Walter Apartments (SEC 50th & Leavenworth)

[iamjacobm]

Nice looking project on the site of the old coin laundry. 53 units, 44 parking stalls under the units. Same developer as the Swivel Apartments off of 72nd and Dodge.

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ber/08.pdf

[nativeomahan]

Gosh that would be fantastic. That intersection has been sad looking for far too long. (And I’m not talking about the cemetery.)

[Flyer14]

The day care across the street closed, very sad and unfortunate situation there. Maybe this development can spark some kind of retail there because the building looks decent from the outside. Looking forward to this one!

[Athomsfere]

I think it looks pretty good for the area too. Leavenworth is really bringing some density back in the last 10 years, and I love it.

[skinzfan23]

Great addition to that corner.

[mgoett]

I am not impressed with the swivel apartments. Kinda tacky looking every time i drive by. Hopefully they step up there game. Dundee flates look good and the condos 2 blocks south. The con agra is real disappointing on the east side also.

[legato9]

I am not impressed with the swivel apartments. Kinda tacky looking every time i drive by. Hopefully they step up there game. Dundee flates look good and the condos 2 blocks south. The con agra is real disappointing on the east side also.

Good gawd. The Swivel building is ugly as all h3ll.

I didn’t realize the same people were doing 50th and Leavenworth. This does not bode well for the neighborhood…

[ita]

I am not impressed with the swivel apartments. Kinda tacky looking every time i drive by. Hopefully they step up there game. Dundee flates look good and the condos 2 blocks south. The con agra is real disappointing on the east side also.

Good gawd. The Swivel building is ugly as all h3ll.

I didn’t realize the same people were doing 50th and Leavenworth. This does not bode well for the neighborhood…

If you don't like the swivel, the same developer did the centerline off 72nd and center and the clove by children's/Methodist.

[legato9]

I am not impressed with the swivel apartments. Kinda tacky looking every time i drive by. Hopefully they step up there game. Dundee flates look good and the condos 2 blocks south. The con agra is real disappointing on the east side also.

Good gawd. The Swivel building is ugly as all h3ll.

I didn’t realize the same people were doing 50th and Leavenworth. This does not bode well for the neighborhood…

If you don't like the swivel, the same developer did the centerline off 72nd and center and the clove by children's/Methodist.

The Clove?! Funk me. My girl and I call that “the 60’s fireplace building.” (Where did they even get that stone veneer on the front?!)

That building is a nominee for my 2023 Sh1t Design Award.

This developer should be dragged to The Hague to answer for its crimes against humanity.

[ita]

I am not impressed with the swivel apartments. Kinda tacky looking every time i drive by. Hopefully they step up there game. Dundee flates look good and the condos 2 blocks south. The con agra is real disappointing on the east side also.

Good gawd. The Swivel building is ugly as all h3ll.

I didn’t realize the same people were doing 50th and Leavenworth. This does not bode well for the neighborhood…

If you don't like the swivel, the same developer did the centerline off 72nd and center and the clove by children's/Methodist.

The Clove?! Funk me. My girl and I call that “the 60’s fireplace building.” (Where did they even get that stone veneer on the front?!)

That building is a nominee for my 2023 Sh1t Design Award.

This developer should be dragged to The Hague to answer for its crimes against humanity.

Haha, I don't find it offensive as you have, but that's pretty hilarious. They were trying for something more "classy" with the Clove to attract medical staff at the hospital. I guess it doesn't hit with everyone. Maybe this new one on Leavenworth will be a more stale/boring multifamily design that we more frequently get.

[S.O.Boy]

I remember when there was an arcade on that corner.

[Brad]

This will be a great improvement for that corner!

[ita]

Per planning agenda next week, project is officially called Walter Apartments.

[Brad]

Looks like this is going from 53 to 58 units

https://planning.cityofomaha.org/images ... ber/06.pdf

[Vitruvius]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

More overpriced housing for UNMC transplants, what’s new

[GenX]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

[Athomsfere]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

Probably.

And I think this is a fine development. Adds housing, decent parking, looks better than what is there now.

[PotatoeEatsFish]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

I really don’t see the point in adding more parking. Omaha is supposed to be moving away from parking and towards mass transit. I live here and I don’t have a car, I live by my work and everything I need. If I need to go somewhere further away I take the ORBIT or a bus. This is near the new streetcar so it really has no need for this. Plus these developments just offer parking to the residents, not to the public. It’s really just for rich people who scoff at the idea of taking a bus. I suggested the idea of taking the ORBIT to an out of town visitor to get downtown and he looked at me like I was crazy. How dare these people who grew up with a silver spoon sit among peasants.

[Dusty]

I really don’t see the point in adding more parking. Omaha is supposed to be moving away from parking and towards mass transit. I live here and I don’t have a car, I live by my work and everything I need. If I need to go somewhere further away I take the ORBIT or a bus. This is near the new streetcar so it really has no need for this. Plus these developments just offer parking to the residents, not to the public. It’s really just for rich people who scoff at the idea of taking a bus. I suggested the idea of taking the ORBIT to an out of town visitor to get downtown and he looked at me like I was crazy. How dare these people who grew up with a silver spoon sit among peasants.

I think if there is anyone in this forum that dislikes parking garages the most, it's me. They can add considerably to the cost, which is passed on the tenant with higher rent. They encourage more driving, vs taking transit. But there will always be a demand for some to drive. Some people want that urban living, but are scared to give up their car. It's like taking a pacifier away from a baby. Take away that comfort too soon and they will kick and scream.

There is a silver lining to it all. As people get used to transit, the parking becomes less in demand. At that point the complex can decide to convert some of that space to something else. For example, long term bike parking. Instead of hauling your bike up all those stairs in your unit, you can lock it up in the garage. Or creating quiet workspace rooms for people to get away from roommates. Or extra storage rooms you can rent for your extra stuff.

I think the development is a fair compromise. Only 47 parking stalls, and 58 units. The garage is mostly hidden from view, corner commercial bay, and 4 stories of residences. A lot was packed into this small lot.

[nativeomahan]

Having just returned from my annual trek to Key West, Florida, I’m always reminded each time I visit of the fact that non auto-centric communities do exist in the U.S. Probably more so than almost any small city in this country, Key West is designed to be bicycle, mass transit and walker friendly. Newer housing either has in-ground parking (nothing is underground in KW), or no parking at all. Bike lanes exist on every mile of every main and secondary roadway, either separated from auto lanes, or by having the auto lanes designated as bike lanes, with autos also permitted to access. And bicyclists are everywhere, on some streets frequently outnumbering autos. And I would guess that 20% or more of the vehicles operating on city streets are electric, which adds to the general serenity of the city. City buses also seemed to be electric, at least the ones I encountered operated silently. Most residents live within a few city blocks of mass transit options.
Yes, it helps that the city is only a few square miles in size, and flat as a pancake. And for what it’s worth, real estate prices are jaw dropping, with houses following the 1 BR/1 Bath/$1M; 2 BR/2 Bath/$2M; 3 BR/3 Bath/$3M pricing ratio.
And a bit off topic I confess, but a developer in Key Largo is proposing to build a 58,000 sq’ grocery store with part of the land reserved for 86 apartments designed for future employees of the grocery store. The city planning board recommended denial of the proposal in part because there were not enough apartments planned.
What off street parking lots that do exist sometimes are designated for use by strange bedfellows..,

[Louie]

I think the development is a fair compromise. Only 47 parking stalls, and 58 units. The garage is mostly hidden from view, corner commercial bay, and 4 stories of residences. A lot was packed into this small lot.

I don't think there is a commercial bay in this development.

[Dusty]

I think the development is a fair compromise. Only 47 parking stalls, and 58 units. The garage is mostly hidden from view, corner commercial bay, and 4 stories of residences. A lot was packed into this small lot.

I don't think there is a commercial bay in this development.

The last image shows a spot labeled "corner storefront recessed"
This would be the corner facing the intersection.

[Louie]

I think the development is a fair compromise. Only 47 parking stalls, and 58 units. The garage is mostly hidden from view, corner commercial bay, and 4 stories of residences. A lot was packed into this small lot.

I don't think there is a commercial bay in this development.

The last image shows a spot labeled "corner storefront recessed"
This would be the corner facing the intersection.

It's labeled 'amenity' in the floor plans. And at 550 sq ft, you can expect it to pretty much just be a small gym or something like that.

[Cermak]

Ho-Hum another 3-5 story apartment. Omaha almost getting to many of these.

[Dusty]

It's labeled 'amenity' in the floor plans. And at 550 sq ft, you can expect it to pretty much just be a small gym or something like that.

I didn't catch that. Even so. Still impressive how much they packed into this lot.

[Louie]

It's labeled 'amenity' in the floor plans. And at 550 sq ft, you can expect it to pretty much just be a small gym or something like that.

I didn't catch that. Even so. Still impressive how much they packed into this lot.

Yeah, tbh, I'm all for the development. I live less than a half mile from here and it's a marked improvement. Most of the neighbors are constantly complaining about developments like this and row houses on 52nd and Leavenworth, but then also complain about wanting more commercial options along that same strip. These developments that increase density give restaurants a fighting chance in the area.

[Linkin5]

Having just returned from my annual trek to Key West, Florida, I’m always reminded each time I visit of the fact that non auto-centric communities do exist in the U.S. Probably more so than almost any small city in the country

Mackinac Island in Michigan banned all motor vehicles in the 1800s. It’s pretty cool seeing a town where the only modes of transportation are bicycles and horses to this day.

[Vitruvius]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

Probably.

And I think this is a fine development. Adds housing, decent parking, looks better than what is there now.

Has the bar really been lowered to "...looks better than what is there now."

[Louie]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

Probably.

And I think this is a fine development. Adds housing, decent parking, looks better than what is there now.

Has the bar really been lowered to "...looks better than what is there now."

Have you seen it recently? Its a |expletive| dump.


With so many opinions on how every development should look, why don't you dip into your pockets and develop something?

[Flyer14]

I’ll second Louie, currently there is a one of those clothing donation dumpsters in the old laundry mart parking lot. It almost always has |expletive| people know that they can’t donate because it doesn’t fit and then it just sits there for months. I’m talking several mattresses and other furniture pieces just piling up. So in this case, any new development would be better than the abandoned-boarded up and obsolete laundry mat with an over grown and full of litter parking lot.

[Vitruvius]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

Probably.

And I think this is a fine development. Adds housing, decent parking, looks better than what is there now.

Has the bar really been lowered to "...looks better than what is there now."

Have you seen it recently? Its a |expletive| dump.


With so many opinions on how every development should look, why don't you dip into your pockets and develop something?

I live near the "expletive dump". 
If "developers" would present some actual design rather than another bland box on top of a parking garage, I'd likely offer less criticism and applaud the effort. Present something of quality, distinction, character, or merit. Otherwise, this could just as well be another Morton building. And even Morton buildings sometimes have more appeal and character.

[Athomsfere]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

Probably.

And I think this is a fine development. Adds housing, decent parking, looks better than what is there now.

Has the bar really been lowered to "...looks better than what is there now."

It adds housing, and as long as parking is kept down I'll accept it gladly.

[Louie]

Nothing special or interesting here. Just another inexpensive soulless box built on top of a parking garage.
And with the sliver of a setback granted, the building will overwhelm the parcel and the corner. Density is good. Degenerate design is not.

Wasn’t the topic of developing air space above parking garages just recently discussed, with the general agreement that developments like this were good and help with density?

Probably.

And I think this is a fine development. Adds housing, decent parking, looks better than what is there now.

Has the bar really been lowered to "...looks better than what is there now."

Have you seen it recently? Its a |expletive| dump.


With so many opinions on how every development should look, why don't you dip into your pockets and develop something?

I live near the "expletive dump". 
If "developers" would present some actual design rather than another bland box on top of a parking garage, I'd likely offer less criticism and applaud the effort. Present something of quality, distinction, character, or merit. Otherwise, this could just as well be another Morton building. And even Morton buildings sometimes have more appeal and character.

Yeah, I live a few blocks from it too. Once again, dig into your own pockets if you want to make a change.

[legato9]

A person can (and should) be critical, even if they don’t effectuate the change themself.

If that wasn’t true, a person would be utterly mentally crippled. Can’t evaluate a car without building one yourself? Can’t evaluate a doctor without going to medical school? Can’t evaluate a symphony without composing one? It’s non-sense.

A person has to respect rights. They have no right to *stop* someone from building a project. If you want to stop someone, then yes, buy the land.

But ugly is ugly, and it should be identified accordingly (as should beauty).

“Better than what’s there now” is a terrible standard by which to judge. It’s the language of abandoning ambition. Of disregarding inspiration. It’s the language of giving up.

These buildings are useful. I’m glad for more housing. But - and as much as this might sound like hyperbole - they’re also a very, very tangible sign of cultural decay. They’re a sign that people care very little. They’re a sign of lack of pride. They’re a sign that people don’t expect projects to be taken seriously.

Buildings like this are depression personified.

But, no doubt, it is better than what’s there now.

[Garrett]

Ya'll are really acting like every building built back in the day was a stunning architectural marvel and we only just started building bland buildings in the last couple decades.

[legato9]

Ya'll are really acting like every building built back in the day was a stunning architectural marvel and we only just started building bland buildings in the last couple decades.

I don’t know if I was included in that comment.

If so, I’ll say that much architecture in the past hundred years has been abysmal. The 60’s, for example, was an architectural dark ages.

It’s not unlike art. Art has completely gone to h3ll in the past hundred years as well. It’s so bad, I don’t think the vast majority of people know what art even is anymore, let alone the difference between good art and bad.

What is art and architecture for the most part now? Nothing. It’s a void. It’s not even nihilistic for the most part. It’s just a pure, mindless vacuum. The absence of ideas. The absence of thought.

It doesn’t have to be like that. There are amazing, beautiful, inspiring designs going up all over the world (including in the US). Many (most?) of them are “modern” styles. So none of this is to say that old designs are objectively preferable.

It is to say, however, that one can see the mind at work - or not at work - in the way a creator designs an object. You can tell if they cared. Even if their design is bad, you can still see if there was effort. And with the vast majority of projects, including this one, all I see is “I don’t care. I’m not inspired. All I aspire to is just getting this over with.”

[Dusty]

I get your frustration. Many of the new apartments are pretty unimaginative. Big, boxy, and lacking a lot of variety of looks.
What's important is adding housing or adding a building that has good bones that adds density. As I have said before, developers can always put an overlay or fake facade over the existing building to add columns, texture, color, intricate trimwork, etc. I know none of them are doing that right now, but could be added to improve the aesthetics. We can't do much about the boxy design without changing planning code.

We have a separate thread that goes over apartment designs as a whole.
viewtopic.php?p=386636#p386636

[Vitruvius]

Ya'll are really acting like every building built back in the day was a stunning architectural marvel and we only just started building bland buildings in the last couple decades.

Who are "ya’ll"? The majority here have a tantrum when historic preservation is even mentioned and only view debates through a black-and-white prism.

It’s hard to say if “every building built back in the day was a stunning architectural marvel." Very little tangible evidence exists because the majority of the past has been demolished and left in a landfill somewhere.
It’s a good idea for everyone, especially the bean counters, to remember that architectural heritage is an economic resource.

As far as the last couple of decades, very little, if any building, will ever be considered an “architectural marvel," not in Omaha. There has to be art in the architecture to accomplish that, and mere construction is not architecture. Just because anyone with money can call themselves a developer doesn't mean they have any aptitude for architecture and design.
Healthy, responsible development can only happen when the pedestrian, as in the human being, becomes the priority once again, rather than the automobile.

[Garrett]

Ya'll are really acting like every building built back in the day was a stunning architectural marvel and we only just started building bland buildings in the last couple decades.

Who are "ya’ll"? The majority here have a tantrum when historic preservation is even mentioned and only view debates through a black-and-white prism.

It’s hard to say if “every building built back in the day was a stunning architectural marvel." Very little tangible evidence exists because the majority of the past has been demolished and left in a landfill somewhere.
It’s a good idea for everyone, especially the bean counters, to remember that architectural heritage is an economic resource.

As far as the last couple of decades, very little, if any building, will ever be considered an “architectural marvel," not in Omaha. There has to be art in the architecture to accomplish that, and mere construction is not architecture. Just because anyone with money can call themselves a developer doesn't mean they have any aptitude for architecture and design.
Healthy, responsible development can only happen when the pedestrian, as in the human being, becomes the priority once again, rather than the automobile.

Omaha continues to be filled with the vast majority of its architectural history. Neighborhood after neighborhood is filled with homes and buildings original to the early days of the city. Yes, there are several notable losses in the city like the old city hall, post office, and Jobbers canyon. But the vast majority of the city is just standard, small, single family homes with little architecture to note. Bland architecture has existed throughout history, and will continue to exist. Quite frankly, good architecture has and will continue to cost money and mostly be for the wealthy.

Are you arguing for better architectural standards or better urban design standards? While they are related, they are still two different things. Thus far all of your critiques have been architecture based. It’s very possible to have a human scale district filled with bland buildings.