Omaha Forums

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?

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?).

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.

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.

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!

how about an office park with a PacLife tower?  

Then I'd quit.

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.

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.)

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 damn near a mile between that land and the UP/FNB area, plenty of room for infill.

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.

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..

According to this article it will:

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

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.