Cambria Hotel and Suites | 8-Story 155-Room Hotel [Approved]

[prahaboheme]

Streets like Rosalind were switched to one way racetracks at a time when cities were prioritizing cars over pedestrians. This doomsday scenario that it’ll be a traffic nightmare if turned back into a two way street is misguided. In fact, a southbound lane on Rosalind would likely take cars off Orange by making downtown easier and more accessible. Rosalind is typically not backed up outside a few hours each day; if anything it’s a racetrack for people who want to speed through downtown rather than patron the area.

JFW - I never said it’s a one size fits all — fits here thoug.

[JFW657]

7 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

College Park was going to be doomed when Edgewater Drive went on a road diet. Doomed, I tell you! Well, no. It was narrowed, bike lanes were added and College Park is more successful than ever.

As City Beautiful points out below, no one knows what will work and won’t work. For every Lincoln Road in Miami Beach that succeeds beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, there is a Franklin St. Mall in Tampa that was a bust.

Some cities work, some don’t. Orlando’s efforts downtown have mostly worked. We know that streets like Central Blvd encourage pedestrians and the retail that has popped up has been mostly successful. We also know the “racetrack” streets like Rosalind, South and Robinson have not.

We also can see hybrids that give us an idea of how it will play out. Orange Avenue thrived when it was narrowed between Jefferson St. and South St.

We know the stretch north of there from Robinson to Lake Ivanhoe still attracts precious few pedestrians and attempts at retail so far haven’t worked.

Meanwhile, despite adding park space, fountains, etc. with Mayor Bill’s Southern Gateway is devoid of human life.

A walk into the Publix on pedestrian-friendly Central Blvd. vs  Earth Fare at the corner of autocentric Orange and Gore confirms that, in this part of Orlando, walkability is a plus and no one walks where there is more room for cars than people.

No, as we saw with the badly planned Curry Ford experiment, it won’t work everywhere. It has been shown to work in downtowns like Orlando, Winter Park and Winter Garden. Expanding those areas give us potential to expand rather just ignoring 1950’s designs that no longer match their neighborhoods.

https://youtu.be/hbhuGkSQvK0

BTW, for most of its history Rosalind was a two-way street. Its  conversion had nothing to do with some sort of “improvement” for that street. Mayor Bill simply did it because of closing off the existing northbound pair segment for FL 527, Magnolia Ave, in order to add OSCAR/Lymmo. 

There are car people and walk/bike people. Some in both camps believe it’s a religious calling (just ride a bicycle in a carcentric neighborhood and you’ll discover that fact quickly). 90% or more of Central Florida is devoted to the automobile. Surely 10% or so can let people come before machines.

College Park is not downtown Orlando and Edgewater Drive is not Orange/Rosalind/Magnolia/Orange Ave. 

Keep in mind that Orange Ave starts way down south of Orlando at Osceola Parkway and travels several miles through Taft, Pine Castle, Edgewood, and Holden Heights before it even gets to Sodo, then continues north until it splits off into Rosalind. Therefore it carries a lot of northbound traffic. Consider also that after crossing Colonial as Magnolia, it connects to an I-4 on ramp one way and continues as Orange up past Florida Hospital the other way, which generates even more traffic.

What would the proposal be to compensate for the reduced capacity of Rosalind and resultant gridlock? Tell people to just leave their homes earlier? Tell everyone to ditch their cars and ride bicycles everywhere they go? 

7 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Streets like Rosalind were switched to one way racetracks at a time when cities were prioritizing cars over pedestrians. This doomsday scenario that it’ll be a traffic nightmare if turned back into a two way street is misguided. In fact, a southbound lane on Rosalind would likely take cars off Orange by making downtown easier and more accessible. Rosalind is typically not backed up outside a few hours each day; if anything it’s a racetrack for people who want to speed through downtown rather than patron the area.

JFW - I never said it’s a one size fits all — fits here thoug.

No you didn't, but it seems to be implied.  As in... If it works in this town and that town and these other towns on certain particular streets, then logic must dictate that it will work in Orlando on any street we choose, in this case, Rosalind.

But it's not that way.

And yes, it's mostly busy during the rush hour(s), but there are two of those every weekday they need to be considered. If it's backed up for a few hours a day now, cutting the flow capacity will make it backed up for several hours each day.

I get the idea that there is a contingent of people around nowadays, who see cars and driving as some kind of problem that needs to be eliminated.  Like drivers should be pushed to the side. Treated as second class citizens or pariahs and told to go somewhere else and stop ruining things. 

But drivers are still in the majority around here and we vote, so politicians are going to be keeping our concerns in mind.

[prahaboheme]

3 hours ago, JFW657 said:

College Park is not downtown Orlando and Edgewater Drive is not Orange/Rosalind/Magnolia/Orange Ave. 

Keep in mind that Orange Ave starts way down south of Orlando at Osceola Parkway and travels several miles through Taft, Pine Castle, Edgewood, and Holden Heights before it even gets to Sodo, then continues north until it splits off into Rosalind. Therefore it carries a lot of northbound traffic. Consider also that after crossing Colonial as Magnolia, it connects to an I-4 on ramp one way and continues as Orange up past Florida Hospital the other way, which generates even more traffic.

What would the proposal be to compensate for the reduced capacity of Rosalind and resultant gridlock? Tell people to just leave their homes earlier? Tell everyone to ditch their cars and ride bicycles everywhere they go? 

No you didn't, but it seems to be implied.  As in... If it works in this town and that town and these other towns on certain particular streets, then logic must dictate that it will work in Orlando on any street we choose, in this case, Rosalind.

But it's not that way.

And yes, it's mostly busy during the rush hour(s), but there are two of those every weekday they need to be considered. If it's backed up for a few hours a day now, cutting the flow capacity will make it backed up for several hours each day.

I get the idea that there is a contingent of people around nowadays, who see cars and driving as some kind of problem that needs to be eliminated.  Like drivers should be pushed to the side. Treated as second class citizens or pariahs and told to go somewhere else and stop ruining things. 

But drivers are still in the majority around here and we vote, so politicians are going to be keeping our concerns in mind.

It was not implied - you inferred your own bias. I never said a “one size fits all” for everywhere. I said it fits for Rosalind — and nothing you’ve stated changes my view.

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

It was not implied - you inferred your own bias. I never said a “one size fits all” for everywhere. I said it fits for Rosalind — and nothing you’ve stated changes my view.

No inference or bias.

Your words:

"See:

Newbury Street - Boston

King Street - Charleston 

Melrose Ave - LA

or for somewhere more local, Park Ave"

**************************

"Cities the world over are putting the emphasis in pedestrian zones back where it belongs.  Orlando doesn’t need to be the exception and reducing lanes to make the area more humanizing hardly seems like a sacrifice."

**************************

Translation: Those other cities are doing it successfully, so if we do it with Rosalind Ave., it will be successful too

The very definition of a "one-size-fits-all" approach, IMO.

[prahaboheme]

4 hours ago, JFW657 said:

No inference or bias.

Your words:

"See:

Newbury Street - Boston

King Street - Charleston 

Melrose Ave - LA

or for somewhere more local, Park Ave"

**************************

"Cities the world over are putting the emphasis in pedestrian zones back where it belongs.  Orlando doesn’t need to be the exception and reducing lanes to make the area more humanizing hardly seems like a sacrifice."

**************************

Translation: Those other cities are doing it successfully, so if we do it with Rosalind Ave., it will be successful too

The very definition of a "one-size-fits-all" approach, IMO.

Using examples of how road diets make roads more successful is not a “one size fits all” approach. If I had said that we should reduce Colonial so that pedestrians are prioritized over cars than maybe you would have a point. However, I didn’t. 

You can think whatever you want though and continue to use Rosalind as a highway because public consensus is likely on your side in Orlando.

[spenser1058]

48 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

Using examples of how road diets make roads more successful is not a “one size fits all” approach. If I had said that we should reduce Colonial so that pedestrians are prioritized over cars than maybe you would have a point. However, I didn’t. 

You can think whatever you want though and continue to use Rosalind as a highway because public consensus is likely on your side in Orlando.

We don’t want change, dadgumit!

[nite owℓ]

On 11/22/2019 at 11:40 AM, IAmFloridaBorn said:

Is this what is fenced off?

Yes, that would be the Cambria Suites site. The property has been used for parking ever since the original structure was demolished during the last RE boom. Then  recently in May, the site was cleared of all overgrown vegetation & trees and the lot is no longer used for parking. Jernigan mentioned an ARB pre-screen was approved this month so hopefully something is in the works behind the scenes -- despite it's glacial historical pace.

[JFW657]

59 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

Using examples of how road diets make roads more successful is not a “one size fits all” approach. If I had said that we should reduce Colonial so that pedestrians are prioritized over cars than maybe you would have a point. However, I didn’t. 

You can think whatever you want though and continue to use Rosalind as a highway because public consensus is likely on your side in Orlando.

Please understand that I respect the rights of others to have differing opinions in any matter,  it just seems to me that the inference was that, if it works in other places, it will work on Rosalind. I believe it would create more problems than it would solve.

Right now, other than going in and out of Eola Park or the residential buildings etc, I really don't see anything that would attract pedestrians there anyway, no matter what the traffic situation may be. 

[JFW657]

20 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

We don’t want change, dadgumit!

I would amend that statement to say "We don't want change just for the sake of change, dadgumit!"

Change is fine as long as it has a net benefit.

(Like demolishing the old Woolworth and McCrory block to put up The Plaza.... ) 

Sorry, but I cannot see how increasing traffic congestion in downtown without a viable alternative route could possibly be of any benefit. 

[spenser1058]

Back in 2008 when the Eola Publix first opened there was a steady stream of nattering nabobs of negativism (Dale, I’m quoting Republicans, aren’t you proud?) who pronounced a grocery store downtown would never work. We feared they might have a point. That first year there were often more of the folks in green than there were customers.

Fast forward to today and I just got back (Michael Angelo’s shrimp scampi  is on sale for $3 off - it only happens once in a blue moon so you have to stock up). 

Six lanes plus customer service were backed up with customers. When it comes to downtown retail, Kevin Costner has it right: “if you build it, we will come”.

Needless to say, one does have to have a product the downtown demographic needs. Downtown is not Millenia or even Park Ave. Address the customer, though ,and you can thrive.

Edited November 23, 2019 by spenser1058

[prahaboheme]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I would amend that statement to say "We don't want change just for the sake of change, dadgumit!"

Change is fine as long as it has a net benefit.

(Like demolishing the old Woolworth and McCrory block to put up The Plaza.... ) 

Sorry, but I cannot see how increasing traffic congestion in downtown without a viable alternative route could possibly be of any benefit. 

Is Garland or I-4 not already viable alternatives to racing away from downtown?  Rosalind was turned into a one-way street at a time when cities were focusing on getting folks away from downtowns rather than getting them to it.  It never really has recovered as you've already suggested.  That can be fixed -- if the will is there.

[prahaboheme]

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Back in 2008 when the Eola Publix first opened there was a steady stream of nattering nabobs of negativism (Dale, I’m quoting Republicans, aren’t you proud?) who pronounced a grocery store downtown would never work. We feared they might have a point. That first year there were often more of the folks in green than there were customers.

Fast forward to today and I just got back (Michael Angelo’s shrimp scampi  is on sale for $3 off - it only happens once in a blue moon so you have to stock up). 

Six lanes plus customer service were backed up with customers. When it comes to downtown retail, Kevin Costner has it right: “if you build it, we will come”.

Needless to say, one does have to have a product the downtown demographic needs. Downtown is not Millenia or even Park Ave. Address the customer, though ,and you can thrive.

An article I've read previously that supports this concept:  http://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2012/two-way-street-networks-efficient-previously-thought/

 

[JFW657]

4 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Is Garland or I-4 not already viable alternatives to racing away from downtown? 

I don't think so. In order to get to Garland from Orange heading north, you have to turn left on already jam-packed South Street. That involves sitting at three traffic lights before turning onto Garland, probably waiting through multiple light changes.

Heading south, on Hughey, you'd have to do basically the same in reverse, using Anderson to get back to Orange, again sitting through several changes at each light.

Also, wouldn't turning those two streets into high(er) traffic thoroughfares negatively affect the pedestrians trying to access the new Under I-4 park not to mention MEC? 

You'd just be trading one wide, high traffic roadway next to a recreational area for another, while making one two or three times worse.

4 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Rosalind was turned into a one-way street at a time when cities were focusing on getting folks away from downtowns rather than getting them to it.  It never really has recovered as you've already suggested.  That can be fixed -- if the will is there.

I actually remember when they did that. It was some time around the middle of the 1980's, and we were already seeing the beginnings of a resurgence of interest in attracting people back to downtown. That was right around the time they completely refurbished Eola Park then built the current bandshell. The County Admin building went up around then, too. Three new high rises had just gone up a couple of years prior and The Copper Whopper was under construction as was BOA with plans on the board for a high rise hotel on the Golden Sparrow site. I think the two high rises on the north end near the Chamber of Commerce got built right around then as well as what was at the time an Omni Hotel that is built onto the former Expo Center. The two blue glass "mirror image" midrises across Robinson from Eola Park went up back then, too

Lots and lotsa stuff was happening downtown around that time. 

6 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Back in 2008 when the Eola Publix first opened there was a steady stream of nattering nabobs of negativism (Dale, I’m quoting Republicans, aren’t you proud?) who pronounced a grocery store downtown would never work. We feared they might have a point. That first year there were often more of the folks in green than there were customers.

Fast forward to today and I just got back (Michael Angelo’s shrimp scampi  is on sale for $3 off - it only happens once in a blue moon so you have to stock up). 

Six lanes plus customer service were backed up with customers. When it comes to downtown retail, Kevin Costner has it right: “if you build it, we will come”.

Needless to say, one does have to have a product the downtown demographic needs. Downtown is not Millenia or even Park Ave. Address the customer, though ,and you can thrive.

So, here we are again, back to one-size-fits-all.

Anecdotal evidence that says because A worked out well, B will too, even though A is totally irrelevant to B.

Sorry, not seeing it.

Interesting and lively topic, though. 

.

Edited November 24, 2019 by JFW657

[prahaboheme]

On 11/23/2019 at 6:19 PM, JFW657 said:

I don't think so. In order to get to Garland from Orange heading north, you have to turn left on already jam-packed South Street. That involves sitting at three traffic lights before turning onto Garland, probably waiting through multiple light changes.

Heading south, on Hughey, you'd have to do basically the same in reverse, using Anderson to get back to Orange, again sitting through several changes at each light.

Also, wouldn't turning those two streets into high(er) traffic thoroughfares negatively affect the pedestrians trying to access the new Under I-4 park not to mention MEC? 

You'd just be trading one wide, high traffic roadway next to a recreational area for another, while making one two or three times worse.

I actually remember when they did that. It was some time around the middle of the 1980's, and we were already seeing the beginnings of a resurgence of interest in attracting people back to downtown. That was right around the time they completely refurbished Eola Park then built the current bandshell. The County Admin building went up around then, too. Three new high rises had just gone up a couple of years prior and The Copper Whopper was under construction as was BOA with plans on the board for a high rise hotel on the Golden Sparrow site. I think the two high rises on the north end near the Chamber of Commerce got built right around then as well as what was at the time an Omni Hotel that is built onto the former Expo Center. The two blue glass "mirror image" midrises across Robinson from Eola Park went up back then, too

Lots and lotsa stuff was happening downtown around that time. 

So, here we are again, back to one-size-fits-all.

Anecdotal evidence that says because A worked out well, B will too, even though A is totally irrelevant to B.

Sorry, not seeing it.

Interesting and lively topic, though. 

.

To be basic- nobody is on the “one size fits all train” aside from you.

[JFW657]

7 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

To be basic- nobody is on the “one size fits all train” aside from you.

Some are on sailboats, floating down "de Nile". 

[spenser1058]

And some are convinced the 1950’s model is forever. Long live Leave It To Beaver!

[JFW657]

3 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

And some are convinced the 1950’s model is forever. Long live Leave It To Beaver!

Yes, that's true. Some are.

And they want to do things like force developers to incorporate dilapidated 1950's storefronts into modern high-rises.

Meanwhile others accept reality.  

[spenser1058]

27 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Yes, that's true. Some are.

And they want to do things like force developers to incorporate dilapidated 1950's storefronts into modern high-rises.

Meanwhile others accept reality.  

Actually, they didn’t do that in the ‘50’s. Instead they stuck metal facades on old brick buildings. It was called “eisenhowering”,appropriate of the decade. 

Dickson & Ives (2 S. Orange) went the furthest with it. In the ‘80’s, when they took down the cladding and people saw the terra cotta tiles that had been hidden for thirty years, everyone was aghast they had been covered up. But they were trying to be “modern”.

Edited November 25, 2019 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

45 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Actually, they didn’t do that in the ‘50’s. Instead they stuck metal facades on old brick buildings. It was called “eisenhowering”,appropriate of the decade. 

Dickson & Ives (2 S. Orange) went the furthest with it. In the ‘80’s, when they took down the cladding and people saw the terra cotta tiles that had been hidden for thirty years, everyone was aghast they had been covered up. But they were trying to be “modern”.

Did it impede the traffic flow on Orange Ave?

And speaking of oranges...

[spenser1058]

What did impede traffic flow was shutting off access to Delaney. That forces more SoDo traffic southbound over to Orange Avenue. It also forces northbound traffic on Delaney onto Summerlin.

And don’t even get me started on the E-W Expressway shutting down the grid in Parramore and between Delaney/Cherokee and South Eola. Traffic planning from the ‘50’s to the ‘90’s with its emphasis on creating racetracks for autos was simply insane. Not to mention the neighborhoods destroyed around the country in the process.

It would take billions of dollars with the Big Dig and removing freeway disasters in places like Seattle and San Francisco to mitigate the carnage.

Thankfully, the good folks of Memphis Just.Said.NO when TNDOT tried to run I40 through Overton Park near downtown. More of us should have done the same. But we were told it was inevitable. It never was.

Edited November 25, 2019 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

24 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

What did impede traffic flow was shutting off access to Delaney. That forces more SoDo traffic southbound over to Orange Avenue. It also forces northbound traffic on Delaney onto Summerlin.

And don’t even get me started on the E-W Expressway shutting down the grid in Parramore and between Delaney/Cherokee and South Eola. Traffic planning from the ‘50’s to the ‘90’s with its emphasis on creating racetracks for autos was simply insane. Not to mention the neighborhoods destroyed around the country in the process.

It would take billions of dollars with the Big Dig and removing freeway disasters in places like Seattle and San Francisco to mitigate the carnage.

Thankfully, the good folks of Memphis Just.Said.NO when TNDOT tried to run I40 through Overton Park near downtown. More of us should have done the same. But we were told it was inevitable. It never was.

So, are you saying it would be preferable for quiet, peaceful, residential Delaney Avenue to have become a major thoroughfare as an Orange Avenue alternate? And can't northbound Delaney traffic use S. Lucerne Circle to pop over to northbound Orange?

All these utopian ideas about traffic-free cities where expressways never cut through neighborhoods are nice to think about, but what would you have proposed as an alternative?

I understand and laud certain efforts to save certain historic neighborhoods  from destruction from highways that aren't absolutely, 100% necessary, but I-4 and the East-West were vital to a fast growing Orlando's future.

We wouldn't be here on an Orlando section of an urban development forum talking about it right now if those highways had never been built, because Orlando would still be Lakeland.

[gibby]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

All these utopian ideas about traffic-free cities where expressways never cut through neighborhoods are nice to think about, but what would you have proposed as an alternative?

There are a thousand ways that the E-W expressway could have been planned better in the downtown area.  Most importantly, no care was given to how it would divide neighborhoods and rearrange traffic patterns.  This isn't a controversial view.  It should have been bridged from Mills to OBT on day one.  The expressway was necessary and it also was necessary to cut through the neighborhoods it cut through.

 

Anyway, the Cambria architect submitted revised plans to the City on 11/11 and they've already received another huge round of comments.  Looks like they are trying to value engineer this into something pretty nasty.

[JFW657]

29 minutes ago, gibby said:

There are a thousand ways that the E-W expressway could have been planned better in the downtown area.  Most importantly, no care was given to how it would divide neighborhoods and rearrange traffic patterns.  This isn't a controversial view.  It should have been bridged from Mills to OBT on day one.  The expressway was necessary and it also was necessary to cut through the neighborhoods it cut through.

 

Anyway, the Cambria architect submitted revised plans to the City on 11/11 and they've already received another huge round of comments.  Looks like they are trying to value engineer this into something pretty nasty.

A "thousand ways", each with their own set of issues and imperfections to be second guessed decades later by those who, though they weren't even around back then, are convinced they know better than the people who were actually involved.

And the fact that bridging it from Mills to OBT would have increased the cost of construction well beyond what was budgeted for it should have been, what?

Just ignored?

[gibby]

Correct.  Those highway design decisions should be second guessed.

No, they should have taken the increased costs into account when they made their planning decisions.

[IAmFloridaBorn]

Can someone tell me what the rundown Motel looking property across the street from this property is?