Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
It'll probably be another Related project similar to what they did in Channelside. There was an article not too long ago stating they were looking at other projects for downtown. They would have the pockets to pay more than the asking price. I wonder if there is anyway for the city to force a denser or project with more height? Zoning?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
This should get its own thread.

I was excited when I saw the title in the trib but then I read four-five stories and was disgusted and shocked. The city should no way allow this! We don't need plywood valley in the heart of DT. This SUCKS!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
It'll probably be another Related project similar to what they did in Channelside. There was an article not too long ago stating they were looking at other projects for downtown. They would have the pockets to pay more than the asking price. I wonder if there is anyway for the city to force a denser or project with more height? Zoning?
The city cannot force them to build anything of course but the city certainly has the power to only approve projects it sees fit for the area since this will probably need a zoning change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
I know someone is going to come along with this being better than parking lots, property owners rights, etc.. it just really sucks that right when we appear to be getting some momentum going, something like this comes along and slams on the brakes.
I too was excited when I first read the headline, I was hoping it would read something like this, "a developer with a long and proven track record is under contract to purchase the long vacant Denholtz property. The initial plans are to take advantage of the Riverwalk's ongoing popularity and property location. They will begin phase one with a 300' tower and develop the remaining four towers in phases as the market dictates. Each tower will maximize the height allowed under current zoning with the developer already voicing they will approach the city to negotiate increase in exchange for opening up park space for the residents and open to the public. The developers promise to work with the adjacent property owners and city leaders to enhance the neighborhood, tie in the neighborhood to the surrounding areas, and continue to work to integrate the InVision Plan for Tampa."
I'll keep dreaming...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
I know someone is going to come along with this being better than parking lots, property owners rights, etc.. it just really sucks that right when we appear to be getting some momentum going, something like this comes along and slams on the brakes.
I too was excited when I first read the headline, I was hoping it would read something like this, "a developer with a long and proven track record is under contract to purchase the long vacant Denholtz property. The initial plans are to take advantage of the Riverwalk's ongoing popularity and property location. They will begin phase one with a 300' tower and develop the remaining four towers in phases as the market dictates. Each tower will maximize the height allowed under current zoning with the developer already voicing they will approach the city to negotiate increase in exchange for opening up park space for the residents and open to the public. The developers promise to work with the adjacent property owners and city leaders to enhance the neighborhood, tie in the neighborhood to the surrounding areas, and continue to work to integrate the InVision Plan for Tampa."
I'll keep dreaming...
The maximum height for that property is well in excess of 300', I would say around '500 at least with how north and west the property is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,967 Posts
Went ahead and moved this discussion into a separate thread. Also put the title as "Unknown Development" for now with "Possibly Residential" in parenthesis due to the developers denying that anything is going on with the land. The thread title will likely change later on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,619 Posts

·
Senior Button Pusher
Joined
·
17,165 Posts
So people know, the land is zoned CBD-1, with a 120ft height restriction.

Since the city has established a precedent in recent years to regularly flout its own downtown development rules for downtown developments, the rumored proposal that was detailed in the Trib would have not only been approved by the city, but would be approved without the ability of city council or anyone in the community having any input. It would have gone through staff plan review and that's it.

I'll add more later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,003 Posts
I know some of you will disagree, but I don't think height is the only thing to consider in a downtown area. Not every block needs to be a highrise. That would make the area bland and boring. I would be okay with a 5 or 6 story european style perimeter block development on the northern lot, since that would add hundreds of apartments and create an urban feel. However, I would hate to see a garage developed on the lot across the street from the Straz. In my opinion the city should buy that lot and use it as an expansion area for the Straz since Tampa should have a separate symphony hall. Both large halls in the Straz are not really made for symphny concerts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
I disagree. Horizontal 3-4-5 story apartments in DT take up too much valuable land & belong in the suburbs. I do agree that the area should get mid-rise developments like 8-10-12 stories and maybe another high rise (20-30) apartment or condo tower.
 

·
Senior Button Pusher
Joined
·
17,165 Posts
^The problem isn't that this project is going to be low-rise, it's that it is also low density... And will cover half a city block directly adjacent to the Straz with nothing but a 2 story shit ass parking garage.

350 units on 7.5 acres is not appropriate for any downtown in a city the size of Tampa, least of all its cultural 'hot spot'. Again, Tampa is not 'desperate', we are no longer at the point where any urban development is good development, because there is none. Now we have downtown transforming into a vibrant urban district. Every project must add to that vibrancy, not merely occupy space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
^^ I agree that not every building needs to be a high rise but UP TO 350 units on 5.5 acres with what sounds like a detached, sprawling 2 level garage on prime real estate is just bad urban planning in my opinion. Its going to end up being a noho flatts on downtown prime real estate and it's going to not be as dense as peirhouse. This lot is too large and valuable to waste it on 350 units. It is close to the river and should have enough height to offer quality views of the area. This lot is walking distance from Julian b lane riverfront park and really close to Curtis Hixon as well. I feel like the demand is there for more units and there should be at least double the units for that amount of land. If they do decide to allow for this low of density then I would at least hope that the garage is hidden. I rather is sit empty than waste it on this amount of density
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
728 Posts
I know some of you will disagree, but I don't think height is the only thing to consider in a downtown area. Not every block needs to be a highrise. That would make the area bland and boring. I would be okay with a 5 or 6 story european style perimeter block development on the northern lot, since that would add hundreds of apartments and create an urban feel.
In Europe you can develop an entire city with five or six-story buildings and get good density. Here, due to zoning restrictions, we have very few areas to work with.

If the few areas that allow density are filled with projects like this, you run out of room very quickly... and the result is you get even more sprawl.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top