Lake Eola Neighbourhood.

[F-L-A]

12 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I think what is more significant is what it represents - the first step in a commitment to park expansion that will hopefully one day take the park from Rosalind to Summerlin.

Well that's definitely not happening. Lake Eola isn't the invaluable asset some of you make it out to be, and tearing down a bunch of buildings to expand it away from the water won't accomplish anything.  This isn't Manhattan, we aren't in such dire need of a large park space (that, unlike Central Park, would inevitably be nothing but grass & more ugly sculptures.)

[spenser1058]

50 minutes ago, F-L-A said:

Well that's definitely not happening. Lake Eola isn't the invaluable asset some of you make it out to be, and tearing down a bunch of buildings to expand it away from the water won't accomplish anything.  This isn't Manhattan, we aren't in such dire need of a large park space (that, unlike Central Park, would inevitably be nothing but grass & more ugly sculptures.)

I disagree as do a significant number of your fellow citizens, not to mention all the city’s living mayors. They supported their belief by raising several million dollars and I am proud to say the first step will now come to fruition.

[AmIReal]

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I disagree as do a significant number of your fellow citizens, not to mention all the city’s living mayors. They supported their belief by raising several million dollars and I am proud to say the first step will now come to fruition.

I agree with you that this is a big step for the Orlando Land Trust as it shows their seriousness and viability. I agree with some of the other posters that this does not seem to accomplish much for the City or the park. If and when they can announce how this actually enlarges the park instead of creating a separate parklet then I'll be a little more enthusiastic. But until they are able to combine it with one of the other adjoining properties than I don't see it as bringing much value to anyone except the Rosalind House.

[Uncommon]

4 hours ago, F-L-A said:

Well that's definitely not happening. Lake Eola isn't the invaluable asset some of you make it out to be, and tearing down a bunch of buildings to expand it away from the water won't accomplish anything.  This isn't Manhattan, we aren't in such dire need of a large park space (that, unlike Central Park, would inevitably be nothing but grass & more ugly sculptures.)

Couldn’t disagree more, and I’m usually opposed to tearing down buildings. Lake Eola is literally downtown Orlando’s crown jewel. It absolutely is invaluable for families, tourists, and people who just generally like views. Without Eola, most of downtown would be absolutely dead (outside of Orange Ave, which is not the kind of crowd I prefer to run with). So I’m definitely up for beautifying, extending, or just keeping Lake Eola as a priority, even if it means tearing down some low-rise, crappy buildings around it.

[prahaboheme]

5 hours ago, F-L-A said:

Well that's definitely not happening. Lake Eola isn't the invaluable asset some of you make it out to be, and tearing down a bunch of buildings to expand it away from the water won't accomplish anything.  This isn't Manhattan, we aren't in such dire need of a large park space (that, unlike Central Park, would inevitably be nothing but grass & more ugly sculptures.)

If Lake Eola isn’t a valuable asset than why is it the most popular attraction downtown?

My statement regarding the corner lot is that it would sit in isolation not that the park shouldn’t be expanded if possible.

[JFW657]

6 hours ago, F-L-A said:

Well that's definitely not happening. Lake Eola isn't the invaluable asset some of you make it out to be, and tearing down a bunch of buildings to expand it away from the water won't accomplish anything.  This isn't Manhattan, we aren't in such dire need of a large park space (that, unlike Central Park, would inevitably be nothing but grass & more ugly sculptures.)

I agree about the expansion to Summerlin never happening.

That's just a pipe dream.

Plus, as you said, it's unnecessary and would detract from the charm of the area around N. Eola Dr. 

[JFW657]

3 hours ago, AmIReal said:

I agree with you that this is a big step for the Orlando Land Trust as it shows their seriousness and viability. I agree with some of the other posters that this does not seem to accomplish much for the City or the park. If and when they can announce how this actually enlarges the park instead of creating a separate parklet then I'll be a little more enthusiastic. But until they are able to combine it with one of the other adjoining properties than I don't see it as bringing much value to anyone except the Rosalind House.

I would like to see a large trompe l'oiel style mural painted on the side of the City Centre building that makes it appear as though the building is "see through" by depicting the eastern shore of the lake and the buildings and tree line along Eola Dr. as it would be viewed from Central and Rosalind. 

[nite owℓ]

What's done is done, unfortunately. Personally, I've always been appreciative of the commercial stepdown leading to Lake Eola Park on Central Blvd so getting rid of the 7-eleven building just to gain 5,000 sq ft of dead-zone park space is just not worth destroying the current natural transition IMO.

I understand and support the long-term goal, but they should not tear down the7-eleven building until all parcels are assembled and ready to be demolished.

[spenser1058]

In other words, we should never have accepted rail in Orlando until we had a fully-funded system that would reach all parts of town 24/7 from day 1. I’m glad we’ve entered the perfect world where we get everything we want (and, in the case of Eola, with most of it funded by private sources, no less) right from the start. I’ve never lived in that world (and I might add it’s not how Eola Park has come to be in the past century), so I must say I’m envious.

[Uncommon]

Not sure why people are bemoaning the loss of the the 7-11. That thing was straight up nasty and an embarrassment to downtown. I understand the hatred of an empty lot or green space but there clearly is a plan and vision here. They also haven’t said when they plan to demolish it right? Who knows, they may leave the land as is until they’re ready to build a full entrance to the park.

Either way, green space that will eventually convert to park space > decrepit 7-11 bum lounge and after-hours drug hangout.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

What's done is done, unfortunately. Personally, I've always been appreciative of the commercial stepdown leading to Lake Eola Park on Central Blvd so getting rid of the 7-eleven building just to gain 5,000 sq ft of dead-zone park space is just not worth destroying the current natural transition IMO.

I understand and support the long-term goal, but they should not tear down the7-eleven building until all parcels are assembled and ready to be demolished.

I agree that nothing there should be torn down period. 

Ever.

[nite owℓ]

6 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

In other words, we should never have accepted rail in Orlando until we had a fully-funded system that would reach all parts of town 24/7 from day 1. I’m glad we’ve entered the perfect world where we get everything we want (and, in the case of Eola, with most of it funded by private sources, no less) right from the start. I’ve never lived in that world (and I might add it’s not how Eola Park has come to be in the past century), so I must say I’m envious.

Rail ≠ Lake Eola Park. Rail (especially back then) was a necessity - the park is an amenity, so each would have its own sense of urgency to contend with. Have you ever read up on streetscape environments that promote pedestrian activity? There are certain basic tenets to follow when you want to provide a welcoming ambiance. Hmm, destroy the building that sits on the corner of a busy intersection and leave everything else- yeah that makes a lot of sense. Please tell me why we should be in a rush to demolish a building that is currently being utilized by the public for a 5,000 sq ft dead zone on Central Blvd:

It looks like a blighted lot right on Rosalind Ave- something is obviously missing and the park serves no purpose. When I consider downtown's MO, forgive me if I'm in no rush to have another vacant lot indefinitely pending "Phase II" future plans.

I wish someone with Photoshop skills would make a few street view renderings of what this would look like at ground level while taking into account surrounding buildings. Again, I understand and support the long-term goal, but they should not tear down the7-eleven building until all parcels are assembled and ready to be demolished.

 

5 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Not sure why people are bemoaning the loss of the the 7-11. That thing was straight up nasty and an embarrassment to downtown. I understand the hatred of an empty lot or green space but there clearly is a plan and vision here. They also haven’t said when they plan to demolish it right? Who knows, they may leave the land as is until they’re ready to build a full entrance to the park.

Either way, green space that will eventually convert to park space > decrepit 7-11 bum lounge and after-hours drug hangout.

Per the Orlando Sentinel: The building, which houses a 7-Eleven, will remain in place until at least June 2023, because the convenience store has a long-term lease on the site. At that point, the city will pursue demolishing it to preserve the space for a park, Dyer said. “We hope to set this up as park space very shortly thereafter,” said Long. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ne-lake-eola-land-purchase-green-space-20210323-i3cz2g5gtnb4nopfaejtqyam6e-story.html

Edited March 24, 2021 by nite owℓ

[F-L-A]

14 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I disagree as do a significant number of your fellow citizens, not to mention all the city’s living mayors. They supported their belief by raising several million dollars and I am proud to say the first step will now come to fruition.

And thanks to their efforts, we will have an empty, desolate patch of grass on a busy city street corner where the homeless will still congregate, just without any shade.

10 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

If Lake Eola isn’t a valuable asset than why is it the most popular attraction downtown?

My statement regarding the corner lot is that it would sit in isolation not that the park shouldn’t be expanded if possible.

Because downtown doesn't have any popular attractions, and hasn't since Church Street Station closed. No one visits Orlando and says, "We should put Lake Eola on our itinerary. I hear it has a relatively small lake with a fountain and the world's largest collection of ugly sculptures." Lake Eola is a place where, except for special occasions, most of the "visitors" actually live there. No, not in Orlando, in the park itself.

11 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Couldn’t disagree more, and I’m usually opposed to tearing down buildings. Lake Eola is literally downtown Orlando’s crown jewel. It absolutely is invaluable for families, tourists, and people who just generally like views. Without Eola, most of downtown would be absolutely dead (outside of Orange Ave, which is not the kind of crowd I prefer to run with). So I’m definitely up for beautifying, extending, or just keeping Lake Eola as a priority, even if it means tearing down some low-rise, crappy buildings around it.

Those "low-rise, crappy buildings" along Central that encroach on Spenser's theoretical park space are partially responsible for one of Orlando's most urban streetscapes. Fifth Third Bank, another building that encroaches on the park, isn't even a low-rise. Again, I'll remind everyone that we're not Manhattan. We should graciously accept whatever urban fabric we can get instead of razing it all so we have more grass to gawk at.

[codypet]

If their beef was 7-11 and the homeless, buyout the lease and put in a women's clothing boutique.  Done and Done.

[Uncommon]

According to a video on WFTV, the plan is to purchase the 2 other nearby buildings on the property. The process of building this entrance could take years, but they gotta start somewhere. I disagree about that corner’s “urban fabric.” That area is an absolute eyesore and I’d take a few years of being in that entrance-building process if it means eventually being a park entrance.

[GregoryMCSE]

When I lived in Colorado I had a co worker who had moved lived Orlando for a couple of years.  He often regaled me with tales of how nasty Lake Ebola is.  He always focused on the smelly bird crap by the big trees.  I love Lake Eola  because I have been walking around it since the CNA building was the tallest in Orlando.   However, I don’t think non residents seek it out.  
 

I am glad the 7 eleven is getting knocked down but with that big city center building what is the point?  I wouldn’t want the city center building knocked down

[dcluley98]

I walk around Lake Eola probably around 3.5 times a week and there are many non-residents. . . Of course homeless and transients are more prelevant than tourists right now (It's not that uneven, but you notice one more than the other), but there are non-residents, as well as residents and even social media maven wannabe's recording videos and other things always around the lake. 

What we all really hate is the allowance of the "surveyors" around the lake and the Lake Eola Publix. I wish the city would ban that. 

To claim it is unimportant is a "lake" of awareness or an expression of inherent bias, IMHO.  

I don't know why it would be such a bad thing to have a great amenity become even greater for residents to use it, BTW. . . 

Edited March 25, 2021 by dcluley98

[prahaboheme]

What’s great about Lake Eola is that it doesn’t need the 50 million tourists a year to thrive, like Church Street Station. 
It organically exists within the framework of an overall thriving part of downtown Orlando.

Edited March 25, 2021 by prahaboheme

[uncreativeusername]

This has been one of the weirder and more surprising debates on these boards. Some of these responses make it sound like we shouldn't value civic amenities that benefit the actual residents of Orlando; that we should only care about amenities for tourists. What an odd position to take...  

And @nite owℓ, I think you misunderstood @spenser1058's point about rail...I am pretty sure he is talking about SunRail.  We all know (as has been discussed on these boards aplenty) SunRail is not yet a robust enough system to reach its full potential, and naysayers use this as ammunition against public transit more generally.  Should we not champion SunRail because it isn't perfect, or should we take what we can get, when we can get it, and be patient while working towards the end goal?  Most of us on these boards agree that the latter position is the wise one to take.

I entirely understand the concerns over an awkward empty parcel and the other buildings remaining - but are we all so defeatist that we would refuse piecemeal progress just because the end goal isn't achieved from the onset?   An all-or-nothing approach to progress guarantees that nothing will ever happen.  I think it is incredible that this organization was able to motivate grassroots giving to make this work - I did not ever believe they could raise the funds, especially in this of all years, and I was thrilled to be wrong on that front.

I do accept that it is rational to debate if demo of the building should be postponed until all parcels are secured. I can also see how an empty parcel may help to motivate further fundraising towards securing the other parcels. But I have no strong opinion on this last point.

Edited March 25, 2021 by uncreativeusername

[prahaboheme]

1 hour ago, uncreativeusername said:

This has been one of the weirder and more surprising debates on these boards. Some of these responses make it sound like we shouldn't value civic amenities that benefit the actual residents of Orlando; that we should only care about amenities for tourists. What an odd position to take...  

And @nite owℓ, I think you misunderstood @spenser1058's point about rail...I am pretty sure he is talking about SunRail.  We all know (as has been discussed on these boards aplenty) SunRail is not yet a robust enough system to reach its full potential, and naysayers use this as ammunition against public transit more generally.  Should we not champion SunRail because it isn't perfect, or should we take what we can get, when we can get it, and be patient while working towards the end goal?  Most of us on these boards agree that the latter position is the wise one to take.

I entirely understand the concerns over an awkward empty parcel and the other buildings remaining - but are we all so defeatist that we would refuse piecemeal progress just because the end goal isn't achieved from the onset?   An all-or-nothing approach to progress guarantees that nothing will ever happen.  I think it is incredible that this organization was able to motivate grassroots giving to make this work - I did not ever believe they could raise the funds, especially in this of all years, and I was thrilled to be wrong on that front.

I do accept that it is rational to debate if demo of the building should be postponed until all parcels are secured. I can also see how an empty parcel may help to motivate further fundraising towards securing the other parcels. But I have no strong opinion on this last point.

I admit it was my comment that sparked this admittedly odd debate when all I was concerned about (pondering as such) is an awkward demoed building at a key intersection downtown for possibly decades to come.

The park is an invaluable asset.

My original comment remains the same as well.

[uncreativeusername]

12 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

I admit it was my comment that sparked this admittedly odd debate when all I was concerned about (pondering as such) is an awkward demoed building at a key intersection downtown for possibly decades to come.

The park is an invaluable asset.

My original comment remains the same as well.

I appreciate that.

Re-reading all of the posts, I also realize I may have misunderstood @nite owℓ's response to Spenser as well.  Forgive me, the past two pages have made me dizzy...ha.

Edited March 25, 2021 by uncreativeusername

[dcluley98]

Personally, I am a bit skeptical of the motivation of certain interests behind this, and the current situation of a disconnected parcel being committed to public domain without a real plan to connect it to the park. 

I am here for the Ethos of connecting Lake Eola Park to Downtown, however. 

So I guess, somewhat conflicted.

 

I suppose I should hope a meteor hits the Rosalind Club and we rebuild.  . .  

_{(not with anybody in there or any of the other people around there that they wish to disperse at the time, of course)}

Edited March 25, 2021 by dcluley98

[nite owℓ]

What sparked my response was the confirmation that OLT (and the CRA) actually pulled off the sale, otherwise, it's pretty much the exact same convo we had back in December: https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/117895-lake-eola-neighbourhood/page/23/#comments.

OLT received plenty of help from the Downtown CRA which planned to contribute matching funds up to $1.2M as a private/public partnership, so let's not pretend like OLT fully raised $3.5M without any assistance from the City.

@uncreativeusername yes I misunderstood spenser, but it doesn't change my point: Transit is a necessity and parks are amenities. Adding a pocket park next to an already existing park serves no purpose and it should wait until we're ready to do it right.

I find it bizarre that people seem perfectly fine with destroying an urban streetscape while we sit and wait indefinitely for everything else to magically come together. There is a thoughtful way to expand the park so that we won't disfigure our streetscape- but it seems people are content with halving the baby in two. This is not some side street tucked away in the back, this is a prominent high-traffic area.

If their ultimate goal is park expansion (tear down 7-eleven and City Centre), why does the Rosalind Club feel entitled to remain untouched? Talk about hypocrisy.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by nite owℓ

[uncreativeusername]

29 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

What sparked my response was the confirmation that OLT (and the CRA) actually pulled off the sale, otherwise, it's pretty much the exact same convo we had back in December: https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/117895-lake-eola-neighbourhood/page/23/#comments.

OLT received plenty of help from the Downtown CRA which planned to contribute matching funds up to $1.2M as a private/public partnership, so let's not pretend like OLT fully raised $3.5M without any assistance from the City.

@uncreativeusername yes I misunderstood spenser, but it doesn't change my point: Transit is a necessity and parks are amenities. Adding a pocket park next to an already existing park serves no purpose and it should wait until we're ready to do it right.

I find it bizarre that people seem perfectly fine with destroying an urban streetscape while we sit and wait indefinitely for everything else to magically come together. There is a thoughtful way to expand the park so that we don't disfigure our streetscape- but it seems people are content with halving the baby in two. This is not some side street tucked in the back, this is a prominent high-traffic area.

If their ultimate goal is park expansion (tear down 7-eleven and City Centre), why does the Rosalind Club feel entitled to remain untouched? Talk about hypocrisy.

I don't mean to discredit the concern over the potential awkwardness of that lot sitting empty while we wait for the rest of the vision to come to fruition. I share these concerns, although I also wonder how much harder it would have been to raise the funds without a promise of some immediate action. If the pocket park motivated donors for this first phase, and the success of the first phase motivates the next phase, terrific.  The fact that the CRA matched $1.2M doesn't negate the fact that $2.3M was indeed raised, which I still find impressive. That being said, I also second your call of hypocrisy by the Rosalind Club in expecting to keep their building for the long term. 

The tenor of the overall debate (not your post specifically) seemed to be questioning the overall value of the park, and whether or not there was merit in the very idea of expanding it. The entirely warranted concern over an awkward empty lot with the side of City Centre as an unattractive backdrop seemed to be morphing into a debate over whether extending Lake Eola Park to this corner was somehow anti-urban.  I don't think anyone argues Central Park South, Ocean Drive or Michigan Avenue to be anti-urban...

 

 

[Jerry95]

1 hour ago, nite owℓ said:

Transit is a necessity and parks are amenities. 

I wholeheartedly disagree, parks and open space are absolutely vital to any urban space. Not only do they serve as meeting spaces and community venues they also support exercise and other health functions. Irrespective of whether Lake Eola Park needs to be expanded Downtown Orlando could benefit from more park space, not just empty fenced lots.