Regency Landing (NEC 680 and Pacific)

[iamjacobm]

The hotel is being marketed as a redevelopment opportunity for Class A office space.

Very rough massing example from their marketing video.

[nativeomahan]

Would everyone be expected to bicycle to work in those buildings?

[Stargazer]

I'm trying to understand marketing the 16 minute distance to downtown. If you're going to build in the suburbs, you're touting your proximity to the suburbs.

[RockHarbor]

I'm trying to understand marketing the 16 minute distance to downtown. If you're going to build in the suburbs, you're touting your proximity to the suburbs.

I'm so excited. I've actually suggested that area be redeveloped for office space, because nice office buildings could exist right along I-680, and it seems too valuable of land for some lodge hotel and a strange "offbeat" colonial (or whatever style it is -- I cant remember) shopping center. That just doesnt feel like it quite belongs there anymore. That lodge hotel is nice (Ive been in a conference in there before), but I dont feel we really need that right there -- especially in a day & age when people are looking for a Garden Hilton or a Fairmont Hotel or a Hampton Inn at that price level. Ok, I want to see something great on that corner. Note to architect: Dont mess this one up -- please.

[Louie]

I'm trying to understand marketing the 16 minute distance to downtown. If you're going to build in the suburbs, you're touting your proximity to the suburbs.

Is Regency the suburbs? I know that our forums are divided at 72nd St, but I've always thought that within the interstate loop proximity to DT is a selling point.

[RockHarbor]

I'm trying to understand marketing the 16 minute distance to downtown. If you're going to build in the suburbs, you're touting your proximity to the suburbs.

Is Regency the suburbs?

Houses, usually not taller than 2 stories, are on spacious lots, located on a maze of very curvy streets and cul-de-sacs. A regional indoor mall in the middle of a sea of parking spaces is located right across the street, and office parks across the freeway as well -- all suburban style. I would say that is a "Yes." (just being a smart alec and jokin ya)

[Dundeemaha]

I'm trying to understand marketing the 16 minute distance to downtown. If you're going to build in the suburbs, you're touting your proximity to the suburbs.

Is Regency the suburbs? I know that our forums are divided at 72nd St, but I've always thought that within the interstate loop proximity to DT is a selling point.

Regency is 100% the suburbs, it's significantly closer to downtown than the suburbs of the last 15 years but there's no doubting that it's suburban character. Separate zoning, strip malls, shopping centers and office parks.

I'd argue that while there is no clean division between urban and suburban in Omaha, the transition starts starts depending on the latitude between 480 and Saddle Creek. It has clearly completed by the time you reach 72nd street.

[RockHarbor]

I'm trying to understand marketing the 16 minute distance to downtown. If you're going to build in the suburbs, you're touting your proximity to the suburbs.

Is Regency the suburbs? I know that our forums are divided at 72nd St, but I've always thought that within the interstate loop proximity to DT is a selling point.

Regency is 100% the suburbs, it's significantly closer to downtown than the suburbs of the last 15 years but there's no doubting that it's suburban character. Separate zoning, strip malls, shopping centers and office parks.

I'd argue that while there is no clean division between urban and suburban in Omaha, the transition starts starts depending on the latitude between 480 and Saddle Creek. It has clearly completed by the time you reach 72nd street.

Interesting. I wouldn't think I-480 would involve this topic, as it is more an unofficial dividing line between Downtown & Midtown. I would say basically 60th to 72nd is the main (fuzzy) line of change in Omaha -- but definitely 72nd St on west is a definite & consistant built environment that reflects the suburban patterns common from the 1940s-1950s onward.

[RockHarbor]

I'm trying to fully picture a big & beautiful & bold suburban office building there, so I quickly grabbed a large & sharp Denver Tech Center Building and quickly pasted it on that curve. Can you imagine a suburban structure of that magnitude on that corner?!! (I really need to "get a life." lol) Courtesy of Google Maps.

Can we just get a "normal" office building like that? Just nice lines, nice curves, nice color. Nice everything. Nothing abnormal. Nothing strange. Please. Hint: A building on the wiggly 'S' curve of an interstate can support sweeping curves.

I don't care what is being designed locally; If there's a impulse to make a very unconventional & unsafe design move on a large scale structure, I hope the architect/designers don't do it. Omaha doesn't have enough normal, conventional architecture -- downtown or suburbs -- to justify any ify "experimental architecture." It just doesn't fit or belong well in Omaha, imo. The only area that can maybe support "out there" architecture is the Aksarben lots, because its a special urban, edgy & young & hip area. Denver, Dallas, Minneapolis all don't have a problem getting a nice, normal, conventional office building. So, Omaha shouldn't either. I'm kinda joking, kinda not joking. We have plenty of great office buildings on West Dodge Road -- as well as the very sharp & shiny One Pacific Place and the sharp new buildings on 132nd & Pacific. I'm just nervous about another "big splash" created by a mint green building with ticker tape windows.

***I like Ameritrade. I'm happy they built their HQ in Omaha. I like their green trademark color. I like green glass. I like the crisp boxy shape, the crisp bands of windows, and the X-bracing on the structure. I even think the "ticker tape windows" were clever. But, in Old Mill, that's ALL still too much. The ticker tape window design would have been better just incorporated on the narrow sides of the building -- not the entire back, imo. That building's backside is mainly what "raises brows" in Omaha.*** HOK creates great architecture all over the globe, and they have an impressive & growing beefy portfolio of continually pumped-out designs, but they don't know Omaha. And, as far as I'm concerned, there was no consideration of Omaha's' feel, nor the suburban Old Mill context, in that design. We can't have that kinda "design carelessness" strike the city again.

Just because Omaha doesnt have a very obvious defined style, like Santa Fe or New Orleans has, cities where new buildings are always given a touch of the instantly recognizable local flair & style, doesnt mean "anything goes" in Omaha, and a local context shouldnt be considered in design. Its just more subtle & not easily defined in Omaha, but its still there on a certain level. I feel like the Daly firm recognizes it.

Creating contextual architecture is always a "safe gamble" in Omaha, and I think that probably always is the right move for Omaha -- especially suburban Omaha. Sometimes, an architect creates something new & unexpected & great for a city -- like a "statement that came from nowhere." There is a time & place for that. That sometimes it really works. I think of a Philip Johnson skyscraper, or a Michael Graves or a Helmut Jahn building. But, I'm not convinced Omaha is one of those cities to need to sport one of those. Maybe we could downtown with an average and not very tall structure -- like maybe a new library or something. But, not for a major new building downtown or the suburbs, imo. We are just not one of those cities that have enough "craziness" or "zaniness in the air" to justify architectural moves like that. And, even so, sometimes when cities do make that move, they can regret it -- like some consider Portland's Michael Graves' ("Christmas Box") building a mistake.

[Busguy2010]

I would always love to have more office buildings like that along our interstate. The more we have, the more it seems to passers-by that Omaha is a big city. Wish I could take every office building on West Dodge and move them out along I-80 south of L for everyone to see.

Also, I hate to contribute to off topic discussion but I loosely define the dividing line of Urban vs Suburban Omaha as the line where the street grid is no longer followed. Then the second criteria is pre vs post WWII buildings. There are definitely gray areas around town. A good example of the looseness is right around Happy Hollow and Underwood. I made a quick map to easier describe it:


Then there are other variances with all of that urban area in South Omaha that aren't within the loop, and all that whole suburban Raven Oaks area that is east of 72nd. So neither "within the loop" nor "east of 72nd" really fully cut it as dividing lines. I wish I actually had some time to tightly identify our "Urban" area, but I don't have to do that. I think we all really know what urban is. I keep it simple and say its any neighborhood that has detached garages or no garages at all, or any neighborhood built before the car became the focus.

Then wait till West Farm is done, we'll have an urban neighborhood right in the middle of suburbia.

[RockHarbor]

Did you see that article on Yahoo this evening? It talks about "surban" (suburban + urban) areas and how they are becoming more & more popular. Maybe West Farm could be considered "Surban." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/young-co ... 16186.html

The disappearance & unraveling of the grid is what I use as the "line" in Omaha, too. Imo, that happens kinda between 60th & 72nd, but definitely from 72nd on. In fact, there's not really great examples of suburban street patterns east of 72nd -- although I did think about how Happy Hollow has some curvy streets, around 55th, and when that first was built, it was like a suburban "Regency" on the edge of town. (So I understand the confusion.)

Omaha's western edge has always been a bit jagged, so we cant expect a perfect, straight & defined line where the grid unravels into suburban street patterns. Also, it is a "safe bet" to conclude any Post WW II areas built from the 40's onward is the "start of modern suburbia" in any American city, including Omaha. That is the era where the iconic, suburban Leviitown, PA (or was it Leviitown, Long Island, NY?) were built. (I tell you, I have read books that have mentioned "Leviitown, PA" and ones that mentioned "Leviitown, NY" as the first iconic suburb. Now, I'm wondering if the same developer, or company, started both of them, with the same trademark name, back in the 40's. Similarly, out west, there is a large "Anthem" development outside of Phoenix and Las Vegas. I'll have to look into that.)

I always think the 1950's are the start of suburbia, but technically the 40's were. In general, Omaha was pushing west of 72nd from 1950 & beyond. Thats part of the reason I choose between 60th Street and 72nd -- an area built more in the 1940's. The other part I thought about is the grid gets looser & sloppier within those blocks. But, 72nd St is the "official accepted line" of a major, definable change in Omaha (imo.)

I've always wanted more suburban office buildings visible from Omaha's major freeways, too. Im wondering if an "Overland Park, KS" or "West Des Moines, IA" office type area will eventually form on I-80 out in the Gretna area. Great Overland Park aerial: http://www.lightonplaza.com/images/Phot ... _Large.jpg

[RockHarbor]

That is the era where the iconic, suburban Leviitown, PA (or was it Leviitown, Long Island, NY?) were built. (I tell you, I have read books that have mentioned "Leviitown, PA" and ones that mentioned "Leviitown, NY" as the first iconic suburb. Now, I'm wondering if the same developer, or company, started both of them, with the same trademark name, back in the 40's. Similarly, out west, there is a large "Anthem" development outside of Phoenix and Las Vegas. I'll have to look into that.)

I just quickly looked it up finally on Wiki -- tired of the confusion I have when the iconic "Leviitown" is brought up. Yep, what I guessed was the case on this was correct. Both suburbs were started by the same company "Levitt & Sons" -- just like that Anthem example that came to mind last evening as I was thinking this all through. Apparently, the Long Island suburb was developed first, the Pennsylvania one second. It's actually spelled "LeviTTown" -- two T's, not two I's. (Originally thinking it was in PA, but then reading it was NY in another book, I'm happy to finally learn that those TWO Post WWII burbs are always noted in books as the official start of modern suburbia. Now, I see that the Long Island NY one is the official first burb.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown

Anyways...

[Louie]

Did you see that article on Yahoo this evening? It talks about "surban" (suburban + urban) areas and how they are becoming more & more popular. Maybe West Farm could be considered "Surban." https://finance.yahoo.com/news/young-co ... 16186.html

The disappearance & unraveling of the grid is what I use as the "line" in Omaha, too. Imo, that happens kinda between 60th & 72nd, but definitely from 72nd on. In fact, there's not really great examples of suburban street patterns east of 72nd -- although I did think about how Happy Hollow has some curvy streets, around 55th, and when that first was built, it was like a suburban "Regency" on the edge of town. (So I understand the confusion.)

Omaha's western edge has always been a bit jagged, so we cant expect a perfect, straight & defined line where the grid unravels into suburban street patterns. Also, it is a "safe bet" to conclude any Post WW II areas built from the 40's onward is the "start of modern suburbia" in any American city, including Omaha. That is the era where the iconic, suburban Leviitown, PA (or was it Leviitown, Long Island, NY?) were built. (I tell you, I have read books that have mentioned "Leviitown, PA" and ones that mentioned "Leviitown, NY" as the first iconic suburb. Now, I'm wondering if the same developer, or company, started both of them, with the same trademark name, back in the 40's. Similarly, out west, there is a large "Anthem" development outside of Phoenix and Las Vegas. I'll have to look into that.)

I always think the 1950's are the start of suburbia, but technically the 40's were. In general, Omaha was pushing west of 72nd from 1950 & beyond. Thats part of the reason I choose between 60th Street and 72nd -- an area built more in the 1940's. The other part I thought about is the grid gets looser & sloppier within those blocks. But, 72nd St is the "official accepted line" of a major, definable change in Omaha (imo.)

I've always wanted more suburban office buildings visible from Omaha's major freeways, too. Im wondering if an "Overland Park, KS" or "West Des Moines, IA" office type area will eventually form on I-80 out in the Gretna area. Great Overland Park aerial: http://www.lightonplaza.com/images/Phot ... _Large.jpg

That Overland Park area definitely reminds me of a huge Old Mill/Regency area.

[RockHarbor]

That Overland Park area definitely reminds me of a huge Old Mill/Regency area.

It is similar, yet Overland Park is so much better looking along I-435 (simply because Kansas City can demand larger suburban office buildings, which naturally creates a more striking & demanding suburban skyline). West Des Moines has great office buildings, too, but they are shorter (like much of Omaha's are). Overland Park is a great area, and is always voted high on lists. It really came together nicely.

I use to feel like Omaha's chance for an "Overland Park" was spent, as Old Mill & Regency didn't quite turn out like Overland Park did, and I-680 didn't have any other real areas for office buildings to line the freeway. And, I knew I-80 & 'L' wouldn't pan out either. But, now that Omaha is really branching out to the South/Southwest even more, we just may have a chance for an area like that to form on the long I-80 stretch out to Gretna. I hope so.

Maybe they should go out there, and create some meandering parkways right along I-80 for office buildings to be built, throw in some nice landscaping, land beautiful-sounding names (with a "good ring" to them) on things, and start creating subdivisions in the area. I bet it would all come together nicely. I'm so tired of this "chain link" mindset Omaha has toward new development to prevent leap-frogging development. It is probably responsible, though. That I can't argue. But, it also never gives that "blank slate" or "free & clear mind" (for design) opportunity.

[Busguy2010]

72nd St is the "official accepted line" of a major, definable change in Omaha (imo.)

It is acceptable/simple. If you drive westbound on any of the major routes (Maple, Blondo, Dodge, Pacific, Center, Harrison) you notice, not coincidentally, that they all "open up" (become larger to accommodate more traffic) just before they get to 72nd street. Between 72nd and 680 is, I feel, one level of suburbia. That area is suburban, but an older style of suburban. If you examine the streets as you go west toward the 680 area, you'll see that's really where our truly suburban area starts. Maple and Center both become highway style with the large divider in the middle, no sidewalks, limited access. They also shift north and south so all of the main roads out there can be exactly one mile apart. Then that's where all the loopy neighborhood streets and cookie cutter houses are.

West of 680 is what I'd consider our modern suburban area. Now that they have everything they need out there, they rarely, if ever have to go east of 680. Whereas if you live within 680, you still might choose to go east for what you need simply because it's closer.

680 does turn out to be a major divider of its own, but we all recognize that generally, 72nd street is a better urban-suburban divider.

[Louie]

72nd St is the "official accepted line" of a major, definable change in Omaha (imo.)

It is acceptable/simple. If you drive westbound on any of the major routes (Maple, Blondo, Dodge, Pacific, Center, Harrison) you notice, not coincidentally, that they all "open up" (become larger to accommodate more traffic) just before they get to 72nd street. Between 72nd and 680 is, I feel, one level of suburbia. That area is suburban, but an older style of suburban. If you examine the streets as you go west toward the 680 area, you'll see that's really where our truly suburban area starts. Maple and Center both become highway style with the large divider in the middle, no sidewalks, limited access. They also shift north and south so all of the main roads out there can be exactly one mile apart. Then that's where all the loopy neighborhood streets and cookie cutter houses are.

West of 680 is what I'd consider our modern suburban area. Now that they have everything they need out there, they rarely, if ever have to go east of 680. Whereas if you live within 680, you still might choose to go east for what you need simply because it's closer.

680 does turn out to be a major divider of its own, but we all recognize that generally, 72nd street is a better urban-suburban divider.

I like this assesment.

[Omaha Cowboy]

72nd St is the "official accepted line" of a major, definable change in Omaha (imo.)

It is acceptable/simple. If you drive westbound on any of the major routes (Maple, Blondo, Dodge, Pacific, Center, Harrison) you notice, not coincidentally, that they all "open up" (become larger to accommodate more traffic) just before they get to 72nd street. Between 72nd and 680 is, I feel, one level of suburbia. That area is suburban, but an older style of suburban. If you examine the streets as you go west toward the 680 area, you'll see that's really where our truly suburban area starts. Maple and Center both become highway style with the large divider in the middle, no sidewalks, limited access. They also shift north and south so all of the main roads out there can be exactly one mile apart. Then that's where all the loopy neighborhood streets and cookie cutter houses are.

West of 680 is what I'd consider our modern suburban area. Now that they have everything they need out there, they rarely, if ever have to go east of 680. Whereas if you live within 680, you still might choose to go east for what you need simply because it's closer.

680 does turn out to be a major divider of its own, but we all recognize that generally, 72nd street is a better urban-suburban divider.

In a nutshell, this is really a nice overview assessment Busguy2010..

I have a very good friend who built and moved his family into a home in the subdivision west of 156th and State St in Bennington suburbia.. He moved into his home in 2012.. Since, housing construction in that general area has exploded.. Other than work (he works at Mutual of Omaha), neither he or his family, have to travel much further than the 144th-156th and Maple corridor to get everything they need...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[nativeomahan]

Other than work (he works at Mutual of Omaha), neither he or his family, have to travel much further than the 144th-156th and Maple corridor to get everything they need..

Other than “that”, Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play.

[RockHarbor]

.

[RockHarbor]

72nd St is the "official accepted line" of a major, definable change in Omaha (imo.)

It is acceptable/simple. If you drive westbound on any of the major routes (Maple, Blondo, Dodge, Pacific, Center, Harrison) you notice, not coincidentally, that they all "open up" (become larger to accommodate more traffic) just before they get to 72nd street. Between 72nd and 680 is, I feel, one level of suburbia. That area is suburban, but an older style of suburban. If you examine the streets as you go west toward the 680 area, you'll see that's really where our truly suburban area starts. Maple and Center both become highway style with the large divider in the middle, no sidewalks, limited access. They also shift north and south so all of the main roads out there can be exactly one mile apart. Then that's where all the loopy neighborhood streets and cookie cutter houses are.

West of 680 is what I'd consider our modern suburban area. Now that they have everything they need out there, they rarely, if ever have to go east of 680. Whereas if you live within 680, you still might choose to go east for what you need simply because it's closer.

680 does turn out to be a major divider of its own, but we all recognize that generally, 72nd street is a better urban-suburban divider.

I basically agree with what you said, but I'm sorry, its more than just medians appearing on Maple & Blondo & Dodge & Pacific (although I agree that is a "tell tale sign" of change, and a good observation). Suburban street patterns, suddenly laid out with meandering curves and cul-de-sacs, verses houses ordered on the rigid & strict ordered grid, is the #1 MAJOR SIGN of the change in almost any American city from old to new (I say "almost any" as some American cities, like Boston & Pittsburgh, have a "spaghetti bowl" of streets, and it is harder to distinguish the line of change in those cities). Also, "modern suburbia" officially started in the 1940s after WW II with the new layouts of Levittown, NY & Levittown, PA, and the rest of the country followed the pattern. Ideas took a little longer to travel back then, so I feel that is likely why Omaha's "Levittown-like" residential development patterns started 72nd Street on west from 1950 onward. Its so obvious of this change on a map of Omaha -- and a map of Des Moines, and Denver, and Minneapolis, and Kansas City, and, ect. Yes, the E-W major streets reflect the more spacious & "loosey goosey" mindset west of 72nd, as they were originally highways through the countryside after 72nd (as you mentioned). You can see decent curves straying from a straight line on West Center, West Dodge, West Maple west of 72nd -- along with the divided aspect (as you mentioned). I'm sorry, "modern suburbia" is not I-680 west. I would say more "recent day suburbia" is I-680 on west. Keep in mind, in the "black & white 1950's", people were pulling up to a house on a spacious lot, on a meandering residential street, with a car parked out front, and a TV set & radio within. Just because Nintendo and Xbox and Verizon & Netflicts weren't around yet, doesnt mean it wasn't "modern times" or not "modern suburbia." Yes, as Omaha has pushed outward, and suburban office centers & suburban malls have sprung up, which is another "new thing" that happened all across America with the change to "modern suburbia", then many have less of a reason to go downtown now. Thats why we have all the recent drive (in the last several decades especially) in America to keep our cities' downtowns healthy & active & attractive. (What I'm saying here is simply inarguable.)

[Busguy2010]

I think we are in agreement, but have different communication styles. You understand what I meant by "modern suburbia", being the suburban areas built within the last 30 or so years. Technically modern suburbia is just suburbia, isn't it?

To me, there is a distinct difference between early and recent suburbs in Omaha and I think we agree on that. In our early suburbia, there was at least some level of loyalty shown to the grid, as you can see in Central Omaha. The glaring difference between that neighborhood and the one on 156th and Maple is access. In the new suburb, there are 10 access points in that square mile, whereas in the older neighborhood, there's at least double that. I'll call the new suburbs "limited access" suburbs. Limited access suburbs are more common as you get west of 680, and they are especially common in Northwest Omaha and far Southwest Omaha and Sarpy County, i.e. neighborhoods built some time within the last 30 or so years. The older suburbs still had an acceptable level of access points. That difference is identifiable either by looking at a map or physically being in the neighborhood. We agree that suburbia started at 72nd Street, but what I'm arguing is that those older suburbs are distinctly better than new suburbs in terms of access. You can still at least walk somewhere fairly easily in the older suburbs.

[RockHarbor]

I think we are in agreement, but have different communication styles. You understand what I meant by "modern suburbia", being the suburban areas built within the last 30 or so years. Technically modern suburbia is just suburbia, isn't it?

To me, there is a distinct difference between early and recent suburbs in Omaha and I think we agree on that. In our early suburbia, there was at least some level of loyalty shown to the grid, as you can see in Central Omaha. The glaring difference between that neighborhood and the one on 156th and Maple is access. In the new suburb, there are 10 access points in that square mile, whereas in the older neighborhood, there's at least double that. I'll call the new suburbs "limited access" suburbs. Limited access suburbs are more common as you get west of 680, and they are especially common in Northwest Omaha and far Southwest Omaha and Sarpy County, i.e. neighborhoods built some time within the last 30 or so years. The older suburbs still had an acceptable level of access points. That difference is identifiable either by looking at a map or physically being in the neighborhood. We agree that suburbia started at 72nd Street, but what I'm arguing is that those older suburbs are distinctly better than new suburbs in terms of access. You can still at least walk somewhere fairly easily in the older suburbs.

Yes, I was going to add a post explaining that I mean "modern suburbia" in a technical way. In architecture & design, and when one talks of a time period such as a "modern era", the word "modern" can really take you technically back to the 1940's/1950's. (That used to perplex me, reading architecture books, as the word "modern" reached back to time periods that I didnt think of as "modern." But, when you see the change from antique furniture to Jestson-esque furniture, the introduction of the space program and TVs, the change from colonial style homes to the modern ranch, the change from the old brick building & house to the all-glass high rise or boxy glass house, then you understand why the 1940s/50s justify the word "modern.") Funny, you showed the difference between the old suburbs vs newer suburbs, as I was just thinking about that. Yes, the older suburbs reflected the "Levittown-like" change in street patterns, but they still fashioned with some differences in mindset -- as you pointed out. (Look at the streets of Regency, though, plotted & laid-out in the 1960's with a fanciful curl & coil that is unmatched to this day in the Omaha area. So, extremes existed even back then -- depending on what the designer & delevopers wanted.) Nowadays, Omaha's suburban street layouts look more sleek & designed by computers & clicks of mouses -- than ones in the past, of course. They also level out and mat down the land more before they build. Omaha's suburbs from the 1970s and earlier have some very steep streets in some subdivisions -- ones even downright dangerous to ride bikes or skateboard on, or drive on in icy winter weather. Nowadays, they have gentler slopes in general. (The days of Omaha suburban housing having front driveways edged by large rock/block/wood walls w/ a significant front stairway leading up to the front door w/ a long & coily black iron railing are OVER. Yeah....!) I'm sure lack of computer aided design and unchallenged steeper/lumpier/moundier land affected street layout back then to look overall more clunkier and less sleek & flowing. The access points aspect you pointed out is interesting. I see your point.

[aaaron]

Regency and many newer suburbs aren't laid out with convoluted street patterns because designers wanted them to look pretty. It's to keep people out who don't live there. That's the significance of the lack of access points.

[RockHarbor]

Regency and many newer suburbs aren't laid out with convoluted street patterns because designers wanted them to look pretty. It's to keep people out who don't live there. That's the significance of the lack of access points.

True. That is definitely one of the motives of the amount of access points given when a subdivision's streets are laid out nowadays. It might also be overall traffic flow onto major streets -- and things of that nature. Who knows... Maybe that is why the new design of modern suburban streets started emerging in the 1940's. It probably had to originally do with privacy, access points, and traffic flow onto major streets that just cannot happen with a tight grid of streets. Also, cars can't speed on curvy streets as much. Notice they've never returned to the grid design.

[Busguy2010]

It's to keep people out who don't live there. That's the significance of the lack of access points.

Also, not necessarily in Regency's case, allowing for higher speeds on the main roads is just as much reason for limited access. This would especially be a priority for those blocks that are getting ever farther away from the rest of the city.

[Busguy2010]

Notice they've never returned to the grid design.

That's not necessarily true. I think there's some slow movement to bring back urban neighborhood design. There is at least one example, Sterling in Denver, that is taking a step back. West Farm shows some agreement with that movement, though I'm not sure how aggressive the grid will be when that's finished. Aksarben is another example of some land that could have gone to suburban design but didn't. I think the fringes of the city will continue on their current march, but we would benefit greatly by following urban neighborhood design wherever we have some available land inside of the city.

But yes, I think frontier neighborhoods will never return to the grid.

[RockHarbor]

Notice they've never returned to the grid design.

That's not necessarily true. I think there's some slow movement to bring back urban neighborhood design. There is at least one example, Sterling in Denver, that is taking a step back. West Farm shows some agreement with that movement, though I'm not sure how aggressive the grid will be when that's finished. Aksarben is another example of some land that could have gone to suburban design but didn't. I think the fringes of the city will continue on their current march, but we would benefit greatly by following urban neighborhood design wherever we have some available land inside of the city.

But yes, I think frontier neighborhoods will never return to the grid.

Sure, limited-size projects within suburbia that are purposefully fashioned to recapture "urbanism" will sometime utilize grid-like streets because it just goes along w/ the whole theme, and urban-style buildings fit squarely & more snugly on straight streets better than curving ones. But, of course, I'm talking a city continually being laid-out & advancing in a sucession of new grid streets -- like in the past. Why won't they return to that? Because = It must not necessarily be better for today's time. ////////////////////////////////////////////// P.S. I've always loved city maps and I find the transition from a gridded city core to a flurry of curvy suburban streets pretty cool... Omaha's map is pretty darn good, but I have to say, the most "exciting" (If you want to call it that. Maybe I'm just afraid that using that term for a map makes me a nerd...lol) grid-to-curves & cul-de-sac cities are probably Indianapolis, Mpls-St Paul, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, Denver, Omaha... (KC has deep ravines affecting their grid, though, yet the flurry of Overland Park suburban streets is a neat contrast. St Louis' core doesnt have the best N-S-E-W grid. Milwaukee is decent w/ a grid, but their suburban patterns are kinda loose & not very tight. The Ohio cities of Columbus & Cleveland are decent, but not as impressive. Texas cities just dont have quite the crystal clear contrast as Midwest cities. Miami-FL has a nice grid that changes to suburban patterns, but the swampy land creates differences down there.) IMO, Indianapolis is probably the best example. There's something about a map of Indianapolis. The inner city starts out with a nice, big, tight grid, then the suburban streets all fan outward in all directions (more to the North than any direction) --- like a splat of ink that hit the floor. Mpls-St Paul is probably my 2nd favorite. (I still give Indianapolis the "Blue Ribbon" because it has an extensive inner city tight & grid, it does not have a "twist" downtown in the grid, downtown is centered in the middle of it all, and also its suburban patterns are fairly tight, because it has plenty of open farmland land to expand on -- like Omaha. The woodsiness of the Twin Cities and Detroit and Milwaukee create looser suburban patterns. Denver has a nice grid & tight suburban patterns, too, but Denver's grid is smaller, has a twist in it, and the countryside surrounding the city doesnt have a great established network of roads -- so brand new meandering major avenues are created on the prairie/range land. It looks neat on a map, like the desert cities, but still, it is not quite the same effect as Indianapolis's hinterlands pushing into farms & farmland & long-established country roads. Chicago's jumbo grid fronting the great lake & large collection of fanning suburbs is very neat, imo. But, its all too large & chaotic & not unified to win the "Blue Ribbon" I give Indianapolis for best old city grid + new suburban patterns.)

[Busguy2010]

But, of course, I'm talking a city continually being laid-out & advancing in a sucession of new grid streets -- like in the past. Why won't they return to that?

It would never work because we already have a problem with too many people on the fringes, and if we tried to increase the density way out there, it would worsen the problems that our suburbs have. Unless a current fringe city were to expand their own core. Imagine if Fremont could have built out their city before the suburban movement happened. Shoot, we'd have a Minneapolis - St. Paul in the making.

Bottom line is I feel Omaha was too small when the suburban movement happened, so now our core is outweighed by our suburbs. I think we'd have a healthier balance if our core had expanded maybe a mile or two beyond what it was able to. Just too little too late, so I think that is why we are currently stuck with this stubborn car-centric community that just continually grows outward. We as a whole haven't got it through our minds that there are some pretty great alternatives. Luckily the push back has started and things are looking up for the core.

[RockHarbor]

But, of course, I'm talking a city continually being laid-out & advancing in a sucession of new grid streets -- like in the past. Why won't they return to that?

It would never work because we already have a problem with too many people on the fringes, and if we tried to increase the density way out there, it would worsen the problems that our suburbs have. Unless a current fringe city were to expand their own core. Imagine if Fremont could have built out their city before the suburban movement happened. Shoot, we'd have a Minneapolis - St. Paul in the making.

Bottom line is I feel Omaha was too small when the suburban movement happened, so now our core is outweighed by our suburbs. I think we'd have a healthier balance if our core had expanded maybe a mile or two beyond what it was able to. Just too little too late, so I think that is why we are currently stuck with this stubborn car-centric community that just continually grows outward. We as a whole haven't got it through our minds that there are some pretty great alternatives. Luckily the push back has started and things are looking up for the core.

Exactly. Good points. Omaha's inner city is really not that extensive at all, and just a glance at a map at Omaha reveals the "suburbanland" is about 2/3 of the metro, while the old core is around 1/3 -- if even that. Nobody thinks of Omaha as a new city like Phoenix since it midway through the country and on the green Nebraska prairie, and it has that gritty railroad and stockyards past, but it still does not have a lot of old charm at all -- like Phoenix. Its not like it has a big "catalog" of old structures like you find in Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, ect. So, that is why the now erased Jobbers Canyon stings even worse (imo). Im so glad the inner city is getting more & more dense, but again, they need to remember Omaha's "old charm" only goes so far. So, I hope they dont remove too much in the name of new lofts & condos. People can still build new brick stuff with old world charm, so I hope they incorporate old world charm into some new projects -- especially residential & retail projects. Some of Aksarben's apartments kinda feel that way. Kansas City is good about that kind of stuff. Omaha needs to improve, imo. I dont feel Omaha needs to incorporate quite the fancy & frilly embellishments of old world charm KC does, as that is more KC's style, but I think we could push more plainer & square, boxy, brick & stone "heavy" feeling urban residential projects -- almost like historic buildings in Jobber's Canyon. I just feel like Omaha needs to compensate for what it has lost, and not always focus on being this modern, glassy looking city all the time (although I do love glass & modern buildings, so maybe mostly new office buildings should stick to that look, and only a limited number of residential projects). Some cities have started to look too "glass condo" to me, like Vancouver, Canada.

[RockHarbor]

I'm sitting here thinking of different type buildings that would look neat at Pacific & I-680. Can you imagine a bigger, taller suburban building with an eye-catching apex that anchors the whole area? For example, I love this rich-looking suburban building in Suburban Dallas. Two squarish sections intersect with the taller section set at a twist, with a pyramid cap at the top. So simple, yet so satisfyingly striking. With the curves of I-680 maybe a taller office building w/ curves would be better, maybe like Indy's tallest suburban building in their Keystone Crossing area. Link: https://www.emporis.de/images/show/1158 ... facade.jpg


These buildings are so "80's/90's", yet still, they look so nice. I'm sure Omaha is not big enough to support that size suburban structure. Who knows though. They built the surprising Omaha Tower (on 72nd) in the 1970's. Can we just get a NORMAL suburban building like that? I still cling to hope here... (Just joking)

[Busguy2010]

Here's my philosophy on our city's future, and none of us may ever live to see it happen, but I seriously believe in due time, all of these cookie cutter suburban neighborhoods will be our future ghetto areas. This is all simply because of the poor quality building standards these houses were held to.

The houses in north and south Omaha were built in the late 1800's to 1920's, so that means these well built houses went from normal to some of the poorest or even dilapidated in 60 to 80 years. I ask, "how long can you care for a house before it becomes too much work for what its worth?" In regard to the new cookie cutter (hearthstone and celebrity types) suburban houses going up, the answer to me is "not long". Another question is "how long before property values begin to dip due to the problems these low-quality neighborhoods will eventually see?" Honestly, I see these new houses becoming undesirable in a matter of 40 years. Low income groups will be buying or renting these houses out of necessity, while the value of the core continues to rise. Mr. Low Income's old 1918 sub 100K house will be renovated into a 200k house in the next up and coming neighborhood, while he struggles to keep his 2008 new house in one piece.

[Busguy2010]

I'm getting a little too tired, but great discussion. My newest post was in disregard to previous discussion because I felt the night was coming to an end. I'll read and reply to your post tomorrow

[Louie]

Here's my philosophy on our city's future, and none of us may ever live to see it happen, but I seriously believe in due time, all of these cookie cutter suburban neighborhoods will be our future ghetto areas. This is all simply because of the poor quality building standards these houses were held to.

The houses in north and south Omaha were built in the late 1800's to 1920's, so that means these well built houses went from normal to some of the poorest or even dilapidated in 60 to 80 years. I ask, "how long can you care for a house before it becomes too much work for what its worth?" In regard to the new cookie cutter (hearthstone and celebrity types) suburban houses going up, the answer to me is "not long". Another question is "how long before property values begin to dip due to the problems these low-quality neighborhoods will eventually see?" Honestly, I see these new houses becoming undesirable in a matter of 40 years. Low income groups will be buying or renting these houses out of necessity, while the value of the core continues to rise. Mr. Low Income's old 1918 sub 100K house will be renovated into a 200k house in the next up and coming neighborhood, while he struggles to keep his 2008 new house in one piece.

Couldn't agree more.

[buildomaha]

Here's my philosophy on our city's future, and none of us may ever live to see it happen, but I seriously believe in due time, all of these cookie cutter suburban neighborhoods will be our future ghetto areas. This is all simply because of the poor quality building standards these houses were held to.

The houses in north and south Omaha were built in the late 1800's to 1920's, so that means these well built houses went from normal to some of the poorest or even dilapidated in 60 to 80 years. I ask, "how long can you care for a house before it becomes too much work for what its worth?" In regard to the new cookie cutter (hearthstone and celebrity types) suburban houses going up, the answer to me is "not long". Another question is "how long before property values begin to dip due to the problems these low-quality neighborhoods will eventually see?" Honestly, I see these new houses becoming undesirable in a matter of 40 years. Low income groups will be buying or renting these houses out of necessity, while the value of the core continues to rise. Mr. Low Income's old 1918 sub 100K house will be renovated into a 200k house in the next up and coming neighborhood, while he struggles to keep his 2008 new house in one piece.

The research is there to prove this as well. I wrote a paper mentioning this as just one of the many reasons we should be returning to our urban cores!

[RockHarbor]

Here's my philosophy on our city's future, and none of us may ever live to see it happen, but I seriously believe in due time, all of these cookie cutter suburban neighborhoods will be our future ghetto areas. This is all simply because of the poor quality building standards these houses were held to.

The houses in north and south Omaha were built in the late 1800's to 1920's, so that means these well built houses went from normal to some of the poorest or even dilapidated in 60 to 80 years. I ask, "how long can you care for a house before it becomes too much work for what its worth?" In regard to the new cookie cutter (hearthstone and celebrity types) suburban houses going up, the answer to me is "not long". Another question is "how long before property values begin to dip due to the problems these low-quality neighborhoods will eventually see?" Honestly, I see these new houses becoming undesirable in a matter of 40 years. Low income groups will be buying or renting these houses out of necessity, while the value of the core continues to rise. Mr. Low Income's old 1918 sub 100K house will be renovated into a 200k house in the next up and coming neighborhood, while he struggles to keep his 2008 new house in one piece.

The research is there to prove this as well. I wrote a paper mentioning this as just one of the many reasons we should be returning to our urban cores!

I do have to say that some of Phoenix's 80's stucco suburbs look crappy, so I know what you're saying. And, suburban Omaha has so many split-entry homes from the 1960s to present day that I almost cant stand that look anymore, nor that type of entry (no offense to anybody living in one, it is just something Im personally tired of). Ive wondered if Celebrity Homes will hold up well with time. I like Celebrity's newest home styles a lot, but I almost feel like they have a "monopoly" in Omaha, and they are creating most of the West Omaha cityscape. We need more variety, imo. I also wish Omaha would allow ritzy homes/neighborhoods to be grouped together more, instead of this consistant, balanced hodgepodge of different classes every few square miles -- like a checkerboard. I honestly doubt we will ever return to the grid. It is just difficult to imagine. Notice Vegas keeps most of its new streets very straight on the flat desert floor, but they just dont lay them out in a grid fashion? I think new grid streets almost feel "wrong" to developers & residents out in suburbia. There are pros & cons to both the old & new way, imo.

[bigredmed1]

In the 1970s and 1980s when I worked in the lumber business, there were companies like CSI that built |expletive|. Their famous cost saving tool was to build three blue prints on a street. They hired real home builders to build one of each type, then random workers to copy each one step by step. So if you got the one built by real carpenters, you only had to worry about crappy low quality components. If you got one of the others, you had construction problems as well. These neighborhoods in Millard, Ralston, and LaVista are not going to keep up. The cost to maintain these is going to easily outstrip their value.

The other end of the scale worries me too. The McMansions that are popping up are not the best quality and will develop significant mechanical issues like any other place. What worries me about them is that they are update pigs. If they don't have the sink just so, the bathroom won't sell and the owners will either let the house outdate and hope for the best when they sell or will be doomed to a life of renovation in order to compete with all the other McMansions on the market.

[obvious2677]

I like Celebrity's newest home styles a lot

Which version of McMansion do you like best?

Spending $300k on a Celebrity Homes house is a laugh too. No thanks.

I also wish Omaha would allow ritzy homes/neighborhoods to be grouped together more, instead of this consistant, balanced hodgepodge of different classes every few square miles -- like a checkerboard.

So you would like there to be clearer divisions of wealth? This is a bad idea.

[obvious2677]

In the 1970s and 1980s when I worked in the lumber business, there were companies like CSI that built |expletive|. Their famous cost saving tool was to build three blue prints on a street. They hired real home builders to build one of each type, then random workers to copy each one step by step. So if you got the one built by real carpenters, you only had to worry about crappy low quality components. If you got one of the others, you had construction problems as well. These neighborhoods in Millard, Ralston, and LaVista are not going to keep up. The cost to maintain these is going to easily outstrip their value.

The other end of the scale worries me too. The McMansions that are popping up are not the best quality and will develop significant mechanical issues like any other place.

This is what happened near my parents neighborhood - west Omaha. First big wind storm - the Celebrity-style Homes (don't recall who built them exactly) had shingles, siding, etc. everywhere. The other semi-connected neighborhood, which has custom-built houses, didn't seem to have any damage at all (there weren't trees in the neighborhood then - and still aren't many now).

What worries me about them is that they are update pigs. If they don't have the sink just so, the bathroom won't sell and the owners will either let the house outdate and hope for the best when they sell or will be doomed to a life of renovation in order to compete with all the other McMansions on the market.

Why would anyone buy a re-sale when you can spend a little extra money and get Celebrity to basically build you the same thing, to your exact specifications? An extra $10k, at 4% interest over 30 years is only $48 a month.

[RockHarbor]

I like Celebrity's newest home styles a lot

Which version of McMansion do you like best?

Spending $300k on a Celebrity Homes house is a laugh too. No thanks.

I also wish Omaha would allow ritzy homes/neighborhoods to be grouped together more, instead of this consistant, balanced hodgepodge of different classes every few square miles -- like a checkerboard.

So you would like there to be clearer divisions of wealth? This is a bad idea.

I'm simply saying that Celebrity Homes' latest styles are some of the most nice-looking homes (even the starter ones) I've seen in Omaha, and they also give the feeling of mass tract homes going up -- like a city in the West. They also have great lines & gables that almost remind me of western homes outside Denver, yet they have a "Midwest twist" to them, too -- perfect for Omaha. They also have yummy designer exterior colors I could look at all day long (not to mention model home interiors I find exciting & inspirational). They put on a "good show" and have quite a production. Now, the quaility of their construction has always been debatable.

I like Omaha's respectable rule to intermingle the classes, but then we miss out on having ritzy suburbs like Minneapolis has. When we put in a new office park, I like ritzy & solid brick homes by the new buildings -- like Linden Estates next to the FNB Business Park. I honestly think we get by with that rule so well because we have almost a perfect farm grid helping to solidly divide the land into different class neighborhoods in a checkerboard pattern -- while the city "pats itself on the back" for its "saintly standard" and rule. Yet, would that rule & mindset exist without the farm grid? For example, within the same square mile, you still don't commonly see a lower middle class "starter home" neighborhood hooking up nicely to a ritzy neighborhood like Linden Estates.

Places like Minneapolis don't have a solid farm grid, and have groups of subdivisions forming back in forests and around natural lakes, and I think it is just easier for ritzy suburbs to naturally form there.

[Louie]

So you do want more wealth division. Got it. And those 'mass tracts' of housing are stretching this city thin.