Jump to content

idroveazamboni

Downtown Orlando Tallest Buildings (Meters/Feet)

Recommended Posts

 
        3.2808  3.2808 Meters to Feet
  Building Meters      Year    Meters         Feet    
1 SunTrust Center 134 m 1988 134 440    
2 The Vue at Lake Eola 130 m 2007 130 427    
3 Orange County Courthouse 127 m 1997 127 417    
4 Bank of America Center 123 m 1988 123 404    
5 55 West on the Esplanade 115 m 2008 115 377    
6 Solaire at the Plaza 109 m 2006 109 358    
7 One Eleven 109 m 2008 109 358    
8 Citi Tower 89 m 2017 89 292    
9 Modera Central 85 m 2018 85 279    
10 Citrus Center 85 m 1971 85 279    
11 The Waverly on Lake Eola ≈85 m 2001 85 279    
12 Premiere Trade Plaza Office Tower II 84 m 2006 84 276    
13 Regions Bank Tower ≈81 m 1986 81 266    
14 530 East Central Condominiums ≈78 m 1985 78 256    
15 SkyHouse Orlando 76 m 2013 76 249    
16 CNL Center I 76 m 1999 76 249    
17 Westminster Towers ≈74 m 1975 74 243    
18 One Orlando Centre ≈74 m 1987 74 243    
19 Capital Plaza II 70 m 1999 70 230    
20 The Sanctuary ≈70 m 2005 70 230    
21 Park Lake Towers ≈66 m 1973 66 217    
22 The Fountains at Orlando Lutheran Towers ≈66 m 1979 66 217    
23 Signature Plaza 63 m 1982 63 207    
24 The Paramount on Lake Eola ≈62 m 2008 62 203    
25 The Star ≈62 m 2007 62 203    
26 Wells Fargo Tower ≈62 m 1983 62 203    
27 Gateway Center ≈62 m 1989 62 203    
28 Southern Community Bank Building ≈62 m 1965 62 203
 
Edited by idroveazamboni
Format
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


20 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

We don't always agree, but I'm right there with you on this topic.

Don't look now, but FTL and St Pete have passed up Orlando on building heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pethetic?  How so?  In 1970 we were pretty much a twin of Lakeland.  So to me, it looks like we've surged ahead nicely.  

The #1 goal is density.  Height is way overrated.  A couple of my favorite large cities are DC and Rome and average around the 12 story mark.  Both restrict height and the cities benefit.  In DC buildings can't be taller than 130 feet max or the width of the adjacent road plus 20'.  In Rome they can't be taller than St. Peters Basilica.  That's worked out quite well.  There are so many cities like Charloltte or even Tampa.  MEH.  Give me DC or Rome.

What's the benefit of racing with the tall American cities?  It's like who has the best mall, but once you get inside it's the same old crap, Gap, Penney's and Dillards.  

I looked a the Sevens the other day and noticed that it was rather massive.  Fill every vacant lot in downtown with a Sevens and watch the streets come alive.  I'm not against height, but it falls much lower on my list of priorities than a lot of other factors.  BTW, that 9-story project planned for Robinson and Orange will have about 465 residents, compared to Zoi which will have about 450.  Both are welcomed.

Edited by cwetteland
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Height isn't everything, but without it, you have a boring, uninteresting skyline.

When was the last time you were awed by a picture of the Washington DC or Rome skyline?

:yawn:

It would be nice to have a couple of 40+ story skyscrapers in Orlando.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Height is good for a city because it normally comes with density.  I do not mind a low rise cities but downtown Orlando low rises are uninspired carbon copy of each other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd question that. Houston is infamous for its tall buildings seen from its interstates but downtown Houston was mostly a ghost town at street level. Tampa has the tall buildings downtown but St. Pete has been more popular.

I visit NC every year or two (holding my breath most of the time now thanks to the state's politics, but I digress) but haven't been to Charlotte in decades (since Dillard's closed the flagship Ivey's - I miss the Tulip Terrace!) Since it has the tallest buildings, how can that be?

The same would be true of Charleston, the stubbiest city in SC but the most popular with visitors and now the largest city.

When's the last time anyone went to LA to see the tall buildings?

Lots of second-tier cities have tall buildings but often big gaps that make them a walking wasteland. Had they built shorter instead of trophy skyscrapers, more of the gaps would have been filled.  Orlando's downtown is filling in the gaps nicely.

Tall buildings are fine, they're just not a prerequisite to build successful urban communities.

 

Edited by spenser1058

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

I'd question that. Houston is infamous for its tall buildings seen from its interstates but downtown Houston was mostly a ghost town at street level. Tampa has the tall buildings downtown but St. Pete has been more popular.

I visit NC every year or two (holding my breath most of the time now thanks to the state's politics, but I digress) but haven't been to Charlotte in decades. Since it has the tallest buildings, how can that be?

The same would be true of Charleston, the stubbiest city in SC but the most popular with visitors and now the largest city.

When's the last time anyone went to LA to see the tall buildings?

Lots of second-tier cities have tall buildings but often big gaps that make them a walking wasteland. Had they built shorter instead of trophy skyscrapers, more of the gaps would have been filled.  Orlando's downtown is filling in the gaps nicely.

Tall buildings are fine, they're just not a prerequisite to build successful urban communities.

 

I'm merely pointing out that cities like FTL and St Pete are proving that both-and is a live option. Why not Orlando then ? BTW: regardless what you may have heard, right now you're safe in NC. We're not currently dragging homosexuals from their homes and burning them in the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Height isn't everything, but without it, you have a boring, uninteresting skyline.

When was the last time you were awed by a picture of the Washington DC or Rome skyline?

Will since I'm not awed by skylines I have to say, I don't recall;  you've see one you seen them all, except maybe NYC.  I am in awe every time I see an aerial photo of DC or Rome.  I'll add Paris to that list.  After a few skyscrapers were built and the population saw them as eyesores, they capped buildings at 121' in 1977.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC & Rome has interesting low rises. I will add in Copenhagen, Orlando has shoe boxes and great value engineering.

If downtown Orlando and I-Drive skyline combined into a city center, it will be amazing.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And visors... lots of visors! That, of course is a testament to the law of unintended consequences - when the ordinance was passed in the '80's prohibiting international-style flat tops, no one imagined that visors would be the cheap, easy response...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toronto is awesome but.... the Ford Brothers? How the heck did that happen (I know they bubbled up from the 'burbs, but still...)

But, hey, as long as y'all keep Justin with the cute socks, all is forgiven!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cwetteland said:

Will since I'm not awed by skylines I have to say, I don't recall;  you've see one you seen them all, except maybe NYC.  I am in awe every time I see an aerial photo of DC or Rome.  I'll add Paris to that list.  After a few skyscrapers were built and the population saw them as eyesores, they capped buildings at 121' in 1977.

CD_2003_1020_0240_xgaplus.jpg

AT.jpg

To each his own, I guess.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

I like height. I dont understand the consistent hate towards wanting taller buildings in an area that is designed for height just baffling.

It's not about hate for taller height, to each his/her own.   I'm fine with Zoi and the 9-story infill at Robinson.  It was more about the use of the term "pathetic" which made it kinda personal for anyone thinking height is not an issue.  Looking at the two aerials above, I think they are more impressive than pathetic.

Edited by cwetteland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cwetteland said:

It's not about hate for taller height, to each his/her own.   I'm fine with Zoi and the 9-story infill at Robinson.  It was more about the use of the term "pathetic" which made it kinda personal for anyone thinking height is not an issue.  Looking at the two aerials above, I think they are more impressive than pathetic.

Yes, Toronto skyline is very impressive, it’s North America 2nd largest trailing only NYC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, idroveazamboni said:

Yes, Toronto skyline is very impressive, it’s North America 2nd largest trailing only NYC.  

Assuming you weren't being facetious, I think he was talking about the two pics I posted of DC and Rome. ;)

Disregard this post if you already knew that and were just messin' around. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cwetteland said:

It's not about hate for taller height, to each his/her own.   I'm fine with Zoi and the 9-story infill at Robinson.  It was more about the use of the term "pathetic" which made it kinda personal for anyone thinking height is not an issue.  Looking at the two aerials above, I think they are more impressive than pathetic.

Re: the use of pathetic to describe the height list of DTO buildings, he does make somewhat of a point. 

Like /agree with it or not, one of the main things a major city or urban center is judged on, is it's skyline. A robust skyline vs an anemic one, says a lot about a city to the casual observer.

A dense skyline spiked with a few tall skyscrapers poking up out of the mass, says power, finance, commerce, regional influence, importance.

A sparse skyline with large gaps in between a handful of semi-tall high-rises, says "meh.... this place is no big deal. Not much going on here".

Orlando unfortunately, hasn't yet completely put enough distance between itself and the second category.

I think most people, when looking at a picture of an urban downtown area, don't consider things like walkability, or vibe etc, in forming their initial opinions.

Of course, there are exceptions like the ones you pointed out, but honestly, those two cities are in a completely different category than cities like Orlando, etc. Those cities are seats of government and their power and influence is derived more from politics than from commercial or economic influences. And because of the high concentration of government buildings which are traditionally low rise, I don't think those cities can even be included in a discussion about the merits of height vs street level density.

Plus, Rome has been around for thousands of years, so they've had a bit of a head start in establishing their reputation without the need for skyscrapers.

 

Edited by JFW657
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.