The Plaza

[JRS1]

I dnk, the Solaire isn't all that short. It is fairly massive when driving up Pine and CHurch from the east, and north on Rosalind.

Plus, when Dynetech and 55W come online, it will be but one of a cluster of 3 similar height bldgs. within 3 blocks of each other.

[wally2169]

Guys, I'm sorry that I lead this discussion to dark waters

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE PTP, it's going to be great when completed and will revitalize downtown

With 55W and everything else, downtown Orlando is going to be great, I'm sure of it

My gripe is based only on the fact that the height of the building kind of chops off the head of the skyline, that's all

I wish only that it had been about 10 more floors, it would look extremely imposing driving to downtown in any direction

Swear, I that stupid airfield, the height limitations downtown sicken me

I love Orlando far more than Tampa and Jax but despite that, I'm hard pressed to critique their skylines, they are magnificent to look at

PTP has already affected that section of downtown, approaching the city from I-4 from S.E. is awesome

55W is going to take it to a new level, just wish I never left Orlando in 1st place so I can see (God, why did I leave!!!!!)

All hail PTP and in spite of the height, all hail Kuhn and may he bring us more

[JFW657]

And if that was the case than I will be the first to apologize, but after re-reading it I still dont see the attempt at humor or sarcasm. Here's the thing, we all know what opinions are like, but when the same people offer the same negative contributions time and time again it gets a little old. How do we argue that we are not an "International City" to the point of audnosium and then nitpick the single largest contribution to the cities rebirth? It just seems ironic.

I'm going to let it go but please understand my frustration when I constantly read criticism on things that I have worked very hard on.

That said, JFW I appologize for not seeking clarification as to the tone in which you made your post. No harm, no foul.

First of all, yes, I was being sarcastic. Second, no I wasn't kidding. I'm not the first person posting here to express dismay over the seemingly endless procession of stumpy looking buildings that Orlando keeps getting stuck with. As I recall, the initial rendering showed a somewhat taller, sleeker looking structure, but what we got looks like they got three quarters finished and just stopped. That is my opinion. And in case this fact has been lost on you, expressing opinions is what this forum is here for. Not to make some "forum Nazis" happy.

You don't own or control this board, and I have never personally attacked you. Just because you ran the blueprint machine or whatever it is you do at whatever company had something to do with that truncuated disappointment's construction, doesn't give you the right to get all arrogant, snooty and indignant with me. This is America in case you've forgotten, and as long as I'm not using vulgarity or profanity or encouraging illegal activity, I have just as much right to express my views here as you do.

My suggestion to you is to return that defective sense of humor of yours to K-Mart or whatever bargain barn you got it from and maybe upgrade it to a newer more sophisticated model. And while you're at it, you might try pulling your head out of your rear end and stop taking yourself and everything else so seriously. Pull the corn cob out and live, man...LIVE!!!

Also, you might want to go out and buy yourself a dictionary and lookup the definition of "ironic". And while we're at it, what does "audnosium" mean? Were you trying to say "ad nauseum"? I hate self appointed "spell-checkers", but you might want to brush up a little in that area too, if you want people to believe you're some kind of mover-shaker big shot, that is.

One last thing. Re: a thankfully dead thread (that you brought back up). In case you didn't see the WFTV Fourth of July broadcast the other night, they had Hizzoner, Mayor Buddy Dyer on camera and he made the following statement...."We're hoping to turn Orlando into an "international city rather that just an international destination". The implication being of course, that currently Orlando does not fall into that category. So the mayor agrees with me. Maybe you ought to direct your angry resentful messages to HIM.

Edited July 7, 2006 by JFW657

[orlandonative]

Good post.

[Tim3167]

You know, as reality shows go I've always preferred Amazing Race to Survivor. I think it's because the former is very much geared towards a tactical completion of clear goals. Survivor on the other hand tends to be too much about relationships and bickering for my tastes. That was a long way to say that I wish this board would avoid being too much like an episode of survivor.

JFW in my opinion the issue isn't so much what you have to say as much as the manner in which you say it. Like it or not delivery has much to do with how a message is perceived. Your post on Kuhn and PTP was way over the top. How was anyone supposed to get a valid point out of that rubbish?

I happen to agree with you in the very limited point that the PTP project is lacking from a design prespective. It's not so much about height as it is that the res tower is just kind of homely. This project is great and I love it for it's significance which is why it's disapointing on how that tower looks. I mean come on, what an eyesore on the new WFTV HD set.

I for one wish you would just tone it down, You of course don't have to but I also don't have to take you too seriously.

[JFW657]

JFW in my opinion the issue isn't so much what you have to say as much as the manner in which you say it. Like it or not delivery has much to do with how a message is perceived. Your post on Kuhn and PTP was way over the top. How was anyone supposed to get a valid point out of that rubbish?

I happen to agree with you in the very limited point that the PTP project is lacking from a design prespective. It's not so much about height as it is that the res tower is just kind of homely. This project is great and I love it for it's significance which is why it's disapointing on how that tower looks. I mean come on, what an eyesore on the new WFTV HD set.

I for one wish you would just tone it down, You of course don't have to but I also don't have to take you too seriously.

Well, since you tried to be nice about it, then OK, I will try to be less "colorful" in my future opinions. I honestly didn't realize how easily offended and sensitive people here are. But in all honesty, (and I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, just being honest) you guys take all this way too seriously. But peace be with you.

Edited July 7, 2006 by JFW657

[mrh3]

What a bunch of high strung urbanites we are. I guess that's city life...

[JRS1]

Well, since you tried to be nice about it, then OK, I will try to be less "colorful" in my future opinions. I honestly didn't realize how easily offended and sensitive people here are. But in all honesty, (and I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, just being honest) you guys take all this way too seriously. But peace be with you.

I get your point about the Plaza development too. Hec, my blood not only bought a condo in Solaire, but my boss bought an office condo too. IMO, I have somewhat of a birthright to call it a dump moreso than the next guy.

As far as sensitive members on this board go, I think you should do a sensitivity check on yourself with regards to that doomed "International City" thread and some of the spirited and unwarranted comments you yourself made. They were pretty inflammatory. Look at it this way: for as pro-Orlando as some of us sounded, you were the complete opposite and in a very annoying and condescending way. Granted, I got fed up and spouted some junk in the end... but that was at the end, not every 4-5 posts.

My point it that it might of set a precedent for other forumers to maybe read into your comments a little more than someone else's b/c of your anti-orlando tone with that particular issue.

Reality checks are always a good thing, but not when the other person already knows what the reality is, and is merely trying to further a discussion.

water under the bridge.

That said, if I, personally, am guilty of anything, its the crime of 1) typing way too much, and/or 2) showing a little too much fervor and relentlessness to certain issues.

[go_vertical]

I was passing through downtown the other afternoon and was amazed at how the Plaza looked in the setting sun. The reflection on all that glass was stunning. At least we have a little time to enjoy it before 55 West commands our eyes.

And in regards to the the height of Solaire, I personally don't want every tower to be a new tallest. Obviously the buildings being proposed are what Orlando can absorb at the moment and I don't like the idea of plopping down 700 - 800 footers just for the sake of doing so. If we started doing that in excess then our sidewalks would (possibly) become as imposing as Atlanta's, and I really enjoy having direct sunlight on our downtown streets longer than two hours in the middle of the day. Eventually our proposals will reach 500, 600, 700 feet and by then these 300 and 400 footers will be scattered among us. When this happens Orlando will have one of the most dramatic skylines in Florida IMO.

[Violindude]

One last thing. Re: a thankfully dead thread (that you brought back up). In case you didn't see the WFTV Fourth of July broadcast the other night, they had Hizzoner, Mayor Buddy Dyer on camera and he made the following statement...."We're hoping to turn Orlando into an "international city rather that just an international destination". The implication being of course, that currently Orlando does not fall into that category. So the mayor agrees with me. Maybe you ought to direct your angry resentful messages to HIM.

I believe pretty much all of the "pro Orlando cheering section" (which I am proud to be a part of) said that Orlando is an international destination not an international city. You refuted that with Disney and all of the theme parks aren't Orlando when in all actuality the majority of people thought of them as Orlando.

[JFW657]

And in regards to the the height of Solaire, I personally don't want every tower to be a new tallest. Obviously the buildings being proposed are what Orlando can absorb at the moment and I don't like the idea of plopping down 700 - 800 footers just for the sake of doing so.

My problem with the Solaire is not so much the height, but it's proportions. I'm referring to the width to height ratio. The Solaire looks almost square when seen in an east or west elevation. It is too wide for it's height. That is why to me, it looks trunctuated. It seems like for not too much more money, they could have added some type of raised architectural element to the roof to visually "stretch" the height just a bit more and lessen that "chunky" appearance. Also, even though I like the color of the glass they used, when you look at it from the east along the edge of Lake Eola, every building from the Waverly, to the two Capital Plaza buildings and now the Solaire, all have the same color glass. It's kind of monotonous.

I believe whatever final design decisions were made had to do with money. Either lack thereof, or unwillingness to cut into net profits for the sake of appearance.

Edited July 9, 2006 by JFW657

[JFW657]

I believe pretty much all of the "pro Orlando cheering section" (which I am proud to be a part of) said that Orlando is an international destination not an international city. You refuted that with Disney and all of the theme parks aren't Orlando when in all actuality the majority of people thought of them as Orlando.

YOU may have said that, but certain others just kept on coming back at me arguing niggling, nit-picking little points when I was speaking in terms of an overall or "big picture" point of view. I'd mention several examples of how Orlando didn't measure up in the "international city" category and the replies I'd get would be either that I "hate Orlando" (I DON"T), or that I was trying to say "Orlando sucks" (It DOESN"T), or one little example out of several would be cherry picked to argue against.

And besides, if they weren't arguing in favor of the idea of Orlando as an international city, then what exactly were they arguing about?

Finally, for those of us who's history with this town goes back farther than 5 or 10 or 15 years, when we talk about "the City of Orlando", we are NOT talking about Disney, or any other plastic banana theme park. We are talking about the real actual ORIGINAL town that was here before all that stuff. And, as always, I contend that very few tourists come here to see that.

Now, please let this subject die!!!

Edited July 9, 2006 by JFW657

[JFW657]

As far as sensitive members on this board go, I think you should do a sensitivity check on yourself with regards to that doomed "International City" thread and some of the spirited and unwarranted comments you yourself made. They were pretty inflammatory. Look at it this way: for as pro-Orlando as some of us sounded, you were the complete opposite and in a very annoying and condescending way. Granted, I got fed up and spouted some junk in the end... but that was at the end, not every 4-5 posts.

My point it that it might of set a precedent for other forumers to maybe read into your comments a little more than someone else's b/c of your anti-orlando tone with that particular issue.

Reality checks are always a good thing, but not when the other person already knows what the reality is, and is merely trying to further a discussion.

Well, I won't deny that I was a little overly sarcastic a few times, but that was mainly out of exasperation at having these microscopic points made in response to an issue that requires a wide angle view. But the more I tried to paint an overall picture, the more someone would come back with things that, to me seemed beside the point, or just nit picky. But to be fair, even though I may have gotten a little unecessarily sarcastic on a few occasions, I never got personal or nasty with anyone.

And I am truly sorry if I offended anyone. But when one feels as though one is being sort of "ganged up on" because one's belief doesn't coincide with what is popular, one may feel compelled to lash out a bit.

Finally, if my tone seemed "anti-Orlando" to you, it shouldn't have because I made sure to point out several times that I like Orlando. I like it a lot. I've lived here for a long time. I like it for what it is, and for what it used to be and for what it hopefully will be, but not for something I'd like to pretend it is.

[JRS1]

Well, I won't deny that I was a little overly sarcastic a few times, but that was mainly out of exasperation at having these microscopic points made in response to an issue that requires a wide angle view. But the more I tried to paint an overall picture, the more someone would come back with things that, to me seemed beside the point, or just nit picky. But to be fair, even though I may have gotten a little unecessarily sarcastic on a few occasions, I never got personal or nasty with anyone.

And I am truly sorry if I offended anyone. But when one feels as though one is being sort of "ganged up on" because one's belief doesn't coincide with what is popular, one may feel compelled to lash out a bit.

Finally, if my tone seemed "anti-Orlando" to you, it shouldn't have because I made sure to point out several times that I like Orlando. I like it a lot. I've lived here for a long time. I like it for what it is, and for what it used to be and for what it hopefully will be, but not for something I'd like to pretend it is.

You say that issue required a "wide angle view", yet you were the one analyzing it from an extremely narrow perspective, i.e., of only discussing central ORL elements as being relevant to the issue of intl. city. How ironic a statement.

Further, if saying that someone has an "ego problem" and is acting "childish" is the same as getting "nasty" with someone, then, look no further than your own library of comments leading up to my post and see how far off I was in my assessment.

And as I said earlier, I think you have every right to criticize the finer points of Solaire's lack of height beyond 357', b/c everyone on this forum has questioned that height as well. Opposing viewpoints and inflammatory comments are two different things, so don't try and play victim and come out on top of the situation (intl. city thread).

Edited July 10, 2006 by JRS1

[wally2169]

In spite of the problematic topic I brought up here several days ago, there is a question I have concerning O-Town building heights that comes to mind with a prior posting in the past few days.

One of these prior posts talks about how 55W will shroud PTP from I-4 to some extent so our view of this new addition will be somewhat short lived

What is air rights?

I have heard discussed in connection with Tradtion Towers in that thread many months ago

Is air rights related to the height of a building with relation to how it can block the view of another that is also of equal or lesser height?

If that is potentially the case, how did 55W get said air rights that now puts up a wall in front of PTP and obstructs the views those residents will have?

[mrh3]

In spite of the problematic topic I brought up here several days ago, there is a question I have concerning O-Town building heights that comes to mind with a prior posting in the past few days.

One of these prior posts talks about how 55W will shroud PTP from I-4 to some extent so our view of this new addition will be somewhat short lived

What is air rights?

I have heard discussed in connection with Tradtion Towers in that thread many months ago

Is air rights related to the height of a building with relation to how it can block the view of another that is also of equal or lesser height?

If that is potentially the case, how did 55W get said air rights that now puts up a wall in front of PTP and obstructs the views those residents will have?

Tradition Towers was unique in Orlando because it was the first development that bid for them. I am not sure whether or not they had been placed on the market or if it was an unsolicited offer. $1,000,000.00 I think. It was done to preserve the views. In cities like CHI, SF, NY, air rights are bought and sold to moderate building heights. due to light/air quality of life issues. Essentially, they control the ability of a developer to build as high as he/she desires. Good examples include the St. Peters cathedral in midtown which is photographed in one of these threads. Citicorp was able to build higher because they bought the rights to build up owned by the cathedral and added to its tower. Also, Library Tower in L.A. is so named because the developers bought the rights from the L.A. library. Is that clear enough?

Edited July 10, 2006 by mrh3

[wally2169]

Tradition Towers was unique in Orlando because it was the first development that bid for them. I am not sure whether or not they had been placed on the market or if it was an unsolicited offer. $1,000,000.00 I think. It was done to preserve the views. In cities like CHI, SF, NY, air rights are bought and sold to moderate building heights. due to light/air quality of life issues. Essentially, they control the ability of a developer to build as high as he/she desires. Good examples include the St. Peters cathedral in midtown which is photographed in one of these threads. Citicorp was able to build higher because they bought the rights to build up owned by the cathedral and added to its tower. Also, Library Tower in L.A. is so named because the developers bought the rights from the L.A. library. Is that clear enough?

Yeah it's clear enough and I appreciate you responding

But just out of asking though, is there anything that determines a height based on obstructed views?

I can't wait to see 55W but the residents of Solaire are going to have a great view of Orlando's west side for a brief period

Is that something ordinarily taken into consideration by tenants that might expect a new building is not going to be built in their path anytime soon or is it just based on what you touched base with on your post?

I know a future tenant in Solaire cannot stop the wheel of progress of development especially since they haven't moved in yet but I would think that there might be some that would be ed knowing that 55W is going up where it is

Obviously tenant boards (or in this case, future tenant boards) can and do raise stinks about multiple things but I gotta think that this might be an issue

I can't wait to see the Rosalind but I have no doubt some future residents at Dynetech will not be so thrilled and might vocally oppose

[JRS1]

Yeah it's clear enough and I appreciate you responding

But just out of asking though, is there anything that determines a height based on obstructed views?

I can't wait to see 55W but the residents of Solaire are going to have a great view of Orlando's west side for a brief period

Is that something ordinarily taken into consideration by tenants that might expect a new building is not going to be built in their path anytime soon or is it just based on what you touched base with on your post?

I know a future tenant in Solaire cannot stop the wheel of progress of development especially since they haven't moved in yet but I would think that there might be some that would be ed knowing that 55W is going up where it is

Obviously tenant boards (or in this case, future tenant boards) can and do raise stinks about multiple things but I gotta think that this might be an issue

I can't wait to see the Rosalind but I have no doubt some future residents at Dynetech will not be so thrilled and might vocally oppose

I may be wrong, but IMO I think there is alot of influence from certain entities with the city regarding height limitations based on obstructed views. that's one of the reasons I think Solaire's height was chopped down-- b/c of Suntrust. However, in this same vein, Tradition is still slated for 415' or so. go figure.

[JFW657]

You say that issue required a "wide angle view", yet you were the one analyzing it from an extremely narrow perspective, i.e., of only discussing central ORL elements as being relevant to the issue of intl. city. How ironic a statement.

Further, if saying that someone has an "ego problem" and is acting "childish" is the same as getting "nasty" with someone, then, look no further than your own library of comments leading up to my post and see how far off I was in my assessment.

And as I said earlier, I think you have every right to criticize the finer points of Solaire's lack of height beyond 357', b/c everyone on this forum has questioned that height as well. Opposing viewpoints and inflammatory comments are two different things, so don't try and play victim and come out on top of the situation (intl. city thread).

Point by point.

First, I disagree with your interpretation of what a "narrow" vs. "wide angle" view is. You're saying that the inclusion of all the theme parks and outlying areas with Orlando proper is a "wide angle" view. What I meant by "wide angle view" was not in a physical or geographical sense, but taking an overall view of what the urban core of Orlando has to offer and realizing that it just doesn't have the kinds of amenities that true "international cities" posess, with or without the theme parks and tourist areas. You, on the other hand, just keep implying that the theme parks and tourist areas bring "i.c." status to Orlando, and you really don't offer much if anything more. That is a narrow point of view.

Second, when I said I never got nasty with anyone, I wasn't implying that you did. I don't consider your saying that I have an ego problem, or that I was acting childish as getting nasty. I think you're as wrong about that as you are about the aforementioned topic, but I don't consider it being nasty. I was only talking about the tone of my own posts, and wasn't making any tacit reference(s) to you or anyone else. Although it could have applied to orlandonative who kind of went over the edge and used some profanity and screamed some stuff, but I really wasn't thinking of him when I said that either.

Third, you're right. I do have every right to criticize the Solaire, as well as the City of Orlando as a whole, or anything else as long as it's on topic. And as far as the tone of those comments go, as long as I'm not personally insulting another member, I also reserve the right to be sarcastic. If you want to call what is basically a little smart alecky-ness on my part regarding some buildings "inflammatory", then I'm not the one being childish. Pot - kettle - black. And re: "playing victim", I was just trying to explain my side. If you want to call it playing victim, then I could make the same argument regarding you and the way you've been going on about my remarks.

Now is the time to let this rest in peace. You've had your say, I've had mine. But I will tell you this... as long as you keep bringing it up, I will keep responding to it. I don't care if we're still going on and on about it next year. So let's just drop it or be prepared for a long drawn out conflict that will cost billions of dollars and affect countless lives for decades to come. (well, ok that last part was a bit of an exaggeration...)

Edited July 11, 2006 by JFW657

[bulldogger]

I'm a sucker. I am really, really bored, because I just read this last slew of posts.

[orlandonative]

I wish he'd leave me out of it. I'm just sitting here minding my own business and trying to run this crazy blueprint machine.

[JFW657]

I'm a sucker. I am really, really bored, because I just read this last slew of posts.

I agree. It's really getting stale. Someone needs to let it go.

I wish he'd leave me out of it. I'm just sitting here minding my own business and trying to run this crazy blueprint machine.

The trick is to try not to breathe in the ammonia fumes if you can avoid it.

[JRS1]

I'm thru. no hard feelings towards anyone, including JFW. I just wish they didn't kill that thread-- I really think alot of productive elements were and could have further been brought to the table to analyze that issue, which interested alot of forumers, including myself.

As for Solaire, the Court St. parking entrance is looking much better.

[sunshine]

Anybody have an updated list of the tenants there?

[bulldogger]

As for Solaire, the Court St. parking entrance is looking much better.

Are they planning on having that opened up as a street/breezeway again or is it just for parking?