Under i

[spenser1058]

Just noting if this is finally in play, we have a thread for it.

[spenser1058]

AECOM has the winning design for Under I:

https://bungalower.com/2021/07/06/orlando-names-winning-design-firm-for-new-park-under-i-4/
 

From Bungalower 

[prahaboheme]

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

AECOM has the winning design for Under I:

https://bungalower.com/2021/07/06/orlando-names-winning-design-firm-for-new-park-under-i-4/
 

From Bungalower 

Of the options, they were the clear choice IMO. 
Lets hope the city gives them the funding to actually design something noteworthy for downtown. 

[AmIReal]

22 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Of the options, they were the clear choice IMO. 
Lets hope the city gives them the funding to actually design something noteworthy for downtown. 

Just wondering... what would everyone prefer- functionality or form? Not that they are mutually exclusive, but we already know what the project is going to include and basically what it will look like. So if it comes out as rendered will this group consider it a success?

[spenser1058]

Under-I pushed back to 2024:

https://bungalower.com/2022/08/30/city-pushes-back-timetable-for-under-i-park-downtown/

From Bungalower 

[codypet]

That article is dripping with skepticism.

[spenser1058]

16 minutes ago, codypet said:

That article is dripping with skepticism.

There are so many things I could say, but I’m being a nice boy.

[FLClarkKent]

I was never fully sold on the concept. I just can’t see many folks clamoring to play in a park under the highway.

[prahaboheme]

1 hour ago, FLClarkKent said:

I was never fully sold on the concept. I just can’t see many folks clamoring to play in a park under the highway.

It’s kind of a trend these days across the country with some pretty decent examples. Given that it will provide instant shade, I could see it working out if the city were to invest in a great civic space.

We can see that they aren’t really committed to that from other recent examples though. 

[spenser1058]

More change underway for Under-I including a restoration of some parking:

https://bungalower.com/2022/10/24/ask-bungalower-is-city-hall-calling-it-quits-on-the-under-i-project/

From Bungalower 
 

[JFW657]

I like the new design better.

Glad they're getting rid of all the basketball and soccer crap. 

DTO needs parking more than it needs basketball courts and soccer pitches that will sit unused most of the time, probably attract crime and become a campground for the residentially challenged.

The area around Church St is all that really requires a spiffy gathering spot .

https://bungalower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/UNDER-I.jpg

[orlandocity87]

4 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

More change underway for Under-I including a restoration of some parking:

https://bungalower.com/2022/10/24/ask-bungalower-is-city-hall-calling-it-quits-on-the-under-i-project/

From Bungalower 
 

Pitiful. 

[codypet]

I mean that's pretty much restoring the old parking lots except for a wide sidewalk at Church for the Arena and Stadium, Central for busses (which seems like a bad place to stop busses.) and Washington.  I mean compared to the old Under I vision, this is not a park anymore.  I mean not even a skatepark?  I understand not having a splashpad there, maybe not even soccer fields, but concrete based sports should have been fine.   Its even an inefficient layout for parking.  The old angle parking would have fewer aisles and would provide more spots.

Edited October 25, 2022 by codypet

[prahaboheme]

So the only thing that was guaranteed for downtown in the Ultimate I4 project has been shelved. Well done Orlando!

But hey, those fancy overpass art installations are pretty (sort of).

[AndyPok1]

I'm assuming this has to go to MPB or something where we can voice public opposition?  This is a travesty.

[Uncommon]

I never believed this project was ever happening anyway, and I still don't.

[spenser1058]

Little did we know that “Vision 2.0” really meant “back to the 1960’s”. This is Buddy’s Orlando!

Something else you might not have noticed. This wasn’t a broad release. The only way it went out was a question by one of Brendan’s readers. 

I think they were trying for another Tinker Field event on the downlow. 
 

[codypet]

The amount of damage control Brendan is doing for the City in that article is sickening too.  

"the City of Orlando is not shelving its plans to build a park under the I-4 interstate running the length of Hughey and Garland Avenues between West Washington Street and West Church Street, but they have recently shifted the original plans to include surface parking."

Then proceeds to show a rendering that has over 300 parking spaces over 3 city blocks practically dominating the site.   Brendan, you let them gaslight you into thinking that's including surface parking instead of it being primarily surface parking?

Remember back when Under I was envisioned, it was anticipated that the new garage Jefferson would provide the ability to walk through the park to the venues providing foot traffic to local businesses.  Thanks to these spots, now we don't have to do that anymore.

[JFW657]

Also in the Bungalower article:

Quote

Since the original closure of those surface parking lots, large landowners and businesses on Church Street have been privately lobbying the city to bring back the lots, citing dramatic reductions in visitors due to the lack of parking,

So, downtown businesses requested that the parking spaces be brought back in order to help bring visitors and customers back.

We here at UPO have complained a lot about the lack of downtown retail and etc., but when existing businesses cite a lack of parking as a reason for customers staying away, we complain that some proposed basketball and soccer courts will be sacrificed for parking spaces.  

Can't have it both ways. 

Personally, I'm not going to miss the sports courts.

As long as they create a clean, well lighted, pleasant and visually interesting atmosphere in and around the parking area with a few amenities the old parking area didn't have, I'm fine with the changes. 

[jack]

Retailers always complain about parking or visibility. No matter if they are in a suburban mall or a highly urbanized area. 

The sports courts were the best part of this deal. What a travesty. 

Edit. 

I should bring up that I bet the fear of crime is driving this change. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by jack

[codypet]

@JFW657 There is plenty of parking around the city.  The problem is noone wants to PAY for parking.  Is the Jefferson Garage ever full? No.  Is the Library Garage full?  No.  Is the County Admin Garage Full?  No.  Is the Central City garage full?   No.  Are the HUGE Garages at CIty Hall full?  No.  Is the Courthouse garage full? No.  Are all those garages full at the same time and along with all the private building garages (Old Suntrust, New Suntrust, Morgan and Morgan, Eola Park Center, Regions Bank, Plaza Theater, 55W to name a few)?  No.  If there was no parking, then the City wouldn't have just approved a building that didn't meet the parking minimums.  They did that because they're trying to encourage infrastructure other than driving (including Sunrail and biking). 

I know when I drive downtown I look for cheap/free parking too.  I always gripe when people are parked all along Rosalind and Jackson because there's "no" parking.  The reality is there is parking.   I don't believe that excuse that they were being asked by businesses to add parking.  I think is that the project as originally proposed must have been too lofty or perhaps not viable for some other reason.  I just don't like the gaslighting.  "This is the same Under I.  Its just reimagined as a surface parking lot with wide sidewalks.

 

[JFW657]

@codypet I'm not sure if cheap/free parking is what most people want as much as they want cheap & CONVENIENT parking.

I'm thinking maybe some people see parking in garages as not only more expensive than metered parking, but also as a pain the the rear.  

I think most people are possibly programmed to prefer whipping into a space, getting out of their car and hitting the sidewalk in a matter of moments.

Garages tend to involve (or are perceived to involve) driving in circles up one level after another after another, then riding an elevator, etc, etc.

Plus, given that so many people have to take I-4 just to get downtown, the idea of being able to exit onto Hughey or Garland and whip into that surface lot, might carry a lot of appeal to many who don't want to navigate around the side streets all the garage entrances and exits are on.

I don't know for sure if all those factors along with the expense is a turn off for most people or not, but it seems like it could well be.  

[codypet]

That's fair, and to your point I avoided Pointe Orlando for a long time for that very reason.  That said now you have a number of places on I-drive that have garages and people happily park there.  I mean you are downtown, expecting to park in a garage should come with the territory somewhat.  I will say surface lots don't make life any more convenient.  Ask anyone who's tried to park at UCF (where you have an option) or Florida Mall (all surface, but you have to park miles away from the door.)   A massive expanse of surface lots is not an effective use of space especially with parks in decently short supply.   Safety is another story altogether.  One could argue did you want to hang out in a park that was under a highway overpass especially when it's likely overrun with homeless people?  That would have been they City's responsibility to ensure was a safe pleasurable place to be.  IMO that was too much work for the City and the just decided to punt the ball.  Like I said.  I don't like the gaslighting.  If there was some other problem with the project, just say it. 

[popsiclebrandon]

The parking situation isn't why downtown is dying. Its the options downtown that are keeping people away.

 

This just sucks.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, codypet said:

That's fair, and to your point I avoided Pointe Orlando for a long time for that very reason.  That said now you have a number of places on I-drive that have garages and people happily park there.  I mean you are downtown, expecting to park in a garage should come with the territory somewhat.  I will say surface lots don't make life any more convenient.  Ask anyone who's tried to park at UCF (where you have an option) or Florida Mall (all surface, but you have to park miles away from the door.)   A massive expanse of surface lots is not an effective use of space especially with parks in decently short supply.   Safety is another story altogether.  One could argue did you want to hang out in a park that was under a highway overpass especially when it's likely overrun with homeless people?  That would have been they City's responsibility to ensure was a safe pleasurable place to be.  IMO that was too much work for the City and the just decided to punt the ball.  Like I said.  I don't like the gaslighting.  If there was some other problem with the project, just say it. 

Most things come down to money.

Maybe the cost projections become too high because of COVID related issues.

Or there could be a possible liability factor associated with people playing sports in a high traffic area. 

Maybe there were further studies done which suggest that public interest in the sports courts is not what they originally assumed.

Or.... it's possible that they are telling the truth about local businesses requesting the return of the spaces.

Whatever the reason, I understand why some are disappointed but IMO it was never that great of a proposal to begin with.

I'd have rather seen some kind of dining & retail thing go in there. 

Like a box park.