WallStreet Tower Omaha

Proposed Development Projects that got Minarded.

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

StreetsOfOmaha
City Council
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

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
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Post by RockHarbor »

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.
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.
User avatar
Garrett
Planning Board
Posts: 3470
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Post by Garrett »

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
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

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
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Post by RockHarbor »

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?
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.
User avatar
Garrett
Planning Board
Posts: 3470
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Post by Garrett »

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.
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Post by RockHarbor »

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....
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.
omahahawk
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by omahahawk »

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
County Board
Posts: 3728
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Council Bluffs

Post by thenewguy »

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
Planning Board
Posts: 2733
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

Post by NovakOmaha »

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

Anticipointment!
User avatar
S33
County Board
Posts: 4441
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:15 pm

Post by S33 »

NovakOmaha wrote:
Anticipointment!
Open/Apple/Save to Vocabulary
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10374
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

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: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Post by Erik »

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: 6865
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm

Post by StreetsOfOmaha »

iamjacobm wrote: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.
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: 10374
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

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: 1396
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Post by Bosco55David »

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: 10374
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

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: 1396
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)

Post by Bosco55David »

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
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:16 pm

Post by omahahawk »

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: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Fromaha »

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: 128
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by Fromaha »

Good Timing Omahahawk.  :)
ShawJ
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1553
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:58 pm

Post by ShawJ »

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: 32804
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

Put a miniature golf course there  :;):
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033296
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

Coyote wrote:Put a miniature golf course there  :;):
Public !    blol  blol  blol  blol  blol
User avatar
Omababe
Planning Board
Posts: 2470
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:47 am
Contact:

Post by Omababe »

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: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Post by Seth »

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: 10374
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

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.  :;):
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8015
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

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: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:52 am
Location: West Omaha

Post by Tornado »

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: 10374
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Post by iamjacobm »

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

1,549,000.  Tough to just fork over for land you sold for a buck.
User avatar
Big E
City Council
Posts: 8015
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:12 am

Post by Big E »

+1
mrdwhsr
Library Board
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Post by mrdwhsr »

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
Human Relations
Posts: 893
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:47 pm
Location: Downtown

Post by justnick »

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: 3571
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Council Bluffs

Post by icejammer »

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: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:57 pm
Location: Westside

Post by Ben »

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
Planning Board
Posts: 3470
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Post by Garrett »

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.
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
User avatar
Seth
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Ford Birthsite Neighborhood

Post by Seth »

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.
Tornado
Home Owners Association
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:52 am
Location: West Omaha

Post by Tornado »

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. :lol:
User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 1033296
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Post by Brad »

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.
mattg
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:35 am

Post by mattg »

saw a couple peices of machinery sitting in the fence of the hole today. probably just for leveling the hole and cleaning up a bit
Locked