Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

[jrs2]

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

That lodge demo was proposed long ago.

Gonna take money, though.

Probably a lot more than for the Seb'mnaleb'm.

It might be years before it happens. 

Not sure if maybe a different project unrelated to this, but they are trying to get money for, or already did get the money for, a perimeter beautification that includes a barrier along Robinson.

[tc01]

looks like this project is back. Sorry if this was put in the wrong thread. 
 

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/orlandos-future-tallest-skyscraper-takes-big-step-toward-breaking-ground/ZADRXTU4ANFXNAK6WKP6KOXYNY/

[spenser1058]

Do you ever wonder why, instead of reviewing the track record of this project, they essentially just print the press release verbatim?

That’s what we’d expect from Channel 9 and OBJ has been little more than a mouthpiece for the industry for years now. Here’s hoping the Sentinel commits journalism but sadly their business coverage (which basically feeds Growth Spotter, whose major subscribers are in the real estate industry) leaves much to be desired.

Woe, that it’s come to this but how much of civilized society has the internet all but destroyed?

[Uncommon]

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Do you ever wonder why, instead of reviewing the track record of this project, they essentially just print the press release verbatim?

That’s what we’d expect from Channel 9 and OBJ has been little more than a mouthpiece for the industry for years now. Here’s hoping the Sentinel commits journalism but sadly their business coverage (which basically feeds Growth Spotter, whose major subscribers are in the real estate industry) leaves much to be desired.

Woe, that it’s come to this but how much of civilized society has the internet all but destroyed?

As much as it pains me to agree with you, I too lament the shoddy "journalism" of WFTV, and any arguments for them were shattered when they wrote that the project is now being referred to as Health Towers as opposed to being "formally" known as Vertical Medical City. Big oof. Either way, this ain't happening.

[jrs2]

27 minutes ago, Uncommon said:

As much as it pains me to agree with you, I too lament the shoddy "journalism" of WFTV, and any arguments for them were shattered when they wrote that the project is now being referred to as Health Towers as opposed to being "formally" known as Vertical Medical City. Big oof. Either way, this ain't happening.

I'm a little lost here.  The article on that link states:

"It was formally called Vertical Medical City. It is now known as Health Towers."

[spenser1058]

9 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

I'm a little lost here.  The article on that link states:

"It was formally called Vertical Medical City. It is now known as Health Towers."

It makes sense. VMC is a laughingstock in three cities. When all else fails, try rebranding. Not that it will make a difference the way things have been going.

[F-L-A]

3 hours ago, tc01 said:

looks like this project is back. Sorry if this was put in the wrong thread. 
 

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/orlandos-future-tallest-skyscraper-takes-big-step-toward-breaking-ground/ZADRXTU4ANFXNAK6WKP6KOXYNY/

Did anyone even look at that concept art? That would clearly not be the tallest building downtown. When the concept art doesn't even align with the details being hyped, you know something is wrong. 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

40 minutes ago, F-L-A said:

Did anyone even look at that concept art? That would clearly not be the tallest building downtown. When the concept art doesn't even align with the details being hyped, you know something is wrong. 

That is from an older rendering. We never really got an official new rendering for health towers. But the FAA approval allowed it to go up to 448 ft which would technically make it the tallest building in Orlando

[spenser1058]

4 minutes ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

That is from an older rendering. We never really got an official new rendering for health towers. But the FAA approval allowed it to go up to 448 ft which would technically make it the tallest building in Orlando

Have you ever asked why anyone would waste money getting FAA approval (there’s quite a few hoops) for an increase of 7’?

At the very least, it’s safe to say Dr. Ponte , in addition to poor time management skills, also seems to be lacking in financial management skills as well.

That suggests there’s a reason she’s an architect, not a developer of high-rises. The good doctor remains, imho, not ready for prime time.

[Uncommon]

11 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Have you ever asked why anyone would waste money getting FAA approval (there’s quite a few hoops) for an increase of 7’?

At the very least, it’s safe to say Dr. Ponte , in addition to poor time management skills, also seems to be lacking in financial management skills as well.

That suggests there’s a reason she’s an architect, not a developer of high-rises. The good doctor remains, imho, not ready for prime time.

Given the price tag and hoops, why would someone waste money and time getting FAA approval if the project was a sham from the beginning? Legitimately wondering. I supremely doubt the viability of Ponte’s towers, but since you bring up wasting money and quite a few hoops, what do you suppose her end game is?

[spenser1058]

Just now, Uncommon said:

Given the price tag and hoops, why would someone waste money and time getting FAA approval if the project was a sham from the beginning? Legitimately wondering. I supremely doubt the viability of Ponte’s towers, but since you bring up wasting money and quite a few hoops, what do you suppose her end game is?

It’s an excellent question and one I have no answer for. When all this started, she was aligning with some shady Vegas companies and maybe it’s all about laundering cash or something that wouldn’t normally come to mind. I mostly leave the conspiracy theories to @jrs2 so maybe he can come up with something. After all, she’s also playing in his Chicago sandbox where graft is a way of life.

[jack]

3 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

It’s an excellent question and one I have no answer for. When all this started, she was aligning with some shady Vegas companies and maybe it’s all about laundering cash or something that wouldn’t normally come to mind. I mostly leave the conspiracy theories to @jrs2 so maybe he can come up with something. After all, she’s also playing in his Chicago sandbox where graft is a way of life.

She's raising money and needs to show progress. Just a guess. 

[spenser1058]

31 minutes ago, jack said:

She's raising money and needs to show progress. Just a guess. 

That makes sense, but if I’m a money guy, just how many times can she cry wolf?

[dcluley98]

As a "marketing guy" it's all bullcrap and an angle. 

Securing rights to build the "tallest" building in a city is a marketing ploy to drum up publicity, support, and funding.  No more, no less. I would think that FAA review fees and permit fees pale in comparison to actually soliciting lenders, wining and dining them and/or advertising for that. 

That's how it works. Fake-it-till-you make it subterfuge.  I know how it works, I have done it. 

[dcluley98]

This is a pastiche or papier-mâché . 

There are conceptual designs and design permits there, but there are no board approved designs or actual building permits and approvals, let alone port-a-potties. 

They actually have to pass MPB and ARB to start anything, they just pulled a permit for design of underground structural and garage, so that would mean they don't have money for the whole thing, they are soliciting design and cost information for the basic base phase of the project in order to secure any funding if it proves feasible. 

In this market, there is no way in any shape that they will get funding for this project with current rising interes rates and construction costs. 

This is absolute PR marketing based on nothing and this project will never happen. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by dcluley98

[dcluley98]

We are about to see a lot of "proposed projects" not happen right now. 

Anything not funded is suspect. 

 

I would not put credence into any proposal not funded or currently under construction. 

[jack]

4 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

This is a pastiche or papier-mâché . 

There are conceptual designs and design permits there, but there are no board approved designs or actual building permits and approvals, let alone port-a-potties. 

They actually have to pass MPB and ARB to start anything, they just pulled a permit for design of underground structural and garage, so that would mean they don't have money for the whole thing, they are soliciting design and cost information for the basic base phase of the project in order to secure any funding if it proves feasible. 

In this market, there is no way in any shape that they will get funding for this project with current rising interes rates and construction costs. 

This is absolute PR marketing based on nothing and this project will never happen. 

Are you saying that have no MPB approvals? If so, the foundation submittal will get kicked back. 

12 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

That makes sense, but if I’m a money guy, just how many times can she cry wolf?

Its get tougher every time. She also may not be targeting the most sophisticated investors. 

[popsiclebrandon]

If you can't get funding during the cheap money era we were just in then you definitely won't when money is getting quite more expensive.

[dcluley98]

Yes that was what I was saying. They still need final design approvals for any actual construction to take place.  

The permit application was for "Design" of the early bid package of the underground/foundations/garage.   This is NOT a construction permit application. They can't even submit for that until the final design is approved. 

Typically construction projects do early package bids for a couple reasons. 1st, is schedule, by breaking up the design into phases, they can work on a "chunk" of the project early while they are still finalizing plans and estimates for the "rest" of the project. This accelerates the schedule by removing "critical path" initial packages that are easier to get final approved design and pricing early.  In a rising cost environment, the faster sections can start, the better, as the longer a project takes, the more it will cost.  This leads to the 2nd main reason, which is COST.  Owners often phase their projects to reduce overall cost and also perform in "sections" with the option to not complete subsequent sections if the cost becomes prohibitive or the demand is not ther in the end. This is what you are seeing in the phased "Society" construction. They are building the 1st phase as they got financing for it, and will only complete the 2nd phase if the demand is there for it in order for it to get financed to cover the cost of construction. 

[jack]

9 hours ago, dcluley98 said:

Yes that was what I was saying. They still need final design approvals for any actual construction to take place.  

The permit application was for "Design" of the early bid package of the underground/foundations/garage.   This is NOT a construction permit application. They can't even submit for that until the final design is approved. 

Typically construction projects do early package bids for a couple reasons. 1st, is schedule, by breaking up the design into phases, they can work on a "chunk" of the project early while they are still finalizing plans and estimates for the "rest" of the project. This accelerates the schedule by removing "critical path" initial packages that are easier to get final approved design and pricing early.  In a rising cost environment, the faster sections can start, the better, as the longer a project takes, the more it will cost.  This leads to the 2nd main reason, which is COST.  Owners often phase their projects to reduce overall cost and also perform in "sections" with the option to not complete subsequent sections if the cost becomes prohibitive or the demand is not ther in the end. This is what you are seeing in the phased "Society" construction. They are building the 1st phase as they got financing for it, and will only complete the 2nd phase if the demand is there for it in order for it to get financed to cover the cost of construction. 

All that is roughly true once you have site plan approval. If not it is pretty stupid to do it that way. 

I know you said they do not have MPB approval, but do they have it for an earlier design? But not this latest iteration. 

[leondecollao]

Wild to me how much this view has changed in the past 10 years. 

[Uncommon]

Great pic. For some reason this makes me wonder if the plan is still to convert Orange to a two-way street like it was announced a couple years ago.

[JFW657]

I remember not too many years ago, that entire area north of Colonial Dr looked downright blighted. 

Empty lots, old run down buildings with crumbling and weed overgrown asphalt, etc.

One of the most turned around areas of town.  

[smileguy]

17 hours ago, leondecollao said:

Wild to me how much this view has changed in the past 10 years. 

From March 2009 on Google Maps

[JFW657]

I'd like to have a picture of that area and from that angle from pre-2k.