1.  Of the three development frameworks presented, is there one you believe to be the most appropriate in guiding future development in the Alliance area?  What are the elements of that framework that you like or dislike?

Framework 3 garnered the most support from workshop participants, with Framework 2 firmly in second place.  Nobody cited “Framework 1” as most desirable.  The general feeling seemed to be that # 3 would provide the optimum balance between safeguarding established commercial areas while opening opportunities for new ones to develop.  Some particularly insightful observations:

• The city Master Plan has discouraged strip development for years.  It continues because it seems to appeal to the development community.  Thus, the master plan is modified to meet builders’ requirements.  Is it realistic to think the City of Omaha will commit to a change?
• Framework #3 has a lot of potential, however, I still like the 60^th and Ames as a major retail hub.  The 52^nd and Ames area should be carefully looked at…It’s a great intersection of great neighborhoods.
• #3: the mixed-use development, I believe, is the best.  It allows for all the things that make a community thrive and grow: housing, recreation, economic development, and walkability.  Things that attract newcomers to the area.
• I like framework #3.  However, I think that an additional community or neighborhood node/district should remain at 60^th and Ames.  There is an existing retail framework/structure that should be embellished.  It would be a shame to lose it.  Also, it breaks up the corridor between 48^th and 72^nd better than 52^nd St.  The Super Saver Plaza at 51^st and Ames could remain as a neighborhood center.
• Development #3 – I agree most with the third framework.  I believe that too many commercial areas will not be a great idea because there are not enough residents to support them.  I think certain areas need to be improved with more neighborhood based projects – walkable space, parks, roads, etc.
• Less reliance on streets – encourage non-motorized, pedestrian friendly connections.  Encourage mixed use centers – again to facilitate the pedestrian friendly connections by placing residential uses in close proximity to jobs/commercial/retail.

2.  What elements of the other proposed development frameworks do you dislike?  Explain why you like/dislike them and if possible propose a solution.

Overall, dislike of Framework 1 was universal and palpable.  Oft-cited reasons: strip development encourages crime, pollution, reliance on automotive forms of transportations, etc; strip development is not conducive to sustainable development (one store pulls out and effect reverberates throughout corridor), etc.  Critiques of Framework 2 were milder but no less important.

• I dislike the “drive-thru” aspect of #1 – it doesn’t encourage people to get out into the various neighborhoods to shop, dine, etc.  #2 seems pretty good for established neighborhoods, but maybe puts new businesses at a disadvantage for getting into less-established areas.
• Framework #2  The competition of 72^nd and Benson business districts could result in the larger establishments surviving, small Benson stores closing.
• I like the “green streets” idea of creating corridors to connect nodes.
• I feel that the corridor that is most important to the entire current project and future projects is the Sorensen Parkway area leading from the airport.  Not only are we trying to impress current residents and pull in new ones, but we should be making contact with visitors coming in from the east.  I am hoping that all the proposals I have seen will be implemented as soon as possible.
• I liked the Ames Ave. board with townhouses and patio houses represented.

After reviewing the linkages/pathways ideas, are there specific ideas or concepts that you like or dislike?  Why do you like or dislike them?  Are there other specific locations you believe to be important as linkages, pathways, or gateways in the Alliance area?

All respondents affirmed the renderings featured at the linkages/pathways/gateways station.  The Cole Creek linkage concept elicited the most positive attention, though people also reacted favorably to the gateway ideas.  The only drawbacks certain respondents saw in the latter related to maintenance and identity issues.  Some felt that the gateways concepts should be second to building community cohesiveness through pedestrian-friendly streets, great trails and paths, etc.  Nobody proposed other locations to be considered.

• Linkages – I like and support the concept of providing linkages/movement to and through areas that are pleasant to drive, walk or cycle through on your way to a destination.  Clear easy movement along pathways is always good, and it does not have to be a speedway.  Gateway – if attractive markers, architecture, other various beautiful structures are located at these entrances and welcome people in, I am for it.
• I feel every one of them is important.  Each concept dealt with image problems that plague North Omaha.  I have lived here for sixteen years and I am concerned that we have heard many proposals in the past with no action.  I am a “doer” and would like to have time frames listed for all the projects.  I didn’t see anything in reference to the years each project was expected to begin or be completed.
• The idea of linking several diverse neighborhoods is an attractive one in that people may be more likely to interact, shop, etc. between neighborhoods if they are physically linked.  It can then become a psychological link also, making it easier to move out of your “sphere.”  Making movement easier within a city is important – maybe we can then cross other boundaries both real and imagined and become a city that is more unified and open to progress.  I like the Cole Creek linkage – it seems a natural path.
• The Cole Creek pathway is appealing, but should be given a priority below making streets leading to neighborhood and small commercial centers walkable supporting my preferred framework (#2).  Gateway projects would be valuable only in so far as they become a project that builds community cohesiveness. 
• The Cole Creek greenway concept should be encouraged – taking back the green/open space will provide additional water quality benefits for the creek – and reduce flood problems – while providing a recreational corridor that will help connect the neighborhoods.
  

This station presents development concepts for four different areas of development.  Please look at the ideas presented in each area and provide your thoughts and comments.

North Saddle Creek

Responses were very mixed.  Some people had a hard time identifying with the concepts, with the pedestrian bridge being the most controversial (too expensive, distracting, etc.).  Some people felt that the mixed-use idea was great, and that the area should be largely rebuilt, with an emphasis on townhouses and single dwellings.  Others, especially those identifying themselves as homeowners in the area, felt that the area had achieved the optimum balance of residential and retail use, and did not necessarily want to see it undergo drastic change.  Overall, people felt they needed further clarification in order to render a final verdict.

Downtown Benson

Responses were uniformly positive.  People felt strongly that Benson should be made more pedestrian-friendly: more trees, wider sidewalks, reduced traffic on Maple (presumably by diverting bulk of it onto NW Radial/Military or closing the street altogether).  More parking/parallel parking concepts also drew favorable attention.  Fewer people commented on the townhouse ideas, but those that did reacted favorably.  Still fewer felt that the area needed only cosmetic changes like benches and trees.  All respondents, however, felt strongly that the character of the district needed to be maintained, though nobody went into detail describing what this actually meant.

Ames Avenue

Reactions were, again, mixed.  People felt overall that more housing should be installed along Ames especially single-family houses or townhouses, with retail concentrated either at existing Baker’s Square area or at 60^th Street.  Everyone similarly thought of the corridor as an eyesore and crime magnet that would be an ideal candidate for green streets revitalization.  The community should be better linked, with commercial existing in a “village-like” symbiosis with surrounding family-oriented residential units.

72nd/Military