Camillo Sitte

The only structural impediment to Orlando doing something like Gardermoen is that Orlando/GOAA and to a lesser extent the state, have given enormous approval/veto powers for airport capital projects to the individual airlines. The Norwegian parliament didn't have to first get permission from SAS or Wideroe.

I hesitate to do that because I wouldn't want anyone to misconstrue that I was simply advocating for a particular style of architecture, it goes far beyond that. But in the spirit of not wanting to seem ungracious, I would point to Gardermoen, both the original terminal and the new addition. Everyone is free to surf the net for photos, though they can't do that building justice, you really do have to experience it in person to appreciate just how good it really is, but there it is. Yes, it's a smaller facility that handles ~29M passengers a year, not ~50M, but if a city of 600,000 [fewer than 2M in the metro] can do something like that, so too could Orlando - if it wanted to.

Why? You are asking me to engage in a logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam, or an appeal to authority. One doesn't need a professional B.Arch, or second profession M.Arch2, or an MA in the history of architecture, or combined 20 years of various practical, professional, and educational experience , etc. to have an intelligent and informed opinion on the matter. Though I will not deny that the years and experiences in acquiring all of that have unquestionably informed and influenced my opinions. There, without question I have a far, far better foundation by education, by profession, and by experience to opine on this topic. Does that mean that your opinion is now invalid? No, of course it doesn't. What's really funny about all of this is that while I haven't made any personal comments about anyone's opinions, a couple of you seem to have a real problem with me criticizing this facility, as if you see doing so as some sort of personal attack. There is no point is going into detail about why I think it's really bad architecture because that effort would be completely lost on you - not because it would be beyond your understanding, I'm not insulting you - but because you clearly have no interest in challenging how you feel about the matter and frankly I don't care to try to change your opinion because it simply doesn't matter. I have stated my opinion and I don't care if you or anyone else agrees with me, as evidenced by the fact that I have not tried to change your opinion. But you know, let me take another look. Maybe the intermodal terminal isn't so bad, so out of date Woops, sorry. My bad. Those are photos of airside 3 [1990] and airside 2 [2000]. they just look like the intermodal terminal [2019]

Lol. Do you imagine that pointing to a few engineering industry awards is some sort of strong ccomeback or trenchant rebuttal to my criticism of the facility's architecture [or lack thereof]? I never claimed that the HVAC didn't work or that the lighting was inefficient.

All joking aside, and regardless of any differing opinions as to the design of the facility, I find it hard to believe that you really can't see the difference between the first, utterly unrealistic photoshops you posted and the photos in your second post. I also can't help but point out that in defense of this design which you say you like so much [fine, fair enough, no problem] that you used a bunch of simple descriptive adjectives that really didn't address the actual design, the architecture, or what you feel makes it an appropriate and long-lasting civic representation of Orlando/Central Florida. There are new construction prisons that are also "bright", "clean", "open", "spacious", etc., but those qualities don't make them great architecture. It just means they are new - not unlike the intermodal terminal. In my opinion of course.

Don't have to, dcluely98 already did. As I just said, unless one is legally blind or being intentionally obstinate because you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you, you should be able to see and understand that the first photos posted are utterly unrealistic and the result of heavy-handed software manipulation. The fourth photo in his second post is much closer to what an actual human being would experience.

Yeah, that's not it at all. The photos you posted are the way they are because Turner Construction, or the firm they hired, slathered them with some fashionable photoshop filtering to try to make them pop on their website, but it also erases a lot of finer details. Real estate agents do the same thing in their listings, and for the same reasons - to pop on the website and catch attention and hide finer details. Unless one is blind, all they have to do is look at the first photos you posted and then compare that to the fourth photo you linked in your second. The fourth photo in the second post is much more realistic that the two photos is your first post which are utterly unrealistic as no human being would ever perceive the actual space they way that photo[shopped] image portrays. Oh, and I have used Lot C more than a dozen times; day, night, morning, and evening.

That's some serious stretching - which IMO you totally don't have to do. Just say you like it. It's not a personal insult that not everyone agrees with you. The brightness in those photos has been jacked up so high that it has washed out a lot of detail. That "temporary construction wall on the right" is actually restrooms. I suspect that they are permanent.

Pushing up the brightness slider in photoshop is just so much extra lipstick on the same pig. Opinions as always and as regards everything will always vary, but it strikes me that a lot of people have been conditioned to have low expectations, willingly accept less as normal, and equate adjectives like “new” and “clean” and “bright” alone with good design.

So are toilets, maxi pads, and condoms. As regards large civic projects that, beyond their function, represent the people who built them, perhaps there should be more to it than that. Hmm. So maybe the 15-years out-of-date 20-years ago design of the intermodal terminal is appropriate for Orlando after all.

1987 here we com...err, here we are.

They are buying out the leases. Disposition of the inventory and fixtures, etc. would be up to the bankruptcy judge. And given that in SoDo there is a giant Publix literally across the street, I doubt that Publix is buying that lease to operate it as a grocery store and more likely to prevent another grocery store from moving in. I suspect that they will either sit on the lease or sub-lease it to anyone else not wanting to open a grocery store.

Krystal [Chattanooga, TN -1932] was nothing more than a blatant but not as good ripoff of White Castle [Wichita, KS -1921], where the "slider" was invented. So long, imitators. Their fries were pretty good, but their restaurants were all disgustingly filthy. Using a credit card, one could scoop decades of grease off of any surface they chose to. As best as I could discern, their business model was basically serving drunk drivers returning from the club through the drive-thru window. Seemed kinda limited.

I would be happy if the city would just maintain them properly. The only reason for the suspension-destroying potholes in the brick streets in downtown and surrounding neighborhoods is intentional neglect resulting from an unwillingness to spend the money necessary to maintain them.

The current terminal and airsides were ~20-years out of date the day they opened. Everything done since is just lipstick on a pig.