WallStreet Tower Omaha
Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
True. I thought, though, that subletting or selling part of the site still might fit the criterion of "developing the whole block."
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
- RockHarbor
- Planning Board
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
- Location: Silver State
I looked back at the revised renderings, and they do make me a bit nervous. I saw somebody said the term "toothpick" to describe it. I don't think of it to that degree, but I see what they mean. I still like the look of it somewhat, but the revised design is definitely not as nice as the original design, imo.
Would it be too skinny for the skyline if built with the current revised design? It might be. From the south-north angle, I would rather see it the original design, kind of a similar rectangular shape of the old First National Bank building. From the east-west angle, the structure is thin, but it kind of mirrors the thin side of the Woodmen, and the slender side of the new First National Tower. With the building cut in-half, it might be too thin altogether to look right. Maybe if they could reduce the tower's broad side by 35-40% (and not 50%)??
I would just hate to see something looking high-tech and modern, yet not quite right, and semi-awkward, on the Omaha skyline. Architecture is so important to get it right the first time -- because a city is stuck with it. (I think of a city that built a new skyscraper, and I basically cringe every time I see it, because I don't feel it fits the city that well. I have given it time to get used to it. I can't get used to it -- so far. I'm not saying which city.) My point is: The design needs to be 100% right, before it is built. Too many people comment that the revised plan is wrong. That likely means the revised design is wrong.
Would it be too skinny for the skyline if built with the current revised design? It might be. From the south-north angle, I would rather see it the original design, kind of a similar rectangular shape of the old First National Bank building. From the east-west angle, the structure is thin, but it kind of mirrors the thin side of the Woodmen, and the slender side of the new First National Tower. With the building cut in-half, it might be too thin altogether to look right. Maybe if they could reduce the tower's broad side by 35-40% (and not 50%)??
I would just hate to see something looking high-tech and modern, yet not quite right, and semi-awkward, on the Omaha skyline. Architecture is so important to get it right the first time -- because a city is stuck with it. (I think of a city that built a new skyscraper, and I basically cringe every time I see it, because I don't feel it fits the city that well. I have given it time to get used to it. I can't get used to it -- so far. I'm not saying which city.) My point is: The design needs to be 100% right, before it is built. Too many people comment that the revised plan is wrong. That likely means the revised design is wrong.
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.
Well, the people they have committed now bought a certain condo with a certain layout. The original building had 2 of each layouts on each floor, the new one has one of each. So either we cut it in half like they did, or lose the height. No other options unless they wanted to start all over.
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
A few thoughts:
The renderings make the tower look taller than it actually is. I think the toothpick presence is highlighted a bit more by the renderings than what it would actually look like in person.
I think from this angle it would look fine.
It's when you get closer that I think it starts to look awkward.
If they added some type of "top" to the shorter part rather than having it cut off so abruptly, it might look better.
I'm kind of torn on what I hope happens. I doubt we would get another 373ft tower if the city looked for another proposal. At the same time, is the height worth it if it looks out of place? And how long would it take to get another proposal?
Regardless, it's all probably pointless to discuss because from what we've seen with this project it probably won't ever see the light of day.
The renderings make the tower look taller than it actually is. I think the toothpick presence is highlighted a bit more by the renderings than what it would actually look like in person.
I think from this angle it would look fine.
It's when you get closer that I think it starts to look awkward.
If they added some type of "top" to the shorter part rather than having it cut off so abruptly, it might look better.
I'm kind of torn on what I hope happens. I doubt we would get another 373ft tower if the city looked for another proposal. At the same time, is the height worth it if it looks out of place? And how long would it take to get another proposal?
Regardless, it's all probably pointless to discuss because from what we've seen with this project it probably won't ever see the light of day.
- RockHarbor
- Planning Board
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
- Location: Silver State
I agree with you guys... I almost think I want it built so bad, that I'm willing to give the second design a chance -- just so something goes up, and there's no big hole in downtown Omaha. Yet, I've decided: If it will look awkward...I don't want it. I don't want to just settle for the second design, because I want more height on the Omaha skyline. Looking at the second design, it does look a bit too skinny to me, although the basic rectangular shape is similar to the Woodmen's rectangular shape (just scaled & shrunk down). I think it will look a bit too weak. And, having the ultra-squatty, glass cube of the UP Building next to it, doesn't help (that building's footprint is probably as big as one of the WTC Towers). However, the original design may have been a bit too broad as well. However, the original design is a safer design, I think, as far as having good aesthetics on the skyline.
What's the scoop? Wasn't there supposed to be a big announcement today?
What's the scoop? Wasn't there supposed to be a big announcement today?
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.
- RockHarbor
- Planning Board
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
- Location: Silver State
They must need more time, I guess....Axel wrote:Supposed to be? Yes. Did one happen? Of course not. I'm guessing we'll here what the city has to say soon. Or at least, we better.
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.
So it seems November is about ready to come and go and still no announcement of any kind. Â I thought Townsend might have said there would be at least some kind of announcement this month, but clearly that doesn't appear like its going to happen. (Attention: World Herald, please do a report on this, thank you)
while it isn't technically official, i'm sure this answers your question:
http://eomahaforums.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10611
http://eomahaforums.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10611
Go Cubs Go
-
- Planning Board
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:00 pm
- Location: Metro Detroit Michigan
http://www.omaha.com/article/20101214/L ... me-capsule
Well played OWH.2005: A Kansas City-area developer was selected today to redevelop the former Union Pacific headquarters site at 14th and Dodge Streets. The developer plans to build WallStreet Tower Omaha, a 32-story, 373-foot-tall, predominantly glass building. The structure will have 35,000 square feet of retail space and 282 condos.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
Were they not just reporting on what was a true announcement at the time?iamjacobm wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20101214/L ... me-capsule
Well played OWH.2005: A Kansas City-area developer was selected today to redevelop the former Union Pacific headquarters site at 14th and Dodge Streets. The developer plans to build WallStreet Tower Omaha, a 32-story, 373-foot-tall, predominantly glass building. The structure will have 35,000 square feet of retail space and 282 condos.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
- Bosco55David
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
- Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)
Yeah come out call it dead or whatever is happening and please FILL IN THAT HOLE! Â Its such an eyesore. Â Make it a temporary park or something anything but that eyesore.Bosco55David wrote:Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.
- Bosco55David
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
- Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)
I absolutely agree. That's some prime land there so let's at least make sure it isn't a dump, even if it is empty.iamjacobm wrote:Yeah come out call it dead or whatever is happening and please FILL IN THAT HOLE! Its such an eyesore. Make it a temporary park or something anything but that eyesore.Bosco55David wrote:Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.
City Tells Downtown Condo Developers To Fill Hole
http://www.ketv.com/news/26644469/detail.html
OMAHA, Neb. -- After looking at a massive hole in downtown Omaha for four years, city officials said they want the empty WallStreet Tower site filled by spring.
http://www.ketv.com/news/26644469/detail.html
-
- Home Owners Association
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Omaha Metro Area
KETV reported last night that the City Attorney Paul Kratz told Townsend in a meeting a few weeks ago, to fill the foundation hole by spring. It was also interesting that Kratz said that he did not believe that the site would be developed in the near future. It was also noted that the hours have been cut at the sales center and the parking lot has gone un-plowed. More signs that this likely will never be built. Of course, that shady Townsend stooge couldn't be reached for comment. The End.
Public !   blol  blol  blol  blol  blolCoyote wrote:Put a miniature golf course there :;):
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
Website: www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradwphoto
Instagram: www.instagram.com/bradwilliamsphotography
YouTube: www.youtube.com/@bradwilliamsphoto
- Seth
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood
I hope not. Â Even if it is a sad reminder of how much better a use that space serves, grass will look a lot better than another grimy surface parking lot.Omababe wrote:A parking lot, perhaps?Fromaha wrote:City Attorney Paul Kratz told Townsend in a meeting a few weeks ago, to fill the foundation hole by spring.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110129/N ... own-filledCity wants hole downtown filled
And... go!
"Who doesn't?"
"That's what she said."
http://douglasne.mapping-online.com/Dou ... 0308240004
1,549,000. Â Tough to just fork over for land you sold for a buck.
1,549,000. Â Tough to just fork over for land you sold for a buck.
Isn't there a city ordinance that requires snow to be removed from sidewalks within 24-hours of the end of the snowfall? The city hasn't required Townsend to remove the snow from last week. How serious are they going to be about filling the hole? But then again, it is certainly easier to talk about a pedestrian friendly city than take a very simple action to make it so.
The city doesn't shovel their own sidewalks half the time, why would they bother enforcing it for others?mrdwhsr wrote:Isn't there a city ordinance that requires snow to be removed from sidewalks within 24-hours of the end of the snowfall? The city hasn't required Townsend to remove the snow from last week. How serious are they going to be about filling the hole? But then again, it is certainly easier to talk about a pedestrian friendly city than take a very simple action to make it so.
Well it appears clear now that all the visitors for the Berkshire Hathaway weekend and the College World Series will get a first hand look at the big hole in the ground, aka WST. I realize the city is in a tough situation here but I'm just amazed that this block can't even get leveled off with dirt, some sod, maybe a couple sidewalks, something. I would have never guessed at the end of April 2011, that all we would have is a big hole in the ground. Construct a vortex tower or something already.
In my opinion, 99% of the out of towners will not know anything about the hole, they will just think something is getting ready to start.
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
Website: www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradwphoto
Instagram: www.instagram.com/bradwilliamsphotography
YouTube: www.youtube.com/@bradwilliamsphoto