Radius | 13-Story Residential [Under Construction]

[spenser1058]

14 minutes ago, Jernigan said:

If you haven’t been in the area, that arcade in the above photo is pretty welcoming when you’re standing as far away as Robinson and Rosalind - so just by Lake Eola.   What I mean is even on a hot day, your eye tells you you’ll be in the shade momentarily.   Kind of a weird thought but I appreciate little things like “I’m almost there cues”  (non technical term) that which can promote walkability.

Similar to Walt’s idea of a “weenie”.

[ChiDev]

Courtyard improvements underway: 

[ChiDev]

[ChiDev]

[FLClarkKent]

Looks like one of the retail tenants is going to a Taiwanese tea chain.

https://bungalower.com/2021/05/16/new-taiwanese-tea-shop-opening-in-downtown-high-rise/

[ChiDev]

 

[jrs2]

Radius' back side is lookin' good...haha

[bqknight]

View from Church & Rosalind.

 

[JFW657]

Those are nice shots and all, but I have to say...

even though I like the building overall and...

I'm glad something of decent size got built there and...

it will certainly look good from street level up close and...

it will definitely improve the street vibe and...

it will probably spur more business growth in the immediate vicinity and...

there are a lot of positives associated with it....

from a distance it still underwhelms.

I look at those shots posted above and try to view them in such a way as to be impressed by the building's visual impact or find anything that makes it stand out and look like something other than just more unremarkable background clutter....

and I can't.

It's just more of the same in DTO 

[ChiDev]

Its all about value.

 

Forecast the amazingly high rents like those planned at City View Tower 2 and you can do full building video screens with zero edge pools etc.

 

I predict once the courtyard is done, and once the building is filled, that Radius will seem so natural in its location city residents will struggle to remember the empty triangle lot that once stood there.

[elefants]

3 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I look at those shots posted above and try to view them in such a way as to be impressed by the building's visual impact or find anything that makes it stand out and look like something other than just more unremarkable background clutter....

I like that it gives the impression of several buildings rather than just one giant block.  I feel a block would have been even more underwhelming.

[JFW657]

1 minute ago, elefants said:

I like that it gives the impression of several buildings rather than just one giant block.  I feel a block would have been even more underwhelming.

That's true, but it goes back to the same old issue of height.

It just doesn't rise above the surrounding buildings enough to really grab the eye and hold it when viewed from further up Rosalind,

And the exterior finish is also a bit on the ho-hum side, but that's not much of an issue.

Don't get me wrong, I like the building and that site sorely needed something big.

But from a distance, it just sort of blends in with the surroundings. 

[jrs2]

fantastic infill for Orlando. check it out:

Radius: triangular vacant ugly lot: gone

409 Magnolia (hotel): 2 story sketchy Travelodge: gone

Skyhouse: another triangular vacant piece of property: gone

now, residents, hotel guests (maybe still sketchy regardless because of who is usually in court next door, and a few eateries/etc to draw people in instead of make people speed through the light at Livingston

could Radius have been a tall skyscraper? isn't that the story of Orlando though?

[popsiclebrandon]

20 hours ago, ChiDev said:

Its all about value.

 

Forecast the amazingly high rents like those planned at City View Tower 2 and you can do full building video screens with zero edge pools etc.

 

I predict once the courtyard is done, and once the building is filled, that Radius will seem so natural in its location city residents will struggle to remember the empty triangle lot that once stood there.

I don't know if you know or can even say but do you guys have plans for any more Orlando projects?

[ChiDev]

22 hours ago, JFW657 said:

That's true, but it goes back to the same old issue of height.

It just doesn't rise above the surrounding buildings enough to really grab the eye and hold it when viewed from further up Rosalind,

 

Blame the NIMBYs in Eola Heights.   Height caps came from their input.

[spenser1058]

I find that just a tad disingenuous given that, along Orange Avenue, both in NOra and even in the actual CBD, where they could have built over 400’ tall, they built squatty little apartment buildings.

Not to mention, even before the Frederick administration adjusted the tower heights at the end of his term, the Day Building and the godawful Landmarks (which some poor suburban business park is wondering  who abducted them in the middle of the night and plopped them down on a primo spot overlooking Eola) are hardly reaching the sky.

We can blame NIMBYs for a lot but it seems the developers and owners are just plain timid.

There are ways the city could have gotten creative with scarcity to help alleviate some of this nonsense, but that’s never been an interest of Buddy’s. After 18 years, I doubt that’s gonna change, either.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, ChiDev said:

Blame the NIMBYs in Eola Heights.   Height caps came from their input.

I'm not looking to blame anyone.

Just commenting on something I noticed.

If they could have built the south pointing wing a few stories taller it would have made a difference.

Maybe have completely done away with the upper portion of east pointing wing above the parking deck. Made the west pointing wing a little bit shorter. Put all those units in the south pointing wing, making it taller, and id doing so, satisfying the NIMBY's even more by diminishing the size of the wings directly adjacent to Eola Heights. 

But hey.... yadda yadda yadda.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. 

[AndyPok1]

I think this is a bit of a disingenuous complaint.  I mean, I agree with the premise.  But how many buildings really make an impact 7 blocks away?  For reference, this is the same as looking at City Hall from roughly Washington or Jefferson.

And I kind of like that it helps create a step down into Eola Heights... and I like Landmark around that side of the lake.  It makes Eola feel much less fast paced.

[JFW657]

19 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

I think this is a bit of a disingenuous complaint.  I mean, I agree with the premise.  But how many buildings really make an impact 7 blocks away?  For reference, this is the same as looking at City Hall from roughly Washington or Jefferson.

And I kind of like that it helps create a step down into Eola Heights... and I like Landmark around that side of the lake.  It makes Eola feel much less fast paced.

Maybe some of that is true, but it still remains that the building doesn't distinguish itself from the surrounding ones much.

It appears to be just another unremarkable, low-rise wall of windows terminating the vista from up Rosalind.

And I would say that a lot of buildings make an impact 7 blocks away (don't know if Washington St is really 7 blocks but whatevs). Just look at The Vue. I'm not suggesting that Radius should have been anywhere near that tall, but it would have been nice to see part of it break up that long, horizontal roofline and jut upwards bit more.

When we start making excuses for DTO's blasé architecture and looking for bright spots in the dullness, we've given up.

 

.

Edited May 27, 2021 by JFW657

[dcluley98]

This building makes a HUGE impact on foot. The entire area is changed walking north of Robinson.  The Courtyard part that we haven't even seen yet will be a game changer drawing pedestrians north to it with the businesses on the GF and directly across from the other plaza/park greenspace on Skyhouse corner and the courthouse land. 

[JFW657]

11 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

This building makes a HUGE impact on foot. The entire area is changed walking north of Robinson.  The Courtyard part that we haven't even seen yet will be a game changer drawing pedestrians north to it with the businesses on the GF and directly across from the other plaza/park greenspace on Skyhouse corner and the courthouse land. 

Yep.

Understood.

https://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/topic/118604-409-north-magnolia-under-construction/?do=findComment&comment=1744778

My above comments were strictly concerned with the minimal visual impact from up Rosalind.

I haven't seen any pics of it taken from up Magnolia towards the Sentinel property.

That would be of some interest, I think. 

[jack]

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I find that just a tad disingenuous given that, along Orange Avenue, both in NOra and even in the actual CBD, where they could have built over 400’ tall, they built squatty little apartment buildings.

Not to mention, even before the Frederick administration adjusted the tower heights at the end of his term, the Day Building and the godawful Landmarks (which some poor suburban business park is wondering  who abducted them in the middle of the night and plopped them down on a primo spot overlooking Eola) are hardly reaching the sky.

We can blame NIMBYs for a lot but it seems the developers and owners are just plain timid.

There are ways the city could have gotten creative with scarcity to help alleviate some of this nonsense, but that’s never been an interest of Buddy’s. After 18 years, I doubt that’s gonna change, either.

Thats not quite right. The biggest impediment has been the market. If the rents where high enough, I am sure NORA would have been taller. You can see over the last 30 years that apartment buildings have progressively gotten better as the market has proved rents can support better design and taller buildings. The 1st large scale apartments were built 20 years ago and all had to be subsidized and they were very low density (except the waverly). The next tranche were 4-5 story but did not need any subsidies and were built right after the recession. In the mid 2010's you started seeing the mid-rise concrete structures and lately, high rises. 

Scarcity is more important when you have a mature market. 

As to this project, I don't know what the zoning is but the east side of magnolia north of Eola is transitional because you have single family right there. And there is nothing wrong with that. 

I'd also quibble with equating good design with height. 

Also, I like this building and the way its site planned. HUGGE impact! 

[jrs2]

20 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I find that just a tad disingenuous given that, along Orange Avenue, both in NOra and even in the actual CBD, where they could have built over 400’ tall, they built squatty little apartment buildings.

Not to mention, even before the Frederick administration adjusted the tower heights at the end of his term, the Day Building and the godawful Landmarks (which some poor suburban business park is wondering  who abducted them in the middle of the night and plopped them down on a primo spot overlooking Eola) are hardly reaching the sky.

We can blame NIMBYs for a lot but it seems the developers and owners are just plain timid.

There are ways the city could have gotten creative with scarcity to help alleviate some of this nonsense, but that’s never been an interest of Buddy’s. After 18 years, I doubt that’s gonna change, either.

I think Buddy's deal is just to fill in the vacant lots with...something...and figure out the rest later.  I think DTO has been way more neglected and vacant than WE even realize compared to other cities around the country.  I mean...I see surface lots in downtown Cleveland, for example...so it's not just an Orlando thing...

But I think Buddy's main thing is setting the tone for a sense of place, and to do that you gotta fill in these lots (as we all know).  The height thing I think is an afterthought in that respect and not that important in their eyes.  Case in point, that apartment building on Orange Ave next to BOA- negated the surface lot with a 12 story building; that's a big footprint that's been filled in where no-one thought they would ever build an apartment building- at least I didn't...and I couldn't even visualize one there either just b/c of the location.  I felt similarly before Steelhouse got built in 2013- better than nothing was the warcry then b/c of the recession, but, it should've been at least the size of NORA or The Sevens to be fair.  But...at least there are big projects getting built  in and around downtown...some pretty impressive stuff, from the Lucerne Earthfare project- BTW, Earthfare has reopened, to The Yard on the north side of Ivanhoe, to Creative Village to the NW and the 520 Building to the east. 

Lotta bulk getting built downtown...

[Uncommon]

Height used to be really important to me but I’ve since compromised and am happy to fill in empty lots, and even more if it contributes to street activity. Sure, I’d love a bunch of 500 foot buildings but that’s probably not in Orlando’s cards, so I’ll accept housing that provides density, walkability, and more residents downtown. I don’t think Orlando residents are in much of a position to be picky.

[spenser1058]

Some of the best looking buildings downtown are the churches, the library and the 1927 courthouse, so I’m not a stickler for height, either.

Although, the big height competition in the ‘50’s and early ‘60’s was “The Great Steeplechase” to see who ended up with the tallest steeple, so the churches were hardly immune.