Old Union Pacific Headquarters Lot

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:25 pm

I don’t get this whinging over the design being too good. You seriously want to tell an architect: “Hey, this design is too forward thinking for the city. Make it blander!” Like ya’ll.... FNB was awarded the best building of 2002 by a few different publications because of its forward thinking design. Literally no architect goes into the design process thinking to themselves “I’m going to build a generic background building so that someday, others may build centerpieces.” This building simply reflects the state of architecture of the current moment, just as FNB, Woodmen, and many others did. I’m sure 1960s versions of you thought Woodmen was super out of place and too forward thinking for Omaha then too. Jeez.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:39 pm

Would LA's Library Tower work well in Minneapolis? No. Would the Albuquerque Plaza look great in Omaha? No. (Great designs dont work well everywhere.)

An architectural "good fit" in a city comes down to many things -- shape, form, statement, appropriate level of sophistication, materials used, ect. (For example, I feel Philadelphia's Comcast Center should not have used, glossy & highly reflective glass, like many Dallas skyscrapers do, because the skyscraper's shape & form & statement works better w/ more transparent glass, imo. Just one possible mistake changes everything...imo.) There's so many variables at play w/ why architecture works, and why it doesn't work.

By the way, Omaha's FNC could kind of be in the same category as Minneapolis' Wells Fargo Tower. Yet, the FNC is a little more low-key and is not as sophisticated, imo, and not as richly embellished as rich as the Wells Fargo Tower -- which is more appropriate for Omaha. That type of thing...

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:17 pm

I would argue that after we reached the modernism period of architecture, skyscrapers became pretty homogeneous throughout the nation and, more recently, throughout the world. So save for a few minor regional nuances, I do think you could pick up modern skyscrapers from one city and place them in another and they would fit in.

This is particularly true given that most architecture firms work in a variety of markets, particularly those who do skyscrapers. Their designs are often a reflection of the ideals of the architects rather than the context of the city’s historic built environment. Burj Khalifa, for example, was designed by Chicago based architects who have noted being inspired by local Chicago buildings.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:37 pm

TitosBuritoBarn wrote: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:17 pm I would argue that after we reached the modernism period of architecture, skyscrapers became pretty homogeneous throughout the nation and, more recently, throughout the world. So save for a few minor regional nuances, I do think you could pick up modern skyscrapers from one city and place them in another and they would fit in.

This is particularly true given that most architecture firms work in a variety of markets, particularly those who do skyscrapers. Their designs are often a reflection of the ideals of the architects rather than the context of the city’s historic built environment. Burj Khalifa, for example, was designed by Chicago based architects who have noted being inspired by local Chicago buildings.

I would agree with that.

Overall, we are in a current period of exciting architecture where current new buildings are more neutral, very abstract in form, often mostly glass, and very futuristic & modern, and you could probably use them in most cities. However, I still see these designs put through a "filter" sometimes, so they aren't too much of an "odd intruder" in a city. For example: Chicago's SOM and Dubai style architecture, as you brought up. Chicago, which is like a big lakefront stage to display architecture from every era, has some Dubai-influenced architecture. However, it is still sensitively put through a "filter" so it works in Chicago. The Chicago Trump Tower is a perfect example, imo. It looks like Dubai architecture put through an American filter.

I think American cities need to be careful w/ this new architecture, although it is exciting. I question if Omaha is even ready for an example, especially one tall enough to be a "skyline changer." Seattle just got a new funky abstract glass skyscraper, which stands right next to the black tall Columbia Center skyscraper, and at some angles, I dont like how its odd shape juts up, with the Columbia behind it. Just my opinion...

Here's a pic of it: https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-cont ... 0x1553.jpg It's really cool & sharp, however, I would have preferred it standing more on the edge of downtown, viewed in full glory and its sharp angles not contrasting so much with nearby practical structures, not stuffed tightly between those skyscrapers. Location is another factor -- in getting the "design equation" fully correct. Here's that "odd upward jut" seen in the skyline now: https://photos.smugmug.com/Landscape/Wa ... Edit-L.jpg I liked Seattle better before -- as I'm sure many Seattle citizens did. Here's another picture: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4471/379 ... 94b8_b.jpg (These newest designs are really cool & edgy, but they are not very sensitive or respectful to the order of things around them, and that bothers me sometimes.)

Salt Lake City's 111 South Main would be a type of neat & safe neutral style for Omaha, I've thought since I first saw it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... h_main.jpg

https://archive.sltrib.com/images/2017/ ... 517~18.jpg (I've always liked that glass curtain wall, with this simple jut outward that's off-centered. This proposed Lanoha high rise has a glass curtain wall with this type of off-centered jut on the facade if you look closely -- that one thing I like about this new design proposed. Even a perfectly-centered, gentler V-jut would look nice on the right design.)

These are very recent and in-style suburban buildings in the Dallas area. I think a taller, urban-style version of this clean-lined type of tower (on the far left) would look nice in Downtown Omaha, maybe standing upright on a main base. I think its safe, and it would look so sharp & nice with the new Marriott, ect. (It slightly reminds me of the colors on the nice & sharp Gallup buildings on the riverfront):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano,_Te ... _Texas.jpg

https://www.granitepark.com/wp-content/ ... e-park.jpg (Another picture of it. Building on the far left. Notice the three phases of window patterns. Imagine a taller version of that in Omaha, designed more "urban style", on a square base. That's more "Omaha" to me than this new design proposed. There's something about that sharp & conservative "plaid stripes" look on squarish/rectangular buildings that works well for cities in the middle of the country.)

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:04 am

It’s honestly not that crazy of a design. It’s a relatively simple modernist pedestal skyscraper. It has a nice outdoor roof deck that Omaha really could use. It isn’t something out there like the Marina Bay Sands of Singapore. It’s a simple, appropriately progressive skyscraper that fits well with the current architectural milleu without being just a bland glass box.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:35 am

I don’t really see Chicago as having some sort of “filter” that makes a building characteristically unique to Chicago. It’s more like Chicago has always been a testing ground for new innovation in building technology and design. Skyscrapers were invented in Chicago, after all. There are some physical cues that many building in Chicago have shared, such as an implied “cornice” beltline or setback line at the 22nd story level on many buildings in the loop.

It’s not at all like there is some catalogue of pre-conceived building designs that architects choose from to plop one down in a city. (Like Sim City?) Building design is a process unique to each building that balances the owner’s needs, budget, current available technology, and the designer’s aspirations and imagination. There are some exceptions where you’ll see copies of a building get built in several places, of course, like McKim Mead & White’s Omaha National Bank building and It’s twin in KC. (Originally New York Life Insurance)

I don’t think the Trump Tower Chicago looks the way it does because Adrian Smith of SOM wanted it to look like it came from Dubai. The building’s setbacks take cues from several nearby buildings in Chicago and the materials are simply indicative of the technology available at the time. I like the building a lot except for the name on it.

Rock Harbor, I appreciate your enthusiasm toward architecture. I wish more people were interested in it. We might just be arguing from completely different points of view. Yours must be from more of a compositional pont of view, like evaluating a 3D painting or model of a city. While my point of view is more from an understanding of the process involved that make buildings happen, although I really do appreciate a good composition. It’s a never-ending process since cities are always going to be changing for better or worse.

I should add...Please let Omaha have more innovative architecture!

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:20 am

How can you not think, Chicago's Trump Tower, designed by Skidmore Owings & Merrill, which also designed Dubai's jaw-dropping-tall tower, and is the firm behind the particular look of form & materials that is now signature of Dubai, is not a sort of "Dubai style architecture put through a Chicago/American filter?" You even said the Trump Tower took cues from nearby Chicago architecture. EXACTLY. Thats just what I meant. Should they have kept the Middle Eastern flair that is present on the Dubai structure? No -- they put their Dubai design work through an American "filter" so it fit well in Chicago. There's another example of "Dubai type architecture put through an American filter" elsewhere in Chicago, and I need to track down who designed it. Its one of the tallest residential buildings in the city. (Im not sure how, but Chicago seems to make sure to fit in architectural examples from every passing era. Its a showcase of excellent designs through passing time. They even had to fit in an example of Miami style "aquatecture." How does that happen, when every building is strictly up to the architect and/or company? Futhermore, how does nearby Des Moines always seem to make a careful & thoughtful choice -- better than Omaha does? Im not convinced it works fully how you say it does.) What I say "cuts through all the bull" and makes things simple & clear & obvious. Im not clouded by high institute thinking & my statements made unclear by a bunch of fancy jargon, and my moves are not calculated & mechanical & pretentious. They are real & heartfelt & genuine. We both bring something to the table -- and I always appreciate what you have to say. (Im not saying you're that way either.) I appreciate everyone's opinions. Garrett: Great you like it. I like it, but not for Omaha. There's a million designs out there, and many that are more perfectly "Omaha" to me than this design. It just feels like something is always "off" to me with a move in Omaha, unless the Daly firm is in charge. HDR is awesome, too, but they have more a watered down "Michael Graves" or "Helmut Jahn" type thinking to me, seen in some of their designs -- which I totally appreciate. Do I need to press the "panic button" here, or call the "Omaha design police?" Sending out an S.O.S. to my favorite contextual architect, Cesar Pelli, who in my eyes, wears a suit with "CP" on his chest, and has a red cape. (Kidding.) I care a lot honestly, but Ive said more than enough here...

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:14 pm

It sounds like a struck a nerve with my last post. I did acknowledge that in Chicago there are some physical aspects of building cornice lines, belt lines, setbacks and massing that architects play off of previous existing buildings in their new designs using the latest materials. But the lastest technology and materials of the time are the main design determinate. There were exceptions during the post-modern era when architects were revisiting more historical forms. That also happened way back in the 1890s to early 1900s with the Beaux arts movement in the USA where classic Greek and Roman elements were incorporated on buildings.

Recently, Dubai has probably taken over the role of architectural testing ground or architect’s playground that Chicago once enjoyed. Big money, big owner egos and big architect’s egos make that possible. You could probably argue there is some cross-pollination going on, especially with Adrian Smith designing buildings in both locations and elsewhere in the world, but the similarities have more to do with the latest technologies and building materials being utilized than a conscious attempt to transplant a Dubai-look building to the USA.

Back to Omaha and DesMoines, in my opinion, people in DesMoines seem to have higher expectations and awareness of architectural design in general, and how they want their buildings to look, than the more conservative people in Omaha. They are likely influenced more by Chicago and MPLS than Omaha is. But that’s no reason to perpetuate a more bland architectural vocabulary here, just because that’s what we’ve always done. New buildings can still play-off the other existing buildings and add some additional excitement of their own. Daly’s did that subtly with the FNB tower playing-off the Woodmen with its massing and setbacks.

Maybe I actually agree with you somewhat about this new Lanoha building looking a bit out of place in its latest iteration. I’m hungry for some additional excitement on our skyline, but maybe they need to play with the massing a bit more to make it relate to the surrounding buildings, but they don’t need to water it down too much if at all. Let it make a statement.

WBR_Tom · Post by **WBR_Tom** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:40 pm

Update published over the noon hour in the OWH:

https://www.omaha.com/money/plus/new--s ... 2b64f.html

The highlights: one 27-story tower, one 30-story tower built in two phases. $200m price tag. 11th floor sky patio and lobby. Housing is deliberately excluded -- Lanoha doubts Omahans will pay the high rent required in this expensive of a project, so it's 100% retail and office space.

The "offset core" design is kind of intriguing.

Typically, he said, a building core (think elevators and other mechanical necessities) runs up the center of a structure. In this design, the core is offset toward the outer edge, allowing people to step off the elevator into a "wider, open, flexible space," Lanoha said.

That said, put me in the "I'll believe it when there's shovels in the ground" camp. Omaha's track record on stuff like this actually getting built is pretty poor.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:44 pm

Anything about feet height at all?

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:45 pm

Also from the Story in today’s W-H-

“It would contain two towers — stretching up to 30 stories at the highest point.”..

“If all goes as hoped, the estimated $200 million high-rise at 1416 Dodge St. also would fill a cavity that has long languished in Omaha's core.”

“The project would fulfill an unofficial commitment to city officials to erect a tall structure on the site that enhances the city's skyline. Lanoha said his company over the years has declined multiple other opportunities that didn't jibe with the goal.”

“What makes him confident the new 1416 Dodge can succeed? A top reason is an "offset cores" design that Lanoha said is new to Omaha and offers more flexibility and efficient use of space.

Typically, he said, a building core (think elevators and other mechanical necessities) runs up the center of a structure. In this design, the core is offset toward the outer edge, allowing people to step off the elevator into a "wider, open, flexible space," Lanoha said.”..

The complete story link:

https://www.omaha.com/money/plus/new--s ... 2b64f.html

Ciao..LiO...Peace

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:54 pm

GetUrban wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:14 pm It sounds like a struck a nerve with my last post. I did acknowledge that in Chicago there are some physical aspects of building cornice lines, belt lines, setbacks and massing that architects play off of previous existing buildings in their new designs using the latest materials. But the lastest technology and materials of the time are the main design determinate. There were exceptions during the post-modern era when architects were revisiting more historical forms. That also happened way back in the 1890s to early 1900s with the Beaux arts movement in the USA where classic Greek and Roman elements were incorporated on buildings.

Recently, Dubai has probably taken over the role of architectural testing ground or architect’s playground that Chicago once enjoyed. Big money, big owner egos and big architect’s egos make that possible. You could probably argue there is some cross-pollination going on, especially with Adrian Smith designing buildings in both locations and elsewhere in the world, but the similarities have more to do with the latest technologies and building materials being utilized than a conscious attempt to transplant a Dubai-look building to the USA.

Back to Omaha and DesMoines, in my opinion, people in DesMoines seem to have higher expectations and awareness of architectural design in general, and how they want their buildings to look, than the more conservative people in Omaha. They are likely influenced more by Chicago and MPLS than Omaha is. But that’s no reason to perpetuate a more bland architectural vocabulary here, just because that’s what we’ve always done. New buildings can still play-off the other existing buildings and add some additional excitement of their own. Daly’s did that subtly with the FNB tower playing-off the Woodmen with its massing and setbacks.

Maybe I actually agree with you somewhat about this new Lanoha building looking a bit out of place in its latest iteration. I’m hungry for some additional excitement on our skyline, but maybe they need to play with the massing a bit more to make it relate to the surrounding buildings, but they don’t need to water it down too much if at all. Let it make a statement.

I totally agree with you. Well said. Im glad you can see what I mean about Des Moines. Compared to Des Moines, Omaha seems/feels a little more confused and aimless on architecture, and partly clueless -- and just "out of control." Perhaps it is because Omaha is tugged between the East & West more than Des Moines -- that's my theory. But, it makes my hometown so annoying to me (and maybe thats part of why I moved away). Its just getting uglier and more clunky and more un-unified. Its embarrasing & disheartening. They are covering the statement of the twins, ruining the trademark postcard view. Out of control! (Imo.) (I didnt like saying "Dubai style" as the SOM giant isnt officially "Dubai style", but that building has a glassy/silvery look that really started first in Dubai.) I would love if Omaha got a sharp & high-tech building with clean-lined white stripes, like this newer building in Portland. It looks so good with all their beautiful lush greenery... (Basically any squarish building w/ clean lines & white, would work in Omaha, probably...)

skinzfan23 · Post by **skinzfan23** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:54 pm

Great job Jacob....beat the World Herald by 4 days with the story!

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:40 pm

skinzfan23 wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:54 pm Great job Jacob....beat the World Herald by 4 days with the story!

Agree completely. Nice work “scooping” the W-H Jacob!..

The W-H story is very good and colors in quite a bit of detail regarding the project..

It’s an exciting and ambitious plan.. Let’s hope it comes to fruition...

Ciao..LiO..Peace

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:57 pm

So it looks like it will be built on top of a parking garage. And just retail and office space. I think the design is decent, reminds me a little of something you might see in Phoenix. I love the fact that the site is already cleared and ready to go. Hopefully it can be on some sort of fast track. Anything that gets pushed out to far is often set up for failure. Omaha really needs this to happen, even if it’s scaled back in size and scope a little. But hopefully that won’t be necessary. After the Wallstreet debacle people are understandably skittish. Even when PJ Morgan was mayor many years ago he proposed a highrise condo with a Minneapolis developer on the south side of GLM. That failed as well, so the list of failed projects is long for Omaha . I like that Lanoha is attached to this project as they seem like a good company. Who owns that land now I’m wondering, the city?

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:03 pm

Lanoha’s company purchased that entire city block back in 2014...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:20 pm

Thats great that Lanoha already owns the land, one less hoop to jump thru. Hopefully Douglas County board won’t have to deal with this, they have a way of making things difficult.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:40 pm

I'll believe it when I see it. It wouldnt surprise me if this is all just suddenly "pulled out of a hat" to sway people to stay in Omaha. (Now that their originally off-limits OWH article is now strangely open to the public just hours later, I can confirm that it is about that -- at least partly.) In fact, I felt a story like this would break soon, and it did.

Im happy Omaha is getting a new building. I dont hate it, think it is a sharp design, and I think the two tower seperated construction is kinda cool. But, Im afraid it will look like some flashy "flash cube" on the skyline w/ hefty, heavy, wide cement portions. Come on. Is that right for Omaha?

Anyways, how about I say: "I love it!!" Will that make some of you hate it suddenly, or not want it built? I wouldnt doubt it. I just want the best for Omaha, and I dont feel this design is it. But, whatever, a clunky odd skyline can only be blamed on the city that approved each step of it -- nobody else.

Doctor Fate · Post by **Doctor Fate** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 10:59 pm

At the bottom of that OWH article it says via Emporis that Elmwood Tower is only 255 ft?

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:01 pm

I think that’s incorrect about Elmwood tower. I thought it was 320 ft. It looks to tall for just 255.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:40 pm

255 makes more sense than 320. The odds of that style building from that era having over 14 foot floors is pretty low.

buildomaha · Post by **buildomaha** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:11 am

Elm wood tower is technically the second “highest” building in the city because it sits on one of the higher places in East O. I remember watching a video from the local news where they interviewed residents of the building and they made sure to point that out. That’s why it seems so much taller than it truly is.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:19 am

The Elmwood Tower is 320’ tall...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmwood_Tower

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:53 am

GetUrban wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:19 am The Elmwood Tower is 320’ tall...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmwood_Tower

Wiki isn't exactly gospel. The reference on the bottom of the page says 255.5'

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:55 am

iamjacobm wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:40 pm 255 makes more sense than 320. The odds of that style building from that era having over 14 foot floors is pretty low.

But it would need to have approx 12’ Floor to floor height for 21 floors if it was only 255’ high. In the photos of the steel while it was under construction show more height on the bottom two floors. Maybe by the time you add on the mechanical penthouse on top it gets up to 320’. 320’ was quoted in an old Mike Kelley OWH article. Surely he researched it well, I would guess.

The floor-to-floor heights do look pretty short for the majority of the floors though. Someone needs to go measure it to be sure.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:58 am

Maybe it isn’t 320, it must be on a big hill because it shows up nicely. Especially from 90th and Dodge and 75th and Pacific. It looks pretty tall from those locations.

GetUrban · Post by **GetUrban** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:10 am

Cermak wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:58 am Maybe it isn’t 320, it must be on a big hill because it shows up nicely. Especially from 90th and Dodge and 75th and Pacific. It looks pretty tall from those locations.

Link to old Mike Kelley OWH story below. The top is higher than the Woodmen since the Elmwood tower (AKA Masonic Manor) sits on a hill that is over 210’ higher than the river.

https://www.omaha.com/news/metro/kelly- ... 386fd.html

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:28 am

The BEST design for that lot presented so far was the original Wall Street Tower. It was tall-ish. It was slender. It was light & airy. It was glossy. It was graceful. It was sharp. It had nice lines. It was proportional. If that was the design presented currently, you wouldn't hear any complaint out of me. What the heck happened??

Reminder of a job well done, a reminder of what could have been: https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnew ... 1200%2C800

Question: What other city has such large, enormous, strange, cube-ish downtown buildings out there (big fat cubes repeated several times)? I can't think of ONE. Yet, "lil' Omaha Nebraska", in the center of the country, thinks it looks good. News flash: It doesn't. Do you see any other city doing it? If so, bring ALL the examples here. You can't bring them -- because they are not found. Even Phoenix -- short boxy building central, where the skyline can't seem to ever quite come together right -- doesn't even have an awkward big cube building, or awkward fat cubes buildings, like that. That should tell you all something very loud & clear. It's that simple -- and I mean that simple. It's not about opposing me, or other voices, here -- it's about opposing the NORM out there. Get a clue -- please.

You want to attract and keep young people/talent in Omaha? Then, don't make the "kids" live in the "odd house in the neighborhood" that obviously has no taste or design/color sense. There's always one -- it seems. And, the neighbors hate it -- and so do the kids that have to live there, when the school bus pulls up to it.

Busguy2010 · Post by **Busguy2010** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:31 am

Cermak wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:58 am Maybe it isn’t 320, it must be on a big hill because it shows up nicely. Especially from 90th and Dodge and 75th and Pacific. It looks pretty tall from those locations.

Just a quick jaunt, my current favorite intersection to view the eastern city from is 75th and Hickory. Check it out some time.

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:56 am

Centre village in Minneapolis big and bulky 276 ft tall.

I’ll take it.

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:56 am

The story of the proposed tower from the KETV web site. I like the lead picture.. It shows how the new proposed high rise sits along the skyline. It looks great!-

https://www.ketv.com/article/bold-plan- ... r/26147283

Ciao..LiO...Peace

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:07 am

Omaha Cowboy wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:56 am The story of the proposed tower from the KETV web site. I like the lead picture.. It shows how the new proposed high rise sits along the skyline. It looks great!-

https://www.ketv.com/article/bold-plan- ... r/26147283

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Why cant they show it from ALL angles? I dont want to see it just from that angle anymore. I wanna circle it. I wanna analyze it. Whats it gonna look like from the riverfront? The backside? Computers are too sophiscated to provide one basic directional angle to the public. (Are they comfortable & confident w/ how it looks at every angle?) Also, renderings often look different from the finished product, when it comes to these buildings. Thats a concern to have, too... (Think: "Ameritrade.")

buildomaha · Post by **buildomaha** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:24 pm

Not a huge fan of this design, although I think they can pull it off if they choose the right materials and interesting lighting will be necessary at night if they really want the vibe they say they are going for.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:08 pm

Based on the article it sounds like they wanted the ability to phase in a second tower if they can get the rest of the building going sooner. Pretty smart design to have the shared center stack ready to go and have the ability to add on as demand comes.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:20 pm

buildomaha wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:24 pm Not a huge fan of this design, although I think they can pull it off if they choose the right materials and interesting lighting will be necessary at night if they really want the vibe they say they are going for.

THANK YOU.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:25 pm

iamjacobm wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:08 pm Based on the article it sounds like they wanted the ability to phase in a second tower if they can get the rest of the building going sooner. Pretty smart design to have the shared center stack ready to go and have the ability to add on as demand comes.

Definitely. It’s an innovative design that’s not been done before, and I’m especially excited for the sky patio concept. I’m a little disappointed there’s no residential components. I feel like something like this would be able to easily charge the highest rents or the most expensive condos in the market, but I also don’t know what the downtown occupancy rate for residential is at right now. I’m also curious what that concrete core will look like from Dodge, given we’ve only seen the northern perspective.

daveoma · Post by **daveoma** » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:09 am

Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:26 pm I looked at the Lanoha web site & there's nothing there about this development. As recent events show, that in and of itself doesn't mean much. On the other hand, IF the Holland Basham page is current and this is truly a new design ordered by Lanoha it MAY bode well for the project.

Maybe they're dangling the project in front of the public and the city government to see how much tax incentives they'll get. If the public loves it, then the government will be more likely to give corporate subsidies to the project. If it's sufficiently profitable, then Lanoha will commence with construction.

Regarding the design, I love the height, the glass, and I LOVE the outdoor deck, but I hate that parking garage on the bottom. It's so ugly. Perhaps they can consult the community of artists in Omaha to get some ideas to make it looks a little less Warsaw Pact circa 1988.

Foundations · Post by **Foundations** » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:32 pm

Their Millard project was 60% full about 3 months ago.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:18 pm

Lahona is behind this building. Some people like it, some people dont. I dont like it for Omaha. I hope they tweak it to better fit in Omaha. Lahona is the developer. Lahona is an Omaha-based developer. The building is glass. It has a patio. Hmmm...what else is there to say perfectly on subject? Not much. (This is getting ridiculous. Is that the kind of simple & boring converstion we are to have here? The great conversation snipped and thrown away, now missing, relating just fine, was time-consuming for us to share & thoughtful -- and now gone, and I dont see it placed anywhere yet. This forum is slow & boring enough as it is. No wonder. It feels like "nuns w/ rulers" are walking back & forth along our desks.)

legato9 · Post by **legato9** » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:32 pm

It would fit in Omaha mich better if it was beige. Maybe with some brick around the bottom. And ideally it would have the dimensions of a scaled-up shoebox.

I feel like this building has too much visual interest for Omaha. I mean, it’s slightly asymmetrical. How dare they?! And it has three - THREE - separate masses!

And - this bears repeating - IT. ISN’T. BEIGE. It won’t disappear into the flat beige landscape of Nebraska, leaving the viewer with the notion that maybe it isn’t there at all. Maybe it was just a figment of their imagination.

Omaha must defend its status as the most architecturally bland and thoughtless plot of land this side of a Soviet housing development!