An article about Maryland’s more than decade old smarth growth plan appeared recently on Planetizen from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110102470.html
The article, which references a recent study, explains how much of a failure the smart growth plan has been in that state–not because the plan itself was bad, but because enforcement of the plan was non-existence.
The City of Miami now has it’s own form based zoning code, Miami 21, which offers the city a marvelous opportunity to develop better, but it also has an incoming mayor who doesn’t seem to understand it at all.
With this historic opportunity comes immeasurable responsibility on the parts of citizens who want Miami to develop with the interests of pedestrians in mind.
From what I gather of Regalado he advocates moving back to a car centric, community dividing governance strategy.
This is a call to arms! (figuratively)
Let’s be the change we want to see in the world by defending Miami 21 against the oncoming hordes of special interests and backwards looking homeowners associations. Let’s fight to make sure the Bicycle Master plan is actively used when the Commission makes its decisions.
More than anything though let us band together and become the community we so desperately want in this area.
This post was submitted by Prem Lee Barbosa.
From the reporting done by the Herald on Regalado, it appears that he wishes to turn back the clock to the mid 1980′s-90′s. He has stated that he has no vision for Miami, and that he already has a “hit list” of city department and staff members that he is going to dump, giving some specifics such as Police Chief Timoney.
If he had ever run a actual business, then he would know that while you may have a hidden agenda, you do not telegraph your actions until such time that you have collected all the data necessary to make some educated decisions.
For the sake of Miami and its residents I wish him (and us) nothing but the best, but from his recent pronouncements in the press, I fear the worst.
This is why I didn’t vote for Regalado. This guy has “dinosaur” written all over him. Whatever one thinks of Diaz, at least he had a vision for Miami. Regalado offers no such thing. How likely do you think this guy is to implement any bike master plan like the one that was recently publicized? Miami’s future is on hold for the next several years, folks.
I disagree. The one thing about Regalado is that he cares about the constituency. After 8 years of mega projects and studies and the disasterous “global agreement” pushed through against the will of the citizenry, it will be nice to have a government that cares about what its residents and stakeholders want as opposed to out of town developers with grand visions and political connections. It is up to us as citizens to push for what we want and to interact with the new administration to implement our wants and needs.
The problem with Miami 21 is not backward looking associations but the faulty process that the old administration continually used to push things through with little to no citizens participation. The 35 foot height limit on Biscayne boulevard that is forcing property owners to sue the City to protect their business interests is what is backwards, not the association.
Brad, the 35′ height limit was not the idea of the administration, it was NOT part of the original code, and was proposed by the area commissioner. This has nothing to do with Miami 21, lets keep the issues straight. And while we are on the subject of neighborhood associations, you can thank them for the 35′ height limit (specifically MNU), not the city planning department or administration. This is just another example of reactionary planning, where a vocal, but unknowing citizenry reacts against people in power without understanding the issues.
Check out these planning department responses to the issues raised by ‘neighbhorhood’ associations:
http://www.miami21.org/white_papers.asp
Hi Brad: Tony is correct, Biscayne’s now 35′ was a campaign promise payoff to local, very vocal Sarnoff supporter, who may be well meaning but lacks the professional background to backup his strongly held viewpoint.
Biscayne’s allowable height was raised to 23 stories in 1981 by the city commission. This was lowered in 2003 to 8 or 9 stories depending on building use in a first-ever regional rezoning in answer to the Upper Eastside Miami Council’s request for a lower building height to abut the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Legally speaking, Miami may well have a problem with “taking” on Biscayne, because they now have in two separate moves, severely diminished the value of the commercial lots fronting Biscayne from 23 stories to 3 1/2 stories.
And you also have inaccurate information concerning Miami21: “The problem with Miami 21 is not backward looking associations but the faulty process that the old administration continually used to push things through with little to no citizens participation.”
My God, if anything the Miami21 process was a PUBLIC affair – with so many open-to-the-invited-public meetings that I lost count. I personally attended over 25 such meetings held all over Miami, and I believe there were in excess of 60-70. Where were you??
Correct about the 35′ limit not from planning or the administration. The point still is the same though, an item pushed through with little or no public debate. On the Miami 21 meetings, you are correct as well. However, my discussions with PAB members indicate that all of these meeting were a waste if the citizens comments were not evaluated and PAB did not approve Miami 21 before the City Commission, as is usually done. I think that everyone involved with this knows that the former administration rushed through a lot of things in the last months, potentially violating the law for notice periods and required public hearings. One of the lawyers said it on the record at the Miami 21 second reading “why not wait a couple more months to follow correct procedures and integrate the comments from the dozens of meetings held with the public – by rushing this through you are opening yourself up to a procedureal challenge that risks destroying years of work and milliions of dollars in taxpayer funds”
I have to say that I do understand single-family homeowner concerns along the Biscayne corridor. Can you imagine living two or three doors down from a 23-story building? I do think we need to somehow protect the integrity of single-family neighborhoods that abut major thoroughfares like Biscayne Blvd.
Of course, I realize that the result is a lack of sufficient residential density along portions of the Blvd., higher density being more likely to be conducive to creating a more truly urban atmosphere. But everything is a trade-off. Compromises must be made. We must remember that the Upper East Side neighborhoods are essentially suburban in nature. They just happen to be suburbs within the city limits.
Correct – this has been an ongoing issue for years. Rational, intelligent adults can usually find comprimises and win win solutions. The problem is with no dialogue this can’t happen. Back in 2005, on the SD-9 committee, we utilized the Haussmann principles of the “cube of light” street width related to building height to preserve light and air. There was also an idea I have been backing for years to waive the parking requirements for new developments and require developers to pay into a parking funds that would be used to construct a series of parking garages and / or lots up and down the boulevard. This would reduce height, allow developers to maintain their buildable square footage, and have the ancillary effect of creating a more pedestrian neighborhood.
When we communicate and discuss among ourselves and our government, a lot of things can happen and a lot of good ideas can be generated. My happiness with the new administration is that we finally have one that will communicate and look out for the interests of those who live and work here as opposed to out of town developers and those implicated in the megaprojects as in the past!
I remember when I was at the first reading of Miami 21 at City Hall Regalado made my jaw drop.
Someone was arguing for the importance of Miami 21s encouragement of transit oriented development, and in response Regalado said that we don’t have a lot of transit, and for that reason TOD doesn’t make sense.
But he seems to have it backwards, and I’m going to bring this up any time I go to a commission meeting: if people use transit more, and bother MDT about their retarded services, things will change to meet the screaming demands.
As long as MDT and the Commission are on two separate pages, doing their own things, decision making by these two bodies (amongst others) will go on blind and unproductively.
Zoning with TOD (transit oriented development) is applied in places where there is solid mass transit either IN PLACE or in the process of being built (approved and under construction).
The notion of zoning as though there WILL BE mass transit (sometime, with no funding, no details, no plan), runs counter to the name. Regalado, rightly, argued that Miami 21 claiming to zone in accordance with TOD, yet having no comprehensive mass transit in the places where this upzoning was to occur, runs counter to the concept.
Miami 21 has nothing close to a comprehensive mass transit plan (in spite of initial promises it would), nor do any gov’t agencies, for Miami.
Thus, Regalado’s statement makes complete sense. DPZ would have us believe that if you upzone an area mass transit will follow. It may or may not, but in the meantime, that is a twenty to thirty year wait to find out. This is Miami-style “new urbanism”, not implemented anywhere else. And, for the millions DPZ got, i am sure they can justify anything those pushing Miami 21 want them to say, most conultants would. And, make no mistake about it, this, if it goes through, is the first city of its size to be zoned by DPZ, and only with the transects (other cities which like new urbanism are choosing other consultants than DPZ to do their cities, or, like WPB, are actually redoing what they previously accepted zoning wise, from DPZ, for their cities).
Richard,
As far as I know, the City of Miami has little to no say in how Transit is developed in Miami-Dade Country. The City of Miami does have the say in how the city develops.
From my understanding (as ignorant and naive as it is) Miami 21 is an opportunity for Miami to encourage mixed-used development, which in turn would decrease the needs of citizens to travel further for certain services and goods. This would also allow for a different, and perhaps (but not guaranteed) better organization of where things are.
As is, the transit system is marked by a lot of redundancy in Downtown and various parts of Miami, I imagine because of the chronology of development in these areas. But it’s obvious that if these areas were planned differently such redundancy (which is essentially money the MDT could use elsewhere, and they certainly need the money) would be unnecessary.
Of course to make such things better would require the city work in conjunction the MDT. Not everything can come from a city’s zoning alone.
Do you ride the bus much, Richard?