Omaha.who do you think you are? (budget, apartment)

[kosnebbear]

rpontillo and mattpoulsen,

I was only pointing out that much like MattDen does with his one sided views, that the remarks made about Colorado Springs was generalizing an area, by one's views. The fact is that in America we enjoy living together as a country no matter what you are or where you come from. You can be a Muslim and have a Jewish neighbor or a ring wing conservative Bible beating individual with a best friend who is a left wing anti religion liberal and we all can live in peace. We can attack what our President does, without fear of going to jail for what we say. As for DTO Luv most of the farmers that I know have more money in the bank than you would think. Most of them could afford to live in downtown Omaha if the wish, but they don't want to. Also I took your remark as to think that farmers are in a lower class than you. You would change you attitude if all the farmers decided to just grow enough food for their own families. You would change your mind about the farmer when you got hungry enough. Also it was a farmer who began building this country over 400 years ago, it was not a high class social individual living in an expensive condo by a river.

[DTO Luv]

There are still much cheaper places DT though. Heck there's even sleeping rooms available DT. You just hear about the more expensive places these days.

[WARNYOU]

Yeah... Its a farm town alright?

Look at this great city:


I agree it is a great town, it is viewed as a farm town by everyone else in the country though.
What your picture does not show is the corn fields just out of frame 4 miles south and 5 miles north of the city, and not to mention the corn and bean fields just on the Iowa side of the river across from the Down town area.

[WARNYOU]

they just need to rewire them ...but keep the face intact

That is what they tried doing to the old Butternut Building on 10th street.
I think that one went up like a Roman Candle also.
Property owners can build a new building which is up to code and safer for the tenants who live there it alot cheaper than renovating and an old one.

[kosnebbear]

Sorry, but I do not agree with you on being able to build a new building cheaper than fixing on up. If the building is sound and it a large, why would you want to tear it down, which will cost you a sum of money. I worked in a small town where the town hired a crew to tear down a building that was about to fall down. The owner refused to do anything with the building. It cost the town over $50,000.00 for one day or work. The building was not that large. So a large building that would take days to tear down and haul it off to a landfill that would take the rubble might cost you say around $500,000 to $1,000,000. Then you have all of the building codes to meet with a new building, where the building standing already has that. So if I could buy a building for like $600,000 that was sound then I could invest what it would cost me to have it torn down in order to bring it up to code. If the old Butternut Building that you are talking about went up like you said it did then someone must have done something wrong when they fixed it up. In reading about what they were trying to do with it was in line with my thoughts and not yours.

[mattpoulsen]

I think whether or not it costs more or less to build a new building would ultimately depend on the specific building in question. I don't think there is any general rule to apply here. That said, when there are buildings of historical value we should do our best to preserve those buildings and modernize those buildings instead of rebuilding new ones. However, in Omaha, there aren't really that many real historical buildings. There are some that add a nice atmosphere, but the oldest buildings in Omaha are just over 100 years old.

[DTO Luv]

Originally Posted by WARNYOU

they just need to rewire them ...but keep the face intact

That is what they tried doing to the old Butternut Building on 10th street.
I think that one went up like a Roman Candle also.
Property owners can build a new building which is up to code and safer for the tenants who live there it alot cheaper than renovating and an old one.

That's not why the Butternut building burned up. It had already been rewired by the point it burned. It was something else.

[WARNYOU]

I find it funny and cute when folks want to save old buildings. 99% of the time they have no investement with the particular building that is being torn down. For example the Indian Hills Theater on 87th and Dodge street. that eye sorn sat there vacant for a few years then it was anounced that it is being toren down for more parking spaces. The protestors came out of the wood work, wanting to save it. Where were they when it was first being sold?
Give up the past folks, and let this city grow without gripes and moans.

Old buildings are outdated, health risks, and fire traps. To renovate one the right way is very costly and most properety owners do not want to spend the cash or the risk.

[DTO Luv]

By your logic NYC and pretty much any huge, east coast city could go up in smoke at the light of a match. Some one call London too.

[WARNYOU]

Ok? so..... why are they going to tear down the "OLD" UP Building and build new condo's in it's place. With your logic, it is a perfectly good old building that is a good fixer up'r. It just needs a little TLC. You should try and save it and have the condos built somewhre else.