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

[jack]

Considering the thing is fenced it, it really doesn't impact anyone for the better except looking at it from a distance. And if a building is built around it, it will be for residents only. 

On a separate note, if large canopy oaks were desired, the city could have planted them back in the 80's when the redid orange ave. Large oaks are tough on the ROW. 

[orange87]

4 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Or.... scale it back to 25 - 30 stories with a smaller footprint and keep the tree...  

Throw in a visor and you have a deal.

[Flotex]

This is ridiculous, are we really talking about not building a tall tower in downtown Orlando to save a tree?
Want to see tress go to Wekiva or similar and you'll see plenty.
I thought this was an urban development forum and we like our city to grow I guess I'll go to the Greta the greeen kid save the trees forum....

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

[JFW657]

10 minutes ago, Flotex said:

This is ridiculous, are we really talking about not building a tall tower in downtown Orlando to save a tree?
Want to see tress go to Wekiva or similar and you'll see plenty.

I thought this was an urban development forum and we like our city to grow

Above all else, this is an opinion forum.

People express opinions here.

There is no guarantee that yours will agree with them all or that they will all agree with yours.

But don't worry.... opinions won't hurt you.

BTW, in my opinion, I hope the design gets scaled back.

Not only to save the tree, but so that the neighboring building won't need to be demo'd as well.

17 minutes ago, Flotex said:

I guess I'll go to the Greta the greeen kid save the trees forum....

Cool.

Maybe I'll join up over there too.

Sounds like my kind of place.  

[Uncommon]

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

This thread is turning into a real "Thriller", ain't it?   

[Flotex]

[emoji269][emoji269][emoji269][emoji269][emoji269] enjoy [emoji269][emoji269][emoji269][emoji269][emoji269]

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

[spenser1058]

Did I mention trees reduce the ambient temperature in the city (thus saving energy), help to reduce air pollution and increase the comfort of urban residents?

6 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

This thread is turning into a real "Thriller", ain't it?   

We needed some drama while DPCPA is closed for the pandemic.

[Musikprince]

26 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Above all else, this is an opinion forum.

People express opinions here.

There is no guarantee that yours will agree with them all or that they will all agree with yours.

But don't worry.... opinions won't hurt you.

BTW, in my opinion, I hope the design gets scaled back.

Not only to save the tree, but so that the neighboring building won't need to be demo'd as well.

Cool.

Maybe I'll join up over there too.

Sounds like my kind of place.  

We now have 15 towers in development that are over 500'.  That doesn't even include some planned projects that should be well over that height like Block 190, Railyard Condos site x 2, and 321 W. 6th.

•  2

I happen to stumble across the Austin thread about another new 600' tower that just got proposed and this was one of the first post from someone in the know... And here in Orlando we're squabbling over 1 tree to build just 1 tower! Smh

[JFW657]

9 minutes ago, Musikprince said:

We now have 15 towers in development that are over 500'.  That doesn't even include some planned projects that should be well over that height like Block 190, Railyard Condos site x 2, and 321 W. 6th.

I happen to stumble across the Austin thread about another new 600' tower that just got proposed and this was one of the first post from someone in the know... And here in Orlando we're squabbling over 1 tree to build just 1 tower! Smh

I wouldn't take it all too seriously.  

[spenser1058]

2 minutes ago, Musikprince said:

We now have 15 towers in development that are over 500'.  That doesn't even include some planned projects that should be well over that height like Block 190, Railyard Condos site x 2, and 321 W. 6th.

•  2

I happen to stumble across the Austin thread about another new 600' tower that just got proposed and this was one of the first post from someone in the know... And here in Orlando we're squabbling over 1 tree to build just 1 tower! Smh

Orlando’s not Austin (not to take away from Austin - it’s a splendid place and I’d kill for an H-E-B here)

Austin, however, has a built in advantage for its downtown-it’s a state capital. Those cities grew out from their downtowns as the core of their regions (Atlanta and Nashville, cities where  I lived, were similar in that regard).

Otoh, downtown Orlando was never the center of the region.

In fact, had it not been for a sleight of hand by Jacob Summerlin, Sanford was supposed to be the major city hereabouts.

Anyway,  it was decentralized from the beginning and became more so after WWII.

Trying to make downtown something it never was and never will be hasn’t worked so far and is probably not going to change.

A successful city is all about its sense of place. May I recommend a review of how Central Florida came to be? I would be happy to recommend some books and articles on our history and UCF has some fine courses on our local history, if infrequent.

 

 

 

[Flotex]

We now have 15 towers in development that are over 500'.  That doesn't even include some planned projects that should be well over that height like Block 190, Railyard Condos site x 2, and 321 W. 6th.

•  2

I happen to stumble across the Austin thread about another new 600' tower that just got proposed and this was one of the first post from someone in the know... And here in Orlando we're squabbling over 1 tree to build just 1 tower! Smh

I have been living in this country almost twenty years, half in Austin and half in Orlando, I hope Orlando one day takes the Austin approach, high density, urban living, focus on high paying jobs, it wasn't like that 20 years ago...

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

[spenser1058]

2 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I wouldn't take it all too seriously.  

Our squabbles are indeed minor relative to Election Twitter.

[Musikprince]

1 minute ago, JFW657 said:

I wouldn't take it all too seriously.  

Honestly, I'm cool... ive just lived in 2 other major cities before settling here to raise a family and have never heard or read about a tree basically causing an uprising to block a new development,  especially a 400' plus tower! It's just crazy to keep reading the same argument day after day. 

[Musikprince]

13 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Orlando’s not Austin (not to take away from Austin - it’s a splendid place and I’d kill for an H-E-B here)

Austin, however, has a built in advantage for its downtown-it’s a state capital. Those cities grew out from their downtowns as the core of their regions (Atlanta and Nashville, cities where  I lived, were similar in that regard).

Otoh, downtown Orlando was never the center of the region.

In fact, had it not been for a sleight of hand by Jacob Summerlin, Sanford was supposed to be the major city hereabouts.

Anyway,  it was decentralized from the beginning and became more so after WWII.

Trying to make downtown something it never was and never will be hasn’t worked so far and is probably not going to change.

A successful city is all about its sense of place. May I recommend a review of how Central Florida came to be? I would be happy to recommend some books and articles on our history and UCF has some fine courses on our local history, if infrequent.

 

 

 

Spenser,  I get it but that history is long past and to keep progressing forward, you can't keep getting stuck in what the city used to be. It's about where do you want to go now! Im just simply saying that there's absolutely no justification to expect a growing metropolis to not build a tower for a tree.

[JFW657]

6 minutes ago, Musikprince said:

Honestly, I'm cool... ive just lived in 2 other major cities before settling here to raise a family and have never heard or read about a tree basically causing an uprising to block a new development,  especially a 400' plus tower! It's just crazy to keep reading the same argument day after day. 

You have apparently read something into my posts that isn't there.

I'm not talking about "blocking" anything.

Aamof, I specifically stated as much. I'm just hoping that it falls through of its own accord and something less massive gets built there by a developer who has a heart for such silly, useless things as old trees and old adjoining buildings, etc.

Odd notion to some people I know, but that's the way I feel.

Not sorry.

7 minutes ago, Musikprince said:

Spenser,  I get it but that history is long past and to keep progressing forward, you can't keep getting stuck in what the city used to be. It's about where do you want to go now! Im just simply saying that there's absolutely no justification to expect a growing metropolis to not build a tower for a tree.

Again, you're arguing against something that nobody ever proposed.

Nobody has said that a  tower shouldn't be built there.

Just a slightly smaller, narrower one with a smaller base.

[orlandouprise]

38 minutes ago, Musikprince said:

Spenser,  I get it but that history is long past and to keep progressing forward, you can't keep getting stuck in what the city used to be. It's about where do you want to go now! Im just simply saying that there's absolutely no justification to expect a growing metropolis to not build a tower for a tree.

1000%, this place will always stay small-time as long as people want to keep spinning their wheels in our past. It is impressive how Austin has re-invented itself to become what it is today.

...and by the way, being a capital city does not equate to being a centralized, dense urban area...see Tallahassee and many others. The differences are attitudes. THAT makes the difference.

Cheers

[spenser1058]

6 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

1000%, this place will always stay small-time as long as people want to keep spinning their wheels in our past. It is impressive how Austin has re-invented itself to become what it is today.

...and by the way, being a capital city does not equate to being a centralized, dense urban area...see Tallahassee and many others. The differences are attitudes. THAT makes the difference.

Cheers

Atlanta has long liked to pride itself on being the most “heavily forested major urban area in the country”. I guess we don’t like Atlanta either, right?

[JFW657]

4 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

1000%, this place will always stay small-time as long as people want to keep spinning their wheels in our past. It is impressive how Austin has re-invented itself to become what it is today.

...and by the way, being a capital city does not equate to being a centralized, dense urban area...see Tallahassee and many others. The differences are attitudes. THAT makes the difference.

Cheers

That sounds like an very oversimplified view of what results in densely built, cosmopolitan urban centers.

I'm pretty sure the main things are local area population size, business climate and the amount of alternative places for office space. I'm sure there are probably several other factors I didn't mention and local attitudes probably do have a place on the list, but it's a much more complex, intertwined dynamic than just that.

Downtown Orlando has never in its history been a really strong economic magnet like downtowns in other metro areas our size and even smaller.

[spenser1058]

7 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Atlanta has long liked to pride itself on being the most “heavily forested major urban area in the country”. I guess we don’t like Atlanta either, right?

Well, for heaven’s sake, if all it takes to build a city are towers, then Lake Nona is perfect right? Now, we may have to start over a little further from the airport to build the towers as high as you want them , but since history doesn’t matter, it’ll just be easier to run the Backhoe over the palmettos and let ‘er rip! Y’all have no need for downtown at all.

btw, since a sense of place doesn’t matter, it’ll be just fine to let Tavistock pay for a new OMA out there also, right?

What’s also funny is how if we’re so afraid of the big time, how is it we went from not making the Top 50 MSA list at all in 1978 to #23 today, zooming past Cleveland, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Jacksonville and ccuntlessvother cities? Somehow, that doesn’t compute.

Edited May 15, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Well, for heaven’s sake, if all it takes to build a city are towers, then Lake Nona is perfect right? Now, we may have to start over a little further from the airport to build the towers as high as you want them , but since history doesn’t matter, it’ll just be easier to run the Backhoe over the palmettos and let ‘er rip! Y’all have no need for downtown at all.

I'm pretty sure palmettos would be a job for bulldozers.

Backhoes get involved when there are buildings and walls to be torn down.

[spenser1058]

3 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I'm pretty sure palmettos would be a job for bulldozers.

Backhoes get involved when there are buildings and walls to be torn down.

Thanks. I get so confused! Better leave it to Buddy. 

[dcluley98]

I wish they proposed this building on that parking lot at Washington and  Garland. *with a smaller pedestal, still. 

[spenser1058]

2 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

I wish they proposed this building on that parking lot at Washington and  Garland. *with a smaller pedestal, still. 

I’d love them to finally fill in along there. One thing I love about the Lee Roy Selmon in Tampa is how close it comes to the downtown towers. That would be fun for I-4.

Edited May 15, 2020 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

5 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

I wish they proposed this building on that parking lot at Washington and  Garland. *with a smaller pedestal, still. 

I'd like to have seen it go up on the Golden Sparrow site.