely be a motivating factor for me to locate the new headquarters to a more desirable location for my employees.

I wouldn't underestimate that as one of their primary factors they considered.
The thing is, a lot of people have not only their commute time through Dodge traffic but then they have to wait for shuttles each way which adds about 10+min every day. The timing isn't going to substantially change going downtown. In fact, it's very comparable to the current location, Midtown Crossing, and Aksarben and in some cases, maybe even shorter. With that being said, I still don't believe it significantly impacted their decision while I do believe the parking was a bigger concern, for the reasons I've listed, than the public thinks.
Ben
Human Relations
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Westside

Re: HDR

Post by Ben »

Informed sources say Aksarben... Nothing signed yet, but in final negotiations now. No indications as to what parcel of land.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: HDR

Post by GetUrban »

Ben wrote:Informed sources say Aksarben... Nothing signed yet, but in final negotiations now. No indications as to what parcel of land.
If that turns out to be true, the access and lack of parking issues that apparently soured the downtown deal will pail in comparison to gridlock caused by adding another 1000 cars daily to AK. I do like AK village though, don't get me wrong. $ is factor in their decision too of course. Blaming the abandonment of the chosen downtown site on parking and traffic concerns will seem like a lame excuse.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
PotatoeEatsFish
Human Relations
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:59 pm

Re: HDR

Post by PotatoeEatsFish »

Ben wrote:Informed sources say Aksarben... Nothing signed yet, but in final negotiations now. No indications as to what parcel of land.
Image
Goodbye skyscraper :x
#SaveTheUglyGrainSilos2024
daveoma
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: HDR

Post by daveoma »

GetUrban wrote:
Ben wrote:Informed sources say Aksarben... Nothing signed yet, but in final negotiations now. No indications as to what parcel of land.
If that turns out to be true, the access and lack of parking issues that apparently soured the downtown deal will pail in comparison to gridlock caused by adding another 1000 cars daily to AK. I do like AK village though, don't get me wrong. $ is factor in their decision too of course. Blaming the abandonment of the chosen downtown site on parking and traffic concerns will seem like a lame excuse.
All the more reason to accelerate mass transit expansion.
guest2016
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 8:04 am

Re: HDR

Post by guest2016 »

daveoma wrote:
GetUrban wrote:
Ben wrote:Informed sources say Aksarben... Nothing signed yet, but in final negotiations now. No indications as to what parcel of land.
If that turns out to be true, the access and lack of parking issues that apparently soured the downtown deal will pail in comparison to gridlock caused by adding another 1000 cars daily to AK. I do like AK village though, don't get me wrong. $ is factor in their decision too of course. Blaming the abandonment of the chosen downtown site on parking and traffic concerns will seem like a lame excuse.
All the more reason to accelerate mass transit expansion.
There's only one plot that fits them and is undeveloped - the plot would be 67th & Francis. I suppose there's the long-shot chance that they could purchase a parking lot spot from First Data, but that seems unlikely.

My friend told me they were "selling" mass transit options when they thought they'd go downtown. The thing being that they had signs up that had unbuilt options - including the proposed BRT line and streetcar (not shockingly, they'd have a hand in designing both of those), neither of which helped anyone living west of Westroads - which is the biggest commuting problem in Omaha.
choke
Human Relations
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:46 am
Location: North Omaha

Re: HDR

Post by choke »

Ben wrote:Informed sources say Aksarben... Nothing signed yet, but in final negotiations now. No indications as to what parcel of land.

Zone 6. HDR already designed the building. Doesn't get any faster than that.
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Re: HDR

Post by Seth »

Since a significant reason why they chose the downtown location was image, I just can't see them completely abandoning that for a West Dodge suburban campus. AK seems like a pretty good compromise between at least a perceived closer commute from West O, but still carry some of the new urban image they were looking for. For those living in the gentrifying older neighborhoods in the city, AK is just as close, if not closer to downtown. It's even a pretty convenient bike commute from many neighborhoods.

I apologize if it's been mentioned before, but was the open space near Gallup ever in the running? That seems like it would fit the compromise of a more suburban-style space with room for cheap parking, but also give a strong downtown presence. It's also harder to get a much better location for a skylike shot than having your building rise up in front of the city as you arrive from the airport.
User avatar
nativeomahan
County Board
Posts: 5316
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta

Re: HDR

Post by nativeomahan »

I'm pretty much to the point where I just don't give a rat's ash what they do or where they do it.
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: HDR

Post by S33 »

I know we've spent a lot of time here discussing the importance of having multiple, strong urban cores, in the metro area.

Everyone is disappointed that no high rise is getting built (even though the one they proposed, was a joke to begin with), but isn't this a "good" thing, in the big picture, for the entire metro?

To me, having multiple urban cores, will only advance the case for expanded mass transit and for more areas.

Just a thought.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Garrett
Planning Board
Posts: 3487
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Re: HDR

Post by Garrett »

S33 wrote:I know we've spent a lot of time here discussing the importance of having multiple, strong urban cores, in the metro area.

Everyone is disappointed that no high rise is getting built (even though the one they proposed, was a joke to begin with), but isn't this a "good" thing, in the big picture, for the entire metro?

To me, having multiple urban cores, will only advance the case for expanded mass transit and for more areas.

Just a thought.
Absolutely right. I think the main issue most people have is that traffic is already |expletive| in the area.
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
Post Reply