Downtown Orlando Project Discussion

[tennis32801]

Kinda plain design and short for such a postcard location. I guess its better than what's currently there. What are the modifications compared to the original design?

[prahaboheme]

^Twice as many rooms in the original proposal, double the floors.

[klstorey]

^Twice as many rooms in the original proposal, double the floors.

A taller building would be nice for the skyline but with the lack of activity lately this is still nice. Plus with the rendering that includes St George beside it the newer building actually makes St George look nice. Anything much taller would take away from this local gem.

[bic]

If this were a proposal for just about any other site in Downtown Orlando I'd have no problem with it but this really is a fantastic location so it's a shame to see such a site almost go to waste. It'll fit in well though and it's nice to see a new hotel proposal come along.

[spenser1058]

If this were a proposal for just about any other site in Downtown Orlando I'd have no problem with it but this really is a fantastic location so it's a shame to see such a site almost go to waste. It'll fit in well though and it's nice to see a new hotel proposal come along.

I know I'm going to get in trouble with this group and please don't flame me because I'm not trying to be controversial so much as just wondering if the nature of the community dictates what it gets. For example, who built the two tallest buildings downtown? Two local banks that have either been merged into non-Orlando based entities (SunTrust) and The First, FA (long since gone along with its Kentucky developer, Bill DuPont). The county courthouse was deliberately built shorter than DuPont Centre (now BoA) so as not to offend the business community. The VUE (which is apparently 2' shorter than BoA according to a quick Google), along with 55W seemed to herald a return to taller buildings, but of course we now know their construction was part of a bubble that probably won't be replicated anytime soon.

That leaves the question of who else would finance such tall buildings in the future? Most of the businesses we seem to attract prefer the low-rise campuses (remember, EA could have chosen to come downtown when they got here but they went to Maitland Center and have resisted all attempts to bring them downtown for a number of reasons. Burnham could have chosen where they wanted to go and they were perfectly content to accept what Tavistock offered - nary a peep was ever heard about "we want a downtown skyscraper!" and given the way we were falling over ourselves to lure them, they easily could have done so (same with the larger Scripps deal in PBC.)

Tall buildings in regional cities are often a function of locally-based firms and their founders' egos. It's interesting that neither Hughes Supply (again merged and moved to Atlanta, just like SunTrust) nor Darden had any desire to go tall when they built new corporate HQ's.

Insurance companies have gone through huge consolidation and, after American General bought up the larger companies in Jacksonville and its CEO was begged not to move out of the downtown towers, noted that such frills were wasteful and all he needed was modem and a telephone anywhere to do business.

So who does that leave in our case to build these behemoths? Orange County chose to take CNL's hand-me-downs rather than expand vertically when the OCAC reached capacity. Orlando City Hall was specifically designed to take over the CNL towers over a long period of time for the City's expansion. No doubt FL Hospital and ORHS will continue to build up as they have space constraints.

There is no one more bullish on downtown Orlando than I am but I wonder if we would be better served to concentrate, via the codes, on higher quality low- to mid-rise buildings than cheap verticals. Is our best destiny downtown a high-quality Dupont Circle/Old Paris approach, or should we continue to think our low-budget Manhattanization will ever work given the fact we don't have the land constraints the most successful vertical cities have? Also, which decision is best in keeping with the nature of who we are as a community? "To thine ownself be true" - are we satisfied that's what we're doing in building our best downtown?

Edited April 27, 2011 by spenser1058

[cwetteland]

I know I'm going to get in trouble with this group and please don't flame me because I'm not trying to be controversial so much as just wondering if the nature of the community dictates what it gets. For example, who built the two tallest buildings downtown? Two local banks that have either been merged into non-Orlando based entities (SunTrust) and The First, FA (long since gone along with its Kentucky developer, Bill DuPont). The county courthouse was deliberately built shorter than DuPont Centre (now BoA) so as not to offend the business community. The VUE (which is apparently 2' shorter than BoA according to a quick Google), along with 55W seemed to herald a return to taller buildings, but of course we now know their construction was part of a bubble that probably won't be replicated anytime soon.

That leaves the question of who else would finance such tall buildings in the future? Most of the businesses we seem to attract prefer the low-rise campuses (remember, EA could have chosen to come downtown when they got here but they went to Maitland Center and have resisted all attempts to bring them downtown for a number of reasons. Burnham could have chosen where they wanted to go and they were perfectly content to accept what Tavistock offered - nary a peep was ever heard about "we want a downtown skyscraper!" and given the way we were falling over ourselves to lure them, they easily could have done so (same with the larger Scripps deal in PBC.)

Tall buildings in regional cities are often a function of locally-based firms and their founders' egos. It's interesting that neither Hughes Supply (again merged and moved to Atlanta, just like SunTrust) nor Darden had any desire to go tall when they built new corporate HQ's.

Insurance companies have gone through huge consolidation and, after American General bought up the larger companies in Jacksonville and its CEO was begged not to move out of the downtown towers, noted that such frills were wasteful and all he needed was modem and a telephone anywhere to do business.

So who does that leave in our case to build these behemoths? Orange County chose to take CNL's hand-me-downs rather than expand vertically when the OCAC reached capacity. Orlando City Hall was specifically designed to take over the CNL towers over a long period of time for the City's expansion. No doubt FL Hospital and ORHS will continue to build up as they have space constraints.

There is no one more bullish on downtown Orlando than I am but I wonder if we would be better served to concentrate, via the codes, on higher quality low- to mid-rise buildings than cheap verticals. Is our best destiny downtown a high-quality Dupont Circle/Old Paris approach, or should we continue to think our low-budget Manhattanization will ever work given the fact we don't have the land constraints the most successful vertical cities have? Also, which decision is best in keeping with the nature of who we are as a community? "To thine ownself be true" - are we satisfied that's what we're doing in building our best downtown?

No flame from me. I think your post is spot on. In fact, it's possible that if we start quality low-mid-rise (a la D.C.) the high-rises might become the out-of-place eye sores.

Edited April 27, 2011 by cwetteland

[prahaboheme]

Spenser, great post. I agree point for point. Quality construction and pedestrian oriented development is all that matters in the long-term. If we could replicate even half the density of DC or Madrid(other cities without land constraints or boundaries), we'd be all set. In most cities save New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and a few others, the most successful urban environments tend to be the low/midrise cores (the Back Bay, Dupont, French Quarter, South Beach, the Battery, Savannah, Hollywood, all of Europe, etc).

Downtown's most successful projects recently have been low to mid rise infill developments such as the South Eola condos and Thornton Park Central. I'd like to see a dozen more of these developments break ground over the next several years. They add vibrancy and variety to the streetscape and tend to have a characteristically contextual feel to them, an "Orlando aesthetic" if you will, that modern (and cheap in Orlando's case)skyscrapers lack.

I would say that Orlando's biggest success story is Central Ave, which in a decade's time evolved into a true urban stretch from Orange to Summerlin with the exception of the parking lot at Rosalind that was to be Tradition Towers. When this lot is developed, any other infill on Central is just gravy.

[solaricfission]

Just a listing by what Emporis lists

01. SunTrust Center

134 m 1988

02. The Peabody Orlando Ex..

130 m 2010

03. The Vue at Lake Eola

130 m 2007

04. Orange County Courthou..

127 m 1997

05. Bank of America Center

123 m 1988

06. SkyTower

122 m 1973

07. 55 West on the Esplana..

115 m 2008

08. Solaire at the Plaza

109 m 2006

09. Dynetech Centre

109 m 2008

10. Orlando International ..

105 m 2002

The county courthouse was deliberately built shorter than DuPont Centre (now BoA) so as not to offend the business community. The VUE (which is apparently 2' shorter than BoA according to a quick Google),

^

{sodEmoji.|}

{sodEmoji.|}

?

Edited April 27, 2011 by solaricfission

[spenser1058]

Just a listing by what Emporis lists

01. SunTrust Center

134 m 1988

02. The Peabody Orlando Ex..

130 m 2010

03. The Vue at Lake Eola

130 m 2007

04. Orange County Courthou..

127 m 1997

05. Bank of America Center

123 m 1988

06. SkyTower

122 m 1973

07. 55 West on the Esplana..

115 m 2008

08. Solaire at the Plaza

109 m 2006

09. Dynetech Centre

109 m 2008

10. Orlando International ..

105 m 2002

The county courthouse was deliberately built shorter than DuPont Centre (now BoA) so as not to offend the business community. The VUE (which is apparently 2' shorter than BoA according to a quick Google),

^

{sodEmoji.|}

{sodEmoji.|}

?

Thank you for the correction, that was my error. OCC was built to be shorter than SunTrust so as not to be the tallest building downtown. The dynamics of OC politics and its culture are that the hotels out on I-Drive are not part of the equation. For example, (unless something recently has topped it) Marriott Orlando World Center had the crown for a bit, certainly in 1986 upon opening, and yet it is almost never mentioned.

That also brings up a valid point - had the voters of Orange County decided to place OCCC downtown in 1978 (it was one of the choices), we would very likely have a number of hotel towers downtown; indeed, there would very possibly be more significant retail downtown to service those folks. It's another one of the decisions the community made that ended up having long-term consequences for everyone.

In case anyone has the thought I want to restrict building height, please know that's not the case. (Edward Glaeser makes a compelling case for height in his book, "Triumph of the City," and even dares to take on Jane Jacobs in a great discussion.) It's more a matter of, in the case of the downtown core, recognizing our strengths vs. our weaknesses and capitalizing on them.

[jack]

No qualms from me. I think highrises only make sense when it makes economic sense. We have too much vacant land to build mega stuctures. When we start running out of land, it is time to move on to more BOA's and Suntrust sized buildings. For now, 5-8 stories makes more sense.

[nite owℓ]

Looks like that lot on Pine & Orange is getting a building. If the sign is accurate, we should see them breaking ground very soon.

This is a good infill project, in my opinion:

HPB minutes on the Orange Ave /Pine St project is posted.

Not sure how tall this thing will be in relation to the buildings next door, but the lack of windows in the alleyways facing west & north could be a mistake IMO (considering the need to modify the Kres building by adding windows). Just saying they should add windows that extend above the alleyway instead of building a big blank wall.

Edited May 4, 2011 by LDG

[John Hargrove]

Good catch. I've extracted some of the pictures from the PDF for those interested:

Other Views:

View from Orange Ave: http://fortheloot.com/public/pictures/pine-and-orange/002.png

View from Pine Ave: http://fortheloot.com/public/pictures/pine-and-orange/003.png

View from the alley: http://fortheloot.com/public/pictures/pine-and-orange/004.png

View showing relative height of this new development to existing buildings near it: http://fortheloot.com/public/pictures/pine-and-orange/005.png

Looks like the existing adjacent structures are 38 feet tall, and this new building will be 63 feet tall. It will blend in nicely I think. This intersection will look really nice with that lot finally built up.

Side note: the building to the north is 123 years old, and the one to the west is 106 years old. The previous structure at this site, which was destroyed by a fire in 2005, would have been 125 years old this year.

[cwetteland]

HPB minutes on the Orange Ave /Pine St project is posted.

Not sure how tall this thing will be in relation to the buildings next door, but the lack of windows in the alleyways facing west & north could be a mistake IMO (considering the need to modify the Kres building by adding windows). Just saying they should add windows that extend above the alleyway instead of building a big blank wall.

There is no alleyway to the north. It is flush (brick-to-brick) with the adjacent building. If this had residences or offices then windows on the top floor would provide some light and a view of the roofs of the surrounding buildings. Since the proposed use is for entertainment, club, lounge, windows in those locations would be of little benefit.

[alex]

Thanks for the pics! I'm liking the design more and more. Pine Street is my favorite street in Orlando; I think Central, Pine, and Church are the most urban (and attractive) streets in Orlando today. This look and feel definitely needs to spread around town.

[bulldogger]

I wonder if they already have a restaurant/lounge/night club concept in mind for the rooftop sky deck.

[prahaboheme]

I like this project a lot more now that we've seen the details. The sky deck is going to be a really nice touch, and have great views over Orange. I do hope its restaurant style dining and bar (aka not another Chillers). This is also a small lot, so the small touches like the window treatments, will go far. The sidewalk awning is also an important feature for sun/weather protection. I wish all our downtown buildings included awnings, balconies, overhangs.

Edit: Did anyone else catch this:

"The submitted plans show a potential build out of several bar areas, seating areas, a 3rd floor lounge mezzanine, rooftop deck, and multi-story acrylic slide that runs from the rooftop deck to the ground floor."

I'm quite curious as to the tenant of a building with a multi-story acrylic slide. Do they already have a tenant lined up?

Edited May 4, 2011 by prahaboheme

[klstorey]

Just saw this on the Public Works Projects Out to Bid site...

"new performance space tenant build-out to be located on the second floor of 54 W Church St. The facility will be approximately 9,000 SF of tenant space. The facility will contain a retail/box-office area, a pre-function area, restroom facilities for the theatre patrons, a main theatre that will provide approximately 175 seats, a flexible black box theatre that will provide up to 75 additional seats with all necessary back of house facilities to support operation and production of the theatre."

Anyone know anything more about this, like who it is? Is this really the right spot for another art space? I wish businesses would venture off the safe zone of Church Street and into some of the other great areas around downtown. I suspect there are probably even better spaces with cheaper rent if businesses were willing to look outside the box.

Is it me or is downtown becoming saturated with black box theaters? This one, the one that's going in the Renaissance at Carver Square (is that building even in the pipeline anymore?), the one that will be in the Arts Center (again if it ever gets built). If all these projects are realized downtown will have a more vibrant than ever Performance arts scene.

[FLClarkKent]

Just saw this on the Public Works Projects Out to Bid site...

"new performance space tenant build-out to be located on the second floor of 54 W Church St. The facility will be approximately 9,000 SF of tenant space. The facility will contain a retail/box-office area, a pre-function area, restroom facilities for the theatre patrons, a main theatre that will provide approximately 175 seats, a flexible black box theatre that will provide up to 75 additional seats with all necessary back of house facilities to support operation and production of the theatre."

Anyone know anything more about this, like who it is? Is this really the right spot for another art space? I wish businesses would venture off the safe zone of Church Street and into some of the other great areas around downtown. I suspect there are probably even better spaces with cheaper rent if businesses were willing to look outside the box.

Is it me or is downtown becoming saturated with black box theaters? This one, the one that's going in the Renaissance at Carver Square (is that building even in the pipeline anymore?), the one that will be in the Arts Center (again if it ever gets built). If all these projects are realized downtown will have a more vibrant than ever Performance arts scene.

I think this might be Mad Cow. If memory serves, I recall reading they were moving to a new location on Church.

[bulldogger]

And I think that was part of the contract for 55W to get some incentive funding or a tax break by the city.

[bic]

Chico's Dirty Tacos Coming Downtown

[John Hargrove]

Looks like this Pine & Orange thing is going to happen. Some activity on the foundation there today. Not sure what they're doing though ... Those two netted areas farthest away from the camera are two squares they cut into the existing foundation ... and on the near side, they've cut away all of the foundation adjacent to the Midnite Pizza building. Seems to me if they were building a new structure they'd just destroy all of the foundation in one fell swoop.

Anyone know why they'd do this?

[nite owℓ]

MyfoxOrlando reports: A $20 million-dollar pedestrian bridge is being planned to span Lake Ivanhoe alongside Interstate 4. However, the project is currently on hold.

View designs

Project website: http://i4pedbridge.com

[bic]

Money no object? Sure, why not...it'd look nice and give the city a new landmark.

But give me a break! We can't get a rail line or performing arts center to be built in this city and we're talking about spending $20 million on a PEDESTRIAN bridge across a lake that already has a major highway crossing it at the same location?! C'MON MAN! Not to mention the design proposals look like leftover renderings from the HSR plans...

[prahaboheme]

Not to mention that this location is hardly landmark quality. If they are going to spend $20 million, spend it where people will see it.

[klstorey]

This pedestrian bridge has been planned for years now. It would be really nice to have a large circle walking trail here, such as what they have with against the south side of the 408 bridge over Lake Underhill. Ivanhoe is a up and coming district in Orlando and actually I would have to disagree as I think this is location is landmark quality due to it being the welcoming park to the downtown area from Ivanhoe Village, College Park, and the Health Village. This drive on Orange into downtown from these districts is beautiful. This park is already used a lot and a pedestrian bridge would make this area even more accessible.

That being said I do think 20million is a bit much, could they work the FDOT on the I-4 remodel and just attach it to that as they did with the Lake Underhill 408 bridge? I must admit though that these renderings do show some nice bridges that would become instant icons for this area.