Annexation 2018

The Political decisions of Omaha.

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

Post Reply
OmahaFan
Home Owners Association
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Annexation 2018

Post by OmahaFan »

Does anyone know the annexation plans for the City of Omaha this year? Just little Annexation's?
User avatar
Garrett
Planning Board
Posts: 3487
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Garrett »

Super early to be asking that. Probably won't know for another 4 months or so, like last year. I wouldn't anticipate anything too spectacular.
OMA-->CHI-->NYC
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32937
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Coyote »

User avatar
skinzfan23
City Council
Posts: 9134
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Omaha/Bellevue

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by skinzfan23 »

From that article, it states the population of the annexation should be 8,771.

When you use the 2017 city population estimate, it should bring the Omaha total to 475,664. Inching closer to the 500,000 mark!
User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 32937
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Aksarben Village
Contact:

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Coyote »

Planning Board has this on their aganda for next Wednesday.

Approval of the 2018 Annexation Package:
Miracle Hills Golf Course and adjacent area;
Cherry Ridge (SID 380);
Cinnamon Creek (SID 392) and adjacent area;
Westin Hills, Westin Hills West (SID 415) and adjacent area;
Quail Hollow (SID 437) and adjacent area;
West Bay Woods (SID 439) and adjacent area;
Lake Cunningham Ridge (SID 445);
Bay Ridge/West Bay Woods 2 (SID 463) and adjacent area;
West Village Point/Village Cove (SID 483);
West Dodge Station (SID 487);
Manchester Park (SID 493) and adjacent area;
Pacific Pointe Estates (SID 498) and adjacent area;
Pacific Woods (SID 500) and adjacent area.

Projections show the City will collect over $58 million in additional property tax revenue, more than $15 million in sales tax, and $7 million in street and highway funds over the next ten years.
image.jpeg
image.jpeg (164.96 KiB) Viewed 6226 times
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10376
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by iamjacobm »

Interesting point today from Brinker Harding on Miracle Hills. Said he would like to remove it from the annexation package to leave SID on the table for future redevelopment.
Louie
County Board
Posts: 3758
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: Dundee

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Louie »

iamjacobm wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:44 pm Interesting point today from Brinker Harding on Miracle Hills. Said he would like to remove it from the annexation package to leave SID on the table for future redevelopment.
Dumb question, but what would that accomplish?
Bomaha
Home Owners Association
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:36 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Bomaha »

I believe it would reduce red tape and would allow for bonds to be issued for infrastructure projects if and when redevelopment happens.
User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 10376
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by iamjacobm »

Louie wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:14 pm
iamjacobm wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:44 pm Interesting point today from Brinker Harding on Miracle Hills. Said he would like to remove it from the annexation package to leave SID on the table for future redevelopment.
Dumb question, but what would that accomplish?
Very basically the Sanitary Improvement District(SID) can issue the bonds for infrastructure, sewers roads etc, in the development area. Most suburban housing developments are SIDs and then annexed when their debt is paid down. The West Farm development is a SID as well.

I think the city likes it because they don't have to find cash for the infrastructure investments, they are paid off by business and residents in the SID over time. I am not an expert in this process by any means though so I may not be totally representing the process.
User avatar
skinzfan23
City Council
Posts: 9134
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:26 am
Location: Omaha/Bellevue

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by skinzfan23 »

With the annexation package that the city council passed, Omaha's population should now be over 475,000!
User avatar
Uffda
County Board
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Land o Lakes, FL

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Uffda »

iamjacobm wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:44 pm Interesting point today from Brinker Harding on Miracle Hills. Said he would like to remove it from the annexation package to leave SID on the table for future redevelopment.
From article on Omaha.com

Stothert said last week that she disagreed with council members who said Miracle Hill should be excluded after the city five years ago agreed to a request from its owners to keep the course out of an annexation package then. At the time, Stothert said, its owners said it would be redeveloped within a year. It wasn’t.
We are the people our parents warned us about.

Jimmy Buffett
User avatar
Greg S
City Council
Posts: 7440
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:46 am

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Greg S »

Uffda wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:41 pm
iamjacobm wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:44 pm Interesting point today from Brinker Harding on Miracle Hills. Said he would like to remove it from the annexation package to leave SID on the table for future redevelopment.
From article on Omaha.com

Stothert said last week that she disagreed with council members who said Miracle Hill should be excluded after the city five years ago agreed to a request from its owners to keep the course out of an annexation package then. At the time, Stothert said, its owners said it would be redeveloped within a year. It wasn’t.


Interesting that Miracle Hills keeps getting out of annexation. Sounds like Stothert has doubts that they are really trying to redevelop. If no progress by next year's annexation, hopefully they are included in that one. Hoping my subdivision is included as well.

Greg
User avatar
bigredmed1
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 10:16 pm

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by bigredmed1 »

Uffda wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:41 pm
iamjacobm wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:44 pm Interesting point today from Brinker Harding on Miracle Hills. Said he would like to remove it from the annexation package to leave SID on the table for future redevelopment.
From article on Omaha.com

Stothert said last week that she disagreed with council members who said Miracle Hill should be excluded after the city five years ago agreed to a request from its owners to keep the course out of an annexation package then. At the time, Stothert said, its owners said it would be redeveloped within a year. It wasn’t.
I think she is correct. I also think that redevelopment of that course into residential properties would be a high risk flood situation given that much of that land is next to the Big Papio creek and this stream is already considered a high risk. I would rather see it stay a park or golf course and allow there to be land that can absorb and slowly release water into the creek than a bunch of parking lots that will rapidly transfer the rain into the creek.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

Uffda wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:41 pm
iamjacobm wrote: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:44 pm Interesting point today from Brinker Harding on Miracle Hills. Said he would like to remove it from the annexation package to leave SID on the table for future redevelopment.
From article on Omaha.com

Stothert said last week that she disagreed with council members who said Miracle Hill should be excluded after the city five years ago agreed to a request from its owners to keep the course out of an annexation package then. At the time, Stothert said, its owners said it would be redeveloped within a year. It wasn’t.
So, it's "Sorry! Times Up!", and they have to be punished as "S.O.L." by her, for not meeting deadlines & not living up to their word? Does she always meet her deadlines & always live up to her word? Two words: Restaurant tax.
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.
OmahaFan
Home Owners Association
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by OmahaFan »

I'm happy Omaha has annexed the following places but I think Omaha should think long term growth and possible expansion of Douglas county or at least the ability to Annex across county lines. I hope the census shows Omaha's growth and I also hope Omaha continues to do aggressive annexation. Also I heard the Mayor thinking about doing another term for Mayor when 2020 comes up if the city continues to prosper under her I'm voting again for her.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

OmahaFan wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:08 am I'm happy Omaha has annexed the following places but I think Omaha should think long term growth and possible expansion of Douglas county or at least the ability to Annex across county lines. I hope the census shows Omaha's growth and I also hope Omaha continues to do aggressive annexation. Also I heard the Mayor thinking about doing another term for Mayor when 2020 comes up if the city continues to prosper under her I'm voting again for her.
I think she seems like an overall respectable lady & hard-working mayor, and does a good job, but to give credit to others as well: Omaha has always been a prospering & growing town, before she ever came along. So, Omaha has had many good mayors/leaders all along the way, including now her. Just giving credit where credit is due. (With Omaha's annexations, the resulting population count is making it one of the largest Midwest cities, greater now then the city of Minneapolis and St Louis even. Kansas City is probably getting nervous, because we are right on their heels.) She's really focused on a new library for some reason, and this new riverfront development, both which would "open the door" to allow new buildings to suddenly block the twin towers & Woodmen Tower combo from Gene Leahy Mall. If she helps & assists in messing up our skyline to loose some of its thunder, and then moves off to some other place when her work is done & finished in Omaha, just like Con Agra came & entered with seemingly good intentions but then left our downtown & skyline in a worse aesthetic state at their exit, I will not think of her as some "good Omaha mayor" at all. She should be self-checked and always have "thee BEST of intentions" for Omaha within -- and nothing less.
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.
daveoma
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by daveoma »

OmahaFan wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:08 am I'm happy Omaha has annexed the following places but I think Omaha should think long term growth and possible expansion of Douglas county or at least the ability to Annex across county lines. I hope the census shows Omaha's growth and I also hope Omaha continues to do aggressive annexation. Also I heard the Mayor thinking about doing another term for Mayor when 2020 comes up if the city continues to prosper under her I'm voting again for her.
I totally agree with you that Omaha has a political geography problem. The space in Douglas county is running out, and a change in county lines would definitely assist the city. It seems to me that Douglas and Sarpy counties should be combined (when only taking into consideration geography and the ability annex). If not that, then the city should take pains to increase the density, to mitigate inability to expand beyond its perimeters.
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105417
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by almighty_tuna »

RockHarbor wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:32 am (With Omaha's annexations, the resulting population count is making it one of the largest Midwest cities, greater now then the city of Minneapolis and St Louis even. Kansas City is probably getting nervous, because we are right on their heels.)
No, they aren't getting nervous and we aren't one of the largest midwestern cities. Sure, we may technically have a larger population of the core cities for the metro areas you listed, but this means very little. If we have to rehash media markets, metro population, etc again I suppose we can, but I think it's clear we're not on the same playing field as KC, STL, MSP.
RockHarbor wrote:She's really focused on a new library for some reason, and this new riverfront development, both which would "open the door" to allow new buildings to suddenly block the twin towers & Woodmen Tower combo from Gene Leahy Mall. If she helps & assists in messing up our skyline to loose some of its thunder, and then moves off to some other place when her work is done & finished in Omaha, just like Con Agra came & entered with seemingly good intentions but then left our downtown & skyline in a worse aesthetic state at their exit, I will not think of her as some "good Omaha mayor" at all. She should be self-checked and always have "thee BEST of intentions" for Omaha within -- and nothing less.
The library site is prime development land and a "signature site", if you will. Getting the library off the site and the land on corporate tax rolls (massive tif concessions notwithstanding) is probably a priority. The view of the red buildings and general postcard view is nice, but if that gets in the way of hooking in a landmark tenant I would be more upset than losing some aesthetic view from 10th street. There are a bunch of other great views of the city if that's what's important. Downtown has been changed and redefined numerous times, and will continue to do so.
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by GetUrban »

almighty_tuna wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:13 am
RockHarbor wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:32 am (With Omaha's annexations, the resulting population count is making it one of the largest Midwest cities, greater now then the city of Minneapolis and St Louis even. Kansas City is probably getting nervous, because we are right on their heels.)
No, they aren't getting nervous and we aren't one of the largest midwestern cities. Sure, we may technically have a larger population of the core cities for the metro areas you listed, but this means very little. If we have to rehash media markets, metro population, etc again I suppose we can, but I think it's clear we're not on the same playing field as KC, STL, MSP.
RockHarbor wrote:She's really focused on a new library for some reason, and this new riverfront development, both which would "open the door" to allow new buildings to suddenly block the twin towers & Woodmen Tower combo from Gene Leahy Mall. If she helps & assists in messing up our skyline to loose some of its thunder, and then moves off to some other place when her work is done & finished in Omaha, just like Con Agra came & entered with seemingly good intentions but then left our downtown & skyline in a worse aesthetic state at their exit, I will not think of her as some "good Omaha mayor" at all. She should be self-checked and always have "thee BEST of intentions" for Omaha within -- and nothing less.
The library site is prime development land and a "signature site", if you will. Getting the library off the site and the land on corporate tax rolls (massive tif concessions notwithstanding) is probably a priority. The view of the red buildings and general postcard view is nice, but if that gets in the way of hooking in a landmark tenant I would be more upset than losing some aesthetic view from 10th street. There are a bunch of other great views of the city if that's what's important. Downtown has been changed and redefined numerous times, and will continue to do so.
People need to stop thinking of certain views and groupings of buildings in cities as static or "set" and never-changing. Cities are, and need to be, a dynamic and ever-changing thing. There are buildings that are so good, great, or important, that they should never be altered or removed. The Nebraska State Capitol is a good example, and it is even worthy enough to always maintain and protect certain views of it. The St. louis arch is another example. The privately-owed red twins west of the GLM do not rise to that level of importance to protect their view at all costs. If someone wants to build something more impressive and substantial east of it, altering the view, then so be it. I'd rather see Omaha continue to evolve and grow. We gave up the 1920s 19-story Medical Arts Building, but at least we got the 40+ story FNB tower to replace it. (It would have been nice to have both) If someone wants to build another taller high-rise that partially blocks the a view of FNB we should let them. Then we'd have a more interesting skyline that keeps getting even more interesting throughout time.

I do think it is important for people who care about aesthetics to voice their opinions, but also allow their opinions to be persuaded to change if they can be convinced otherwise from differing viewpoints or information they hadn't yet considered.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

almighty_tuna wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:13 am
RockHarbor wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:32 am (With Omaha's annexations, the resulting population count is making it one of the largest Midwest cities, greater now then the city of Minneapolis and St Louis even. Kansas City is probably getting nervous, because we are right on their heels.)
No, they aren't getting nervous and we aren't one of the largest midwestern cities. Sure, we may technically have a larger population of the core cities for the metro areas you listed, but this means very little. If we have to rehash media markets, metro population, etc again I suppose we can, but I think it's clear we're not on the same playing field as KC, STL, MSP.
RockHarbor wrote:She's really focused on a new library for some reason, and this new riverfront development, both which would "open the door" to allow new buildings to suddenly block the twin towers & Woodmen Tower combo from Gene Leahy Mall. If she helps & assists in messing up our skyline to loose some of its thunder, and then moves off to some other place when her work is done & finished in Omaha, just like Con Agra came & entered with seemingly good intentions but then left our downtown & skyline in a worse aesthetic state at their exit, I will not think of her as some "good Omaha mayor" at all. She should be self-checked and always have "thee BEST of intentions" for Omaha within -- and nothing less.
The library site is prime development land and a "signature site", if you will. Getting the library off the site and the land on corporate tax rolls (massive tif concessions notwithstanding) is probably a priority. The view of the red buildings and general postcard view is nice, but if that gets in the way of hooking in a landmark tenant I would be more upset than losing some aesthetic view from 10th street. There are a bunch of other great views of the city if that's what's important. Downtown has been changed and redefined numerous times, and will continue to do so.
Omaha is technically one of the largest midwest cities now, population wise -- just not of the largest Midwest metros. It's kind of like Indianapolis has huge city limits, and looks high on city population lists, but its metro isn't huge.

Believe me, I'm sure Kansas City wouldn't like the idea of Omaha technically being a "larger city" than it. They are buildings tons of high-rises and cramming people in, I notice. Not sure if that is just natural "condo love", though, which is happening in all cities. They seem to be also more aggresively developing their long underdeveloped northside now, too. I dont blame Kansas City. Its used to being the bigger town.

I'm at the point where I DON'T CARE what they build on the library site anymore. I am soooo tired of it all. Build a huge freakin', wiggly "tornado monument" there, like they have in Oklahoma (or maybe Kansas) for all I care. OVER IT. :)
Last edited by RockHarbor on Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

GetUrban wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:00 pm
almighty_tuna wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:13 am
RockHarbor wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:32 am (With Omaha's annexations, the resulting population count is making it one of the largest Midwest cities, greater now then the city of Minneapolis and St Louis even. Kansas City is probably getting nervous, because we are right on their heels.)
No, they aren't getting nervous and we aren't one of the largest midwestern cities. Sure, we may technically have a larger population of the core cities for the metro areas you listed, but this means very little. If we have to rehash media markets, metro population, etc again I suppose we can, but I think it's clear we're not on the same playing field as KC, STL, MSP.
RockHarbor wrote:She's really focused on a new library for some reason, and this new riverfront development, both which would "open the door" to allow new buildings to suddenly block the twin towers & Woodmen Tower combo from Gene Leahy Mall. If she helps & assists in messing up our skyline to loose some of its thunder, and then moves off to some other place when her work is done & finished in Omaha, just like Con Agra came & entered with seemingly good intentions but then left our downtown & skyline in a worse aesthetic state at their exit, I will not think of her as some "good Omaha mayor" at all. She should be self-checked and always have "thee BEST of intentions" for Omaha within -- and nothing less.
The library site is prime development land and a "signature site", if you will. Getting the library off the site and the land on corporate tax rolls (massive tif concessions notwithstanding) is probably a priority. The view of the red buildings and general postcard view is nice, but if that gets in the way of hooking in a landmark tenant I would be more upset than losing some aesthetic view from 10th street. There are a bunch of other great views of the city if that's what's important. Downtown has been changed and redefined numerous times, and will continue to do so.
People need to stop thinking of certain views and groupings of buildings in cities as static or "set" and never-changing. Cities are, and need to be, a dynamic and ever-changing thing. There are buildings that are so good, great, or important, that they should never be altered or removed. The Nebraska State Capitol is a good example, and it is even worthy enough to always maintain and protect certain views of it. The St. louis arch is another example. The privately-owed red twins west of the GLM do not rise to that level of importance to protect their view at all costs. If someone wants to build something more impressive and substantial east of it, altering the view, then so be it. I'd rather see Omaha continue to evolve and grow. We gave up the 1920s 19-story Medical Arts Building, but at least we got the 40+ story FNB tower to replace it. (It would have been nice to have both) If someone wants to build another taller high-rise that partially blocks the a view of FNB we should let them. Then we'd have a more interesting skyline that keeps getting even more interesting throughout time.

I do think it is important for people who care about aesthetics to voice their opinions, but also allow their opinions to be persuaded to change if they can be convinced otherwise from differing viewpoints or information they hadn't yet considered.
I agree with you on many levels. I don't put the red twins as important as the Arch, the Space Needle, or the Reunion Tower, I'm simply meaning it is Omaha's civic trademark "something" that is memorable -- if anything there is memorable. The twin towers in NYC were iconic, too, and they helped give NYC a memorable symbol, along with the ESB. It's amazing that such simple, yet eye-catching, geometry can do so much in people's minds & hearts.

Omaha's skyline will continue to evolve. I just don't think I'm ready for that big of a drastic change, though. Growing up, I NEVER would have believed they would have just blocked those signature twins by 2020 -- like they are planning. Without even knowing the history behind them as a youngster, I just knew they were designed as a focal point at the end of that long mall. When I see early 80's pictures of Omaha, it just looks NICE with a fresher, younger Woodmen Tower, new red twins, and a young & fresh Central Park Mall. It just came together well -- and it wasn't usual & ordinary. The colors of red & white together also seemed apt for the main city of Nebraska. I'm ready for new & big things for Omaha, and changes, but I'm not sure I'm ready for that loss. It almost feels like they should be covered & "lost in the shuffle" in maybe 2080, like when you see how much a city has changed with a jump into the future -- like in a movie. But, not yet, imo.

Here's an article on it: https://www.omaha.com/money/architect-t ... ad455.html

Here's the thread on the twins I started ways back: http://eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=17829

If/when they cover them up from the park, and if it makes Omaha look way disappointingly different, and people see what we really had (like NYC's twin towers were widely criticized, yet NYC is just not the same without them, and now many people truly realize their impact), and people see what we lost with city planners' & a mayor's decisions that weren't careful & thoughtful enough, it won't be on me or you. It will all be on them. (The average person in Omaha worries more about what store or restaurant is on the corner in the Old Market, or how their hair looks, or what's new on the menu, over what downtown buildings look like, or how the city looks from certain vantage points. I dont expect people to -- even a mayor. But, I do expect city planners & architects to "get it.")
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.
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105417
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by almighty_tuna »

RockHarbor wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:38 pm
Omaha is technically one of the largest midwest cities now, population wise -- just not of the largest Midwest metros. It's kind of like Indianapolis has huge city limits, and looks high on city population lists, but its metro isn't huge.
Image
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by GetUrban »

RockHarbor,

You must have friends or family who work or have worked for Leo A Daly? Or you're just their biggest fan? I admit they've done the majority of good and high-profile architecture in Omaha and recently are taking a lead role in preserving some of Omaha's historic buildings. But most architectural critics would argue that they've been a bit on the conservative, understated side, design-wise. They're probably not going to produce anything controversial like Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava, Coope Himmelblau, Daniel Libeskind, Richard Rogers, or even Norman Foster. They are really good though. Don't get me wrong.

Whoever ends up responsible for the design of any new buildings at the west end of GLM will most likely have to go through the process of winning buy-in from nearly all of the stakeholders, including public consensus. It's highly unlikely that the design will simply get shoved down our throats by some "star" designer or strictly only from the mayor's point of view.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

almighty_tuna wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:22 am
RockHarbor wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:38 pm
Omaha is technically one of the largest midwest cities now, population wise -- just not of the largest Midwest metros. It's kind of like Indianapolis has huge city limits, and looks high on city population lists, but its metro isn't huge.
Image
Almighty Tuna: I dont get what is so hard to understand. Check out this list. Who's ahead of Omaha in the Midwest on this US City population list? Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Detroit...
(Not many cities.) Even if a city has a smaller metro, it can still look like a "great big city" by technically being the "largest city" with the greatest population. Cities that have boxed-in city limits (Minneapolis, St Louis, ect) easily are over taken by the Omahas, the Columbuses, ect. Get what I mean now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... population
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
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

GetUrban wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:15 pm RockHarbor,

You must have friends or family who work or have worked for Leo A Daly? Or you're just their biggest fan? I admit they've done the majority of good and high-profile architecture in Omaha and recently are taking a lead role in preserving some of Omaha's historic buildings. But most architectural critics would argue that they've been a bit on the conservative, understated side, design-wise. They're probably not going to produce anything controversial like Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava, Coope Himmelblau, Daniel Libeskind, Richard Rogers, or even Norman Foster. They are really good though. Don't get me wrong.

Whoever ends up responsible for the design of any new buildings at the west end of GLM will most likely have to go through the process of winning buy-in from nearly all of the stakeholders, including public consensus. It's highly unlikely that the design will simply get shoved down our throats by some "star" designer or strictly only from the mayor's point of view.
No, I have a "band crush" on that firm. Ok? (Haha JK. ) No, I just think they've all done a great job in Omaha (along with HDR) and they do whats appropriate for Omaha. If you look at their portfolio, they can do bigger & brighter & snazzier stuff, but what they do for Omaha fits well (contextually) there. Thats my kinda architect!! I think the way they do. Now, I hope & pray this project turns out well, and I hope what you say is true. I just hate how they are plopping office buildings on those lawns, some at odd angles. What kind of downtown has buildings set on voids in a big lawn? Thats not "urban" at all. (Its like this: Tight & urban, set on water with bridges, San Francisco is considered the "crown jewel" city on the West Coast. Seattle follows close behind. Portland is impressive, too. Los Angeles, although a neat & lovable skyline, is not up there with them because it is not as tight & urban, is more spread thin & spaced out, and the downtown is not set on water. Make sense? Urban awards belong to tight & urban cities.)
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.
almighty_tuna
City Council
Posts: 105417
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:34 pm
Location: Somewhere between downtown and Colorado
Contact:

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by almighty_tuna »

RockHarbor wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:52 pm
almighty_tuna wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:22 am
RockHarbor wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:38 pm
Omaha is technically one of the largest midwest cities now, population wise -- just not of the largest Midwest metros. It's kind of like Indianapolis has huge city limits, and looks high on city population lists, but its metro isn't huge.
Image
Almighty Tuna: I dont get what is so hard to understand. Check out this list. Who's ahead of Omaha in the Midwest on this US City population list? Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Detroit...
(Not many cities.) Even if a city has a smaller metro, it can still look like a "great big city" by technically being the "largest city" with the greatest population. Cities that have boxed-in city limits (Minneapolis, St Louis, ect) easily are over taken by the Omahas, the Columbuses, ect. Get what I mean now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... population
I see the list. I've seen the list before. I understand that the (look above for this same reference) *CORE* city population of Omaha may be larger than that of Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, et al. However, I'll say it again, this value means absolutely squat. You can bang the gong all you want about Omaha proper being more populous than Cleveland proper. You look like an idiot trying to go apples-to-apples between the Omaha metro and any of these other aforementioned cities. Market share (oh god, here we go again) *matters*. Metro population base *matters*.

heck, why doesn't Lincoln enjoy the amenities and big-city opportunities like Orlando does because Lincoln is bigger than they are?? Where is Universal Studios Lincoln????
User avatar
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by GetUrban »

RockHarbor wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:03 pm
GetUrban wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:15 pm RockHarbor,

You must have friends or family who work or have worked for Leo A Daly? Or you're just their biggest fan? I admit they've done the majority of good and high-profile architecture in Omaha and recently are taking a lead role in preserving some of Omaha's historic buildings. But most architectural critics would argue that they've been a bit on the conservative, understated side, design-wise. They're probably not going to produce anything controversial like Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava, Coope Himmelblau, Daniel Libeskind, Richard Rogers, or even Norman Foster. They are really good though. Don't get me wrong.

Whoever ends up responsible for the design of any new buildings at the west end of GLM will most likely have to go through the process of winning buy-in from nearly all of the stakeholders, including public consensus. It's highly unlikely that the design will simply get shoved down our throats by some "star" designer or strictly only from the mayor's point of view.
No, I have a "band crush" on that firm. Ok? (Haha JK. ) No, I just think they've all done a great job in Omaha (along with HDR) and they do whats appropriate for Omaha. If you look at their portfolio, they can do bigger & brighter & snazzier stuff, but what they do for Omaha fits well (contextually) there. Thats my kinda architect!! I think the way they do. Now, I hope & pray this project turns out well, and I hope what you say is true. I just hate how they are plopping office buildings on those lawns, some at odd angles. What kind of downtown has buildings set on voids in a big lawn? Thats not "urban" at all. (Its like this: Tight & urban, set on water with bridges, San Francisco is considered the "crown jewel" city on the West Coast. Seattle follows close behind. Portland is impressive, too. Los Angeles, although a neat & lovable skyline, is not up there with them because it is not as tight & urban, is more spread thin & spaced out, and the downtown is not set on water. Make sense? Urban awards belong to tight & urban cities.)
That's fine you're content with the architecture we've added the last 60 or so years because it blends-in with the existing context, but it didn't fit the context of what came before the 1940s, since a good portion of that was demolished. Nevertheless, I believe architectural design needs to evolve and push the envelope even more than it has in Omaha the last 60 years and challenge people to see what is architecturally possible and let it add more excitement to our lives so we don't resemble something out of the movie About Schmidt.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

almighty_tuna wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:39 pm
RockHarbor wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:52 pm
almighty_tuna wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:22 am
RockHarbor wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:38 pm
Omaha is technically one of the largest midwest cities now, population wise -- just not of the largest Midwest metros. It's kind of like Indianapolis has huge city limits, and looks high on city population lists, but its metro isn't huge.
Image
Almighty Tuna: I dont get what is so hard to understand. Check out this list. Who's ahead of Omaha in the Midwest on this US City population list? Kansas City, Columbus, Indianapolis, Detroit...
(Not many cities.) Even if a city has a smaller metro, it can still look like a "great big city" by technically being the "largest city" with the greatest population. Cities that have boxed-in city limits (Minneapolis, St Louis, ect) easily are over taken by the Omahas, the Columbuses, ect. Get what I mean now? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... population
I see the list. I've seen the list before. I understand that the (look above for this same reference) *CORE* city population of Omaha may be larger than that of Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, et al. However, I'll say it again, this value means absolutely squat. You can bang the gong all you want about Omaha proper being more populous than Cleveland proper. You look like an idiot trying to go apples-to-apples between the Omaha metro and any of these other aforementioned cities. Market share (oh god, here we go again) *matters*. Metro population base *matters*.

heck, why doesn't Lincoln enjoy the amenities and big-city opportunities like Orlando does because Lincoln is bigger than they are?? Where is Universal Studios Lincoln????
Tuna: I totally agree with you. It doesn't really mean squat. The metro area population mostly means something. (I get what you mean, and you get what I mean.)

Some people aren't educated enough to realize that, though. For example, some people think Kansas City is larger than St Louis, because it has a higher population within the city limits. So, it is larger as a city -- technically. But, the St Louis metro has nearly a million more people than the Kansas City metro.

I'm just saying that a city STILL likes moving up that list, and beating other cities around it. It still means *something.* I'm sure Omaha wouldn't mind surpassing Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, and Columbus someday.
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
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

GetUrban wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:46 pm
RockHarbor wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:03 pm
GetUrban wrote: Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:15 pm RockHarbor,

You must have friends or family who work or have worked for Leo A Daly? Or you're just their biggest fan? I admit they've done the majority of good and high-profile architecture in Omaha and recently are taking a lead role in preserving some of Omaha's historic buildings. But most architectural critics would argue that they've been a bit on the conservative, understated side, design-wise. They're probably not going to produce anything controversial like Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Santiago Calatrava, Coope Himmelblau, Daniel Libeskind, Richard Rogers, or even Norman Foster. They are really good though. Don't get me wrong.

Whoever ends up responsible for the design of any new buildings at the west end of GLM will most likely have to go through the process of winning buy-in from nearly all of the stakeholders, including public consensus. It's highly unlikely that the design will simply get shoved down our throats by some "star" designer or strictly only from the mayor's point of view.
No, I have a "band crush" on that firm. Ok? (Haha JK. ) No, I just think they've all done a great job in Omaha (along with HDR) and they do whats appropriate for Omaha. If you look at their portfolio, they can do bigger & brighter & snazzier stuff, but what they do for Omaha fits well (contextually) there. Thats my kinda architect!! I think the way they do. Now, I hope & pray this project turns out well, and I hope what you say is true. I just hate how they are plopping office buildings on those lawns, some at odd angles. What kind of downtown has buildings set on voids in a big lawn? Thats not "urban" at all. (Its like this: Tight & urban, set on water with bridges, San Francisco is considered the "crown jewel" city on the West Coast. Seattle follows close behind. Portland is impressive, too. Los Angeles, although a neat & lovable skyline, is not up there with them because it is not as tight & urban, is more spread thin & spaced out, and the downtown is not set on water. Make sense? Urban awards belong to tight & urban cities.)
That's fine you're content with the architecture we've added the last 60 or so years because it blends-in with the existing context, but it didn't fit the context of what came before the 1940s, since a good portion of that was demolished. Nevertheless, I believe architectural design needs to evolve and push the envelope even more than it has in Omaha the last 60 years and challenge people to see what is architecturally possible and let it add more excitement to our lives so we don't resemble something out of the movie About Schmidt.
I just mean this: The Daly firm designs MODERN buildings that always fit well into Omaha, buildings that are appropriate there, buildings that are pleasing & "safe" in design. Cesar Pelli, my favorite architect, always does that, too. Yes, sometimes a "Bolt from the Blue" Phillip Johnson-type "big splash" in architecture is needed for a city. Phillip Johnson's buildings, and Helmut Jahn's, and Michael Grave's stuff, have done wonderful things for certain cities. (Furthermore, I cannot imagine San Francisco without the TransAmerica Pyramid, for example.) Everything doesn't have to be contextual. But, when it isn't contextual architecture being designed, an architect better be very careful in making sure it will work. That's my viewpoint.

By the way, Daly's Woodmen Tower was a "new splash" in town that worked. Yet, that type of "shoebox" skyscraper design was popular & demanded in that era -- so many cities were getting that, and it always worked, and it was safe. They were skyscrapers of minimal, simple, conventional geometry that worked well as a modern "new statement" contrasted against the more ornate old, historic buildings.

I do want bigger & better things for Omaha. Sometimes, I'm honestly tired of the "postcard shot." But, it still looks right -- and I don't want to see that ruined senselessly or carelessly. Charlotte is a good example I can give. I used to adore the Charlotte skyline -- which reflected almost a "Southern Belle" look. Then, I don't know if somebody wanted to break that trend, or not have the city be always bound to that style, or what, but some architect designed the insensitive Duke Energy Center (a striking, modern building in itself, but one that looks like it belongs in Shanghai more than Charlotte), and that whole skyline is just thrown off, imo. I just don't love the Charlotte skyline anymore. It's like an "intruder" is there, something "not playing with the rest of the team." (Maybe some people love it. I don't know. I don't like seeing it in Charlotte AT ALL, though.)

I also don't like the Philadelphia skyline anymore with the addition of the Comcast Center. (Looking at a model of the building, from base to apex, I like the building considerably better. It needs that design at the base to "echo" that tower's apex. But the skyscraper's base is covered in Philadelphia, like it is often covered in dense cities, so all I see is this glossy, glassy tapering tower rising up with this big square punched out of the top. It looks clunky & empty to me. It just bugs me every time I see it... It also has received architecture criticism I 100% see eye-to-eye with.) So, architects always need to be careful & sensitive & thoughtful, imo.

Back to the riverfront development: I found this great article today from Omaha Magazine. The man (Gary Bowen) interviewed thinks filling in Gene Leahy Mall is a mistake. It's interesting hearing his input: http://omahamagazine.com/articles/goodb ... eahy-mall/

I can see their logical points in filling in the Gene Leahy Mall, but I can see his opposing points, too. I'm partly undecided. My main beef with this plan is: 1) Possibly ruining the winning & crowd-pleasing "Postcard Shot" that looks right. 2) Not erasing the suburban scar on Omaha from the Con Agra campus. If anything, they are making it worse by intermingling & hopscotching non-matching architecture together, and plopping large office bulidings on voids in that big lawn. (Downtown office buildings have grassy lawns & bushes leading up to them? NO -- suburban homes & suburban office buildings do. Downtown office buildings are supposed to be snug & tight against cement street corners, and have planters outside on the sidewalk.)

The plan shows a reading room & park stuff in that city block directly in front of the library. But, I thought that animated video of the plan showed them plopping big tall buildings there, directly in front of the library site. Did I see that wrong? Or, is there really a discrepancy between the video and the plan shown here?

By the way, I researched where ConAgra is now. I pictured them in some suburban office buildings out in the Chicago 'burbs. But, no. They are in that big, old, historic stone building (off to the left, green roof). I think its the "Chicago Market Center" or something. NICE. http://i.yochicago.com/images/hpmain/714/282714.jpg
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
GetUrban
Planning Board
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by GetUrban »

We've probably drifted too far off of the original "annexation 2018" topic of this thread. Maybe the last few GLM-related posts can be moved over to a GLM thread. I think there is still a lot of detail to talk about on GLM and the new plan vs. the 2012 BVH and the 1970s plans. I have great respect for Gary Bowen and others who have bee involved since the 1960s-70s. Filling-in and raising the simulated river portion of the park seems to be the consensus that may have already been reached and the biggest point of contention with the fans of the original park.

The building in Chicago that ConAgra moved their HQ into is the old Merchandise Mart building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchandise_Mart
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings"
...and then they were gone.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

That's right. "Merhandise Mart." I knew I had the name wrong. I just couldn't remember what it was called. (I'm wondering where Con Agra was housed before they coixed Omaha into accepting the Downtown campus & lake? Another building in Omaha? The twins maybe? Another city altogether?) Also, I get their logical points in filling in the mall, but I would miss the unique & peaceful sunken lagoon, too -- as well as the night reflection of the city lights on the surface. One major point they give, the new ability for foot traffic to move easier from the Old Market to sites/attractions in North Downtown, could technically be solved by building a simple 2nd bridge over the lagoon, maybe one over a narrow portion of it that is directly even with 11th street (or whatever street borders the east end of the data center attached to the Landmark Center). Thats the main annoyance & obstruction for foot traffic: That long data center PLUS the long section of lagoon that has no quick bridge crossing over it after one walks around the data center and enters the park. Also, if they keep the lagoon around, I don't know why they can't incorporate more beautiful water garden plants like papyrus, reeds, water lilies, ect. -- at least in a quieter cove of the lagoon. Maybe some willowy foliage. Those water garden plants are really neat species. Koi fish are also amazing, but there may be problems with those in the lagoon...I'm sure. (Anyways, yes, steering back on the topic of annexation...)
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.
Erik
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:55 am

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by Erik »

I know what RockHarbor is really at with this. The size of the city scales along with potential. The city has a lot larger area to work with, a potential tax base that increases with area.

I feel that we should allow Douglas County to remain the border limitation for the sole purpose of refocusing growth in the city. Many cities have to focus on building upward instead of outward, also considering the need for gentrification which would assist in growth and higher end architectures.

Douglas County isn't a huge county, but it is larger than many borders of most US city limits. I say, it is time to start enhancing inward growth like Des Moines and Kansas City (and numerous others) have to do. We can leave the outward growth for the smaller cities.
User avatar
RockHarbor
Planning Board
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Silver State

Re: Annexation 2018

Post by RockHarbor »

I appreciate that. I agree Omaha needs to focus on inward growth. The city is definitely getting more & more dense -- and that is exciting. I'm just simply getting at that Omaha's annexations and general population growth is making it officially one of the largest cities of the Midwest & Great Plains, and it is now nipping at Kansas City's heels. I realize metro population is where it really counts, but still, I'm sure Omaha is glad to be high on the city list, and I'm not so sure Kansas City (which has enjoyed expansive, non-boxed-in city limits, like Omaha) likes the fact that Omaha, NE (their "smaller sister" to the north) is gaining on them fast. That's all...
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.
Post Reply