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?
It would have been a good headline, yes, if it were published about 5 years ago, when all there was was speculation. But now, it's obvious, YES, OMAHA CAN SUPPORT CONDOS DOWNTOWN. LOOK. WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK.
But it's typical OWH reporting to be about 3 to 5 years behind the times anyway, so that's not surprising .
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
And to answer your question of why it has taken so long for the Omaha condo market to just "creep up in the past year";
Omaha developers are pussies....at least historically ;) .
They've never had the confidence in Omaha to TAKE the risks in the past....So it's great that they're finally "finding" markets in Omaha...markets that have ALWAYS been there.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
If I were investing I would be a little cautious as well. The riverfront and Downtown Omaha just started coming alive in the last 7 years. The condos have been very quietly adding 50 here and 40 there. Never a boom until now.
I don't blame them for waiting and seeing what happens. Now its finally taking off and the growth will feed on itself.
Projectman, that's the point. It's not the developer/investors job to wait and see what happens. They're the ones who MAKE IT HAPPEN.
It's like if you're standing next to a pool with a bunch of people, and every single person is thinking, "I'm going to wait until these other guys get in," well, then NOBODY EVER GETS IN.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Finn, I can understand the lack of commercial and retail development downtown in the 80s and 90s since that was what was going on nationally. Downtown never should have lost its appeal as a neighborhood in the first place, though. There should have ALWAYS been developers who were pushing the urban lifestyle. To be a developer is to take RISKS. I'm not arguing that, of course the developers have been watching to see what happens. I'm saying, that if all you ever do as a developer is watch for someone else to take the first step, and everyone is thinking the same thing, then nothing gets done.
I have uber respect for the developers who got fed up with being pussies and actually TOOK the risk, so that now all the other "follower" developers can jump on the wagon.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Streets.... this is Omaha not New York. Things don't happen like that here. It much too conservative, there's not as much money, there's not as many people and downtown did loose its appeal in the 70's and 80's. So the pussies that you're talking about are financially saavy investors and developers that want to make sure the market is ready to go. Omaha is not a speculative building kind of town like Dallas, Denver, LA or New York. We will only get what we can fill up and pay for in the short-term. Maybe that will change someday but thats the way it is.
projectman wrote:Streets.... this is Omaha not New York.
Really? Jeeze, I didn't know. Where am I?
We obviously don't see eye to eye on this, so I'm just going to leave it at that.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Aaron... would you become mayor already... because until you do and realize all your wonderful plans for the city ... all you're accomplishing here is whining on a website message board.
Meanwhile... I'm trying to share with the world what a wonderful city I live in.
One of my very favorite things about Omaha is that there is such much potential and oppurtunity to make it into a first tier city (hopefully in my image ). I'm pretty sure Aaron feels the same way too, so it is to be expected when we think better decisions could have been made regarding this wonderful thing we call Omaha.
My apologies to all for taking this thead down this path. I just wanted to further the bridge/dt development discussion a little more but did not intend for it to become a personal slaging match between individual members. Admitedly, I myself sometimes get a little overly obcessed with certain topics on here, bridge building being one of them. But I don't want this discussion to get off track anymore than I have aready taken it. Hopefully we'll hear some additional information on its progress in the not too distant future. But untill then I guess I will just have to be content finding out what I can when I can.
I think what Streets is getting at is that even though we're not NYC or LA their isn't any reason to think we're not like them. KC isn't either of those places either but for some reason tons of people in Omaha act like it is. Omaha is very much on par with KC. Maybe not in everything (ML Sports, amusement parks) but it not that much differant than Omaha.
If we keep thinking like we're good ol' Omaha, Neebraskuh, than of course people in the city and outside of it won't think that much of Omaha either. I know we're not going to get a Manhattan look to DTO in the next few years but we should be concerned about the things we do have. Even the little things we |expletive| about add up in the big picture. Omaha is one of the major cities in the country. We should treat it like it is. Just because the name of Omaha might not ring as many bells and KC or Denver we all know that Omaha is just as much a city as they all are.
I know some of you think jsut because Omaha is smaller that it can't roll with bigger cities. Minneapolis has a million more people in it than KC does and they do well against each other, but when you put Omaha and KC together it seems like our million less people makes us inferioir. Wrong. And if you think about it that's probably a million more suburban people in KC. Our city will only be respected if we start giving it the respect it deserves. We're not going to be NYC over night and we shouldn't be but we should give a damn about what goes on where we live and how things are done.
Yes we've all said it before DTO and we all love Omaha. You are singing to the choir. This whole thing started with the Riverfront bridge and somehow it became an OWH plot to deface the city because they asked the question " Is Downtown Ready for More Condos?". Jeesh, It's not a Communist plot against Omaha it was just a question and then an article.
I think we've come full circle with this and need to put this to rest. We need to stick to the subject on these threads because I sometimes forget what the original topic was.
Titos,
Thanks for that lesson on Omaha's developmental history, and for the history of globalization and urbanization. I really had no idea of the existance of those concepts and was just basing my views on nothing at all in particular before you informed me of those phenomena. (Sarcasm )
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
I came across this. I wonder if anyone here was aware of it. This is a video I found showing the design for a new Mississippi River bridge in St. Louis. Although much bigger, it definitely reminds me of the Omaha bridge with its cable stayed design. Anyway, the video is cool. Check it out.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
mchine73 wrote:Damn, it says the towers on that bridge are going to be 510 feet. How tall is the one here going to be, like 250 ft?
Well, for one thing, the Muddy Missiouri ain't the Mighty Mississip. For another, the Omaha/CB bridge will probably be 20 feet wide. The St. Louis bridge will be more than 10 times wider, as it carries 8 lanes of auto traffic plus pedestrians. It is just built proportionally larger for those reasons.
Yeah, thats a considerably bigger design. That one is right up there with any of the other major suspension bridges in the US that accomodate vehicular traffic. Omaha's pedestrian design is obviously going to me much much smaller and less intensive in design, but would no doubt be very impressive for what it is.
If Omaha ever gets a new vehicle traffic carrying bridge over the Missouri I would expect a bridge similar in scale to this one. Lets hope that happens in the near future .
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Even though it would never happen I think it would be a good idea. CB could make a new DT for itself on the spot on the river. They could make a new city and county building and residences with restaurants and plces to shop as well. Two DTs right across from each other would be cool and make CB look much much better. It's not gonna happen though but it woudl be cool.
I believe WBE was a company that have a major road repair contract in town untill the city took it back from them because they could not keep up with the job.
Just another sign of how people still don't understand why Omaha needs things like this bridge. We're at a point as a city where we are redifing ourselves but some people will never get it and not see the benefit in promoting civic pride and civic iconography.
omahahawk wrote:I believe WBE was a company that have a major road repair contract in town untill the city took it back from them because they could not keep up with the job.
Oh yeah, duh!
Omaha could use a well done comercial like the one for that St. Louis bridge. Show it nightly during the local news and I bet you'd quickly improve people's opinion of the bridge.
I'm a long time proponent of commercials about Omaha, targeted AT Omahans, shown throughout the day on different channels. They'd just need to be quality commercials that just show different aspects of how awesome Omaha is. I'm sure it would do wonders for the "west O" culture and their knowledge of their city, or at least their drive to find out for themselves.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Do the people of Elkhorn really think one of the reasons they might be annexed is to help pay for the bridge? Maybe that would happen and maybe it would help a bit but I somehow doubt that that reason specifically is really entering into things.
The best way to explaing the pedestrian bridge to people who don't understand it is to compare it to the St. Louis Arch. An arch fer crissakes! Talk about being useless. Yet it is quite the revered structure in America, let alone the midwest. An it is an amazing piece of iconography for St. Louis.
Swift- I think you are missing out on two major difference. First, the Jefferson Memorial Arch in St. Louis is one of the National Park Services treasures that is a symbol. That symbol being the gateway to the west. I don't believe the pedestrian bridge does not have a deeper meaning.
Second, the Arch profits about 2 million dollars per year. Since it has been around for more than 40 years, the 15 million dollar outlay has been covered. Whereas the pedestrian bridge will yield no money, unless they install a toll booth- and that will take a heck of a lot of bikers.
I am all for the bridge as well, but I think you make a poor comparison.
I remember when they were marketing the Kearney Arch as being comparable in all ways to the one in St. Louis - LOL. No, this is by no means the Gateway Arch but it seriously ticks me off though that the general pop is like - "oh no! what do we need that for? nobody will use it - whats it going to do to my taxes?" Granted, I don't necessarily want to pay a whole lot more in taxes but at least I'm willing to do so when I can see it will be a real be a benefit to the city. This bridge will be and I don't think the extra 5 mil is going to break anybody in a city the size of Omaha. When the World Trade Center was first built 30 years ago alot of New Yorkers, were like "that is one ugly, plain looking building." When they lost it they were devestated by more than just the loss of lives. The same kind of thing probably holds true for the Freedom Tower they are building now. Alot of people think it looks like |expletive|. My 2 cents says its going to be awesome and that people will come around again. Same thing with the bridge here. Maybe people still kind of have thoughts of Kearney Arch in mind when it comes to this thing, but this is not the Kearney Arch and done properly, it has great potential for our city, the metro area, and ultimately even the state. In the final analysis, I really think people will come to love and identify with this project if it comes to fruition. I only hope we can get it done considering what our political climate may be in the next year or so.
FatGuy wrote:Swift- I think you are missing out on two major difference. First, the Jefferson Memorial Arch in St. Louis is one of the National Park Services treasures that is a symbol. That symbol being the gateway to the west. I don't believe the pedestrian bridge does not have a deeper meaning.
Second, the Arch profits about 2 million dollars per year. Since it has been around for more than 40 years, the 15 million dollar outlay has been covered. Whereas the pedestrian bridge will yield no money, unless they install a toll booth- and that will take a heck of a lot of bikers.
I am all for the bridge as well, but I think you make a poor comparison.
You can easily find symbolisim in the pedestrian bridge (connecting two states, connecting the metro, bridging adversity etc...symbolisim is easy to find ANYWHERe, let alone in something as obviously symbolic as a bridge), that wasn't my point.
My point is that it will serve Omaha as a visualy and architectural icon as the arch does for St. Louis.
Granted it won't make money like the arch, and charging a toll for it would be a terrible idea. But when shops etc. continue to spring up on each side of the bridge, the secondary economic effects would help set off a lot of the costs.
Swift- I think you are right that it will help the visual appeal of the city, but the Arch is on a bit bigger scale. The sybolism of the arch is recognized everywhere in this county, it was built for a symbolic purpose.
Our pedestrian bridge will be recognized by Iowa and Nebraska. I doubt Californian's are going to look at our bridge and say "Wow, that is the great Nebraska/Iowa connector." I doubt Iowans are going to say, "That bridge bridges adversity."
I think it is being built for a utilitarian purpose that looks cool. I don't believe there is a deeper symbolism other than what individuals will create, other than maybe "come back to the riverfront." Maybe if it had a set meaning or symbol, the people of Omaha would embrace it.
It may not be built with any sort of deep symbolism in mind but that's what it will come to mean. heck the spires will be taller than alot of buildings DT. It will be a very visible icon. Who gives a sh*t if people in California notice, it will be good for us and give reasons for people to go down there thus making it better for more shops and things to go there making it a cool Omaha hood.
You could be right, FatGuy, but I doubt it. I'm sure many a St. Louisian reacted the same way about the arch as Omahans are about the pedestrian bridge.
If it's really a symbolic meaning that you're hung up on then here: "Building a Bridge to the Future."
NOW back to my original point: the pedestrian bridge will serve as a piece of OMAHAN ICONOGRAPHY the way the arch serves as a piece of ST. LOUIS ICONOGRAPHY.
Who needs symbolism? It's just a kick a$$ bridge... that will impress plenty of convention go'ers/Gallup visitors/CWS fans/etc/etc... and open up an entirely new dimension for recreation in the downtown/riverfront area.
.
