Jump to content

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


Jernigan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, JFW657 said:

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. 

Only because we aren’t even trying. In Miami, they’re running out of space water on two sides and The Everglades on the other. Where you don’t have that, like Orlando, you have to create scarcity just like we did in the ‘80’s. Buddy could have done it, too, but he never tried. You’ll never find a speech or a Sentinel article where it was even proposed.

When it was done in the ‘80’s, the topic was everywhere and it worked.

If you never try to do a thing, nothing will ever change. The same is true of retail; in a challenging environment, Thomas Chatmon was AWOL instead of doubling down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

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. 

Yes, no doubt, the largest and most desirable cities can do whatever they want to be corrupt, and if you want to do business in that large market, you have to just deal with it, but Orlando doesn't get that privilege. Well not to the same extent at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

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. 

Obviously we just completely disagree. 
Why would we not take a critical view to development, especially when it ISNT a net positive, on an urban development forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spenser1058 said:

Only because we aren’t even trying. In Miami, they’re running out of space water on two sides and The Everglades on the other. Where you don’t have that, like Orlando, you have to create scarcity just like we did in the ‘80’s. Buddy could have done it, too, but he never tried. You’ll never find a speech or a Sentinel article where it was even proposed.

When it was done in the ‘80’s, the topic was everywhere and it worked.

If you never try to do a thing, nothing will ever change. The same is true of retail; in a challenging environment, Thomas Chatmon was AWOL instead of doubling down.

Who is this "we" you keep referring to?

And how does this "we" get people to erect buildings that will sit mostly empty and not return their investment?

I and the world would like to know what your secret formula is. 

And again, re: Frederick's wonderfully magical tenure, all those dizzyingly tall skyscrapers that line Orange Avenue is a testament to how right on the money you are. :whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, prahaboheme said:

Obviously we just completely disagree. 
Why would we not take a critical view to development, especially when it ISNT a net positive, on an urban development forum?

We should do exactly that.

What we shouldn't do is blame one person for everything we dislike just to push a personal agenda.

Especially when it is based on such a flimsy, easily refutable foundation. 

That is the only thing I'm opposed to on this subject. 

Criticizing the crapitecture that DTO always ends up with is right and proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gtothree2748 said:

On that note, I hope everyone can recognize that Society’s design alone- although  not a breath-taking skyscraper,  is more ideal for that stretch of Orange Ave compared to CC.  Society proves that when we have the right combination of market demand and city incentives we can materialize decent projects.

We can’t keep criticizing one person for their handling of a process that’s interdependent on many complex factors.

Instead of finger-pointing and complaining, we need more support of developments that are pushing us in the right direction as a city, even if they don’t check all the boxes off of our optimal urban-development checklist.

Maybe CC was the stepping stone Society needed to give developers and city officials the confidence to give it the green light.

Additionally, let’s not compare private residential developments to a public courthouse building. As a tax payer funded building with purpose in demand, I assume it was much easier to get off the ground- especially after the population boom of the 80s-90s.  Other than the courthouse that area of downtown was largely unoccupied. Skyhouse had the advantage of its proximity to lake Eola, CC had proximity to a noisy train track, a courthouse and an abandoned building.
 

CC walked so Society could run. Now let’s focus on what society will open the doors to next, to fly. 

Let’s be clear — I’m not “finger pointing or complaining” about development in downtown Orlando as a whole. I am zeroing in on Crescent Center specifically as a total waste of space - an uninspired POS.

Most here seem to agree. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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. 

A lot of people on here have delusions of grandeur and think they live in NYC or something. Me, I'll take an uninspired apartment complex with retail over an empty dirt lot any day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, F-L-A said:

A lot of people on here have delusions of grandeur and think they live in NYC or something. Me, I'll take an uninspired apartment complex with retail over an empty dirt lot any day. 

Well, it’s probably a good thing that you’re willing to take it because it’s what you’re getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Let’s be clear — I’m not “finger pointing or complaining” about development in downtown Orlando as a whole. I am zeroing in on Crescent Center specifically as a total waste of space - an uninspired POS.

Most here seem to agree. 

Nobody (not me anyway) is saying that YOU are finger pointing. Someone else has been finger pointing and scapegoating one particular local elected official for quite awhile now and it accomplishes nothing. 

7 hours ago, F-L-A said:

A lot of people on here have delusions of grandeur and think they live in NYC or something. Me, I'll take an uninspired apartment complex with retail over an empty dirt lot any day. 

If that is the only choice, I suppose I have to sadly agree. 

It's just too bad that it's the reality we must live with in DTO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Well, it’s probably a good thing that you’re willing to take it because it’s what you’re getting.

It's what we're all getting. And if we didn't get it, we'd still have an empty lot sitting there, just like it had been for as long as I can remember. We take what we can, because we must. You don't have to like the project, but its detractors can't deny this inescapable truth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, F-L-A said:

It's what we're all getting. And if we didn't get it, we'd still have an empty lot sitting there, just like it had been for as long as I can remember. We take what we can, because we must. You don't have to like the project, but its detractors can't deny this inescapable truth.

It's odd how some people seem to think local government has so more control over what gets built or how it gets built than they really do. Certainly, local governments have a significant degree of input and authority regarding local codes etc., but at some point, private property rights take over and local government cannot legally control much else. 

And of course, there are always other external factors involved. In the case of CC, the opportunity presented itself for a parcel of land that had sat empty and been an eyesore and a visual blight on DTO since the mid 1980's, to be developed into, despite what some might think of it, a halfway decent looking residential building with ground floor retail that is bringing more residents into the city center, creating retail and generating tax revenue.

That creates a situation where city government has to weigh the choices. Stand in the way and pass up a sure, though imperfect thing, or work with the developers to get the best outcome possible. 

Sometimes compromise is just a necessity and a fact of life.

Criticizing the appearance and physical attributes of the building is completely legitimate. But to say nothing would be preferable or to scapegoat the mayor for every perceived imperfection is a bit much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, F-L-A said:

It's what we're all getting. And if we didn't get it, we'd still have an empty lot sitting there, just like it had been for as long as I can remember. We take what we can, because we must. You don't have to like the project, but its detractors can't deny this inescapable truth.

I don’t know — just look around within a half mile radius of CC and you can see better examples of development in the core.

It’s really odd that there are many on this forum who just show up defeated “because we must” seemingly.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

It’s really odd that there are many on this forum who just show up defeated “because we must” seemingly.

You do realize this is already built. The moment of defeat has passed.

 

13 hours ago, Gtothree2748 said:

On that note, I hope everyone can recognize that Society’s design alone- although  not a breath-taking skyscraper,  is more ideal for that stretch of Orange Ave compared to CC.  Society proves that when we have the right combination of market demand and city incentives we can materialize decent projects.

We can’t keep criticizing one person for their handling of a process that’s interdependent on many complex factors.

Instead of finger-pointing and complaining, we need more support of developments that are pushing us in the right direction as a city, even if they don’t check all the boxes off of our optimal urban-development checklist.

Maybe CC was the stepping stone Society needed to give developers and city officials the confidence to give it the green light.

Additionally, let’s not compare private residential developments to a public courthouse building. As a tax payer funded building with purpose in demand, I assume it was much easier to get off the ground- especially after the population boom of the 80s-90s.  Other than the courthouse that area of downtown was largely unoccupied. Skyhouse had the advantage of its proximity to lake Eola, CC had proximity to a noisy train track, a courthouse and an abandoned building.
 

CC walked so Society could run. Now let’s focus on what society will open the doors to next, to fly. 

Very well said. Thank you for your well reasoned perspective.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

I don’t know — just look around within a half mile radius of CC and you can see better examples of development in the core.

It’s really odd that there are many on this forum who just show up defeated “because we must” seemingly.

So then, my question to you is, what should/could have been done instead, and by whom?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

So then, my question to you is, what should/could have been done instead, and by whom?  

The city could / should have forced the SAME developer to break up the block into a more pedestrian scaled development and pushed for a better quality product.  I really don’t understand why you don’t get this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gtothree2748 said:

It wasn’t my intention to single out anyone in particular for complaining. Criticism is healthy. Central Station without a doubt has reason to be criticized. It could have been designed better and still stayed in budget IMO.

With that said, there’s no doubt that central station and other properties like it, have helped pave the way for more residential development in their immediate areas and the city has benefited from that. Who knows maybe one day it will be torn down if the demand is there. It’s basically cardboard so shouldn’t be that challenging to demo. 
 
A well organized city administration and wishful thinking cannot make big developmental strides alone. We as residents need show that the demand is there. Our metro population is conditioned to think that suburban = good and urban = bad. That’s the main issue. Most people move to our area to “escape” big cities. 

To say you’d rather have that lot sit empty is anti progressive, it’s like saying you would prefer downtown Orlando to stay stagnant and abandoned. Let’s not pretend that we are running out of undeveloped lots in the Urban core and that central station stole the last available lot for our first real sky scrapper. We have plenty of available space still. Not even Manhattan has sky scrapers on every block. Orlando will survive. 

Within the past decade or so there’s been a significant trend of young professionals and students moving downtown, resulting in several multi million dollar developments downtown and investments for places like this thread’s subject property, “Society”.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Central station has helped achieve this demographic trend, by offering competitive rental rates and infilling that block with full time residents with a low vacancy rate. Any opportunity for positive growth should be taken when it’s feasible. 

Unfortunately we need these projects. If every project like Central station was axed and their respective lots still sat empty, DTO would be a ghost town, offering a limited amount of residences at an ultra premium, unattainable cost. 

Unfortunately, given the highly visible location, this development will have a bigger and longer lasting impact than some of the other “misses” over the years like Camden Court (which is, IMO, even worse). 
I don’t really see how this development paved the way for much of anything. It isn’t the first rental property in the vicinity and doesn’t offer much other than an increased tax base for the city (which clearly seems to be what they care about). 
At least Society strives to achieve an actual urban design and I have hope that it can cast a shadow over Crescent (and maybe even force the developer to upgrade their property over time).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

The city could / should have forced the SAME developer to break up the block into a more pedestrian scaled development and pushed for a better quality product.  I really don’t understand why you don’t get this.

And the developer may well have done the same thing Jaymont did with the Woolworth's/McCrory's block back in the 1980's when they told Orlando "See Ya!!" after the city tried to force them into doing their bidding.

I really don't understand why you don't get that

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

And the developer may well have done the same thing Jaymont did with the Woolworth's/McCrory's block back in the 1980's when they told Orlando "See Ya!!" after the city tried to force them into doing their bidding.

I really don't understand why you don't get that

 

 

I get why you really don’t understand why I don’t get that ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2021 at 8:52 PM, dcluley98 said:

Great photo IAFB!  I really like that angle off of the pedestrian bridge. It shows some density and looks like a real city from that perspective. Shame about Crescent Central though.

The irony is that Society will block most of that view.

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.