Jump to content

Downtown Orlando Height Limit Discussion


Tim3167

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A couple examples to illustrate what I mentioned in an earlier thread:

163654057_7c67543133_o.jpg

Downtown Vancouver

163654055_247a1ef821_o.jpg

Downtown Vancouver

163654058_73150087f5_o.jpg

Downtown Charlotte

Not to knock Charlotte or anything, but doesn't a city focusing on mid-rises (400-500 ft) and really packing them in seem more interesting than a city that bets the farm on a few big buildings (Charlotte's B of A building is about 1,000) which effectively drain the downtown of any development demand for years? Looking at the skylines, which one looks to you like it's going to be alive all hours of the day?

It's also worth noting that most of these Vancouver towers are residential-- the density on the downtown peninsula is well over 60 units an acre on average.

And for what it's worth, Charlotte is becoming more urban all the time; it may not be a forest of glassy towers like Vancouver, but it is beginning to fill in with more modest heights much more effectively than Orlando. We can choose our path-- do we want real density and vitality (e.g. a consistent fabric of four to eight stories with higher buildings downtown), or do we want to cheerlead tall buildings just because they give us the impression of importance, even if at the expense of building a city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple examples to illustrate what I mentioned in an earlier thread:

163654058_73150087f5_o.jpg

Downtown Charlotte

Not to knock Charlotte or anything, but doesn't a city focusing on mid-rises (400-500 ft) and really packing them in seem more interesting than a city that bets the farm on a few big buildings (Charlotte's B of A building is about 1,000) which effectively drain the downtown of any development demand for years? Looking at the skylines, which one looks to you like it's going to be alive all hours of the day?

It's also worth noting that most of these Vancouver towers are residential-- the density on the downtown peninsula is well over 60 units an acre on average.

And for what it's worth, Charlotte is becoming more urban all the time; it may not be a forest of glassy towers like Vancouver, but it is beginning to fill in with more modest heights much more effectively than Orlando. We can choose our path-- do we want real density and vitality (e.g. a consistent fabric of four to eight stories with higher buildings downtown), or do we want to cheerlead tall buildings just because they give us the impression of importance, even if at the expense of building a city?

Charlotte looks pretty bland to me and not much to it. It's dense for like 4 square blocks and that's it. What's all the hype about?

The first pic of Vancouver reminds me of Hong Kong and the second pic looks like the southern tip of Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice also that in the bird's-eye view of Vancouver only the downtown peninsula has that kind of density. Most of the rest of the city refused to accept it so that is the only place where it could go. We have a similar scenario here: downtown is framed on one side by historic neighborhoods that want to remain detached single-family forever (I'll save my rants about how real cities don't force their residents to live indefinitely with the decisions of one era, even if those decisions result in something now considered 'historic'), effectively walled off on the other side by an elevated freeway. In its downtown district, Orlando land use policies and zoning allow this Vancouver effect with 200 permitted dwelling units an acre and no official height limit. We could be this, but there isn't demand yet.

I suppose my point is that the B of A building is far more impressive and dramatic than anything man-made in these shots of Vancouver-- they all look pretty much the same and don't compete for height or prominence. But instead of a few trophy towers here and there, doesn't relatively even density (higher than what we have now in our neighborhoods, mind you) imply a greater area of truly active, busy urban environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice also that in the bird's-eye view of Vancouver only the downtown peninsula has that kind of density. Most of the rest of the city refused to accept it so that is the only place where it could go. We have a similar scenario here: downtown is framed on one side by historic neighborhoods that want to remain detached single-family forever (I'll save my rants about how real cities don't force their residents to live indefinitely with the decisions of one era, even if those decisions result in something now considered 'historic'), effectively walled off on the other side by an elevated freeway. In its downtown district, Orlando land use policies and zoning allow this Vancouver effect with 200 permitted dwelling units an acre and no official height limit. We could be this, but there isn't demand yet.

I suppose my point is that the B of A building is far more impressive and dramatic than anything man-made in these shots of Vancouver-- they all look pretty much the same and don't compete for height or prominence. But instead of a few trophy towers here and there, doesn't relatively even density (higher than what we have now in our neighborhoods, mind you) imply a greater area of truly active, busy urban environment?

I dig rants bande so no worries. I was thinking about your comments and can't help but be split on the issue. As far as street level retail activity is concerned you only need one story considering that the average human is less than 6 feet tall. I think that if there is an even dispersal of activity in connected retail corridors that can be just as interesting and visually stunning as 1,000 tall buildings. Most European Capitals are 6 stories with the exception of their designated skyscraper zones. It served them well for centuries. I think that the real question here revolves around the definition of what an American city is supposed to look like, and what is preferred. Personally, I love megatowers and don't think that one would detract from activity elsewhere in an environment. The Sears Tower and John Hancock Building in Chicago and the Empire State Building in NYC RIP WTC. Those buildings never fit in, but were treasured parts of the landscape. Oh BTW I agree, Charlotte is whack and in 200 years if we make it that long, Eola Heights will be stunning especially given its juxtaposition to a dense skyscraper zone. It will lose some charm though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Downtown Orlando is en route to developing like Vancouver's centre city, but with an option in the future to go vertical once build-out has been reached and the ORL/FAA approach pattern hazard situation has been addressed. Boston and Philadelphia both suffered from skyscraper oppression to an extent and despite how old and established each city is.

Philadelphian high-rises could not be taller than its 548-foot tall City Hall until 1987 when it was eclipsed by One Liberty Place. Likewise, downtown Boston was limited by FAA restrictions due to Logan International Airport. Its two tallest buildings--John Hancock Tower and Prudential Center--had to be constructed outside of the Financial District, in Back Bay. Only in the past few years have proposals surfaced for buildings over ~600-feet tall to be located downtown. Both of these cities could have had much more impressive skylines height-wise if not for their respective restrictions, but there is no denying that both are among the densest cities in the United States.

Although it might take half a century or so, I can see Downtown Orlando developing much the same way-- lots of mid-rises a la Vancouver for a while until demand is so great and politics are put aside to allow some real skyscrapers to sprout up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you can have the best of both worlds like Hong Kong....

All good points, though we will not have Hong Kong, Vancouver, Berlin or even Chicago (east of Western Ave, anyway) urban density until we control outward expansion. To a degree, the market preferences driving Orlando's sprawl generation and those driving its downtown housing construction are not at all the same. But if you take a firm stand on reining in infrastructure costs, service costs, regionwide vehicle miles traveled, regionwide energy consumption, etc., and adopt firm policies limiting how much more you can expand geographically, the only option is to build more in the existing boundaries-- be that downtown or in the existing suburbs. Orlando's rough circle of natural boundaries-- Lake Monroe and the Wekiva River and preserve to the north, the Econlockhatchee River to the east, the Toho lakes to the south and Lake Apopka and the Butler chain to the west-- has been jumped over in all directions as growth continues outward. What else can stop it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vancouver vs. Charlotte: or rather, the different development schemes vs each other:

Vancouver is prettier than Charlotte. But the tall BOA puts Charlotte on the map of relevance, the same way as Cleveland's big one, Sears, LA's, Atlanta's, etc. Talls denote advanced b/c they are rarer than medium height bldgs. that's the perception, or at least, my perception.

If choosing one over the other, I dunno. Vancouver isn't even American. i.e., in its developmental pattern. That's why it looks that way. Maybe the American way of city development is what needs to be reassessed-- big city blocks with boxy bldgs. vs. sleeker thinner towers.

I prefer Vancouver. But I like BOA. Maybe if there was a common ground. Maybe there is... Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vancouver vs. Charlotte: or rather, the different development schemes vs each other:

Vancouver is prettier than Charlotte. But the tall BOA puts Charlotte on the map of relevance, the same way as Cleveland's big one, Sears, LA's, Atlanta's, etc. Talls denote advanced b/c they are rarer than medium height bldgs. that's the perception, or at least, my perception.

If choosing one over the other, I dunno. Vancouver isn't even American. i.e., in its developmental pattern. That's why it looks that way. Maybe the American way of city development is what needs to be reassessed-- big city blocks with boxy bldgs. vs. sleeker thinner towers.

I prefer Vancouver. But I like BOA. Maybe if there was a common ground. Maybe there is... Toronto.

San Francisco and San Diego are the only two cities in the U.S. that have adopted Vancouver style development into their urban plans. The buildings are called Pencil Towers and are actually based on a Japanese model (although in Japan the buildings are 14 stories). Orlando would be very forward thinking if that was adopted into the planning code. It would be the first city in the East to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason they have adopted such developments is because in those areas it is neccessary. The pencil buildings of Japan have proven to be able to withstand strong quakes.

Such planning is often expensive, I doubt any city would adopt it unless they deemed it neccessary in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

i guess i want more discussion on a topic that another forumer brought up on a different thread. how is it that a building at 500-600 ft can pose a threat to air traffic at orlando executive while cranes for a faa approved 400+ft building sits at those unapproved heights for many months?

plus, with the staggered construction time frames for multiple tall buildings....... these "unsafe" tall hazards seem to be up year round. obviously there is no problem. heck, i would think a 500ft crane is more of a hazard for planes then a 500ft building. cranes are a lot harder to see.

ahhh..... the doubles standards of the faa with their fictional hazards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shardoon,

There are many many inconsistencies in the FAA hazards. However, no builder has ever wanted to spend the money to reevaluate the situation, nor has the city. The problem is in the insurance companies, the FAA tells them it's dangerous so they jack the living hell out of the rates over feet in certain areas.

When and if Orlando ever has the demand for 500ft towers, there will be someone who will do the study. If your looking for the city and FAA to, think again, neither is going to be willing to spend the money on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Olympia Place" was to have another 27 story tower (it was really beautiful-if you half way like the existing one) and two other shorter towers, one being a hotel. It would have emcompassed the whole block that the Wachovia is on now, but with a large fountain in the middle of the complex.

The only building rendering that I saw for DuPont was for a Westin Hotel (around 1987) that complimented the existing building. But before that I also her the rumor of a building with the opposite step down.

Damn, I wish we had pictures of these projects you guys are talking about. This was a little early for my time.

Well, here you go.... fresh from the "Designs That Never Made It" file...

post-6014-1153026058_thumb.jpg

The DuPont Center as originally envisioned. Until DuPont ran out of money. I always thought a mirror image tower would've looked cool there. Still do.

post-6014-1153026021_thumb.jpg

Original Olympia Place design. The view is looking from NW to SE. The existing tower is hidden behind the one in the foreground.

post-6014-1153026317_thumb.jpg

Mid 1990's. Exterior refurbishment of existing bldg. @ Robinson & Rosalind w/new twin tower.

post-6014-1153026489_thumb.jpg

This is going way back. Proposed for current PTP site. Killed by Hysterical Preservation Society's demand to incorporate Woolworth & McCrory facades into design.

post-6014-1153031731_thumb.jpg

Original Church St. Market design. (current 55 W. site)

post-6014-1153026021_thumb.jpg

post-6014-1153026058_thumb.jpg

post-6014-1153026317_thumb.jpg

post-6014-1153026489_thumb.jpg

post-6014-1153031731_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get too far off topic here but I remember drving by that Olympia Place lot every so often watching for dirt to turn. It was before the days of great on line communities like this so often that's the only way you would know if a project was a go.

They even had a great scale model of the second tower by the garage entrance of the lobby in the existing tower. The funny thing was it was all dusty with trees and cars randomly tipped over and out of place. Not a good sign.....

I really love those scale models. I remember one for the Orange County Courthose as well. Do these ever get in the hands of private collectors after the fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I wish that Olympia Place was built as planned-- save for the huge parking facility which could maybe have been incorporated into the actual towers ala PTP.

Do we have heights for these, b/c if we have the specs, I or someone else can email Paul Cucuzza at Emporis and he can add them into the "Never Built" category for Orlando; reason being it would show that although there hasn't been all that much construction in the past, there has been alot of planning for new towers.

As for FAA--- this am, a Learjet came from the NW towards the SE right over PTP then made a turn towards the E-NE to land on that runway that points towards the SW. What a bunch of crap.

Olympia Center/Place-- even in their ad the neighborhood is called "Uptown."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Height Limits in Orlando...Has anyone thought about the geophysical environment upon which these buildings are constructed. I mean, how safe can it be to have 600'-700' towers everywhere in an area that is prone to sink holes? I was recently reading about the geological conditions here in Manhattan and most of the highrises were possible because of the bedrock here which is 300-400 million years old. Florida is mostly limestone and only 30-40 million years old, thus a less stable environment for supporting those weights. Any insight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Height Limits in Orlando...Has anyone thought about the geophysical environment upon which these buildings are constructed. I mean, how safe can it be to have 600'-700' towers everywhere in an area that is prone to sink holes? I was recently reading about the geological conditions here in Manhattan and most of the highrises were possible because of the bedrock here which is 300-400 million years old. Florida is mostly limestone and only 30-40 million years old, thus a less stable environment for supporting those weights. Any insight?

my take is just drive the piles deeper and use more of them. I think Orlandonative probably would have better insight on that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.