Other Metro Area Projects

[JRS1]

Personally, I think the Wellesly was a big plus for College Park. As for WP, I am a resident and want the Carlysle. I also want that piece of crap Amtrak station torn down and built back up new and larger. Park Place was a good start. The Carlysle will be a good complement to NY Ave. and the park. I don't particularly care for sunsets, being that I'm not that big a fan of the sun. $.02

[kjsimons]

One need not look further than College Park to see what an overscaled, out of context hulk can do to an otherwise quaint area.

Um, perhaps revitalize it? The block that it was on had a gas station and a Suntrust bank. Two thirds of the banks property was parking and like 5-6 drive through lanes. The Wellesly is a BIG improvement.

[prahaboheme]

I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps from the outside, particularly from the outside, it appears to be a class issue, but no one I spoke to on the issue sees it that way.

69 high end condo units in a city of 25,000 people will not dilute WP's exclusivity. No one motivated to participate in the political process over this issue believes this. The only people advancing an elitist, class-based argument are non-residents, non-voters, and/or connected to the developer financially.

The issue is very simply SCALE and CONTEXT. As has been mentioned, there are several other 4 or 5 story projects in various states of completion in and around WP, and even though these are variances from the city's central plan, they have been allowed. What makes this project different is its location and the huge impact it will have on EVERY resident's use and enjoyment of our public space (WP boasts more park space per capita than any other city in Florida!).

Residents' objections to the Carlisle center on its length, and its height, and the effect that this size will have upon Central Park. No more sunsets at the bandstand? No direct natural sunlight after 3 PM? No setbacks, no trees on NY Ave?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm grateful that participatory democracy and citizen involvement will guide redevelopment in WP. As much as this forum is slanted toward the mantras of density and urbanization, not all projects are correct for all areas, simply because someone wants to build it.

Central planning and citizen involvement have shaped WP for over 100 years - the oldest planned community in Florida. That the residents have a different vision than non-residents for the city's evolution isn't a case of NIMBYism or elitism - its simply an outgrowth of careful forethought and planning that have created a sense of place unequaled anywhere in Central Florida.

One need not look further than College Park to see what an overscaled, out of context hulk can do to an otherwise quaint area. The fight isn't over - I predict it will be built eventually, but its scale will be reduced to something that fits its surroundings - or it will remain the pipedream it remains today.

hmm, is this the new Winter Park Mayor?

First of all, there is nothing wrong with the massing of the Wellesley, its just that there are nondescript one-story shacks around it that need redevelopment. It is probably the best thing to happen to Edgewater Drive well, ever. It is a huge stretch to call Edgewater "quaint," this is coming from a College Park resident.

Second, the Carlyle plan isn't huge or hulky, and a 5-story building is certainly not going to block the sun any more than a canopy of trees. The whole argument is flawed. Further, isn't it adding parkspace to Central Park? Sounds pretty much like nimbyism to me. The real nightmare of Winter Park is Fairbanks Ave.

[bulldogger]

Um, perhaps revitalize it? The block that it was on had a gas station and a Suntrust bank. Two thirds of the banks property was parking and like 5-6 drive through lanes. The Wellesly is a BIG improvement.

Is the Blimpy still there? Can't live without those.

[kjsimons]

Is the Blimpy still there? Can't live without those.

Sorry the Blimpy's went away along with the gas station! There is a Rolly Polly just a block up Edgewater, next to K's.

[eastbank]

Well, this just shows how opinions of what is the "correct" direction for our city can vary. For now at least, the more aggressive, large-scale, pro-developer approach has lost in WP to more careful planning and more stringent adherence to our requirements. It seems those of us that "don't like the sun" (in Florida ?!?), thankfully, are in the minority.

As for equating the sun-blocking effect of a 5 story 60 foot building to what happens when sunlight filters through a canopy of century-old oak trees indicates to me that you do not understand the motivation of the majority of voters that bounced Kip "Build It!" Marchman out of office.

As for Park Place, interesting that you brought that up - in that this structure was the wakeup call that motivated the citizens to resist the Carlisle. This hulking dryvit box has been complete for nearly a year, and "pre-leasing" went on for 6+ months before that, and there is yet to be a SINGLE retail tenant in the building. A total failure of planning has left us with a vacant building....nevermind the developer violated their agreement with the city and erected lightpoles on the parking structure that were visible more than a mile(!) away (and was forced to remove/alter them). Good thing we have that building, it was really needed, and is really "revitalizing" the area (sarcasm).

As for the College Park condo box, we'll see how it goes toward "revitalizing" the area. Unfortunately for the residents of that area, they didn't really have much of a say in its construction. This just illustrates why WP is blessed to be a separate municipality with its own standards, regs, and elections, from the administrative sprawl of Orlando/Orange County.

Re the "non-descript one story shacks" that surround this project, what would you have the city do? Take private property by eminent domain? Level these cracker shacks and make College Park look just like Avalon Park? Metrowest? Good grief.

So call it "Nimby"ism if you'd like, the label doesn't really matter. There are plenty of other "backyards" for builders to blight and obscure with oversized condo boxes.

If the proponents of the Carlyle simply would compromise with the city, and reduce the building's height, the opposition would very quickly dissolve and the project would go up. But, because they want to dictate the terms to the city, and illegally skip the final steps of the approval process, the project is currently dead. Construction costs are going up every single day. If the builder doesn't come to its senses and make a good faith effort to compromise with city leaders, then this project will quickly become economically infeasable and will die.

Edited May 4, 2006 by eastbank

[prahaboheme]

Well, this just shows how opinions of what is the "correct" direction for our city can vary. For now at least, the more aggressive, large-scale, pro-developer approach has lost in WP to more careful planning and more stringent adherence to our requirements. It seems those of us that "don't like the sun" (in Florida ?!?), thankfully, are in the minority.

As for equating the sun-blocking effect of a 5 story 60 foot building to what happens when sunlight filters through a canopy of century-old oak trees indicates to me that you do not understand the motivation of the majority of voters that bounced Kip "Build It!" Marchman out of office.

As for Park Place, interesting that you brought that up - in that this structure was the wakeup call that motivated the citizens to resist the Carlisle. This hulking dryvit box has been complete for nearly a year, and "pre-leasing" went on for 6+ months before that, and there is yet to be a SINGLE retail tenant in the building. A total failure of planning has left us with a vacant building....nevermind the developer violated their agreement with the city and erected lightpoles on the parking structure that were visible more than a mile(!) away (and was forced to remove/alter them). Good thing we have that building, it was really needed, and is really "revitalizing" the area (sarcasm).

As for the College Park condo box, we'll see how it goes toward "revitalizing" the area. Unfortunately for the residents of that area, they didn't really have much of a say in its construction. This just illustrates why WP is blessed to be a separate municipality with its own standards, regs, and elections, from the administrative sprawl of Orlando/Orange County.

Re the "non-descript one story shacks" that surround this project, what would you have the city do? Take private property by eminent domain? Level these cracker shacks and make College Park look just like Avalon Park? Metrowest? Good grief.

So call it "Nimby"ism if you'd like, the label doesn't really matter. There are plenty of other "backyards" for builders to blight and obscure with oversized condo boxes.

This isn't a question of eminent domain, the market will work out the blight along Edgewater on its own. Again, it is another stretch to compare the Wellesley to anything in Avalon Park or Metrowest if you know a thing or two about the development. Winter Park Village might be a better comparison with its chain stores and compromising quality of architecture. And I'm not quite sure how you classify the Wellesley as "adiminstrative sprawl of Orlando," but whatever. Not sure about Park Place, other than that it is currently on the sleepy side of Park Avenue, but the Wellesley already has tenants lined up, anchored by Suntrust.

Also, don't confuse "pro-development" with "quality development." The Carlylse is the latter, IMO. This whole "sun" argument is just ridiculous. Am I really being accused of anti-sun?

[Dale]

I tuned out as soon as I read 'oversized condo boxes'.

[eastbank]

This isn't a question of eminent domain, the market will work out the blight along Edgewater on its own. Again, it is another stretch to compare the Wellesley to anything in Avalon Park or Metrowest if you know a thing or two about the development. Winter Park Village might be a better comparison with its chain stores and compromising quality of architecture. And I'm not quite sure how you classify the Wellesley as "adiminstrative sprawl of Orlando," but whatever. Not sure about Park Place, other than that it is currently on the sleepy side of Park Avenue, but the Wellesley already has tenants lined up, anchored by Suntrust.

Also, don't confuse "pro-development" with "quality development." The Carlylse is the latter, IMO. This whole "sun" argument is just ridiculous. Am I really being accused of anti-sun?

I don't think comparing the Wellesley to Avalon or Metrowest construction is a stretch AT ALL, and I know plenty about the project. I think direct comparisons are appropriate given the type and size of building that it is.

The "administrative sprawl" comment was meant to convey that Orlando/OC is a huge municipality, and residents of an enclave like College Park have a lot less say in their fate than residents of a small, independent municipality like WP. The results of Orlando and OC's (lack of) thoughtful planning are quite clear to anyone that pays attention to urbanization and sprawl issues. Kudos to those with the political will to resist making the same mistakes that have created Orlando's mess.

Don't confuse "anti-development/Nimbyism" with "appropriate development" and development that meets existing laws and the City of WP's long range master plan. The Carlylse does currently not meet our requirements.

The "sunlight" issue in the park is quite far from ridiculous. If it didn't matter, there would currently be cranes on Central Park.

[prahaboheme]

I don't think comparing the Wellesley to Avalon or Metrowest construction is a stretch AT ALL, and I know plenty about the project. I think direct comparisons are appropriate given the type and size of building that it is.

The "administrative sprawl" comment was meant to convey that Orlando/OC is a huge municipality, and residents of an enclave like College Park have a lot less say in their fate than residents of a small, independent municipality like WP. The results of Orlando and OC's (lack of) thoughtful planning are quite clear to anyone that pays attention to urbanization and sprawl issues. Kudos to those with the political will to resist making the same mistakes that have created Orlando's mess.

Don't confuse "anti-development/Nimbyism" with "appropriate development" and development that meets existing laws and the City of WP's long range master plan. The Carlylse does currently not meet our requirements.

The "sunlight" issue in the park is quite far from ridiculous. If it didn't matter, there would currently be cranes on Central Park.

Based on what you know about the Wellesley, how is it an appropriate comparison to Avalon Park or MetroWest?

Edited May 4, 2006 by prahaboheme

[eastbank]

Based on what you know about the Wellesley, how is it an appropriate comparison to Avalon Park or MetroWest?

Principally, it is comparable to Metrowest (rather than WP Village) because of its multi-unit, multi-story, high density residential status, its zero-offset placement, its "new urbanism" design philosophy and its construction techniques and materials - WP Village on the other hand is just a two-story outdoor shopping mall, with very little residential housing (so far).

For what it's worth, most I know approved of the Wellesley development, and a small minority who didn't made their voices heard.

Well, then, in both cases - College Park and Winter Park, the majority of people are being heard and listened to. I think thats great!

It seems natural and just that the residents - and not vocal outsiders - should dictate development pace and scale in independent municipalities. If developers don't like the standards, they can always build somewhere else. The Carlisle backers have tried everything - from suing the city and opponents, to sending out illegal campaign materials - to get their way, and still were on the losing side of the election.

The only thing they have not explored is compromising with the city and the majority of its residents. And so they shall continue to wait as their costs escalate and the dream recedes.

[prahaboheme]

Principally, it is comparable to Metrowest (rather than WP Village) because of its multi-unit, multi-story, high density residential status, its zero-offset placement, its "new urbanism" design philosophy and its construction techniques and materials - WP Village on the other hand is just a two-story outdoor shopping mall, with very little residential housing (so far).

Well, then, in both cases - College Park and Winter Park, the majority of people are being heard and listened to. I think thats great!

It seems natural and just that the residents - and not vocal outsiders - should dictate development pace and scale in independent municipalities. If developers don't like the standards, they can always build somewhere else. The Carlisle backers have tried everything - from suing the city and opponents, to sending out illegal campaign materials - to get their way, and still were on the losing side of the election.

The only thing they have not explored is compromising with the city and the majority of its residents. And so they shall continue to wait as their costs escalate and the dream recedes.

WP Village and Avalon Park have something very similar in common: cheaply designed and conceived. The whole "new urbanism" term is thrown around freely these days, especially as negative criticism, so it does not surprise me that you have mentioned it with regards to the Wellesley. Fortunately, the Wellesley is not cheaply designed and conceived, and with regards to its surroundings, Edgewater Dr is ripe for high-density residential. Therefore, as infill, its one of the best developments in the whole metro Orlando area.

[neon9]

I don't think comparing the Wellesley to Avalon or Metrowest construction is a stretch AT ALL, and I know plenty about the project. I think direct comparisons are appropriate given the type and size of building that it is.

The "administrative sprawl" comment was meant to convey that Orlando/OC is a huge municipality, and residents of an enclave like College Park have a lot less say in their fate than residents of a small, independent municipality like WP. The results of Orlando and OC's (lack of) thoughtful planning are quite clear to anyone that pays attention to urbanization and sprawl issues. Kudos to those with the political will to resist making the same mistakes that have created Orlando's mess.

Don't confuse "anti-development/Nimbyism" with "appropriate development" and development that meets existing laws and the City of WP's long range master plan. The Carlylse does currently not meet our requirements.

The "sunlight" issue in the park is quite far from ridiculous. If it didn't matter, there would currently be cranes on Central Park.

First of all, lets take it easy on my 'shack' in College Park-I perfer 'Cracker Bungalow', espically since I got a metal roof installed There are mostly smaller houses around the Wellsley, and yes some of them are in somewhat poor repair, but isn't that what 'mixed use' is supposed to be? As for the Wellsley itself, well I've lived in the neighboorhood for 5 years and I've seen that too many businesses just can't make it. They need a certain amount of additional density (or traffic, but I'd perfer density), and the little gas mart wasn't really that pretty to look at. I can look out of my front yard and see the Wellsley and, now, the Suntrust sign, and I consider it an improvement. However, I'd also like to see them take it easy on any new developments (i.e. the Ivey) until we see what the effects will be from the Wellsley.

Now, in the case of WP, if what you say about Park Place is true (and I think this is over near the Morse Museum, right? If so I've seen it) then I might want to hold off on any new projects for a bit. But if you are going to add density, that seems like a pretty reasonable place to do it-right next to a Park and a commercial area. The only thing it could really use is a grocery store. However, that's what I would do...from what I understand of free market capitalism, the developer is free to build a boondoggle if they want, it's their land. The only leverage the city has is to make sure it meets code...and if it doesn't (like the Ivey here wouldn't) there you are free to oppose it and might succeed. However, WP's insistance on redevelopment meeting their new code has left the Aloma area looking pretty crappy, at least in my opinion.

Anyway, long story short I think most people are happy with the changes around here. I see more people walking, biking, shopping, and just enjoying themselves than ever before. I don't even think the two situations are analogous-Winter Park, argueably, doesn't need the density. I would guess that most of the 'users' of Central Park probably get in their car and drive there. I've also never seen more than a dozen people 'using' the park unless there is a special event, and that's being generous. Can you really even see the sunset now?

--By the way, Orlando and Orange County, for better or worse, are no more connected than Winter Park and the County.

Edited May 4, 2006 by neon9

[neon9]

WP Village and Avalon Park have something very similar in common: cheaply designed and conceived. The whole "new urbanism" term is thrown around freely these days, especially as negative criticism, so it does not surprise me that you have mentioned it with regards to the Wellesley. Fortunately, the Wellesley is not cheaply designed and conceived, and with regards to its surroundings, Edgewater Dr is ripe for high-density residential. Therefore, as infill, its one of the best developments in the whole metro Orlando area.

I don't really think 'New Urbanism' is the correct term anyway...it implies that this is a new development trying to replicate an old neighboorhood, whereas (as you pointed out) this IS an old neighboorhood, and the Wellsley is just infill development adding density to it. People who live there, and almost anywhere in College Park, can walk to restaurants, stores and the grocery without getting in their car. No, it doesn't blend in with the houses around it, but who says that is a bad thing? If you want a brand new condo, or a 50 year old home, you have your choice. And all your neighbors are not people who own the same floorplan as you.

[prahaboheme]

New urbanism can be either a new town, like Celebration or redevelopment such as Main St in Riviera Beach. It is essentially a comprehensive plan that steers development in a clear direction. Actual new urbanism doesn't "impose" restrictions on developers, like Winter Park is attempting. One must look no further than Seaside, FL. They invented it. Seaside has a one page "code" that developers/buyers must follow but thats pretty much it. The result has been a plethora of styles from victorian, neo-classical, bungalow, and even deconstructivist, but no single building compromises the town vernacular. Some suggest Seaside has become a model of modern architecture, as hundreds of architects have showcased their best works there. I remember reading an article in Newsweek that stated Seaside as the "most important resort town since Versailles" or something to that. Unfortunately for Winter Park there are just too many hands in the bucket right now and the result is a lot of great development shot down or scaled back to mere insignificance. Architecturally, its best days may have passed.

Edited May 4, 2006 by prahaboheme

[eastbank]

Now, in the case of WP, if what you say about Park Place is true (and I think this is over near the Morse Museum, right? If so I've seen it) then I might want to hold off on any new projects for a bit. But if you are going to add density, that seems like a pretty reasonable place to do it-right next to a Park and a commercial area. The only thing it could really use is a grocery store. However, that's what I would do...from what I understand of free market capitalism, the developer is free to build a boondoggle if they want, it's their land. The only leverage the city has is to make sure it meets code...and if it doesn't (like the Ivey here wouldn't) there you are free to oppose it and might succeed. However, WP's insistance on redevelopment meeting their new code has left the Aloma area looking pretty crappy, at least in my opinion.

That's the place, and it is still vacant. In the end I don't think Carlisle opponents oppose redeveloping the post office property, or the addtion of some few condos in the downtown area (plenty are on the way right now) - its simply a matter of scale and context - and neither meeting the city's vision for the future.

FWIW, most of the 'Aloma area' is NOT within the city of WP. The city limit on the east side is Balfour Drive (annexed) and the traditional city limit (was) Lakemont. Furthermore, SR426 is a state road and thus the city is very limited in how they can affect the streetscape and terraforming. Negotiations with the state to change this have been ongoing. But as for Aloma out by 436 and beyond, well, despite what people write for their return addresses out there, it ain't WP so there's not much we can do about it.

Anyway, long story short I think most people are happy with the changes around here. I see more people walking, biking, shopping, and just enjoying themselves than ever before. I don't even think the two situations are analogous-Winter Park, argueably, doesn't need the density. I would guess that most of the 'users' of Central Park probably get in their car and drive there. I've also never seen more than a dozen people 'using' the park unless there is a special event, and that's being generous. Can you really even see the sunset now?

For the mostpart, I agree. Most park users aren't WP residents and commute in for the Farmer's Market, shopping, museums, , work, park space etc. Whenever a family member visits "Orlando,," WP is usually the showcase that is toured, afterall.

Personally, I walk there, but I'm just one person. Sunsets? Well, they are obscured and filtered through trees, but I find that preferable to the shadow of a large building. Stand opposite Park Place, on the east sidewalk of Park Ave, during the beautiful winter months, after 3PM, and you'll quite quickly sense what a building of that size does to the aesthetic qualities of the area, with regard to sunlight!

I would rather that the Carlisle and the city reach some consensus sooner rather than later, but the builder doesn't seem to want to work with the city. Personally, I can't see paying $1m+ to listen to freight trains rattle my condo at 3AM, esp. when you can buy a freestanding home with lake access for that kind of $$, but to each his own. Hopefully sales and leasing will go better than the start of soncstruction or leasing at Park Place!!!

[eastbank]

New urbanism can be either a new town, like Celebration or redevelopment such as Main St in Riviera Beach. It is essentially a comprehensive plan that steers development in a clear direction. .....

As far as comprehensive plans go, that is entirely the issue with the Carlisle. WP has a comprehensive plan, has had it for many years, and the Carlisle does not comply with it. That is all there is to it. Not Nimby, not elitism, not haves vs. have nots, not aesthetics. Long term comprehensive plan - thats where the Carlisle issue begins and ends. It has nothing to do with "imposing limits." It has to do with adherence to the plan.

Every planned community - from Celebration to Seaside, has its roots in Winter Park, whose founders drew up a plan a century ago that made it what it was, and allowed the city to grow organically in a way that new, pre-fab, all-at-once 'new urbanism' projects can't match without the passage of time.

The people simply got tired of watching the village scale and comprehensive plan be varianced out of existence by politicians that were a bit TOO cozy to developers that want to build as big as they possibly can.

Unfortunately for Winter Park there are just too many hands in the bucket right now and the result is a lot of great development shot down or scaled back to mere insignificance. Architecturally, its best days may have passed.

The only scale-back or 'shoot-down' I'm aware of is the Carlisle. Adherence to a long term comprehensive plan isn't a bad thing. If I agree with your final sentiment at all, it is only in the sense that its a shame there is no historic preservation code that prevents historic residential properties being razed to make way for McMansions.

At least our Central Business District is safe (for now) from these types of excesses.

[prahaboheme]

So you are telling me McMansions in historic neighborhoods, the half-ass reclad Bank of America building attempting nostalgia by none other than Baker Barrios Architects and the med. revival crapola infiltrating Hannibal Square is the comprehensive plan? I guess it makes since, the neo-gothic Carlilse has no place in that vision...

Edited May 4, 2006 by prahaboheme

[eastbank]

So you are telling me McMansions in historic neighborhoods, the half-ass reclad Bank of America building attempting nostalgia by none other than Baker Barrios Architects and the med. revival crapola infiltrating Hannibal Square is the comprehensive plan? I guess it makes since, the neo-gothic Carlilse has no place in that vision...

No, I think you misunderstand.

First, I am bemoaning the fact that the proliferation of McMansions isn't regulated in some way, in residential neighborhoods. This has nothing to do with the Comprhensive Plan which affects mainly gateways and the CBD.

Second, note that the long term comprehensive plan does NOT dictate architectural style -- much like the Seaside plan you were championing just a few posts ago. So be it English Tudor (Carlisle), brick nostalgic, or neogothic, if it meets the plan, the city is allowed to grow and evolve organically, without some red tape committee dictating what shape and color everything must be (like in oppressive, monotonous 'new ubranism' projects like Celebration and Baldwin Park).

The reclad of the Barnett Bank building is such an improvement over the 1960s glass and concrete box that it was that its not even worth discussing. Our height limits serve to protect us from having to look at a big box like that ever again. Sure, you can criticize it, but to see the change as anything but positive is absurd. Dinner at Luma sure beats what was there.

Therefore, whether or not you like the STYLE of the buildings in Hannibal square or elsewhere, they are being built because their use, impact, height, length, size of the structures meets the city's vision for its future. FWIW, Hannibal Square and the surrounding residential areas are light years beyond what they were even 5 years ago, and in 5 more years, Thornton Park will look to it as an example of how it should evolve. No big, boxy, cracking at the seams Thornton Park Central for Hannibal Square, not b/c of how it looks, but b/c it doesn't meet our plan -- it would simply be too dense for the neighborhood.

So there you have it. Redevelopment abounds, in all manner of styles, and is fueling residential and retail growth throughout the city's west side. The Carlisle is just inches short of a green light for construction, if only they could meet the city's plan instead of presuming to dictate to the city what the property shall be.

Comprehensive plans make for more livable, desirable cities. They are even better when they allow flexibility - like Seaside, which learned its tricks largely from Winter Park, which started planning it future in the 19th century.

Edited May 4, 2006 by eastbank

[neon9]

FWIW, most of the 'Aloma area' is NOT within the city of WP. The city limit on the east side is Balfour Drive (annexed) and the traditional city limit (was) Lakemont. Furthermore, SR426 is a state road and thus the city is very limited in how they can affect the streetscape and terraforming. Negotiations with the state to change this have been ongoing. But as for Aloma out by 436 and beyond, well, despite what people write for their return addresses out there, it ain't WP so there's not much we can do about it.

Yes, even that area...I speak particularly of the corner of Lakemont and Aloma, my company tried to develop a bank there and the city was impossible to deal with, basically they wanted the bank to build a gateway into the city at their expense, in addition to code issues. The problems of bringing old properties up to modern code and setbacks are in every city however, it's tough to find a balance. What I don't understand are big developers like those working on the Carlise seem to think they deserve to bypass standard permitting procedures, when in fact their plans don't meet code in the first place. I work for a small engineering firm and I don't think we would even try and submit something like that. Variances are typically hard to get and we discourage our clients from trying unless they are in a very unusual situation.

As far as comprehensive plans go, that is entirely the issue with the Carlisle. WP has a comprehensive plan, has had it for many years, and the Carlisle does not comply with it. That is all there is to it. Not Nimby, not elitism, not haves vs. have nots, not aesthetics. Long term comprehensive plan - thats where the Carlisle issue begins and ends. It has nothing to do with "imposing limits." It has to do with adherence to the plan.

I agree, many people in College Park opposed the Ivey for this reason, it would have required not just a re-zone, but changing the future land use as well. If we, as residents are willing to support that, I think we should at least ask for something in return besides more neighbors. A park, money to beautify streets, additional buffers around the property, et al... yet others still made the same arguement, the whole NIMBY-elites-'you moved in now you don't want anybody else to' stuff....

Edited May 4, 2006 by neon9

[prahaboheme]

No, I think you misunderstand.

First, I am bemoaning the fact that the proliferation of McMansions isn't regulated in some way, in residential neighborhoods. This has nothing to do with the Comprhensive Plan which affects mainly gateways and the CBD.

Second, note that the long term comprehensive plan does NOT dictate architectural style -- much like the Seaside plan you were championing just a few posts ago. So be it English Tudor (Carlisle), brick nostalgic, or neogothic, if it meets the plan, the city is allowed to grow and evolve organically, without some red tape committee dictating what shape and color everything must be (like in oppressive, monotonous 'new ubranism' projects like Celebration and Baldwin Park).

The reclad of the Barnett Bank building is such an improvement over the 1960s glass and concrete box that it was that its not even worth discussing. Our height limits serve to protect us from having to look at a big box like that ever again. Sure, you can criticize it, but to see the change as anything but positive is absurd. Dinner at Luma sure beats what was there.

Therefore, whether or not you like the STYLE of the buildings in Hannibal square or elsewhere, they are being built because their use, impact, height, length, size of the structures meets the city's vision for its future. FWIW, Hannibal Square and the surrounding residential areas are light years beyond what they were even 5 years ago, and in 5 more years, Thornton Park will look to it as an example of how it should evolve. No big, boxy, cracking at the seams Thornton Park Central for Hannibal Square, not b/c of how it looks, but b/c it doesn't meet our plan -- it would simply be too dense for the neighborhood.

So there you have it. Redevelopment abounds, in all manner of styles, and is fueling residential and retail growth throughout the city's west side. The Carlisle is just inches short of a green light for construction, if only they could meet the city's plan instead of presuming to dictate to the city what the property shall be.

Comprehensive plans make for more livable, desirable cities. They are even better when they allow flexibility - like Seaside, which learned its tricks largely from Winter Park, which started planning it future in the 19th century.

Your insistence that I am misunderstanding your point of view through my knee-jerk responses only shows that Winter Park's vision for the future excludes anyone with an opposing viewpoint. It is laughable to think that Thornton Park will somehow wake up one day and look to Hannibal Square for inspiration. Thornton Park is already a far more dynamic Orlando neighborhood than Hannibal Square is now and will be in the foreseable future, even if Hannibal did land its very own incarnation of Thornton's Dexters.

Edited May 4, 2006 by prahaboheme

[prahaboheme]

btw, the whole Seaside thing...it is true that the inspiration for Seaside was in historic Southern coastal towns, but the point I was stressing is that even a well established town such as Winter Park could learn a thing or two from the principles and concepts implimented there. Winter Park can, and does deserve better visionaries.

[eastbank]

Your insistence that I am misunderstanding your point of view through my knee-jerk responses only shows that Winter Park's vision for the future excludes anyone with an opposing viewpoint. It is laughable to think that Thornton Park will somehow wake up one day and look to Hannibal Square for inspiration. Thornton Park is already a far more dynamic Orlando neighborhood than Hannibal Square is now and will be in the foreseable future, even if Hannibal did land its very own incarnation of Thornton's Dexters.

Baloney. The only thing we are excluding are development projects that do not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Despite all the red-herring arguments and personal attacks, the NIMBY arguments, the illegal campagining, the elites, the class warfare, and all that has been dredged up here and mostly in the course of the election regarding the Carlisle, the fact remains that the only issue standing in the way of this project is that:

a) it doesn't meet the comprehensive plan

b) the developer wishes to circumvent the approval process.

As for the rest:

I think Thornton Park is laughable compared to Hannibal square, so we can just disagree. Hannibal Sq. has a lengthy history that predates Thornton Park, is within walking distance to THE most deisrable urban area in metro Orlando (Park Ave), and has gone from blight to deisrable in less time than it took for Wildfire's to add a dirt parking lot.

And you are WRONG. Dexter's started in **Winter Park**, and it was Thornton park that "scored" its own carbon copy of the WP eatery. Emulation is the sincerest form of flattery, eh?

Hannibal Square has a community center, a new splash fountain, mutliple bars restaurants and boutiques, an proud and strong ethnic neighborhood, churches, apartments, etc. All TP has is one tiny small block of retail that can barely keep a tenant for more than a year (besides Thurstons bar) and a lot of homeless people / panhandlers milling about the overvalued yuppie homes. Starbucks and 7-11 don't make TP dynamic, it makes it the same as everywhere else.

Let's compare Hannibal Sq and TP again in 5 years. Maybe by then TP will have scored a Chez Vincent or a Carr's (oh wait, they already have one, though it was in WP first)....

[eastbank]

Winter Park can, and does deserve better visionaries.

Yes!! Better than Marchman, and the Carlisle developers - who, incidentally, live in McMansions in subdivisions, NOT in established, historic neighborhoods.

Thankfully the political process works, and we have elected someone with a vision that more closely resembles what the founders, and what we the resident taxpayers, want for our city.

[bulldogger]

even if Hannibal did land its very own incarnation of Thornton's Dexters.

Thornton Park and Winter Park aren't really comparable. Thornton Park is definitely more dynamic.

FYI... Dexters started out in Winter Park, then they opened in TP, and then they moved to their new space in WP.

And eastbank's notion that everything on the planet is based on the planning ideas of Winter Park??? HUH???

I don't know everything about planned cities, but I highly doubt WP started it. You may want to go check out your history books on that one.

I thought WP started out as a housing area for the blacks. A train stop before Orlando during the time shortly after slavery was abolished. Correct me if I'm wrong.