City Architecture

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:57 pm

St Louis needs to clear up the "gloom in the air" that hangs over the city -- due to ghettos and urban blight. Part of that gives the city its intriguing edge, but it doesnt help it thrive & grow at the same time. Sometimes, I wonder if we, as human beings, can pick up the general feelings around us -- as a whole. We must. If you go through stressful times as a nation, people are not in the best moods, and gloom hangs over the land -- like the Great Depression. Sundays evenings often feel "bummer" to me, even if Im not working the next day, I think because large groups of people around me are feeling bummed they have to go back to work each day. When there is a huge crowd in Memorial Park in Omaha for a big concert, I may not hear it, but I can sort of sense the extra "electricity" in the air over the city. When a city doesnt have major city pride, or when it does, you can sense it somehow. Anyways, cities like St Louis & Detroit logically fight that gloom. I have to chuckle about Omaha's "ring box" office buildings sometimes. Thankfully, there isnt many of them... Omaha has plenty of normal size suburban office buildings. I dont think they should line them up along Dodge, though.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:38 pm

Good news: If you look on Google Earth and turn the Globe View off, you can see that St Louis cleared a big section of the inner city. I bet they are beginning to remove the "gloom!" Go St Louiey!

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:01 am

That’s great, you can find so many detailed things with google earth. Maybe St Louis has a big project in the works. I remember being at there airport back in the 90’s it was an incredibly crowded place.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:43 am

Cermak wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:01 am That’s great, you can find so many detailed things with google earth. Maybe St Louis has a big project in the works. I remember being at there airport back in the 90’s it was an incredibly crowded place.

Yeah, I even just noticed on there Okla City is putting in light rail downtown. And, some of their new suburban patterns in Edmonds remind me kind of Denver or Dallas -- yet they have a farm grid restricting true duplication, like Omaha deals with. Funny, the way you say things has struck me from the start, you remind me so much of a friend I grew up with Omaha that loved urban stuff & cities (back then, before this forum, it felt like we were the only kids in town that were excited over announcements in OWH's Midlands News section). But, of course, you couldnt be him w/ things you've told me (like being in Omaha currently, and your job taking you to NM, and liking Breaking Bad so much -- a show Im sure he wouldnt be into). However, he did fly from Omaha to St Louis in the 90s to visit, when my family was transplanted from Omaha to suburban St Louis -- so that almost gave me chills hearing you say that. New Mexico: There's a funky movie I have that takes place in NM -- the only reason I keep it is for the scenery. The main actress says something like "New Mexico is a powerful place. It can be a little overwhelming to a newcomer..." Thought that was interesting. Course, I wasnt overwhelmed when I first visited Albq, Santa Fe, or Taos, and had to go lay down, or something.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:11 am

That’s funny that I remind you of your friend. I also remember looking at the World Herald before the internet became mainstream when big Omaha development stories broke. I would save the newspaper articles for later reference. I saved 1200 Landmark, Hruska courthouse and ConAgra campus. The one I remember the most was First National Bank’s full front page announcing their 40 story skyscraper. Omaha’s biggest day for Downtown redevelopment in my time living here, incredible day , I even bought an extra copy.

Now New Mexico, what is about this state ? I knew nothing about it before I went the first time and wasn’t expecting much. When I arrived I thought Albuquerque looked interesting and Santa Fe seemed very nice but I was driving farther to Espanola. Espanola was not that nice and I noticed lots of poverty upon my arrival into town as the sun was going down. I remember having a headache and didn’t do much that evening. The next day it rained, the people seemed happy that it was raining. I spent most of the day driving around in the rain and it was an ordinary day it seemed.

The third day it was sunny, it would not rain again for the rest of my trip. And I started noticing on my drive that the scenery was beautiful, prettier than I was expecting. The rest of my trip it was sunny everyday. Some mornings had frost but the afternoons were warm. It was fall and leaves were changing, mountains changed depending on the time of day. The colored adobe buildings changed. The mountain called Cerro Pedernal changed the most.

I can see why people get hooked on this place. But some other people don’t care for it at all. I took a return trip back a month or so later and it didn’t disappoint. And was back for a third time and saw other parts of the state. White sands, Taos. All nice. I will probably go back again, at least that’s the plan.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:07 am

I would do the same thing. I would save Midlands News when some big project was announced. I have the front page of the OWH when the FNC was announced, with the title "Omaha Skyline Climbs." I have it laminated. Ive thought about framing it. New Mexico: I love that stark picture of that courtyard. It does have an effect on me, too, because of the dry open landscape and the art/colorful aspect of it. (In fact, I painted about 5 pictures of White Sands while I was in NM, and sold a little painting in Las Cruces. I also put my paintings on cards, and a gift shop in Las Cruces bought a bunch. A lady later called me who bought one, and had me make a big number of them for a conference in New Mexico. I also bought some art from a local artist, and met a photographer in Alamogardo. I spent some days & evenings in White Sands and drove up to near Cloudcroft, NM, where there are aspens & evergreens around, much like Colorado. I think there is a telescope/observatory up there. I think if you like science fiction, like I do, you are drawn to New Mexico also because of the night sky & all the big telescopes & satellite dishes, like in the movie "Contact" -- as well as the odd Roswell aspect.) So, believe me, I do appreciate the land & beauty & culture -- and unique local style, architecture & design. It's kinda just a mix of Colorado to the north and West Texas to the south -- so it is a unique landscape. The lower desert of Arizona is more my style, but I like both. (I drove from Las Cruces to Tuscon once and it was almost strange looping up to Tuscon. Tuscon kind of reminds me of a "low desert Albuquerque" because it is also kinda funky & different.)

A couple I went to HS with, that married, live in Albuquerque metro, and one of my cousins lived there for awhile & Phoenix, I think, but he has been back in the Omaha area for years. I know another couple that lives there, too. With homelands & hometowns "calling people back home" even in my own family tree, Im almost wondering if that is why Albuquerque was beating Omaha in growth for years, and now Omaha is ahead again? I think New Mexico can allure people, but Im wondering if non-natives just dont ever feel at home, they dont escape winter (like you do in Phoenix, Vegas, or Southern CA), and they miss greenery as well, so they are left with no incentive to stay, so they move away again? Im not sure... I think you can romance the idea of New Mexico (or wherever), and move there, but then you get there, and decorate your place, and hang petroglyph wall art above your couch, and get a Mexican throw for your chair, and SWern shower curtain, and go to Santa Fe several weekends in a row, and you're all signed up for the "NM lifestyle", but then you slowly start your typical life of flipping on cable at night and on weekends, and running between work & the grocery store, then you start missing back home... Thats why I make sure not to "romance" the idea of moving places anymore, and really make sure it is what I want, because even if you move there, you usually have to be intentional to even "have a brand new life" when you get there, because you'll likely fall into the same habits, and have the same type schedule, just in new city. Yet, places are different, and offer new opportunities & perks when you get there, too -- of course. There's people who move there and absolutely love it and stay the rest of their life. Albuquerque is still growing, but it has slown down a bit, and I wonder why Omaha pushed ahead of it again.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:54 pm

Admin - maybe some parts of this thread needs their own area because this train about Strata is WAY off the track.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:38 pm

I do apologize. I've been cringing how off-track we've gotten. But, I don't know what to do. I just respond. He/she responds. We just keep blabbing about this & that. It has been fun, but I do respect an order to things. (I feel like "The Thread Eater", vs. "The Sin Eater" or something. lol) Maybe we can start our own "blab" thread, where we can talk about whatever, whenever we want?

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:35 pm

Same here sorry about getting so off topic, if it was under the Albuquerque thread it would of not been as much of a problem. But this is supposed to be about KC’s new building. Apologies here as well.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:53 pm

RockHarbor wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:38 pm Maybe we can start our own "blab" thread, where we can talk about whatever, whenever we want?

A "City Architecture" thread- what a great idea you have come up with. Maybe in the Elsewhere section.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:15 pm

RockHarbor wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:38 pm Good news: If you look on Google Earth and turn the Globe View off, you can see that St Louis cleared a big section of the inner city. I bet they are beginning to remove the "gloom!" Go St Louiey!

St. Louis has been trying to "remove the gloom" via land clearance for decades and it hasn't done much to turn the city around in most areas. Many are stuck in their ways. It's probably the areas where they've removed the most that are the least desirable.

The big section of inner city they cleared away is for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency West facility- a federal agency that does many secretive things and needs a plot of land bigger than their current site to both expand and keep prying eyes away from whatever secrets they're up to. Clearance for the site came pretty controversial and the location of NGA West there is unlikely to lead to considerable rejuvenation given how closed off it is by necessity. NGA West is already located in St. Louis anyway and the jobs will largely be a redistribution of those which have already existed in the city. Their current site doesn't appear to be particularly desirable, though it is in a better part of town, so I can't see it being repurposed anytime soon.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:17 pm

Cermak wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:01 am That’s great, you can find so many detailed things with google earth. Maybe St Louis has a big project in the works. I remember being at there airport back in the 90’s it was an incredibly crowded place.

The airport used to be one of TWA's hubs as TWA was based in St. Louis. As things typically go here, another airline, American, bought them out and quickly reduced their operations in the city. Now a good portion of the airport is mothballed.

See my post above about the big project in the works.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:32 pm

Uffda wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:53 pm
RockHarbor wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:38 pm Maybe we can start our own "blab" thread, where we can talk about whatever, whenever we want?
A "blab" thread- what a great idea you have come up with. Maybe in the Bar and Grill section.

Thanks... This could be really fun. I just don't want be "The Last Thread Eater" or "The Last Thread Bender" here anymore (kidding). I easily can be, without even trying to be. I think several of us have many thoughts, and ideas, and it could easily cause "rabbit trails" or "side branches" in threads, naturally. We don't mean to.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:39 pm

TitosBuritoBarn wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:15 pm
RockHarbor wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:38 pm Good news: If you look on Google Earth and turn the Globe View off, you can see that St Louis cleared a big section of the inner city. I bet they are beginning to remove the "gloom!" Go St Louiey!
St. Louis has been trying to "remove the gloom" via land clearance for decades and it hasn't done much to turn the city around in most areas. Many are stuck in their ways. It's probably the areas where they've removed the most that are the least desirable.

The big section of inner city they cleared away is for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency West facility- a federal agency that does many secretive things and needs a plot of land bigger than their current site to both expand and keep prying eyes away from whatever secrets they're up to. Clearance for the site came pretty controversial and the location of NGA West there is unlikely to lead to considerable rejuvenation given how closed off it is by necessity. NGA West is already located in St. Louis anyway and the jobs will largely be a redistribution of those which have already existed in the city. Their current site doesn't appear to be particularly desirable, though it is in a better part of town, so I can't see it being repurposed anytime soon.

Interesting. Kinda sounds strange-ish... Yet, along with redeveloping that whole large section, and re-configuring the overall use of that almost hopeless area of town, won't that maybe help the SL ghetto areas "ship up, shape up, and ship out" more (almost like there is a giant police headquarters around, so people are more cautious)? Maybe this is exactly what St Louis needs. I just am excited that they are finally tackling that area of town that seemed hopeless. As they slowly redevelop block by block, the "gloom" will start to leave. All they will have left is the ghetto across the river in Illinois -- but at least a river separates the city from it.

This is the view of Saint Louis I love, with the mighty Arch standing tall over the river, with the likable skyline rising behind it -- shorter & respectful of the monument, and letting the Arch "steal the show", like it always will.

https://www.tripsavvy.com/thmb/SBY7wlbH ... 4eb31f.jpg

Nice-looking city on the Mississippi. (I think the skyline nicely reflects the gothic-influenced brick city it is, yet still very basic & Midwest. One thing I dont understand about St Louis is the teal/aqua roof theme, like you see on the tallest Metro Square Tower. I think its because that type of metal has a chemical change over time w/ climate, so the aqua color is like "rust." Omaha's winged sculpture, at Eppley, had that oxidation (or whatever it is) change. Des Moines' tallest was supposed to have that teal color over time w/ climate effect on the cap, but it didnt work out, so they were able to keep the cap dark. I cant imagine DM without the dark cap on the Principle Tower. Although I realize that SL has other buildings with green roofs, I still think Metro Square -- a building that looks perfectly "St Louis" --would look better with a bronzy or grey roof, or something. Its eye-catching & interesting with the aqua green, and doesnt look terrible or anything, but to me, its always been a bit strange & odd to drive into a rougher, red brick & mortar city, like Saint Louis, and see a skyscraper with a roof of bright teal/aqua color, a shade which makes me think of "Dolphin Island, Florida", or something. Its too serious and old and historic and rough of a city for that color, imo. Yet, the color lights up neat at night -- and kinda works somehow, too. Yet, why? How does it? What does teal/aqua have to do with St Louis? It's not Miami or Tampa or Orlando. Not even Dallas or Atlanta sport such a color on their night skyline -- I dont think. Even purple, or dark purple, would be better -- or the Cardinals red maybe. If the roof were, let's say, charcoal grey, and they lit it up dark purple or Cardinals red at night, that would look sharp, imo -- plus, it would push the "gothic city" thing more. The dark grey would probably absorb some of the color, making it more a subtle hint of purple or scarlet red. Also, I wonder if the height restriction will ever be removed -- like it was in Philadelphia? I understand the rule, and maybe the Arch would look odd with too tall of buildings behind it, but still... Maybe they could lift it, but enforce a higher up ceiling, like 700-750 feet? There's gonna come a day when St Louis will likely get tired of the restriction they created for themselves, and grow tired of other regional, smaller cities happy about that self-given hold-back hovering over them, while they build higher towers, I think. I just want the best for St Louis. Thats also a perfect powerful name for that city.) http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5 ... rmat=1500w

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:07 am

This was important enough to me that I wanted to test what I was talking about... The green roof looks fine, and works, because Ive seen that type of look before on other architecture. In fact, Seattle has that brown/beige skyscraper with a similar green sloping roof -- yet that's more of a green glass roof, which gives almost a greenhouse-like impression, which works for wet & chilly Seattle. I like the building lit-up red & purple at night... The green works fine, but Im not sure if that look/color is the best one for St Louiey...

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:26 pm

In my opinion, the green color of the roof is just the natural aging and oxidation or "patina" of the copper roofing material and an expression of the high quality of the material itself. Much like the Statue of Liberty has that greenish color because it is actually clad in copper. Copper is very expensive and has a very long lifespan because the oxidation on the surface protects the metal itself. Sometimes architects try to mimic the very expensive look of copper by using steel or aluminum roofing that is painted greenish color to fool people into thinking it is copper. Using real copper and letting it naturally patina to the final green color is an honest expression of the true characteristics of the copper material. Another example of honest expression is using corten steel which achieves a durable rusty oxidation on the weathered surface of the steel. The natural patina process of copper, which can take 20-30 years to occur, is sometimes accelerated by pre-treating the copper with an acidic accelerator chemical.

I think the architect's choice of having the color of the roof be green is much more of an expression of the building materials which make-up the design, including copper roofing, rather than a choice based on what color would look best in the overall skyline. If the skyline already had a lot of copper roofs, that could influence the decision though.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:18 pm

GetUrban wrote: Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:26 pm In my opinion, the green color of the roof is just the natural aging and oxidation or "patina" of the copper roofing material and an expression of the high quality of the material itself. Much like the Statue of Liberty has that greenish color because it is actually clad in copper. Copper is very expensive and has a very long lifespan because the oxidation on the surface protects the metal itself. Sometimes architects try to mimic the very expensive look of copper by using steel or aluminum roofing that is painted greenish color to fool people into thinking it is copper. Using real copper and letting it naturally patina to the final green color is an honest expression of the true characteristics of the copper material. Another example of honest expression is using corten steel which achieves a durable rusty oxidation on the weathered surface of the steel. The natural patina process of copper, which can take 20-30 years to occur, is sometimes accelerated by pre-treating the copper with an acidic accelerator chemical.

I think the architect's choice of having the color of the roof be green is much more of an expression of the building materials which make-up the design, including copper roofing, rather than a choice based on what color would look best in the overall skyline. If the skyline already had a lot of copper roofs, that could influence the decision though.

Thanks for the great, knowledgeable explanation! That's right...thats what happens to the material copper. I forgot the "copper" part. Therefore, I want to find a pic of Metro Square when it was brand new, before the green set in. I dont mind that green, especially with the copper aspect. It might be what is best, in fact, for that skyline. I have to run, but wanted to say something here... Ill probably say more later. Thanks again!

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:48 pm

I found why it connects today! Although there's a few other buildings in Downtown St Louis that have similar green roofs, the green roof ultimately matches the nearby green dome on the capitol-looking courthouse building, centered directly behind the Arch. It must have originally been the normal color of copper. So, Metro Square's green roof feels meaningful now. That's why it works in St Louis. The city has a theme of copper-turned-green roofs. I have no idea why I didn't notice that until now. Now, that I recognize this about St Louis, it helps me appreciate the city more.

Courthouse by day: http://archikey.com/picture/read/115/Ol ... thouse.jpg
Courthouse by night: http://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/8 ... ExpCDR.jpg

If you really stop and look & examine the beauty in the city, you appreciate the city way more, I think. For example, take the courthouse: Look at that beautiful lawn & landscaping, backed by that magnificent white, ornate historic structure. If that were all plopped down in Omaha, it would instantly make the city more beautiful and postcard-worthy. Local people would be taking pictures of it left & right. But, visiting St Louis, you don't necessarily think about how it adds to the city, and what they have there -- especially if your focus is on the skyscrapers. In reality, the city has this great flat, riverside "platform" or "stage" to build a downtown on, so they are able to have a building like that courthouse, with that expansive flat lawn, and have skyscrapers set around it nicely. Kansas City doesn't have that, Omaha & Des Moines don't have that. Indianapolis kind of has that.

Instead of stopping, and appreciating all the beauty that city has, it is easy to glance quickly at the Arch, the skyline, and "size up" the city to other big city skylines. It's easy to overlook the courthouse, because it isn't tall. Skyscraper-lovers often spout "It's not that tall of buildings for such a big city...blah, blah, blah." Then, the restriction of the Arch has to be pointed out to them. When I was young, I was around that courthouse so many times -- yet never really stopped to take it all in. It never hit me until recently. Now, when I think of St Louis, my view of it is richer & more complete.

I think I started stopping and really appreciating the beauty a city has block by block, after designing my own cities in SIMCITY4. In that game, you can set down a beautiful, ornate capitol-like building in your city, then you grass up the area around it, and add trees -- and you appreciate the "cute little corner" you created in your city. Well, it's the same thing for me in real life now... I don't just focus on skyscrapers anymore.

............................................................................................................................

Shifting gears to Okla City: How can I not focus on Oklahoma City's new skyscrapers in this view, courtesy of Google Earth, I came across yesterday?! The big horizon & flatness of the city is emphasized by the new skyrocketing skyscrapers of shimmering glass & smokey blue-greys. Love them. Perfect simplistic, yet striking, modern towers for Okla City -- which match and play off each other. (That city is like Texas cities, where it doesn't necessarily have a beautiful, inner city fabric that is tight & urban, but more "loosey goosey" looking.)

Oklahoma City's Bicentennial Park: https://www.okc.gov/Home/ShowPublishedI ... 6755170000

Oklahoma City's new Omni Hotel going up: https://newsok.com/article/5601955/omni ... ahoma-city

Oklahoma City's night time skyline is looking more & more like lit-up, neon Dallas (Almost all cities light up their skylines anymore, but I think Dallas was the original, at least the original outside of NYC and Chicago, and ultimately inspired so many smaller cities, I think. Oklahoma City appears to be refusing to just sit and just be the "Jan" anymore -- she's going for "Marsha" status now, I think. I like it. Yet, nothing was ever wrong with being "Jan", too.): https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/810/40014 ... 8380_b.jpg

One of Oklahoma City's true historic gems. That is one of the prettiest historic buildings around in the Midwest/Plains, imo. Kind of like Omaha's Blackstone Hotel, and Des Moines' similar hotel: https://t-ec.bstatic.com/images/hotel/m ... 998993.jpg

The city is getting more & more sharp -- without a doubt.

Boy, the affliction from nature which that city has to put up with more than any other American city (massive twisters). Both Moore, OK twisters were frightening (especially the May 3, 1999 one). Also, the El Reno, OK (west of Okla City) tornado from several years back was the widest twister ever recorded, and some people off the Weather Channel died. Here's the 2nd Moore, OK twister. It's a monster. (If you watch this, look how black the sky gets near the end.)

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:40 pm

St. Louis tallest is designed by the same architecture firm that did Des Moines 801 Grand. They are based in St Louis. St. Louis never seemed to really embrace the skyscraper like so many other cities. Although for the most part they have nice looking tall buildings. They could maybe lift the height limit as Philadelphia finally did. And now Philly has one of the most impressive skylines anywhere. Or maybe St Louis is supposed to be more of a dense mid rise city dominated by historic buildings and plazas. That’s not all bad either. In fact it could be its niche.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:22 pm

Cermak wrote: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:40 pm St. Louis tallest is designed by the same architecture firm that did Des Moines 801 Grand. They are based in St Louis. St. Louis never seemed to really embrace the skyscraper like so many other cities. Although for the most part they have nice looking tall buildings. They could maybe lift the height limit as Philadelphia finally did. And now Philly has one of the most impressive skylines anywhere. Or maybe St Louis is supposed to be more of a dense mid rise city dominated by historic buildings and plazas. That’s not all bad either. In fact it could be its niche.

I didnt know that! That makes perfect sense to me, and verifies the architects were contextual-minded w/ Des Moines' skyscraper, as the Metro Square is perfectly contextual for St Louis. They are both beige handsome buildings w/ dark windows. They were both built around 1989. They both had the intention of a copper cap that would later turn green -- yet Des Moines' cap had issues, or something. (I like it better dark anyway...) I love both buildings. That firm is very talented and thinks like I would -- if an architect myself. Both those buildings match the city perfectly. Thanks for that info. Im really glad to have those dots connected. Again, it verifies that Des Moines skyscraper was designed w/ contextualism in mind -- as I could tell, but could never verify.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:28 pm

Gyo Obata is the architect from the firm called HOK. Think they have designed some buildings in KC as well. Don’t think he has any buildings in Omaha. He’s 95 now, not sure if he still works. He’s very well known in architecture circles, somewhat of a local celebrity in St Louis. He’s written a book available on Amazon about Architecture. His buildings are often instantly recognizable, they have a certain look. He has designed many buildings in the Midwest especially during that mid-80’s to early 90’s period. Just having an architect of his prestige reside in St Louis is a huge feather in the cities cap. I would like his opinion of 1200 Landmark center

.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:34 am

Funny, I didnt realize we were talking about HOK here.... They also designed Omaha's Ameritrade headquarters. They are a very sharp firm. But, darn it -- they had to design something "off" for Old Mill. And, darn it -- its not even a building featured in the "showcase" of their work. (I am almost irritated -- no, I am irritated -- that HOK captured the spirit of St Louis, Des Moines, and Albuquerque perfectly in their sharp & smartly-designed skyscrapers, but it was like their talent & senses were "turned off" when it came to Omaha's turn. Omaha finally gets "starchitecture" from a major outside firm -- a term I learned, btw, from my Mpls-St Paul architecture guide to describe what Minneapolis is driven by, and all about. But, our chance is blown with a building many Omahans hate & thumb down. The irony is: HOK's website has a statement that shows one of their goals is to create something that adds & benefits the city it is in. It's a sharp & meaningful design, but not fitting for that area, and has top-level design ideas that "push the envelope" too much for plain, suburban Omaha, imo.)

The 1200 Landmark Center's designer, Hollabird & Root (which originally was the famous Chicago School), is the same firm that designed the historic Chicago Board of Trade Building and MPLS' historic Rand Tower. Wow -- think of that. I do respect them and like a lot of their work (especially the historic buildings), but my favorite skyscrapers are by SOM and HOK and Cesar Pelli and IM PEI and Philip Johnson, I think. Yes, I would love an honest opinion on the 1200 Landmark Center. I do have to say, though: Years back, on Hollabird & Root's website, they had a portfolio you could look through, and the 1200 Landmark Center was not a featured entry. So, they are not even ultra-proud of it. No surprise to me. It never won awards. I've never seen another building like it -- anywhere. Again, its a pretty & glossy blue building, but its nothing special. It bypasses using the simplistic beautiful geometry seen in Okla City's new BOK building, and yet, the set of four rooftop jagged peaks , meant to jazz it up more, do not take the design to any place special, or any place worth talkng about. Big deal -- four gables, flush with the main facade, set at the top. Whoop-de-do. Those are common, no-brainer accents that dress up a strip mall or suburban school. And, it doesnt even feel like "100% Omaha, Nebraska" to me at all. It feels almost like an "alien intruder" to me, although Im used to it as part of the Omaha scene by now -- like Oakview Mall.

Now, we all have our different views and opinions. Yet, usually, when I feel something for architecture, I google critic's remarks, and I find similar feelings I have. Philly's Comcast Center is an example. Feeling like a clunky, glossy, meaningless "empty symbol" on the skyline to me, I found similar feelings -- and barely any praise out there. It certainly didnt win any award for the design itself. Feeling like the Philly skyline was tainted (not ruined) for years now, the new blockbuster skyscraper currently being built helps balance the Philly skyline out again, as the new tower seems kind of a "spin off" of the Comcast Center. I just breath a sigh of relief. I think Im gonna love Philly's skyline again. (This is the conflict I have with buildings like the Comcast Center & Omaha's Landmark Center: The designer/s obviously have a good sense of lines & balance. They can put together nice lines, and have a sense of balance, shape, and form, BUT their lines still don't add up to something great & meaningful & tasteful. Its kind of like how a person can be a great writer, but not necessarily a great author. A good architect has to have a sense of both, imo. )

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:24 am

I have struggled with the TD building, I didn’t know it was a HOK design. I like the height it brings to West Omaha. But it looks like it should be in another city, maybe Suburban Dallas or Houston. We have so few tall suburban buildings it would of been nice to just have a “normal looking” building that maybe says Omaha a little. TD doesn’t say Omaha. I’ve never been inside maybe it looks better inside. And I don’t hate it, to me the south side looks the best. I prefer the new HDR building much more than TD headquarters.

I forgot Albuquerque’s tallest is also HOK. They must of been an extremely busy firm back in the late 80’s early 90’s. . As far as 1200 landmark I would love Mr Obata to tell us what he thinks about it and he could be honest with us. I’m at the point where I’m just glad we have a glass building DT that’s from my favorite era of design, even if it’s a marginal piece of architecture.

Now Philly, I went there for the first time ever about 5 years ago. The hotel I stayed at was by the airport and I got in late at night because my flight was delayed. As I looked out the window on maybe the 7th or 8th floor if I got right up to the glass and looked to the left I could see downtown, it looked fabulous. Better than Minneapolis, which is saying a lot. The tall pointy building One liberty and the Comcast center both made the city look like the big bad east coast city. Philadelphia probably has a top ten skyline. One Liberty is probably one of my favorite skyscrapers, Comcast even though it’s a little different, I still liked the way it looked on the skyline. It sorta has a hard edge about it, a little intimidating looking. Like a big robot. It has at least a mild resemblance to our tallest I think.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:16 am

Cermak wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:24 am Now Philly, I went there for the first time ever about 5 years ago. The hotel I stayed at was by the airport and I got in late at night because my flight was delayed. As I looked out the window on maybe the 7th or 8th floor if I got right up to the glass and looked to the left I could see downtown, it looked fabulous. Better than Minneapolis, which is saying a lot. The tall pointy building One liberty and the Comcast center both made the city look like the big bad east coast city. Philadelphia probably has a top ten skyline. One Liberty is probably one of my favorite skyscrapers, Comcast even though it’s a little different, I still liked the way it looked on the skyline. It sorta has a hard edge about it, a little intimidating looking. Like a big robot.

Agreed. I feel like Philly gets overlooked a lot being in New York's shadow. But, until pretty recently, it was the nation's 4th largest metro area and certainly has the city center and skyline to show for it.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:33 am

Right ,they are very proud of their city. And quickly point out New York’s faults and shortcomings. The main old part of the city is very flat and even though I was only on the 7th floor the view was pretty good. As you get into the suburbs it becames hilly and wooded. Impressive place, not sure I would want to live there though.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 1:36 am

Cermak wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:24 am I have struggled with the TD building, I didn’t know it was a HOK design. I like the height it brings to West Omaha. But it looks like it should be in another city, maybe Suburban Dallas or Houston. We have so few tall suburban buildings it would of been nice to just have a “normal looking” building that maybe says Omaha a little. TD doesn’t say Omaha. I’ve never been inside maybe it looks better inside. And I don’t hate it, to me the south side looks the best. I prefer the new HDR building much more than TD headquarters.

I think it is very slick, crisp, and sharp -- it doesn't surprise me HOK designed it. I also don't mind the green, as Ameritrade has that trademark green color. (For example, I notice Overland Park has a little Ameritrade building which has green glass). However, to me it is square enough, that it is architecture that is better suited for the straight, grid "new urban" streets in Aksarben Village, or grid streets downtown -- not the curvy streets of suburban Old Mill. It is not "suburban architecture" or "freeway architecture" at all. To me, it is not suited for the Old Mill area in look or feel or color. The "ticker tape" design was meaningful and creative, but for a building in Old Mill, that unique statement should have been kept to a minimum just down the narrow sides. That broad backside of milky glossy panes and speckled tiny windows is way too much for Old Mill, imo. That "Dr Suess-y" backside would have worked better in Aksarben Village, imo.

Cermak wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:24 am Now Philly, I went there for the first time ever about 5 years ago. The hotel I stayed at was by the airport and I got in late at night because my flight was delayed. As I looked out the window on maybe the 7th or 8th floor if I got right up to the glass and looked to the left I could see downtown, it looked fabulous. Better than Minneapolis, which is saying a lot. The tall pointy building One liberty and the Comcast center both made the city look like the big bad east coast city. Philadelphia probably has a top ten skyline. One Liberty is probably one of my favorite skyscrapers, Comcast even though it’s a little different, I still liked the way it looked on the skyline. It sorta has a hard edge about it, a little intimidating looking. Like a big robot. It has at least a mild resemblance to our tallest I think.

Although I love the Minneapolis skyline, I would have to agree the Philadelphia skyline is bigger & beefier & taller -- as it should be. (I was in Philadelphia in 2015, and finally saw it. It is pretty big. I can post pictures later.) The Minneapolis skyline, although it has plenty of striking, eye-catching design, still is restrained a bit from simply sporting designs in a Midwest city. (All the Midwest cities are restrained in that way -- as they should be, imo. The difference between Chicago and New York City reveals the appropriate "restrain" factor of Midwestern architecture. Skyscrapers in Chicago look more appropriate for a city on the plains & prairie.) What I'm saying is, Philadelphia, in a way, has flamboyant flair that is more appropriate for East Coast cities. In fact, the Liberty Place skyscrapers are said to almost be modern, abstract versions of New York's flamboyant & flashy Chrysler Building.

I never was attracted that much to Philadelphia, and it has never been my favorite city. But, I do like it better now -- although Philly is still not my style. Before the height restriction, to me it was a grey, old, dullish, boring-looking East Coast city of squarish buildings, I would see in pictures in books. When the restriction was lifted, a new sprout of exciting skyscrapers eventually arose, creating a striking skyline. The city has a very interesting square/boxy feel -- miles & miles of straight streets on strict grid, miles & miles of straight boxy row homes with little square windows, many square skyscrapers.

You can see that here: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0GJCosDkGbs/maxresdefault.jpg And, here: https://images.fineartamerica.com/image ... earson.jpg And, here: http://www.jackramsdale.com/wp-content/ ... e.com).jpg And, here: http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/ ... HILA-2.jpg

When the skyline didn't include the Comcast Center, I liked it a lot: https://a.spirited.media/wp-content/upl ... ze=994,559

When the Comcast Center was added, I liked the new towering height added, but it just looked so odd & clunky to me from several angles. It seemed like an empty, meaningless, odd shape & form & symbol intruding on the skyline to me. (On the narrow side, it almost looks like the shape of Omaha's FNC's narrow side -- except a tower with a glossy coat that left most of the skyscraper's facade almost featureless many hours of the day. In certain sunlight, the inner structure of the tower could be seen through the glass, and I liked it better then. I felt the tower lacked some lines & details on the facade, which would tie it in better with Philadelphia's other skyscrapers better. It just looked so glossy & mostly featureless to me.)

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.dEYh ... 4&rs=1&p=0

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bb/5f/80/bb5f ... laware.jpg

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.vX9p ... 3&rs=1&p=0

However, with the Comcast Center no longer solo and seeming odd & out of place to me, I'm finding the Philly skyline amazing. The new adjacent Comcast Technology Center skyscraper was designed to perfectly compliment the original Comcast Center, and bring in lines & details that compliment Philly's other skyscrapers -- making me excited about that skyline once again. It looks so much better to me. It changes everything, imo. They did an awesome job with that new very sharp & impressive skyscraper design... (US's tallest building out of New York and Chicago.)

https://philadelphiainformer.com/files/ ... elphia.jpg

It makes me think they noticed, too -- and fixed exactly what I felt was wrong.

Speaking of NYC, can you believe the Empire State Building is now the city's 4th tallest building?!?!

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:42 am

The northside of TD I don’t think I will ever get used to it. It looks unfinished to me. I agree they should of just put the ticker tape windows on the narrow sides only. I’m still glad this building is in Omaha it’s just not my favorite. I would like to see some other tallish office buildings go up in Old Mill to soften TD’s building. The new HDR building would of looked good in Old mill. TD and HDR would be sharp in the same skyline, it could be our little Overland Park.

I also heard One Liberty in Philly was loosely designed to mirror the Chrysler building. It’s Philly’s best building. It to was built during that crazy awesome skyscraper period mid-80’s to early 90’s. Omaha almost completely missed out on that great era. Probably why I’m so obsessed with 1200 Landmark. It’s all we got to represent that special time. The removal of the height limit in Philadelphia really helped make the city seem more exciting and not so old. Because it is one of our oldest cities. St Louis might want to look into their height restrictions, maybe they can be the Midwest version of Philadelphia ?.

NYC’s Empire State Building is #4 now ? I didn’t know that. NYC is almost like a overdose of skyscrapers to me. I pick out the ones I like and look at them mostly. Wish they could give a few to Omaha.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:44 am

Cermak wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:42 am The northside of TD I don’t think I will ever get used to it. It looks unfinished to me. I agree they should of just put the ticker tape windows on the narrow sides only. I’m still glad this building is in Omaha it’s just not my favorite. I would like to see some other tallish office buildings go up in Old Mill to soften TD’s building. The new HDR building would of looked good in Old mill. TD and HDR would be sharp in the same skyline, it could be our little Overland Park.

I also heard One Liberty in Philly was loosely designed to mirror the Chrysler building. It’s Philly’s best building. It to was built during that crazy awesome skyscraper period mid-80’s to early 90’s. Omaha almost completely missed out on that great era. Probably why I’m so obsessed with 1200 Landmark. It’s all we got to represent that special time. The removal of the height limit in Philadelphia really helped make the city seem more exciting and not so old. Because it is one of our oldest cities. St Louis might want to look into their height restrictions, maybe they can be the Midwest version of Philadelphia ?.

NYC’s Empire State Building is #4 now ? I didn’t know that. NYC is almost like a overdose of skyscrapers to me. I pick out the ones I like and look at them mostly. Wish they could give a few to Omaha.

I agree with you on every section.

I do feel HDR and TD are better for "new urbanism" parks w/ grid streets than an 80's designed suburban office park, like Old Mill -- which is better for "freeway architecture", like you see in FNB Business Park. The TD building, for example, has the same set up as the downtown Landmark Center & data center (squarish boxy tower w/ pillars, long lower connecting rectangular section). They both have an urban element, imo, that's suitable to be square with grid streets, rather than meandering parkways in the suburbs.

NEW YORK: New York & Chicago really have so many amazing buildings -- including new ones continually going up. I used to feel skylines like New York's and Chicago's were too big & expansive for me, and I liked skylines like Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis, Seattle, LA, ect., most. Now, I think I prefer the abundance of builldings in NYC and Chicago more -- because even those extensive skylines even start to feel limited once you're around them enough. One way I appreciate NYC's and Chicago's skylines fully, is making sure I'm truly recognizing the scale of it. In Chicago, the BlueCross BlueShield Building (next to the AON Center) is roughly the height of the IDS Tower in Minneapolis, and the major Wacker Dr skyscraper w/ the round crown at the top (designed by KPF -- another firm I love their work), just to the south of the Sears/Willis Tower, is roughly the height of Seattle's and Dallas's tallest. Once you see the scale and realize how tall & big the city's downtown really is, then you'll likely appreciate it more. Just the fact that it is difficult to fit the entire NYC and Chicago skyline all in a single picture you take w/ your camera shows how extensive those two skylines are.

LIBERTY PLACE: I agree those two skyscrapers are Philly's best. Im a fan of Helmut Jahn's work (most of the time). I actually went into them when in Philly, and it was fun taking pics of them at several angles. They do work for Philadelphia, and I think because their narrow, tall shapes & forms are similar to the old City Hall tower, which originally was the cause of the restriction. They also usher into Philadelphia that romantic & exciting feel of the era of great uptown NYC buildings such as the Chrysler, yet they are very loose, abstract versions of it, and create their own new statement for Philadelphia. Jahn did a great job...

BTW, since you love the Postmodern Period so much, I think you would enjoy the 80's book "Emerging Skylines." https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... 3,200_.jpg I saw that in an Old Market bookstore when I was young, and wanted it soooo bad, and was bought it later for a birthday present. I loved & cherished that book. It is full of Postmodern Architecture, which was the newest and most recent stuff back then. That was an exciting period -- I agree. There were so many new unique & new designs around, and striking new skyscrapers far beyond the simpler boxes of the former period. Watching popular architectural styles changing through time, almost like fashions change, is exciting to me. I can appreciate every era of architecture.

CHICAGO PIC: I pointed out the two skyscrapers I mentioned. The left arrow points to the skyscraper that is roughly the height of Dallas' & Seattle's tallest. Think how those stand tall above the rest of each city's crop of skyscrapers, and yet it looks weak-ish next to the Sears/Willis Tower. The arrow to the right points to the BCBS building. Think how Minneapolis's three tallest skyscrapers, all only feet from each other in height, which look very tall in MPLS, would all be that height pointed out. The whole MPLS skyline could easily be almost lost in that shuffle of Chicago buildings, as well as Seattle's & Dallas' -- and that picture is just basically half of the skyline.

This next picture is the suburban company headquarters that went up in West Des Moines around the same time the TD Ameritrade went up. THIS is more appropriate for the setting of Old Mill, imo. It is very sharp, but doesnt "push the envelope." It is truly suburban architecture, more "freeway architecture." The curvy arrangement of the buildings w/ the big lawn is suburban, and this would work around meandering parkways. The long strips of windows and nice grey color would have been compimentary to the existing buildings in Old Mill, too.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:18 pm

Sometimes I wish Omaha would bunch it’s suburban buildings up together more. The Old Mill office Park has great exposure with I-680 right next to it. I hope more plans are in the works for Old Mill. As the land is to valuable for many of the 1 story buildings occupying it right now. AK village has done a good job of keeping its buildings tight and close together. Creating probably the densest feel in Omaha outside of downtown and midtown.

Yes skylines are all relative. NYC and Chicago are without equals in the U.S.. Omaha’s First National tower would be just another building in NYC and maybe poke it’s head out a little more in Chicago. Minneapolis has the big three as I like to call them, all over 700ft. And their 4th tallest the former multifoods tower is around 660ft and is often thought of as the ugliest skyscraper in the city. It’s pretty bad for their standards but would look fine in some other cities, Memphis would take it maybe. I think what makes these smaller cities fun including Omaha is that no matter where you live you can pretty much get in the car and be downtown in about 15-30 minutes. The Last time I was in Chicago I was out in the suburbs and your looking at a 30 min drive minimum downtown if you’re lucky . And then it takes another 10 minutes to find a place to park, Before you know it you’ve been in the car an hour. So they better have a great skyline to look at after all that hassle. Quality of life is important as well. Minneapolis is famous for its quality of life while offering many big city amenities. Omaha also scores well in quality of life.

I saw that building in West Des Moines, it looks good. They took a more cautious approach and it paid off, that’s what I was wanting TD to look like. But we are stuck with TD now and I spend a lot of time looking at it wondering what if. It’s definitely different. It looks best at night or from the south.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:57 pm

Cermak wrote: Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:18 pm Sometimes I wish Omaha would bunch it’s suburban buildings up together more. The Old Mill office Park has great exposure with I-680 right next to it. I hope more plans are in the works for Old Mill. As the land is to valuable for many of the 1 story buildings occupying it right now. AK village has done a good job of keeping its buildings tight and close together. Creating probably the densest feel in Omaha outside of downtown and midtown.

Yes skylines are all relative. NYC and Chicago are without equals in the U.S.. Omaha’s First National tower would be just another building in NYC and maybe poke it’s head out a little more in Chicago. Minneapolis has the big three as I like to call them, all over 700ft. And their 4th tallest the former multifoods tower is around 660ft and is often thought of as the ugliest skyscraper in the city. It’s pretty bad for their standards but would look fine in some other cities, Memphis would take it maybe. I think what makes these smaller cities fun including Omaha is that no matter where you live you can pretty much get in the car and be downtown in about 15-30 minutes. The Last time I was in Chicago I was out in the suburbs and your looking at a 30 min drive minimum downtown if you’re lucky . And then it takes another 10 minutes to find a place to park, Before you know it you’ve been in the car an hour. So they better have a great skyline to look at after all that hassle. Quality of life is important as well. Minneapolis is famous for its quality of life while offering many big city amenities. Omaha also scores well in quality of life.

I saw that building in West Des Moines, it looks good. They took a more cautious approach and it paid off, that’s what I was wanting TD to look like. But we are stuck with TD now and I spend a lot of time looking at it wondering what if. It’s definitely different. It looks best at night or from the south.

Yes, I just also feel like Old Mill will never look right unless they bulldoze all those little one-story office buildings (that seem silly and wasteful now), and put up some new buildings that kind of tie-in or compliment the TD Ameritrade building. Even so, I just feel it will never look right entirely. For a quick fix, I just wish they could remove all the windows & milky panels on that controversial backside, and redo it all to look like the sharp front side of the building. Then, I would like it way better. (Like, they would ever do that. Keep dreaming, right?) It's ODD enough to set a new, big squarish building down in the established, settled, aging "office building garden" of Old Mill, and it's even more ODD-seeming when the building has ODD qualities on top of it.

The dullish, beige Multifoods Tower, yes, is a surprising choice in Minneapolis, I think. However, it still has nice & safe lines, I think. That look was popular in that specific era. Oklahoma City got a similar building. Minneapolis has some surprising choices within an overall great skyline. For example, I don't like the little odd triangle-shaped hotel by the Multifoods Tower, and I don't like that hotel nearby that is an elevated glass box with one centered A-gable at the top. It kind of gives me that same "Really? Are we in designer elementary school?" feeling I get when I see the 1200 Landmark Center. (However, when I see the hotel building as a whole with a stylish solid stone base with it, the base also with that same gable repeated, I don't mind it. In fact, I'm appreciating the design more now that I examine it closer. There's a solid stony base that almost seems historic in style, almost like hints of Greek architecture. Then, from that, arises a glassy, abstract, modern hotel that echoes the base. Here's a pic: https://media.bizj.us/view/img/218211/plazaseven.jpg)

I've tried to remind myself "Don't judge a building until you can see it as a whole, from base to apex." (That's one thing challenging for architects designing downtown buildings. With the base shrouded many times by other buildings, architect's skyscraper designs are possibly jeopardized at different vantage points, especially if the base is an essential component in the overall look & effectiveness of the design.)

Now that I look closer at it all on Google Earth, that odd, little triangle-shaped hotel (or whatever it is) must have been chosen to ensure that offices in the adjacent Multifoods Tower still had decent views and plenty of light still. If it were square or rectangular, it would have entirely blocked the windows of many offices, and greatly blocked each day's light.

I do love big cities, but you're right, quality of life is important. Even in Omaha, sitting in snarling traffic too long, I would have my stomach turn, and I would ask myself "How would you ever handle a true big city if you can't handle this?" The truth is: I'm fine nowadays living in medium-size cities, and just visiting big cities. But, I do love big cities. I talked to somebody who moved from Southern CA a year ago, and I guess the traffic is a nightmarish "mad house" now. All day long, the wide I-5 is backed-up between LA and San Diego, I hear. It was bad 20 years ago, and its even worse now. I hear Houston's traffic is nightmarish. When I visited the NYC area back in 2015, the freeways were wide & busy and it all felt like a "rat race", but the freeways were not that bad (compared to LA and Houston). They were not backed-up a lot -- and I knew it was because a lot of people don't own a car there. Great public transportation does make a big difference.

.....................................................................................................................

By the way, here are two Philadelphia pictures I should have posted yesterday, showing how the brand new Comcast Technology Center is helping to tie the original Philly skyline in with the new flash drive-shaped Comcast Center, making me feel better about the skyline again. It brings in lots of great lines, lines & detail which the glossy, shiny Comcast Center strangely left out. (The Philly skyline obviously has lots of lines, lines, lines. That's why Helmut Jahn-designed skyscrapers were a good choice for Philadelphia, imo, as his work always has lots of tightly-spaced lines & grid patterns.)

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/T0kqHDz ... .0.0.0.jpg

A perfect straight-on picture of the striking Liberty Place skyscrapers. Like Omaha's FNC, their presence changes the city for the better, showing the "power of good architecture."

https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/ ... 1539004505

Look at their striking impact here, over the old cityscape. Just perfect buildings for Philadelphia... (I think all the historic boxy row homes, with the little gabled dormer windows on rooftops -- squares, rectangles, triangles all working together -- help those square/rectangle/triangle-d skyscrapers fit well, along with the other things I mentioned before...)

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/pic ... ock_03.jpg

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:27 am

I’ve often wondered if I to could live in a big city now, I think KC or Minneapolis might be ok, but a really big city like Chicago or Philadelphia would be an adjustment. I suppose you could just live way way out on the edge of the farthest suburb, but then you might as well be in Omaha. Chicago taxes everything like crazy, food and gas is more expensive than Omaha’s, over time that adds up year after year. Sometimes we can get sucked into thinking living in a big city is so much better. But with the internet things are tied together more now than years ago. When I was in Chicago it just seemed like I was always in my car. After a while I knew it would take 15 minutes on this road, 20 minutes on that road. I don’t think that way when I’m in Omaha. Plus some suburbs had red light and speed cameras set up at intersections. I hate those cameras and see them as a scam. I hope Omaha never gets them. When I got back to Omaha I appreciated it a little more.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:23 am

Yeah, when I got back to Omaha from NY/NJ, I missed many things about NY, but I was glad to be back around plenty of parking and highways that had exits. In NJ, they have all these little freeway-like highways that are lined with businesses, and you have to occasionally exit these looping, coiled ramps to then go the opposite direction and backtrack on the highway to the business you need to get to -- a big pain. I was thinking more about Old Mill and the TD Ameritrade building. Honestly, there's not ONE architectural rendering I can find of that building that showed the backside was going to look that disappointingly strange. Im wondering if Omaha approved it, not aware of how it was going to really look? The original renderings made the back look better and more normal, the paneling doesnt look milky at all, and the ticker tape windows are not so pronounced. I almost wonder if that is enough discrepancy in the wrong direction to possibly ask HOK and the construction company redo the backside, a backside which bluntly faces our busiest thoroughfare that a huge majority of Omahans have to look at, ultimately creating a building Omaha is much happier about? Still dreaming here... (I just dont understand why HOK didnt have the sense that design wasnt fully right for that area? They normally are right on.) Since that is almost impossible to happen, Im wondering if clearing out the one-story Old Mill buildings, and putting in a squarish building similar to the one in the photo attached, which has green glass, a unique design statement like the sloping side, and lines & dashes on the facade in a chaotic order, will help make the Ameritrade look better and more suited and normal? I think it probably would... Ive also attached a photo of the Ameritrade from I-680 from the south -- a good angle & view of it. I also attached a photo of a Texas suburban office building I would have prefered the TD Ameritrade to look like -- a tallish, curvy, sleek gray glass building on that I-680 curve. That would have looked sharp for West Omaha, I think.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:53 am

Maybe like you said city officials didn’t see the northside. Right TD looks nice from the south on 680. I actually drove into old Mill today. I feel better about the building after looking at it close up. It’s a beautiful building. I just wish the northside looked like the south side then it would be that much better. I keep picturing the building in Tampa Florida near the golf of Mexico. It has a ocean green Caribbean look about it. Probably not the best look for Omaha. On a drab gray day like today it was nice to look at and think about the Ocean and warmer temps.

I also saw the three gold/brown brick Applied Underwriters buildings, these are really close to I-680. This is the company that I think is moving to West farms. So they most likely will be empty in a few years. The buildings are 2 floors and look to be still class A suburban buildings, probably built early 80’s or late 70’s. I’ve always liked how they look from the intestate with the mirrored glass windows. But nearly all the 1 story buildings will hopefully get torn down in the next decade or so. Im glad that TD built in this location, maybe they will build another building at some point. Probably Omaha’s best office park for interstate exposure.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:00 am

Cermak wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:53 am Maybe like you said city officials didn’t see the northside. Right TD looks nice from the south on 680. I actually drove into old Mill today. I feel better about the building after looking at it close up. It’s a beautiful building. I just wish the northside looked like the south side then it would be that much better. I keep picturing the building in Tampa Florida near the golf of Mexico. It has a ocean green Caribbean look about it. Probably not the best look for Omaha. On a drab gray day like today it was nice to look at and think about the Ocean and warmer temps.

I also saw the three gold/brown brick Applied Underwriters buildings, these are really close to I-680. This is the company that I think is moving to West farms. So they most likely will be empty in a few years. The buildings are 2 floors and look to be still class A suburban buildings, probably built early 80’s or late 70’s. I’ve always liked how they look from the intestate with the mirrored glass windows. But nearly all the 1 story buildings will hopefully get torn down in the next decade or so. Im glad that TD built in this location, maybe they will build another building at some point. Probably Omaha’s best office park for interstate exposure.

Lol. It is kind of a "sea foam green" color. I'm chuckling thinking about you driving in Omaha on a cold winter's day, and then passing the building on Dodge, and that green color warms/perks you up, and you hear the gleeful pattering of island/Caribbean drums in the background, and you start to jive & move in your seat, and you're whisked away in your mind to St Kitts -- for just a brief moment, then you're suddenly exiting 132nd St, and pushing around a cart in HyVee minutes later... Anyways, yes Old Mill needs a makeover. Those one-story buildings need to eventually go...

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:09 am

Have a chance to respond more... What do you think about St Paul's tallest? I like it. I wouldnt mind a building like that in Omaha from the 80's (as we missed the 80's buildings that had the dark windows and the rich red marble -- like Memphis's needled-top skyscraper). I dont think that St Paul skyscraper is fully "Omaha", though. I laugh, because my AIA Mpls- St Paul architecture guide mention's that because of the V-formation that forms by the tiered glass steps on the broad front side, the building is almost like a cobra head poised to strike the city. I get what the critic means, but my gosh, I thought I was dramatic. That analogy is a little silly and too much for a serious city guide, imo. Now, everytime I see it, I think "cobra." I almost want to write the critic and say "Thanks for making me think of some dang, fierce African SNAKE everytime I see St Paul's tallest skyscraper..." However, architecture critics use all sorts of analogies -- which I enjoy. My favorite one was what a critic said of NYC's former WTC: "So banal...not even worthy of a bank headquarters in Omaha."

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Mon Jan 28, 2019 10:28 pm

Wells Fargo Place in St Paul is nice , it would look good in Omaha. St Paul is a nice city. We have first National tower which is taller than anything they got, but they have alot of buildings around 300-350 ft. And I think overall their downtown seems a little bigger than ours. Whenever I drive through the Twin cities going north I always take 35E because the traffic isn’t as bad as 35W. 35E you get a nice view of St Paul, the interstate goes right through DT. Downtown St Paul also has some fairly tall residential towers. I hope Omaha can add a tall residential tower soon. The 11 story building at Capital district is a good start. I’m curious if Omaha can support something taller. In some ways it seems we are almost getting to many 4-5 story apartment buildings in town.They are literally all over downtown, midtown and AK village. Even Benson has one .

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:36 am

I agree; I like it. I think it works for St Paul because it has the tiered, or stair-stepping, quality you see in some of Minneapolis's skyscrapers, yet it is not all glass & flash, like Minneapolis's skyscrapers. Yet, it has beveled glass sections that do reflect the sun setting, and it has rich marble & dark windows that help tie-it in with the historic, brick & stone, more low-key aspect of St. Paul. I like the St Paul skyline, too. I do love some of their residential towers. It is definitely beefier than Omaha. It's kind of a halfway point between Omaha and Kansas City, I would say, in beefiness. It's hard to put my finger on St Paul -- it's like Fort Worth & Tacoma & Oakland, being more blue collar mixed with white collar, and lower key feeling. It's not super flashy, yet upheld by a nearby twin, flashier, glitzier "big sister", and they both balance each other out well. I truly enjoy both type cities.

Here's a great pic of the Wells Fargo building in St Paul: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/AH914T/wells- ... AH914T.jpg

Would I like that in Omaha? I think I would at least like something like it. Although that architectural era has passed, I still think those buildings are nice -- as great design of any era holds up well through time.

I like Memphis's building of similar coloring: https://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editor ... Height=600 And: https://www.emporis.com/images/show/923 ... sunset.jpg

Its almost like a modern spin-off off of Peoria's historic building, which is a perky, welcoming building that looks good in a river city, imo. They both give me a similar feeling: http://collections.carli.illinois.edu/u ... DMROTATE=0)

In the 80's, we did get the maroon twins with the dark windows. But, I'm wanting more that rich red marble look, with more pronounced bay, or sunken or recessed, dark windows. Sometimes I also want Omaha to have more a perky, welcoming building. (That sounds almost silly, but I can't find the right words to describe exactly what I mean... It's kind of similar to docking in Seattle, and having the perky & happy-seeming Smith Tower right there to welcome you to the city.)

Yes, Omaha has a lot of beautiful new urban-style housing, but nothing is all that tall (yet).

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:37 am

I’ve noticed that building in Memphis, it was built in 1985 it’s one of the relatively few newer high rises in DT. Memphis has a great stock of pre-WW2 buildings, it looked like it was a force back in the day. But hasn’t built much DT in the last 30 years. I’m not sure why this is, as I know very little about Memphis. I changed planes there once many years ago. But I’ve never been there besides then. I know it’s got a reputation problem similar to St Louis. Maybe that scares all the developers away. And Nashville continues to grow like crazy on the other end of the state.

The 1985 building is attractive, it’s only 21 floors but is 401ft, that’s good bang for your buck. They also have the Peabody hotel and Graceland, they have some famous buildings and tourists sites . And it is growing. But it grows slowly especially for a southern city. On google earth their DT looks dense. Would be a interesting city to visit and find out more about. I’ve heard they are getting a large Loews hotel DT so that should help. FedEx pyramid is impressive and they have a good looking baseball stadium right DT. The city overall has its positives. But seems to be held back by something.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:21 pm

Nashville is growing a lot more than, and is considered more attractive than, Memphis -- yes. I dont care for Nashville much, for some reason. I hate that "Batman building" that is so squatty & dramatic, up high on that clunky hill their downtown is built upon. I know its a fun city, and Ive been through there a few times. I still dont get what the "big deal" is, though. I need to spend more time there to get it, I guess. Will write more later.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:20 am

RockHarbor wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:21 pm Nashville is growing a lot more than, and is considered more attractive than, Memphis -- yes. I dont care for Nashville much, for some reason. I hate that "Batman building" that is so squatty & dramatic, up high on that clunky hill their downtown is built upon. I know its a fun city, and Ive been through there a few times. I still dont get what the "big deal" is, though. I need to spend more time there to get it, I guess. Will write more later.

Ok, since that comment Ive been to Google Earth and looked at the city closer. I'm being kinda hard on it. It is fairly neat, and they are building really slick, tall, glass condo towers all over. (In fact, there's a really tall & slick one downtown now -- and more at a distance from downtown.) The "Batman Building" is always "screaming drama" in more my memory than in actuality -- it really is a nice building in some ways. And, the moundy hill that the downtown is built on is always higher in memory than in actuality. In some ways, it is pretty how it sits a bit higher than the river, almost like an "Austin." Maybe all the "young hopefuls" and "wanna be stars" in the city bother me, their pain & disappointments felt on a "boulevard of broken dreams", like almost another "Hollywood" in the middle of Tennessee. Maybe its suits & ties & slicked back hair & rolexes and limos and big record deals and signatures signed on the dotted line happening in posh offices in glassy Nashville skyscrapers to ironically make some folky, raggamuffin girl from Arkansas, w/ a great singing voice, into a big country star -- her childhood corn doll that her hillbilly mama made her packed in her suitcase before she left, to never forget her roots, and for her superstition of good luck -- that will continue to push & project her simple "country girl lifestyle" image to sell them records, and we're all gonna buy it. Years later, living in total luxury, she owns a jet with her face & name on it, her face prettier from plastic surgery & botox, her snaggle tooth finally fixed, and she's convincing us she's "still just Jenny from the block" in a faux fur coat. Her new album "Ozarks Girl" wins an award, and everybody claps & cheers. (At least Hollywood stars dont try to sell "low key living" and act the part of simple country folks, to really "live big" at the end of the day, like Nashville stars seem to. And, that same Nashville scenerio & story is happening over & over & over...) I dont know. Something about it all doesnt appeal to me... (I do have country singers I love, though...)