Gene Leahy Mall Remodel

[Garrett]

Furthermore it's troubling to me that MECA who has no direct public oversight (they're not elected by the people) will administer this park.

Yes that is horrible too. Never been impressed with the job MECA has done so far. Not impressed and mostly depressed!

I actually agree with this as well. Not a fan of giving control of public parks to private entities

[iamjacobm]

Not sure how OKC's Myriad Gardens is run, but they explicitly made a comparison to Klyde Warren Park in Dallas. Also designed by OJB, a 5 acre park built over a freeway in DT Dallas. They said the park averages 1300 events a year and those operations are paid for by park revenue and rolling donations, these 3 parks have over 90 acres for comparison. It is open to the public, but operations, maintenance and events are run by a separate non-profit. They considered creating a new entity, but decided that MECA has the infrastructure in place already to handle the responsibility.

No mention if Omaha Parks and Rec was considered at any part of the process.

[nativeomahan]

A healthy skepticism is always warranted when government is proposing a massive “civic improvement” project such as this. And the devil really is in the details. I suspect MECA is being sought to manage these 90 acres in order to keep the city Parks & Rec budget from permanently skyrocketing. But folks it will all end up costing the public the same, regardless of which shell the costs are hidden under.
This project seems on too fast of a track.
And as to the comments that the wealthy city fathers and mothers and construction companies are in cahoots, well, color me shocked!
Most of us agree that big changes to the area are wise, and needed in order to move the city in general, and downtown in particular, forward. I do like much of what is presented here, especially with regard to Lewis and Clark Landing. Covering the railroad line is a huge plus. The foresting of the Landing is a huge plus (but has anyone explained how the lead contamination of the ground will be removed or abated?). I have strong reservations as to the proposed changes to the Leahy mall, however.
It will be interesting to see how things play out in the coming year or two. One thing is certain, however, if even portions of this plan are implemented the entire area will be a dusty, dirty, noisy mess for several years to come. Much like when these parks were originally built. Does anyone remember that?

[iamjacobm]

A healthy skepticism is always warranted when government is proposing a massive “civic improvement” project such as this. And the devil really is in the details. I suspect MECA is being sought to manage these 90 acres in order to keep the city Parks & Rec budget from permanently skyrocketing. But folks it will all end up costing the public the same, regardless of which shell the costs are hidden under.
This project seems on too fast of a track.
And as to the comments that the wealthy city fathers and mothers and construction companies are in cahoots, well, color me shocked!
Most of us agree that big changes to the area are wise, and needed in order to move the city in general, and downtown in particular, forward. I do like much of what is presented here, especially with regard to Lewis and Clark Landing. Covering the railroad line is a huge plus. The foresting of the Landing is a huge plus (but has anyone explained how the lead contamination of the ground will be removed or abated?). I have strong reservations as to the proposed changes to the Leahy mall, however.
It will be interesting to see how things play out in the coming year or two. One thing is certain, however, if even portions of this plan are implemented the entire area will be a dusty, dirty, noisy mess for several years to come. Much like when these parks were originally built. Does anyone remember that?

They said that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality have worked with them through this process and they are going to add another layer of soil to be able to plant over the contamination.

[nativeomahan]

Forgive me if this link has previously been shared.
http://riverfrontrevitalization.com/

[Omaha Cowboy]

A healthy skepticism is always warranted when government is proposing a massive “civic improvement” project such as this. And the devil really is in the details. I suspect MECA is being sought to manage these 90 acres in order to keep the city Parks & Rec budget from permanently skyrocketing. But folks it will all end up costing the public the same, regardless of which shell the costs are hidden under.
This project seems on too fast of a track.
And as to the comments that the wealthy city fathers and mothers and construction companies are in cahoots, well, color me shocked!
Most of us agree that big changes to the area are wise, and needed in order to move the city in general, and downtown in particular, forward. I do like much of what is presented here, especially with regard to Lewis and Clark Landing. Covering the railroad line is a huge plus. The foresting of the Landing is a huge plus (but has anyone explained how the lead contamination of the ground will be removed or abated?). I have strong reservations as to the proposed changes to the Leahy mall, however.
It will be interesting to see how things play out in the coming year or two. One thing is certain, however, if even portions of this plan are implemented the entire area will be a dusty, dirty, noisy mess for several years to come. Much like when these parks were originally built. Does anyone remember that?

I agree with the body of your post Bill. It seems to have expressed by thoughts and nostalgic sentiment towards the Gene Leahy Mall pretty much to a tee. I remember in 1982 when we had the original finished product of what was then called the Central Park Mall (later named Gene Leahy). And I agree that it never reached the fullest potential (for what I thought it could be at least).. But at the same time, I very much enjoyed the green space and the feeling that you were somewhat isolated from the urban core, even though it was right in your face.. I was 20 years old in 1982 and remember the mall like it was yesterday.. I also remember the ruddy, muddy mess leading up to its final completion..

In the end, I’m mostly very optimistic and pretty excited about what this riverfront proposal can do for our downtowns on both sides of the river.. I’m not turning cartwheels just yet..But- The next 5 years will be very revealing ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[buildomaha]

A few different thoughts:

This plan is truly overwhelming and would definitely be a game-changer if it happens. I think that there may be private entities in the city who would contribute to this. The downtown and midtown big bucks employers have been publicly showing their support for improvement projects like this and the streetcar and it's not because they feel like being nice. Omaha is great at attracting businesses because the city has a very good business climate, but we can't seem to do the same when it comes to attracting the population we need to fill the jobs. Not only would this improve quality of life for downtown and do a good job of attracting more jobs, but it adds to the "cool factor" that young people (myself included) look for when deciding where they want to live.

And about losing the iconic Omaha photo-op looking down the mall toward the Big Reds: I think due to social media, that picture has become much less important. Most see that picture and think "Oh that's kinda cool", but I would be much more tempted to visit the area if I saw a friend had posted a picture showing off a good time that they had at a festival, concert, or other events that could be taking place here. People look for experiences and "Instagramability" and building to a pedestrian level that provides a place where fun experiences can happen is much more important than an iconic skyline shot. This is why when anyone from out of town talks about Omaha, they mention the OM, not the mall. (Sorry for the rambling about this, I couldn't get the idea in my brain into words )

I'm not too familiar with the backside of CenturyLink so this could already exist, but I think it would be beneficial to have access to the arena from the side of Lot A and the Landing. Just as the Capitol District is banking on traffic from the event and athletic event attendees, this area could profit a lot of that traffic as well. I think overall this project is doing a great job of doing what I think is a very important design principle, embracing the things that create challenges. Instead of a big wall separating North Downtown and the landing, the CenturyLink should be a goldmine that provides more people to fill the area and take a quick snap for social media. I also think the tunnel for the train tracks could be something cool that I can see a kid asking his parents "Dad where did that train go?" as it flies under their feet. And obviously making the entire area much more pedestrian friendly was the first big issue that had to be taken care of.

[Anubis]

I fear we are destroying something beautiful because it does not make money.

I just moved back here after 8 years of traveling the country and 3 years living in Houston. I have seen many cities and many parks.

To me Omaha is a quiet reflective city. The Mall has captured this aspect perfectly. It is the soul of the city.

I have no doubt that these changes will happen, I just hope they are worth it.

[nativeomahan]

Welcome to the forum, Anubis. And thank you for your thoughts.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

I've struggled with this since the mall is such an iconic piece of Omaha, however, it does split downtown in two. I think in this day and age its more of a barrier than an asset; the flat Greenspace would help bring both sides together more than they are now.

[buildomaha]

On the issue of connectivity to the riverfront (and of downtown-north downtown), when will the city pull an "Embarcadero" and get rid of the elevated freeway barreling through the urban core. The new boulevard could lead not only across the river, but directly to the riverfront.

[Busguy2010]

On the issue of connectivity to the riverfront (and of downtown-north downtown), when will the city pull an "Embarcadero" and get rid of the elevated freeway barreling through the urban core. The new boulevard could lead not only across the river, but directly to the riverfront.

I think if we removed the currently elevated portion of I-480 and replaced it with a ground level boulevard over the current footprint, it would divide downtown even more. I think a better idea would be to terminate I-480 at the 10th street entrance & exit, remove the elevated portion between 24th and 10th entirely, and rebuild Cass and Chicago street as thoroughfares.

24th street area does actually use I-480 quite a bit to access the rest of the metro, and there was a lot of money invested in the I-480/US 75 interchange so I don't see anything drastic happening with I-480 for a long time.

[RockHarbor]

For some reason, Ive been looking over this thread, and ignoring it. Glad I finally did click on it. Ok, wow....those simulated videos are amazing. (That firm did an excellent job with the commands & orders they were given to work with, I have to say...) I have to say...the concept of filling in Gene Leahy Mall and making it a flat expanse is something I may just like done -- a lot. Dont get me wrong; I'm so used to Gene Leahy mall and its dip downward with a watery lagoon, but part of me has always felt it was a bit artificial & fake-looking (designed to look like an extension from the river, like anybody believes Omaha has a little & perfect watery finger from the Missouri straight thru the middle of Downtown, with a little island, not to mention it looks a bit too casual & relaxed & too State Park-ish. For example, the rugged limestone retaining walls remind me of something you would see at Platte River State Park around the marina with paddle boats. Filled in, the park could look more like Dallas's long & grassy Art District park, more sharp & cosmo, a park complimenting skyscrapers better. I like the idea of being able to cross between Farnam & Dodge on foot a lot easier, too. Sometimes I feel like Omaha's mindset is: "Hmmmm. What is the answer to make the city better & invite business & impress outsiders? Put in another park & lake!!" There's a huge park here, a huge park there planned... It's getting predictable, boring, uninspiring, imo. These parks practically are larger square footage than all of our cement & high rise downtown. Just almost tired of it. I notice that super tall skyscraper built on the library site (like thats ever going to happen anytime soon) blocks the red twins. Ya know what...I dont care anymore about Omaha's "postcard shot." If they dont care about it, then I dont care about it -- I think. Just over it. Just build whatever... I really don't care. I agree that the elevated I-480 is a bit clunky & odd, with its severe swooping curve, but then again, a main artery bridge over the river needs to be very high due to boats & severe & powerful flooding -- of course. I like that boulevard idea, but how would that hook up nicely with a high elevated bridge to CB?

[Chungus]

For some reason, Ive been looking over this thread, and ignoring it. Glad I finally did click on it. Ok, wow....those simulated videos are amazing. (That firm did an excellent job with the commands & orders they were given to work with, I have to say...) I have to say...the concept of filling in Gene Leahy Mall and making it a flat expanse is something I may just like done. Dont get me wrong; I'm so used to Gene Leahy mall and its dip with a watery lagoon, but part of me has always felt it was a bit artificial & fake-looking (like anybody believes Omaha has a little & perfect watery finger from the Missouri straight thru the middle of Downtown, with a little island, not to mention it looks a bit too casual & relaxed & too State Park-ish (the rugged limestone retaining walls remind me of something you would see at Platte River State Park around the marina with paddle boats). Filled in, the park could look more like Dallas's long grassy Art District park, more sharp & cosmo, and complimenting skyscrapers better. I like the idea of being able to cross between Farnam & Dodge on foot a lot easier, too. Sometimes I feel like Omaha's mindset is: "What is the answer to make the city better & invite business & impress outsiders? Put in another park & lake!!" There's a huge park here, a huge park there planned... It's getting predictable, boring, uninspiring, imo.... These parks practically are larger square footage than all of our cement & high rise downtown. Just almost tired of it. I notice that super tall skyscraper built on the library site (like thats ever going to happen anytime soon) blocks the red twins. Ya know what...I dont care anymore about Omaha's "postcard shot." If they dont care about it, then I dont care about it -- I think. Just over it. Just build whatever... I really don't care. I agree that the elevated I-480 is a bit clunky & odd, with its severe swooping curve, but then again, a main artery bridge over the river needs to be very high due to boats & severe & powerful flooding -- of course. I like that boulevard idea, but how would that hook up nicely with a high elevated bridge to CB?

You've got it right, my friend! Also bridges over the Missouri river need to be tall to accommodate barge traffic. Let me ask, when was the last time you saw a barge on our river? It's ridiculous, it makes connecting both sides of the river unnecessarily expensive if every bridge has to be 50'+ above the water.

Imagine if we had a riverfront like Portland or even Des Moines with buildings on both sides, that were well connected with bridges for every mobility option. Would really leverage a lot in my opinion.

Also, I'm glad the private sector is stepping up in a big way to keep Omaha competitive, because our local government hasn't done (explative) to move the needle. Quite frankly the lack of vision provided by our elected leaders, for a city of our size, is down right emberrasing.

[Busguy2010]

You've got it right, my friend! Also bridges over the Missouri river need to be tall to accommodate barge traffic. Let me ask, when was the last time you saw a barge on our river? It's ridiculous, it makes connecting both sides of the river unnecessarily expensive if every bridge has to be 50'+ above the water.

You really can't compare those rivers to ours. We have the inconvenience of dealing with a volatile river. Could you imagine crossing our river at the same low heights as those cities built their bridges? let alone when it's flooding... I do believe there's a good reason why every bridge over the Missouri is quite a good height above the water.

[RockHarbor]

For some reason, Ive been looking over this thread, and ignoring it. Glad I finally did click on it. Ok, wow....those simulated videos are amazing. (That firm did an excellent job with the commands & orders they were given to work with, I have to say...) I have to say...the concept of filling in Gene Leahy Mall and making it a flat expanse is something I may just like done. Dont get me wrong; I'm so used to Gene Leahy mall and its dip with a watery lagoon, but part of me has always felt it was a bit artificial & fake-looking (like anybody believes Omaha has a little & perfect watery finger from the Missouri straight thru the middle of Downtown, with a little island, not to mention it looks a bit too casual & relaxed & too State Park-ish (the rugged limestone retaining walls remind me of something you would see at Platte River State Park around the marina with paddle boats). Filled in, the park could look more like Dallas's long grassy Art District park, more sharp & cosmo, and complimenting skyscrapers better. I like the idea of being able to cross between Farnam & Dodge on foot a lot easier, too. Sometimes I feel like Omaha's mindset is: "What is the answer to make the city better & invite business & impress outsiders? Put in another park & lake!!" There's a huge park here, a huge park there planned... It's getting predictable, boring, uninspiring, imo.... These parks practically are larger square footage than all of our cement & high rise downtown. Just almost tired of it. I notice that super tall skyscraper built on the library site (like thats ever going to happen anytime soon) blocks the red twins. Ya know what...I dont care anymore about Omaha's "postcard shot." If they dont care about it, then I dont care about it -- I think. Just over it. Just build whatever... I really don't care. I agree that the elevated I-480 is a bit clunky & odd, with its severe swooping curve, but then again, a main artery bridge over the river needs to be very high due to boats & severe & powerful flooding -- of course. I like that boulevard idea, but how would that hook up nicely with a high elevated bridge to CB?

You've got it right, my friend! Also bridges over the Missouri river need to be tall to accommodate barge traffic. Let me ask, when was the last time you saw a barge on our river? It's ridiculous, it makes connecting both sides of the river unnecessarily expensive if every bridge has to be 50'+ above the water.

Imagine if we had a riverfront like Portland or even Des Moines with buildings on both sides, that were well connected with bridges for every mobility option. Would really leverage a lot in my opinion.

Also, I'm glad the private sector is stepping up in a big way to keep Omaha competitive, because our local government hasn't done (explative) to move the needle. Quite frankly the lack of vision provided by our elected leaders, for a city of our size, is down right emberrasing.

Yes, a river that is small & not navigable -- like Des Moines', Chicago's, Indianapolis', Portland's, ect -- does allow for a more intimate & cozy feeling downtown between city & river, as lower & a higher number of bridges can continue to cross the river. St Louis, Memphis, Kansas City, Omaha, ect, all respectfully sit back & up away from the powerful rivers they were founded on. I'm glad they are keeping Omaha competitive, too. They do a fine job in that department -- that is for sure, and I am thankful for that. I'm overall proud of Omaha and how far it has come. As far as our Downtown, it is great in so many ways. But, it just seems to have problems coming together right, and connecting to our river well -- or something. Its almost like the city has an impulse to always create new enormous green spaces. First Central Park Mall, then the Heartland of America Park, now another big park north of I-480. I mean, how many times have we heard "We want to extend Gene Leahy Mall to the river!" Ok, then DO IT -- for crying out loud. I'm tired of hearing it -- I've been hearing that since I was popping pimples and listening to "New Kids on the Block." A new park w/ some medium-height buildings thrown in is not always the answer. I agree that green space along the river is nice for local citizens & visiting tourists to view the river, and is good to have there incase the river overflows its banks -- similarly, St Louis has the big green park around the Arch which is a good buffer, and Memphis has a nice big green space below the riverside bluff the downtown sits a top. I acknowledge the powerful & swiftly moving Missouri River is hard to connect too closely with. If Jobbers Canyon weren't torn down and those gorgeous old buildings were fronted by a narrow green space along the river, that would have been the best look for this "Omaha, NE on the mighty Missouri." But, now....we have this big lawn & big lake & fountain, and a low-rise 80's suburban campus strangely being half removed, half preserved. And, buildings are being attempted to be squeezed-in on open lawn spaces -- creating more density, but buildings are still situated at angles in loosey-goosey suburban-type patterns. Nothing is tight & urban. That riverfront is just all awkward & screwed up now... A good ole' "river city" does not normally connect with their river in that fashion, and everybody knows it deep inside. (I think Omaha should look at all river cities across the globe, and take notes... Then, take notes on what makes other cities cool & exciting. For example, New Orleans has gorgeous old & charming courtyards filled w/ plants, yet Omaha hardly has one probably... Thats why everyone loves the OM Passageway. Kansas City has a lot of charming iron, stucco, and Spanish tile. Chicago & Detroit & Cleveland have great brick and stone. Seattle has glassy, sparkly condo towers with rooftop lawns & gardens -- using bamboo & striking New Zealand flax. I'm not sure how much they focus on urban details & urban charm & individuality in Omaha, thinking some great big new proposed park & adjacent medium-height glassy office buildings & a boxy condo block w/ a "Scooters Coffee" & "Mickey's Sports Bar" & "Blue Sushi" at the base is gonna do the trick.)

[skinzfan23]

You've got it right, my friend! Also bridges over the Missouri river need to be tall to accommodate barge traffic. Let me ask, when was the last time you saw a barge on our river?

There was actually a barge on the Missouri last weekend while the Santa Lucia festival was going on. I saw numerous people on Facebook post a video.

[Louie]

For some reason, Ive been looking over this thread, and ignoring it. Glad I finally did click on it. Ok, wow....those simulated videos are amazing. (That firm did an excellent job with the commands & orders they were given to work with, I have to say...) I have to say...the concept of filling in Gene Leahy Mall and making it a flat expanse is something I may just like done. Dont get me wrong; I'm so used to Gene Leahy mall and its dip with a watery lagoon, but part of me has always felt it was a bit artificial & fake-looking (like anybody believes Omaha has a little & perfect watery finger from the Missouri straight thru the middle of Downtown, with a little island, not to mention it looks a bit too casual & relaxed & too State Park-ish (the rugged limestone retaining walls remind me of something you would see at Platte River State Park around the marina with paddle boats). Filled in, the park could look more like Dallas's long grassy Art District park, more sharp & cosmo, and complimenting skyscrapers better. I like the idea of being able to cross between Farnam & Dodge on foot a lot easier, too. Sometimes I feel like Omaha's mindset is: "What is the answer to make the city better & invite business & impress outsiders? Put in another park & lake!!" There's a huge park here, a huge park there planned... It's getting predictable, boring, uninspiring, imo.... These parks practically are larger square footage than all of our cement & high rise downtown. Just almost tired of it. I notice that super tall skyscraper built on the library site (like thats ever going to happen anytime soon) blocks the red twins. Ya know what...I dont care anymore about Omaha's "postcard shot." If they dont care about it, then I dont care about it -- I think. Just over it. Just build whatever... I really don't care. I agree that the elevated I-480 is a bit clunky & odd, with its severe swooping curve, but then again, a main artery bridge over the river needs to be very high due to boats & severe & powerful flooding -- of course. I like that boulevard idea, but how would that hook up nicely with a high elevated bridge to CB?

You've got it right, my friend! Also bridges over the Missouri river need to be tall to accommodate barge traffic. Let me ask, when was the last time you saw a barge on our river? It's ridiculous, it makes connecting both sides of the river unnecessarily expensive if every bridge has to be 50'+ above the water.

Imagine if we had a riverfront like Portland or even Des Moines with buildings on both sides, that were well connected with bridges for every mobility option. Would really leverage a lot in my opinion.

Also, I'm glad the private sector is stepping up in a big way to keep Omaha competitive, because our local government hasn't done (explative) to move the needle. Quite frankly the lack of vision provided by our elected leaders, for a city of our size, is down right emberrasing.

Yes, a river that is small & not navigable -- like Des Moines', Chicago's, Indianapolis', Portland's, ect -- does allow for a more intimate & cozy feeling downtown between city & river, as lower & a higher number of bridges can continue to cross the river. St Louis, Memphis, Kansas City, Omaha, ect, all respectfully sit back & up away from the powerful rivers they were founded on. I'm glad they are keeping Omaha competitive, too. They do a fine job in that department -- that is for sure, and I am thankful for that. I'm overall proud of Omaha and how far it has come. As far as our Downtown, it is great in so many ways. But, it just seems to have problems coming together right, and connecting to our river well -- or something. Its almost like the city has an impulse to always create new enormous green spaces. First Central Park Mall, then the Heartland of America Park, now another big park north of I-480. I mean, how many times have we heard "We want to extend Gene Leahy Mall to the river!" Ok, then DO IT -- for crying out loud. I'm tired of hearing it -- I've been hearing that since I was popping pimples and listening to "New Kids on the Block." A new park w/ some medium-height buildings thrown in is not always the answer. I agree that green space along the river is nice for local citizens & visiting tourists to view the river, and is good to have there incase the river overflows its banks -- similarly, St Louis has the big green park around the Arch which is a good buffer, and Memphis has a nice big green space below the riverside bluff the downtown sits a top. I acknowledge the powerful & swiftly moving Missouri River is hard to connect too closely with. If Jobbers Canyon weren't torn down and those gorgeous old buildings were fronted by a narrow green space along the river, that would have been the best look for this "Omaha, NE on the mighty Missouri." But, now....we have this big lawn & big lake & fountain, and a low-rise 80's suburban campus strangely being half removed, half preserved. And, buildings are being attempted to be squeezed-in on open lawn spaces -- creating more density, but buildings are still situated at angles in loosey-goosey suburban-type patterns. Nothing is tight & urban. That riverfront is just all awkward & screwed up now... A good ole' "river city" does not normally connect with their river in that fashion, and everybody knows it deep inside. (I think Omaha should look at all river cities across the globe, and take notes... Then, take notes on what makes other cities cool & exciting. For example, New Orleans has gorgeous old & charming courtyards filled w/ plants, yet Omaha hardly has one probably... Thats why everyone loves the OM Passageway. Kansas City has a lot of charming iron, stucco, and Spanish tile. Chicago & Detroit & Cleveland have great brick and stone. Seattle has glassy, sparkly condo towers with rooftop lawns & gardens -- using bamboo & striking New Zealand flax. I'm not sure how much they focus on urban details & urban charm & individuality in Omaha, thinking some great big new proposed park & adjacent medium-height glassy office buildings & a boxy condo block w/ a "Scooters Coffee" & "Mickey's Sports Bar" & "Blue Sushi" at the base is gonna do the trick.)

Not to be snide, but how would you propose Omaha bring that charm and urbanism to a blank slate like the current riverfront?

[RockHarbor]

For some reason, Ive been looking over this thread, and ignoring it. Glad I finally did click on it. Ok, wow....those simulated videos are amazing. (That firm did an excellent job with the commands & orders they were given to work with, I have to say...) I have to say...the concept of filling in Gene Leahy Mall and making it a flat expanse is something I may just like done. Dont get me wrong; I'm so used to Gene Leahy mall and its dip with a watery lagoon, but part of me has always felt it was a bit artificial & fake-looking (like anybody believes Omaha has a little & perfect watery finger from the Missouri straight thru the middle of Downtown, with a little island, not to mention it looks a bit too casual & relaxed & too State Park-ish (the rugged limestone retaining walls remind me of something you would see at Platte River State Park around the marina with paddle boats). Filled in, the park could look more like Dallas's long grassy Art District park, more sharp & cosmo, and complimenting skyscrapers better. I like the idea of being able to cross between Farnam & Dodge on foot a lot easier, too. Sometimes I feel like Omaha's mindset is: "What is the answer to make the city better & invite business & impress outsiders? Put in another park & lake!!" There's a huge park here, a huge park there planned... It's getting predictable, boring, uninspiring, imo.... These parks practically are larger square footage than all of our cement & high rise downtown. Just almost tired of it. I notice that super tall skyscraper built on the library site (like thats ever going to happen anytime soon) blocks the red twins. Ya know what...I dont care anymore about Omaha's "postcard shot." If they dont care about it, then I dont care about it -- I think. Just over it. Just build whatever... I really don't care. I agree that the elevated I-480 is a bit clunky & odd, with its severe swooping curve, but then again, a main artery bridge over the river needs to be very high due to boats & severe & powerful flooding -- of course. I like that boulevard idea, but how would that hook up nicely with a high elevated bridge to CB?

You've got it right, my friend! Also bridges over the Missouri river need to be tall to accommodate barge traffic. Let me ask, when was the last time you saw a barge on our river? It's ridiculous, it makes connecting both sides of the river unnecessarily expensive if every bridge has to be 50'+ above the water.

Imagine if we had a riverfront like Portland or even Des Moines with buildings on both sides, that were well connected with bridges for every mobility option. Would really leverage a lot in my opinion.

Also, I'm glad the private sector is stepping up in a big way to keep Omaha competitive, because our local government hasn't done (explative) to move the needle. Quite frankly the lack of vision provided by our elected leaders, for a city of our size, is down right emberrasing.

Yes, a river that is small & not navigable -- like Des Moines', Chicago's, Indianapolis', Portland's, ect -- does allow for a more intimate & cozy feeling downtown between city & river, as lower & a higher number of bridges can continue to cross the river. St Louis, Memphis, Kansas City, Omaha, ect, all respectfully sit back & up away from the powerful rivers they were founded on. I'm glad they are keeping Omaha competitive, too. They do a fine job in that department -- that is for sure, and I am thankful for that. I'm overall proud of Omaha and how far it has come. As far as our Downtown, it is great in so many ways. But, it just seems to have problems coming together right, and connecting to our river well -- or something. Its almost like the city has an impulse to always create new enormous green spaces. First Central Park Mall, then the Heartland of America Park, now another big park north of I-480. I mean, how many times have we heard "We want to extend Gene Leahy Mall to the river!" Ok, then DO IT -- for crying out loud. I'm tired of hearing it -- I've been hearing that since I was popping pimples and listening to "New Kids on the Block." A new park w/ some medium-height buildings thrown in is not always the answer. I agree that green space along the river is nice for local citizens & visiting tourists to view the river, and is good to have there incase the river overflows its banks -- similarly, St Louis has the big green park around the Arch which is a good buffer, and Memphis has a nice big green space below the riverside bluff the downtown sits a top. I acknowledge the powerful & swiftly moving Missouri River is hard to connect too closely with. If Jobbers Canyon weren't torn down and those gorgeous old buildings were fronted by a narrow green space along the river, that would have been the best look for this "Omaha, NE on the mighty Missouri." But, now....we have this big lawn & big lake & fountain, and a low-rise 80's suburban campus strangely being half removed, half preserved. And, buildings are being attempted to be squeezed-in on open lawn spaces -- creating more density, but buildings are still situated at angles in loosey-goosey suburban-type patterns. Nothing is tight & urban. That riverfront is just all awkward & screwed up now... A good ole' "river city" does not normally connect with their river in that fashion, and everybody knows it deep inside. (I think Omaha should look at all river cities across the globe, and take notes... Then, take notes on what makes other cities cool & exciting. For example, New Orleans has gorgeous old & charming courtyards filled w/ plants, yet Omaha hardly has one probably... Thats why everyone loves the OM Passageway. Kansas City has a lot of charming iron, stucco, and Spanish tile. Chicago & Detroit & Cleveland have great brick and stone. Seattle has glassy, sparkly condo towers with rooftop lawns & gardens -- using bamboo & striking New Zealand flax. I'm not sure how much they focus on urban details & urban charm & individuality in Omaha, thinking some great big new proposed park & adjacent medium-height glassy office buildings & a boxy condo block w/ a "Scooters Coffee" & "Mickey's Sports Bar" & "Blue Sushi" at the base is gonna do the trick.)

Not to be snide, but how would you propose Omaha bring that charm and urbanism to a blank slate like the current riverfront?

Glad you asked! First off, I wish it were a blank slate. Thats what I want; I want them to take a wrecking ball to it all. With them not willing to do that, it leaves a tangle & snare for designers to work with, and it has that "I did the best I could with what I had to work with" look -- that I just hate. On the Con Agra thread, I mentioned restoring the grid block by block, each block eventually filled with structures pushed tightly together & square w/ each other. The most admired cities are the tight, compact, and very urban ones. Proposing more park/green space with scattered, medium-height office & residential buildings placed here & there is something we always seem to default to. If you look at all the major cities, way bigger cities than us have less park space then we have downtown. Why are we so "park happy?" Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

[GrandpaaSmucker]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

[Greg S]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

I would say the reason to tear it down is a flawed design. Many people don't like to go down into it, especially at night. Besides that, other than walk around it and sit, why is it there? It's a prime piece of real estate, the new design at least provides opportunities to do other things and spend actual time there.

I remember when Leahy Mall was built. The initial drawings were so much better than what we actually got.

Greg

[GetUrban]

Part of the problem is people tend to think that there is one single point in time when we'll be finished building a particular part of the city. They think there must be a time when the city is finally "done" and you can stick a fork in it. In order to flourish, cities need to be able to evolve, keeping the things that work and can endure, while changing things that cannot be adapted to serve new purposes. The old street grid system with smaller lot sizes best accommodated the need to constantly evolve. As for GLM, we need to keep what worked, but add the capability to accommodate as many uses as we can throw at it. RockHarbor is right about the fact that the Conagra Campus could better handle incremental change over the long haul if the grid is restored. But the reality is we're limited to change the owners are willing to let happen, unless the city could retake possession by eminent domain, which is highly unlikely. The best we can hope for now is to lay down as much of the grid as possible and let the rest gradually be adapted back closer to its pre-1989 form, plus extend that closer to the river than ever before. This new plan is a bold step in the right direction, in my opinion.

[RockHarbor]

Thanks, GetUrban. The thing I want to point out is that restoring the grid & restoring a tight & compact cityscape is not my (this little online "barking chihuahua") idea, or anything new. People have wanted it since the grid was erased to make way for Con Angra. Many urbanist types, who recognize the qualities that make Chicago, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, New Orleans, ect, great, simply know that restoring the grid & a compact & tight cityscape through there, is simply the best choice for Omaha. (I imagine it such a new, hot, cute district , that people would envy anybidy who was able to snag one of the limited apartments or condos put in there -- causing long waiting lists.) Restoring it slowly block by block simply helps avoid having a large area of empty dirt square lots, with little projects going up here & there, with unsightly gaps in between. It gives time for Con Agra tenants to pack up. It ensures each little additional structure is thoughtful & special (maybe they can even have a "You have to build within a year or the lot is back on the market" rule to ensure anybody who buys one of the coveted lots builds fairly quickly). Just some ideas...

[Garrett]

Thanks, GetUrban. The thing I want to point out is that restoring the grid & restoring a tight & compact cityscape is not my (this little online "barking chihuahua") idea, or anything new. People have wanted it since the grid was erased to make way for Con Angra. Many urbanist types, who recognize the qualities that make Chicago, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, New Orleans, ect, great, simply know that restoring the grid & a compact & tight cityscape through there, is simply the best choice for Omaha. (I imagine it such a new, hot, cute district , that people would envy anybidy who was able to snag one of the limited apartments or condos put in there -- causing long waiting lists.) Restoring it slowly block by block simply helps avoid having a large area of empty dirt square lots, with little projects going up here & there, with unsightly gaps in between. It gives time for Con Agra tenants to pack up. It ensures each little additional structure is thoughtful & special (maybe they can even have a "You have to build within a year or the lot is back on the market" rule to ensure anybody who buys one of the coveted lots builds fairly quickly). Just some ideas...

Literally what they’re doing right now is restoring it block by block though... who’s to say in 10-15-20 years when Hines is done that they won’t raze the rest of the campus and finish it up?

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

How in this wacky mind of yours have you determined that giving away millions upon millions of dollars for revamping a public park will have a return on investment?

[GrandpaaSmucker]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

How in this wacky mind of yours have you determined that giving away millions upon millions of dollars for revamping a public park will have a return on investment?

Whats to keep these mystery donors from backing out of the deal like they did on the sports complex in La Vista? Just because the donors are rich does not mean that they can not be duped by slickster politicians and real estate developers.

Am I the only one that can see that they are going to take this beautiful park we sweat blood to get and tear it out and level it into a football field. The new park stinks 5 fold more then the Gene Leahy. The new park is a down grade final answer..

[RockHarbor]

Thanks, GetUrban. The thing I want to point out is that restoring the grid & restoring a tight & compact cityscape is not my (this little online "barking chihuahua") idea, or anything new. People have wanted it since the grid was erased to make way for Con Angra. Many urbanist types, who recognize the qualities that make Chicago, New York, Seattle, San Francisco, New Orleans, ect, great, simply know that restoring the grid & a compact & tight cityscape through there, is simply the best choice for Omaha. (I imagine it such a new, hot, cute district , that people would envy anybidy who was able to snag one of the limited apartments or condos put in there -- causing long waiting lists.) Restoring it slowly block by block simply helps avoid having a large area of empty dirt square lots, with little projects going up here & there, with unsightly gaps in between. It gives time for Con Agra tenants to pack up. It ensures each little additional structure is thoughtful & special (maybe they can even have a "You have to build within a year or the lot is back on the market" rule to ensure anybody who buys one of the coveted lots builds fairly quickly). Just some ideas...

Literally what they’re doing right now is restoring it block by block though... who’s to say in 10-15-20 years when Hines is done that they won’t raze the rest of the campus and finish it up?

For one, the plan doesnt show a grid restored -- or anything close to that. Isnt that plan considered a finished product? 1) They've lumped a batch of buildings near the current existing flagged entrance of the campus. 2) The large lake looks unchanged basically. 3) There's no talk of removing those last remaining scattered Con Agra builldings shown on the plan, and remember, they are slipping in that fairly big proposed building in between two of them -- orientating a building sitting at an odd angle. Who would do all that special orientating & manuevering in the wake of two campus buildings that were planned to someday go? 4) How would any of this work on a grid if you penciled in the grid back? The penciled-in streets cross right into buildings shown on that plan. 5) Plus, a street grid is not needed or wanted around buildings set in that type of spaced-out, scattered suburban fashion. It's like trying to suddenly put a grid of streets thru the First National Business Park w/ buildings not set & orientated correctly for it. 1+ 2+ 3 + 4 + 5 = Thats how I know.

[aaaron]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

How in this wacky mind of yours have you determined that giving away millions upon millions of dollars for revamping a public park will have a return on investment?

There's a middle ground here.

I doubt these donations come with explicit quid pro quos, but these major employers and developers are also not doing this solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's more than a public park. It's a statement piece for the city and an attempt to draw money to the area. They are hoping to drive enough development and investment in the urban core that this money will come back to them, and then some.

[Omaha Cowboy]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

How in this wacky mind of yours have you determined that giving away millions upon millions of dollars for revamping a public park will have a return on investment?

There's a middle ground here.

I doubt these donations come with explicit quid pro quos, but these major employers and developers are also not doing this solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's more than a public park. It's a statement piece for the city and an attempt to draw money to the area. They are hoping to drive enough development and investment in the urban core that this money will come back to them, and then some.

Thank you. Well stated and I agree completely.. ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[PotatoeEatsFish]

Is the height of the tower in the renderings actually the height they expect? Because it looks really huge for an Omaha residential building.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

How in this wacky mind of yours have you determined that giving away millions upon millions of dollars for revamping a public park will have a return on investment?

There's a middle ground here.

I doubt these donations come with explicit quid pro quos, but these major employers and developers are also not doing this solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's more than a public park. It's a statement piece for the city and an attempt to draw money to the area. They are hoping to drive enough development and investment in the urban core that this money will come back to them, and then some.

(Mostly directed at grandpa): If all the philanthropy is from real estate related investors and the result is that we get a better park and investment downtown, what part is the scam?

[Rehulk]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

How in this wacky mind of yours have you determined that giving away millions upon millions of dollars for revamping a public park will have a return on investment?

There's a middle ground here.

I doubt these donations come with explicit quid pro quos, but these major employers and developers are also not doing this solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's more than a public park. It's a statement piece for the city and an attempt to draw money to the area. They are hoping to drive enough development and investment in the urban core that this money will come back to them, and then some.

(Mostly directed at grandpa): If all the philanthropy is from real estate related investors and the result is that we get a better park and investment downtown, what part is the scam?

The part where we have to pay money towards something other then snow removal and road repairs.

[Bob from Omaha]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

Your tin hat is crooked. Straighten it and eat your jello.

Seriously, Omaha has a lot of failings but what you're suggesting is so silly.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

How in this wacky mind of yours have you determined that giving away millions upon millions of dollars for revamping a public park will have a return on investment?

There's a middle ground here.

I doubt these donations come with explicit quid pro quos, but these major employers and developers are also not doing this solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's more than a public park. It's a statement piece for the city and an attempt to draw money to the area. They are hoping to drive enough development and investment in the urban core that this money will come back to them, and then some.

(Mostly directed at grandpa): If all the philanthropy is from real estate related investors and the result is that we get a better park and investment downtown, what part is the scam?

The part where we have to pay money towards something other then snow removal and road repairs.

Than*

[GrandpaaSmucker]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

Your tin hat is crooked. Straighten it and eat your jello.

Seriously, Omaha has a lot of failings but what you're suggesting is so silly.

Corruption and hundred million dollar revitalization projects go hand in hand.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

Also, Omaha builds Central Park and commissions twin office buildings to anchor the west end of it. Fast forward 30-40 years, and the park is being filled in and the twin buildings blocked -- like their aesthetic appeal is "old news" now. A downtown campus is allowed to be built, then half torn down -- like it is all going to look OK. My gosh...make up your mind what you want. Who does that? What city does this kind of stuff?

Its all a scam to make connected people rich. Any other answer is pure B.S. There is no good reason to tear down the Gene Leahy Mall other then it will make some people rich. If they wanted a flat open area to make a big park they could find other places downtown but that would not make them a bunch of money like this will. Its all about greed and if the city gets helped or hurt its incidental.

Your tin hat is crooked. Straighten it and eat your jello.

Seriously, Omaha has a lot of failings but what you're suggesting is so silly.

Corruption and hundred million dollar revitalization projects go hand in hand.

I think corruption and anything in the millions go hand in hand.

[Bob from Omaha]

You two are presenting opinion as fact. Prove with facts how your statements are true.

[GrandpaaSmucker]

You two are presenting opinion as fact. Prove with facts how your statements are true.

Lets start with the evidence we have right in front of us. We have a city that spent years and millions building a nice downtown park. Now all of a sudden the city wants to tear their park down for a park that is nothing more then a glorified open field. Its going to be about 50 times easier to build this new park then building the Gene Leahy was. Basically the job will be tearing out all the tons and tons of concrete that are under the Gene Leahy and hauling them away and then filling it back in with dirt. This is a demolition job in disguise. Building this is going to be 10 times easier then building the Gene Leahy was and yet its going to cost 3 times more. Lots of profit could be made in destroying that park and hauling it away and then filling it in with dirt. Millions and millions. That stink coming from this foul deal makes me wonder if a certain unpopular ex mayor has his crooked snoot into this deal.

[Rehulk]

Grandpa, you didn't read the plans or see the pictures attached to the plan because the remodeling of the mall is not making it a flat panel patch of grass. They are making a multi use area that more beinfical fir everyday life and could host events that will show cast the city. Times change and more people are wanting to live in more urban areas (see the success of Aksarben, midtown (for the most part) and the may copycats springing up) and the park in nor that useful for anything outside of taking some nice pictures, taking a stroll and the slides (which will not be removed in the new plans).
It been 13 years since that remodel and the city has changed and is continuing to change. Either get on or get run over the progress train.

Also, do you have any evidence that it would be that much cheaper or better to build elsewhere because I can't say that the mall is locted in one of the beat spots in downtown and I don't see some new park on the outskirts attracting more business or residents.

[RockHarbor]

I honestly wouldn't mind Gene Leahy Mall left alone, or Gene Leahy Mall filled in -- either or. Those rugged, limestone retaining walls are a little "country bumpkin" for a downtown, imo -- although I don't mind them overall. If filled in, maybe 11th Street could cross it again. Then, I wish it were boxed-in by dense city, like New York's Central Park. It seems like that park is always eyed to be expanded & to connect with something. I say: Box it in and be done with it -- like every other city does with a downtown park. A green space is always nice downtown for a break from the city or a nature walk on a lunch break (especially in NYC, people really need that), or to surround & showcase a big point of interest or monument (like the St Louis Gateway Arch), or to have a concert on the green downtown (like Chicago has). But, this weird constant mindset "We must give Omahans plenty of park space downtown to take a walk, or throw a frisby to their dog, or throw a baseball to their child...", so we're planning ANOTHER park: Ummmm....No. Thats what big midtown parks, like Memorial Park, are for. Downtown is too valuable of land to use on such stuff as multiple big parks, imo, and Omaha is not such a big city that a multiple number of big "green retreats" downtown is something that is an absolute must for local citizens. The city is mostly low-rise and rambling, and the country & cornfields is a 10-15 minute drive away.