Medical Solutions DT Office

[iamjacobm]

I know there were rumors of this group moving downtown a few years ago. No idea how legitimate this project was but some very cool renderings of what their HQ could have looked like at the link below.

https://www.b2lab.com/215omacenter

Lets just take this exact concept and move it a block south to the State Office Building site!

[ita]

Wow. That's interesting. Cool building, but the parking garage taking the library site is disgusting. This must be a pretty old rendering. The GLM/riverfront renovation is not even referenced in this concept.

[Garrett]

Wow. That's interesting. Cool building, but the parking garage taking the library site is disgusting. This must be a pretty old rendering. The GLM/riverfront renovation is not even referenced in this concept.

It is. It refers to the new “Gene Leahy Mall at the Riverfront” which is a post redesign brand. But it looks like it came out relatively early in the process.

[nebport5]

That tower is also somewhat reminiscent of the Lanoha rendering at the former U.P. lot.

I got a kick out of the Louis Vuitton signage.

[Doctor Fate]

Looks like it was close to 400 ft. Something like this would be great to replace the State Office Building.

[riceweb]

Just in general, there's no scenario where working in a traditional office will be the dominant way of working for information workers going forward. Idolizing tall commercial buildings that are now obsolete is a bit silly, especially during our recent time period (2020+) of rapid exurbanization, with the suburbs sprawling out at breakneck pace across the country.

[Doctor Fate]

Just in general, there's no scenario where working in a traditional office will be the dominant way of working for information workers going forward. Idolizing tall commercial buildings that are now obsolete is a bit silly, especially during our recent time period (2020+) of rapid exurbanization, with the suburbs sprawling out at breakneck pace across the country.

Yes, I’m a developer at Zillow and we are fully remote. But a building with this design and height just flipping the residential and office component is feasible.

[Garrett]

Class A office space is actually still doing really well. It’s the lower tier classes, like the CPP->Duo, that are struggling more. Companies that are retaining office space want good spaces with lots of amenities.

[Linkin5]

I have never seen that rendering, please god put something like that on the state building lot.

[riceweb]

Class A office space is actually still doing really well. It’s the lower tier classes, like the CPP->Duo, that are struggling more. Companies that are retaining office space want good spaces with lots of amenities.

I think there's some lag to this. Mutual would never greenlight their new tower today in light of work-from-home changes, in light of AI, etc.

[Elkhorn_Urbanist]

Class A office space is actually still doing really well. It’s the lower tier classes, like the CPP->Duo, that are struggling more. Companies that are retaining office space want good spaces with lots of amenities.

I think there's some lag to this. Mutual would never greenlight their new tower today in light of work-from-home changes, in light of AI, etc.

They literally gave it the go-ahead after COVID, after WFH was already a thing. Which is why it was built smaller than their current footprint, to accommodate a hybrid workforce. There are numerous studies that show that class A office space, of which much is new-build, is quite competitive with high occupancy rates despite the increased prevalence of working remotely.

[riceweb]

Class A office space is actually still doing really well. It’s the lower tier classes, like the CPP->Duo, that are struggling more. Companies that are retaining office space want good spaces with lots of amenities.

I think there's some lag to this. Mutual would never greenlight their new tower today in light of work-from-home changes, in light of AI, etc.

They literally gave it the go-ahead after COVID, after WFH was already a thing. Which is why it was built smaller than their current footprint, to accommodate a hybrid workforce. There are numerous studies that show that class A office space, of which much is new-build, is quite competitive with high occupancy rates despite the increased prevalence of working remotely.

Right, I realize that it was greenlit after COVID, but like I said, there's lag in the attitudes around this. They would *never* greenlight that again today, especially now that AI has the potential to massively reduce their workforce, especially customer service.

[HskrFanMike]

Class A office space is actually still doing really well. It’s the lower tier classes, like the CPP->Duo, that are struggling more. Companies that are retaining office space want good spaces with lots of amenities.

I think there's some lag to this. Mutual would never greenlight their new tower today in light of work-from-home changes, in light of AI, etc.

The WFH changes actually forced Mutual's hand on this. It's my understanding that major plumbing failures occurred when the building sat mostly empty in 2020, and they are now limited as to the number of people that can be in the building. So they had to choose whether to gut their existing building to repair or build new in order to have any sort of "return to the office".

[riceweb]

The WFH changes actually forced Mutual's hand on this. It's my understanding that major plumbing failures occurred when the building sat mostly empty in 2020, and they are now limited as to the number of people that can be in the building. So they had to choose whether to gut their existing building to repair or build new in order to have any sort of "return to the office".

Sure, but if you are having conversations (as the C Suites in all these companies are) about massively reducing headcount because of AI, would you want to make a big get on an expensive office? I am in no way saying that their current office was adequate, just that the nature of these conversations / the nature of the groupthink about AI that's taking over the C Suite is suggestive of rapid, material changes to staffing everywhere. A modicum of improvement in the models or the integration of these systems with MCP servers or the slightest increase in cost/efficiency can nearly eliminate entire departments over night. That's the type of thing that's front and center for most execs right now. Under no circumstances would a giant office tower fit with that new disruptive model.

Where I'm going with this: it behooves us as a city to think of a post-commercial office world. We should focus on livability, increasing green space, etc. We should assume that not only will we not get any major new office builds going forward, we should not assume we'll benefit from construction jobs related to those builds, that our ridership numbers for the streetcar might not be accurate, that our resources as a city might need to be reallocated, etc. Enormous change is coming. Our strategy as a city should reflect the new reality.

[Linkin5]

The WFH changes actually forced Mutual's hand on this. It's my understanding that major plumbing failures occurred when the building sat mostly empty in 2020, and they are now limited as to the number of people that can be in the building. So they had to choose whether to gut their existing building to repair or build new in order to have any sort of "return to the office".

Sure, but if you are having conversations (as the C Suites in all these companies are) about massively reducing headcount because of AI, would you want to make a big get on an expensive office? I am in no way saying that their current office was adequate, just that the nature of these conversations / the nature of the groupthink about AI that's taking over the C Suite is suggestive of rapid, material changes to staffing everywhere. A modicum of improvement in the models or the integration of these systems with MCP servers or the slightest increase in cost/efficiency can nearly eliminate entire departments over night. That's the type of thing that's front and center for most execs right now. Under no circumstances would a giant office tower fit with that new disruptive model.

A couple things, the new MoO tower is significantly reducing their total square footage footprint from their previous headquarters. Current AI technology is going to cause some cuts in employment but not some mass job extinction event. If AGI comes to fruition we’ll see at least 40% of white collar jobs eliminated but nobody has any idea when this will be achieved, some say 5 years, some say 25 years. Paired with that, we have no idea what new jobs could be created as a result of these advancements.

I definitely agree that the city as a whole should plan for the future but companies can’t stand still and neglect current obligations for tech that hasn’t arrived.

[Garrett]

Good urban planning is using current tools to build for the future. The future itself is unpredictable, but we know how to address a wide variety of problems today. You run into trouble when you start making far out predictions. Look at how Musk sold the country on hyperloop, and consider how many high speed rail projects could have been build in the time we’ve waited for that to happen.

[riceweb]

Good urban planning is using current tools to build for the future. The future itself is unpredictable, but we know how to address a wide variety of problems today. You run into trouble when you start making far out predictions. Look at how Musk sold the country on hyperloop, and consider how many high speed rail projects could have been build in the time we’ve waited for that to happen.

I'm just pointing out that we should not be planning on a large number of office-based employees when making strategic transportation decisions or when designing tax-incentive systems, etc.

[riceweb]

We should maybe even have a height limit on all new construction to force more of a Copenhagen-style approach to development that is much more livable. I don't understand how we benefit as a city from taller construction.

[Louie]

We should maybe even have a height limit on all new construction to force more of a Copenhagen-style approach to development that is much more livable. I don't understand how we benefit as a city from taller construction.

I don't think we have any reason to place height limits in this city.

[ita]

I don't understand how we benefit as a city from taller construction.

Ways we benefit from taller construction are directly tied to benefits of increased density, such more efficient use of infrastructure, consolidation of services, increased property tax base, maximization of limited available land, among other things. For projects like the streetcar, we absolutely need to go as tall/dense as possible near the route to maximize the city's investment.

[riceweb]

I don't understand how we benefit as a city from taller construction.

Ways we benefit from taller construction are directly tied to benefits of increased density, such more efficient use of infrastructure, consolidation of services, increased property tax base, maximization of limited available land, among other things. For projects like the streetcar, we absolutely need to go as tall/dense as possible near the route to maximize the city's investment.

That seems completely contrary to a city like London which has very little high-rise density yet an expansive and world-class transit system. Tall buildings also lead to enormous parking structures, and most cities still have huge "parking bombs" of surface parking lots everywhere, even as they have towering high-rises. And we still do not have anything going on at the Wall Street Tower location or Civic Square. There's a pretty clear correlation to me that excessive height does not improve overall density.

And perhaps ironically, if we had zero available lots because we filled them in with 4-6 story buildings, then demand for any developable lot would probably increase substantially, ultimately leading more height. It's like we have it backwards: aiming for high-rises to satisfy our egos rather than focusing on satisfactory and immediate infill.

[Louie]

I don't understand how we benefit as a city from taller construction.

Ways we benefit from taller construction are directly tied to benefits of increased density, such more efficient use of infrastructure, consolidation of services, increased property tax base, maximization of limited available land, among other things. For projects like the streetcar, we absolutely need to go as tall/dense as possible near the route to maximize the city's investment.

That seems completely contrary to a city like London which has very little high-rise density yet an expansive and world-class transit system. Tall buildings also lead to enormous parking structures, and most cities still have huge "parking bombs" of surface parking lots everywhere, even as they have towering high-rises. And we still do not have anything going on at the Wall Street Tower location or Civic Square. There's a pretty clear correlation to me that excessive height does not improve overall density.

And perhaps ironically, if we had zero available lots because we filled them in with 4-6 story buildings, then demand for any developable lot would probably increase substantially, ultimately leading more height. It's like we have it backwards: aiming for high-rises to satisfy our egos rather than focusing on satisfactory and immediate infill.

I think the difference here is that we are talking about Shenzhen, London, and Copenhagen in the same breath as Omaha. We do not have the same market forces at play to force verticality or density like those 3.

[ita]

I don't understand how we benefit as a city from taller construction.

Ways we benefit from taller construction are directly tied to benefits of increased density, such more efficient use of infrastructure, consolidation of services, increased property tax base, maximization of limited available land, among other things. For projects like the streetcar, we absolutely need to go as tall/dense as possible near the route to maximize the city's investment.

That seems completely contrary to a city like London which has very little high-rise density yet an expansive and world-class transit system. Tall buildings also lead to enormous parking structures, and most cities still have huge "parking bombs" of surface parking lots everywhere, even as they have towering high-rises. And we still do not have anything going on at the Wall Street Tower location or Civic Square. There's a pretty clear correlation to me that excessive height does not improve overall density.

And perhaps ironically, if we had zero available lots because we filled them in with 4-6 story buildings, then demand for any developable lot would probably increase substantially, ultimately leading more height. It's like we have it backwards: aiming for high-rises to satisfy our egos rather than focusing on satisfactory and immediate infill.

I think the difference here is that we are talking about Shenzhen, London, and Copenhagen in the same breath as Omaha. We do not have the same market forces at play to force verticality or density like those 3.

Agreed. We can't really compare ourselves with those cities when our American suburbs in Omaha and the almost all other major cities, are low density. Those cities have densities outside of their "cores" much higher then we do, so they may not feel as pressured as we do to increase density. I looked at overall city densities. Just a quick Google search reveals Copenhagen's municipal density to be around 18000/sq. mi. while London has less at 14,000/sq. mi. Our most dense census tracts don't touch those numbers, while our city's density is around 3,500/sq. mi. Our urban development over time has put us in a position where, I believe, we do need to increase density, particularly through building taller, especially in our core.

[GenX]

I don't understand how we benefit as a city from taller construction.

Ways we benefit from taller construction are directly tied to benefits of increased density, such more efficient use of infrastructure, consolidation of services, increased property tax base, maximization of limited available land, among other things. For projects like the streetcar, we absolutely need to go as tall/dense as possible near the route to maximize the city's investment.

That seems completely contrary to a city like London which has very little high-rise density yet an expansive and world-class transit system. Tall buildings also lead to enormous parking structures, and most cities still have huge "parking bombs" of surface parking lots everywhere, even as they have towering high-rises. And we still do not have anything going on at the Wall Street Tower location or Civic Square. There's a pretty clear correlation to me that excessive height does not improve overall density.

And perhaps ironically, if we had zero available lots because we filled them in with 4-6 story buildings, then demand for any developable lot would probably increase substantially, ultimately leading more height. It's like we have it backwards: aiming for high-rises to satisfy our egos rather than focusing on satisfactory and immediate infill.

I think the difference here is that we are talking about Shenzhen, London, and Copenhagen in the same breath as Omaha. We do not have the same market forces at play to force verticality or density like those 3.

Agreed. We can't really compare ourselves with those cities when our American suburbs in Omaha and the almost all other major cities, are low density. Those cities have densities outside of their "cores" much higher then we do, so they may not feel as pressured as we do to increase density. I looked at overall city densities. Just a quick Google search reveals Copenhagen's municipal density to be around 18000/sq. mi. while London has less at 14,000/sq. mi. Our most dense census tracts don't touch those numbers, while our city's density is around 3,500/sq. mi. Our urban development over time has put us in a position where, I believe, we do need to increase density, particularly through building taller, especially in our core.

Also, we're quickly running out of developable land in Douglas County, which will ultimately force more density.