Jump to content

330 East Central

IsaacFL

By IsaacFL
in Orlando

Recommended Posts

IsaacFL Unincorporated Area

IsaacFL

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Did they say what the closest distance between the two buildings would be?

I also wonder if anybody has considered the effect of hurricane force winds being forced between such a narrow gap between the two buildings. As wind is forced to flow through a narrow opening it has to speed up. If the gap is narrow enough you could easily double the wind speed. The new building could probably be designed to handle the wind, but what about the impacts on the Waverly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply
neon9 Hamlet

neon9

Posted
Posted
Did they say what the closest distance between the two buildings would be?

I also wonder if anybody has considered the effect of hurricane force winds being forced between such a narrow gap between the two buildings. As wind is forced to flow through a narrow opening it has to speed up. If the gap is narrow enough you could easily double the wind speed. The new building could probably be designed to handle the wind, but what about the impacts on the Waverly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sunshine City

sunshine

Posted
Posted

They developer own the land and they have the right to build what they want as long as the city approve it. The residents has the right to protest it but like I said before, not many people will go all the way. Furthermore they dont own the air right or the land. I cant stop my neighbour from putting up a 8 foot fence because it will block my view.

As far as urbanity go, if this ever get built (which I doubt it), this is too small of a block to make a difference. With publix being there, the urbanity at that area is probably at its peak already. It really doesnt affect anybody except people in waverly. To people that dont live there, this building just mean another building for me to take a perfect skyline pic.

But, if everybody concern about the view and how close buildings are to each other, we probably wont have NYC. A lot of places was sold in big city at premium price without a view but based more on the location. Waverly is a prime location.

I beleive Capital Plaza III and Tradition Tower will also block the view of west side waverly residents as well, nobody protest it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
facilities man Hamlet

facilities man

Posted
Posted

It comes down to economics. The developer may not have any intention of building this building. They may just want top dollar for the land. If they threaten the Waverly's views it becomes a lot more valuable to all the residents. Just buy the land and sell it with a restriction that only a 50 foot or shorter building can go on the lot. This is no different than a suburban subdivision not wanting a Walmart just outside their entrance. No one wants to pay for the land they just want to restrict the current properties owners use. Not to be harsh, but put your money where your mouth is. If it's that important, buy the property and then you control what happens on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
giovoni Unincorporated Area

giovoni

Posted
Posted
Turning nice condos into tenement houses is not urbanism. Knocking down established neighborhoods is not urbanism.

I'm all for density ... I have nothing against height ... but the ultimate question is, does it improve the lives and lifestyles of the people who live in the urban core or not. It's not about just units per acre. Nor is it, as way too many on this forum think, how it will look from the highway. Well, damn it; most of the people on the highway don't get off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
palmtree73 Whistle-Stop

palmtree73

Posted
Posted
Exactly.. and turning an empty lot into a building also IS all about urbanism. It adds density, it adds residents, it adds more activity, it will eventually help to add more demand for some sort of fixed guideway mass transit (not just commuter lines) downtown and around downtown (though I'm not real optimistic about that in Orlando any time soon). Sorry about your luck on the views but if I were buying something for the view in a boomtown I'd make damn sure that lots in my line of sight were developed as much as they were going to be developed before I moved in. If you can prevent the development based on the variance more power to you but if Orlando becomes what everyone here at least pretends they want it to become empty land around Lake Eola will be going the way of the Dodo. Maybe not as tall and offensive (to the people who didn't notice the undeveloped lot when they bought for some reason) as it is now but 'something' will go there 'eventually' and 'someone' will probably lose a view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bulldogger Town

bulldogger

Posted
Posted
I've often thought that would be the perfect location for a 5-story boutique hotel to compliment The Waverly. Add a premium restaurant with street level seating and a balcony with views of the lake, and there will be a lot more "rich people" coming to that location on an hourly basis than a 48-unit condo. I think the key is retail that creates more trips to create the sort of activity and demand for transit you seem to want. I don't undertand the fetish for the tower. Anyone who has visited Paris or Milan knows that residential highrises are practically non-existent, but there's ton of activity and urbanity Orlando wishes it could emulate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jnorlando Whistle-Stop

jnorlando

Posted
Posted

Sorry, messed up....Quoting palmtree73

"Where exactly is the empty lot at this location? Below are a couple of shots at the lot we're talking about. There's a 6300sf office there that is currently serving as the sales ofice for Eola Place. It's not an architectural masterpiece, but it's there. I've often thought that would be the perfect location for a 5-story boutique hotel to compliment The Waverly. Add a premium restaurant with street level seating and a balcony with views of the lake, and there will be a lot more "rich people" coming to that location on an hourly basis than a 48-unit condo. I think the key is retail that creates more trips to create the sort of activity and demand for transit you seem to want. I don't undertand the fetish for the tower. Anyone who has visited Paris or Milan knows that residential highrises are practically non-existent, but there's ton of activity and urbanity Orlando wishes it could emulate.

And again, think about how developments affect the entire neighborhood. What good would it do for the 200+ units in the Waverly to be devalued into rental property again? And remember, the developer has no legal right at this moment to build what is being proposed. The onus is on them, not The Waverly."

Personally, I think the Waverly is just a hideous building that should be concealed as much as possible. Yes, most of us were excited when the building was erected, but IMO it's architectural style is much more suited for South Beach then Orlando. I don't think that the proposed building will retract from the Waverly's appearance, just the view residents currently have.

The urbanity that is found in Europe will never find a home in Orlando.....at least not in any of our lifetimes. The endless streets of maximum 5-6 story buildings are amusing and serve their purpose, but our culture, so far, is dependent on self-reliant transportation and I do not believe that this will change any time soon....even if the commuter and light rails come to fruition.

Why can't the developer of this building open a restaurant or two on the bottom levels....or hey, why not a roof-top restaurant that rotates since Orlando is lacking one. Bottom line, your argument is clearly one sided since you have invested in the Waverly and have more to lose then gain on this proposed development.

The 5-story boutique hotel is not a bad idea, and I would love to see something of that magnitude in that area. But what about the residents on the first 5 floors of this idea? Screw them???

Also, you have something on returning the Waverly back to rental units. Orlando has Dynetech and Camden to supply a much needed break in the lack of available apartment units in downtown. More are needed though with all the condo conversions taking place. I would imagine that the conversion of the Waverly came soon enough for the investors of that property to have reasonable mortgages compared to todays prices. So, why not move and rent it out?

One more thing, I would rather see this tower go in the proposed location then see something like Constitution Green become a cement wasteland. While the propery is in an odd location, and a potentially detrimental for Waverly residents, I have yet to see an argument presented from anyone on this forum as to why it shouldn't get built on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
palmtree73 Whistle-Stop

palmtree73

Posted
Posted

Sorry, I screwed up quoting jnorlando, too.

Personally, I think the Waverly is just a hideous building that should be concealed as much as possible. Yes, most of us were excited when the building was erected, but IMO it's architectural style is much more suited for South Beach then Orlando. I don't think that the proposed building will retract from the Waverly's appearance, just the view residents currently have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ORLANDOJBBOY Whistle-Stop

ORLANDOJBBOY

Posted
Posted

Hey my parents live outside the city and a developer bought all the land around them and is putting houses in, their view of the nice trees and fields around them is going bye bye, its life, deal with it. The waverly values are going down as they should they were way over priced, and once they reach the value they should be at, if this project is built, it will do nothing to the value of the condos at the waverly. Sure most of the view will be gone but people will pay for a unit as convenient as the waverly. Sell now and move out if you are so worried about it, just be careful where you buy next b/c i can assure you if this is built this WILL NOT be the last time people are whining about their view being taken away. All the condos (Jackson, Sanctuary, Eola Place, 101 Eola, Star, Monarch, ect) are all going to be blocking each others views. And ill say this again, the whole automated parking garage is going to kill this project just as it will over by the Vue, you can wait to park your car in orlando, driving is a necessity in this city to get anywhere, it just wont work with the orlando lifestyle, and transportation situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
neon9 Hamlet

neon9

Posted
Posted
Sorry, messed up....Quoting palmtree73

The urbanity that is found in Europe will never find a home in Orlando.....at least not in any of our lifetimes. The endless streets of maximum 5-6 story buildings are amusing and serve their purpose, but our culture, so far, is dependent on self-reliant transportation and I do not believe that this will change any time soon....even if the commuter and light rails come to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IsaacFL Unincorporated Area

IsaacFL

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't know why people would think this would decrease the value of the Waverly. You would have 40 some units next door that each start at $1M. This will increase the value of the Waverly units. You aren't paying for the view, you are paying for the lifestyle of living right in the middle of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.