By Mark Baratelli
Publisher
In the Municipal Planning Board Staff Report dated December 15, 2015, the Orlando Union Rescue Mission talks about the cross atop its current location at 410 W. Central Blvd.
The cross is designated as a local landmark.
The mission calls the cross an "architectural sign incorporating a cross" and says it functions "similar to a church spire." We unscientifically researched (googled) these two ideas the city put forth about this cross.
We googled the term "architectural sign" and got this:
We googled the term "church spire" and got this:
I admit this is 100% unscientific, but do any of the above objects look like this cross?
The cross is a cross:
By claiming it has architectural importance and acts like a spire, they're justifying the placement of a totally unrelated cross atop a brand new building. The staff report says "The proposed cross may be treated as an architectural feature and may include lighting. If it includes text, it will be treated as a recreation of a historic roof sign."
The cross is designated as a local landmark.
The mission calls the cross an "architectural sign incorporating a cross" and says it functions "similar to a church spire." We unscientifically researched (googled) these two ideas the city put forth about this cross.
We googled the term "architectural sign" and got this:
We googled the term "church spire" and got this:
I admit this is 100% unscientific, but do any of the above objects look like this cross?
The original cross atop the old building
The cross is a cross:
- It's not an architectural sign incorporating a cross. It's not even an architectural sign. It's 100% cross. There is nothing that exists on this sign but a cross. It has no relation to the architecture of the 1925 building. It was clearly placed atop the building post-construction.
- If one can say it functions like a church spire, one could also say it also functions like a castle turret, a bell tower or a roof finial. The function is irrelevant.
The proposed cross atop the new building
By claiming it has architectural importance and acts like a spire, they're justifying the placement of a totally unrelated cross atop a brand new building. The staff report says "The proposed cross may be treated as an architectural feature and may include lighting. If it includes text, it will be treated as a recreation of a historic roof sign."
Either way, justification for the new 15 foot sign has been given.
This original cross has historical value and will be saved and moved. That's the history. The history is within the original cross. The new cross is not the original, is not placed where the original was placed and has nothing to do with the original cross.
This original cross has historical value and will be saved and moved. That's the history. The history is within the original cross. The new cross is not the original, is not placed where the original was placed and has nothing to do with the original cross.
Two questions:
- (I admit this one sounds dumb) Does this mean any building in Orlando can be topped with a "recreation of a historic roof sign"?
- If the Orlando Union Rescue Mission's neon cross was not called an "architectural sign" and not said to "function similar to a church spire," would the new Mission building still be allowed to place a 15 foot cross on it's roof?
"The proposed two-story, Spanish Colonial style building will be 54 ft. high including a 15 foot high cross. The 32,101 square foot facility will accommodate up to 150 individuals. The first floor will contain the main entrance, lobby, and staff offices, the kitchen and dining facilities, the chapel, and the guest waiting and housing areas for both the Work Extension Program and the up to 90 residential guests. The second floor will house the Resident Work Rehabilitation Ministry as well as the classrooms and other support spaces for training and education for up to 60 guests."
Have a tip about Orlando-area development? Send it to mark@thedailycity.com.