Jump to content

Downtown Orlando Height Limit Discussion


Tim3167

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

question... if 441 ft is the maximum, then why have there not been many other proposals for the same height. The closest to that I believe is the vue and I guess 55west and as for office towers, none that I know of. So overall, building just 400 footers alone seems to be something of little demand to this city as of date.

So why even bother thinking or even talking about lifting the height limit if we cant even get a sugnificant amount of 400 footers downtown?

Is it an economics issue? My uninformed guess would be that land isn't scarce enough to justify pushing it higher than the de facto limit of 441 feet, and as the market conditions/sales success on the projects have varied throughout their lives so far, heights may be modified as needed. Didn't the Solaire tower get dropped back significantly from its original plans?

Personally, I would rather see a skyline fill in than have a few wild sprouts shooting up here and there. I prefer the model of downtown Vancouver over downtown Charlotte, and the effects on street life and urban activity are clearly better as well. Could you imagine if we had a solid minimum 4 FAR from the Florida Hospital to ORMC? You'd have a city, not just an asparagus clump that supports life nine hours out of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree. I'm not convinced that the skyline would look any different today if there were not this "limit". I think economics has been the real cap to this point. It wasn't the FAA that killed the Pizutti project, it was lack of tenants.

That being said, I think it is starting to impact the newer proposals as developers don't want to challenge this established threshold.

before pizutti got killed, didnt they have to rescale lower because of the faa height issue? i remember seeing a scaled down version after all the hoopla with the initial height proposal.

secondly, las vegas is a good example. their airport supports big jumbo jets and has a higher passenger count then oia. its also a lot closer to their tall buildings. yet we have this "height" issue with little old orlando executive airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

secondly, las vegas is a good example. their airport supports big jumbo jets and has a higher passenger count then oia. its also a lot closer to their tall buildings. yet we have this "height" issue with little old orlando executive airport.

That makes perfect sense to me. A large air field has stricter flight paths that extend out further. Jumbos don't cut in line! A small field with small planes permits short cuts thus height issues are much broader. If OIA was where Exec is then I'd expect we could go higher based on stricter flight rules. Just my layman opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pizutti building had to due with a number of things. First was the insurance cost, the FAA didn't approve of the height and well, what insurer would want to insure a building that the FAA wouldn't approve.

Second, it was painfully obvious that there was no market for the building. Pizutti had a major tenat lined up but it fell through and the building's office space was virtually empty (therefore he lowered the building)

Third, They did not want to fall out of favor with the city, who has sided with the FAA in the past.

As for LAS, their developers have needed to create the extra height due to limited space on the strip. They have been willing to pay the insurance costs, etc to have the higher buildings, and the money made gambling surpasses any of these costs. There isn't the market for those types of buildings in our city.

Just to add, no insurer was willing to insure the buildings being built in Vegas currently until the MID 90s, thus the reason so many of these megahotels have been constructed since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes perfect sense to me. A large air field has stricter flight paths that extend out further. Jumbos don't cut in line! A small field with small planes permits short cuts thus height issues are much broader. If OIA was where Exec is then I'd expect we could go higher based on stricter flight rules. Just my layman opinion.

doesnt change the fact that LAS does have small plane traffic as well. they still cut in front of the jumbo air traffic which would leave the same "problem" that orlando executive has. any airport is not all big or all little...... its a combination of the both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me unrealistic, but I was told by a long-time re-insurer in ORL that when Suntrust was built, they had a "gentleman's agreement" with the City that no new bldg or proposal over 446' or the height of Suntrust could be made before 2006 (I guess for 20 years).

Sound like BS? dunno. But it still doesn't answer the question which was answered about why there aren't a dozen 400' bldgs peppering the skyline.

I like the direction DT is headed right now. But I think they regulate height around here the same way they perceive the number of traffic lanes on I-4 or any other expressway; it makes me sick sometimes.

Taller does give the illusion of bigger. Its symbolic. Just look at Chicago-- a few supertalls and you'd think that there are more talls than in NYC (well, now there are since 9/11). Chicago knew this back in the '60's and pushed for supertalls back then to "compete" with the "First City" NYC.

THey need to redraw the lines at Orlando Exec, b/c, otherwise, even if we're only talking about the view from a distance, Orlando will always be perceived as small time. Honestly, even I think that way sometimes, i.e., "oh great, another 250' bldg." vs. "wow, a 426' bldg."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Orlando needs to get away from are these 12 - 17 story buildings. You can barely see the tops of these cigar stubs over the trees. To me these are the most disappointing. You look at them and can't help but think, "... if only it just had about 5 more floors..."

I would love to see about 8 or 10 floors added to the top of the Wachovia building at Orange and Central. Maybe redesign the roofline a bit.

Also, that "silver thing" at Central and Garland could use a few more floors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Orlando needs to get away from are these 12 - 17 story buildings. You can barely see the tops of these cigar stubs over the trees. To me these are the most disappointing. You look at them and can't help but think, "... if only it just had about 5 more floors..."

I would love to see about 8 or 10 floors added to the top of the Wachovia building at Orange and Central. Maybe redesign the roofline a bit.

Also, that "silver thing" at Central and Garland could use a few more floors.

That silver bldg-- It looked for a while like they were going to reclad the exterior-- I guess their intention was only to remove the panels where the bank sign was to clean the residue off when the bank moved.

As for your other comments, I completely agree and think the same thing.

THat Wachovia bldg., if it were twice as tall, would be a very distinctive bldg in the skyline moreso b/c of its 45 degree orientation. Now, though, when on I-4 west coming from Ivanhoe, when you see it with Plaza in the background, its a neat effect, now that there isn't sky directly behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That silver bldg-- It looked for a while like they were going to reclad the exterior-- I guess their intention was only to remove the panels where the bank sign was to clean the residue off when the bank moved.

As for your other comments, I completely agree and think the same thing.

THat Wachovia bldg., if it were twice as tall, would be a very distinctive bldg in the skyline moreso b/c of its 45 degree orientation. Now, though, when on I-4 west coming from Ivanhoe, when you see it with Plaza in the background, its a neat effect, now that there isn't sky directly behind it.

I could be wrong and correct me if I am, but I think that in Miami there is a building like that with a 45 degree angle. If not Miami, its somewhere in the Southeast. I'm sure that if we knew the architect we could track it down. Regarding the larger buildings, I think about the Port Authortity in New York which with constructed the WTC as a way to clean up "Radio Row," but also to make a statement to the world. It was financed in part by the PA, which is a public agency, akin to Lynx building a major office complex to enhance ridership, and it was a failure at first, but later became spectacularly successful with rents exceeding $100/PSF.

I was also thinking about the Empire State Building which was constructed during THE DEPRESSION of all times!!! Occupancy had to have been at abysmal conditions and here some guy comes with a plant to build the world's tallest building. That is the entreprneurial spirit at its best. My opinion is that when developers with deeper pockets and a commitment to Orlando step up to the plate there will be plenty of buildings that surpass Suntrust in height.

Also, the Southtrust building and the First Union building were constructed when Orlando's population was much smaller. If you do an analysis of building at and square footage there is positive correlation so the older a building is the smaller its size. This is a reflection of where a city is in its development, not to mention attitudes (Boston has chosen to the dismay of some residents to reign in the proliferation of skyscrapers). As cities grow so to does the size of their tenants and their buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know if this picture will come out as I have not yet mastered the skill, but I wanted to emphasize an important point.

147668.jpg

Above is a photograph of 3 Times Square in New York aka the Reuters Building. It is an 850,000 SF, 555' office building. It is just 32 stories. There are currently about 900,000 SF of office space under construction in Orlando in 4 different buildings. If a developer pushed the envelope, he/she could find tenants for the space as these developers have.

Also, while Downtown Orlando has the highest concentration of office space in the Metro area, it is followed closely by Maitland Center and Lake Mary/Heathrow. If you condensed the space from those suburban locations to downtown Orlando you would be adding the equivalent of 9.0MSF of office space or the equivalent of 4 Empire State Buildings!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Orlando needs to get away from are these 12 - 17 story buildings. You can barely see the tops of these cigar stubs over the trees. To me these are the most disappointing. You look at them and can't help but think, "... if only it just had about 5 more floors..."

I would love to see about 8 or 10 floors added to the top of the Wachovia building at Orange and Central. Maybe redesign the roofline a bit.

Also, that "silver thing" at Central and Garland could use a few more floors.

The Wachovia (old Atlantic Bank) building at Central and Orange was originally supposed to be 19 stories. The city had the developer take off 3 floors and move the whole thing a couple a feet away from Orange Ave to accomadate the soon to be Orange Ave streetscape. The developer (Demetree or Dickinson I think) later said that he felt like never building downtown again because of what the city put him through. Interesting about the height issue because that was in 1982! I don't believe it was an FAA thing though.

The silver building (old Century Plaza) was to be the first of three buildings in a connected complex. The two other buildings were to be stretched North along Garland, the first one next to the existing one was to be 24 stories, the second 18. All of the buildings had the same silver covering, but the 24 story one had indentions. To bad it wasn't built, it looked nice. It would have been dated by now, but what isn't over time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Orlando needs to get away from are these 12 - 17 story buildings. You can barely see the tops of these cigar stubs over the trees. To me these are the most disappointing. You look at them and can't help but think, "... if only it just had about 5 more floors..."

I would love to see about 8 or 10 floors added to the top of the Wachovia building at Orange and Central. Maybe redesign the roofline a bit.

Also, that "silver thing" at Central and Garland could use a few more floors.

The Wachovia building was only one phase of a former masterplan. There were a couple of future phases that looked the same but taller. The taller buildings looked great on the model. The only building built looks crappy alone and that's what we are stuck with. The Traveler's building had the same situation. I believe that a taller tower was approved to butt up against that crap-heap parking garage. Driving north on I-4, you can see where the tall building was supposed to go.

Also, did anyone see the picture of the snow-glass thing (?) from Cameron Kuhn's office in the paper a few weeks ago? It had a mini Sunbank in it but it was much taller and much better proportioned than the stubby real world version. It looked awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wachovia building was only one phase of a former masterplan. There were a couple of future phases that looked the same but taller. The taller buildings looked great on the model. The only building built looks crappy alone and that's what we are stuck with. The Traveler's building had the same situation. I believe that a taller tower was approved to butt up against that crap-heap parking garage. Driving north on I-4, you can see where the tall building was supposed to go.

Also, did anyone see the picture of the snow-glass thing (?) from Cameron Kuhn's office in the paper a few weeks ago? It had a mini Sunbank in it but it was much taller and much better proportioned than the stubby real world version. It looked awesome.

Do you have a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told by a long time resident, the Gencor people, that BOA (DuPont) was to have a twin across the street on Pizzuti block with the step-down facing north. Also, the other Wachovia on N. Orange was supposed to have a taller twin (Olympia Ctr? Olympia & York?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told by a long time resident, the Gencor people, that BOA (DuPont) was to have a twin across the street on Pizzuti block with the step-down facing north. Also, the other Wachovia on N. Orange was supposed to have a taller twin (Olympia Ctr? Olympia & York?)

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

If I didn't have a crappy computer you would. I've been keeping a scrap book of downtown Orlando since 1980. Lots of fading news clips from the Sentinel....

Some pretty neat stuff (or sad, when you see what DIDN'T get built). I do have a computer upgrade planned in the near future and will share if I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are numerous examples of master plans for multi-tower downtown complexes where only one tower gets built-- for one, the strong diagonal/ice crystal Wells Fargo building in Dallas (is it still called Fountain Place?) was supposed to have a twin, rotated at 90 degrees. Don't know why so many of them haven't worked out. Maybe it's because the occupancy/leasing of the first tower doesn't go so well and the rest of the plan gets cut back or abandoned altogether; maybe it's because the public and city planning boards realize that Le Corbusier downtowns of identical towers placed around wide plazas are a BAD IDEA and understand why they died with Pruitt-Igoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are numerous examples of master plans for multi-tower downtown complexes where only one tower gets built-- for one, the strong diagonal/ice crystal Wells Fargo building in Dallas (is it still called Fountain Place?) was supposed to have a twin, rotated at 90 degrees. Don't know why so many of them haven't worked out. Maybe it's because the occupancy/leasing of the first tower doesn't go so well and the rest of the plan gets cut back or abandoned altogether; maybe it's because the public and city planning boards realize that Le Corbusier downtowns of identical towers placed around wide plazas are a BAD IDEA and understand why they died with Pruitt-Igoe.

Don't forget that there was a major financial crisis effecting the real estate industry in the late 1980's and early 1990's that cancelled many plans that were on the drawing board. Also, real estate financing has become more stringent since that run up and is very likely a reason that some of these towers are being built. Having a 65% preleasing commitment is one of the main stipulations for financing now. Check out Tom Wolfe's book A Man In Full if you want an in depth fictional account of the psychology of developers during that era.

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.