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

[nite owℓ]

Wasn't the master plan for Zoi House already approved? If built, the tower would've required the destruction of the tree anyway... shocking!

I love trees, but I'm so glad the owner removed the tree like a thief in the night. First, this is Orlando--not some top tier city rolling in dough. We can barely scrape up enough money to move historic homes much less relocate a large tree (not even getting into the logistics of moving said tree from point A to B). Second, this lot is located in the Central Business Disctrict - probably zoned for high intensity mixed use. This lot deserves to get built up to it's highest and best use WITHOUT IMPEDIMENT and should not be encouraged to remain a barren wasteland like other blighted intersections at Orange/Pine or Orange/Robinson... and soon to be Rosalind/Central. Lastly, just because a tree appears to be healthy, doesn't mean it's not suffering from tree rot. I've seen quite a few healthy looking trees in the area that were basically hollow on the inside. None of you know the condition of this tree and I'm sure most tree companies would be wary of tearing down a healthy tree located in city limits due to liability unless it was unhealthy or the property is approved for future development.

While this lot is probably zoned commercial, the city allows for the removal of trees on residential property without a permit as long as: "the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property." Even if done illegally, I hope the owner can procure paperwork to support/justify the removal of the tree. IMO since the property is located within the CBD, the owner should not be fined and should only be required to replant several trees in their ideal place: in the Right of Way as a street tree. Nothing more.

Edited October 27, 2021 by nite owℓ

[GregoryMCSE]

7 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

Wasn't the master plan for Zoi House already approved? If built, the tower would've required the destruction of the tree anyway... shocking!

I love trees, but I'm so glad the owner removed the tree like a thief in the night. First, this is Orlando--not some top tier city rolling in dough. We can barely scrape up enough money to move historic homes much less relocate a large tree (not even getting into the logistics of moving said tree from point A to B). Second, this lot is located in the Central Business Disctrict - probably zoned for high intensity mixed use. This lot deserves to get built up to it's highest and best use WITHOUT IMPEDIMENT and should not be encouraged to remain a barren wasteland like other blighted intersections at Orange/Pine or Orange/Robinson... and soon to be Rosalind/Central. Lastly, just because a tree appears to be healthy, doesn't mean it's not suffering from tree rot. I've seen quite a few healthy looking trees in the area that were basically hollow on the inside. None of you know the condition of this tree and I'm sure most tree companies would be wary of tearing down a healthy tree located in city limits due to liability unless it was unhealthy or the property is approved for future development.

While this lot is probably zoned commercial, the city allows for the removal of trees on residential property without a permit as long as: "the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property." Even if done illegally, I hope the owner can procure paperwork to support/justify the removal of the tree. IMO since the property is located within the CBD, the owner should not be fined and should only be required to replant several trees in their ideal place: in the Right of Way as a street tree. Nothing more.

[dcluley98]

Or, you know, we could end up with a barren wasteland with a stump instead.

[JFW657]

6 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

Or, you know, we could end up with a barren wasteland with a stump instead.

Did they even leave the stump????

[DHCowboys88]

I agree with Nite Owl, let's leave this great piece of land undeveloped to keep a tree (that nobody has access to due to the fence around the lot) sitting there? Naw, chopping it down is fine, the world shall still rotate. Now build.

Edited October 27, 2021 by DHCowboys88

[JFW657]

7 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

Wasn't the master plan for Zoi House already approved? If built, the tower would've required the destruction of the tree anyway... shocking!

I love trees, but I'm so glad the owner removed the tree like a thief in the night. First, this is Orlando--not some top tier city rolling in dough. We can barely scrape up enough money to move historic homes much less relocate a large tree (not even getting into the logistics of moving said tree from point A to B). Second, this lot is located in the Central Business Disctrict - probably zoned for high intensity mixed use. This lot deserves to get built up to it's highest and best use WITHOUT IMPEDIMENT and should not be encouraged to remain a barren wasteland like other blighted intersections at Orange/Pine or Orange/Robinson... and soon to be Rosalind/Central. Lastly, just because a tree appears to be healthy, doesn't mean it's not suffering from tree rot. I've seen quite a few healthy looking trees in the area that were basically hollow on the inside. None of you know the condition of this tree and I'm sure most tree companies would be wary of tearing down a healthy tree located in city limits due to liability unless it was unhealthy or the property is approved for future development.

While this lot is probably zoned commercial, the city allows for the removal of trees on residential property without a permit as long as: "the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property." Even if done illegally, I hope the owner can procure paperwork to support/justify the removal of the tree. IMO since the property is located within the CBD, the owner should not be fined and should only be required to replant several trees in their ideal place: in the Right of Way as a street tree. Nothing more.

TL/DR.

Personally, I hope Zoi never gets built.

Too big and massive for that corner.

Better places to build a massive tower like that.

And I hope whoever ordered that tree cut down loses their shirt.

[TRENCH]

I think it was this Monday that they were cutting the grass... the most activity I've seen apart from the tree cutting lmao 

 

Although as a urban planner I should care about maintaining existing trees, I'm more worried about the trees in the Amazon than one in the middle of a growing city on a peninsular swamp 

 

[prahaboheme]

Just now, JFW657 said:

 

Personally, I hope Zoi never gets built.

Too big and massive for that corner.

Better places to build a massive tower like that.

Why is Zoi House too massive for this lot in your view? And where should the owner of this land find another more suitable piece of property downtown for it?
 

[RedStar25]

19 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

TL/DR.

Personally, I hope Zoi never gets built.

Too big and massive for that corner.

Better places to build a massive tower like that.

And I hope whoever ordered that tree cut down loses their shirt.

Better places like where?

[JFW657]

2 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

Why is Zoi House too massive for this lot in your view? 

For one thing, because they'd have to tear down the building directly to the south of it which (I assume) still houses Fratelli's.

I know that building is not particularly special architecturally, but I do like it there and would like to see it remain. 

Plus, I think a perfectly and acceptably sized tower with a smaller footprint could go on that parcel without having to demo anything. 

Something in the 20 - 25 story range would be just fine and dandy.

10 minutes ago, prahaboheme said:

And where should the owner of this land find another more suitable piece of property downtown for it?

As I just said, I think they could sell it to a developer for a smaller project, or... if the owner IS the devloper, they could scale back their plans and develop a smaller tower.

Another POSSIBLE option would be to obtain the parcel just to the east of that one where the old Quizno's used to be, and build out in that direction for say, a parking deck, etc.

Finally, there is plenty of empty space along Hughey Ave. where nothing but asphalt parking lots now sit emty. 

Building there would not require tearing down any existing buildings.

1 minute ago, RedStar25 said:

Better places like where?

See above. 

[RedStar25]

7 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

For one thing, because they'd have to tear down the building directly to the south of it which (I assume) still houses Fratelli's.

I know that building is not particularly special architecturally, but I do like it there and would like to see it remain. 

Plus, I think a perfectly and acceptably sized tower with a smaller footprint could go on that parcel without having to demo anything. 

Something in the 20 - 25 story range would be just fine and dandy.

As I just said, I think they could sell it to a developer for a smaller project, or... if the owner IS the devloper, they could scale back their plans and develop a smaller tower.

Another POSSIBLE option would be to obtain the parcel just to the east of that one where the old Quizno's used to be, and build out in that direction for say, a parking deck, etc.

Finally, there is plenty of empty space along Hughey Ave. where nothing but asphalt parking lots now sit emty. 

Building there would not require tearing down any existing buildings.

See above. 

So it's just your opinion. 

[JFW657]

Just now, RedStar25 said:

So it's just your opinion. 

Exactly.

As yours is just yours.

Everything here is working as it's supposed to.

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, W7edwin said:

I think it was this Monday that they were cutting the grass... the most activity I've seen apart from the tree cutting lmao 

 

Although as a urban planner I should care about maintaining existing trees, I'm more worried about the trees in the Amazon than one in the middle of a growing city on a peninsular swamp 

 

I think the issue with that particular tree had more to do with sentimentality and local history.

IDK how old it was, but I' guessing it has been growing in that spot since the 1930's or so.

It stood there for all those decades watching all the doings in our growing little burg. 

Shame to see something that was living and growing and providing shade in that spot for longer than any of our entire lives just get sawed down for something that could very well turn out to be an ugly, concrete monstrosity.

It could have been moved. 

They could have at least made an effort. 

Oh well.

C'est la vie. 

[jrs2]

On 10/27/2021 at 10:58 AM, RedStar25 said:

So it's just your opinion. 

I think we've been conditioned to accept shorter wider buildings here in Orlando.  I get it ala quick broad-based density, but I don't like it.  After seeing what they build in NYC and Chicago (and I don't mean those 1,300'  tall skinny towers), I mean like this slender lot behind Prudential Plaza in Chicago that's gonna have a building the footprint of Society (just the tower) rise to 600'+.  In Orlando, that same parcel would become a dog walking park.  

 

On 10/27/2021 at 2:42 AM, nite owℓ said:

Wasn't the master plan for Zoi House already approved? If built, the tower would've required the destruction of the tree anyway... shocking!

I love trees, but I'm so glad the owner removed the tree like a thief in the night. First, this is Orlando--not some top tier city rolling in dough. We can barely scrape up enough money to move historic homes much less relocate a large tree (not even getting into the logistics of moving said tree from point A to B). Second, this lot is located in the Central Business Disctrict - probably zoned for high intensity mixed use. This lot deserves to get built up to it's highest and best use WITHOUT IMPEDIMENT and should not be encouraged to remain a barren wasteland like other blighted intersections at Orange/Pine or Orange/Robinson... and soon to be Rosalind/Central. Lastly, just because a tree appears to be healthy, doesn't mean it's not suffering from tree rot. I've seen quite a few healthy looking trees in the area that were basically hollow on the inside. None of you know the condition of this tree and I'm sure most tree companies would be wary of tearing down a healthy tree located in city limits due to liability unless it was unhealthy or the property is approved for future development.

While this lot is probably zoned commercial, the city allows for the removal of trees on residential property without a permit as long as: "the property owner obtains documentation from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree presents a danger to persons or property." Even if done illegally, I hope the owner can procure paperwork to support/justify the removal of the tree. IMO since the property is located within the CBD, the owner should not be fined and should only be required to replant several trees in their ideal place: in the Right of Way as a street tree. Nothing more.

I use the Chicago standard on these issues.  Build it as tall as possible (well, I think that's the NYC standard now with those- throw out the 7:1 height to width ratio towers that have been going up). 

I don't like trees being cut down any more than the next guy.  

But on the issue of "remaining a barren wasteland"  I will say I remembered people complaining about that grass lot turned NORA because they were losing dog walking green space.  

[nite owℓ]

On 10/27/2021 at 10:29 AM, JFW657 said:

TL/DR.

Instead of skipping past my comment, you felt the need to notify me that you didn't bother reading what I wrote . Since you really seem to enjoy bickering, I just wanted to return the pettiness and point out how you love to remind everyone that you can say whatever you want, but you get your feathers ruffled when other people state their own opinions. Regardless:

 

19 hours ago, jrs2 said:

I think we've been conditioned to accept shorter wider buildings here in Orlando.  I get it ala quick broad-based density, but I don't like it.  After seeing what they build in NYC and Chicago (and I don't mean those 1,300'  tall skinny towers), I mean like this slender lot behind Prudential Plaza in Chicago that's gonna have a building the footprint of Society (just the tower) rise to 600'+.  In Orlando, that same parcel would become a dog walking park.  

 

I use the Chicago standard on these issues.  Build it as tall as possible (well, I think that's the NYC standard now with those- throw out the 7:1 height to width ratio towers that have been going up). 

I don't like trees being cut down any more than the next guy.  

But on the issue of "remaining a barren wasteland"  I will say I remembered people complaining about that grass lot turned NORA because they were losing dog walking green space.  

That reminds me... "Save the Tree!" but we wouldn't have Skyhouse, Steelhouse, Camden North/The Sevens, The Vue, and how many other buildings today without destroying quite a few trees actually. How many UP members live in or have praised some of these buildings, yet have the gall to complain about one tree being destroyed on a lot they don't even have access to??

I guess only some trees count apparently:

 

 

[spenser1058]

It interests me that once an error is made it becomes holy writ and we can no longer learn from our mistakes and do better.

Actually, I was not thrilled about some of the projects you mention and let it be known (not necessarily here, I must confess I can’t cover everything on this site).

In any event, this tree, which was  of particular merit as likely over two centuries old, should have been saved. The city was in general agreement .

In this era of climate change, it’s particularly important that we dwell on the tree issue because they are a huge instrument in our arsenal to reduce ambient temperatures especially in urban areas.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by spenser1058

[Uncommon]

Cannot believe we are on a website called Urban Planet and are dedicating this much discussion around trees for Christ’s sake. Save trees if possible, sure, but a tree should NEVER be an impediment to constructing high density housing in an area desperate for it.

[nite owℓ]

5 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

It interests me that once an error made it becomes holy writ and we can no longer learn from our mistakes and do better.

Actually, I was not thrilled about some of the projects you mention and let it be known (not necessarily here, I must confess I can’t cover everything on this site).

In any event, this tree, which was likely was of particular merit as likely over two centuries old, should have been saved. The city agreed.

In this era of climate change, it’s particularly important that we dwell on the tree issue because they are a huge instrument in our arsenal to reduce ambient temperatures especially in urban areas.

 

 

I mean, most recent construction occurred just within the past 15 years... so it's not like this is ancient history. But it is easy quite easy to forget the trees of the past after tossing them into the wood chipper. We don't know the exact age of some of the other trees in the pictures either - they were no saplings and I think I recall the tree on The Vue's site was quite old as well (similar to the remaining one across the street on Palmetto?). I guess we all rationalize which trees are worth saving, but 200 year old trees aren't usually without disease or rot, so there's that. For example, someone recently destroyed a possible historic tree in the area, but the thing was hollow inside despite having a wide spread covering the yard and sidewalk.

[JFW657]

21 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

Instead of skipping past my comment, you felt the need to notify me that you didn't bother reading what I wrote . Since you really seem to enjoy bickering, I just wanted to return the pettiness and point out how you love to remind everyone that you can say whatever you want, but you get your feathers ruffled when other people state their own opinions. Regardless:

I just wasn't interested in plowing through your rambling wall of text.

Try putting a few more paragraph breaks in next time and maybe I'll read it.

And please... post a quote of me reminding everyone I can say whatever I want.

21 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

That reminds me... "Save the Tree!" but we wouldn't have Skyhouse, Steelhouse, Camden North/The Sevens, The Vue, and how many other buildings today without destroying quite a few trees actually. How many UP members live in or have praised some of these buildings, yet have the gall to complain about one tree being destroyed on a lot they don't even have access to??

Obviously, not all trees can or should be saved especially in a downtown area like ours, but some trees are more worthy of saving than others due to their size and age, etc.

I hate to see any tree get cut down, but all those trees that got taken down for those other projects, were likely not that old or that big and stately.

I just find it very odd that the subject upsets you... excuse me... ruffles your feathers so badly.

21 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

I guess only some trees count apparently:

I guess so.

[JFW657]

9 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

I mean, most recent construction occurred just within the past 15 years... so it's not like this is ancient history. But it is easy quite easy to forget the trees of the past after tossing them into the wood chipper. We don't know the exact age of some of the other trees in the pictures either - they were no saplings and I think I recall the tree on The Vue's site was quite old as well (similar to the remaining one across the street on Palmetto?). I guess we all rationalize which trees are worth saving, but 200 year old trees aren't usually without disease or rot, so there's that. For example, someone recently destroyed a possible historic tree in the area, but the thing was hollow inside despite having a wide spread covering the yard and sidewalk.

Lotta speculation and "mighta beens" in there.

[spenser1058]

38 minutes ago, nite owℓ said:

I mean, most recent construction occurred just within the past 15 years... so it's not like this is ancient history. But it is easy quite easy to forget the trees of the past after tossing them into the wood chipper. We don't know the exact age of some of the other trees in the pictures either - they were no saplings and I think I recall the tree on The Vue's site was quite old as well (similar to the remaining one across the street on Palmetto?). I guess we all rationalize which trees are worth saving, but 200 year old trees aren't usually without disease or rot, so there's that. For example, someone recently destroyed a possible historic tree in the area, but the thing was hollow inside despite having a wide spread covering the yard and sidewalk.

The city seemed to agree this tree was still healthy. We can always make excuses (developers love to do that as they keep paving over greenspace with endless asphalt and horrible big boxes - see Colonial Dr.).

Afterward, they ignore that what they did is no better (and often worse) than what came before.

Nothing will ever improve if we don’t change direction. Now is the time. If not, when?

MLK preached on this very topic when he observed that the worst fate was for good people to do nothing. I heartily concur.

Edited October 29, 2021 by spenser1058

[spenser1058]

26 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

Cannot believe we are on a website called Urban Planet and are dedicating this much discussion around trees for Christ’s sake. Save trees if possible, sure, but a tree should NEVER be an impediment to constructing high density housing in an area desperate for it.

There was an article in the New York Times this week about how efforts there were leading to a booming wildlife population. Atlanta loves to note that it’s located in one of the most heavily forested urban counties in the country.

Those are pretty darn urban, don’t you think? In the era of climate change, perhaps I might suggest we’re entering a new paradigm (hopefully in time).

[Uncommon]

12 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

There was an article in the New York Times this week about how efforts there were leading to a booming wildlife population. Atlanta loves to note that it’s located in one of the most heavily forested urban counties in the country.

Those are pretty darn urban, don’t you think? In the era of climate change, perhaps I might suggest we’re entering a new paradigm (hopefully in time).

Atlanta is hardly urban. Its sprawl is very well-chronicled. And the article you’re referring to is likely irrelevant and does not suggest single trees should be saved in favor of building desperately-needed high density housing. And even if it does, you’re comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, a concrete jungle to a swamp.

[spenser1058]

10 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

Atlanta is hardly urban. Its sprawl is very well-chronicled. And the article you’re referring to is likely irrelevant and does not suggest single trees should be saved in favor of building desperately-needed high density housing. And even if it does, you’re comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, a concrete jungle to a swamp.

If you think nothing can ever change, it never will. Also, Fulton County is in fact considered an urban county. I could tell you all the social issues that supposedly could not be changed right up until they were (see marriage equality).

On the urban front, it was once believed it would be impossible to provide clean drinking water in our cities. Today, places like Flint that don’t have that are outliers.

Before the Clean Air and Water acts, we were told pollution was unavoidable in cities. Beijing is still living with that, but in the US today there would be a revolution if we returned to those days.

We can have tall buildings and tall trees too. Le Corbusier was a big believer in that.

Edited October 29, 2021 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

22 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

Atlanta is hardly urban. Its sprawl is very well-chronicled. And the article you’re referring to is likely irrelevant and does not suggest single trees should be saved in favor of building desperately-needed high density housing. And even if it does, you’re comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, a concrete jungle to a swamp.

The suggestion we were embracing here was to MOVE the tree, not sacrifice a high rise building in favor of it.

Also. I cannot fathom how Zoi House represented "desperately needed" housing of any kind, high density or otherwise.

That building if completed, would be for home for very high income earners only. 

It's not like we'd have a bunch of working class, Joe Sixpacks buying those $500K or better luxury pads.

At any rate, the issue here is that no effort was made to see if the tree could be relocated, not that it should have prevented construction.

That having been said, I still hope Zoi never gets built and something scaled down ends up there.