The Builders District (15th and Mike Fahey)

[skinzfan23]

I hope that this doesn't come to fruition. I don't understand the short-sightedness that so many of the Omaha developers have. When you travel to other cities, they embrace the existing architecture already in place and try to find other uses. I don't understand why in Omaha this always starts with the buildings being torn down with no concrete plans in sight. We don't need any more empty parking lots or mid-rise buildings with no street level pedestrian space.

Aksarben Village is a little different in that there was nothing there since the horse track closed, but in this case downtown, they should revitalize the old buildings and build around them.

I agree with your assessment concerning this particular project. There has been some reuse of buildings recently in North Downtown, particularly for residential purposes. However, there are blocks of buildings in North Downtown that really can't be repurposed, at least in a way that would be meaningful and/or increase value/use of the real estate. Their proposals are not perfect. I would personally like to see more density, for sure, in this plan. But I am not opposed to seeing some of these blocks cleared of the light industrial and one story commercial buildings (I'm looking at you, Sol's) that occupy lots and blocks that could be used for better purposes and bring people to the area.

1502 California St building by Sols could easily be converted into office or apt space.



I am also pretty sure that any of these buildings are easily convertible.

[ita]

I hope that this doesn't come to fruition. I don't understand the short-sightedness that so many of the Omaha developers have. When you travel to other cities, they embrace the existing architecture already in place and try to find other uses. I don't understand why in Omaha this always starts with the buildings being torn down with no concrete plans in sight. We don't need any more empty parking lots or mid-rise buildings with no street level pedestrian space.

Aksarben Village is a little different in that there was nothing there since the horse track closed, but in this case downtown, they should revitalize the old buildings and build around them.

I agree with your assessment concerning this particular project. There has been some reuse of buildings recently in North Downtown, particularly for residential purposes. However, there are blocks of buildings in North Downtown that really can't be repurposed, at least in a way that would be meaningful and/or increase value/use of the real estate. Their proposals are not perfect. I would personally like to see more density, for sure, in this plan. But I am not opposed to seeing some of these blocks cleared of the light industrial and one story commercial buildings (I'm looking at you, Sol's) that occupy lots and blocks that could be used for better purposes and bring people to the area.

1502 California St building by Sols could easily be converted into office or apt space.



I am also pretty sure that any of these buildings are easily convertible.

I suppose it has been a while since I have been down to the area. I frequented the area during grad school, I suppose my memory is hazy concerning the architecture and condition of the buildings that populate the area. Those are good examples of buildings that could be refurbished for better use rather than be torn down for new development. Sorry, Sol's for my initial assessment!

[sburgess]

While I don't disagree that the area could use some "sprucing up," so far what I have read about the proposed Builders District has been disappointing. The plan is pretty vague and the assessment of the existing buildings is very superficial. As a resident/owner of a recently renovated building on Cuming Street, I was shocked to learn about all of this in the newspaper. In the development of the plan there was no outreach (at least to us). The proposal from the planning board (August 29, 2018), characterizes the condition of the buildings in the area as "at best, average or fair condition." Imagine my surprise in learning that my new home is ripe for the bulldozer! Omaha's track record in the treatment of historic areas and buildings is not good. Building super blocks of lame new buildings would do a great disservice to Omaha! We can do better! Why don't we seek to preserve the texture and scale of existing buildings? There are also business that have been there for decades, and the city's casual use of the term "eminent domain" suggests a disregard for both the texture of the area and the future of viable businesses.

[Omaha Cowboy]

While I don't disagree that the area could use some "sprucing up," so far what I have read about the proposed Builders District has been disappointing. The plan is pretty vague and the assessment of the existing buildings is very superficial. As a resident/owner of a recently renovated building on Cuming Street, I was shocked to learn about all of this in the newspaper. In the development of the plan there was no outreach (at least to us). The proposal from the planning board (August 29, 2018), characterizes the condition of the buildings in the area as "at best, average or fair condition." Imagine my surprise in learning that my new home is ripe for the bulldozer! Omaha's track record in the treatment of historic areas and buildings is not good. Building super blocks of lame new buildings would do a great disservice to Omaha! We can do better! Why don't we seek to preserve the texture and scale of existing buildings? There are also business that have been there for decades, and the city's casual use of the term "eminent domain" suggests a disregard for both the texture of the area and the future of viable businesses.

Very interesting perspective and detail. Thanks for sharing this..

And welcome to the forum ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[daveoma]

While I don't disagree that the area could use some "sprucing up," so far what I have read about the proposed Builders District has been disappointing. The plan is pretty vague and the assessment of the existing buildings is very superficial. As a resident/owner of a recently renovated building on Cuming Street, I was shocked to learn about all of this in the newspaper. In the development of the plan there was no outreach (at least to us). The proposal from the planning board (August 29, 2018), characterizes the condition of the buildings in the area as "at best, average or fair condition." Imagine my surprise in learning that my new home is ripe for the bulldozer! Omaha's track record in the treatment of historic areas and buildings is not good. Building super blocks of lame new buildings would do a great disservice to Omaha! We can do better! Why don't we seek to preserve the texture and scale of existing buildings? There are also business that have been there for decades, and the city's casual use of the term "eminent domain" suggests a disregard for both the texture of the area and the future of viable businesses.

Hello, can you explain what you mean by your home that's about to be demolished? How is that possible when your building was just renovated? Also can you aproximarte the distance from your building from 11th and Nicholas?

[sburgess]

Below is an excerpt from the City of Omaha Planning Department Memo (August 29, 2018) issued by David K. Fanslau - Planning Director, to the Chairman and Members of the Planning Board:

"The City will pay for the acquisition of properties in the Redevelopment Plan Area through negotiated agreements, and may also fund expenses related to demolition, remediation, and site preparation of any acquired properties. The City may use eminent domain for such property acquisition, as needed, as well as for purposes of clearing title issues, easements, or other matters."

According to the developer (Noddle Development Corp.), they do not have specific plans for all of the area but hope to have all of the properties purchased by 2021 with development taking place over the next 10 years. That development as described by Jay Noddle in an Omaha World Herald article (Sept. 5, 2018) would include "multifamily housing, office buildings, a small amount of first-floor retail and restaurants and possibly an additional parking garage. The city would pay for the parking garage, if it's needed, with parking revenue."

The Builder's District project will be on the October 30th City Council Agenda for public hearing and vote. I, for one, will be there to voice my position. As I said in my previous post, I am not opposed to developing the area. But, from what I have read, there doesn't appear to be much interest in preserving the original "fabric" of the area.

[Louie]

While I don't disagree that the area could use some "sprucing up," so far what I have read about the proposed Builders District has been disappointing. The plan is pretty vague and the assessment of the existing buildings is very superficial. As a resident/owner of a recently renovated building on Cuming Street, I was shocked to learn about all of this in the newspaper. In the development of the plan there was no outreach (at least to us). The proposal from the planning board (August 29, 2018), characterizes the condition of the buildings in the area as "at best, average or fair condition." Imagine my surprise in learning that my new home is ripe for the bulldozer! Omaha's track record in the treatment of historic areas and buildings is not good. Building super blocks of lame new buildings would do a great disservice to Omaha! We can do better! Why don't we seek to preserve the texture and scale of existing buildings? There are also business that have been there for decades, and the city's casual use of the term "eminent domain" suggests a disregard for both the texture of the area and the future of viable businesses.

Hello, can you explain what you mean by your home that's about to be demolished? How is that possible when your building was just renovated? Also can you aproximarte the distance from your building from 11th and Nicholas?

The Builders District is a separate development from the Millwork Commons/NEDO development.

[sburgess]

One of things that I don't understand about the proposed Builder's District is why it only includes the south half of Cuming St. If the idea is to transform the North Downtown area, than surely it ought to include both sides of Cuming St. As a major artery of Omaha, especially for traffic going to and from the airport, this route provides one of the first "introductions" to the City of Omaha. What would a first time visitor to Omaha think as they traveled down Cuming St. and saw the south side of Cuming with all its new "amenities" and then looked to the north side and saw nothing but poor or worn out buildings (as described in the Planning Board's proposal)? Of course, I am not including the beautiful and fabulous U-Haul Storage Facility between 18th St and Florence Boulevard.

How well thought out is this proposal anyway?

[obvious2677]

One of things that I don't understand about the proposed Builder's District is why it only includes the south half of Cuming St. If the idea is to transform the North Downtown area, than surely it ought to include both sides of Cuming St. As a major artery of Omaha, especially for traffic going to and from the airport, this route provides one of the first "introductions" to the City of Omaha. What would a first time visitor to Omaha think as they traveled down Cuming St. and saw the south side of Cuming with all its new "amenities" and then looked to the north side and saw nothing but poor or worn out buildings (as described in the Planning Board's proposal)? Of course, I am not including the beautiful and fabulous U-Haul Storage Facility between 18th St and Florence Boulevard.

How well thought out is this proposal anyway?

Well, because that area doesn't need to really be included? It would fit better with more development to the north, but also, looking at who owns most of it, it's going to be developed whether there's a "unifying area" or not. Fronting Cuming, from the METRO station to the east, you have: Creighton (2 blocks), U-Haul (1 block), Al's Auto Supply, JF Bloom (already restored), Landmark Group (1 block), then Omaha Design Center.

[julieburgii]

From the map provided, this building looks like part of a complex for baseball/softball, who knows. What I do know it that my family business and HOME are located on the block between 17th & 18th on Cuming and this map literally wipes them away. No one has spoken to us about this but Mr. Noddle's comments about moving everyone out before 2021 make my blood run cold. I would echo the sentiments of Mr. Pascarella from the Happy Bar. We plan on fighting this should they come for us.

[sburgess]

I think it would make more sense to have the "zoning/building standards" that become part of the Builder's District apply to both sides of the street.

[sburgess]

There is also a stretch buildings on the north side of Cuming between 16th and 17th St that surely raises some concerns about the overall appearance of the Cuming St. "corridor."
0.2 MB Cuming between 16th and 17th.pdf You can't upload files of this type. Check Error

[sburgess]

Well, we went to the City Council Meeting yesterday and raised our concerns about the Builder's District. The only "opponents" were my wife and I and another gentlemen. Not surprisingly, the proposal was unanimously approved. The phrase "in the best interest" of the city was tossed around a lot. As I have said, I am not completely opposed to the plan, but have serious concerns about the type of development that will occur and the loss of history and "texture." Will North Downtown became another area of homogenous, oversized buildings that lack pedestrian scale? Only time will tell. I will continue to be an advocate for the area with the hope that we can avoid another "jobbers canyon" scenario or the disaster of the hotel that blocked 16th Street isolating the area and leaving North Downtown to "wither on the vine." I do have a meeting scheduled with Jay Noddle to discuss the plans in greater detail.

[nebugeater]

Well, we went to the City Council Meeting yesterday and raised our concerns about the Builder's District. The only "opponents" were my wife and I and another gentlemen. Not surprisingly, the proposal was unanimously approved. The phrase "in the best interest" of the city was tossed around a lot. As I have said, I am not completely opposed to the plan, but have serious concerns about the type of development that will occur and the loss of history and "texture." Will North Downtown became another area of homogenous, oversized buildings that lack pedestrian scale? Only time will tell. I will continue to be an advocate for the area with the hope that we can avoid another "jobbers canyon" scenario or the disaster of the hotel that blocked 16th Street isolating the area and leaving North Downtown to "wither on the vine." I do have a meeting scheduled with Jay Noddle to discuss the plans in greater detail.

Good luck. There needs to be balance. I assume you are the building owner that was interviewed on KFAB with the overlap in what was said there and what you have shared here.

The area could use some improvements but not at the cost of all of its flavor

[obvious2677]

Well, we went to the City Council Meeting yesterday and raised our concerns about the Builder's District. The only "opponents" were my wife and I and another gentlemen. Not surprisingly, the proposal was unanimously approved. The phrase "in the best interest" of the city was tossed around a lot. As I have said, I am not completely opposed to the plan, but have serious concerns about the type of development that will occur and the loss of history and "texture." Will North Downtown became another area of homogenous, oversized buildings that lack pedestrian scale? Only time will tell. I will continue to be an advocate for the area with the hope that we can avoid another "jobbers canyon" scenario or the disaster of the hotel that blocked 16th Street isolating the area and leaving North Downtown to "wither on the vine." I do have a meeting scheduled with Jay Noddle to discuss the plans in greater detail.

Good luck. There needs to be balance. I assume you are the building owner that was interviewed on KFAB with the overlap in what was said there and what you have shared here.

The area could use some improvements but not at the cost of all of its flavor

There are two distinct arguments here...
1. You don't want to sell your business/building to redevelop the area, you want to be part of the redevelopment.
2. You want the area north of Cuming to be included.

Since Creighton is actually the institution that wants your land, I'm fairly certain you don't need to worry much about Noddle as much as Creighton. If you want to sell - they have deep pockets. They paid $11 million for the Modern Equipment land in 2008. Don't want to sell? Look how long Mystery Manor has been on land Creighton wants - about 35 years?

This is a bit different than the jobbers canyon debacle - in that Jobbers Canyon was 24 buildings on the NRHP. If there are any demolished in north downtown, it'll be a handful and most are not eligible for national historic designation. Not that they shouldn't be saved, but the comparison is a bit exaggerated.

[sburgess]

Creighton might have deep pockets, but they haven't appeared interested in paying a fair price - they did make an offer some 12 years ago that was so low that it was insulting. The big difference now is that the City has designated this as a Redevelopment Area and seems willing to use eminent domain to acquire properties to further their (and Creighton's) goals. And this is what really bothers me the most - this overlap between Creighton's Master Plan and the City's Builder's District. It feels like we are caught between two big fish that are poised to swallow us up. In the "best interest of the city."

[obvious2677]

Creighton might have deep pockets, but they haven't appeared interested in paying a fair price - they did make an offer some 12 years ago that was so low that it was insulting. The big difference now is that the City has designated this as a Redevelopment Area and seems willing to use eminent domain to acquire properties to further their (and Creighton's) goals. And this is what really bothers me the most - this overlap between Creighton's Master Plan and the City's Builder's District. It feels like we are caught between two big fish that are poised to swallow us up. In the "best interest of the city."

Probably depends on what your definition of "fair" is. Your property is assessed at $718,000. The Douglas County Assessor is supposed to value properties between 92 and 100 percent of their fair market value. If $718,000 is 92 percent of the value, you're looking at $780,434. If Creighton paid a 25 percent premium on that (a very steep premium - you'll never get it), you're looking at $975,543. Would CU pay that? Maybe. Maybe not. You're basing your judgement on something that happened 12 years ago. They have had two new presidents since then. Maybe it's time to go talk to them and see what their plans are and how you fit into them.

Your property was valued at $398,800 until 2016. So, still using the assessor's 92-100% valuation statement and a 25% premium, Creighton should have been fair in offering you $498,500 to $541,848. (and likely less than that, because a 25% premium is insane)

I realize there was an article on your buildings being split up into housing and stuff - with a $1.2 million renovation. Assuming that has been done, a $718,000 valuation might be too low - time to update both CU and the the tax woman.

[sburgess]

The valuation $718,000.00 does not take into account the improvements we completed in July to renovate the east building into our residence. Also, just a property evaluation does not take into account the cost to relocate a business. The time and effort to relocate huge pieces of machinery, etc. need to be considered as well.

[obvious2677]

The valuation $718,000.00 does not take into account the improvements we completed in July to renovate the east building into our residence. Also, just a property evaluation does not take into account the cost to relocate a business. The time and effort to relocate huge pieces of machinery, etc. need to be considered as well.

Right, so it'll be adjusted, and the cost of relocating is often factored in - as is sometimes a premium on the tax value of the property. Go talk to Noddle. Talk to Fr. Hendrickson or Cindy Workman in Creighton's PR department. Figure out what's happening. Like I said, Mystery Manor has been on property Creighton wanted for 20+ years (Mystery Manor has been there for 35 years). Could they have taken that land when they built the adjacent Ryan Center? Quite possibly. I would take the architectural drawings with a grain of salt and realize that revitalization in north downtown might take 15-20 years, even though they say things are "planned."

[sburgess]

Another concern I have with the Builders District plan is the intent to vacate Burt Street between 15th St. and 22nd St. The exact wording is as follows:

"The City will vacate Burt Street between 15th and 16th Streets and the east/west alley between Mike Fahey and Burt Streets within the Redevelopment Plan Area. The City will also vacate Burt Street between 16th and 22nd Streets and California Street between (there appears to be a missing street designation here in the original document) and 15th Streets, to the extents deemed appropriate and necessary by the City after review of any impact on existing utilities and the surrounding roadway network."

How does vacating streets help the redevelopment of this area? I realize that Burt St. does not get a lot of traffic, but what about the north/south access to and through the district? Access to the this area is already limited from the south because of the hotel on 16th street. Closing Burt will only further isolate the area by making 17th Street and Florence Boulevard no longer "thru ways" between downtown and Cuming St.

When will the Traffic Study referenced in the Redevelopment Plan Area be completed? Since the intent to vacate Burt has already been stated, will a Traffic Study change anyone's mind? Or will it be skewed to support the stated intent to vacate Burt? Is anyone else concerned about this?

[obvious2677]

Another concern I have with the Builders District plan is the intent to vacate Burt Street between 15th St. and 22nd St. The exact wording is as follows:

"The City will vacate Burt Street between 15th and 16th Streets and the east/west alley between Mike Fahey and Burt Streets within the Redevelopment Plan Area. The City will also vacate Burt Street between 16th and 22nd Streets and California Street between (there appears to be a missing street designation here in the original document) and 15th Streets, to the extents deemed appropriate and necessary by the City after review of any impact on existing utilities and the surrounding roadway network."

How does vacating streets help the redevelopment of this area?

Putting in pedestrian-friendly "malls" - as Creighton has done in the past with Fahey and California - is making the area more walkable and safer for people to do so. If you haven't noticed, this is common.

I realize that Burt St. does not get a lot of traffic, but what about the north/south access to and through the district? Access to the this area is already limited from the south because of the hotel on 16th street. Closing Burt will only further isolate the area by making 17th Street and Florence Boulevard no longer "thru ways" between downtown and Cuming St.

It doesn't say that the north-south roadways would be closed. You're making an assumption. Creighton closed of the east-west Fahey Street and left the 19th and 20th street roadways basically in place. Why do you assume that closing Burt would eliminate north-south routes?

When will the Traffic Study referenced in the Redevelopment Plan Area be completed? Since the intent to vacate Burt has already been stated, will a Traffic Study change anyone's mind? Or will it be skewed to support the stated intent to vacate Burt? Is anyone else concerned about this?

Is it supposed to change their mind? Seems like they shouldn't go in without a pre-conceived notion of what should be there. In my experience, Burt street lacks a ton of traffic as is, so making it a walkable district is probably in its best interest, as long as you leave the major north-south roadways and add sufficient parking.

Also, for what it's worth, there isn't a proposal from Creighton on what they would do with the land that was slated as "institutional" on the developers map. You should ask them... not people on this forum, who are hearing things second-hand or speculating on what will be done.

[sburgess]

I have talked with Creighton - not a lot of answers provided. The representatives from Creighton politely listened to our concerns, but they were not the people making the decisions.

[Radish]

My biggest concern with closing Burt is the elimination of its use as a major cycling route. It's the primary East-West connection for anyone biking North of Farnam, as it safely passes under the North Freeway.

The attached image is a biking heatmap; more popular routes show up brighter than less popular routes. On it, you can see that Burt is the primary biking connector to downtown for the Benson, Dundee, Walnut Hill, Bemis Park, Joslyn castle and Gifford Park neighborhoods.


If you'd like to explore that heat map, you can check it out here: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#11.81/-9 ... 4/hot/ride

Additionally, with the upcoming "road diet" of 30th street from Cuming to Ames, bike lanes will be installed along that entire 3 mile route. This will only strengthen Burt street as a cycling route, connecting an even larger area of North Omaha to downtown.

The lack of traffic and super flat route make Burt ideal for cyclists, and there are no good alternatives within the vicinity. Cuming is a drag strip from 40th street to Abbott Drive, Webster/Mike Fahey Street and California Street are pedestrian malls that would not mix well with cyclists and neither stretch from 16th to 24th street. If Burt street is eliminated, it would be nice to see that cycling infrastructure replaced

[Garrett]

My biggest concern with closing Burt is the elimination of its use as a major cycling route. It's the primary East-West connection for anyone biking North of Farnam, as it safely passes under the North Freeway.

The attached image is a biking heatmap; more popular routes show up brighter than less popular routes. On it, you can see that Burt is the primary biking connector to downtown for the Benson, Dundee, Walnut Hill, Bemis Park, Joslyn castle and Gifford Park neighborhoods.


If you'd like to explore that heat map, you can check it out here: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#11.81/-9 ... 4/hot/ride

Additionally, with the upcoming "road diet" of 30th street from Cuming to Ames, bike lanes will be installed along that entire 3 mile route. This will only strengthen Burt street as a cycling route, connecting an even larger area of North Omaha to downtown.

The lack of traffic and super flat route make Burt ideal for cyclists, and there are no good alternatives within the vicinity. Cuming is a drag strip from 40th street to Abbott Drive, Webster/Mike Fahey Street and California Street are pedestrian malls that would not mix well with cyclists and neither stretch from 16th to 24th street. If Burt street is eliminated, it would be nice to see that cycling infrastructure replaced

Just because it's closed to car traffic doesn't mean it will be closed to cycling. I'm sure there will be something in place for biking access, and there's a strong chance it will be an even better corridor for it.

[Omaha Cowboy]

My biggest concern with closing Burt is the elimination of its use as a major cycling route. It's the primary East-West connection for anyone biking North of Farnam, as it safely passes under the North Freeway.

The attached image is a biking heatmap; more popular routes show up brighter than less popular routes. On it, you can see that Burt is the primary biking connector to downtown for the Benson, Dundee, Walnut Hill, Bemis Park, Joslyn castle and Gifford Park neighborhoods.


If you'd like to explore that heat map, you can check it out here: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#11.81/-9 ... 4/hot/ride

Additionally, with the upcoming "road diet" of 30th street from Cuming to Ames, bike lanes will be installed along that entire 3 mile route. This will only strengthen Burt street as a cycling route, connecting an even larger area of North Omaha to downtown.

The lack of traffic and super flat route make Burt ideal for cyclists, and there are no good alternatives within the vicinity. Cuming is a drag strip from 40th street to Abbott Drive, Webster/Mike Fahey Street and California Street are pedestrian malls that would not mix well with cyclists and neither stretch from 16th to 24th street. If Burt street is eliminated, it would be nice to see that cycling infrastructure replaced

Just because it's closed to car traffic doesn't mean it will be closed to cycling. I'm sure there will be something in place for biking access, and there's a strong chance it will be an even better corridor for it.

I would say that’s quite near a 100% certainty ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[sburgess]

Paying attention to Cycling Routes is important. Paying attention to the community at large is important. As plans for the Builders District and Creighton's Master Plan move forward, I believe opportunities/mechanisms for involvement for all neighbors, area groups/associations, etc. need to be created. One of my biggest concerns has always been how, and by whom, the concepts for the Builders District were created. Right now, other than the Kiewit Headquarters things are very vague and not very transparent. At the City Council meeting the phrase "for the good of the city" was used a lot. But, who gets to decide what is good for the city? I hope it is not just developers and politicians.

[obvious2677]

My biggest concern with closing Burt is the elimination of its use as a major cycling route. It's the primary East-West connection for anyone biking North of Farnam, as it safely passes under the North Freeway.

The attached image is a biking heatmap; more popular routes show up brighter than less popular routes. On it, you can see that Burt is the primary biking connector to downtown for the Benson, Dundee, Walnut Hill, Bemis Park, Joslyn castle and Gifford Park neighborhoods.


If you'd like to explore that heat map, you can check it out here: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#11.81/-9 ... 4/hot/ride

Additionally, with the upcoming "road diet" of 30th street from Cuming to Ames, bike lanes will be installed along that entire 3 mile route. This will only strengthen Burt street as a cycling route, connecting an even larger area of North Omaha to downtown.

The lack of traffic and super flat route make Burt ideal for cyclists, and there are no good alternatives within the vicinity. Cuming is a drag strip from 40th street to Abbott Drive, Webster/Mike Fahey Street and California Street are pedestrian malls that would not mix well with cyclists and neither stretch from 16th to 24th street. If Burt street is eliminated, it would be nice to see that cycling infrastructure replaced

Just because it's closed to car traffic doesn't mean it will be closed to cycling. I'm sure there will be something in place for biking access, and there's a strong chance it will be an even better corridor for it.

I would say that’s quite near a 100% certainty ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Agreed, but this is a city-designated cycling route - with on-street markings. I would say that it's "likely" that they will find a replacement/solution. It's not like bikers simply prefer the street due to it's flatness and lack of traffic - but also because it is a city-designated route.

[obvious2677]

Paying attention to Cycling Routes is important. Paying attention to the community at large is important. As plans for the Builders District and Creighton's Master Plan move forward, I believe opportunities/mechanisms for involvement for all neighbors, area groups/associations, etc. need to be created. One of my biggest concerns has always been how, and by whom, the concepts for the Builders District were created. Right now, other than the Kiewit Headquarters things are very vague and not very transparent. At the City Council meeting the phrase "for the good of the city" was used a lot. But, who gets to decide what is good for the city? I hope it is not just developers and politicians.

I know you're mad about them potentially taking your building but... Growing one of the city's largest employers is "good for the city." Expanding one of the state's top-ranked universities is "good for the city." Allowing that growth while facilitating new and small business development is "good for the city." Expanding living options in a growing part of the city with direct access to downtown is "good for the city." Now, it's one thing if they come in and demolish a bunch of old buildings and run ramshod over the current owners (like yourself) in the name of "progress" but without any ideas on what is happening or more importantly, when it is happening, how worked up are people without a foot in the game to get about this? Right now, without firm details on these items, we can simply look at a massive development project and say, "Yeah, it's likely good for the city to bring more money, development, housing, etc. into the north downtown area." Which, based on what you've said, that is exactly what was said at the City Council meeting.

[sburgess]

Sounds like somebody has "drunk the Kool Aid."

[obvious2677]

Sounds like somebody has "drunk the Kool Aid."

Instead of providing a fact-based counter argument, you resort to petty insults.

[sburgess]

Declaring that "Growing one of the city's largest employers is "good for the city." Expanding one of the state's top-ranked universities is "good for the city." Is not a fact based argument, it is an opinion.

The last time I checked, Creighton didn't seem to need any help from the city to grow.

[iamjacobm]

https://cityclerk.cityofomaha.org/image ... /41647.pdf

Development agreement here laying out what the city and developer are agreeing to.

[omaha79]

For nostalgic reasons, I'll be sad to see Mystery Manor go away.

From what I've heard though, the owner has played super hardball with Creighton in the past and that probably won't change any time soon.

[ita]

https://cityclerk.cityofomaha.org/image ... /41647.pdf

Development agreement here laying out what the city and developer are agreeing to.

For some reason I can't see the exhibits. Are there actually maps attached to this document showing the redevelopment site?

[obvious2677]

Declaring that "Growing one of the city's largest employers is "good for the city." Expanding one of the state's top-ranked universities is "good for the city." Is not a fact based argument, it is an opinion.

The last time I checked, Creighton didn't seem to need any help from the city to grow.

Having thousands of people come from outside the city and state relocate to Omaha (even if temporarily) to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on education, as well as supporting local businesses through their normal shopping habits is factually good for the city. If the university grows, they get more students, meaning more teachers, more administration, more jobs, more money into the local economy. Jesus, this is middle school economics.

[iamjacobm]

https://cityclerk.cityofomaha.org/image ... /41647.pdf

Development agreement here laying out what the city and developer are agreeing to.

For some reason I can't see the exhibits. Are there actually maps attached to this document showing the redevelopment site?

They aren't there.

[obvious2677]

For nostalgic reasons, I'll be sad to see Mystery Manor go away.

Agreed - and I haven't been there since I was a kid.

[ita]

https://cityclerk.cityofomaha.org/image ... /41647.pdf

Development agreement here laying out what the city and developer are agreeing to.

For some reason I can't see the exhibits. Are there actually maps attached to this document showing the redevelopment site?

They aren't there.

Thanks for confirming. It's too bad we can't see the exhibits.

[omaha79]

For nostalgic reasons, I'll be sad to see Mystery Manor go away.

Agreed - and I haven't been there since I was a kid.

I was told by a worker there that years ago the owner of Mystery Manor offered to sell for $250k. Creighton balked at the time. This would have been in the early 00's when they were buying up the other land including the houses to the North of the haunted house. Supposedly, the owner came back to them and said that if they declined the offer, it would double the next time they came back to him. The person I talked to said CU came back the very next year and the price was $500k. CU declined and they've pretty much been at an impasse since, but have learned to live with each other.

I was surprised hearing this story as I always thought CU owned all the land there and just let Mystery Manor continue to operate. I was told no that the owners of the haunted house have owned the property wholly since 1984. And, that CU can't really push for any sort of eminent domain either being a private institution.

I remember that area, warts and all, from when I was a kid. It was an odd part of town by the late 90's. It's changed so much, but I like seeing any last vestiges of old Near North Downtown remain. So, I'm not in a hurry to see Mystery Manor go away.

In fact, I'd love to see any pictures of that area of town from it's decline phase in the 80's-00's.

[sburgess]

Again, I don't think Creighton has had any problems with growing on their own. What exactly does that city plan to do - except dangle the threat of eminent domain over the heads of local property owners? This doesn't seem like a very positive or community-building way to do business and could hurt the reputation of the university - thus impacting its ability to attract students, faculty, donors, etc. and therefore its future opportunities for growth. Simply saying we want to encourage and foster growth without weighing the consequences of decisions seems like "middle school" thinking at best.