Developer proposes office tower near Lake Eola

[asonj23]

Not if the property is in a designated historic district or if it has been labeled as a historic structure. Demolition always requires a permit and therefore subject to review.

[sunshine]

The city should buy all those land and change them into museum or retails.

[spenser1058]

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

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.

This is what I initially suspected might be going on - downtown could be saturated, construction wise, for some time. I am not convinced the venues are going to lead to the great "next wave" of construction (I know that's a minority opinion here) - the first Orlando Arena certainly did not, and DPAC has its own development plans. Several of the activists have been nosing around trying to see if the plan might be a sale to the city (and, unlike Steve Walsh's Carlyle debacle in WP, I don't consider this a bad thing - if there's any way for the city to buy this property, it should), but if that's Eola Capital's objective, they are playing it close to the vest.

It has been suggested that Jim Heistand may wish to be Orlando's next Jim Senneff, however, and really thought he was doing a good thing here. However, the quote from his attorney certainly calls that idea into question. I guess we'll see in 6 months, but from the folks I've talked to since yesterday, the activists on this (including myself) plan to do everything possible to head this off.

Since the houses are not desginated historic, Eola Capital could easily send the bulldozers in one night (just as happened with the Plaza), with the idea that once the houses go, that it will be a fait accompli. Losing the houses would be truly unfortunate, but the activists' goal based on the current facts should be to find a way for the city to add this area to the park through some sort of purchase. If Mr. Heistand is really interested in helping, Eola Capital should be willing to work with Buddy on a creative financing plan to make that happen.

The city, however, cannot stand idly by - Buddy, Patty and others need to make it clear this is important. If you share our concerns, please write Buddy and/or your city commissioner ASAP.

If all else fails, the fallback position is to make sure the city denies the variance, and as has been suggested here, make it unprofitable for Eola Capital to build on the property.

[prahaboheme]

What sort of process needs to take place in order for these homes to receive historic designation? Can the public apply for historic designation on private property, or must the owner?

[spenser1058]

What sort of process needs to take place in order for these homes to receive historic designation? Can the public apply for historic designation on private property, or must the owner?

I believe the property must be in one of the designated Historic Districts (these are not), or must be designated landmarks in special cases. My understanding is that the second is unlikely to happen without the owner's assent.

For more, see:

http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/HPB.htm

[sunshine]

didnt Winter Park just go through this regarding their Central park? Did they buy the land and incrase the park?

[asonj23]

If there is a loud and strong enough outcry from the public then demolition can be haulted. There is a popular case here in Jacksonville where an old public school building that sits almost underneath the new I-10/I-95 interchange in Brooklyn was slated for demolition by a developer. A very vocal following of locals petitioned for it to be designated historic (hasn't happened yet) andwere able to convince city council to not approve the demolition permit. It is now slated for renovation and reuse as a retirement facility and its renovation will have to meet the Downtown Development Review Commitee's approval. That pretty much guarantees its survival.

I'm not sure of Orlando's requirements to designate a building as historic though. I'd say get organized and get vocal if you want to keep these buildings around.

[mrh3]

I would say that from a developers stand point their point is to maximize profit. Meaning, they most likely are aware and have been for quite some time about the value of their property, perhaps, at a point when no one else did. Remember they did buy the property from other private land owners. If I were a developer, I would take my prime Class A piece of property and build on it. I can't imagine that the energy being expended on this project was to jack up the price for the city to purchase it. This is an outstanding, irreplacable piece of property.

My suggestion, if the city chose to get involved would be to purchase the land and the existing real estate through either a land trust or do some sort of land swap. North Orange, Robinson, Washington, Livingston could all use a nice 200' tower of good design. That way everyone is happy. Of course, that's my perfect world scenario. As far as precedent goes, I don't think that there really is one considering that previous park lands were all DONATED.

[jack]

Not if the property is in a designated historic district or if it has been labeled as a historic structure. Demolition always requires a permit and therefore subject to review.

Right now, the subject to review is on the method and safety of the demolition. Not the weather the demolition should happen. the owner has to consent to designate the property historic which I am sure they will not.

It will be difficult to purchase the land. I am sure they will not sell it for less then $6-7 million. The last two sales were last year for $3 million total. So $6 million at least. Where is the money going to come from? If the residents want to purchase the land and lease it to the City, I say great. Everyone wins. But if it was up to me, I swould rather see all of ot torn down and the park expanded.

[spenser1058]

I would say that from a developers stand point their point is to maximize profit. Meaning, they most likely are aware and have been for quite some time about the value of their property, perhaps, at a point when no one else did. Remember they did buy the property from other private land owners. If I were a developer, I would take my prime Class A piece of property and build on it. I can't imagine that the energy being expended on this project was to jack up the price for the city to purchase it. This is an outstanding, irreplacable piece of property.

My suggestion, if the city chose to get involved would be to purchase the land and the existing real estate through either a land trust or do some sort of land swap. North Orange, Robinson, Washington, Livingston could all use a nice 200' tower of good design. That way everyone is happy. Of course, that's my perfect world scenario. As far as precedent goes, I don't think that there really is one considering that previous park lands were all DONATED.

That is incorrect - the last parcel behind the houses was purchased during Glenda's administration.

[mrh3]

That is incorrect - the last parcel behind the houses was purchased during Glenda's administration.

I stand corrected. I wasn't sure if the city just closed Washington and just built on top of it.

I would like to add that a large part of Central Park's revitalization in the 1990's was spearheaded by a concerned citizens.

I know Orlando has a limited pool of deep pocketed old money and wealthy individuals, but maybe if our old buddy Rosen would stop hindering progress he could get on with the business of contributing to the well being of the region through a gracious act of philanthropy.

[spenser1058]

I stand corrected. I wasn't sure if the city just closed Washington and just built on top of it.

I would like to add that a large part of Central Park's revitalization in the 1990's was spearheaded by a concerned citizens.

I know Orlando has a limited pool of deep pocketed old money and wealthy individuals, but maybe if our old buddy Rosen would stop hindering progress he could get on with the business of contributing to the well being of the region through a gracious act of philanthropy.

Amen to that, but I'm not certain Harris has even left I-Drive in 30 years.

We can always hope, though.

[palmtree73]

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).

As for Parramore, I'm thinking of the people who actually did own 40+ years ago. They were middle class residents whose neighborhood was zoned away, which isn't too far from what could happen if the city keeps on making concessions around Eola and Thornton Park.

[spenser1058]

Signs went up today in front of the Eola houses announcing a public hearing to designate them historic landmarks on Sep 3 at 4pm. I haven't kept up since Eola Capital withdrew their request to see where this stands - I'll try to nose around Monday.

[jack]

I don't get it. I though the property owners have to bring it to the City. Maybe they did. I have some pretty reliable sources that Eola Capital has an alternative plan for the site.

[FLKP]

It was my understanding that the city made an equal (no cash) trade for that property to be added to the Park and developer got equal land area on Central across from Eola Wine to build his High Rise. My source is pretty reliable.

[JRS1]

It was my understanding that the city made an equal (no cash) trade for that property to be added to the Park and developer got equal land area on Central across from Eola Wine to build his High Rise. My source is pretty reliable.

is that near the Stardust Lounge-- Post Parkside?

[codypet]

is that near the Stardust Lounge-- Post Parkside?

Almost think its sounds like the land Osceola sits on north of Central, ie the loading area for the farmers market.

[jack]

Further East.

[bulldogger]

That sounds like a much better place for this development.

[spenser1058]

I talked briefly with Robert Stuart today - essentially the deal is as noted above. Robert and I disagree about the houses - I think they add to the scale and ambience of the area, he sees little value in them (there's also some question about who's going to maintain them). At least 2 have been shown to have some historic significance - I can probably live without the other ones.

My other concern is that I really don't want to lose any more green space at Eola and a land swap will result in the area on Central ceasing to be parkland. It may be the best solution given the City has neither the inclination nor the money to buy out Eola Capital's interest.

I also talked with Jerry Jackson over at the Sentinel and he mentioned he would nose around it some more. I also alerted some of the local downtown activists to see if we can create some buzz. Bottom line: if turnout at the meeting on Sep 3 indicates continuing interest, we can probably save the houses and prserve the ambience of the intersection but will lose green space elsewhere to do so.

[jack]

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.

[RedStar25]

I talked briefly with Robert Stuart today - essentially the deal is as noted above. Robert and I disagree about the houses - I think they add to the scale and ambience of the area, he sees little value in them (there's also some question about who's going to maintain them). At least 2 have been shown to have some historic significance - I can probably live without the other ones.

My other concern is that I really don't want to lose any more green space at Eola and a land swap will result in the area on Central ceasing to be parkland. It may be the best solution given the City has neither the inclination nor the money to buy out Eola Capital's interest.

I also talked with Jerry Jackson over at the Sentinel and he mentioned he would nose around it some more. I also alerted some of the local downtown activists to see if we can create some buzz. Bottom line: if turnout at the meeting on Sep 3 indicates continuing interest, we can probably save the houses and prserve the ambience of the intersection but will lose green space elsewhere to do so.

So just like the hysterical society tryed to derail the plaza to save the old McCorys we are going to support a goverment entity to dictate to a private business what it can and can not do with it's own land? I personaly really like the Mission style home on central, however one of the first rules in realestate is the "highest and best use of the land." And Homes/low rental space on this corner of land just seem to be totally out of place... the rent must be astronomical for what you get.

Maybe there is a compromise that would see the buildings kept and new development.

[prahaboheme]

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

[spenser1058]

So just like the hysterical society tryed to derail the plaza to save the old McCorys we are going to support a goverment entity to dictate to a private business what it can and can not do with it's own land? I personaly really like the Mission style home on central, however one of the first rules in realestate is the "highest and best use of the land." And Homes/low rental space on this corner of land just seem to be totally out of place... the rent must be astronomical for what you get.

Maybe there is a compromise that would see the buildings kept and new development.

According to that view there would be no parkland at all because it is never the "highest and best use" of the immediate land (even though it makes the land around it infinitely more valuable - see Central Park). Eola Heights was saved even though people with the "highest and best use" atittude screamed 20 years ago (I was there for those battles). Had that thinking prevailed, the very neighborhoods which almost every city planner and architect who comes to town recognizes as the signature icons of Orlando would have been paved over years ago.

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.

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.