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

[JFW657]

I'd druther have one tall one than two short ones.

[orange87]

I'd rather have one 600 foot tower instead of two 300 foot towers.

[prahaboheme]

It's hard to picture how two "tall" towers will fit into this lot, even with a demolished ballroom.  Variation in height (a taller tower and a mid-rise) might help to offset the transition to the low-rise section of Church Street Station. 

Edited July 18, 2017 by prahaboheme

[HankStrong]

I'm always behind the tall buildings.  I just love tall buildings.

 

I'm always a little heartbroken inside when friends come to town and see downtown only to say "Wow.  That's it?  I thought Orlando was so much bigger?"  Then I have to say something like "Yeah, but it's so spread out and we've got so many districts of growth" and they just shake their heads knowing that I don't believe it either.

[JFW657]

20 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

It's hard to picture how two "tall" towers will fit into this lot, even with a demolished ballroom.  Variation in height (a taller tower and a mid-rise) might help to offset the transition to the low-rise section of Church Street Station. 

I dunno.

If you look at the satellite view on Google maps, it looks like there is more than enough footprint for two large towers, if as you suggested, the ballroom were demolished.

[jrs2]

55 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

I'm always behind the tall buildings.  I just love tall buildings.

 

I'm always a little heartbroken inside when friends come to town and see downtown only to say "Wow.  That's it?  I thought Orlando was so much bigger?"  Then I have to say something like "Yeah, but it's so spread out and we've got so many districts of growth" and they just shake their heads knowing that I don't believe it either.

LMFAO!  I go through the same thing!  It's a sort of collective psychosis I think.  kinda like a battered spouse making excuses all the time...

I think Tremont will make good strides in fixing this perception or reality about downtown.  I'm already wowed by CitiTower and it's effect on that neighborhood.  I think the reality is that Orlando has been VERY underdeveloped in it's history and this latest round of construction, which is filling many gaps, also, has exposed that these gaps exist, in that we've been so used to seeing these development gaps, that when that gap is filled, we're like, oh wow, you could fit a building in there?

40 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I dunno.

If you look at the satellite view on Google maps, it looks like there is more than enough footprint for two large towers, if as you suggested, the ballroom were demolished.

Manhattan.  Trump International Tower near the UN.   The thing is over 900' tall and it's footprint is no bigger than the Fifth Third Bank Building on Robinson; same dimensions almost. 

just to put things in perspective.  Orlando is so full of fat footprint buildings it's sick. 

[Jernigan]

Anyone spy a wrapped fence on site yet?

[prahaboheme]

5 hours ago, HankStrong said:

I'm always behind the tall buildings.  I just love tall buildings.

 

I'm always a little heartbroken inside when friends come to town and see downtown only to say "Wow.  That's it?  I thought Orlando was so much bigger?"  Then I have to say something like "Yeah, but it's so spread out and we've got so many districts of growth" and they just shake their heads knowing that I don't believe it either.

I don't think I ever had this conversation with visitors to Orlando during the time I lived there - in fact, quite the opposite. They were delighted by downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods, having never experienced it before and without any knowledge it existed. Then when we added in some of the natural attractions in Central Florida, such as Wekiva, their perceptions were permanently altered for the better.

4 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Manhattan.  Trump International Tower near the UN.   The thing is over 900' tall and it's footprint is no bigger than the Fifth Third Bank Building on Robinson; same dimensions almost. 

Let Manhattan keep Trump International Tower...

Edited July 19, 2017 by prahaboheme

[orange87]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

Let Manhattan keep Trump International Tower...

I don't get it. As opposed to moving a 900 foot skyscraper here? That didn't make sense.

[metal93]

A 900 footer would look really out of place in Orlando if the second tallest is half its height.

I've said it before, but I just want at least one or two towers to break the 500ft mark, or maybe even 600ft to rub it in Tampa's face that we have a taller tower (their tallest is 579 feet).

[JFW657]

I think Orlando will likely never get a tower that tall.

Partly because of the FAA height limit and partly because of the perennially soft downtown office space market thanks to the abundance of suburban office space.

That's OK, though. A few more 300' - 350' footers mixed with good low-midrise density in between would be nice enough.

[orange87]

4 hours ago, metal93 said:

A 900 footer would look really out of place in Orlando if the second tallest is half its height.

I've said it before, but I just want at least one or two towers to break the 500ft mark, or maybe even 600ft to rub it in Tampa's face that we have a taller tower (their tallest is 579 feet).

I think a 900 footer would break the glass ceiling and probably make it easier for other developers to build tall. They'd have a very easy argument with the FAA by saying, "that guy built a 900 foot tower, why can't I build my 600 foot tower?" I believe that's what happened in Miami. As I've said many times on here, once downtown becomes more dense and space becomes more limited, I think we'll start seeing taller towers. Reason being that limited space will drive up lot prices and only more serious developers will build and they'll want to maximize use of the expensive and limited land.

[John Hargrove]

"That's it?" is the reaction I get as well. But most of these people live in metros with either:

a) Urban development boundaries enforced by laws

b) Development boundaries enforced by natural landscape

c) 4+ million populations that don't get to that number by counting half the state 

 

[HankStrong]

17 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

I don't think I ever had this conversation with visitors to Orlando during the time I lived there - in fact, quite the opposite. They were delighted by downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods, having never experienced it before and without any knowledge it existed. Then when we added in some of the natural attractions in Central Florida, such as Wekiva, their perceptions were permanently altered for the better.

I've had it dozens of times.  Downtown Orlando is comparable to most downtowns for cities 1/4 the size of Orlando.  Maybe a greater divide than that.  It's just a guess.

[JFW657]

It's pretty galling to see cities like Columbus, Oh, Grand Rapids, Mi, Norfolk, Va, Sacramento, Ca, etc, with better skylines and/or more dense, urban downtown areas than Orlando.

There just seems to be a weird dynamic at play in our city that discourages development in the central core.

[Dale]

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.

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

It's pretty galling to see cities like Columbus, Oh, Grand Rapids, Mi, Norfolk, Va, Sacramento, Ca, etc, with better skylines and/or more dense, urban downtown areas than Orlando.

There just seems to be a weird dynamic at play in our city that discourages development in the central core.

Add to that list Tulsa, OK.  They've got a new 900' or 1,000' tower and the next tallest building is like an outhouse. 

 

17 hours ago, metal93 said:

A 900 footer would look really out of place in Orlando if the second tallest is half its height.

I've said it before, but I just want at least one or two towers to break the 500ft mark, or maybe even 600ft to rub it in Tampa's face that we have a taller tower (their tallest is 579 feet).

When Chicago built the JHC, the next tallest building in the neighborhood was the 470ish foot Playboy Bldg. two blocks away.  The 850+ foot First National Bank was 2 miles away in The Loop, but that building went up at the same time.  The Prudential and Marina City towers were about a mile away and were just under 600'.  And when they built "Sears is Taller" in '74, at 1,454', they next tallest closest buildings were like the Board of Trade, Civic Opera, LaSalle Bank, etc., hovering in at the 500' to 600' range.  Farther away by a few more blocks was the First Natl. Bank.

It doesn't matter.  The Empire State Bldg is an island with nothing tall anywhere near it.

[bulldogger]

If you took the different districts and by that, I mean the Disney area and I-Drive area, and put the tall hotels in our downtown, we would be dense AF for our population.  Our city/metro is spread out too thin.  There are plenty of tall buildings.  They just aren't anywhere close to each other.

[Dale]

Actually, OKC is doing some impressive things. Two-million square feet of office space added recently. The Grand Dame First National Bank is getting a spectacular rehab. Streetcar system underway. New convention center and hotel soon to be underway. Most extensive streetscaping scheme in the US finishing up. Massive new park. Lots of mixed-use infill, etc.

[bqknight]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

It's pretty galling to see cities like Columbus, Oh, Grand Rapids, Mi, Norfolk, Va, Sacramento, Ca, etc, with better skylines and/or more dense, urban downtown areas than Orlando.

There just seems to be a weird dynamic at play in our city that discourages development in the central core.

Eh - I took a look at those cities and Orlando is much more impressive IMO, especially with some of the new stuff popping up. You're also not going to find a pretty new arena and brand new soccer stadium right in the downtown core in any of those cities. I think what Orlando actually lacks is the mid-rise stuff in the Downtown area, you have this tight core and then it goes straight up suburban really quick. 

[Dale]

Columbus is one of the largest cities in the nation with zero rail transit. And at last check, nothing is on the horizon.

[Jernigan]

So...how about that fence?  Next week ends tomorrow 

[AndyPok1]

As someone who has lived in 3 of those places mentioned... I have decent insight into this discussion.

Columbus until the past 8 years had 0 people living downtown.  The downtown grocery store didn't open until 2012 and was more of a boutique grocery.

Tulsa had a small handful of apartments and condos downtown but absolutely 0 dining options past 4pm.  This has gotten better over the past 4 years, and they've probably increased their residential population by at least 50%, but a lot of it is focused in the areas that are away from where the previous residential areas were (loft conversions, etc), so it's more like 2-3 distinct districts comprising a big downtown, but not necessarily walkable in 110 degree heat.  (Think North Quarter and Church Street but with very little in-between).  Also, the 900' tower is in OKC, not Tulsa.  And it is ugly as hell because it sticks out like a sore thumb from being so massively tall compared to its surroundings.

We may not have the buildings, but we have the residents and the infrastructure to support them.

[cwetteland]

And I for one appreciate the general uniformity in building height in Orlando.  If our buildings were twice as tall we'd have half as many.  But in truth, if the cap was really an issue, we'd have more of our buildings right up to the cap, and that's not happening.  I've always thought, you judge a city by what's happening at street level.  By that measure Orlando definitely beats out a lot of cities with taller buildings.  

[JFW657]

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