The Playhouse project is not fully funded
The following letter was sent by Architect Richard Heisenbottle to the Mayor and Commissioners on Tuesday afternoon. Heisenbottle has alternative plans for the playhouse.
Good afternoon Mayor Suarez and City Commissioners,
For the past few days I have been working through the construction costs for the Playhouse Foundations Alternative Preservation Scheme for the Playhouse with SKANSKA USA. This has led me to question how the County was preparing to fund the Arquitectonica Playhouse plan, so I texted my old friend Art Noriega to get clarity on who was funding what. What I found out was startling and I feel compelled to share it with you and the other Commissioners as I don’t believe that any of you or the general public are aware. I have outlined what I have learned below.
Every County presentation to the City Commission, to lower Boards and to the numerous public meetings, have included Gimenez/Spring’s categorical statements that the Arquitectonica plan is fully developed, fully funded and ready to go.
The County Mayor made the statement, “We have the money available to restore that corner of Coconut Grove.” I believe that statement to be a misleading untruth. In fact Michael Spring and Mayor Gimenez appear to have been materially misleading. Rather than being a theater arts or historic preservation driven project, this is a developer driven project and both the public and the City Commission need to be made aware. In the County plan, 33% of the space is for theater related purposes, 67% is given over to office and retail space. Not for Arts Education, Not for a Bahamian Cultural Center, Not for Affordable Housing.
(My text message conversation with Art Noriega on May 18th is attached for your reference along with Michael Spring’s October 2, 2018 memo to the Board of County Commissioners and a copy of the MOU between MPA and the County. - they are here in Dropbox.)
The key take always from all of this are as follows:
The Project As Proposed By the County Is Not Fully Funded:
The County $20 million funding is expressly limited to the new theatre building for Gables Stage.
The costs of the garage ($30k per parking space x 300 spaces) plus the office/retail are estimated to cost an additional approx. $30 million.
MPA is only committed to funding $6M, plus an additional $3M from the Coconut Grove BID, for a total of $9M. MPA does not have the estimated $21 million it would cost for the retail and office components of the project? Where would the additional $21M come from?
The MOU states that a to-be-selected developer and/or MPA are solely responsible for all costs above the $20 million bond funds for the new Gables Stage Theater.
The land is owned by the State and leased to FIU/Miami-Dade County. A bank loaning the $21 million if MPA funds $9 million, will require subordination of the Lease from the State, something highly unlikely to happen.
The State’s Lease prohibits any mortgage on the property.
A Developer self-funding the added development cost with the developer’s own cash is very unlikely.
The MOU calls for the developer to utilize the services of the County’s architect for everything, at the developer’s cost and expense.
The MOU calls for the County to “…be responsible for overseeing the bidding, award and construction management [of everything]”.
In my opinion, no developer in his right mind would ever agree to any of this.
The MOU clearly says it’s not a binding agreement. So, contrary to what the County has been telling everyone they’re basically “nowhere”.
The Project Is Not Ready to Go:
The MOU states there must be a future RFP/procurement for a developer/operator for the development of a garage and other components. The resulting developer agreements must then be brought to both the MPA Board and the County Commission for approval.
The public procurement process requires County Commission (and perhaps State) approval of the development agreements.
This is not a “ready-to-go” project.
No Adherence to State Timeline:
The State’s Lease requires competitive bidding for construction and that this should have been completed by October 2017. Competitive bidding for construction has not begun and cannot begin until the project is permitted and the funding secured.
Advertising on public procurement process/RFP for the developer, RFP issuance, contract negotiations customarily takes many months, which would occur before the bidding and procurement for the contractor.
The County has proposed a 60-month construction period with outside project completion by October 2022.
The existing project delays, plus the requirements of 2 public procurements (developer and contractor), plus the unknown source of private financing all make 2022 completion of the Arquitectonica plans virtually impossible.
I hope this is helpful as you and the other Commissioners debate the Veto override on Thursday.
Warm regards,
Richard J. Heisenbottle, FAIA
Good afternoon Mayor Suarez and City Commissioners,
Every County presentation to the City Commission, to lower Boards and to the numerous public meetings, have included Gimenez/Spring’s categorical statements that the Arquitectonica plan is fully developed, fully funded and ready to go.
The County Mayor made the statement, “We have the money available to restore that corner of Coconut Grove.” I believe that statement to be a misleading untruth. In fact Michael Spring and Mayor Gimenez appear to have been materially misleading. Rather than being a theater arts or historic preservation driven project, this is a developer driven project and both the public and the City Commission need to be made aware. In the County plan, 33% of the space is for theater related purposes, 67% is given over to office and retail space. Not for Arts Education, Not for a Bahamian Cultural Center, Not for Affordable Housing.
(My text message conversation with Art Noriega on May 18th is attached for your reference along with Michael Spring’s October 2, 2018 memo to the Board of County Commissioners and a copy of the MOU between MPA and the County. - they are here in Dropbox.)
The key take always from all of this are as follows:
The Project As Proposed By the County Is Not Fully Funded:
The County $20 million funding is expressly limited to the new theatre building for Gables Stage.
The costs of the garage ($30k per parking space x 300 spaces) plus the office/retail are estimated to cost an additional approx. $30 million.
MPA is only committed to funding $6M, plus an additional $3M from the Coconut Grove BID, for a total of $9M. MPA does not have the estimated $21 million it would cost for the retail and office components of the project? Where would the additional $21M come from?
The MOU states that a to-be-selected developer and/or MPA are solely responsible for all costs above the $20 million bond funds for the new Gables Stage Theater.
The land is owned by the State and leased to FIU/Miami-Dade County. A bank loaning the $21 million if MPA funds $9 million, will require subordination of the Lease from the State, something highly unlikely to happen.
The State’s Lease prohibits any mortgage on the property.
A Developer self-funding the added development cost with the developer’s own cash is very unlikely.
The MOU calls for the developer to utilize the services of the County’s architect for everything, at the developer’s cost and expense.
The MOU calls for the County to “…be responsible for overseeing the bidding, award and construction management [of everything]”.
In my opinion, no developer in his right mind would ever agree to any of this.
The MOU clearly says it’s not a binding agreement. So, contrary to what the County has been telling everyone they’re basically “nowhere”.
The Project Is Not Ready to Go:
The MOU states there must be a future RFP/procurement for a developer/operator for the development of a garage and other components. The resulting developer agreements must then be brought to both the MPA Board and the County Commission for approval.
The public procurement process requires County Commission (and perhaps State) approval of the development agreements.
This is not a “ready-to-go” project.
No Adherence to State Timeline:
The State’s Lease requires competitive bidding for construction and that this should have been completed by October 2017. Competitive bidding for construction has not begun and cannot begin until the project is permitted and the funding secured.
Advertising on public procurement process/RFP for the developer, RFP issuance, contract negotiations customarily takes many months, which would occur before the bidding and procurement for the contractor.
The County has proposed a 60-month construction period with outside project completion by October 2022.
The existing project delays, plus the requirements of 2 public procurements (developer and contractor), plus the unknown source of private financing all make 2022 completion of the Arquitectonica plans virtually impossible.
I hope this is helpful as you and the other Commissioners debate the Veto override on Thursday.
Warm regards,
Richard J. Heisenbottle, FAIA
posted by Tom Falco at 3:57 PM
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.
13 Comments:
Richard, okay, let's go with your fancy chandelier plan (likely much more expensive!!) and restore the whole theater back to what it was...and see it fail as it has already failed many times in the past in its current form. We've already been down the "restored" theater road and failed many times. Now you want to go down that road again!! And waste millions and millions of dollars??
No plan is perfect, and even your plan is far from perfect!! The County's plan is the best option on the table and you are determined to destroy it in favor of your "competing plan" produced by YOU at the last second that has NOT been through the rigorous process the County plan has been through that has taken many years!!! Sounds a bit pretentious, Richard.
Thank you for Your research and explanation of the situation. We need people like you who are willing to come forward with the truth of the matter.
Richard, thank you for such an in-depth explanation in regards to economical & timing for construction upon the historical Coconut Grove Playhouse. Only an Architect expertise for historic preservation would expose this truth.
I pray �� that the Commissioner's adhere to your plan, & that for the sake of restoring the Coconut Grove Playhouse to its original state may be of high consideration for the benefit of the future of our children in this city.
Best regards,
Melikah
SAVEIT!
Melissa Myers, did you know that that arquitectonca's theater/cultural division, H3, restored Radio City Music Hall in New York (built in the early 1930s) one of the most celebrated and historic theaters in the entire country?!!?
And there's a lot more. Check out their portfolio at this link:
https://www.h3hc.com/arts
Javi H,
Are you aware that Arquitectonica is currently involved in no less than 13 lawsuits in Miami-Dade County? And that just Miami-Dade County. Does that seem like a company you would hire? What if your pediatrician was sued five times for malpractice? Would you let that doctor touch your child? I'm sure you can "explain away" my reasoning, but the truth is the truth. I don't want a litigation-prone company designing buildings with my tax dollars.
Jeff Shark
And didn't Michael Spring take an oath prior to testifying in front of the HEP Board and the City of Miami Commission? Wow, bad luck for Michael Spring; he could lose his job, his pension, and go to jail for perjury.
Richard Heisenbottle, thank you. Excellent facts.
More and more, it seems that Gimenez/Spring are personally invested in the project. Seems like their desire is at a fever pitch, which is quite odd for a county employee and a mayor who's county has a population of 2.8 million.
Why are they so married to the Playhouse?
It is entirely possible the excess funding would come from the mob or some other shady source if you dig deep enough! Yawwwwn, Goodnight.
HAH! Funny how no one is acknowledging the implicit bias and self-interest Richard has in publishing a note that undermines his biggest competitor's plan. Ironic how y'all applaud and "thank" Richard for putting-out the facts without doing your own due diligence while simultaneously dismissing any facts put out by the County. You are only kidding yourselves.
Thank you Anon 5:03 for stealing my comment. I couldn't agree more that Mr. Heisenbottle is an Architect that specializes in Renovation project and who also has a very big interest in killing the country project so that his Architecture firm gets hired (for a substantial fee)to do the plans to renovate the building. Why is it that all of the people that stand up and shout, "Greedy Developer" at the top of their lungs aren't calling out Mr Heisenbottle for pushing his own greedy agenda.
This horse has been beaten so many times that it has long past dead. Whatever happens to the Playhouse isn't going to please everyone so we just need to get out of each others way and let a Playhouse be built on that site so that we can actually start enjoying the building. Enough is enough.
Jeff Shark, they practically design every building in miami, of course they're going to have lawsuits. If you did your research or if you had an ounce of knowledge about the construction busienss, you would know its the norm for condo owners soon after completion of the buidling to sue everyone, contractor, developer, and the architect is tagged on, if there's a leak etc. It's the nature of being a big player in the construction business that you will get these types of lawsuits, there's no way around.
Have you even looked at the merits of these lawsuits? Anyone can have a bunch of lawsuits pending against them, thats the world we live in. There's a big distinction between having lawsuits and actually comitting malpractice that your ignoring on purpose to push your agenda.
Javi H,
I'm an attorney and I represent a construction company that does 10's of millions in revenue each year. In the last eight years I have represented them, they have only been sued once. That's ONE TIME in eight years. Your comment that I don't have "an ounce of knowledge" about the construction business is - WRONG.
I have looked at many of the lawsuits and the allegations are all very similar - bad plans, bad construction, not qualified. In fact, I spoke with a former Arquitectonica employee who said she quit because she was scared by what she had witnessed going on at work - bad plans, bad construction, not qualified leadership. Maybe she was wrong, but why should I second guess her? She was there and saw things with her own eyes, I was not. Neither were you.
Jeff Shark
Jeff Shark, anonymous attorney, theyre all similar because theyre likely the standard condo lawsuits where the developer, contractor, etc are all sued and the architect is tagged on like I said above. And if we judged architecture firms on lawsuits or one employee, nearly no large or star architecture firm would be qualified enough for you. radio city music hall restoration is a big deal, not any architect just gets that job.
Post a Comment
<< Home