Radius | 13-Story Residential [Under Construction]

[Jernigan]

Update from GrowthSpotter:

- Project working name is now RADIUS 

- Goal is to break ground in Q2 and has a 19-20 month timeline

 

[codypet]

I really hope they rethink that plaza.  I feel like its gonna attract vagrants.  I'd also prefer a street wall along that side of Magnolia.

[sunshine]

I like the plaza.  More open space and the building doesnt fill up the entire block with minimum walkways

[dcluley98]

I really don't like the asymmetrical south facade with the garage taking up the first 5 floors of the tower and the curtainwall above it. Also, what happened to the artwork requirement and that was the new revised crown they came up with? 

[Jernigan]

FWIW rendering is the "latest" but from the fall 

[HankStrong]

Hat! Hat! Hat!

[bqknight]

I have absolutely no problem with this being there. Better than the empty patch and wedge that's there now. 

[WAJAS]

That's such a prime spot for a truly unique building in downtown that I would not be opposed to the city turning it down again.  Save that space for an architect that can make good use out of the uniqueness of the location.   At the very least it should do something in the same vein as the feature on CNL Center City Commons.  It, while not amazing, is an example of a building that makes use of its location at the end of a portion of the road.  Put some art, a clocktower, or SOMETHING at the end of the building facing the end of that portion of Rosalind.

I agree with the cities shade towards the architect that was shown a few pages back.  Put your copy-paste buildings as infill in the less noteworthy plots of land.

[JFW657]

17 minutes ago, WAJAS98 said:

That's such a prime spot for a truly unique building in downtown that I would not be opposed to the city turning it down again.  Save that space for an architect that can make good use out of the uniqueness of the location.   At the very least it should do something in the same vein as the feature on CNL Center City Commons.  It, while not amazing, is an example of a building that makes use of its location at the end of a portion of the road.  Put some art, a clocktower, or SOMETHING at the end of the building facing the end of that portion of Rosalind.

I agree with the cities shade towards the architect that was shown a few pages back.  Put your copy-paste buildings as infill in the less noteworthy plots of land.

The parcel would still be sitting there empty ten years from now.

[prahaboheme]

It may be prime for a unique building but it's definitely not a prime spot - awkward really.

I think it's passable and will help to make this section of downtown a bit more pedestrian friendly.

[dcluley98]

It is not a good design IMO, but I hope something gets built on that lot just to alleviate the long-standing blight of the empty wedge there. It will be good to transition with Skyhouse and the courthouse. . . and they should go as tall as possible, Nimbys be darned in the adjacent neighborhoods. . . that is why transitional development exists.

I hope the ARB makes them come back as creative and progressive as possible for that High-profile parcel.  Let's challenge them to design better and see what gets built. 

Edited January 12, 2018 by dcluley98

[gibby]

I assume that the ARB takes public comments (not certain).  They normally do an excellent job of providing design feedback IMO.  I think the south-facing wall looks terrible but I'm fine with this, otherwise.  Actually, the west-facing wall has the same problem facing Livingston traffic.

[HankStrong]

They do.  I've watched some of their videos on projects that really interested me.  There were comments, but it seemed that you had to get in some sort of queue to do so.  I have no idea who it worked, but there were plenty of commenters on the ones I watched.

[sunshine]

Can they stack the two wings into one 26 stories tall building and provide a larger public plaza?

[JFW657]

On 1/10/2018 at 1:32 PM, HankStrong said:

Hat! Hat! Hat!

After zooming in on a small section f the rendering, I noticed something odd.

It's a little blurry, but you can make out what it is...

[spenser1058]

Oh. Thank Heaven!

[JFW657]

Don't laugh.

You never know....  

(actually, one of those would probably do great business at that location)

[jrs2]

OMG, so all that Riff Raff from a block to the north will have a hangout in this building now?  Doesn’t that motel rent by the week?

[RedStar25]

Don't we already have 15 or more versions of this building all over the metro? It's generic. This can be found in any city.  It's a redundant soviet block era housing development, with worthless perks tacked on, surrounding a worthless open plaza. 

[bqknight]

9 hours ago, RedStar25 said:

Don't we already have 15 or more versions of this building all over the metro? It's generic. This can be found in any city.  It's a redundant soviet block era housing development, with worthless perks tacked on, surrounding a worthless open plaza. 

So is the whole UCF (University of Complaining Fans) thing contagious?

I get a lot of these building aren't WOW building but this is what it looks like developers are willing to do here. We aren't NYC, we aren't Atlanta. Right now there is an empty lot that looks horrid. I get wanting to change some things but a developer isn't going to spend the time or money to keep going back and changing things over and over again. 

I'll take it. Would fit fine there. 

[RedStar25]

Striving for something better than redundant mediocrity isn't a bad thing.  Not more than 12 years ago we saw a flood of buildings with at least an attempt at something different. 

Is it better than a vacant lot? Yes. Does it look like virtually every other residential building being built in this city and in others? Yes. This is why it was originally rejected by the ARB.  

[alex]

Meanwhile, Londoners have been complaining for years now that each new building is an elaborate eyesore that's ruining their skyline:

[JFW657]

47 minutes ago, RedStar25 said:

Striving for something better than redundant mediocrity isn't a bad thing.  Not more than 12 years ago we saw a flood of buildings with at least an attempt at something different. 

Is it better than a vacant lot? Yes. Does it look like virtually every other residential building being built in this city and in others? Yes. This is why it was originally rejected by the ARB.  

IMO, that is not a bad looking building at all. There are plenty of ho-hum, run-of-the-mill looking buildings in every city, but for downtown Orlando, that one is actually pretty decent looking. Also, it's not the same design as originally submitted. Improvements have been made and it's looking much better.

Certainly better than that crap-itecture at 420 E. Church and Central Station.

As was said, this is Orlando, not New York or some other top tier city. Hiring an architect to design a residential high rise ain't cheap at any level. Obviously, the higher up through the echelons of architectural firms you go, and the higher the quality of building you demand, the more expensive it gets. 

Developers are taking a huge financial risk as it is and there's only so much money banks are willing to lend for projects around here.  Compromises have to be made in order to get anything done. If every developer had set the bar as high as you advocate, for every project proposed in downtown Orlando over the past 25 years, we'd still have the same skyline we had in 1989.

Striving for something better is easy to talk about for we who aren't risking two or three hundred million dollars of borrowed money. No offense intended, but if something better is what you want to "strive for", feel free to put up your own money and strive away.

 

[orange87]

1 hour ago, alex said:

Meanwhile, Londoners have been complaining for years now that each new building is an elaborate eyesore that's ruining their skyline:

It's funny that people would say that, because I too have often thought that London had a few very odd and ugly buildings.

[dcluley98]

 

I don't think it is a "bad" looking building per se, but I think our point of view is that in that location we should have a "great" building. It is so high profile due to the location and shape of the parcel with it lining up down Rosalind from downtown, so most of us and the city's Architectural Review Board had commented that the building should at least have a signature crown and a south facing facade that also included artwork. Instead, we got a typical Baker Barrios cookie-cutter design with an afterthought plaza, curtainwall facade, and mish-mash of brick/glass/parking garage. Don't get me wrong, it will be way better than a vacant lot, but a lot of us that don't like this design think it could be done way better. Architecture is pretty subjective, so you never are going to please everybody, but I just wish they tried a little harder on this one.