Jump to content


Why haven't you registered yet?

Registration is quick, easy and completely FREE! Click the Create Account button located at the top-right to sign-up and receive additional benefits that existing members are already receiving!

Photo
- - - - -

THE Orlando Photo Thread


  • Please log in to reply
1951 replies to this topic

#501 Pieson

Pieson

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 262 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 04:13 PM

I would prefer Parramore area to look European and dowtown CBD more resemble asian city...go wild...


I second that
I think parramore has endless potential

all the same, I find it interesting how the thorton park area is constantly reffered to as a european style

 

#502 prahaboheme

prahaboheme

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,338 posts
  • Location:Orlando and Boston

Posted 06 December 2006 - 06:03 PM

I second that
I think parramore has endless potential

all the same, I find it interesting how the thorton park area is constantly reffered to as a european style


yet, it is distinctly American in both form and style.

#503 keone

keone

    Unincorporated Area

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 10:52 PM

random pic from tonight; playing with my new camera trying to figure it out

Posted Image

#504 Hisma

Hisma

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 444 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 12:40 AM

woowww, great pic, such a rare vantage point, yet it makes orlando look so dense!
I know it gets said so often, but wait till 55W and TT, that angle will be tits

#505 Boomer136

Boomer136

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Location:North Conway

Posted 08 December 2006 - 06:34 AM

Nice timing on the shutter speed!

#506 F-L-A

F-L-A

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 07:36 AM

We put lights on the shortest buildings. Heh.

#507 gumpking1

gumpking1

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 09:50 AM

random pic from tonight; playing with my new camera trying to figure it out

Posted Image

Great shot thanks

#508 MichaelGouda

MichaelGouda

    Crossroads

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 12 December 2006 - 09:01 PM


I would like to take a moment to introduce myself as the developer of the 205/215 hotel project. I am writing to clear up and answer some of the questions regarding the project.

I am also writing to express my gratitude for those who expressed words of support for the project.

The recent MPB hearing was our first application, not the second as was mentioned in an earlier post. Our first presentation to the DRC was not approved. The submission that was presented recently to the MPB was unanimously approved by the DRC on a preliminary and interim basis.

There was no office space proposed in the project; however we sought to build a 225 unit hotel, a 5000 sf. restaurant facing Lake Eola, 86 residential units and 1800 square ft of ground floor retail.

All of the structures proposed at MPB were located on our property. We did suggest some improvements to Eola Park that were coordinated with and supported by the parks department. These improvements were never part of our recent MPB application. Any park improvements would have been subject to a separate MPB application and public hearing.

The idea of improving the park by adding a restaurant deck was developed in conjunction with the city as a way to enliven what is considered to be the least active corner of Eola Park. Our design sought to create a more inviting and open western gateway to the park.

We added a ground floor restaurant to our project by eliminating a great deal of the project’s overhead volume based on suggestions made by the city staff. We also did this to accommodate our neighbors to the north.

We made an effort to terrace our design in order to create active and populated dining and lounge areas that were clearly visible from the park. We also broke up the elevations of our design to help pull the mass of the building away from the park. These terraces allowed us to add plantings to help soften the transition from the hotel to the park.

I appreciate the posting relating our efforts to make the portion of the parking garage attractive. We spent a huge amount of time refining the parking garage and our revised design will be more efficient with a significantly reduced parking garage height.

The existing buildings on the site are tired and lack ground floor retail. We hope that by replacing them with what we consider to be a very exciting hotel project that we could gain the support of the city. We feel that the project will make a significant and positive contribution to the city and its urban core.

Traffic concerns were raised at the MPB hearing. However, we have funded a complete and thorough traffic study that found that our project did not reduce the areas quality of traffic service beyond the city’s acceptable ranges.

We passed the TRC (technical review committee) and we also received a favorable and positive staff report recommending approval of the project as proposed.

We expected some resistance relating to our blocking of views and hotel competition, especially since we will be adding more rooms to the downtown hotel market. However, we targeted higher end hotel brands in order to separate our offerings from those provided by the existing downtown hotels.

The main concern of the MPB board appears to be related to the overall height and density of the project. Some of our neighbors also expressed concerns which we are taking into account as we prepare to resubmit for approval.

It is unfortunate that we were denied MPB approval, especially considering that we did our very best to include the city staff member’s recommendations throughout the design development process. Orlando has an incredible and talented staff that worked very hard with us over the past year guiding the project’s development. I am confident that we be able to work together to address the concerns of the MPB board.

Any support for the project that is conveyed to the city council members would be very much appreciated. I can be reached at the number below.

Michael Gouda
Managing Member
Eola Urban Holdings Co, LLC

407-493-2695 cell
mg@ged-usa.com



For those of you that support and are following the progress of our 205+215 E. Central hotel project, I am please to announce that our new design received interim DRC approval this evening.

Michael Gouda
Managing Member
Eola Urban Holdings Co, LLC

407-493-2695 cell
mg@ged-usa.com

#509 UPSDAN

UPSDAN

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 583 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL

Posted 12 December 2006 - 09:15 PM

For those of you that support and are following the progress of our 205+215 E. Central hotel project, I am please to announce that our new design received interim DRC approval this evening.

Michael Gouda
Managing Member
Eola Urban Holdings Co, LLC

407-493-2695 cell
mg@ged-usa.com

Sounds like good news. Can you post a rendering?

#510 orlandonative

orlandonative

    Burg

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Location:Orlando, Atlanta

Posted 12 December 2006 - 09:19 PM

Its technically public, can you post a rendering?

#511 bic

bic

    Burg

  • Moderators
  • 2,186 posts
  • Location:South Beach

Posted 12 December 2006 - 09:19 PM

Ten bucks says the new design has the infamous BBArch visor on it.

#512 Pieson

Pieson

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 262 posts

Posted 12 December 2006 - 09:51 PM

so what exactly is the new design

#513 MichaelGouda

MichaelGouda

    Crossroads

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 12 December 2006 - 10:26 PM

I would like to take a moment to introduce myself as the developer of the 205/215 hotel project. I am writing to clear up and answer some of the questions regarding the project.

I am also writing to express my gratitude for those who expressed words of support for the project.

The recent MPB hearing was our first application, not the second as was mentioned in an earlier post. Our first presentation to the DRC was not approved. The submission that was presented recently to the MPB was unanimously approved by the DRC on a preliminary and interim basis.

There was no office space proposed in the project; however we sought to build a 225 unit hotel, a 5000 sf. restaurant facing Lake Eola, 86 residential units and 1800 square ft of ground floor retail.

All of the structures proposed at MPB were located on our property. We did suggest some improvements to Eola Park that were coordinated with and supported by the parks department. These improvements were never part of our recent MPB application. Any park improvements would have been subject to a separate MPB application and public hearing.

The idea of improving the park by adding a restaurant deck was developed in conjunction with the city as a way to enliven what is considered to be the least active corner of Eola Park. Our design sought to create a more inviting and open western gateway to the park.

We added a ground floor restaurant to our project by eliminating a great deal of the project’s overhead volume based on suggestions made by the city staff. We also did this to accommodate our neighbors to the north.

We made an effort to terrace our design in order to create active and populated dining and lounge areas that were clearly visible from the park. We also broke up the elevations of our design to help pull the mass of the building away from the park. These terraces allowed us to add plantings to help soften the transition from the hotel to the park.

I appreciate the posting relating our efforts to make the portion of the parking garage attractive. We spent a huge amount of time refining the parking garage and our revised design will be more efficient with a significantly reduced parking garage height.

The existing buildings on the site are tired and lack ground floor retail. We hope that by replacing them with what we consider to be a very exciting hotel project that we could gain the support of the city. We feel that the project will make a significant and positive contribution to the city and its urban core.

Traffic concerns were raised at the MPB hearing. However, we have funded a complete and thorough traffic study that found that our project did not reduce the areas quality of traffic service beyond the city’s acceptable ranges.

We passed the TRC (technical review committee) and we also received a favorable and positive staff report recommending approval of the project as proposed.

We expected some resistance relating to our blocking of views and hotel competition, especially since we will be adding more rooms to the downtown hotel market. However, we targeted higher end hotel brands in order to separate our offerings from those provided by the existing downtown hotels.

The main concern of the MPB board appears to be related to the overall height and density of the project. Some of our neighbors also expressed concerns which we are taking into account as we prepare to resubmit for approval.

It is unfortunate that we were denied MPB approval, especially considering that we did our very best to include the city staff member’s recommendations throughout the design development process. Orlando has an incredible and talented staff that worked very hard with us over the past year guiding the project’s development. I am confident that we be able to work together to address the concerns of the MPB board.

Any support for the project that is conveyed to the city council members would be very much appreciated. I can be reached at the number below.

Michael Gouda
Managing Member
Eola Urban Holdings Co, LLC

407-493-2695 cell
mg@ged-usa.com

Preliminary_Rendering.jpg


I have attached a preliminary image of the new design at the top left. We have done our best to stay true to the original concept, maintaining the three glass cube elements and the stair stepping away from Lake Eola. We wish we were building the original 38 story design as we put our heart into the project.

Please understand that due to the time constraints, we had to forgo renderings in exchange for computerized modeling systems. These tend to create results that come across as a bit less personal and flat looking. Our intention is to stay true to the coloring, texture, glazing and look and feel of the original renderings.

There are many refinements that we plan to add to the elevations them. Please understand that we are very early in the design development.

Constructive comments are appreciated as are e-mails or phone calls to council members that voice support of the project.

Michael Gouda
Managing Member
Eola Urban Holdings Co, LLC

407-493-2695 cell
mg@ged-usa.com

#514 MichaelGouda

MichaelGouda

    Crossroads

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 12 December 2006 - 10:45 PM

Rendering_Overall_Exterior_Final_Ver_2_0_Small.jpg
Here is the original design as a reference.

Michael Gouda
Managing Member
Eola Urban Holdings Co, LLC

407-493-2695 cell
mg@ged-usa.com

#515 prahaboheme

prahaboheme

    Town

  • Members+
  • 3,338 posts
  • Location:Orlando and Boston

Posted 12 December 2006 - 10:53 PM

Good to hear this project is moving forward. Hopefully though, this is an initial rendering as this very important location deserves an iconic building.

#516 Hisma

Hisma

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 444 posts

Posted 12 December 2006 - 11:09 PM

well, it wont necessarily be as monolithic as the original design, but it will continue to add density around lake eola, and the design IS fairly unique (compared to the med revival box's w/ sun visors typical of BBArch).
So bravo, and I'll be sure to e-mail my support as well. Anything to help my city grow!

#517 WeNeed2Progress

WeNeed2Progress

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Location:Lake Buena Vista

Posted 13 December 2006 - 12:23 AM

Thank you again for your interest in the public, Mr. Gouda.

My opinion: I still like the project... a lot, really. The new rendering does stay true to the original, however my favorite element that truly distinguished it from other buildings in the original rendering was how the glass cube/crown was the entire top. The modified top glass cube, but doesn't make the tower as bold as in the original rendering. I did like the height of the original plan, but what can you do? Also, has the restaurant portion been scaled back? It looks like the glass around this section from the original has been scaled back as well.

On a side note, you may want to pass this project along to whomever interested in retail leasing to courting Starbucks into this location. They're rapidly expanding Central Florida operations and when this is done, this will be a prime location.

#518 MichaelGouda

MichaelGouda

    Crossroads

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 13 December 2006 - 01:12 AM

Thank you again for your interest in the public, Mr. Gouda.

My opinion: I still like the project... a lot, really. The new rendering does stay true to the original, however my favorite element that truly distinguished it from other buildings in the original rendering was how the glass cube/crown was the entire top. The modified top glass cube, but doesn't make the tower as bold as in the original rendering. I did like the height of the original plan, but what can you do? Also, has the restaurant portion been scaled back? It looks like the glass around this section from the original has been scaled back as well.

On a side note, you may want to pass this project along to whomever interested in retail leasing to courting Starbucks into this location. They're rapidly expanding Central Florida operations and when this is done, this will be a prime location.

To WeNeed2Progress (Great name by the way),

We are planning on expanding the cube as you insightfully suggested. We did not have time to adjust the rendering to show how the glass cubes will intersect with the structure; however this change is a priority.

In addition we are going to make sure that the “cage like” frames around the cubic glass elements stay true to the original design.

We were asked by the DRC today if the cubes would connect to and be part of the interior spaces and the answer is yes, they will. I have to credit the DRC board as they also identified the cube depth as an important element to restore. Some very constructive comments were made at the hearing and we plan to implement them as they will have a very positive impact on the project.

The restaurant has been adjusted somewhat and will be further developed. It is two stories tall with the outdoor seating moved up to the roof. We felt it was important that we pull back from the park to add seating along our property line. The parks department felt from the start that it was very important that we offer outdoor seating to help enliven the weakest corner of Lake Eola. They felt that it would help draw more people into the park. From this discussion was born the idea of adding the deck to the park property in exchange for making improvements to the entire corner.

Since our original plan depicted an outdoor deck extending into the park, we felt it was important to show the parks department that we will remain true to our word. We therefore reduced the restaurant interior footprint in order to keep their coveted “faces in the park” by adding a deck on our own property.

Believe it or not, the state fire safety regulations that restrict the amount of glass openings permitted on the walls of buildings that are constructed close to one another have impacted the left portion of the restaurant wall. Since there is the possibility that the city or parks dept could build a structure on park property right next to the restaurant, we must therefore limit the amount of glazing on the restaurant wall that is close to the property line. Since the restaurant pulls back from the property line as it runs to the north, the limited glazing requirement does not apply to the right side of the wall.

We expect that the parks department will initiate their own MPB application where they ask for the right to add an outdoor deck to the park with the intention of leasing it to our hotel’s restaurant operator. Park improvements were never something we were asking to be approved at our MPB hearing as we are not the owner of park land.

If the park’s plans are approved, we will modify the hotel’s restaurant, bringing it back to something very much like the original design. Part of the agreement would provide something like air rights that will address the fire safety issue described above. As it now stands, we have to design the restaurant to code based on our own property.

Our offer to provide funding for substantial improvements to the park near our site remains on the table. I believe that our original MPB proposal had a smaller leased deck area than the one that was approved at the Lee’s Lakeside location.

As good neighbors, we are also adjusting the restaurant to accommodate some of the concerns voiced by our neighbors at the Roslyn Club.

Thank you for your support and the helpful comments.

#519 UPSDAN

UPSDAN

    Hamlet

  • Members+
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 583 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL

Posted 13 December 2006 - 06:32 AM

To WeNeed2Progress (Great name by the way),

We are planning on expanding the cube as you insightfully suggested. We did not have time to adjust the rendering to show how the glass cubes will intersect with the structure; however this change is a priority.

In addition we are going to make sure that the “cage like” frames around the cubic glass elements stay true to the original design.

We were asked by the DRC today if the cubes would connect to and be part of the interior spaces and the answer is yes, they will. I have to credit the DRC board as they also identified the cube depth as an important element to restore. Some very constructive comments were made at the hearing and we plan to implement them as they will have a very positive impact on the project.

The restaurant has been adjusted somewhat and will be further developed. It is two stories tall with the outdoor seating moved up to the roof. We felt it was important that we pull back from the park to add seating along our property line. The parks department felt from the start that it was very important that we offer outdoor seating to help enliven the weakest corner of Lake Eola. They felt that it would help draw more people into the park. From this discussion was born the idea of adding the deck to the park property in exchange for making improvements to the entire corner.

Since our original plan depicted an outdoor deck extending into the park, we felt it was important to show the parks department that we will remain true to our word. We therefore reduced the restaurant interior footprint in order to keep their coveted “faces in the park” by adding a deck on our own property.

Believe it or not, the state fire safety regulations that restrict the amount of glass openings permitted on the walls of buildings that are constructed close to one another have impacted the left portion of the restaurant wall. Since there is the possibility that the city or parks dept could build a structure on park property right next to the restaurant, we must therefore limit the amount of glazing on the restaurant wall that is close to the property line. Since the restaurant pulls back from the property line as it runs to the north, the limited glazing requirement does not apply to the right side of the wall.

We expect that the parks department will initiate their own MPB application where they ask for the right to add an outdoor deck to the park with the intention of leasing it to our hotel’s restaurant operator. Park improvements were never something we were asking to be approved at our MPB hearing as we are not the owner of park land.

If the park’s plans are approved, we will modify the hotel’s restaurant, bringing it back to something very much like the original design. Part of the agreement would provide something like air rights that will address the fire safety issue described above. As it now stands, we have to design the restaurant to code based on our own property.

Our offer to provide funding for substantial improvements to the park near our site remains on the table. I believe that our original MPB proposal had a smaller leased deck area than the one that was approved at the Lee’s Lakeside location.

As good neighbors, we are also adjusting the restaurant to accommodate some of the concerns voiced by our neighbors at the Roslyn Club.

Thank you for your support and the helpful comments.

I really like the new design as well. I think if I had never seen the old one, this would be one of my favorite proposals. Is this 100% hotel/ground floor retail now? Also, it's a little hard to tell from the rendering but how many stories/height is the new design? Nice work Michael...You guys seem to really want to move this project forward...

#520 Boomer136

Boomer136

    Whistle-Stop

  • Members+
  • PipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Location:North Conway

Posted 13 December 2006 - 06:53 AM

It appears the slender third tier of the original is now gone, is this true? Also, do I see a facade reminiscent of the City Center building now there on the Central Blvd. street face?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users