Princeton Towhouses Current

Bungalower has learned that a Miami based developer is planning to build five townhouses along Princeton St in College Park.

The ten units will be on the block between Amherst Ave and Depauw Ave. [GMap]

Developer Mark Rousso purchased the middle five units on that block and plans to begin demolishing the homes that currently sit on those properties.

The three eastern most units (20, 16 and 12 W Princeton St) will be the first to be demolished and then have the units built.

In phase two the two western units (100 and 24 W Princeton St) will be demolished and then the townhouses built.

Each of the ten units are around 1,600-1,700 square feet and are two stories with a garage.

He plans to sell the units for around $300,000

The original plan was to have one or two shared driveways and put the garage and parking in the rear of the building. However, the current plans provided to Bungalower show each unit with their own driveway and the garages in the front.

Russo estimates construction will take four to five months.

He is building a total of 22 homes in the area most of them in the Bungalower area.

Here’s a look at the renderings and floor plans for the townhouses:

Princeton Towhouses 1 Princeton Towhouses 2 Princeton Towhouses 3 Princeton Towhouses 4 Princeton Towhouses 5 Princeton Towhouses 6 Princeton Towhouses 7 Princeton Towhouses 8

Join the Conversation


Have something to say? Type it below. Holding back can give you pimples.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. If only if they could turn these around, you would have a fighting chance for a better project.

  2. Ok – I see all the comments re the college park town homes and offer the following pics for consideration. The 1st two are on kaley just west of Delaney. Identical. One front loaded, one rear loaded. The 3rd is right down the street off Kaley, just east of orange. The 4th is right off clay, just south of Minnesota. None are in particularly high value areas that would price above college park.

  3. Stephanie, College Park is not an historic neighborhood and in recent history the neighborhood association has not requested to become one. If this is something you feel strongly about I suggest looking into that. A handful off other neighborhoods have been added without any objection from the City.
    The Princeton Project also complied mostly with the Edgewater Plan which was created by residents. The building height transition was the only part that wasn’t 100%. I personally don’t want a City that subjectively picks projects but instead prefer a City that sets guidelines created by resident committees and approved by City Council. Then if we don’t like the guidelines we can change them. E.g. adding College Park as a historic neighborhood as you suggested.

  4. We’ll for one, since all of those houses in the proposed area are over 50 years old, historic zoning laws should apply. I understand that new development needs to take place in College Park because it would increase economic development, however I wish that there were rules against development that doesn’t correspond to the esthetic of College Park.
    In reference to the city, I say this because these small housing developments require far less consideration and if the city approved the monstrosity that is The Princeton, then this will definitely be approved.

  5. Megan, This project has not been approved by the City yet. It is just the developers proposal. It will however not need to go in front of the standard set of citizen boards because right now it’s five two-family homes. I know the City is interested in making sure the property is developed properly and fits in with the neighborhood so hopefully there will be some improvements.

  6. Stephanie, How so? This project is yet to go to the City for review. Also, what type of rules would you like to see in effect that would prevent this type of development?

  7. Carolyn, Our understanding is this has not gone to the City yet for any sort of approval. Because it’s a set of two-family homes it will require less of an approval process than if it was considered a 10-unit multi-family project. I do know that the project as proposed does not comply 100% with the current City code.

  8. Chris, College Park is incorporated as part of the Orlando. College Park is also part of the Traditional City overlay which has more code requirements for new construction. The only other overlay that would require further review would be a historic overlay. I should also be clear that the City is yet to even review these townhouses so it’s probably really unfair to criticize them for a rubber stamp review…when they haven’t even reviewed them. Also, what type of rules would you like to see that would prevent this type of development?

  9. There are quite a few excellent architects that live in and around College Park. Hackler, Gantt, KLPN, and others. These developers don’t hire good architects.

  10. You can see that type of configuration in the flesh on kaley just west of of Delaney. Ugly.
    Lots of better models out there at all different price points in many small infill situations around the neighborhoods. It’s not rocket science and we shouldn’t have to settle for this.

  11. This is horrible design!!!!! There has to be some local CP architects who can draw up something that matches our area and let the community vote! The above is atrocious!

  12. Please College Park Residents stand against this!!! I have no issue with new housing in College Park, but this is the worst design I’ve ever seen. The architect should lose his license over this design. Not to mention these will be mostly, if not all, rental units. (Duplexes? Why are these even allowed?) So, bad design + transient residents = blight. The design does nothing to relate to the context of this charming community. Responsible Developers and architects owe more to the community in which they build. These are the cheapest form of design and construction, simply intended to make the developer a lot of money. The least they could do is design something that the community will be proud to share!!!

  13. I can only say I agree with all of you on this. Hideous design. I’ve lived in nicer looking military housing in my past….

  14. Collage Park cannot secceed from the City of Orlando. I Hope everyone will convey their objections to City Staff or the Municipal Planning Board. FB is still not part of city governance.

  15. Sorry if this was mentioned elsewhere (not enough time to read all of these concerned comments), but I wonder if College Park has considered incorporating so that they’re not subject to the property-tax-money-hungry, rubber-stamp approval process of the city of Orlando.

  16. Who keeps approving these things? Is someone from College Park on the committee that keeps approving these things?

  17. So ugly!! Agree with above that this completely takes away from the charm of college park!

  18. Who are these people? What is going on here in College Park? Are we becoming the dumping ground for developers trash? Send this to the Recycle Bin immediately. God help the people who have invested good money in their homes in this area.

  19. There goes the neighborhood!! Between the Princeton monstrosity and now these…College Park is losing its charm & becoming very cookie cutter!! Highly disappointing!!!

  20. 5 different elevations would be great!! I hope they at least 5 different paint colors.

  21. 10 driveways onto Princeton where there are currently 5 at greater intervals? Looks like a mess waiting to happen.

  22. What are these people going to do? Back out onto Princeton when they try to leave their homes? Right, that’ll work!! (Besides, these townhouses are UGLY!)

  23. Between the 266 unit apartment complex going up at Princeton/Smith & Edgewater, and these going up between Amherst and DePauw, that stretch of Princeton (between I-4 & Edgewater) is going to have atrocious traffic. There will also be increased cut through traffic on the streets that run north and south such as Amherst, DePauw, Gerda, Harrison, University. The quality of life for people in those areas will be greatly reduced. What does the city plan to do about it?????

  24. To be clear I don’t think he needs to each one is a two-family home which is exempt from ARB. He still does need to comply with city ordinance so we’ll see what happens.

  25. I’m all in for more density in Orlando, but this is not the way to do it. I’ve never really been a fan of duplexes and these particular ones look ugly and don’t match (or at least complement) the architectural character of the neighborhood. Maybe they should release a rendering instead of a Sketchup sreenshot to get a better idea what these townhouse would look like, but I still probably won’t like it anyways.
    But what I dislike most is the large setback and too much driveway/front lawn. Just more car-dependent infrastructure which further declines the pedestrian-friendliness of the area. It’s possibly due to some post-WWII zoning code which is probably long overdue for revision.

  26. This is awful. Tearing down history to build a bunch of identical vanilla stucco boxes and change the personality of CP. Terrible.

  27. I agree with those who like the charm of our college park community.. I think they should not build! I love the bungalows and old houses!

  28. Better idea than what things look like now. Don’t like the design, very sterile for our cozy community.

  29. Could developers not stick with the bungalow style that makes College Park so charming? Apparently it does not fit into the greed budget.

  30. While anything would probably look better than what’s currently there, these renderings lack any charm and from what I’ve seen of this “developers” work, his projects don’t usually come out looking as good as the renderings as he builds as cheaply as possible and omits any detail to cut cost. So these will probably end up looking really horrible. Sad.

  31. Ugly. Just like all the other new housing complexes popping up, this has little site-specific character and doesn’t respect the design of the surrounding buildings. Throwing 10 of the same thing on a block is always a bad idea.

  32. I lived on depauw, and while there needed to be some upgrades, I’m sad to see College Park go to developers like this.

  33. Don’t normally put in my two cents because after all it is just my opinion but here goes- looks cookie cutter to me. It’s a shame that the style and diversity that sets College Park apart is coming to this. Some may think- because it is on Princeton it doesn’t really matter but isn’t that what most people actually see of CP. Also why do people always put the garage in the very front of the house? So un-appealing! Not my idea of curb appeal to look at someone’s ugly garage door as the main focus of their house.

  34. There is so many of these going up in College Park. This is not a planned community. It is heartbreaking, our neighborhoods are loosing their charm to big builders.

  35. I wish that each one would look a little different, reflecting CP’s unique but varied architecture.

  36. completely lacking in the abundant character found throughout the area. #redo

  37. Is it just me or do more and more of these “developers” seem to be building homes that have the appearance of something built for quick profit, rather than something that will enhance the community and be treasured for decades to come. You could tear these ugly things down in 10 years and few would miss them. End of rant. 🙂

  38. On the cheap, no style whatsoever. Take a look at College Park, mostly craftsman style bungalows. No architect can design something that will fit in? And those new two story full-lot homes being built all over in the side streets next to bungalows are ugly as well. It’s going to look like a tract housing development.

  39. Ick. It looks like a clusterfudge of some of the worst architectural elements of the past several decades.

  40. What is wrong with everyone in otown no style. Love the idea of town homes but yuck

  41. Horrible. Isn’t that in the “Traditional City” overlay district? There are design standards for TC, and I doubt these comply.