Failed Riverfront Proposals?

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:42 pm

Anyone have or know where on the net I can get images and info on the proposals that were rejected by mr. fahey? I believe there were something like 4 that were rejected in favor of Riverfront Place.

I'm sure they were on eomaha.com at some point and I have tried to google them with no success.

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:53 am

Found it.

http://www.omahariverfront.com/articles ... ivrdev.htm

It isn't that I don't like what is there but take a look at the Broadmoor & Signa proposals. I just think that they are more interesting and ok bigger that what ultimately is there. It's like the Hilton vs. Marriott hotels. It appears that mr fahey went with the lessor of what was available.

Just my opinion.[/url]

ShawJ · Post by **ShawJ** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:33 am

^^^That was supposed to go on the CB side of the Ped Bridge? Not much for retail, but it would have added some density.

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:00 am

that was one of the proposals i remembered seeing for playland, but i was thinking there were some others that weren't so horizontally stretched out. As far as it goes on the Omaha side, i think i like this one the best...

...although what we got wasn't a pile of |expletive| by comparison. They were all of similar height, so it's not like there was some massively tall building we missed out on. I suppose this one isn't bad, either...

For what it's worth, the concept for RFP is very similar to what was actually built, without many visible differences:

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:15 am

There were certainly some opportunities missed with what actually was built. It's a shame we still only have one restaurant on the riverfront, given the size of the developments, and the popularity of the bridge. On the other hand, I agree with Kerry that we need to be careful to not detract from the iconic design of the bridge by blocking the view with too many residential towers right up against it. I think a good part of the view of the bridge from Abbot Dr. will be blocked once the second tower is built....kind of a shame.

I'd still like to see a west extension off the ped bridge, across Riverfront Drive & the RR tracks to Webster Street, north of the Quest. This was part of the early plans for the original more substantial curved cable-stayed bridge designed by BVH & Figg, before it went out for bids. That would be a great connection to North Downtown and the new Ballpark.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:25 am

I always liked that first proposal the best but I would have gone with what we have 2nd. That Signa tower is a bulky monster and would clash with the bridge.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:34 am

thenewguy wrote:that was one of the proposals i remembered seeing for playland, but i was thinking there were some others that weren't so horizontally stretched out. As far as it goes on the Omaha side, i think i like this one the best...

...although what we got wasn't a pile of |expletive| by comparison. They were all of similar height, so it's not like there was some massively tall building we missed out on. I suppose this one isn't bad, either...

For what it's worth, the concept for RFP is very similar to what was actually built, without many visible differences:

I wish we could have gotten them all, it could have been Omaha's 4th skyline. But, I like the first one the most.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:26 am

GetUrban wrote:I think a good part of the view of the bridge from Abbot Dr. will be blocked once the second tower is built....kind of a shame.

What 2nd tower?

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:13 pm

riverfront place 2

Erik · Post by **Erik** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:29 pm

Bosco55David wrote:
GetUrban wrote:I think a good part of the view of the bridge from Abbot Dr. will be blocked once the second tower is built....kind of a shame.
What 2nd tower?

The second tower is identical looking, just a couple of stories taller than the first.. It is slated to break ground in the spring..

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:21 pm

I really liked the first one. Too bad it didn't work out. It would have created such a more active riverfront, but oh well. I think Fahey was thinking two towers are better than one, trying to make up for the Marriott decision.

Oh well, I am happy with what we got though. It will look great once the second tower gets built.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:25 pm

Why blame Fahey? A committee looked over all the proposals and passed their recommendation to Fahey, who in turn passed on to City Council. I'm sure Fahey has better things to do than pore over thousand page proposals.

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:32 pm

icejammer wrote:Why blame Fahey? A committee looked over all the proposals and passed their recommendation to Fahey, who in turn passed on to City Council. I'm sure Fahey has better things to do than pore over thousand page proposals.

I wasn't blaming anyone, I like what we ended up with. It was his choice though wasn't it?

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:35 pm

http://www.riverfrontplace.com/

Has a link for a virtual tour under "now taking reservations for Riverfront Place Tower II"

In the tour, it looks like they have a restaurant/retail right up to the river front. I don't know if that's still being pursued, or even viable at this point with the reconfiguration of the landing on the Omaha side but it'd be good to have something like it there. Also, it'd be cool if they could include docks and a boardwalk right on the river's edge, like you can kind of see in the first picture from my post yesterday. I think the clock tower would be cool too. They could have it be somewhat of an informational kiosk, and could be tied into the map-pin campaign around Omaha.

Stargazer · Post by **Stargazer** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:35 pm

I think Riverfront Place has been a great project... look forward to seeing a second tower.

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:28 pm

Stargazer wrote:I think Riverfront Place has been a great project... look forward to seeing a second tower.

I don't disagree with you Jeff. My point is that I think two of the other projects were more interesting to me and included plans for a hotel, retail, office space, etc. I read somewhere that Bob Kerry wanted the riverfront not to be commercial and very public friendly. I have a different take than mr kerry. I would have loved to see a lot more density on the riverfront...housing, retail, commercial, office...all within a plan that tied the riverfront together with downtown, North Downtown, the market, all the way to the zoo, and yes, light rail or trolley or whatever. Hey, for what it's worth lets get rid of ConAgra and bring on Marina City. ConAgra can move to a tower somewhere else.

Anyway, I went to the Riverfront Place web site and it is very cool.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:03 pm

Ummmm.... I totally agree.

2Adam29 · Post by **2Adam29** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:17 am

does the OP bring up this topic to present these ideas again this wednesday?

Tornado · Post by **Tornado** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:42 am

[quote="GetUrban"]There were certainly some opportunities missed with what actually was built. It's a shame we still only have one restaurant on the riverfront, given the size of the developments, and the popularity of the bridge. On the other hand, I agree with Kerry that we need to be careful to not detract from the iconic design of the bridge by blocking the view with too many residential towers right up against it. I think a good part of the view of the bridge from Abbot Dr. will be blocked once the second tower is built....kind of a shame.

I can see not wanting to line the direct riverfront with 300ft towers blocking the pedestrian bridge but density, both residential and business oriented would look great and be practical. The second RFP tower being north of the bridge to me doesn't block the best views of the bridge at all. Moving south from the National Parks office toward the interstate bridge is where I would love to see more business, nightlife, even more residential areas developed. I think this area has so much potential and having one single restaurant taking up the whole area is ridiculous. I still want a couple 500-700 ft towers but we can put those up downtown. :lol:

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:48 pm

Tornado wrote:
I can see not wanting to line the direct riverfront with 300ft towers blocking the pedestrian bridge but density, both residential and business oriented would look great and be practical. The second RFP tower being north of the bridge to me doesn't block the best views of the bridge at all. Moving south from the National Parks office toward the interstate bridge is where I would love to see more business, nightlife, even more residential areas developed. I think this area has so much potential and having one single restaurant taking up the whole area is ridiculous. I still want a couple 500-700 ft towers but we can put those up downtown. :lol:

I guess it depends on what you define as the "best views of the bridge" I would consider the view from the north & northwest (Abbott Dr., Riverfront Dr. Cuming, Gallup) to be an important first impression view, to grab the attention of visitors coming into the city from Eppley. You may be surprised (or maybe not) how much more of that view gets blocked when the second tower goes up. But, I would agree the views from the south (Lewis & Clark Landing) are most important.

But on the other hand, maximizing density and activity along the riverfront is probably more important, and would override concerns about blocking views. I do disagree with Kerry's idea that the bridge should have been completely surrounded by acres & acres of more green space. We have enough of that already downtown.

I agree we need more 500-700' towers, but keep them in the CBD. :yes:

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:48 pm

If someone is willing to build enough towers along the riverfront to block the view of the bridge, I'd be willing to tear the bridge down with a spoon to get it done.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:53 pm

Or you'd just be willing to spoon someone to get it done.

Tornado · Post by **Tornado** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:04 am

Big E wrote:If someone is willing to build enough towers along the riverfront to block the view of the bridge, I'd be willing to tear the bridge down with a spoon to get it done.

Now that's the truth

michaelsjewel · Post by **michaelsjewel** » Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:49 am

if anyone has seen what good apartments BROODMOOR has made in the omaha metro...they would probably regret that their idea wasn't chosen....

examples? harrison hills, the tradition, broodmoor hills.....which are probably one of the most luxurious but not overly over the top pricing in town....
for once if an apartment complex is going to charge that much - u get what u pay for rather than the |expletive| that most places have.

the huge building option that wasn't chosen for the other development would've looked more like a resort...but would have been interesting to see....

the townhomes at riverfront place? pure |expletive|.
I went through the tour of condos a few years back - very little space on each floor any way too many stairs.
The condos in the tower were much nicer - esp. the 600,000 bamboo flooring one i saw on floor 9 - but to me that's quite expensive for the size compared to units already in other places downtown where you could get double the size for the luxury.

took them awhile to build that second tower ...wait - that's finally going to begin.