Jump to content

Developer proposes office tower near Lake Eola


sunshine

Recommended Posts

I do not think it will pass. Too much opposition from a small number of people. I hope it gets built though. This building and East on Park would be great additions to the neighborhood. And Lowndes sooner or later will be redeveloped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 243
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The City voted on that years ago. It's what they wanted to happen.

I have to look at the precise timeline on that, but much has changed since the original zoning changes were made in the late '80's. At the time, the park space behind the houses was privately owned and Washington St. cut through the area. Had another residential high-rise been built on what is now park land and the street was still a throughway, I could see some logic in it. Also, the neighborhood was still very much in transition at that point. Thornton Park as we now know it did not exist.

The facts on the ground have changed all that. Now, it's a vibrant little area that is working very successfully with a neighborhood scale. In this case, let's not fix something that isn't broken. It is legitimate for neighborhood supporters to oppose the variance, and we will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't make sense to whom ? A developer trying to maximize profit with no concern for the neighborhood? Let's remember Eola Capital KNEW (or should have known) the restrictions before they bought these properties - they are not some aggrieved party here. Now they want to change the rules so they can profit. That's fine, but by no means some sort of holy writ. We, the neighborhood supporters, also have every right to say the rules are fine and do not believe they should change. Who will win - a public whose only goal is what is best for the neighborhood or developers who simply want to maximize profits? The wonder of a democracy is that both sides will be heard. We'll see what's more important to the city fathers (and mothers - Patty, are you listening?) - their constituents or their pocketbooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not make sense to me. I disagree with the height limit. Summerlin is the dividing line for intensity and low rise residential. Eola is another line and Rosalind is the other. It just flows better to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not make sense to me. I disagree with the height limit. Summerlin is the dividing line for intensity and low rise residential. Eola is another line and Rosalind is the other. It just flows better to me.

I certainly respect your opinion on that, although I guess (perhaps because I live right here at 'ground zero') I see no reason to change a neighborhood that's already working very well. Thornton Park is, I think, about to transition as several of the storefronts are now vacant due to the downturn (including The Veranda apparently being up for sale). Also, around the corner at Post, the VUE's sales office is closing down and I haven't heard anything yet about a replacement.

I've lived here on the corner for 6 years now and, I admit, it has most all of the qualities I ever desired in an urban setting (or will have once Publix and the WaMu open around the corner). Ironically, I would feel better about our building across the street and the adjacent empty lot being developed than Eola Capital's holdings. But we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MAybe somebody with enough money & vacant land somewhere nearby could pay to have those old houses (or at least a couple of the older or more historically signifigant ones) moved. If they could move that huge brick monstrosity in Winter Park, they could certainly move those relatively small frame houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Praha,

Please don't confuse Robert Moses's development plan which transformed the city of New York in its entirety with 4 pacels of land Downtown Orlando that are already commercial. One brings several parcels of land to their highest and best use. To be honest, I would love to see the park extended. I would love to see Eola Centre bulldozed and have the park extended. There isn't enough green lawn.

That, however isn't the case. The City of Orlando never enforeced eminent domain, never offered money for the properties and this is the result. A private land owner attemping to maximize its right to profit. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Regarding the homes and purchasing them in the current market: You have to stick a finger in the wind first. They are unique properties, but I think they would fit better out in Winter Garden or Winter Park and converted back into residential use. In their place, of course, I would love to see an iconic tower with a plaza that can seamlessly blend the park and the building. A property like that would command top of the market rents and add to the park.

I whole-heartedly agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Praha,

Please don't confuse Robert Moses's development plan which transformed the city of New York in its entirety with 4 pacels of land Downtown Orlando that are already commercial. One brings several parcels of land to their highest and best use.

Again this is subjective--it seems you believe the best use of the land is to go as tall as possible in order to increase economic value and property taxes regardless of the master plan, regardless of the history of the neighborhood, regardless of contextualism, etc. I don't.

To be honest, I would love to see the park extended. I would love to see Eola Centre bulldozed and have the park extended. There isn't enough green lawn.

That, however isn't the case. The City of Orlando never enforeced eminent domain, never offered money for the properties and this is the result. A private land owner attemping to maximize its right to profit. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I agree with extending the park. But somehow you think this is the fault of the city and that these historic homes on Washington Street are at the mercy of whomever has a vision for them? No. This is why cities have municipal boards and city councils, and more than likely why this proposal will not be approved.

Regarding the homes and purchasing them in the current market: You have to stick a finger in the wind first. They are unique properties, but I think they would fit better out in Winter Garden or Winter Park and converted back into residential use.

In their place, of course, I would love to see an iconic tower with a plaza that can seamlessly blend the park and the building. A property like that would command top of the market rents and add to the park.

I think they fit in just fine.

How about redeveloping Post Parkside instead so that it fits in better with the park?

We already have one bad example...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Praha,

Please don't confuse Robert Moses's development plan which transformed the city of New York in its entirety with 4 pacels of land Downtown Orlando that are already commercial. One brings several parcels of land to their highest and best use. To be honest, I would love to see the park extended. I would love to see Eola Centre bulldozed and have the park extended. There isn't enough green lawn.

That, however isn't the case. The City of Orlando never enforeced eminent domain, never offered money for the properties and this is the result. A private land owner attemping to maximize its right to profit. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Regarding the homes and purchasing them in the current market: You have to stick a finger in the wind first. They are unique properties, but I think they would fit better out in Winter Garden or Winter Park and converted back into residential use. In their place, of course, to see an iconic tower with a plaza that can seamlessly blend the park and the building. A property like that would command top of the market rents and add to the park.I would love

What's interesting is that just about every expert who comes in and objectively decides what is "iconic" about Orlando points to our neighborhoods, not our tower architecture. Given that Orlando has only one Fortune 500 corporate HQ at the moment and relatively little in the way of deep-pockets foundations capable of changing that, it isn't likely to vary any time soon. What is "iconic" to an area is what reaches into its roots.

"...I would love to see an iconic tower with a plaza that can seamlessly blend the park and the building." Now, given what we know about Baker Barrios, the firm that for whatever reason seems to be the architect of choice around town, what really leads you to think that will happen? As to a plaza, there are infinitely more examples of plazas that became windswept barrens fit only for pigeons and transients than ones like St. Mark's Square. And, even places with the resources and history to develop grand projects, like NYC, find such projects virtually impossible to get done these days (don't take my word for that - take that of the NYTimes).

Let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, for perfect is something not likely to be achieved in the realm of soaring, architecturally significant towers for Orlando in our lifetimes. If that should change, there are plenty of spaces west of Rosalind and east of Division and on up North Orange Avenue to Lake Ivanhoe that can accommodate that miracle. Meanwhile, something very special that is growing at street level can continue to thrive. Very few sunbelt cities still have the intimate juxtaposition of great neighborhoods cheek by jowl with the urban core like Orlando still does (in no small part because of the "tear everything down and build great tall buildings and sweeping plazas" mentality of the 60's - cities like New Orleans and Nashville are still trying to recover from that - yes, we've been here before). Because of a quirky twist of fate, our downtown was ignored when the growth and the oxymoron of "urban renewal" came in the 60's (thank you, Walt!), and, thanks to the vision of Mayor Bill and some other urban pioneers, we saved our heritage and can build on it. How very uncosmopolitan it would be of Orlando to now throw all of that away to chase a dream that may never come to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good, for perfect is something not likely to be achieved in the realm of soaring, architecturally significant towers for Orlando in our lifetimes. If that should change, there are plenty of spaces west of Rosalind and east of Division and on up North Orange Avenue to Lake Ivanhoe that can accommodate that miracle. Meanwhile, something very special that is growing at street level can continue to thrive. Very few sunbelt cities still have the intimate juxtaposition of great neighborhoods cheek by jowl with the urban core like Orlando still does (in no small part because of the "tear everything down and build great tall buildings and sweeping plazas" mentality of the 60's - cities like New Orleans and Nashville are still trying to recover from that - yes, we've been here before). Because of a quirky twist of fate, our downtown was ignored when the growth and the oxymoron of "urban renewal" came in the 60's (thank you, Walt!), and, thanks to the vision of Mayor Bill and some other urban pioneers, we saved our heritage and can build on it. How very uncosmopolitan it would be of Orlando to now throw all of that away to chase a dream that may never come to fruition.

I agree 100%.

A large part of what makes downtown Orlando such a nice place is that it has managed to retain some of that sleepy small town charm that those of us who've lived around here for awhile still remember. Once we lose that, we're just another concrete & glass city with nothing from our past left over to remind us of simpler more pleasant, laid-back times.

I hope to God they don't let this guy tear those old houses down in favor of some ugly schlock building that this town almost universally winds up with when what starts out as some grand proposal gets winnowed down to what reality will allow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting is that just about every expert who comes in and objectively decides what is "iconic" about Orlando points to our neighborhoods, not our tower architecture. Given that Orlando has only one Fortune 500 corporate HQ at the moment and relatively little in the way of deep-pockets foundations capable of changing that, it isn't likely to vary any time soon. What is "iconic" to an area is what reaches into its roots...

...Because of a quirky twist of fate, our downtown was ignored when the growth and the oxymoron of "urban renewal" came in the 60's (thank you, Walt!), and, thanks to the vision of Mayor Bill and some other urban pioneers, we saved our heritage and can build on it. How very uncosmopolitan it would be of Orlando to now throw all of that away to chase a dream that may never come to fruition.

AMEN!

You're right on point. Not to mention, I don't want to see another proposal for a high rise in this town until Baker Barrios puts their Legos away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Baker Barrios gets all of the work because they design buildings to get built. They know how to get things done. Thats is good for a developer that is dealing with interest. I have been is a room with some of them and their clients and they can estimate how long it will take to get through the planning and permitting process fairly accurately. Many groups underestimate and fall behind during the design process and get delayed. Ironically, BB Arc gets the work because they done a lot of buildings. And they are a minority firm which does not hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Baker Barrios gets all of the work because they design buildings to get built. They know how to get things done. Thats is good for a developer that is dealing with interest. I have been is a room with some of them and their clients and they can estimate how long it will take to get through the planning and permitting process fairly accurately. Many groups underestimate and fall behind during the design process and get delayed. Ironically, BB Arc gets the work because they done a lot of buildings. And they are a minority firm which does not hurt.

I don't have much of an understanding of what lies beneath a building's skin, but I appreciate the work it takes to get it done timely and on budget. It's just that Baker Barrios's buildings seem to lack any creativity or diversity, which is why they're probably able to do them quickly. They're kinda cookie cutter, which is fine for background buildings, but our signature towers should look unique. Can you even imagine a building with detail like The Paramount coming out of the DNA within BB?

While we're at it, what architecture firms in town do people like the best? Does the AIA chapter here give awards for anything?

In other news, does anyone know if Eola Capital has a Plan B that fits the current zoning? I'm not in favor of anything going on that block other than what's there. I'm all for urbanity, but even Central Park doesn't have high-rises directly on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe CT Hsu won something from AIA recently. He planned the building in Parramore with a theatre and is working on a large project on the old AT&T/Cirent/Lucent property on JYP just south of Sand Lake Road. Don't know what else he has done.

Cool. I need to do more research on the architecture firms in town. I checked out the AIA site and saw some interesting things I'm going to have to check out. Unfortunately, some of it is out of state or the country. I wish the newspaper had an architecture critic, which would probably help frame the discussion for the public. The more I think about this proposal for Eola, the madder I get. Pretty soon, it'll just feel like walking around a retention pond in an office park if more buildings visually encroach upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, does anyone know if Eola Capital has a Plan B that fits the current zoning? I'm not in favor of anything going on that block other than what's there. I'm all for urbanity, but even Central Park doesn't have high-rises directly on it.

Central Park is a product of eminent domain. Lots of people were relocated (evicted) and the land was converted to its current format. (Look Up Seneca Village. It was a black neighborhood in what's now the low 100's). Besides if there is any tenant you would want building that structure it's Eola Capital. After CNL, they are probably Orlando's most respected real estate firm on a national or regional level. These people know good buildings when they see it and they are probaly looking for a hot HQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Central Park is a product of eminent domain. Lots of people were relocated (evicted) and the land was converted to its current format. (Look Up Seneca Village. It was a black neighborhood in what's now the low 100's). Besides if there is any tenant you would want building that structure it's Eola Capital. After CNL, they are probably Orlando's most respected real estate firm on a national or regional level. These people know good buildings when they see it and they are probaly looking for a hot HQ.

A few things to note:

(1) When Central Park was created in the 19th century, there were development interests screaming to high heaven even then that it would ruin the economy of the city by taking so much land out of circulation. Manhattan seems to have done alright despite the doomsday prediction of the developers of the time, and Central Park is regarded of course as a jewel of urban planning.

(2) I do offer a tip of the hat to the folks making the presentation for Eola Capital. They do seem to "get it," and we'll see what they come up with.

(3) Having said that, reviewing the portfolio on their web site, I see mostly standard office park buildings. This is a firm thus far that apparently has little experience with downtown construction, so I'm not sure how we come to the conclusion that "these people know good buildings when they see it." The major downtown building shown is Independent Square in Jacksonville, which was built by Independent Life in the '70's as a corporate HQ and was not the product of a developer but the ego of the Bryan family which owned the firm at the time (which goes back to an earlier post of mine about our lack of corporate HQ's and what that means for great architecture downtown).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be a headquarters and I think the Planning dept would hold them to high level of architecture. I general I am in favor but I would like to see renderings and how it would interface with the park to make my final decision. Not that anyone cares what I think. I understand that they want to get it rezoned before they dump money into drawings but because of the sensitivity they are going to have to pony up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the Sentinel's take on the meeting.

Eola Capital already controls the houses, which have been converted to office use, including the company's headquarters. Eola Capital representatives said the houses, which were built between 1915 and 1930, will be demolished either way.

"Whether you agree with it or not, these structures have no historic designation or protection," attorney Edward Francis said.

Great. Nothing like boasting that you still have the zoning right to destroy the houses to get the public on your side. The argument that the houses don't have a historic designation or protection doesn't mean they're not worthy of preserving in that spot. And after reviewing Eola Capital's portfolio, I don't have much confidence in their ability to design good architecture either.

Speaking of eminent domain used for Central Park, what do you guys think about this being a ploy to jack up the awareness and value of this property for a potential sale to the city? If there's enough public outcry, the city may be manipulated by petitioners and the developer to buy the property. At the very least this property could be sold to a third party for a higher sum if Eola Capital gets the rezoning approved. Don't developers do this all the time? It's all just smoke and mirrors.

Interesting side note on Manhattan: Greenwich Village and Soho were New York's original black neighborhoods during Colonial times when there was a wall around the city and freed blacks and slaves were not alllowed to live within the city's walls. As the city grew, they were pushed uptown again and again. Imagine how different the fortunes of blacks in New York would be if they'd been able to hold onto their land. The corollary in Orlando will probably be Parramore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the Sentinel's take on the meeting.

Imagine how different the fortunes of blacks in New York would be if they'd been able to hold onto their land. The corollary in Orlando will probably be Parramore.

But most of the folks living in parramore do not own the land they live in. So if the owner wants to sale it for development, I dont think the renters can cry foul, heritage or not.

Regarding Eola development, I would be more upset if they tear down those houses and not build something. Arent there rules to prevent this from happening? (ex. East on Park site).

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.