KCRag Forum

It's interesting that both New York Life buildings are built on a similar grade as well. It would be interesting to see the restorations of the buildings and how similar, or different, the buildings are today. For example, the Omaha Building has an outdoor roof deck behind the eagle sculpture.

The interior court was filled in on both buildings. The Omaha Building has a tall, open atrium in that former courtyard space. I've never been in the Kansas City New York Life Building. Is there an atrium there as well, or did they connect all floors?

The Omaha Building is home to the the law firm of Kutak Rock LLP. They have offices in Kansas City as well. It would have been sort of neat if Kutak Rock would have bought the New York Life building instead of the Catholic Diocese, and had offices in both buildings. They are in the UMB building at 11th and Walnut.

One thing about the KC version versus the Omaha version of the building is the setting. With the jag in Baltimore, one gets a better straight-on view of the building, which makes it more of a striking landmark when looking down the street.

See photos:

http://www.kutakrock.com/publications/K ... ilding.pdf

Back of Kansas City's New York Life Building:

Didnt Omaha briefly overtake KC in (metro) population? I almost wonder if that was a fudging of the census numbers considering the population of the next census in Omaha. I always find it strange that three potential large urban areas arose fairly close together all the way out on the edge (for all intensive purposes) of the midwest. It seems to me like there should have only been one big city in that spot, supported at first by trade with St. Louis and then pumped full of steroids (rail) by Chicago. I know I'm kind of ignoring history, but it's just weird how KC and Omaha are kind of like different sized versions of each other.

I think just before the last census figures caim out, Omaha claimed to have overtaken KC in city, not metro, population.

Just curious, what is the third "potential large urban area" you mean? Sioux City?

Didnt Omaha briefly overtake KC in (metro) population?

Yeah... Omaha a tiny shadow of KC in metro population (still looking for 1 million.. hopefully in this decade). I think there was a year, following the Elkhorn annexation, when we may have briefly passed or closely matched the city of KC in population. That is where most of Omaha's growth has come... from annexations... while the fastest growing parts of the metro are in Sarpy County to the south (comprising the cities of Bellevue, Papillion, La Vista, Gretna).

I'm talking about the 1890 census. Omaha was bigger, but then somehow lost a huge chunk of population at 1900, very odd.

chingon wrote:I think just before the last census figures caim out, Omaha claimed to have overtaken KC in city, not metro, population.

Just curious, what is the third "potential large urban area" you mean? Sioux City?

St. Joseph! It was larger than KC or Omaha around the time of the Civil War, and the same size as Omaha as of 1900 (however, I think that's another case of a sketchy census number, the one for St. Joe in 1900, along with St. Louis in I think 1870).

eomaha.com wrote:

I was totally thinking NY Life, too. Which I believe Omaha has a copy of, yeah?

Actually, Omaha's was the 'original' !

I knew that, and I knew as I typed it that if I didn't phrase that differently it would be pointed out.

No doubt, a trivial detail no one cares about anyway.

St. Joseph! It was larger than KC or Omaha around the time of the Civil War, and the same size as Omaha as of 1900 (however, I think that's another case of a sketchy census number, the one for St. Joe in 1900, along with St. Louis in I think 1870).

I don't know about St Joe, but actually... Omaha was slightly larger than KC (even) somewhere between 1890 and 1900 (even hosting a world's exposition)... by all accounts, it was on track to grow like every 'other' larger midwestern city today... until a severe local drought and market panic occurred in that same decade, left people abandoning the city... never really caught back up.

Lingering effects of the first river crossing perhaps? I've heard it was the death knell for St. Joseph's aspirations, perhaps it stunted Omaha as well.

warwickland wrote: It seems to me like there should have only been one big city in that spot, supported at first by trade with St. Louis and then pumped full of steroids (rail) by Chicago. I know I'm kind of ignoring history, but it's just weird how KC and Omaha are kind of like different sized versions of each other.

The Union Pacific Railroad (that is the first transcontinental railroad) probably has much to do with the Omaha growth in the post Civil War period.

warwickland wrote:I'm talking about the 1890 census. Omaha was bigger, but then somehow lost a huge chunk of population at 1900, very odd.

chingon wrote:I think just before the last census figures caim out, Omaha claimed to have overtaken KC in city, not metro, population.

Just curious, what is the third "potential large urban area" you mean? Sioux City?

St. Joseph! It was larger than KC or Omaha around the time of the Civil War, and the same size as Omaha as of 1900 (however, I think that's another case of a sketchy census number, the one for St. Joe in 1900, along with St. Louis in I think 1870).

Shit. Sorry, man. I somehow missed your point by a century.

Correct, Omaha can thank Union Pacific for it's rise. It's actually somewhat amazing that Omaha has managed to retain their headquarters all these years (actually they left to Denver and Dallas a number of years over the past couple of decades). I don't know how many cities out there can point to such a company influencing it's growth over such a long period of time... UP is still one of Omaha's largest employers, although mostly white collar jobs today... very little 'rail worker' presence left in the city.

I guess when the UP offices pulled out of St. Louis they consolidated everything in Omaha and built something shiny? Man that's a big hunk of building.

warwickland wrote:I guess when the UP offices pulled out of St. Louis they consolidated everything in Omaha and built something shiny? Man that's a big hunk of building.

An entire city block. The building was originally supposed to be about 5 floors taller which would of been nice to make it appear less squatty and been more impressive on the skyline. This is our largest DT building by sq footage, but only 314 feet tall.

UrbanNebraska wrote:

warwickland wrote:I guess when the UP offices pulled out of St. Louis they consolidated everything in Omaha and built something shiny? Man that's a big hunk of building.

An entire city block. The building was originally supposed to be about 5 floors taller which would of been nice to make it appear less squatty and been more impressive on the skyline. This is our largest DT building by sq footage, but only 314 feet tall.

That's too bad they didnt squeeze a 600 footer out of that.

I dunno, I'd rather have a bunch of shorter buildings closer together than a bunch of tall buildings isolated from each other in an ocean of parking (corporate woods, or as seen in the Buffalo thread).

Unfortunately it's a bit of a fortress at street level (same as First National Center)... although you can walk into the lobby and visit a souvenir shop/eat at a cafeteria inside. The floor to ceiling atrium is somewhat impressive.

mean wrote:I dunno, I'd rather have a bunch of shorter buildings closer together than a bunch of tall buildings isolated from each other in an ocean of parking (corporate woods, or as seen in the Buffalo thread).

yeah, but I can't think of a highrise being constructed with a surface lot in a downtown district...usually they are on a parking podium/underground or at worst some structure immediately adjacent. the surface lots came later, when planners were crazy about making surface parking.

I, too, generally prefer a mix of smaller buildings that address the street as opposed to a big dead monolith. In this case I was thinking of just girth vs height in a single structure.

Sure, my point was mainly that if you look at satellite images of pretty much any midwestern or rust belt downtown, it's hard to argue that they wouldn't be better off with a bunch of 4 story buildings forming a contiguous urban fabric (and no surface parking) rather than a bunch of towers, some shorter buildings, and twelve dozen vacant lots.

mean wrote:Sure, my point was mainly that if you look at satellite images of pretty much any midwestern or rust belt downtown, it's hard to argue that they wouldn't be better off with a bunch of 4 story buildings forming a contiguous urban fabric (and no surface parking) rather than a bunch of towers, some shorter buildings, and twelve dozen vacant lots.

You got back to me too quick, I was adding to my post.