Jump to content

The Plaza


Tim3167

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the kind words. It has turned into a fun hobby.

As far as it looking better at night, I agree the glass does take on some different characteristics once the sun goes down.

dsc20717ok.jpg

Much better contrast between the glass and the concrete on the sides of the buildings at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Much better contrast between the glass and the concrete on the sides of the buildings at night.

It almost feels like the building isn't fully visible at night because it isn't complete & isn't lit up yet. I'll wait till then to see how I feel about it at night.

Edited by demon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a while I hated the way the sides of the two front buildings looked. They are completely flat and boring. Then I had an enlightenment, they are flat because the architects/developers envisioned that one day the building would be surrounded on both sides by other skyscrapers. Why make something look good when it will be hidden?

Edited by EngineerNole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a while I hated the way the sides of the two front buildings looked. They are completely flat and boring. Then I had an enlightenment, they are flat because the architects/developers envisioned that one day the building would be surrounded on both sides by other skyscrapers.

Actually, the reason was because the building was to be built on zero lot lines on all four sides. It was more about the maximum utilization of space. In order to make it "The Plaza" any curvetures in form had to be located in the center of the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the reason was because the building was to be built on zero lot lines on all four sides. It was more about the maximum utilization of space. In order to make it "The Plaza" any curvetures in form had to be located in the center of the project.

I think you missed the point of the previous post...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know why Cameron Kuhn didn't go higher than 357 on the Solaire? Seems to me that he could have gone up another 10-15 stories.

I think another 10-15 stories would have put it over the 400'(?) height limit. Another 4 or 5 floors might have been just enough to stretch the stubby look out of it a little, though. It probably had to do with money. Afterall, what doesn't nowadays?

Edited by JFW657
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no official height limit.

Au contraire. The FAA has set a building height limit of (I think) 400' because downtown is in the take-off & landing path of Herndon (Orlando Executive) Airport. An FAA lawsuit delayed construction of the Sun Bank building by one full year.

Edited by JFW657
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire. The FAA has set a building height limit of (I think) 400' because downtown is in the take-off & landing path of Herndon (Orlando Executive) Airport. An FAA lawsuit delayed construction of the Sun Bank building by one full year.

Here we go with another 4 day discussion on this topic again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O-kay o-native humor me and give me the bottom line on this topic. Is their an FAA mandated ceiling of 400 feet? I totally missed the thread on this topic in the past... and anything is better than the IKEA thread...

I'm gonna pull this out of my butt and guess there is no written rule...just a review that is conducted with every new building in the flight path. It's generally how the FAA works, although I'll freely admit I am not sure this is how the downtown area is treated. You send them a form with coordinates and height, and they tell you if it's ok or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go with another 4 day discussion on this topic again.

I humbly apologize if I was in any way involved in diminishing your enjoyment here on Urban Planet Orlando. Someone asked a question, I answered. It was countered with a rather blunt and incorrect reply, so I offered a correction. Maybe you can turn the tide by offering up some example of your dazzling brilliance to wow us with and get us back to the usual "Yippee!!! Hooray for skyscrapers" exhuberance that has been the hallmark of this forum lo these many months.

Edited by JFW657
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O-kay o-native humor me and give me the bottom line on this topic. Is their an FAA mandated ceiling of 400 feet? I totally missed the thread on this topic in the past... and anything is better than the IKEA thread...

The truth? I dont think anyone is really sure. I've never had the opportunity to work on a project that approached 441'. I do know that the FAA makes very strong recomendations (for lack of a better word) that will make or break a project, but i've never seen a written rule. Most people try to avoid those limits because if denied 1. you have to redraw the project and 2. it's expensive (which is a problem even in the abscence of #1).

Maybe you can turn the tide by offering up some example of your dazzling brilliance to wow us with and get us back to the usual "Yippee!!! Hooray for skyscrapers" exhuberance that has been the hallmark of this forum lo these many months.

And yet you keep posting.

Edited by orlandonative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth? I dont think anyone is really sure. I've never had the opportunity to work on a project that approached 441'. I do know that the FAA makes very strong recomendations (for lack of a better word) that will make or break a project, but i've never seen a written rule. Most people try to avoid those limits because if denied 1. you have to redraw the project and 2. it's expensive (which is a problem even in the abscence of #1).

And yet you keep posting.

Thanks. Did the FAA say that the building with the cube on top of it...(pizzuto block?) was to tall...and then it was redesigned as a short squater building? I am pretty sure that some force said no to the original height of this tower...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. Did the FAA say that the building with the cube on top of it...(pizzuto block?) was to tall...and then it was redesigned as a short squater building? I am pretty sure that some force said no to the original height of this tower...

Yes, the FAA doomed that project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the FAA doomed that project.

So in short... Orlando really does have a height limit.... it seem absurd.. I can see where the Suntrust might be in OEA's flightpath... but I cannot see how the (block formerly know as Pizzuto) could be in that fligh path. I am guessing... but I am sure their is no way around the FAA on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any chance that Orlando Executive Airport can be relocated? Mineta in San Jose causes the same skyline effect. From a distance Downtown San Jose looks like equidistant microchips standing up. It's actually kind of cool considering it's Silicon Valley. I think Orlando deserves better, though.

Edited by mrh3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in short... Orlando really does have a height limit.... it seem absurd.. I can see where the Suntrust might be in OEA's flightpath... but I cannot see how the (block formerly know as Pizzuto) could be in that fligh path. I am guessing... but I am sure their is no way around the FAA on this issue.

I think it's all crap. Before the new airport was built in Hong Kong, the jets used to fly right over the skyscrapers and I mean right over them.

I would like to see a satellite picture of the airstrips and the locations of our downtown buildings and see if they truly are inline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I was mistaken in my assertion that there was a hard and fast height limit. After reading some other articles on the subject, it looks as though "neon9" has it right in that they probably go by several factors. Not only the buildings height, but by it's exact location as well. What may be approved on one block, it seems might get denied a few blocks in a another direction. I stand corrected.

Edited by JFW657
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's all crap. Before the new airport was built in Hong Kong, the jets used to fly right over the skyscrapers and I mean right over them.

I would like to see a satellite picture of the airstrips and the locations of our downtown buildings and see if they truly are inline.

Its not that the planes are in the flight path, its the flexibility that the airport has to cut the line of bigger jets with smaller ones in order to land more flights. From time to time you'll actually see planes fly in outside of a technical flight path in order to land before a jet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a shot from Google Earth including downtown and the airfield. I drew a line from the closest runway and it shoots south of downtown. I think the FAA doesn't want to have to control the pilots when it is easier to control the building development. The planes and jets fly over downtown all the time, because they WANT to, not because they have to.

aerial11hy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.