Official: Missouri River Pedestrian Bridge

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:25 am

I can kind of see where they are coming from. I mean, from as it stands right now, where is the bridge going lead to? There is nothing in Council Bluffs at the moment and the river front in the vicinity of the bridge isn't the most interesting downtown park. During some of my trips down there this summer with my friends, there hasn't been too many people capering around there. At least not as many as there were in HOA Park. What I think would turn these people's opinions around would be some boardwalk retail and mixed use developments down there on both sides. Parks of the riverfront's nature are only interesting for so long per visit, but people's interest in shopping expands a larger time period. This is why the Old Market is a happening place to be, and other downtown districts are not. Or perhaps starting to emphasize the area as a great place for boating will get people down there. Open up some more marinas, a yaught club, whatever, and give it sort of a Lake of the Ozarks appeal. As long as there are appealing attractions on both sides of the river that will keep people in the area for a long period of time, they should support it.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:41 am

I'm sure Babs hibernates all winter and probably has a back-combed beehive and has no idea Omaha has come out of it's shell. It's a new century and some people are lost in a time warp.

Nothing we can do about it.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:42 am

Thats just it though. Once the bridge is built I really think there will be quite a bit greater interest in the area than there already is. I'm sure CB will probably find something good to do with their land that is sitting there once One Riverfront takes off. Also, I have to imagine we will be surprised at the number of people that venture down for walks and bike rides. Ever been on the Wabash Trace over in Iowa? Theres always a good stream of people using that on nice days and its done wonders for the local economies of the towns on the way. I think the same thing would quickly happen for the riverfront area as well because once the bridge is complete both Iowa and Nebraksa side trails will be linked and people won't have to load up the car with bikes and take them to a starting point somewhere along the trails. Ultimately, I'd like to see the day soon when you can just get on the trail closest to your home and be able to ride all the way down to Missouri. If the bridge is built we're not to far from that right now given Omaha's own expanding trail network. I'm totally for it and seriously think that it will be a major catalyst down there for retail and other development. If it is built they will come and Barbara can mark my words. Think I will go fire off a litle note to the public pulse now myself.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:44 am

It would be nice if we could develop the riverfront on both sides into something like Fisherman's Warf in SF or the Harbor in Baltimore. The bridge will be a great catalyst.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:30 am

After reading Swift's post I decided to take his advise and sent the following to the Public Pulse. I would encourage anybody else who is inclined to write and post their letters to this site as well.
*****************************

To the readers of the Public Pulse, I suggest the proposed Missouri River bridge is in fact very much wanted by this city. The problem is, the naysayers just don't know it yet. I know quite a few people in fact who are very much in favor of it. If constructed this bridge will be an iconic structure for Omaha both in terms of what it offers for city recreation and for what it stands for as a symbol of Omaha's rising business and cultural status. Its very much this writer's opinion that even the people who would speak most openly against building it are going to be the same people who end up using and loving it. This bridge will become an important catalyst for additional downtown development and will prove a positive fixture in enhancing the local business enviroment.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:35 am

Anyone interested... the email address is: [email protected]

You must include your name and address to be published (keeping in mind... not nearly every submission makes it to print).

BTW... the city of Council Bluffs does have plans for their side of the river, and they have in fact received from funding from Iowa West towards that end.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:46 pm

almighty_tuna wrote:
OWH Public Pulse wrote:Bridge isn't wanted

I am positive that Omaha is home to many private sources that contribute to needed or wanted projects. Building this walking bridge to Council Bluffs would be like throwing their money away if they were to contribute to its construction.

I have talked to many people since this project was first mentioned and so far have found no one who would walk across the bridge. Many of the waterfront businesses are needed, and it is an attractive area now. Can't Omaha and Council Bluffs find another project worthy of this cost?

This bridge could create a new crime area. Who is going to protect anyone walking on it?

Once again this is just another project put together by politicians without any input from either city's citizens. Wake up, Mayor Fahey, and ask the people if they truly want this bridge.
Barbara Husebo, Omaha

Pathetic.

I have heard a lady say this last year. And she works for the city too. Great

She said DT in general was a host of rapists and muggers. A place that big and open with people living by it won't be a high crime area. In fact it will be a pretty "rich" (like West O) neighborhood. Ignorrance abounds.

If they start marketing this bridge as Omaha's Arch, Space Needle, Wasington Monument it might garner some more support. A rendering with some DT buildings wouldn't hurt either. Most people don't know that the bridge's spires will be taller than alot of buildings DT. The bridge needs some positve PR. The only time you hear about it it's about how well it's not going.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:46 pm

TitosBuritoBarn wrote:I can kind of see where they are coming from. I mean, from as it stands right now, where is the bridge going lead to? There is nothing in Council Bluffs at the moment . . .

Titos, I would cordially invite you to grab your bike, hop on the bike trail where the east end of the bridge would be and ride a few miles and (re)educate yourself on what is in CB "at the moment". Once the bridge is built, there will also be a very nice park-area along the river (as you can see from another post here).

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:16 pm

CB really needs to get something down there to walk to. Not everyone rides bikes. Alot of people might just go to be on the bridge and turn around. Both sides need more attractions though. Maybe CB can do a Navy Pier Coney Island type thing.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:06 pm

You have to remember that all land between the river and Federal levee is within the floodway, and hence no development of any significance. From the talks I've had with some CB Parks and Rec people, there are plans for this park area to host some major outdoor attractions each year.

Besides, must we build on every square inch of land for it to be considered a "destination"? What's wrong with having a little somewhat-natural area in the middle of an urban area for a little nature-loving or quiet introspection?

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:09 pm

We have enough of that DT. We need more urban.

TitosBuritoBarn · Post by **TitosBuritoBarn** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:17 pm

icejammer wrote:
TitosBuritoBarn wrote:I can kind of see where they are coming from. I mean, from as it stands right now, where is the bridge going lead to? There is nothing in Council Bluffs at the moment . . .
Titos, I would cordially invite you to grab your bike, hop on the bike trail where the east end of the bridge would be and ride a few miles and (re)educate yourself on what is in CB "at the moment". Once the bridge is built, there will also be a very nice park-area along the river (as you can see from another post here).

Sorry, I realize that post wasn't worded very well. The point I was trying to make is along the lines of what DTO was saying. Obviously there are things in CB. But on that end of the bridge, at least from having looked across the river from the Omaha side, all I see are trees. Most people probably won't bring their bike down there with them. At least that's how it is now. The area seems geared more towards the walker. I haven't really looked at the plans for the Council Bluffs park, but, if they can build it with enough attractions to keep people around for longer than they can cross the bridge, turn around, and come back, then fantastic. But at the same time, our metro has plenty of parks catering to the nature lover. I'd really like to see something that expands the urbanity of downtown. I think it would be something really unique if the area around the river was an urban shopping, boating, what have you destination instead of another nature preserve of a park.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:32 pm

Titos,

All I can say to that is that if you look back to the founding legislation related to the bridge, which relates to the "Back to the River" initiative, you will see that the plan for the CB side of the river much more closely reflects the desires of the "Back to the River" vision than does the Omaha side.

The ultimate use of the site is going to hinge somewhat on what gets built on the Playland Park property, but I am fairly certain that the park that will eventually go there will feature plenty of family and otherwise activities to draw people there.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:36 am

*rant*

OK, whats up with WH? I sent in my little pro bridge letter and it didn't get published. I understand they don't publish everything but it still kind of irks me. Its not that I think it was such a great or well written letter but I'd be surprised if very many other people actually took the time to send in an opposing view point. (except for maybe some of the people on here). Anyway, does anyone think it is crazy to think the WH is negative on the bridge, the QC, and DTO development in general? I think this kind of conversation has been brought up before and maybe I'm just being a conspiracy theorist but I also just thought it would make for some interesting food for thought.

Oh yeah, And one more thing.....Why are their little polls that they have on Omaha.com so lame? They seem totaly leading, like they're trying to skew the survey results. They ask some of the dumbest questions imaginable and its almost like they're just begging you to choose the option "I don't know/I don't care". Am I alone in this line of thinking?

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:50 am

I don't really think they're anti any of those. They just don't get as excited as all of us and they report from a more neutral perspective. It sounds really negative to most of us because we are all freaks about Omaha

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:42 am

Even for us super Omahans, the OWH does seem to have a negative, pessimistic slant.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:11 pm

omahahawk wrote:Anyway, does anyone think it is crazy to think the WH is negative on the bridge, the QC, and DTO development in general?

As far as I'm concerned, there's NO question about the OWH's bias AGAINST downtown Omaha, and Omaha development in general. They are a poor, poor newspaper.

Why can't Omaha get another news daily??? I think one of the news weeklies needs to make the leap and go daily.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:09 pm

I think it's time for us to voice our concern to the World Herald. I am going to start writing at least one letter to the OWH editors a month. I suggest we all should do it, just to let them know what's really going on in Omaha.

here are some websites that give tips for writing letters to the editor:
http://www.phrusa.org/students/sample_l ... ditor.html
http://www.iatp.org/antibiotics/library ... Editor.htm

guy4omaha · Post by **guy4omaha** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:18 pm

Guys....

OWH may be a very poor newspaper by some standards. However, it was the World-Herald and John Gottschalk along with leaders of First National Bank that really spearheaded this current initative of the last ten years or so. They held the first press conferences to announce a new vision at the time for a renewed downtown Omaha. In addition to buildings they announced their intention to lead the way with more greenspace and public art. The World-Herald announced the Freedom Center and other reinvestment plans at the time. FNB announced the computer center and promised more projects to come. John Gottschalk, if you look at the list of major contributors of time and/or money, is on many, many projects around town. Especially downtown.

From the commitment that OWH and FNB demonstrated has come the Qwest Center, UP Headquarters, Hilton, Abbott Drive, the parks, etc. To paraphrase them, they were the ones who got up and said we believe in downtown, we think Downtown Omaha can and should be better. They then announced their first phase of projects. Then they challenged the rest of the Omaha business community to do the same.

Maybe some of you don't know that history. The facts just don't support this argument that the World-Herald is anti-downtown. It appears, though, that they want to have a voice at the table as to how downtown develops. Write your letter campaigns to argue with their ideas for downtown vs the others out there. But I fear if you accuse them of being anti-downtown, you will lose all credibility.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:32 pm

If their so pro DT then why don't their articles reflect that? I know John Gottschalk was instrumental in starting the boom DT but after reading headlines like "Can DT Handle More Condos?" and stories like that it makes you wonder. Other cities newpaper spoke more highly about us then our own did. Places like Dallas, Chicago, NYC, DC, and KC were all praising Omaha's DT efforts but the OWH, even in the most pro Omaha articles, always has a nasty littel negative spin to it.

They need to stop with all the stories about how great Omaha is and adding but yada yada yada. Showing some pride and getting people to look at Omaha in a positive light would help top bring some of the cities biggest naysayers around.

As far the bridge goes, I wouldn't mind raising the taxes for it. It would probably be temporary any and I'm sure some business will make some donations too.

guy4omaha · Post by **guy4omaha** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:29 pm

DTO,

It's not wise to try to get in someone else's head, but if I we're to guess on some of OWH's stories:

The World-Herald is not just a voice for the people but an organ of the business community as well. The business community has enthusiasm for civic development and progress. But this enthusiasm is probably not as unbridled as those of us with much less to gain or lose from these developments. The business community has some wherewithall to make things happen, but its wallet is only so big just like yours and mine. It is easy for you or I to say, "Surely some business will make donations." However, if you or I were making the actual donation, we might ask some more pointed questions (questions that seem unenthusiastic about the project) to make sure our money was well spent and went as far as possible. A few poor decisions or less than optimal ones means there may be less money available for the next really great project.

The money, the buildings, political capital, infact the corporate enthusiasm and persistence are all finite. We may want to do and fund 100 worthwhile projects, we may want to build a building of 50 stories in height, etc. But when the wallet comes out, reality must take the front seat. We might play armchair quarterback and observe that our leaders are being shortsighted. But until we are the ones giving up the money, saying yes to this project at the expense of another, taking the risks ourselves, we can afford to be a lot more enthusiastic with no qualifications.

The business community may have some other ideas as well as condos that they want to support. They may want to make sure we don't overextend ourselves on condos at this point at the expense of something else. It may even be as simple as the business community is supportive but fears that if we get overbuilt too soon, then the short-term pain from being overbuilt could in fact jeopardize the condo concept on a much longer term scale.

Also, negative headlines sell better whether we like it or not!

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:34 am

Thank you.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:33 am

I second that.

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:41 pm

Third!

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:37 pm

I guess I'm of the journalistic ethics camp in which the media (OWH) and the businesses which the media reports on are completely independent of each other. Granted OWH is paid for largely by advertising, but for that to influence their reporting signifies a lack of integrity.

How can you argue that "Can DT Handle More Condos?" is not an inherently slanted headline? I agree with you that negative headlines sell more papers, but when the majority of Omahans aren't even aware that there are condos downtown, it does nothing but hurt Omahans' image of Omaha.

A newspaper is not supposed to push or even allude to their opinion in articles, that is what the editorial page is for.

I love the OWH, but she seems often too biased for my tastes.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:22 pm

I would argue that the headline "Can DT Handle More Condos?" is NOT inherently slanted. It's a question that many (uninformed) people were asking, and it's certainly a good attention grabbing headline to help sell newspapers. There's nothing in the headline to suggest whether the answer should be yes or no, so how can you say it's negative? Remember, they not only have to report the news, they have to sell it!

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:43 pm

Yeah you have to sell it but the should be a bit more responsible. I remember when the OWH gave in and started calling it the Qwest Center how they went on this big self promo about how they were the largest media outlet in the metro. Even bigger than the tv stations. If they are the main source of news for people inside and outside of Omaha than they should use more discretion in how their stories come off.

The news channels did the exact same stories about the conods and they made the projects sound dandy and that DT living was on the move. If the tv stations can be upbeat about stories that need positve attention than the OWH should too. The article probably did show many people DT condos for the first time, but when they have negative slanted headlines and stories than all that does is add to the self conciousness that many people already have aobut Omaha.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:07 pm

icejammer wrote:I would argue that the headline "Can DT Handle More Condos?" is NOT inherently slanted. It's a question that many (uninformed) people were asking, and it's certainly a good attention grabbing headline to help sell newspapers. There's nothing in the headline to suggest whether the answer should be yes or no, so how can you say it's negative? Remember, they not only have to report the news, they have to sell it!

It is slanted because it had nothing to do with a major news event. DT is/was getting a lot more condos. That was the event. The only source publicy question weather DT could handle it was the OWH. The news was the condos, not if downtown could handle it.

omahastylee459 · Post by **omahastylee459** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:20 pm

OWH Public Pulse: Bridge will be great

The proposed Missouri River bridge is very much wanted by this city. The problem is that the naysayers just don't know it yet. I know quite a few people who are very much in favor of it.

If constructed, this bridge would be an iconic structure for Omaha, both in terms of what it would offer for downtown recreation and for what it would stand for as a symbol of Omaha's rising business and cultural status.

It's very much this writer's opinion that even the people who would speak most openly against building it are going to be the same people who end up using it and loving it.

This bridge will become an important catalyst for additional downtown development and will prove a positive fixture that enhances the local business environment.
Matt McCan, Omaha

was this one of u guys????

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:37 pm

I'm not going to deny that this improves my opinion of the OWH.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:55 pm

[quote= was this one of u guys????[/quote]

Thats me and I'm glad they printed it. Looks like I need to work more on my patience though.

guy4omaha · Post by **guy4omaha** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:27 am

Great Letter. Way to Go!

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:35 am

Swift wrote:I would argue that the headline "Can DT Handle More It is slanted because it had nothing to do with a major news event. DT is/was getting a lot more condos. That was the event. The only source publicy question weather DT could handle it was the OWH. The news was the condos, not if downtown could handle it.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I would just counter that the headline was far more attention grabbing than you might imagine, and just the headline needed to bring attention to the condos downtown for those who have no idea what is going on downtown and would otherwise wonder why people would want to live downtown. Heck, it was a great headline; we're still discussing it months later! It has certainly elevated the status of downtown living in the eyes of many who were otherwise "oblivions."

Peace!

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:42 am

Swift wrote:
icejammer wrote:I would argue that the headline "Can DT Handle More Condos?" is NOT inherently slanted. It's a question that many (uninformed) people were asking, and it's certainly a good attention grabbing headline to help sell newspapers. There's nothing in the headline to suggest whether the answer should be yes or no, so how can you say it's negative? Remember, they not only have to report the news, they have to sell it!
It is slanted because it had nothing to do with a major news event. DT is/was getting a lot more condos. That was the event. The only source publicy question weather DT could handle it was the OWH. The news was the condos, not if downtown could handle it.

EXACTLY RIGHT. Thanks, Bob.

Sure that was a question that many UNINFORMED people were asking, and it's the job of the newspaper to INFORM. To have a headline that ASKS a question such as this implies doubt. The OWH might as well have made the headline "We as a News Paper Don't Think Omaha Can Support these Condos Downtown". At least that would have been an honest headline.

The thing that was funny about that article was that EVERY SINGLE DEVELOPER interviewed responded with the same answer to that question, to the effect of "Are you serious? Of course Omaha can support them. This is only the tip of the iceberg for what Omaha can support." Stopping short of, "What kind of stupid question is that?"

If the headline truely reflected the contents of the article it would have read, "Downtown Omaha Poised to Experience Condo Boom!" Sub-headline, "Developers Optimistic About the Future of Condos Downtown."

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:52 am

I think it was a very valid question and a good headline. It's a question a lot of people were asking and by the never ending threads on this topic I think the OWH created quite a bit of conversation about this all over town.

It reminds me of the J Doe project back in 2000(which my mother in law created the "Purple People Eater"). Couldn't believe the controversy it created in the Omaha.com website, after it was printed. People were very opinionated about how stupid it was or how great it was. Just the fact that so many people were talking about it made it a great success.

Now more people are talking about the condos and what a success they are and that the Omaha market can absorb more of them, I think the article was very effective.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:03 am

The OWH made themselves look stupid with that headline and then printed in the article that DTO could handle 5,000 condos.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:12 am

Exactly, DTO. In their attempt to cast doubt on Omaha and Downtown, they succeeded in making themselves look stupid....regardless of how much "buzz" it caused, which is a good thing.

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:17 pm

Thank you projectman, that is dead on!

Finn · Post by **Finn** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:58 pm

Who is looking stupid here?

Come on, if we all knew the Omaha condo market was so great, why has it only crept up in the last year. Sure there is a lot of potential now and the ball is rolling and gaining momentum, but nobody knows how many units downtown can handle. Sure it’s easy to pick a number and assume, but what about market demand, preferences, product type, vacancies and absorption. There is a lot of risk involved with pioneering new product in a market. And yes, downtown condos are a new product for Omaha.

The article asked a legitimate question that is still open for debate (although I know some of you must have the answer).

Also, don't you think every developer is going to say "of course we can support condos" in other words, "come buy some of my units?" Is this not more biased than the World Herald article?[/b]

guy4omaha · Post by **guy4omaha** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:41 pm

projectman wrote:I think it was a very valid question and a good headline. It's a question a lot of people were asking and by the never ending threads on this topic I think the OWH created quite a bit of conversation about this all over town.

It reminds me of the J Doe project back in 2000(which my mother in law created the "Purple People Eater"). Couldn't believe the controversy it created in the Omaha.com website, after it was printed. People were very opinionated about how stupid it was or how great it was. Just the fact that so many people were talking about it made it a great success.

Now more people are talking about the condos and what a success they are and that the Omaha market can absorb more of them, I think the article was very effective.

I say right on as well projectman. You can bet the business community was asking this. The paper was doing its best to flush out the objection and get it answered before it festered into real opposition.

I have been in sales most of these past 20 years. The best way to sell something is to ask a question. Get the prospect you're selling to answer in a way that they sell themselves. The fact that the World-Herald had an article where every single person responded in the affirmative that Omaha could handle this many condos bolsters the point. If the paper had said that Omaha could handle it would not be as powerful as all of these developers saying it.

OWH may or not be your favorite rag but the paper and the business community it answers to, in part, is definitely PRO-Downtown.