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

[jrs2]

why can't they build on top of existing parking decks, like the Suntrust garage along South?  Use that sliver of land on the east side of the tracks, maybe demo part of the garage then reincorporate the lost spaces into a new building sitting directly on top...  save the Ballroom (Bon?)

[spenser1058]

4 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

why can't they build on top of existing parking decks, like the Suntrust garage along South?  Use that sliver of land on the east side of the tracks, maybe demo part of the garage then reincorporate the lost spaces into a new building sitting directly on top...  save the Ballroom (Bon?)

I know this seems odd to those who believe I want to preserve everything but I’m sanguine about the ballroom.

First off, it’s not old. Fashion Square is older than it is (Florida Mall May be also).

Second, meeting space in the new hotel (I assume there is some) can meet the need of the facility.

The problem is the site. A facility trying to imitate Tara belongs on an expansive lot. It just looks silly all jammed up.

The old Orange County Courthouse Annex had the same problem. It’s essentially putting an elderly Lane Bryant size matron in a Lululemon outfit or me in a Speedo and wondering why the optics don’t work.

The Dr. Phillips mansion has had the same problem ever since it got squeezed between the East-West and the Delaney off ramp. At least that one was worth saving because it IS historic and the owner was a pillar of the community. It still looks silly.

OTOH, I would hate to lose Cheyenne because of its unique interior and the size is perfect for its site. I’d also make the case for Mary’s for different reasons but we’ve apparently already lost it to municipal indifference. Hopefully the Bumby Hardware building will still be recognizable when they’re done.

[codypet]

Wait.  We're losing Mary's?  I thought we were losing them as a tenant, but the building along with Bumby Arcade is a food hall that acts as a lobby access to Church St Phase II?

[spenser1058]

1 minute ago, codypet said:

Wait.  We're losing Mary's?  I thought we were losing them as a tenant, but the building along with Bumby Arcade is a food hall that acts as a lobby access to Church St Phase II?

That is correct. I take nothing for granted with the structure until they’re finished.

The Jaymont Block was also “protected” until it wasn’t.

[gibby]

Is there a source for this?  When was it decided that the building that Mary's is in will be torn down?  Did I miss something?

[spenser1058]

2 minutes ago, gibby said:

Is there a source for this?  When was it decided that the building that Mary's is in will be torn down?  Did I miss something?

No one said that it will be torn down. The question is what Bumby Hardware will look like when they’re finished.

Theoretically, it will be ok because it’s landmarked by the city. What we’ve learned, however, from the Jaymont Block is that what the city giveth  may also be taken away if the fellow sitting in the mayor’s office chooses not to respect it. 

That’s why we won’t know what we’re getting until it’s done.

[JFW657]

8 minutes ago, gibby said:

Is there a source for this?  When was it decided that the building that Mary's is in will be torn down?  Did I miss something?

I don't think any of the Church St buildings are being demolished.

1 minute ago, spenser1058 said:

No one said that it will be torn down. The question is what Bumby Hardware will look like when they’re finished.

Theoretically, it will be ok because it’s landmarked by the city. What we’ve learned, however, from the Jaymont Block is that what the city giveth  may also be taken away if the fellow sitting in the mayor’s office chooses not to respect it. 

That’s why we won’t know what we’re getting until it’s done.

Huge difference between the two.

The Jaymont buildings were run down derelicts standing in the way of redeveloping a high profile corner.

Church St is Church St.

An asset that nobody wants to lose.

[spenser1058]

2 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I don't think any of the Church St buildings are being demolished.

No one has said they’re being demolished but the building surrounding them could so alter the context the point may be moot.

[JFW657]

Just now, spenser1058 said:

No one has said they’re being demolished but the building surrounding them could so alter the context the point may be moot.

From the renderings it looks like they're just putting a canopy structure along the east side of the building by the tracks.

[spenser1058]

3 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I don't think any of the Church St buildings are being demolished.

Huge difference between the two.

The Jaymont buildings were run down derelicts standing in the way of redeveloping a high profile corner.

Church St is Church St.

An asset that nobody wants to lose.

The Jaymont buildings were in no worse shape than the Church St buildings were before they were restored.

More importantly, there was a proclamation that the city agreed to save the facades which had nothing wrong with them.

The mayor asked no one and followed no process to alert the public of his plans. He ran the bulldozers at night.

Stop rewriting history.

It’s funny everyone thinks this is sacrosanct given all the brouhaha over the townhomes that magically disappeared over at 520. This is the M.O. of this administration from its first week (see also Tinker Field): do what you want, tell no one and you just get away with stuff.

It’s been this way for 17 years and for the life of me I don’t understand why people keep being shocked by it.

[JFW657]

1 minute ago, spenser1058 said:

The Jaymont buildings were in no worse shape than the Church St buildings were before they were restored.

More importantly, there was a proclamation that the city agreed to save the facades which had nothing wrong with them.

The mayor asked no one and followed no process to alert the public of his plans. He ran the bulldozers at night.

Stop rewriting history.

Do you have the engineers' reports on the structural integrity compared to the Church St buildings or are you assuming?

They were rat infested junk buildings that would have stymied redevelopment of that corner forever.

Nothing worthwhile would have ever been built on that block and they'd likely still be derelict junk buildings today.

Dyer did what he needed to do.

[spenser1058]

1 minute ago, JFW657 said:

Do you have the engineers' reports on the structural integrity compared to the Church St buildings or are you assuming?

They were rat infested junk buildings that would have stymied redevelopment of that corner forever.

Nothing worthwhile would have ever been built on that block and they'd likely still be derelict junk buildings today.

Dyer did what he needed to do.

In violation of a proclamation passed by the city and with no public notice.

Look, if you believe everything will be fine, then be happy. Others of us have learned through repetition how this administration operates. To acknowledge that fact is simple truth-telling.

Edited January 23, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

9 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

It’s funny everyone thinks this is sacrosanct given all the brouhaha over the townhomes that magically disappeared over at 520. This is the M.O. of this administration from its first week (see also Tinker Field): do what you want, tell no one and you just get away with stuff.

It’s been this way for 17 years and for the life of me I don’t understand why people keep being shocked by it.

You can't save everything if you want downtown to grow into a real urban city center.

Some things are more worth saving than others.

Sadly, things often have to be weighed against each other.

You either want a real downtown or you don't.

5 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

In violation of a proclamation passed by the city and with no public notice.

Look, if you believe everything will be fine, then be happy. Others of us have learned through repetition how this administration operates. To acknowledge that fact is simple truth-telling.

The loss of the Jaymont junk buildings does not affect me one iota.

The Church St buildings aren't going anywhere, hysterics and hyperbole notwithstanding. 

I'm happy.

[spenser1058]

1 minute ago, JFW657 said:

You can't save everything if you want downtown to grow into a real urban city center.

Some things are more worth saving than others.

Sadly, things often have to be weighed against each other.

You either want a real downtown or you don't.

There are plenty of empty lots downtown to build anything you like. Saving the history is good business - ask Savannah or Charleston. Ask the folks in Nashville who were told the Ryman Auditorium was worthless and that the Grand Ole Opry should just move to BFE and be happy.

As we talked about in another thread, what we saved downtown is why Orlando has been better received than downtown Tampa over the last 30 years. Without a sense of place, there’s nothing special. It’s the difference between downtown Orlando and Rich Crotty’s ersatz “Downtown Orange County”.

[JFW657]

20 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

The Jaymont buildings were in no worse shape than the Church St buildings were before they were restored.

More importantly, there was a proclamation that the city agreed to save the facades which had nothing wrong with them.

The mayor asked no one and followed no process to alert the public of his plans. He ran the bulldozers at night.

Stop rewriting history.

 

11 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

In violation of a proclamation passed by the city and with no public notice.

Look, if you believe everything will be fine, then be happy. Others of us have learned through repetition how this administration operates. To acknowledge that fact is simple truth-telling.

Re: rewriting history and truth telling, heres a non-paywall Orlando Sentinel article that says something a bit different than what you're claiming...

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-2003-12-09-0312090045-story.html

City Council voted 5 - 1 to demo the block.

40 people got to speak their minds.

Code Enforcement had declared them a public safety hazard.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

5 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

There are plenty of empty lots downtown to build anything you like. Saving the history is good business - ask Savannah or Charleston. Ask the folks in Nashville who were told the Ryman Auditorium was worthless and that the Grand Ole Opry should just move to BFE and be happy.

As we talked about in another thread, what we saved downtown is why Orlando has been better received than downtown Tampa over the last 30 years. Without a sense of place, there’s nothing special. It’s the difference between downtown Orlando and Rich Crotty’s ersatz “Downtown Orange County”.

Saving a couple of two story junk buildings that dated back to the 1940's at the expense of developing downtown's most high profile corner would have bern counter productive to growth and the city's image.

[nite owℓ]

I cannot imagine downtown without The Solaire At The Plaza. The plaza setback is like a breath of fresh air and great idea for outdoor events like Wine Down Wednesdays when Urban Flats was a tenant (although the poor uplighting makes the movie area seem a bit cavernous--easy fix, but I digress). Saving the facade was a pipe dream, as many developments that retain the facades of historic buildings do not compliment the existing architecture of the very building they were meant to save. Often times you wind up with a stubborn mishmash of architectural styles that clash with each other.

Historic Preservation is important, however, not everything can (or should) be saved. Throwback pics:

Demolition: https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/items/show/1724

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by nite owℓ

[prahaboheme]

3 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

That is correct. I take nothing for granted with the structure until they’re finished.

The Jaymont Block was also “protected” until it wasn’t.

I’ll continue to be perplexed why having the opinion that it would have been better to preserve the Jaymont block than demolish it is so controversial. 
Orlando lost a great example of streamline modernism in the process. Apparently we are supposed to be thankful that we got a cigar shop as a consolation.

As you’ve mentioned, at least the leaders and community advocates in other southern cities went in another direction. 

1 hour ago, nite owℓ said:

I cannot imagine downtown without The Solaire At The Plaza. The plaza setback is like a breath of fresh air and great idea for outdoor events like Wine Down Wednesdays when Urban Flats was a tenant (although the poor uplighting makes the movie area seem a bit cavernous--easy fix, but I digress). Saving the facade was a pipe dream, as many developments that retain the facades of historic buildings do not compliment the existing architecture of the very building they were meant to save. Often times you wind up with a stubborn mishmash of architectural styles that clash with each other.

Historic Preservation is important, however, not everything can (or should) be saved. Throwback pics:

Demolition: https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/items/show/1724

 

 

Sad - what a beautiful facade that could have not only been preserved but also enhanced - see Miami Beach.

[AmIReal]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

Apparently we are supposed to be thankful that we got a cigar shop as a consolation.

If that was all we got I may give your view a little more weight.

[codypet]

That facade isn't too far off from this one.

We're not scrambling to save that.  In fact a group of people are getting together to demo it.

[spenser1058]

Just now, codypet said:

That facade isn't too far off from this one.

We're not scrambling to save that.  In fact a group of people are getting together to demo it.

Different architectural styles and decades. Also, in this case we’re getting an even better public good: expansion of our signature park. Finally, McCrory’s and Woolworth were major commercial businesses affecting tens of thousands of residents over a 50+ year time span.

Bottom line: apples to oranges.

What’s fascinating is the preservationists were willing to bend over backward to make it work. It was the developer and his minions (who promptly left town afterward and have no ties to the community) who were intransigent.

What did they get? A poorly designed generic development, most of whose shops have regularly rotated out of business.

We did get a successful theater but you could have had that with the facades intact.

 

[popsiclebrandon]

2 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

I cannot imagine downtown without The Solaire At The Plaza. The plaza setback is like a breath of fresh air and great idea for outdoor events like Wine Down Wednesdays when Urban Flats was a tenant (although the poor uplighting makes the movie area seem a bit cavernous--easy fix, but I digress). Saving the facade was a pipe dream, as many developments that retain the facades of historic buildings do not compliment the existing architecture of the very building they were meant to save. Often times you wind up with a stubborn mishmash of architectural styles that clash with each other.

Historic Preservation is important, however, not everything can (or should) be saved. Throwback pics:

Demolition: https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/items/show/1724

 

 

Wait people complain about demo-ing that so we could have The Plaza? Massive upgrade that was and glad they did it. Orange would be much lesser with that building still standing.

[AmIReal]

I'll just add the decision to build on this lot was made in 1989 (way before Buddy) when Jaymont bought the property and planned to build a high rise office tower. McCroy's left in '90 and I think Woolworth's left shortly afterward. The building did not get built, Jaymont want away and the property was bought by Tavistock- who did not build on it and then sold to Kuhn. In the beginning the facades were not to be kept. When the Historic  Board stepped in, the facades became a brokered issue. When the City engineers deemed the building unsafe, the negotiations became moot as the Historic Board no longer had purview.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

I’ll continue to be perplexed why having the opinion that it would have been better to preserve the Jaymont block than demolish it is so controversial. 
Orlando lost a great example of streamline modernism in the process. Apparently we are supposed to be thankful that we got a cigar shop as a consolation.

As you’ve mentioned, at least the leaders and community advocates in other southern cities went in another direction. 

Sad - what a beautiful facade that could have not only been preserved but also enhanced - see Miami Beach.

I could say the exact same thing as to why it's so "controversial" to be glad it got demo'd.

There are just differing opinions.

Personally, I don't see what's so beautiful about the old McCrory's building just because it has a rounded corner.

[JFW657]

36 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Different architectural styles and decades. Also, in this case we’re getting an even better public good: expansion of our signature park. Finally, McCrory’s and Woolworth were major commercial businesses affecting tens of thousands of residents over a 50+ year time span.

Bottom line: apples to oranges.

What’s fascinating is the preservationists were willing to bend over backward to make it work. It was the developer and his minions (who promptly left town afterward and have no ties to the community) who were intransigent.

What did they get? A poorly designed generic development, most of whose shops have regularly rotated out of business.

We did get a successful theater but you could have had that with the facades intact.

Different, but no more valuable or significant outside of some baby boomers' childhood memories.

I have no idea what kind of "bending over backward" you are referring to. They wanted the facades to be saved and incorporated into the new building. Period. It obviously would not have fit into the planned design just like it didn't fit into the original Jaymont design, which is why they gave Orlando the middle finger and told us where to stuff our facade saving requirement.

As for being poorly designed, who says? I think it looks pretty ding-danged good, dern it

What you're presenting as facts are merely your personal opinions.

52 minutes ago, codypet said:

That facade isn't too far off from this one.

We're not scrambling to save that.  In fact a group of people are getting together to demo it.

I like that one better than the Woolworth -  McCrory's block.

I wish they'd save it but I know that either way the attempt to buy the parcel goes, it's toast.

[prahaboheme]

12 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I could say the exact same thing as to why it's so "controversial" to be glad it got demo'd.

There are just differing opinions.

Personally, I don't see what's so beautiful about the old McCrory's building just because it has a rounded corner.

I’m not sure you could - you’ve tried.

Its a shame really.

We will let this debate play out in other cities.