Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

[Urbo]

4 hours ago, Uncommon said:

Depends on the developer. It would either be great or terrible based on the vision. I like what Vinik has envisioned for Tampa and I think it works really well. The skyline really does look a lot more dense. It’s still missing a signature building though. A 600- or 700-footer would be absolutely incredible.

Although its not directly in the water street area, I think the Riverwalk Place development will be Tampa's signature building in the future. Orlando could use a new signature high rise building, something that pushes the height limits of downtown Orlando and is architecturally striking.

 

 

[Urbo]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

that Water Street development reminds me of how they are developing Midtown ATL...in a way.  I really like it.   And I like the designs of the buildings.

Um, as to your question, I think drawing an analogy to development in downtown Orlando here and there vs a concise development like Water Street... well, CV in downtown is akin to the density of Water Street sans the 5 story apartment complex vs an apartment tower.  It creates a new quadrant of the downtown which I guess ensures that any one building is not isolated- which is good.  CV has done that as well.  Vinick in Tampa is a little like Ustler in ORL if one were to draw an analogy.

As for Eola South, that neighborhood has evolved over the past 15 years and had to survive the bust and mounted a decent recovery since then.  The Jackson and Star Tower no longer seem like they are islands back in there near Osceola Brownstones.  420 and 520 and CItiTower really brought those projects "closer" to Publix and Central and the Sanctuary/101 Eola core of places to eat.  Add also the other townhouses along Summerlin.

As for North Quarter, after Cheney Place et al at the end of the '90's, and 801 N. Orange during the boom,, NORA, Steelhouse, The Sevens, and the Residence Inn came in years later to fill in those gaps.  It took a while.

In the core, what, we had Robinson & Orange, CSP, Modera, Skyhouse, Radius, Hilton, and Society come/coming in after the bust which ended with Aspire/Dynetech.  that took a few years.

I feel like DTO suffered way more than other downtowns during the bust years and that it was literally on development life support all this time.  Miami has thrived all this time I believe b/c they really marketed the skyline and waterfront properties on the mainland- not even the beach mind you (not talking Sunny Isles), and investors have kept on developing.  I don't think DTO had that type of marketing at all, and the lure of Lake Eola Park by ratio to Miami is nowhere the lure that Miami's waterfront is to it's development zone.

At this point, I believe that the Sentinel property could become like Water Street with the right visionary.

But if you ask me what kind of development I prefer by comparison, I would say the Water Street type of development ala build it all and build it now.  How many businesses have gone out of business because they bought into a development where they were on the ground floor but had to wait for the supporting structures to get built which brought the people?   it's tragic.  At Water Street, you'll have educational, residential, office, and eateries etc., almost simultaneously.  The closest synergy to that in DTO I would say is/was Creative Village.  But online classes is a beotch for that kind of synergistic development.

I'm honestly a little disappointed with the Creative Village project. I'm glad that something is happening in that area but I feel Ustler could of created a more dense plan with taller buildings and a more interesting urban design. Don't get me wrong, I'm appreciative of the idea and that its actually being executed and the development concept of infusing education, corporate, headquarters, housing and retail is great, but the design just doesn't compete with what we are seeing in Water Street Tampa. I'm honestly more excited for the potential of The Magic Sports and Entertainment District and what it can do in bringing high quality design and a modern feel to the downtown area (if it ever happens). Its positive to see all of the additions to the area but I do think a large scale development that transform multiple city blocks in the area could really propel a new urban future for Orlando.

[Uncommon]

44 minutes ago, Urbo said:

Although its not directly in the water street area, I think the Riverwalk Place development will be Tampa's signature building in the future. Orlando could use a new signature high rise building, something that pushes the height limits of downtown Orlando and is architecturally striking.

 

 

This is an old rendering. It’s been changed a couple times since then. Now it’s under 400 feet I believe and while it looks a A LOT more distinct, I don’t think its height makes it stand out that much.

https://images.app.goo.gl/TFjXkBzzntfdwrtR6

[IAmFloridaBorn]

1 hour ago, Urbo said:

I'm honestly a little disappointed with the Creative Village project. I'm glad that something is happening in that area but I feel Ustler could of created a more dense plan with taller buildings and a more interesting urban design. Don't get me wrong, I'm appreciative of the idea and that its actually being executed and the development concept of infusing education, corporate, headquarters, housing and retail is great, but the design just doesn't compete with what we are seeing in Water Street Tampa. I'm honestly more excited for the potential of The Magic Sports and Entertainment District and what it can do in bringing high quality design and a modern feel to the downtown area (if it ever happens). Its positive to see all of the additions to the area but I do think a large scale development that transform multiple city blocks in the area could really propel a new urban future for Orlando.

There is nothing Urban about the creative village. The fact that they didn't build taller to make that area more dense and allow it to be able to work for itself in the near future is nuts to me.

 

The fact that Lake Nona is getting 16 and 17 story buildings and downtown Orlando is getting five story buildings and seven story buildings is just absolutely astounding to me. Not even so much about the height because I'll take a 15-story building a 20 story building or 30 store building. I'm not asking for some giant 900 ft tower. But all you hear is our leaders talk about Urban development and there is no Urban development downtown

Edited July 27, 2021 by IAmFloridaBorn

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

There is nothing Urban about the creative village. The fact that they didn't build taller to make that area more dense and allow it to be able to work for itself in the near future is nuts to me.

 

The fact that Lake Nona is getting 16 and 17 story buildings and downtown Orlando is getting five story buildings and seven story buildings is just absolutely astounding to me. Not even so much about the height because I'll take a 15-story building a 20 story building or 30 store building. I'm not asking for some giant 900 ft tower. But all you hear is our leaders talk about Urban development and there is no Urban development downtown

yeah. I was just looking at the Lake Nona Medical City thread and I noticed that it is more "urban" than CV thus far by a longshot.  Five story suburban apartments in CV to me is a joke.

this goes back to my comment before...in that...I've felt like downtown has been on development "life support."  It is getting just the basic type of development and no big money developments.

I wonder whether City Hall even cares.  I think they see what's been built in Medical City and they're like...well, we're getting revenue from this way out there and more things are being built all the time...so what if Ustler builds a four story apartment building in CV...we make up for it with The Wave (for example).

[jrs2]

4 hours ago, Urbo said:

I'm honestly a little disappointed with the Creative Village project. I'm glad that something is happening in that area but I feel Ustler could of created a more dense plan with taller buildings and a more interesting urban design. Don't get me wrong, I'm appreciative of the idea and that its actually being executed and the development concept of infusing education, corporate, headquarters, housing and retail is great, but the design just doesn't compete with what we are seeing in Water Street Tampa. I'm honestly more excited for the potential of The Magic Sports and Entertainment District and what it can do in bringing high quality design and a modern feel to the downtown area (if it ever happens). Its positive to see all of the additions to the area but I do think a large scale development that transform multiple city blocks in the area could really propel a new urban future for Orlando.

it is quickly turning into a lot less than what the vision called for.  they started "big" with Union West and Julian after the Amelia Court question mark, but fell backwards with a very small offering from Modera and an even smaller building for EA which is just ridiculously small.  Is our economy that bad that they can't build a 10 story office building for EA and lease out the remaining floors as needed?  

Creative Village collectively does not have the deep pockets that I thought it had at one point.  Too bad they couldn't get Advent or ORHS or both to contribute something tall there like they're doing on their main campuses.

I get Amelia Court.  But I am more disappointed in the Modera project, but I think the type of project that it is caters to the type of industry in that project, namely, education.

They just didn't get the "bites" i don't think they envisioned at the onset from companies interested in opening up shop there, but were lucky to get EA and just settled at that.

[Urbo]

2 hours ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

There is nothing Urban about the creative village. The fact that they didn't build taller to make that area more dense and allow it to be able to work for itself in the near future is nuts to me.

 

The fact that Lake Nona is getting 16 and 17 story buildings and downtown Orlando is getting five story buildings and seven story buildings is just absolutely astounding to me. Not even so much about the height because I'll take a 15-story building a 20 story building or 30 store building. I'm not asking for some giant 900 ft tower. But all you hear is our leaders talk about Urban development and there is no Urban development downtown

Yes I couldn't agree more, there is no true sense of urban development in Downtown Orlando. What makes it worst is that there is no alternative place for urban development to go. In cities like Atlanta or Miami, when their downtown lagged in urban development, there were other places adjacent to the CBD that could pick up the slack in contributing to the cities urban progress. Atlanta's downtown is still lagging in my opinion but Midtown Atlanta is making up for that. And although Downtown Miami has been picking up steam over the past decade, when its downtown was a desolate sea of parking lots, Brickell thrived in its urban development. There is just not a place in the core city of Orlando where the development momentum warrants large corporate relocations to bring employees looking for the "urban lifestyle" of live, work and play. I know a lot of urbanist here are not fans of Lake Nona, but you cannot deny the fact that there is a bunch of development momentum that gets people and businesses excited about what is to come. And they can expect that Tavistock as a developer will deliver high quality design and forward thinking projects. I suggest the city implement a form-base code that focuses on increased design standards, and new planning policies that incentivizes density and height increases. I know its easier said than done, but change has to start from somewhere.

[jrs2]

17 hours ago, Urbo said:

Yes I couldn't agree more, there is no true sense of urban development in Downtown Orlando. What makes it worst is that there is no alternative place for urban development to go. In cities like Atlanta or Miami, when their downtown lagged in urban development, there were other places adjacent to the CBD that could pick up the slack in contributing to the cities urban progress. Atlanta's downtown is still lagging in my opinion but Midtown Atlanta is making up for that. And although Downtown Miami has been picking up steam over the past decade, when its downtown was a desolate sea of parking lots, Brickell thrived in its urban development. There is just not a place in the core city of Orlando where the development momentum warrants large corporate relocations to bring employees looking for the "urban lifestyle" of live, work and play. I know a lot of urbanist here are not fans of Lake Nona, but you cannot deny the fact that there is a bunch of development momentum that gets people and businesses excited about what is to come. And they can expect that Tavistock as a developer will deliver high quality design and forward thinking projects. I suggest the city implement a form-base code that focuses on increased design standards, and new planning policies that incentivizes density and height increases. I know its easier said than done, but change has to start from somewhere.

I thought that bringing Publix here during the boom, and later DGX, Walgreens (no pharmacy though) and even the Earthfare at Gore would be big catalysts to attract more residents.  I mean...maybe in the future?  We have had  new Dunkins' downtown (Union West & Central Sta) and Starbucks (Hilton dual brand), the Foxtail Coffee at CSP, and new nightlife bars in the core and CSP.

In Miami, they talked about how the "new"  Whole Foods in the CBD would be huge.  Well, that Whole Foods is part of the development that has the Wells Fargo bldg and Marriott Marquis; Whole Foods is an afterthought to that glorious development.

I mean, DTO has a presence here with offices for big companies like TD Mortgage, Fifth Third, Suntrust, BOA, FBC Home Loans, Natl City, Regions, Seacoast, Chase, Red Lobster, etc...  DTO used to have Traveler's Ins.  Losing them to Baldwin was bad because it was an insurance company.  

I think CitiTower, 420 and 520 are adding to the urban fabric with residential and retail in Eola South.  All of those projects are probably a result of the Publix entering the market back in 2008ish and creating neighborhood synergy on some level.  

Maybe DTO is still way too under developed and that's why City Hall is like...just build something...to get the density up such as it is.  I mean before the boom, Waverly, Lincoln at Delaney were the only recent high density developments in downtown.  Before that, that most recent residential building built was either the Park Lake Tower or the towers at Central and Eola. 

Think about it...virtually nothing built to show a demand for it in 1997, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, or prior back to those two towers I mentioned.  That is a HUGE gap of nothing being built residential downtown.  Man.  If the book buildings forward were built in downtown back between 1984-1997, by today, DTO would have been three times as dense and I guaranty you many more companies would have moved downtown and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I mean, there is no reason why a building like The Waverly should have gone up in like 1998 and not  fifteen years before; Lake Eola was always a desirable place to be.  

It's too bad, really, that all that time during those eras was wasted and downtown didn't begin the transformation back then, back when DuPont started dumping money at Livingston & Orange.

Spenser, any thoughts?

[jack]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

Think about it...virtually nothing built to show a demand for it in 1997, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, or prior back to those two towers I mentioned.  That is a HUGE gap of nothing being built residential downtown.  Man.  If the book buildings forward were built in downtown back between 1984-1997, by today, DTO would have been three times as dense and I guaranty you many more companies would have moved downtown and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I mean, there is no reason why a building like The Waverly should have gone up in like 1998 and not  fifteen years before; Lake Eola was always a desirable place to be.  

It's too bad, really, that all that time during those eras was wasted and downtown didn't begin the transformation back then, back when DuPont started dumping money at Livingston & Orange.

Spenser, any thoughts?

Lake Eola was rough back in the 80's before the community came together and cleaned it up. Same with Thornton Park and Eola Heights. Frankly, it is surprising 530, Reeves Terrace and Park Lake Towers were built back then. 

If it makes you feel better, this is the biggest residential boom in DTO's history. 

[FLClarkKent]

I wouldn't underestimate the ongoing impact of COVID, either. The pandemic has disrupted how many corporate entities operate (i.e., larger remote workforce), which in turn impacts supporting businesses (restaurants, bars, etc.). It's also been disruptive to public entities (UCV/Valencia using remote learning, courts not fully up and running, etc.). And for a triple whammy, events are at a near standstill (and that's the lifeblood for a lot of the Church Street biz).

 

[IAmFloridaBorn]

41 minutes ago, FLClarkKent said:

I wouldn't underestimate the ongoing impact of COVID, either. The pandemic has disrupted how many corporate entities operate (i.e., larger remote workforce), which in turn impacts supporting businesses (restaurants, bars, etc.). It's also been disruptive to public entities (UCV/Valencia using remote learning, courts not fully up and running, etc.). And for a triple whammy, events are at a near standstill (and that's the lifeblood for a lot of the Church Street biz).

 

Was just thinking about this. COVID has put downtown Orlando  on life support for economic growth. We won't see any new buildings get off the ground that weren't already approved unless something drastically changes in the numbers with employment.

[JFW657]

3 hours ago, jack said:

Lake Eola was rough back in the 80's before the community came together and cleaned it up. Same with Thornton Park and Eola Heights. Frankly, it is surprising 530, Reeves Terrace and Park Lake Towers were built back then. 

If it makes you feel better, this is the biggest residential boom in DTO's history. 

Lake Eola wasn't that bad. Maybe it was a bit worse during the early 80's up until around '84 or so.

It was around '84 - '85 that they closed it off, tore up and widened the sidewalks, tore down the old fountain pump house, put in the concourse or whatever it's called along Central and then finally, demo'd and rebuilt the bandshell. I think that was also around the time they put in the restrooms and the kids' play area.

So by around '86 or so, Eola Park was essentially cleaned up and respectable. 

[spenser1058]

17 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Lake Eola wasn't that bad. Maybe it was a bit worse during the early 80's up until around '84 or so.

It was around '84 - '85 that they closed it off, tore up and widened the sidewalks, tore down the old fountain pump house, put in the concourse or whatever it's called along Central and then finally, demo'd and rebuilt the bandshell. I think that was also around the time they put in the restrooms and the kids' play area.

So by around '86 or so, Eola Park was essentially cleaned up and respectable. 

Actually, you’re speeding ahead a tad. The redo of Eola Park was completed for the 30th anniversary of the fountain (1987). It had a grand rededication ceremony complete with complimentary programs and it was a must-do event for the “Downtown Crowd” as the Guetzloe minions and far left Dems (there weren’t many of those in town at the time - they stood out like a pink rhinoceros at the zoo) liked to mockingly refer to us.

We had no problem wearing the title, though, as downtown was on its way back and the big difference between then and now is that there was a vision for what we could do, whereas today it’s just a matter of selling out to the highest bidder and to heck with whether or not it makes the city look better. Hence, we got an arena that was almost classical in appearance. Compare that with the latter-day version the DeVoses designed that looks like a second-rate Walmart. Of course, all they cared about was maximizing their profits.

[bqknight]

Has anyone here actually been to Lake Nona? It is in no way urban. 

[prahaboheme]

On 7/28/2021 at 11:14 AM, jrs2 said:

I thought that bringing Publix here during the boom, and later DGX, Walgreens (no pharmacy though) and even the Earthfare at Gore would be big catalysts to attract more residents.  I mean...maybe in the future?  We have had  new Dunkins' downtown (Union West & Central Sta) and Starbucks (Hilton dual brand), the Foxtail Coffee at CSP, and new nightlife bars in the core and CSP.

In Miami, they talked about how the "new"  Whole Foods in the CBD would be huge.  Well, that Whole Foods is part of the development that has the Wells Fargo bldg and Marriott Marquis; Whole Foods is an afterthought to that glorious development.

I mean, DTO has a presence here with offices for big companies like TD Mortgage, Fifth Third, Suntrust, BOA, FBC Home Loans, Natl City, Regions, Seacoast, Chase, Red Lobster, etc...  DTO used to have Traveler's Ins.  Losing them to Baldwin was bad because it was an insurance company.  

I think CitiTower, 420 and 520 are adding to the urban fabric with residential and retail in Eola South.  All of those projects are probably a result of the Publix entering the market back in 2008ish and creating neighborhood synergy on some level.  

Maybe DTO is still way too under developed and that's why City Hall is like...just build something...to get the density up such as it is.  I mean before the boom, Waverly, Lincoln at Delaney were the only recent high density developments in downtown.  Before that, that most recent residential building built was either the Park Lake Tower or the towers at Central and Eola. 

Think about it...virtually nothing built to show a demand for it in 1997, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, or prior back to those two towers I mentioned.  That is a HUGE gap of nothing being built residential downtown.  Man.  If the book buildings forward were built in downtown back between 1984-1997, by today, DTO would have been three times as dense and I guaranty you many more companies would have moved downtown and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I mean, there is no reason why a building like The Waverly should have gone up in like 1998 and not  fifteen years before; Lake Eola was always a desirable place to be.  

It's too bad, really, that all that time during those eras was wasted and downtown didn't begin the transformation back then, back when DuPont started dumping money at Livingston & Orange.

Spenser, any thoughts?

Publix is at the brink of max occupancy on most weekends and very busy during the week.    It's certainly an recipient of both residents and visitors to South Eola neighborhood.  An attraction?  I'm not sure most supermarkets are typically considered attractions aside from maybe Dean & Deluca.

[Urbo]

1 hour ago, bqknight said:

Has anyone here actually been to Lake Nona? It is in no way urban. 

Yes, but can you explain what makes a place urban? One could argue Orlando is no way urban but that is just not a fair statement (just as stating Lake Nona is no way urban).

[AndyPok1]

This is an ad-nauseum argument in here.  Orlando's DT is a restaurant/bar/event/residential downtown.  With the additions of the residential buildings and the lower amount of office workers, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more people living than working in DT.  And I'll take that over the opposite every damn day.  CBDs where every restaurant closes by 3PM and is a ghost town by 6 is miserable.

[IAmFloridaBorn]

5 minutes ago, Urbo said:

Yes, but can you explain what makes a place urban? One could argue Orlando is no way urban but that is just not a fair statement (just as stating Lake Nona is no way urban).

What? You want them to explain what makes a place Urban on Urban Planet ? 

[Urbo]

2 minutes ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

What? You want them to explain what makes a place Urban on Urban Planet ? 

To say that a place that clearly exhibits principles of urbanism, isn't urban i think warrants an explanation of what one considers urban (or maybe the comment was just meant to take a jab, but I saw it as a conversation started). It seems that some people believe urban is all about a geographical location or tall buildings. Which  just doesn't make sense. A place that has a mixed of uses, a variety in housing choices, walkable, multi-modal, a connected street layout, increased density, and quality design can be characterized as urban, and Lake Nona has all of those characteristics. The District of Columbia has no high rise buildings in the District and it is one of the most urban places in the world. There are countless towns and villages geographically located outside the city center of London that are urban. I understand that development may not be to our liking or personal preference but to rule it out as Not urban at all just isn't fair.

The way the some people who may live in Downtown Orlando look at Lake Nona as not being urban, is the same way that some people living in New York, D.C. Boston, or Philly could look at Orlando as not being urban which is just unfair. The beauty of Urbanism/urban places is that it takes many different shapes and form. There is no one way for a place to be urban.

[SantiStark]

Lake Nona? She may have been born in the cow fields by a rather unimpressive lake, but she's *Slaps Beep Vehicle* as Urban as they come.

[IAmFloridaBorn]

8 minutes ago, Urbo said:

To say that a place that clearly exhibits principles of urbanism, isn't urban i think warrants an explanation of what one considers urban (or maybe the comment was just meant to take a jab, but I saw it as a conversation started). It seems that some people believe urban is all about a geographical location or tall buildings. Which  just doesn't make sense. A place that has a mixed of uses, a variety in housing choices, walkable, multi-modal, a connected street layout, increased density, and quality design can be characterized as urban, and Lake Nona has all of those characteristics. The District of Columbia has no high rise buildings in the District and it is one of the most urban places in the world. There are countless towns and villages geographically located outside the city center of London that are urban. I understand that development may not be to our liking or personal preference but to rule it out as Not urban at all just isn't fair.

The way the some people who may live in Downtown Orlando look at Lake Nona as not being urban, is the same way that some people living in New York, D.C. Boston, or Philly could look at Orlando as not being urban which is just unfair. The beauty of Urbanism/urban places is that it takes many different shapes and form. There is no one way for a place to be urban.

Understandable. I will say one's idea of urban is subjective and that's okay. What you just explained as urban from city to city is exactly what I mean. If tall buildings in a central location offering multiple services and products for thousands at any given time  isn't urban to one than neither is a small village offering the same to a smaller amount of residents. 

 

You see it's just subjective. Lake Nona to someone from Orlando like myself is far from Urban. Orlando had a chance to get it right and still can't.  Urbanization should focus around the effectiveness of getting people to interact with what's available  at the minimal usage of vehicles as a primary option and Lake Nona doesn't do that in my opinion.  But how you explained yours is a difference in what we deem as urban. I thought the comment was a jab and a good one that truthfully shoes the lack of concern for  land use efficiency in Orlando city limits. 

[Urbo]

4 minutes ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

Understandable. I will say one's idea of urban is subjective and that's okay. What you just explained as urban from city to city is exactly what I mean. If tall buildings in a central location offering multiple services and products for thousands at any given time  isn't urban to one than neither is a small village offering the same to a smaller amount of residents. 

 

You see it's just subjective. Lake Nona to someone from Orlando like myself is far from Urban. Orlando had a chance to get it right and still can't.  Urbanization should focus around the effectiveness of getting people to interact with what's available  at the minimal usage of vehicles as a primary option and Lake Nona doesn't do that in my opinion.  But how you explained yours is a difference in what we deem as urban. I thought the comment was a jab and a good one that truthfully shoes the lack of concern for  land use efficiency in Orlando city limits. 

Great points. I agree, and would say "Good Urbanism" is subjective. Let it be known, if we were to be having a general conversation about urban places and urbanization in America or the world, Lake Nona would never come up (and likely not Orlando either). But in regards to Central Florida its my belief that Lake Nona will do more good than harm in the long term. At some point it will force the city to think about expanding rail towards the area and Tavistock is already making efforts to increase height limits (currently looking to increase height limits to 30 stories in some areas) and they have land use categories of Urban Transit within their master plan to keep them focused on mobility. Its just the beginning. Just as there was a point in time in the not so distant past that SunRail didn't exist urbanization has to start from somewhere. Change can happen fast and I think many people will be surprised over the next decade.

I use to have similar sentiments about Orlando that people have of Lake Nona not being urban, especially after living in places like Miami, Atlanta and D.C. but I've learned to appreciate the urban environments that Orlando has to offer even if they aren't to my specific taste. I'm rooting for the growth of the core of Orlando just as much as I root for growth and development of Lake Nona because it all feeds into the progress of the city as a whole. I'm under the belief that different strategies and accomplish the same goal. But yes in a perfect work, all growth would start and continue from the core, but realistically that's just not possible at times as Business and Politics always will trump urban theory.

[jack]

Lake Nona is more than the town center. Most if it is just standard subdivisions. The town center is urban. 

[aent]

23 minutes ago, IAmFloridaBorn said:

Understandable. I will say one's idea of urban is subjective and that's okay. What you just explained as urban from city to city is exactly what I mean. If tall buildings in a central location offering multiple services and products for thousands at any given time  isn't urban to one than neither is a small village offering the same to a smaller amount of residents. 

 

You see it's just subjective. Lake Nona to someone from Orlando like myself is far from Urban. Orlando had a chance to get it right and still can't.  Urbanization should focus around the effectiveness of getting people to interact with what's available  at the minimal usage of vehicles as a primary option and Lake Nona doesn't do that in my opinion.  But how you explained yours is a difference in what we deem as urban. I thought the comment was a jab and a good one that truthfully shoes the lack of concern for  land use efficiency in Orlando city limits. 

The part that gets me is I see people saying areas like Deland, Winter Park, Winter Garden, etc are urban, while Lake Nona is not. While I don't know if enough of Lake Nona's "downtown" is complete enough yet for me to call it urban, it seems to me that it is just so obviously on its way there... If you want to say the only part of Central Florida that is urban is downtown Orlando, fine, but if you're saying other regions in Central Florida are urban too.... I don't see how you could leave Lake Nona out, or at the very least not recognize its well on its way to being as urban as these other locations...

[bqknight]

You all think Lake Nona is walkable? What? Am I missing something? The vast majority of people who like in Lake Nona live in subdivisions that are only accessible by cars and expressways.