Jump to content

City Centre (Formerly 215 E. Central Blvd) | 28-Story Residential [Approved]

Ocityst

By Ocityst
in Orlando

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JFW657 Metropolitan Area

JFW657

Posted
Posted

They are hardly some of the oldest or historic buildings in Orlando. Now I love the old home, but even the current owner has said it's seriously damaged. 

They are both from the 1920's.

Given the almost complete lack of old & historic buildings left in Orlando, I would say that makes them some of the oldest historic buildings in downtown.

And I doubt the damage is anything a bit of renovation couldn't fix. If they moved the Capen house in WP, which was much bigger, across the street to save some local history, they could replace some termite eaten beams in this one.

I get the idea the current owner just wants to sell it for a huge profit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedStar25 Burg

RedStar25

Posted
Posted

They are both from the 1920's.

Given the almost complete lack of old & historic buildings left in Orlando, I would say that makes them some of the oldest historic buildings in downtown.

And I doubt the damage is anything a bit of renovation couldn't fix. If they moved the Capen house in WP, which was much bigger, across the street to save some local history, they could replace some termite eaten beams in this one.

I get the idea the current owner just wants to sell it for a huge profit.

 

Just because they are "old" does not make them historic. Also, according to the owner of the home, the termite damage is extensive and the interior has been modified beyond repair. The Capen house (1885) always remained a house and was occupied by many prominent Winter Park residents who helped transform Central Florida (FYI it was moved across the lake by private donors). The home on Lake Eola was cut up into office space a long time ago. Even if they did "replace some termite eaten beams", what benefit would the public get? It would remain a privately held building that adds nothing to the park. Might as well add a spiked iron fence around it like the Rosland Club. Then again, maybe some people enjoy looking at and walking by a building they are not allowed to enter and offers no services to the parks patrons. 

 Also, the City Center building has been wildly modified over the years. Heck they attached a 7-11 to it! 

Lets not forget they tore down the "historic" Universalist Church building (1913) to build what's currently there. 

What's wrong with selling land for a profit?

We are a growing city and it's time to move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JFW657 Metropolitan Area

JFW657

Posted
Posted

AFAIC, if a building has been in a certain spot throughout most of a city's history, whether it played a significant role or not, it is still by virtue of its age, historic. Either way, there's no reason to get all excited over my lil ol' opinion because what either of us think will have no bearing on what ends up transpiring.

And given the way things go around here, even if the condo does end up getting built (which begs the same question you asked me about the "public benefit" involved if, in this case, a gleaming tower for wealthy transplants who know or care nothing about Orlando goes in there) it will likely be redesigned & scaled down to some third rate looking junk that bears little resemblance to that rendering.

I just think that keeping those old buildings in that spot & maintaining the ties to Orlando's past that they represent, would provide a greater benefit with regards to the historic feel of downtown & to the visitors to Eola Park, than some shiny new high rise for out of town yuppies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nite owℓ Burg

nite owℓ

Posted
Posted

AFAIC, if a building has been in a certain spot throughout most of a city's history, whether it played a significant role or not, it is still by virtue of its age, historic. Either way, there's no reason to get all excited over my lil ol' opinion because what either of us think will have no bearing on what ends up transpiring.

And given the way things go around here, even if the condo does end up getting built (which begs the same question you asked me about the "public benefit" involved if, in this case, a gleaming tower for wealthy transplants who know or care nothing about Orlando goes in there) it will likely be redesigned & scaled down to some third rate looking junk that bears little resemblance to that rendering.

I just think that keeping those old buildings in that spot & maintaining the ties to Orlando's past that they represent, would provide a greater benefit with regards to the historic feel of downtown & to the visitors to Eola Park, than some shiny new high rise for out of town yuppies.

You're both right regarding the meaning of historic buildings, but I believe the Municipal Planning Board determines semantics of the definition (i.e. whether a historic building is contributing or non-contributing depending on the type of structure and especially if any major alterations have occurred) without bias to public opinion. From what I've read, the house was never designated historic or as a landmark. The developer should offer up the home for free to preservationists before it is torn down. If anything, this should be a wake up call for us to ensure that we are proactive in protecting certain structures BEFORE they are torn down. It seems like people are worried about gentrification erasing downtown's history, and rightly so. But we still need to consider a private property's "highest and best use" for it's location.

I don't like the idea of private property (the 5,925 sq ft outdoor restaurant portion) encroaching onto public land (the area near the sperry fountain). Sure, it remains public land, but let's look at Relax Grill which also leases it's space from the city; "This area (patio, tables, chairs) is for the use of Lake Eola Cafe customers only". Of course non paying customers won't be welcome to use that area of public land. It's very worrisome when the city habitually speaks of granting easements, filling in portions of  Lake Eola and installing permanent vendor kiosks on public land that was specifically deeded for use as a public park only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
prahaboheme City

prahaboheme

Posted
Posted

Unfortunately, its been made clear through actions as well as intentions for land use that nothing is safe in the South Eola neighborhood.  Block by block the remnants of our past have been erased.  The reality is, all we can do is plan for thoughtful design to ensure that future development adds value to the existing urban environment.  This should include protection of Lake Eola from privatization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jack Burg

jack

Posted
Posted

I am sure the owner would donate the building if the funds were raised to move it to another location. The last owner had an agreement with the City that they would move it and use the building as the parks departments office. But what would be the point? If we try and save every old building, what would we do with them? Create a museum district of old houses? Convert them to office space in another location?  We have a nice representation of old Orlando. Its called Lake Eola Heights. If the City cared, they could have bought this site a long time ago and expanded the park. 

Tear it down and build the restaurant. The park will be better of with more eating options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cwetteland Burg

cwetteland

Posted
Posted

--- while I agree with the "no stucco" argument and the idea that many of the new high-rise buildings are meh at best. but I'll push back on the glass and metal.  It wasn't too long ago that the glass-walled Barnett building on Park Ave in Winter Park was the eye-sore, Now that it's been re-skinned with traditional materials it looks pretty good and it fits in.  Not saying red brick for Orlando, but a stone masonry look isn't bad.  

I'm also pushing back on the idea that Orlando should model itself on another city.  Miami, Miami, Miami ... tired of hearing it.  Orlando isn't Miami and shouldn't strive to be.  Orlando should have it's own look and feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedStar25 Burg

RedStar25

Posted
Posted

Everyone has their own opinions but I disagree so much with what she wrote that it makes me want to write a letter. And I never write letters. 

I was thinking the same thing. I enjoy her opinion but, it's just an opinion, and I was very disappointing in what she wrote. And to seek architectural advice from those who sit in ivory towers can be enlightening but not realistic. I mean common, putting the building on a pedestal to create an unobstructed view? A view from where? 

 

Adding to this.... I found this older Orlando Sentinel article that is related to Ms. Kassab's opinion column. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-downtown-orlando-skyline-20150125-story.html. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLClarkKent Hamlet

FLClarkKent

Posted
Posted

An interesting development in this particular saga. St. Luke's, which deeded the city this bit of land for park space, is saying that the proposed condo violates the terms of the church's agreement. It's on Brinkman's blog (no paywall):

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/brinkmann-on-business/os-church-lake-eola-development-20150729-post.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smileguy Burg

smileguy

Posted
Posted

So let me get this straight.... the land was given in 1914 for park use only, but a house and an office building were built in the 1920's. This doesn't add up. 

I believe the area between the house and the small fountain is the land in question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alex Hamlet

alex

Posted
Posted

So let me get this straight.... the land was given in 1914 for park use only, but a house and an office building were built in the 1920's. This doesn't add up. 

A lot of the articles and comments are mixing up three different arguments. 1) The buildings are on private, non-park property and the developers can do with them what they want, so the opposition chooses historic preservation as its argument against the building itself. 2) The patio is the only part what will be on park land, so the church is getting involved. The church could force them to get rid of the patio, but I don't see how they could stop the whole development from happening on private property. (The setback isn't really an issue because those are regularly amended.) I don't buy this argument because the plan is to convert an unused corner with no significant trees into a patio and water feature. 3) The Rosalind Club people just don't want a big building next to them because they think it will somehow affect them or their building. 

Personally, I think people are blowing this out of proportion. The building will re-purpose 0.16 acres of park and demolish three buildings, one of which is a 7-11 and one is great but nobody wants to take care of it. The other building is a little office building that houses non-profits, which is the only con I can think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLClarkKent Hamlet

FLClarkKent

Posted
Posted

Personally, I wish the developer could knock down the Rosalind Club. Never knew that's what was behind those gates until all of this hub-bub. But I've always found those gates really out of character with the park. Along with the other buildings (and I admit that the ones from the 20s are nice), it completely sucks the life out of that quadrant of the park. Aside from patrons at the 7-11 and the barbershop on Rosalind, there's no one in that section of the park other than the homeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boomer136 Hamlet

Boomer136

Posted
Posted

What the NIMBYs are really fighting for at this point is removing a ground level cafe and huge water feature to get a brick wall facing into the park. This chatter of urban jungle encroachment sounds good I suppose to people who don"t go down there very much. This patio and 2 story water fall is a wonderful transition into the park, and maybe spur some long overdue landscaping around Sperry Fountain. People sitting out looking over what keeps getting to be a nicer and nicer space whilst hiding ugly transformers and smoothing out the awkward spaces cutoff from the sidewalk by that black fencing along Central. But no, go ahead NIMBYs, leave the transformers and stand on grass looking up at a blank wall, such vision!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JFW657 Metropolitan Area

JFW657

Posted
Posted

This is an email that got circulated a day or two ago:

 

Friends,

Your voice is being heard. With you and more than 2,200 voices supporting them, two "adversely affected persons" have appealed last week's Municipal Planning Board decision.

The appeals process is a quasi-judicial protocol that allows for further discourse about details of the proposed plan that may negatively affect the community. We believe that better plans will grow out of this process and we appreciate those who stepped up to challenge the decision.

The appeals procedure will likely delay the proposal's presentation to City Council by several months. We will keep you posted.

Thanks for your continued support!

 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.