Omaha tore down an entire historic district in 1988, now it might regret it - Page 4

Xelebes · #61 Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

^^^

Because working in a converted warehouse is "cool" and "hip" now, it was absolutely unacceptable back then!

How terrible.

I do wonder if it wasn't so much how "cool" and "hip" the old warehouses but how HVAC technology was still making advances in terms of cost of replacement and efficiency that the thought of working in these old warehouses did not afford them the thought of them being comfortable places to work.

Just some speculation. It wasn't until the 90s you saw a mass interest in renewing these older buildings.

Centropolis · #62 Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think that's the difference. Cabrini Green is located right next to (arguably) the second or third largest centralized economic engine in the U.S., yet was/is an utter disaster. There are small towns with limited economies yet decent public housing. And project residents aren't working at Goldman Sachs or Google or McKinsey anyways.

pruitt-igoe was an order of magnitude worse than cabrini green, though. i mean it pre-dated the crack epidemic. im not saying that it was a catch all explanation - cabrini green arguably a lense through which there was a concentration of the severe issues of chicago, too.

Centropolis · #63 Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 5:18 PM**

also - do i really need to say that more concentrated white collar jobs probably means more concentrated service jobs?

MNMike · #64 Posted **Oct 7, 2015, 10:34 PM**

It is a shame some of those buildings were lost...but really, it is always easy to look back and say "that was a huge mistake" looking at a lot of "urban renewal" projects...though in many cases they did do their job in keeping their downtown area relevant, even if not entirely in the way intended. A lot of cities with these mistakes wouldn't be where they are without them, or wouldn't have gotten through the times in between now and then as well or in the same way, if that makes any sense. Minneapolis has a huge example of this as well.

TarHeelJ · #65 Posted **Oct 18, 2015, 5:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNMike

It is a shame some of those buildings were lost...but really, it is always easy to look back and say "that was a huge mistake" looking at a lot of "urban renewal" projects...though in many cases they did do their job in keeping their downtown area relevant, even if not entirely in the way intended. A lot of cities with these mistakes wouldn't be where they are without them, or wouldn't have gotten through the times in between now and then as well or in the same way, if that makes any sense. Minneapolis has a huge example of this as well.

We could probably find a similar example in almost every major city...it was the 80s and suburban-style architecture was all the rage. I do think that historic preservation was in full swing by 1989 and I'm sure it was a heart-breaking decision, but obviously city leaders were completely desperate to keep the jobs, prestige, and local investment that a huge HQ brings.

I am very impressed with everyone's 20/20 hindsight. All of the contributing factors of this tragedy need to be realized before calling people idiots. It's easy to look back 25 years at this and lament the loss of this district - especially now with the HQ's move to Chicago. The real dick move is leaving such a mess in Omaha...they could at least sit in their horrible buildings for a few more years.

mhays · #66 Posted **Oct 18, 2015, 7:29 PM**

Preservation movements were big in the 60s and 70s, and urban revitalization was big in the 80s. This one was way after this sort of thing was long gone in some places.

McBane · #67 Posted **Oct 19, 2015, 4:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

new york takes the cake. hundreds of beaux-arts mansions and brownstones in manhattan, a train station that was modelled after the baths of caracalla, etc.

Maybe, but at least NY has something to show for its destruction. Ya know, all those jobs and skyscrapers.

And thankfully, not a whole lot got destroyed her in Philly. The "Chinese Wall" was torn down to make way for Penn Center, today's CBD. And Society Hill was revitalized with most buildings rehabbed. Could you imagine if the city leveled Society Hill?

fflint · #68 Posted **Oct 19, 2015, 9:28 PM**

What happened in Omaha and what happened in New York City are not generally comparable, given Omaha had so very little traditionally urban cityscape to start with and given New York City had--and still has--so much.

Shawn · #69 Posted **Oct 20, 2015, 4:16 AM**

It's the timing more than anything else that sets this a bit apart from the other urban renewal mistakes: this basically happened in the (early) 90s. Most of the worst urban renewal offenders (ex. Boston's West End) were mid-late 60s fiascoes. By the late 80s/early 90s, depending on the city, new urbanism was already taking root. Warehouse districts in the usual gateway cities were starting to take off.

The point is, when Conagra built its campus in the smack-dab middle of Omaha, everyone in planning already knew this type of thing was a mistake - and they had known so for at least 10-15 years. And yet it went ahead anyways.

ardecila · #70 Posted **Oct 20, 2015, 6:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongbad635

Tons of semi-private areas became breeding grounds for territorial disputes, gang wars and semi-shielded nefarious activities. The funny-looking modern design engendered no pride in the residents so they had no qualms about trashing the place.

I can't really buy this, because it implies there is some alternative design that would have improved these conditions. Problem is, the slum neighborhoods before public housing weren't any better. They were equally "trashed" and had plenty of their own gang problems.

Most adult residents of public housing, initially, had plenty of pride in their surroundings. They were brand-new buildings and represented an enormous improvement in living conditions... I know in St. Louis, many of the rowhouse slums had minimal or no indoor bathroom facilities, poor insulation, and almost certainly no hot water.

Quote:

Most importantly, the complete uniformity of the income level of the residents caused social meltdowns so complete both places were largely torn down well within the lifetimes of its residents.

I agree with this as a significant cause of problems, although this was done with the best of intentions. Public housing was seen as a scarce commodity, only to be given to the very poorest, most destitute families, especially single mothers.

Steely Dan · #71 Posted **Oct 20, 2015, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

We could probably find a similar example in almost every major city...

of course we could find examples of wanton urban destruction in just about every major amercian city, but this example from omaha stands out for several reasons:

a) as mentioned by others, the timing. this happened in 1989, decades after the vast bulk of the worst of america's senseless urban destruction had occurred. by 1989, our society did know better.

b) the entire jobber's canyon district was already listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Its destruction represents the largest loss of an an officially registered historic district in the history of the nation.

c) while there are loads of examples of historic buildings and districts that have been destroyed for rather dubious redevelopment schemes, the egregiously crappy sprawl-burban nature of the conagra campus right on the edge of downtown omaha is certainly stand-out bad. i mean, it's like schaumburg bad. and schuamburg bad is the lowest possible level of bad that there is.

d) the corporate extortion nature of this foul deal. Conagra was holding a gun to city officials saying, "let us do whatever the hell we want and rip down these old buildings so that we can build a terrible corporate campus for ourselves or we're moving to denver or chicago". the bitter irony: omaha gave in to their demands and, 25 years later, conagra is moving their HQ to chicago anyway.

Ryanrule · #72 Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 8:36 PM**

conservatives should be banned from urban planning. and school boards. and hoa's.

most things really.

Crawford · #73 Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

conservatives should be banned from urban planning. and school boards. and hoa's.

most things really.

Urban renewal wasn't a conservative issue. If anything, it was liberals and social reformers who led the charge. People truly believed they were helping people and renewing cities. The NAACP was a huge proponent of these projects.

People looked at postwar cities like they were cancer patients, and the urban renewal was removing the malignancy, so the patient (the city) could heal. It sounds idiotic in the current day, but not to the planners and city builders of the postwar era.

Centropolis · #74 Posted **Oct 21, 2015, 10:38 PM**

right, seemed like a straightforward fix. clear the ghetto, the blight, and build clean, modern units and things would improve. of course it ignored the massive problem with the social machinery of america, and many other things.

IMBY · #75 Posted **Oct 30, 2015, 7:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

The other part of the equation is that Con-Agra is leaving a low tax red state in Nebraska for a heavily Unionized blue collar high tax liberal city in Chicago. What palms were greased?

Big mystery, I'll say! Another question, is how in hell did they get Boeing to move their HQ from Seattle to Chicago, given Chicago, and the state of Illinois, are all but bankrupt!

I see Raul's big property tax package just passed in Chicago, to be fazed in over 4 years, to pay their unfunded pension costs!

Chicago must be doing something to get these HQ's to move there.

I recall reading a bio of Mayor Daley, when Sears was threatening to leave the Loop for the suburbs. Daley asked the CEO of Sears:

What can I do to get you to change your mind?

CEO: I'd like a 2 square contiguous block of property in downtown Chicago!

It's yours! It's yours! I'll buy the land, I'll close off a street, and you can combine the 2 blocks!

Done!

Steely Dan · #76 Posted **Oct 30, 2015, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMBY

I see Raul's big property tax package just passed in Chicago

Who's Raul?

ardecila · #77 Posted **Oct 30, 2015, 3:27 PM**

^ also in the case of Sears Tower, Quincy wasn't really a street so much as a wide alley cutting one standard block into two chunks. And Sears moved to the suburbs eventually anyway.

That's why it's never a good idea to bend over backwards for these corporations... They have zero loyalty and zero incentive to honor their commitment to a particular city over a million other factors pulling them to leave. Tax incentives are just money, but Omaha now has a permanent scar blighting their downtown.

IMBY · #78 Posted **Oct 30, 2015, 3:30 PM**

Emmanuel Raul is the current Mayor of Chicago! It's no longer Daleyville!

Old man Daley was Mayor during the 50's/60's/70's for 21 years, and his son was Mayor for 22 years.

And, I don't think we've seen the last of the Daley's in Chicago!

Steely Dan · #79 Posted **Oct 30, 2015, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMBY

Emmanuel Raul is the current Mayor of Chicago!

what?

who the fuck is Emmanuel Raul?

mhays · #80 Posted **Oct 30, 2015, 4:24 PM**

Some of you seriously overestimate the value of "cheap" cities for HQs.

Being in a big, urban city can have huge benefits, like the ability to recruit the best talent, better flight connections, being close to synergistic relationships, etc.

Con-Agra sounds like a logical move based on what a lot of companies want. But the point is true that a company that moves once might not be terribly permanent.