Jump to content

idroveazamboni

Downtown Orlando Tallest Buildings (Meters/Feet)

Recommended Posts


Some cities don't need to go tall to be successful. The tallest building in San Jose, CA is 286'. Nevertheless, Silicon Valley seems to be doing just fine and has some of the most inflated real estate prices in the country.

The tallest building in Daytona Beach is taller than Silicon Valley's. Wanna guess which city is more successful?

Meanwhile, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland and Baltimore all have tall buildings and are stagnant or worse. 

But they have tall buildings. How can this be?

Edited by spenser1058

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Some cities don't need to go tall to be successful. The tallest building in San Jose, CA is 286'. Nevertheless, Silicon Valley seems to be doing just fine and has some of the most inflated real estate prices in the country.

Meanwhile, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland and Baltimore all have tall buildings and are stagnant or worse. 

But they have tall buildings. How can this be?

As economically successful as it might be, when talking about American cities that project power and influence, I don't think San Jose is the city that pops into most people's minds.

Mention cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago and (obviously) New York, one can immediately form a mental picture of the skyline. Show them a picture and ask them what city it is and they could tell you without hesitation.

Show most people a picture of San Jose and they would have no idea where it is.

san-jose-california-hotel-home-top1.jpg

 

Edited by JFW657
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there's no compelling economic reason for tall buildings except to let people know where they are? Everyone already knows where Orlando is so we don't have that problem.

I'll go a step further. If I showed photos of every second-tier city downtown in the country, how many could people could successfully do so if they hadn't been in those cities (and many even if they had?)

Now, if I show those same folks a pic of Spaceship Earth, Cinderella Castle and Harry Potter's castle at Universal, how many could identify that as Orlando?

Why does SunTrust believe it can be just as successful at Church St Plaza (if not more so) than it was at SunTrust Center, even though the former is a shorter building. Height is obviously not the key to the equation.

Height used to be a big deal to make a statement for companies. That's no longer true. Apple, one of the world's most valuable companies, just built a new headquarters. It's not tall at all. Sears built the world's tallest building in Chicago just as the company began a 40-year slide to oblivion. Meanwhile, Walmart's headquarters is absolutely meh and yet they're doing better than ever.

Bottom line: tall buildings are just fine but are irrelevant to a city's success. Many cities are successful without them just as many cities with them are fading. I truly don't understand the angst.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are talking about two different things. You're talking about economic success that is likely based on association with some particular industry, like Silicon Valley. I'm talking about perception, which often times translates into economic success just by the attraction factor alone, i.e., growth and new businesses relocating, etc

Also, I was speaking in very general terms. Obviously, there are exceptions to every "rule" if you will.

Obviously also, is that second tier cities would not be as recognizable as big league cities, but then again, most second tier cities don't have an abundance of really tall snd recognizable buildings, something which goes hand in hand with economic success, and kind of makes my point.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Bottom line: tall buildings are just fine but are irrelevant to a city's success. Many cities are successful without them just as many cities with them are fading. I truly don't understand the angst.

Sometimes its just businesses Peacocking.

image.png.be5864b94d783085583ebf135f67b4c1.png

I'll point out that this photo was taken in 2007 after Chrysler was spun off from Daimler so weak that it went bankrupt 2 years later.

Edited by codypet
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I think we are talking about two different things. You're talking about economic success that is likely based on association with some particular industry, like Silicon Valley. I'm talking about perception, which often times translates into economic success just by the attraction factor alone, i.e., growth and new businesses relocating, etc

Also, I was speaking in very general terms. Obviously, there are exceptions to every "rule" if you will.

Obviously also, is that second tier cities would not be as recognizable as big league cities, but then again, most second tier cities don't have an abundance of really tall snd recognizable buildings, something which goes hand in hand with economic success, and kind of makes my point.

 

I would respond "perception" by whom? According to your hypothesis, Tampa and Nashville should be growing faster than Orlando (they're not.) In fact, the second-tier MSA that IS growing faster than Orlando (and is one of the places that has more of a "cool" factor than us) is Austin and when is the last time other than on UP anyone commented on Austin's skyscrapers as the thing that makes them so popular?

Tall buildings make sense if a given area is running out of room. That makes them perfect for Miami. That doesn't apply to us (in fact, the Frederick administration created artificial restrictions to try and create height - it wasn't totally successful, as your concern points out.)

I think if you're looking for height downtown much beyond the 400' mark, you may be in for a long wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

As economically successful as it might be, when talking about American cities that project power and influence, I don't think San Jose is the city that pops into most people's minds.

Mention cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago and (obviously) New York, one can immediately form a mental picture of the skyline. Show them a picture and ask them what city it is and they could tell you without hesitation.

Show most people a picture of San Jose and they would have no idea where it is.

san-jose-california-hotel-home-top1.jpg

 

This is a picture of San Jose.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

I would respond "perception" by whom? According to your hypothesis, Tampa and Nashville should be growing faster than Orlando (they're not.) In fact, the second-tier MSA that IS growing faster than Orlando (and is one of the places that has more of a "cool" factor than us) is Austin and when is the last time other than on UP anyone commented on Austin's skyscrapers as the thing that makes them so popular?

Tall buildings make sense if a given area is running out of room. That makes them perfect for Miami. That doesn't apply to us (in fact, the Frederick administration created artificial restrictions to try and create height - it wasn't totally successful, as your concern points out.)

I think if you're looking for height downtown much beyond the 400' mark, you may be in for a long wait.

Okay, I did not intend for this to turn into a hair-splitting contest, but to address your points...

•Perception by anyone interested in coming here, moving here, relocating a company here, etc, etc.

•The Orlando MSA may be growing faster than the Tampa and Nashville MSA's, but International Drive, Disney, Maitland, Altamonte, Longwood etc etc are responsible for a lot of that, while downtown is just kind of puttering along. Downtown Orlando SHOULD BE the most recognizable area of town, not Disney World, EPCOT or Harry Potter World, but it's not. 

•Austin is popular and cool because of the music scene. There is a decades long running show on PBS called Austin City Limit. Been running since the 70's and can still be seen every week. Orlando used to have a country music show broadcast from the Cheyenne Saloon that ran for a few years on some cable channel but is now all but forgotten. The point is that Austin's "cool" factor, like that of Athens Ga., comes from the hip music scene there that developed there  independently of any business related factors and has nothing to do with any point I was trying to make.

•My comments were not concerned with whether or not tall buildings "make sense" due to any land related necessity. The only point I was trying to make, was that when weighing the +'s vs the -'s of building height, on the + side, building height goes a long way towards the perception of a city as a powerhouse center of regional influence which helps in attracting new growth from people and companies who want to be in the middle of such an environment vs one whose rinky-dink skyline says third rate, Podunkville.

Nothing more.

•Finally, I'm not "looking for" anything. I don't believe Orlando will necessarily ever get a 50 story building and I'm not sure I'd even want to see one. As I've said before, a couple of 40 story ± buildings along with a couple more 30 story ± would round out our downtown just fine.

:thumbsup:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HankStrong said:

This is a picture of San Jose.

Damn, you're good!!!!! :o

:D

Just now, Dale said:

I've been to San Jose. There are no tall buildings downtown. There is nothing else downtown either.

But.... Do You Know The Way To San Jose?

(I've been wait for an opportunity to do that) :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Damn, you're good!!!!! :o

:D

But.... Do You Know The Way To San Jose?

(I've been wait for an opportunity to do that) :P

See? They made themselves famous for being lost in the middle of no place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downtown is just "kind of puttering along?"!With several billion dollars of infrastructure added , thousands of new residents (one of the fastest-growing residential cores in the SunBelt) and according to the Sentinel, downtown and UCF are the hottest rental markets. I guess that's "puttering along."

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Color me confused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

See? They made themselves famous for being lost in the middle of no place!

Either that or because of Dionne Warwick had a lousy sense of direction.... :huh:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Downtown is just "kind of puttering along?"!With several billion dollars of infrastructure added , thousands of new residents (one of the fastest-growing residential cores in the SunBelt) and according to the Sentinel, downtown and UCF are the hottest rental markets. I guess that's "puttering along."

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion. Color me confused. 

Up until recently it has been puttering along. Only since CV,  Modera and ChuStrePla-at-ChuStreSta started construction, has DTO really seemed to FINALLY be catching fire. But since those buildings are still not up and running yet, basically it still feels like we're puttering.

Let those developments get finished and going good and we'll see.

 

Edited by JFW657
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Up until recently it has been puttering along. Only since CV,  Modera, [email protected] started construction, has DTO really seemed to FINALLY be catching fire. But since those buildings are still not up and running yet, basically it still feels like we're puttering.

Let those developments get finished and going good and we'll see.

And the expansion of DPAC, UCF/Valencia, the Magic's complex (finally- not to mention the soccer stadium) and the fact NORA was basically empty lots coming out of the crash. Also, several high rises in South Eola plus the redo of I4 (with underI still to come.) 

Maybe it's because I navigate the road closures all this has caused everyday and am aware how much more crowded downtown has gotten in the 16 years since I moved back to Eola but I have no sense of "puttering along" except for sitting in all the extra traffic

Edited by spenser1058

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

And the expansion of DPAC, UCF/Valencia, the Magic's complex (finally- not to mention the soccer stadium) and the fact NORA was basically empty lots coming out of the crash. Also, several high rises in South Eola plus the redo of I4 (with underI still to come.) 

Maybe it's because I navigate the road closures all this has caused everyday and am aware how much more crowded downtown has gotten in the 16 years since I moved back to Eola but I have no sense of "puttering along" except for sitting in all the extra traffic

Half finished DPAC with much of the parcel still an undeveloped grass field, only recently started construction at UCF/Valencia, Magic Complex still ideas on paper only, NORA - boring suburban looking mid-rise, S. Eola still mostly stumpy, boxy looking mid rises with bland design features.

Puttering, but maybe just not quite as slow as before.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like this.

 

The height of buildings are representations of power and stance of the city or at least they used to be in America. 

 

That title has gone to majority of the other side of the world as they continue to build up strictly to say hey look I can go higher than you. 

 

City Center being big and tall usually represented a well healthy balanced economic Powerhouse but as we know what the Suburban campuses of businesses and headquarters that is not necessarily true anymore especially in America.

 

but again having tall buildings where they're supposed to be in the designated areas for them there is nothing wrong with that. There is something very unusual about having squabble E6 and 9 story buildings in an area that is designated to go taller. There is absolutely nothing acceptable about that on any level.

 

our downtown has plenty of lots and gaps and there is no real demand for something tall unless there is a developer or company that just wants to boast who they are.

 

I do not think in our lifetimes we will ever see anything over 500 ft.

I'm okay with that I love height but I am not upset at anything that gets built downtown because I just want to see downtown become more vibrant and urban.

 

I hate places like Lake Nona, Maitland, and Lake Mary because they take away from Orlando and downtown Orlando but that's just the way our metropolitan area is set up and we just have to hope that Orlando as a city you can continue to diversify its economic offerings downtown. 

 

UCF should help with that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too concerned about Maitland.   The Wynn Dixie and its parking lot had been vacant for years; and 5-6 floors isn't too tall for that.  Maitland Station was a lumberyard.  However, I'm in total agreement regarding Lake Nona.  There you're replacing trees.

People or companies own the vacant lots downtown.  If someone is offering a million or two to build 9-floors, I'm sure they don't give a rat's ...  what it's "designated" for.  Are they supposed to sit on the lot a few more decades, pay taxes and  pass it down to the grand kids? 

Share this post


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

I'm not too concerned about Maitland.   The Wynn Dixie and its parking lot had been vacant for years; and 5-6 floors isn't too tall for that.  Maitland Station was a lumberyard.  However, I'm in total agreement regarding Lake Nona.  There you're replacing trees.

People or companies own the vacant lots downtown.  If someone is offering a million or two to build 9-floors, I'm sure they don't give a rat's ...  what it's "designated" for.  Are they supposed to sit on the lot a few more decades, pay taxes and  pass it down to the grand kids? 

Well in terms of business and economic sense when you can build a 9-story building on a lot that maybe it's designed to go up to 700 feet and you're not required to go up to 700 feet, you take whatever numbers work best as a developer in this market. 

 

When the time comes whenever that is that there isn't very much land to the east of I-4 to build tall then downtown Orlando is going to have a problem where it has to expand either north or south or west and it seems as though that would be much more expensive to do but of course things change as far as time goes

Edited by IAmFloridaBorn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cwetteland said:

I thought you were referring to Justin "selfie-boy" Bieber.

Nope just our weak soy boy selfie loving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who should have stuck with being a drama teacher.   His father Pierre Trudeau was an outstanding Prime Minister who was a strong leader.  Sometimes the Apple falls far from the tree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

Damn, you're good!!!!! :o

:D

But.... Do You Know The Way To San Jose?

(I've been wait for an opportunity to do that) :P

Yes, I do. And FYI: LA is a great big freeway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both sides in this agrguement.  You can like and want tall buildings and still appreciate good, well planned and vibrant communities.  I'd like to see Orlando have both.  I don't think Orlando will ever, nor should it rival Miami or Atlanta in terms of skyline profiles but I sure like to think we could challenge St. Pete/Ft. Lauderdale/Jax and  maybe even Tampa.  Heck, Mobile Alabama is giving us a run  for the money in terms of dynamic skyline buildings.    I don't think however that if we don't ever get any 'beef' to our skyline beyond what we have now that we will diminsh in reginonal influence/importance and quality of life.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, otowntiger said:

I agree with both sides in this agrguement.  You can like and want tall buildings and still appreciate good, well planned and vibrant communities.  I'd like to see Orlando have both.  I don't think Orlando will ever, nor should it rival Miami or Atlanta in terms of skyline profiles but I sure like to think we could challenge St. Pete/Ft. Lauderdale/Jax and  maybe even Tampa.  Heck, Mobile Alabama is giving us a run  for the money in terms of dynamic skyline buildings.    I don't think however that if we don't ever get any 'beef' to our skyline beyond what we have now that we will diminsh in reginonal influence/importance and quality of life.

The goal for downtown starting with the '80's redo was a 24/7 live-work-play environment. We've just about achieved that (retail is weaker than we envisioned back then, but that's true for many cities including midtown Manhattan.)

All-in-all, downtown works. Everything else is plussing.

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.