Developer proposes office tower near Lake Eola

[jack]

They won't sell to the City. But I am sure they may in the future.

[pip]

Anyone know the status of this?

I know there is a hearing tuesday (Oct 21) to designate the park area on the corner of central and eola (current farmers market area) to high intensity office zoning to allow 200ft 16-story building.

So basically the city gets 1.5 acres of residential land on washington (which do we have any idea what they will do with it?) and we give up a large section of green space park land (which to anyone that has walked or jogs along there knows its quite a nice little tree lined stretch). It just bugs me because with all the available lots availble around downtown that are NOT park land or greenspace, why is this being considered?

We are just giving up park land to stop a building from going up near a playground?? Umm.. the new location is in the backyard of those houses, you will STILL SEE a 16 story building from the playground. i just dont see the point of all this!

[spenser1058]

Anyone know the status of this?

I know there is a hearing tuesday (Oct 21) to designate the park area on the corner of central and eola (current farmers market area) to high intensity office zoning to allow 200ft 16-story building.

So basically the city gets 1.5 acres of residential land on washington (which do we have any idea what they will do with it?) and we give up a large section of green space park land (which to anyone that has walked or jogs along there knows its quite a nice little tree lined stretch). It just bugs me because with all the available lots availble around downtown that are NOT park land or greenspace, why is this being considered?

We are just giving up park land to stop a building from going up near a playground?? Umm.. the new location is in the backyard of those houses, you will STILL SEE a 16 story building from the playground. i just dont see the point of all this!

Yes, the City has EVERY right to keep the size of the building to 5 stories or less (no building at all would be preferable but I'm afraid that, barring an attack of conscience by Eola Capital, that dog won't hunt) simply by denying the variance. Petitions are being circulated and the latest public hearing is coming up this week. For more info, see:

http://saveeolapark.com/

Meanwhile, particularly if you are a resident of the City, it's vital that you e-mail Mayor Buddy and/or your commissioner ASAP to voice your opinions on this:

http://www.cityoforlando.net/contact.htm

[UPSDAN]

Anyone know the status of this?

I know there is a hearing tuesday (Oct 21) to designate the park area on the corner of central and eola (current farmers market area) to high intensity office zoning to allow 200ft 16-story building.

So basically the city gets 1.5 acres of residential land on washington (which do we have any idea what they will do with it?) and we give up a large section of green space park land (which to anyone that has walked or jogs along there knows its quite a nice little tree lined stretch). It just bugs me because with all the available lots availble around downtown that are NOT park land or greenspace, why is this being considered?

We are just giving up park land to stop a building from going up near a playground?? Umm.. the new location is in the backyard of those houses, you will STILL SEE a 16 story building from the playground. i just dont see the point of all this!

I totally agree. I actualy think the original lot this was proposed on will do less damage to the park then the new proposal....This should be a no brainer and get turned down....

[Cleaver5]

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion on here, but if we put aside our love for Lake Eola for a second, doesn't this land swap kind of make sense? A mixed use building fronting Central would really add more density and energy to that area. It would almost complete the "wall" from Rosalind to Summerlin and could really put South Eola/Thornton Park on track to being a top notch residential area.

In addition, swapping the land for those houses creates a more contiguous park. Personally I think that those houses are pretty worthless. I wouldn't mind even seeing them razed for green space. They could just move the farmers market to a new home...

[bulldogger]

I think part of the sell to move Eola Capital has been that the current buildings cannot be razed due to some kind of historic significance.

[JFW657]

I know that this is not going to be a popular opinion on here, but if we put aside our love for Lake Eola for a second, doesn't this land swap kind of make sense? A mixed use building fronting Central would really add more density and energy to that area. It would almost complete the "wall" from Rosalind to Summerlin and could really put South Eola/Thornton Park on track to being a top notch residential area.

In addition, swapping the land for those houses creates a more contiguous park. Personally I think that those houses are pretty worthless. I wouldn't mind even seeing them razed for green space. They could just move the farmers market to a new home...

As was said by bulldogger, there is historic significance to the houses, but beyond that they fit in to the area. They are small in scale, old & quaint & add to the atmosphere. To tear them down just for more "greenspace" would be awfully narrow thinking.

Just because a space is "green" with nothing on it doesn't necessarily make it better. Those old houses just fit there & after the lawyerscum moves out, they could come up with some creative uses for them.

Personally I hate to see the parcel on Central developed too. It would be nice if it all could stay like it is right now.

[Cleaver5]

I am no expert on these matters, but I was reading over the presentation on Saveeolapark.com and I am not so sure that these structures have a historical designation. According to the presentation..

"in an independent, parallel process, an Orlando resident submitted an application to designate the five structures as historic

landmarks. On September 3, 2008, the Historic Preservation Board recommended denial of two of the five applications, with

a tie vote (and thus effectively a denial) for the remaining three. The Municipal Planning Board also reviews historic land-

mark designation, and the applications are currently scheduled for the November MPB agenda."

From the paragraph above, it sounds like there was a request to designate them as historic landmarks (I am assuming this was a move to block the originally proposed development), but that request was denied. As a result, I am assuming that there is nothing special about the buildings, they were just being used as pawns in an opposition effort. But, it looks like it is not over yet as they are on the November MPB agenda.

[spenser1058]

I am no expert on these matters, but I was reading over the presentation on Saveeolapark.com and I am not so sure that these structures have a historical designation. According to the presentation..

"in an independent, parallel process, an Orlando resident submitted an application to designate the five structures as historic

landmarks. On September 3, 2008, the Historic Preservation Board recommended denial of two of the five applications, with

a tie vote (and thus effectively a denial) for the remaining three. The Municipal Planning Board also reviews historic land-

mark designation, and the applications are currently scheduled for the November MPB agenda."

From the paragraph above, it sounds like there was a request to designate them as historic landmarks (I am assuming this was a move to block the originally proposed development), but that request was denied. As a result, I am assuming that there is nothing special about the buildings, they were just being used as pawns in an opposition effort. But, it looks like it is not over yet as they are on the November MPB agenda.

Remember, "pawns" goes both ways - there are people on the HPB that are almost totally pro-growth (I attended that meeting and was surprised at some of the political posturing going on in that sort of meeting - Buddy by no means staffed that board strictly with neighborhood activists and NIMBYs). Realistically, two have historic features, although the one that is probably the most significant is also the ugliest (don't you hate it when that happens). As noted previously, a lot of this is about the scale of this particular area. The houses reflect their surroundings, and if not historic in and of themselves, the nature of old Orlando. Although I much prefer no change, I believe not all 5 have to be preserved, but at least 2 (my preference is 3 in order to save the two best looking ones and the most historic).

The larger issue is greenspace and its quality. As others have said, our "central park" pales by comparison with those of other cities like Chicago, NYC, SFO, Atlanta, etc. It makes zero sense to me to destroy one of the prime amenities that makes everyone want to live downtown in the first place. Eola Park is already getting perilously close to capacity - what will it look like when all these buildings fill up?

As Jack has noted, the closest other greenspace is Constitution Green and the City doesn't own it, so it too will be gone eventually.

As to the "wall" down Central: as someone who walks (not drives) past that area several times a day, the area of the park in question is a welcome respite to break up all the concrete along that stretch.While it made sense to have the development along Central, it would seem almost oppressive, particularly in the Florida heat, to lose it. That part of the park was purchased within the last 20 years or so and the logic behind the purchase is more valid today than ever before.

Finally, as to moving the Farmer's Market: this is the first location that seems to be working and they have tried several.

[RedStar25]

What if the homes were moved to the other end of the street and turned into some sort of educational facilities? Plant some new live oaks and in 60 years you would think the had always been there.... maybe....

[pip]

All good points. It's funny how I never gave much thought to that stretch of park along central, but the more i think about it, the more it is really a great patch to break things up. I hate to see it go, and i'm pretty pro-development minded, but i just think removing park land in an already limited space is just the wrong direction.

I'm still missing the point of a land swap and completely against it. The developer has rights to raze these houses and build a building within current zoning (and if they need to change the zoning they have every right to push for it). The historical designation attempt failed, this notion of not building now to appease the community is really complete crap (yes a technical term) :-)

But honestly, do you not think the developer prefers to build on Central rather than their current location.

This is really starting to look like the community has played right into the hands of the developer on this one, knowing that more of the community will be activated if they propose a building next to a playground and wont be as loud if it would front Central. And like i said before, the building will just be in the backyard basically of those houses, the impacts to the playground wont be much different. And those historic houses will now have backyards looking at the back of a commercial building!

At the end of the day the building would have be basically setback from the current property on Washington and facing the other way. And the city gives up park space. This just doesnt seem like a good deal to me.

[spenser1058]

All good points. It's funny how I never gave much thought to that stretch of park along central, but the more i think about it, the more it is really a great patch to break things up. I hate to see it go, and i'm pretty pro-development minded, but i just think removing park land in an already limited space is just the wrong direction.

I'm still missing the point of a land swap and completely against it. The developer has rights to raze these houses and build a building within current zoning (and if they need to change the zoning they have every right to push for it). The historical designation attempt failed, this notion of not building now to appease the community is really complete crap (yes a technical term) :-)

But honestly, do you not think the developer prefers to build on Central rather than their current location.

This is really starting to look like the community has played right into the hands of the developer on this one, knowing that more of the community will be activated if they propose a building next to a playground and wont be as loud if it would front Central. And like i said before, the building will just be in the backyard basically of those houses, the impacts to the playground wont be much different. And those historic houses will now have backyards looking at the back of a commercial building!

At the end of the day the building would have be basically setback from the current property on Washington and facing the other way. And the city gives up park space. This just doesnt seem like a good deal to me.

Let's be clear - Eola Capital is doing what they are doing primarily for pecuniary reasons. That's certainly their right, but for those of us more concerned with the long-term livability of our neighborhood, we are also granted the right to work through the system to preserve what we believe is in the best interest of the community. We have a City Council to determine, hopefully objectively, which is the greater good.

The best case scenario for everyone except Eola Capital, I respectfully believe, is to leave it alone. As my conservative friends always tell me, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Failing that, as residents we have every right to fight to preserve the designated zoning to keep it at 5 stories in order to preserve the scale of the surrounding area.

Our Save Eola Park folks were out today with petitions in two locations across from the Farmers' Market and were getting a good reponse. The lesson to be learned going forward is that we need to get serious about reviewing any other areas of old Orlando that probably should be saved before another similar situation comes up. Meanwhile, however, Lake Eola has always been considered "the jewel in the crown" of the community, so those of us whose family history here spans almost 100 years can hardly ignore it - I would feel remiss in our responsibilities to the community if we did so.

[IsaacFL]

I'm still missing the point of a land swap and completely against it. The developer has rights to raze these houses and build a building within current zoning (and if they need to change the zoning they have every right to push for it). The historical designation attempt failed, this notion of not building now to appease the community is really complete crap (yes a technical term) :-)

But honestly, do you not think the developer prefers to build on Central rather than their current location.

This is really starting to look like the community has played right into the hands of the developer on this one, knowing that more of the community will be activated if they propose a building next to a playground and wont be as loud if it would front Central. And like i said before, the building will just be in the backyard basically of those houses, the impacts to the playground wont be much different. And those historic houses will now have backyards looking at the back of a commercial building!

At the end of the day the building would have be basically setback from the current property on Washington and facing the other way. And the city gives up park space. This just doesnt seem like a good deal to me.

My understanding is that the city proposed the land swap. The city wants to use the houses as a place to store equipment for the maintenance of the park and as a place to host weddings, etc.

I think it is a bad idea myself, because I don't think the city puts enough budget into maintaining the park as it is now. I can't imagine that the city will maintain the houses as well as Eola Capital is now. I can also imagine the houses becoming run down and a haven for the homeless under the management of the city.

The current zoning of the Washington street property would allow a mixed use/residential high rise (200' I think). But pure commercial building is limited to about 5 floors. Eola Capital does not want to put up a residential tower. That is why they are asking for the variance and the city is pushing for the land swap as a condition for the variance. Eola Capital would actually get better rents from the Washington street location but is willing to go along with what the city wants.

[JFW657]

While I realize it's not possible, I wish the city could eminent domain them right the hell out of there & send them packing to rent space in Maitland Center or somewhere.

One way or another, we're gonna lose part of Eola Park because of these people.

Sucks.

[IsaacFL]

While I realize it's not possible, I wish the city could eminent domain them right the hell out of there & send them packing to rent space in Maitland Center or somewhere.

One way or another, we're gonna lose part of Eola Park because of these people.

Sucks.

Well, one thing you have to remember. A lot of the resurgence in the lake eola area is due to the Eola Capital people. They bought into the area when it was still overrun with prostitutes etc. The people behind Eola Capital at one time owned what is now the Capital I and II, Eola Center, and the Landmark buildings all around Lake Eola. So I don't think most of the residential resurgence would have occurred with out these commercial developments going on.

The city could have purchased the land for the park back then when it was cheap but chose not to. Now that the property has gotten valuable you want to take it away from them?

I think they should allow them to build the commercial building on the Washington street location. It would be a much higher quality building than any residential building would be at the same location as far as finishes etc. I think we also need to bring in more places to work into the lake eola area. It is great that we have all these new condos, but the people need places to they can walk to work to.

[codypet]

Question. Out of curiousity, if the land swap goes through, would the city close Washington St west of Eola Dr. and make the road green space or would they leave the road there?

[jack]

Their original propodal was the best. I do not know who's idea it was to do the land swap. I kinda get that a building would be better along Central instead of Eola but only if the houses were torn down and washington coverted into green space. But when the original proposal was presented, those opposed were worried about losing the homes and some crap about safety because of the proximity to the playground. So they came up with this alternate and in my opinion worse plan. So now we have the protect the homes crowd, the protect the park crowd, and the don't do anything crowd. It will be interesting to see who wins.

[spenser1058]

Well, one thing you have to remember. A lot of the resurgence in the lake eola area is due to the Eola Capital people. They bought into the area when it was still overrun with prostitutes etc. The people behind Eola Capital at one time owned what is now the Capital I and II, Eola Center, and the Landmark buildings all around Lake Eola. So I don't think most of the residential resurgence would have occurred with out these commercial developments going on.

The city could have purchased the land for the park back then when it was cheap but chose not to. Now that the property has gotten valuable you want to take it away from them?

I think they should allow them to build the commercial building on the Washington street location. It would be a much higher quality building than any residential building would be at the same location as far as finishes etc. I think we also need to bring in more places to work into the lake eola area. It is great that we have all these new condos, but the people need places to they can walk to work to.

Sorry, but your timeline is incorrect. Capital Plaza was built as the Southeast Bank in the mid '70's and Landmark I opened in 1982. Eola Capital didn't exist until 1999, being formed from a previous entity which started in 1989 (Associated Capital Properties). The rebirth of Lake Eola started long before Eola Capital ever came in the area and the overwhelming majority of buildings in the area have nothing to do with Eola Capital. Further, most of the high-rise development in the area came after a lot of sweat equity by homeowners, small developers like Craig Ustler and Phil Rampy, the City of Orlando and neighborhood activists made it a desirable place to live and work. By far, most of Eola Capital's portfolio is in suburban, non -descript office buildings.

Most of the transition from the days of the hustlers at Eola Park occurred with the 1987 rebuild of much of the park and an effort by the Frederick administration to take the area to the next level as a result of much input from the burgeoning Eola Heights/Thornton Park/Lake Lawsona neighborhood associations, in conjunction with Rampy/Ustler and other businesspeople beginning to take an interest in the area.

(See:

www.eolacapital.com , http://www.floridatrend.com/article_reg.as...596.5749868.412 )

[spenser1058]

Good news for Eola Park (at least for now - still trying to find more details) - as Eola Capital withdraws its latest zoning request! We can never say never, but once again we dodge the bullet and preserve the history, the beauty and the quality of Eola Park.

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/sto...20/daily16.html

[JFW657]

Well, one thing you have to remember. A lot of the resurgence in the lake eola area is due to the Eola Capital people. They bought into the area when it was still overrun with prostitutes etc. The people behind Eola Capital at one time owned what is now the Capital I and II, Eola Center, and the Landmark buildings all around Lake Eola. So I don't think most of the residential resurgence would have occurred with out these commercial developments going on.

The city could have purchased the land for the park back then when it was cheap but chose not to. Now that the property has gotten valuable you want to take it away from them?

I think they should allow them to build the commercial building on the Washington street location. It would be a much higher quality building than any residential building would be at the same location as far as finishes etc. I think we also need to bring in more places to work into the lake eola area. It is great that we have all these new condos, but the people need places to they can walk to work to.

Sorry, but you've got your history wrong. Eola park's resurgence happened in the 1980's when they closed the park for about 6 months & totally remodeled it right around the same time they did the Orange Ave streetscape project. The park's prostitution problem was long gone by the time Eola Capital came along.

EDIT: I didn't know spencer 1058 had already covered this subject in his above post.

[RedStar25]

ok now let me play devils advocate here.... so... we manage to stop a development.... but we also stopped the potential for more high paying jobs in the city core.... are pretty things to look at worth the trade off when those potential income earners are kept out of the city... and their money elsewhere? What if the people that worked in this building moved downtown and supported the arts? Old homes and pigeons, while they add to the aesthetic quality of the area, do not do much to support the city.

Yea sure Eola Capital could build elsewhere... but elsewhere might not be downtown. Can't a compromise be made?

[mrh3]

ok now let me play devils advocate here.... so... we manage to stop a development.... but we also stopped the potential for more high paying jobs in the city core.... are pretty things to look at worth the trade off when those potential income earners are kept out of the city... and their money elsewhere? What if the people that worked in this building moved downtown and supported the arts? Old homes and pigeons, while they add to the aesthetic quality of the area, do not do much to support the city.

Yea sure Eola Capital could build elsewhere... but elsewhere might not be downtown. Can't a compromise be made?

I understand where you are coming from RedStar, but if you think about economically in terms of scarcity and utility the land and tower would have a higher and better use as parkland. Office buildings are commodities and can be constructed on any vacant parcel in the CBD. The number of people that can use the space occupied by the tower is significantly greater when held as parkland rather than a privately held office building giving it a greater utility. Parkland in the central business district is in much shorter supply than land available for office use there by making it a much more scarce resource.

Trust me I know the importance of property ownership rights as a commercial real estate professional, but I really think that this is an instance in which the City of Orlando can step up to the plate an make the right choice. I just did an analysis on a tax abatement for a property in Philadelphia that saved the developers $20MM. Orlando/Orange County could come up with an incentive package to buy Eola Capital out. It would be a win/win situation.

Futhermore, as an extreme example, the land in San Francisco Bay could be filled in to sell to developers for more condos and office towers and the land that makes up Central Park could be reduced for a few extra streets and avenues. What prevents that from occurring is that the citizens value both the bay and the park enough to view them as scarce resources that should be protected.

[FrigginGr8est]

ok now let me play devils advocate here.... so... we manage to stop a development.... but we also stopped the potential for more high paying jobs in the city core.... are pretty things to look at worth the trade off when those potential income earners are kept out of the city... and their money elsewhere? What if the people that worked in this building moved downtown and supported the arts? Old homes and pigeons, while they add to the aesthetic quality of the area, do not do much to support the city.

Yea sure Eola Capital could build elsewhere... but elsewhere might not be downtown. Can't a compromise be made?

If there was no other place DT for them to build, I may agree with you, but, there are plenty of locations DT that are available where they can build if they want to. And if they can attract tenants to this location, the other locations would be just as viable. I don't think we need to ruin one of the reasons people like living DT for this building or any other at this point. Just my opinion.

[IsaacFL]

Sorry, but you've got your history wrong. Eola park's resurgence happened in the 1980's when they closed the park for about 6 months & totally remodeled it right around the same time they did the Orange Ave streetscape project. The park's prostitution problem was long gone by the time Eola Capital came along.

EDIT: I didn't know spencer 1058 had already covered this subject in his above post.

Eola Capital is just the current company. The people behind Eola Capital have been in commercial property in Orlando since early 80's. They buy commercial buildings, renovate them and resell. Each development starts a new company for the duration of the project.

Jim Heistand is a local guy from Apopka that got his start here in Orlando in the early 80's. He is now a billionaire and is the largest owner of commercial property in Florida.

Some of his companies:

Dasco Medical Properties Trust

DASCO Cos LLC

Highwoods Properties Inc

ML Capital Partners

Associated Capital Properties Inc

Eola Capital LLC

Major Development Corp

ACP

Landmark Capital.

Capital Plaza (yes, the first building had been a bank), Eola Center (across from the Vue), and Landmark were all Jim Heistand projects that are directly on Lake Eola.

[RedStar25]

Trust me i do not want to see any park land lost or the character of the area harmed. I have always loved Washington and Eola. I just wanted to toss out a different opinion, as ussual.