sunshine

Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

Recommended Posts

Anyone want to help petition the city to extend the traditional city out to 436? What would be the arguments against it?

 

http://www.cityoforlando.net/gis/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2014/04/Traditional-City-Boundaries.pdf

 

Would be nice to add Milk District, Fashion Square Mall and Executive Airport area. Could cut the extension off at Lake Underhill/408 or at the airport boundary. Thoughts?

Why? I don't see the benefits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In fairness I knew nothing about the Traditional City until I started Bungalower and realized my "boundaries" were almost exactly the same as the Traditional City.

 

There was a great description on the Staff Report when they last expanded...but I can't find that on the new website. Here's a description from another document.

 

To protect and to enhance the positive design elements of the Traditional City shown in Figure 
UD-1. The Traditional City shall be defined by recognizable geographic boundaries of 
subdivisions platted prior to World War II in which there is a concentration of the following 
positive design elements: 
Residential 
a. Residential with commercial land uses interspersed throughout the neighborhoods; 
b. Economically mixed neighborhoods; 
c. Mixture of architectural styles and sizes of structures; 
d. Mixture of densities on one block; 
e. Varied building setbacks; 
f. Gridded streets and dispersed traffic pattern; 
g. Narrow roads, often brick; 
h. Sidewalks; 
i. Accessible lakes; 
j. Mature street tree canopy. 
Commercial 
a. Compact buildings of similar mass and scale which create a street wall; 
b. Mixture of architectural styles; 
c. Orientation toward the street; 
d. Narrow or no setback from the sidewalk; 
e. On-street parking. 
 

What I love about all the design in the areas I cover has a lot to do with the Traditional City designation.        

 

You can also see how the boom-bust cycles have shaped what we know as "Orlando".  Much of the "traditional city" was formed during the Land Boom of the 1920's (your Bungalower districts).  The areas you are suggesting for inclusion were mostly built-up during the late 50's and early 60's during the Cold War defense spending boom in Central Florida.   The Executive Airport (the old Orlando Army Air Base) draws a distinct eastern boundary.  I don't really think of the Orlando Fashion Square area as "traditional", as it was build in the 1970's.  

 

IMHO You would need to articulate the goals of an extension to 436 in your petition.  If you're wanting to define Azalea Park as "traditional" and see more application of neo-traditional infill development along the 436 corridor, I'd illustrate that vision as part of the petition.  I'm of the opinion that there are many untapped opportunities for infill development throughout Orlando, which are not limited to downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for whatever reason, I kept thinking Citi Tower was for another parcel in Eola South. 

 

Too bad 420 Church isn't being built where Eola Place was supposed to go.  I think the block where it's going has those ginormous oaks on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These South Eola developments are very exciting.  Very impressed that the 420 W. Church Street project is supposed to start this month.  I hope that happens.  Hopefully, the Eola Place property will be developed soon.  I'm surprised that the 201 S. Eola project never came back to life.  I really liked that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness I knew nothing about the Traditional City until I started Bungalower and realized my "boundaries" were almost exactly the same as the Traditional City.

 

There was a great description on the Staff Report when they last expanded...but I can't find that on the new website. Here's a description from another document.

 

To protect and to enhance the positive design elements of the Traditional City shown in Figure 
UD-1. The Traditional City shall be defined by recognizable geographic boundaries of 
subdivisions platted prior to World War II in which there is a concentration of the following 
positive design elements: 
Residential 
a. Residential with commercial land uses interspersed throughout the neighborhoods; 
b. Economically mixed neighborhoods; 
c. Mixture of architectural styles and sizes of structures; 
d. Mixture of densities on one block; 
e. Varied building setbacks; 
f. Gridded streets and dispersed traffic pattern; 
g. Narrow roads, often brick; 
h. Sidewalks; 
i. Accessible lakes; 
j. Mature street tree canopy. 
Commercial 
a. Compact buildings of similar mass and scale which create a street wall; 
b. Mixture of architectural styles; 
c. Orientation toward the street; 
d. Narrow or no setback from the sidewalk; 
e. On-street parking. 
 

What I love about all the design in the areas I cover has a lot to do with the Traditional City designation.

As much as I like the notion of my neighborhood being incorporated into this designation, we don't meet the criteria above as the entire neighborhood was developed in the mid '50s.  (On the flip side, I think it's perfect from an architectural standpoint since I love the retro flair most of the houses have.)  

 

That, plus the west Curry Ford Road "shopping district" would call for some serious rule bending to fit into those commercial requirements.   :)

Edited by orlandoguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea would be to incorporate the traditional city design standards into any future development. So if they redeveloped the Colonial Shops (not sure on the exact name) shopping center they would have to fit in with the Traditional City standards..same with the fashion square mall development. While I think Mill Park came short of what a lot of people wanted to see it's a good example of the type of development you get in the traditional city overlay. Really I just like the idea of max setbacks and not allowing all the parking to be in front. It make the area feel more walkable.

 

There are plenty of buildings that don't conform with the Traditional City rules in the current traditional city because they were built after WWII but before the current rules were in effect. I think we should create design standards for what we want not just what we have.

 

The fact that it ends at Bumby feels odd to me when driving...I can see the designs of buildings change but the idea that it changes at Bumby because that's where the City limits used to be is odd. They have incorporated areas that weren't technically in the Traditional City before...this might be another good one to consider. [Rant Over]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These South Eola developments are very exciting.  Very impressed that the 420 W. Church Street project is supposed to start this month.  I hope that happens.  Hopefully, the Eola Place property will be developed soon.  I'm surprised that the 201 S. Eola project never came back to life.  I really liked that one.

I agree.  There's already good synergy down in there.  There new projects will turn it up a notch or two. 

 

I just wish that they had never torn down those old brick houses where Eola Place was supposed to go or near there back in '05 or so.  I hate when they raze the property and then nothing happens. It's probably a ploy to lure a buyer so they can flip the property quickly.

 

I am actually amazed at the amount of residential influx in downtown lately.  I just didn't realize the demand was there that much.

 

I think downtown needs an establishment like East End up there near Baldwin off of Corrine & Winter Park Rd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.  There's already good synergy down in there.  There new projects will turn it up a notch or two. 

 

I just wish that they had never torn down those old brick houses where Eola Place was supposed to go or near there back in '05 or so.  I hate when they raze the property and then nothing happens. It's probably a ploy to lure a buyer so they can flip the property quickly.

 

I am actually amazed at the amount of residential influx in downtown lately.  I just didn't realize the demand was there that much.

 

I think downtown needs an establishment like East End up there near Baldwin off of Corrine & Winter Park Rd.

 

 

I think a specialty grocery store is being planned for the Lucerne property. That corner has great visibility from the road, easily accessible and plenty of space for parking. Hopefully they don't screw it up like that Ravaudage project in Winter Park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that Winter Park Street will tee into Dade Avenue.  I like it.  Too had there aren't more connections under I-4 in that area, at least pedestrian connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's use that term "Exclusive" lightly...there aren't any details. We've known for a while that Health Village would like a grocery store...getting one is another story :)

 

Winter Park road closure was always part of the plan...however the original plan showed that it would turn into a pedestrian only access to Orange Ave....now it ends at a parking garage :( 

 

We're working on a number of Health Village related posts and hope to have them ready to go soon with some more updates... It's going to be a really cool area once everything gets going.

 

Disclosure I live only three blocks from health village!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the hotel on Columbia gets done first. Now, the Hotel ORMC over Docs...that seems to be much more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very cool to see a monorail in Orlando connecting the airport to the convention center and making stops along i-Drive.  I personally LOVE the Disney World monorails and one of my wishes is that they'd connect Hollywood Studios via monorail.  It's clean, quiet, and I just think elevated trains like that look futuristic.  Plus, they don't clog up existing streets or cause problems with pedestrian crossings.  The cost of something like this would seem exorbitant and I don't really see it happening.  But I'll hold my breath nonetheless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say, 'ol Lyle Lanley is the man!  Ghee heck, if 'ol Springfield can get one; Orlando can!

 

I've heard they've got monorails in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.