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

[nite owℓ]

I wonder if Cambria Suites is aware that the Greek Orthodox Church hosts mass outdoor feedings on a regular basis? I'm not talking about a few dozen homeless people either, the event draws hundreds of homeless people into the parking lot behind the church and surrounding area. I'm sure that's going to become a point of contention when the hotel gets built -- upscale brand or not.

[prahaboheme]

The streamline modernism that was present in the original renderings has been completely scrapped.  That's a shame become the art deco elements was actually what I liked most about the project.  I say DONT build it.

[JFW657]

Whatever the reason was that they changed it, other than purely financial, is unfathomable to me.

It would have been one of the most unique looking buildings in downtown.

Maybe they were afraid they might be accused of trying to copy The Waverly. 

 

.

Edited December 11, 2019 by JFW657

[TRENCH]

a redesign thats worse?

[Jernigan]

We have someone here that’s on the ARB, right?

id assume they have the right to at least ask why?

[AmIReal]

18 minutes ago, Jernigan said:

We have someone here that’s on the ARB, right?

id assume they have the right to at least ask why?

If it meets the requirements it is pretty hard to deny it. "Pretty", "curvy" and "interesting" are not written into the requirements.

[Jernigan]

2 minutes ago, AmIReal said:

If it meets the requirements it is pretty hard to deny it. "Pretty", "curvy" and "interesting" are not written into the requirements.

True I just meant to find out for curiosity’s sake.  The developer could reply “because we wanted to”  but who knows.  Maybe we’d all learn something 

[JFW657]

5 minutes ago, Jernigan said:

True I just meant to find out for curiosity’s sake.  The developer could reply “because we wanted to”  but who knows.  Maybe we’d all learn something 

I'm guessing money.

It likely cost a fair amount more to form those curves than to just slap  up a straight wall.

The "pretty colors" were probably just tacked on as a cheap way to make it look less like a stripped down, boring shoe box.

[codypet]

1 hour ago, Jernigan said:

We have someone here that’s on the ARB, right?

id assume they have the right to at least ask why?

No, I tried to get on, but everytime I followed up with the city they kept telling me they were putting it off another month.  It started feeling like a futile effort.  They never got back to me, and after the baby was born, I just stopped following up.

[prahaboheme]

1 hour ago, AmIReal said:

If it meets the requirements it is pretty hard to deny it. "Pretty", "curvy" and "interesting" are not written into the requirements.

Is this this really true though? Plenty of cities deny developments due to appearance.

[AmIReal]

10 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Is this this really true though? Plenty of cities deny developments due to appearance.

I don't think a denial on appearance would legally stand up as it could be argued as arbitrary and capricious. OTOH, appearance "not fitting with surrounding area" or "not fitting with municipalities stated standards or guidelines" would stand. 

Bottom line, the City wants this lot developed.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, AmIReal said:

I don't think a denial on appearance would legally stand up as it could be argued as arbitrary and capricious. OTOH, appearance "not fitting with surrounding area" or "not fitting with municipalities stated standards or guidelines" would stand. 

Bottom line, the City wants this lot developed.

Plus, I think control over appearance has more to do with colors, finish materials and street level elements than structural and basic design elements of the building overall.

I had said earlier maybe it was a cost related decision to remove the wavy balconies. Now I'm thinking maybe there were also some engineering issues included in that.

Given the way those balconies cantilevered with no support, it's possible that maybe they'd have been required to be poured thicker, with more concrete and reinforcement etc, which might have carried over into the entire floors, which in turn might have had a unacceptable effect on construction cost.

And there could possibly have been a safety and liability insurance cost issue for the owners, in covering the possibility of a future failure and collapse.

[prahaboheme]

47 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Plus, I think control over appearance has more to do with colors, finish materials and street level elements than structural and basic design elements of the building overall.

I had said earlier maybe it was a cost related decision to remove the wavy balconies. Now I'm thinking maybe there were also some engineering issues included in that.

Given the way those balconies cantilevered with no support, it's possible that maybe they'd have been required to be poured thicker, with more concrete and reinforcement etc, which might have carried over into the entire floors, which in turn might have had a unacceptable effect on construction cost.

And there could possibly have been a safety and liability insurance cost issue for the owners, in covering the possibility of a future failure and collapse.

Ok you just jumped off a cliff to support mediocrity in Orlando. It’s perfectly fine for people to dislike this development because it’s now FUGLY.

[jrs2]

On 12/10/2019 at 4:02 PM, jliv said:

 

It’s not Orlando, it’s the banks providing the loans. Cambria isn’t known for being an upscale hotel bland. If it was a Kimpton, the architecture would reflect a different set of aspirations (and price points).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No.. you are partially correct on that...it's really a combination of the two.  Banks just don't want to give the money for a nice development in Orlando... unless it's a bank in the 1980's, or, a performing arts center where the money comes from taxes and private contributions.  I've seen buildings built in other cities that are smaller markets and they are nicer projects than you see in Orlando.  It kind of exposes an artificial inflation of real estate prices this place has done over the past 15-20 years to try to make it something that it's not.  If it really had meaningful history and a lot of old money, that would translate to current designs and lending attitudes.  Maybe the bust set Orlando back from a place that it almost made it to in it's design and development evolution.  Just look at all of the cheap projects being built as proof.  Anyway...

[ChiDev]

2 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Ok you just jumped off a cliff to support mediocrity in Orlando. It’s perfectly fine for people to dislike this development because it’s now FUGLY.

How did he "jump off a cliff"?  - People on here take logical discussion quickly to NIMBY outrage.

You want those wavy balconies back so badly?  Push legislation that would give ARB the ability to deliver tax abatements (or impact fee abatement - say the Parks fee) for "exceptional design".  That way, if push came to shove, they could reach some middle-ground with the developer to keep items they want.  I'm not saying they should make it cost negligible, but a 50-50 between dev and city wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Ok you just jumped off a cliff to support mediocrity in Orlando. It’s perfectly fine for people to dislike this development because it’s now FUGLY.

That's a rather extreme description of my proposed explanation, but if it helps you come to terms with things, then OK, I guess.

I don't think the new design is ugly so much as it is just pedestrian.

[AmIReal]

3 hours ago, jrs2 said:

No.. you are partially correct on that...it's really a combination of the two.  Banks just don't want to give the money for a nice development in Orlando... unless it's a bank in the 1980's, or, a performing arts center where the money comes from taxes and private contributions.  I've seen buildings built in other cities that are smaller markets and they are nicer projects than you see in Orlando.  It kind of exposes an artificial inflation of real estate prices this place has done over the past 15-20 years to try to make it something that it's not.  If it really had meaningful history and a lot of old money, that would translate to current designs and lending attitudes.  Maybe the bust set Orlando back from a place that it almost made it to in it's design and development evolution.  Just look at all of the cheap projects being built as proof.  Anyway...

I get your point, just not sure it is as all around applicable as you imply. Orlando does get some "nice development". Even though many people don't like CSP1 I think we can all agree it is not a run of the mill project. Same goes for Broadstone, which I think is going to be pretty striking and several of the residential buildings from last decade are "nice developments". Many proposed projects- CSP2, MEC, DXV, Golden Sparrow will hopefully up the level.

As JFW said

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

I don't think the new design is ugly so much as it is just pedestrian.

and I'd agree with that. But it is just a low/mid level hotel and is being funded as such. The size and amount of construction going on around here makes me think Orlando does not have difficulty attracting money for development. How that money is spent is more about who is building and what they are building. Blocks upon blocks of apartments (which we have lots of) are not generally going to get money poured into them like an office tower or 5-star hotel would.

[nite owℓ]

IMO, Broadstone Lakehouse at Ivanhoe looks way better and it's prefab construction, right? Not saying we need to plop another Broadstone here, but even prefab construction outshines Cambria's latest iteration lol.

[JFW657]

6 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

IMO, Broadstone Lakehouse at Ivanhoe looks way better and it's prefab construction, right? Not saying we need to plop another Broadstone here, but even prefab construction outshines Cambria's latest iteration lol.

Seems like even without the Miami style wavy wall, they could've incorporated some art deco elements into that east facing facade.

[orlandouprise]

8 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Seems like even without the Miami style wavy wall, they could've incorporated some art deco elements into that east facing facade.

I like the new brick portion.  At least bring back the glass box for the elevator enclosure. Kinda cool going up and seeing Eola park

[gibby]

Construction plans have been formally resubmitted to the City.  Apparently, they got their ARB approval for the updated design.  They could be approved in a couple of weeks unless they have further denials.  I'm guessing that they could start construction in maybe February.

[jack]

More likely March or April if they just submitted. 

[spenser1058]

Since occupancy levels downtown rise so slowly, I still wonder if intown hoteliers are in for a world of hurt if the Church St, TraveLodge and Cambria properties all manage to open.

I guess we’re gonna find out.

[codypet]

Well the hotel next to 7-11 on Magnolia just renovated extensively to keep up with the Joneses.  Residence Inn is still new as is Aloft,  Marriott just renovated like 3 years back.  Soooo now that leaves Crown Plaza (old Holiday Inn which renovated about 10 yrs ago) and Double Tree and Embassy Suites to update.  The Boheme is on another level so they got that locked.

Edited December 30, 2019 by codypet

[nite owℓ]

5 hours ago, gibby said:

Construction plans have been formally resubmitted to the City.  Apparently, they got their ARB approval for the updated design.  They could be approved in a couple of weeks unless they have further denials.  I'm guessing that they could start construction in maybe February.

 

I saw this sign posted on the fence a few weeks ago, but forgot to inquire if anyone has seen the agenda for the meeting on Dec 19th?