Walnut Hills

[Coyote]

City council to vote on Walnut Hills Neighborhood Plan and future land use Tuesday



The Omaha City Council will vote Tuesday on the plan to revitalize the historic Walnut Hill Neighborhood and a proposed future land use plan. Neighbors have mixed emotions on the plans. The neighborhood plan has been in development for the last two years. The group InCOMMON created a steer group with community members to help create a vision for the neighborhood moving forward. Co-Executive Director Christian Gray said they've acted as a facilitator through the process.

"Some of these neighborhoods that InCOMMON works in are really ripe for redevelopment and gentrification so this really gets the neighbors engaged to be able to guide development," Gray said. Traffic control, more green space, better lighting and preserving history are all focuses of the plan. Belinda Daniels has lived in the Walnut Hills Neighborhood for six years and joined the steer group in hopes of being part of the change.

[Jins123]

This is an interesting project and I feel is an important one, it can be the final connecting piece between S 10th, 13th, downtown, Midtown, Dundee, Benson urban core related neighborhoods.

[Busguy2010]

I'm definitely in the mixed emotions crowd. I sort of couch surfed the area for a few months and I loved it. Some old beautiful houses in rough shape, but still worth fixing up. But It's been an area for low income people to live and I don't want to see it gentrified. Yes the houses can be fixed up, but I also fear many of them would more easily be bulldozed, and existing residents will be priced out. If I had a vote, it would be no.

[halgy]

As long as the new proposal is to build more housing units (e.g. denser development), then I'm all for it. The scary gentrification happens in places like San Francisco, where tech brought in tons of new residents, but the city doesn't allow any more housing to be built. Increased demand with no increased supply means higher prices. The only way to lower prices is to build more supply.

Look at the development on 48th and Dodge. Yes, the tore down 9 old houses, but in their place will be a building with 330 units (and they preserved the historic vet clinic on the property). If every redevelopment is like that, rents will go down. Landlords can only keep prices high if they can keep supply limited (which is exactly why nothing gets built in San Francisco).

[Busguy2010]

I fear the bottom line for developers isn't very low. If 9 houses theoretically valued at 150,000 to 200,000 isn't too high to just eliminate, imagine what they could do with all of North Omaha. We have to draw a line somewhere.

[Athomsfere]

As long as the new proposal is to build more housing units (e.g. denser development), then I'm all for it. The scary gentrification happens in places like San Francisco, where tech brought in tons of new residents, but the city doesn't allow any more housing to be built. Increased demand with no increased supply means higher prices. The only way to lower prices is to build more supply.

Look at the development on 48th and Dodge. Yes, the tore down 9 old houses, but in their place will be a building with 330 units (and they preserved the historic vet clinic on the property). If every redevelopment is like that, rents will go down. Landlords can only keep prices high if they can keep supply limited (which is exactly why nothing gets built in San Francisco).

And don't forget: Our housing stock is lower than SFO right now, at like 5.1% vacancy to SFO's 6.something. Omaha is only as affordable as it is IMO because we aren't seeing sunbelt or west coast explosions of growth.

[Vitruvius]

If these developments and proposed developments delivered better design, they more people would embrace and support them. Unfortunately, It's easier to push the simple-minded, misguided argument that critics of these developments are against all development. Criticism of design and planning doesn't mean a person or neighborhood is anti-development.

I live next to one of these 5/1 boxes. Many units have been sitting vacant since it's completion. And when one becomes occupied, another becomes vacant. I also walk by many of these developments and a good number of the units are sitting vacant.

[Louie]

I live next to one of these 5/1 boxes. Many units have been sitting vacant since it's completion. And when one becomes occupied, another becomes vacant. I also walk by many of these developments and a good number of the units are sitting vacant.

You got numbers on those vacancies? Because 5.1% vacancy for the metro suggests that very few are available.

[Vitruvius]

I live next to one of these 5/1 boxes. Many units have been sitting vacant since it's completion. And when one becomes occupied, another becomes vacant. I also walk by many of these developments and a good number of the units are sitting vacant.

You got numbers on those vacancies? Because 5.1% vacancy for the metro suggests that very few are available.

I have eyes. Maybe the examples of which I speak account for the total 5.1%.

[Louie]

I live next to one of these 5/1 boxes. Many units have been sitting vacant since it's completion. And when one becomes occupied, another becomes vacant. I also walk by many of these developments and a good number of the units are sitting vacant.

You got numbers on those vacancies? Because 5.1% vacancy for the metro suggests that very few are available.

I have eyes. Maybe the examples of which I speak account for the total 5.1%.

How empirical

[Vitruvius]

I live next to one of these 5/1 boxes. Many units have been sitting vacant since it's completion. And when one becomes occupied, another becomes vacant. I also walk by many of these developments and a good number of the units are sitting vacant.

You got numbers on those vacancies? Because 5.1% vacancy for the metro suggests that very few are available.

I have eyes. Maybe the examples of which I speak account for the total 5.1%.

How empirical

Exactly... in addition to basic common sense.