The waterfront
These photos were taken at the marina, behind City Hall. I don't know how we can improve on the area and really feel it should be left alone. It's quiet and calm and do we really need to redo the area, attracing large groups of people? Why mess with a good thing?
By clicking on the photos, you can enlarge them.
You can just make out the lady in the hat, in the photo above sitting, enjoying her lunch. She is so at peace. Do we need to tear this up and have some kind of stupid waterfront plan?
By clicking on the photos, you can enlarge them.
You can just make out the lady in the hat, in the photo above sitting, enjoying her lunch. She is so at peace. Do we need to tear this up and have some kind of stupid waterfront plan?
posted by Tom Falco at 8:44 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.
23 Comments:
the only improvement needed is free parking
Yeah, I mean, get rid of that grass and palm trees and put in a cool 2 lane road that I can drive by the water on.
I agree Grapevine, why mess with a good thing?
I guess of the three proposals, the "Regatta Park" scheme seems the least obtrusive. Basically tear down the convention center and have more green space in its place. The other 2 proposals in my opinion are too complicated. I can envision three years of heavy construction in progress when none of us will be able to enjoy our peaceful waterfront.
By the way, how is eliminating the Seminole boat ramp (as the other 2 schemes propose) anyone's idea of making the bay more accesible to the public?
Project Proposals link:
http://projects.sasaki.com/coconutgrove/worktodate.html
Grapevine, with all due respect and apologies in advance for coming across as perhaps brusque, but I still don't understand your beef with the waterfront master plan for two related reasons:
First, as I understand the three alternate proposals, none of them would cause any material changes to the scenes depicted in the photos in your post. What would change significantly would be what's behind the camera in these photos -- the defunct expo center and the surrounding asphalt would be converted into green space. Perhaps I have missed something, but none of the proposals would eliminate the marina, and the peaceful scenery at the waterfront would likely be enhanced, not destroyed or altered.
Second, your strong support for Marc Sarnoff does not square with your opposition to the waterfront master plan. Marc ran on a "green" platform, promising to increase net green space in the City. And the waterfront master plan promises to deliver a significant piece of increased green space right on our doorstep. Yet you oppose the plan.
Why?
I think it is fine like it is, if people aren't coming out and enjoying it now, they aren't going to do it later. Makes no sense to spend millions to improve on this beautiful scene.
I agree, the convention center needs to go, but we don't need music amphitheaters and parking garages and excess crap to lure people. This is mother nature at her best, not Disney World.
I don't get the thing about "parking garages and excess crap," either. I have looked at the three alternate proposals, and two of them have proposed parking garages on the southeast corner of Pan Am Drive and Bayshore, where there is now a mostly empty parking lot. The garages would service the marina, which I understand you would preserve and will be preserved under all of the proposals.
I am not sure what "excess crap" means. I don't see any proposals for commercial space in any of the plans, but I could be wrong. I'm not sure why you would object to an amphitheatre (a feature of one of the proposals), as I notice that you are supportive of things like Shakespeare in the Park and movies in the park. An amphitheatre would provide a nice permanent venue for such events.
I am sure that there was something specific that caused your ire, and that you're not just being a crank who doesn't like change of any kind, right? ;-)
Fwiw, I am skeptical of the kinds of idyllic scenes portrayed by my_ami. My experience in Kennedy Park is that it tends to be dominated on weekends by illegal aliens and their family pets. And trash. Lots of trash. I see no reason to think that this will change with added green space at the Dinner Key site.
But the old expo center and parking lot are eyesores. A nice, family friendly park would be a welcome change.
I agree! Let's leave well enough alone, especially when well enough is splendid!
I gotta agree with Grapevine here. Why waste millions on this? Why waste time and deter access to this area while construction goes on? Its really not a priority in my opinion. Look at how long it takes to do simple construction in Miami. I have season tix to the Heat and they have been working on the sidewalk in front of AAA Arena for 2 years now! Its a SIDEWALK for crying out loud! Just imagine what will happen when they decide to revamp our waterfront.
Ive said it a thousand times, but I have no problem saying it again. This city needs to get its goddamn priorities straight. Constructing things like Performing Arts Centers, waterfront revamping, etc, is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. If these things do actually succeed in bringing more people to the city, the success is bittersweet. More people = more traffic, and with ZERO inviting and effective transportation in Miami that is a nightmare in the making. Its time to stop focusing on frivilous items and start focusing on necessity.
How many of us remember The Grove as it was before they built MayFair? Remember when there was a Lums across the street from Peacock Park? When the folks from Grove House still roamed the streets being their crazy creative selves ? The days before the Yuppie invasion? I do. And let me tell you most of the so called improvements they've made since have distroyed my town.
See, I happen to be a Frow as in a direct decendant of Simeon Frow you know, the lighthouse keeper from way back.. I'm Johnny Lee Frows daughter to be exact.
Even back in 79 when I was all of 11 yearsold I knew they were distroying the place when they built Mayfair and started killing the spirit of The Grove and making too many social political mistakes to mention here but there was nothing I could do about it.
They say they're cleanning the place up. Ah ha, make it more attractive to the tourist but do nothing for the local population and watch what happens. Instead of perserving what's left of the old grove and putting the money in to programs that would actually help the people of the area grow lets just focus on making the place all "pretty" for the tourist who apparently love nothing more than massive buildings that call themselves cultrual centers and such. Yhea, great planning there!
Yes putting a multilevel parking garage where there's already a parking lot is a good idea but for the sake of all things truly beautiful left in the grove please stop this over developing allready!
Okay, I give up. None of you are making any sense at all.
We elected a City Commissioner who ran on a platform of increasing green space in the city, and here we have a plan to get rid of one of the biggest eyesores in the Grove and replace it with green space, yet everybody is opposed to this increase in green space on grounds that, it seems, overdevelopment is killing the Grove.
Hel-lo?
You could call tearing out buildings and asphalt and replacing them with park space a lot of things, but one thing that you cannot honestly call it is "overdevelopment." If anything, it's "development" in reverse.
I agree we should build a 3 to 4 story multi-level garage on the SE corner of Pan Am Drive.
That new garage should be built first. All marina and waterfront employees and long term boat people should be required to use those new spaces. Then we tear down the Convention Center, which apparently has severe leaks among other problems and we try to remove some of the surface parking surrounding the Convention Center.
Perhaps we could get a cute little Starbucks south of City Hall? Do not laugh. They attract 3,000 people per day. It is the carrot and stick approach.
The goal is to get more green space and more people using the waterfront.
Starbucks? 3000 people a day?
And therein lies the reason NOT to redo the waterfront. That is excactly what we don't need -- commecial ventures and thousands of people.
LEAVE THE WATERFRONT ALONE. It ain't broke. It don't need fixing.
I agree with Dianne!
I am also a coconut grove native who grew up running around the Dinner Key docks and catching tadpoles in the puddles outside of the Country Store restaurant.
I despise the new Yuppy grove attitude-McMansions and chain stores-the same things you can find in every other boring town across this country.
What the Grove needs to do is save whats left of its soul and quit trying to cater to every Kmart, Starbucks,Homedepot drone that lives in Miami Dud county.
Re: More green space and more visitors make for a better waterfront.
I understand if people, especially Grove people do not like commercial ventures like Starbucks. We do need more green space and we need less surface parking and I think the Convention Center is coming down. Having a baby Starbucks is just a device to pull people in off S. Bayshore into to the east side of the waterfront area. Not necessary if too many people oppose it.
We do know that successful cities throughout the world are planning ahead to deal with their parking needs. And many smart cities try to build parking that is disguised and unobtrusive. I see many benefits to requiring employees and long term parkers to use a multi-level garage. Convenient parking spaces should be saved for day trippers and for taxpayers.
Like it or not tourism is what is going to drive miami's economy in the future, and unless you want the grove to end up like kendall or doral you need to address the issues of making it a nice place for both residents and tourists and not take such a one sided approach.
It's ridiculous that I can't walk between peacock park and kennedy park without veering inland and traveling on the shoulder of bayshore.
Excuse me again, folks, but once again you are not making any sense. I looked over the Sasaki plans and I don't see anything about a mini-Starbucks. So this is another straw man argument that has absolutely no relationship with what is actually being proposed.
But even if it were part of one of the proposals, it's just that -- a part of a proposal. Why we should wax romantic about a derelict piece of concrete and a derelict parking lot is quite beyond my ability to comprehend. But of course I've only been living in the Grove for 10 years, so I guess I'm a little out of touch with what sentimental value these things have for the "old-timers."
Yup, 10 years in the Grove means nothing, SWLIP. If you weren't here before Cocowalk, Mayfair and the raping of the Grove, you'll never have a clue what the real Grovites feel. So please don't talk about us as if we are nuts. We really are trying to preserve what's left and trying to stop the commercialization of things.
The Grove was a rustic waterfront Village from day one. Let's keep what's left.
Grapevine:
I guess my frustration is borne of the fact that I really do take what you say seriously. I grew up in the Tampa Bay area and I saw what crappy commercialization can do to a nice waterfront community.
What I don't understand is the opposition to a plan that would do the opposite of commercialization -- it would get rid of an abortion of an expo center and leave public green space in its place. If that area is not converted into park land then you can be almost guaranteed that a developer will eventually get its hands on it. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, simple economics will not long countenance a waste of waterfront land like the expo center and surrounding asphalt.
And Grapevine, with all due respect, I have seen no evidence on your blog that you really hate Cocowalk and Mayfair. Any casual reader of this blog would indeed reach the opposite conclusion.
I often disagree with SWLiP. But in this case I agree with his points. If the Convention Center/Expo is going to get demolished then you better plan for it to be park green space because if you don't some well connected developer, like a Related, will see that site as an opportunity to build another highrise. (Related is trying to build 1.2 Mil sq ft on the Mercy site also zoned G/I.)
And you have to plan ahead for your parking needs or you end up screwing your residents, taxpayers and tourists. Remember, this is South Florida. We do not have Fortune 500 companies or Hedge Funds here. We have tourists. Treat them well. They help keep your income taxes low. Even some of the old time residents might want to park and visit the waterfront.
I do hate Cocowalk and Mayfair, but I see no reason to punish the merchants by boycotting them. It doesn't make sense for me to run to Dadeland to go to the Cheesecake Factory or shop at The Gap. There are too many abandoned storefronts already.
I also feel it is my duty to promote things in the Grove like Santa arriving at Cocowalk or The farmers market at Mayfair. I don't want to destroy the Grove by hurting the BIC or the merchants.
As for the park plans, I am not against knocking down the convention center and so on, I am against this nonsenses about Starbucks and big parking garages and the creeping in of commercial ventures. People have a say in the project and they are already talking about Starbucks, what next an ice cream shop and small cafe and tiki bar?
I hate the amphitheater idea and I see no reason to build parks just to draw people to the Grove. Just once, I think things should be done for the locals and not for the merchants and developers and people who have ulterior motives.
The Grove has always been a rustic waterfront community. I just hate to see it ruined in the name of "progress."
Thanks for clarifying your position vis a vis Cocowalk and Mayfair. I think it's a fair point to want to support the local merchants, notwithstanding one's position on the development, itself.
As for the waterfront master plan, I think that I understand your concerns in principle, but I don't see you addressing any of the Sasaki proposals on their merits. I'm still not sure where the Starbucks sneaked into the conversation. I have downloaded all three Sasaki plans and, looking them over, I can't find a proposed Starbucks (although the "Flying Clipper" scheme proposes a mini-cafe in the part of Peacock Park where the old NET office is currently located).
It seems to me that you could get behind the "Regatta Park" scheme, which has no parking garage and which will apparently do little more than replace the expo center with landscaped green space.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you have an opportunity to host a discussion of the merits of the three proposals, but I don't see that discussion happening. Instead, I see criticisms that are based more on a generalized sort of anxiety and not directed at the merits of the proposals.
If I email you the Sasaki PDFs, would you be willing to post them and invite comments?
I was going to post them, but thought they were too large to see on the blog, but send what you have.
Post a Comment
<< Home