The #1 Miami Real Estate Website

A Jockey Club Divided Upon Itself Will Not Stand

June 17, 2016 by Lucas Lechuga
[caption id="attachment_18204" align="alignnone" width="1920"]Rendering of Apeiron at the Jockey Club. Rendering of Apeiron at the Jockey Club.[/caption]

The Jockey Club, decades ago a bastion of swank in North Miami, and now a faded collection of three condo towers whose chief asset is its large piece of land, has split into factions over a proposed fourth and fifth towers on the property, with lawsuits flying according to the Real Deal. The two new 40-story towers, collectively ,known as Apeiron at the Jockey Club and being developed by Horst Schulze, Michael Bedner and Muayad Abbas, are to contain 90 hotel rooms and 240 condo units, with the condos receiving services from the hotel portion. Designed by Pritzker Prize winner Rafael Moneo, Apeiron is bringing the Jockey Club's old fabulousness back.

Here's the skinny: associations of Jockey Club I and II aren't happy that some of their expansive and empty common grounds are to be used for the project, while the Jockey Club III association has thrown its support behind the Apeiron project. I and II say that if Apeiron takes control of the common lands, maintenance will be neglected until construction starts, and that III has stopped making maintenance payments, while III says maintenance is already a mismanaged mess. I and II say that III has been paid off by the Apeiron developers to the tune of $10 million. And According to III's website, yes they are getting all that money, and more.

1920-1st-option-1411-SitePlan_150922
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
8 years ago

We just looked to purchase there. Guess it’s a bad idea!

Anonymous
8 years ago

I think the common grounds are owned by Apeiron so basically, it’s their land and their proposal is as of right.

For Real Estate
Related Needs And Inquiries

please complete the form below

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.