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

[dcluley98]

Taste is relative. Time will tell. 

I would like to see it taller, and more proportioned, however, the design is distinctive and I like it better than other cookie-cutter beige box and balconies with a visor designs as well, personally. 

I know we have discussed this before ad-nauseam.   

I would take this building and T-2 any day over Modera generic, 520, 55-West and X-Orlando any day of the week. 

[orlandouprise]

one giant fat wall when T2 is built out? No thanks. IMO this is disgusting. It forever changes the look of DT as you approach the city (first impression) in a very bad way. A LOT more effort should have been placed on such a high profile location(s) Why cant we have one Gensler building like that dirty whore of a city Tampa is getting. Lol

[bqknight]

3 hours ago, orlandouprise said:

one giant fat wall when T2 is built out? No thanks. IMO this is disgusting. It forever changes the look of DT as you approach the city (first impression) in a very bad way. A LOT more effort should have been placed on such a high profile location(s) Why cant we have one Gensler building like that dirty whore of a city Tampa is getting. Lol

I 100% disagree. I think it makes downtown actually seem like a downtown when you're driving down I4 and there's towering building. That along with the increased height in the I4 ramps and the building of creative village - driving through that core seems more "downtown" than ever. 

[JFW657]

16 hours ago, orlandouprise said:

Apparently being the fattest / ugliest building in Orlando is a draw? Oh that's right, they are going to T2, a mirror image of that fat beast. 

 

3 hours ago, orlandouprise said:

one giant fat wall when T2 is built out? No thanks. IMO this is disgusting. It forever changes the look of DT as you approach the city (first impression) in a very bad way. A LOT more effort should have been placed on such a high profile location(s) Why cant we have one Gensler building like that dirty whore of a city Tampa is getting. Lol

We don't know that that's what they're going to do.

And actually, if you look at the shape of the phase 2 parcel compared to phase 1...

...it doesn't look much like they could do a mirror image even if they wanted to.

Not to mention the fact that (from what someone else here said) phase 2 will be designed by a different architectural firm.

So we can still hope for a taller, narrower tower, probably atop a parking pedestal.

[jrs2]

3 hours ago, orlandouprise said:

one giant fat wall when T2 is built out? No thanks. IMO this is disgusting. It forever changes the look of DT as you approach the city (first impression) in a very bad way. A LOT more effort should have been placed on such a high profile location(s) Why cant we have one Gensler building like that dirty whore of a city Tampa is getting. Lol

I agree about the high profile location; it should've been, IMO, at least 5 stories taller (the hotel portion).

 

15 minutes ago, bqknight said:

I 100% disagree. I think it makes downtown actually seem like a downtown when you're driving down I4 and there's towering building. That along with the increased height in the I4 ramps and the building of creative village - driving through that core seems more "downtown" than ever. 

I agree, but it should've been a min. of 5 stories taller.  I almost feel like architects are starting to think that building a tall building is offensive to the general public.  just look at the track record in this town.  it seems like building a tall building offends them. 

this is too squatty.  Chicago has squatty buildings that compliment the taller ones, I get that.  But, unless they are planning to build out the Garland corridor with a row of more buildings, then this one should've been way taller.  Coming from the north, you don't even realize its even there until you are right up on top of it.  Coming from the south is the money shot.  the hotel portion is also too skinny while the remainder is too fat.

These people that design buildings in downtown Orlando are just f'king amateurs, and so is the DDB.  Get someone from Chicago (other than SOM from 30 years ago) to design a monumental high profile location tower.  Dyer is a good Dem so there shouldn't be a problem recruiting someone from that Windy Blue city to come down and share some insight.  Shoot, you don't even need that; just go there and look at photos of it's skyline as it has developed over the past 80 years. 

I'm sorry but these people are a bunch of value engineering short sighted lack of imagination morons.  They are getting the advice from the wrong people.  They are being sold a bill of goods from designers that are pushing materials based on their business contact affiliations that cater to only certain design elements.  It's like going to a tile store and getting talked out of using the more expensive real marble to tile your floor in favor of cheaper ceramic tile faux marble that looks like sh!t (see Citrus Center and most malls).  You then realize that half the store is stocked with this one company's ceramic tile brand which is why those sales people are pushing the cheaper crappier product.  They make more money off of it as well.  Same thing with buildings.  Design is dictated by the materials used as much as by it's uses.

This is why you see the good stuff being built in large cities.  SOM used good materials albeit poor color choice IMO.  

55W is trash- black tinted windows and frames and black rail balconies on bare concrete painted walls?  Really?  Not even pre-colored prefab walls?  Wow.

This building, Church Street Plaza, is nice on it's western façade.  But these piano key panels on the east and part of the N & S are ridiculous, IMO.  It should've all been glass.  They said no to the "cube" in 1997 and said yes to this.  City Hall really does suck on these issues.

People on these boards like to back the Dems.  Great...Then back Dems that do things right, like the ones up north with regards to design; not this group of in-over-their-heads amateurs.  I say that because that's how they act.

[HankStrong]

15 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

But hey - at least the round building is gone right?

Amen

[JFW657]

29 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

I agree about the high profile location; it should've been, IMO, at least 5 stories taller (the hotel portion).

I agree, but it should've been a min. of 5 stories taller.  I almost feel like architects are starting to think that building a tall building is offensive to the general public.  just look at the track record in this town.  it seems like building a tall building offends them. 

this is too squatty.  Chicago has squatty buildings that compliment the taller ones, I get that.  But, unless they are planning to build out the Garland corridor with a row of more buildings, then this one should've been way taller.  Coming from the north, you don't even realize its even there until you are right up on top of it.  Coming from the south is the money shot.  the hotel portion is also too skinny while the remainder is too fat.

These people that design buildings in downtown Orlando are just f'king amateurs, and so is the DDB.  Get someone from Chicago (other than SOM from 30 years ago) to design a monumental high profile location tower.  Dyer is a good Dem so there shouldn't be a problem recruiting someone from that Windy Blue city to come down and share some insight.  Shoot, you don't even need that; just go there and look at photos of it's skyline as it has developed over the past 80 years. 

I'm sorry but these people are a bunch of value engineering short sighted lack of imagination morons.  They are getting the advice from the wrong people.  They are being sold a bill of goods from designers that are pushing materials based on their business contact affiliations that cater to only certain design elements.  It's like going to a tile store and getting talked out of using the more expensive real marble to tile your floor in favor of cheaper ceramic tile faux marble that looks like sh!t (see Citrus Center and most malls).  You then realize that half the store is stocked with this one company's ceramic tile brand which is why those sales people are pushing the cheaper crappier product.  They make more money off of it as well.  Same thing with buildings.  Design is dictated by the materials used as much as by it's uses.

This is why you see the good stuff being built in large cities.  SOM used good materials albeit poor color choice IMO.  

55W is trash- black tinted windows and frames and black rail balconies on bare concrete painted walls?  Really?  Not even pre-colored prefab walls?  Wow.

This building, Church Street Plaza, is nice on it's western façade.  But these piano key panels on the east and part of the N & S are ridiculous, IMO.  It should've all been glass.  They said no to the "cube" in 1997 and said yes to this.  City Hall really does suck on these issues.

People on these boards like to back the Dems.  Great...Then back Dems that do things right, like the ones up north with regards to design; not this group of in-over-their-heads amateurs.  I say that because that's how they act.

Though I agree that CSP would have looked a lot better with a few more floors, I think (IMHO) that you're a little off base with the rest of it.

Orlando is not Chicago. The money is just not there (here) to hire I. M. Pei level architects to design our FAA height restricted downtown buildings.

As for the "piano key panels", I get the criticism of the look/appearance if, in your opinion, the staggered effect looks bad. But covering the entire thing in glass would have been 1,000x worse. If you think the building looks squatty now, imagine if the entire skin was the same glass. At least the difference in materials creates the illusion of slenderness on the tower portion.

I think we should all wait until the building is completed, with all the exterior finish materials and ground level landscaping in place, any exterior lighting installed and operational etc, etc, before we start making judgements. Maybe even give it a little time to grow on us.

I will say that the brohawk is a bit on the silly looking side, and I personally would have done it a little differently, but hey... they never consulted me, dammit.

Finally, attempting to frame it in a political context is totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

.

Edited July 26, 2019 by JFW657

[popsiclebrandon]

Do we have a rending of tower 2?

[JFW657]

43 minutes ago, popsiclebrandon said:

Do we have a rending of tower 2?

Nothing out there yet.

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Though I agree that CSP would have looked a lot better with a few more floors, I think (IMHO) that you're a little off base with the rest of it.

Orlando is not Chicago. The money is just not there (here) to hire I. M. Pei level architects to design our FAA height restricted downtown buildings.

As for the "piano key panels", I get the criticism of the look/appearance if, in your opinion, the staggered effect looks bad. But covering the entire thing in glass would have been 1,000x worse. If you think the building looks squatty now, imagine if the entire skin was the same glass. At least the difference in materials creates the illusion of slenderness on the tower portion.

I think we should all wait until the building is completed, with all the exterior finish materials and ground level landscaping in place, any exterior lighting installed and operational etc, etc, before we start making judgements. Maybe even give it a little time to grow on us.

I will say that the brohawk is a bit on the silly looking side, and I personally would have done it a little differently, but hey... they never consulted me, dammit.

Finally, attempting to frame it in a political context is totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

No, I think it is relevant and I'll tell you why:  Tim Baker has been a member of the DDB for over 12 years and that's why most of the projects are designed by BB.  The Mayor knows this as does everyone else, and we (everyone) keeps reelecting him and his staff and his appointees remain. Would it change with a new mayor?  I don't know.   As a result of this (and economics), we get substandard projects mostly all designed by BB and their group of contacts.  So, politics is very relevant; local at least, on this issue. 

As far as breaking down the design- you are right, because we are just talking about the design elements. 

But as far as getting to the heart of the "why" we keep getting these projects that people take so much issue with design-wise, short of economics, well, it is of course the inverse.  This is why I sometimes fly off the handle when we see substandard projects in this town.

Now, as far as the design goes, glass boxes can't be criticized too much because they are in almost every city; however, piano key lattice facades are not.  Once again, this city tries to take a big city element and diminish it to the point where the result is almost laughable.  I thought it was bad when The Plaza people never put a façade over the parking deck and just had paint over cinder blocks (stucco came later). 

But it seems like so regarding height:  'we'll give you a taste of meaningful height, but we don't want to spoil you too much.'  I almost feel like the City feels that we got spoiled by The Vue's height during the boom so they decided that no new building since then would ever approach the height of the shortest of the tallest few from that group.  As a result, CSP is shorter than Vue, 55W, and Dynetech.  Wow, and Lincoln was the developer too and not Tremont.  People moaned about Lincoln Tower being a lost opportunity too. 

But is it in fact The City?  It's almost like Delta telling GOAA that they shouldn't expand (while Hartsfield itself is expanding).  Here, these large national (some) developers are dictating how they see Orlando towers should progress in design and height.  BTW, BB is an Atlanta company as well.  I'm surprised that the OCCC was able to grow as much as it did without interference from Atlanta and Chicago in an attempt to stifle competition.  We know how Orange stifled Osceola's attempts at a much larger CC.  Because, trust me, when cities are in the business of luring new companies and back offices to town, competition is in the form of any city in a similar sized region that also has similar or better offerings.  We saw it with Amazon H2.  It happened with Scripps and Burnham, didn't it?  Is that what has been happening here, in downtown, i.e., an attempt from outsiders to make sure Orlando does not become a viable competitor for major downtown office space leasing? I don't know but it seems like there are other factors at play here.  Sure, the market does dictate development, but we also know it isn't the only factor.

[dcluley98]

CSP Phase 1 was designed by Hunton Brady, not BB. 

 

Furthermore, the DDB members are: Wendy  Connor, James Barati, Monica McCown, Dr. Eugene G. Jones II, and William A Lambert.  https://www.orlando.gov/Our-Government/Records-and-Documents/Citizen-Advisory-Boards/Advisory-Boards/Downtown-Development-Board

Edited July 26, 2019 by dcluley98

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, dcluley98 said:

CSP Phase 1 was designed by Hunton Brady, not BB. 

 

Furthermore, the DDB members are: Wendy  Connor, James Barati, Monica McCown, Dr. Eugene G. Jones II, and William A Lambert.  https://www.orlando.gov/Our-Government/Records-and-Documents/Citizen-Advisory-Boards/Advisory-Boards/Downtown-Development-Board

Let's not forget also that even though the city approves or disapproves of the designs submitted to it and has a certain amount of input, they are not responsible for the overall design, size or height and width dimensions of them. Those size dimensions reflect the total amount of square footage on the inside and that is determined by things like demand for space what lenders are willing to loan based on that demand as well as lease commitments.

Sometimes people make it sound like the city orders these buildings and has them built.

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

No, I think it is relevant and I'll tell you why:  Tim Baker has been a member of the DDB for over 12 years and that's why most of the projects are designed by BB.  The Mayor knows this as does everyone else, and we (everyone) keeps reelecting him and his staff and his appointees remain. Would it change with a new mayor?  I don't know.   As a result of this (and economics), we get substandard projects mostly all designed by BB and their group of contacts.  So, politics is very relevant; local at least, on this issue. 

But you specifically put it on the Democrats.

What has any of that got to do with party politics or policies?

[jrs2]

12 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Let's not forget also that even though the city approves or disapproves of the designs submitted to it and has a certain amount of input, they are not responsible for the overall design, size or height and width dimensions of them. Those size dimensions reflect the total amount of square footage on the inside and that is determined by things like demand for space what lenders are willing to loan based on that demand as well as lease commitments.

Sometimes people make it sound like the city orders these buildings and has them built.

But you specifically put it on the Democrats.

What has any of that got to do with party politics or policies?

How did I do that when I also said to support Chicago Dems? 

What I meant was that we all love and follow the mayor and he is a Dem, but, Tim Baker was on the DDB for years and we all turn a blind eye to it, and complain about visors on buildings, yet we all still support the mayor.  Why support him and not, say, support Dems from a city that does it right, like Chicago (as I stated)?  See what they're doing right in this department and judge him on that standard.   It's not that it's because he's a Dem, per se.  My point was that it seems that places like Chicago, that are also Dem, make better decisions and have better taste then we do here yet we still settle for what we've been getting and don't change it, yet still complain about it.  And I feel that somehow this is all justified in our minds because he's a Dem which makes it all ok, which it doesn't.  That's the extent of my political reference, which is really a reference about taste and downtown know-how more than anything else. 

I just see that the only building designed by a Chicago firm here is the highest quality building in downtown (sans the parking deck).  You would think they would've used Suntrust Center as the standard of quality; rather, it's an anomaly.

I know the city doesn't order buildings to be built (except for DPAC, the Soccer stadium, Amway Center, etc.), but, city officials put the pieces in place and the fruits of their decisions result in the quality of what we get in the form of lackluster buildings downtown.  The City could have given major incentives to Darden and Adventist to come downtown to drive up demand, but they didn't.  They did support Sunrail, though, and added public art and spearheaded CV.  And maybe the answer is simply...time...  maybe the Orlando downtown market is still too young.

The reason Chicago is classy is because it's downtown was built up and developed back in the 1920's and 1930's, which set the standard for most all future development.  Downtown Orlando back then was more or less one of Chicago's side streets outside of The Loop.  Maybe it just is what it is because of that...it's still too young.

[prahaboheme]

Suntrust was built at a time when post-modernism had lost its edge. That likely factors into why the style didn’t catch wind in future downtown development.  Despite its height, it has always appeared taller because it’s proportions and vertical elements draw the viewer upward.

Unfortunately CSP has really distorted that view, especially when viewed coming in northbound on I-4.

Edit: I do think, however, that Suntrust has had an impact on the aesthetic of that section of downtown. It can be seen in several future buildings that at least recognized that contextualism plays a huge role in a successful design — the Bohemian, Lincoln Center, CNL 1 & 2. Hell, even the Plaza made attempts to blend in (no critique on its overall design).

Edited July 27, 2019 by prahaboheme

[orlandouprise]

I take back everything bad I have ever said about Baker Barrios if T2 actually is built like the rendering. Finally IMO an iconic building to serve as a gateway into the city. A signature building. My only wish is a rooftop bar/restaurant for the city to enjoy and the Citrus Club one floor below that. No wonder BB is moving in to this building. Slow clap my friends...

Edited July 29, 2019 by orlandouprise

[jrs2]

On 7/26/2019 at 7:58 PM, prahaboheme said:

Suntrust was built at a time when post-modernism had lost its edge. That likely factors into why the style didn’t catch wind in future downtown development.  Despite its height, it has always appeared taller because it’s proportions and vertical elements draw the viewer upward.

Unfortunately CSP has really distorted that view, especially when viewed coming in northbound on I-4.

Edit: I do think, however, that Suntrust has had an impact on the aesthetic of that section of downtown. It can be seen in several future buildings that at least recognized that contextualism plays a huge role in a successful design — the Bohemian, Lincoln Center, CNL 1 & 2. Hell, even the Plaza made attempts to blend in (no critique on its overall design).

you hit the nail on the head about Suntrust's vertical elements.  And you are right about Plaza's tan elements trying to match the Suntrust aesthetic; I spotted that as an attempt to blend in with Suntrust back then- which is fine...  I figured that's what 55W was trying to do as well- match that with the brick colors of Church Street etc...  Lincoln looks like Suntrust color-wise as well.

Regarding CSP, my main gripe is the angles and distorted view of the scale of this tower and the fact that with the type of shape that it has, it is way too short; and the piano lattice doesn't help.  Well, it actually makes you think it's adjacent to another building at first glance.  But then when you realize that it is the same building, then you realize the hotel portion is too thin, which wouldn't be a problem if it was taller- that portion only.  I think 5 more floors would've hit the sweet spot for those proportions.

14 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

I take back everything bad I have ever said about Baker Barrios if T2 actually is built like the rendering. Finally IMO an iconic building to serve as a gateway into the city. A signature building. My only wish is a rooftop bar/restaurant for the city to enjoy and the Citrus Club one floor below that. No wonder BB is moving in to this building. Slow clap my friends...

forgive my ignorance b/c I've got a brain fart or something, but what is T2?

[orlandouprise]

Tower number 2 of SunTrust Plaza at Church St.

new building to start construction in Jan 2020 next to the brohawk (phase 2)

[jrs2]

15 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

Tower number 2 of SunTrust Plaza at Church St.

new building to start construction in Jan 2020 next to the brohawk (phase 2)

was there a rendering of T2 that I missed?

[spenser1058]

18 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

was there a rendering of T2 that I missed?

Truist Plaza, please!

[orlandouprise]

its in the photo I posted!

[JFW657]

24 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

its in the photo I posted!

That pic, from their Facebook page, was an advertisement in Urban Land Magazine...

But oddly, there's nothing on their website. 

[bqknight]

7 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

That pic, from their Facebook page, was an advertisement in Urban Land Magazine...

But oddly, there's nothing on their website. 

If they pull that off...slow clap. 

[elefants]

12 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

That pic, from their Facebook page, was an advertisement in Urban Land Magazine...

But oddly, there's nothing on their website. 

If they build that I will eat tower 1.  The height alone would be a tall order.

[orlandouprise]

smaller lot. looks to be similar in height to SunTrust. OBJ says that's a hint as to what is gonna be built...That's why I said, if its built like that...its iconic

[popsiclebrandon]

Is there something in there claiming that to be T2? I'm not seeing the connection.