Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

[orlandouprise]

Now THAT is a beautiful building.

[IAmFloridaBorn]

On 6/3/2018 at 12:52 PM, leondecollao said:

Again, why do we need tall buildings? (Waiting for all you guys to throw stuff at me lol)

i just don’t get the obsession. I love the urban feel in Paris and there’s no super tall in sight.....

I don't understand the hate of the idea that someone may like tall buildings?
Whats the whole "Why do we need tall buildings crap"?
Could it be simply because DIFFERENT people visualize and associate height, looks, quantity, color, etc in sky lines with being pleasing or acceptable?
Thats perfectly okay just as it is to not care for them. Why keep asking why though?

[IAmFloridaBorn]

16 hours ago, DreS0803 said:

No need for super tall buildings if they don't look good. Something like PNC plaza would be very appreciated. Not too tall, but would look so nice in our skyline. 

 

Imagine this on the Garland Parking Lot

I think Super Talls are weird and unjustifiable to be built, but I have no issue with seeing buildings taller than 441 feet in a skyline.
I'd love for taller buildings to come to Orlando just as much as density. I think more than anything variety and street inter-activeness is more important.
The representation of these $million dollar concrete decisions erecting in a city are important to the visual impact and association of a city because that's just what we do.
We don't ignore the economic impact and that is FAR more important but we can't pretend the visuals don't matter because they do. That includes height like some people simply suggest isn't true.

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

I think Super Talls are weird and unjustifiable to be built, but I have no issue with seeing buildings taller than 441 feet in a skyline.
I'd love for taller buildings to come to Orlando just as much as density. I think more than anything variety and street inter-activeness is more important.
The representation of these $million dollar concrete decisions erecting in a city are important to the visual impact and association of a city because that's just what we do.
We don't ignore the economic impact and that is FAR more important but we can't pretend the visuals don't matter because they do. That includes height like some people simply suggest isn't true.

I think that with some people, myself anyway, expressing the idea that we'd be OK with just a few more semi tall buildings (30 - 35 story) has to do with a desire to see Orlando not get too big. 

Those of us who go back a few decades around here, remember the small town charm that Orlando used to have and would like to retain what few remnants of it that remain.

[leondecollao]

I don’t know. Tall buildings look good in pictures and when you drive by but they kill street activity and are very anti-people in my opinion. I will take our quaint downtown over midtown manhattan any day. 

[AndyPok1]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

Those of us who go back a few decades around here, remember the small town charm that Orlando used to have and would like to retain what few remnants of it that remain.

Yeah, this is where we differ.  I don't think we need bigger buildings (although I wouldn't mind), we just need more infill and less mid-rises.

But the reasoning has nothing to do with small town charm.  I've only been here a decade, but Orlando has never been a small town in that time, and I'd argue hasn't been period since the 80s at best.  That ship has sailed.

[spenser1058]

5 hours ago, AndyPok1 said:

Yeah, this is where we differ.  I don't think we need bigger buildings (although I wouldn't mind), we just need more infill and less mid-rises.

But the reasoning has nothing to do with small town charm.  I've only been here a decade, but Orlando has never been a small town in that time, and I'd argue hasn't been period since the 80s at best.  That ship has sailed.

I'd disagree a little bit. The greatest thing we have downtown (nationally-known urban analysts have commented on it) is that downtown is easily accessible by walking. We've actually made improvements there: DPAC and the Am are much more walkable within downtown than anything at Centroplex. OCSC gives Fenway a run for its money in terms of walkscore (we won't catch up with Wrigley until you can live right on top of the pitch.)

One of the cool things that we still have (albeit is disappearing) are quaint lawns adjoining buildings like the post office and PNC  (when William Jovanovich built the HBJ building at Sea World, he made clear he wanted none of that tomfoolery, good New Yorker that he was.)

Most interesting is the way our commercial areas seamlessly transition into our bungalow neighborhoods (heck, until South Eola gave way to high-rises the houses came almost up to Rosalind.) That's something truly unusual for an MSA of our size thanks to 50's and '60's "urban renewal" (which was anything but.)

DPAC's architect thought about Orlando and envisioned the building as our "front porch", complete with the overhang over Magnolia and lots of glass looking out the front. The grassy area  in front of the Seneff Arts Plaza completes the analogy. Compare that with Tampa's big box PAC stuffed on the north end of downtown.

In our discussion about height, I'm reminded how Disneyland's Main Street, built to 5/8 scale, is widely considered more intimate and welcoming than our full-size Main St.

All in all, our downtown is one you want to get out and wander around in rather than driving through. I think it's a keeper.

Edited June 5, 2018 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

5 hours ago, AndyPok1 said:

Yeah, this is where we differ.  I don't think we need bigger buildings (although I wouldn't mind), we just need more infill and less mid-rises.

But the reasoning has nothing to do with small town charm.  I've only been here a decade, but Orlando has never been a small town in that time, and I'd argue hasn't been period since the 80s at best.  That ship has sailed.

Well Andy, you'd be arguing against a point I didn't make.

I didn't say Orlando actually WAS a small town back then. Small CITY, yes. Small town, no.

What I said was that Orlando had a small town charm. Or atmosphere.

Had you spent any time around here way back then, probably prior to your birth I'm guessing, you'd understand what I'm talking about.

There was a slower, more laid back feel and certain things that are no longer around were reminiscent of old Orlando.

[I am Reality]

I am honestly not trying to stir things up here.  But I don't understand the perception some people have about Orlando.   The city definitely has some great features and it's getting much better.  But I fail to understand the unwavering affinity some people have for it.  

Spenser mentioned the walkability of Orlando as a plus feature.  I have never been to a city that is not walkable.  That is what cities are.  Orlando annually ranks worst in pedestrian deaths nationwide.  That is precisely because Orlando is not very walkable.   Also, most people drive wherever they go here.  I have never been anywhere more detached than in Orlando, a city of isolated islands.  If the downtown area seems walkable, it's because it physically is not large.  It has a small footprint.   Other cities are more dense,  connected, and have great transit options in every direction.  That gets people out of their cars.   I don't see that at all here.  

Every city also sets aside parkland and green space.  I wrote 2 days ago about how San Francisco preserved the 2.5 square mile Presidio (although it already has the amazing - and huge  - Golden Gate Park).  I also wrote how Atlanta is buying commercial property (actual stores) to expand Piedmont Park.  Even NYC, Philadelphia, DC and Boston has many small (sometimes even hidden) urban gardens, aside from the huge parks like Central Park, Fairmount and Rock Creek.   The perception that Orlando uniquely preserves green space is somewhat misplaced.  If anything, Orlando may have less parkland than other cities.  And land is cheaper here than elsewhere.  

Other cities also have smooth transitions between their commercial areas and residential.  Many cities have charming rowhouses, townhomes, or bungalows ringing their downtown areas.  Many of those homes have much more historical significance than Orlando's bungalows.  I say that as a lover of those bungalows.  But they are not a feature unique to Orlando.  I also recall a heated discussion about how an underpass park is needed to connect downtown Orlando from Parramore.  That does not suggest a great connectiveness between neighborhoods.  

Why is Orlando always compared to Jacksonville or Tampa on this website?   Honestly, I doubt if anyone is impressed with either city.  I will accept Orlando is better than both.  That goes without saying.    We are in a different league and on our own path.  (Yes, that is a compliment!)  

Again, I don't mean to be difficult.  I just think this discussion is a little one-sided and misses a larger point about urban development. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by I am Reality

[dcluley98]

I agree with most of what you said. Downtown Orlando is more walkable than most cities in Florida, but that bar has been set pretty low. It is getting better, but not really a "good" walkable score. Transit is still our achilles heel.  Rosalind and Orange are 3 lane traffic heavy, car-oriented and run right through downtown. I-4 and 408 cut downtown from the rest of the area (which may have been a blessing in disguise at one point to increase density, but acts as a barrier now). Lake Eola park is nice, but it isn't like a Central Park or Golden Gate Park or parks in Atlanta. Getting some great amenities downtown has helped, including performing arts center, Amway, movie theater, soccer stadium, etc. but let's not pretend we are on par with major cities or those that had a head start on us. We still need to do more and continue the steps. I was one of the people saying the Under-I park is very important and a big improvement. And it is, IMO, although you may disagree on its value. Any additional parks downtown are improvements. I also advocated for a connector park around where the Cambria suites was proposed to connect Lake Eola park with downtown and the History Center plaza and transit. That probably won't happen, but would it have been an improvement over an empty lot? Yes. 

There are a lot of things we could do to make this city better, but it isn't like we have the weight to do it like some other larger cities. I welcome most anything that improves transit, green space, walkability, education, and arts destinations. Those are all things that help to make our city pretty decent compared to those that don't have them and the more we improve those, the better off we are, and the more we can attract better jobs and better buildings to downtown. It's a process, not one big leap, and I hope to see it continue. 

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by dcluley98

[I am Reality]

38 minutes ago, dcluley98 said:

I agree with most of what you said. Downtown Orlando is more walkable than most cities in Florida, but that bar has been set pretty low. It is getting better, but not really a "good" walkable score. Transit is still our achilles heel.  Rosalind and Orange are 3 lane traffic heavy, car-oriented and run right through downtown. I-4 and 408 cut downtown from the rest of the area (which may have been a blessing in disguise at one point to increase density, but acts as a barrier now). Lake Eola park is nice, but it isn't like a Central Park or Golden Gate Park or parks in Atlanta. Getting some great amenities downtown has helped, including performing arts center, Amway, movie theater, soccer stadium, etc. but let's not pretend we are on par with major cities or those that had a head start on us. We still need to do more and continue the steps. I was one of the people saying the Under-I park is very important and a big improvement. And it is, IMO, although you may disagree on its value. Any additional parks downtown are improvements. I also advocated for a connector park around where the Cambria suites was proposed to connect Lake Eola park with downtown and the History Center plaza and transit. That probably won't happen, but would it have been an improvement over an empty lot? Yes. 

There are a lot of things we could do to make this city better, but it isn't like we have the weight to do it like some other larger cities. I welcome most anything that improves transit, green space, walkability, education, and arts destinations. Those are all things that help to make our city pretty decent compared to those that don't have them and the more we improve those, the better off we are, and the more we can attract better jobs and better buildings to downtown. It's a process, not one big leap, and I hope to see it continue. 

 

Your idea of a connector park through the Cambria land is interesting.  I like that.

I remember an idea I saw a few years ago . . . establishing a few nicely-landscaped canals through downtown that would be connected to Lake Eola.  The canals would make a nice aesthetic and would create more waterfront property.  It could have possibly had cafes, bars, coffee shops, and even office buildings lining the sides and ornate bridges over the canals.  The canals could have also featured boat rides.  It would have been a lot like the Riverfront in San Antonio (but with a series of canals).  

That idea was really inspired.  Dig a few feet, and you hit water.  It has been done successfully at Disney and Universal (and to a lesser extent, the WP Chain of Lakes).  Why couldn't it work downtown?  It could have been unique in the entire country, like a mini-Venice.  We could have used our low water-table to our own benefit.  The city could have even ripped up a few streets for the canals (if land was too expensive).

That idea obviously never caught on.  

It was one of thousands of throw-away ideas attempting to do something distinctive. 

Where is the creativity? 

Edited June 6, 2018 by I am Reality

[dcluley98]

Even more interesting about the connection of Eola park to DT was the idea to have a "green overpass" over Rosalind. The elevation is there to make this work, and the ensuing field would be able to tie in to the Amphitheater (or a replacement thereof) as sort of extra grass seating. Included was Museum of Art location to create a sort of Arts Plaza that tied some of the best things together with the park, library, museum, history center and plaza with wall street and downtown. Solves a lot of the walkability issues getting to the park from downtown. 

Think of something like the "Stitch" in Atlanta, but on a smaller, more achievable level. I thought it was a great idea, but money talks. 

https://www.atlantadowntown.com/initiatives/the-stitch

[bqknight]

3 hours ago, I am Reality said:

I am honestly not trying to stir things up here.  But I don't understand the perception some people have about Orlando.   The city definitely has some great features and it's getting much better.  But I fail to understand the unwavering affinity some people have for it.  

Spenser mentioned the walkability of Orlando as a plus feature.  I have never been to a city that is not walkable.  That is what cities are.  Orlando annually ranks worst in pedestrian deaths nationwide.  That is precisely because Orlando is not very walkable.   Also, most people drive wherever they go here.  I have never been anywhere more detached than in Orlando, a city of isolated islands.  If the downtown area seems walkable, it's because it physically is not large.  It has a small footprint.   Other cities are more dense,  connected, and have great transit options in every direction.  That gets people out of their cars.   I don't see that at all here.  

Every city also sets aside parkland and green space.  I wrote 2 days ago about how San Francisco preserved the 2.5 square mile Presidio (although it already has the amazing - and huge  - Golden Gate Park).  I also wrote how Atlanta is buying commercial property (actual stores) to expand Piedmont Park.  Even NYC, Philadelphia, DC and Boston has many small (sometimes even hidden) urban gardens, aside from the huge parks like Central Park, Fairmount and Rock Creek.   The perception that Orlando uniquely preserves green space is somewhat misplaced.  If anything, Orlando may have less parkland than other cities.  And land is cheaper here than elsewhere.  

Other cities also have smooth transitions between their commercial areas and residential.  Many cities have charming rowhouses, townhomes, or bungalows ringing their downtown areas.  Many of those homes have much more historical significance than Orlando's bungalows.  I say that as a lover of those bungalows.  But they are not a feature unique to Orlando.  I also recall a heated discussion about how an underpass park is needed to connect downtown Orlando from Parramore.  That does not suggest a great connectiveness between neighborhoods.  

Why is Orlando always compared to Jacksonville or Tampa on this website?   Honestly, I doubt if anyone is impressed with either city.  I will accept Orlando is better than both.  That goes without saying.    We are in a different league and on our own path.  (Yes, that is a compliment!)  

Again, I don't mean to be difficult.  I just think this discussion is a little one-sided and misses a larger point about urban development. 

People have an affinity for it because they love the city they live in. You obviously don’t. 

Its one sided on here because it’s a site for people who generally like Orlando. I don’t think you’ll find many people here who dislike Orlando because then why would they care about its development much?

[dcluley98]

Come on now, guys. IAR was trying to be positive and productive, which I admire, given past events. 

Cut him some slack, as he is actually trying to not stir the pot and providing some insightful comments now. 

[orlandouprise]

10 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

Even more interesting about the connection of Eola park to DT was the idea to have a "green overpass" over Rosalind. The elevation is there to make this work, and the ensuing field would be able to tie in to the Amphitheater (or a replacement thereof) as sort of extra grass seating. Included was Museum of Art location to create a sort of Arts Plaza that tied some of the best things together with the park, library, museum, history center and plaza with wall street and downtown. Solves a lot of the walkability issues getting to the park from downtown. 

Think of something like the "Stitch" in Atlanta, but on a smaller, more achievable level. I thought it was a great idea, but money talks. 

https://www.atlantadowntown.com/initiatives/the-stitch

very interesting ideas...wondering if anybody in a position of power to actually kick start this actually knew about it. Was is it  something the DT DB floated?

[dcluley98]

Heck no, just a pipe dream wish by me earlier upthread a couple of years ago. I am not in position to make my ideas happen whatsoever. I just put them out there so those that are in position can see them and think about trying to make them happen!

Edited June 6, 2018 by dcluley98

[jrs2]

On 6/5/2018 at 10:32 AM, leondecollao said:

I don’t know. Tall buildings look good in pictures and when you drive by but they kill street activity and are very anti-people in my opinion. I will take our quaint downtown over midtown manhattan any day. 

You couldn't be more wrong about Midtown Manhattan.  They've got 25' wide sidewalks full of peds, and shops and eateries in just about every building there.  What Orlando has on Church St and Orange Ave and Central Ave, Midtown has times 20.  Orlando also does not have 25' sidewalks; they're more like 8' wide if you're lucky.

How many sidewalk sins is Orlando guilty of with what they've already got?  Alot.  Just look at the base of BOA, Suntrust, Capital Plaza, Centerstate, Wachovia Wells Fargo, The Credit Union, 5th Third Bank, CNL II, Lincoln Plaza, CNL I.., Southern Bank, etc. need I go on?

It's a fallacy.  Small towners think skyscrapers will kill a downtown.  Those days of thinking are long gone.  That stigma was created in the '50's, '60's, and '70's.  Sure, places like Chicago were at the forefront of this criticism.  Orlando was guilty of that too.  But places like Chicago and Manhattan also have corrected those issues long before anyone in Orlando had an itch that this place might actually be a real city.

There is no difference between 5th 3rd Bank at Lake Eola and it's evil twin which is 3x as tall in Denver, or, the Trump Intl Tower near the UN which is 900' tall with the same footprint.

Taller is always better.  This reconditioning the economy has had on people which causes them to expect less has got to stop.  The concept of "quaint" should never be synonymous with a CBD...ever.

And what's so great about downtown Orlando with all the Walking Homeless everywhere?  At least you don't see many homeless in Manhattan.  Here, at any one given time, you can count at least half a dozen homeless in your line of sight no matter where you are on Church or Orange or Central.  On Central, double that number.

[Urban25]

30 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

You couldn't be more wrong about Midtown Manhattan.  They've got 25' wide sidewalks full of peds, and shops and eateries in just about every building there.  What Orlando has on Church St and Orange Ave and Central Ave, Midtown has times 20.  Orlando also does not have 25' sidewalks; they're more like 8' wide if you're lucky.

How many sidewalk sins is Orlando guilty of with what they've already got?  Alot.  Just look at the base of BOA, Suntrust, Capital Plaza, Centerstate, Wachovia Wells Fargo, The Credit Union, 5th Third Bank, CNL II, Lincoln Plaza, CNL I.., Southern Bank, etc. need I go on?

It's a fallacy.  Small towners think skyscrapers will kill a downtown.  Those days of thinking are long gone.  That stigma was created in the '50's, '60's, and '70's.  Sure, places like Chicago were at the forefront of this criticism.  Orlando was guilty of that too.  But places like Chicago and Manhattan also have corrected those issues long before anyone in Orlando had an itch that this place might actually be a real city.

There is no difference between 5th 3rd Bank at Lake Eola and it's evil twin which is 3x as tall in Denver, or, the Trump Intl Tower near the UN which is 900' tall with the same footprint.

Taller is always better.  This reconditioning the economy has had on people which causes them to expect less has got to stop.  The concept of "quaint" should never be synonymous with a CBD...ever.

And what's so great about downtown Orlando with all the Walking Homeless everywhere?  At least you don't see many homeless in Manhattan.  Here, at any one given time, you can count at least half a dozen homeless in your line of sight no matter where you are on Church or Orange or Central.  On Central, double that number.

Lol did you say there are no homeless out in Manhattan? 

[jrs2]

16 minutes ago, Urban25 said:

Lol did you say there are no homeless out in Manhattan? 

Nope.  Just that downtown life is an established thing there for like a hundred years.  If there are homeless, that's understandable.  Here, the numbers are way out of proportion.  But that's just a small part of the main point I was making about the day to days of city life and tall buildings.

[JFW657]

1 minute ago, jrs2 said:

Nope.  Just that downtown life is an established thing there for like a hundred years.  If there are homeless, that's understandable.  Here, the numbers are way out of proportion.  But that's just a small part of the main point I was making about the day to days of city life and tall buildings.

One time when I was in NYC I had to step over a rivulet of urine running down the sidewalk to the gutter... WHILE THE GUY WAS STILL PEEING IT.

Worse yet, it was broad daylight, right in midtown around 5 pm, and he was sitting down against a building with some other homeless guys while "draining the swamp".  Just whipped it out and let it go right there with hundreds of people walking by.

You don't see that in downtown Orlando.

[jrs2]

20 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

One time when I was in NYC I had to step over a rivulet of urine running down the sidewalk to the gutter... WHILE THE GUY WAS STILL PEEING IT.

Worse yet, it was broad daylight, right in midtown around 5 pm, and he was sitting down against a building with some other homeless guys while "draining the swamp".  Just whipped it out and let it go right there with hundreds of people walking by.

You don't see that in downtown Orlando.

sounds more like Bourbon Street.  Lol.

wouldn't it have been a hoot if the building that he was sitting down against was Trump Tower?

Edited June 6, 2018 by jrs2

[JFW657]

12 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

sounds more like Bourbon Street.  Lol.

wouldn't it have been a hoot if the building that he was sitting down against was Trump Tower?

In hindsight, yeah it would be funny.

At the time, it wouldn't have meant anything to me.

This happened up on Broadway or possibly 7th.

Times Square. 

[leondecollao]

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

You couldn't be more wrong about Midtown Manhattan.  They've got 25' wide sidewalks full of peds, and shops and eateries in just about every building there.  What Orlando has on Church St and Orange Ave and Central Ave, Midtown has times 20.  Orlando also does not have 25' sidewalks; they're more like 8' wide if you're lucky.

How many sidewalk sins is Orlando guilty of with what they've already got?  Alot.  Just look at the base of BOA, Suntrust, Capital Plaza, Centerstate, Wachovia Wells Fargo, The Credit Union, 5th Third Bank, CNL II, Lincoln Plaza, CNL I.., Southern Bank, etc. need I go on?

It's a fallacy.  Small towners think skyscrapers will kill a downtown.  Those days of thinking are long gone.  That stigma was created in the '50's, '60's, and '70's.  Sure, places like Chicago were at the forefront of this criticism.  Orlando was guilty of that too.  But places like Chicago and Manhattan also have corrected those issues long before anyone in Orlando had an itch that this place might actually be a real city.

There is no difference between 5th 3rd Bank at Lake Eola and it's evil twin which is 3x as tall in Denver, or, the Trump Intl Tower near the UN which is 900' tall with the same footprint.

Taller is always better.  This reconditioning the economy has had on people which causes them to expect less has got to stop.  The concept of "quaint" should never be synonymous with a CBD...ever.

And what's so great about downtown Orlando with all the Walking Homeless everywhere?  At least you don't see many homeless in Manhattan.  Here, at any one given time, you can count at least half a dozen homeless in your line of sight no matter where you are on Church or Orange or Central.  On Central, double that number.

Agree to disagree. I specifically mentioned midtown because it’s one of the worst parts in manhattan and most New Yorkers fully agree with that statement.  Many parts of Manhattan are much more inviting and interesting like Tribeca, Chelsea, and Greenwich village. All with smaller buildings and better street interaction, may I add. Are the tall buildings to blame? I don’t know but defending midtown Manhattan is bizarre. That part of town is office building after office building and mostly dead after 5pm when compared to the rest of NYC. 

Not sure where to even start with your “taller is always better” or homeless comments. I’ll just say everyone has different opinions.  

Edited June 6, 2018 by leondecollao

[spenser1058]

27 minutes ago, leondecollao said:

Agree to disagree. I specifically mentioned midtown because it’s one of the worst parts in manhattan and most New Yorkers fully agree with that statement.  Many parts of Manhattan are much more inviting and interesting like Tribeca, Chelsea, and Greenwich village. All with smaller buildings and better street interaction, may I add. Are the tall buildings to blame? I don’t know but defending midtown Manhattan is bizarre. That part of town is office building after office building and mostly dead after 5pm when compared to the rest of NYC. 

Not sure where to even start with your “taller is always better” or homeless comments. I’ll just say everyone has different opinions.  

Agreed. It was like an alternative universe where Robert Moses became God and Jane Jacobs never lived (talk about an amazing Trek episode!)

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, leondecollao said:

Agree to disagree. I specifically mentioned midtown because it’s one of the worst parts in manhattan and most New Yorkers fully agree with that statement.  Many parts of Manhattan are much more inviting and interesting like Tribeca, Chelsea, and Greenwich village. All with smaller buildings and better street interaction, may I add. Are the tall buildings to blame? I don’t know but defending midtown Manhattan is bizarre. That part of town is office building after office building and mostly dead after 5pm when compared to the rest of NYC. 

Not sure where to even start with your “taller is always better” or homeless comments. I’ll just say everyone has different opinions.  

You make good points.  I agree about those other neighborhoods there.  Locals wherever you go will dog the tourist areas.  But the point i was making was that there is an incredible amount of retail and eateries in Midtown, and 99% of it is within tall buildings.  As for my Orlando homeless comments, i can start posting photos if you disagree with me.  I mean, it is common knowledge; not sure what there is not to understand.  Not trying to be difficult, but my point was also that you take the bad with the good.  Not apologizing for speaking the truth.  Downtown orlando may be all these good things, but it's also a panhandler sespool.  And with that in mind, I would take Midtown over Orlando because at least in Midtown, panhandlers actually try to sell you stuff for a buck and the ratio is much smaller to everyone else, and, you get the big city amenities to boot.

But this was about tall building based on my observations.

Edited June 6, 2018 by jrs2