Mercantile (Conagra campus development)

[RockHarbor]

Boom. Deliver this Sean Connolly, and you've redeemed yourself somewhat.

Maybe move this out of rumors.

$500M
Developer: Hines

http://www.omaha.com/money/million-prop ... fccaf.html

» The plaza extension of Harney Street leads to the lake. Visitors walking along the corridor could shop, eat or relax on a sloping green lawn whose zig-zag path winds to the dock area.

» Along the south side of the plaza would be a hotel with up to 200 rooms; a 300-unit apartment building and a low-rise residential structure with condominiums.

» On the north side of the corridor would be a 280-unit apartment complex with parking and about 50,000 square feet of restaurant-focused retail space. A 250,000-square-foot office building would rise, too.

» Farther south on the Conagra campus would rise another office building of about 250,000 square feet and a residential high-rise containing up to 250 units, either condos or apartments.

I want to say that I do LOVE this section. I just hate that just a little sweep to the left of this impressive new area, there are going to be the original Prairie Style low-rise Con Agra buildings peeking in & out of newer, blockier, taller, more stylish buildings. If I were visiting Omaha, and never been there before, I would be like: "What the heck? There's a Prairie Style office building, then a new blocky, glassy building, then a Prairie Style office building again, then another blocky, glassy new building there, then I spot another Prairie style building over there.... What happened here?"

I'm sorry: Don't think people WON'T notice. THEY WILL. I honestly think: Keep the whole darn thing intact, or get rid of the whole darn thing. There's not a safe "middle ground" in my opinion. (Simple rule: If it is not OK to just plop down new, unmatching buildings admist an architecturally coordinated & themed office campus in the burbs, then its NOT OK to do it downtown -- where the campus doesnt even belong.) I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves. Yet, I'm sure some were thinking at their computers, while clicking mouses: "Oh my gosh, this is silly..." Please, somebody call HDR, or Leo A. Daly. Or, somebody call Minneapolis. Somebody ask for a PROFESSIONAL honest opinion from a top designer, a top city. Please....!! ***Don't call our biggest competitor, Des Moines. I'm sure they will say, with a fake grin: "I think it looks very nice. DO IT."****

[FirebirdEngineer]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

[RockHarbor]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

Are you saying new architects & designers sit and work on a project at HDR, for example, and actually get up and say to the Big Boss: "Oh my gosh. This client's request is awful. Are you sure we should intermingle these new buildings with these old buildings? Who on earth does that? How silly. It just doesn't work." Wouldn't people of lower rank be scared to say things like that to the Big Boss? If not: Please tell me how it works then? How are big urban mistakes stopped by people that have a definite & deep & good sense of design? One thing Ive learned is: Although most do, I think, not everybody in the design business has a definite & deep great sense of design. Just like in art, design outlooks & opinions can differ between people -- of course. But, just like in art, there are people more gifted & with a natural sense than others. Also, just because design & art produced out of different people can differ in type or look, doesnt mean any of those types cant look professional OR amateur. HDR, HOK, and LEO A DALY all have different design styles, but they all look great & professional to me -- not amateur. Same with the "Big Name" artists. Ultimately: I'm just not convinced that all the people behind this new Con Agra plan, that obviously "got it", that can design that sharp of office & residential buildings, & come up with great, cute & creative design park features (like that downward, zigzagging sidewalk), would agree to keeping those old 80's Con Agra buildings -- if given the choice to do what they really wanted to do, and what they felt was right for Downtown Omaha. I just dont believe it.

[obvious2677]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

Are you saying new architects & designers sit and work on a project at HDR, for example, and actually get up and say to the Big Boss: "Oh my gosh. This client's request is awful. Are you sure we should intermingle these new buildings with these old buildings? Who on earth does that? How silly. It just doesn't work."

Ha - yes. Source: might be my employer. That doesn't mean anything changes, but those conversations happen.

[RockHarbor]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

Are you saying new architects & designers sit and work on a project at HDR, for example, and actually get up and say to the Big Boss: "Oh my gosh. This client's request is awful. Are you sure we should intermingle these new buildings with these old buildings? Who on earth does that? How silly. It just doesn't work."

Ha - yes. Source: might be my employer. That doesn't mean anything changes, but those conversations happen.

I'm glad they do happen -- at least. I don't get WHO tells the architects/designers: "Get rid of building X & X. And, leave building X & X." If you look at that Con Agra plan, some of their buildings face the wrecking ball, and some don't. Who are the people who ultimately decide to do that? I really want to know. Is it the architects w/ perfect freedom granted to them to come up with whatever plan? Or, is it the owner & developer putting restrictions and laying ground rules down?

[GetUrban]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

Are you saying new architects & designers sit and work on a project at HDR, for example, and actually get up and say to the Big Boss: "Oh my gosh. This client's request is awful. Are you sure we should intermingle these new buildings with these old buildings? Who on earth does that? How silly. It just doesn't work."

Ha - yes. Source: might be my employer. That doesn't mean anything changes, but those conversations happen.

I'm glad they do happen -- at least. I don't get WHO tells the architects/designers: "Get rid of building X & X. And, leave building X & X." If you look at that Con Agra plan, some of their buildings face the wrecking ball, and some don't. Who are the people who ultimately decide to do that? I really want to know. Is it the architects w/ perfect freedom granted to them to come up with whatever plan? Or, is it the owner & developer putting restrictions and laying ground rules down?

Decisions on which building to demolish almost always come down to who occupies what building and how long they plan to stay, in addition to cost of demo and replacement. If the goal is to remake the whole campus, the architect would have a major say, but they can only touch the stuff included in their project scope. I agree with you that the area will look odd with a few of the old "suburban" Conagra-esque buildings scattered among the new modern "urban-looking" buildings. There are probably ways to change the outward appearance of the old buildings, maybe by simply painting or re-cladding the exteriors. It would have been nice if they could have started with a clean slate, like Mike Harper had when he got his way, dictating that Jobbers absolutely must go.

As for individual architects having a say within their firm, that varies greatly between firms, depending on their firm philosophy and culture. Some firms are very "democratic" and collaborative and look for the best ideas no matter who authors the design, while others are run more from the top down, sometimes by a star architect, or somebody who thinks they are a star architect.

[RockHarbor]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

Are you saying new architects & designers sit and work on a project at HDR, for example, and actually get up and say to the Big Boss: "Oh my gosh. This client's request is awful. Are you sure we should intermingle these new buildings with these old buildings? Who on earth does that? How silly. It just doesn't work."

Ha - yes. Source: might be my employer. That doesn't mean anything changes, but those conversations happen.

I'm glad they do happen -- at least. I don't get WHO tells the architects/designers: "Get rid of building X & X. And, leave building X & X." If you look at that Con Agra plan, some of their buildings face the wrecking ball, and some don't. Who are the people who ultimately decide to do that? I really want to know. Is it the architects w/ perfect freedom granted to them to come up with whatever plan? Or, is it the owner & developer putting restrictions and laying ground rules down?

Decisions on which building to demolish almost always come down to who occupies what building and how long they plan to stay, in addition to cost of demo and replacement. If the goal is to remake the whole campus, the architect would have a major say, but they can only touch the stuff included in their project scope. I agree with you that the area will look odd with a few of the old "suburban" Conagra-esque buildings scattered among the new modern "urban-looking" buildings. There are probably ways to change the outward appearance of the old buildings, maybe by simply painting or re-cladding the exteriors. It would have been nice if they could have started with a clean slate, like Mike Harper had when he got his way, dictating that Jobbers absolutely must go.

As for individual architects having a say within their firm, that varies greatly between firms, depending on their firm philosophy and culture. Some firms are very "democratic" and collaborative and look for the best ideas no matter who authors the design, while others are run more from the top down, sometimes by a star architect, or somebody who thinks they are a star architect.

I couldn't have asked for a clearer response to the questions I asked, and the info I was seeking. Thanks much. And, I'm glad we see eye to eye on some things. I knew I couldnt be the only one. (Frankly, if occupation & leases are keeping some of those Con Agra buildings intact, how silly, imo. Let them expire, THEN bring the architects & city planners & wrecking ball around. You dont let "small things" like that play such a major role in "big things" like our permanent cityscape and ruining the rare chance to set a big urban mistake right again.)

[GetUrban]

Rockharbor, Thanks. I'm glad I could shed some light on what may be happening behind the scenes. You have a much greater architectural design awareness than the average person living in Omaha. We may not always agree on what we like, but that's what makes the discussions here fun.

Another part of the problem is we already have people moving into the vacated Conagra buildings, such as the Omaha Chamber of Commerce and The Sherwood Foundation. They have a lot of pull, along with the other movers and shakers, plus some people actually really like the design of the Conagra campus as-is. (Not Me)

[RockHarbor]

Rockharbor, Thanks. I'm glad I could shed some light on what may be happening behind the scenes. You have a much greater architectural design awareness than the average person living in Omaha. We may not always agree on what we like, but that's what makes the discussions here fun.

Another part of the problem is we already have people moving into the vacated Conagra buildings, such as the Omaha Chamber of Commerce and The Sherwood Foundation. They have a lot of pull, along with the other movers and shakers, plus some people actually really like the design of the Conagra campus as-is. (Not Me)

If they love the Con Agra buildings & campus so much, and they just have to move into those buildings that we all anticipated to be on the chopping block soon, then keep ALL of them, and keep the architectural theme of campus intact THEN.

I normally put "imo" following my sentence, but this isn't even about my opinion. You don't invade & destroy a coordinated & matching architectural campus theme gathered around a lake on a big spacious lawn, and just keep a few around -- one here, one there, one over there. These are BASIC & elementary design rules to follow (in most circumstances). I don't know even know how I know that rule -- nobody taught me it, I just know it. You don't take a family of matching architectural buildings designed as a coordinated theme around a lake, and get rid of several, and then plop different & newer style buildings down, squeezing them in between the original ones, so there's a "hop scotch"-type skipping, or "leap frogging" of designs all around. You just DON'T do that. They are just making the downtown area more embarrassing & puzzling & strange & laughable.

If people in charge in Omaha dont have a true "design sense", than fine -- nobody expects them to. But, then...consult local TOP & TIME TESTED people THAT DO. (Local people = Know Omaha, have loving visions for it, and want the best for it. For example, I would trust HDR & Daly's input).

I appreciate the compliment, GetUrban. Ive always been attracted to residential & commerical architecture & design since a young age, as well as city planning & layout. I'm not great at city mechanics, or transporation, or infastructure, or politics, ect. We all have our own areas... I'm amazed how much I miss in town, that others notice -- while I'm too busy analyzing the Woodmen's letters, or wishing for a new skyscraper in town. I can "agree to disagree" with everyone. Everyone brings something substantial to the table... We all care about Omaha-CB. Thats our common bond here.

[RockHarbor]

I honestly wish they would slowly restore the grid block by block, eventually pushing the Con Agra buildings out (yet giving time for people leasing within). Maybe they could leave the lake or at least part of it for a park area that has new squared-off edges, hemmed-in by the new urban square blocks.

That way, one square block would be for sale at a time (and not necessarily the whole block, but maybe multiple lots within the block, eventually creating an electic mix of new custom-designed structures within each block, when all lots are built upon, all fitting tightly together in urban delight.) We could see ivy & iron, brick & glass, steel or stucco... We could see an office building or two, condos, lofts, restaurants, galleries, coffee shops. Then, make way for the next square block. Then, sell it all off & build upon it. Then, make way for the next square block -- slowly eliminating and erasing the "big suburban Con Agra scar" with satisfaction & delight.

This way, that section develops without a big & boring, matching & planned theme -- and developers rush & "impulse buy" to get a coveted lot when they are offered. And, that will ensure each lot will have a structure that was very thoughtful & custom-designed & special. It would be like Omaha's little "Garden District" section. Cities with really cute, lovable areas (areas of San Francisco, The French Quarter in New Orleans, ect) usually have small lots and intimate spaces to develop, so a great mix is present there.

[obvious2677]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

Are you saying new architects & designers sit and work on a project at HDR, for example, and actually get up and say to the Big Boss: "Oh my gosh. This client's request is awful. Are you sure we should intermingle these new buildings with these old buildings? Who on earth does that? How silly. It just doesn't work."

Ha - yes. Source: might be my employer. That doesn't mean anything changes, but those conversations happen.

I'm glad they do happen -- at least. I don't get WHO tells the architects/designers: "Get rid of building X & X. And, leave building X & X." If you look at that Con Agra plan, some of their buildings face the wrecking ball, and some don't. Who are the people who ultimately decide to do that? I really want to know. Is it the architects w/ perfect freedom granted to them to come up with whatever plan? Or, is it the owner & developer putting restrictions and laying ground rules down?

The latter often plays a very big aspect in it. There's an "ideal world" and there's "what's in the budget."

[obvious2677]

somebody who thinks they are a star architect.

You mean all of them, right?

[FirebirdEngineer]

I'm sure designers working on this just do their job, keep the buildings intact around the lake that don't have an 'X' on them, and keep their opinions to themselves.

Yeah, that's not how things work in the Architecture or Engineering industries. The design phase is usually the longest and biggest pain in the |expletive|, because you have to satisfy the client, the designer, the engineers, and the contractors, in that order. "Just doing their job"rank-and-file designers is a bunch of horse hockey. We do what we can, but ultimately it's the client's call - it ain't on us unless something fails.

Are you saying new architects & designers sit and work on a project at HDR, for example, and actually get up and say to the Big Boss: "Oh my gosh. This client's request is awful. Are you sure we should intermingle these new buildings with these old buildings? Who on earth does that? How silly. It just doesn't work."

Ha - yes. Source: might be my employer. That doesn't mean anything changes, but those conversations happen.

I'm glad they do happen -- at least. I don't get WHO tells the architects/designers: "Get rid of building X & X. And, leave building X & X." If you look at that Con Agra plan, some of their buildings face the wrecking ball, and some don't. Who are the people who ultimately decide to do that? I really want to know. Is it the architects w/ perfect freedom granted to them to come up with whatever plan? Or, is it the owner & developer putting restrictions and laying ground rules down?

The latter often plays a very big aspect in it. There's an "ideal world" and there's "what's in the budget."

And "what's in the budget" impacts project scope and the design the most.

[RockHarbor]

somebody who thinks they are a star architect.

You mean all of them, right?

LOL.

I hope I dont come across as picking on Omaha. I'm not. Even Minneapolis, one of my favorite cities, can make a choice Im not 100% thrilled about, and in agreement with. Recently, they put in those twin Wells Fargo buildings near the stadium. I watched them go up online, and saw them in person. That new area around the stadium is really sharp. They are handsome & striking buildings, well designed, and have that look that says "Minneapolis!" (As usual, their architecture is great; If I could, I wouldnt mind plucking one up and setting it down in Omaha.)

The twins: https://www.ryancompanies.com/sites/def ... k=CXPdGo8L
And: http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/o ... 773388.jpg

They totally work, but there's something slightly different/odd to me about them sitting together, mirror image of each other, yet each on their own square block w/ a city street in between them. (Twin-matching buildings dont usually stand each on their own square block on a grid, rather they usually form a unified complex between major streets. Even buildings that are similar, yet different, and play off each other, usually are not standing on their own square block on a tight grid -- but stand together, WITHIN major streets. See Downtown L.A.'s California Plaza buildings, trapezoidal Wells Fargo complex, their black rectangular, blocky twins, and West L.A.'s Century City Buildings. See New York's Columbus Circle Time Warner towers, the original World Trade Center. See Philadelphia's Liberty towers. See Minneapolis's US Bank Plaza, and Fifth Street Towers. See Omaha's Central Park Plaza Towers. The one exception I can think of are the black, rectangular buildings surrounding Chicago's Flamingo sculpture -- which the street grid does divide up. That slightly odd feeling I feel is also there -- imo. Pittsburgh's PPG complex has the street grid dividing it up, too, yet those are shorter buildings grouped around a main, tall tower. Plus, its all modern, glassy architecture inspired by very old European design, and the division from the streets goes along with that.)

I'm also slightly surprised by the choice of their large square footage distributed between two twin shorter buildings, rather than one taller, bigger building -- which seems more like a choice Mpls would make downtown, being a city of lofty skyscrapers. Could something have been a little better there? I think so. (However, I see a new, medium-tall, sharp building proposed nearby that makes me feel better about those shorter twins. So, sometimes you have to wait for other, new architecture around to go up, to eventually help buildings look better situated.) Here's the new proposed building: https://finance-commerce.com/files/2016 ... _SMALL.jpg

Not feeling 100% solid about them, I searched for any criticism about them, and alas, I found local architects grumbled they looked like too "suburban office park" for downtown, and some grumbled they should have used richer materials -- and I agree.. They look "urban" somewhat, but there is something slightly "suburban" about them. So, its like Minneapolis kinda "pulled an Omaha" or something.

I'm wondering if Minneapolis is starting to imitate Dallas, which has a growing Uptown district of medium-tall, super sharp buildings just off its main skyscraper core -- buildings that sit right on the fence between urban & suburban-looking. I do like that area jutting off Downtown Dallas. Here's Dallas Uptown District: https://dallasnews.imgix.net/2012-Uptown.jpeg Boston is kinda doing that, too -- across from downtown, towards their bay. I do think this type of bulky, shorter, high-tech, dense section developing off Downtown Minneapolis would be neat.

So, this stuff goes on in other cities, not just Omaha. Every city has risks in the choices they make. Thats why I feel they should consult as many as possible beforehand, and LISTEN closely to ALL input.

[RockHarbor]

This is what people really yearn for downtown, imo: Tight, compact URBAN DENSITY & ORDER. Not more big sprawling green parks, and scattered office buildings & residential buildings -- all set at loose angles.

Take a look at some of the best, compact, admired, most beloved urban sections in this country. Note: The park space is very limited (with the exception of NY's Central Park):

New Orleans French District: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/JGHE9C/aerial ... JGHE9C.jpg
Chicago: https://images.fineartamerica.com/image ... mbach-.jpg
New York: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/new-yor ... 358967.jpg
San Francisco: https://archpaper.com/wp-content/upload ... efault.jpg
Seattle: https://st.depositphotos.com/1591133/26 ... n-anne.jpg
Boston's Back Bay area: https://fotobrown.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 6-0081.jpg
Philadelphia: http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-conte ... 00x453.jpg

Miami & Los Angeles have dense, lively sections that should have an honorable mention:

South Beach (Miami): https://res.cloudinary.com/sagacity/ima ... tuuc5c.jpg
Venice Beach, CA (Los Angeles): https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/venice- ... 371655.jpg

Even Minneapolis's district of historic brownstones (just south of downtown) seems/feels pretty urban & dense when you're in it. Yet, here you can see by this aerial it as not as impressive as the aerials of top urban cities: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7260/7688 ... 896f_b.jpg

Ok, I've said more than enough here. I've made my point. And, frankly, this thread took up a lot of time this past week -- making me put off important stuff, making me think to myself "Get a life." My conclusion: Like myself, Omaha has to make its own choices, and LIVE with its own choices. Omaha, remember: This is a hard-to-change & hard-to-erase cityscape to live with, not a wrong, short dating relationship. Make the right one. 'Nuff said.

[obvious2677]

And "what's in the budget" impacts project scope and the design the most.

Correct.

[obvious2677]

I'm wondering if Minneapolis is starting to imitate Dallas, which has a growing Uptown district of medium-tall, super sharp buildings just off its main skyscraper core -- buildings that sit right on the fence between urban & suburban-looking. I do like that area jutting off Downtown Dallas. Here's Dallas Uptown District: https://dallasnews.imgix.net/2012-Uptown.jpeg Boston is kinda doing that, too -- across from downtown, towards their bay. I do think this type of bulky, shorter, high-tech, dense section developing off Downtown Minneapolis would be neat.

So, this stuff goes on in other cities, not just Omaha. Every city has risks in the choices they make. Thats why I feel they should consult as many as possible beforehand, and LISTEN closely to ALL input.

I know you're selectively picking one part of Dallas... and there's a lot to imitate from their architecture and history. But Texas' also has its head firmly in their butt when it comes to transportation strategy. Here are some highlights from their transportation development over the past few years...
35 Express: $4.8 billion interstate expansion.
Central Texas Turnpike: $3.6 billion tollway expansion.
Houston's Katy Freeway: $2.8 billion interstate expansion.
IH 635/The LBJ Managed Lanes: $2.6 billion interstate expansion.
President George Bush Turnpike extension: $2.6 billion interstate expansion.
Dallas Horseshoe: $798 million interstate interchange expansion.

Of course I'm only selecting a few, but it seems that every year, Texas wraps up another billion dollar interstate expansion. If Omaha's strategy is in the dark ages, Texas' is the stone age.

[RockHarbor]

I'm wondering if Minneapolis is starting to imitate Dallas, which has a growing Uptown district of medium-tall, super sharp buildings just off its main skyscraper core -- buildings that sit right on the fence between urban & suburban-looking. I do like that area jutting off Downtown Dallas. Here's Dallas Uptown District: https://dallasnews.imgix.net/2012-Uptown.jpeg Boston is kinda doing that, too -- across from downtown, towards their bay. I do think this type of bulky, shorter, high-tech, dense section developing off Downtown Minneapolis would be neat.

So, this stuff goes on in other cities, not just Omaha. Every city has risks in the choices they make. Thats why I feel they should consult as many as possible beforehand, and LISTEN closely to ALL input.

I know you're selectively picking one part of Dallas... and there's a lot to imitate from their architecture and history. But Texas' also has its head firmly in their butt when it comes to transportation strategy. Here are some highlights from their transportation development over the past few years...
35 Express: $4.8 billion interstate expansion.
Central Texas Turnpike: $3.6 billion tollway expansion.
Houston's Katy Freeway: $2.8 billion interstate expansion.
IH 635/The LBJ Managed Lanes: $2.6 billion interstate expansion.
President George Bush Turnpike extension: $2.6 billion interstate expansion.
Dallas Horseshoe: $798 million interstate interchange expansion.

Of course I'm only selecting a few, but it seems that every year, Texas wraps up another billion dollar interstate expansion. If Omaha's strategy is in the dark ages, Texas' is the stone age.

Yeah, I haven't followed Dallas' or Texas' transportation projects (other than paying some attention to their expansion & reconstruction of Dallas's busy, wide northern LBJ loop). Texas cities have grown huge, and are seemingly very unashamedly car-orientated, like Los Angeles is, so their freeways are so important. Like Phoenix, they have dense urban projects always going in, but still, dont seem to even be trying to be New York, Chicago, San Fran. I was merely pointing that some cities seem to be forming a high rise district right off their main skyscraper core, just like Dallas has and continues to develop, which has new stylish, high tech, sharp medium-tall buildings -- and new ones being constructed. Boston is doing a similar thing. Now, I wonder if Minneapolis is developing the same mindset & goal?? While the main, towering Dallas & Boston skylines havent changed a whole lot in many years, these new districts seem to invite & attract new, nice-looking significant structures often, although none of them are a "skyline changer" with a billion dollar price tag. Standing back from Dallas, one can see this side district of high rises really adds to the overall width & breath of the entire skyline, the city looking bigger and more impressive.

[Garrett]

This is what people really yearn for downtown, imo: Tight, compact URBAN DENSITY & ORDER. Not more big sprawling green parks, and scattered office buildings & residential buildings -- all set at loose angles.

Take a look at some of the best, compact, admired, most beloved urban sections in this country. Note: The park space is very limited (with the exception of NY's Central Park):

New Orleans French District: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/JGHE9C/aerial ... JGHE9C.jpg
Chicago: https://images.fineartamerica.com/image ... mbach-.jpg
New York: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/new-yor ... 358967.jpg
San Francisco: https://archpaper.com/wp-content/upload ... efault.jpg
Seattle: https://st.depositphotos.com/1591133/26 ... n-anne.jpg
Boston's Back Bay area: https://fotobrown.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 6-0081.jpg
Philadelphia: http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-conte ... 00x453.jpg

Miami & Los Angeles have dense, lively sections that should have an honorable mention:

South Beach (Miami): https://res.cloudinary.com/sagacity/ima ... tuuc5c.jpg
Venice Beach, CA (Los Angeles): https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/venice- ... 371655.jpg

Even Minneapolis's district of historic brownstones (just south of downtown) seems/feels pretty urban & dense when you're in it. Yet, here you can see by this aerial it as not as impressive as the aerials of top urban cities: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7260/7688 ... 896f_b.jpg

Ok, I've said more than enough here. I've made my point. And, frankly, this thread took up a lot of time this past week -- making me put off important stuff, making me think to myself "Get a life." My conclusion: Like myself, Omaha has to make its own choices, and LIVE with its own choices. Omaha, remember: This is a hard-to-change & hard-to-erase cityscape to live with, not a wrong, short dating relationship. Make the right one. 'Nuff said.

All of the cities you chose also have massive parks, they’re just not in the pictures you showed. Chicago has Millenium/Grant Park that takes up a huge section of downtown, along with Lincoln Park that takes up most of the northern lakeshore. San Francisco has the Presidio and Golden Gate Park. Boston has the Boston Common. Omaha has plenty of sections similar to the ones you pictured.

[RockHarbor]

This is what people really yearn for downtown, imo: Tight, compact URBAN DENSITY & ORDER. Not more big sprawling green parks, and scattered office buildings & residential buildings -- all set at loose angles.

Take a look at some of the best, compact, admired, most beloved urban sections in this country. Note: The park space is very limited (with the exception of NY's Central Park):

New Orleans French District: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/JGHE9C/aerial ... JGHE9C.jpg
Chicago: https://images.fineartamerica.com/image ... mbach-.jpg
New York: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/new-yor ... 358967.jpg
San Francisco: https://archpaper.com/wp-content/upload ... efault.jpg
Seattle: https://st.depositphotos.com/1591133/26 ... n-anne.jpg
Boston's Back Bay area: https://fotobrown.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 6-0081.jpg
Philadelphia: http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-conte ... 00x453.jpg

Miami & Los Angeles have dense, lively sections that should have an honorable mention:

South Beach (Miami): https://res.cloudinary.com/sagacity/ima ... tuuc5c.jpg
Venice Beach, CA (Los Angeles): https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/venice- ... 371655.jpg

Even Minneapolis's district of historic brownstones (just south of downtown) seems/feels pretty urban & dense when you're in it. Yet, here you can see by this aerial it as not as impressive as the aerials of top urban cities: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7260/7688 ... 896f_b.jpg

Ok, I've said more than enough here. I've made my point. And, frankly, this thread took up a lot of time this past week -- making me put off important stuff, making me think to myself "Get a life." My conclusion: Like myself, Omaha has to make its own choices, and LIVE with its own choices. Omaha, remember: This is a hard-to-change & hard-to-erase cityscape to live with, not a wrong, short dating relationship. Make the right one. 'Nuff said.

All of the cities you chose also have massive parks, they’re just not in the pictures you showed. Chicago has Millenium/Grant Park that takes up a huge section of downtown, along with Lincoln Park that takes up most of the northern lakeshore. San Francisco has the Presidio and Golden Gate Park. Boston has the Boston Common. Omaha has plenty of sections similar to the ones you pictured.

The cities I chose? I should have chosen them. The cities I chose ARE the best, top urban examples in the nation, cities that are dense, with less car owners, and should have a big park somewhere. (Baltimore & DC are other "honorable mentions" I should have pointed out...) My point in those city links here was showing how the most admired urban cities in this country have square order & density, with custom structures on every little lot -- not huge swaths of park space with office/residential buildings designed & planned all by the same firm, scattered around loosely. The amount of park space in Omaha's downtown, compared to way bigger cities, is getting surprising. That's my point. My point wasn't: "New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Philadelphia don't have large parks." Of course they do. On the point, though: I thought of San Francisco, but their park is quite aways from downtown -- like our Memorial Park. Chicago's big downtown lakefront park is obvious, but they are fronting a big, blue sea-like lake, not a medium-width river, and have thousands or maybe millions attending "Taste of Chicago", and have huge turn outs for downtown concerts. They need a big space. It also is a very dense concrete city that needs a green retreat for those who live in the city without a car -- like New Yorkers do. Boston is certainly a good example you gave, but then again, it is a very dense city squeezed between an ocean bay and the St Charles River. Pretty parks here & there are inevitable. (Note: I've never criticized St Louis's large Gateway Arch park, as a monument like that should surrounded by a big park.) Now, look at all the other cities immediate downtowns: Dallas, Houston, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Cleveland, ect. Do we not have a ton of immediate downtown park space compared to those bigger cities? Especially with another big green space put in north of I-480 (which just adds to the green space around Gallup & the pedestrian bridge)?? I just dont understand it. Look at New York: Outside of Central Park, how much park space is there in NYC in that long-stretching, very dense city? All the parks are pretty little & few & far between. Here's a look at just a side section of Midtown NYC (the long stretch from the Empire State Building down to Wall Street is not even visible). Now look at the entire side of Omaha's skyline. Now, does a city that size need all that abundant green space for a nature retreat downtown? Just pointing it out... Sometimes I wonder if Omaha's motive & thinking is: "Things move too slow around here, and all this land will take forever to develop. Let's just make it all a park!"

[FirebirdEngineer]

My conclusion: Like myself, Omaha has to make its own choices, and LIVE with its own choices. Omaha, remember: This is a hard-to-change & hard-to-erase cityscape to live with, not a wrong, short dating relationship. Make the right one. 'Nuff said.

You say Omaha should make its own choices, but then say that it should do what all these other big cities are doing. That doesn't sound like making its own choice to me.

[RockHarbor]

My conclusion: Like myself, Omaha has to make its own choices, and LIVE with its own choices. Omaha, remember: This is a hard-to-change & hard-to-erase cityscape to live with, not a wrong, short dating relationship. Make the right one. 'Nuff said.

You say Omaha should make its own choices, but then say that it should do what all these other big cities are doing. That doesn't sound like making its own choice to me.

No, I said: Omaha has to make its own choices, and live with its own choices. That's the same as any other city. (Or, like me. Like you.) Nobody else is trying to make a choice for Omaha, so it wouldn't make sense for me to say: "Omaha should make..." Of course, Omaha should make its own choices. And, yes, I do think Omaha should look at other successful & highly admired urban cities for guidance and direction, and take notes, and look at many different ideas & avenues before jumping. It's such a simple formula, imo. If Omaha wants to continue to get more dense & feel more "urban", which is the continual aim of most any city, even New York & Chicago, then make choices to become more dense, compact, and urban. If Omaha recognizes what we truly lost with taking the wrecking ball to Jobbers Canyon and erasing the historic street grid, then make choices to return things back to normal, when given the chance. Don't make opposite choices that you know deep inside are wrong, and lead further from that goal. (Funny, I can actually picture Omaha leaders stamping "Approved" on plans that just make downtown feel even more strange & suburban. Why is it always men's impulse & tendancy, even when knowing whats right to do, to still choose to further ruin & destroy? When the amazing, giant coastal CA redwoods were discovered, they started to be cut down. Somebody had to step in. The beautiful & plentiful buffalo were almost driven to extinction. Somebody had to step in. ECT. In fact, we all know National Parks & Monuments are in place for this very reason, to protect from men's impulses & tendancy to ruin & destroy.) So I'm saying: Whatever the right choice is here, they need to make the right choice for the city. If they don't quite know, or if they feel aimless & unsure, then maybe things should be put on hold, until they figure it all out.

[daveoma]

I'm wondering if Minneapolis is starting to imitate Dallas, which has a growing Uptown district of medium-tall, super sharp buildings just off its main skyscraper core -- buildings that sit right on the fence between urban & suburban-looking. I do like that area jutting off Downtown Dallas. Here's Dallas Uptown District: https://dallasnews.imgix.net/2012-Uptown.jpeg Boston is kinda doing that, too -- across from downtown, towards their bay. I do think this type of bulky, shorter, high-tech, dense section developing off Downtown Minneapolis would be neat.

So, this stuff goes on in other cities, not just Omaha. Every city has risks in the choices they make. Thats why I feel they should consult as many as possible beforehand, and LISTEN closely to ALL input.

I know you're selectively picking one part of Dallas... and there's a lot to imitate from their architecture and history. But Texas' also has its head firmly in their butt when it comes to transportation strategy. Here are some highlights from their transportation development over the past few years...
35 Express: $4.8 billion interstate expansion.
Central Texas Turnpike: $3.6 billion tollway expansion.
Houston's Katy Freeway: $2.8 billion interstate expansion.
IH 635/The LBJ Managed Lanes: $2.6 billion interstate expansion.
President George Bush Turnpike extension: $2.6 billion interstate expansion.
Dallas Horseshoe: $798 million interstate interchange expansion.

Of course I'm only selecting a few, but it seems that every year, Texas wraps up another billion dollar interstate expansion. If Omaha's strategy is in the dark ages, Texas' is the stone age.

Here here

[TitosBuritoBarn]

During the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s a lot of companies located their headquarters where their employees were. For St. Louis that was way out in the suburbs. The racial aspect comes in in that white flight and redlining destroyed the city and there weren’t many people to hire near downtown.

How are the people that moved the bad guys when all they did was move? They did not make the people who stayed destroy and scum up the area they lived in!

The bad guys were the banks who would neither provide loans to people who wanted to invest in these neighborhoods nor to people of certain skin colors who wanted to move with the rest of them.

[Garrett]

This is what people really yearn for downtown, imo: Tight, compact URBAN DENSITY & ORDER. Not more big sprawling green parks, and scattered office buildings & residential buildings -- all set at loose angles.

Take a look at some of the best, compact, admired, most beloved urban sections in this country. Note: The park space is very limited (with the exception of NY's Central Park):

New Orleans French District: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/JGHE9C/aerial ... JGHE9C.jpg
Chicago: https://images.fineartamerica.com/image ... mbach-.jpg
New York: https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/new-yor ... 358967.jpg
San Francisco: https://archpaper.com/wp-content/upload ... efault.jpg
Seattle: https://st.depositphotos.com/1591133/26 ... n-anne.jpg
Boston's Back Bay area: https://fotobrown.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 6-0081.jpg
Philadelphia: http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-conte ... 00x453.jpg

Miami & Los Angeles have dense, lively sections that should have an honorable mention:

South Beach (Miami): https://res.cloudinary.com/sagacity/ima ... tuuc5c.jpg
Venice Beach, CA (Los Angeles): https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/venice- ... 371655.jpg

Even Minneapolis's district of historic brownstones (just south of downtown) seems/feels pretty urban & dense when you're in it. Yet, here you can see by this aerial it as not as impressive as the aerials of top urban cities: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7260/7688 ... 896f_b.jpg

Ok, I've said more than enough here. I've made my point. And, frankly, this thread took up a lot of time this past week -- making me put off important stuff, making me think to myself "Get a life." My conclusion: Like myself, Omaha has to make its own choices, and LIVE with its own choices. Omaha, remember: This is a hard-to-change & hard-to-erase cityscape to live with, not a wrong, short dating relationship. Make the right one. 'Nuff said.

All of the cities you chose also have massive parks, they’re just not in the pictures you showed. Chicago has Millenium/Grant Park that takes up a huge section of downtown, along with Lincoln Park that takes up most of the northern lakeshore. San Francisco has the Presidio and Golden Gate Park. Boston has the Boston Common. Omaha has plenty of sections similar to the ones you pictured.

The cities I chose? I should have chosen them. The cities I chose ARE the best, top urban examples in the nation, cities that are dense, with less car owners, and should have a big park somewhere. (Baltimore & DC are other "honorable mentions" I should have pointed out...) My point in those city links here was showing how the most admired urban cities in this country have square order & density, with custom structures on every little lot -- not huge swaths of park space with office/residential buildings designed & planned all by the same firm, scattered around loosely. The amount of park space in Omaha's downtown, compared to way bigger cities, is getting surprising. That's my point. My point wasn't: "New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and Philadelphia don't have large parks." Of course they do. On the point, though: I thought of San Francisco, but their park is quite aways from downtown -- like our Memorial Park. Chicago's big downtown lakefront park is obvious, but they are fronting a big, blue sea-like lake, not a medium-width river, and have thousands or maybe millions attending "Taste of Chicago", and have huge turn outs for downtown concerts. They need a big space. It also is a very dense concrete city that needs a green retreat for those who live in the city without a car -- like New Yorkers do. Boston is certainly a good example you gave, but then again, it is a very dense city squeezed between an ocean bay and the St Charles River. Pretty parks here & there are inevitable. (Note: I've never criticized St Louis's large Gateway Arch park, as a monument like that should surrounded by a big park.) Now, look at all the other cities immediate downtowns: Dallas, Houston, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Cleveland, ect. Do we not have a ton of immediate downtown park space compared to those bigger cities? Especially with another big green space put in north of I-480 (which just adds to the green space around Gallup & the pedestrian bridge)?? I just dont understand it. Look at New York: Outside of Central Park, how much park space is there in NYC in that long-stretching, very dense city? All the parks are pretty little & few & far between. Here's a look at just a side section of Midtown NYC (the long stretch from the Empire State Building down to Wall Street is not even visible). Now look at the entire side of Omaha's skyline. Now, does a city that size need all that abundant green space for a nature retreat downtown? Just pointing it out... Sometimes I wonder if Omaha's motive & thinking is: "Things move too slow around here, and all this land will take forever to develop. Let's just make it all a park!"

New York actually has a ton of decent sized parks outside of Central Park, many of them famous. The city has 28,000 acres of park land, only around 843 of which are Central Park, which is only the fifth largest. Gene Leahy+HoAP are about 45 acres. Washington Square Park, in the heart of Greenwich Village, is larger than Gene Leahy mall. Battery Park, at the tip of Manhattan, is almost the size of HoAP. The issue isn’t the Park land itself, it’s about what’s around it. Well designed green space will make the area more attractive.

[Omaha Cowboy]

The problem with that town is that it is "ghetto fabulous" in a way like Detroit is. That town has a really rough side, surrounded by white collar burgeoning suburbs.

Being someone who lived there - I disagree with this. The 3-mile radius around the central business district is relatively murder-free - the same way the Old Market in Omaha is 'relatively' murder free.
These span different time periods, but you'll get the point.
Omaha: https://ibb.co/d978QJ
St. Louis: https://ibb.co/nK8bCy

Lafayette Park has $1 million houses. Soulard has houses between $200k-$600k. The Gate, Fox Park and Benton Park are all solid neighborhoods. Even if you're further north off Washington or Olive - there are $150k lofts. It's laughable that you would consider these even close to be "ghetto" or would think that crime keeps people away from STL's core. It has nothing to do with that.

No, its actually laughable that you"re trying to convince me, and us, that inner city St Louis is "Mayberry." My family lived in Lake St Louis for almost a decade, after being transferred from Omaha, and I lived in the St Louis area with them for awhile. Inner St Louis may have some pricey real estate, and maybe its cleaned up a bit, but it is still a dangerous inner city -- with a worse ghetto across the river. There are plenty of blocks filled with grassy big lots where row homes have all been removed, and plenty of scary corners -- especially NW of Downtown. You're not the only one who "knows St Louis" here. I actually had a cop scold me on the Illinois side when I was simply trying to get pics of the skyline & river -- he told me to get my behind back over that river pronto. Then, over the river, I had to be careful where I exited the freeway between downtown & the science museum. There was always that "edge" there in the inner city. There are definite rough areas, worse over in IL -- of course. Its definitely more dangerous and shady than Omaha. In fact, along with Detroit, St Louis is one of the top cities with that bad wrap. Thats inarguable.

I think the reality is somewhere in between you guys’ posts. St. Louis probably is safer for the average joe than is perceived, but the perception surely seems to keep SOME people away (I have St. Louis area family hesitant to come down to the city outside or downtown and Soulard), the city has made remarkable improvements to quality of life in most parts, especially in the central corridor (downtown out to forest park with Delmar/Washington on the north and roughly Gravois on the south.

As someone who owns a home, walks to work, goes to graduate school, and usually goes out all between downtown and the science center, I can confidently say whatever the city was like when you lived here to make that area a no go zone, it has vastly improved.

Good post and I agree. Good balanced post for both sides..

Now might be a good place to have us steer the discussion back on course to Omaha/ConAgra specific talk without any further debate about the safety of St Louis, MO-

Thanks ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[RockHarbor]

The problem with that town is that it is "ghetto fabulous" in a way like Detroit is. That town has a really rough side, surrounded by white collar burgeoning suburbs.

Being someone who lived there - I disagree with this. The 3-mile radius around the central business district is relatively murder-free - the same way the Old Market in Omaha is 'relatively' murder free.
These span different time periods, but you'll get the point.
Omaha: https://ibb.co/d978QJ
St. Louis: https://ibb.co/nK8bCy

Lafayette Park has $1 million houses. Soulard has houses between $200k-$600k. The Gate, Fox Park and Benton Park are all solid neighborhoods. Even if you're further north off Washington or Olive - there are $150k lofts. It's laughable that you would consider these even close to be "ghetto" or would think that crime keeps people away from STL's core. It has nothing to do with that.

No, its actually laughable that you"re trying to convince me, and us, that inner city St Louis is "Mayberry." My family lived in Lake St Louis for almost a decade, after being transferred from Omaha, and I lived in the St Louis area with them for awhile. Inner St Louis may have some pricey real estate, and maybe its cleaned up a bit, but it is still a dangerous inner city -- with a worse ghetto across the river. There are plenty of blocks filled with grassy big lots where row homes have all been removed, and plenty of scary corners -- especially NW of Downtown. You're not the only one who "knows St Louis" here. I actually had a cop scold me on the Illinois side when I was simply trying to get pics of the skyline & river -- he told me to get my behind back over that river pronto. Then, over the river, I had to be careful where I exited the freeway between downtown & the science museum. There was always that "edge" there in the inner city. There are definite rough areas, worse over in IL -- of course. Its definitely more dangerous and shady than Omaha. In fact, along with Detroit, St Louis is one of the top cities with that bad wrap. Thats inarguable.

I think the reality is somewhere in between you guys’ posts. St. Louis probably is safer for the average joe than is perceived, but the perception surely seems to keep SOME people away (I have St. Louis area family hesitant to come down to the city outside or downtown and Soulard), the city has made remarkable improvements to quality of life in most parts, especially in the central corridor (downtown out to forest park with Delmar/Washington on the north and roughly Gravois on the south.

As someone who owns a home, walks to work, goes to graduate school, and usually goes out all between downtown and the science center, I can confidently say whatever the city was like when you lived here to make that area a no go zone, it has vastly improved.

Good post and I agree. Good balanced post for both sides..

Now might be a good place to have us steer the discussion back on course to Omaha/ConAgra specific talk without any further debate about the safety of St Louis, MO-

Thanks ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

The gentle nudge to us from the shepherd's rod... Lol (I just want them to know I agree with all said about good ole' St. Louis, btw. I realize reputations are usually exaggerated from actual reality.) Back to Con Agra...

Today, I was looking at Google Maps (3D) and was focusing in Edmonton, Canada. It is so neat how that city is way, way, way up in the far NW corner of the prairies, where they finally turn into northern forests. (I remember the city had a large wedge tornado in July 1987. I still remember the OWH front page article when I was a kid. To think a big tornado that far north... Calgary is not far to the south of there. )

Anyways, they both have such lively & ordered, clean & perfect urban downtowns -- like what I want for Omaha. In fact, you visit those cities in 3D, then look at places like Omaha & Wichita in 3D, and they almost look sparse & dull, in a way. Then, Omaha has that suburban campus... UGH. I just want to clap, clap, clap at Omaha to always keep on a consistant "Urban! Urban! Urban!" mindset, when it makes choices. That's what a city ultimately wants, and should be its ultimate goal (on SimCity4 and in real life) -- to be more & more "urban" in every way. That special urban aspect is what seperates the city apart from suburban & rural, of course.

Those Canadian cities often have a historic, striking hotel, including Edmonton, which has the old & dramatic Fairmont Hotel downtown. I so wish Omaha had something that old & beautiful set on the riverfront or on a hilltop when you pulled into town -- but fat chance they'll ever reconstruct an "old gem" style building. Omaha used to have the beautiful & dramatic Omaha Highschool in the olden days, and the old, beautiful post office. Nowadays, all they build is more generic & modern stuff -- which is better appreciated when it contrasts with the old, imo. It's probably more fair to compare Omaha with Winnepeg, than it is Edmonton. But, all those prairie Canadian cities (even ones near the mountains) are good inspiration for Omaha, imo, beyond just Minneapolis, Denver, Chicago, Kansas City, St Louis, ect.

[Omaha Cowboy]

Thread announcement-

Since talk about St Louis, MO has become so popular on this thread, which is supposed to focus and tie in to Omaha/ConAgra campus development, we have split the St Louis related posts into a new St Louis thread in the Elsewhere Forum. Please continue your St Louis related discussion there..

Thanks...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[iamjacobm]

Approval of the RIVER CROSSING PHASE 1A TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN
LOCATION: Southeast of 10th and Farnam Streets

I will post the plans when the city does. This should layout what we will see first on Conagra's campus.

[ita]

Approval of the RIVER CROSSING PHASE 1A TIF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLAN
LOCATION: Southeast of 10th and Farnam Streets

I will post the plans when the city does. This should layout what we will see first on Conagra's campus.

Finally, some news; though it hurts more to have to wait when you know that information is coming. Hope it's everything, everyone hopes for and more .

[iamjacobm]

They usually get around to updating their website later in the week, I would expect Thursday or Friday.

[MadMartin8]

That's going to be nuts downtown with the construction on this and the Gene Lehey mall going on at the same time, if that's the time table. Omaha is going to look vastly different in that downtown area in even just a few years.

[Louie]

We can only hope!

[Cermak]

This is Cermak, I am new to the forum, but have been reading this forum for years. I actually don’t mind the ConAgra buildings and I think they have aged well. The main ConAgra headquarters building looks like it will be demolished if this plan moves forward.While the others blend in enough with the trees that they aren’t real noticeable. As long as they are in good shape it would be a shame to tear those down.

[Coyote]

Welcome to eOmahaForums Cermak.

[iamjacobm]

Phase 1A will be a nearly $82 million 5 story mixed use building wrapped around a garage. 375 market rate units, 720 stall garage 42K Sf of ground floor retail/office space. It will take from Farnam to Harney and 10th to 8th.

Elevations, renderings and more info here:

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ber/05.pdf

[iamjacobm]

Plat Docs as well with more pictures and site plans. This is going to be massive for DTO...

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ber/11.pdf

[ita]

Phase 1A will be a nearly $82 million 5 story mixed use building wrapped around a garage. 375 market rate units, 720 stall garage 42K Sf of ground floor retail/office space. It will take from Farnam to Harney and 10th to 8th.

Elevations, renderings and more info here:

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ber/05.pdf

Yes, plans! River Crossing, is that the official name now? Although it does not have the height that many would probably like, it will do a good job of extending Old Market towards the River.

Not to keep quibbling about the Conagra move, but I snickered at the very first line of this proposal.

[ita]

Plat Docs as well with more pictures and site plans. This is going to be massive for DTO...

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ber/11.pdf

Nice! Coupled with the Riverfront Revitalization, this is going to be huge. Although Phase 1 is only 5-stories, the rest look to be close to 10, and we even have a high rise! Hoping this builds out according to plan.

[stormchaser]

Wow, this is a fairly tall building. Is this really part of this development? Nothing previously looked this tall. Any idea what it is?? (found it in the renderings here: https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ber/11.pdf)

**Edit: Looks like it's 2B which is 250,000 square feet of office space so apparently it is...