389 North (AKA Zoi House) | 41-Story Mixed-Use [Proposed]

[jack]

On 2/5/2020 at 12:02 PM, dcluley98 said:

Not for long. Orlando has the  fastest rising rents in the country: https://www.wesh.com/article/orlando-rents-rising-faster-than-any-other-city-in-america/26552916

(article was from last year, but I have seen similar articles/reports  lately)

That is the entire metro and part of the reason our rents are rising so fast is suburban product. Rents in downtown Orlando are not growing fast enough though we will see when all of this new product comes on line. 

19 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Austin also has 75000 state employees, many of whom I assume work close to downtown. 

Although the Texas legislature meets only every two years, there are thousands of lobbyists and influence group employees who are employees in the Capitol area. 

That makes quite a difference in Nashville and Atlanta, and those are the capitals of states much smaller than Texas.

It’s why we were so crestfallen when Gov. Claude Kirk’s efforts to move Florida’s capital to Orlando crashed and burned.

Employment associated with a state capital is one of the most stable bases for core cities.

Good point about the state capital. That makes a big, big difference. 

[AmIReal]

1 hour ago, jack said:

That is the entire metro and part of the reason our rents are rising so fast is suburban product. Rents in downtown Orlando are not growing fast enough though we will see when all of this new product comes on line. 

Is that correct? The last I looked downtown was the 2nd highest average rent and the 2nd highest growth rate in the area. Behind the UCF area in both counts.

Maybe my numbers were outdated.

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

1 hour ago, AmIReal said:

Is that correct? The last I looked downtown was the 2nd highest average rent and the 2nd highest growth rate in the area. Behind the UCF area in both counts.

Maybe my numbers were outdated.

 

I think so. Seems almost xheeper to live downtown than the southern suburbs. 

[smileguy]

1 minute ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

I think so. Seems almost xheeper to live downtown than the southern suburbs. 

I was recently looking to move from a duplex in Eola Heights, and thought we might save a little moving further out --- not the case at all!  Ended up in Colonialtown North near Audubon for twice what we were paying in Eola (for a much larger place).

[nite owℓ]

13 hours ago, smileguy said:

I was recently looking to move from a duplex in Eola Heights, and thought we might save a little moving further out --- not the case at all!  Ended up in Colonialtown North near Audubon for twice what we were paying in Eola (for a much larger place).

I find that interesting... are the dwellings truly like-like (i.e. similar in age, sq ft, finishes, amenities, single-family vs multi-vamily, etc) or  possibly apples to oranges?

[AmIReal]

https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/fl/orlando/

Edited February 7, 2020 by AmIReal

[smileguy]

On 2/7/2020 at 6:10 AM, nite owℓ said:

I find that interesting... are the dwellings truly like-like (i.e. similar in age, sq ft, finishes, amenities, single-family vs multi-vamily, etc) or  possibly apples to oranges?

They were apples to oranges.  What we did find, though, is that the price for something equivalent was about 1.5x what we were paying, but for a little bit higher rent, a big improvement.  We went from a 2/1, 750sqft 1950s duplex at Hyer and Concord $950, others going for $1400-$1500.)  We moved to a 1400sqft 1930s single family with yard, carport, 3/2 with updated kitchen and baths near Bumby and Virginia for $1,800.

[AndyPok1]

The interesting thing is that there's minimal distinction being given to distance or age.  Lofts at SoDo / Ecco / Novel Lucerne  are all charging roughly downtown pricing.  And the same is happening for the North Quarter and looks to continue with Yard / Mills Park.

You are paying just as much for less amenities but still being "close".  Only people I know staying in them long term rather than being in downtown proper are people that need more convenient parking.

[dcluley98]

Saw a sign up today so I went and checked it out. Apparently they just got a code violation for failure to maintain the lot and the fence. LOL. 

Mazal Holdings Group LLC -  was the entity listed as the owner:   
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=CurrentList&searchNameOrder=MAZALHOLDINGSGROUP L120001497100&aggregateId=flal-l12000149710-8f60015b-506b-423f-a3ce-79f425031102&searchTerm=Mazal Investments 13%2C LLC&listNameOrder=MAZALEZCOMPLETEWORK P090000095330

Affiliated with Abraham and Alma Weintraub and the Weintraub  Companies (development/construction company):   http://theweintraubcompanies.com/projects.html

They have developed several projects in the Miami/Aventura area, including apartments, condominiums, and commercial buildings. None this large, however. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by dcluley98

[JFW657]

14 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

Saw a sign up today so I went and checked it out. Apparently they just got a code violation for failure to maintain the lot and the fence. LOL. 

Mazal Holdings Group LLC -  was the entity listed as the owner:   
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=CurrentList&searchNameOrder=MAZALHOLDINGSGROUP L120001497100&aggregateId=flal-l12000149710-8f60015b-506b-423f-a3ce-79f425031102&searchTerm=Mazal Investments 13%2C LLC&listNameOrder=MAZALEZCOMPLETEWORK P090000095330

Affiliated with Abraham and Alma Weintraub and the Weintraub  Companies (development/construction company):   http://theweintraubcompanies.com/projects.html

They have developed several projects in the Miami/Aventura area, including apartments, condominiums, and commercial buildings. None this large, however. 

I hope they either abandon this altogether or opt for something a bit smaller.

Something that doesn't involve the demo of the adjoining buildings and hopefully, would allow for the big oak to remain.

[spenser1058]

SAVE THE TREE!

[orange87]

37 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I hope they either abandon this altogether or opt for something a bit smaller.

Something that doesn't involve the demo of the adjoining buildings and hopefully, would allow for the big oak to remain.

You'd rather not get a 400 foot building in order to save a tree? That's nuts!

[spenser1058]

11 minutes ago, orange87 said:

You'd rather not get a 400 foot building in order to save a tree? That's nuts!

Large trees downtown are quite rare east of Rosalind. Cookie-cutter verticals are popping up all the time. Trees provide a breeze for pedestrians, are better for the environment than the greenest building and are much more warm and fuzzy than sterile vertical buildings. They’re also good for property values. Save the tree and build the latest non-descript Baker Barrios box on any of the multiple empty lots adjoining I-4.

Alternatively, get creative and work around the tree and build something unique for a change. If the developer does that, I’m all for extra incentives to make it worth their while.

[HankStrong]

700' tall and zero trees!  That's what I want.  ;-) 

[orange87]

16 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Large trees downtown are quite rare east of Rosalind. Cookie-cutter verticals are popping up all the time. Trees provide a breeze for pedestrians, are better for the environment than the greenest building and are much more warm and fuzzy than sterile vertical buildings. They’re also good for property values. Save the tree and build the latest non-descript Baker Barrios box on any of the multiple empty lots adjoining I-4.

Alternatively, get creative and work around the tree and build something unique for a change. If the developer does that, I’m all for extra incentives to make it worth their while.

400+ foot towers AREN'T popping up all the time in Orlando. That's the point.

[HankStrong]

1 hour ago, orange87 said:

400+ foot towers AREN'T popping up all the time in Orlando. That's the point.

In all seriousness, I'm opposed to randomly cutting down trees, but I'll take the 400'+ in trade this time.  It's not like we've got 40 of them downtown and don't need any more.  This would be a huge deal to the skyline.

[Musikprince]

2 hours ago, orange87 said:

You'd rather not get a 400 foot building in order to save a tree? That's nuts!

Yeah I shook my head in disbelief when I read that! Just simply for the fact that we want to be a big time city but have a small time city mentality 

[spenser1058]

What’s fun to me after being in this room for 13+ years is that people regard every proposal announced here as the next Empire State Building. Instead, each new building we get is a squatty little box.

There hasn’t been a notable building completed since the courthouse in the mid ‘90’s. Sorry, I’d rather have the tree.

One of the most interesting things about downtown used to be how buildings were often built with grassy courtyards. We’ve mostly lost that in the name of developer profit, but a return to green space like that would make us a lot more interesting than boring boxes. The last significant private towers we got were trophy towers for local HQs. These days, even that’s no guarantee (Red Lobster is headquartered downtown and look where they are). 

Until something changes that, green is better.

Edited February 14, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

6 hours ago, orange87 said:

You'd rather not get a 400 foot building in order to save a tree? That's nuts!

It's not just the tree, it's the adjoining building too.

And it's not nuts to me.

I think the project is too big for that location. It would be great for the Golden Sparrow site, or whatever weird name they're calling it now, but that corner would be better served with something on a slightly smaller and narrower scale.

My opinion.

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, orange87 said:

400+ foot towers AREN'T popping up all the time in Orlando. That's the point.

Let them pop up in places that are better suited for them. 

4 hours ago, Musikprince said:

Yeah I shook my head in disbelief when I read that! Just simply for the fact that we want to be a big time city but have a small time city mentality 

Plopping  oversized buildings onto parcels that are too small for them is not a great plan for becoming a "big time city". I was also opposed to the monstrosity proposed for the SW corner of Eola Park and I hope nothing like that ever goes up there, too.

Something else for you to shake your head in disbelief at.  

3 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

What’s fun to me after being is this room for 13+ years is that people regard every proposal announced here as the next Empire State Building. Instead, each new building we get is a squatty little box.

There hasn’t been a notable building completed since the courthouse in the mid ‘90’s. Sorry, I’d rather have the tree.

One of the most interesting things about downtown used to be how buildings were often built with grassy courtyards. We’ve mostly lost that in the name of developer profit, but a return to green space like that would make us a lot more interesting than boring boxes. The last significant private towers we got were trophy towers for local HQs. These days, even that’s no guarantee (Red Lobster is headquartered downtown and look where they are). 

Until something changes that, green is better.

I'm not such a fan of green lawns downtown, but a few interestingly landscaped and terraced courtyards would be really swell. 

[dcluley98]

Counterpoint: It's  across the street from the current 3rd and 4th tallest buildings in Orlando as well as our block with the Central Station . . . . A tall building should go in this area. I want them to keep the tree too, but I think that this location is ripe for a 400' building. Now what I REALLY wish is that they put this where that stupid  Central Station project went. But it isn't a bad location, just a less than creative design. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by dcluley98

[IAmFloridaBorn]

In other words, this isn't happening? 

[JFW657]

4 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

Counterpoint. It's  across the street from our block with the Central Station. . . . A tall building should go in this area. I want them to keep the tree too, but I think that this location is ripe for a 400' building. Now what I REALLY wish is that they put this where that stupid  Central Station project went. But it isn't a bad location, just a less than creative design. 

I'm not opposed to Zoi's height, it's the overall mass that bothers me.

Make it tall and narrow and I'd be fine with it.

1 minute ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

In other words, this isn't happening? 

Nobody knows.

[dcluley98]

Agreed with that, JFW. The pedestal is very poorly designed. They should go for tall and skinny with less units and less parking/pedestal and make the bottom more street friendly on a human scale while trying to incorporate the tree. . .  I believe we discussed this before upthread that they should try to make the base much less imposing and work the tree into the space as a pocket park or part of the building design. 

But then, they probably can't make the numbers work if they don't have enough density. 

LOL. We had the exact same conversation over a year ago on page 5: 

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by dcluley98

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

Agreed with that, JFW. The pedestal is very poorly designed. They should go for tall and skinny with less units and less parking/pedestal and make the bottom more street friendly on a human scale while trying to incorporate the tree. . .  I believe we discussed this before upthread that they should try to make the base much less imposing and work the tree into the space as a pocket park or part of the building design. 

But then, they probably can't make the numbers work if they don't have enough density. 

I'm thinking something like a pedestal curved inward on the tree corner to accommodate the said park/plaza, and a tall, slender S shaped tower on top of it.