If you have visited Midtown lately – Miami’s pedestrian-oriented development between Wynwood and the Design District – you probably noticed a vast sea of recently-planted sod between Buena Vista Avenue and NE 1st Avenue.

Jared Goyette covered this development for Beached Miami in early February, citing Midtown residents’ push for a permanent park or playground, and developer Alex Vadia’s stonewalling of their requests.

I happened to meet Mr. Vadia recently and asked him about the future of the plot. He said that the site was slated for future development and they did not want to build anything ‘permanent’. In Goyette’s article, Vadia is quoted as saying “we’re evaluating anything that will enhance the community.”

Midtown's ocean of sod. Just because it's green does not mean it's any good.

Well, right now the space is simply that – space. It’s a nebulous swath of grass I can only imagine will become a fecal carpet for canines in due time, if it isn’t already. With no designated dog area, play area or any type of area or features, the site has fallen victim to the apparent catch phrase of the year – ‘green space‘.

Author and speaker James Howard Kunstler argues we should rid our vocabulary of this term and instead be specific when educing meaningful public places. In an article for Orion Magazine in 2001, Kunstler writes,

“The terms open space and green space are themselves very problematical for a number reasons. They are abstractions. They do not describe anything particular. A farm and a neighborhood square are both “open spaces,” both “green spaces,” but they differ hugely in function, character, and ownership relations with society. In my travels and public appeals, I’ve advocated that we simply drop these two terms from the public discussion because they are too abstract to be meaningful. If we want to talk about preserving rural land or agricultural land then let’s use the appropriate terminology: farms, forests, wetlands. If we’re talking about the human habitat, let’s adopt the vocabulary of urban design: a park, a square, a plaza (distinguished from a square, generally, by its predominate pavings), an Italian garden, a baseball field, a bike trail. If you ask for an abstraction (green space) it will be delivered as an abstraction (grassy berm).”

An urban farm in Chicago. Rest assured, residents did not merely ask for 'open space' when lobbying for this community endeavor. (via wikipedia)

While this particular area of Midtown will most likely experience development in the near future, other areas of Midtown will not. According to the Miami 21 code (.pdf), Midtown is required to have a minimum of 10% of the property reserved as “open space”. The code defines open space as such:

Open Space: Any parcel of land or water, excluding public right of way, that is at ground level or open to the sky and designed and intended for the common use of the residents, tenant and the general public and may include parks, linear parks, plazas, and landscape areas. Additionally, canopy trees and large palms planted within pedestrian zones of the public right-of-way in accordance with the design standards shall respectively each count as four hundred (400) square feet and one hundred seventy-five (175) square feet of open space. Open Space is substantially free of structures other than structures that contribute to the common use of the space.

The nondescript language in the code means that Midtown residents must be vocal and specific in what their visions are for this valuable 10% (minimum) of land. Do they want a public square? An urban farm? An outdoor public room in which to watch movies and host events? Whatever they do, asking for ‘green space’ (or not asking for anything at all) is a virtual guaranty that another iteration of the current uninspired, amporphous Midtown ‘green space’, on a smaller scale, is inevitable.

Goyette’s article mentioned Midtown residents pushing for a playground. I propose they take it a step further. Get the actual kids involved in the conversation! Who knows what kind of playground a developer would build if left to their own devices. Community engagement that includes residents, developers and the actual tikes that would be using the playground would yield a truly endearing place, rather than a profit-driven builder simply plopping down some monkey bars.

This playground in Atlanta just looks boring. Get Midtown kids involved in the conversation to create a place worth caring about.

It is also worth nothing that some of our country’s best urban places are not “green spaces”. Take Washington Square Park or Union Square in Manhattan as an example. Even in a concrete jungle like New York City, people seek respite in these places because they are appealing even without an abundance of grass or flora. Of course you have to consider why a majority of people go to parks or plazas in the first place – it’s often just to watch other people.

Union Square is a great place for more reasons than some trees and grass. Photo by David Shankbone

People watching isn’t very interesting on a flat swath of dog-pooed grass. So let’s be creative and imaginative when conceiving the future of Midtown’s ‘open space’ mandate.

And ask for it.

Following a public groundbreaking ceremony in September, construction promptly began on a new neighborhood park near Mary Brickell Village on South Miami Avenue and S.E 11th street. The project – dubbed ‘Triangle Park’ due to the shape of the parcel – is a partnership between a private developer and the City of Miami to build a publicly accessible park on undeveloped privately-owned land. As a private development, the property will remain a park for the ‘foreseeable future’ until the owner is ready to build upon it.

After a flurry of construction activity through the end of 2011, work stalled shortly after the new year. The site is gradually turning into a muddy pit strewn with plastic bags and other garbage. Construction equipment is gone. A ‘Marc Sarnoff for Commissioner’ campaign sign lies crumbled against the chain link fence, which is peeled back in some places. Anything stronger than a gentle breeze kicks up dust from the site onto pedestrians and parked vehicles.

Site as of February 7th, over four months after the groundbreaking. Photo by @BrickellGreen via Twitter.

According to the owner and developer Mallory Kauderer, the primary reason for the work stoppage is due to a delay in securing a necessary water supply for the planned shrubs and trees. Florida Power and Light agreed to provide the site with a water hookup for a sprinkler, but have been unresponsive in repeated requests to install it, according to Kauderer.

Kauderer said that if the city permits for the project were provided in the timeline he originally expected, the water hook-up would not be necessary because the natural rainfall during the summer months would be sufficient. The required permits took longer than expected to secure and construction was delayed until the late fall, when rainfall is less frequent. When asked if construction could resume sometime this spring or summer without the FPL water hookup, Kauderer confirmed it could.

An architectural rendering of the park.

Ron Nelson, Chief of Staff for City of Miami District 2 Commissioner Marc Sarnoff urged residents to be patient. “Please remember that this is a temporary park offered by a private landowner. Our goal is to make better use of empty land throughout the city and encourage landowners to be better stewards. We moved forward based on his commitments and it appears that he has run into some issues that we the city have no control over. He has assured us that the problems are being worked out,” said Nelson in an e-mail to Transit Miami.

In the meantime, Transit Miami calls on Kauderer to keep the site clean and becoming of one of Miami’s signature neighborhoods as well as maintaining communication with local officials to keep residents and business up to date with it’s progress.