WallStreet Tower Omaha

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:29 pm

True. I thought, though, that subletting or selling part of the site still might fit the criterion of "developing the whole block."

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:32 pm

I looked back at the revised renderings, and they do make me a bit nervous. I saw somebody said the term "toothpick" to describe it. I don't think of it to that degree, but I see what they mean. I still like the look of it somewhat, but the revised design is definitely not as nice as the original design, imo.

Would it be too skinny for the skyline if built with the current revised design? It might be. From the south-north angle, I would rather see it the original design, kind of a similar rectangular shape of the old First National Bank building. From the east-west angle, the structure is thin, but it kind of mirrors the thin side of the Woodmen, and the slender side of the new First National Tower. With the building cut in-half, it might be too thin altogether to look right. Maybe if they could reduce the tower's broad side by 35-40% (and not 50%)??

I would just hate to see something looking high-tech and modern, yet not quite right, and semi-awkward, on the Omaha skyline. Architecture is so important to get it right the first time -- because a city is stuck with it. (I think of a city that built a new skyscraper, and I basically cringe every time I see it, because I don't feel it fits the city that well. I have given it time to get used to it. I can't get used to it -- so far. I'm not saying which city.) My point is: The design needs to be 100% right, before it is built. Too many people comment that the revised plan is wrong. That likely means the revised design is wrong.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:33 pm

Well, the people they have committed now bought a certain condo with a certain layout. The original building had 2 of each layouts on each floor, the new one has one of each. So either we cut it in half like they did, or lose the height. No other options unless they wanted to start all over.

ShawJ · Post by **ShawJ** » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:02 pm

A few thoughts:

The renderings make the tower look taller than it actually is. I think the toothpick presence is highlighted a bit more by the renderings than what it would actually look like in person.

I think from this angle it would look fine.

It's when you get closer that I think it starts to look awkward.

If they added some type of "top" to the shorter part rather than having it cut off so abruptly, it might look better.

I'm kind of torn on what I hope happens. I doubt we would get another 373ft tower if the city looked for another proposal. At the same time, is the height worth it if it looks out of place? And how long would it take to get another proposal?

Regardless, it's all probably pointless to discuss because from what we've seen with this project it probably won't ever see the light of day.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:27 pm

I agree with you guys... I almost think I want it built so bad, that I'm willing to give the second design a chance -- just so something goes up, and there's no big hole in downtown Omaha. Yet, I've decided: If it will look awkward...I don't want it. I don't want to just settle for the second design, because I want more height on the Omaha skyline. Looking at the second design, it does look a bit too skinny to me, although the basic rectangular shape is similar to the Woodmen's rectangular shape (just scaled & shrunk down). I think it will look a bit too weak. And, having the ultra-squatty, glass cube of the UP Building next to it, doesn't help (that building's footprint is probably as big as one of the WTC Towers). However, the original design may have been a bit too broad as well. However, the original design is a safer design, I think, as far as having good aesthetics on the skyline.

What's the scoop? Wasn't there supposed to be a big announcement today?

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:52 pm

Supposed to be? Yes. Did one happen? Of course not. I'm guessing we'll here what the city has to say soon. Or at least, we better.

RockHarbor · Post by **RockHarbor** » Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:39 pm

Axel wrote:Supposed to be? Yes. Did one happen? Of course not. I'm guessing we'll here what the city has to say soon. Or at least, we better.

They must need more time, I guess....

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:01 pm

So it seems November is about ready to come and go and still no announcement of any kind. I thought Townsend might have said there would be at least some kind of announcement this month, but clearly that doesn't appear like its going to happen. (Attention: World Herald, please do a report on this, thank you)

thenewguy · Post by **thenewguy** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:03 pm

while it isn't technically official, i'm sure this answers your question:

http://eomahaforums.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10611

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:39 pm

Someone passed on a new word to me the other day & it fits so well here....

Anticipointment!

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Bob from Omaha wrote:
Anticipointment!

Open/Apple/Save to Vocabulary

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:57 pm

http://www.omaha.com/article/20101214/L ... me-capsule

2005: A Kansas City-area developer was selected today to redevelop the former Union Pacific headquarters site at 14th and Dodge Streets. The developer plans to build WallStreet Tower Omaha, a 32-story, 373-foot-tall, predominantly glass building. The structure will have 35,000 square feet of retail space and 282 condos.

Well played OWH.

Erik · Post by **Erik** » Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:35 pm

This was all but dead in 2008. In 2008 there were two banks that backed from this project despite Townsend meeting the numbers and then the recession problem began.

I had lost all interest except for an occasional good laugh over this project.

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:14 pm

iamjacobm wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20101214/L ... me-capsule

2005: A Kansas City-area developer was selected today to redevelop the former Union Pacific headquarters site at 14th and Dodge Streets. The developer plans to build WallStreet Tower Omaha, a 32-story, 373-foot-tall, predominantly glass building. The structure will have 35,000 square feet of retail space and 282 condos.
Well played OWH.

Were they not just reporting on what was a true announcement at the time?

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:31 pm

I just thought it was interesting and it gave me a laugh. I wasn't really trying to make some sort of statement.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:10 pm

Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:17 pm

Bosco55David wrote:Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.

Yeah come out call it dead or whatever is happening and please FILL IN THAT HOLE! Its such an eyesore. Make it a temporary park or something anything but that eyesore.

Bosco55David · Post by **Bosco55David** » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:30 pm

iamjacobm wrote:
Bosco55David wrote:Would still love to hear some kind of official announcement and hear what the plans are for the future of this site.
Yeah come out call it dead or whatever is happening and please FILL IN THAT HOLE! Its such an eyesore. Make it a temporary park or something anything but that eyesore.

I absolutely agree. That's some prime land there so let's at least make sure it isn't a dump, even if it is empty.

omahahawk · Post by **omahahawk** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:55 am

City Tells Downtown Condo Developers To Fill Hole

OMAHA, Neb. -- After looking at a massive hole in downtown Omaha for four years, city officials said they want the empty WallStreet Tower site filled by spring.

http://www.ketv.com/news/26644469/detail.html

Fromaha · Post by **Fromaha** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:55 am

KETV reported last night that the City Attorney Paul Kratz told Townsend in a meeting a few weeks ago, to fill the foundation hole by spring. It was also interesting that Kratz said that he did not believe that the site would be developed in the near future. It was also noted that the hours have been cut at the sales center and the parking lot has gone un-plowed. More signs that this likely will never be built. Of course, that shady Townsend stooge couldn't be reached for comment. The End.

Fromaha · Post by **Fromaha** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 8:56 am

Good Timing Omahahawk. :)

ShawJ · Post by **ShawJ** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:42 pm

No surprises here. I can't believe how much "park space" we are going to have in this area of downtown.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:50 pm

Put a miniature golf course there :;):

Post by **Brad** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:54 pm

Coyote wrote:Put a miniature golf course there :;):

Public ! blol blol blol blol blol

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:42 pm

Fromaha wrote:City Attorney Paul Kratz told Townsend in a meeting a few weeks ago, to fill the foundation hole by spring.

A parking lot, perhaps?

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:08 pm

Omababe wrote:
Fromaha wrote:City Attorney Paul Kratz told Townsend in a meeting a few weeks ago, to fill the foundation hole by spring.
A parking lot, perhaps?

I hope not. Even if it is a sad reminder of how much better a use that space serves, grass will look a lot better than another grimy surface parking lot.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:29 pm

Grass it up hopefully something comes along. heck with the two lots next to each other we've almost got the room for out DT football stadium. :;):

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:46 pm

City wants hole downtown filled

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110129/N ... own-filled

And... go!

"Who doesn't?"

"That's what she said."

Tornado · Post by **Tornado** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:02 pm

Well at least we now know all the facts, still not a word from Townsend though. I say eminent domain is really the only option. I wonder what the property is appraised at currently. I sure hope the city has learned a lesson on future deals of the nature.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:30 pm

http://douglasne.mapping-online.com/Dou ... 0308240004

1,549,000. Tough to just fork over for land you sold for a buck.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:11 am

mrdwhsr · Post by **mrdwhsr** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:12 pm

Isn't there a city ordinance that requires snow to be removed from sidewalks within 24-hours of the end of the snowfall? The city hasn't required Townsend to remove the snow from last week. How serious are they going to be about filling the hole? But then again, it is certainly easier to talk about a pedestrian friendly city than take a very simple action to make it so.

justnick · Post by **justnick** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:21 pm

mrdwhsr wrote:Isn't there a city ordinance that requires snow to be removed from sidewalks within 24-hours of the end of the snowfall? The city hasn't required Townsend to remove the snow from last week. How serious are they going to be about filling the hole? But then again, it is certainly easier to talk about a pedestrian friendly city than take a very simple action to make it so.

The city doesn't shovel their own sidewalks half the time, why would they bother enforcing it for others?

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:49 am

justnick wrote:The city doesn't shovel their own sidewalks half the time, why would they bother enforcing it for others?

EXACTLY!

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:17 am

so, what happened here? The city demanded the hole get filled, and nothing happens?

Are they going to enforce this demand? Send Townsend a code violation notice?

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:49 pm

Ben wrote:so, what happened here? The city demanded the hole get filled, and nothing happens?

Are they going to enforce this demand? Send Townsend a code violation notice?

Oh don't worry, he said it would be filled in 60-90 days.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:31 pm

If you follow anything the BBR does, you'll notice that it takes a LONG time before anything actually happens. A significant number of the items on their meeting minutes are "laid over" for 30, 60, or 90 days. I seems a lot like continuations in traffic court.

Tornado · Post by **Tornado** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:46 pm

Well it appears clear now that all the visitors for the Berkshire Hathaway weekend and the College World Series will get a first hand look at the big hole in the ground, aka WST. I realize the city is in a tough situation here but I'm just amazed that this block can't even get leveled off with dirt, some sod, maybe a couple sidewalks, something. I would have never guessed at the end of April 2011, that all we would have is a big hole in the ground. Construct a vortex tower or something already.

Post by **Brad** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:49 pm

In my opinion, 99% of the out of towners will not know anything about the hole, they will just think something is getting ready to start.

mattg · Post by **mattg** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:46 pm

saw a couple peices of machinery sitting in the fence of the hole today. probably just for leveling the hole and cleaning up a bit