Church Street Plaza | 28-Story Office/Hotel [Phase 1 Under Construction]

[prahaboheme]

49 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Too many large swaths of empty space in downtown Orlando, though.

 

 

Not really - travel to those other cities mentioned.

[HankStrong]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:05 AM, Dale said:

Not long ago I got set-upon for insinuating that downtown has gone sideways and appears to have little traction, especially when compared to peer cities.

That said, things appear to be breaking lose a bit.

That had very little with your comments and much more to do with what you said and how you said it.

[JFW657]

10 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Not really - travel to those other cities mentioned.

I'm sure you're right about those other towns, but I don't think that negates it being true of downtown Orlando. What I meant by "large swaths of empty space", was large swaths of real estate dominated by low rise buildings, many of them one and two story, which creates those large gaps in the skyline.

Certainly not as bad as it was a decade or so ago, but we do have a way to go before our skyline begins to look less "snaggletoothed" as I've read it referred to before.

[Dale]

1 minute ago, HankStrong said:

That had very little with your comments and much more to do with what you said and how you said it.

Need crayons and puppies ?

[HankStrong]

Point proven.

[Dale]

6 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

Point proven.

I still think you need to change your username.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Dale

[jack]

There is a lot to unpack in these discussions but I will try: 

• I prefer walkable streets with activity compared to height
• Many other cities have taller buildings because they have more local wealth
  • Corporate headquarters looking for a statement building 
• Orlando has wealth but a lot of it was not created here 
• Columbus has plenty of major companies and generational wealth that allows it to have an interesting skyline
  • Seriously, look at how many big companies are headquartered there (also check out the short north if you visit)
• Our lack of height is a reflextion of lack of demand
  • Give me a few tenants that would pay high rates and I will give you all a true high rise 
  • The FAA would not get in the way with a determined City and developer 
• And lastly, retail has been tough nation wide especially urban 

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I'm sure you're right about those other towns, but I don't think that negates it being true of downtown Orlando. What I meant by "large swaths of empty space", was large swaths of real estate dominated by low rise buildings, many of them one and two story, which creates those large gaps in the skyline.

Certainly not as bad as it was a decade or so ago, but we do have a way to go before our skyline begins to look less "snaggletoothed" as I've read it referred to before.

I agree with you, but I don't mind the blocks covered by 1-2 story or otherwise low rise buildings.  I disdain the empty lots.  I'm sure everyone here does.  I don't care so much for skyline gaps.  Just look at Atlanta.

The worst lots I can remember that infill fixed are probably these projects/lots:

1. Steelhouse- abandoned gas station?

2. The Vue- same as above?

3.  Skyhouse- homeless infested "park"

4.  Jefferson St. Garage- empty lot by tracks

5.  The Sevens- empty lot

6.  NORA- grass patch

7.  CitiTower- empty lot

8. Not 420 Artisan, b/c they destroyed dozens of Oaks for that project.  It should've gone where 520 is supposed to go.

9.  Dynetech/ Aspire- they replaced a 1-2 story parking deck on a slope

10. 55W- they replaced the parking deck and retail footprint with 55W almost exactly

11.  Crescent Central- empty.....

12.  Camden Orange Ct- what was there before?

13. Residence Inn- sandwiched in nicely in empty L shaped lot

14. *Lucerne Promenade- empty lot; conversion

15. Star Tower- I think empty lot

16.  Fed Cthse Annex

17.  FAMU

18.  Orlando City Soccer Stadium

19.  Amway Center

20.  DPAC- they had to move the Fire Station 1, and raze part of the Methodist Church though.

21.  GAI Bldg.

22.  OUC HQ- new one

23.  CNL II- didn't realize there was room for a tower there.

[prahaboheme]

Look no further than the West End of Boston and tell me if you prefer the pre-1960s 1-3 story buildings or its current incarnation, an urban renewal hellhole of highrises.

Scollay Square 1940s:

Today:

I will take Orlando's 1-2 story buildings that offer a walkable pedestrian environment over Tampa's skyline, with little street interaction, any day of the week.

Edited July 21, 2017 by prahaboheme

[jrs2]

^^

great points, but I think people want "Manhattan" style development; tall buildings, walk-ability, street side retail, and no empty barren lots.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

Look no further than the West End of Boston and tell me if you prefer the pre-1960s 1-3 story buildings or its current incarnation, an urban renewal hellhole of highrises.

Scollay Square 1940s:

Today:

I will take Orlando's 1-2 story buildings that offer a walkable pedestrian environment over Tampa's skyline, with little street interaction, any day of the week.

Well, to be fair, that section of Boston you used as an example was densely packed cheek by jowl with 4 to 6 + story buildings that were architecturally gorgeous. Which of Orlando's spread out sections of 1 and 2 story buildings or empty asphalt lots are comparable to the buildings in that old pic?

The Orlando Sentinel building? The Orange County Admin Bldg? The 2 story garage and dry cleaners at Robinson and Rosalind? United Trophy Mfg? The surface parking lot across Orange Av from Firestone? The as-yet still undeveloped grass field adjacent to Crescent Central Station? The empty grass lot at the SE corner of Orange and Livingston? The Catholic Diocese lot and the old gas station/Sir Speedy printer at Orange and Robinson? 

I could go over one block to the west and tick off a few of the vast oceans of asphalt surface parking lots off of Garland, but why? I think you probably get my point by now. 

[JFW657]

27 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

^^

great points, but I think people want "Manhattan" style development; tall buildings, walk-ability, street side retail, and no empty barren lots.

Re: the "Manhattan" style thing... I'm not even expecting huge skyscrapers jammed next to each other so close you can't walk between them, but I would like to see a handful of new 300' - 350' high-rises to fill in the skyline view from East or West, and a good bit more four to six and six to eight story stuff in between.

But as it stands right now, and I reiterate... there are too many large swaths of empty space in downtown Orlando.

[jrs2]

17 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Re: the "Manhattan" style thing... I'm not even expecting huge skyscrapers jammed next to each other so close you can't walk between them, but I would like to see a handful of new 300' - 350' high-rises to fill in the skyline view from East or West, and a good bit more four to six and six to eight story stuff in between.

But as it stands right now, and I reiterate... there are too many large swaths of empty space in downtown Orlando.

oh I completely agree with you.  those prior projects I listed did wonders for horribly undeveloped lots downtown.  We need that to occur again and again and again.

[prahaboheme]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

Well, to be fair, that section of Boston you used as an example was densely packed cheek by jowl with 4 to 6 + story buildings that were architecturally gorgeous. Which of Orlando's spread out sections of 1 and 2 story buildings or empty asphalt lots are comparable to the buildings in that old pic?

The Orlando Sentinel building? The Orange County Admin Bldg? The 2 story garage and dry cleaners at Robinson and Rosalind? United Trophy Mfg? The surface parking lot across Orange Av from Firestone? The as-yet still undeveloped grass field adjacent to Crescent Central Station? The empty grass lot at the SE corner of Orange and Livingston? The Catholic Diocese lot and the old gas station/Sir Speedy printer at Orange and Robinson? 

I could go over one block to the west and tick off a few of the vast oceans of asphalt surface parking lots off of Garland, but why? I think you probably get my point by now. 

You were not talking about empty lots (until I guess you were) - develop them and build them as as tall as you wish. Just don't do so in spite of the built environment that already exists, unless the building replacing it is truly worthy of the space (it's rare that this is the case, but there are some examples).

[spenser1058]

4 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Camden Orange Ct - what was there before?

It was the Orange Court Motor Lodge, a gorgeous old hotel we never should have lost. Most notable were its orange tree neon sign  (thankfully saved by the Morse) and its indoor pool (first in the area) which was remarkably like the one where the dance was held early in "It's a Wonderful Life."

Edited July 21, 2017 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

4 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

You were not talking about empty lots (until I guess you were) - develop them and build them as as tall as you wish. Just don't do so in spite of the built environment that already exists, unless the building replacing it is truly worthy of the space (it's rare that this is the case, but there are some examples).

So, what is it about the phrase "large swaths of empty space" are you having difficulty understanding?

Yes, in my next post I did specifically reference one and two story buildings, because in my assumption that most people possess the ability to infer the obvious, I didn't ad in the words "and empty lots".

I'm sorry if I confused you. 

As far as your edict commanding what can and cannot be built downtown, I'll try to contact the proper authorities and let them know what the rules are.

Me? I was just expressing my opinion.

2 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

It was the Orange Court Motor Lodge, a gorgeous old hotel we never should have lost. Most notably were its orange tree neon sign  ( thankfully saved by the Morse) and its indoor pool (first in the area) which was remarkably like the one where the dance was held early in "It's a Wonderful Life."

 

[prahaboheme]

^Not confused - I followed your statements throughout the thread as you stated them. No biggie

[spenser1058]

What sort of interests me in all this discussion is that the Orlando MSA is, at 14.38% increase between 2010 and 2016, growing faster than the cities mentioned (Tampa, Charlotte, Columbus, OKC, just to name a few). When you have our growth and billions of dollars in new infrastructure, does it matter?

For some reason, we're apparently one of the most desirable places in the US for people to relocate to. Our downtown also regularly receives kudos (as do our Main St districts) for being interesting places.

Meanwhile, Cleveland has the 947' Key Tower, but Drew Carey notwithstanding, people are leaving it left and right (-1.04%). Apparently, tall towers aren't everything. 

I'm not sure I get the angst. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by spenser1058

[jliv]

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

What sort of interests me in all this discussion is that the Orlando MSA is, at 14.38% increase between 2010 and 2016, growing faster than the cities mentioned (Tampa, Charlotte, Columbus, OKC, just to name a few). When you have our growth and billions of dollars in new infrastructure, does it matter?

For some reason, we're apparently one of the most desirable places in the US for people to relocate to. Our downtown also regularly receives kudos (as do our Main St districts) for being interesting places.

Meanwhile, Cleveland has the 947' Key Tower, but Drew Carey notwithstanding, people are leaving it left and right (-1.04%). Apparently, tall towers aren't everything. 

I'm not sure I get the angst. 

Skyscrapers in American cities have always been about ego and prestige, by developers who understand little about what makes a city (which is possibly the most important human innovation of all).  People who live in cities like to be around people (it's why I will never live in the suburbs again), and the best cities are designed for constant human interaction.  Skyscrapers do nothing for that.  

[JFW657]

20 minutes ago, jliv said:

Skyscrapers in American cities have always been about ego and prestige, by developers who understand little about what makes a city (which is possibly the most important human innovation of all).  People who live in cities like to be around people (it's why I will never live in the suburbs again), and the best cities are designed for constant human interaction.  Skyscrapers do nothing for that.  

But they look really cool!!!! 

And honestly, that counts for something.

[jrs2]

Did anyone see the OBJ article this afternoon stating that the Tremont people just finalized the deal to move the Sunrail platform?

[HankStrong]

I just like the cool factor!  Bring on the cool skyscrapers! 

[dcluley98]

We need this tower. Cool modern design, transit oriented, more premium hotel space downtown near the venues, green terrace and bar overlooking DPAC and the arts plaza.  

[spenser1058]

Don't get me wrong. I like skyscrapers. They require a smaller footprint, in some cases have great architecture (although in Orlando's case the buildings demolished for generic towers were often more memorable and designed by architects with better pedigrees.) 

As any urban economist can tell you, going tall can be an answer to affordability in cities which is one of the country's biggest challenges right now.

However, making the case that Orlando is somehow doomed or that our downtown's resurgence should be dismissed because of stubby towers neglects the facts of our success and, perhaps more importantly, ignores the unique sense of place we have and tries to turn us into McCity, USA. We already have Rich Crotty's and Harris Rosen's infamous "Downtown Orange County" (aka International Drive) to do that for us.

Back to the specific topic, I'm happy to embrace Tremont Tower in whatever form emerges. Whatever is constructed will be an improvement over the moribund sliver of downtown from which it will rise.

Edited July 24, 2017 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

34 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

....(although in Orlando's case the buildings demolished for generic towers were often more memorable and designed by architects with better pedigrees.) 

However, making the case that Orlando is somehow doomed or that our downtown's resurgence should be dismissed because of stubby towers neglects the facts of our success....

Just curious, spencer1058, to which buildings are you referring?

The only two old buildings I can think of that were of any architectural worth and were demolished for new construction, are the Orange Court where Camden sits now, and the old Chamber of Commerce building that used to occupy the area where the main entrance to the library is now. And neither of the replacement buildings are high rises.

As for the stubby towers, to me it's just kind of disappointing to look at.

I love visual appeal.