Other Metro Area Projects

[jrs2]

The Mailand city center project has begun vertical construction.   Concret stairwell probably to garage structure.

The other Maitland mixed use project next to Sunrail, the garage looks done.  5 stories.

[sunshine]

Ocoee sets $43.5M list of projects to revamp downtown

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orange/os-ocoee-downtown-redevelopment-20161005-story.html

[Boomer136]

On my soc feed, too good to not share here:

 

[JFW657]

Don't know if this is of much interest, but it is going up right now in the central metro area...

 

 

[Jernigan]

There are a few townhome projects built and being built like this one.   One is on Bumby at Hand (south of Gore) and there is at least one more tucked away in that area.

The large apartment complex at Bumby and Michigan has rebranded and is looking to add many more units within. 

Not surprised to see this extension of the "traditional" south downtown footprint.  If I wasn't so lucky to get a place before the prices jumped I'd move into that area in a heartbeat.

 

[bqknight]

10 hours ago, Jernigan said:

There are a few townhome projects built and being built like this one.   One is on Bumby at Hand (south of Gore) and there is at least one more tucked away in that area.

The large apartment complex at Bumby and Michigan has rebranded and is looking to add many more units within. 

Not surprised to see this extension of the "traditional" south downtown footprint.  If I wasn't so lucky to get a place before the prices jumped I'd move into that area in a heartbeat.

 

Ehhh...I briefly lived in a complex on Michigan, basically right by Orange (near Freshfields) and the area was not exactly comforting to me. People's cars got broken into all the time and some of the people wandering around when the sun went down didn't make me feel safe. Maybe it's gotten a bit better in the past 2 years. 

[JFW657]

26 minutes ago, bqknight said:

Ehhh...I briefly lived in a complex on Michigan, basically right by Orange (near Freshfields) and the area was not exactly comforting to me. People's cars got broken into all the time and some of the people wandering around when the sun went down didn't make me feel safe. Maybe it's gotten a bit better in the past 2 years. 

 

[JFW657]

 

36 minutes ago, bqknight said:

Ehhh...I briefly lived in a complex on Michigan, basically right by Orange (near Freshfields) and the area was not exactly comforting to me. People's cars got broken into all the time and some of the people wandering around when the sun went down didn't make me feel safe. Maybe it's gotten a bit better in the past 2 years. 

The closer you live to Orange the worse it's going to be as far as crime and skeevy people hanging around are concerned.

This area is far enough away from Orange that it's not much of an issue.

[spenser1058]

A much needed redo for the westside's signature park that will hopefully serve as a significant catalyst change in the surrounding neighborhood:

http://bungalower.com/2016/11/09/major-renovations-lake-lorna-doone-park/

[JFW657]

That should look really nice when finished.

Especially after the gang graffiti gets spray painted all over it.

[spenser1058]

Three cheers to the Orange County Commission for rejecting an ill-advised megadevelopment across the Econ. I'm also pleased to see Victoria Siplin getting with the program.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orange/os-lake-pickett-orange-commission-20161115-story.html

Edited November 16, 2016 by spenser1058

[JFW657]

That really is great news. 

We need to maintain and preserve as many of our wilderness areas as possible, especially along the Econ.

Let's hope we don't get anymore Ted Edwards's on the commission.

 

[metal93]

Great news, I've been weary of this development as well as others try to sprout on the other side of the Econ. No more sprawl please! I live in Seminole County and the concern in these parts is more houses chipping away at the edges of Wekiva River/Springs conservation areas.

Portland has an urban growth boundary. Is it too much to ask for Orlando to consider one too?

[John Hargrove]

58 minutes ago, metal93 said:

Great news, I've been weary of this development as well as others try to sprout on the other side of the Econ. No more sprawl please! I live in Seminole County and the concern in these parts is more houses chipping away at the edges of Wekiva River/Springs conservation areas.

Portland has an urban growth boundary. Is it too much to ask for Orlando to consider one too?

I agree, we need urban development boundaries. You've gotta put some guardrails on this at some point.

[HankStrong]

I'm always a fan of UP, not OUT.

It's much, much better for public transportation.

[Universe_Explorer]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:06 PM, metal93 said:

Great news, I've been weary of this development as well as others try to sprout on the other side of the Econ. No more sprawl please! I live in Seminole County and the concern in these parts is more houses chipping away at the edges of Wekiva River/Springs conservation areas.

Portland has an urban growth boundary. Is it too much to ask for Orlando to consider one too?

Orange County's sustainabiliy plan has transition zones that are supposed to create a boundry of sorts.  Philosophically, the problem centers on the classic urban/surburban county versus city conundrum.  It does not exactly behoove the board of county commisioners to encourage growth in the city of Orlando - development in unincorperated Orange County is what grows their tax base - but at the same time they want to limit sprawl.  In the traditional sense, counties were supposed to provide bare minimum services to their rural citizens, while cities provided more services (and often taxed at higher rates).  Suburbanization created a class of county citizen that wants/demands the same services as those in the cities of this country.  That requires a tax base.  That encourages counties to promote development.  Which in turn, creates sprawl...If you look locally, the vast majority of social services in our region (housing, healthcare, crisis assitance, mental health care) all comes from Orange County Gov, not the city of Orlando.  It's quite the reverse of what was expected decades ago.

[uncreativeusername]

4 hours ago, Universe_Explorer said:

Orange County's sustainabiliy plan has transition zones that are supposed to create a boundry of sorts.  Philosophically, the problem centers on the classic urban/surburban county versus city conundrum.  It does not exactly behoove the board of county commisioners to encourage growth in the city of Orlando - development in unincorperated Orange County is what grows their tax base - but at the same time they want to limit sprawl.  In the traditional sense, counties were supposed to provide bare minimum services to their rural citizens, while cities provided more services (and often taxed at higher rates).  Suburbanization created a class of county citizen that wants/demands the same services as those in the cities of this country.  That requires a tax base.  That encourages counties to promote development.  Which in turn, creates sprawl...If you look locally, the vast majority of social services in our region (housing, healthcare, crisis assitance, mental health care) all comes from Orange County Gov, not the city of Orlando.  It's quite the reverse of what was expected decades ago.

Excellent points.  That being said, there's no reason the county shouldn't want to promote density within its tax base. 

[JFW657]

Seems like the county could generate just as much, if not more tax revenue, from a thousand downtown condo units at $350k each, stacked vertically in a few high rises concentrated in a small area, as they could from a thousand houses at $350k each, spread out over hundreds of acres of land. Especially when you consider the much higher cost of providing police and fire protection, utilities, garbage collection, sewage treatment, street and lighting maintenance, etc etc to the spread out suburban houses.

[cwetteland]

The problem is bigger than just city vs county.  Yes, there seems to be competition for development between the two, but it gets compounded by envious surrounding counties.  Lake, Osceola, and Seminole all want a piece of that action.  Any large scale planning has to come from the region or state level.

[aent]

15 hours ago, JFW657 said:

Seems like the county could generate just as much, if not more tax revenue, from a thousand downtown condo units at $350k each, stacked vertically in a few high rises concentrated in a small area, as they could from a thousand houses at $350k each, spread out over hundreds of acres of land. Especially when you consider the much higher cost of providing police and fire protection, utilities, garbage collection, sewage treatment, street and lighting maintenance, etc etc to the spread out suburban houses.

Current policy makes it less feasible. At the federal level, they promoting spawl... Since the last housing crisis, condos now need to sell 50% before they can even apply to be eligible for FHA loans so people need to put 20% down on a condo to buy it vs 3.5% or 0% on a single family. That means the people who can't afford as much literally are forced out of condos and into single family which has no approval requirement.

The higher cost of nearly all of those services you mentioned is pushed off onto other parties regardless of if its a condo or single family development... utilities are paid for by the developer initially, garbage collection is usually taxed/billed seperately and contracted out. These days the streetlights are billed seperately too or provided by the HOA, and the governments have been pushing for developers to make the HOA maintain the roads too, and the developer almost always has to pay for the new roads.. Just about the only item actually costing more for the government is police/fire/EMS (if it really even costs more per person to provide police service in condos vs single family), and that usually is made up for in the higher values of single family vs condos. Combined with the newer stricter codes on condos.... thats why we see little interest in new condos anymore and nearly all the newer, denser buildings are just apartments.

Until we either loosen the regulations on condos and make them more similar to single family homes, or subsidize them or do something to make them competitive with single family again, condos seem destined to be limited to the upper-middle and upper-class. And they aren't interested in condos in downtown Orlando, they want the luxury condos with views of bodys of water.

Edited November 19, 2016 by aent

[John Hargrove]

1 hour ago, aent said:

The higher cost of nearly all of those services you mentioned is pushed off onto other parties regardless of if its a condo or single family development... utilities are paid for by the developer initially, garbage collection is usually taxed/billed seperately and contracted out. These days the streetlights are billed seperately too or provided by the HOA, and the governments have been pushing for developers to make the HOA maintain the roads too, and the developer almost always has to pay for the new roads..

I assume this is only true for "last mile" type infrastructure. Surely there is an additional infrastructural burden placed on government when there is overall lower population density. More highways, more long run utility delivery, emergency services spread over a wider area, less options for transit, expansion of the bus network, etc. 

 

[aent]

2 hours ago, castorvx said:

I assume this is only true for "last mile" type infrastructure. Surely there is an additional infrastructural burden placed on government when there is overall lower population density. More highways, more long run utility delivery, emergency services spread over a wider area, less options for transit, expansion of the bus network, etc. 

 

The developer usually is responsible for most of the cost for utility and impact fees are charged on the development along with each house to pay for the more highways. Less options for transit isn't really a cost... so as I said, its just the emergency services thats really costing more (which is initially funded by impact fees as well, just the upkeep would be higher). The cost of delivery of emergency services is not high enough to offset all the other incentives and benefits of expanding outward.

Given all that, the incentive clearly is to expand outward, not upward, especially for home ownership.

Edited November 19, 2016 by aent

[JFW657]

There's also the demand factor.

Unfortunately, most people just don't want to live in condos, especially in high-rises located in congested, high(er) crime downtown areas.

I just assume developers merely respond to consumer demand with little or no regard for what local officials would rather they do or encourage them to do or least of all, what is best for the environment. If they can get away with plowing up hundreds of acres of unspoiled wilderness to slap up streets full of ugly, cookie cutter houses they can make a fortune off of, that's what they'll do.

They're going to build what sells.

 

 

 

[uncreativeusername]

22 hours ago, JFW657 said:

There's also the demand factor.

Unfortunately, most people just don't want to live in condos, especially in high-rises located in congested, high(er) crime downtown areas.

I just assume developers merely respond to consumer demand with little or no regard for what local officials would rather they do or encourage them to do or least of all, what is best for the environment. If they can get away with plowing up hundreds of acres of unspoiled wilderness to slap up streets full of ugly, cookie cutter houses they can make a fortune off of, that's what they'll do.

They're going to build what sells.

Well of course they're going to build what sells...but they're also going to build what they're allowed to.  So the question is whether or not the county feels it's in their best interest to pursue pro-density policies.  If they decided it was, with further sprawl limited via zoning and development rules, density increases out of necessity.  The supply/demand model for dense development isn't just about density being in demand, but rather density being the result of a limited supply.  Orlando's epic sprawl isn't due solely to Orlandeans being fond of suburban life, it's also due to the fact that developable land has historically been overabundant.  

[JFW657]

2 hours ago, uncreativeusername said:

Well of course they're going to build what sells...but they're also going to build what they're allowed to.  So the question is whether or not the county feels it's in their best interest to pursue pro-density policies.  If they decided it was, with further sprawl limited via zoning and development rules, density increases out of necessity.  The supply/demand model for dense development isn't just about density being in demand, but rather density being the result of a limited supply.  Orlando's epic sprawl isn't due solely to Orlandeans being fond of suburban life, it's also due to the fact that developable land has historically been overabundant.  

Yes I understand all about zoning laws. I wasn't referring to projects like the one in question where they wanted to build outside of what has been considered the urban development boundaries and got turned down. I was talking about the demand for downtown condos vs suburban housing within areas zoned for it and not infringing on areas that are zoned to remain rural.

I just don't think there is enough of a demand in this region of the state for downtown high-rise living, to create the kind of density within its tax base that you spoke of a few posts back. The county can promote density all it wants to, but if people want to live in sprawling cookie cutter suburban neighborhoods, that is what is going to get built.