From the out of the blue department . . .
Grove Harbour wants to build a 20,000 square foot structure next to the Chart House property line. They met with the Waterfront Advisory Board last night. This comes out of nowhere. It involves an exception on setbacks.
Nobody knows how high it will be. They talk in stories, not feet. What about the roof? Will it be flat or go up on an angle which could add another story?
Basically, this is the proposal by Grove Harbour: They want to build restrooms and a locker room for their customers and they would like a larger dockmaster office and some other office space they can rent out to yacht brokers, which will defray costs. It will something similar to Shake-A-Leg's building.
Many are against this, saying that after all the work done on the Waterfront Master Plan, why allow a new structure on public right-of-way to block the water? But it appears that they have a 40-year lease and it is not "public space," other than the baywalk along the water, which is where the setback would change. Yet it is more building on the waterfront.
Village Council head, Michelle Neimeyer, and others are for this, but they are the first to want toknock down the Expo Center. Yet this 20,000 structure is a good thing? Doesn't make sense.
The new building will not block water views, because there are no water views there now. There is no retail in the plans and the latest of several designs is smaller and shorter than previous versions. It is not three stories (down from four) and is lower than the hanger building behind it.
The views are actually blocked now by The Fresh Market and the large Pan Am Yacht Harbour Hanger which are historically protected and aren't going anywhere.
After complaints, the owner of the marina has agreed to open up the entire space under the building (over 5000 square feet), which can be used by the public and hopefully tables can be set up there by The Fresh Market and people can eat there. It would be a welcoming shady place maintained by the marina. Yet do we need more building on the waterfront?
Some feel that fighting this plan would not be a good idea since it actually opens up the area for the public, rather then keep the small baywalk area that is there now. And the current area literally has port-a-potties in the parking lot, which of course would be gone if new facilities were built.
The folks from Grove Harbour have agreed to come to the Village Council's next meeting on Sept. 18 to present the issue to the public before it goes to the City Commission on Sept. 25.
"I would encourage everyone who is interested in either side of this issue to come. I for one am tired of us missing out on opportunities in the Grove because of our tendency to fight all change for the sake of fighting change. Not all change is bad and in my opinion this is a really nice compromise that will benefit the Grove and enhance our public enjoyment of the waterfront," said Michelle Niemeyer, Village Council President.
The plans may be seen here.
Nobody knows how high it will be. They talk in stories, not feet. What about the roof? Will it be flat or go up on an angle which could add another story?
Basically, this is the proposal by Grove Harbour: They want to build restrooms and a locker room for their customers and they would like a larger dockmaster office and some other office space they can rent out to yacht brokers, which will defray costs. It will something similar to Shake-A-Leg's building.
Many are against this, saying that after all the work done on the Waterfront Master Plan, why allow a new structure on public right-of-way to block the water? But it appears that they have a 40-year lease and it is not "public space," other than the baywalk along the water, which is where the setback would change. Yet it is more building on the waterfront.
Village Council head, Michelle Neimeyer, and others are for this, but they are the first to want toknock down the Expo Center. Yet this 20,000 structure is a good thing? Doesn't make sense.
The new building will not block water views, because there are no water views there now. There is no retail in the plans and the latest of several designs is smaller and shorter than previous versions. It is not three stories (down from four) and is lower than the hanger building behind it.
The views are actually blocked now by The Fresh Market and the large Pan Am Yacht Harbour Hanger which are historically protected and aren't going anywhere.
After complaints, the owner of the marina has agreed to open up the entire space under the building (over 5000 square feet), which can be used by the public and hopefully tables can be set up there by The Fresh Market and people can eat there. It would be a welcoming shady place maintained by the marina. Yet do we need more building on the waterfront?
Some feel that fighting this plan would not be a good idea since it actually opens up the area for the public, rather then keep the small baywalk area that is there now. And the current area literally has port-a-potties in the parking lot, which of course would be gone if new facilities were built.
The folks from Grove Harbour have agreed to come to the Village Council's next meeting on Sept. 18 to present the issue to the public before it goes to the City Commission on Sept. 25.
"I would encourage everyone who is interested in either side of this issue to come. I for one am tired of us missing out on opportunities in the Grove because of our tendency to fight all change for the sake of fighting change. Not all change is bad and in my opinion this is a really nice compromise that will benefit the Grove and enhance our public enjoyment of the waterfront," said Michelle Niemeyer, Village Council President.
The plans may be seen here.
posted by Tom Falco at 10:00 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.
5 Comments:
It's quite simple: the less obstruction, buildings blocking views and passages to the waterfront, the better.
From Peacock Park to the toll-plaza (beginning of Key Biscayne, right after the Alicia Wainright Park) there is only about a 2.5 mile stretch. That's all the waterfront Coconut Grove has left. (South Grove, from Peacock to Sunrise Av / Edgewater is almost 100% blocked from view by private property, that's about another 2.5 miles of impenetrable waterviews.
I've been running and biking the entire area for years now, it's so freakin' hard to see a GLIMPSE of the water throughout those 5 miles bordering the Bay. Try it one day, on foot or mountain bike, it's so tough to even see the water, let alone driving by, even on S.Bayshore Drive.
Even on Kennedy Park! the water view is too obstructed by wild vegetation and mangroves. I doubt those do much to protect the shore against erosion, why don't they trim them a lot more and open up the waterfront on that park, at least? (If you get out on a Kayak or boat, it's easy to get the entire picture)
Then the Islands in from of Kennedy Park, Fresh Market, Scotty's.. they started cleaning them a bit, one of them is half decent by now. One can only imagine what we could do with those, white sands, Coconut trees, you rent Kayaks from Shake a Leg or Sail Boats from many places and go listen to some music, fish in a few nice wooden peers stretching out to the Bay, or eat some fresh fish at some tropical place there with Calipso music, like little, CLEAN public resorts for Grovites and everyone to visit, Tourists, a couple small TickiBars with fruit daiquiris and all.. Telescopes to watch the stars at night, whatever.. And lots of indigenous trees and green areas preserved, real little paradises right here.
Why not? Why just some dirty wild islands a few hundred feet in front of us? (See the little white beach on Grove Isle? we could have 10 little ones like that on our islands right here in front of Bayshore Drive. )
But no, big money and interests always seem to win.... Sure,, let's build huge buildings, add CONCRETE and vertical private property, more exclusive Businesses! to block the very few Waterviews we have left (probably less than 500 yards in TOTAL now throughout the ENTIRE Grove, if you add 10 yards here, 4 way over there, 7 there..)
What a shame, a lamentable waste of such rare and unique natural resources.
Carlos Iglesia
I AGREE....NOT ENOUGH OPEN WATER VIEWS ANYWHERE! WE CAN DO BETTER !
There's no water view there now, and there's not going to be because of the hangers and the tree-lined Chart House road. Of course, we could chop down those beautiful trees :) Just kidding, but seriously, this site is about the only place along the water where it JUST DOESN'T MATTER if a building is built, and in this case the owner will give us a 5,000 square foot shaded public space to enjoy being near the water, and will maintain it.
Buildings should be no closer than 50' from the waterfront. The County has rules and the City has rules. A 50' setback for new construction is perfectly reasonable.
They would be setback and the structure's first floor would be quite similar to the current structure, which I doubt is set back 50' either. The building placement is really a non-issue. But to Iglasias' point above, it would be great if they added a little restaurant downstairs, or a tiki-bar, and some music. Though I'm not sure the chart house, who it backs up to would approve.
It will make little difference to me, who walks/runs the sidewalks with my dog on a regular basis, who uses the water for sailing on a regular basis and who shops at Fresh Market.
Post a Comment
<< Home