This thread is simply to discuss Omaha architecture – from the striking skyscraper downtown, to the historic & stylish apartment block in Midtown, to the warm, inviting strip mall in the suburb. What's your favorites in this town? What aren't your favorites? I love discussing architecture & design, and I don’t feel there is enough discussion about this city’s architecture. This is the perfect place for it, I guess. So, I’ll start – of course.
Of course, I desire to see Omaha’s modern architecture quality continue to increase. As far as modern, downtown buildings go, our 1969 Woodmen Tower & 1972 First National Bank are nice, clean examples of “International Style” architecture from that era. The Woodmen Tower has become an iconic & loved tower in the region, which is unusual for a mere box. Yet, I feel the closest modern building to actually being “notable” in Omaha is our Tower at First National Center (Leo A. Daly, 2001).
When the 1200 Landmark Center was first announced & built in 1989 (or so), I was very ecstatic about its blue glass & top w/ some flair. However, I don’t favor it the same nowadays, with a broader sense of architecture & deeper sense of design. Over the last few days, I’ve been contemplating on how to best explain what I feel. I’ve had great discussion on the “1200 Landmark Center” thread. But, I’ve said enough there, and the convo seems over. Plus, I’ve been thinking how Google Earth images can help me w/ further clarity. So, I’ve put some slides together labeled with letters. Here’s a step-by-step explanation of why you won’t hear/see me applauding our 1200 Landmark Center, although I still like the building in some ways. These are the aspects I now think about, when I look at it.
A) The 1200 Landmark Center on our skyline. It works fine in Omaha. Architecturally, most other major buildings around it are simple as well.
B) The 1200 Landmark Center inserted into Downtown Sioux Falls. It works even better, and is even more exciting in that town, imo. Being a smaller city, the buildings are shorter & simpler than Omaha’s. So, the tower is even more a “stand out.”
C) The building always gives me a slight feel of Gothic design (although I don’t feel it is meant to be Gothic -- so therefore, it feels meaningless to me). In Gothic design, arched windows & doorways are lined-up and evenly-spaced from each other. In modern design reflecting Gothic, triangular-peaked windows often replace the arches – as seen on this new church. Therefore, I feel it is 100% understandable the 1200 Landmark Center's top gives me an impression of modern Gothic design.
D) I decided to compare our 1200 Landmark Center with two notable buildings that have historic/ Gothic influences: Houston’s 1982 Republic Bank (left) and Pittsburgh’s PPG Place (right). See the quality in design compared to our simplistic building? I’ll explain the red circles in a moment.
E) Our 1200 Landmark Center compared with two Gothic-influenced skyscrapers that are not notable buildings, yet are still noticeably higher quality in design: St. Louis’s Metro Square (left) and Tampa’s tallest skyscraper (right). See the difference between Omaha’s building & the other skyscrapers?
F) Looking at the building, being a visualizer, I’ve been aware for a long time that the taller you stretch the tower, the more ridiculous & silly that top gets. Those 4 triangles just cannot work on a taller, glass box tower. They only work the shorter the building, imo.
G) The 1200 Landmark Center gives me somewhat an impression that it is incomplete being a solo tower, that it needs matching “sister” buildings to compliment it. It is the same feeling I would have if Houston’s building was built w/ one gabled section (see red circle, slide D), or if Pittsburgh’s PPG complex had the circled building standing alone (see red circle, slide D). It would feel incomplete & odd. The Landmark Center's adjoining data center relieves some of that pressure, imo. Still, I would like the 1200 Landmark Center design better with complimentary, matching structures echoing those same roof lines. (They wouldn't all fit downtown on a city block, but as a complex in the suburbs, for example.)
H) Better yet, I would like that particular roof design better on a bit shorter, longer buildings. That would feel better to me & make more sense design-wise. Not only do Gothic buildings usually have lower heights & greater lengths, they also have a line of arches/triangles that are usually greater than a count of four. Apart from Gothic-feeling peaks, even roof lines that zigzag (such as on schools from the 60’s, or Crossroads Mall from the 60’s) are seen on shorter, longer buildings.
Many of you are happy with Omaha's Landmark Center, and that is great. Understandable: It’s a very nice office building, and some of the nicest office space in Downtown Omaha. But, that’s why I’m not a huge fan of it nowadays… But, architecture is a form of art, and like art, it is objective.
Statistics: Posted by RockHarbor — Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:39 am