North Downtown Amphitheater and Club

Proposed Development Projects that got Minarded.

Moderators: Coyote, Omaha Cowboy, Brad, nebugeater

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

North a Downtown land

Postby StreetsOfOmaha » Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:19 pm

Hmm....

I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for.  Can you give me an example of something in another city that you've experienced that you'd like to see Downtown?
"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

ricko
Human Relations
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:54 pm

Postby ricko » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:05 am

Most of these 'mega-clubs' try to cater to specific groups of people on different nights of the week.  For example, at the one I actually went to a few times, there were 'trance' nights, 'salsa' nights, 'lesbian' nights, 'gay' nights, 'retro-disco' nights, 'go-go' nights (a very popular local dance music that never broke out of the Baltimore/DC area for some reason). The one I was familiar with in DC ("Nation") was an old city-bus warehouse that took up about 90% of a city block, and could accommodate several thousand people at once.  It would probably still be there but it was the victim of the real estate boom and the new baseball stadium, and closed about a year ago after a 23-year run.  That's my only frame of reference for these clubs and how they're marketed, although I'm not sure what this particular club owner has in mind.

The fact that only private money is involved (no public money or tax 'incentives', from what I could gather) makes it especially attractive to me.  The city should be drooling over this.  Quibbles over the design are a real concern, but this is where "Omaha By Design" could flex a little muscle (where the heck were they when they built those god-awful 'slap-together' hotels on North DT?).

Bob
New to the Neighborhood
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:20 pm
Location: Midtown
Contact:

Postby Bob » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:49 pm

They need to change that plan sooo much! I hope the city would be smart enough to not pass this without some major change.  This plan defeats the purpose of developing North Downtown, and high density.  That one single plan would add so much sprawl.  So much more could fit in that area.

the1wags
County Board
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Denver
Contact:

Postby the1wags » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:52 pm

After thinking about this a bit, I don't like this plan. I'd rather see the business park than an ocean of parking around a club. I think a club (minus the ocean of parking) would fit way better across from Slowdown.

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:40 am

the1wags wrote:After thinking about this a bit, I don't like this plan. I'd rather see the business park than an ocean of parking around a club. I think a club (minus the ocean of parking) would fit way better across from Slowdown.


I still would take the club, parking and all, over an office park over there. This is god dam Downtown not Millard build some |expletive| office towers!
Image

User avatar
nebport5
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Downtown

Postby nebport5 » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:05 am

how about an office park with a PacLife tower?   :)

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:26 am

Then I'd quit. :)
Image

the1wags
County Board
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Denver
Contact:

Postby the1wags » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:45 am

DTO Luv wrote:
the1wags wrote:After thinking about this a bit, I don't like this plan. I'd rather see the business park than an ocean of parking around a club. I think a club (minus the ocean of parking) would fit way better across from Slowdown.


I still would take the club, parking and all, over an office park over there. This is god dam Downtown not Millard build some |expletive| office towers!


I wouldn't. An ocean of parking and a club that will be busy maybe 3 nights a week? Offices would bring people downtown 5 days a week at least. Also a office park doesn't have to be done like Con Agra wasting tons of space. Think density. 4-10 story buildings with underneath parking. A properly done business park would be WAY better than 1200 parking stalls IMO.

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:04 am

An office park up there would be isolated from the rest of Downtown and just contribute to the sprawl Downtown in addition to the Qwest lots, riverfront lots, and Gallup lots.

The plan for the office park area was/is for 1,000,000 sq ft of space. That's a whole Union Pacific Center and just under a First National. That much space divided up among vacant lots closer to the CBD would do a lot more for DT vitality then putting that much office space on the fringe of Downtown.

If the office park is built up there it would have no active use after business hours where buildings closer to the CBD would be more integrated into DT with other ground level uses after business hours a la Sullivan's and Starbuck's in Central Park Plaza. (Ahh I can't believe I referenced those buildings in a positive light.)
Image

the1wags
County Board
Posts: 3902
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:43 pm
Location: Denver
Contact:

Postby the1wags » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:13 am

You're wrong. That's approx a First National and just under a UPC. UPC is bigger.  :;):

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:15 am

It's not about size it's how you use it. Putting suburban office space DT is not a good use. :)
Image

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28396
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:21 pm

Having more people downtown, for more hours a day, more days a week is better!
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

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:43 pm

Brad wrote:Having more people downtown, for more hours a day, more days a week is better!


So why not just build a |expletive| load of campuses Downtown then?
Image

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28396
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:18 pm

DTO Luv wrote:
Brad wrote:Having more people downtown, for more hours a day, more days a week is better!


So why not just build a |expletive| load of campuses Downtown then?


First off... Do you see the word Campus in my post....  
Second on the edge of downtown, I don't mind campuses.
Third if you are going to have a music venue it is more or less a campus, I take the office.
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

DTO Luv
City Council
Posts: 9974
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:22 pm

Postby DTO Luv » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:53 pm

Brad wrote:First off... Do you see the word Campus in my post....
 

No but it seemed to be implied.

Brad wrote:Second on the edge of downtown, I don't mind campuses.


Midtown is on the edge of Downtown so let's tear down Mutual and MT Crossing and put in another Conagra.  Lets get rid of those beautiful brick er uh I mean useless old homes and build a couple of State Office buildings in the name of urban redevelopment. Soma is on the edge of DT as are the Burlington Station, The Rorick, and Little Italy. Since it's not right DT thats ok to turn everything into Millard. It doesn't matter if this is on the edge of DT. It's the URBAN part of the city so the office buildings should have some sort of URBAN design.


Brad wrote:Third if you are going to have a music venue it is more or less a campus, I take the office.


You can't have an outdoor concert venue in a 400 ft office building. Or can you? Hmmm.
Image

User avatar
nebport5
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Downtown

Postby nebport5 » Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:30 am

I'd prefer to see north downtown develop into a neighborhood with condos/apts etc. rather than offices and corporate structures.  But given the front door location and proximity to the airport I can't imagine a better DT location that may attract a relocating company.  A couple of Physician's Mutual sized structures here wouldn't look bad.

User avatar
Brad
City Council
Posts: 28396
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Omaha, NE
Contact:

Postby Brad » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:35 am

Why to you have to turn everything to an extreme.  Midtown crossing is as its |expletive| named.  Its in a MIDTOWN area that is densely populated.  Little Italy is a densely populated area between a central business district and a residential area.

On the other hand, the Union Pacific land is between a tourist area on the edge of the CBD, and a tank farm, a homeless shelter, 2 prisons, an INS building, a bunch of scrap metal dealers, an abandoned car lot, a strip club and finally the airport.

Not everyone wants to work in a tower.  not every business wants to be located in downtown so if a company wants to build a campus around a bunch of junk on some polluted land, go ahead.  There is darn near a mile between that land and the UP/FNB area, plenty of room for infill.
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

stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Postby stabone99 » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:02 pm

Before we discuss putting even more offices downtown, I think we should concentrate on filling what we already have including the Wall Street tower that is set to begin later this year.  I wouldn't be against putting some offices over there, but we need more than that.  This is supposed to be an 'entertainment district' of sorts and putting more offices doesn't fit the bill.

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

Postby Erik » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:12 pm

stabone99 wrote:Before we discuss putting even more offices downtown, I think we should concentrate on filling what we already have including the Wall Street tower that is set to begin later this year.  I wouldn't be against putting some offices over there, but we need more than that.  This is supposed to be an 'entertainment district' of sorts and putting more offices doesn't fit the bill.





Being that the Wallstreet tower will have no offices in it, this gives us even more reason to build an office tower in DT... Being that vacancies have fallen pretty far..

stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Postby stabone99 » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:28 pm


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

Postby Erik » Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:58 pm

stabone99 wrote:According to this article it will:

http://www.ketv.com/houseandhome/10672845/detail.html



Levels two, three and four will have retail space, offices and commercial

Typically in a residential office building these type of spaces are taken by dentists, doc's, may a few computer techs and stuff like that...

Your not going to see the typical 'highrise business' go into a residential building, those floors are usually meant to serve the people living in the tower and around at more of a service level than a corporate level..

stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Postby stabone99 » Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:43 pm

I see what you're saying.  I was thinking there was going to be a lot more office space than there is going to be.

User avatar
thenewguy
Planning Board
Posts: 2872
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Council Bluffs

Postby thenewguy » Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:13 pm

And you've got to realize that they were also planning on sticking hotel rooms in on the lower floors.  Not a lot, mind you, but still they will have rooms that will use up floors.

I'd like to know what a current estimate of Omaha's downtown vacancy is.  I'd love to see another high rise office building go in with the pinnacle hotel and WTO.
Go Cubs Go

stabone99
Home Owners Association
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:22 pm

Postby stabone99 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:54 pm

thenewguy wrote:And you've got to realize that they were also planning on sticking hotel rooms in on the lower floors.  Not a lot, mind you, but still they will have rooms that will use up floors.

I'd like to know what a current estimate of Omaha's downtown vacancy is.  I'd love to see another high rise office building go in with the pinnacle hotel and WTO.


That'd be nice for sure.  You just wonder how much more space is really needed at this point before other buildings start to suffer.

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 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:46 pm

I'd love to see a high level amphitheater in Omaha. There are alot of bands (such as 311) that prefer to play those rather than arenas and the construction/maintenance costs are probably substantially lower than a traditional arena. The one deviation that I'd like to see is for it to be placed in northern Omaha rather than downtown. Amphitheaters are pretty loud during the shows and they require a large amount of on site parking, plus it would be a nice boost to an otherwise ignored area.  

The Ford Amphitheater here in Tampa is a GREAT concert venue and has a 20,000+ seating capacity. I'd love to see something like that here in Omaha especially since Westfair is such a dump.

Linkin5
County Board
Posts: 3808
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:59 pm

Postby Linkin5 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:54 am

The people that proposed this project had their club in Minneapolis close down due to financial issues.

User avatar
nebport5
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Downtown

Postby nebport5 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:07 am

Bosco55David wrote:The one deviation that I'd like to see is for it to be placed in northern Omaha rather than downtown. Amphitheaters are pretty loud during the shows and they require a large amount of on site parking, plus it would be a nice boost to an otherwise ignored area.


I agree and have had similar thoughts for such a project on the North side, especially with the more interesting topography in many parts.  Of course, while not an amphitheater, the TD Ameritrade Stadium will provide considerable competition for outdoor shows.
Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others. - Jonathan Swift

JPenny
Home Owners Association
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:13 pm
Location: Omaha

Postby JPenny » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:37 am

I always thought it would be cool to have one up north by the river or in the "bluffs" up there looking over the city kinda like red rocks.


Return to “Projects Never Built”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest