First National Tower

onehunglow · Post by **onehunglow** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:24 pm

does anyone know if they have a trump card over anyone coming in and building a tower taller than them? just something i saw somewhere else. not sure if it has been discussed on here. thanks

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:28 pm

THere are no height restrictions DT.

onehunglow · Post by **onehunglow** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:33 pm

cool! thanks man

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:26 pm

while it looks good as an anchor for the skyline, i'd really enjoy some woodmen or WTO-height buildings around it. That's something i love about Chicago's skyline...and what disappoints me about Hong Kong/Dubai/Los Angeles' skyline: having the proper mix of mid-height buildings to compliment a focal point. The latter 3 have many buildings, but they don't look as impressive because that's all that's there. Chicago, on the other hand, has tall buildings and a nice array of other size/shaped buildings to compliment it. That's what First National needs.

the1wags · Post by **the1wags** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:59 pm

Call me crazy but I'd gladly take 2 more 300-350ft buildings over another 600ft one. We need to work on our density and filling surface lots.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:47 pm

I know that the Woodmen building had something worked out with the city setting a restriction on the height of surrounding buildings; that was lifted when First Nat'l built. I haven't heard of anything about FNB setting a new restriction, so I would say no.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:01 pm

I never heard anything about a height restriction due to the Woodman either. I find it a bit suspect.

Post by **Brad** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:09 pm

DTO Luv wrote:I never heard anything about a height restriction due to the Woodman either. I find it a bit suspect.

Adam is right. There use to be a restriction back then.

There is or at least was a restriction around the 72 and center area. Buildings with in "X" miles of the then commercial federal tower could only be so many feet tall. The First Data building 73rd and Pacific is just a few inches short of being in "violation".

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:13 am

What was the reasoning? The Woodman Tower isn't that significant of a building.

Post by **Brad** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:17 am

DTO Luv wrote:What was the reasoning? The Woodman Tower isn't that significant of a building.

It was in Omaha in the 1970's When you want to build Class A Office space, which the woodman was at the time, you don't want someone to come in and top you before you get the return on your investment. I don't think they would do it anymore.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:17 am

Brad wrote:
DTO Luv wrote:What was the reasoning? The Woodman Tower isn't that significant of a building.
It was in Omaha in the 1970's When you want to build Class A Office space, which the woodman was at the time, you don't want someone to come in and top you before you get the return on your investment. I don't think they would do it anymore.

That sounds like a back room deal to me. Tons of cities built many office buildings in the 70's. Why would the Woodmen get any special treatment from the city to keep out competition? It doesn't surprise me though given all of their secret society |expletive|.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:30 am

DTO, it was a backroom deal with the city in order to get Woodman to build that tall in the 1970's.

ricko · Post by **ricko** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:05 am

A good buddy of mine (an economist and fellow Omaha geek) used to work for MAPA in the 70's, and I remember him telling me a "back-room" story about TransAmerica Corp. (or it might have been Bank of America) wanting to build a skyscraper/regional headquarters back in the 70's that would have been taller than the Woodmen----within a block of the Woodmen. He claimed that there were powerful elements in the business community that were determined to make sure this didn't happen----and I guess they got their wish. Something about competition for the 'labor pool'----I don't remember the details. He claimed that the 'then' handful of large corporations that dominated the city wanted to keep the city 'as it was'---maybe that's why Omaha's growth in the 70's and 80's was so stagnant, or even negative---and maybe that's why so many people left, including my MAPA friend.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:09 am

Backroom deals where people get topped before getting a return on their investment??? You guys are dirty! 8) :mrgreen: :yes:

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:06 am

Yeah those things never happen.

I think there is a height restriction. From what I remember 5,280ft. The military owns anything above that. So technically...

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:47 pm

it'd be sweet...and awfully humbling...if something like this were proposed and built here

http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=34622

It's got almost 4.6m sq/ft of space... more than all the buildings downtown. And, it would add some wicked density...but it's being built in the middle east; one can dream though.

Edit: i put this in this section because of the talk of height restrictions, etc. That would have to be beefed waaay down to look right in Omaha, though

ShawJ · Post by **ShawJ** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:14 pm

Cool building, but looks like a bunch of plain rectangles. I hope our next skyscraper has something besides a flat top, and something a bit more unique than a rectangular base.

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:35 pm

i forgot to include this link here...

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?25002165

...and if it is to scale, that building is just absolutely friggin' huge! :shock:

But i agree; i don't want the next one (after WTO), to be just a block with a flat top. Now, i wouldn't want it some funky, ultra modern building like many that are starting to pop up in Dubai, but some sort of mix of shape and color that would compliment the skyline instead of detract from it.