Vertical Medical City | 40-Story Medical High Rise [Proposed]

[HankStrong]

I just want better transportation and few tall buildings.  I don't want something as big as Chicago or NYC or even as small what that new attorney apparently thinks is the worst city in the country, Grand Rapids.

I want a mid-major conference (if you aren't a college sports fan... this is a term for a NCAA school that is still a bigger Division I school, but not in one of the Big 5 conferences that sort of dominate all the attention) type of city with trains that actually take you places and a streetcar downtown.  I want kids to come to college here, but want to stay to raise their families.  I want it to be a big enough town that concerts, festivals, and events come, but not so big that there is no where but an urban parking lot to do it in.  I want respected hospitals and medical options.

I want a walkable city where it's still just fine to drive if you feel like getting behind the wheel.  REASONABLE.  MODERATE.  HEALTHY.

Edited February 9, 2018 by HankStrong

[JFW657]

Bigger ≠ better.

[codypet]

58 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

I just want better transportation and few tall buildings.  I don't want something as big as Chicago or NYC or even as small what that new attorney apparently thinks is the worst city in the country, Grand Rapids.

I want a mid-major conference (if you aren't a college sports fan... this is a term for a NCAA school that is still a bigger Division I school, but not in one of the Big 5 conferences that sort of dominate all the attention) type of city with trains that actually take you places and a streetcar downtown.  I want kids to come to college here, but want to stay to raise their families.  I want it to be a big enough town that concerts, festivals, and events come, but not so big that there is no where but an urban parking lot to do it in.  I want respected hospitals and medical options.

I want a walkable city where it's still just fine to drive if you feel like getting behind the wheel.  REASONABLE.  MODERATE.  HEALTHY.

Soooooo UCF?

Seriously it sounds like you're describing Raleigh or Charlotte, but Orlando's downtown core I feel kinda smokes those other two cities.  I think they have a leg up on us on the public transport side, and on the ability of attracting companies, but for some reason I think that has more to do with climate than anything.  Anyone who deals with this place in the dead of summer knows what I'm talking about.  IMO those NC cities are far more bearable in that regard.....Actual seasons.

Edited February 9, 2018 by codypet

[AndyPok1]

So much going on here... yeah, I'd love to become NYC.  I want to live in NYC, but my job is here and I significantly prefer the weather.  NYC is the only place I'd leave Orlando for.

With that said, I'm not under any delusion that we can do that.  But can we become the best 3rd-tier ish city?  Absolutely.

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Who in their right mind would even WANT to turn idyllic Orlando into anything remotely close to another Chicago or New York to begin with??? 

The very notion of it is insane. 

No offense intended, but to all the bolded text passages above, my response is a hearty BS!!!

All we "need", or in the case of most of us (I think anyway) want, is for a couple of new downtown buildings to break the 40 story barrier.

As for the rest of that hard charging, gung-ho business, I hope your "vision" for Orlando never comes anywhere close to happening. Orlando can remain a wonderful place to live, work and play without turning into a giant megalopolis and destroying the fragile natural environment that surrounds us, with the urban sprawl that would inevitably accompany it.

We've already got Miami for that.

Sorry if this sounded a bit on the contentious side, but just the thought of my town turning into what you suggest that it should, kinda gets my hackles up. 

I think you misunderstood my post.

I never said Orlando should turn into Chicago or New York.

Orlando has already sinned ala urban sprawl; that debate raged on even back in the early ‘90’s, and it’s been 27 years of sprawl since then.  If Orlando was more urban centric, that sprawl would have been more limited.  My point on building height was just that; look at Spencer’s response to my comments and my clarifications to Spenser’s comments in the post you highlighted.  I never said Orlando should become like Chicago.  Spenser mentioned Orlando as one of the fastest growing metros compared to Chicago- but that growth is sprawl growth and nothing to be proud of ala the environment.  Chicago lured Boeing to downtown.  Orlando did well with KPM&G.to Lake Nona.  Adventist Health is building in Altamonte, not downtown.  Darden is in the ‘burbs too.

NY building height was the other clarification.  All this because I said they should have Chicagoans and New Yorkers planning downtown growth.  Well, you ain’t gonna get tall buildings with small town minded folks making the decisions.  Hence my posts.  I got news for you, Orlando needs way more than a couple of 40 story buildings downtown with all of the vacant lots in the CBD.  

So you don’t want Orlando to aim high?  Well I do, and that’s not a BS notion.  Neither is the fact that Chicago has expanded it’s downtown by a factor of 3 downtown Orlandos over the recent years.  Neither is the notion that Orlando should expand with much more than the current projects.  We’re you against the KPM&G deal?  The USTA?  Amazon Fullfillment Center?  Lake Nona Resort?  OIA’s expansion?  The amount of our convention business?  Well, I’m not, and I think we need way more of these deals and projects.

It’s not a BS notion to want or expect more than breadcrumbs either.  How can you have good mass transit and other “big city” amenities by ignoring what places like Chicago and NYC are doing?  That just doesn’t make sense.

[JFW657]

25 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

I think you misunderstood my post.

I never said Orlando should turn into Chicago or New York.

Orlando has already sinned ala urban sprawl; that debate raged on even back in the early ‘90’s, and it’s been 27 years of sprawl since then.  If Orlando was more urban centric, that sprawl would have been more limited.  My point on building height was just that; look at Spencer’s response to my comments and my clarifications to Spenser’s comments in the post you highlighted.  I never said Orlando should become like Chicago.  Spenser mentioned Orlando as one of the fastest growing metros compared to Chicago- but that growth is sprawl growth and nothing to be proud of ala the environment.  Chicago lured Boeing to downtown.  Orlando did well with KPM&G.to Lake Nona.  Adventist Health is building in Altamonte, not downtown.  Darden is in the ‘burbs too.

NY building height was the other clarification.  All this because I said they should have Chicagoans and New Yorkers planning downtown growth.  Well, you ain’t gonna get tall buildings with small town minded folks making the decisions.  Hence my posts.  I got news for you, Orlando needs way more than a couple of 40 story buildings downtown with all of the vacant lots in the CBD.  

So you don’t want Orlando to aim high?  Well I do, and that’s not a BS notion.  Neither is the fact that Chicago has expanded it’s downtown by a factor of 3 downtown Orlandos over the recent years.  Neither is the notion that Orlando should expand with much more than the current projects.  We’re you against the KPM&G deal?  The USTA?  Amazon Fullfillment Center?  Lake Nona Resort?  OIA’s expansion?  The amount of our convention business?  Well, I’m not, and I think we need way more of these deals and projects.

It’s not a BS notion to want or expect more than breadcrumbs either.  How can you have good mass transit and other “big city” amenities by ignoring what places like Chicago and NYC are doing?  That just doesn’t make sense.

All that high rise construction, at the level you suggest, would have to be a result of more and more people moving here. Of course we are going to get population growth one way or the other, but we don't need the kind of explosive population growth that would come with, or as a result of, the kind of "improvements" you advocate. 

All those super tall downtown buildings would need people to fill them up and those people would all have to live somewhere. Since most people either don't want or can't afford to live downtown, they'd buy new homes in the ever sprawling suburbs. 

That's why I'd be happy with a much smaller level of growth. We could still have a decent rail system and a nice arts and entertainment community without turning Orlando into a congested, concrete jungle.

Like I said earlier, I'd be happy with a couple of 40 story buildings. Toss in a a few more a bit lower in the height range, a vibrant arts, entertainment and street scene and we'd have a perfectly acceptable little downtown.

Of course, I'm not in charge of it, but if I was... 

[AnCatt2204]

 Orlando (I’m native born, 6th generation Central/South Floridian), we have had a substantial change in political will, yes...we have had the good ole boy, “we want to be a small city...”, which is just as if not more irrational then these buildings. I don’t call for a NYC or Chicago, however I don’t think a goal of....Tampa, is “outrageous” and crazy. No offense to Tampa, Orlando went in 45 years from an Ocala like, omg Disney world is going to make jobs! In fact bad then Orlando was so considered backwards that Daytona Beach was the center for more then half of our local media and outsiders. Now, that is not the case. People who condemn Orlando, when I see Utbanplanet activity stating the last post in Jacksonville months behind, and perhaps three cities as active and as passionately addressed as Orlando is, I’ve talked to this older (eh, upper 50’s) man who went to Texas and Orlando and said two things here in NY, “I’ve never been so happy to leave a state (Texas), he said, “I love Orlando, I mean the sense of community and the soccer team has united that city. It’s very healthy in a big city, small town mentality with a solid purple political domination, allowing it to avoid partisan destruction. Yes, height IS critical as someone above stated, “perception is reality to anyone visiting a city...”, we don’t need and I wouldn’t say, “hey let’s crack over 700’...” because economically that is like taking a Polar plunge. However if I had a nickel for every planned development we aren’t aware of, proposed with a likelihood of building (even say 20%), establishments proposed that were likely 460’ maybe 600’ (tallest in Tampa),  when a developer is told that, “listen FAA rules, restrict you guys to   at most 34 floors, and this has to happen and they kind of are stuck back in time and think they can reverse time...”, that realization when any developer is scoping cities can absolutely result in any builder, investor etc. a builder and civil engineers/architect must be payed to reinvent an entire established concept, money, then they have to wait for the FAA...this causes reluctance to invest, with the added time (not structural assessment, geologic, secondary effects and economic impact, that’s standard and fully expected), when they hear, “well, you have to go through several months for FAA assessment, no building has been able to break that height...you also have to fight competing companies taking all measures possible to prevent a development. Then the city or county must approve it, they aren’t fond of large structures...” ANY reasonable developer, potential tenants, investments etc. immediately go, “this city isn’t ready for this and I’m not throwing my money on a losing bet.”, the developers, purpose and corporate sponsors will go, “with the decrease in height, sq.ft, high impact and high exposure, a chance on a city that while yes economically powerful, and socially powerful,  why do this, if the headline is gone, sq.ft area is decreased by as much as a third (45, down to 30 stories), knowing it’s a city center, there is absolutely no land to spare that wouldn’t require extra for demolition....who in their right mind would invest in orlandos downtown? It’s crazy. If you take even half of these impediments out, you MUST maintain regulations and restrictions however you can’t add, politics, unnecessary  restrictions, and slow development, install more doubt, install more reluctance and more problems.  Then be surprised that there aren’t enough inner city residents, because there aren’t enough diverse offices, (healthcare, science, Education, technology, bank centers, hotels etc...), so where do they go...either I-drive or not orlando. The jobs if downtown, inevitably if 5,000 are employed for a specific project, commuting gets tiring and at LEAST 500 of those persons, if residential developments are available as well as public transit (LYMMO is only so effective, the fact Orlando, developed Sunrail and the only commuter rail outside Miami should be promoted extensively. Replacing LYMMO with light rail service would also be, massively culturally and economically changing. I fear most of all, we are setting Orlando’s downtown up for a numerous number of 5-15 floor offices and residents...which mathematically doesn’t allow for enough residence, and discourages residents from their admiration of downtown life, keeps away any large scale investment and...urban sprawl needs to be stopped in Downtown and IS occurring. IF Orlando like European cities, had natural benefits, Rivers, Bays and Oceans, an enormous benefit, absolutely Orlando, I mean when people say, “Orlando’s a small backward cow town...”.... I’ve noticed on urban planet when it comes to MANY cities and large towns forums, there is little to no activity, yet Orlando has activity every single 30 minutes a couple hours at most....others haven’t since last year, many. So, I think sadly some jealousy and some, “my city is better and more vibrant, more open, better why are YOU getting so much attention...” DOES play a role in the negativity and condemnation of Orlando. A city that goes from nothing to the most visited city in the US 65 million to NYC which has 63 million, regardless of the reason, or where and what the do, if I say, “I’m originally from orlando...” with regard to foreigners, everyone in the US and almost all first world countries, everyone knows where I’m talking about. They have incredible misconceptions and stereotypes but what are you going to do?  On national tv programs Orlando’s skyline is always behind countless professional news, blah blah blah analyst and that’s NOT something found in anyway commonly in ANY, “small cow town city...” I’ve seen NY, Chicago, Washington DC, LA, Atlanta and Miami a lot, and Orlando is probably right behind those in public exposure. I have no doubt having lived there and not for a long time. Sometimes I see Dallas, Seattle, San Fran, Charlotte and New Orleans...I have not seen many of ANY of the cities people have mentioned as more “diverse, cosmopolitan and well known...” so in 45 years to go from that, to the second largest University in the nation, Disney, Universal, I Drive, Seaworld, Downtown, The new health and computer graphics companies adjacent to the Kennedy Space Center, and a population from literally 100,000 (Seminole, orange, Osceola), to 2.2 million plus, roughly 1 million more 3.2 on vacation at any given time, add in Lake and Brevard even and you top 2.8 million and with growth, I mean nearly 4 million in about two years....that is NOT small. By ANY stretch of anyone...so, no Orlando is holding itself back by trying to grasp the last straws of being a, “quiet, southern belle and WASP dominated pit stop between Miami and Atlanta.”,  no way is any building exempting symbolic structures should exceed 600 feet, even symbols shouldn’t 700, however, if you bring the jobs, the people will come. If I-4 is a hassle and sundial expensive, Enough of a populace will move downtown to kick a lot of diversity, cosmopolitan atmosphere. I pray Orlando does NOT, while it absolutely should hold on to tourism it can’t let it go yet, if Health, and tech are invited to compete...an excellent public transit system and dominating skyline that is basically a hopefully elegant and novel, but is a sign that expresses, “the action is here...” Right now, I-drive and downtown are competing for this and in 40 years (I’ll be 67), I opulent be surprised if Orlando’s skyline stretched from the convention center to Ivanhoe. If people have any desire to retain natural resources and some level of rural charm, then vertical, dense development with an effective public transit system and three dominating industries must be maintained. Orlando is so internationally known, Im surprised it doesn’t start pursuing International organizations to set up shop there. Climate change, can devestate South Florida sadly, the subtropical climate is too much of an asset though and Orlando is the only city that a category 5 Hurricane will likely never pass over, (really any 140-150 mph+ storm is very unlikely to show up, a 120-130 mph storm is possible however incredibly still rare.), Orlando’s proximity to Tampa, the Miami and Jacksonville areas, as well as Atlanta and Charleston, the connection to the Caribbean and South America will be split with Miami and...if Orlando doesn’t hold itself back it really has a chance at a San Fran, Boston, Miami parallel city. Holding itself back though, could kill it if one industry tourism collapses, and the invitation to banking institutions, International organizational headquarters, furthering health and nanotechnology, as well as Space exploration connections with the Cape, Education, a diversified economy if capable of paralleling tourism  55-45, it can avert a detroit like collapse, International connections and less struggle for those willing to bet on Orlando, can only be stopped by, height limits, overkill of economic assessment, and corporate run well established institutional attempts to kill it.  I hope Orlando’s ready to start addressing this, when opportunity presents. I have a feeling that the assessment of the requirements for development have cost orlando sadly. We may not know how much has been proposed and the developers killed it realizing there isn’t a problem with residential population capability...only willingness to self challenge, if they allow that if 5,000 jobs arrive downtown, appropriate infrastructure, excitement, transit and other people to socially improve upon downtown would fill the View up quick. It will be awhile for any residential developments or very large ones to be proposed, however future markets and centralized employment may be the next set of high and mistakes IF allowed to challenge the status quo. 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

I'm 27, so didnt get to see the city grow as some of you but from what I have seen and remembered, Orlando is doing well. Could be bigger but the city is just doesn't want to grow that big. Thats on Orlando.  Also, there is nothing wrong with wanting to see skyscrpaers. Development in the Urban Core is great big or small. Not sure why some people get bashed for wanting highrises over some slumpy 4 story building.  Architecture is part of a cities identity across the world not jut America. It helps differentiate and separate which isnt a bad thing when cities are writing  and creating their history.

I have been to some downtowns and for Orlando's size it has a great downtowns. From the highrises, to the eateries, and transit.  It's not doing too bad.

[AnCatt2204]

Well, also it’s harder for investments and projects to leave if they build a larger more elaborate institution that can bring together clubs, eateries AND some other big for of entertainment. Orlando would be smart to bet on three major forms of income and employment, as much as possible because it can prevent it from falling off an economic cliff. There isn’t too much land in Downtown and if a few big projects are not located in the Central Business District, the population density requirements, commute and dense communities, with money in their pocket, hat helps all businesses downtown, IF people know about it, it’s existance. High rises usually make that hard to ignore. The OEA I can’t imagine there is NO physical way for any runways to be diverted or methods of landing altered, when the economic viability of a city is at least in part effected. As well as in the top of the courthouse which sways a bit (my mother was a detective in OPD), if these planes are cutting above the tallest buildings by less then 500’ AT LEAST, its very questionable whether the path currently is kind of risky at a bit, altitude drop of reasonable but serious consequences for any buildings 300’+ already. If they give to the pedestrian and can effectively bring people to and from. The publix next to the Sanctuary is a perfect addition and helps sustain the city a lot. This project seems a BIT different in a good way, it’s advertised by an extensive level, and the purchase of the land is within a very, very short period, unless they flip it, I think it would publicly be a huge catastrophe businesswise.

Edited February 11, 2018 by AnCatt2204
Project addressed

[JFW657]

4 hours ago, AnCatt2204 said:

Orlando (I’m native born, 6th generation Central/South Floridian), we have had a substantial change in political will, yes.....

....however future markets and centralized employment may be the next set of high and mistakes IF allowed to challenge the status quo. 

Hey there, AnCatt2204.

Welcome to the forum!!!

Mind if I make one teeny weeny little suggestion?

PARAGRAPHS!!!!  

That is one tall skyscraper of a word tower you typed out there for a reader to climb down with no breaks in between. 

I'm sure you made some good points, but the post is so long and dense with text, I didn't even try to read it.

No offense intended. 

[dcluley98]

6 hours ago, AnCatt2204 said:

 Orlando 

 

Paragraphs are your friends.

Also, I would disagree with your point about not a lot of space, there is plenty of space in empty lots and surface lots and regrettable, non-historic low rise buildings to replace in the core. I think the available land height restrictions could lead to better core development than a giant high-rise could. Efficiency and transportation are always key, obviously, but I don't think height restrictions are deterring us from our goals. I think in-fill and density, combined with transit and parks is great. I welcome a bunch of "stubby" buildings filling in vacant lots with requisite public transportation, and perhaps a network of covered bike-lane routes with bike share stations.

Edited February 12, 2018 by dcluley98

[IAmFloridaBorn]

3 hours ago, AnCatt2204 said:

Well, also it’s harder for investments and projects to leave if they build a larger more elaborate institution that can bring together clubs, eateries AND some other big for of entertainment. Orlando would be smart to bet on three major forms of income and employment, as much as possible because it can prevent it from falling off an economic cliff. There isn’t too much land in Downtown and if a few big projects are not located in the Central Business District, the population density requirements, commute and dense communities, with money in their pocket, hat helps all businesses downtown, IF people know about it, it’s existance. High rises usually make that hard to ignore. The OEA I can’t imagine there is NO physical way for any runways to be diverted or methods of landing altered, when the economic viability of a city is at least in part effected. As well as in the top of the courthouse which sways a bit (my mother was a detective in OPD), if these planes are cutting above the tallest buildings by less then 500’ AT LEAST, its very questionable whether the path currently is kind of risky at a bit, altitude drop of reasonable but serious consequences for any buildings 300’+ already. If they give to the pedestrian and can effectively bring people to and from. The publix next to the Sanctuary is a perfect addition and helps sustain the city a lot. This project seems a BIT different in a good way, it’s advertised by an extensive level, and the purchase of the land is within a very, very short period, unless they flip it, I think it would publicly be a huge catastrophe businesswise.

This is a bit off topic, but there are dozens of empty lots in and around downtown Orlando. Downtown isn't just the eastern side of I-4.
I seriously hope development continues to march west , north, and south over next few decades.
I LOVED seeing the AMWAY rise on the same side of I-4 along with the soccer stadium. Hoping we get that sports district someday with all of those venues being on the same street through downtown Orlando.
 

[dcluley98]

5 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

This is a bit off topic, but there are dozens of empty lots in and around downtown Orlando. Downtown isn't just the eastern side of I-4

 

Yup. On both sides. Glad I am not the only one that took the challenge of reading that. There is a lot of space for good development, hopefully crossing under I-4 with the CV and MEC as the catalysts. The Under-I park should also help. Ultimate Downtown, CSP, and the first CV projects should be done by 2020. That's a start, and we shall see what can happen from there with the rest of the projects. 

[jrs2]

Yes, AmCatt2204, they should be pimping Sunrail and courting international companies and entities to come here.  A colleague of mine was on a commission about ten years ago regarding that ala the Far East, but then the City pulled the plug.

Anyway, growth has a lot to do with marketing.  And marketing has everything to do with who you (your vision) are and who your marketers are.  I was around when Daytona was ahead of Orlando in tourism.  And then The City told MTV to take a hike and killed the hotel/motel industry.  That will never happen in Orlando.  Bread and circus:  Disney and Universal are the circus.  Anyone get that?

There was a comment about the problems with FAA restrictions and the hassles involved with that:  Oh yeah.  Take Orchard Supply; their tree buffer which was approved by CIty of WP- if they wanted to change part of it, they wouldn’t do it because they would have to get a revised plan by the landscape architect (which costs money) and then go back before the City.  Hassle and money.  Yep.  Same with FAA approval.

You know, the thing about Chicago and NYC and Orlando becoming more like those places... my thing is...get rid of gaps in development.  If that takes the development of shorter buildings that take up more area, then so be it- but only for that reason, especially in the CBD.  And make sure those buildings are pretty.  But you see, that rarely happens, which is why I think you need big city people on the architectural review board and the like, because, locals, who are used to seeing the same mundane crap, get used to it, and continue the trend, as if it’s acceptable.

[I am Reality]

Got an idea for a better downtown.  Jobs jobs jobs. It all starts with good jobs. Stop worrying if we are going to be the next great city. Unless we attract hundreds of thousands of high-paying finance jobs and world-renowned law firms and corporate HQs and world-class, private research universities (like Columbia, or Penn or U of Chicago), it is not going to happen. We can tell ourselves all day long we don't "want" to be another NYC or Chicago.  Quite honestly, it's not even option until we get our economy in order.  People outside Orlando do not think about Orlando. It's not on anyone's map because the jobs here are lousy. Think Vegas. Nice to visit, lousy go live in. The people who move here do it because it's cheap, warm, and there are a ton of jobs (low-paying ones).

[orange87]

PONTE HEALTH Formally Pushes VERTICAL MEDICAL CITY Through the FAA Process, to Break Skyline Limits in Downtown Orlando

Article: https://www.pr.com/press-release/744381

The article also says the three towers will be 300/450/540 feet tall.

Edited February 12, 2018 by orange87

[dcluley98]

Another article mentions subconsultant teams on board including TLC. 

http://orlandomedicalnews.com/ponte-health-making-headway-on-vertical-medical-city-becoming-the-tallest-tower-in-downtown-orlando--cms-1673

VMC ORL current projected timeline includes: (1) Approvals from Agencies with Jurisdiction in 2018, (2) A Site/Foundation Package for Application with the Permitting Department in 2019 to Break Ground later in the same year, (3) A Building Package for Application with the Permitting Department in 2020, (4) Building Construction start in 2020 or 2021, and (5) Completion for Occupancy by 2024.

Also, they had a pre-design charrette with all the subconsultants that they linked on their website and social media:

 

 

[I am Reality]

On 2/12/2018 at 2:01 AM, dcluley98 said:

Yup. On both sides. Glad I am not the only one that took the challenge of reading that. There is a lot of space for good development, hopefully crossing under I-4 with the CV and MEC as the catalysts. The Under-I park should also help. Ultimate Downtown, CSP, and the first CV projects should be done by 2020. That's a start, and we shall see what can happen from there with the rest of the projects. 

Is there some hidden appeal to a park under I-4  that I am missing?  It's a highway for god's sake. I would never go there or let my children play there. Between the "scenery" and the noise, it's like playing under an airport runway. It shows a real lack of class and vision.

With all the land being used so inefficiently downtown, is that really the best we can do?

[Dale]

Increasingly, it seems like this might have some legs.

[spenser1058]

14 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

Is there some hidden appeal to a park under I-4  that I am missing?  It's a highway for god's sake. I would never go there or let my children play there. Between the "scenery" and the noise, it's like playing under an airport runway. It shows a real lack of class and vision.

With all the land being used so inefficiently downtown, is that really the best we can do?

Yes, just like Houston, Seattle, Miami, Toronto, Portland and DC have done. Horrible cities, all of them, right?

https://www.curbed.com/2017/1/9/14183876/freeway-underpass-park-public

[orange87]

17 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

Is there some hidden appeal to a park under I-4  that I am missing?  It's a highway for god's sake. I would never go there or let my children play there. Between the "scenery" and the noise, it's like playing under an airport runway. It shows a real lack of class and vision.

With all the land being used so inefficiently downtown, is that really the best we can do?

I see what you're saying, but I'd say it's better to have a park under a highway than having homeless people camping under the highway. Not that the homeless couldn't still go under the highway, but I'd say having a park there would make it harder for them to camp there.

[gibby]

26 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

Is there some hidden appeal to a park under I-4  that I am missing?  It's a highway for god's sake. I would never go there or let my children play there. Between the "scenery" and the noise, it's like playing under an airport runway. It shows a real lack of class and vision.

With all the land being used so inefficiently downtown, is that really the best we can do?

I can't imagine a more efficient way to park cars.  I could not disagree more.

[AndyPok1]

37 minutes ago, I am Reality said:

Is there some hidden appeal to a park under I-4  that I am missing?  It's a highway for god's sake. I would never go there or let my children play there. Between the "scenery" and the noise, it's like playing under an airport runway. It shows a real lack of class and vision.

With all the land being used so inefficiently downtown, is that really the best we can do?

I'll feed the troll.

What better way would you like to use the space while promoting a connective tissue between the CBD and Parramore sides of our downtown?  I'm all for criticizing, but have solutions.  Massive parking lots as were the previous use were an artificial boundary.  Because of our water table, doing a cap would be cost prohibitive.  

[dcluley98]

I am Reality - You are missing the point. The Under-I appeal isn't what is being created, it is what it is replacing.  The project is designed to remove the barrier of I-4 to join together CBD and the projects west of I-4 and Parramore. This project will significantly affect downtown. With the development of Creative Village, and potentially Magic Entertainment Complex on the west side of I-4, as well as the Amway Center, and Orlando City Stadium, with associated new projects around them, having less of a barrier between the two sides is key to tying everything together. Look for significant redevelopment around I-4 to happen when all of this construction is complete.  It is well documented that the Federal Interstate System project did much harm to organic growth and urban planning in major cities, often segregating historically poor, ethnic, or african american neighborhoods from the core of cities and creating isolated "islands" and additionally leading to urban sprawl and "car-centric" development.  We can't undo I-4 going through the city, but we can help alleviate the barriers created from this decision, and that is what the Under-I project is for. It is not meant to be a "showcase" park, but meant to help bring back some connectivity between the sides and to function as a usable space as opposed to a physical barrier. As referenced above, many large cities have done similar projects that led to multiple benefits and created usuable space where before there was just concrete and blight.  

For reference see: https://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8605917/highways-interstate-cities-history  as well as the articles above.

Also, just because you may not use something does not mean others will not use it or that it will not be better than what is there now. That is quite an egocentric view of the project as opposed to viewing it as a whole from an independent perspective and seeing the realizable benefits of the project when compared to the status quo.  

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by dcluley98

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, I am Reality said:

Is there some hidden appeal to a park under I-4  that I am missing?  It's a highway for god's sake. I would never go there or let my children play there. Between the "scenery" and the noise, it's like playing under an airport runway. It shows a real lack of class and vision.

With all the land being used so inefficiently downtown, is that really the best we can do?

I don't think this is really meant to be a children's park anyway. I think it's geared more towards young adults who want to play organized team sports.

Besides, if someone has kids and they're letting them run around downtown unsupervised, they've got more important issues to address than which park they're playing in.