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

[nite owℓ]

On 8/31/2022 at 2:54 PM, codypet said:

You just reminded me of the naked people on the 7th floor of the Vue when I got into my car at the dumpy garage in Palmetto. I could only imagine how many rooms at that  hotel at JYP facing I-4 have the blinds open for those reasons.

Some people really stare all the way inside too lol. Nudism and exhibitionism kinda goes with the territory of being at home (for some people), but sometimes we see crazy things happening down below at street level too. Years ago, I saw a drunken couple strolling home one night... the woman stumbled and fell onto the sidewalk, grabbed onto the waist of her male counterpart in order to hoist herself up again, changed her mind and unbuckled his belt instead and... you can guess the rest. No they weren't homeless and this was on the outer sidewalk of Lake Eola with other people milling about. I think they forgot they were still in public or something because they seemingly caught themselves, packed everything away and scurried off. I've seen quite a bit over the years, albeit I don't really take time to enjoy the views anymore as the novelty has worn off. Sometimes people forget the buildings have eyes.

Edited September 7, 2022 by nite owℓ

[orlandocity87]

A few shots from last night. 

 

[JFW657]

I wonder if they plan to cover the open top of the visor. 

Looks kind of unfinished like that. 

[Tim3167]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

I wonder if they plan to cover the open top of the visor. 

Looks kind of unfinished like that. 

Personally I like it. I like to think of it as a nod to the big empty cube on top of Orlando City Center proposal for that lot.

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, JFW657 said:

I wonder if they plan to cover the open top of the visor. 

Looks kind of unfinished like that. 

there appears to be an inner lattice or structure I wonder if that gets built in or filled in...

[JFW657]

44 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

there appears to be an inner lattice or structure I wonder if that gets built in or filled in...

Yes, I think maybe that interior structure might get some kind of vertical covering, leaving the visor with a partially open and partially filled in appearance. 

[jrs2]

26 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Yes, I think maybe that interior structure might get some kind of vertical covering, leaving the visor with a partially open and partially filled in appearance. 

is there supposed to be a rooftop restaurant there?  I don't recall.

[uncreativeusername]

This seems to be an accurate rendering that matches the construction photos; there are some enclosed portions, and some open portions. 

[jrs2]

18 minutes ago, uncreativeusername said:

This seems to be an accurate rendering that matches the construction photos; there are some enclosed portions, and some open portions. 

...partial roof...

[prahaboheme]

The airy cornice is necessary to break up an otherwise massive and horizontal building. 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, uncreativeusername said:

This seems to be an accurate rendering that matches the construction photos; there are some enclosed portions, and some open portions. 

Partially open with those enclosed blocks is the optimal look for that roofline.

Not too wide open, not too enclosed. 

[RedStar25]

21 hours ago, Tim3167 said:

Personally I like it. I like to think of it as a nod to the big empty cube on top of Orlando City Center proposal for that lot.

HA! I remember people threatening to fly planes through it. Granted this was pre 9/11. 

[jrs2]

29 minutes ago, RedStar25 said:

HA! I remember people threatening to fly planes through it. Granted this was pre 9/11. 

to think the City had the audacity to claim some sort of design reason for not approving it, when fast forwarding all these years since 1998 you see the designs of all the other buildings built since then and are underwhelmed...

[JFW657]

6 hours ago, jrs2 said:

to think the City had the audacity to claim some sort of design reason for not approving it, when fast forwarding all these years since 1998 you see the designs of all the other buildings built since then and are underwhelmed...

That's not what happened as I recall.

They lowered the height because of the FAA requirements, then the project just fizzled out. 

[RedStar25]

18 hours ago, JFW657 said:

That's not what happened as I recall.

They lowered the height because of the FAA requirements, then the project just fizzled out. 

Yea, this is true. It was over 600' and it reignited the discussion about the absurd FAA height limit in Orlando since the proposed building was not in any flight path. 

[spenser1058]

49 minutes ago, RedStar25 said:

Yea, this is true. It was over 600' and it reignited the discussion about the absurd FAA height limit in Orlando since the proposed building was not in any flight path. 

Let’s be honest - developers are fine with the current height limit. If they REALLY wanted to, they would do as Sun Bank and Lincoln did for Sun Bank Center.

The Cube building was proposed by Ron Pizzuti. After settling for one of the sad little midrise buildings in Midtown (or @dcluley98-land or whatever we’re calling it these days), he went running back to Columbus (maybe he was a big Urban Liar fan…).

Anyway, let’s just retire that excuse. If someone really wanted to build a 600’ tower, they’d find a way (isn’t that what developers do -find a way to make things happen?) It’s telling that 35+ years later, no one has even gone above 441’ yet.

It would probably require a locally headquartered firm that wants a trophy building to do it (that was certainly the case with Sun Bank, duPont Center and Linda Chapin’s courthouse ) and we’re fresh out of those (see Red Lobster which is now controlled by a Thai firm, I think).

Edited September 10, 2022 by spenser1058

[RedStar25]

2 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Let’s be honest - developers are fine with the current height limit. If they REALLY wanted to change it, they would, just as Sun Bank and Lincoln did for Sun Bank Center.

The Cube building was proposed by Ron Pizzuti. After settling for one of the sad little midrise buildings in Midtown (or @dcluley98-land or whatever we’re calling it these days), he went running back to Columbus (maybe he was a big Urban Liar fan…).

Anyway, let’s just retire that excuse. If someone really wanted to build a 600’ tower, they’d find a way (isn’t that what developers do -find a way to make things happen?) It’s telling that 35+ years later, no one has even gone above 441’ yet.

It would probably require a locally headquartered firm that wants a trophy building to do it (that was certainly the case with Sun Bank, duPont Center and Linda Chapin’s courthouse ) and we’re fresh out of those (see Red Lobster which is now controlled by a Thai firm, I think).

Yea, any hope now would be residential. At least the city is becoming dense. 

[spenser1058]

2 minutes ago, RedStar25 said:

Yea, any hope now would be residential. At least the city is becoming dense. 

@JFW657tells me I’ve been dense for decades!

[JFW657]

35 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

@JFW657tells me I’ve been dense for decades!

Link please......   

[jrs2]

19 hours ago, JFW657 said:

That's not what happened as I recall.

They lowered the height because of the FAA requirements, then the project just fizzled out. 

Yeah, I knew about that, and it was debated over on Skyscrapercity for years (prior to UP) about that FAA "height" limit.  It was on the news; it was in print; it was everywhere.  More known than the FAA's power to, and likelihood to grant a variance (as it does in every city where its an issue) was The City's disdain with the design.  The FAA height limit wasn't set in stone, as one would presume, otherwise Pizzuti would have proposed a design and redesign that was no taller than what the FAA deemed too tall on that lot to begin with.  But they didn't.  The tower went from 600'+ to 487' to 404' or something like that after two redesigns to the original.  I mean, as we all know, as a developer, you don't just blindly design a building at a certain height hoping it didn't exceed the FAA height limit for that lot.  There was (and always is) way more involved with input from The City. (As a reminder, the FAA has a 500' height limit in and around the I-Drive area and the Mangos people got a variance to build Skycoaster or whatever at a height of 790' about 6 years ago.  So these limits aren't set in stone). 

My point had to do with The City claiming some sort of pompous design taste superiority, that when compared to what was built after 1998 in downtown, was a ridiculous notion.  If the City liked the design, this could have turned out differently.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1997-12-18-9712171123-story.html

1997 article:  "147' cube would be a ridiculous eyesore..."

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1998-10-30-9810290969-story.html

1998:  "the cube stays"

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/1998/11/02/story6.html

1998: " The cube lives.  For the third straight redesign, the [building] is crowned with an open cube"

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Let’s be honest - developers are fine with the current height limit. If they REALLY wanted to, they would do as Sun Bank and Lincoln did for Sun Bank Center.

The Cube building was proposed by Ron Pizzuti. After settling for one of the sad little midrise buildings in Midtown (or @dcluley98-land or whatever we’re calling it these days), he went running back to Columbus (maybe he was a big Urban Liar fan…).

Anyway, let’s just retire that excuse. If someone really wanted to build a 600’ tower, they’d find a way (isn’t that what developers do -find a way to make things happen?) It’s telling that 35+ years later, no one has even gone above 441’ yet.

It would probably require a locally headquartered firm that wants a trophy building to do it (that was certainly the case with Sun Bank, duPont Center and Linda Chapin’s courthouse ) and we’re fresh out of those (see Red Lobster which is now controlled by a Thai firm, I think).

for whatever reason, you got it bad for Pizutti.  Ain't nobody bucking a height limit without The City giving  the project it's blessing.  Why you're putting it all on him, I have no idea.

[JFW657]

25 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

Yeah, I knew about that, and it was debated over on Skyscrapercity for years (prior to UP) about that FAA "height" limit.  It was on the news; it was in print; it was everywhere.  More known than the FAA's power to, and likelihood to grant a variance (as it does in every city where its an issue) was The City's disdain with the design.  The FAA height limit wasn't set in stone, as one would presume, otherwise Pizzuti would have proposed a design and redesign that was no taller than what the FAA deemed too tall on that lot to begin with.  But they didn't.  The tower went from 600'+ to 487' to 404' or something like that after two redesigns to the original.  I mean, as we all know, as a developer, you don't just blindly design a building at a certain height hoping it didn't exceed the FAA height limit for that lot.  There was (and always is) way more involved with input from The City. (As a reminder, the FAA has a 500' height limit in and around the I-Drive area and the Mangos people got a variance to build Skycoaster or whatever at a height of 790' about 6 years ago.  So these limits aren't set in stone). 

My point had to do with The City claiming some sort of pompous design taste superiority, that when compared to what was built after 1998 in downtown, was a ridiculous notion.  If the City liked the design, this could have turned out differently.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1997-12-18-9712171123-story.html

1997 article:  "147' cube would be a ridiculous eyesore..."

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1998-10-30-9810290969-story.html

1998:  "the cube stays"

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/1998/11/02/story6.html

1998: " The cube lives.  For the third straight redesign, the [building] is crowned with an open cube"

Well, I read all three articles and aside from the dubious personal opinions stated by some nobody at the Sentinel, apparently with a corncob lodged in his extreme lower digestive tract regarding the design, I didn't read one report of a negative reaction from the powers that were.

Aamof, the only quote of a city official was from Glenda in da Hood, who said "This will be a landmark for our city and give the skyline an identity."

Not exactly what I would describe as negativity.  

[spenser1058]

40 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

Yeah, I knew about that, and it was debated over on Skyscrapercity for years (prior to UP) about that FAA "height" limit.  It was on the news; it was in print; it was everywhere.  More known than the FAA's power to, and likelihood to grant a variance (as it does in every city where its an issue) was The City's disdain with the design.  The FAA height limit wasn't set in stone, as one would presume, otherwise Pizzuti would have proposed a design and redesign that was no taller than what the FAA deemed too tall on that lot to begin with.  But they didn't.  The tower went from 600'+ to 487' to 404' or something like that after two redesigns to the original.  I mean, as we all know, as a developer, you don't just blindly design a building at a certain height hoping it didn't exceed the FAA height limit for that lot.  There was (and always is) way more involved with input from The City. (As a reminder, the FAA has a 500' height limit in and around the I-Drive area and the Mangos people got a variance to build Skycoaster or whatever at a height of 790' about 6 years ago.  So these limits aren't set in stone). 

My point had to do with The City claiming some sort of pompous design taste superiority, that when compared to what was built after 1998 in downtown, was a ridiculous notion.  If the City liked the design, this could have turned out differently.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1997-12-18-9712171123-story.html

1997 article:  "147' cube would be a ridiculous eyesore..."

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1998-10-30-9810290969-story.html

1998:  "the cube stays"

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/1998/11/02/story6.html

1998: " The cube lives.  For the third straight redesign, the [building] is crowned with an open cube"

for whatever reason, you got it bad for Pizutti.  Ain't nobody bucking a height limit without The City giving  the project it's blessing.  Why you're putting it all on him, I have no idea.

I’m not putting anything on anyone - I was merely noting that the supposed height limit bandied about isn’t nearly as fixed as people seem to imagine here. Our tallest building belies that fact. 

As for Ron, if he had such a steadfast commitment to getting it done, it’s interesting that the legacy he left us was an uninspired midrise several blocks north before he headed off for what I guess were greener pastures ( @HankStrong and @AndyPok1 can tell us if that’s the case).

Rather than always blaming a height requirement which we know is not permanently fixed, I merely suggest there were other reasons the project did not proceed.

I’m with @JFW657in that there were those who made sport of The Cube , but I don’t recall Glenda’s folks being seriously opposed to it.

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by spenser1058

[spenser1058]

As I’ve mentioned before, the building of a great city is more than some out of town developer dropping in and building a meh building or corporations making a transactional decision to locate here and then disappearing (hello, Burnham and that chip plant on JYP that pulled a “now you see it, now you don’t some years before that).

Yes, that’s part of it, but what takes us to the next level is the connective tissue and sinew those who truly believe in a city’s possibilities commit over the long term make it so.

Atlanta is the place I know best for that so let’s use it as an example. First, the hypercharged Atlanta we know today wasn’t that way if you go back to the ‘50’s.

At that time , Atlanta and Birmingham were neck and neck as possibilities of greatest city in the New South that was beginning to grow like kudzu after WWII. That followed a century after the Civil War when the entire region was mostly like we think of Mississippi today.

It all started with Coke, which became one of the first multinational companies because of a decision to make a bottle of Coke readily available to our soldiers in WWII wherever they might be.

So, generations of Coke execs including folks like the Candlers and later execs made the decision to stick with Atlanta based on things like moving past the racial issues tearing up the South - a world-class company had to welcome folks from all over the world.

There needed to be an airport with flights to just about anywhere Coke might be bottled. Delta, having relocated from LA to Atlanta bought in to that idea. Mayor Billy Hartsfield got to work (and that’s why you see that name when you fly into ATL).

Things got off to a great start. Sure, developers from all over came to get a piece of the pie but those like John Portman and Tom Cousins made Atlanta home base. They bought in to doing whatever was necessary to build a burgeoning metropolis.

That took the city to the next level. Bringing major league sports teams in (then a rarity in the South) and having top tier schools like Ga Tech and Emory were important pieces of the pie.

By the ‘70’s, Atlanta had become THE city of the New South (just as you would now, the idea they were neck and neck with Birmingham only 20 years earlier was considered a joke).

Nevertheless, Atlanta was still considered an up and coming regional city but by no means international.

Again, folks dedicated to the city made the leap possible. First, a president, Jimmy Carter, who along with his fellow Atlantan and UN Ambassador Andrew Young, made worldwide human rights a big deal. After they left DC, the Carter Center would ramp that up to fight scourges around the world like Guinea worm and by monitoring elections wherever democracy might be struggling.

Another local, who was a rich party boy based on his family’s wealth from a billboard company, had the audacity to start the first Cable News Network and (gasp!) locate it in Atlanta instead of NYC. Ted Turner’s CNN would go international and bring even more attention back home to Atlanta.

The growth continued and by the ‘90’s the unheard of idea of an Olympic Games in a place like the South came to be right there in Atlanta.

I could go on but the bottom line is that folks dedicated to a city made it happen through their efforts. It wasn’t just someone dropping in, building a tall building and leaving that made it so.

If we want to take Orlando to the next level, we have to develop the leaders who will have that same sort of dedication to the city and make it known there’s no place they’d rather call home. Without that, we’ll always be nothing more than a Lake Mary on steroids.

For whatever reason, Ron chose not to make that commitment to Orlando. Apparently he did to Columbus. That’s great for him but my attention is on those who want to do amazing things here and move us onward.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by spenser1058

[jrs2]

34 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I’m not putting anything on anyone - I was merely noting that the supposed height limit bandied about isn’t nearly as fixed as people seem to imagine here. Our tallest building belies that fact. 

As for Ron, if he had such a steadfast commitment to getting it done, it’s interesting that the legacy he left us was an uninspired midrise several blocks north before he headed off for what I guess were greener pastures ( @HankStrong and @AndyPok1 can tell us if that’s the case).

Rather than always blaming a height requirement which we know is not permanently fixed, I merely suggest there were other reasons the project did not proceed.

I’m with @JFW657in that there were those who made sport of The Cube , but I don’t recall Glenda’s folks being seriously opposed to it.

Here's an article leading up to a three-tower proposal race from 1996, Pizzuti being one of the three, and none of the three ever seeing the light of day (One Orlando Centre II being one and Fifth Third II (Eola Park Centre) being the other).

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/1996/08/19/story3.html

What did get built was Capital Plaza II, CNL, and Lincoln Tower by 1998-2000.   it looks like the trend for smaller floor plates and smaller projects was already beginning.

I just know that if The City wants something, it's likely getting done, and if they don't, it likely won't (see DPAC, Citrus Bowl, and Amway Center).  Look at how The City interfered with Skycoaster initially as a favor or whatever to Universal which did not want that project b/c of its future plans.  We pretty much flushed all that out on these boards 6-7 years ago. That being said I remember talk back in '97 whether from the media or from not-reported on sources that The City didn't want it b/c of the design.  And here's another thing, the whole thing about Tim Baker and BB being on the downtown design board; well, in the same way that BB got all of those projects in the 2000's pre-bust and post-bust, other major downtown players also easily garner the attention of the decision-makers to benefit themselves- those three projects above never got built yet Lincoln, Capital, and CNL, all rivals, end up taking their places more or less in the downtown office submarket for new construction at the end of the '90's.  

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

Well, I read all three articles and aside from the dubious personal opinions stated by some nobody at the Sentinel, apparently with a corncob lodged in his extreme lower digestive tract regarding the design, I didn't read one report of a negative reaction from the powers that were.

Aamof, the only quote of a city official was from Glenda in da Hood, who said "This will be a landmark for our city and give the skyline an identity."

Not exactly what I would describe as negativity.  

true, but check out my reply to Spenser.  it kind of touches on this issue but more or less deals  mainly with another...