409 North Magnolia [Under Construction]

[jack]

3 hours ago, ChiDev said:

There was a design that went taller, but ARB nixed it.  Would have meant more in the realm of 445 units, but upgraded skyline and facade treatments.  It was reduced to satisfy the neighbors in historic Lake Eola neighborhood.  

NIMBYs often fail to realize the correlation between exteriors/skylines and demanding the building stay smaller.  They want both, when reality is the opposite.

I was at a hearing a couple of years ago and one commissioner started going on about height limits and how it was contributing to the development of stumpy buildings. He said, if we allowed taller buildings, it is more likely they would slim down and be architecturally significant. 

[AndyPok1]

I mean, I don't disagree.  But I also think having a nice step down into our historical single family home neighborhoods is important.

[spenser1058]

29 minutes ago, jack said:

I was at a hearing a couple of years ago and one commissioner started going on about height limits and how it was contributing to the development of stumpy buildings. He said, if we allowed taller buildings, it is more likely they would slim down and be architecturally significant. 

With all due respect, that’s BS. There are plenty of sites downtown that could have built taller and got nowhere near the max. NIMBYs have nothing on developers who whine when they don’t get their way. 

[jack]

24 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

With all due respect, that’s BS. There are plenty of sites downtown that could have built taller and got nowhere near the max. NIMBYs have nothing on developers who whine when they don’t get their way. 

It was in South Florida and he went project by project explaining how much changed from what was proposed and what was approved. . 

[ChiDev]

A developer has to bear the land cost on a per unit basis.  Radius is 389 units, the per unit cost of land would be less if we could have built more.  Aside from specific height construction barriers (5 stories, 8 stories, 18 stories, 26 stories) anything in between is boon to the developer.  @spenser1058 If you think the developer just "didn't want that income" I would have to disagree.  "there are plenty of sites downtown that could have been built taller" which sites?  Because I can near guarantee that this was either a zoning limitation, or a change of construction type that proved too costly.  NIMBYs have nothing on developers who whine? Yeah okay, I will believe this as soon as you convince me that government representatives elected to their positions, happily go against the will of their constituents (particularly the vocal ones who show up to zoning meetings).

I am not saying that developers would build any slimmer, max FAR is still in their interest, but so long as the construction type stayed the same, I have never known a developer not to maximize space.  The only other limiter we faced at Radius was parking/traffic impact.

[spenser1058]

1 minute ago, ChiDev said:

A developer has to bear the land cost on a per unit basis.  Radius is 389 units, the per unit cost of land would be less if we could have built more.  Aside from specific height construction barriers (5 stories, 8 stories, 18 stories, 26 stories) anything in between is boon to the developer.  @spenser1058 If you think the developer just "didn't want that income" I would have to disagree.  "there are plenty of sites downtown that could have been built taller" which sites?  Because I can near guarantee that this was either a zoning limitation, or a change of construction type that proved too costly.  NIMBYs have nothing on developers who whine? Yeah okay, I will believe this as soon as you convince me that government representatives elected to their positions, happily go against the will of their constituents (particularly the vocal ones who show up to zoning meetings).

I am not saying that developers would build any slimmer, max FAR is still in their interest, but so long as the construction type stayed the same, I have never known a developer not to maximize space.  The only other limiter we faced at Radius was parking/traffic impact.

Yes, all that matters is what the developers want to build. We don’t care about preserving the in town neighborhoods that make Orlando unique (and which we had to fight from having destroyed). There are many sites along I4, Orange Ave (which the developers used to build five-story apartment complexes instead of going vertical), and the CNL and Lincoln towers that could have been much taller but the developers chose not to.  
 

 

 

[ChiDev]

Responding in order:

NIMBYS want to preserve/create uniqueness.  So you don't want tall buildings in your neighborhoods? So you fight larger scale developments? Got it, so you agree with me that they serve as a large hurdle.  You agree that they push their elected zoning boards to curtail zoning in a way that leads to less large towers.

 

I specifically mentioned the 5 story barrier, so that's not a surprise.  The tallest of the deals on that stretch (777s or camden whateveritisnow at 8/9 another barrier) and once again, only one of them has the AC3A zoning that would have even allowed a taller form construction.

 

  CNL/Lincoln towers are also at the 250' threshold which is another barrier for construction form.

 

Essentially you agreed with me and then refused to cite any new evidence countering my point.  GOT IT.

[smileguy]

1 hour ago, ChiDev said:

CNL/Lincoln towers are also at the 250' threshold which is another barrier for construction form.

For those of us who don't know, what's the limitation here?  Fire? Circulation? 

[ChiDev]

4 minutes ago, smileguy said:

For those of us who don't know, what's the limitation here?  Fire? Circulation? 

Without getting too granular, it has to do with the emergency evac/fire, but there are other factors as well.

It also has to do with the implications of vertical/chase systems.  You will find a lot of towers utilize offset elevator cores (2 elevators splitting top and bottom half of building, over one straight to the top) when buildings stretch beyond that height.  This has to do both with the flex of the building under wind sheer (ITS OWN ISSUE ABOVE 250), & the internal/external pressure resulting from heat rise within the structure/chase.  If you didn't know before now, that is why many skyscrapers across America employ revolving doors on ground floor, since they are pressure neutral/aided by pressure differential.

Price increases at each hurdle do not pertain to just the "floors above x", but rather the whole structure, so often going that extra floor (past a hurdle) means the entire building becomes more expensive, so the developer will hold off.  Going from 4 stories to 5 stories involves using fire rated pressure treated timber for instance, above 5 stories youre into prefab-steel-stud/concrete.  It goes on from there.

I am on the finance end of things, having spoken with a vast number of GCs about projects in different markets/heights.  I could not quote you every reason why the hurdles exist, only that the general consensus confirms them to be real.

[jack]

There are real hurdles, mainly building code requirements as mentioned above. There is one going from 3-4 and a big one from going 4-5 stories. Hitting the high rise code triggers another hurdle which is why it is rare to see 9 story buildings. Voice evac, additional stairwells, pressurized stairwells, etc. all have to be added.  Another factor not code related is the type of parking. Surface of course is the most cost effective but precast garages are a smart choice for urban projects if you have enough land. If you have a small lot and need to do a podium, add that to all of the other issues mentioned above. 

[jack]

10 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Yes, all that matters is what the developers want to build. We don’t care about preserving the in town neighborhoods that make Orlando unique (and which we had to fight from having destroyed). There are many sites along I4, Orange Ave (which the developers used to build five-story apartment complexes instead of going vertical), and the CNL and Lincoln towers that could have been much taller but the developers chose not to.  
 

 

 

CNL and Lincoln probably built what the market could bear. The apartment complexes you mention were pioneers. Steele House was an early cycle project just after the recession and the 1st rental project built in downtown w/o any incentives since at least the 60's or 70's. Camden took incentives as the rental market in downtown was non existent at the time. Now Crescent has no excuse. They could have done at least a 8 story building. 

[dcluley98]

I wish that Crescent was never built. That was an awful project for that lot. 

[smileguy]

11 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

I wish that Crescent was never built. That was an awful project for that lot. 

Someone get Bulldozer Buddy on the phone!

[AndyPok1]

Just want to say thanks to @ChiDev and @jack for that.  I assumed there were differences, but didn't realize they were largely black and white and not gray.

[ChiDev]

I posted this already for Radius, but might as well include here since 409 is directly in the shot.

[IAmFloridaBorn]

I really like this little building 

[dcluley98]

The brick really turned out quite nice!  Good choice. 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

[IAmFloridaBorn]

[elefants]

This building has no business being as good as.  I forgot to get a shot of the church next to it, but they complement each other very well. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by elefants

[dcluley98]

I like the fact that they made the "dummy" windows like it used to be an older building that was updated to block the windows in. That wall could have been awful, but that little detail somehow works for this. 

[nite owℓ]

4 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

I like the fact that they made the "dummy" windows like it used to be an older building that was updated to block the windows in. That wall could have been awful, but that little detail somehow works for this. 

I agree. I wonder what along that wall prevents them from adding windows though? The lower half could use a mural of some sort.

[codypet]

19 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

I agree. I wonder what along that wall prevents them from adding windows though? The lower half could use a mural of some sort.

The room layouts.  If its how I'd think it would be you'd have the bathroom along that wall and the hallway, and since they lay out furniture pretty uniformly in all the rooms, the headboards would be against that wall, so no use for windows there.  Plus it make life easier for them in the future updating the furniture if that room is just like the others and doesn't have windows on a wall where all the other rooms don't.

typical hotel room floor plan

Edited March 16, 2021 by codypet

[nite owℓ]

Drive-by update, not the best quality... I had groceries in the car and didn't feel like pulling over for a photoshoot. I noticed what looked like a tiled accent wall being installed in the lobby (which will provide a little visual interest as you gaze inside from Livingston St). They've also added LED accent lighting along the top:

[codypet]

So the best timed of the redevelopments pretty much only missing out on visitors during the pandemic, and arguably the biggest improvement in aesthetics before and after.  10/10.