DTO, man all of that math above and you forgot to include demand. I as much as anyone want a big new buidling(s) downtown, but a 23% vacancy rate is hard to ignore.
I guess under your arguement for more functional space, we should just start imploding buildings and hope for a developer to come along and build anew. Then we could get new buildings chalk full of tenants.
Maybe instead of imploding everything, we could just convert any non-functional office space into condos?
WallStreet Tower Omaha
Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss
-
projectman
- Human Relations
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:44 pm
- Location: Millard/Sarpy County
-
StreetsOfOmaha
- City Council
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
-
futrecndvlpr
- Home Owners Association
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:07 pm
Streets, I understand it will take several years to complete a new building. But, I still don't see where the demand is going to come from.
We are still trying to fill up space that was vacated by FNBO and they have been in there building for a couple years now. Just look at the price per sq foot, that is a telling sign in regards to the demand for office space DT.
We are still trying to fill up space that was vacated by FNBO and they have been in there building for a couple years now. Just look at the price per sq foot, that is a telling sign in regards to the demand for office space DT.
-
futrecndvlpr
- Home Owners Association
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 2:07 pm
Yeah, restrictions are a no-no. Instead what you should do is give companies postive incentives to build in places and styles you want them to (i.e. downtown skyscrapers).
It's like with children, you always get better results if you give them positive re-enforcement for what they do right than you do scolding them for what they did wrong.
Of course that doesn't mean that you'd be completely lax on discipline
It's like with children, you always get better results if you give them positive re-enforcement for what they do right than you do scolding them for what they did wrong.
Of course that doesn't mean that you'd be completely lax on discipline
Wow, again some great discussions and a wide array of points. A couple that I would like to touch upon:
· DMRyan is correct in his assessment of the market. I mentioned a while ago that downtown had not proven itself as a residential market (which was met with a lot of disagreement). There is a lot of excitement and a lot of potential but these things take time. These things also require proof – increased value, good absorption rates and low vacancy. Things that have yet to be proven! Lenders are going to be undertaking very thorough due diligence before more product comes on line.
· Why is it so suspicious that the city is moving forward at the Old UP building? Does this mean there is something in the works? Maybe. Or .. Maybe they are moving because there is absolutely nothing in the mix and they are trying to be proactive and spur something in a tough economy. Maybe they are trying to divest a piece of real estate that will be expensive for the city to hold, especially with a budget crunch.
· OhioStreetKid and futrecndvlpr also make good points about the market. It is exciting to see what has happened to downtown over the past 5+ years, but maybe it has spoiled us and skewed our expectations. Remember that it took thirty years for these things to happen. Also, remember that some of these things could happen and happen so quickly because of the decaying and underutilized state of downtown. It would have been difficult to redevelop the riverfront if so much of it had not been vacant, underutilized or an environmental problem where we could force the issue.
· A 23% vacancy rate is very problematic. Of course, we are in this position because we have two new shining buildings that flooded the market with square footage and vacated existing space. Developers are savvy today and are not going to build spec space in such a market and if one was stupid enough to try, he/she would not get any financing. The only hope is for a large user to develop their own space a la UP and I do not see that happening. We need expansions and job growth to fill some existing space before we can contemplate any new office hi-rises. And we DO NOT in essence have a healthy DT. “If you take First National out of the picture….” If you take a 19% stake out of any market, it will reduce the vacancy rate. But First National is there and you cannot ignore it or any of the other office space that is occupied or vacant, they are all part of the equation and are a barometer of the market health.
· Of course it takes time and a hi-rise announced today will take time to build. But, there is not going to be an office hi-rise built in this market (barring a major corporate announcement – again, don’t see it happening). That would be speculative real estate and there is not going to be spec space built in a market with 23% vacancy. No, it is not time for an announcement. DMRyan touches upon the last real estate crash and many industry checks and balances were implemented to prevent this from happening again.
· Downtown demand is a far different thing than suburban demand and a spec building on the UP site will not draw a plethora of suburban tenants. There will continue to be strong office activity in Sarpy County and around SAC.
· More and more skyscrapers in the country will not resemble UP’s layout. The UP Center was built for a single corporate user and to fit their particular business model and as part of a company-wide streamlining and consolidation plan after a major acquisition. It is rare for such a development, especially in a hi-rise. More space will be multi-tenanted to offset real estate cyclical variations and more adaptable to ease tenant improvements.
· I agree that you cannot be too restrictive on office space but need to lure with incentives such as variable guidelines for height, setback, aesthetics, etc.
· DTO said, “ It's not about getting a new tall building, but having a lively thriving city.” That is exactly right and often that thriving city is built from the ground at the pedestrian scale. It is more important to have a vibrant city with activity nodes than a bunch of skyscrapers where the urban core is desolate after 5 pm. Many skyscrapers lack a pedestrian scale and amenities that draw people. I like tall building too, but they are not a requirement to make our city active and functional (Look at some of our most important nodes – Old Market, GL Mall and some of the important newer developments – World Herald Freedom Center, Quest Center, Rows at Soma). I said a while back that I believe a mixed-use development will go on the Swanson site but that it would not be a grandiose hi-rise (also met with disagreement) . I just hope that people aren’t too disappointed with a new retail/residential development that will transform the northern edge of downtown just because it isn’t 500 feet tall (harkening back to the continual Marriott envy!).
· AZCorey says it well: “Seriously, I've said this before, but I just want to encourage you all to really take a step back and appreciate the city you live in....since I left in 98 it is almost a different city when I come home to visit....you have made such progress, and more is on the way! There's always so much talk on here about wanting taller and more and more and more, and I would love to see a real killer skyline in DTO also, but, the fact is, that you all live in a pretty damn cool city for it's size....you have a lot there to be proud of, and obviously by my participation on this site Omaha still has a very special place in my heart....so rather than wishing for more today, just take a few moments to appreciate what's already there and what's in the works.....because it's a much better city than it was in 98....there wasn't much happening then!!”
Omaha has a diverse economy that has rode out economic cycles and traversed recessions. We have a philanthropic corporate culture that has helped with developing the riverfront, establishing PKI, improving aesthetics (String of Pearls, Omaha By Design, Destination Midtown, etc.), continually improving one of the world’s best zoos, etc., etc. We were fortunate that during the beginning of the latest recession, when most of the country stood stagnant, we were continuing with millions of dollars of riverfront improvement. Now, as economic stagnations continues, we are in the midst of implementing a residential rebirth in downtown. But let’s not put the cart before the horse or get too greedy. Don’t count on several new hi-rise structures any time soon. Let’s see how the recent and current activity is accepted and if they foster more growth. There is more excitement down the road but lets not try to take short cuts. It will be very important to see the reaction to Riverfront Place breaking ground. This will bring more visibility to the downtown residential phenomenon and subsequent sales/absorption will be watched closely by brokers/developers/lenders. We have heard of many residential condo projects but we have only really seen action at Rows of Soma and Beebe & Runyan. Riverfront Place has the potential to swing the door wide on more residential development as it will be closely watched (especially the sales pace of the second phase). Believe me, there are many players watching this and the market in general (not just local players). This will also help determine the fate of some of the other things we have heard about – don’t expect any great new announcement about the Butternut site until we learn more from Riverfront Place.
I know this may seem to dampen some enthusiasm for some of the sites we are all watching, but as the economy picks up and if residential absorption keeps up, it will foster more residential development, more activity – just remember the pace of some of these things. Ride it out.
Whew. Did I miss anything?
· DMRyan is correct in his assessment of the market. I mentioned a while ago that downtown had not proven itself as a residential market (which was met with a lot of disagreement). There is a lot of excitement and a lot of potential but these things take time. These things also require proof – increased value, good absorption rates and low vacancy. Things that have yet to be proven! Lenders are going to be undertaking very thorough due diligence before more product comes on line.
· Why is it so suspicious that the city is moving forward at the Old UP building? Does this mean there is something in the works? Maybe. Or .. Maybe they are moving because there is absolutely nothing in the mix and they are trying to be proactive and spur something in a tough economy. Maybe they are trying to divest a piece of real estate that will be expensive for the city to hold, especially with a budget crunch.
· OhioStreetKid and futrecndvlpr also make good points about the market. It is exciting to see what has happened to downtown over the past 5+ years, but maybe it has spoiled us and skewed our expectations. Remember that it took thirty years for these things to happen. Also, remember that some of these things could happen and happen so quickly because of the decaying and underutilized state of downtown. It would have been difficult to redevelop the riverfront if so much of it had not been vacant, underutilized or an environmental problem where we could force the issue.
· A 23% vacancy rate is very problematic. Of course, we are in this position because we have two new shining buildings that flooded the market with square footage and vacated existing space. Developers are savvy today and are not going to build spec space in such a market and if one was stupid enough to try, he/she would not get any financing. The only hope is for a large user to develop their own space a la UP and I do not see that happening. We need expansions and job growth to fill some existing space before we can contemplate any new office hi-rises. And we DO NOT in essence have a healthy DT. “If you take First National out of the picture….” If you take a 19% stake out of any market, it will reduce the vacancy rate. But First National is there and you cannot ignore it or any of the other office space that is occupied or vacant, they are all part of the equation and are a barometer of the market health.
· Of course it takes time and a hi-rise announced today will take time to build. But, there is not going to be an office hi-rise built in this market (barring a major corporate announcement – again, don’t see it happening). That would be speculative real estate and there is not going to be spec space built in a market with 23% vacancy. No, it is not time for an announcement. DMRyan touches upon the last real estate crash and many industry checks and balances were implemented to prevent this from happening again.
· Downtown demand is a far different thing than suburban demand and a spec building on the UP site will not draw a plethora of suburban tenants. There will continue to be strong office activity in Sarpy County and around SAC.
· More and more skyscrapers in the country will not resemble UP’s layout. The UP Center was built for a single corporate user and to fit their particular business model and as part of a company-wide streamlining and consolidation plan after a major acquisition. It is rare for such a development, especially in a hi-rise. More space will be multi-tenanted to offset real estate cyclical variations and more adaptable to ease tenant improvements.
· I agree that you cannot be too restrictive on office space but need to lure with incentives such as variable guidelines for height, setback, aesthetics, etc.
· DTO said, “ It's not about getting a new tall building, but having a lively thriving city.” That is exactly right and often that thriving city is built from the ground at the pedestrian scale. It is more important to have a vibrant city with activity nodes than a bunch of skyscrapers where the urban core is desolate after 5 pm. Many skyscrapers lack a pedestrian scale and amenities that draw people. I like tall building too, but they are not a requirement to make our city active and functional (Look at some of our most important nodes – Old Market, GL Mall and some of the important newer developments – World Herald Freedom Center, Quest Center, Rows at Soma). I said a while back that I believe a mixed-use development will go on the Swanson site but that it would not be a grandiose hi-rise (also met with disagreement) . I just hope that people aren’t too disappointed with a new retail/residential development that will transform the northern edge of downtown just because it isn’t 500 feet tall (harkening back to the continual Marriott envy!).
· AZCorey says it well: “Seriously, I've said this before, but I just want to encourage you all to really take a step back and appreciate the city you live in....since I left in 98 it is almost a different city when I come home to visit....you have made such progress, and more is on the way! There's always so much talk on here about wanting taller and more and more and more, and I would love to see a real killer skyline in DTO also, but, the fact is, that you all live in a pretty damn cool city for it's size....you have a lot there to be proud of, and obviously by my participation on this site Omaha still has a very special place in my heart....so rather than wishing for more today, just take a few moments to appreciate what's already there and what's in the works.....because it's a much better city than it was in 98....there wasn't much happening then!!”
Omaha has a diverse economy that has rode out economic cycles and traversed recessions. We have a philanthropic corporate culture that has helped with developing the riverfront, establishing PKI, improving aesthetics (String of Pearls, Omaha By Design, Destination Midtown, etc.), continually improving one of the world’s best zoos, etc., etc. We were fortunate that during the beginning of the latest recession, when most of the country stood stagnant, we were continuing with millions of dollars of riverfront improvement. Now, as economic stagnations continues, we are in the midst of implementing a residential rebirth in downtown. But let’s not put the cart before the horse or get too greedy. Don’t count on several new hi-rise structures any time soon. Let’s see how the recent and current activity is accepted and if they foster more growth. There is more excitement down the road but lets not try to take short cuts. It will be very important to see the reaction to Riverfront Place breaking ground. This will bring more visibility to the downtown residential phenomenon and subsequent sales/absorption will be watched closely by brokers/developers/lenders. We have heard of many residential condo projects but we have only really seen action at Rows of Soma and Beebe & Runyan. Riverfront Place has the potential to swing the door wide on more residential development as it will be closely watched (especially the sales pace of the second phase). Believe me, there are many players watching this and the market in general (not just local players). This will also help determine the fate of some of the other things we have heard about – don’t expect any great new announcement about the Butternut site until we learn more from Riverfront Place.
I know this may seem to dampen some enthusiasm for some of the sites we are all watching, but as the economy picks up and if residential absorption keeps up, it will foster more residential development, more activity – just remember the pace of some of these things. Ride it out.
Whew. Did I miss anything?
Lots of good discussion. I have to agree with others that a major building is not likely in the near-term on the UP site, given the vacancy rate downtown. Just too risky...
Now, if I can get on my soapbox for a minute....If the City of Omaha is serious about seeing downtown thrive, the City needs to work on keeping growth from being so linear to the west. The City needs to cooperate more with local entities in ensuring growth in the metro remains more symmetrical about downtown. Yes, that means to the south, north and east. If the local population "center-of-mass" keeps shifting west like it has for several decades now, downtown will never regain it's former glory (or even close to it). Certainly, it's a philosophy that would cost the City in the short-run, but in the long-run, it's virtually certain a winner.
Just my two cents for today....
Now, if I can get on my soapbox for a minute....If the City of Omaha is serious about seeing downtown thrive, the City needs to work on keeping growth from being so linear to the west. The City needs to cooperate more with local entities in ensuring growth in the metro remains more symmetrical about downtown. Yes, that means to the south, north and east. If the local population "center-of-mass" keeps shifting west like it has for several decades now, downtown will never regain it's former glory (or even close to it). Certainly, it's a philosophy that would cost the City in the short-run, but in the long-run, it's virtually certain a winner.
Just my two cents for today....
-
skinzfan23
- City Council
- Posts: 9237
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
- Location: Omaha/Bellevue
I really think that picture you created on pg.1 is great. It shows how just adding a few buildings changes the impact felt when viewing the city and its downtown. Just look at the FNC and how it has changed the image of downtown and Omaha in general. I think people are starting to give Omaha more respect in terms of being a big city and and a business city. Something like that is what Omaha truly needs. Especially if there ever is a baseball stadium built downtown that hotel would be a great asset.
Not at all. It is still in due diligence. I think it is a great site and I believe that it will happen. I'm just saying there will be a lot of watching going on, maybe one or two things announced, then more watching. Be patient. The residential rebirth is in that phase where investors and urbanites have taken hold, but others are watching and waiting to see if urban condos will be accepted by a large number of people. Remember, this is not just a new market in Omaha but also a new product! There are still exciting things to come but just don't expect Mr. Omaha's nice photo enhancements to become reality.Finn- is this a nice way of telling us your building has flopped.
In today's paper, I think they're talking about an incentive package to lure big business(as I read it atleast). Same question as before, is this the Cabela's thing or a different one? It makes me think this is a different one because there's no mention of Cabelas or the amusement park and they're talking about LB775.
Anybody else know what the deal is?
here's the link to the article:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=528 ... id=1389473
Anybody else know what the deal is?
here's the link to the article:
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=528 ... id=1389473
And perhaps my most unpopular statement that I hope can be backed up by some the real estate gurus on here: between Riverfront Place, the Leahy Mall Tower proposal that Finn mentioned, the Swanson and this site, is it even feasible to have this much demand for new residential highrises?
Absolutly, you have to keep in mind how long it will be between now and the completion of said projects. To absorb all those units this or next year would not be realistic, but you're talking about more like 5+ years for completion of that group of projects.
There are always more followers than there are pioneers. As soon as people start seeing the completed Riverfont place sitting back there behind the qwest center, and begin visiting their friends at SOMA or the Paxton, we'll see a significant increase in demand. We talk about condos alot here, but most Omahans have never seen the inside of one. Add the likelyhood of more services and retail being a part of the current and future projects, and it's pretty safe to say that we haven't even seen the beginning of the boom yet.
Absolutly, you have to keep in mind how long it will be between now and the completion of said projects. To absorb all those units this or next year would not be realistic, but you're talking about more like 5+ years for completion of that group of projects.
There are always more followers than there are pioneers. As soon as people start seeing the completed Riverfont place sitting back there behind the qwest center, and begin visiting their friends at SOMA or the Paxton, we'll see a significant increase in demand. We talk about condos alot here, but most Omahans have never seen the inside of one. Add the likelyhood of more services and retail being a part of the current and future projects, and it's pretty safe to say that we haven't even seen the beginning of the boom yet.
That was the point! But the precedence in other cities doesn't amount to much. That is why we are just at the beginning of the momentum and have to be patient.Its a new product to us. But it's not at all a new product, and there is plenty of precident in other cities to be optimistic about it taking hold here. We're just behind the curve.
-
OmahaDevelopmentMan
- Human Relations
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:12 pm
- Location: Omaha, someplace in middle America
UP site to have condos?
Here's one for the height obsessed....
Condos may rise on old U.P. site
Condos may rise on old U.P. site
Realtors vying to represent Townsend Inc. said Thursday that the company has been working for about three months toward its goal of duplicating Kansas City's Wall Street Tower project in Omaha. The company's president, Jason Townsend, was developing partner in the Wall Street Tower, a 20-story glass-and-steel former financial district office building that has been turned into 145 condos.
"This would be much bigger than anything Omaha has seen," Valenti said. He said the developer is considering a 25- to 30-story building with 250 units priced from $250,000 to $500,000. The project would include retail and commercial space on lower levels.
-
loyalomahan
- Library Board
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:37 am
-
Omaha Cowboy
- The Don
- Posts: 1013189
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:31 am
- Location: West Omaha
Also from the W-H piece:
'Valenti said CBSHome did a market study for the developer that concluded Omaha easily could handle 2,500 to 3,000 condos. It currently has about 1,000 sold or in the works.'..
The concept certainly has potential for DT Omaha..
And many of us have been saying for the past year or 2 that DT Omaha's next highrise would be residential..
If this plan is brought to reality (and I get the feeling it WILL BE), it is yet another lightening rod spark for DT Omaha (the Omaha Cowboy understatement for 2005
)..
To growth!!..
..Ciao..LiO....Peace
'Valenti said CBSHome did a market study for the developer that concluded Omaha easily could handle 2,500 to 3,000 condos. It currently has about 1,000 sold or in the works.'..
The concept certainly has potential for DT Omaha..
And many of us have been saying for the past year or 2 that DT Omaha's next highrise would be residential..
If this plan is brought to reality (and I get the feeling it WILL BE), it is yet another lightening rod spark for DT Omaha (the Omaha Cowboy understatement for 2005
)..To growth!!..
..Ciao..LiO....Peace
Last edited by Omaha Cowboy on Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Go Cowboys!
-
OmahaDevelopmentMan
- Human Relations
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:12 pm
- Location: Omaha, someplace in middle America
Yeah I saw the headline this morning and about did backflips. 25-30 stories, whoa buddy. Im guessing that the old UP building is their preferred site but want it handed over as bare ground. Just tell DTO this and hand him a sledgehammer, that building will be down in no time. Hopefully things fall into place and this becomes official soon. Heres to the future.
Im guessing that the old UP building is their preferred site but want it handed over as bare ground. Just tell DTO this and hand him a sledgehammer, that building will be down in no time. Hopefully things fall into place and this becomes official soon. Heres to the future. 
<<<<
Just tell DTO this and hand him a sledgehammer, that building will be down in no time.
>>>>
Heck, put a Husker Heaven on the first floor and watch John Henry go to town. ;) Or would that be OK if it were street-level retail? ;)
<<<<
Among the issues to be worked out is who would pay to demolish the building at 1416 Dodge St. that U.P. vacated for a new headquarters across the street. Demolition costs are estimated at $4 million to $6 million.
>>>>
Any reason the city couldn't work out a deal that would give them the land and building, and then reimburse the cost of the demolition once all units were sold and generating tax revenue?
I think it's just great that developers are crawling all over each other to try to find a place to put condos in downtown Omaha. Tthe fact that there's interest regionally and nationally is fantastic.
One other thing to consider:
With 1000 units in place or in the works, and studies estimating DT could handle 2500-3000 units, it's not too big a stretch to think that DT could actually handle SIX to EIGHT of these 25-30 story, 250-unit towers. Get to building, boys!
Link to the Wall Street Tower in KC:
http://www.wallstreettower.com/
-Big E
Just tell DTO this and hand him a sledgehammer, that building will be down in no time.
>>>>
Heck, put a Husker Heaven on the first floor and watch John Henry go to town. ;) Or would that be OK if it were street-level retail? ;)
<<<<
Among the issues to be worked out is who would pay to demolish the building at 1416 Dodge St. that U.P. vacated for a new headquarters across the street. Demolition costs are estimated at $4 million to $6 million.
>>>>
Any reason the city couldn't work out a deal that would give them the land and building, and then reimburse the cost of the demolition once all units were sold and generating tax revenue?
I think it's just great that developers are crawling all over each other to try to find a place to put condos in downtown Omaha. Tthe fact that there's interest regionally and nationally is fantastic.
One other thing to consider:
With 1000 units in place or in the works, and studies estimating DT could handle 2500-3000 units, it's not too big a stretch to think that DT could actually handle SIX to EIGHT of these 25-30 story, 250-unit towers. Get to building, boys!
Link to the Wall Street Tower in KC:
http://www.wallstreettower.com/
-Big E
Stable genius.
and a link to the Townsend website to view other projects.
http://townsendres.com/
This must be the "K.C. developer" that I heard the realtor talking about during the Urban Omaha tour. Very cool!
http://townsendres.com/
This must be the "K.C. developer" that I heard the realtor talking about during the Urban Omaha tour. Very cool!
-
projectman
- Human Relations
- Posts: 868
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:44 pm
- Location: Millard/Sarpy County
When I read the article in the paper this morning I almost wet myself. I was very excited. 
Very cool. Looking forward to the Omaha skyline being enhanced once again...... 25-30 stories would be awesome but...... I'll believe it when I see it. Sometimes these condo developments just take too long and don't always come to fruition. Keeping my fingers crossed.
Very cool. Looking forward to the Omaha skyline being enhanced once again...... 25-30 stories would be awesome but...... I'll believe it when I see it. Sometimes these condo developments just take too long and don't always come to fruition. Keeping my fingers crossed.
-
ItsAllAboutMe
- Human Relations
- Posts: 861
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:14 am
BETTER LOCATION
I'd rather see them build this on block just east of the new parking garage @ 13th & Capitol. This 1 sq block is currently just surface parking. No demolition needed plus it would look much better standing out by itself instead of being swallowed up by the massive new UP building. This would spread out the skyline plus keep the old UP builidng site available for a larger & taller structure.
-
OmahaDevelopmentMan
- Human Relations
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:12 pm
- Location: Omaha, someplace in middle America
Re: BETTER LOCATION
Yes, but a nice 25-30 story building among FNC, UPC and the old FNC would do a lot to density in downtown. Let the possible Pinnacle project and the possible butternut project spread out the skyline.ItsAllAboutMe wrote:I'd rather see them build this on block just east of the new parking garage @ 13th & Capitol. This 1 sq block is currently just surface parking. No demolition needed plus it would look much better standing out by itself instead of being swallowed up by the massive new UP building. This would spread out the skyline plus keep the old UP builidng site available for a larger & taller structure.
-
Hawkeye
- Home Owners Association
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:58 pm
- Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul
This is good news.
It's just too bad that oftentimes when Omaha builds a tower, it comes at the expense of another highrise that was already in place.
Medical Arts Bldg was razed in favor of the FNC. Former UPHQ could be razed in favor of this new building.
Obviously those buildings did/would add to the skyline. But couldn't they add to the skyline without subtracting something that is already part of the skyline in the process? There's plenty of already open, vacant space on which a condo tower could be built by Mr. Townsend's firm...and it wouldn't cost them or the city a dime for demolition.
Just one Hawkeye's opinion.
Medical Arts Bldg was razed in favor of the FNC. Former UPHQ could be razed in favor of this new building.
Obviously those buildings did/would add to the skyline. But couldn't they add to the skyline without subtracting something that is already part of the skyline in the process? There's plenty of already open, vacant space on which a condo tower could be built by Mr. Townsend's firm...and it wouldn't cost them or the city a dime for demolition.
Just one Hawkeye's opinion.
I shat my pants earlier when someone called to tell me the news. heck yeah give me a sledgehammer and wave a Husker flag and I'll take to it like a bull to a red flag. This is |expletive| awesome. And even though everyone is acting like things aren't all in place I'm betting it's pretty much a done deal. I knew the city (which historically has done things slow) wouldn't be in such a hurry to get rid of the UP building w/o something to go in it's place. I'm reminded of a OWH story about the Medical Arts building ( I really have no memory of it.) and how "it was the last building to be torn down DT for the forseeable future." And then the same week UP came out with it's plans and tore up it's site. And now this. I knew something big was in the works.
I also remember a guy at the Urban tour (in the Paxton) talking about a KC project. So far in the last few days we've heard that people in Seattle and KC are interested in being in DTO.
I also remember a guy at the Urban tour (in the Paxton) talking about a KC project. So far in the last few days we've heard that people in Seattle and KC are interested in being in DTO.
DTO
-
almighty_tuna
- City Council
- Posts: 105460
- Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
- Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
- Contact:
What a specTACULAR way to start my weekend!!! I dropped my jaw when I read this! Hawkeye has a point about the razing/rebuilding but with commercial/retail in the lower levels this would really be a prime space. Especially having UP and FNB employees right across the street. This might be just the tip of the iceberg!!
I got off work about 7:30 tonight and had an errand to run, and in front of the store was a OWH box with this headline staring at me. I didn't have two quarters, so I went in the store, got change and nearly ripped the front of the box off so I could read the article. The best part, I never did go back in the store and get what I needed! Count me in for the demolition crew! I'm height-obsessed and ready for another crane rising high in the downtown skyline. OK, I'm ready for 5-10 cranes rising in the downtown skyline! This is great news!
I'm also a historical building buff, and I appreciate the history of the old UP building, but take a tour through this facility and you realize why people in the know say demolish. Years and years of changes to accomodate the shifting patterns of modern office needs have trashed the interior. Plus, the various additions were designed by internal UP engineering departments, without regard to saving the existing structure. The addition to the east was particularly painful to the original building. To restore this one would definitely be cost-prohibitive.
I'm also a historical building buff, and I appreciate the history of the old UP building, but take a tour through this facility and you realize why people in the know say demolish. Years and years of changes to accomodate the shifting patterns of modern office needs have trashed the interior. Plus, the various additions were designed by internal UP engineering departments, without regard to saving the existing structure. The addition to the east was particularly painful to the original building. To restore this one would definitely be cost-prohibitive.