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

[dcluley98]

The interesting part to me is that the photos of the current platform show a barren wall not connected to the lobby, leading me to believe that the developer revised the plans to have the real stationhouse/lobby in PH 2. The pedestal does not look like a garage to me, it looks like office above a train station. Seems to be creating better GF space and connected to the Food Hall and existing buildings north to Church Street instead of to the South which is barren. I believe most of us said this would be taller and different than the first phase, somewhat due to the smaller parcel and that it would be better by connecting to existing Church Street buildings.  

I don't think it's the best design in the world but it is certainly better than I was expecting from BB, and a great addition to connect key areas of DT if built. That roof needs some serious work. Overall, very good rendering. We will see what ends up happening in the real world after final plans and approval from the boards. 

[nite owℓ]

Looks like it's been VE'd already... the new iteration reminds me of The Vue.

 

[dcluley98]

2 different angles. The left one is from the northeast/church street, the right one is from the southwest/I-4 Amway side. 

[F-L-A]

52 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

2 different angles. The left one is from the northeast/church street, the right one is from the southwest/I-4 Amway side. 

It isn't just the angle. The building's mass is completely different in the two renderings.

[dcluley98]

1 hour ago, F-L-A said:

It isn't just the angle. The building's mass is completely different in the two renderings.

This is incorrect. It is two different angles. The model and massing are the same, but different sides of the building and one a high perspective and the other a low perspective. 

They look spacially different but are likely the exact same model with different views and lighting treatments in Revit.  

Edited July 31, 2019 by dcluley98

[F-L-A]

7 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

This is incorrect. It is two different angles. The model and massing are the same, but different sides of the building and one a high perspective and the other a low perspective. 

They look spacially different but are likely the exact same model with different views and lighting treatments in Revit.  

And you know this how exactly? You sound so sure, like you worked on the renderings yourself. You're basically saying "It looks like two different buildings in the only images we have of it, but it's definitely 100% not",  which is just silly. And you don't have to explain angles to me. I wasn't born yesterday, I know what a building should look like in a 3-dimensional space. 

[dcluley98]

I don't know, spacial awareness, relative measurements from the surroundings and placemaking cuepoints such as the sunrail and simple arithmetic such as counting floors, perhaps? 

But you seem to be much more intelligent than me, so I will just stop trying to be helpful, again. Maybe you can ask the architect instead. Probably much easier than attacking somebody randomly on the internet at 3 A.M. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by dcluley98

[IAmFloridaBorn]

3 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

Looks like it's been VE'd already... the new iteration reminds me of The Vue.

 

What does VE d mean 

[dcluley98]

Value Engineering, it's a fancy euphemism for cost-cutting and removing features to meet a budget in the AEC industry. 

Originally it was conceived as "creating value" by finding alternative, but adequate similar systems that meet the project specifications, but in reality, it is just cutting cost that is acceptable to the developer/owners tastes to fit the budget. 

VE would likely not be occurring at the conceptual rendering stage.  It is way too early in the process and the architects are just making pretty pictures right now to sell the concept to investors and potential tenants. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by dcluley98

[prahaboheme]

The renderings are not the same.

And does it matter anyway given Baker Barrios’s credit to the architectural integrity of Orlando?

[dcluley98]

I don't know guys, if I can't explain to you all how two different sides of the same building might likely be the same model, but looking at two different sides, then I don't know what to say. 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

2 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

I don't know guys, if I can't explain to you all how two different sides of the same building might likely be the same model, but looking at two different sides, then I don't know what to say. 

I'm with you. 

Initially viewing the images they don't look the same but if you count the stacks and look at the angles from which both photos are given it is the same building. The last colored image is a bit stretched but it does bring more of a relative perspective to the first image making the mass of the building look taller than it probably is. When I gather is that both images show approximately a 375 to 450 footer

Edited July 31, 2019 by IAmFloridaBorn

[prahaboheme]

9 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

Value Engineering, it's a fancy euphemism for cost-cutting and removing features to meet a budget in the AEC industry. 

Originally it was conceived as "creating value" by finding alternative, but adequate similar systems that meet the project specifications, but in reality, it is just cutting cost that is acceptable to the developer/owners tastes to fit the budget. 

VE would likely not be occurring at the conceptual rendering stage.  It is way too early in the process and the architects are just making pretty pictures right now to sell the concept to investors and potential tenants. 

Explain then how the renderings differ in glass treatment.

[dcluley98]

Do they? 

It's two different sides. We cant see the other side in either of the renderings.  I still think it is the same model but with different Revit treatments such as lighting and coloring, and perhaps more detail in the model refinement and accuracy of rendering in the left side. The massing and angles are the same. The alternating floors with more horizontal mullions vs. vertical mullions for the window systems seem the same to me.

[prahaboheme]

Perhaps I’m missing something in the second rendering - namely the juxtaposition between the vertical and horizontal glass facades that give the first rendering a unique design.

[prahaboheme]

Also, its pretty clear in the first rendering that the idea was for a boxy horizontal structure with intermental vertical elements... that changed in value engineering. 

At the end of the day, its why I am incredibly skeptical about development moving in on historic spaces. We will end up with the lowest common denominator.

Edited July 31, 2019 by prahaboheme

[Pieson]

5 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Because Tulsa, sad to say, is in that same conversation with Orlando when it comes to skylines. Hell, Tulsa’s skyline is even more impressive than Orlando’s.

That's home town. It’s an interesting downtown with unique history, with incredible preserved Art Deco and distinct architectural elements.  Also much taller buildings... yet the downtown life is a fraction of what we have.  I’ve seen this across many mid major cities across the US.  

[nite owℓ]

2 hours ago, Pieson said:

That's home town. It’s an interesting downtown with unique history, with incredible preserved Art Deco and distinct architectural elements.  Also much taller buildings... yet the downtown life is a fraction of what we have.  I’ve seen this across many mid major cities across the US.  

My g-d... that building off to the left reminds me of the old WTC

[Uncommon]

3 hours ago, Pieson said:

That's home town. It’s an interesting downtown with unique history, with incredible preserved Art Deco and distinct architectural elements.  Also much taller buildings... yet the downtown life is a fraction of what we have.  I’ve seen this across many mid major cities across the US.  

 Yeah, I randomly mentioned Tulsa but I googled the skyline and was shocked when I saw how beautiful it is. The problem with Orlando residents is that we have been conditioned to think it’s okay to EITHER have bustling street life OR a nice set of buildings, when in reality many cities, and specially city of our size, have both. It’s like we’re happy or satisfied with one or the other and we shouldn’t be. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to want our city to have both when too many other similar places do. 

[codypet]

4 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

Value Engineering, it's a fancy euphemism for cost-cutting and removing features to meet a budget in the AEC industry. 

Originally it was conceived as "creating value" by finding alternative, but adequate similar systems that meet the project specifications, but in reality, it is just cutting cost that is acceptable to the developer/owners tastes to fit the budget. 

VE would likely not be occurring at the conceptual rendering stage.  It is way too early in the process and the architects are just making pretty pictures right now to sell the concept to investors and potential tenants. 

VE is when people like me get it and take all the whimsical fun out of the building 

[orlandouprise]

the glass style and orientation is completely different in the new rendering. Does not look nearly as nice IMO. Its been Orlando'd 

[TheGolfFather]

26 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

the glass style and orientation is completely different in the new rendering. Does not look nearly as nice IMO. Its been Orlando'd 

Look closely at the base, it juts out to the south in both renderings. Also the "new" rendering shows a much more constrained north side design, where it is totally possible that the south side remains the same design as the "original" rendering because it faces a more exposed and iconic viewpoint of the skyline. The south side also has an extended wider section the bottom 2/3rds of the building with some form of observation/gathering deck on top of that stepped portion, it would be incredibly unlikely for that feature to be the same on the north side as well- thus making it look like a different building from that angle.  The top third of the building looks almost identical structurally besides the window treatments.  This is just speculation but it is totally possible both renderings are from the same design.

[JFW657]

I really don't want to get involved in the "same vs different" debate, but IMO, they're both the same design but because it's being shown from a different side, angle and under different lighting conditions, it just looks different.

I will say that I find it odd that they positioned the "front" or "good side" of the building facing south, away from downtown, while showing downtown to the north it's backside.

It's like they're sticking it's butt in our faces.

[shardoon]

Folks, when it is all said and done......... that second rendering is what we will get..... but the rubiks cube will be twisted straight again.......and we will just get a stubby glass building, short on height. 

[FLClarkKent]

5 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

My g-d... that building off to the left reminds me of the old WTC

Same architect. Very similar design, but about half the height. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOK_Tower

My folks lived in Tulsa for several years. It's a cool town, and the downtown boats some amazing art deco architecture.  But Tulsa had its boom when Orlando was little more than orange groves, so it's hard to compare the two.  To continue the theme, it's an orange to apples comparison.