Orlando Citrus Bowl Stadium [Renovation Completed]

[bulldogger]

The article keep mentioning NJPAC and NJPAC is hideous.

We need an icon downtown to get people there. People will take a special trip to see Disney Concert Hall or Sydney Opera House. Nobody gonna take a special trip to see NJPAC.

so we are going to spend 425 millions on something plain.

That makes sense, but the droves of people that will come down to the concert hall to see "it" will probably stand out there with their friends and have a Kodak moment. Whether you see a show there or not will probably have very little to do with how iconic the building is and that is what will support the place... ticket sales. I think more people will make their decisions based on ticket price (value) in accordance with the accopanying review of the show in the sentinel, parking (accessibility), acoustics (probably more of a return visit decision).

[RedStar25]

yea, orlando needs something identifiable. NJ PAC is a giant brick turd, in a sea of parking spaces. We need something iconic, something that at least approaches world class.

There is a whole lot more to a PAC than just looks. I mean look at the exterior of carnige hall. Its nothing special... its the acustics of that building that make it what it is.

[sunshine]

it is 450 millions we are talking about here, we can have look and acoustic.

[jnorlando]

if this guy can put something together that looks like this does for 67 million then i'm confident we're gonna have something that surprises us all

[prahaboheme]

I like what I am hearing so far--contextualism is the approach. Iconic buildings and spaces tend to be the biggest mistakes (Boston City Hall and Plaza, Disney Concert Hall, Barcelona's redeveloped waterfront).

[RedStar25]

it is 450 millions we are talking about here, we can have look and acoustic.

sunshine your a nay-saying nancy! oh yes... oh yes I went there... ta he he he

[JFW657]

if this guy can put something together that looks like this does for 67 million then i'm confident we're gonna have something that surprises us all

That thing looks like one helluva Stuckey's.

[RedStar25]

It'll be gone in a couple of decades. That's the problem with many of these trendy but oh so themed designs. Nobody loves them or cares about them in the long run, and they have short shelf life. That's why cities like Barcelona have been able to thrive off of their new architecture - it interests people. Downtown Orlando needs to be a downtown, not a country club.

What do you mean?

[RedStar25]

Iconic Architecture, well, most Iconic architecture, tends to at least stir interest in people. Some people passionately hate a work, some passionately like it. But it develops an identity. Go back to the Boston City Hall. Many people revile the thing. Yet when Menino decided to call for a new one, many people went nuts because he wanted to give up the building. It, for good or bad, give Boston a character. More importantly, it gives Boston a city feel.

When you look at a design like the NJPac, it creates interest for a little while. But in fact it is pretty boring and and doesn't really lend anything to the neighborhood. It's kind of a Big Box Store for events. Unoffensive, but unflattering. After several years it just blends into the background, and people cry out for a new event hall. Think the Amway arena here. OK for a few years, now it just looks dated. Really standout designs can overcome that, even if they aren't necessarily loved, because they at least have a character.

Downtown Orlando is bland, like it or not. It is terribly run of the mill, and has little of interest. Unless there is something specific for you to do there, you really have no interest in visiting it. Ultimately, it lacks a real identity - just some cookie-cutter sprawling city. A really stand out design changes that, it gives you an icon to represent the city - kind of a characteristic hat or coat. It makes Orlando Orlando. Barcelona learned that lesson. After the Olympics they started hitting upon these trademark buildings. You may love them or hate them, but there is no mistaking Barcelona. Those buildings form the identity of the city. Think the Opera House in Sydney or the Eiffel Tower in Paris. These may be things beyond the possible scope for Orlando right now,l but they become the symbol for the city. The opposite of sprawl is Focus, and a decent performing art center, which is the most logical candidate for a stand-out building, creates that focus.

BITE YOUR TOUNGE!

There is no other city built around so many lakes.

There is a great diversity in architecture set in a park like setting. What other city on the planet has that?

God Damnit the city needs to hire me as thier spokes person.... I dont even live in the city and I still feel like I fight for it every day!

[JFW657]

This being Orlando, we're probably going to get something weird looking.

Or something that looks like it's trying too hard.

[prahaboheme]

Iconic Architecture, well, most Iconic architecture, tends to at least stir interest in people. Some people passionately hate a work, some passionately like it. But it develops an identity. Go back to the Boston City Hall. Many people revile the thing. Yet when Menino decided to call for a new one, many people went nuts because he wanted to give up the building. It, for good or bad, give Boston a character. More importantly, it gives Boston a city feel.

Boston City Hall Plaza does not give Boston character, in fact it replaced a whole neighborhood that was full of it. This, among its horribly inefficient design, is why it suffers disdain from so many people. I for one like brutalist architecture, done right. Orlando's downtown library is a great example of brutalism.

City Hall Plaza is one of the worst, if not the worst, designed public spaces in America. Don't take my word for it, they think its the worst in the world: Best and Worst Public Parks and Squares I don't know if i'd go that far, i've seen some pretty horrible public spaces in Eastern Europe.

In a way, you contradict yourself. You complain that Orlando's hometown architectural vernacular is bland (this town does have a style, in fact) and yet want a boisterious, unfamiliar icon that screams "i need attention" just so it'll attract a crowd of tourists. You don't think something slightly more subtle, that respects the heritage of the region (and compliments it), can have the same effect?

Edited September 24, 2007 by prahaboheme

[mrh3]

Boston City Hall Plaza does not give Boston character, in fact it replaced a whole neighborhood that was full of it. This, among its horribly inefficient design, is why it suffers disdain from so many people. I for one like brutalist architecture, done right. Orlando's downtown library is a great example of brutalism.

City Hall Plaza is one of the worst, if not the worst, designed public spaces in America. Don't take my word for it, they think its the worst in the world: Best and Worst Public Parks and Squares I don't know if i'd go that far, i've seen some pretty horrible public spaces in Eastern Europe.

In a way, you contradict yourself. You complain that Orlando's hometown architectural vernacular is bland (this town does have a style, in fact) and yet want a boisterious, unfamiliar icon that screams "i need attention" just so it'll attract a crowd of tourists. You don't think something slightly more subtle, that respects the heritage of the region (and compliments it), can have the same effect?

Praha,

Isn't it possible that Orlando's relative new urban form could stand a shot in the arm? I mean, if you think about it the Disney Concert Hall is a lot like L.A. It's brash, its its bold its fresh and forward thinking. As an urban form L.A. has definitely redefined the idea of "city." Similarly, Orlando is a not a city with a "rich southern history" it's a city largely shaped by the presence of defense and tourism industry in the second half of the 20th Century. There is no need to allude to something that never existed in the beginning. That said, I saw an Airtran plane fly over Brooklyn yesterday and the first thing I though was "I wish I was in Florida." The underside of the plane is painted a very distinctive hue of blue that is immediately reminiscent of Florida. Maybe he'll use a color scheme and layout that distinctly says "Orlando."

Furthermore, I think that Boston has long had NYC envy and both the Pru and Boston City Hall were poor attempts to make the skyline heftier. Boston does best with NeoClassical Buildings like 111 Huntington. Ultimately, I view Orlando's vernacular as a lot of color with open plazas filled with palms plastered with stucco and oak-Rollins for example. Anyway, that's just my take on it. Let me know what you think.

[prahaboheme]

^I live in Boston, I know it all too well.

cloudship, the art deco district of South Beach is a Florida icon. Miami Beach is a great example of a city that respects its architectural heritage while building modern, distinctive (daring) architecture.

Otherwise, the Flagler hotel masterpieces are icons as well (the Breakers in Palm Beach, the Biltmore, Flagler College).

How about Adison Mizner's work?

Key West has plenty of icons.

And I agree, Orlando is weak on distinctive buildings outside themeparks or unrelated to tourism. Yet, it still has prevailing, historic districts that hint at architectural trends--Thornton Park, College Park, Delaney, Winter Park, downtown Kissimmee. I find it ironic an international architect working on a community venue can reach this conclusion in mere months yet citizens of this region go on blind and ignorant to it.

Edited September 25, 2007 by prahaboheme

[slapdash09]

Before I go on about Boston City Hall I want to know if peopl think it is appropriate here. I think there is some room for discussion of it since it is a good example of a major signature building, but it is also very much not in Orlando.

ohhh . . . my favorite place to stand and watch boston b-boys and far enough away to not be asked for money.

i think one of the good things about that area is the plaza-like nature of it. will we ever enough open space in downtown orlando to create that type of atmosphere?

[prahaboheme]

Praha,

Isn't it possible that Orlando's relative new urban form could stand a shot in the arm? I mean, if you think about it the Disney Concert Hall is a lot like L.A. It's brash, its its bold its fresh and forward thinking. As an urban form L.A. has definitely redefined the idea of "city." Similarly, Orlando is a not a city with a "rich southern history" it's a city largely shaped by the presence of defense and tourism industry in the second half of the 20th Century. There is no need to allude to something that never existed in the beginning. That said, I saw an Airtran plane fly over Brooklyn yesterday and the first thing I though was "I wish I was in Florida." The underside of the plane is painted a very distinctive hue of blue that is immediately reminiscent of Florida. Maybe he'll use a color scheme and layout that distinctly says "Orlando."

Furthermore, I think that Boston has long had NYC envy and both the Pru and Boston City Hall were poor attempts to make the skyline heftier. Boston does best with NeoClassical Buildings like 111 Huntington. Ultimately, I view Orlando's vernacular as a lot of color with open plazas filled with palms plastered with stucco and oak-Rollins for example. Anyway, that's just my take on it. Let me know what you think.

Most critics agree that Disney Concert Hall is one big mess--it rejects streetlevel urban principles almost entirely (Gehry doesn't play well with others, never did). Is that what makes it uniquely LA? I think its a stretch to consider this a sort of new LA vernacular; why not play off its already great heritage of art deco masterpieces downtown and in Hollywood? To me, that is LA. The way I see it, LA art deco says "somewhere" whereas Gehry's hall says "anywhere".

Orlando doesn't need "anywhere," it has enough of that already.

[tygger]

I like what I am hearing so far--contextualism is the approach. Iconic buildings and spaces tend to be the biggest mistakes (Boston City Hall and Plaza, Disney Concert Hall, Barcelona's redeveloped waterfront).

So... Does this mean it will have a visor?

Seriously, I like the idea of contextualism. Orlando has character and unique qualities that are not highlighted enough. I don't think the formula HAS to be "contextualism = BLAND". A great design that fits well within the concept of Orlando could be a source of pride and admiration for many years to come.

[sunshine]

[editted]

[prahaboheme]

So... Does this mean it will have a visor?

Seriously, I like the idea of contextualism. Orlando has character and unique qualities that are not highlighted enough. I don't think the formula HAS to be "contextualism = BLAND". A great design that fits well within the concept of Orlando could be a source of pride and admiration for many years to come.

well put, tygger!

[RedStar25]

A visor with some spanish moss hanging off of it?

[bulldogger]

A visor with some spanish moss hanging off of it?

and an open-jawed Gator head for an entrance and a putt-putt course on the roof

Edited September 26, 2007 by bulldogger

[prahaboheme]

OK, what are some of the large-building contexts that you have to work with? Craftsman bungalows do not necessarily make good context for large scale buildings. The last think Downtown Orlando needs is more homogenization. It already looks too pleasantly bland. It's great to talk about contextualism, but contextualism is not the same as safe, conservative, quiet, or subdued. Boston's City Hall is, in effect, in context with it's surroundings (although to be fair it did come first). While there are a few completely historical buildings adjoining it, there are also some very modern, stark buildings that it interacts with, too. And in fact much of the criticism of City Hall really comes down to those who work there (the building functionally is a bit daft) or those who, after digging a bit, realize that the real problem is the surrounding City Hall Plaza.

The problem that I see with this companies proposal is that it is trying to use contextualism as an excuse to be bland. I have no problem being in context. I do have a problem being in the background. Downtown Orlando is all background, and no focal points.

I think you're giving Government Center too much credit--and i'm not quite sure what you mean by saying City Hall is in context with its surroundings? If anything, its the prime example of just the opposite (at least how i've viewed it).

Because it has already been said better:

City Hall Plaza

Tremont, Court, and Cambridge Streets

Boston, MA

Contributed by Project for Public Spaces

This notorious product of late-'60s "urban renewal" is over 30 years old - can a renovation solve its deep-rooted problems?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why It Doesn't Work

This is one of the most disappointing places in America - not just because it failed so utterly, but because it has been a failure for so long. Boston is a great city and this reviled place has been its centerpiece for over 30 years. This is really what's truly a shame.

Why so little progress? For one thing, the design community keeps trying to redesign this place instead of thinking about how to manage it to create a real community there. It proves once again that design competitions accomplish little if nothing in creating great places. What does this say about design in a city with so many prominent designers (as opposed to placemakers) - a city where all the truly successful places are older?

While some places in the Hall of Shame have at least a few redeeming characteristics, everything about City Hall Plaza and the surrounding Government Center is all wrong. Bleak, expansive, and shapeless, it has an exceedingly poor image in a city where image should be paramount. It conveys nothing in the way of information about Boston, its history, or its sense of place. The buildings around it are uninteresting and devoid of activity and the streets around it, too wide; all of this contributes to a lack of access (despite the fact that five subway stops are in the area). The layout and changes in grade deny the natural paths that people want to take. There are no vistas here, and natural connections - such as the one to Fanueil Hall across the street - are actually discouraged. When it comes to activities and uses, you'd be hard-pressed to find a worse place. This barren, alienating place has little if any activity - let alone a simple place to sit. Sociability is minimal at best.

It's possible that City Hall Plaza could be redesigned and given a management plan to make it work. But the best solution for fixing this place is the most drastic: take down the buildings, tear up the plaza, and start all over again. After all, wonderful neighborhoods were demolished in the '50s and '60s to create awful places like this under the aegis of "urban renewal." Maybe a new kind of urban renewal could signal the end of brutal architecture and bad places as a centerpiece for cities.

As for the suggestion that contextualism=bland, I do not get that assumption from this architect. I'm expecting something spectacular--and something that at the same time says, "Orlando".

Edited September 26, 2007 by prahaboheme

[spenser1058]

I think you're giving Government Center too much credit--and i'm not quite sure what you mean by saying City Hall is in context with its surroundings? If anything, its the prime example of just the opposite (at least how i've viewed it).

Because it has already been said better:

City Hall Plaza

Tremont, Court, and Cambridge Streets

Boston, MA

Contributed by Project for Public Spaces

This notorious product of late-'60s "urban renewal" is over 30 years old - can a renovation solve its deep-rooted problems?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why It Doesn't Work

This is one of the most disappointing places in America - not just because it failed so utterly, but because it has been a failure for so long. Boston is a great city and this reviled place has been its centerpiece for over 30 years. This is really what's truly a shame.

Why so little progress? For one thing, the design community keeps trying to redesign this place instead of thinking about how to manage it to create a real community there. It proves once again that design competitions accomplish little if nothing in creating great places. What does this say about design in a city with so many prominent designers (as opposed to placemakers) - a city where all the truly successful places are older?

While some places in the Hall of Shame have at least a few redeeming characteristics, everything about City Hall Plaza and the surrounding Government Center is all wrong. Bleak, expansive, and shapeless, it has an exceedingly poor image in a city where image should be paramount. It conveys nothing in the way of information about Boston, its history, or its sense of place. The buildings around it are uninteresting and devoid of activity and the streets around it, too wide; all of this contributes to a lack of access (despite the fact that five subway stops are in the area). The layout and changes in grade deny the natural paths that people want to take. There are no vistas here, and natural connections - such as the one to Fanueil Hall across the street - are actually discouraged. When it comes to activities and uses, you'd be hard-pressed to find a worse place. This barren, alienating place has little if any activity - let alone a simple place to sit. Sociability is minimal at best.

It's possible that City Hall Plaza could be redesigned and given a management plan to make it work. But the best solution for fixing this place is the most drastic: take down the buildings, tear up the plaza, and start all over again. After all, wonderful neighborhoods were demolished in the '50s and '60s to create awful places like this under the aegis of "urban renewal." Maybe a new kind of urban renewal could signal the end of brutal architecture and bad places as a centerpiece for cities.

As for the suggestion that contextualism=bland, I do not get that assumption from this architect. I'm expecting something spectacular--and something that at the same time says, "Orlando".

[sunshine]

OK, what are some of the large-building contexts that you have to work with? Craftsman bungalows do not necessarily make good context for large scale buildings. The last think Downtown Orlando needs is more homogenization. It already looks too pleasantly bland. It's great to talk about contextualism, but contextualism is not the same as safe, conservative, quiet, or subdued. Boston's City Hall is, in effect, in context with it's surroundings (although to be fair it did come first). While there are a few completely historical buildings adjoining it, there are also some very modern, stark buildings that it interacts with, too. And in fact much of the criticism of City Hall really comes down to those who work there (the building functionally is a bit daft) or those who, after digging a bit, realize that the real problem is the surrounding City Hall Plaza.

The problem that I see with this companies proposal is that it is trying to use contextualism as an excuse to be bland. I have no problem being in context. I do have a problem being in the background. Downtown Orlando is all background, and no focal points.

A performing art center that resemble a giant mouse ears would work for downtown. j/k

on the side, i am all for edgy architecture.

[sunshine]

Magic, HOK hire 12 local minority firms for arena design

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/sto...tml?jst=b_ln_hl

[FrigginGr8est]

Magic, HOK hire 12 local minority firms for arena design

http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/sto...tml?jst=b_ln_hl

Hope they remember to include water fountains.