Civic Square (former Civic Auditorium)

[Doctor Fate]

On Grow Omaha last Saturday, the Mayor said that she hoped they would be able to announce what was going to go on the Civic site "soon". I remember her on the show in 2019 saying they would be announcing what was going to replace the Tetrad development on this site in like Sept 2019. I may have the month off but she did say that they had 2 proposals they were deciding between and set a pretty specific time for an announcement that never happened.

Does anyone know what has caused such a long delay in the announcement? I asked Troy Anderson, the mayor's deputy chief of staff, about this recently and he just replied that they were still vetting the two proposals.

[Omaha Cowboy]

On Grow Omaha last Saturday, the Mayor said that she hoped they would be able to announce what was going to go on the Civic site "soon". I remember her on the show in 2019 saying they would be announcing what was going to replace the Tetrad development on this site in like Sept 2019. I may have the month off but she did say that they had 2 proposals they were deciding between and set a pretty specific time for an announcement that never happened.

Does anyone know what has caused such a long delay in the announcement? I asked Troy Anderson, the mayor's deputy chief of staff, about this recently and he just replied that they were still vetting the two proposals.

Not sure why, but like I stated in another thread when this was brought up, she’s been singing the same tune on this for the past 2 years and we hear nothing.. So it was likely just more “fluff speak” from the mayor to make it seem her office is heads on in the development arena several months before the mayoral election..

Now I hope I’m wrong and there is an announcement coming soon. But I’m not holding my breath...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Cue Bob with the “60-90 days” joke.

[Bob from Omaha]

Cue Bob with the “60-90 days” joke.

I appreciate the shout out. I'll pass. Over the years I've just become numb at the idea that anything of substance is going to come to downtown Omaha with regard to sizable office development. Kiewit goes to north downtown, HDR doesn't pull the trigger on a move downtown. I don't remember the rest. The Capitol District is impressive and welcome. Meanwhile Lot 2 or whatever sits, Lanoha, the Civic. Conagra leaves. I'm not really impressed with the Crossroads development though it is better than nothing. I know I moved over a dozen years ago but from a distance Omaha seems to be in a funk. Where are the movers and shakers? Where''s the wow?

In truth the majority of what's happened and happening in downtown Detroit, and it's in the billions of $$, is due to Dan Gilbert of Quicken Loans and the Illitch family, owners of Little Caesars, the Tigers & Red Wings. Downtown Detroit has done a complete 180 since I moved here. Retail, restaurants, housing, hotels, there is an energy. Can Omaha claim anyone even close to a local with money and vision?

I'm going to stop here. I gave blood today, I'm turning 63 this year and well I've been cranky my whole life.

If the mayor wants to play word games about the civic property, it's a free country. Probably get her elected again. A lot of people didn't/don't like Hal Daub but the facts are that he got the job done on the arena/convention center. Without him driving that bus Omaha probably wouldn't have vacant land where the civic used to be.

#6090days

[Cermak]

So Detroit’s not that bad. I’ve never been there, it’s actually one of the few big midwest cities I haven’t been to, that and Cleveland. Omaha is not Detroit, which is both good and bad. I heard they are building a new tallest which is Fantastic for your city. The Renaissance center has always caught my eye the way it sits in contrast to the rest of downtown.

Omaha did get First National tower built along with the U.P. headquarters and the Capitol district. But besides Capitol district and U.P. getting big projects built DT in the last 15 years or so has been extremely difficult and frustrating. Yes, Omaha is good at building 4-6 story apartments downtown but lately not much else. I to have little hope much if anything of substance will be built on the former civic and old U.P. sites. And agree the Crossroads project looks like a last ditch effort to show the public that some sort of progress is being done at a high profile location in the heart of our city. I will try and visit Detroit someday and maybe Cleveland as well.

[Bob from Omaha]

If you come to Detroit let me know.

By the way, I in no way was attempting some convoluted equivalency between the two.

[Cermak]

If you come to Detroit let me know.

By the way, I in no way was attempting some convoluted equivalency between the two.

Right, I wasn’t thinking you were comparing the two. Omaha and Detroit are on completely different levels. Omaha has more in common with Grand Rapids and Lansing. Good to see Detroit is coming back. If I’m ever out that way I’ll let you know.

[JDJase]

On Grow Omaha last Saturday, the Mayor said that she hoped they would be able to announce what was going to go on the Civic site "soon". I remember her on the show in 2019 saying they would be announcing what was going to replace the Tetrad development on this site in like Sept 2019. I may have the month off but she did say that they had 2 proposals they were deciding between and set a pretty specific time for an announcement that never happened.

Does anyone know what has caused such a long delay in the announcement? I asked Troy Anderson, the mayor's deputy chief of staff, about this recently and he just replied that they were still vetting the two proposals.

Not sure why, but like I stated in another thread when this was brought up, she’s been singing the same tune on this for the past 2 years and we hear nothing.. So it was likely just more “fluff speak” from the mayor to make it seem her office is heads on in the development arena several months before the mayoral election..

Now I hope in wrong and there is an announcement coming soon. But I’m not holding my breath...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Pretty much my thoughts as well.

My prediction: We'll get some really pretty renderings to get excited about not too long before the election. Then the next four years the site will continue to sit empty as is (regardless of whether she is reelected or not), and eventually get sold to Creighton for 'future development' but will be a surface parking lot to ease student parking as other, already planned campus development takes over current parking lots. Just my pessimistic guess. My most optimistic guess? 5 story apartment building (maybe 6 w/ perpetually empty ground floor retail).

That's my negativity for the day. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

[PWL73316]

What kind of insane person is going to break ground on some office-based high rise when most companies are waffling about whether they will *ever* bring all their employees back to the office? It's common sense not to commit to a huge commercial real estate investment until Covid shakes out.

[riceweb]

What kind of insane person is going to break ground on some office-based high rise when most companies are waffling about whether they will *ever* bring all their employees back to the office? It's common sense not to commit to a huge commercial real estate investment until Covid shakes out.

If we can create an amazing ecosystem where employees *want* to work, with food and entertainment options in abundance nearby, then I suppose we could still invest in office space. There's also strong hope for attracting a Big Tech engineering hub.

Conceptually, I understand what the city is aiming for, but I think they're too optimistic, and I would definitely prefer they focus more on residential development here.

[Louie]

What kind of insane person is going to break ground on some office-based high rise when most companies are waffling about whether they will *ever* bring all their employees back to the office? It's common sense not to commit to a huge commercial real estate investment until Covid shakes out.

If we can create an amazing ecosystem where employees *want* to work, with food and entertainment options in abundance nearby, then I suppose we could still invest in office space. There's also strong hope for attracting a Big Tech engineering hub.

Conceptually, I understand what the city is aiming for, but I think they're too optimistic, and I would definitely prefer they focus more on residential development here.

Agreed, one of the big things that people have always said in this forum is how quiet the evenings downtown get as far as pedestrian activity. The only way to fix that is with more residents.

[Omaha Cowboy]

What kind of insane person is going to break ground on some office-based high rise when most companies are waffling about whether they will *ever* bring all their employees back to the office? It's common sense not to commit to a huge commercial real estate investment until Covid shakes out.

If we can create an amazing ecosystem where employees *want* to work, with food and entertainment options in abundance nearby, then I suppose we could still invest in office space. There's also strong hope for attracting a Big Tech engineering hub.

Conceptually, I understand what the city is aiming for, but I think they're too optimistic, and I would definitely prefer they focus more on residential development here.

Agreed, one of the big things that people have always said in this forum is how quiet the evenings downtown get as far as pedestrian activity. The only way to fix that is with more residents.

I believe multiple components will eventually be built on this site..mixed use- residential/retail/office.. And I agree that part of luring more to live/work/play in the downtown core is key.. Goes hand in hand with our Riverfront Development plan currently under construction...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[Omaha Cowboy]

On Grow Omaha last Saturday, the Mayor said that she hoped they would be able to announce what was going to go on the Civic site "soon". I remember her on the show in 2019 saying they would be announcing what was going to replace the Tetrad development on this site in like Sept 2019. I may have the month off but she did say that they had 2 proposals they were deciding between and set a pretty specific time for an announcement that never happened.

Does anyone know what has caused such a long delay in the announcement? I asked Troy Anderson, the mayor's deputy chief of staff, about this recently and he just replied that they were still vetting the two proposals.

Not sure why, but like I stated in another thread when this was brought up, she’s been singing the same tune on this for the past 2 years and we hear nothing.. So it was likely just more “fluff speak” from the mayor to make it seem her office is heads on in the development arena several months before the mayoral election..

Now I hope I’m wrong and there is an announcement coming soon. But I’m not holding my breath...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

Pretty much my thoughts as well.

My prediction: We'll get some really pretty renderings to get excited about not too long before the election. Then the next four years the site will continue to sit empty as is (regardless of whether she is reelected or not), and eventually get sold to Creighton for 'future development' but will be a surface parking lot to ease student parking as other, already planned campus development takes over current parking lots. Just my pessimistic guess. My most optimistic guess? 5 story apartment building (maybe 6 w/ perpetually empty ground floor retail).

That's my negativity for the day. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

I’m right there with you..and I hope our “pessimism” regarding activity happening for this important downtown core development site is wrong ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[ita]

What kind of insane person is going to break ground on some office-based high rise when most companies are waffling about whether they will *ever* bring all their employees back to the office? It's common sense not to commit to a huge commercial real estate investment until Covid shakes out.

I think you are getting downtown Omaha's lost cause empty lots confused; this is the forever-under-City-review lot not the iconic-no-rise-hot-potato lot.

While pessimistic, I still think this lot can be built out decently with the right leadership and vision. Residential should be a primary component for sure. I still like the concept presented in the 2030 master plan which includes relocating the 20th street off ramp to open up additional block for redevelopment.

[ProgKingHughesker]

What kind of insane person is going to break ground on some office-based high rise when most companies are waffling about whether they will *ever* bring all their employees back to the office? It's common sense not to commit to a huge commercial real estate investment until Covid shakes out.

I think you are getting downtown Omaha's lost cause empty lots confused; this is the forever-under-City-review lot not the iconic-no-rise-hot-potato lot.

While pessimistic, I still think this lot can be built out decently with the right leadership and vision. Residential should be a primary component for sure. I still like the concept presented in the 2030 master plan which includes relocating the 20th street off ramp to open up additional block for redevelopment.

Best case scenario ditch the 480 viaduct altogether if not just between 75 and 14th

[Garrett]

I don't necessarily want a signature high rise here. I'd rather have those closer to the park and the river, because let's be realistic, all of the spots we'd like to see get 20-30-40 stories aren't all going to get them, especially. I'd like something useful though; residential, grocery, some neighborhood making stuff. As has been said before, maybe the library and new State of Nebraska offices so those parcels can be opened up for better uses. 5-15 stories is fine, just something that is designed well and innovative in the right ways. It doesn't need to be another entertainment or retail district. We need the base to support the ones we already have.

[Busguy2010]

I don't necessarily want a signature high rise here. I'd rather have those closer to the park and the river, because let's be realistic, all of the spots we'd like to see get 20-30-40 stories aren't all going to get them, especially. I'd like something useful though; residential, grocery, some neighborhood making stuff. As has been said before, maybe the library and new State of Nebraska offices so those parcels can be opened up for better uses. 5-15 stories is fine, just something that is designed well and innovative in the right ways. It doesn't need to be another entertainment or retail district. We need the base to support the ones we already have.

That's what Downtowntonjeagermanjensen is missing.. Real world necessities. I think the best way to do that is non-exclusive, non-expensive residential. Seriously, I want to see a big huge ugly terd of a residential tower and put some retail bays (chain restaurants, chain barbers, chain dentists, etc.) at the base of it and lets see what happens. Seriously just create an environment where more regular-a$$ people can live down there and I honestly think we as a city are trying too hard.

[Busguy2010]

Actually doesn't even have to be a tower. Something like some of the big apartment complexes around the city are big enough to hypothetically bring a couple thousand people to a site like the Civic. I'm talking like a dense smattering of 3 or 4 story apartment buildings and row houses and they can all even have their own garage. Just dumb it down, cause as-is, next to nobody wants to make the kind of sacrifices it takes to live in our current downtown, and we obviously need more people.

[Omaha Cowboy]

The mayors office has been playing “cat got your tongue” for over 2 years now..

Whatever ends up getting developed here, I’m hoping for at least for an announcement within the next 60-90 days ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[ita]

I know this is probably super unpopular opinion, but with the recent rise of home prices and continued focus on luxury or high end apartment and townhouse projects, is it time for the State/County/City to developing a comprehensive plan to provide affordable housing, possibly through social housing projects? I know there is a growing movement to push for social housing legislation to enable counties and states to build social housing in other more expensive locales like California. There is a stigma with public housing in the United States, and they are largely true because the system failed/was doomed to fail, but there are numerous examples internationally where is has worked much better. I think the gameplan is there and can be executed with enough effort.

I post this here because I think the Civic site could be a site to do a mixed income affordable housing project with its proximity to jobs, public transportation, civic services, parks, and schools. It doesn't have to be like the towers of Hong Kong or the modern social housing projects in Vienna, but I think it would be a great location for a dense residential project headed by local government that affords rental or ownership opportunities for people of all socioeconomic status. I don't know, I am bored and just dreaming of something big for the Civic site.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Personally I think the push for affordable housing in many circumstances is overblown in that it’s been taken from urban thinkers and planners in places with real affordability issues by urban thinkers and planners in places without many affordability issues for the purpose of feeling woke and hip to social justice issues..

However, I think it becomes a valid issue in terms of localized planning wherein certain previously lower income neighborhoods become trendy and popular. There is research behind the benefits of mixed income neighborhoods for all who dwell in them and a neighborhood that sees a surge in investment and popularity can displace residents who would have otherwise benefited from their neighborhood’s new investment - a tide that is more of a tidal wave, sinking some ships while raising others. In that case a plan to ensure a level of affordable housing in line with what prices were in a neighborhood before new investment is a good idea. For Omaha I can see how Benson and Blackstone could benefit from affordable housing policies but I’m not sure about other neighborhoods. I’m not sure that the Civic site is a spot to target for affordable housing but I’m not sure that it’s not either.

One trick is that you shouldn’t locate so much affordable housing into one spot that it becomes like the failed housing projects of the 1960s. The benefits of mixing incomes become diluted. So perhaps some 25-75 units on the Civic site would be beneficial, but not the full four square block site

[Busguy2010]

So you talking like a housing project? I wouldnt care. I think it'd be funny to see the reaction from idealist types and I definitely couldn't see it working out. We've seen that story before, and theres definitely a reason why they dont do em like that anymore.

[ita]

Personally I think the push for affordable housing in many circumstances is overblown in that it’s been taken from urban thinkers and planners in places with real affordability issues by urban thinkers and planners in places without many affordability issues for the purpose of feeling woke and hip to social justice issues..

However, I think it becomes a valid issue in terms of localized planning wherein certain previously lower income neighborhoods become trendy and popular. There is research behind the benefits of mixed income neighborhoods for all who dwell in them and a neighborhood that sees a surge in investment and popularity can displace residents who would have otherwise benefited from their neighborhood’s new investment - a tide that is more of a tidal wave, sinking some ships while raising others. In that case a plan to ensure a level of affordable housing in line with what prices were in a neighborhood before new investment is a good idea. For Omaha I can see how Benson and Blackstone could benefit from affordable housing policies but I’m not sure about other neighborhoods. I’m not sure that the Civic site is a spot to target for affordable housing but I’m not sure that it’s not either.

One trick is that you shouldn’t locate so much affordable housing into one spot that it becomes like the failed housing projects of the 1960s. The benefits of mixing incomes become diluted. So perhaps some 25-75 units on the Civic site would be beneficial, but not the full four square block site

I suppose this is diverging from the Civic Site and veering into the conversation of affordable housing, but I totally agree. I would like to see the City take proactive measures to insure places that get investment/future investment, like the neighborhoods you mentioned and areas around current and future BRT/streetcar stations have an affordable housing component/requirement.

I was thinking about the Civic site as well because I would like to not see downtown becoming so exclusive that only rich folk can live there. Private developers have so little incentive to build affordable housing that anything built downtown, particularly around the Parks, is going to be out of reach by a lot of people. Granted, I don't think rents for new projects downtown are outrageous (yet), but it's getting up there where it is getting exclusionary. Maybe the City wants that to be the case, but I think the City should consider using some of the Civic Site for affordable housing since they are running the show on that project site.

I know that currently Omaha is affordable compared to other cities, but for once I would like the City to be proactive rather than reactive.

I am interested though, what is your take on the Highlander and Spencer Homes project? That is almost exclusively mixed income and consists of several hundred living units once built out.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Personally I think the push for affordable housing in many circumstances is overblown in that it’s been taken from urban thinkers and planners in places with real affordability issues by urban thinkers and planners in places without many affordability issues for the purpose of feeling woke and hip to social justice issues..

However, I think it becomes a valid issue in terms of localized planning wherein certain previously lower income neighborhoods become trendy and popular. There is research behind the benefits of mixed income neighborhoods for all who dwell in them and a neighborhood that sees a surge in investment and popularity can displace residents who would have otherwise benefited from their neighborhood’s new investment - a tide that is more of a tidal wave, sinking some ships while raising others. In that case a plan to ensure a level of affordable housing in line with what prices were in a neighborhood before new investment is a good idea. For Omaha I can see how Benson and Blackstone could benefit from affordable housing policies but I’m not sure about other neighborhoods. I’m not sure that the Civic site is a spot to target for affordable housing but I’m not sure that it’s not either.

One trick is that you shouldn’t locate so much affordable housing into one spot that it becomes like the failed housing projects of the 1960s. The benefits of mixing incomes become diluted. So perhaps some 25-75 units on the Civic site would be beneficial, but not the full four square block site

I suppose this is diverging from the Civic Site and veering into the conversation of affordable housing, but I totally agree. I would like to see the City take proactive measures to insure places that get investment/future investment, like the neighborhoods you mentioned and areas around current and future BRT/streetcar stations have an affordable housing component/requirement.

I was thinking about the Civic site as well because I would like to not see downtown becoming so exclusive that only rich folk can live there. Private developers have so little incentive to build affordable housing that anything built downtown, particularly around the Parks, is going to be out of reach by a lot of people. Granted, I don't think rents for new projects downtown are outrageous (yet), but it's getting up there where it is getting exclusionary. Maybe the City wants that to be the case, but I think the City should consider using some of the Civic Site for affordable housing since they are running the show on that project site.

I know that currently Omaha is affordable compared to other cities, but for once I would like the City to be proactive rather than reactive.

I am interested though, what is your take on the Highlander and Spencer Homes project? That is almost exclusively mixed income and consists of several hundred living units once built out.

Don't get me wrong, I believe cities should be proactive about their approach to affordable housing and it is an issue that can arise in every city but I feel that all to often the approach is to "affordable house all the things!" without consideration for context, need, and balance.

From what I understand about the Highlander and Spencer projects, I believe this is a good way to approach affordable housing. They've created what I perceive to be development that people seeking market-rate housing would find appealing while maintaining a level of not only affordable housing, but quality housing for lower income people. What will be key in the long run is that this doesn't remain an island of mixed income housing.

An approach that I have admired is one that has been employed in my own neighborhood here in St. Louis - Forest Park Southeast. For decades it was plagued by incredible levels of disinvestment. In fact the arterial street that borders it on the south was infamously known as the street you exited to from the highway to score drugs. Eventually a non-profit - that I used to work for - was established by a local institution and was granted a significant level of planning jurisdiction over the neighborhood by the city. With deeper pockets than the city, they have heavily invested in its redevelopment as well as spearheaded other entities to do the same. The result has been something similar to Blackstone in that it is now a fairly trendy live-work-play type neighborhood for a diverse range of people of all sorts of socioeconomic backgrounds. In order to mitigate the effects of displacement and ensure it doesn't become a neighborhood exclusively for the rich, they partnered with several developers to build a swath of new residential units where affordable rental units were scattered among market-rate single family homes and apartments. The affordable housing structures have a relatively small number of units, about six on average I'd say, utilize attractive architecture, are managed by a reputable management company instead of a slumlord and, perhaps most importantly, were finished BEFORE the market rate homes were built to prevent NIMBY-ism.

So in summary, I find that getting out ahead of housing affordability issues in rising neighborhoods with quality, well managed, scattered site affordable housing early on is key. And, on the other end of the spectrum, that engaging local institutions or other prominent stakeholders in large-scale, comprehensively planned investment campaigns can do wonders at turning the tide for decreasing concentrated poverty and neglect.

[Garrett]

Personally I think the push for affordable housing in many circumstances is overblown in that it’s been taken from urban thinkers and planners in places with real affordability issues by urban thinkers and planners in places without many affordability issues for the purpose of feeling woke and hip to social justice issues..

However, I think it becomes a valid issue in terms of localized planning wherein certain previously lower income neighborhoods become trendy and popular. There is research behind the benefits of mixed income neighborhoods for all who dwell in them and a neighborhood that sees a surge in investment and popularity can displace residents who would have otherwise benefited from their neighborhood’s new investment - a tide that is more of a tidal wave, sinking some ships while raising others. In that case a plan to ensure a level of affordable housing in line with what prices were in a neighborhood before new investment is a good idea. For Omaha I can see how Benson and Blackstone could benefit from affordable housing policies but I’m not sure about other neighborhoods. I’m not sure that the Civic site is a spot to target for affordable housing but I’m not sure that it’s not either.

One trick is that you shouldn’t locate so much affordable housing into one spot that it becomes like the failed housing projects of the 1960s. The benefits of mixing incomes become diluted. So perhaps some 25-75 units on the Civic site would be beneficial, but not the full four square block site

So I'd argue the failure of the housing projects of the 1960s wasn't necessarily in their concentration, but in the quality of their construction and the lack of maintenance. All of the stories of Pruitt Igoe, for instance, talk about how a lot of the issues that came to plague it all rose out of lack of maintenance and a push by the state to keep fathers out of the home. Budgets were gutted, especially as white residents of the projects moved to the suburbs with resources not available to the black residents, so the political capital for maintenance dropped. You cite the Highlander in your example, and there are other examples of very successful affordable/public housing projects in NYC and around the world that are large and concentrated. Americans love to build things, but hate to maintain them. Poverty is not a moral failing, and does not cause people to do bad things, but disinvestment by the state leaves people with few options.

[ita]

Personally I think the push for affordable housing in many circumstances is overblown in that it’s been taken from urban thinkers and planners in places with real affordability issues by urban thinkers and planners in places without many affordability issues for the purpose of feeling woke and hip to social justice issues..

However, I think it becomes a valid issue in terms of localized planning wherein certain previously lower income neighborhoods become trendy and popular. There is research behind the benefits of mixed income neighborhoods for all who dwell in them and a neighborhood that sees a surge in investment and popularity can displace residents who would have otherwise benefited from their neighborhood’s new investment - a tide that is more of a tidal wave, sinking some ships while raising others. In that case a plan to ensure a level of affordable housing in line with what prices were in a neighborhood before new investment is a good idea. For Omaha I can see how Benson and Blackstone could benefit from affordable housing policies but I’m not sure about other neighborhoods. I’m not sure that the Civic site is a spot to target for affordable housing but I’m not sure that it’s not either.

One trick is that you shouldn’t locate so much affordable housing into one spot that it becomes like the failed housing projects of the 1960s. The benefits of mixing incomes become diluted. So perhaps some 25-75 units on the Civic site would be beneficial, but not the full four square block site

So I'd argue the failure of the housing projects of the 1960s wasn't necessarily in their concentration, but in the quality of their construction and the lack of maintenance. All of the stories of Pruitt Igoe, for instance, talk about how a lot of the issues that came to plague it all rose out of lack of maintenance and a push by the state to keep fathers out of the home. Budgets were gutted, especially as white residents of the projects moved to the suburbs with resources not available to the black residents, so the political capital for maintenance dropped. You cite the Highlander in your example, and there are other examples of very successful affordable/public housing projects in NYC and around the world that are large and concentrated. Americans love to build things, but hate to maintain them. Poverty is not a moral failing, and does not cause people to do bad things, but disinvestment by the state leaves people with few options.

Based on more recent studies and other material on the subject, I would have to agree that Garrett brings up solid points about failed social housing in America. I think there is consensus among researchers that there were so many other factors that led to its failure. I would add to Garrett's points that, based on my understanding, tenants had very little representation and power when local authorities ignored their complaints of crime, needed repairs on already poorly constructed building, bug infestations, non-working elevators or other issues that made the projects less livable. There is also the issue of projects being built away from jobs, near poor performing/under funded schools, or far from public transit, setting up even more opportunity for failure. I think this particular line of issues makes scattered housing projects ineffective without additional government regulation or real considerations make by private developers.

[ita]

Personally I think the push for affordable housing in many circumstances is overblown in that it’s been taken from urban thinkers and planners in places with real affordability issues by urban thinkers and planners in places without many affordability issues for the purpose of feeling woke and hip to social justice issues..

However, I think it becomes a valid issue in terms of localized planning wherein certain previously lower income neighborhoods become trendy and popular. There is research behind the benefits of mixed income neighborhoods for all who dwell in them and a neighborhood that sees a surge in investment and popularity can displace residents who would have otherwise benefited from their neighborhood’s new investment - a tide that is more of a tidal wave, sinking some ships while raising others. In that case a plan to ensure a level of affordable housing in line with what prices were in a neighborhood before new investment is a good idea. For Omaha I can see how Benson and Blackstone could benefit from affordable housing policies but I’m not sure about other neighborhoods. I’m not sure that the Civic site is a spot to target for affordable housing but I’m not sure that it’s not either.

One trick is that you shouldn’t locate so much affordable housing into one spot that it becomes like the failed housing projects of the 1960s. The benefits of mixing incomes become diluted. So perhaps some 25-75 units on the Civic site would be beneficial, but not the full four square block site

I suppose this is diverging from the Civic Site and veering into the conversation of affordable housing, but I totally agree. I would like to see the City take proactive measures to insure places that get investment/future investment, like the neighborhoods you mentioned and areas around current and future BRT/streetcar stations have an affordable housing component/requirement.

I was thinking about the Civic site as well because I would like to not see downtown becoming so exclusive that only rich folk can live there. Private developers have so little incentive to build affordable housing that anything built downtown, particularly around the Parks, is going to be out of reach by a lot of people. Granted, I don't think rents for new projects downtown are outrageous (yet), but it's getting up there where it is getting exclusionary. Maybe the City wants that to be the case, but I think the City should consider using some of the Civic Site for affordable housing since they are running the show on that project site.

I know that currently Omaha is affordable compared to other cities, but for once I would like the City to be proactive rather than reactive.

I am interested though, what is your take on the Highlander and Spencer Homes project? That is almost exclusively mixed income and consists of several hundred living units once built out.

Don't get me wrong, I believe cities should be proactive about their approach to affordable housing and it is an issue that can arise in every city but I feel that all to often the approach is to "affordable house all the things!" without consideration for context, need, and balance.

From what I understand about the Highlander and Spencer projects, I believe this is a good way to approach affordable housing. They've created what I perceive to be development that people seeking market-rate housing would find appealing while maintaining a level of not only affordable housing, but quality housing for lower income people. What will be key in the long run is that this doesn't remain an island of mixed income housing.

An approach that I have admired is one that has been employed in my own neighborhood here in St. Louis - Forest Park Southeast. For decades it was plagued by incredible levels of disinvestment. In fact the arterial street that borders it on the south was infamously known as the street you exited to from the highway to score drugs. Eventually a non-profit - that I used to work for - was established by a local institution and was granted a significant level of planning jurisdiction over the neighborhood by the city. With deeper pockets than the city, they have heavily invested in its redevelopment as well as spearheaded other entities to do the same. The result has been something similar to Blackstone in that it is now a fairly trendy live-work-play type neighborhood for a diverse range of people of all sorts of socioeconomic backgrounds. In order to mitigate the effects of displacement and ensure it doesn't become a neighborhood exclusively for the rich, they partnered with several developers to build a swath of new residential units where affordable rental units were scattered among market-rate single family homes and apartments. The affordable housing structures have a relatively small number of units, about six on average I'd say, utilize attractive architecture, are managed by a reputable management company instead of a slumlord and, perhaps most importantly, were finished BEFORE the market rate homes were built to prevent NIMBY-ism.

So in summary, I find that getting out ahead of housing affordability issues in rising neighborhoods with quality, well managed, scattered site affordable housing early on is key. And, on the other end of the spectrum, that engaging local institutions or other prominent stakeholders in large-scale, comprehensively planned investment campaigns can do wonders at turning the tide for decreasing concentrated poverty and neglect.

Thanks for your input. I think the balance is already leaning towards housing being unaffordable in our City. New construction SFA's are becoming well out of reach of first time homebuyers outside of Celebrity Homes (which has also gone up considerably in the last few years), particularly when you throw in our high property taxes.

I think the Highlander/Spencer Homes project should work because there were several components considered in addition to the affordable housing aspect, such as improvements to 30th Street like new bike lanes, improvements to the elementary school, and programming at the Highlander for the community.

Can you post the type of affordable housing projects in St. Louis you are referring to?

[Louie]

And Celebrity Homes' output has not been high enough to keep up with demand, too.

[PWL73316]

New construction SFA's are becoming well out of reach of first time homebuyers

A tin roof shack is like $150K now. Incomes are barely moving, so pretty soon everything will be out of reach for first time homebuyers. We need more housing starts, no matter how expensive they are or aren't, to take pressure off the market.

[TitosBuritoBarn]

Can you post the type of affordable housing projects in St. Louis you are referring to?

Here’s a press release and a website about them:

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/new-mix ... southeast/

http://www.adamsgrovestl.com/

Unfortunately Google Streetview images showing how they interact with the newer, market-rate SFH aren’t available yet.

[Busguy2010]

New construction SFA's are becoming well out of reach of first time homebuyers

A tin roof shack is like $150K now. Incomes are barely moving, so pretty soon everything will be out of reach for first time homebuyers. We need more housing starts, no matter how expensive they are or aren't, to take pressure off the market.

I want to see this fact result in more small house neighborhoods. Under 900sf types and lots of them densely packed together.

[PWL73316]

New construction SFA's are becoming well out of reach of first time homebuyers

A tin roof shack is like $150K now. Incomes are barely moving, so pretty soon everything will be out of reach for first time homebuyers. We need more housing starts, no matter how expensive they are or aren't, to take pressure off the market.

I want to see this fact result in more small house neighborhoods. Under 900sf types and lots of them densely packed together.

Me too, in theory. Not a possibility with current zoning or with current economic reality. If there's a property that can support that density, they'll build apartments. I'm also not sure there is an expansive small house market. For me, personally, I wouldn't be in that market, it sounds like you would get 95% of the hassle of owning a big house but a much smaller % of the utility out of it. If I don't get the practical advantages of a larger home, I'd rather somebody else own it and deal with the hassles for me.

[bigredmed1]

We used to have whole neighborhoods aimed at one income families. The houses were in the 1100-1400 sf range with one car garage and no amenities. People bought them and built them up. See Oaks and Signal hill in Millard.
See the area north of Crossroads along Cole creek.
See east Benson between Holy Name and Benson HS.

These were successful and could be again.

[Busguy2010]

We used to have whole neighborhoods aimed at one income families. The houses were in the 1100-1400 sf range with one car garage and no amenities. People bought them and built them up.
See the area north of Crossroads along Cole creek.

That's the neighborhood that came to mind first. Along with all the neighborhood to the east that got annihilated by the tornado. They were all replaced quickly and cheaply with the type of home I'm thinking. One level, less than 1,000 SF, some with basements/some not, fairly closely spaced, nothing special about them.

I wasn't suggesting that would work or be appropriate at the civic site.

And on that subject of affordable housing, I don't think any type will be built any time soon due to the inflated nature of the current housing market and building materials industries. So yes, in that sense it probably does now cost $150,000 to build the type of home we're talking about. But last year it wouldn't have. I think only a fool would try to build a house in 2020 and beyond. Gotta wait for that bubble to burst.

[ita]

Garrett mentioned the OWH article highlighting the positions of the different candidates. (https://omaha.com/news/local/govt-and-p ... op-story-1) The mayor had this to say:

Omaha is working to expand ORBT rapid bus service north and south, she says, and a developer will soon announce plans for the Civic Auditorium site, she says.

What is everyone's guess when this happens?

[PWL73316]

Sometime "soon" after the mayoral election in 2025.

[Louie]

I think everyone here knows what 'soon' means...

[Omaha Cowboy]

I think everyone here knows what 'soon' means...

The curse of planned projects being “Minarded”..Or in this case, never announced..

Such a treat ...

Ciao..LiO...Peace

[OmahaJaysCU]

Kind of like how she said the crossroads project would be announced “soon” before the last election. I think it’s pretty obvious what she’s doing.

[Omaha Cowboy]

^^ Agreed...

Ciao..LiO...Peace