Jump to content

bic

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

Recommended Posts


Church-St-Plaza_Suntrust_East_11-27-17-e

I think when the top section gets finished with all those details that are going on the eastern side, the building is going to look a lot better than we're thinking it will.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

Some photos from today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by IAmFloridaBorn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coming down South Street, eastbound, this is way too squatty for the type of shape that it has.  I just don't understand how they would only go up as high as they did on the hotel floors and didn't go up a minimum of 5 more floors for the sake of proportions.  Only in Orlando.  this building for the base that it has, for the width that it has...it should've been at least 400' in height.  this city must be on a real estate investment life support because every project, it seems, get the bare minimum height just to be passable.  I am disappointed in how this building is turning out.  that cool photo above from 55W is not what it looks like from Amway.  Too bad.  Do what they did with Ginzberg Tower...build it taller, leave those extra floors vacant...until you need them.  Is financing that weak that a company like Lincoln can't even do that...in Orlando?

18 hours ago, AndyPok1 said:

I'm personally confused by the retroactive hate to this.  I guess maybe its the driving on 408 rather than I-4, but this its narrow and slender coming off I-4 at South Street which I think is the main design importance.  And from a logistics and urban... NO PARKING LOT WHEN YOU GET OFF THE HIGHWAY!!!

if that is the main benefit, then I agree with you. otherwise, I'm adding to the "retroactive hate"...  I just feel like simply filling an empty parking lot is not good enough anymore...  that being said, this will probably have good lighting.  I shouldn't be so negative...

Edited by jrs2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the developers recognize something we’d rather not accept about Orlando: Urban Econ 101 states that like firms cluster together.

It’s certainly the case in Orlando: our biggest industry, tourism, along with its ancillary business, conventions and the high-rise hotels that accompany them, are clustered in the SW quadrant (relatively speaking - Walt went way out in the swamps to build a new city, not to build 4 theme parks);

Next up is tech, which is clustered around the Central Florida Research Park (with the exception of the original Martin plant on Sand Lake Rd, which was built before UCF and CFRP were even dreamed about- please note Martin sold most of their original campus to the tourism industry).

Orlando’s original industry, agriculture, had no need for tall buildings. I suppose Dr. Phillips could have built a vertical monument to himself, but why? Instead he built the old Minute Maid building at 441 and 50.

So....who built big commercial buildings downtown? The two tallest office towers downtown were trophy buildings built by local banks, neither of which exist as independent entities anymore.

Their successors are rapidly being consolidated and using technology and back-office facilities in much cheaper places.

Next up were insurance companies. Again , those were brutally consolidated starting in the ‘80’s. The CEO of American General, who bought up Independent Life and Gulf Life in Jacksonville and L&C plus National Life in Nashville along with many others across the country, observed the large towers those firms had were obsolete. In the insurance business going forward, all that would be required were a desk, a chair and a phone.

So, that leaves us with residential (which we’ve seen). It’s important to note Orlando’s downtown has plenty of space to grow, unlike, say, Tampa, which is hemmed in by water and I-275. Accordingly, why build tall when the land here is relatively cheap (not to mention going through the hoops of raising the height limit with the FAA?)

Finally, there’s government. Linda Chapin and Mayor Bill built civic monuments in the early ‘90’s. Both were built with enough space to last a long time.

The Republicans before and after Linda pulled a sleight-of-hand. The Brick Bunker was obsolete the day it opened. The GOP, anxious to prove how frugal it was, simply bought the old CNL buildings on South Street (after they moved to City Commons in the deal with City Hall) and neglected to tell the public they did in fact need more space. The plan worked flawlessly.

Those buildings and the Brick Bunker are aging out, however, so that’s an option for growth.

Bottom line- there’s no particular reason for downtown developers to do much differently than they’ve been doing. Look for continued residential, academic and governmental growth but those probably won’t be all that tall.

Having the venues downtown and keeping the close-in neighborhoods have made downtown Orlando more successful than anyone probably would have expected given the facts on the ground.

If you want a traditional vertical downtown, this probably isn’t the place to be. I know this isn’t a popular view here but it is the one that best comports with the geography and economics of the community.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jrs2 said:

coming down South Street, eastbound, this is way too squatty for the type of shape that it has.  I just don't understand how they would only go up as high as they did on the hotel floors and didn't go up a minimum of 5 more floors for the sake of proportions.  Only in Orlando.  this building for the base that it has, for the width that it has...it should've been at least 400' in height.  this city must be on a real estate investment life support because every project, it seems, get the bare minimum height just to be passable.  I am disappointed in how this building is turning out.  that cool photo above from 55W is not what it looks like from Amway.  Too bad.  Do what they did with Ginzberg Tower...build it taller, leave those extra floors vacant...until you need them.  Is financing that weak that a company like Lincoln can't even do that...in Orlando?

if that is the main benefit, then I agree with you. otherwise, I'm adding to the "retroactive hate"...  I just feel like simply filling an empty parking lot is not good enough anymore...  that being said, this will probably have good lighting.  I shouldn't be so negative...

It's tough to carry forth pride for Orlando and not lament the squatty buildings going up. Sometimes I agree that a parking lot would be better than an ungainly proportioned tower. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for pointing that out. This building proportion is way off. It would be better if the width is even thrughout the entire building or the hotel part should be higher.

Hopefully the second building can balance this out with some smart design.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still withholding judgement until it's completed.

I'm still hoping the differences in surface materials will help mitigate the chunky looking appearance created by the bottom portion.

Maybe it will look like two separate buildings very close together.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mraurora said:

It's tough to carry forth pride for Orlando and not lament the squatty buildings going up. Sometimes I agree that a parking lot would be better than an ungainly proportioned tower. 

Now, I absolutely welcome this tower over the empty lot...I will say that... because it is at Downtown's front door.

I welcome how it looks as you approach the South Street exit...it is dramatic.

The economics of the tower are evidenced by the height (lack of) and by the eastern alternating precast façade, which in my usually very forgiving opinion, looks like @ss.  I would've preferred a full glass box, but that would've cost more $$$.

The other thing is the ornamental roof element.  In Chicago or NYC, you can have shorter buildings which work, and a lot of the old ones have ornamental roofs.  There are some boxes too, but that's Chicago and those boxes are of renowned architectural design from the '50's and '60's and '70's.  Newer boxes don't really translate all that well, especially with a precast lattice-like façade.

Maybe JFW657 is right; wait and see how the design plays out...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

I would've preferred a full glass box, but that would've cost more $$$.

The other thing is the ornamental roof element.  

Maybe JFW657 is right; wait and see how the design plays out...

I agree about the alternating pattern, but I have to disagree about the full glass box idea. IMO, had they covered the wide bottom portion with the same glass as the rest of the building, I think it would've made the whole thing look even squattier.

My guess is that they were trying to create a slimming effect by making the tall side glass from bottom to top, while visually separating the short side by using a different exterior, with a narrow separator strip between the two.

As an example, I always think of Dynatech or whatever they're calling it now. I think that if they'd covered the bottom box with a precast material rather than the same glass as the tower portion, it would've made the tower portion look much more sleek and slender and appear to be rising up out of the bottom portion.

As for the ChuStrePla roof element, I think they could have done a way better job of designing that. Rather than that one directional ski slope rising from south to north, I'd like to have seen something like maybe a shallow "v", high at both ends with the low point in the middle, then rising up from the longitudinal center (n/s), some type of truss looking element, possibly with a slight arch across the top.

But, I guess there's a reason why they're architects designing high rise buildings and I'm a guy on a forum talking about it. :dontknow:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I agree about the alternating pattern, but I have to disagree about the full glass box idea. IMO, had they covered the wide bottom portion with the same glass as the rest of the building, I think it would've made the whole thing look even squattier.

My guess is that they were trying to create a slimming effect by making the tall side glass from bottom to top, while visually separating the short side by using a different exterior, with a narrow separator strip between the two.

As an example, I always think of Dynatech or whatever they're calling it now. I think that if they'd covered the bottom box with a precast material rather than the same glass as the tower portion, it would've made the tower portion look much more sleek and slender and appear to be rising up out of the bottom portion.

As for the ChuStrePla roof element, I think they could have done a way better job of designing that. Rather than that one directional ski slope rising from south to north, I'd like to have seen something like maybe a shallow "v", high at both ends with the low point in the middle, then rising up from the longitudinal center (n/s), some type of truss looking element, possibly with a slight arch across the top.

But, I guess there's a reason why they're architects designing high rise buildings and I'm a guy on a forum talking about it. :dontknow:

Hey you could run for mayor - we haven’t had anyone in charge of things with a design perspective since Mayor Bill...

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Hey you could run for mayor - we haven’t had anyone in charge of things with a design perspective since Mayor Bill...

Awwww, shucks..... timiderougir.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.