Strata - Proposed new office tower for DT KC

[Greg S]

First DT business tower down there in quite some time:

https://www.kansascity.com/news/busines ... 47040.html





Greg

[buildomaha]

Where’s ours!?

[Cermak]

Looks good hope it happens, KC hasn’t seen much downtown high rise office development in the past few decades, this would be a nice addition. Back in the 80’s and early 90’s they saw several high rises go up , but not much since then.

[RockHarbor]

Just love it!! That will look so nice in Kansas City. It slightly reminds me of design in the same realm as the new Kum & Go Headquarters being built in Des Moines: https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/5a737e ... 0&fit=crop

Kansas City seems to be getting more glassy & light & bright & airy buildings now, which I do like. I think it will be a nice contrast on that skyline.

Kansas City is a true urban delight, imo. Sometimes, I don't understand why cities that "got it goin' on" in the urban department (Chicago, Minneapolis, ect.) aren't always the fastest growing cities, and cities that struggle in that area (Dallas, Phoenix, ect), have all this new constant growth. It's not like everybody cares about that kind of stuff, though -- of course.

[Cermak]

Dallas is such a spread out city, the last time I was there I got the impression DT Dallas was not like the most important part of the metro but just one of many parts of it. Cities like Chicago and Minneapolis the DT seems to be the epicenter.

[Coyote]

Part of the reason the developer proposed to reduce the parking requiremen in half was the building's alignment along Main Street and the streetcar line. "For public transportation and jobs, that link was really important to get this project going"

[RockHarbor]

Dallas is such a spread out city, the last time I was there I got the impression DT Dallas was not like the most important part of the metro but just one of many parts of it. Cities like Chicago and Minneapolis the DT seems to be the epicenter.

That's a GREAT way of putting it. That's exactly how it feels in Phoenix and Los Angeles in a way... Downtown is not thee absolute epicenter -- but the epicenter is divided a bit in the sprawling city, and one particular area, not even downtown, can claim it. PERFECT way to sum it up.

They've done a lot to Downtown Dallas I have to say. Last time I was there, there was way more shopping downtown and evening street life, ect. (They've improved Downtown Phoenix a lot, too.) Still, it isn't the same as being in Downtown Minneapolis, Kansas City, or Seattle, ect.

Although I love the striking, mostly glass Downtown Dallas skyline and like how it is a huge sprawling metroplex w/ many suburban skylines strung along major freeways, I still just don't get my "urban fix" in Dallas, like I do in Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, ect. Like Los Angeles, Texas cities developed & sprawled big as car-orientated metropolises. So, they don't feel tight, compact, and urban. Even inner city Omaha has more of an urban feel to me than Dallas (almost seeming more like a "train set town" built upon hills, next to a major river).

I found two really great pics of Kansas City:
https://www.fitnancials.com/wp-content/ ... 6_1920.jpg

And, an uncommon, unusual view that is very great (obviously taken from a downtown high rise). You can see the green rooftop lawn that must be associated with the new One Light building/complex: https://leasingkc.com/wp-content/upload ... G_4397.jpg

Kansas City has a noticeable design flair & theme that is a bit more flamboyant than other Midwest cities, in my view. It's almost like more "Bohemian" seeming than St Louis, Minneapolis, Omaha, Wichita, or Des Moines. (Even the European-embellished "The Plaza" is unusual for a Midwest city to build, and reveals how much KC has cared about Old World style & sophistication from the start.) With some of the newest buildings, which are beautifully stark & simple & modern, I think they could be drifting away from that flamboyant theme. (Not sure, as some 60's & 70's high rises downtown are not fanciful at all, but the 80's & 90's buildings returned to having some fanciful touches & accents.) Cities like Omaha and Oklahoma City and Wichita obviously have a more conservative & plain & blah mindset when it comes to design -- which I feel is appropriate for a town built upon high, treeless Great Plains anyways. The landscape usually influences local design. Kansas City is more founded on a big hill overlooking a dramatic bend in the river, a wildly hilly and woodsy landscape with big ravines and some valleys. (It's an American setting that fanciful & ornate European-style architecture fits better into than Omaha's wide open Great Plains setting, imo.) It just is different than Omaha in look & feeling. Love Kansas City.

[iamjacobm]

Great for KC. They are getting another 300K SF in office space in the River Market too.

The news a few months back that KC was runner up for a 1000 person Starbucks office with their lack of available office space downtown being a big negative had to sting.

[RockHarbor]

Great for KC. They are getting another 300K SF in office space in the River Market too.

The news a few months back that KC was runner up for a 1000 person Starbucks office with their lack of available office space downtown being a big negative had to sting.

I'm so sick of this "runner up" and "you're on our list" stuff Seattle companies are doing to cities in the middle of the country, teasing lower tier-cities with a possible major satellite office. Like the inland, interior city is SO LUCKY if it's....!!CHOSEN!!...by mighty & hip Seattle. Grow up, Seattle companies... (If they would just simply say as professional adults: "We are looking to expand a major satellite office in a city in the middle of the country. What can you possibly offer us?" Instead, cities on the "chosen list" almost quiver being examined by haughty Seattle eyes, trying to play all their cards right, filled with hope and dreaming at night -- like some silly "American Idol" contestant with a youngster set before a panel of judges, a nervous songbird belting out notes, hoping to hit every one perfectly, and never stray from being on key. Annoying.)

[RockHarbor]

Years back, in suburban Kansas City, I found an old 1980's Portal brand poster of Kansas City -- one that I was already aware of, seeing it around back when I was young. (Back in those days, they sold great big posters of US cities at stores. Nowadays, in poster sections at Hobby Lobby and Michaels, you can't hardly find any US city poster but New York). Anyways, this poster is the reason the One Kansas City Place (built in 1988) totally surprised me when I saw Downtown KC in person around 1989 -- because I immediately detected a major new glass skyscraper had been added. (This picture must have been taken in/around 1987, after the '86 AT&T Pavilion skyscraper was finished, and before the One KC Place was erected.) Even before all the newest, recent towers were built, Kansas City still had that certain look. There's something about how the hill rolls down then up, and those striking towers (new & old) all stand on a high hill overlooking the Missouri. Just something about KC... From "The Scout" statue in the poster, it's like a romantic, dreamy look that is just not common in American Midwest cities. (The old buildings create a romantic look like Old NYC & Chicago do. That dreamy look is created by towers standing a top a high hill that entirely shrouds the land to the north, allowing the sky's clouds to drift beyond them from their tops down to their bases -- almost like the earth suddenly, abruptly ends and drops off behind them, almost like the pinnacled Emerald City in the WoOz. Unusual configuration.)

[RockHarbor]

Also, in a book, I came across a model of the One Kansas Place, set within a large model of Downtown KC. I thought KC fans would like to see this. I wonder where that model is today? Is it featured somewhere in town, or is it in a back room all dusty or with a sheet over it?

[Cermak]

I’ve always liked One Kansas City place and it’s aged well. I find it interesting that Des Moines, KC and Omaha’s tallest are all around the same height. Omaha’s is actually the tallest by a little but has the Least amount of office space according to Wikipedia. I think One Kansas City place might be my favorite because of all the glass. Although Des Moines and Omaha’s are nice as well. They all bring something a little different to the table.

[RockHarbor]

I’ve always liked One Kansas City place and it’s aged well. I find it interesting that Des Moines, KC and Omaha’s tallest are all around the same height. Omaha’s is actually the tallest by a little but has the Least amount of office space according to Wikipedia. I think One Kansas City place might be my favorite because of all the glass. Although Des Moines and Omaha’s are nice as well. They all bring something a little different to the table.

Yes, that shows the egotistical "height wars" do exist -- even architects pinching buildings to be more slender, yet a tad taller. Cities are almost like competing "sports teams" with their own fans/followers, imo. (I almost get a kick out of it all.) One Kansas City Place is striking and a great & appropriate statement for KC, because it was designed to be a modern, mirroring version of their old, signature art deco towers. I've always liked Des Moines' handsome star-capped, star-shaped Principle Insurance building -- again an appropriate statement for the city, as it kind of mirrors an ornate, intricate tower accent a top their historic tallest Equitable building. Omaha's tallest, one of the finest pieces of work from the local Daly firm, is a perfect, appropriate statement for the city, as it compliments the Woodmen well, and its side profile makes me think of Mutual's architectural influence over the city. I think Omaha's building would likely be the most "noteworthy architecture" featured in books, except it still falls short of the perfection of Minneapolis's clean-lined, yet fanciful Wells Fargo skyscraper (formerly Norwest Tower) -- definitely a noetworthy skyscraper in many books. (I feel Daly's design is appropriate for Omaha, though -- bringing it all down a notch.) Some old postcards of KC. One very old, the other likely from the 1970's era... (I have old & dated postcards of many the Midwest cities, including Omaha & Des Moines & Minneapolis/St Paul & Chicago & Detroit & St Louis. I have an affection for all the Midwest cities. They all have their own special quality. I get slightly annoyed w/ Des Moines always on Omaha's tail it seems, yet honoring Minneapolis-St Paul with their lips...but hey, I get why it happens that way. I also feel I share in Omaha's psychological affection/admiration of "fun,fun,fun!" Kansas City from growing up in the Big O.)

[RockHarbor]

I’ve always liked One Kansas City place and it’s aged well. I find it interesting that Des Moines, KC and Omaha’s tallest are all around the same height. Omaha’s is actually the tallest by a little but has the Least amount of office space according to Wikipedia. I think One Kansas City place might be my favorite because of all the glass. Although Des Moines and Omaha’s are nice as well. They all bring something a little different to the table.

Speaking of the One KC Place, some 15-20 years back, I did a quick study of the 2 different sides of the building, drawing it on graph paper. I loved how it was almost like a blue "sapphire skyscraper" with gem-cut corners and angles. (It think it's obvious with my old postcards, pics, and even study drawings, Im not "all talk" here. I really do care.) I also was intriqued greatly with Minneapolis' flamboyant, unusual AT&T building, with its flowering top, and mix of green & grey glass (nicknamed "The Artichoke"). It really is a great building for Minneapolis, as it looks like something experimental and "pushing the envelope." When I saw that new building back when I was 16, along with the newly completed halo-crowned US Bank added to the skyline by 1992, I just thought Minneapolis was absolutely dazzling. Both buildings are neat, yet still, I wouldnt say either are "noteworthy architecture." (Funny, it's not even featured in my bulky Twin Cities architecture guide.) The AT&T building is about the size of the Woodmen Tower, and the design works, imo, but barely: If that building was just an ounce smaller & shorter, I dont feel it would have worked. I feel it would have been even better on a structure about 15% bigger. Anyways, love both glassy buildings with their unexpected, unique, sudden angles & corners -- and even flaps.

[Cermak]

AT&T building in Minneapolis is unique. They took a chance with something different. The gray and green glass is very attractive. I like most of the buildings in DT Minneapolis . I’ve always thought 1200 Landmark center in Omaha is kinda our Minneapolis building, wish it was a little taller. And the 1970’s 22 story first National bank building (dark brown) is our Chicago building. As Chicago has a large amount of dark 1960’s and 70’s boxy international style buildings. I really like the 1970’s first National bank building. The lobby and outdoor plaza area are also nice. I think it’s one of Omaha’s underrated buildings. Not real crazy about the nearby Doubletree though.

[RockHarbor]

AT&T building in Minneapolis is unique. They took a chance with something different. The blue and green glass is very attractive. I like most of the buildings in DT Minneapolis . I’ve always thought 1200 Landmark center in Omaha is kinda our Minneapolis building, wish it was a little taller. And the 1970’s 22 story first National bank building (dark brown) is our Chicago building. As Chicago has a large amount of dark 1960’s and 70’s boxy international style buildings. I really like the 1970’s first National bank of Omaha building. The lobby And outdoor plaza area is also nice, I think it’s one of Omaha’s underrated buildings. Not real crazy about the nearby Doubletree though.

I think it works for Minneapolis because the town has an innovative & foward-thinking spirit & energy, imo -- while still just a Midwest city. The city also isnt staunch & stuffy, and steeped in history & tradition (like Milwaukee more is). So, it works. I dont feel that building would work well in other Midwest cities, but maybe Chicago. The Landmark Center: Yes, it is Omaha's splash of blue "Minneapolis" glass, but dont get me started on that way too simple elementary design... (It's almost like an older kid could duplicate it easily with basic blue legos, along with the rest of most of Omaha's buildings. Thats the best way to describe how it, and some of the rest of Omaha's simplistic architecture, makes me cringe sometimes.) The 1972 First National Bank was built in an era when that style of black glass boxy skyscrapers with accenting vertical lines of white marble were popular. Council Bluffs even has a great shorter example downtown. Dallas and Miami and Indianapolis have/had great examples of that style. (Indianapolis "had" because the original Indiana bank design has been revamped with new grey/silver glass, which I dont care for too much.) Chicago's black & boxy steel International Style buildings remind me of Des Moines' Ruan Center. I like that Des Moines has that dark boxy skyscraper, because contrasted with the reds/greens/beiges/whites on the skyline, it just reminds me of the colors in an old Tiffany lamp -- or something. Des Moines has slightly more a fanciful & ornate "Victorian/Tiffany" feel than Omaha, or something, imo. Even the name is French, and I think of "French Victorian" design. Even the 1960's neon, roof-top umbrella sign there makes me kind of think of an old-fashioned, antique era -- which involves things Victorian. (Googling "victorian umbrella", I find it is shaped, in fact, like those elegant Victorian parasols.) One day I analyzed how DM feels a little different than Omaha to me, yet similar, and I concluded that was the difference. Each Midwest city is individually special, although similarities.

[Cermak]

I’m ok with 1200 Landmark center. I watched it go up very closely. It was built about the same time as 801 Grand in Des Moines. I liked the fact we were getting a glass building. It’s still one of my favorite buildings DT and it’s in an important location, Bridging DT with the Old Market. I think it’s one of the best locations DT. The state office building next door is the worst building DT in my opinion.

[RockHarbor]

I’m ok with 1200 Landmark center. I watched it go up very closely. It was built about the same time as 801 Grand in Des Moines. I liked the fact we were getting a glass building. It’s still one of my favorite buildings DT and it’s in an important location, Bridging DT with the Old Market. I think it’s one of the best locations DT. The state office building next door is the worst building DT in my opinion.

I'm OK with it when I'm nearby it -- like in Gene Leahy Mall. It is a very pretty color blue. At dusk, it can look really silver & pretty with the lit-up glass peaks at the top. But, at a distance, approaching Omaha, with the basic shapes of the skyscrapers clumped together forming one picture, I dont care for how it looks. The broad, almost featureless face and apex just reminds me of a simple "king's crown" graphic/cut out, a shape a child could easily snip out of a piece of paper-- or something. Like I also think of "Little King's" or "Knight's Inn" logo, or something. (Maybe Little Kings should move their offices there. Lol) I cant easily describe what I mean. I dont feel Minneapolis wouldn't ever allow that building, because its not great architecture, imo. (If it were left just a glass box w/ a flat top, then it would have been common & timeless design one couldnt really criticize. The simple set of triangular peaks set at the top, meant to jazz it up, changes everything, potentially "cheapening" things, in some critic's eyes.) It looks OK in cities like Omaha and Sioux Falls because the bar isnt raised that high there. Thats my view...

[Cermak]

1200 Landmark Center might not make the cut in DT Minneapolis. But I could see it out in the burbs, possibly Bloomington or Edina. Or even around Mall of America. It just has sort of a Minneapolis look about it. But not on the scale of the big high rises DT. And I would never compare it architecturally with Wells Fargo center or some of the other famous buildings DT. It’s sorta a awkward version of a Minneapolis building, but still makes the cut in my book. And I’m glad we have it.

[RockHarbor]

1200 Landmark Center might not make the cut in DT Minneapolis. But I could see it out in the burbs, possibly Bloomington or Edina. Or even around Mall of America. It just has sort of a Minneapolis look about it. But not on the scale of the big high rises DT. And I would never compare it architecturally with Wells Fargo center or some of the other famous buildings DT. It’s sorta a awkward version of a Minneapolis building, but still makes the cut in my book. And I’m glad we have it.

I totally get what you're saying, and Im glad you see what I mean, too. And, I agree. I'm glad Omaha has it, verses not having it. I'm glad Omaha at least has a big splash of shimmery blue glass downtown. (When it was announced when I was in 7th grade, I loved it. I thought it was Omaha's answer to a glassy Dallas building.) It's square with the curb, and urban-feeling enough, that I think it suits a downtown, verses being mixed with the "freeway architecture" you see often in suburban satellite cities, imo, but I see what you mean about Bloomington or Edina. It is definitely around the size of their glassy buildings. It's hard to explain what I mean, and how I feel. The best way I can describe it is: I could get a large blue piece of construction paper, and draw my lines, and easily snip it all out, then fold all four corners, and tape the two unconnected edges together where they meet, then set it upright on a table. And, wolla! I have 1200 Landmark Center. It's that simple & elementary, and it seems almost silly to me. (It's because its just a glass box with a set of triangular peaks, flush with the facade, at the top. If it were just a glass box with no peaks, then it wouldnt seem sorta silly to me. It's that kinda conflict...) Up close, you see the indented base with the silvery pillars. The narrow sides also have that sunken dent in the face. The line patterns on the glass facade are actually interesting. But, at a distance, it gives me the impression of something so simple & elementary, it is almost silly me. Plus, the design feels empty & meaningless to me. Blue glass box + 4 blue glass triangle peaks at the top = ?????? It's a sort of modern gothic touch in a way, but I dont feel its meant to be "gothic" at all. It has to be simply just a cosmetic & shallow touch meant to jazz a glass box up, and attempt to make it more creative. Omaha's Woodmen Tower & 1972 FNB are purposeful & stylish International Style. The twins have basic, yet special & thoughtful, geometry to create the focal point at the end of the mall. The concrete telephone building, which I dont favor at all, has a "mini blind" effect intended to shade the windows. The FNC Tower makes a perfect contextual statement for Omaha. The UP Building is a green "glass cube" that feels meant to look high-tech & almost mechanical. It all feels purposeful to a degree. (Like a "saltbox colonial" style home, most of Omaha's main buildings could be easily recreated by the 4 sides drawn & laid out on a sheet of paper, then cut out, then folded. That's how simplistic & basic the Omaha skyline is overall. The newer FNC and the UP Building are breaking the trend, though, thankfully. Most of Minneapolis's and Kansas City's cannot be recreated that way. However, rectangular boxy International Style buildings dont really count in any city, as they are purposefully meant to beautifully be the simplist & basic form of geometry for a skyscraper.) Back to Kansas City: This newer high rise, in the midtown area, with this art sculpture of a chaotic arrangement of poles seemingly suspended in mid-air nearby is the kind of handsome & sophisticated & tasteful & exciting urban touches I want to see in Omaha. I just have always felt like Omaha needs to "raise the bar", and it is starting to, I think.

[RockHarbor]

By the way, incase you missed it, incase you're interested, many of us had a big discussion on the 1200 Landmark Center around 1.5-2 years ago. I have the same feelings now as I did back then. Rereading it, I'm reminded a forumer confirmed that the architect simply threw in the new triangular peaks at the last minute, because Omaha hadnt seen anything like that before. Just as I felt, they are cosmetic & shallow touches. I also knew, before looking the architect up, that the design was from an outsource source that didn't "understand or feel Omaha." I could just feel/sense that impression. Back when I was in 7th grade, "doing cartwheels" with it added to Omaha, I didnt view the Landmark Center like that at all. I also wasnt sad to see Jobber's Canyon go -- but I cringe now about it. I'm guessing with time & experience & gained knowledge & heightening sense, I've gained a deeper perspective & view of architecture & design & things urban. I'm wondering if most here view the building like I did when I was young? http://eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4959

[Cermak]

Wikipedia says Holabird and Root designed 1200 Landmark building. I think they are a fairly respectable firm out of Chicago. I saw the building today, against the gray dreary sky. It looked good. It’s hard to say if it would look better without the pyramids. One PPG Place in Pittsburgh also has pointy pyramids on the roof. We are in good company!

[RockHarbor]

Wikipedia says Holabird and Root designed 1200 Landmark building. I think they are a fairly respectable firm out of Chicago. I saw the building today, against the gray dreary sky. It looked good. It’s hard to say if it would look better without the pyramids. One PPG Place in Pittsburgh also has pointy pyramids on the roof. We are in good company!

Yes, in the 1200 Landmark Center thread link I posted here, I posted pictures of the intricate & gem-cut PPG Place in Pittsburgh. That is actually "noteworthy architecture" -- a world of difference from the 1200 Landmark Center. Even St Louis's tallest (Metro Square) and Tampa's tallest have triangular gothic glass accents, and those buildings are notches higher than the Landmark Center in architectural quality, and they still aren't even "noteworthy architecture." In any book featuring high rise & skyscraper architecture across the USA, the PPG Place is often featured. Tampa's and St Louis's are never featured (well, hardly either is Seattle's or Dallas's tallest), but they still look nice enough. Therefore, Omaha's simplistic 1200 Landmark Center would look like a joke in a book like that, imo. I don't hate it or anything, and I'm glad you appreciate it. Yet, in my view, it only looks semi-exciting because it is in "simple skyline" Omaha. On the world stage, architecture & design wise, it is nothing. (I'm not being mean, I'm being honest, compared to what's out there and what is award-winning in the architectural world.) ***A glass box is always a safe & basic design and timeless. Yet, with the line patterns on the Landmark Center, and the pillars around the base, I'm not sure I would entirely like it without some dramatic accents at the top either. I'm not against the trianglular peaks, necessarily -- they just mainly bug me because they are all flush with the broad facade. If the broad sides had three dented-in vertical columns in the glass facade (like the side does) between the peaks, or if the peaks were offset from the main facade, or something, then I would like it better probably. It needs more thoughtful flair & jazz & variations, imo, if an architect is gonna throw in those jagged teeth of peaks a top a basic box of glass on pillars. Even if they do what they did on the Landmark Center with a set of 4 triangular gables on a common & ordinary, flat-face, two-story house it would look very odd -- unless we're talking a purposeful abstract residential design that is carefully, tastefully, and intentionally done to make a special, unique statement (maybe). ***

[Cermak]

One PPG place in Pittsburgh is light years ahead of 1200 Landmark. But 1200 Landmark is unique to Omaha, I have never seen another building like it. After First National tower and UP headquarters it’s our third best modern high rise DT in my opinion. Or at least 5th best after Woodmen and 1970’s first National. I definitely like it better than Twin towers Central Park plaza , Omaha World Herald building on the mall or Highline (former Northern Nat gas).

[RockHarbor]

One PPG place in Pittsburgh is light years ahead of 1200 Landmark. But 1200 Landmark is unique to Omaha, I have never seen another building like it. After First National tower and UP headquarters it’s our third best modern high rise DT in my opinion. Or at least 5th best after Woodmen and 1970’s first National. I definitely like it better than Twin towers Central Park plaza , Omaha World Herald building on the mall or Highline (former Northern Nat gas).

I hear what you're saying, and I'm glad you acknowledge the difference in quality. I can agree it jazzes Omaha up a bit with its pretty, blue/grey shimmering glass, and peak accents. One thing that is suddenly making me warm up to it more, although I still consider it very "mediocre" in some ways, is the fact that the broad facade, the march of trianglular peaks across the top (that feel a little gothic), and the mansard-looking roof, slightly heralds back to Omaha's historic Fontenelle Hotel (which is one of the historic beauties Omaha lost). It is maybe a far, far stretch to even connect them, but it kind of reminds me of a very abstract, modern conversion of the hotel's unique "broad face of square windows/line of arched windows accenting at top/mansard roof rising up" look (on the broad sides of 1200 Landmark Center, anyways). Im glad I found something that makes me warm up to it more, because that particular design statement is unique to Omaha. (I doubt that Chicago-based firm ever intended that, of course.) Ugh, Omaha has lost some true historic beauties. That hotel was so unique.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2444/3843 ... f384c6.jpg

[Cermak]

It does sort of pay homage to Hotel fontenelle a little bit at the top in a way. My guess Holabird and Root sent an architect out to Omaha to look over the site. Hotel Fontenelle was already demolished, but maybe he saw a picture of it while doing research. If he even did any research. Either way they decided to make the top of 1200 landmark unique and different. DT Omaha was in pretty bad shape in the late 80’s. The old market was one of the few bright spots. That’s why I was glad this was so close to it.

We've lost three relatively tall buildings. 16 story Hotel Fontenelle,17 story Proffessional tower and 18 story Woodmen. Only Professional tower did we get something better. Wonder if Des Moines, Minneapolis or KC have lost that many ? I’m pretty sure DM hasn’t, Real shame. I think most of the old tall buildings we have left are safe. As it’s very unpopular to knock cool old buildings down these days. I never saw old Woodmen or Fontenelle in person as I was not in Omaha yet. Professional tower was decent although nothing earth shattering.

[RockHarbor]

It does sort of pay homage to Hotel fontenelle a little bit at the top in a way. My guess Holabird and Root sent an architect out to Omaha to look over the site. Hotel Fontenelle was already demolished, but maybe he saw a picture of it while doing research. If he even did any research. DT Omaha was in pretty bad shape in the late 80’s. The old market was one of the few bright spots. That’s why I was glad this was so close to it. We've lost three relatively tall buildings. 16 story Hotel Fontenelle,17 story Proffessional tower and 18 story Woodmen. Only Professional tower did we get something better. Wonder if Des Moines, Minneapolis or KC have lost that many ? I’m pretty sure DM hasn’t, Real shame. I think most of the old tall buildings we have left are safe. As it’s very unpopular to knock cool old buildings down these days. I never saw old Woodmen or Fontenelle in person as I was not in Omaha yet. Professional tower was decent although nothing earth shattering.

Word. If only Omaha still had those buildings you mentioned, plus the Omaha High School and the old Omaha Post Office, Downtown Omaha would feel more a beautiful & satisfying blend of old & new to me. Just imagine having flowering pots hanging from light poles, and looking up at the green-roofed, ornate Fontenelle Hotel, then at the Woodmen, then over at Jobber's Canyon buildings. Ugh, what were they thinking? Dont get me started... (Isnt a piece of the Fontenelle Hotel in the winter garden of the FNC? I should know this...)

[Cermak]

Professional tower is in FNC winter garden. I think some of Fontenelles pieces are in the Durham. At least that was the case years ago, I haven’t been there in over 10 years. And when looking at old Woodmen pics I was not overly impressed, it was sorta a cold looking building to me . But when you look at what replaced it, that’s Ridiculous. I think Omaha has learned it’s lesson. As some older buildings DT slated for demo recently have been stopped.

[RockHarbor]

Professional tower is in FNC winter garden. I think some of Fontenelles pieces are in the Durham. At least that was the case years ago, I haven’t been there in over 10 years. And when looking at old Woodmen pics I was not overly impressed, it was sorta a cold looking building to me . But when you look at what replaced it, that’s Ridiculous. I think Omaha has learned it’s lesson. As some older buildings DT slated for demo recently have been stopped.

I know, it is sad, and I'm glad Omaha thinks twice now. Nowadays, with extra sensitivity towards any old historic building, it has to be tricky allowing demolition of any lot to make way for something new. Yet, somewhere on the downtown grid, a lot has to be cleared for the new planned office building. So, it can't be easy for the developers between buying the lot, and choosing one that people don't protest the demolition of what's on it, and getting it all approved, and everybody feeing good about it. Maybe it isn't all possible anymore. (BTW, according to Wiki, it's a section of the Medical Arts Building in that FNC winter garden. Not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just trying to make sure we both have the correct info. I really enjoy our discussions and your viewpoints. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_N ... Bank_Tower)

[Cermak]

Medical Arts building and Professional tower same thing. Think it started off as Medical Arts then became Professional tower . Also might be a piece of Fontennele in FNC will have to go visit building soon to see if that’s the case. I would love to know if KC tore down any big old buildings, I know Minneapolis has demolished some big old hotels, saw pictures of some in a old book on Minneapolis once in a library in Spencer Iowa. pretty ugly buildings.

[RockHarbor]

Medical Arts building and Professional tower same thing. Think it started off as Medical Arts then became Professional tower . Also might be a piece of Fontennele in FNC will have to go visit building soon to see if that’s the case. I would love to know if KC tore down any big old buildings, I know Minneapolis has demolished some big old hotels, saw pictures of some in a old book on Minneapolis once in a library in Spencer Iowa. pretty ugly buildings.

I'm not sure about Kansas City. Outside of Chicago & Detroit & Ohio cities, it has the best historic skyscrapers in the Midwest, along with St Louis -- so I think they are pretty mindful of things historic. Minneapolis has more old gems than it appears at first glance. However, not a lot -- of course. That is why I think the Wells Fargo skyscraper was maybe designed to help out, as it has the look of the historic art deco period, in a way. However, Cesar Pelli, who designed it, did the same thing in Cleveland with the Key Tower, creating a contextual & fitting new/old-looking skyscraper that beautifully compliments the city and its existing structures. In Minneapolis, I've read people feel he got the design idea fom Rockefeller Center in NYC. It is slim & art deco-looking, but that doesnt fit his contextual pattern, though. I feel he likely got the idea from Minneapolis's historic, flat-roofed, art deco style Rand Tower. The first version he designed was more geared toward the obelisk and pyramid-topped look of the Foshay Tower, and Minneapolis didnt accept the first draft. So, he submitted a second. Why would he suddenly jump and use the Rockefeller Building in NYC for inspiration for the 2nd? That doesnt make sense or fit him, imo. His skyscraper architecture is always very contextual, and fitting, and perfect for the city its in (imo), and thats why he is my favorite architect. The Wells Fargo skyscraper helps give Minneapolis some romantic flair from the art deco skyscraper period (which was lost between the new buildings), while matching local historic architecture, while embellished w/ silver accents that help add to Minneapolis' tony & sparkly image.

[RockHarbor]

I was thinking about this yesterday: Although Minneapolis-St Paul often beats Kansas City & St Louis in overall urban, crowd-pleasing magnificence (Even looking at St Paul in itself: It is a pretty nice-looking Midwest city of solid, historic buildings, and nice & gleamy modern skyscrapers on a woodsy hill next to big river, and to think sparkly, striking, towering Minneapolis is just 10 miles east... So, what Midwest city, besides Chicago, can truly compete with that urban conglomeration?), Still, I think Kansas City is a unique, impressive, beautiful Midwest city of fountains and European flair, and beautiful parkways, all leading down to the most beautiful suburb in the Midwest: Overland Park, Kansas. There is just something so pleasant & fair about that area. It just came together well, imo. It beats Bloomington, MN in look & feel (imo).

Overland Park
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... wnOPKS.png
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_q-1K3GMRiM/maxresdefault.jpg

Funny, just like Kansas City has Overland Park in the SW corner of the metro, Minneapolis also has a suburban skyline with a pyramidal-topped building anchoring the area SW of the city. I'm talking Bloomington, MN. I do feel Minneapolis is competitive with Kansas City to a degree (it is only logical). I wonder if Bloomington's signature, pyramidal-topped building, or Overland Park's signature, pyramidal-topped building, came first? Also, Minneapolis has the twin Carlson Towers in Minnetonka, which are very similar-looking to Overland Park's main building. Overland Park's Lighton Center was built around 1987-88, I think. I'm not sure about Bloomington's building, or the Carlson Towers, but I think they came a bit later.

Bloomington skyline (on Lake Normandy)
https://assets.site-static.com/userFile ... ge/BL4.JPG
Carlson Towers (Minnetonka, MN)
http://media.bizj.us/view/img/2389241/c ... 0-0-32.jpg

Anyways, Overland Park flows better and feels better to me then Bloomington. Bloomington has a lot of great buildings, and I certainly like the skyline standing on Lake Normandy, but overall, driving on the freeway, the satellite city skyline feels more scattered about & kinda clunky to me. Overland Park doesn't to me, though. Plus, Overland Park has broad nice boulevards, and trees and a spacious, tree-dotted Kansas landscape that looks fair & open. The houses all have some typical Kansas City-area flair to them, as they are built up and down over rolling hills on windy streets, often gathered around cul-de-sacs. So, I give KC's Overland Park the "Blue Ribbon" in the Midwest as far as suburban areas/skylines go.

Itasca, IL (suburban Chicago)
https://www.hamiltonpartners.com/wp-con ... st_opt.jpg

Finally, here is the "titan" example of these types of pink, glassy suburban buildings. Was suburban Chicago & Minneapolis both inspired by Overland Park's nice-looking, solo, pink/pyramid building (and tried to outdo it, by creating one taller, and creating twins)? Or, did Overland Park get inspired by them? I need to research that.

[Cermak]

Overland Park it seems is better planned than Bloomington. Bloomington mainly grew because of the airport and it’s location to interstates 494 and 35. Both are nice. But Overland Park does have better aesthetics . Feels less crowded and has a more relaxed feel. I haven’t been to Bloomington in about three years. I’m assuming it’s still similar to how I remember it. I was in Overland Park this past fall. I remember I stayed at a Super 8 motel in Overland Park years ago and even that was nice. It seems they have certain standards you must meet or you can’t build there. What a great idea, I think Omaha is finally starting to do this.

[RockHarbor]

Overland Park it seems is better planned than Bloomington. Bloomington mainly grew because of the airport and it’s location to interstates 494 and 35. Both are nice. But Overland Park does have better aesthetics . Feels less crowded and has a more relaxed feel. I haven’t been to Bloomington in about three years. I’m assuming it’s still similar to how I remember it. I was in Overland Park this past fall. I remember I stayed at a Super 8 motel in Overland Park years ago and even that was nice. It seems they have certain standards you must meet or you can’t build there. What a great idea, I think Omaha is finally starting to do this.

Yeah, Bloomington feels like a 60's/70's suburb where the older 60's/70's suburban neighborhoods are hidden back in trees, and 60's/70's office buildings are mixed w/ 80s/90s ones & even brand new office buildings along the freeway -- all of it taking decades to become what it is today, none of it necessarily made to match well, the commercial lots along the freeway being built upon over time. It is nice and I like Bloomington well enough. Funny, it is not all that far from Downtown Minneapolis. Ive went to the top of a tall Bloomington hotel, and took pics of the Mpls skyline, a reasonable distance to the north. However, suburban Kansas City was reaching the southern I-435 loop by the late 70's and the suburban sprawl started spilling across the freeway by 1980 or so, so Overland Park's office buildings and houses (I-435 south) all mostly were constructed 1980 and beyond. Ive went to the top of an Overland Park tall hotel and looked north, and Downtown KC is really far away -- if it is clear enough to even see it. So, Overland Park is not only a newer area overall than Bloomington, its further away from the old city core, making it feel like a true "edge city." (However, I've compared the distances, and Overland Park is only 4-5 miles further south from Downtown KC, than Bloomington is to Minneapolis. However, it also is set more at a diagonal angle to the SW of KC, where Bloomington is almost straight south of Mpls, so that makes OP even more distant from the KC skyline. Also, KC's buildings are technically smaller/shorter than Mpls's.) It also in the extreme NE corner of Kansas, so that feels kinda interesting. And, looking out at the western horizon line, you sense you are on the edge of the Great Plains & Kansas prairie, and you know I-35 is taking traffic south to Wichita, Oklahoma City, and Dallas. So, there's something almost about all these newer 80's/90's suburban houses w/ big office buildings & big freeway facing a big horizon landscape to the West that kinda reminds me of the stark, b&w, big sky Kansas scenes beyond the Kansas farm in Wizard of Oz -- or something. It's hard to put my finger on. (Between KC and Wichita, you get into the grassy Kansas Flint Hills, and there's hardly a tree in sight. So, it really is a wide open "prairie" west of semi-woodsy KC.) Anyways, it all feels different than the woodsy, lake-dotted land far up north around Minneapolis. Both are nice, though. My point: No city has it all, each have their special differences.

[RockHarbor]

Here's some quick phone photos of Overland Park. (The winter lawns down there get a nice golden color that is enjoyable even if no snow is around. The winter golden or summer green lawns look nice w/ the pink/mauve office building, and the others. Also, I like how that tallest building has a pointy needle and embellishments that remind me of accents seen on skyscrapers in Downtown KC, so it looks like a small city spawned from the main big city -- just like Bloomington has a lot of blue glass, stair-steps, and zig-zags, like Downtown Mpls. Just a nice, attractive edge city -- period.)


Also, not sure if you have seen these, but this sharp twin set of buildings are fairly new in OP. They are lit up very neat at night. (Funny, after these twins were built, Bloomington got a squarish set of twins w/ delicate lines in the windows. And, Mpls also got those two twin Wells Fargo buildings by the new stadium, set just like these are -- causing criticism from local architects they looked "too suburban" for Downtown Mpls. AND, I notice they now have a very sharp new building proposed downtown, that is white, delicate & airy like Kansas City's new "One Light" buildings. It's making me wonder if Minneapolis gets some ideas from KC, and attempts to maybe even take the designs a notch higher? Logically, Kansas City would be the main regional city they would compete with, and feel threatened by, even more than industrial St Louis, or Milwaukee. KC has a sparkly aspect, and seems to have urban goals & aspirations to be beautiful & impressive, like Minneapolis does.) I just wish Omaha would get more handsome buildings like this in our suburbs. My jaw would drop if Omaha got those -- yet they seem normal & fitting in suburban KC. Just imagine these out by Gretna along I-80, with new houses & apartments going up...

[Cermak]

I saw those twin buildings last time I was down there, drove right past them, Fantastic looking buildings. I think they would look good even in Downtown Omaha. PNC bank had a sign on one of them, possibly a regional office in KC. Like you said Overland Park is a lot farther than Bloomington from the downtown core. This explains why it feels more open and less dense. Bloomington is a older suburb that really grew a ton in the 1950’s and 60’s. It still has some shopping centers and office space that looks sorta tacky or average ( similar to how Omaha looks around 84th st and I-80) especially east of 35W. But by the time you get over to France ave it’s pretty nice and is attractive all the way to Eden Prairie. The area of France Ave to Eden Prairie is probably about as nice as Overland Park. Normandale lake is really impressive with the glass office towers. It takes advantage of Minneapolisis north woods feel. Which Omaha or KC don’t have. I like the way Minneapolis kinda sits on the edge of the prairie/corn belt and the start of the north woods. The south suburbs have almost a prairie like feel to them like in Lakeville/Burnsville. And by the time you get to the north suburbs you can tell the prairie is over and the north woods are starting. The Twin cities seems to tie the plains and the woods together. Minneapolis is actually closer to Omaha than Chicago, Denver and St Louis could explain our obsession with it.

[RockHarbor]

I saw those twin buildings last time I was down there, drove right past them, Fantastic looking buildings. I think they would look good even in Downtown Omaha. PNC bank had a sign on one of them, possibly a regional office in KC. Like you said Overland Park is a lot farther than Bloomington from the downtown core. This explains why it feels more open and less dense. Bloomington is a older suburb that really grew a ton in the 1950’s and 60’s. It still has some shopping centers and office space that looks sorta tacky or average ( similar to how Omaha looks around 84th st and I-80) especially east of 35W. But by the time you get over to France ave it’s pretty nice and is attractive all the way to Eden Prairie. The area of France Ave to Eden Prairie is probably about as nice as Overland Park. Normandale lake is really impressive with the glass office towers. It takes advantage of Minneapolisis north woods feel. Which Omaha or KC don’t have. I like the way Minneapolis kinda sits on the edge of the prairie/corn belt and the start of the north woods. The south suburbs have almost a prairie like feel to them like in Lakeville/Burnsville. And by the time you get to the north suburbs you can tell the prairie is over and the north woods are starting. The Twin cities seems to tie the plains and the woods together. Minneapolis is actually closer to Omaha than Chicago, Denver and St Louis could explain our obsession with it.

Exactly! I agree with everything you said. (Correction: "Normandale" not "Normandy Lake." Yes, its "Normandale Boulevard" through there.) I do love the blue/grey skyline of Bloomington on that lake. That North Woods feel starting there makes Minneapolis/Bloomington feel refreshing & very leafy & green/blue and somewhat different than the rest of the Midwest cities.

I worked a seasonal, fun job a decade ago up on the MN/Canada border at a lodge near Lake Superior. Its gorgeous up there, and feels like a unique mix of the Midwest & Maine. At some wilderness points up there, it felt like I was at the "end of the world." When you get down to the Twin Cities, the North Woods aspect fades, and you're back to farms & fields as you head back to Des Moines & Omaha. I'm glad I have that perspective now.

Like Minneapolis is brushed by the North Woods region, Kansas City has the brush with the Ozarks region, which is also beautiful. Huge Lake of the Ozarks in Central Missouri is only a couple of hours away. I've been there before. Kansas City has a lot of those limestone cliffs and trees, and it also has a wild & brambly & leafy aspect as well. I always feel like Omaha & Des Moines are more dull, surrounded by prairie & farms & fields, and manmade dammed lakes. And, Kansas City and Minneapolis have that brush with woodsy, lake-dotted regions, that make them more beautiful than Omaha & Des Moines -- plus they are neater, more beautiful cities. No fair. But, Omaha & Des Moines do well with what they got.

[RockHarbor]

Bloomington skyline on Lake Normandale. I actually had to park in one of the parking garages adjacent to those high rises, and walk halfway around the lake to get this view in a picture. I do love that section of Bloomington's skyline, especially. It reminds me of Overland Park in a way...

[Cermak]

Kansas City does seem to be more wooded than Omaha. It gets more annual precipitation than us. I was in the area around Omaha country club/Ponca hills this fall and that part of Omaha is very wooded. Wish more of Omaha was like that. State street just to the north of Omaha country club is thick with foliage it’s like your driving in Wisconsin. Trees just help soften things and create a calm serene feel. The extreme southeast corner of Nebraska around Falls city and Nebraska city has the states best foliage. Your getting closer to Missouri and that part of the state gets the most rain.

[RockHarbor]

Kansas City does seem to be more wooded than Omaha. It gets more annual precipitation than us. I was in the area around Omaha country club/Ponca hills this fall and that part of Omaha is very wooded. Wish more of Omaha was like that. State street just to the north of Omaha country club is thick with foliage it’s like your driving in Wisconsin. Trees just help soften things and create a calm serene feel. The extreme southeast corner of Nebraska around Falls city and Nebraska city has the states best foliage. Your getting closer to Missouri and that part of the state gets the most rain.

Yes, along the river it is very woodsy. I think of Ponca Hills (as you mentioned), and Fontenelle Forest. I grew up many years around Ponca Hills. I went to Indian Cave State Park south of Omaha, and it was very woodsy. And, Platte River SP and Mahoney SP are built in woodsy areas along the Platte. West of Omaha, neighborhoods built within woodsy bluffs along the Elkhorn River dont even feel like Omaha to me. Yes, those rivers really add moisture to the immediate landscape around them -- for sure. Kansas City's woodsiness really seems to start on the Missouri border, nearing the major rivers. Down near Overland Park & Olathe, KS it really starts getting a lot more open...