Lake Eola Neighbourhood.

[AmIReal]

If you were going to take a dip... don't.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orange-county/os-ne-orlando-lake-eola-20201214-yxrf3zqz6bb2hizefpue4rbgs4-story.html

“During water quality sampling following the detection of an odor in our storm system, lab results indicated E. coli counts immediately present in front of the pipe in Lake Eola that exceed state water quality standards,"

I particularly love this line... "It’s unclear what caused the increased levels in the water at the city’s signature park"... I think I could hazard a guess.

[nite owℓ]

3 hours ago, AmIReal said:

If you were going to take a dip... don't.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orange-county/os-ne-orlando-lake-eola-20201214-yxrf3zqz6bb2hizefpue4rbgs4-story.html

“During water quality sampling following the detection of an odor in our storm system, lab results indicated E. coli counts immediately present in front of the pipe in Lake Eola that exceed state water quality standards,"

I particularly love this line... "It’s unclear what caused the increased levels in the water at the city’s signature park"... I think I could hazard a guess.

Pray tell us, what could be the source of E. coli?? Despite the increased levels, I would wager Lake Eola is much cleaner now than it was back in the 90's... as a kid I remember the lookout point smelling like sewage back in the day.

I would never jump into that water.  So much of the runoff downtown gets routed directly into Lake Eola (parking garage, parking lots, streets, etc.). Better tell St George's not to let their kids jump into the lake anytime soon... I think their holiday is coming up soon.

[smileguy]

On 12/6/2020 at 8:45 PM, spenser1058 said:

Some more retail - Bynx Orlando is open at last in South Eola (NOT Thornton Park despite the fever dreams of Camden’s marketing minions):
https://bungalower.com/2020/12/06/video-bynx-orlando-now-open-in-downtown-orlando/

From Bungalower 
 

I worked from there a little bit this morning. They're still putting final touches on the space, but good mix of coffee, menu looks good, and some retail, with a small stage and recording booth.  It'll be both a nice amenity for the neighborhood and a destination/experiential retail spot for music lovers.

[elefants]

1 hour ago, smileguy said:

I worked from there a little bit this morning. They're still putting final touches on the space, but good mix of coffee, menu looks good, and some retail, with a small stage and recording booth.  It'll be both a nice amenity for the neighborhood and a destination/experiential retail spot for music lovers.

I was really looking forward to this place but ended up disappointed.  It felt like a mediocre coffee shop with a record/book section tacked on as an afterthought.  I absolutely couldn't stand the cold, corporate-feeling interior.  Book stores, record shops, and coffee shops should feel intimate and cozy, in my opinion.  This missed the mark.

[spenser1058]

8 minutes ago, elefants said:

I was really looking forward to this place but ended up disappointed.  It felt like a mediocre coffee shop with a record/book section tacked on as an afterthought.  I absolutely couldn't stand the cold, corporate-feeling interior.  Book stores, record shops, and coffee shops should feel intimate and cozy, in my opinion.  This missed the mark.

I confess that has been my reaction to most of the shops and eateries opened in South Eola’s new buildings.

Given how many older buildings we have that would provide a much more comfortable, homey vibe I’d rather leave the spaces in the new towers to the chains.

Then again, the chains seem not to be aware downtown, with its burgeoning twenty-something population, exists and there seems to be no coordinated effort to change that. Some day...

[spenser1058]

Just $105,000 to go before the Orlando Land Trust meets its goal and can purchase the lot at N. Rosalind Ave. and E. Central Blvd., thus expanding Lake Eola Park.

Merry Christmas!

https://bungalower.com/2020/12/23/orlando-land-trust-only-100000-away-from-target-to-purchase-land-for-lake-eola-park/

From Bungalower 

[prahaboheme]

On 12/23/2020 at 6:38 PM, spenser1058 said:

Just $105,000 to go before the Orlando Land Trust meets its goal and can purchase the lot at N. Rosalind Ave. and E. Central Blvd., thus expanding Lake Eola Park.

Merry Christmas!

https://bungalower.com/2020/12/23/orlando-land-trust-only-100000-away-from-target-to-purchase-land-for-lake-eola-park/

From Bungalower 

What exactly are they going to do with this? It’s closed off from the rest of the park, right?

[spenser1058]

2 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

What exactly are they going to do with this? It’s closed off from the rest of the park, right?

I’m hearing a variety of things and I have no idea which is true. Supposedly, there’s a right of way the city will let them use. I’ve also heard the old Masonic Lodge is in their sights for demolition. I guess we’ll find out after we get the final $100K.

Edited December 26, 2020 by spenser1058

[spenser1058]

They have whitewashed the little office building at S. Summerlin Ave. and E. South St.

It was a light brick color on the ground floor and beige stucco on the second and looked like a visitor from the’70’s.

Because it’s all white now, @JFW657 will likely think it’s an abomination but, for a low-cost refresh, I think it brightens the corner. Now if they’ll just work on those duplexes beyond it.

[F-L-A]

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

What exactly are they going to do with this? It’s closed off from the rest of the park, right?

I've seen an article on this previously, and it looked like they wanted to also demolish the larger building behind the 7-11, not just the 7-11. So that rendering would be inaccurate. Doesn't seem like a worthwhile venture to pursue either way.

[JFW657]

Well, if they painted over the bricks that IS an abomination.

Maybe I need to sneak over there some night with a can of spray paint and write "Take the g*dd*m white paint off of these bricks you idiots!!!"

 

[WAJAS]

40 minutes ago, F-L-A said:

I've seen an article on this previously, and it looked like they wanted to also demolish the larger building behind the 7-11, not just the 7-11. So that rendering would be inaccurate. Doesn't seem like a worthwhile venture to pursue either way.

It doesn't appear anyone else was pushing to expand the park, and I personally appreciate these women have taken the initiative to generate the funds. I don't think this is the last property to come under the ownership of the trust.

[nite owℓ]

1 hour ago, F-L-A said:

I've seen an article on this previously, and it looked like they wanted to also demolish the larger building behind the 7-11, not just the 7-11. So that rendering would be inaccurate. Doesn't seem like a worthwhile venture to pursue either way.

This rendering is a totally accurate depiction of what we'll get because the larger City Centre building adjacent to the 7-eleven is NOT included in the sale. The rendering was taken directly from Orlando Land Trust's website: https://orlandolandtrust.org/mission/. The other rendering that showed both buildings removed is just a future pipe dream and it's very deceitful because it tricks people into thinking both buildings are included in current fundraising efforts. City Centre might eventually become a separate fundraising effort... and OLT is probably betting once the public realizes how useless the land is after demolishing the 7-eleven building that we will have no choice but to expand (and be forced to shell out gratuitous amounts of money yet again). I also heard OLT eventually wants to get rid of Fifth Third Bank on Rosalind/Robinson - when did the CRA/City of Orlando and OLT suddenly became flush with money?

32 minutes ago, WAJAS said:

It doesn't appear anyone else was pushing to expand the park, and I personally appreciate these women have taken the initiative to generate the funds. I don't think this is the last property to come under the ownership of the trust.

Personally, I wish those old women would put their money where their mouth is and sell off their own property to the city, but it seems they have no intention on doing so. Hmmm, I wonder why. If they really want to expand the park and they aren't doing it for selfish reasons (i.e. getting rid of undesirables), then they should sell their own property FIRST. Getting rid of the 7-eleven building is a minimal Return On Investment on $3.5 million considering it's such a small sliver of land located on an busy, unwelcoming intersection for pedestrians. The South Eola park transition worked because it's transitioning from a more residential neighborhood. The Rosalind/Central streetwall currently frames that intersection nicely and destroying it will create a hard transition from the CBD into the park.

 

FALSE ADVERTISING:

Also interesting to see @spenser1058 repeatedly squawk about historic preservation, but now wants to start tearing down old buildings. If I recall correctly he decried the lost opportunity to save the Orlando Sentinel building (which is also a non-contributing structure)... I guess Buddy's bulldoze mantra is starting to rub off? I consider this future plan a pipe dream because we already know things take forever and a day to come to fruition. We will be stuck with an ugly pocket park for years to come if 7-eleven is allowed to be torn down without assembling all parcels first!

[spenser1058]

22 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

This rendering is a totally accurate depiction of what we'll get because the larger City Centre building adjacent to the 7-eleven is NOT included in the sale. The rendering was taken directly from Orlando Land Trust's website: https://orlandolandtrust.org/mission/. The other rendering that showed both buildings removed is just a future pipe dream and it's very deceitful because it tricks people into thinking both buildings are included in current fundraising efforts. City Centre might eventually become a separate fundraising effort... and OLT is probably betting once the public realizes how useless the land is after demolishing the 7-eleven building that we will have no choice but to expand (and be forced to shell out gratuitous amounts of money yet again). I also heard OLT eventually wants to get rid of Fifth Third Bank on Rosalind/Robinson - when did the CRA/City of Orlando and OLT suddenly became flush with money?

Personally, I wish those old women would put their money where their mouth is and sell off their own property to the city, but it seems they have no intention on doing so. Hmmm, I wonder why. If they really want to expand the park and they aren't doing it for selfish reasons (i.e. getting rid of undesirables), then they should sell their own property FIRST. Getting rid of the 7-eleven building is a minimal Return On Investment on $3.5 million considering it's such a small sliver of land located on an busy, unwelcoming intersection for pedestrians. The South Eola park transition worked because it's transitioning from a more residential neighborhood. The Rosalind/Central streetwall currently frames that intersection nicely and destroying it will create a hard transition from the CBD into the park.

 

FALSE ADVERTISING:

Also interesting to see @spenser1058 repeatedly squawk about historic preservation, but now wants to start tearing down old buildings. If I recall correctly he decried the lost opportunity to save the Orlando Sentinel building (which is also a non-contributing structure)... I guess Buddy's bulldoze mantra is starting to rub off? I consider this future plan a pipe dream because we already know things take forever and a day to come to fruition. We will be stuck with an ugly pocket park for years to come if 7-eleven is allowed to be torn down without assembling all parcels first!

I’ve said numerous times I would prefer to keep the Masonic Lodge but only if it has public access. It’s been closed off and underutilized for years (Cameron Kuhn’s redo didn’t help). I would prefer if you’re going to tell people what I think, you do so accurately.

If there’s a way to do that and get access to the park (I’ve been told it’s doable), that would be the win-win in my opinion, along with converting the house adjoining the Lodge into a restaurant or something.

As to impugning the motives of Ms. Sefcik and Ms. Long, I’m sad you’d do that. From every opportunity I’ve had, I see nothing but the type of true community spirit that’s been missing for a while.

 

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by spenser1058

[nite owℓ]

43 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I’ve said numerous times I would prefer to keep the Masonic Lodge but only if it has public access. It’s been closed off and underutilized for years (Cameron Kuhn’s redo didn’t help). I would prefer if you’re going to tell people what I think, you do so accurately.

If there’s a way to do that and get access to the park (I’ve been told it’s doable), that would be the win-win in my opinion, along with converting the house adjoining the Lodge into a restaurant or something.

As to impugning the motives of Ms. Sefcik and Ms. Long, I’m sad you’d do that. From every opportunity I’ve had, I see nothing but the type of true community spirit that’s been missing for a while.

 

 

Oh please, you've misquoted me AND alluded things against me before (which I basically just shrug off) so now is not the time to get your feathers ruffled  . The 7-eleven building is going to be demolished and it's roughly the same age as the Orlando Sentinel building, is it not?? And the 2nd rendering clearly shows City Centre demolished - so the only public use planned for it will be the land beneath it after the structure is gone lol. Regardless, are you saying (but not explicitly verbalizing) that if City Centre is not going to be for public use then you consent to demolition?? Yes, you did mention preferring to save City Centre, but I don't recall you being upset about the 7-eleven building going away. It's a different story if they planned to leave the building(s) standing since they don't want the lots to be developed in the future, but based on the renderings they are putting out I have to believe what my eyes are telling me - and the goal is to expand the footprint of the park so...??

Hey, actions speak louder than words. If the Rosalind Club sells off their little building to the city then I will gladly eat my words. However, their own renderings show the Rosalind Club intact. They apparently feel entitled to stay and they obviously don't believe the park expansion should apply to them.

Since the City donated/pledged $1.5M and Patty is using 50K out of her discretionary funds then of course I'm unhappy city funds are being used to help spend $3.5M on a property to gain roughly 5,000 sq. ft. of park space.

[spenser1058]

I’d love to know why all the angst toward the Rosalind Club. 

As to comparing the Sentinel building with a generic 7-Eleven, I’ll let that speak for itself. Perhaps there are those one-issue folks who don’t believe ANYTHING can be torn down. I am not now nor have ever been one of those. 

I’ve made clear more park space is a priority for me. A generic retail strip with no particular historic significance pales by comparison with that.

I also find it humorous about the wonderful street wall on Rosalind you keep going on about. Most of the buildings with frontage on Rosalind have little to no pedestrian access. If that’s a priority for you, come back when the majority of the square footage along the street has pedestrian access (we’ll start with that God-awful fence at St. George’s, then get the Metropolitan to get serious about its retail shop at street level and The Vue and Embassy Suites restore Rosalind access and have the City and FDOT make the street itself user- friendly for pedestrians instead of a racetrack).

Meanwhile, folks come and go throughout the day into the park via Rosalind. As a bonus, Orlando Shakes is finally returning live theater to the Walt Disney Amphitheater whose main access is via Rosalind.

Soooo.... the park is doing a better job with its frontage than just about anyone else on the street when it comes to pedestrian access except (oddly enough) the University Club’s tower and the Brick Bunker.

In any event, it’s probably moot anyway. From the city’s highest poobahs to everyday folks who’ve contributed to the campaign, there’s broad support for park expansion. @HankStrong can cue up Ron Paul and friends, IT’S HAPPENING.
 

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by spenser1058

[spenser1058]

Btw, The Rosalind Club is about as historic as anything gets here in Orlando. Founded in 1894, the current building dates to 1916 and was designed by noted local architect Murry S. King. Good heavens, the street was renamed for the club!

https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=139097

 

 

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by spenser1058

[Uncommon]

This is a very expensive and stupid idea if the goal isn’t to demolish City Centre and create an iconic entrance to the park. That green space in the latest rendering is silly and doesn’t appear to be connected to the park at all. Might as well let the 7-11 remain than have a small empty lot. Since it looks like the funds will indeed be collected very soon, I sincerely hope these ladies have a plan for the vision of Lake Eola, as opposed to “get rid of the homeless hanging out at 7-11.” With Eola’s imminent re-styling/update, maybe this will all tie into it, but I can’t imagine this little itty green space is worth $3.5M.

[nite owℓ]

50 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I’d love to know why all the angst toward the Rosalind Club. 

As to comparing the Sentinel building with a generic 7-Eleven, I’ll let that speak for itself. Perhaps there are those one-issue folks who don’t believe ANYTHING can be torn down. I am not now nor have ever been one of those. 

I’ve made clear more park space is a priority for me. A generic retail strip with no particular historic significance pales by comparison with that.

I also find it humorous about the wonderful street wall on Rosalind you keep going on about. Most of the buildings with frontage on Rosalind have little to no pedestrian access. If that’s a priority for you, come back when the majority of the square footage along the street has pedestrian access (we’ll start with that God-awful fence at St. George’s, then get the Metropolitan to get serious about its retail shop at street level and The Vue and Embassy Suites restore Rosalind access and have the City and FDOT make the street itself user- friendly for pedestrians instead of a racetrack).

Meanwhile, folks come and go throughout the day into the park via Rosalind. As a bonus, Orlando Shakes is finally returning live theater to the Walt Disney Amphitheater whose main access is via Rosalind.

Soooo.... the park is doing a better job with its frontage than just about anyone else on the street when it comes to pedestrian access except (oddly enough) the University Club’s tower and the Brick Bunker.

In any event, it’s probably moot anyway. From the city’s highest poobahs to everyday folks who’ve contributed to the campaign, there’s broad support for park expansion. @HankStrong can cue up Ron Paul and friends, IT’S HAPPENING.

So now it seems like you're finally acknowledging that you're okay with demolishing City Centre (without actually saying the words)?? lol

I dunno... I think the 7-eleven building cleans up nicely when maintained properly (see below circa '07). The building would benefit from a good pressurewashing and repainting the exterior. McCrory's was somewhat of a similar design - and you've never let that one go despite McCrory's not even being the original structure on the property. Btw the 7-eleven building has 4 storefronts on Rosalind (for the smaller businesses) and one on Central for 7-eleven itself... seems like a pretty pedestrian friendly setup to me. Regarding everything else you said about Rosalind Ave, I'm in agreement with that.

I just find it amusing and hypocritical that the Rosalind Club wants to clear the land surrounding their building in the name of expanding the park while they  themselves have no intention on doing the same. Btw they also have a fence surrounding their property.

Edited December 26, 2020 by nite owℓ

[JFW657]

I love the 7-11 building and I wish it would stay there AS A 7-11.

I'd like to see it returned to the '07 state with the round openings across the top, too.

[spenser1058]

4 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

So now it seems like you're finally acknowledging that you're okay with demolishing City Centre (without actually saying the words)?? lol

I dunno... I think the 7-eleven building cleans up nicely when maintained properly (see below circa '07). The building would benefit from a good pressurewashing and repainting the exterior. McCrory's was somewhat of a similar design - and you've never let that one go despite McCrory's not even being the original structure on the property. Btw the 7-eleven building has 4 storefronts on Rosalind (for the smaller businesses) and one on Central for 7-eleven itself... seems like a pretty pedestrian friendly setup to me. Regarding everything else you said about Rosalind Ave, I'm in agreement with that.

I just find it amusing and hypocritical that the Rosalind Club wants to clear the land surrounding their building in the name of expanding the park while they  themselves have no intention on doing the same. Btw they also have a fence surrounding their property.

McCrory’s was built in the 1940’s - probably 15 or more years before the building on Rosalind.  By your logic, does that mean anything built on a piece of property that was previously something else is never worthy of preservation? If so, then most of downtown would not qualify. 

McCrory’s was also significant for the number of people who shopped there and as one of the primary locations for the sit-ins of the civil rights movement in the ‘60’s. The building on Rosalind was  outlying offices rarely visited by the public for the bulk of its existence.

Architecturally, McCrory’s design was mostly intact the day it was bulldozed. Most of what you see on the Rosalind building is swag from the ‘80’s and ‘90’s.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. I’m sorry, but the Rosalind Club is far more a part of the community’s history than this silly building has ever been and is more architecturally significant ( if for no other reason than the architect who designed it was a significant local practitioner). 

As to St. George’s fence, that’s something that rankles me as a Christian. As a church, I believe a fence is the last thing Jesus would do. Certainly my church, FUMCO, doesn’t have one. The Rosalind Club is a private club. I don’t like fences generally so were I a member I’d mention it. But comparing a private club to a church is apples to oranges.

It’s not primarily the Rosalind Club doing this, so I’m not sure where that comes from. This is a broad-based effort including St. Buddy! What more could you ask for? 

 

[spenser1058]

4 hours ago, Uncommon said:

This is a very expensive and stupid idea if the goal isn’t to demolish City Centre and create an iconic entrance to the park. That green space in the latest rendering is silly and doesn’t appear to be connected to the park at all. Might as well let the 7-11 remain than have a small empty lot. Since it looks like the funds will indeed be collected very soon, I sincerely hope these ladies have a plan for the vision of Lake Eola, as opposed to “get rid of the homeless hanging out at 7-11.” With Eola’s imminent re-styling/update, maybe this will all tie into it, but I can’t imagine this little itty green space is worth $3.5M.

As even @nite owℓ acknowledges, OLT has discussed future park expansion. If you have a quote that says the goal of these ladies is to “get rid of the homeless at 7-Eleven”  from either them or OLT, I’d be grateful if you’d provide it. I’ve never heard that mentioned by Ms. Sefcik, Ms. Long or OLT.

Btw, the city paid $3.34 million for Constitution Green, which was several years ago and not contiguous to Eola Park. Expanding the park is never going to be inexpensive and the price will rise every year. Downtown land will never be less expensive.Had we done this in the ‘70’s when the core was dying, it would have been a lot cheaper. Sadly, we didn’t. Given much of the land was originally donated to the City, paying for additions now when the city is much wealthier (and much of this is also coming from private donations, unlike the property where the Farmer’s Market is and the Eola Five were) seems equitable, not only to me but also to our current and former mayors, among many others.

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

16 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

McCrory’s was built in the 1940’s - probably 15 or more years before the building on Rosalind.  By your logic, does that mean anything built on a piece of property that was previously something else is never worthy of preservation? If so, then most of downtown would not qualify. 

McCrory’s was also significant for the number of people who shopped there and as one of the primary locations for the sit-ins of the civil rights movement in the ‘60’s. The building on Rosalind was  outlying offices rarely visited by the public for the bulk of its existence.

Architecturally, McCrory’s design was mostly intact the day it was bulldozed. Most of what you see on the Rosalind building is swag from the ‘80’s and ‘90’s.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. I’m sorry, but the Rosalind Club is far more a part of the community’s history than this silly building has ever been and is more architecturally significant ( if for no other reason than the architect who designed it was a significant local practitioner). 

As to St. George’s fence, that’s something that rankles me as a Christian. As a church, I believe a fence is the last thing Jesus would do. Certainly my church, FUMCO, doesn’t have one. The Rosalind Club is a private club. I don’t like fences generally so were I a member I’d mention it. But comparing a private club to a church is apples to oranges.

It’s not primarily the Rosalind Club doing this, so I’m not sure where that comes from. This is a broad-based effort including St. Buddy! What more could you ask for? 

The corner 7-11 building is just a cool little building on a site that (hopefully) isn't going to be used for a high rise like Orange and Church was, so saving it would be worthwhile.

Screw the damned park.

It's fine the way it is.

Save both of the buildings and leave sh*t alone.

Quote

McCrory’s was also significant for the number of people who shopped there and as one of the primary locations for the sit-ins of the civil rights movement in the ‘60’s. The building on Rosalind was  outlying offices rarely visited by the public for the bulk of its existence.

You and about half a dozen other people give a crap about that. 

A few people's precious cause célèbre memories were not worth sacrificing a major high rise development for over a  couple of dilapidated two story junk buildings.

Quote

Architecturally, McCrory’s design was mostly intact the day it was bulldozed. Most of what you see on the Rosalind building is swag from the ‘80’s and ‘90’s.

Structurally it was not very intact.

AAMOF, had Jaymont gone ahead with their plans and put up a high rise while saving those two rat traps, they likely would have had to demo the McCrory's and rebuild it as a replica anyway because it was just too fragile.

[WAJAS]

19 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

Personally, I wish those old women would put their money where their mouth is and sell off their own property to the city, but it seems they have no intention on doing so. Hmmm, I wonder why. If they really want to expand the park and they aren't doing it for selfish reasons (i.e. getting rid of undesirables), then they should sell their own property FIRST. Getting rid of the 7-eleven building is a minimal Return On Investment on $3.5 million considering it's such a small sliver of land located on an busy, unwelcoming intersection for pedestrians. The South Eola park transition worked because it's transitioning from a more residential neighborhood. The Rosalind/Central streetwall currently frames that intersection nicely and destroying it will create a hard transition from the CBD into the park.

Pardon my lack of knowledge, but do these woman also own the Rosalind Club?

Also, the price of the land is hardly a reason not to expand the park. No park in any urban setting would ever be able to fully serve the community if city governments did not expand them as the city grew.

Why would the unwelcomeness of the intersection effect the viability of this purchase? This logic is the reason why most transit systems fail. The beginnings of a solution are presented, but because they do not fully solve the problem the solutions are disregarded. The problem then stays because any full and immediate solution is too expensive. The expansion of the park further opens it to the CBD and provides additional recreational facilities for downtown workers and residents. If the intersection is unwelcome, then say it should be fixed. The whole Rosalind corridor next to the park is unwelcome, and that should change. A pedestrian scramble, like Bungalower suggested, is one way improve this.

I don't understand how a hard transition between the park and the CBD is bad. Any downtown park in any city has a hard transition: Central Park in NYC, Centennial Park in Atlanta, Bayside in Miami, etc. Oak trees or similar could also maintain the street wall effect at the intersection if that is of concern.

[nite owℓ]

 

11 hours ago, WAJAS said:

Pardon my lack of knowledge, but do these woman also own the Rosalind Club?

Also, the price of the land is hardly a reason not to expand the park. No park in any urban setting would ever be able to fully serve the community if city governments did not expand them as the city grew.

Why would the unwelcomeness of the intersection effect the viability of this purchase? This logic is the reason why most transit systems fail. The beginnings of a solution are presented, but because they do not fully solve the problem the solutions are disregarded. The problem then stays because any full and immediate solution is too expensive. The expansion of the park further opens it to the CBD and provides additional recreational facilities for downtown workers and residents. If the intersection is unwelcome, then say it should be fixed. The whole Rosalind corridor next to the park is unwelcome, and that should change. A pedestrian scramble, like Bungalower suggested, is one way improve this.

I don't understand how a hard transition between the park and the CBD is bad. Any downtown park in any city has a hard transition: Central Park in NYC, Centennial Park in Atlanta, Bayside in Miami, etc. Oak trees or similar could also maintain the street wall effect at the intersection if that is of concern.

I wouldn't say the ladies own the club individually, but I'm pretty sure the Rosalind Club's members can vote to dissolve the club or sell the property... Same as U-Club, except the RC can use the proceeds to move elsewhere. The RC members are the ones to pushing to demo 7-eleven as part of their agenda to expand the park - so yes, now they too can abide by their own standard.

I'm certainly not against park expansion and I understand the need for it. We've already expanded the park years ago to the tune of $8.5M and you know what that got us? 1.8 ACRES = 78,408 sq. ft. of actual usable park space: https://goo.gl/maps/KKsQaxr8PZveh8xCA (https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-2013-02-01-os-lake-eola-houses-20130201-story.html). Granted some of the old historic homes had to be demolished, but the South Eola expansion was definitely worth it. And since it's located on the quieter end of Lake Eola, people are more inclined to set out blankets and chill, practice yoga, etc. OLT wants to spend $3.5M to acquire a little more than 5,000 sq. ft. That is an absolute joke for what we'll be getting with no guarantee that City Centre will be next.

Personally I like having storefronts frame that entrance leading to Lake Eola park. The unwelcoming ambiance I mentioned goes well beyond the pedestrian scramble (which is something I've requested the city traffic engineer to implement years ago - and I continue to request crosswalk improvements). I live next to Lake Eola so I kinda get to see the usage patterns of where people congregate, etc. The outer perimeter of Lake Eola Park along Rosalind and Robinson does not get utilized on a day to day basis unless there is an event (although Lake Eola Charter School uses the Northwest lawn for PE/recess on school days). People naturally gravitate towards the inner areas within the park away from heavy car traffic. Who wants to sit down and read a book or have a picnic on the corner of Rosalind and Central breathing in noxious fumes, next to loud traffic, bass music, Harley's revving, etc. It's simply not a welcoming ambiance and that has more to do with the high volume of traffic on Rosalind (which sees 17k+ vehicles daily). Does that rendering look like a place where you'd sit down & relax? I can tell you one of the things it'll be used for... a place for dogs to relieve themselves used by nearby residents who don't want to walk further to one of the other lawns. Hmm, now that I think of it another dog park could actually work here lol.

The hard transition I spoke of is quite visible in the rendering especially with City Centre's huge wall looming over it. Does that look welcoming to you?? 7-eleven and the other storefronts currently serve a purpose and they help ease the transition down Central Blvd into the park. This pocket park literally looks like the vacant lot on Orange/Pine that has persisted for years after the original structure burned down or one of the many blighted lots in Parramore where the city bulldozed a trap house to get rid of a plague on the neighborhood. It's not an organic transition - it's a transition by demolition and it looks horrible. It's not my job to fix all the ills of Rosalind Ave, however, I think it's pretty naive to assume the existing problems on Rosalind won't affect the usage of the new pocket park. Even if they manage to come up with an easement into the main park, it will still seem like an island unto itself. I'd rather have all or nothing - either demo Rosalind Club, 7-eleven AND City Centre or don't touch any of it.

Like I said earlier, we already know things take forever and a day to come to fruition in Downtown Orlando. We will be stuck with an ugly pocket park for years to come if 7-eleven is allowed to be torn down without assembling all parcels first! Take a good look at it:

Edited December 28, 2020 by nite owℓ