Author Archive for Tony Garcia

The Week in Review…

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on June 20, 2008
in Bruno Barreiro, Carlos Alvarez, Commission, Transit, Tri-Rail, Uncategorized, Urban Planning and Urban Transit
. 0 Comments

Lots went on this week in transit and I for one am exhausted. I know we have been silent these past few weeks on what has been happening, and speaking for myself, I didn’t have anything new to add to the discussion that I had not already said before. MDT is having problems, ridership is up, and the people in charge are asleep at the wheel. Does that sum it up? Not to be frivolous, but if we don’t laugh about this we’ll go crazy.

There are no quick fixes. We are fast approaching a time when people realize that not having a transit system in place is the same as not having adequate sewers or electricity. We are living up to our image as a Banana Republic, and unfortunately some of those so-called Banana Republic’s down south are much better off transit-wise than we are.

This morning on NPR Houston Mayor Bill White talked about the challenges facing his city. In light of the Mayor’s Conference going on today, I thought it appropriate to show how another car-centered modern city is dealing with not having adequate mass transit:

“We need to reorder the way we live. … Mass transit is critical. More people are using mass transit in our community, it’s up sharply this year. We’re going to be the most aggressive builder of light rail lines of any community in the United States in the next three years. …. We don’t have to encourage people, they get it. There’s a tremendous demand for people who want ot give up that car, or go from two cars to one, and live near that transit line. … We really don’t have to channel what consumers want (as far as density), but we do have tools such as where we put our infrastructure …. Some communities that have had zoning are trying to dismantle it because it segregates (uses) … We’ve had large changes in behavior. No question about it, we’ll be bigger, we’ll be denser. There’s a new attitude cropping up every day when somebody fills up their tank.”
This is from this morning. Mind you loyal readers, Houston is not a bastion of urban living, but to hear their mayor say these things gives me hope. Our leadership needs to take their cue from Mayor White, or any of the other US cities that have renewed their commitment to transit by investing in new lines (Charlotte, Denver, Atlanta..etc)
Our leaders are to blame for this debacle. No question. The Commission has repeatedly made bad choices. This week they finally came to their senses (and took some Transit Miami advice) by restoring some independance and credibility to the People’s Trust. This is a good first step.
Lets review what else those crazy commishes said these past few weeks:
Chairman Bruno said that he wants to repeal the half cent tax. Are you crazy? Why are you even talking about repealing the half cent tax when it is helping fund our system. Just because you “prognosticated” (his word) that the half cent would not be enough to deliver on the promises, doesn’t mean that you should toss the baby with the bathwater.
Commissioner Souto played silly politics with the changes in bus routes. Thanks to Larry L. for researching how much those routes were costing us. It is that sort of cost/benefit analysis that will lead to a functional system. Commissioner Souto: you are just like the other posturers on the Commission: you talk the big talk, but when it comes time to it you don’t care about transit at all. Your choices reveal that much and more (like when you voted against refurbishing our metro cars ten years ago only to have it cost three times as much now).
Commissioner Jordan, I believe you have your constituents interests at heart. Unfortunately, where good planning and budgeting has been replaced with stopgap measures and half hearted attempts at compromise, your constituents are the ones who suffer. Our friends at “Eye on Miami” recently posted a letter you wrote about the UDB controversy. Your vote for moving the UDB shows how as a commissioner you have supported the faulty planning that has put us in this situation. I for one don’t think that the Orange Line North is a good idea. That line misses most pockets of density we have in Dade County. Next time there is a UDB vote think about the density you should be supporting along corridors like 27th Avenue, rather than expanding the limit of county services.
Remaining Commissioners: wake up! When are you going to take a positive position. I applaud Chairman Bruno for at least making a suggestion, however unpopular. I don’t think that another half cent would be bad, but the Commission’s credibility is shot right now.
My biggest disappointment has been Mayor Alvarez’s total absence from this discussion. Where is the strong mayor that you lobbied so intensely for? I know you inherited a big problem, but you convinced me and a lot of fellow citizens that you were the man for the job. Where are you now?
Listen up: we need transit. Multiple lines need to be built at the same time. The only way this is going to happen is if we float a bond dedicated to building these lines. This will be unpopular, but someone needs to take the lead…
PS. Looks like Tri-Rail is here for another year! Thank You Palm Beach for not killing our only success story. Woo hoo! More on this later…

Obama Supports Bikes and Rail

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on May 29, 2008
in Barak Obama, Bikes, Transit and Uncategorized
. 4 Comments

I thought it was relevant to share this May 18th Barak Obama speech to residents of Portland. (Not that we want to endorse any one candidate, yet).

“It’s time that the entire country learn from what’s happening right here in Portland with mass transit and bicycle lanes and funding alternative means of transportation. That’s the kind of solution that we need for America. That’s the kind of truth telling that we are going to do in this campaign and when I am President of the United States of America. We don’t need gimmicks.”

Watch the entire speech here.

The week in transit

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on May 29, 2008
in Barbara Jordan, Bruno Barreiro, CITT, MDX, Metromover, Miami Commission, Miami Dade, Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade Transit, PTP, Tri-Rail, Trolley, US Department of Transportation, Urban Planning and Urban Transit
. 14 Comments

A lot happened this week behind the scenes and between the lines. Here is a review:

Kudos to this editorial today from El Nuevo Herald columnist Daniel Shoer Roth. I think he did an excellent job in highlighting how mismanaged our transit system is. Accountability goes out the window when ten different departments and municipalities are ‘responsible’ for certain aspects of mass transit. I’m always talking about how our system is ‘mismanaged’ but that really isn’t the case at all. It’s a question of priorities, and transit has not historically been one of them.

Our planning priorities were on full display this past weekend in an insert produced by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that the Herald included in its Sunday edition. The insert describes work done to date and future projects. If you are not familiar with the MPO, it is a County run organization that is charged with coordinating the various transportation projects around Miami-Dade, as required by Federal Department of Transportation rules. Their mandate is described on their website is:

“…to have a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process that results in plans and programs that consider all transportation modes and support metropolitan community development and social goals. These plans and programs shall lead to the development and operation of an integrated, intermodal transportation system that facilitates the efficient, economic movement of people and goods.” (emphasis added)

Many worthy goals, but unfortunately their focus is more on expressway and road building projects than on balancing roads with mass transit. My favorite part of the insert is titled “Miami-Dade: Urban Travel Trends” which utilizes graphs, bright colors, and a lot of traffic engineer lingo (vehicle miles traveled, peak period speeds, etc), with only a brief mention of transit under a graph called ‘Transit Mode Share’. The text accompanying the graph states, “the countywide transit mode share in 2005 was approximately 2.5%” It goes on to say that share will grow, “albeit modestly.” Ok. I find it disillusioning that the organization supposedly responsible for coordinating our transit system is not very optimistic about the future growth of MDT.

Truth be told, after this week’s political farce concerning tranist fares and another half cent tax, I might tend to agree with the MPO. Our future transit does not look so good because the people responsible are alseep at the wheel. Commisioners Bruno and Barbs: wake up!! You have have been reaching in the dark these past few weeks trying to placate your constituents. I know this issue gets heated and personal. Let me be clear: this is not a personal attack. It makes it difficult for those of us who are transit advocates and who supported the first tax increase to justify anything you ask for now because of how the money has been squandered. Surely you can understand that. Next week I am going to work on a series of posts on how the People’s Transportation Tax has been spent to bring to light how that opportunity has been, and continues to be, botched.
If you really care about transit, and Commissioner Jordan I think you care about getting the Orange Line built, here are a few recommendations that can serve as confidence building measures that might make any fare or tax increase palatable:

  • Make the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust the sole entity responsible for deciding what happens to that money. Give it back its teeth, and allow it to do its job.
  • Charge veterans and the elderly. We can’t give away transit that doesn’t exist yet. Until MDT gets its house in order, they should be charged, albeit at a reduced rate that should be revisited when MDT’s finances get better. MDT needs income, and the Trust shouldn’t be responsible for giving it an allowance every month.
  • Charge for the Metromover. Same reasons as above.
  • Have MDT work with the Trust. Recent reports from Miami Today describe how the Trust is having a tough time getting cooperation from MDT with regard to budget issues. How is the Trust supposed to operate if it doesn’t know how much the system costs to maintain?? This is silly.

Note to Mayor Carlos Alvarez: the strong mayor powers you wanted came with responsibilities, ie. get MDT organized. How can they run the business of Miami-Dade Transit without a budget. Helloo?? Not to put all the blame on you though, as you’ve only really been in charge for a short while.

  • Tie the 20% Municipal Transportation Plan funding to transit specifically, not transportation which has become synonymous with roads and expressways. A majority of payments to municipalities have been spent on roads, resurfacing, and other road related infrastructure. The PTP was marketed primarily as a transit plan. Spend money on rail, buses, and the infrastructure related to these much needed systems. Our roads are in fine shape. That way projects like the Coral Gables Trolley continue to get funding, while other money is free to be spent on, oh, I don’t know, maybe a few bus shelters (around International Mall maybe)?
  • Increase fares to be consistent with our how efficient our system is. Don’t over do it. We want to pay for our transit, but we want to get something in return.

You need to rebuild our confidence in your ability to provide us with a functional and growing transit system. Very soon public perception of transit in this community is going to turn from being a nonessential ’social good’ to an indispensable and basic part of the infrastructure of the city. When that happens, when people start to feel like they have no choice but to get in their cars at $8.00 a gallon, watch out Commissioners and company. The mob will be ruthless, and the storming of the Bastille will seem like a trip to Disneyworld in comparison to your worth in the public eye.

The State of Miami Transit

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on May 22, 2008
in MDTA, MetroCard, Metromover, Metrorail, Miami 21, Miami Commission, Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade Transit, Mobility, Uncategorized and metrobus
. 9 Comments

The County Commission decided to delay its vote Tuesday on the proposed transit hikes. I commend Carlos Jimenez and others for seeing that the issue had to be reconsidered. As Gabe mentioned earlier in the week, the monthly pass really needs to be consistent with the size/reach of our transit system (not higher than NYC). Not to mention that the last thing you want to do when ridership is up is to increase fares, but the fact is that the system needs to be funded. Unfortunately I think that this discussion is just the latest in a series of bad management and planning decisions that keep our holding our transit back.

It has been a tumultuous time for Miami-Dade transit recently. The result of poor vision, bad management, and professional incompitance, the transit system is currently on life support. (This all with record high transit ridership on Tri-Rail reported today!).

The recent allocation of PTP tax dollars for the refurbishment of existing cars (and purchase of new ones) is indicative of the state of our transit. If the Trust hadn’t stepped in and bailed out MDT there would not have been anywhere to get the money from. In other words once the metro cars reached their lifespan they would have been tossed and we would have a really expensive piece of civic art. By not rehab-ing the cars some time back (as Baltimore did with its metro cars) the Commission basically put itself in a position where they had to buy new cars or close up shop. Not to mention the message it sends to Washington: that we aren’t serious about competing for transit dollars.  As if the Orange Line didn’t have enough funding problems, this just adds to how disorganized the MDT is. When the feds look at our existing system and see that it is mismanaged, what incentive do they have to give us money when there are plenty of other cities out there that are serious about mass transit.

The Orange Line debacle is yet another indication of how flawed our system is. We are eligible for lots of free money to help build this line, and we are at risk of losing it because we don’t know if we can maintain the line for the next 30 years? Really?? Lets not even mention that the Feds are already miffed that we are going to downgrade our Tri-Rail service after giving us nearly half a billion dollars for track upgrades.

Whew. Where does that leave us with oil closing in on $150/barrel (and soon thereafter $200, and $250. and $300…)? We need our transit system more than ever. We need a successful transit system now, not under the 50 year plan, but the five year plan.

Truth is if our planners and elected officials were as serious about transit as they were about highway and road building we would already have a really great transit system. I think it would be a surprise to many here in our car-centered culture that plenty of other post-war suburban cities have developed amazing transit systems over the past fifteen years.

Incidentally, I had lunch with a buddy of mine named Dave who happily takes the bus everyday from his house in Kendall to work in Coral Gables. He tried to explain to me why transit works for him but not for his dad (who won’t take the bus to save his life). “Its really easy for me. It’s mostly a straight shot with one transfer. But my dad works five minutes away from his house. It’s easier for him to just get in the car and go. Transit can’t take us everywhere.” Now Dave is my friend so I didn’t reach over the table and smack him around, but that’s exactly the attitude that pervades our culture and is bred from policy decisions made at the top.

Our elected officials need to understand:

We NEED transit alternatives to the car.

We DESERVE multiple forms of transit that are safe, frequent, and far reaching without having to get into the car.

We need transit NOW.

Miami-Dade Commissioner has an ‘idea’

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on May 14, 2008
in Bruno Barreiro, Miami-Dade County, Smart Growth, Sprawl, Transit Oriented Development and UDB
. 3 Comments

Miami-Dade Commission Charmain Bruno Barreiro woke up this morning and decided that he wanted to see a permanent development boundary somewhere west of the UDB (and east of Naples). Matthew Pinzur writes about Barreiro’s big idea in the Herald. He wants to rethink the boundary so that there is a buffer between the Everglades and the UDB. What?? He wants to hire a consultant to decide where that line should be. Pinzur points out though that “Barreiro’s idea of hiring experts has been tried and ended up stymied by politics. Most recently, the county spent six years and $3 million on the South Miami-Dade Watershed Study, an attempt to protect water supplies that evolved into a complex 40-year plan for growth management.” You go Pinzur!

I took a stab at studying the Watershed Study expecting bad planning policy and a series of platitudes about parks and birds and butterfly’s being important. I was surprised to find an intelligent, well thought out document. The report describes that Dade County’s “two major policy choices for the future can be characterized as either a Sprawl Scenario or a Smart Growth Scenario. The long-term consequences of a sprawl scenario are enormous. This is the path that the County is on today. The Smart Growth choice will require the County to take some bold, but achievable, policy steps. The benefits of choosing a Smart Growth policy are substantiated by the Study and supported by the literature.” Sounds good, right? It gets better. The study makes policy recommendations based on the current stock of housing, along with projected population growth:

Specific Watershed Policy Guidelines:

2007 through 2025: Allocation of 100 percent of the required 102,000 dwelling units inside the existing Urban Development Boundary (UDB) through 2025;

2026 through 2050: Allocation of a minimum of 60 percent (61,000) of the required 102,000 dwelling units inside the existing UDB between 2026 and 2050″


How much more clear does this issue have to be? If you have a chance read through the document. It has a lot of great graphics and data that support land use changes within the boundary that increase density along transit corridors (new and existing). We need another UDB like we need another 8 years of George Bush. Lets try implementing the policy recommendations that have already been made. The more these commissioners talk the more irrelevant they become.

In other UDB related news, the West Kendall Community Council delayed a meeting last week to discuss a project called ‘Parkland 2014′, a Lennar development that encompasses over nine hundred acres outside the UDB. “According to the completed plans filed with the county earlier this year, the developer is proposing 1,257 single-family homes, 2,436 townhomes, 3,248 condos, and about 200,000 square feet of retail space off Southwest 152nd Street and Southwest 162nd Avenue.” Oh Jeez.

News and stuff…

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on May 2, 2008
in Agriculture, Commuter Rail, Katy Sorenson, Natacha Seijas, News, Regional Rail, Regional Transit and UDB
. 2 Comments

A few of this weeks news:

  • A bill to authorize a major deal between CSX Railways and the State of Florida to provide 61 miles of commuter rail around Orlando is trying to get through the State legislature today before the session ends. This would be a great move in the right direction for Central Florida. It also revives hope of a statewide rail system that could connect major urban centers and connect to local commuter rail. It is a boon for regional transit, and a great opportunity for rail lines throughout the state to really consider the benefits of public-private partnerships with municipalities as a way of providing mass transit. I for one want to see a line along the FEC corridor from downtown Miami to Ft. Lauderdale and points beyond. Then we’ll be cooking with gas.
  • Surprise surprise, we are again in the top 5 cities with the worst traffic. It’s no wonder Miami is the cleanest city in the country, nothing gets dirty if everyone stays in their car…
  • Not to beat a dead horse….I was trying to make this UDB fight a little less frustrating by being optimistic about the future of planning in Dade County when I read a couple of letters in the Herald today from Katy Sorenson and Natasha Seijas. Kudos to Commissioner Sorenson! You really get what this is about. Shame on you Commissioner Seijas! Your blatant disregard for the environment is clear from your leadership record on this issue. You claim that the UDB has been around since 1983, but according the Planning Department documents, the UDB was an implied line that was enforced by land use policies and maps since 1974. According to these same documents, based on an influx of 30,000 people a year, we have enough residential capacity until 2018, enough commercial until 2025, and industrial until 2029. I find it hard to understand why, given the best judgment of the county planning department, basic good planning principles, and negative recommendations from two different regulatory bodies, you wold move forward with this obviously backward decision. If, as you say, you are awaiting a report from the EPA, why not delay these decisions until then? Please save your platitudes for your constituents, and don’t patronize us by pointing out that the land use policy outside the UDB is just as bad as it is in. Thanks. If you really were really interested in solving these issues you would work on fixing these issues, and not touch the UDB. Here’s a suggestion, how about some creative thinking about our agricultural land and where we get our food. For example, if local agricultural interests worked to supply Dade County Public Schools with part of their dietary needs, you would find reduced shipping costs, and increased demand for local produce. I’m sure if you put your thinking cap on you could think of some win-win solutions (to quote Kordor). Incidentally, I made a little graphic that shows how commission votes were divided geographically across the county (green is against expansion and pink is pro), and what it shows is that the commissioners who voted no are predominantly in areas that are at risk of facing future UDB fights (Districts 8 and 9) or facing a backlash of overdevelopment (District 4). Commissioners Sorenson and Moss cover a great part of the developable land outside of the UDB. Interesting…UDB vote by district

Gas & Public Transit

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on May 1, 2008
in Gas Prices and Transit
. 4 Comments

The Herald reports this morning that more people are turning to transit these days, but not proportionally consistent with the large population of South Florida. It’s something we regularly say on this site: that as gas prices increase, so will transit ridership. Unfortunately the article tends to reflect the whole car culture of South Florida by putting a somewhat negative spin on numbers that reflect a significant growth in transit usage in the region. Yes, when compared to the whole three county population our transit ridership is low, but how about the fact that our system just isn’t there yet. The more lines that are added, the more connectivity the system has, the more choices people will have to get to where they are going.

Our cultural fear of transit has nothing to do with safety, or socio-economic condition, or any of the other symptoms that critics wage at transit. Our fear has to do with being stranded somewhere without any way of getting around. The flexibility that you have with a car, and don’t with our local transit is enough to keep anyone from riding.

What we need are abundant lines, and more frequent stops that are close to where people can walk to them (not more than a five minute walk!)

My favorite line from this article comes from the head of the Expressway Authority Javier Rodriguez, ”I think we’d be doing great — not just good, but great — if we could get 4 percent transit usage across South Florida.”

Riggggght. Hey guys at the Herald, next time you do a story on transit try to get someone from the Transit Agency to give you a quote, not the head of the Expressway Authority!

Aww jeeez.

Postscript on UDB Vote

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on April 30, 2008
in Commission, Uncategorized and Urban Development Boundary
. 3 Comments

It’s not often that our local politics gets featured in National news media (unless of course it has something to do with Cuba or an international custody battle), but Time Magazine featured an article this week on the UDB fight.

“One of the Lowe’s project’s biggest backers on the commission is Jose “Pepe” Diaz, who is under federal investigation for allegedly receiving gifts from developers whose plans he’d voted for. (He denies any wrongdoing.) Another, Natacha Seijas, who at one commission meeting voiced her dislike of manatees, one of Florida’s most beloved and endangered sea mammals, faced a recall vote in 2006 (which she defeated) due to public complaints that she also was too cozy with developers.”

Wow. ‘Nuff said…You can’t buy publicity like this. Maybe now when the Mayor vetoes this decision, some of the other commissioners will come to their senses and realize that this is a bad idea. The UDB line does not need to move for a long long time. We need to take advantage of the infrastructure that we already have rather than expand. Its very simple math: the more people living in one area the less it costs on a per person basis to provide public services. The same roads and sewers service sprawl neighborhoods at a density of 4 units per acre as they do at 200 units per acre. In a very direct way, our tax dollars go to subsidize neighborhoods whose tax base doesn’t break even.

Ana Menendez wrote a column today about this. She takes the argument a step further and describes the other hidden costs of living in a McMansion out in the sticks. The social costs of living in disconnected suburbs and the environmental costs of paving over the Everglades are never figured into the calculus of expansion.

Even the shortsighted politicians of the area should sympathize with this argument: it doesn’t make financial sense to develop this land. The further west you go, the lower real estate prices are per square foot. This is a trend you see in every major city across the country. Suburbs do not hold their value and end up costing municipalities more because their tax base doesn’t grow.

We need to worry about density and intensity in the parts of town that are served by transit. We need to develop our urban centers, and the mass transit necessary to support them, and we need to stop building so far west and south that we kill any chance we have of having a successful transit system. At a certain point, which we might have already passed, we become so far behind the ball and the city gets so big, that good projects get caught up in NIMBYism and political baggage (read: Baylink and the Orange Line).

Coincidentally, I found myself this weekend at my brother-in-law’s house off of 8th street and 152nd avenue. As I sat in the backyard, which fronts the Everglades, I realized that between the back of his house and the begging of Everglades National Park was only about 20 blocks. Eventually, by default, there will be no where else to expand to. We will have backed ourselves into a corner that no amount of good planning can undo.

Miami 21: Is it really that hard to understand?

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on March 26, 2008
in DPZ, Density, Miami, Miami 21, Miami Herald, NIMBY, Pedestrians, Project for Public Spaces, Quality of Life, Sustainability, Urban Design and Zoning
. 4 Comments
I know we have already mentioned this topic this week, but considering the Herald continues its negative spin campaign against the zoning rewrite I thought a healthy counterpoint was in order. Herald columnist Ana Mendez writes in her column today that she thinks that the code is a little too complicated for a layperson to understand.

She writes, “Its true zoning codes are difficult to write. And no one wants to minimize the important role that government plays in assessing the public’s needs and translating them into hopelessly complicated, impenetrable legal gobbledygook. But there has to be a better way.”

Now, as an urban planner and architect I agree that the language can be difficult at times, but the fact is that anyone with a high school education can figure it out (not to mention that all of the terms used are defined in the first chapter). Part of the problem is that we have to translate good urban design (which is a field that lends itself to drawing more than writing) into legal ‘gobbledygook’ so that land-use attorneys and developers don’t find loopholes in otherwise straightforward regulations.

Codes (Miami 21 or any other land use code) have to be written in language that is not simplistic, and that will hold up to scrutiny in court. Menendez quotes from the code:


Lots facing streets on more than one (1) side shall have designated Principal Frontage(s) and may have Secondary Frontage(s). Unless otherwise designated by a Special Area Plan, a Principal Frontage shall be that facing the street of higher pedestrian importance or intensity (i.e., traffic volume, number of lanes, etc.)

Which is another way of saying that you define the front of a corner lot as the one that faces the busiest street, but you can’t say that in a legal document because if you did then you would have all sorts of follow-up questions like:

  • How do you define which street is most important?
  • What do you call the other less important front?

Unfortunately, I think that this criticism of Miami 21, along most others, is less about the code than about blaming it for things that are beyond its control.

Here are a few of the arguments against Miami 21 that I have read both on the Miami 21 website and in various articles over the past two years:
–> “Miami 21 is the first urban application of a smart code in the US. It is an experiment that has never been tested.”

Actually, Miami 21 is not the first form based code to be applied to a major urban center, Philadelphia is in the process of passing a form based code, and I think we would all agree that as far as successful urbanism is concerned Miami pales in comparison. Form based codes have actually been around for a long time. Think of any good city (Chicago, New York, Philly, Boston) and their downtowns were developed with codes that were form based (as opposed to use based).

–> “Miami 21 is hated by architects and urban planners.”

Actually, having been written by urban planners and architects this one is not really true. The Herald loves to point out that architects dislike the plan, but really only a vocal minority of self-crowned celebrity architects dislike the code as a matter of ego than of substance. One architect in particular (whose name will remain anonymous except to say that it begins with Z and ends with h) says that the code infringes on his creativity by imposing height restrictions. Without going into some lengthy discussion on aesthetics and philosophy, lets just say that where this designer is concerned, creativity is overrated. Miami 21 holds faithful to some pretty basic premises (active street fronts, eyes on the street, etc.) and allows a lot of latitude after that. If you need your building to stand out like a huge phallic symbol, go to Dubai. Never mind that the the latest draft of the code has all but relaxed the height restrictions in certain T-Zones to be what they are in the existing code.

–> “Miami 21 will not allow me to rebuild my house if it gets destroyed.”

First of all, as with any zoning rewrite there will be nonconformities. The whole point of the code is that the existing code is allowing some pretty awful stuff to get built, and the new code will make some of that illegal. That’s the nature of any zoning code. I live in a 1940’s med style house that is illegal by today’s code because its too close to the sidewalk. Go figure. At any rate, the new draft of the code explicitly states that nonconformities in R1 zones will be grandfathered in. Period.

–> “Developers hate Miami 21.”

This one is my favorite. Developers love Miami 21 because it gives them greater development rights than they had before. The code was drafted using the existing regulations as a base. That means that all of the development rights have been preserved or augmented. All the code does is say that you have to meet the street in a way that will promote healthy urbanism. It’s not complicated.

–> “Miami 21 will allow tall buildings next to single family residences along Biscayne in the NE part of town.”

This one is true much to the chagrin of community activists such as Elvis Cruz who have long protected the area. Unfortunately they aren’t entirely using their thinking caps as to what they get in return for this extra height. Along parts of Biscayne you can build a 3 story building that would reach a height of 50′+ that would be adjacent to 30′ homes.

There are two parts to this that people need to understand.

1) We are trying to encourage pedestrian friendly development along in this part of Biscayne and part of that involves defining the street as a public space. With a street as large as Biscayne is, you need something more than two stories to make that happen. I don’t think that 50′ is all that egregious a transition to a single family neighborhood (especially in comparison to what is allowed now).
2) We need to start thinking of our eastern edge as the place where more intense development needs to happen. We cannnot hold the UDB line and be NIMBY’s at the same time. Saving the Everglades means that growth has to be in someone’s backyard. Biscayne Boulevard deserves buildings that are more than 3 stories.

Remember this: Miami 21 is a lot better than the existing code, and if we let this opportunity pass we are the ones who suffer. This is not some abstract concept in a book, this is about the kind of city in which we want to live and raise our families. I for one will not give up.

Miami 21: On Hold Again

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on March 24, 2008
in Commission, DPZ, Mayor Diaz, Miami and Miami 21
. 8 Comments
Miami 21 is in the Herald today with news that is not very uplifting. Commissioner Regalado, a longtime critic of the plan, has decided that the residents of his district do not yet fully understand the code and that he will not let the plan move forward until they do. Judging from turnout at meetings in his district, it’s no wonder that people still don’t understand the plan, but whose fault is that? (Maybe they should show up, or at least read through the code once). Are we going to continue to stall this plan and delay its implementation because of his own political agenda against Mayor Diaz and Commish Joe Sanchez. All too often lately, it seems that his decisions are based on where ideas came from rather than what is best for his constituents or the city. Think about the Ballpark deal: if that had come solely from Mayor Diaz’s office he would surely have tried to kill it.

Lets not even mention the fact that he expects DPZ to do any work from this point on for FREE!! What boggles my mind is that he originally suggested the quadrant system, only to change his mind later to city-wide implementation. In my business that’s called a change order, and there is no reason that DPZ should not be compensated for it. It all boils down to a cheap political trick: rather than force a vote against the plan (which he would be responsible for) he is going to try to force them to stop working on the plan (by not paying them), and later blaming the administration and DPZ for not following through.

The fact is that this plan works, and it works a lot better than what we have now. Period. Any other arguments he or any other commissioner makes is small potatoes. It serves the public good, will create a walkable city, and provides for the transitions from high density areas to low density areas that are non-existent in the current code.

Miami-Dade 2008 Great Park Summit

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on March 17, 2008
in Enrique Penalosa, Miami Dade, Parks and public space
. 0 Comments

Miami Dade County unveiled its 50 year parks Masterplan last Friday at the Second Great Park Summit held at Fairchild Botanical Garden. For a place that is too often known for its reactionary planning, this plan is really progressive and forward thinking. Green street corridors, a continuous green belt, and an interconnected network of neighborhood and urban parks place the plan in the company of Olmstead’s Emerald Necklace in Boston and Burnam’s Chicago plan.

The Summit bought together parks departments from all around Dade County, as well as Mayor Alvarez and members of the County Commission. Conspicuously absent were high level members of the City of Miami, South Miami, and Coral Gables to name a few. Considering all the land the County Parks Masterplan encompasses, it’s important for all municipalities to support each other and work toward the same goals. Specifially, Miami Mayor Manny Diaz should have been present, considering his stated commitment toward making Miami a ‘green’ city and improving the tree canopy.

Overall, the plan aims to take one of the largest parks systems in the country into the 21st century by rethinking what open space is and how we use it. Not only are parks considered places of passive or active use, but as common civic space that should be available to all. The highlight of the Summit was the keynote speech by former Bogota Mayor Enrique Penalosa who gave a great presentation about how we should choose to plan and use our open spaces (parks AND sidewalks) as places of social equality and where the daily drama of life really takes place. His advocacy of public spaces in Bogotá, from extensive bike paths, to a former country club turned public park is inspiring. He closed his presentation with the thought that “Public good must prevail over private interest.” How’s that for progressive?

Miami 21 Update

Published
by
Tony Garcia
on March 17, 2008
in DPZ, Miami, Miami 21 and Zoning
. 0 Comments


There’s movement on the horizon for Miami 21. You’ll remember that the last we heard about Miami 21 (way back in June of last summer) the City Commissioners sent DPZ back to do more work refining the code, & holding more public meetings. Among some of the criticisms the Commissioners had was that the plan was divided into quadrants (a request they made when DPZ first started the project) and would required concurrent zoning codes, and that there were several parts of the code that were not very clear (ironically the parts that came from the existing code regarding non-conformities).

DPZ spent the remainder of last summer holding 14 public meetings in the remaining 3 quadrants to educate the rest of the city on what Miami 21 is and what it is trying to accomplish (as if they didn’t already know). They reissued a new and improved code (addressing some of the concerns regarding height and development rights) and revamped the Miami 21 website. The City of Miami seemed to be ready once again to move forward with with the code by scheduling an April 8th special City Commission meeting. Unfortunately, that meeting was postponed so that DPZ could finish the atlas of the entire city.

The new website is helpful and will hopefully do away with the notion that the city and DPZ have tried coming up with this code in a smoke filled room with no public involvement. They have published several previous versions of the code as requested in the Question/Answer section of the website, and have provided readers with a thorough education on the idea of the form-based code. I would urge any interested party (developer, lawyer and citizen alike) to read through the code to really understand it. It is user friendly and streamlines the zoning process.

We urge the City Commission to recognize Miami 21 as the visionary code that it is, and hope that the work can move forward as quickly as possible so that new development can start to shape the city in a positive way.