Developer proposes office tower near Lake Eola

[bic]

Developer's new proposal would spare Orlando homes

Orlando Sentinel Article

[bic]

I have to admit, I hadn't been following this thread too closely so I was a little confused with the recent discussion of "5 homes," new office tower, park space, land swap, etc. It wasn't until I read the Sentinel article I linked to above and after I visualized things on a map that I figured out exactly what was going on. Soooo, to make it easier for other people to understand, I made a little map for reference.

BLUE: Highlights the 4 homes that would be preserved in the proposed land swap deal.

RED: Highlights the fifth home that would be razed to make room for the new tower.

GREEN: Highlights the current park space at the corner of Eola Drive and Central Blvd. that would become the site for the new office tower.

I'm of the opinion that the city should not have allowed any privately owned buildings to be erected within the boundaries of Lake Eola Park; that is within the square bordered by Central Blvd., Eola Drive, Robinson St., and Rosalind Ave. That said, there's already a handful of commercial and residential buildings that are taking up what could be valuable park space so there's not much that can be done about that. The city set a poor precedent by zoning the land around the park the way it did and allowing developers to construct large buildings within the park. The homes that exist on the site in question are not of significant architectural or historical merit but they do contribute to the peaceful ambiance of the neighborhood. I would prefer to see them remain as opposed to replacing them with a 15-story office building that will further crowd Lake Eola and impose itself over park space.

With the land swap proposal, these houses would be preserved but the park space at the corner of Eola Drive and Central Blvd. would be destroyed to make way for the new tower. Without considering ethics or the principle of destroying park space, placing the tower here makes a lot more sense from a city planner's perspective since the building would significantly enhance the street wall along Central Blvd. and be located further from the rest of the park and playground on Washington St. Ground-floor retail opportunities seem much brighter with storefronts facing the busy pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare of Central Blvd. rather than on Eola Drive.

Obviously, the problem now is that in the land swap, the city will lose a portion of the park at that corner and it will be replace by an office building and you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who would agree with that in principle. The bright side is that four out of the five houses will be saved from the wrecking ball, since people all of a sudden seem to value them so much. Personally, I don't care so much that the houses get destroyed-- I'm more concerned with the idea of allowing an office tower to go up so close to treasured--and scarce--park space, especially when there are so many other desirable parcels of land available elsewhere in downtown. But since there is no option of relocating the tower's site to somewhere else in the neighborhood, I prefer the land swap deal to what was originally proposed. It comes down to what is the lesser of two evils. I'd rather see the tower go up on a more favorable site even if it means losing some park space rather than destroy those homes AND have the tower crowd up on Lake Eola.

After all is said and done, if the city goes ahead with the land swap and citizens throw a hissy over losing park space, the city could always raze those remaining 4 houses and the dead-end portion of Washington St. they front to create new park space. Destroying quasi-historic homes in favor of park space would be a much easier pill for the public to swallow as opposed to destroying those homes to make way for a new tower. Construct the tower at Central and Eola Dr., leave the home at the corner of Eola Drive and Washington, make park space out of the 3 remaining homes and dead-end portion of Washington St., and I think that would be the best of both worlds.

[jack]

I say raze the homes and turn it into park space. That is the highest and best use.

And don't use any dirty Republican tricks to get the homes saved. (I do not mean it, I just love saying that) Seriously, does every ad now mention dirty Republican tricks or is it just me?

[GregoryMCSE]

I have to admit, I hadn't been following this thread too closely so I was a little confused with the recent discussion of "5 homes," new office tower, park space, land swap, etc. It wasn't until I read the Sentinel article I linked to above and after I visualized things on a map that I figured out exactly what was going on. Soooo, to make it easier for other people to understand, I made a little map for reference.

BLUE: Highlights the 4 homes that would be preserved in the proposed land swap deal.

RED: Highlights the fifth home that would be razed to make room for the new tower.

GREEN: Highlights the current park space at the corner of Eola Drive and Central Blvd. that would become the site for the new office tower.

I'm of the opinion that the city should not have allowed any privately owned buildings to be erected within the boundaries of Lake Eola Park; that is within the square bordered by Central Blvd., Eola Drive, Robinson St., and Rosalind Ave. That said, there's already a handful of commercial and residential buildings that are taking up what could be valuable park space so there's not much that can be done about that. The city set a poor precedent by zoning the land around the park the way it did and allowing developers to construct large buildings within the park. The homes that exist on the site in question are not of significant architectural or historical merit but they do contribute to the peaceful ambiance of the neighborhood. I would prefer to see them remain as opposed to replacing them with a 15-story office building that will further crowd Lake Eola and impose itself over park space.

With the land swap proposal, these houses would be preserved but the park space at the corner of Eola Drive and Central Blvd. would be destroyed to make way for the new tower. Without considering ethics or the principle of destroying park space, placing the tower here makes a lot more sense from a city planner's perspective since the building would significantly enhance the street wall along Central Blvd. and be located further from the rest of the park and playground on Washington St. Ground-floor retail opportunities seem much brighter with storefronts facing the busy pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare of Central Blvd. rather than on Eola Drive.

Obviously, the problem now is that in the land swap, the city will lose a portion of the park at that corner and it will be replace by an office building and you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who would agree with that in principle. The bright side is that four out of the five houses will be saved from the wrecking ball, since people all of a sudden seem to value them so much. Personally, I don't care so much that the houses get destroyed-- I'm more concerned with the idea of allowing an office tower to go up so close to treasured--and scarce--park space, especially when there are so many other desirable parcels of land available elsewhere in downtown. But since there is no option of relocating the tower's site to somewhere else in the neighborhood, I prefer the land swap deal to what was originally proposed. It comes down to what is the lesser of two evils. I'd rather see the tower go up on a more favorable site even if it means losing some park space rather than destroy those homes AND have the tower crowd up on Lake Eola.

After all is said and done, if the city goes ahead with the land swap and citizens throw a hissy over losing park space, the city could always raze those remaining 4 houses and the dead-end portion of Washington St. they front to create new park space. Destroying quasi-historic homes in favor of park space would be a much easier pill for the public to swallow as opposed to destroying those homes to make way for a new tower. Construct the tower at Central and Eola Dr., leave the home at the corner of Eola Drive and Washington, make park space out of the 3 remaining homes and dead-end portion of Washington St., and I think that would be the best of both worlds.

Thanks for the visual. I love skyscrapers and density big time. But Lake Eola does not have enough green space as is. The location of this tower is one of my favorite spots in the park... I love the little farmers maket that is held their. I also think all of the houses shouyld stay put. lets not pave over all of our history with republican dirty tricks...

Seriously in this case lets leave the houses and greenspace alone. BTW where will all the homeless go if we build on this site?

[fenderbender]

Cities whose history is wiped clean often find their appeal diminishing, especially in today's "creative culture" economy (see "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida). There is a reason that the highest property values over time accrue to the quaint neighborhoods you would just as soon demolish - Casselberry or Winter Park, where would you rather live? "Highest and best use" gave us the sprawl in the suburbs that I have never heard anyone applaud and that everyone wonders why we do it that way - it gave us the endless traffic jams along West Colonial Drive and 436. What seems to be the "highest and best use" today rarely is in the long run.

A lot of wisdom here. Appeal will always be subjective in nature, and "Hightest and best use" should always beg the question: "Highest and best use for whom?"

[mrh3]

Maybe its time for an organization like the Central Park Conservancy to emerge.

The organization actually pays for upwards of 90% of Central Park's maintenance. Those are private dollars not public. If an "Eola Park Trust" were created it could be used expressly for the maintenance and acquisition of park land. Ideally, the organization would buyout Eola Capital, LLC for the expansion of the Park and handle matters like this.

Another idea is for the city to offer Eola Capital, LLC a low interest loan in the amount of the appraised value of the land and property for the construction of a new tower elsewhere in the CBD. Effectively removing them and the houses entirely from the site to expand the park.

[spenser1058]

Maybe its time for an organization like the Central Park Conservancy to emerge.

The organization actually pays for upwards of 90% of Central Park's maintenance. Those are private dollars not public. If an "Eola Park Trust" were created it could be used expressly for the maintenance and acquisition of park land. Ideally, the organization would buyout Eola Capital, LLC for the expansion of the Park and handle matters like this.

Another idea is for the city to offer Eola Capital, LLC a low interest loan in the amount of the appraised value of the land and property for the construction of a new tower elsewhere in the CBD. Effectively removing them and the houses entirely from the site to expand the park.

Great suggestions in both cases. Steve Pearlstein had a great column in the Washington Post last week ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8081902703.html ) about the CPC, although he noted that the wealth in NYC made it possible in large part and it may be a challenge to replicate in other places. On the other hand, outside the most taxophobic jurisdictions, it is generally not difficult to generate support for a tax on parks if the referendum is crafted in such a way as to show exactly which parks will be improved or created. Also, as the country begins to move out of the conservative cycle, infrastructure spending should be easier to fund.

I especially liked the idea of the low-interest loan and was a little surprised in talking to Robert yesterday that there was not more interest in a creative solution of that sort. I suspect shell shock in the wake of the recent rulings by SCOF on tax-incentive financing - hopefully that's temporary. Patty Sheehan also tends to be more progressive in this regard and I have yet to talk with her about it.

[RedStar25]

^Do you see no value in preserving architectural styles that are of historical significance to the neighborhood?

You know I was totally thinking about a differnt project.... I was on the wrong side of the lake.

But I will stick by my "highest and best use of land." It's real estate 101.

And obviously the best use for lake Eola is a city park. It has created high valued real estate to increase the cities tax base ....sigh.... you liberals and your black and white look on the world.

[RedStar25]

It's fascinating that the pipe organ industry would barely exist today without the tax exemptions which fuel the contributions to churches and non-profits. That's in additon to government grants that have been given directly to preserve old theaters, and yes, their organs (I know of what I speak because I have been involved in the passing of bills and appropriations specifically for that purpose) - money that the "highest and best use" crowd would say could be more profitably invested in other things. Yet very few high-rises (including 99% of the ones in Manhattan) ever attract the interest the preservation and restoration of our history does.

There is much more to economics than just a few ultraconservative views - it requires a balance.

Well thats plain not true. The pipe organ industry exists today becuse the old organ builders union was disbanded and there is a market for new and rebuilt organs. Yes some organizations that can not afford to have their organ rebuilt may apply for goverment grants (on a side note the organ must be rebuilt exactly as it was origionaly installed). The Companies that do the rebuilding do not need the grants. Its the organizations that can not afford to have their instrument rebuilt. Ligit organ builders today have a back log of work out to about 2013... with or with out grants.

FUMCO, Saint Lukes, Rollins, St. Michaels, etc... all have (or are in the process of) getting new/rebuilt organs... none of them applied for goverment grants.

However the Brookline Church of Christ in Boston has (a mistake... but whatever).

Also have you noticed the large number of PAC's and Colleges that are building new pipe organs...they are for profit organizations... so I dont really know why you brought up the tax exempt status... since it only applies when building an organ for a church.

And pick up a begining realestate book.... "highest and best use" will be twords the begining. It's not an "ultra conservative" thing... it's common sence.

You put a park where it will do the most good... you put an office building where it will do the most good.

You do not put farmers market next to a sewage plant.... ICKY POO!

remeber when Orlandos Farmers Market was under I-4... yea.. not so nice.

[Boomer136]

I agree that the Washington Street spur should become greenspace. I don't think you have to raze the buildings, if you incorporate what is now their front lawns into the public space and leave enough space for a paved 10' walkway like the rest of the park.

Perhaps turn one of the homes, maybe the one closest to the lake into the parks maintenance and operations center with maybe a a little welcome center in the front living room. Looks like there is room behind to store the gators and other equipment. Then you could push back the restrooms on the NW corner into what is now the operations equipment yard and open up some more greenspace over there.

Have the city lease the outside house on N. Eola to some private cafe or some such to help provide revenue for park maintenance. Perhaps the History center could have a satellite location, or popular art gallery in the next one in, and turn the last one next to the ops center into a rental reception hall for weddings, family reunions, or whatever. Cars/deliveries would access from a alleyway on the southside of the homes which is on the new office tower side. Couple of trees for masking, and I think it could be a charming little area.

[cwetteland]

Thanks for the visual. I love skyscrapers and density big time. But Lake Eola does not have enough green space as is. The location of this tower is one of my favorite spots in the park... I love the little farmers maket that is held their. I also think all of the houses shouyld stay put. lets not pave over all of our history with republican dirty tricks...

Ditto on all you say. I'd like to add that when you look at the big picture ... literally a big picture of downtown (including midtown and uptown) there is so much unused, paved over surface lots, and just general wasted space, why in gods name do we insist in wiping out one of the few great green spots in our city, when there are so many other sites for a high-mid-rise office building. Total insanity.

[spenser1058]

Well thats plain not true. The pipe organ industry exists today becuse the old organ builders union was disbanded and there is a market for new and rebuilt organs. Yes some organizations that can not afford to have their organ rebuilt may apply for goverment grants (on a side note the organ must be rebuilt exactly as it was origionaly installed). The Companies that do the rebuilding do not need the grants. Its the organizations that can not afford to have their instrument rebuilt. Ligit organ builders today have a back log of work out to about 2013... with or with out grants.

FUMCO, Saint Lukes, Rollins, St. Michaels, etc... all have (or are in the process of) getting new/rebuilt organs... none of them applied for goverment grants.

However the Brookline Church of Christ in Boston has (a mistake... but whatever).

Also have you noticed the large number of PAC's and Colleges that are building new pipe organs...they are for profit organizations... so I dont really know why you brought up the tax exempt status... since it only applies when building an organ for a church.

And pick up a begining realestate book.... "highest and best use" will be twords the begining. It's not an "ultra conservative" thing... it's common sence.

You put a park where it will do the most good... you put an office building where it will do the most good.

You do not put farmers market next to a sewage plant.... ICKY POO!

remeber when Orlandos Farmers Market was under I-4... yea.. not so nice.

Virtually all of the organizations you mentioned are non-profit organizations that depend upon tax-deductible giving for their existence. People give (especially the wealthy) because they can reduce the amount of income taxes by giving the money instead to charities. That is a government policy based upon the public good not-for-profits are believed to do in their community. And the for-profit community loves to howl about it (just ask any fitness club owner how much he/she hates the Y, although the Y uses the extra money it takes in for all sorts of youth programs and the like and the profits of the privately-owned fitness centers go back to the owner).

Don't get me wrong - there is room in the world for both types of organizations. But the profit-above-all mantra and the "Ax the Tax" crowd would eliminate such deductions ("I don't want to finance fancy organs!" would be the refrain). As to beginning real estate books, that is but one part of economics (and given that they are often written by real estate types, not economists, often leave out a lot of externalities). "Common sense" is hardly the makings of an academic discipline.

In any event, we're astray from topic. If you'd like to discuss urban economic policy further, I'll be happy to share the knowledge I have from a degree in the discipline as well as practical applications of it in the legislative and local government arenas with you at any time in another forum. I will be excited to learn your bona fides in the area.

[spenser1058]

As promised, Jerry Jackson at the Sentinel did indeed follow through with an article:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/or...0,7475620.story

I suspected Sue MacNamara would be less than thrilled with losing park space and she is a great one for rallying the troops. As a result, stay tuned. Kudos to the various players for thinking outside the box, however. I just wish that our local city fathers (and mothers) would realize that failing to include all the stakeholders in a decision like this leads to distrust and NIMBYism. Transparency is required in vibrant city centers that have active neighborhood groups. The alternative is constant bickering and deadlock instead of innovative solutions.

We saw that with the proposed plans for affordable housing in the OUC Lake Highland project. As a result, it continues to sit fallow year after year instead of being another exciting part of the urban core.

[fenderbender]

Does anyone have recent figures on office occupancy/vacancy downtown? Is there really a need for this space, let alone at this specific location?

Last I searched for an office (and it was a few years ago, so I could be completely out-of-date) there was plenty of space available downtown, including space with Eola view. (BOA building was one of many places which had vacant space.)

[spenser1058]

Does anyone have recent figures on office occupancy/vacancy downtown? Is there really a need for this space, let alone at this specific location?

Last I searched for an office (and it was a few years ago, so I could be completely out-of-date) there was plenty of space available downtown, including space with Eola view. (BOA building was one of many places which had vacant space.)

That's the wild card in all of this. It doesn't seem like this will go anywhere in a hurry and when the market comes back around it would seem the action will be over closer to DPAC and the arena. But this may be a vanity thing for Eola Capital and the market may not be the driving factor. Perhaps jack or some of the folks closer to the development community have some background on all this.

[cwetteland]

And pick up a begining realestate book.... "highest and best use" will be twords the begining. It's not an "ultra conservative" thing... it's common sence.

Of course it's in a realestate book. It's also right up front in the Ferengi "Rules of Acquistion." Yes, it's common sense in those disciplines. The fuss here isn't about whether it's a profitable location. I'm sure it is. The fuss here is whether this location better serves the community as green space. I think it does.

[RedStar25]

Virtually all of the organizations you mentioned are non-profit organizations that depend upon tax-deductible giving for their existence. People give (especially the wealthy) because they can reduce the amount of income taxes by giving the money instead to charities. That is a government policy based upon the public good not-for-profits are believed to do in their community. And the for-profit community loves to howl about it (just ask any fitness club owner how much he/she hates the Y, although the Y uses the extra money it takes in for all sorts of youth programs and the like and the profits of the privately-owned fitness centers go back to the owner).

Don't get me wrong - there is room in the world for both types of organizations. But the profit-above-all mantra and the "Ax the Tax" crowd would eliminate such deductions ("I don't want to finance fancy organs!" would be the refrain). As to beginning real estate books, that is but one part of economics (and given that they are often written by real estate types, not economists, often leave out a lot of externalities). "Common sense" is hardly the makings of an academic discipline.

In any event, we're astray from topic. If you'd like to discuss urban economic policy further, I'll be happy to share the knowledge I have from a degree in the discipline as well as practical applications of it in the legislative and local government arenas with you at any time in another forum. I will be excited to learn your bona fides in the area.

Exactly... from a goverment prospective... and I come from a totally differnt school of thought. I belive in the rights of the Individual and the principals of Laissez Faire. To each his own.

[jack]

Does anyone have recent figures on office occupancy/vacancy downtown? Is there really a need for this space, let alone at this specific location?

Last I searched for an office (and it was a few years ago, so I could be completely out-of-date) there was plenty of space available downtown, including space with Eola view. (BOA building was one of many places which had vacant space.)

It is about 15% right now. But it is like comparing building your own house vs buying an existing one. They want something they can call their own. And it is tight to lease larges spaces. Typically, all of the available space is in small chucnks.

I do not know how much of the building they will occupy. I know it is not 100%. They are probably banking on demand is 3-4 years from now.

The house on the corner of Central and Rosalind is supposed to be the Parks Dept's new home if the hotel goes up. They are running into problems there because Parks does not have the monet right now to renovate it. So I doubt they will occupy another house not too far away.

[JFW657]

Money is the issue. I think the land swap would be better if the homes were converted into park land. I would love to see some athletic space at Lake Eola. But my dream will probably never materialize.

Thankfully. There are plenty of athletic facilities around Orlando. I don't think a baseball field & basketball courts would fit in to that area at all. They would uglify the place if anything.

[mrh3]

Ditto on all you say. I'd like to add that when you look at the big picture ... literally a big picture of downtown (including midtown and uptown) there is so much unused, paved over surface lots, and just general wasted space, why in gods name do we insist in wiping out one of the few great green spots in our city, when there are so many other sites for a high-mid-rise office building. Total insanity.

I am soooo with you on that one. I understand ownership right, but I also understand capitalism. I think the city should get Eola Capital another lot upon which to build. If I were the Mayor Dyer that's what I would do.

[codypet]

I am soooo with you on that one. I understand ownership right, but I also understand capitalism. I think the city should get Eola Capital another lot upon which to build. If I were the Mayor Dyer that's what I would do.

I agree. Didn't we say the city owned the most land around the new arena? How about the land the current arena sits on? All goldern opportunites of Eola Capital to get in the next booming area. Leave the park for enjoyment and business for the business district. (current or future business district)

[RedStar25]

I agree. Didn't we say the city owned the most land around the new arena? How about the land the current arena sits on? All goldern opportunites of Eola Capital to get in the next booming area. Leave the park for enjoyment and business for the business district. (current or future business district)

Thats assuming the former arena site will "boom". Remeber we are still waiting for the uptown boom of the '80s, '90s, '00s.

[FLKP]

So, how about if we traded land and made the park even bigger... but trade for land somewhere else. Maybe for what city owns near the Arena. I love this idea.

I love Orlando downtown, but our small and confined park area is its major blemish.

[JFW657]

Who owns the "Constitution Green" land? Isn't that city owned?

Give Eola Capital the part of it that fronts along Summerlin & keep some land behind it as park space.

Pretty high profile location right off the 408, etc.

[spenser1058]

An awesome comparison of the ups and downs facing Miami Beach's SoFi and our own Thornton Park neighborhoods over the years. The impending question of the Eola 5 is noted at the end. Some great history if you'd like to know a little more about just how far we've come as well.

From the September Florida Trend:

http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?page=1&aID=49562