Just Wow

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, orange87 said:

Speaking of "just wow," my wife's friend who grew up in Haiti was in the car with us when we drove through downtown Orlando yesterday. Her friend said "wow, it's beautiful, it looks like New York City."  Nothing could be further from the truth, but as an Orlando enthusiast, I'll take all the compliments for our downtown that we can get. 

Back in the early 90's before Universal City Walk and Downtown Disney took away all the tourist traffic, on any given evening during the summer, downtown Orlando FELT LIKE midtown Manhattan at night.

The sidewalks were jam-packed with people, the street was backed up with traffic, and it was noisy and chaotic.

Cops on every corner.

People partying everywhere. 

[prahaboheme]

Orlando (the city) can do a much better job of marketing to the tourist sector. I’ve rarely ever seen billboards, commercials, or any marketing strategy that could get the curious tourist off I-drive or the theme parks to some of the local attractions that the city offers.

It seems like the only marketing ever down comes from the occasion city newspaper like the NYTimes that does an article or two on the “other” Orlando.

[F-L-A]

5 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

Orlando (the city) can do a much better job of marketing to the tourist sector. I’ve rarely ever seen billboards, commercials, or any marketing strategy that could get the curious tourist off I-drive or the theme parks to some of the local attractions that the city offers.

It seems like the only marketing ever down comes from the occasion city newspaper like the NYTimes that does an article or two on the “other” Orlando.

The tourists come here specifically for the theme parks or conventions. There's really nothing in the city that would interest most of them, so of course they don't market to them. 

[prahaboheme]

8 hours ago, F-L-A said:

The tourists come here specifically for the theme parks or conventions. There's really nothing in the city that would interest most of them, so of course they don't market to them. 

This has been said before and I disagree. There are plenty of people who travel to cities for the main attractions that wander off into the lesser known areas to explore.

With 50+ million tourists (at its prime) Orlando can easily get some of these into the city for other experiences.

[spenser1058]

There’s certainly a market for cultural tourism but (a) it’s largely a different market than the theme park audience; (b) since the mid-80’s, Disney and later Universal have made it a core part of their strategy to keep anyone from leaving their property if at all possible and (c) no one in our local governments currently goes against the theme parks for any reason.

If we wish to attract those who are interested in what the local community has to offer (and given Winter Park probably has the most marketable cultural attractions at the moment, not downtown Orlando), we should just let the theme parks do their own thing while we set up an office that markets to publications like Southern Living, Travel & Leisure, The NY Times Travel section, WSJ’s Weekend section, You Tubers with significant followings in quirky vacations and whatever other social media is now into that kind of thing..

Btw, I would think coordinating with attractions a little further afield would step up the “wow” factor for this market: a launch and tour of KSC, a visit to Bok Tower, Wright Architecture at FL Southern and an abbreviated tour of the Cypress Gardens section of Legoland in Polk and (DeLightful!) DeLand and The Casements in Volusia, just to name a few. Also, things like birding around Lake Apopka (bird watchers are a passionate group that loves to travel) and Gatorland just for the retro quality.

Edited October 11, 2020 by spenser1058

[spenser1058]

The Lakers douse the Heat to win the strangest NBA Championship in pretty much forever.

[F-L-A]

14 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

This has been said before and I disagree. There are plenty of people who travel to cities for the main attractions that wander off into the lesser known areas to explore.

With 50+ million tourists (at its prime) Orlando can easily get some of these into the city for other experiences.

Those wanderers are usually travelling to cities where the city itself, in one way or another, is the tourist attraction. We have to admit that Orlando is a special case, a place where its allure to outsiders exists entirely outside of the areas where people actually live their lives day-to-day. That doesn't make it a bad place to live, but experiences that are just "good enough" aren't going to pull anyone away from the relatively unique experiences they currently come here to see. You need something extraordinary to market, something the city currently lacks. 

You also have to consider the rate at which new attractions have been going up (until now,) giving tourists less and less leeway with their time here. It's all a competition, and I don't see Orlando ever competing with Disney. You would need to draw in an entirely different demographic, which nonetheless requires an actual reason to come here in the first place.

Edited October 12, 2020 by F-L-A

[spenser1058]

Of course, folks like Marco and Rick “Skeletor” Scott refuse to acknowledge it exists but climate change has begun to affect South Florida real estate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/climate/home-sales-florida.html
 

From The New York Times 

[spenser1058]

Let’s all get our freak on the night before Halloween (in Seminole, no less!) with an interactive screening (is there any other kind?) of Rocky Horror Picture Show at the Wayne Densch (This Bud’s For You!) Performing Arts Center:

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2020/10/13/wayne-densch-performing-arts-center-to-screen-rocky-horror-picture-show-right-before-halloween
 

From Orlando Weekly 

[spenser1058]

Thank God! Tab is dead. That stuff has always been nasty - I’ve had better tasting cough syrup.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/business/tab-soda-discontinued-coca-cola/index.html
 

From CNN

[orange87]

On 10/12/2020 at 11:46 AM, spenser1058 said:

Of course, folks like Marco and Rick “Skeletor” Scott refuse to acknowledge it exists but climate change has begun to affect South Florida real estate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/climate/home-sales-florida.html
 

From The New York Times 

I think it's important to include the words "man made" in front of climate change to be more accurate. Nobody and I mean nobody is denying that the climate is always changing. What many people are skeptical about, is wether man plays a significant role in influencing the climate. People often repeat the phrase "99% of scientists agree that climate change is real." That's a misleading statement. While there is widespread agreement in the scientific community that man does in fact influence the climate, there is however, intense disagreement on exactly to what extent man does influence the climate. That's a very important question, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. Many people are calling for an ENORMOUS and costly overhaul to civilization to tackle this perceived problem. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The religious crowd says that because the universe is awe inspiring beyond words, that that is proof God created it. Likewise, the climate crowd is saying that because the climate is changing in a way that appears to be negative, that that is proof that man caused it. Both of those examples are taking massive leaps of faith. On the other hand, the religious crowd says "well what if the atheists are wrong and there is a God? You'll be screwed for not believing." Likewise, the climate crowd says "well what if the non believers are wrong and we are influencing the climate and we didn't do anything to stop it?" Those "what-if" scenarios are indeed thought provoking to a certain extent, but how far down the rabbit hole could we go with the "what if" game? BTW I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think most people aren't very knowledgable on this topic and should just admit that they don't know. I admit I don't know. But people just look really stupid at protests saying "sign da Green Deal thingamabobber because it's hot outside and stuff."

[AmIReal]

1 hour ago, orange87 said:

I think it's important to include the words "man made" in front of climate change to be more accurate. Nobody and I mean nobody is denying that the climate is always changing. What many people are skeptical about, is wether man plays a significant role in influencing the climate. People often repeat the phrase "99% of scientists agree that climate change is real." That's a misleading statement. While there is widespread agreement in the scientific community that man does in fact influence the climate, there is however, intense disagreement on exactly to what extent man does influence the climate. That's a very important question, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. Many people are calling for an ENORMOUS and costly overhaul to civilization to tackle this perceived problem. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The religious crowd says that because the universe is awe inspiring beyond words, that that is proof God created it. Likewise, the climate crowd is saying that because the climate is changing in a way that appears to be negative, that that is proof that man caused it. Both of those examples are taking massive leaps of faith. On the other hand, the religious crowd says "well what if the atheists are wrong and there is a God? You'll be screwed for not believing." Likewise, the climate crowd says "well what if the non believers are wrong and we are influencing the climate and we didn't do anything to stop it?" Those "what-if" scenarios are indeed thought provoking to a certain extent, but how far down the rabbit hole could we go with the "what if" game? BTW I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think most people aren't very knowledgable on this topic and should just admit that they don't know. I admit I don't know. But people just look really stupid at protests saying "sign da Green Deal thingamabobber because it's hot outside and stuff."

I understand the differentiation of man made vs human influenced, but I really don't see a lot of argument- at least from non-fossil fuel paid scientist- that indicates our influence is not significant. I don't support the so called new green deal, but if my choice was that or deregulate all the previous actions (as has been done over the past 3.5 years) then I'd reluctantly take the green deal. Climate change MAY not significantly impact us, but it will impact our future generations. Sadly, much like national debt and social security, we'll just kick the can a little further ahead. 

I do agree it will be costly. It would have been less so 40 years ago. It will be much more so 40 years from now. On the bright side, I think the market can and will partially solve the problem if the US Gov will quit subsidizing fossil fuels.  There are tons of forward thinking local governments and businesses already taking action. Large scale correction will require the large governments to make some investment- lots of investment. 

And not to be offensive, but I personally don't think you can compare scientific argument with religious doctrine.

[prahaboheme]

1 hour ago, orange87 said:

I think it's important to include the words "man made" in front of climate change to be more accurate. Nobody and I mean nobody is denying that the climate is always changing. What many people are skeptical about, is wether man plays a significant role in influencing the climate. People often repeat the phrase "99% of scientists agree that climate change is real." That's a misleading statement. While there is widespread agreement in the scientific community that man does in fact influence the climate, there is however, intense disagreement on exactly to what extent man does influence the climate. That's a very important question, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. Many people are calling for an ENORMOUS and costly overhaul to civilization to tackle this perceived problem. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The religious crowd says that because the universe is awe inspiring beyond words, that that is proof God created it. Likewise, the climate crowd is saying that because the climate is changing in a way that appears to be negative, that that is proof that man caused it. Both of those examples are taking massive leaps of faith. On the other hand, the religious crowd says "well what if the atheists are wrong and there is a God? You'll be screwed for not believing." Likewise, the climate crowd says "well what if the non believers are wrong and we are influencing the climate and we didn't do anything to stop it?" Those "what-if" scenarios are indeed thought provoking to a certain extent, but how far down the rabbit hole could we go with the "what if" game? BTW I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think most people aren't very knowledgable on this topic and should just admit that they don't know. I admit I don't know. But people just look really stupid at protests saying "sign da Green Deal thingamabobber because it's hot outside and stuff."

I don’t think “many” people are skeptical about man’s impact on climate change. There is consensus around the world this is a major contributing factor.

[JFW657]

I don't get involved in internet climate debates because nobody on either side of the issue knows enough about the highly technical and intimately complex science behind it to engage in a discussion.

I just know who I believe.... the NASA and NOAA.......  SCIENTISTS. 

If the vast majority of serious, independent minded scientists around the world say something is happening and will continue to happen if we continue down the road we're going, then I am happy to take their word for it.

I also know who I don't believe.... so-called "scientists" who are paid by industries with a profit motive or those who have certain political backers or agendas. 

[aent]

5 hours ago, orange87 said:

I think it's important to include the words "man made" in front of climate change to be more accurate. Nobody and I mean nobody is denying that the climate is always changing. What many people are skeptical about, is wether man plays a significant role in influencing the climate. People often repeat the phrase "99% of scientists agree that climate change is real." That's a misleading statement. While there is widespread agreement in the scientific community that man does in fact influence the climate, there is however, intense disagreement on exactly to what extent man does influence the climate. That's a very important question, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. Many people are calling for an ENORMOUS and costly overhaul to civilization to tackle this perceived problem. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The religious crowd says that because the universe is awe inspiring beyond words, that that is proof God created it. Likewise, the climate crowd is saying that because the climate is changing in a way that appears to be negative, that that is proof that man caused it. Both of those examples are taking massive leaps of faith. On the other hand, the religious crowd says "well what if the atheists are wrong and there is a God? You'll be screwed for not believing." Likewise, the climate crowd says "well what if the non believers are wrong and we are influencing the climate and we didn't do anything to stop it?" Those "what-if" scenarios are indeed thought provoking to a certain extent, but how far down the rabbit hole could we go with the "what if" game? BTW I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think most people aren't very knowledgable on this topic and should just admit that they don't know. I admit I don't know. But people just look really stupid at protests saying "sign da Green Deal thingamabobber because it's hot outside and stuff."

I think this is well said. Even among scientists who fully agree man made is real, there is widespread disagreement on what to do about it... what will help, what will hurt. And the timeframe of whatever impacts are going to happen... we predicted we'd be out of oil by now, now we've never had more oil. We had to switch away from paper bags according to the scientists to save the rainforests, now tree farms mean its completely fine to use as much as you want of the paper products and now lightweight plastic is evil.

[JFW657]

7 hours ago, aent said:

I think this is well said. Even among scientists who fully agree man made is real, there is widespread disagreement on what to do about it... what will help, what will hurt. And the timeframe of whatever impacts are going to happen... we predicted we'd be out of oil by now, now we've never had more oil. We had to switch away from paper bags according to the scientists to save the rainforests, now tree farms mean its completely fine to use as much as you want of the paper products and now lightweight plastic is evil.

Not sure what rainforests have to do with tree farms, as they are two completely separate resources that are being cut down for completely different reasons. That aside, just because we may not have been 100% accurate about the amount of oil reserves available, it's still a finite resource and scientists were still right to caution us about our unfettered use of it. If not for fear of running out, then for its detrimental effect on the atmosphere. As for plastic being "evil", the world's oceans are choking in it. If that doesn't constitute being evil, it certainly constitutes being a menace.

[aent]

5 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Not sure what rainforests have to do with tree farms, as they are two completely separate resources that are being cut down for completely different reasons. That aside, just because we may not have been 100% accurate about the amount of oil reserves available, it's still a finite resource and scientists were still right to caution us about our unfettered use of it. If not for fear of running out, then for its detrimental effect on the atmosphere. As for plastic being "evil", the world's oceans are choking in it. If that doesn't constitute being evil, it certainly constitutes being a menace.

The point is scientists who try to predict the future, and reach any sort of consensus, are usually entirely wrong. Hell, the growth of coal, which is obviously the dirtiest, was a result of a belief that we were going to run out of both oil and natural gas.

The point about wood/paper production had little to do with where it came from, but more the idea that we couldn't sustainably keep cutting down trees forever without shortages or entirely destroying our environment, according to the scientists. It turned out they were wrong about that too. Its easy to find millions more examples.

No one predicted how little the BP oil spill would affect the environment and how quickly nature would adapt to cause a more natural cleanup. All of the predictions were much more devastating. Sure, some of these things might be menaces or even evil, but if you mandate solutions without knowing the full impact (and when it comes to the environment, we never do), you could just be making things worse, or throwing tons of money at a problem without fixing it creating lots of other opportunity costs.

[JFW657]

30 minutes ago, aent said:

The point is scientists who try to predict the future, and reach any sort of consensus, are usually entirely wrong. Hell, the growth of coal, which is obviously the dirtiest, was a result of a belief that we were going to run out of both oil and natural gas.

The point about wood/paper production had little to do with where it came from, but more the idea that we couldn't sustainably keep cutting down trees forever without shortages or entirely destroying our environment, according to the scientists. It turned out they were wrong about that too. Its easy to find millions more examples.

Trying to predict the results of man's activities on our world is a big part of scientists' job. 

That is what they do. Having not always been 100% correct is not a legitimate reason for them to stop.

I don't remember anyone ever claiming that we couldn't cut down trees, but rather that we couldn't thoughtlessly cut them down by certain methods, like clear cutting for example. Scientists were correct in waning, then helping the logging and tree farming industries in developing better methods of tree removal and that is why it has become a much more sustainable resource.

Thanks to scientists.

35 minutes ago, aent said:

No one predicted how little the BP oil spill would affect the environment and how quickly nature would adapt to cause a more natural cleanup. All of the predictions were much more devastating. Sure, some of these things might be menaces or even evil, but if you mandate solutions without knowing the full impact (and when it comes to the environment, we never do), you could just be making things worse, or throwing tons of money at a problem without fixing it creating lots of other opportunity costs.

OTOH, you could be letting a potentially serious or even catastrophic problem reach a point of no return. 

Sounds like you're suggesting we should sit on our hands and wait until it's too late to do anything.

[spenser1058]

Did pedestrian malls ruin US downtowns? City Beautiful looked and found out that such plazas cannot save a failing city center.

However, they can make a vibrant downtown even more lively.

https://youtu.be/-Tg9IMCKa5M

Looking at several of City Beautiful’s videos (and he teaches planning at the college level, so he’s not just throwing stuff out there), one trend I’ve noted (with this one today and another about parking minimums on Black Friday as examples), he finds there’s a lot less rigor in both minimum requirements and going back after the fact to find out what works and what doesn’t.

A bottom line is that there’s no reason to assume planning requirements that exist “because they’ve always been that way and that’s what I learned” have any particular relationship to reality. When we see acres of parking, for example, at Parkwood Plaza that was NEVER used, even when Friday night league bowling or a world premiere movie was opening (there was one: Johnny Tiger with Chad Everett) or busy Christmas traffic or some combo of all three, we should not accept it “just has to be this way” because what we’re finding out is no one ever bothered to use, you know, the scientific method or else there were hidden agendas in play.

In short, question everything - there’s a reason.

[spenser1058]

Commercial real estate is in trouble:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/18/next-economic-crisis-empty-retail-space-429994
 

From Politico 

[spenser1058]

An ode to programmatic architecture and its ties to theme parks:

https://youtu.be/IExmKqXo5xM
 

From Midway To Main Street 

Edited October 18, 2020 by spenser1058

[spenser1058]

Allied Health opens clinic in Sanford’s Goldsboro community that offers care whether the patients are able to pay for care or not:

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/news/2020/10/16/allied-health-opening-first-of-its-kind-clinic-in-sanford
 

From News13 

They’re also receiving help from the City of Sanford and Central Florida Regional Hospital.

Edited October 18, 2020 by spenser1058

[spenser1058]

Lake County’s skyscraper:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/central-florida-explorer/os-et-clermont-citrus-tower-stands-test-of-time-20201016-4y4swzljxnfvteiyxhypf3tvvu-story.html
 

From The Sentinel 

[spenser1058]

I apparently missed this when it happened but it appears the consent decrees prohibiting the major studios from owning theater chains have been overturned.

It’s interesting to ponder if Disney were to buy AMC or another chain. One thing’s for sure - the quality would likely increase.

(Please note the columnist is just opining on such a possibility- the actual case did not include The Mouse):

https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/could-disney-buy-movie-theaters-tm1/
 

From Inside the Magic 

[spenser1058]

How to design a great street:

 

From City Beautiful 

(I’ll give you a hint- TREES)