Orlando Citrus Bowl Stadium [Renovation Completed]

[bulldogger]

Hope they remember to include water BEER fountains.

[OrlandoMagic3]

Gatoraid for the players

[gumpking1]

Magic, HOK hire 12 local minority firms for arena design

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

Does anyone know when we are actually going to start construction on the arena is there a target date as to when they will start turning dirt over at the site?

[RedStar25]

MMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Beer!

[sunshine]

Does anyone know when we are actually going to start construction on the arena is there a target date as to when they will start turning dirt over at the site?

August 2008

[spenser1058]

Stay tuned, this may be good news:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_poli...me-court-r.html

[RedStar25]

SWEET! Now lets get these things built!

[jack]

After the vote

[Tim3167]

Vote???

[RedStar25]

There dosn't need to be a vote after the supream court cleared up its ruling.

[bic]

There dosn't need to be a vote after the supream court cleared up its ruling.

Unless Rosen gets his 50,000 signatures.

[jack]

Ruling stated that the bonds have to be issued. OPAC has not been issued yet

[spenser1058]

Ruling stated that the bonds have to be issued. OPAC has not been issued yet

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-ruling2...0,7696072.story

Mayanne thinks the City may have wiggle room, so I'm not panicking just yet.

[Boomer136]

Hope they remember to include water fountains.

Hope they remember to include a loading dock at stage level.

[FLClarkKent]

Interesting piece in Slate on how iconic buildings aren't always what they're cracked up to be. Food for thought as we discuss the possible design of the OPAC.

Slate article

[RedStar25]

I think that is a great example of why Orlando needs stand out building. The photo essay highlights how so-so design fails to really accomplish anything. None of those projects are well known, none do anything to attract attention. They serve little purpose outside of structure, so why not just build a steel box and be done with it? None of those designs have life in them, and no one would shed the slightest tear if they were torn down. They are characterless and do nothing to create a sense of place, on extra space.

I beg to differ....

What makes a building an "icon". Isn't it compleatly subjective?

Is it that architects who set out to create something eye catching and provocative end up creating just that and nothing else. No substance... no sence of place or harmony in design.

Then when an architect strives to do his best and not just show off.... you can end up with something timeless and a far greater "icon".

Here is an example of one the "characterless" buildings you were refering to.

[jack]

That article just reinforced to me that we do not need an iconic building. Spend the money on the interior. How did Toronto get away with a building that costs that little?

[uncreativeusername]

I beg to differ....

What makes a building an "icon". Isn't it compleatly subjective?

Is it that architects who set out to create something eye catching and provocative end up creating just that and nothing else. No substance... no sence of place or harmony in design.

Then when an architect strives to do his best and not just show off.... you can end up with something timeless and a far greater "icon".

Here is an example of one the "characterless" buildings you were refering to.

Indeed, what makes a building an icon is to some extent subjective. And it definitely has at least as much, if not more to do with what the building stands for than simply it's external appearance. Think Empire State Building - certainly not the greatest example of Art Deco architecture, but it's a famous building because of what it stands for. In terms of performance spaces, Sydney and Disney are really probably the only two examples of iconic concert halls that a person mentions and the general populous might be able to picture. But, Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, Symphony Hall, while none of them are ugly designs, they're not 'iconic' in their designs alone...they're still international icons though because of their history. Artists don't flock to an arts center (or any artistic venue) because it looks cool on the outside - it'll happen because the acoustics are perfect, the space is functional, the audience is comfortable, the sightlines are great, etc. Ultimately, what will make our arts center iconic will be what (hopefully) happens there. Not to say I don't want a great design, but I don't want a design that reeks of the architect's hubris at the cost of sacrificing an understanding of designing a fully functional building.

Edited October 5, 2007 by uncreativeusername

[prahaboheme]

I think that is a great example of why Orlando needs stand out building. The photo essay highlights how so-so design fails to really accomplish anything. None of those projects are well known, none do anything to attract attention. They serve little purpose outside of structure, so why not just build a steel box and be done with it? None of those designs have life in them, and no one would shed the slightest tear if they were torn down. They are characterless and do nothing to create a sense of place, on extra space.

cloudship, no offense, but did you even read the commentary that went alongside that slideshow?

The first building highlighted is the Stata Center at MIT by Gehry. I walk by this building everyday on my way to and from work. I will tell you, it is perhaps the most isolating and depressing part of my daily journey--and that is saying a lot given the part of town this is in. MIT isn't exactly known for being warm and fuzzy.

So, its popular. People go out of their way to take a picture of it. And then, because it is so out of context with its surroundings, they don't know what to do after. No one wants to hang around (and no one does). I experienced this same phenomenon at the Disney Concert Hall.

[spenser1058]

Orlando was very fortunate in that, when what we now regard as the unfortunate "urban renewals" of the 1950s-1970s took place, downtown was largely ignored except for I4 and the E-W being carved through. That happened in no small part to the fact that the engines of our growth were based in the suburbs and exurbs - Martin and Disney.

While that left downtown to wither, it meant there remained a pedestrian-friendly small urban core that could one day be revitalized. When the 80's rolled around, Mayor Bill Frederick took the initial steps to bring back our downtown as the public began to realize "urban renewal" wasn't all it ws cracked up to be and federal funding was allocated for revitalization.

That was why, after wandering around a lot of southern and midwestern cities in the political career of my youth, I chose to return home to Orlando because our downtown had the potential to be something places like Atlanta, Nashville and Tampa gave up due to the "tear it down" mentality of the 60's.

There was a lot of work to do, and we haven't always gotten it right. Eola Heights and Thornton Park have been restored quite nicely, and the work in progress along East Central back toward Rosalind effectively make the transition from low-rise single family to high-rise commercial and residential while remaining a very pleasant walking experience. Unfortunately, Mayor Bill also made a major error in the design of the O-rena by putting acres of asphalt and no real effort to link that building with Orange Avenue or Church Street or the places that people would wish to linger after a Magic game or concert. Bob Carr, which existed as part of the old fairgrounds, had the same problem.

But, that issue has been recognized and the initial vision for both the new arena and DPAC seems to include an understanding of that. It's what the people screaming for endless parking have not quite understood; I imagine those are the folks that live in the suburbs and don't quite see what a jewel we have in the making.

I live on Lake Eola, and just today walked to the Y to work out in the morning, walked over on Church St. to get a haircut a little later, and still later walked over to Johnson's restaurant on West Church St. for lunch. I didn't have to get in my car all day, and that's exactly why I came back here years ago. Decisions were made years ago, first by Walt, and later by Orange County voters in 1978 to place tourism and convention activities to the southwest. Downtown's reason for existence is not those things, they are not the economic engines for the urban core. Bob Snow's Church Street Station was the exception that proved the rule. CSS thrived as much because of the Orlando Naval Training Center and nickel beer nights for locals as much, as not more, as it did for tourists. Indeed, as soon as tourists had other alternatives in PI and CityWalk and NTC closed, and the bars along Orange Avenue came along to provide watering holes for the locals, CSS began a long, slow painful demise.

In fact, some of us are grateful that the tourists are down south while what we have an opportunity to build (and rebuild) is a very livable space with a minimum of need for the automobile. Tampa does not have that feel; Atlanta is trying to achieve it, but tore down almost everything along the North-South axis from downtown to Midtown to Buckhead before they realized what was happening.

William Whyte, one of the premier experts in urban spaces, not unlike Barton Myers ruminating about DPAC, saw that what downtown Orlando is about is livable neighborhoods and great spaces for people, not automobiles.When Whyte was first asked to take a look at downtown in the 80s, what stood out in his mind were the neighborhoods like Lake Davis and Cherokee. I think Myers is picking up on that same idea.

The height restrictions (that's not a bad thing; our mid-rise downtown only reinforces the pedestrian-friendly, livable nature of what we have), close-in bungalow neighborhoods, oak trees and even little grassy "front yards" in front of our commercial and government buildings give Orlando a very unique feel among downtowns. Think of DuPont in DC or Old Paris (both cities banished the skyscrapers to outlying areas), or, even more realistically given our past, Mayberry.

That is what is unique about downtown and what the NYTimes picked up on in its articles and why people will want to visit. The "iconic" nature of DPAC, imho, will be a facility that integrates those features, which are what Orlando was and downtown remained, into a seamless walking experience augmented by unique transit tying in all our lakes and neighborhoods from Lakes Davis to Lucerne to Eola to Ivanhoe and perhaps even Lorna Doone.

One other note - about the "visors": when Mayor Bill was trying to redo downtown in the '80s, the first round of buildings were all repetitive glass boxes with flat tops. The city council passed ordinances requiring not only "water features" to be incorporated (fountains - Mayor Bill went to Kansas City and was taken by all the fountains) to tie in with all the lakes in the area, but also required that new buildings have unique features crowning the buildings. Unfortunately, visors are a low-budget way of meeting that requirement -it was by no means what was envisioned originally, any more than the hideous means by which the 7-11s at 50 and Magnolia and Princeton and Orange skirted the rules requiring "windows" that came right up to the road to make them more pedestrian-friendly. The law of unintended consequences and design by commercial players on the cheap is how such things came to be.

Please excuse my soapbox digression on this, but as a native and longtime downtown resident it is important that there is a design element that is intrinsic to Orlando that may not be obvious on first (or even second or third) glance, but is indeed real, and that has been acknowledged by some of the most respected names in urban planning. We have something precious that many cities lost long ago, and if we work to keep it, will have a downtown that people from all over the world will want to visit.

Edited October 6, 2007 by spenser1058

[Hisma]

Orlando was very fortunate in that, when what we now regard as the unfortunate "urban renewals" of the 1950s-1970s took place, downtown was largely ignored except for I4 and the E-W being carved through. That happened in no small part to the fact that the engines of our growth were based in the suburbs and exurbs - Martin and Disney.

While that left downtown to wither, it meant there remained a pedestrian-friendly small urban core that could one day be revitalized. When the 80's rolled around, Mayor Bill Frederick took the initial steps to bring back our downtown as the public began to realize "urban renewal" wasn't all it ws cracked up to be and federal funding was allocated for revitalization.

That was why, after wandering around a lot of southern and midwestern cities in the political career of my youth, I chose to return home to Orlando because our downtown had the potential to be something places like Atlanta, Nashville and Tampa gave up due to the "tear it down" mentality of the 60's.

There was a lot of work to do, and we haven't always gotten it right. Eola Heights and Thornton Park have been restored quite nicely, and the work in progress along East Central back toward Rosalind effectively make the transition from low-rise single family to high-rise commercial and residential while remaining a very pleasant walking experience. Unfortunately, Mayor Bill also made a major error in the design of the O-rena by putting acres of asphalt and no real effort to link that building with Orange Avenue or Church Street or the places that people would wish to linger after a Magic game or concert. Bob Carr, which existed as part of the old fairgrounds, had the same problem.

But, that issue has been recognized and the initial vision for both the new arena and DPAC seems to include an understanding of that. It's what the people screaming for endless parking have not quite understood; I imagine those are the folks that live in the suburbs and don't quite see what a jewel we have in the making.

I live on Lake Eola, and just today walked to the Y to work out in the morning, walked over on Church St. to get a haircut a little later, and still later walked over to Johnson's restaurant on West Church St. for lunch. I didn't have to get in my car all day, and that's exactly why I came back here years ago. Decisions were made years ago, first by Walt, and later by Orange County voters in 1978 to place tourism and convention activities to the southwest. Downtown's reason for existence is not those things, they are not the economic engines for the urban core. Bob Snow's Church Street Station was the exception that proved the rule. CSS thrived as much because of the Orlando Naval Training Center and nickel beer nights for locals as much, as not more, as it did for tourists. Indeed, as soon as tourists had other alternatives in PI and CityWalk and NTC closed, and the bars along Orange Avenue came along to provide watering holes for the locals, CSS began a long, slow painful demise.

In fact, some of us are grateful that the tourists are down south while what we have an opportunity to build (and rebuild) is a very livable space with a minimum of need for the automobile. Tampa does not have that feel; Atlanta is trying to achieve it, but tore down almost everything along the North-South axis from downtown to Midtown to Buckhead before they realized what was happening.

William Whyte, one of the premier experts in urban spaces, not unlike Barton Myers ruminating about DPAC, saw that what downtown Orlando is about is livable neighborhoods and great spaces for people, not automobiles.When Whyte was first asked to take a look at downtown in the 80s, what stood out in his mind were the neighborhoods like Lake Davis and Cherokee. I think Myers is picking up on that same trend.

Because of the height restrictions (that's not a bad thing; our mid-rise downtown only reinforces the pedestrian-friendly, livable nature of what we have), close-in bungalow neighborhoods, oak trees and even little grassy "front yards" in front of our commercial and government buildings give Orlando a very unique feel among downtowns. Think of DuPont in DC or Old Paris (both cities banished the skyscrapers to outlying areas), or, even more realistically given our past, Mayberry.

That is what is unique about downtown and what the NYTimes picked up on in its articles and why people will want to visit. The "iconic" nature of DPAC, imho, will be a facility that integrates those features, which are what Orlando was and downtown remained, into a seamless walking experience augmented by unique transit tying in all our lakes and neighborhoods from Lakes Davis to Lucerne to Eola to Ivanhoe and perhaps even Lorna Doone.

One other note - about the "visors": when Mayor Bill was trying to redo downtown in the '80s, the first round of buildings were all repetitive glass boxes with flat tops. The city council passed ordinances requiring not only "water features" to be incorporated (fountains - Mayor Bill went to Kansas City and was taken by all the fountains) to tie in with all the lakes in the area, but also required that new buildings have unique features crowning the buildings. Unfortunately, visors are a low-budget way of meeting that requirement -it was by no means what was envisioned originally, any more than the hideous means by which the 7-11s at 50 and Magnolia and Princeton and Orange skirted the rules requiring "windows" that came right up to the road to make them more pedestrian-friendly. The law of unintended consequences and design by commercial players on the cheap is how such things came to be.

Please excuse my soapbox digression on this, but as a native and longtime downtown resident it is important that there is a design element that is intrinsic to Orlando that may not be obvious on first (or even second or third) glance, but is indeed real, and that has been acknowledged by some of the most respected names in urban planning. We have something precious that many cities lost long ago, and if we work to keep it, will have a downtown that people from all over the world will want to visit.

that was a nice, uplifting read .

I think we all realize downtown has the ability to be something special. That was it's all about... not exactly where it stands currently, but the amount of potential it has. I think that's where so many people seem to get thrown off by our "optimism." Most of us optimists understand what downtown has the ability to become, and how the proper steps are already being taken to make that potential a reality.

[RedStar25]

Spencer1058 I could kiss you..... but it will cost you... oh yes.... oh.. yes...

[spenser1058]

All those old theaters were icons in their time. They all represent current architectural thinking, and most were considered great examples of new buildings. The fact that they were so well designed and timeless is why they are still popular. And that is what you have to be careful of here. Don't confuse iconic with radical. This article does just that. It tries to split the world between radical controversial architecture (which I still think has a place) and submissive architecture. Not all iconic architecture is designed poorly. And not all radical or poorly designed architecture is iconic.

Spenser, I am not sure I really understand WHAT Orlando really wants. Every cries about how Orlando's Downtown gets so forgotten and ignored, and yet anytime someone suggests doing something about it, the first thing people do is wax poetically about how small town it is and how nice it is all parks and open space. The fact is that most popular downtowns are tourist attractions. The tourists may not be from far away, they may even live there permanently. But what makes a city an interesting place is that there is interesting stuff to do there. Can't get around that one. Do you want to be a small town? Then you are going to be forgotten. It doesn't matter either way, but you have to choose one or the other. Focus or Sprawl.

For all the talk of potential, it seems to me few people are really willing to explore any of that potential. Zoning laws don't make a city. too many zoning laws, too much consistency makes things dull and repetitive. Great neighborhoods often develop through interest and diversity. Orlando is a great example of that - so many regulations directed towards a unimaginative group of developers only breed boring boxes that lack identity. If you want to explore thepotwntial of Orlando, you have to explore the potential of it's people - the life of the city. Do you want suburban livers coming to work every day and then leaving for home the minute they get out, then build big corporate conservative boxes. Want a local neighborhood that is nice and quiet and only has a few locals there, then keep the neighborhood old fashioned and slow growth. If you want to build up excitement and an urban vibe, then get happening. If you want the party life of London or Paris, then build party places and open your laws to those establishments. It's up to you, but you have to decide what you want.

Every city makes decisions about where its growth will be, and it's hard to change those once the infrastructure accommodates those decisions. Orlando never had its major economic engine downtown because it was an agricultural hub. That means we did not have state government downtown like Atlanta or Nashville or a large financial center like Charlotte. The major educational institutions, first Rollins then UCF, went to Winter Park and east Orange, respectively (had UCF come along 15 years later, that might have been very different, but alas it wasn't so; what some of us thought was a really great idea to focus UCF's arts programs downtown in conjunction with DPAC is now a no-go as the university has decided to concentrate all of its efforts on making a "real" campus - good for UCF, not so good for downtown).

Cities like New York, Chicago and Atlanta placed their convention facilities downtown - Orange County's voters made a very different decision in 1978 (notice it was at the tail-end of the "urban renewal" period when no one was doing much to revitalize downtowns), and that's not going to change. Conventioneers want to be as close to the hall as possible, so the tall hotels will be in the International Drive area. As Disney reemphasizes its "family" brand, they are deemphasizing the adult activities at Pleasure Island. Meanwhile, the convention business recognizes it is competing with Las Vegas for conventions and you will see more adult activities along International Drive to cater to that market (notice mom and pop tourism is declining in that area in favor of higher-end hotels and activities).

What is Orlando's economy based on? Tourism - and Disney, Busch and Universal have that market covered. Conventions, and that market is based around the convention center. Technology, such as simulation and optics, are based out by UCF, along with the Martin complex on Sand Lake Road which Lockheed originally wanted to shut down but decided it was easier to just leave it in place with financial incentives from Orange County and the state. Now, hopefully, biotech with the med schools, Burnham, etc., but you'll note that none of that went downtown; for a variety of reasons, it went to Lake Nona.

Does that mean we just abandon downtown? Certainly not - it continues to be the hub of the region for government, the arts, regional finance and regional medical facilities. But it is not going to be the economic hub of the community, and trying to make it that means spending scarce resources that will never pan out. Back in the early 1980's, Nashville had an amazing debate going on because the old-timers, who had little use for country music, did not to want to brand Nashville as "Music City, USA". They wanted to continue being "The Athens of the South". Only problem was, outside of Nashville the Music City image had long since taken over in the opinionsof the rest of the world. Finally, saner heads prevailed, they decided to stop fighting something they couldn't change and never looked back.

We need to have that same "aha!" moment and realize that the basic decisions have already been made. Indeed, no one really questions those decisions in the tourism, convention, technology and biotech industries. Those of us downtown don't have to question it either - we have everything we need to be a successful downtown already; because the region is growing, downtown will grow (government, the arts and "consumer" medical facilities will all grow as the region grows). What makes us unique, and will make people want to be a part of our community and visit us, is what we already have. Build upon our strengths based on our history, our traditions and as a very pleasant place to spend some time.

Someone once observed that Walt built Disneyland to allow people to visit everything they had given up when they moved to the suburbs - pleasant, walkable spaces and lots of entertainment. Orlando's downtown was Main Street, USA - let's capitalize on that, because it is something people want (if they didn't, Celebration and Baldwin Park and all the New Urbanism would never have come in vogue). Now that doesn't mean we have to be exclusively "G" rated - if you look back at the history of Orlando and our bordellos, gambling spots, etc., you know there was an adult side of Orlando, like most towns. In fact, our local pub district on Orange Avenue, our local non-chain restaurants, etc., will only grow in conjunction with the new arena and DPAC. Those are the differences, along with the history and the sense of place that downtown has that no suburb has. And the fact that we grew so fast as a region while leaving our downtown intact gives it a unique quality other cities can envy and people will want to visit. We don't need to tear apart the very thing that makes us special- we need to build on it. Meanwhile, for those that want more of the "Vegas"-type experience, there is I-Drive. Our version of Silicon Valley will be Lake Nona, out by UCF and Seminole County. Our version of Scottsdale is Isleworth.

To sum up, we're on the right path now - not only for downtown, but for the entire region. Whatever is your lifestyle choice, central Florida has something for you.

[spenser1058]

Spencer1058 I could kiss you..... but it will cost you... oh yes.... oh.. yes...

If you ever go to the 11am service at FUMCO, you can kiss me there, and we'll give the little old ladies a thrill <_<

that was a nice, uplifting read .

I think we all realize downtown has the ability to be something special. That was it's all about... not exactly where it stands currently, but the amount of potential it has. I think that's where so many people seem to get thrown off by our "optimism." Most of us optimists understand what downtown has the ability to become, and how the proper steps are already being taken to make that potential a reality.

Thank you, sir

[RedStar25]

If you ever go to the 11am service at FUMCO, you can kiss me there, and we'll give the little old ladies a thrill <_<

Thank you, sir

Well... I Was there today you should have said hello!