The Homemade Renderings Thread

[UPSDAN]

Bic,

I posted the file on orlandoskyscrapers under the 3D renderings link. Everyone needs to check it out, if you haven't already.

Dan

[depechecureguyorl]

Could it be??? When all these building are finished; we'll have a skyline with enough density to rival that of Charlotte and Tampa??? I'd safely wager - YES!

Great job Bic! I truly commend your hard work and dedication to accuracy! Those renderings put the future Orlando skyline into GREAT perspective and like someone else said in an earlier post, they made me all the more excited about our downtown!!!!

[Camillo Sitte]

Could it be??? When all these building are finished; we'll have a skyline with enough density to rival that of Charlotte and Tampa??? I'd safely wager - YES!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Let

[Tim3167]

I don't see any cities here that Orlando's downtown has any catching up to do. I mean they're all nice and I don't want to get into any my city is better than yours thing but there isn't anything head and shoulders above Orlando there.

[Topher1]

And I do believe the original poster clearly used the term "density." And his comparisons with Tampa and Charlotte are favorable with that term. I think we Orlandoans have learned to accept that we're not going to compete in height, so we can make it as nice as possible from the ground.

[Camillo Sitte]

I don't see any cities here that Orlando's downtown has any catching up to do. I mean they're all nice and I don't want to get into any my city is better than yours thing but there isn't anything head and shoulders above Orlando there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I do believe the original poster clearly used the term "density."

[Dale]

Columbus, certainly. Des Moines, perhaps. But I've been to Tulsa and Wichita, and Orlando does not presently suffer in comparison to those two.

[Camillo Sitte]

Columbus, certainly. Des Moines, perhaps. But I've been to Tulsa and Wichita, and Orlando does not presently suffer in comparison to those two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, OK.

I'll give you Wichita, but let me offer this rebuttal for Tulsa.

Here is a vintage photo of downtown Tulsa form the late 1950's! This should take care of the density question.

And a couple of other contemporary images...

[FLClarkKent]

My parents recently moved to Tulsa. It's a surprisingly nice city...not at all what I imagined. They have quite a few trendy, older neighborhoods, lots of trees and parks and a river that remains curiously dry (it's dammed up somewhere). The architecture of Oral Roberts University is like Epcot...Epcot on crack. It's crazy and shiney and gold plated. It's a hoot.

Anyway, from a distance, the city's downtown looks huge. Several of the buildings are much taller than anything Orlando has to offer. And it all looks quite dense, from a distance.

But Tulsa's skyline is surprisingly deceptive. Once you're in downtown, only a few blocks (around the cluster of taller buildings) feel dense. The rest of downtown is spread out, and there are loads of surface parking lots.

The skyline creates a nice illusion, reality - as it is so often is - is a little disappointing.

Dowtown Tulsa is also quite dead, especially at night. No clubs, no restaurants, no nothing during the evening. It's a shame, too, as there is so much potential there.

And unlike Orlando, downtown Tulsa feels cut-off from the rest of the city's neighborhoods. There's no adjacent communities, like Thornton Park or the Vi/Mi that you can get to easily. It's surrounded by freeways and feels isolated.

All that being said, places like Tulsa boomed many years ago. That's why their downtowns are more dense than Orlando's. Given some time, Orlando will eventually catch up on the density thing.

What we won't have, unfortunately, are the gorgeous art deco buildings of downtown Tulsa. They are magnificent. If I were rich, I'd be buying property in that city's downtown, as it would be an awesome, revitalized urban area.

[Topher1]

Oh come now.

I understand a certain bit of fanboy cheerleading for one's "hometown" [did a bit of it myself in my past], and I also understand that not everyone has been to all of these places, though I have] but of the photos posted, the respective CBD's of Des Moines, Columbus, and Tulsa are clearly [as in visible to the naked eye] both taller and more dense than is Orlando's CBD.

The original poster mentioned NOTHING about Des Moines, Columbus, Tulsa, Lincoln, Wichita, Kalamazoo, or Timbuktu. The original poster said Orlando would be as dense as Charlotte and Tampa (when all of these buildings are finished), which is true, since both downtowns have seas and seas of parking lots, which Orlando is blessed to not have in such abundance. Orlando's not my "hometown," nor is it one of my top 20 cities in the US, but the comparison made by you had nothing to do with the one in the original quote, which was accurate.

[bic]

You have to consider that Orlando is unlike traditional cities that have grown around a central core. There is no question that much of Orlando's recent growth can be attributed to the development of Disney and other theme parks in the area, helping to make the city a major tourist destination. As a result of these attractions being located far away from downtown, we have seen tremendous development outside of the city's core. Our convention center, which in more traditional cities is a staple of a downtown, is located far from the central business district.

When business travelers or tourists go to visit places like Tulsa, Wichita, or Des Moines, I imagine that most choose to stay near the city's downtown, as that is where most of the action takes place. Not so in Orlando. Imagine what our skyline would look like if just HALF of our major hotels were located downtown. They may not be ridiculously tall, but they would certainly increase density downtown.

You could go back and show pictures of Detroit from 1950 when it was one of the country's most important cities and had a bustling population of 1.8 million, but look at it today-- it's merely a shadow of its former self (and has a city population of 900,000). That picture shown of Tulsa from 50 years ago was taken when Tulsa was still considered to be "The Oil Capital of the World." I could show a picture that shows the Tulsa skyline as being much more modest:

Likewise, I could show that the Orlando skyline is much more dense and use this picture to prove it (courtesy of sunshine):

But that's not fair.

Orlando has had a handicap in the downtown density department due to the unique circumstances of the city's catalysts for development and is just now beginning to come around. These older cities that have been mentioned experienced their population booms waaaay before Orlando did and have come about in a much more traditional fashion.

[bic]

If people want to continue a useless Orlando vs. Tulsa/Wichita/Omaha/Columbus/Des Moines/etc. discussion, it should be done in a new thread. This one is for renderings of the downtown skyline.

[Tim3167]

Yeah, How the heck did we ever get into a Tulsa vs. Orlando discussion. Never saw that one coming. Anyway on with the show.

Bic, I downloaded your Google Earth work and it is simply amazing. Thank you so much for doing all that work.

I believe the original excitement was accurate at what an impressive downtown we could have regardless of Tulsa and Wichita. This is a very fun time, please let us run with it a little. It's fun.

[Camillo Sitte]

If people want to continue a useless Orlando vs. Tulsa/Wichita/Omaha/Columbus/Des Moines/etc. discussion, it should be done in a new thread. This one is for renderings of the downtown skyline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vs.?

Who said anything about vs.? I sure didn't.

Also, it really doesn't matter why Orlando is less dense than these other places, simply that it is...

You have to look at these things in three dimensions and get out of that "black and white", "good vs. bad mentality". Those types of arguments are so boring, at least to me.

My point was simply that Orlando needs to spend a couple of decades focusing attention of the CBD as the region's and not just the city's core.

When the Orlando CBD has a significant base of shopping, dining, entertainment, business, living, and recreation, then we can start comparing ourselves to older and denser areas.

And while The Plaza and The Vue are a good start, a single 12-screen theater is not going to magically bring Orlando's nightlife up to the level of say, even an Indianapolis.

My point is that it will be a long, hard road to get Orlando past decades of downtown neglect and the development that is currently underway is only a start, not the complete solution, thus it is pointless in my opinion [or am I not allowed to have an opinion if it differs from yours] to cheerlead these recent development proposals [as most of them are still only proposals] as some type of transformation into an urban Nirvana.

[sunshine]

But, we are already better than downtown Tampa, Jacksonville and Miami.

[Tim3167]

Please stop now. Several users have tried to politlely bring this thread back to focus to no avail.

Differing opinions are fine here but it does get tiresome if all that is offered is a constant string of negativism.

I don't come here to be lectured in such a condescending tone.

[prahaboheme]

My point is that it will be a long, hard road to get Orlando past decades of downtown neglect and the development that is currently underway is only a start, not the complete solution, thus it is pointless in my opinion [or am I not allowed to have an opinion if it differs from yours] to cheerlead these recent development proposals [as most of them are still only proposals] as some type of transformation into an urban Nirvana.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but its also no reason to shortchange the progress that has been made in just the past two years or so. Its not a bad thing that people are excited about the future of downtown.

[19hs69]

For a second I had to check the title of this topic. This is why I don't post very often.

[Camillo Sitte]

but its also no reason to shortchange the progress that has been made in just the past two years or so.  Its not a bad thing that people are excited about the future of downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed, but I have never done that nor will I.

I will admit however to trying to apply a little of what I consider to be some much needed perspective.

Funny thing though, I have never considered intelligent conversation even among those who disagree to be either "lecturing" or "condescending".

I suppose that if one is either unwilling or unable to even consider other points of view then it might seem that way.

Personally I feel that this discussion [a meta discussion to some perhaps] is appropriate to many other posts within this thread and made by others if not precisely within a very limited interpretation of the thread title itself.

It just struck me that "density" and its application to "Orlando" were implicit and appropriate topics within the context of this thread.

Having said that let me say that I see a lot of posts here about the latest proposal for some type of building in the CBD and people come out of the woodwork to ra-ra it without ever asking what are, or IMHO should be, some very important questions.

It seems that there is no critical discussion about any of these projects, their impetus, or their execution, just a long string of, "Yippie, density!" as if that is in and of itself enough to justify any project.

I will admit upfront to my own prejudices but the apparent lack of any type of critical thinking in regards to these projects smacks more of masturbation that any real "urbanism".

I will say that one of the first valuable lessons I learned as an Architect, even while in school, was that sometimes not building is the best and right answer. In regards to all of these proposals for Orlando is anyone discussing how the Architecture is or is not appropriate for this region, this climate, beyond a simple "I like it/don't like it' appraisal?

I would point to Post Parkside as a prime example. On the surface this should be a fine urban development. Ground floor mixed-retail, apartments above, etc. But as executed it is a ruddy piece of crap. Poorly constructed out of pasteboard and other materials and methods developed for housing in dry climates like California and Arizona. The project has already been sued to have all of the windows replaced [before even the hurricanes] as they were cheap and improperly installed.

What will this project say about urbanism in Orlando ten years from now when the project is a shambles as the materials begin to fall apart and Post has long since taken the building condo or else sold the property off thus disposing of the problem entirely.

The template was I agree an appropriate one but the execution was far short of ideal.

I bring this up simply as an example of the kind of critical thinking that I believe could be appropriate and useful on a site such as this one but if the majority feels as does the poster who said, "I don't come here for any type of negativity" [which apparently means any king of disagreement] then my opinion is certainly in the minority.

End of "lecture"...

[Hisma]

the point is, this thread was supposed to be about homemade renderings, which btw have been very high quality up to this point.

It takes the thread off track, and also kills the positive vibe by the comments you make. Your opinions are valid, it's just the wrong thread to express them.

Please, let's try to keep this thread on track from now on.

[bic]

First, you have to recognize that this is not so much a site devoted to architecture as it is to urbanity. If a new project is announced that will help to improve density or a city's skyline, chances are people will approve of it before beginning to question it. It is very difficult to have a detailed discussion about a building's dynamics when so little information is given about it, even when it is officially announced. Most of the time, all people have to work with are a couple of renderings and some statistics. Retail tenants are not usually announced until the building is near construction, nor do we know what type of windows or casting the architects will use for the facade.

To say that people do not question the design of proposed structures is untrue. All you have to do is look at the first few pages of the lengthy Ridgely Manor or Dynetech threads to see that a lot of people did not agree with the buildings' architecture when renderings were revealed. You also have to keep in mind that not everybody here has studied architecture, so you can't expect to have the in-depth conversations you would get in studio.

Camillo, if you have more issues with this forum that you need to address, please consider doing so in a new thread. Let's get this topic back on track.

[bobliocatt]

Camillo, your points are well taken and would make for a good discussion. However, this thread is about homemade skyline renderings. Let's try to keep everything decently and in order. If you all want to discuss urbanism and density in Orlando, feel free to open up a new thread.

[FLClarkKent]

I don't think this thread has been taken off course. In fact, it's a lot more interesting to read.

While the homemade renderings look great, there's only so many "Kewl renderings!" comments one can look at before it gets old.

I like the fact that there's discussion about how various proposals will or won't affect downtown's urbanity. and the renderings (which are quite nice, btw) help to provide a visual for the discussion.

[bic]

FYI, there's an additional host for the Google Earth Downtown Orlando model, googleearthhacks.com.

[bic]

Bump.