Annexation 2018
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:33 am
Does anyone know the annexation plans for the City of Omaha this year? Just little Annexation's?
From that article, it states the population of the annexation should be 8,771.Coyote wrote: ↑Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:29 pm Omaha annexation plan would add more than 8,000 residents, Miracle Hill Golf Course
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.
From article on Omaha.com
Uffda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:41 pmFrom 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.Uffda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:41 pmFrom 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.Uffda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:41 pmFrom 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 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.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.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.
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: ↑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.)
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.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.
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.almighty_tuna wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:13 amNo, 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: ↑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.)
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.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.
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.almighty_tuna wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:13 amNo, 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: ↑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.)
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.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.
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.GetUrban wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:00 pmPeople 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.almighty_tuna wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:13 amNo, 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: ↑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.)
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.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.
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.
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.
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...almighty_tuna wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:22 amRockHarbor 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.
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.)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.
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*.RockHarbor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:52 pmAlmighty 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...almighty_tuna wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:22 amRockHarbor 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.
(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
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.RockHarbor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:03 pmNo, 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.)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.
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.)almighty_tuna wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:39 pmI 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*.RockHarbor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:52 pmAlmighty 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...almighty_tuna wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:22 amRockHarbor 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.
(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
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????
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.GetUrban wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:46 pmThat'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.RockHarbor wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:03 pmNo, 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.)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.