ChiDev

I wish the owners of the Sentinel property would start opening it up to Master Plan developers. With the right mix of uses I could easily see 1k new apts, 1k new condos, 350k sf office, 750 new hotel units, and 300-400k sf retail. Could do some really interesting stuff, like a site covering podium drive over concept. Hoping they get moving soon.

Flattered you think I am important. My captain planet credentials seem somewhat lacking, but I can tell you that @dcluley98is right about bothering the planning commission. My betting odds would be that the only savable path forward for "The Tree" is a strong push from the community on the zoning board, followed by the ZB demanding a future developer move the tree. The land seller wants too much $$$ psf for the tree to be saved ON SITE. Quite simply anyone who buys that plot will need every available sf for structure by my quick math. That said, I have moved historic homes in Raleigh, dug up and preserved archeological items in Colorado, and have even moved a land seller's father's casket and headstone. --> Moving the tree is absolutely do-able and should be demanded. Sorry my answer doesn't involve some creative architect-solution, I've always built MF/Senior - I think it would take a high end Apple store or something to do so. On a separate note, we will have big news coming RE Radius' retail that I am sure you all will like.

They definitely have some garage in that podium.

I think ultimately it would give the city $$$ they could do fun things with, like expanding Lake Eola Park.

We just have the same debate over and over again......

*only has value if its a true exchange of FAR currency. Need to be able to push on all but the most restrictive of zoning sites. You could handle it a number of different ways, different zoning class specific bonuses, Building PSF based credits, or even create tiered rings with different FAR bonus credit values:

Pool has been poured (they may be doing some finish work on it though), so I believe they are creating the polished concrete planter boxes for the trees.

Talking about those corner lots reminds me of something we do in Chicago all the time ---> Selling FAR bonuses. Downtown Orlando doesn't really restrict on an FAR basis, but they certainly do on height, setback, etc. Create a fund where developers can buy bonus height/density and raise funds that way to buy this corner. Costs the city literally nothing, gives them ample ability to push back on NIMBYs who complain, and accomplishes the goal of expanding the park. Developers could use the expanded FAR credits to build something much larger than currently allowed, like a structure on the Day Building's parking lot.

Lol all of you are delusional if you think a developer will keep that tree and buy that expensive parcel. If anything winds up happening on that lot, that tree is gonna be moved. Otherwise it will sit vacant while the land owner cries (or secretly poisons said tree).

.. Well said, anyone complaining about lakehouse has little concept of the actual engine that drives development, and wants to direct the course of building creation through zoning restrictions. That path winds up with less buildings built, and puts the city a lot farther away from having the type of architecture cited in this thread as "desire-able". Anyone who cannot see that isn't worth acknowledging.

Their site was in MU-2 which has a max FAR of 0.35, and is only 94480 sqft. That means given their initial zoning (prior to applying for PD) they would have only been allowed a 33k sqft building. They went the PD route because obviously the existing zoning wouldn't work out. In their zoning fight they would have to ask for 331,200 sqft or an FAR roughly 10x what they had on hand. This is an enormous ask of any zoning dept, and clearly they had to make a myriad of changes to the building to satisfy the departments. To ask for that same amount of SF in a tower form would equate to (granted a higher efficiency): 331200*78.5% efficiency = 259992 sqft of net area so you are talking about replacing that with a tower - 20k sqft is your efficient tower plate which is 85% efficient 259992/.85=305873 so you would need at least a 15 story structure there to account for the same amount of net space. You would get a rent bump for the taller units, but the costs of those units would be 125% of the tilt up above podium structure, so likewise the already high rents at Lake House would have to be +25% if not more given expense ratios and slower lease up time at top of market. This is to say the units at the same height in the existing building (say 6th story) would have to charge more given they too cost more. So ultimately to achieve what you are proposing, they would need: -A bigger ask from the market RE higher rents -To endure more perilous zoning fight -Next to no pushback for building 15+ stories immediately adjacent to SFH -A much longer construction time budget (CIP concrete takes WAYYY longer than tilt up Frinfrock system - also means $$$) -To mitigate a slower ultimate lease-up of the building given target audience -The cost bump of 25% applies to all units evenly, so you would have to charge more for the units they currently supply with 2-6th story views. Explain how any of that is a good idea given they were already targeting top of market? Downtown it is understandable, people would make this attempt given the much more accommodating base zoning, and established high rent hierarchy. Furthermore the lack of adjacent SFH to downtown towers means less NIMBYs. When this deal and Yards were under construction no one knew what things up there would rent for, and frankly their targeted rents at the time seemed REALLY HIGH (glad they are getting them). Bottom line is this forum can continue to berate developers for not building glass towers, but until you learn to think like one you will just be shouting into the void of ignorance. They built a very nice project and set the precedent for more density in the area, an achievement worth commending.

Laughing at all these "I wish Radius could have been taller" posts..... because I too wish Radius could have been taller... Still am very excited to have a beer looking at the lake from that pool deck.

Blame the NIMBYs in Eola Heights. Height caps came from their input.

Its all about value. Forecast the amazingly high rents like those planned at City View Tower 2 and you can do full building video screens with zero edge pools etc. I predict once the courtyard is done, and once the building is filled, that Radius will seem so natural in its location city residents will struggle to remember the empty triangle lot that once stood there.