'Let's block waterfront with parking garages' NOT!
Sasaki Associates unveiled three preliminary plans for the Coconut Grove Waterfront Master Plan at a couple of public meetings this past week.
The three ideas are called Regatta Park, Grove Gardens and Flying Clipper.
One problem: they do not accommodate boaters and the waterfront should accommodate the boaters who have been there since the very beginning.
Plans call for water taxis, amphitheaters and even parking garages! Talk about destroying the waterfront. I still can't understand why the whole area can't be cleaned up and left alone. The rustic feel of the place is really the only thing that remains of the old Grove. The waterfront is a jewel, they want to put parking garages on the property? Just that fact alone should be cause enough to dump Sasaki, they obviously don't have a clue and don't care.
You would think that the waterfront would be the only thing not destroyed by developers, but again, that is the plan. Make the rustic, funky Grove waterfront a commercial piece of crap -- which will probably go the way of Cocowalk and Mayfair -- large commercial structures that serve no one but the chain stores and restaurants that will end up there.
The plan seems to be to discourage water activity by local boaters and marine interests. I know I'll get a lot of comments and put dows, but honestly folks, why can't the waterfront remain the waterfront? Do we have to yuppie-ize everything? It ain't broke, it doesn't need to be fixed. Plant some trees, a lot of trees, put in some benches, make a few paths. Period. DON'T COMMERCIALIZE THE WATERFRONT.
The three ideas are called Regatta Park, Grove Gardens and Flying Clipper.
One problem: they do not accommodate boaters and the waterfront should accommodate the boaters who have been there since the very beginning.
Plans call for water taxis, amphitheaters and even parking garages! Talk about destroying the waterfront. I still can't understand why the whole area can't be cleaned up and left alone. The rustic feel of the place is really the only thing that remains of the old Grove. The waterfront is a jewel, they want to put parking garages on the property? Just that fact alone should be cause enough to dump Sasaki, they obviously don't have a clue and don't care.
You would think that the waterfront would be the only thing not destroyed by developers, but again, that is the plan. Make the rustic, funky Grove waterfront a commercial piece of crap -- which will probably go the way of Cocowalk and Mayfair -- large commercial structures that serve no one but the chain stores and restaurants that will end up there.
The plan seems to be to discourage water activity by local boaters and marine interests. I know I'll get a lot of comments and put dows, but honestly folks, why can't the waterfront remain the waterfront? Do we have to yuppie-ize everything? It ain't broke, it doesn't need to be fixed. Plant some trees, a lot of trees, put in some benches, make a few paths. Period. DON'T COMMERCIALIZE THE WATERFRONT.
posted by Tom Falco at 11:15 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
40 Comments:
I heard the boaters ask for more parking. And they definitely wanted very accessible parking. Unless you pave over existing green space to provide more parking you have no choice but to add some vertical parking. Another goal is to eliminate or relocate some of the existing surface lot parking. This could create more green space close to the waterfront. The only efficient solution is to add some vertical parking. Obviously the vertical parking would be placed as close to S. Bayshore as possible. The vertical parking could be used to store vehicles owned by permanent resident boaters and all employees and staff working on the waterfront. And the structure would be lined with several small stores to serve pedestrians. This hides the parking and it encourages pedestrians.
I agree with "anonymous." There were a series of meetings held by the planning team with residents, the grove merchants and hoteliers, the BIC, and boaters, last fall and winter. Sasaki's ideas were drawn from what people in those meetings said they wanted, and a vast majority of the people said they wanted more green space and better access to the water.
Right now we have a ribbon of parking and a road wrapping all around Dinner Key. I am a boater and keep my boat at Dinner Key, and even though there is parking all around, on weekends I often have to park my car in the 30-minute loading zone spot, load things onto the boat, and then move the car. It's not that inconvenient to do that, and I wouldn't mind trading permanent parking for a drop off zone if it meant we could have a nicer park around the marina. The plans Sasaki presented provide some parking near the marina and provide drop off zones for people to unload their things.
This master plan gives us the opportunity to have a really great facility, both for the marina and the community. We need to work together and continue giving this sort of input so the final plan reflects the best use of our waterfront for the community.
Water taxi and amphitheater? And parking garages? Come on folks, lets not turn this into a cement commercial area.
Trees, grass and benches. Period. No businesses of any kind if they are not there now.
It's long past due that SOMETHING must be done with the Grove's waterfront. Hopefully, the improvements to the land will also mean improvements to the water.
Environmentally, the sealife needs to be protected. In the anchorage, no goverment body checks to see that sanitation laws are being followed. Imagine the damage that has already been caused by 50 years of maritime squatters (no pun intended).
The waterfront is a mess. The land between Bayshore and the water isn't being used efficiently, especially along Dinner Key between City Hall, the Convention Center, and Scotty's Landing. I doubt that a parking garage would be any uglier than the boat storage facilities that are clearly visible from Bayshore.
The devil is in the details, of course. Moving the convention center elsewhere would help to solve a lot of problems, but that ain't gonna' happen, I suppose.
I was recently visiting the Old Northeast section of my home town of St. Pete, FL, and saw what an amazing job they have done with the old waterfront along Tampa Bay -- a large park with wide sidewalks for bicycling, skating, and jogging, with a beautiful public pool, baseball diamonds, tennis courts, and a sweeping view of the water. I wish we could just hire some of the city leaders from up there for a consulting stint.
Same old crap, different day. Did grovers really give input on this? Don't believe it. Nothing for boaters, a parking garage on Bayshore? This is the last thing we need in the Grove. Might as well build a home depot there while we are at it.
swlip is right. Why can't we have a waterfront with activities? Let's not turn Dinner Key into a park for the homeless. We should have an active park with NO private enterprises, either commercial or nonprofit. This land should be for everyone to enjoy. Who in the heck was driving this stupid plan anyway?
Ok, I think there needs to be some give and take here. So many of you are so quick to let your emotions carry negative opinions without offering an alternative solution for discussion... It is apparently obvious that the waterfront needs some spring cleaning and it would only serve the Grove community better. Are parking structures really worse looking than boats stacked on top of each other? I doubt it, and the Grove could certainly use some additional parking. We could also use some more green space and it seems that this is how the majority of the community feels so hopefully a plan that includes both parking and green space can be implemented with aesthetically pleasing design. Then we have things that are a tad unnecessary... An amphitheater? Didnt the Grove Playhouse just crash and burn about 3 times in the past year? Didnt the city of Miami just waste $500Mil on a Performing Arts Center (I say waste because it seems that things like a decent public transportation system are a tad more important to the growth of this city...)? Water taxis? I guess I dont see the point of that... I also dont see how you can add any sort of new retail/commercial space. There is limited parking in the Grove as it is and its really not accessible to outsiders. Its not like a Las Olas Blvd or Atlantic Blvd (Delray) where there is a main 2-lane road that shuttles people into the area. Plus, last time I checked there are plenty of empty spaces in Cocowalk and nearby... I must agree with swlip and the others who have expressed that they would like to see a nice open space primed for activities, etc. Its things like that that make the Grove what it is.
Why would we want a parking garage on the water front? I agree that the dry storage is ugly and environmentally it is a disaster (just walk through the oil and gas ponds on your way to Scotty's. The plan should show that business getting phased out.
How about something nice for kids. We never seem to think about them. One thing for certain, we do not need another dog park on the water. The one at Kennedy Park took the nicest spot in the whole park.
The one at Kennedy Park took the nicest spot in the whole park.
And many dog owners still let their dogs run around outside the dog park unleashed. They pretend to be unable to read the numerous signs posted around the park. Of course if you point this out to the owners they just threaten you. Annoying as hell.
Loose dogs is one of the main reasons I got my concealed carry permit.
i think the water taxi is a great idea. If it would go between the grove and key biscanye we could walk down to taxi and go over to beaches for day and back without all the traffic and parking issues. It might also draw buisiness for the grove on weekends during the day if people on key biscayne feel like coming over to do some shopping or go to the farmers market. I would love that.
I heard the ampitheater is literaly grass isnt it. like grass steps. I gues the idea is to make somewhere we can go to enjoy things like shakespeare in the park and such.
The amphitheater is a great idea. Friends of Peacock Park have asked for it for ages. It could be a great venue for Shakespeare in the Park and other sorts of performances.
The walkways to the spoil islands are stupid. Biscayne Bay is protected -with all the anchorage problems, don't think we need to kill off any more sea life with pilings driven into the bay bottom.
Don't understand this plan at all - Michelle says there was a lot of community input - don't know anyone other than her that gave input. It doesn't look like anything I have heard people ask for.
pillings are not going to do any longterm permanent damage. They may even serve as future artificial reef. I would enjoy the walkways personally. I think the more connected people get into nature the more they are motivated to conserve it.
Yeah, you can see how the denizens of Miami conserve nature everywhere they encounter it.
Anything is better than what is there now. Just let the professionals do their job. We don't come to your place of business and tell you how to do your job. Too much green space and nobody will come, except the homeless. Make it a destination spot, and oh my god, that means you will need a parking garage. Hello? Is anybody home?
Yes, that's what we need, another "destination place" so it can sit empty like Cocowalk and Mayfair.
Enough with the cementing of the Grove. Leave it green. Nothing wrong with mother nature. NO MORE CEMENT.
Anonymous who wrote the first comment is correct. Many people ignored the common sense message. It is obvious that if people want the same (or more parking spaces) and if people want more green space then some of the existing surface parking must be demolished to create more green space AND any demolished parking spaces would be added vertically to another location. I doubt anyone wants a 2-3 story vertical parking structure on the waterfront so that means the plan should include a 2-3 story vertical parking structure along S. Bayshore Drive. (Or somewhere appropriate.) To encourage use of the waterfront and to hide unsightly (but necessary) parking structures it is common to shield the parking with small retail stores. The rent could be used to pay for maintenance on the waterfront. Further, the vertical parking spaces could be required to be used by City of Miami employees, long term boat residents and employees of all waterfront establishments. This would free up all remaining surface parking spots for residents and visitors.
First of all, pilings will hurt the bay bottom. It is nearly impossible to get permits for any new pilings in the bay today.
As to any inconsistency between parking and creating a destination space -- You can create a destination for people in the Grove without a huge parking garage on Bayshore. The plan does not show 2 to 3 stories - it shows 6 stories! No one wants any commercial in the plan. The parking would just be used by the retail customers, so what have we accomplished?
I agree that the convention center needs to come down. But whoever suggested a parking garage and walkways to the spoil islands needs to come to their senses.
The only way to get more green space AND sufficient parking is to build a vertical parking structure. The vertical parking structure could be covered in plants and/or stores. It could resemble an old waterfront factory. And the vertical parking structure should house all the City of Miami employee cars, the waterfront employees cars and long term boaters cars. That makes the remaining surface parking spaces more available for Grove residents.
And the vertical parking structure "could" be an eyesore blocking more of the views from Bayshore and making it impossible to ever open up a view corridor with the eventual removal of dry storage on the waterfront.
Dry storage is an eyesore. If the waterfront park is successful many residents will want to visit. Where do people suggest we put the parking?
Should the City of Miami City Hall be relocated?
Anonymous said...
If you look around we have alot of parking in the Grove, most of the time the Oak Street Parking Garage sits empty, the lot by the Playhouse is empty, keep the green space utilize what we have not move things around and hold everything up for another 10 years and then do another study becuase the one we had is obsolete. Unfortunately all this city does is go around in circles and we end up discussing the same issues for years. Lets move forward already!
The Miami City Hall should be downtown. It sits out here like a sore thumb. Very out of place. As for the above comment about moving forward...I totally agree. This is the land of manana. I come from a city that gets things done. Strong mayor system. Very frustrating moving here and seeing broken street lights, missing street signs, poor zoning, trashed waterfront, broken traffic lights, bus stops with no covering, traffic anarchy in the streets as a result of weak police presence. Very sad what is happening to the city of Miami. A city that had great potential. We need more people like Sarnoff and less like Diaz. Not manana, today.
Now let's get real. How would you propose to pay for a City Hall downtown? The building City Hall is in is historic. It won't be coming down. Why not use it for the seat of our local government. Why waste money, like the county did, on a downtown building. And what has Sarnoff done in his 15 years of "activism?" Not that there were any great alternatives, but he is another fraud. Just read the "Eye on Miami" blog. He is going to hire the "best and the brightest" as if he thinks he is JFK. Let's see, offers chief of staff to two people and then settles on someone who is up to their ears in tie-ins to Arriola and his friends. The reason we have the government we have is because we have a bunch of people who follow like sheep and don't get up to speed on the issues.
Wow, for once Grapevine I actually agree with you. The parking garages would be a disaster of epic proportions on that tract of waterfront land. Terrible, terrible, terrible planning; the sheer number of proposed spaces is even more sickening.
It is only a mistake when someone fails to plan. If the waterfront plan is successful there will be many new visitors. Where does "concerned grove resident" think the visitors should park? Can't we learn from the failures on South Beach and the $450 Mil disaster of the PAC Center? Let's plan ahead. Let's plan to be successful. Let's provide enough parking for everyone... And let's keep the parking as far from the waterfront as we can.
Who are these masses (visitors) that people are talking about? What is the garage for? It's a park, not a mall or arena. I never heard of a six story parking structure in a neighborhood park.
All the other garages in the Grove sit empty. All of a sudden people are going to flock to this new one in the park?
I suggest that people actually look at the plans before having a coronary. The notion of a parking garage sounds terrible in the abstract, but if you actually look at the plans you will see that only two of the plans -- "Flying Clipper" and "Grove Gardens" -- propose a single parking garage, each.
In each of those plans, the proposed parking garage would be on what is currently a derelict area on the southeast corner of Pan American Drive and Bayshore, and the only view that would be blocked would be the view from Bayshore of the dry storage facility. Assuming that it is tastefully done, I hardly think that to be disastrous, especially considering the fact that, according to these plans, this would allow the entire current site of the Convention Center and the adjacent parking lot to be converted into green space.
Follow the links in Grapevine's December 11 post to view the plans.
A "tastefully done" garage on "a derelict area" "would allow the entire current site of the Convention Center and the adjacent parking lot to be converted to green space".
Well stated.
And I hate to point out the obvious but if the waterfront plan is beautiful and accessible than maybe many more people will visit. Let us plan now to handle the parking. And employers can help right now by requiring employees to park as far from their businesses as possible.
I should add that many readers of this blog elected Marc Sarnoff in part on his campaign promise to increase green space in the City. There are really only two ways of doing that, either separately or in some combination: improve the efficiency of land use; and/or use eminent domain to condemn developed land and clear it out.
If you want more green space, don't expect the City leaders to be able to wave a magic wand and make it suddenly appear.
I want more green space. Marc Sarnoff did promise more green space. (Actually he promised to make getting more green space in the City of Miami a priority.)
I find eminent domain distasteful. That means parking must go vertical. Any other options?
Let's really look to the long term. When is the soonest we can get rid of the unsightly and environmentally unsound dry storage facility on the waterfront? Probabably in about 5 years. In the Sun Post article, "... Dawson admitted that none of the schemes could be accomplished within the next five years....." So why would we even consider a parking garage on the site? Let's look at the entire scheme. It seems to me this thing was driven by some people with a very myopic view. We need to consider the boaters and we need to consider having a park with good activities that will benefit first and foremost the people that live in the immediate area. Once we determine that, then talk about how much parking is needed and how all of it can be paid for. I would rather see the City spend money on the park than spend it on a parking garage for City Hall employees. This whole thing just doesn't sound right. And finally, when was the last time you saw a "tastefully done" garage?
City Hall employees do not want a vertical parking garage. They do not want to walk. They want to park next to their offices, which happens to be close to the water. The reason to put employees in the vertical garage is so all the more convenient spaces are available for residents.
There is a multi-level parking garage in Charleston, SC that looks exactly like a 1910 office building. There is a garage on 7th Street on South Beach that looks like a plant. Garages can be 2 or 3 stories.
Let's think of ways to create more green space.
The one at Mary Street and Oak Ave. is reasonably well done, at least from the outside.
And the garage at Mary and Oak is nearly empty always. Available parking is not the issue in the Grove. It's getting to where you want to go after you park and the fact that it is a garage. People in South Florida do not like to walk far and most do not like garages for safety reasons. We do not need a parking garage on our waterfront.
We do not need a parking garage on our waterfront.
Let's try to take this step-by-step:
- There are a significant number of surface parking spaces current on the waterfront, surrounding City Hall and the Expo Center;
- Those patches of asphalt will have to be removed to make way for green space;
- City employees and people using the park and dry storage marinas (you know, the ones that won't be removed) will need a place to park;
- The asphalt surface lots will be gone (see above);
therefore, in order to facilitate all of the foregoing,
- A parking garage may be necessary, or at least desirable.
Am I missing something?
Again, the two Sasaki plans that incorporate a parking garage do not have it directly on the waterfront, but at the southeast corner of Pan Am and Bayshore. The only thing it will obscure will be the dry storage facility. Sight lines to the water from 27th will be enhanced by the removal of the Expo Center.
Although I'm not happy about the short shrift being given the CGSC, all in all the Sasaki plans look like, at least, an excellent departure point for further discussion. But all I see here is negativity. Nobody seems to be willing to offer other ideas.
I think you are missing something. If the Cocounut Grove convention center goes away, then so does the need for all the asphalt parking. Why do we need a parking garage on Bayshore. Since, as anonymous said above, nothing will be done for at least five years anyway, why would an unprofitable parking garage be the first thing to be built. It makes no sense. The plans that I looked at on line don't seem to justify it.
You still need parking for city employees, Dinner Key Marina employees, long-term parking for the dry storage marina, Scotty's, and whatever else will be there as well as the park.
It's worth noting that the "Regatta Park" scheme doesn't even include plans for a parking garage. I don't know that a parking garage would be the first thing to be built, but if you're going to tear up most of the developed land around that area, it might make sense to take care of the parking situation, first.
I bet Dylan Ace could make all of these problems just disappear!
Good planners often deal with the parking needs first, and with good reason. While construction, landscaping and demolition are ongoing existing waterfront employees, visitors and construction crews will still need parking. So often, vertical parking structures are the first things built. That makes other phases of the project much more resident friendly.
The main point, as expressed well by Michelle Niemeyer and others, is that everyones opinion should be taken into consideration.
Post a Comment
<< Home