Jump to content

Society | 28- & 17-Story Residential [Under Construction]


Jernigan

Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I’d sort of hate to lose that one -it has panache. It does need a 7-Eleven, though.

I'd like to see them do with that block, what they wanted Jaymont to do with the Woolworth block.

Save the facade and build a multistory building about 10 feet behind it. 

Doubtful that will ever happen.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can no longer tell if "tear it down for a park" is a real suggestion -- since it's actually been a fairly common (and rarely logical) one on this forum -- or if it's become some sort of cursed inside joke since the whole 7-11 fiasco. :wacko:

Edited by F-L-A
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2022 at 5:17 AM, F-L-A said:

I can no longer tell if "tear it down for a park" is a real suggestion -- since it's actually been a fairly common (and rarely logical) one on this forum -- or if it's become some sort of cursed inside joke since the whole 7-11 fiasco. :wacko:

I was totally joking.  Referencing the 7-11 Fiasco.  The Historic Orlando page is so torn on that one.

image.png.2175aa8dcca4c3c153b77cb92df78130.png

On 5/13/2022 at 7:34 PM, JFW657 said:

I'd like to see them do with that block, what they wanted Jaymont to do with the Woolworth block.

Save the facade and build a multistory building about 10 feet behind it. 

Doubtful that will ever happen.  

I wish the Dolive proposal materialized.  I think that was exactly what was proposed just with differing heights.

dolive2.jpgDolive.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s face it- anything that looks “traditional” that would actually fit the sense of place of the historic core and add some class to downtown will never be built.

Instead, all we get are ugly boxes that belong at the beach.

I’d love to be wrong, but in this case past performance seems to be awfully predictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Let’s face it- anything that looks “traditional” that would actually fit the sense of place of the historic core and add some class to downtown will never be built.

Instead, all we get are ugly boxes that belong at the beach.

I’d love to be wrong, but in this case past performance seems to be awfully predictive.

As for the top one, there was more a chance of a blizzard downtown than a building like that being built (think about the proposal for Tradition Towers and what we actually got). It’s also worth noting how amenable the developer was to drop the project for cash. That was hardly someone “all in” for creating a masterpiece.

Knowing that, it was easy to go with the priority of Eola expansion.

A thought about that: no one has EVER complained about too many parks and trees in an urban district.

Otoh, citizens clamor for more parks and trees frequently in urban areas with too much concrete.,

Edited by spenser1058
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally did not like the look of the Eola proposal so I'm glad it didn't get built.  That said I'm all for a park expansion if they actually get it.  I just doubt they will.

The Dolive though..........mmmm looking at that again, I'd love to see it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, codypet said:

I personally did not like the look of the Eola proposal so I'm glad it didn't get built.  That said I'm all for a park expansion if they actually get it.  I just doubt they will.

The Dolive though..........mmmm looking at that again, I'd love to see it.

I’m not sure why you think it will be so difficult to proceed with expansion. We’ve had three in thirty years and less time between them as we moved forward. Each of the three had people who wanted to build towers on the land. What’s different this time?

Heck, I bet even @nite owℓ and @popsiclebrandon would contribute if we get the Little Old Ladies at the Rosalind Club to abandon ship (which I hesitate to do given the history of both the club and the building).

Edited by spenser1058
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

As for the top one, there was more a chance of a blizzard downtown than a building like that being built (think about the proposal for Tradition Towers and what we actually got). It’s also worth noting how amenable the developer was to drop the project for cash. That was hardly someone “all in” for creating a masterpiece.

Knowing that, it was easy to go with the priority of Eola expansion.

A thought about that: no one has EVER complained about too many parks and trees in an urban district.

Otoh, citizens clamor for more parks and trees frequently in urban areas with too much concrete.,

Are you talking about Tradition Towers? That guy killed himself. 

Or the 7-11? That owner was not the developer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jack said:

Are you talking about Tradition Towers? That guy killed himself. 

Or the 7-11? That owner was not the developer. 

Either way, we were destined to get more generic buildings instead of something that beyond the norm.

Just now, spenser1058 said:

Either way, we were destined to get more generic buildings instead of something that beyond the norm.

It’s funny how we always have one excuse or another for the mediocre dreck built downtown and the administration that enables it. That’s why nothing changes. It’s also exactly the way the developers want it.

If you’re happy with downtown the way it is, bless you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

I’m not sure why you think it will be so difficult to proceed with expansion. We’ve had three in thirty years and less time between them as we moved forward. Each of the three had people who wanted to build towers on the land. What’s different this time?

Heck, I bet even @nite owℓ and @popsiclebrandon would contribute if we get the Little Old Ladies at the Rosalind Club to abandon ship (which I hesitate to do given the history of both the club and the building).

I was told the Little Old Ladies aren't going anywhere, but that all other buildings are, and that they plan to build an official "entrance" into the park right there with that land.

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

It’s funny how we always have one excuse or another for the mediocre dreck built downtown and the administration that enables it. That’s why nothing changes. It’s also exactly the way the developers want it.

If you’re happy with downtown the way it is, bless you. 

Spenser, are you ok?  this is the second time in three posts where you are quoting or responding to yourself...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

I was told the Little Old Ladies aren't going anywhere, but that all other buildings are, and that they plan to build an official "entrance" into the park right there with that land.

Spenser, are you ok?  this is the second time in three posts where you are quoting or responding to yourself...

Sorry, when I get in a hurry I sometimes push the wrong button to go back and edit. I’m multitasking with political stuff out the wazoo this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

I was told the Little Old Ladies aren't going anywhere, but that all other buildings are, and that they plan to build an official "entrance" into the park right there with that land.

I have my doubts about that.

IDK who owns the old Masonic Temple aka City Centre, but I doubt they're going to sell it cheap.

If the city couldn't/wouldn't pony up for the Seb'mnaleb'm property, I doubt they'll do so for this one.

I think the old biddies' main mission was to prevent a deep pockets developer from buying the entire corner, bulldozing it and putting up a high rise as was proposed before, and for that I'm grateful to them.

As for the mission behind tearing down the Seb'mnaleb'm building, I assume it was to get rid of the residentially challenged, but we'll see soon whether or not they merely succeeded in creating a more comfortable flop spot for them, which can hold a higher number of them than ever.

I'll have a hard time not snickering a bit if that comes to pass.  

BTW, I don't think the old house to the east of City Centre is slated for removal.

Rendering shows it and the Rosalind Clubhouse still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I have my doubts about that.

IDK who owns the old Masonic Temple aka City Centre, but I doubt they're going to sell it cheap.

If the city couldn't/wouldn't pony up for the Seb'mnaleb'm property, I doubt they'll do so for this one.

I think the old biddies' main mission was to prevent a deep pockets developer from buying the entire corner, bulldozing it and putting up a high rise as was proposed before, and for that I'm grateful to them.

As for the mission behind tearing down the Seb'mnaleb'm building, I assume it was to get rid of the residentially challenged, but we'll see soon whether or not they merely succeeded in creating a more comfortable flop spot for them, which can hold a higher number of them than ever.

I'll have a hard time not snickering a bit if that comes to pass.  

BTW, I don't think the old house to the east of City Centre is slated for removal.

Rendering shows it and the Rosalind Clubhouse still there.

I really hope they save the house. The thing that’s different this time is there’s now an organization in place (OLT) to figure out how to raise money for future purchases. That keeps them from having to cobble together a process every time. It also helps keep the city from having to be the prime mover on expansion.Instead, they can say they’re just lending a hand to a citizen’s group.

OLT can also work full-time on studying when a lot is for sale rather than, as you mention, begging a developer to sell it. They also can glad-hand the right folks to create the optimum purchase.

It’s important to remember that developers frequently over-extend themselves, and when the recession inevitably comes, often need cash in a hurry. That’s when we should buy.

That may mean the next purchase might be on the other side of the park instead of the Masonic Lodge, but the goal is always the same -expanding the park as the downtown (and the larger city) continues to grow. This is very much a project of looking at the long game, and despite what you read on this board, has broad public support.

Edited by spenser1058
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aside - I placed a post from The Jaxson about Jacksonville’s Scottish Rite Temple to give you an idea of just how grand Masonic Lodges can be (even if @Uncommonhas proclaimed that “Jacksonville sucks”) and I don’t think the Orlando lodge ever met that level (it’s perhaps interesting the Masons took over a former ABC at Mills Ave and South St. after leaving downtown).

There was a Scottish Rite Temple over on Gore St. that was a good bit larger, but it succumbed to the medical industrial complex.

Downtown WG still has its Masonic Lodge and I think it may still be active. Apopka has one too - in fact, Apopka was originally named “The Lodge” for the early Masonic Temple there.

All of this is to note that there are two competing interests here- park expansion and trying to save a historic building. In weighing the evidence, I come down on the side of the former but it’s certainly reasonable for some preservationists to disagree.

Edited by spenser1058
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I have my doubts about that.

IDK who owns the old Masonic Temple aka City Centre, but I doubt they're going to sell it cheap.

If the city couldn't/wouldn't pony up for the Seb'mnaleb'm property, I doubt they'll do so for this one.

I think the old biddies' main mission was to prevent a deep pockets developer from buying the entire corner, bulldozing it and putting up a high rise as was proposed before, and for that I'm grateful to them.

As for the mission behind tearing down the Seb'mnaleb'm building, I assume it was to get rid of the residentially challenged, but we'll see soon whether or not they merely succeeded in creating a more comfortable flop spot for them, which can hold a higher number of them than ever.

I'll have a hard time not snickering a bit if that comes to pass.  

BTW, I don't think the old house to the east of City Centre is slated for removal.

Rendering shows it and the Rosalind Clubhouse still there.

This is my take as well.  I'm just pessimistic and don't see it advancing any further than it currently is in my lifetime.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I am curious if y’all think OLT is just going to twiddle its thumbs for the next half-century or so. Granted, that seems to be a viable strategy for Thomas Chatmon, but nevertheless…

Depends.

What's their track record?

They've only been in existence for about three years and have, afaik, acquired only one piece of property.

How are we supposed to determine how successful they'll be in the future, or how quickly they'll obtain results, based on one success? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Depends.

What's their track record?

They've only been in existence for about three years and have, afaik, acquired only one piece of property.

How are we supposed to determine how successful they'll be in the future, or how quickly they'll obtain results, based on one success? 

For the moment, they’re better than what we had before. If they prove to be unproductive, I’ll be the first to say so just as I have for the useless appendages under the dome. I imagine Scott Maxwell would write a column about it as well.

As it happens, they turned over this first effort much more quickly than anyone expected. Performance matters, and as long as it continues, that should be respected.

Edited by spenser1058
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.