City Architecture

[Linkin5]

Cermak! Rockharbor! *Squirts with spray bottle* Get back into your tangent thread!

[Cermak]

Sorry about that,I could tell I was drifting away from the topic at hand. Now back to Lanoha. I’m going right now to buy a World-herald .To look at all the pictures of the project on something besides my phone or laptop. Just like the old days..

[Garrett]

Cermak! Rockharbor! *Squirts with spray bottle* Get back into your tangent thread!

Haha! Good idea. Maybe we should just put a “Thread’O’Tangents” in the bar and grille.

[RockHarbor]

So many words... so little substance.

Well, "strong & silent" might work in your house & family & with your little kiddies who look up to their daddy, but it doesnt work on a forum, now does it? Unless we are a bunch of "mind readers" gathered here. If you are not taking a jab at me with the caption "so many words", then who are you, Stargazer? "So many words" cant be critical of everyone -- as any thread has many words, and that criticism wouldnt make sense here. Little substance, eh? Would you like me to join City Data and take jabs at Omaha with my "many words, no substance" quality? Believe me, there would be noticably less "Excitement Building on the Plains" on the Nebraska Plains in no time, Im sure of it - and I dont even know why, really. No matter how much you want to deny a person, or maybe deny something you know they possess, you're better off to leave certain people alone, or be truly honest when you do confront that person, or talk about them with others -- or you'll only make the "tangle in the web" worse. People try yawn-worthy "elementary games" to make me think the opposite of what is true -- all the time. Do people do that to you? You dont walk up to Marilyn Monroe at 40 years old, and tell her she isnt, and was never, pretty. You know? It just doesnt work at that point -- after all the obvious evidence to the contrary that has passed in her life. (To think I talked about you good in another thread recently. I should have never put you "on the spot." I thought you were gone... After I learned you were here, I knew it would backfire. Now, how about that City Data forum?)

I love a point proven.

The only reason you've always hated me, and I can even bring the surprising "evil claws" out of supposedly "nice guy" Eomaha is because of what I have -- something which you both unfortunately don't have. The "Me vs Them" that always comes about, without me even trying, even when Im perfectly nice, respectful, and logical (and not cutting forumers down, like you both have stooped to), is quite a compliment to me -- in itself. If the point was really proven, you wouldnt do this aggressive & annoying "silly little dance" around me all the time, beating your chest, trying sooo hard. (Lol. Your very own actions betray what you say is true. Duh.) Let me guess: People wont care what mean things you & Eomaha say to me, but they will have "tunnel focus" on what I say & do back in my defense. Thats happened my entire life. That shows I have the "substance" here, not you... My point is proven by the actions & attitudes that often play out around me. What about your point? (You both dont worry or bother me in the slightest bit. Keep trying. Soak in and learn this saying, Garrett: "People always try & tackle the person they see carrying the ball." It's that simple. We can all claim what we want, but our actions reveal what the truth really is. People try to tackle me -- not you, not Stargazer. And, you've both been guilty and part of that ugly cycle. That speaks in itself. DUH. I'm not gonna "dumb myself down" to make you both happy either. Please stay away from me... Thx.)

[GetUrban]

Cermak! Rockharbor! *Squirts with spray bottle* Get back into your tangent thread!

Haha! Good idea. Maybe we should just put a “Thread’O’Tangents” in the bar and grille.

That's not an bad idea. Maybe add a "link to tangent discussions" within the thread, when things start going off the immediate topic, to preserve the integrity of the main thread topic. It used to be the unrelated stuff was simply deleted from the thread by moderators. That's happened to me a few times, but not so much lately.

On the new Lanoha design, I think if people could hear more details from the architects/designers, they might better understand the process that resulted in the current design being what it is. The OWH hints at some of the rationale, but I'm sure there is more to the story. People always have an initial "gut feeling" opinion on whether they like a design or not, but that opinion can evolve once more details come out.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

[Erik]

So many words... so little substance.

What is your problem? You don't have to like him, or anyone, but we should treat all people with a level of respect.

Amazes me how adults never learn this, yet demand it from others.

[GrandpaaSmucker]

Unless I am mistaken Lanoha is the same Developer that was going to make old downtown Millard great again. They were talking trash and lies and smoke and mirrors about how there were going to bring to Millard restaurants and shops and nightlife and people having fun and la la la la la. It didn't work out that way and instead they built rows of hideously ugly apartments with a police station on one end of it and a dead strip mall that has a bar in it and a Dunkin Donuts. I trust this Lanoha outfit about as much as I do that low life landlord that is trying to get Tiffs to build some apts downtown.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Unless I am mistaken Lanoha is the same Developer that was going to make old downtown Millard great again. They were talking trash and lies and smoke and mirrors about how there were going to bring to Millard restaurants and shops and nightlife and people having fun and la la la la la. It didn't work out that way and instead they built rows of hideously ugly apartments with a police station on one end of it and a dead strip mall that has a bar in it and a Dunkin Donuts. I trust this Lanoha outfit about as much as I do that low life landlord that is trying to get Tiffs to build some apts downtown.

Oh Grandpa. You sound like one of those stereotypical millennials the media is always discussing who expect instant gratification. One development isn’t going to solve Millard’s problems and I don’t think anyone expected it would. It happens overtime from momentum built.

If that’s what you got from the plan for the project, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you. I think we can put some faith in Lanoha.

[Omaha Cowboy]

I think some simply need to take a step back and realize, this is an early proposal rendering. There is a very good, almost definite chance, if this project actually gets off the ground, aesthetic changes in the building dynamics will likely take place..

I come back to one simple point- this old site has laid dormant since the city finally bulldozed the old UP building in 2008.. Its been an eyesore for over a decade.. I’m simply VERY pleased to see Lanoha come up with a bold, sustainable and skyline changing proposal..

30 days ago, we looked at that city block and saw brown.. a lot of brown.. And not a lot of hope- opportunity lost.. Now, as least, we have something.. and it’s an exciting high rise proposal. I’m much happier about this block moving forward.. than I’ve been for the past 11 years..and again- that’s something. And it’s better than a big, brown, vacant downtown city block...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[Stvbec74]

I think some simply need to take a step back and realize, this is an early proposal rendering. There is a very good, almost definite chance, if this project actually gets off the ground, aesthetic changes in the building dynamics will likely take place..

I come back to one simple point- this old site has laid dormant since the city finally bulldozed the old UP building in 2008.. Its been an eyesore for over a decade.. I’m simply VERY pleased to see Lanoha come up with a bold, sustainable and skyline changing proposal..

30 days ago, we looked at that city block and saw brown.. a lot of brown.. And not a lot of hope- opportunity lost.. Now, as least, we have something.. and it’s an exciting high rise proposal. I’m much happier about this block moving forward.. than I’ve been for the past 11 years..and again- that’s something. And it’s better than a big, brown, vacant downtown city block...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

You’ve made a very good point!

[Busguy2010]

I think some simply need to take a step back and realize, this is an early proposal rendering. There is a very good, almost definite chance, if this project actually gets off the ground, aesthetic changes in the building dynamics will likely take place..

I come back to one simple point- this old site has laid dormant since the city finally bulldozed the old UP building in 2008.. Its been an eyesore for over a decade.. I’m simply VERY pleased to see Lanoha come up with a bold, sustainable and skyline changing proposal..

30 days ago, we looked at that city block and saw brown.. a lot of brown.. And not a lot of hope- opportunity lost.. Now, as least, we have something.. and it’s an exciting high rise proposal. I’m much happier about this block moving forward.. than I’ve been for the past 11 years..and again- that’s something. And it’s better than a big, brown, vacant downtown city block...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

I was thinking the same thing. Awful lot of arguing over a bunch of FAKE NEWS. I like the insight RockHarbor brings to the table, but I thought this one wasn't worth it, given the well known fact this isn't going to happen

[RockHarbor]

I think some simply need to take a step back and realize, this is an early proposal rendering. There is a very good, almost definite chance, if this project actually gets off the ground, aesthetic changes in the building dynamics will likely take place..

I come back to one simple point- this old site has laid dormant since the city finally bulldozed the old UP building in 2008.. Its been an eyesore for over a decade.. I’m simply VERY pleased to see Lanoha come up with a bold, sustainable and skyline changing proposal..

30 days ago, we looked at that city block and saw brown.. a lot of brown.. And not a lot of hope- opportunity lost.. Now, as least, we have something.. and it’s an exciting high rise proposal. I’m much happier about this block moving forward.. than I’ve been for the past 11 years..and again- that’s something. And it’s better than a big, brown, vacant downtown city block...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

I was thinking the same thing. Awful lot of arguing over a bunch of FAKE NEWS. I like the insight RockHarbor brings to the table, but I thought this one wasn't worth it, given the well known fact this isn't going to happen

Gee, thanks for that. I realize I do talk too much sometimes, and am often misunderstood, but I have my legitimate points, I think. I make sure they are logical. For example, nobody can prove me wrong that Omaha's current "cube madness" is sort of strange -- when cube-shaped buildings are hardly anywhere to be found out there in the USA. (This would be the third cube-ish building in Omaha: 1) The UP Headquarters 2) The newer building w/ the blue ring on 72nd & Mercy.) Those are nice enough, but I feel we've had enough. I just don't get all this. Am I supposed to stay quiet on that?

Notice, I don't hardly talk on things I'm not that proficient in -- like politics and street/pedestrian/traffic flow, and city bus line routes, ect. I'm totally clueless in that category, and I'm amazed at all I miss. So, I enjoy hearing what people with those "smarts" have to say.

I'm no true architect (and I don't regret not being one either). I don't want to be one. I truly respect any true architect out there, that has more technical/institutional knowledge than me, even forumers here, and I love hearing what they have to say. I have worked in the design field, though --- and my boss (a great designer) always approved and agreed with my work, and said nice things to me about my sense. I also notice my viewpoints & thinking often matches mighty architect's praises or criticisms on a particular building. I simply love design and architecture, and actually have nearly a growing bank of 5000 shuffled (personal, average) images flash my way each day, like some major "catalog" of great designs -- urban & suburban houses & apartments, new & old houses, urban & suburban buildings, skyscrapers & skylines, urban parks, malls, strip centers, ect. My point: I simply love design & architecture. And, I want Omaha to get the best. That's all.

[Busguy2010]

Am I supposed to stay quiet on that?

Absolutely not. This is what the forum is for. I notice the forum can get quite dry at times (especially when there are no project announcements being made) and you are often one to add something else to talk about.

The subtleties (to me, obviously they're not subtle to you) in the differences of the building designs blows right over my head. That's why I didn't understand the griping about it. I think its a good looking building. Also, TD Ameritrade is one of my favorite buildings, one which I hold a huge minority opinion of. So I guess it might be subjective.

[RockHarbor]

Am I supposed to stay quiet on that?

Absolutely not. This is what the forum is for. I notice the forum can get quite dry at times (especially when there are no project announcements being made) and you are often one to add something else to talk about.

The subtleties (to me, obviously they're not subtle to you) in the differences of the building designs blows right over my head. That's why I didn't understand the griping about it. I think its a good looking building. Also, TD Ameritrade is one of my favorite buildings, one which I hold a huge minority opinion of. So I guess it might be subjective.

Thanks...

I love the Ameritrade how it is -- just not in Old Mill, with its angled back facing Dodge. I would love it plopped in Aksarben, square with the little grid, then I would be happy with it. HOK sharp firm designed it -- and I "get" their trendy design. But, designs also need to be tweaked for the area they are in, to be perfect and crowd-pleasing, imo. In Old Mill, I feel the backside should match the front, and the ticker tape design just left down the narrower sides. I've said that a million times here... Anyways. Thanks!

[RockHarbor]

Thanks, Erik. I so agree. With how chattery I can be, I dont put forumers personally down here. So, when I'm criticized, I naturally pull out the "boxing gloves." Since I'm sometimes verbally tackled on a forum, and have to take that "heat" sometimes, and I even have to occassionally & silently deal w/ one of my too-real and too-poignant, and thus, too-uncomfortable, comments removed here once in a great while through the years (and after a strange feeling & a gulp, I usually dont say a word or protest it, because I know why), it is understandable I roll my eyes, and I get defensive, towards a set of guys that team up & high-five each other, ones that all laugh, and say I have no "substance." Those things dont happen to a foumer if that were true. In fact, with the copy-and-paste transported over here tonight, my main & best & most satisfying defensive comment today was dropped, and "swept under the rug" while the others' were all allowed to stay. FINE -- I'm used to it. Funny how one of their comments allowed to stay, and pasted here, says they loved the point about me proven. The annoying irony! (The ONLY thing proven by them was that three guys dont like me here. That fact doesnt undermine my claims/points, though -- it only adds to them. But, funny, all my claims/points undermine their claims/points.) Anyways, back to city architecture...

[RockHarbor]

.

[RockHarbor]

Right, Centre village is not the most exciting building in DT Minneapolis, in fact it looks to be almost an experiment, as I don’t see any other buildings DT like it. At one time a Embassy suites was in it but they moved somewhere else. It’s very close to the Thrivent building, another building I think would look good in Omaha. But Centre village came to mind when I saw the renderings of Lanoha project. Minneapolis was probably trying to get some height and bulk in that eastern part of DT. It seems the western part of DT as well as Nicollet mall is the most vibrant part of The CBD. Who knows maybe Centre village will Be imploded someday and replaced with something better. Wouldn’t surprise me. This is Minneapolis we are talking about, besides Chicago it’s probably the next most concerned about its image and brand in the Midwest. A late footnote here; After looking on google earth again I did find Marina city buildings in Chicago are built on top of parking garages. Austin Texas seems to have some as well. Marina city was built back in the 60’s and was sorta a milestone for urban development at the time. Two sixty story tubular buildings, still unique to Chicago. DT Austin is like a Mecca for new highrises, most look to be hotels and residential, unbelievable.

I'm so glad this comment was brought over here, because I wanted to respond to it, but I didnt dare with the "squirt bottle" comment. First off, I understand your mixed feelings about below parking adding height to a building. I dont always love the look of it, especially if they dont hide it well, but I also feel it is sometimes practical and responsible not having a seperate shorter parking lot taking up valuable room in a tight, dense downtown. It is very urban. I like Omaha's Hyatt Place for that parking reason, plus the look & colors of it. It fits in very nicely, imo. Chicago's Marina City is iconic in a way. Funny, I feel they work well in that Midwest metropolis because they kind of remind of corn cobs. The Minneapolis building: Funny, I have an aerial postcard pic of Minneapolis, and its right there, below the chopper. I cant believe Ive never really arrowed in on it -- my attention always pulled to the flashier structures nearby. I like how it is mammoth & long & bulky and feels very urban solid. Yet, Im still checking it out more.

[daveoma]

Unless I am mistaken Lanoha is the same Developer that was going to make old downtown Millard great again. They were talking trash and lies and smoke and mirrors about how there were going to bring to Millard restaurants and shops and nightlife and people having fun and la la la la la. It didn't work out that way and instead they built rows of hideously ugly apartments with a police station on one end of it and a dead strip mall that has a bar in it and a Dunkin Donuts. I trust this Lanoha outfit about as much as I do that low life landlord that is trying to get Tiffs to build some apts downtown.

Do you know if the apartments are mostly rented or if they're mostly vacant?

[Athomsfere]

My random thoughts:

I'm not in love with the design, but seeing the renderings against FNBT and the rest of the city I like it more.
I'd prefer the two towers look more independent and maybe a skybridge or even a Marina Bay Sands approach.

I'd also say: Let any developer go as bold as they want! I used to think there was merit to buildings adding or borrowing from their host cities. Tokyo to me proved this. You see row after row of buildings with random design elements. Most have aged pretty poorly. I've been to something like a dozen cities in Japan and it's pretty universal: The buildings follow any random design element. Akibahara in Tokyo for example has perhaps the worlds ugliest building ever: SEGA.

But I remember that building. When I am explaining "Otaku", or asked about certain sterotypes I remember vividly this building.

The city that changed my mind: Amsterdam.

Most people probably stay near the old downtown, near The Dam, but go to the new downtown and everybuilding is sort of short, and unique. An elementary school made of wood or bamboo, an office building with round windows. Dyson's HQ looks like a Hollywood mansion, a kindergarten looks like an old A-Frame house... It is possible to see a city as a collection of artist's masterpieces and not an artist's collections.

A 3rd point, I am currently in Honolulu. It is a sea of homogeneous high rises. It looks great as a whole, but no one will ever remember 99% of the buildings. The exceptions are things like the Royal Hawaiin, an old pink hotel.

In fact, Honolulu might be the modern equivalent of the Jobbers Canyon. A bunch of ugly buildings that are only interesting as a whole.

At the end of the day, this new Lanoha building isn't the best looking building, and with Lanoha's record so far I'm pretty sure this won't happen. But if it does I'd argue it should push Omaha more to the future. Let the architect do whatever crazy things they wish, as long as it isn't tacky like a Las Vegas Hotel. (Las Vegas, geez what an ugly terrible city!)

[GrandpaaSmucker]

Unless I am mistaken Lanoha is the same Developer that was going to make old downtown Millard great again. They were talking trash and lies and smoke and mirrors about how there were going to bring to Millard restaurants and shops and nightlife and people having fun and la la la la la. It didn't work out that way and instead they built rows of hideously ugly apartments with a police station on one end of it and a dead strip mall that has a bar in it and a Dunkin Donuts. I trust this Lanoha outfit about as much as I do that low life landlord that is trying to get Tiffs to build some apts downtown.

Do you know if the apartments are mostly rented or if they're mostly vacant?

By the looks of it I would say the apts are not even close to half full.

[Cermak]

Hyatt Place in the Old Market shot up real fast, no controversy or anything. Douglas County board, nobody, I never heard any objections or gripes about it. Champaign Illinois has a similar Hyatt Place downtown and Austin as well. Austin’s is taller and looks even nicer than ours. Austin seems to have about every major business traveler hotel chain you can think of downtown and they all look fairly new. Austin and Nashville are both growing like crazy, poor Memphis. But Memphis has Elvis, perhaps the greatest entertainer ever.

I wonder if the people of Austin have grown immune to all the tall buildings being built the past few years and don’t hardly pay attention to them anymore ? I know after U.P. got built I thought we might see another downtown highrise fairly soon, but that was it for a long time. We did add Hyatt Place and the two buildings at the capitol district so that was good. But now we want more.

[RockHarbor]

I just dont get the mindset of letting a developer or architect "do what they want" on a city skyline (even in Chicago or NYC, which have more allowance for a building unique & different, because they have enough stock of ordinary & basic buildings around). For example, Marina City is cool & iconic in Chicago, but it would laughably & sadly ruin the Omaha or Des Moines skyline, if placed there. Especially the idea of a developer gives me the main concern, as he/she likely doesnt have the design knack, or sense, an architect has. And, we aren't talking the risk of a "bad decorator" here, in which their "all wrong" room can simply be redone -- we are talking a "permanent scar" building on the skyline, one which citizens have to look at & live with everyday.

Now, thankfully, architects all have different mindsets as individual people, and they all dont think inside the same ole' box. Therefore, it is exciting what different people/firms can come up with -- one firm coming up with a great design that looks spectacular at first glance, then another firm suddenly releasing & submitting another great design that strikes you as more right & perfect for the city, making the other design fade quickly. That's why I think architectural contests are very important, if you want to have the best chance of finding & landing the best design for your town. I also think cities should have sharp & keen-sensed design committees, that stamp "approved" or "not approved" before the design actually gets built. (It almost seems like Omaha has one filter, while cities like Chicago & Minneapolis & even Des Moines have two in place, to catch & stop a wrong/bad design. I wonder.)

Let the developer do what they want? Is that not a sweeping statement that sets one up to be easily proved wrong when the right scenerio comes along? What IF the developer wants to put a "Christmas Tree Skyscraper" on the Omaha skyline, because he looooved Christmas as a kid, and it would give him great joy to be around those feelings of nostalgia everyday? Ugh, NO. What a nightmare. That is kind of a ridiculous & extreme example, but my point is: Where do you draw the line? (If you're gonna draw a line, then why not place it very tightly in, to ensure skyline perfection will result -- like Minneapolis, ect. Now, however, if San Francisco had drawn too tight & strict of line, they may have never allowed the TransAmerica Pyramid. Greatly protested by citizens at first, it is now an iconic & much loved architectural symbol of San Francisco, and I cant imagine the city without it. Yet, a quirky & zany CA city, like San Francisco, can pull that Googie style skyscraper off ok -- along with the tapering shape being justifed in an active earthquake zone.)

Also: When an architect gets a building just right for the particular city, to me, it may sound silly, and maybe it is, but it almost feels like the skyscraper was woven into time, like it was meant to be, like the city was ready & waiting for it to appear, finally reaching the right time & decade for it. I realize they are just manmade buildings, but that's what Omaha's FNC Building felt like to me. Growing up, I dreamed of Omaha having a taller building than the Woodmen. I would sketch pictures, coming up with different ideas. People would say "I doubt Omaha will get a taller building than the Woodmen Tower..." I felt disheartened & frustrated. Then, Des Moines got their Principle Insurance tower around 1990. I was happy for them, but, my gosh, what about Omaha?!?! Nearly a decade later, Omaha finally got their turn. When I first saw the full page cover of the OWH, and I saw the FNC rendering, I saw a perfectly formed & molded & shaped skyscraper for Omaha, a brand new statement for the city, yet taking cues from the existing & the original around it, and I knew it was perfect in that moment, although I never pictured it before that moment. I thought something like: "There it is. THERE IT IS!!!" (I feel the same about Philly's Liberty Place buildings, which were designed & built immediately after the city's height restriction was lifted. It was almost like they were poised & ready to rise up, and grace the city with a new, long-awaited look, when they finally were given the permission to do so.)

Architecture is so important to get right. People talk about the "power of architecture", so therefore, it can have a power & effect either way, if the building is totally right or totally wrong. I've also read "Good architecture creates a better quality of life." I agree with that simply by the fact most people like living in and visiting a city with prettier buildings vs uglier buildings.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Developers develop buildings as a business. They have people who evaluate supply and demand. They employ architects, either internally or as contract employees, to design the buildings for them. Cities have a set of guidelines that dictate what buildings can and cannot look like. They have been assembled by a range of people that may or may not include city officials, planners, architects, engineers, etc. and are typically put out for public comment and approved by the city. Zoning laws assembled by a similar group of people serve a similar purpose. The guidelines are often vague enough for creativity but specific enough to achieve a certain level of design. This is dependent on the goals of the city. Guidelines and zoning laws vary greatly from city to city. The city reviews all plans to ensure it meets the requirements of these guidelines and zoning laws which may or may not give concern to how the skyline looks from far away.

[GetUrban]

Developers develop buildings as a business. They have people who evaluate supply and demand. They employ architects, either internally or as contract employees, to design the buildings for them. Cities have a set of guidelines that dictate what buildings can and cannot look like. They have been assembled by a range of people that may or may not include city officials, planners, architects, engineers, etc. and are typically put out for public comment and approved by the city. Zoning laws assembled by a similar group of people serve a similar purpose. The guidelines are often vague enough for creativity but specific enough to achieve a certain level of design. This is dependent on the goals of the city. Guidelines and zoning laws vary greatly from city to city. The city reviews all plans to ensure it meets the requirements of these guidelines and zoning laws which may or may not give concern to how the skyline looks from far away.

Exactly. That sums up how the process actually works very well. In every city, there are a series of steps that must be taken in the process, with ample opportunities for approval or rejection that would keep an Architect from running rampant with their own design. An exception might be Frank Gehry, but he’s been around long enough for people to know what to expect before they hire him. His work is as much art as it is architecture.

[RockHarbor]

Developers develop buildings as a business. They have people who evaluate supply and demand. They employ architects, either internally or as contract employees, to design the buildings for them. Cities have a set of guidelines that dictate what buildings can and cannot look like. They have been assembled by a range of people that may or may not include city officials, planners, architects, engineers, etc. and are typically put out for public comment and approved by the city. Zoning laws assembled by a similar group of people serve a similar purpose. The guidelines are often vague enough for creativity but specific enough to achieve a certain level of design. This is dependent on the goals of the city. Guidelines and zoning laws vary greatly from city to city. The city reviews all plans to ensure it meets the requirements of these guidelines and zoning laws which may or may not give concern to how the skyline looks from far away.

Thank you for explaining that to us here. I figured that kind of "chain of command" existed, but wasn't sure about the details... Now, I respect Omaha's professionals in these areas, but I still dont understand the city approving a large, fat, beefy green cube to sit next to the new FNC? I like UP, and their HQ building is beautiful & sharp in many ways, but it could have been tweaked to be more proportional & normal in shape. I dont feel Minneapolis or Des Moines would have approved that building. (Again, my point is proven with the fact that cube-shaped buildings arent typical or seen around hardly.) Then, we have the Ameritrade -- which many Omahans hate. So, I'm losing confidence in their judgement -- I think. I almost wish they could let the people appointed in Minneapolis take a look, too, before Omaha ever makes an architectural move. But, I know that's not gonna happen... (Using Des Moines probably would be too humbling for Omaha, with the direct "sister city" race & competition. Nearby "Omaha friendly" Kansas City has wonderful design taste, but they, along with St Louis, can pull off more fanciful & graceful Midwest architecture than Omaha & Des Moines, being more on the edge of the South/Ozarks -- so their architectural mindset seems a little different to me. Plus, Minneapolis & Des Moines seem more influenced by the "Chicago School" way of thought, more plainer & prairie-based design which I feel is more appropriate for Omaha, then Kansas City & St Louis designs.)

[RockHarbor]

Yes, I love those cute Hyatt Places springing up in many cities. Ive seen ones that are a bit sharper than Omaha's, but I do think Omaha's is a perfect fit. To create its color scheme on the facade, its almost like the architect/designer took a picture of the Old Market, and used a Photoshop touch-pen to grab the exact tone of colors found in immediate local buildings, then used the Photoshop paint bucket to spill those colors onto the buildings facade. Its just a perfect & snug fit into the Old Market. I think they did a great & outstanding job. I actually love being on that particular corner/street, because there is a big bookstore there, and a store with artsy/craftsy items, and I really like seeing the Hyatt Place refreshen & enliven that area now, a "very welcome addition" to the neighborhood. AUSTIN: Austin is getting so many new recent buildings, right in a row, that it is almost seeming like a suddenly propped-up & "artificial city" of Texas to me -- that I almost dont take serious as a city. Yet, it has plenty of history, too... Yet, it wasnt that big 50 years ago. So many people give Phoenix the bad wrap, and maybe it is the primest example, but there are several cities like a "Phoenix" in the country. Dallas & Houston have the best skylines in Texas. Austin seems the most hip & young & energetic. San Antonio has the most beautiful & charming downtown in Texas -- said to be the city that best captures the Spirit of Texas. I have pictures of San Antonio from their free-standing tower, and the downtown has such satisfying & rich textures & patterns & colors.

[Cermak]

This building is in Minneapolis designed by Gensler I believe, who also did Omaha’s U.P. Center. Omaha’s architecture Downtown I would say is respectable for a Midwest city pushing a million. The 40 story First National Bank Tower and U.P. Center give it a somewhat updated look and that it’s “at least trying ” feel. First National adds height and style. U.P. adds density, some height and color with the green glass. Without those two buildings and the new Marriott, downtown Omaha would have a much more dated look, and be like a Toledo or Wichita. Actually Toledo’s skyline isn’t bad, they just haven’t added anything new of any significant height since 1989. I do not care for Wichita’s skyline at all, its very weak. I could never figure out why Wichita’s skyline is so lacking in height. Im wondering if Overland Park has something to do with it. Even Wichita’s tallest building is located on the edge of downtown, a poor location for a cities tallest. It would look much better a few blocks south closer to the core. When you have so few tall buildings it’s best to keep them tight and not spread out. I think even Omaha’s learning this, as the possible new Lanoha building will add density by removing an entire vacant city block. An empty city block is an atmosphere killer, especially near the core. The town of Wichita itself is fine however with some nice neighborhoods like the College Hill area and a good zoo. Getting back to Omaha it is time to add another highrise downtown as first National and U.P. are not that new anymore. And the Marriott while it’s very nice is only 12 floors.

[RockHarbor]

This building is in Minneapolis designed by Gensler I believe, who also did Omaha’s U.P. Center. Omaha’s architecture Downtown I would say is respectable for a Midwest city pushing a million. The 40 story First National Bank Tower and U.P. Center give it a somewhat updated look and that it’s “at least trying ” feel. First National adds height and style. U.P. adds density, some height and color with the green glass. Without those two buildings and the new Marriott, downtown Omaha would have a much more dated look, and be like a Toledo or Wichita. Actually Toledo’s skyline isn’t bad, they just haven’t added anything new of any significant height since 1989. I do not care for Wichita’s skyline at all, its very weak. I could never figure out why Wichita’s skyline is so lacking in height. Im wondering if Overland Park has something to do with it. Even Wichita’s tallest building is located on the edge of downtown, a poor location for a cities tallest. It would look much better a few blocks south closer to the core. When you have so few tall buildings it’s best to keep them tight and not spread out. I think even Omaha’s learning this, as the possible new Lanoha building will add density by removing an entire vacant city block. An empty city block is an atmosphere killer, especially near the core. The town of Wichita itself is fine however with some nice neighborhoods like the College Hill area and a good zoo. Getting back to Omaha it is time to add another highrise downtown as first National and U.P. are not that new anymore. And the Marriott while it’s very nice is only 12 floors.

Yes, that building in Minneapolis, and one in Tulsa, and that Simon building in Indianapolis we've talked about, and even a smaller building in Des Moines, all are in the same "family of design", imo. Yet, only Omaha has the truest cube. I like that type design and I love green glass. So, I really like the sharrp UP building, and Im glad it is in Omaha, I just wish it were pinched, or compressed more, or the volume divided up -- like Minneapolis'. Yes, Im so glad Omaha is getting a possible new building. I'll take it... Anyways... You said it about Wichita. I think both Wichita and Okla City are in a flatter, duller region, like Amarillo & Wichita Falls are, supressed by the ocassional monster twister -- which happens every decade or so, not every 60 years or so, like in Omaha. So, all that adds up. I appreciate Wichita & Okla City each in their own way (especially Okla City more now -- I even have their new skyline as a screensaver right now), but they are duller in a way. In fact, I knew a girl from Wichita growing up that would visit Omaha every summer, and she liked Omaha and wanted to move there, because it was bigger, greener & prettier than Wichita. Ive spent time in Wichita, and I do love all their new suburban sprawl around the outer northern loop, and in Andover, KS & West Wichita. There are many nice houses & golf courses. They also have a neat, sharp building & stylish shopping in the eastern suburbs, by a little lake. Their downtown has a very beautiful & old beige limestone courthouse-type building -- one I wish Omaha had. And, I kind of like their prolific tallest, with the sloping roof -- yet, I dont think it has quite the "big personality" some of Omaha's buildings have. Their odd, top-heavy downtown tower (which I kind of like, strangely) is now condos, and is lit-up pretty at night. (It's much like Omaha, its own little universe of daily living & drama, where many citizens & most natives support it, and root for it, and probably have a love for it, and outsiders may or may not see what they see in it. Overall, Im not sure it quite has the strong civic pride Omaha has, nor am I sure the city feels like it has quite the ambition Omaha & Des Moines have.) The jumbo Kansas & Oklahoma twisters are exciting -- yet sometimes monstrous & scary. Part of me is intriqued how Okla City and Wichita sit out on those plains, expanding & growing cities , with huge storms aiming their way... Plus, they have the BRAUMS restaurant chain -- my favorite. Oklahoma City is more "me" than Wichita -- of course. Plus, it is closer to enormous Dallas-FW.

[GetUrban]

Speaking of Dubai....this is an interesting article about the influence Dubai is having on city form worldwide.
https://www.archdaily.com/910933/what-u ... =4,148,504
It’s amazing just looking at the scale of the projects happening there, compared to the little things we get excited about in Omaha, only occasionally.

[Cermak]

Amazing , Dubai I don’t think had any skyscrapers until the 80’s or 90’s. I have really only been to Wichita once and it was over twenty years ago. Sadly for Wichita when looking at recent pictures, it’s downtown looks almost the same now as when I was there many years ago. I’m thinking Kansas City and especially Johnson county get most of the attention in Kansas. So in a way Wichita is like the second biggest city in the state. I may be way off on this thinking as it’s just a hunch. I heard Wichita’s tallest was supposed to be a twin towers complex but the other building was never built. So Omaha isn’t alone with failed or downsized projects. The Building to me is just Ok, and I wish it was closer to the downtown core. The Hyatt Regency is Wichita’s best “newer” building in my opinion. I wonder if Koch industries Would ever move downtown, far and away Wichita’s most impressive company. Wichita also has a Frank Lloyd Wright house and it’s a good one. Omaha for some reason never got a Frank Lloyd Wright house. We do have a house designed by one of Wright’s students, it’s near the Joslyn neighborhood.

Nebraska’s only Frank Lloyd Wright home in McCook. It’s privatly owned and in excellent condition.

[RockHarbor]

DUBAI: Thanks for that Dubai article. Interesting. Its not surprising there are spin-offs happening in Africa, ect. (I love the "artificial" aspect of Dubai -- to be honest. There's something about dry sandy new desert cities with date palms and silvery glass skyscrapers. I can appreciate everything from old traditional cities, like Boston, to new foreign cities, like Dubai. The desert style of Dubai is maybe why Phoenix has turned to silvery glass buildings in the last 5-10 years. It was such a nice change from all the browns & beiges on their skyline -- plus, the new glass buildings have complimented their tallest mirror glass skyscraper built in the 1970's. If you want to see the Dubai skyline destroyed by a major tsunami, the giant wave hitting the mega skyscraper and jolting it & making it lean, then see disaster flick "Geostorm" with Gerard Butler.)

WICHITA: I was checking out Wichita more today, and yes I also learned that the tallest, Epic Center, originally was originally planned with a twin. I like the building somewhat, and it certainly helped the Wichita skyline look more interesting, but it almost stands there, on a quieter end of downtown, seeming like a "shy lonely skyscraper", feeling void of life & personality to me -- or something. The 250 Douglas doesnt to me, though. It feels lively and it feels more like the epic center of downtown than the Epic Center -- ironically. It also glows pretty purple at night, giving the city some night ambiance that is to like. There's also a new steel cable pedestrian bridge, almost like Omaha's, and large developments of new boxy, urban condo blocks. I think the city is more ambitious & competitive than it first appears -- which is good to learn. (Note: Their beautiful Sedgewick County Courthouse used to have a grand tower sticking up in the olden days, but they must have removed it, it must have been an aging hazard. They capped the central tower off w/ a shorter section w/ a pyramid roof -- which all matches well. They also have some other beautiful beige stone historic buildings to notice.) The Wichita suburbs are spacious & organized & likeable to me, and I like their suburban style homes. Overall, the city is a bit quiter & slower than Omaha, imo. Something about Wichita intrigues me, and Im trying to put my finger on why & what. Ive spent time there.

FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT: I didnt know Wichita had an example of his work. Yes! I knew McCook, Nebraska did from getting a little FLW thick, chunky "brick book" of much of his work years back. Surprising to me when I learned that -- I had no idea before. I didnt know that connection w/ Joslyn Castle -- interesting! I like his WI & IL work best (and his famous "Falling Water" in PA). I dont care for his AZ work that much, though. When in Chicago once, I took the tour of his homes in suburban Chicago, including his own home. It was amazing to me. It was winter & snowy when I went, and we all shivered on the walking tour -- but it was well worth it. His houses are so spectacular & unique, created by his notable sense of design, which was very his own & truly individualistic -- his solid, sprawling houses stylish & tasteful, yet almost hitting you visually as "otherwordly beings" among the more regular & typical old grand homes on those blocks. I mean, the man did start a whole new architectural style & category. I recommend that -- if in Chicago.

[Wrightfan]

Aaah, FLW. His goal was to develop a truly American style of architecture that was a rejection of European classical design (although some aspects of his "Prairie School" design point to Japan, where Wright spent some time). Consider the famous FLW urns that grace many entrances of FLW homes: A classical urn is fairly tall, curvy, and with ornamentation. FLW tore off the ornament, flattened it out and squared off the top - and they look fantastic as a feature of his architecture. Oak Park, IL, as you have noted is ground zero for Prairie School design. My parents live in the Twin Cities, and a few years ago when I spent several days there, we took a drive down to Mason City, which is in far northern Iowa. This small city has an outsize representation of Prairie School design, including a home and a hotel designed by FLW, and an entire neighborhood of fantastic Prairie School homes designed by associates of FLW's Chicago firm (Walter Burley Griffin being the chief designer). Absolutely a fantastic collection of Prairie School in this city (maybe 30k residents, if I recall).

[RockHarbor]

Aaah, FLW. His goal was to develop a truly American style of architecture that was a rejection of European classical design (although some aspects of his "Prairie School" design point to Japan, where Wright spent some time). Consider the famous FLW urns that grace many entrances of FLW homes: A classical urn is fairly tall, curvy, and with ornamentation. FLW tore off the ornament, flattened it out and squared off the top - and they look fantastic as a feature of his architecture. Oak Park, IL, as you have noted is ground zero for Prairie School design. My parents live in the Twin Cities, and a few years ago when I spent several days there, we took a drive down to Mason City, which is in far northern Iowa. This small city has an outsize representation of Prairie School design, including a home and a hotel designed by FLW, and an entire neighborhood of fantastic Prairie School homes designed by associates of FLW's Chicago firm (Walter Burley Griffin being the chief designer). Absolutely a fantastic collection of Prairie School in this city (maybe 30k residents, if I recall).

How fun. Thanks for sharing here. Mason City, IA, eh? I didn't realize Frank Lloyd Wright had some significant work displayed there -- along with Prairie Style architecture in general. Interesting. I'll have to look more into that. I really like Prairie design, and am glad FLW introduced a new style that was American. (The Japan influence: You can see that in one of his homes in Oak Park. It's a strange combo of almost Tudor and Japanese.) In a way, I'm a fan of most of his work, and his style. Some of his stain glass windows are gorgeous. I also really like lines, and long lines, so I appreciate his use of lines. Looking into FLW's world, although just architecture & design, almost reminds me of peering into the strange world of the man behind Wisconsin's "House On The Rock", or like peering into Pee Wee Herman's strange world on "Pee Wee's Playhouse." My point is: It's a different world created by, and swirling with, a man's own vivid imagination & creativity & obsessions.

WICHITA: I'm still trying to put my finger on why Wichita intrigues. I think part of it is that it is a perfect middle size between Omaha's and Lincoln's size. It was named after an Indian tribe -- like Omaha was. Also, built on flat terrain, with the downtown in the middle, the strict & orderly inner city streets a grid leading out to new spacious suburbia in each direction from the city, it almost reminds me of a mini Indianapolis layout -- or something. It's kind of like a "big Sioux Falls" layout, too. Also, look at what happened to Greensburg, KS -- straight west of Wichita. Or, Joplin, MO. Or, Andover, KS in 1990 -- I believe. Just MAJOR, jaw-dropping, monstrous twisters can hit that area -- along with Oklahoma. It's also on a major N-S interstate route, and doesn't have a major E-W interstate running through (which is like Tulsa in a way, yet feeling less "off the beaten path" than Tulsa). It's basically straight east of Pueblo, CO on the Kansas prairie. So, it is kind of in an odd transitional area -- latitude-wise to me. It's almost like Sioux Falls, where it feels mostly "Midwest", but on the edge of it, touched by a different region which is just beginning to start (Wichita being brushed by the OK/TX region immediately to the south) -- to me. Anyways... Still thinking about it.

[Cermak]

250 Douglas building in Wichita sits in the better location than Epic Center and is part of the DT core. I do like the way downtown Wichita is in the middle of the metro area. I always thought that is the best way to have it, unlike Omaha or St. Louis that has it’s downtown on one side. When looking at downtown Wichita. I think a couple of well designed 12-16 story buildings thoughtfully placed in the core could do a lot for them . I wonder why Wichita has had so few new buildings built downtown in the last 30 years ?. I do think Wichita is one of those cities that looks better close up. The skyline is not the star. But their skyline could still use a new punch, similar to how the Marriott Capitol district helped Omaha.

Wichita has very few buildings downtown that I particularly like. The Hyatt Regency is decent and the Ambassador hotel isn’t bad and a few others. I think if Omaha’s 1970’s 22 story First National bank building was in DT Wichita it would be maybe the second best highrise in the city after Epic Center. I need to get down to Wichita again, as I may be missing something about the city. And it’s not always about tall buildings. Sometimes I think some cities rely on them to much. Some great cities have low skylines.

I was aware of the Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in Mason city, Smallish Oskaloosa Iowa also has a couple of FLW homes. And I saw a FLW home in Cedar Rapids Iowa a few years ago. Omaha I think is one of the larger Midwest cities without a FLW home or building. We do have a nice prairie school designed church in North Omaha just north of Downtown. It’s about a block southeast of 24th and Lake. It’s St John AME church. Very unusual building worth checking out. The older eastern part of North Omaha is a interesting place with some unexpected surprises.

[RockHarbor]

Yeah, Im surprised Wichita doesnt get a new building now & then, too. Yet, I was looking at the list of US metros, and back in 2010, Wichita was ahead of Des Moines by 60,000. Now, almost a decade later, Des Moines surpassed them, with a quicker growth rate. They only grew by 2.33%. I wonder why Wichita isnt growing faster than that? With Wichita, I think there's that sense that it is slowly growing maybe, but not ever that booming. Also, their downtown looks more "loosey goosey" to me a bit, compared to Des Moines. (Course, Des Moines looks to have the tightest downtown on Google Maps 3D, compared to the other medium size Midwest cities, I think because their streets are narrow downtown. Plus, DM cares about being compact & urban, I think.) That prairie style church sounds interesting. Ill have to check it out on Google maps street view.

[RockHarbor]

I just figured out part of Wichita's atmosphere today: The non-navigable river. Duh. When a river slinks cozily & quietly through town and is non-navigable (like Wichita, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Sioux Falls), it does change the atmosphere a bit from towns with a larger, swifter, navigable river -- towns which are kept back a bit from its power, like Omaha, KC, St Louis, Louisville, Cincinatti, ect. (Sioux Falls has the rushing falls, and Des Moines has a small falls section near downtown, so that helps make the river seem more powerful, imo.) Anyways, wanted to add that observation on Wichita.

[Cermak]

You don’t hear much about the Arkansas River. Wichita never seems to have any flooding problems or I never hear about them. It looks like a fairly attractive river at least in the downtown part when looking at Google Earth. I know Wichita’s economy is largely based on the aviation industry. And that industry I think was hit hard by the last recession. This could explain Wichita’s slow population growth over the last ten years. Des Moines and Wichita metro’s are about the same size. But Des Moines has recently passed Wichita. Wichita’s growth has not been impressive the last decade or so.

I really hope Wichita can add a new highrise building to its downtown , they really need it. If anything to just create some excitement and buzz in the town. Based on their past track record I doubt it happens anytime soon. They might have the weakest skyline of any Midwest metro over 500,000. I even like Fort Waynes, Springfield Missouri’s and Akron’s better.

I knew a guy that worked at the Boeing plant in Wichita he made good money, but I’m not sure if that plant is even in town anymore .

Wichita probably needs to diversify its economy. It looks like It really boomed back in the 1950’s and 60’s but has now slowed. Again these are all presumptions since I haven’t personally been to Wichita in 20 years. Maybe it’s not as sleepy as I’m perceiving it to be.

[RockHarbor]

I'm so glad you've continued to uphold & contribute to our continuing 3-part series "Defining WICHITA." (Kidding) No, really... I want to figure out Wichita. (Its kind of like San Francisco: Poets, for years, have tried to put their finger on the city. Now, its being ruined by techy companies & astronomical prices...so their poems are "off" now anyways.) I'll write more later... That non-navigable river aspect is an attribute that does define Wichita, Okla City, and Dallas. Sometimes I forget why those cities feel different than the Upper Midwest cities we are used to, and part of it is their lazier & more shallow non-navigable rivers. Will write more later...

..................................................................................................
Continued hours later...


One: Yes, Wichita is defined by the aircraft industry -- like St Louis & Seattle. You're correct. I knew that, but I kinda forgot that until you brought that up. That really defines Wichita.

Two: As we have discussed, it has a river, but not that navigable one. (If you hover over Wichita's Arkansas River in Google Maps, then zoom-out 10 clicks, then go over to Omaha, Kansas City, St Louis, Louisville, Memphis, ect., then zoom in 10 clicks, you see how much bigger the other major rivers really are. That makes a difference. The Arkansas River accents Wichita nicely, and is a great river to walk along, ect. However, the city doesn't have the "river port" feeling. Yes, their downtown Hyatt is very nice, and is located right along the river: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/J222PW/panora ... J222PW.jpg I think the Missouri & Mississippi are too powerful to intimately locate a nice hotel right next to it -- like that. It is a nice touch for Wichita, since the river is not as powerful, swift, and threatening.)

Three: Tornadoes. When people think of tornadoes, they think of Kansas & Oklahoma first & foremost. Wichita is associated with twisters, of course. That makes it kind of exciting to me. In fact, I have seen the famous video of the large wedge tornado immediately swirling right behind beautiful suburban homes, and that image is from Andover, KS (suburban Wichita), taken during their 1991 tornado event: https://cf-images.us-east-1.prod.boltdn ... /image.jpg

Four: The city was named after the Wichita Tribe of Native Americans. https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/ ... Kansas.jpg That heritage defines the city's past, like it does in Omaha and other Plains cities. (Oklahoma has the Wichita Mountains actually.) When I think of the rough & tumble "cowboy years", I'm not sure where Wichita stood within all that. Omaha sure was "on the map" by then. You hear "Omaha" said even in western movies. Also: Wichita, just like Okla City, and unlike Tulsa, Kansas City & St Louis, is just far enough out on those dry, flat Plains to be completely out of reach of the touch from the Ozarks region. Yet, its down west of it all. Flat and semi-dry and without many trees, it is quite a contrast to the woodsy, moist, very hilly, folky, lake-dotted Ozarks just hours away. Yet, Wichita doesnt seem "folky" or "backwoods" to me at all -- its more like a "Big Topeka." (Course, even Springfield & Joplin to the east of Wichita are the "Midwest" at least a semi-degree.) Cities like Omaha & Des Moines know their familiar "corn & beans Midwest" stretches for hours & hours & hours to the east of it (a whole day's drive at least), to the north of it, to the south of it, to the west of it. Wichita & Oklahoma City don't quite have that aspect really, with the Ozarks/South region to the east. Located further out on the harsher, starker, tornado-torn Great Plains than Omaha & Lincoln, its kind of an odd transitional region where the Midwest/Great Plains is coming down & merging with the North Texas region, and the Ozarks have faded out into dry plains, yet the mountainous West hasn't started yet. They really aren't truly "Midwest cities" in my book, more true "Great Plains Cities" -- especially Okla City. It's almost like calling Bismark, ND a "Midwest city." It kinda is, it kinda isnt. (It almost bothers me that Oklahoma City is considered the "Midwest" by many. However, I think one of Okla City's suburbs is Midwest City, OK -- so I can't blame people, really. I just dont see how the true "Midwest" stretches from Ohio west through several states, then truly spills down & around the Ozarks/South, west of it all. Just because the land opens up, the farm/ranch country starts, and the tornadoes strike a lot, doesnt mean its automatically "The Midwest.")

A great big, nice aerial of Wichita: https://phantompilots.com/attachments/d ... jpg.21081/ (I get a kick out of that funky & likeable UFO/saucer-like convention center, or whatever it is. The Epic Center's top looks to almost shimmer sometimes. Is it copper? Sometimes it looks more red, though. Other than that, the 250 Douglas Street building is a nice, signature, architectural touch (even at night, with green or purple strobe lights). The courthouse-type buildings are also a nice touch. There are other examples of Scottish/castle-type architecture in town, too.

I didn't really "define Wichita." It is more complex than that, and involves more variables. But, that's a start.

[Cermak]

250 Douglas used to be a Holiday Inn when it was new. It’s a very 60’s almost “space age” looking building, like someone from NASA helped design it. Definitely a unique building and part of Wichita’s urban signature. It was an impressive building back then out on the dusty windy plains. Downtown Wichita is well represented of buildings from the 1950’s and 60’s as the city was booming back then.

The Marriott on the eastside of Wichita is not bad and I think looks a little better than ours in Regency. I believe it’s a few years newer than the Marriott in Regency. I always wished they would of made the Regency Marriott taller maybe 9 or 10 floors. It would of had a better impact from I-680 with more height and would help create our mini edge city skyline. Its 300 rooms, but because of clever proportioning it doesn’t look that big. I mean c’mon 6 floors for a 300 room hotel ??, another highrise opportunity for Omaha lost forever. But Omaha got it right with the new Marriott Capitol district as I think that one looks very sharp, live and learn I guess. And it’s not that the Regency Marriott is bad, I’ve been in it, it’s maybe west Omaha’s best full service hotel. It just would be nice to add some height when the opportunity is available to do so. And a 300 room hotel can definitely be taller than 6 floors. If I remember the old New Tower hotel at 78th and Dodge was also 300 rooms and just 2 or 3 floors, it was torn down I believe in the 90’s.

Wichita is stuck somewhere between Omaha and Lincoln. If I ever get down that way I will try and get off the highway and look around a little. It really is an outpost on the prairie. Hopefully the Tornadoes will leave it alone.