I think it also would help reduce concerns to see it on the map comparing the distance between the Granary District and the CBD D-1 Zone.
In the map below, I highlighted in
red the current D-1 Central Business District Zone aka Downtown.
I also highlighted in
green the Granary District.
As you can see, the Granary District is not only is directly adjacent to the D-1 zone, for half a block the Granary District is actually
IN the D-1 zone. That half block is actually the Red Lion property, which speaks to my points related to development possibilities.
The Red Lion property has become somewhat famous on this forum for the renderings of potential development plans and ideas that have popped up over the years.
These range from:
To the even more ambitious:
Right now, one of the Red Lion's towers is being converted into apartments, a supposed step towards future stages of development.
Are the plans above likely to happen as envisioned? Probably not. However, the D-1 zone provided the property owner, architects, and planners the freedom and ability to create plans that are truly unique and interesting that would not be possible under all the height restrictions artificially imposed on the rest of the Granary.
Those restrictions, despite beliefs to the contrary, do not result in great or engaging architecture. Instead, height restrictions only result in developers being forced to build small, but nice, buildings for the rich or relatively basic standard apartment buildings for the project to be financially feasible. The Granary doesn't have the luxury of being considered one of the more desirable neighborhoods yet and therefore isn't able to command the nice architecture for the rich. So what we are seeing get built under these restrictions are mostly (with some exceptions) basic apartment complexes.
These do not lend themselves Orlando's hopes of creating a sense of place. How many people go down 400 South and say: Wow! these standard apartment buildings are all the same height! What a great sense of place!
Similar heights are not what makes a place.
The key to placemaking is designing with people in mind. It is about creating a unique, fun and interesting place that people want to spend their time. It is about creating a walkable, pedestrian-oriented infrastructure that helps highlight a specific place and the people that live there. It is about the design, architectural styles and quirks, public spaces, public art, food, etc that makes it special. Height restrictions rarely, if ever, play a significant role in that. This is because placemaking is mostly how it feels on the ground as a human being, not what it above in the air.
Now, if you want to encourage placemaking, that can be done through other restrictions - such as designating specific materials to be used or how the buildings might interact with people on the ground. In actuality, the Granary would be better served redesigning the streetscapes of many of its overly wide streets than it would by restricting height. In fact, with Salt Lake's overly wide roads, Salt Lake is able to accommodate much taller buildings without people on the ground feeling oppressed by their presence. However, shorter buildings only emphasize the extreme wideness of streets and make them feel even less walkable and inviting to pedestrians - damaging placemaking.
I am not saying towers for towers sake. I am saying the Granary, especially the northern half, is a natural place to extend the D-1 zone and free up the area from its unnecessary height restrictions. I think there is legitimate concerns that can be raised about having D-1 south of 800 South, since the area is pretty solidly low and midrise development now. However, the northern half would benefit tremendously from a significant upzone while the possibilities are still there.
Prev
Linear Mode
