420 Church St. | 9-Story Residential

[Dale]

With garage it should still be well over 300'.

[jack]

You can thank our citizens that sued the project for the decrease in height. 

 

22 stories I assume includes the garage. I probably wont crack 300'. 

[Dale]

Thought I'd read 22 stories *on top of garage.*

[JFW657]

I count 20 stories on top of a 6 or possibly 8 story garage.

Not counting that enclosed orange thing on the roof, whatever it is.

Mechanical stuff I assume.

 

[dcluley98]

Honestly, I would be more concerned of ground level amenities and setbacks and overall design rather than building height.  However, establishing height restrictions just adds another constraint that makes it more difficult to design an attractive structure.  You end up with ugly stumps and worse setbacks because the developers require a certain density to make the financing work.  Add to that cheaper finishes and materials and value engineering to get to a profitable margin because there are fewer units.  It is just poor design process to establish these sort of constraints.

Sure, traffic can be an issue, but in the grand scheme of things, if we designed the CBD the correct way with higher density and less "car-centric" planning in general, this would all work itself out in the end.  There is a trend for the younger generation to not even own a car in some larger cities.  We need better planning and more options, not height and density restrictions.

 

[GTR]

51 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I count 20 stories on top of a 6 or possibly 8 story garage.

Not counting that enclosed orange thing on the roof, whatever it is.

Mechanical stuff I assume.

 

That's the old rendering, not the current one. The current one only has two floors above the white box, which itself has been lowered by a floor.  

http://www.cityoforlando.net/city-planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2016/01/ARB2015-00088report-addendum.pdf

Look at the January 2015 renderings - should be 2016 but a typo (gotta love the proofreading).  Stumpier than Donald Trump's fingers!

4 hours ago, sunshine said:

I think Orlando has a full time urban planner on staff (not sure). You would think in term of urban planning for the future, city will require more pedestrian features in the project like asking for set back for future bike lane, dedicating open space... Instead we are getting building that are so short that take up the entire block. If people are worried about traffic that comes with Modera, they should worried when 420 & 520 residents decided to leave their condo at the same time on a two lane road. But on the good note, at least this thing is moving forward unlike many other projects

The grid system back in South Eola is pretty good when it comes to handling traffic and I have never seen it get clogged up on weekend nights like Pine and Central do where Modera is going.  However, 520 is going to make the need for a stop sign at Eola and Central even harder to ignore than it already is. I don't know how Patty Sheehan is still able to defend one not being there, but this should push it over the edge.

Edited July 1, 2016 by GTR

[JFW657]

Wow. That updated Modera rendering really is butt-ugly.

Yuck.

What a waste of (yet another) prime real estate parcel.

 

 

[GTR]

27 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Wow. That updated Modera rendering really is butt-ugly.

Yuck.

What a waste of (yet another) prime real estate parcel.

 

 

Yeah it is going to make Skyhouse look like a beauty.  At least this time we can blame other people for how it turned out.

[popsiclebrandon]

3 hours ago, GTR said:

That's the old rendering, not the current one. The current one only has two floors above the white box, which itself has been lowered by a floor.  

http://www.cityoforlando.net/city-planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/27/2016/01/ARB2015-00088report-addendum.pdf

Look at the January 2015 renderings - should be 2016 but a typo (gotta love the proofreading).  Stumpier than Donald Trump's fingers!

The grid system back in South Eola is pretty good when it comes to handling traffic and I have never seen it get clogged up on weekend nights like Pine and Central do where Modera is going.  However, 520 is going to make the need for a stop sign at Eola and Central even harder to ignore than it already is. I don't know how Patty Sheehan is still able to defend one not being there, but this should push it over the edge.

Eola and Central being a 4 way stop would be terrible. That area flows fine with the two way.

[GTR]

12 minutes ago, popsiclebrandon said:

Eola and Central being a 4 way stop would be terrible. That area flows fine with the two way.

I don't know how often you drive that road, but I often see cars stopping for pedestrians wandering across to Lake Eola, which makes sense given the fact that across the street is a main entrance to the park. I also see cars routinely zooming down that section of Central 10-15 miles over the speed limit, making it a very dangerous place for people to cross without a crosswalk. And I've seen at least three wrecks at that intersection in the last half year.

And how would it mess up flow? There is a stop sign one block down and a stoplight one block the other way and it's 30 mph.  It's hardly the Autobahn!

Edited July 1, 2016 by GTR

[popsiclebrandon]

4 minutes ago, GTR said:

I don't know how often you drive that road, but I often see cars stopping for pedestrians wandering across to Lake Eola, which makes sense given the fact that across the street is a main entrance to the park. I also see cars routinely zooming down that section of Central 10-15 miles over the speed limit, making it a very dangerous place for people to cross without a crosswalk. And I've seen at least three wrecks at that intersection in the last half year.

And how would it mess up flow? There is a stop sign one block down and a stoplight one block the other way and it's 30 mph.  It's hardly the Autobahn!

I drive multiple times every day. The Summerlin light backs up to there a lot. Maybe with the stupid light at Washington it would work in tandem. Plus it is shocking how many people have no idea how to work a 4 way stop. The Osceola one is amazing dumb theater to behold.

I suppose if you are adamant that there should be a crosswalk there then obviously but considering how dangerous the crossing at Osceola is for pedestrians I think it is better to have a more active crossing there and push foot traffic to one main crossing point so people become more aware of the heavy foot traffic presence.

[jrs2]

As butt ugly as the Modera design is, it will improve the vista from lake Eola and cover up the hideous parking garage for Solaire.

[JFW657]

We should all contact the ARB members and tell them what a bunch of utter morons they are.

Wouldn't do any good, but it might make you feel a little better.

 

 

 

 

[metal93]

On 7/1/2016 at 0:26 PM, dcluley98 said:

Honestly, I would be more concerned of ground level amenities and setbacks and overall design rather than building height.  However, establishing height restrictions just adds another constraint that makes it more difficult to design an attractive structure.  You end up with ugly stumps and worse setbacks because the developers require a certain density to make the financing work.  Add to that cheaper finishes and materials and value engineering to get to a profitable margin because there are fewer units.  It is just poor design process to establish these sort of constraints.

Sure, traffic can be an issue, but in the grand scheme of things, if we designed the CBD the correct way with higher density and less "car-centric" planning in general, this would all work itself out in the end.  There is a trend for the younger generation to not even own a car in some larger cities.  We need better planning and more options, not height and density restrictions.

 

Agreed, the overall design is what's important, especially the ground level - how the building interacts with the streetscape. Too many times large buildings are built that poorly address the street, ending up with large blank facades that kill the pedestrian experience. For example, up Rosalind where it makes the bend, it is a dreadful experience walking along the Avis and SkyHouse garages.

No more excessive setbacks (a strip of grass/landscaping between building and sidewalks a la "tower in a park") unless its properly articulated with street furniture, or to provide space for bike lanes or something, wider sidwalk. Also no more height and density restrictions, and most importantly: get rid of parking minimums. The market shall decide how much parking is needed. Not just Orlando, but American cities in general have to modernize zoning codes, doing away with ordinances that were written 60 years ago in the car-centric cities of yesteryear.

[bqknight]

Does anyone know of any update with 520?

[gibby]

The existing apartment buildings on the 520 site have had the windows boarded up this past week.  I assume that demo should happen soon but I'm not sure.  The cars that used to park on the 520 property moved to the lot south of there a few months back but now they've moved back to the 520 property so I'm not sure what that means.

[bqknight]

10 minutes ago, gibby said:

The existing apartment buildings on the 520 site have had the windows boarded up this past week.  I assume that demo should happen soon but I'm not sure.  The cars that used to park on the 520 property moved to the lot south of there a few months back but now they've moved back to the 520 property so I'm not sure what that means.

This was due to some homeless people using it as a place to stay this weekend. I live at 420 and heard some people in there Saturday night and saw what looked to be a fire burning inside. Two mornings later I see a bunch of bicycle cops kicking out a few homeless people. 

[gibby]

I think the cars moving back to the 520 property might be a bad sign.  Is 420 pretty full?

[bqknight]

1 minute ago, gibby said:

I think the cars moving back to the 520 property might be a bad sign.  Is 420 pretty full?

Their site actually lets you see what units are available. Looks like the 2 bedroom ones are a tough sell for them. The prices are high (and they're even higher than what they were when I moved in 3 months ago). 

I overall enjoy the building. The people are friendly and all seem to be in the young professional category. 

There has been some...downsides. Things keep breaking. I've had multiple issues with my unit already. You can hear a lot in the units above you as well, sounds like their dog is in my unit sometimes. 

The location really sells it for me though. Paramount and Waverly are a bit dated and everything else is condo really, so 420 is my only option. Citi Tower opening will be interesting. 

[gibby]

I checked on-line and they are still actively trying to get their building permit.  They already have their foundation permit though so I can't understand why they don't go ahead and demo those old buildings.

[John Hargrove]

Two things turned me away from 420. One was size -- They have a 3 bedroom plan but it is very small, the rooms were tight. The second thing was price. It was basically the same price for a 3BR in 420 that a 3BR+Den on the 20th floor of 55 West (which is built like a tank). It was a hard sell.

Location is killer, though. I wish I was that close to Publix/Eola.

[popsiclebrandon]

With a 30% vacancy rate you'd think they would adjust their crazy pricing. Guess not. Could be tied to the financing on it.

[gibby]

They're 30% vacant right now?

[popsiclebrandon]

1 hour ago, gibby said:

They're 30% vacant right now?

According to their own website yes. Probably the only building downtown under 90%.

[bqknight]

23 minutes ago, popsiclebrandon said:

According to their own website yes. Probably the only building downtown under 90%.

It has to be the prices - they raised them $100/mo since I moved in and lowered their "move-in special" as well.