Downtown Sanford

[sanford32]

Im sorry about the lack details since I left the news article at the barber. A Central Florida developer has a proposal for a 24 story 468 unit condo in downtown Sanford called Rivers Edge. It will sit on 17-92 overlooking the St Johns River with 42,000 sqft of retail and a private marina. The look of the project reminds me of all the condos being built in South Florida. I hope this project gets approved and the city will keep their plan of modern design projects along the riverwalk and traditonal designs downtown.

[Dale]

Im sorry about the lack details since I left the news article at the barber. A Central Florida developer has a proposal for a 24 story 468 unit condo in downtown Sanford called Rivers Edge. It will sit on 17-92 overlooking the St Johns River with 42,000 sqft of retail and a private marina. The look of the project reminds me of all the condos being built in South Florida. I hope this project gets approved and the city will keep their plan of modern design projects along the riverwalk and traditonal designs downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow ! But I'm bracing for the NIMBY backlash. This would be at least twice as tall as anything else in Sanford.

[firemick]

This is awesome. I have always thought Sanford had alot of potential especially downtown. Which paper was this article in?

[sanford32]

This is awesome. I have always thought Sanford had alot of potential especially downtown. Which paper was this article in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The story was in the Sunday edition of the Seminole Herald. In the article it did mention that the Sanford Historic Trust doesn't like the height of the project.They feel that height would cause other future projects to copy and wall in the river.

[Dale]

The story was in the Sunday edition of the Seminole Herald. In the article it did mention that the Sanford Historic Trust doesn't like the height of the project.They feel that height would cause other future projects to copy and wall in the river.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could have predicted that. Maybe it's the developers plan to scare the bejabbers out of the preservationists with a 24-story tower in order to make an 18-story tower reasonable by way of comparison. I believe they call it 'high-balling'.

[FLClarkKent]

I gotta disagree with the majority on this one....24 stories in downtown Sanford is too tall.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tall buildings...when they fit into the urban landscape.

Right now, there's not anything taller than maybe 6 stories in downtown Sanford (and that's being generous).

A 24-story tower won't add density, or livability, or urbanity, it'll just stick out, making it an unfriendly environment for those on the ground.

Sanford has the bones of a great downtown. Why not add to that with two 12-story buildings, or four 6-story buildings?...buildings that fit in with the surroundings.

Besides, someone told me that this building has an ugly-ass design. I'd be less opposed if it were pretty.

Are there any renderings?

[JRS1]

My take is just b/c every bldg is short, why should that have to be the standard?

All of CFla is too height conscious. a 12 story tower or a row of 12 story towers will create just as much a wall as a row of 20+ story towers.

local are just afraid that tall bldgs will make Sanford look too cosmopolitan or worse, actually make Sanford cosmopolitan which will change their nimby neighborhood. Their afraid that people driving on I-4 west over the bridge will look to their left and say "wow, that looks cool".

let them have their hick town.

[FLClarkKent]

local are just afraid that tall bldgs will make Sanford look too cosmopolitan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sigh. Height ain't everything, said the hick who lives in Sanford. Personally, I prefer you address me using the term given to my ancestors - hillbilly.

The cities I've found to be the most cosmopolitan are ones that are walkable, liveable, dense, well-planned, with buildings that are in proportion to one another.

A 24-story building in downtown Sanford just doesn't fit. It's not proportionate to its surroundings...and it's going to look and feel odd. Especially if it's a boxy-structure that fronts the lake with limited ground floor retail. (That's my prediction for the design. Can't wait to see a rendering! My final opinion hinges on the design and street interface.)

Building tall for the sake of building tall, while completely ignoring one's surroundings, urban landscape, density, etc., and believing one massive building is going to make an area cosmopolitan, now that's ideed hick thinking.

[Topher1]

I'm going with Dale's analysis. This won't get built at 24 floors, but theres a better chance that they'll be able to get 12-15, because it will now look like a concession.

42,000 sq ft of retail is a pretty decent amount for a single residential building. That's definately exciting news. I too am concerned at the potential for a wall of skyscrapers blocking the river. All cities should look to Vancouver when designing urban residential highrises and preserving views.

[JRS1]

My point was that you can still build a tall tower and make it work with its surroundings. Its a fact that locals don't want new big bldgs in their neighborhood b/c they're afraid that it will change the neighborhood to a more big-city feel. And I'm not a "hick-thinker" for calling a spade a spade.

Topher1 even stated 42,000 ft2 of retail is included in the project.

Your logic would have the Vue being built at half its height b/c its so much taller than Eola Center right across the street. Or, that Sanctuary not be built b/c there are houses on the next block.

Sanford was also against the proposed Marriott and CC from a couple years back, before they built it at Heathrow.

Sanford is no Mount Dora. Yeah, its got its share of history. I've been there many times. I like it. They redid the streets with brick and paving on the main drag and its nice.

But pure nimbyism running unchecked has stifled the development of too many Florida towns b/c the locals shunned new proposed developments.

For the record, new bldgs do add to an area's cosmopolitan nature. New bldgs and people. B/c w/o them, all you have are a bunch of empty lots and run-down bldgs that don't offer anything of value to the community.

And one more thing, you're argument regarding existing building height and proposed new bldg height is not taking into consideration a few facts. First, show me the year the last 6 story bldg in Sanford was built and what it offers to downtown. People keep forgetting that most of Sanford's bldgs were built over 50 years ago, save a couple, and the reason nothing new has gone there is b/c it was nothing more than a run-down blighted town with old store-fronts and Wolfie's, Goodwill, and McRoberts and Goodyear tire. Not to mention all the crime. Even the State Attorney's office moved away.

The locals know that development begets development and a new resid. tower will attract other developers when they see the potential in downtown Sanford. They'll try and keep it short as possible so that drivers on I-4 won't notice anything out of the ordinary when looking towards the east.

No offense to anyone on this forum.

[Dale]

At 24 stories, Sanford will end up looking like New York !!!

*runs screaming from the room*

[JRS1]

Again just to clarrify: too many times we look at an urban area and a new proposal and say- "wow, its too tall for that area."

We accept the lack of height in the area as though it was by design or some grand scheme of development, when, in Sanford's case, there hasn't been anything new built downtown not b/c of some plan, but b/c of poor economic times and a lack of proposals for downtown.

It's kind of like downtown Orlando-- for years, only 3 bldgs were 400' tall. I was asked once why bldgs. in Orlando aren't taller. I said b/c of height restrictions. I was then asked why there were only 3 at the 400' height. The answer, not enough need for more office space or downtown residential.

We just get too used to things in our everyday lived and too quickly snub new proposals. I've done it too.

The reason I'm still harping on this is b/c Daytona Beach Shores recently passed a height restriction b/c locals were getting upset that new tall towers were blocking their ocean views. Miami Beach did something similar. That really pisses me off b/c you couldn't see the ocean anyway, even if the bldg was 10 stories. cheers.

[prahaboheme]

Again just to clarrify:  too many times we look at an urban area and a new proposal and say- "wow, its too tall for that area."

We accept the lack of height in the area as though it was by design or some grand scheme of development, when, in Sanford's case, there hasn't been anything new built downtown not b/c of some plan, but b/c of poor economic times and a lack of proposals for downtown.

It's kind of like downtown Orlando-- for years, only 3 bldgs were 400' tall.  I was asked once why bldgs. in Orlando aren't taller.  I said b/c of height restrictions.  I was then asked why there were only 3 at the 400' height.  The answer, not enough need for more office space or downtown residential. 

We just get too used to things in our everyday lived and too quickly snub new proposals.  I've done it too. 

The reason I'm still harping on this is b/c Daytona Beach Shores recently passed a height restriction b/c locals were getting upset that new tall towers were blocking their ocean views.  Miami Beach did something similar.  That really pisses me off b/c you couldn't see the ocean anyway, even if the bldg was 10 stories.  cheers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are some urban environments where tall buildings don't belong. I'm not saying downtown Orlando is one of them, but South Beach is, just like Beacon Hill in Boston or the West Village in NY.

[cwetteland]

There are some urban environments where tall buildings don't belong.  I'm not saying downtown Orlando is one of them, but South Beach is, just like Beacon Hill in Boston or the West Village in NY.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.... and the East side of Lake Eola.

[Dale]

.... and the East side of Lake Eola.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, I'm shocked about the highrise next to Panera's.

[JRS1]

Agreed. But the art deco district doesn't have highrises-- only sofi and north of say Lincoln Road. they could have still allowed 30-40 story bldgs in the sofi district-- it wouldn't have compromised Ocean blvd. at all.

all i know is this-- if you got a highrise proposal for an area that hasn't had a new bldg of any size built in over 20 years and the locals protest it, then there's a problem with that (everything else being equal).

now, if downtown Sanford was full of 6 story bldgs on every block-- even new ones with nice designs-- then, I would agree that-- yes-- a 24 story bldg is too tall there. but there ain't nothing going on there right now...

its not like alexandria, va. maybe i just need to take a chill pill.

[JRS1]

I think my problem is that I want to see the manhattanization of the entire state of florida. i'm a little biased, i admit it.

[facilities man]

There's a picture in the Sentinel local section today. It looks like a huge project.

[Dale]

There's a picture in the Sentinel local section today. It looks like a huge project.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, much larger than I thought. And it's hard to get excited about its prospects, given the usually taciturn city director's comments, '...the height is alarming...'

Although it certainly is exciting to see at least one developer envisioning that kind of potential for downtown Sanford.

[FLClarkKent]

Blah design. Totally lack of creativity on the developers part.

Not at all an "urban" look. It's a beach-y look, which helps it to further stick out like a sore thumb.

[eastbank]

Height for the sake of height isn't necessarily a good thing. One tall structure will not transform Celery City into an urban cosmopolitan hub. When did this consensus build for this vision of Sanford's future ? Is the concept of scale and context - preserving the look and feel of old Sanford, simply outmoded ? Does anyone think Sanford would more successfullly be transformed into "Manhattan" rather than a quaint, art-gallery, boutiquey suburb of Orlando ?

Sure, Sanford's downtown badly needs upper-income residences to fuel interesting businesses...but is this the way to do it ? I suggest to you, that if built, this project will be a pink elephant that will stifle positive growth rather than encourage it.

This project, as proposed, presents a lot of issues. Its scale is completely out of context with Sanford, and indeed all of Seminole county. Zero continuity, culturally or architecturally. It would stick out like a sore thumb. Is this supposed to be some sort of replacement for the just-departed, unloved Enterprise smokestacks ?!? Or is this to be Miami Beach on lake Monroe ? Lets get real.

The prices and timing are off. We are just now beginning to see some cooling of the existing home market in Metro Orlando - specifically downtown. There are thousands of condo units coming online in *downtown Orlando* and Winter Park in the next few years.

Does anyone think people are going to pay 400-800K to live in a condo, only to have to do the I-4 commute, on the site of a former landfill, overlooking a sewerage plant (odor?).? And this to live in proximity of a functional quaint downtown that is, today, just a hopeful idea ?

Scale. Context. Price. Downtown condos coming online. Cooling market. Rising interest rates. Lack of existing retail. Commute time. Smell.

Sanford needs a project like this to inject some life - but not as proposed. I hope the city and developer can work together to mold it into something more thoughtful and appropriate, something that will sell and encourage more steady growth, rather than an out-of-control, huge instant cancer type of growth.

[Chief Eola]

Does anyone have a link to the picture?

[cwetteland]

Blah design. Totally lack of creativity on the developers part.

Not at all an "urban" look. It's a beach-y look, which helps it to further stick out like a sore thumb.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this intended to be an urban developement or a waterfront (beachy)development on Lake Monroe? That'd explain the beachy look. They probably aren't going for the Urban thing.

[FLClarkKent]

I think beach-y should be an official architectural term.

Anyway, I think it's being pegged as a bit of both - a waterfront development...in a downtown setting.

But the design is definately beach-ish...and so is the rendering's color scheme - pink and salmon.

Mmmm....salmon.

[Dale]

^ Maybe they should call the building 'Omega 3'.