Jump to content

Society | 28- & 17-Story Residential [Proposed]


Jernigan

Recommended Posts


^^

it's hard to get a shot that shows the bulky length of this project.  Maybe from Ace looking east and zoomed in a little.  But maybe in a few weeks when they rise another level or two to really start showing some height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

^^

it's hard to get a shot that shows the bulky length of this project.  Maybe from Ace looking east and zoomed in a little.  But maybe in a few weeks when they rise another level or two to really start showing some height.

True. Issue with downtown Orlando is it's so spread out. And I know our buildings aren't tall but they are bulky and from the ground it shows. 

 

Trying to get elevated is hard too. I should be able to get a shot facing Northwest from the garage on rosiland.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

True. Issue with downtown Orlando is it's so spread out. And I know our buildings aren't tall but they are bulky and from the ground it shows. 

 

Trying to get elevated is hard too. I should be able to get a shot facing Northwest from the garage on rosiland.

that second shot has fantastic resolution to it above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

I’ll go on record as that Crescent Central is the biggest abomination in downtown Orlando since I’ve been paying attention to downtown development, right around late 90s.

Why? I’ve heard several people say this and I’m genuinely curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

I’ll go on record as that Crescent Central is the biggest abomination in downtown Orlando since I’ve been paying attention to downtown development, right around late 90s.

Absolutely agree. I hope it gets torn down or destroyed somehow. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Why? I’ve heard several people say this and I’m genuinely curious.

From what I'm able to piece together during my time here, it's because Central Station/Crescent Central/what it's called was hyped up to be a huge investment and a landmark project in DTO, and instead we got a measly 6-story rectangle on otherwise prime real-estate. I guess it wasn't what a lot of people on here wanted, as most--me included--on here are height-enamored. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ajc said:

From what I'm able to piece together during my time here, it's because Central Station/Crescent Central/what it's called was hyped up to be a huge investment and a landmark project in DTO, and instead we got a measly 6-story rectangle on otherwise prime real-estate. I guess it wasn't what a lot of people on here wanted, as most--me included--on here are height-enamored. 

Leading the hype parade that day was none other than Hizzoner Himself. Any first year staffer who knew anything about downtown could have kept him away from that one.

That was the day I knew we had a visionless leader serving as a corporate shill.

In 45+ years of being active in politics, he’s the first candidate I went all in for that I had to walk away from.

Edited by spenser1058
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Leading the hype parade that day was none other than Hizzoner Himself. Any first year staffer who knew anything about downtown could have kept him away from that one.

That was the day I knew we had a visionless leader serving as a corporate shill.

In 45+ years of being active in politics, he’s the first candidate I went all in for that I had to walk away from.

I'm still surprised that some don't seem to "get" the whole concept of private property ownership rights. Mayors cannot simply dictate what does or does not get built in their cities. Certainly the mayor and city government boards can be involved in certain aspects of the overall appearance, but outside of height restrictions, they cannot give a developer minimum requirements in terms of height or size or tell them what architectural style must be employed, etc, etc. That parcel is private property and the owners have legal rights.

If Orlando is still such a small city that it cannot support a larger development on  a prime piece of downtown real estate, that is not the mayor's fault. Besides, hate it or not, if Crescent Central hadn't gotten built there, it is likely that the parcel would still be an empty, barren lot and people here would be complaining about that. 

For the record, I do not like Crescent Central either, but blaming one person for it is really kind of short sighted.

As for any "hype" that Dyer might have engaged in, what do you expect a mayor to do? Get in front of the cameras and bellyache about how disappointed he is over it? Disparage the developers for building what their in depth feasibility studies told them would be the only profitable venture there?

I'm fairly certain that Dyer would have loved to see a 50 story skyscraper go up on that site, but he's the Mayor of Orlando, not Miami.

There are certain realities that have to be accepted here.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

I'm still surprised that some don't seem to "get" the whole concept of private property ownership rights. Mayors cannot simply dictate what does or does not get built in their cities. Certainly the mayor and city government boards can be involved in certain aspects of the overall appearance, but outside of height restrictions, they cannot give a developer minimum requirements in terms of height or size or tell them what architectural style must be employed, etc, etc. That parcel is private property and the owners have legal rights.

If Orlando is still such a small city that it cannot support a larger development on  a prime piece of downtown real estate, that is not the mayor's fault. Besides, hate it or not, if Crescent Central hadn't gotten built there, it is likely that the parcel would still be an empty, barren lot and people here would be complaining about that. 

For the record, I do not like Crescent Central either, but blaming one person for it is really kind of short sighted.

As for any "hype" that Dyer might have engaged in, what do you expect a mayor to do? Get in front of the cameras and bellyache about how disappointed he is over it? Disparage the developers for building what their in depth feasibility studies told them would be the only profitable venture there?

I'm fairly certain that Dyer would have loved to see a 50 story skyscraper go up on that site, but he's the Mayor of Orlando, not Miami.

There are certain realities that have to be accepted here.

 

Mayors (especially strong mayors like Orlando used to have) have an entire arsenal at their disposal. Mayor Bill did just that to preserve the in-core neighborhoods. Yes, developers howled, but nope, not a single neighborhood was lost that was earmarked.

He did something similar in Parramore with nothing more than a handshake. It kept the peace in Parramore at the time and won him points so the African-American community was amenable to the completion of JYP (they were initially opposed  to yet another highway carving up the neighborhood).

Sometimes it’s much more subtle like working behind the scenes with developers to turn the Atlantic Bank on an angle to create pedestrian space or adding a pedestrian plaza to Jaymont II.

He also sought to change the architecture with water features and non-flat roofs on towers (Baker Barrios outfoxed him on that one with visors).

There are cities across the country with much more stringent rules than Orlando has ever had. Developers just want you to believe only they get to decide what the built environment looks like but that hasn’t been the case since Euclid was decided by SCOTUS a century ago.

In this case, the very least  Buddy could have done was nothing, but that day he served as the head cheerleader. It was painful to watch but it is entirely consistent with his overextended mayoral career.

We can do better and we often have. That’s why we have a strong-mayor form of government. If the mayor is just going to rubber stamp what the developers put in front of him, we might as well go back to a council-manager format like most cities in the region have (ironically, that’s what WG and WP have and they’ve shown more backbone when dealing with developers than Buddy ever has, but that’s because both towns have an actual vision of what they want to be).  No use giving Buddy over 100 thousand more/year extra to do the same job as the commissioners on the council.

 

Edited by spenser1058
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

It is a huge parcel that does a mediocre (at best) job of creating an inviting pedestrian environment.  The parcel alone is the size of all the buildings and businesses on Church Street from Orange Ave to the train tracks.

On any given day it is typically a hot, barren, soulless stretch of DTO where no one would rather waste a minute because there is absolutely no reason to be there unless you actually live in the building.

The architecture (if you want to call it that) was dated from the start and is aging quickly and badly. It says absolutely nothing about Orlando which is even more offensive given that it’s adjacent to Orlando’s intermodal center and across the street from the county courthouse (arguably the nicest addition to the city skyline). 
This building isn’t going anywhere — ever. The only hope now is that development that fills in the parcels around it helps to soften its dismal impact.

What is worse:  it never had to happen. 

“across the street from the county courthouse (arguably the nicest addition to the city skyline).” We see here a striking difference of a leader who CARES about the built environment (she once referred to Orlando as “the jewel in the crown”). Thanks, Chairman Linda!

Edited by spenser1058
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Mayors (especially strong mayors like Orlando used to have) have an entire arsenal at their disposal. Mayor Bill did just that to preserve the in-core neighborhoods. Yes, developers howled, but nope, not a single neighborhood was lost that was earmarked.

He did something similar in Parramore with nothing more than a handshake. It kept the peace in Parramore at the time and won him points so the African-American community was amenable to the completion of JYP (they were initially opposed  to yet another highway carving up the neighborhood).

Sometimes it’s much more subtle like working behind the scenes with developers to turn the Atlantic Bank on an angle to create pedestrian space or adding a pedestrian plaza to Jaymont II.

He also sought to change the architecture with water features and non-flat roofs on towers (Baker Barrios outfoxed him on that one with visors).

There are cities across the country with much more stringent rules than Orlando has ever had. Developers just want you to believe only they get to decide what the built environment looks like but that hasn’t been the case since Euclid was decided by SCOTUS a century ago.

In this case, the very least  Buddy could have done was nothing, but that day he served as the head cheerleader. It was painful to watch but it is entirely consistent with his overextended mayoral career.

We can do better and we often have. That’s why we have a strong-mayor form of government. If the mayor is just going to rubber stamp what the developers put in front of him, we might as well go back to a council-manager format like most cities in the region have (ironically, that’s what WG and WP have and they’ve shown more backbone when dealing with developers than Buddy ever has, but that’s because both towns have an actual vision of what they want to be).  No use giving Buddy over 100 thousand more/year extra to do the same job as the commissioners on the council.

 

All apples and oranges.

What you describe Bill Frederick as having done has virtually zero to do with how a downtown residential mixed use building was designed and how big/tall it turned out to be. 

And again, you are totally ignoring the likely economic factors that played into how Crescent Central turned out. Had it been economically feasible to put up a class A skyscraper on that parcel, don't you think they'd have jumped on the chance? Do you think some lazy, half-hearted hobbyists with a little extra money and time on their hands said "Hey, let's but a parcel of land and throw up a cheap crappy looking six story midrise building on Orange Avenue in Orlando just for the hell of it"?

They built what the market analysis and how much money the bank was willing to loan them  dictated.

You keep on saying "we can do better" as if it were some kind of community decision making process or that the city is in a position to tell developers that if  they don't put up buildings of at least x number of stories in height and which conform to certain (your of course) architectural tastes, then don't bother because there is a long line of other developers climbing over each other for the chance to build here.

If it were true that they were chomping at the bit to build here, Dyer & co could be as finicky as they wanted to be. 

But the hard reality is, that downtown Orlando is pretty much in a 'take what we can get' situation.

In case you forgot.... almost every major tower that has been proposed for DTO in the past four decades has failed to materialize. 

Why is that?

Because DTO simply cannot support them.

Period.

Buddy Dyer is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with regards to obstructing projects you don't happen to like or accepting reality and working with the developers to get something to increase the tax base and reduce our inventory of vacant lots.

34 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

It is a huge parcel that does a mediocre (at best) job of creating an inviting pedestrian environment.  The parcel alone is the size of all the buildings and businesses on Church Street from Orange Ave to the train tracks.

On any given day it is typically a hot, barren, soulless stretch of DTO where no one would rather waste a minute because there is absolutely no reason to be there unless you actually live in the building.

The architecture (if you want to call it that) was dated from the start and is aging quickly and badly. It says absolutely nothing about Orlando which is even more offensive given that it’s adjacent to Orlando’s intermodal center and across the street from the county courthouse (arguably the nicest addition to the city skyline). 
This building isn’t going anywhere — ever. The only hope now is that development that fills in the parcels around it helps to soften its dismal impact.

What is worse:  it never had to happen. 

Yes, we could have still had a big patch of beautiful grass and weeds sitting there behind a fence. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

All apples and oranges.

What you describe Bill Frederick as having done has virtually zero to do with how a downtown residential mixed use building was designed and how big/tall it turned out to be. 

And again, you are totally ignoring the likely economic factors that played into how Crescent Central turned out. Had it been economically feasible to put up a class A skyscraper on that parcel, don't you think they'd have jumped on the chance? Do you think some lazy, half-hearted hobbyists with a little extra money and time on their hands said "Hey, let's but a parcel of land and throw up a cheap crappy looking six story midrise building on Orange Avenue in Orlando just for the hell of it"?

They built what the market analysis and how much money the bank was willing to loan them  dictated.

You keep on saying "we can do better" as if it were some kind of community decision making process or that the city is in a position to tell developers that if  they don't put up buildings of at least x number of stories in height and which conform to certain (your of course) architectural tastes, then don't bother because there is a long line of other developers climbing over each other for the chance to build here.

If it were true that they were chomping at the bit to build here, Dyer & co could be as finicky as they wanted to be. 

But the hard reality is, that downtown Orlando is pretty much in a 'take what we can get' situation.

In case you forgot.... almost every major tower that has been proposed for DTO in the past four decades has failed to materialize. 

Why is that?

Because DTO simply cannot support them.

Period.

Buddy Dyer is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with regards to obstructing projects you don't happen to like or accepting reality and working with the developers to get something to increase the tax base and reduce our inventory of vacant lots.

Yes, we could have still had a big patch of beautiful grass and weeds sitting there behind a fence. 

We get it - you are pro-developer at any cost  and seem to believe that the only thing that dictates urban design is economics. No one is going to change your understanding of this.  Anyway, when was the last time you hung out at Crescent Station? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

In case you forgot.... almost every major tower that has been proposed for DTO in the past four decades has failed to materialize. 

Why is that?

Because DTO simply cannot support them.

Period.

Its actually worse then that. The feeling amongst developers I've spoken to is that downtown Orlando isn't worth the hassle because of the ARB. The ARB has a strong preference for what Baker Barrios does, and they seemingly have control over the board. Why go through the hassle of dealing with them, other cities will welcome them with open arms, or they can just go to a different area of Orlando even.

Interestingly, my opinion is the exact opposite of Spenser: Buddy and the board is executing their strong arm power so much its chasing everyone away, except those who have no problem going with Baker Barrios and the exact designs that they do. If we want better, we need to disband the ARB instead of trying to push out the few developers we have left, because the alternative is the same as what you're saying: we get nothing. Land values plummet. 

Its a small part of the reason why Lake Nona (no doubt in the same overall geographic area) is thriving while downtown is not. Lake Nona, the developers can do what they please, and if Tavistock makes bad decisions, they suffer the financial consequences. If our ARB makes bad decisions, we just all get nothing and they don't care.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

We get it - you are pro-developer at any cost  and seem to believe that the only thing that dictates urban design is economics. No one is going to change your understanding of this.  Anyway, when was the last time you hung out at Crescent Station? 

I'm not pro or anti anything. But I understand the basic, simple truth that real estate developers build what makes money and banks loan capital on the basis of what the chances are that they'll get their money back. 

Blaming the mayor for it not being what we wish it was makes no sense.

If a particular market can support a high end luxury high rise with quality exterior materials, eventually someone is going to build one. 

The fact that the Pizzutti block sat empty since 1986 ought to tell one that there was just no interest in building there. 

Under Mayor Dyer at least something that brought more residents to DTO, spurred the economy and increased the tax base finally got built there.  Rather than pointing the finger of blame over aesthetics, it can and should be looked upon as a net positive, despite the fact that it might not conform to everyone's tastes, mine included.

It is unfortunate that CC is what we got, but it is what it is and it's nobody's fault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, Mayor Bill was addressing how tall buildings were. One ancillary reason for preserving the in-core neighborhoods and discouraging development in Parramore was to limit available development in the core and force them to build taller by default. Buildings got taller during his mayoralty as a result.

It did need adjustment after he left office - between The First, FA and The Radisson/Gateway Center, it was assumed the buildings would continue to be towers.

When that proved not to be the case, had mayor not been so busy kowtowing to billionaires he could have gotten the city council to place a moratorium on the space north of Colonial to spur more verticality. It was perfectly legal the first time and would have been the second.

Buddy never even tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aent said:

Its actually worse then that. The feeling amongst developers I've spoken to is that downtown Orlando isn't worth the hassle because of the ARB. The ARB has a strong preference for what Baker Barrios does, and they seemingly have control over the board. Why go through the hassle of dealing with them, other cities will welcome them with open arms, or they can just go to a different area of Orlando even.

Interestingly, my opinion is the exact opposite of Spenser: Buddy and the board is executing their strong arm power so much its chasing everyone away, except those who have no problem going with Baker Barrios and the exact designs that they do. If we want better, we need to disband the ARB instead of trying to push out the few developers we have left, because the alternative is the same as what you're saying: we get nothing. Land values plummet. 

Its a small part of the reason why Lake Nona (no doubt in the same overall geographic area) is thriving while downtown is not. Lake Nona, the developers can do what they please, and if Tavistock makes bad decisions, they suffer the financial consequences. If our ARB makes bad decisions, we just all get nothing and they don't care.

If  you think Orlando is bad, Miami is much worse.

They have pretty much the same tough standards and approval process, but look at their skyline.

Why?

Because millions of people want to live and buy condominiums and do business in a vibrant, teeming international metropolis.

Orlando is still by comparison, a small hick town. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

In fact, Mayor Bill was addressing how tall buildings were. One ancillary reason for preserving the in-core neighborhoods and discouraging development in Parramore was to limit available development in the core and force them to build taller by default. Buildings got taller during his mayoralty as a result.

It did need adjustment after he left office - between The First, FA and The Radisson/Gateway Center, it was assumed the buildings would continue to be towers.

When that proved not to be the case, had mayor not been so busy kowtowing to billionaires he could have gotten the city council to place a moratorium on the space north of Colonial to spur more verticality. It was perfectly legal the first time and would have been the second.

Buddy never even tried.

Yes, we're all endlessly amazed by all the dizzyingly tall skyscrapers packed cheek to jowl along Orange Avenue, that went up during Frederick's wonderfully magical administration.  <_<  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.