Median home value: Altamonte Springs $247,200 vs Orlando $332,700.
Median rent: Altamonte Springs $1,474/month vs Orlando $1,509/month.
Electricity: Both 15.70¢/kWh.
Gas price: Both $2.73/gal.
Median household income: Altamonte Springs $61,714/year vs Orlando $66,292/year.
Altamonte Springs and Orlando sit within the same metro area, share the same utility providers, and experience nearly identical fuel costs. Yet the decision between them isn’t about which is universally cheaper—it’s about where cost pressure concentrates for your household in 2026. Altamonte Springs offers a lower entry barrier for homeownership and slightly lower rent, while Orlando commands higher housing costs but also reflects a higher median income baseline. The real divergence emerges in how daily logistics, commute patterns, and housing form interact with those baseline numbers.
For families prioritizing space and lower upfront housing costs, Altamonte Springs presents a more accessible path to ownership. For professionals valuing urban access, denser amenities, and tolerance for higher housing obligations, Orlando’s structure may align better with income and lifestyle. Neither city “wins” on price alone—the better fit depends on which costs dominate your household’s non-negotiable spending and which tradeoffs you’re positioned to absorb. This comparison explains where those differences show up, how they behave over time, and which household types feel them most acutely.
Housing Costs
Altamonte Springs’ median home value of $247,200 sits substantially below Orlando’s $332,700, creating a meaningful difference in down payment requirements, mortgage obligations, and property tax exposure for prospective buyers. For a household targeting homeownership, Altamonte Springs reduces the entry barrier—both in cash needed upfront and in the size of the monthly mortgage payment that follows. This difference matters most for first-time buyers operating near the edge of qualification thresholds or families prioritizing lower ongoing housing obligations to preserve flexibility elsewhere in the budget.
Rental markets show a narrower gap: Altamonte Springs’ median gross rent of $1,474 per month compared to Orlando’s $1,509 per month reflects only a modest difference in monthly cash flow. However, the rental experience diverges in housing form and availability. Altamonte Springs leans toward garden-style apartments and townhome communities, often with more space per dollar but requiring a car for most errands. Orlando offers denser apartment inventory closer to employment centers, entertainment districts, and transit corridors, trading square footage for proximity and reducing reliance on driving for some households. Renters sensitive to commute time or car dependence may find Orlando’s layout more forgiving, even at slightly higher rent.
Property taxes, insurance, and HOA fees layer additional ongoing costs onto homeownership in both cities, but the structure differs. Altamonte Springs’ lower home values translate to lower annual property tax bills in absolute terms, assuming similar millage rates. However, many newer developments in Altamonte Springs carry HOA fees that bundle landscaping, amenities, and exterior maintenance—costs that feel predictable but reduce month-to-month flexibility. Orlando’s higher home values amplify property tax exposure, and older neighborhoods may lack HOA structures entirely, shifting maintenance responsibility and cost volatility directly onto the homeowner. Insurance costs in both cities reflect Florida’s broader market conditions—high premiums, rising renewal rates, and limited competition—but larger homes and higher replacement values in Orlando can push annual insurance bills higher.
| Housing Type | Altamonte Springs | Orlando |
|---|---|---|
| Median Home Value | $247,200 | $332,700 |
| Median Gross Rent | $1,474/month | $1,509/month |
| Typical Housing Form | Garden apartments, townhomes, single-family subdivisions | Mid-rise apartments, older single-family, mixed-use corridors |
For renters prioritizing space and lower monthly obligations, Altamonte Springs delivers more square footage per dollar but requires acceptance of car-dependent errands and longer drives to urban amenities. For renters valuing walkable access to dining, entertainment, and shorter commutes, Orlando’s slightly higher rent buys proximity and reduces transportation friction. First-time buyers benefit more from Altamonte Springs’ lower entry costs, while move-up buyers or households with higher incomes may absorb Orlando’s premiums more easily. The housing decision hinges on whether your household prioritizes minimizing upfront and ongoing housing costs or minimizing transportation time and car dependence.
Housing takeaway: Altamonte Springs reduces entry barriers and ongoing mortgage obligations, favoring first-time buyers and families prioritizing space. Orlando’s higher home values and rent reflect denser access and urban proximity, fitting households willing to trade housing cost for reduced transportation friction and walkable convenience.
Utilities and Energy Costs
Both Altamonte Springs and Orlando operate under identical electricity rates of 15.70¢/kWh and natural gas prices of $32.82/MCF, reflecting their shared position within the same utility service territory. This eliminates rate-driven cost differences entirely—what diverges is how housing stock, unit size, and household behavior translate those rates into monthly bills. In Florida’s extended cooling season, air conditioning dominates utility spending from April through October, and the size, age, and insulation quality of your home determine how much electricity you’ll pull to maintain comfort.
Altamonte Springs’ housing stock skews toward newer construction—townhomes, garden apartments, and single-family subdivisions built in the past two decades. Newer builds generally feature better insulation, more efficient HVAC systems, and tighter building envelopes, reducing baseline cooling loads. However, larger single-family homes common in Altamonte Springs increase total square footage under air, raising absolute consumption even with better efficiency. Families moving into 2,000+ square-foot homes should expect higher summer electricity bills than they’d face in a 1,200-square-foot apartment, regardless of efficiency gains. Apartments in Altamonte Springs benefit from shared walls and smaller conditioned spaces, lowering per-unit cooling costs but often lacking individual control over thermostats in multi-unit buildings.
Orlando’s housing mix includes more older single-family homes and mid-rise apartments built before modern efficiency standards took hold. Older construction often means single-pane windows, minimal attic insulation, and aging HVAC equipment—all of which increase cooling costs during peak summer months. However, smaller unit sizes in Orlando’s denser neighborhoods can offset some of that inefficiency. A 900-square-foot apartment in an older Orlando building may still cost less to cool than a 1,800-square-foot townhome in Altamonte Springs, even if the apartment’s per-square-foot consumption runs higher. Renters in older Orlando buildings face less control over efficiency upgrades, leaving them more exposed to volatility as equipment ages and summer temperatures peak.
Natural gas usage remains minimal in both cities outside of water heating and occasional cooktop use—Florida’s mild winters eliminate the heating-season cost spikes common in northern climates. Households with gas water heaters see modest monthly charges year-round, but the real cost variability lives in electricity. Time-of-use billing structures, where available, reward households that can shift laundry, dishwashing, and other high-draw activities to off-peak evening hours, but this requires schedule flexibility that not all households possess. Families with young children, shift workers, or rigid routines may find it harder to optimize around rate windows.
Utility cost exposure varies most by household size and housing type. Single adults in small apartments face the lowest absolute bills, benefiting from minimal square footage and shared-wall insulation. Dual-income couples in townhomes experience moderate bills with some control over efficiency investments (programmable thermostats, LED lighting, air filter maintenance). Families in larger single-family homes face the highest bills, driven by square footage, occupancy loads, and continuous cooling demands during summer months. Older homes amplify this exposure, while newer construction provides more predictability.
Utility takeaway: Identical rates mean housing form and home age drive cost differences. Altamonte Springs’ newer construction offers efficiency advantages but larger homes increase total consumption. Orlando’s older stock and smaller units create a tradeoff between per-square-foot inefficiency and lower absolute usage. Families in large homes face the highest exposure; singles in small apartments face the lowest, regardless of city.
Groceries and Daily Expenses
Grocery costs in Altamonte Springs and Orlando reflect the same regional price environment—both cities operate within the Orlando metro’s retail ecosystem, sharing access to the same chains, distributors, and wholesale clubs. Price differences between the two cities emerge less from shelf prices and more from how households shop, how far they drive to access discounts, and whether convenience spending fills gaps left by less accessible options. The real divergence lives in shopping friction, not food prices themselves.
Altamonte Springs’ corridor-clustered grocery access means most residents drive to shop, often consolidating trips to big-box stores, wholesale clubs, or regional chains located along major commercial strips. This structure rewards households that can plan ahead, buy in bulk, and absorb upfront costs for lower per-unit prices. Families with storage space, reliable transportation, and predictable schedules benefit most from this model—loading up on staples every two weeks and minimizing per-trip costs. However, households without cars, those with unpredictable schedules, or singles living in smaller apartments face higher friction: fewer walkable options, less frequent shopping trips, and greater reliance on convenience stores or prepared foods when time runs short.
Orlando’s denser layout provides more walkable grocery access in certain neighborhoods, particularly near downtown, College Park, and mixed-use corridors where smaller-format stores, ethnic markets, and neighborhood grocers operate alongside national chains. This reduces the need to drive for every shopping trip and allows for more frequent, smaller purchases—helpful for households without bulk storage or those managing tighter cash flow week to week. However, walkable access doesn’t eliminate price sensitivity. Neighborhood stores often carry higher per-unit prices than suburban big-box competitors, and the convenience of proximity can encourage more frequent discretionary purchases—coffee, prepared meals, snacks—that add up over time.
Dining out and convenience spending follow similar patterns. Altamonte Springs offers chain restaurants, fast-casual options, and drive-through corridors, but less density means fewer spontaneous dining opportunities and more intentional trips. Orlando’s restaurant concentration—especially near downtown, Thornton Park, and Mills 50—creates more temptation for frequent takeout, coffee runs, and casual dining, which can erode grocery budgets if not managed deliberately. Dual-income couples and young professionals in Orlando may find themselves spending more on convenience and dining simply because options sit closer to daily routines.
Household size amplifies these differences. Single adults benefit from Orlando’s walkable access and smaller-format shopping, avoiding the need to buy in bulk or drive long distances. Couples with flexible schedules can optimize in either city, choosing between bulk savings in Altamonte Springs or convenience in Orlando based on lifestyle preferences. Families managing larger grocery volumes favor Altamonte Springs’ big-box access and lower per-unit prices, provided they have the transportation, storage, and planning capacity to execute that strategy consistently.
Grocery takeaway: Shelf prices don’t differ meaningfully between Altamonte Springs and Orlando, but shopping structure does. Altamonte Springs rewards bulk buying and planning, favoring families with cars and storage. Orlando’s walkable access reduces friction for smaller, more frequent trips, fitting singles and couples who value proximity over per-unit savings. Convenience spending creep poses more risk in Orlando’s denser corridors.
Taxes and Fees
Property taxes in both Altamonte Springs and Orlando derive from Seminole and Orange County millage rates respectively, combined with city-specific levies and school district assessments. While exact millage rates aren’t provided in the data, the structural difference in median home values creates a clear divergence in annual property tax bills. Altamonte Springs’ $247,200 median home value generates a lower absolute tax bill than Orlando’s $332,700 median, even if effective rates remain similar. For homeowners, this translates to lower recurring annual obligations in Altamonte Springs—a difference that compounds over years of ownership and affects long-term affordability for households operating near the edge of their budget.
HOA fees introduce another layer of cost structure that varies more by neighborhood than by city. Many newer subdivisions and townhome communities in Altamonte Springs carry monthly HOA fees ranging from modest ($50–$100/month) to substantial ($200–$400/month), depending on amenities, landscaping, and shared infrastructure. These fees buy predictability—exterior maintenance, lawn care, and community amenities are bundled—but they reduce flexibility and represent a fixed cost that persists regardless of usage. Older single-family neighborhoods in Altamonte Springs often lack HOAs entirely, shifting maintenance responsibility to individual owners but eliminating the recurring fee.
Orlando’s housing stock spans a wider range of HOA structures. Condo buildings and newer mixed-use developments near downtown carry higher HOA fees, sometimes exceeding $300–$500/month, reflecting shared building systems, elevators, and urban land costs. Older single-family neighborhoods in Orlando typically lack HOA fees, offering lower recurring obligations but higher exposure to unexpected maintenance costs—roof repairs, HVAC replacements, and exterior upkeep fall entirely on the homeowner. Renters in both cities remain insulated from property taxes and HOA fees directly, but those costs influence rent levels and landlord behavior, particularly in buildings with high HOA obligations or rising tax assessments.
Sales taxes in Florida apply statewide at 6%, with local discretionary surtaxes adding up to 1.5% depending on county. Both Altamonte Springs (Seminole County) and Orlando (Orange County) operate within similar total sales tax rates, meaning consumption-based tax exposure remains nearly identical. Households that spend more on taxable goods—furniture, electronics, clothing—face the same relative burden in either city. Groceries remain exempt from sales tax in Florida, reducing the tax impact on food spending for all household types.
Recurring city-specific fees—trash collection, water, sewer, stormwater—vary by provider and housing type. Many apartment complexes in both cities bundle these fees into rent, making them invisible to renters but baked into monthly obligations. Single-family homeowners typically pay these fees separately, and costs can vary based on service provider, lot size, and usage. Water and sewer fees in Florida have risen steadily over the past decade, driven by infrastructure investment and environmental compliance, but neither city shows a clear cost advantage without specific provider data.
Homeowners in Altamonte Springs benefit from lower property tax exposure due to lower home values, but HOA fees in newer developments can offset some of that advantage. Homeowners in Orlando face higher property taxes but may avoid HOA fees entirely in older neighborhoods, trading predictable bundled costs for more variable maintenance obligations. Renters in both cities face similar sales tax exposure and minimal direct tax burden, though property tax levels indirectly influence rent growth over time. Long-term residents planning to stay several years should weigh property tax trajectories and HOA stability more heavily than short-term renters, who remain more insulated from those costs.
Tax and fee takeaway: Altamonte Springs’ lower home values reduce property tax obligations, but HOA fees in newer developments can erode that advantage. Orlando’s higher home values increase property tax exposure, but older neighborhoods often lack HOA fees entirely. Renters face similar sales tax burdens in both cities, while homeowners must evaluate the tradeoff between predictable HOA costs and variable maintenance obligations.
Transportation and Commute Reality
Altamonte Springs and Orlando share identical gas prices at $2.73/gallon, eliminating fuel cost as a differentiator. What diverges sharply is how often you’ll need to drive, how far those drives stretch, and whether alternatives to car ownership remain viable. Altamonte Springs operates as a car-dependent suburb where most errands, work commutes, and daily logistics require driving. Grocery stores, medical appointments, and social activities cluster along commercial corridors rather than within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. Bus service exists, providing basic connectivity to Orlando and other parts of Seminole County, but frequency and coverage remain limited—useful for specific commuter routes but insufficient for households trying to eliminate car ownership entirely.
Orlando’s transit infrastructure offers more coverage, though still far from comprehensive. Lynx bus routes serve downtown, major employment corridors, and residential neighborhoods with greater frequency than Altamonte Springs, and SunRail commuter rail connects downtown Orlando to surrounding suburbs, including a stop in Altamonte Springs. For households living near downtown Orlando or along SunRail corridors, reducing car dependence becomes more plausible—not eliminating it, but reducing the number of trips that require driving. Walkable pockets exist in neighborhoods like Thornton Park, College Park, and parts of downtown, where grocery stores, restaurants, and services sit within a reasonable walk or bike ride. However, most of Orlando still requires a car for daily life, particularly for families managing school drop-offs, extracurricular activities, and weekend errands.
Commute patterns amplify these differences. Altamonte Springs functions as a bedroom community for many Orlando workers, meaning daily commutes often involve driving south on I-4 or SR-436 into Orlando’s employment centers. These commutes add time, fuel costs, and vehicle wear, even at identical per-gallon prices. Households with two working adults may face dual commutes, doubling transportation time and mileage. Orlando residents working within the city limits face shorter average commutes, and those living near employment hubs can sometimes walk, bike, or bus to work—reducing not just fuel costs but also parking fees, insurance premiums, and vehicle depreciation over time.
Cycling infrastructure in Altamonte Springs remains limited, with bike lanes concentrated along a few main roads rather than forming a connected network. This limits cycling to recreational use rather than practical transportation for most households. Orlando offers more extensive bike infrastructure in certain neighborhoods, though still far from comprehensive. Families with school-age children face additional transportation complexity in both cities, as school bus coverage varies by district and many families default to driving kids to school, sports, and activities.
Single adults in Orlando benefit most from reduced car dependence, particularly those living in walkable neighborhoods near work and willing to rely on transit or cycling for some trips. Dual-income couples in Altamonte Springs face higher transportation friction, especially if both partners commute to Orlando or opposite directions. Families in either city default to car ownership, but those in Altamonte Springs drive more frequently and over longer distances for routine errands, while Orlando families may consolidate some trips through walkable access in specific neighborhoods.
Transportation takeaway: Identical gas prices don’t equalize transportation costs when one city requires more frequent, longer drives. Altamonte Springs demands car ownership and higher mileage for daily life, favoring households already committed to driving. Orlando offers more transit coverage and walkable pockets, reducing car dependence for some households but not eliminating it. Commute direction and household logistics determine which city imposes less transportation friction.
Where Cost Pressure Concentrates Differently
Housing dominates the cost experience in both cities, but the pressure shows up differently. Altamonte Springs front-loads affordability through lower home values and slightly lower rent, reducing entry barriers and ongoing mortgage obligations. This structure favors first-time buyers, families prioritizing space, and households seeking predictable housing costs without sacrificing square footage. Orlando’s higher home values and rent reflect denser access, urban proximity, and walkable pockets—households willing to absorb higher housing costs gain reduced transportation friction and more spontaneous access to dining, entertainment, and services.
Utilities introduce identical rate exposure but divergent consumption patterns. Altamonte Springs’ newer housing stock offers efficiency advantages, but larger homes increase total cooling loads during Florida’s extended summer. Orlando’s older construction and smaller unit sizes create a tradeoff: less efficient buildings but lower absolute square footage under air. Families in large single-family homes face the highest utility volatility in either city, while singles in small apartments experience the most predictable bills. Home age and size matter more than location.
Groceries and daily expenses reflect the same regional price environment, but shopping structure differs. Altamonte Springs rewards bulk buying, planning, and car-based consolidation trips—ideal for families with storage and predictable schedules. Orlando’s walkable grocery access reduces friction for smaller, more frequent purchases, fitting singles and couples who value proximity over per-unit savings. Convenience spending creep poses more risk in Orlando’s denser corridors, where dining and takeout options sit closer to daily routines.
Transportation patterns matter more in Altamonte Springs, where car dependence and longer commutes into Orlando add time costs and mileage even at identical gas prices. Orlando’s transit coverage and walkable pockets reduce car dependence for some households, though most still require vehicle ownership. Households with dual commutes or school-age children face higher logistics complexity in Altamonte Springs, while Orlando residents working within the city limits benefit from shorter drives and occasional transit viability.
The better choice depends on which costs dominate your household’s non-negotiable spending. Households sensitive to housing entry barriers and mortgage obligations may prefer Altamonte Springs’ lower baseline, accepting higher transportation friction and car dependence in exchange. Households sensitive to commute time, walkability, and urban access may absorb Orlando’s higher housing costs to reduce transportation friction and gain denser amenities. For families prioritizing space and long-term ownership, the difference is less about price and more about predictability—Altamonte Springs offers lower entry and ongoing housing costs, while Orlando demands higher housing obligations but reduces time costs elsewhere.
How the Same Income Feels in Altamonte Springs vs Orlando
Single Adult
Housing becomes the first non-negotiable cost, and Altamonte Springs’ slightly lower rent preserves more flexibility for discretionary spending or savings. However, car dependence in Altamonte Springs eliminates some of that flexibility—vehicle payments, insurance, fuel, and maintenance become unavoidable. Orlando’s walkable pockets allow some singles to reduce car dependence, shifting transportation savings toward higher rent or convenience spending. Flexibility exists in dining and entertainment choices, but Orlando’s denser restaurant and bar scene creates more temptation for frequent spending. Altamonte Springs requires more intentional planning for social activities, reducing spontaneous spending but increasing time costs for errands and commutes.
Dual-Income Couple
Housing costs in Orlando absorb a larger share of combined income, but shorter commutes and walkable access reduce transportation time and vehicle wear. Altamonte Springs’ lower housing costs preserve more cash flow, but dual commutes into Orlando add time friction and mileage, compounding vehicle depreciation and maintenance schedules. Grocery flexibility exists in both cities, but Altamonte Springs rewards bulk buying and planning, while Orlando’s proximity to smaller markets and dining options encourages more frequent, smaller purchases. Utility costs remain similar, though couples in larger Altamonte Springs townhomes face higher summer cooling bills than those in smaller Orlando apartments. Discretionary spending feels more constrained in Orlando due to higher rent, but time savings from shorter commutes and walkable errands create more schedule flexibility.
Family with Kids
Housing space becomes non-negotiable, and Altamonte Springs’ lower home values make ownership more accessible for families needing three bedrooms and yard space. Orlando’s higher home values push some families toward renting longer or accepting smaller homes, though walkable school access in certain neighborhoods reduces transportation logistics. Car ownership becomes unavoidable in both cities for families managing school drop-offs, extracurricular activities, and weekend errands, but Altamonte Springs requires more frequent, longer drives for routine tasks. Grocery costs favor Altamonte Springs’ big-box access and bulk buying, provided families have storage and transportation capacity. Utility bills spike in larger homes during summer months regardless of city, but Altamonte Springs’ newer construction offers some efficiency relief. Flexibility disappears first in childcare, school fees, and activity costs—expenses that remain similar in both cities—but housing and transportation friction determine how much time and cash remain for everything else.
Decision Matrix: Which City Fits Which Household?
| Decision Factor | If You’re Sensitive to This… | Altamonte Springs Tends to Fit When… | Orlando Tends to Fit When… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Housing entry + space needs | Down payment size, mortgage obligation, square footage per dollar | You prioritize lower entry barriers and larger homes, accepting car dependence for space and ownership access | You tolerate higher housing costs for denser access and walkable proximity to urban amenities |
| Transportation dependence + commute friction | Daily mileage, commute time, car ownership necessity | You accept longer drives and car dependence in exchange for lower housing costs and suburban space | You value shorter commutes, transit options, and walkable errands enough to absorb higher rent or mortgage payments |
| Utility variability + home size exposure | Summer cooling bills, home age, square footage under air | You choose newer construction and accept higher absolute bills from larger homes in exchange for efficiency and space | You prioritize smaller units with lower absolute consumption, accepting older construction and less per-square-foot efficiency |
| Grocery strategy + convenience spending creep | Bulk buying capacity, walkable access, dining temptation | You plan ahead, buy in bulk, and drive to big-box stores, minimizing per-unit costs and spontaneous spending | You value walkable grocery access and frequent small trips, managing convenience spending discipline in denser corridors |
| Fees + friction costs (HOA, services, upkeep) | Predictable bundled costs vs variable maintenance obligations | You accept HOA fees for bundled services and predictability, or choose older neighborhoods without HOAs and manage maintenance yourself | You tolerate higher property taxes from elevated home values, or avoid HOAs in older neighborhoods and absorb variable upkeep costs |
| Time budget (schedule flexibility, errands, logistics) | Commute duration, errand consolidation, spontaneous access | You optimize around car-based errands and longer commutes, prioritizing lower housing costs over time savings | You prioritize shorter commutes and walkable errands, trading higher housing costs for reduced time friction and schedule flexibility |
Lifestyle Fit
Altamonte Springs functions as a residential suburb where daily life revolves around driving, planned errands, and family-oriented amenities. Parks, playgrounds, and schools sit within neighborhoods, but grocery stores, medical offices, and entertainment cluster along commercial corridors like SR-436 and Palm Springs Drive. The layout rewards households that value space, quiet streets, and newer construction, but it demands acceptance of car dependence and longer drives for most activities. Walkability exists in pockets—certain neighborhoods feature sidewalks and greenways—but pedestrian infrastructure doesn’t form a connected network, limiting walking to recreational use rather than practical transportation. Bus service provides basic connectivity, but frequency and coverage remain insufficient for households trying to eliminate car ownership.
Orlando offers more lifestyle variety, with denser neighborhoods near downtown providing walkable access to restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and cultural venues. Thornton Park, College Park, and parts of downtown support a more urban rhythm—spontaneous dining, evening walks, and weekend exploration without needing to drive. However, most of Orlando still operates as a car-dependent city, particularly in suburban neighborhoods farther from the core. Families in Orlando’s outer neighborhoods experience a lifestyle closer to Altamonte Springs than to downtown, requiring cars for school, groceries, and activities. The presence of SunRail and more extensive bus coverage adds transit viability for specific commuter routes, though it doesn’t replace car ownership for most households.
Outdoor recreation in Altamonte Springs centers on neighborhood parks, the Seminole Wekiva Trail, and proximity to natural areas like Wekiva Springs State Park. These spaces support weekend activities—biking, hiking, kayaking—but require driving to access. Orlando’s urban parks, Lake Eola, and the West Orange Trail offer more integrated green space within denser neighborhoods, allowing for spontaneous outdoor time without needing to plan a trip. Water features in both cities provide recreational opportunities, though neither city offers beach access—coastal trips require an hour’s drive east to the Atlantic or west to the Gulf.
Altamonte Springs’ suburban layout lowers housing costs but increases transportation friction, fitting families and homeowners prioritizing space and ownership access. Orlando’s denser core reduces