WallStreet Tower Omaha

Proposed Development Projects that got Minarded.

Moderators: Coyote, Omaha Cowboy, Brad, nebugeater

User avatar
justnick
Hair and Makeup Guru
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:47 pm
Location: Downtown

Postby justnick » Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:27 pm

Isn't tomorrow the next deadline?
How amazing would it be if it were actually announced? Ha. Not holding my breath.

StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6936
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Postby StreetsOfOmaha » Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:11 pm

In looking back at the crazy "chop-job" rendering showing the new "L" shaped building, I'm wondering why they didn't just spread the remaining square footage of the building into an even, cohesive structure, keeping the height but giving it a smaller footprint, and allowing the developers to potentially lease or sell a portion of the lot for another use, giving them some supplementary income...

We'd have a better looking building, a better use of land, and potentially an additional use on that site... Makes too much sense I guess.
"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

Tornado
Home Owners Association
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:52 am
Location: West Omaha

Postby Tornado » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:13 pm

A lot of companies or businesses really prefer to have their employees on as few floors as possible. I believe the WST had some data company that was projected to take up a few floors. A business like that might not have wanted everything split between 8 floors when the original plan was 3 floors.  As for Townsend only developing a portion of the block, I would highly doubt that would be feasible with the original agreement with the city to develop the entire block, otherwise Townsend could really just decide to lease or sell the entire lot at there liking. I agree with what your saying I just don't see how that could transpire. I realize there is a deadline set for tomorrow but does anyone actually know if there will  be any announcement one way or another??????

StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6936
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Postby StreetsOfOmaha » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:29 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

User avatar
RockHarbor
Human Relations
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Omaha

Postby RockHarbor » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:32 pm

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.
"Crossroads Village" down the street from "Aksarben Village?" Does "Crossroads" have any meaning to people 20 and under? "Dodge At 72nd" is a type name I like better, drawing from the excitement of the iconic, special Omaha intersection. My $.02.

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1778
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Garrett » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:33 pm

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.
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Elmwood/Aksarben

Postby ShawJ » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:02 pm

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.
Image

It's when you get closer that I think it starts to look awkward.
Image

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.

User avatar
RockHarbor
Human Relations
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Omaha

Postby RockHarbor » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:27 pm

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?
"Crossroads Village" down the street from "Aksarben Village?" Does "Crossroads" have any meaning to people 20 and under? "Dodge At 72nd" is a type name I like better, drawing from the excitement of the iconic, special Omaha intersection. My $.02.

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1778
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Garrett » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:52 pm

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.
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

User avatar
RockHarbor
Human Relations
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Omaha

Postby RockHarbor » Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:39 pm

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.


They must need more time, I guess....
"Crossroads Village" down the street from "Aksarben Village?" Does "Crossroads" have any meaning to people 20 and under? "Dodge At 72nd" is a type name I like better, drawing from the excitement of the iconic, special Omaha intersection. My $.02.

omahahawk
Human Relations
Posts: 868
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:16 pm

Postby omahahawk » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:01 pm

So it seems November is about ready to come and go and still no announcement of any kind.  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)

User avatar
thenewguy
Planning Board
Posts: 2874
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby thenewguy » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:03 pm

while it isn't technically official, i'm sure this answers your question:

http://eomahaforums.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10611

Image
Go Cubs Go

NovakOmaha
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

Postby NovakOmaha » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:39 pm

Someone passed on a new word to me the other day & it fits so well here....

Anticipointment!

User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4552
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Postby S33 » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:35 pm

NovakOmaha wrote:
Anticipointment!


Open/Apple/Save to Vocabulary

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8856
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Postby iamjacobm » Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:57 pm

http://www.omaha.com/article/20101214/L ... me-capsule

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.


Well played OWH.

Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1204
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Postby Erik » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:35 pm

This was all but dead in 2008.  In 2008 there were two banks that backed from this project despite Townsend meeting the numbers and then the recession problem began.

I had lost all interest except for an occasional good laugh over this project.

StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6936
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Postby StreetsOfOmaha » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:14 pm

iamjacobm wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20101214/LIVING/712149967#omaha-time-capsule

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.


Well played OWH.


Were they not just reporting on what was a true announcement at the time?
"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

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8856
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Postby iamjacobm » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:31 pm

I just thought it was interesting and it gave me a laugh.  I wasn't really trying to make some sort of statement.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:10 pm

Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8856
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Postby iamjacobm » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:17 pm

Bosco55David wrote:Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.


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.

User avatar
Bosco55David
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Postby Bosco55David » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:30 pm

iamjacobm wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.


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.


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.

omahahawk
Human Relations
Posts: 868
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:16 pm

Postby omahahawk » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:55 am

City Tells Downtown Condo Developers To Fill Hole



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

Fromaha
Home Owners Association
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Postby Fromaha » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:55 am

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.

Fromaha
Home Owners Association
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Postby Fromaha » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:56 am

Good Timing Omahahawk.  :)

ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Elmwood/Aksarben

Postby ShawJ » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:42 pm

No surprises here. I can't believe how much "park space" we are going to have in this area of downtown.

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20627
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Postby Coyote » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:50 pm

Put a miniature golf course there  :;):

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28477
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:54 pm

Coyote wrote:Put a miniature golf course there  :;):


Public !    blol  blol  blol  blol  blol
Image
Omaha Skyline Photos, Omaha Aerial Photos, and More.
http://www.bradwilliamsphotography.com
http://www.facebook.com/bradwilliamsphotography
@bradwphoto on Twitter
Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce Member

User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2181
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Postby Omababe » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:42 pm

Fromaha wrote:City Attorney Paul Kratz told Townsend in a meeting a few weeks ago, to fill the foundation hole by spring.


A parking lot, perhaps?

User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Postby Seth » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:08 pm

Omababe wrote:
Fromaha wrote:City Attorney Paul Kratz told Townsend in a meeting a few weeks ago, to fill the foundation hole by spring.


A parking lot, perhaps?


I hope not.  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.

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8856
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Postby iamjacobm » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:29 pm

Grass it up hopefully something comes along.  heck with the two lots next to each other we've almost got the room for out DT football stadium.  :;):

Big E
City Council
Posts: 7767
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Postby Big E » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:46 pm

City wants hole downtown filled


http://www.omaha.com/article/20110129/N ... own-filled

And... go!

"Who doesn't?"

"That's what she said."

Tornado
Home Owners Association
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:52 am
Location: West Omaha

Postby Tornado » Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:02 pm

Well at least we now know all the facts, still not a word from Townsend though. I say eminent domain is really the only option. I wonder what the property is appraised at currently. I sure hope the city has learned a lesson on future deals of the nature.

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8856
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Postby iamjacobm » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:30 pm

http://douglasne.mapping-online.com/Dou ... 0308240004

1,549,000.  Tough to just fork over for land you sold for a buck.

Big E
City Council
Posts: 7767
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Postby Big E » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:11 am

+1

mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Postby mrdwhsr » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:12 pm

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.

User avatar
justnick
Hair and Makeup Guru
Posts: 952
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:47 pm
Location: Downtown

Postby justnick » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:21 pm

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.


The city doesn't shovel their own sidewalks half the time, why would they bother enforcing it for others?

icejammer
County Board
Posts: 3597
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby icejammer » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:49 am

justnick wrote:The city doesn't shovel their own sidewalks half the time, why would they bother enforcing it for others?


EXACTLY!
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."

--William Jennings Bryan

Ben
Human Relations
Posts: 807
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Westside

Postby Ben » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:17 am

so, what happened here?  The city demanded the hole get filled, and nothing happens?  

Are they going to enforce this demand?  Send Townsend a code violation notice?

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1778
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Postby Garrett » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:49 pm

Ben wrote:so, what happened here?  The city demanded the hole get filled, and nothing happens?  

Are they going to enforce this demand?  Send Townsend a code violation notice?

Oh don't worry, he said it would be filled in 60-90 days.
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1439
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Postby Seth » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:31 pm

If you follow anything the BBR does, you'll notice that it takes a LONG time before anything actually happens.  A significant number of the items on their meeting minutes are "laid over" for 30, 60, or 90 days.  I seems a lot like continuations in traffic court.


Return to “Projects Never Built”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest