Miami Welcomes Times Square – City Approves Electronic Billboards With 5-0 Vote
July 22, 2010 by Lucas Lechuga
For Real Estate
Related Needs And Inquiries
please complete the form below
please complete the form below
Are you sure to delete favorite?
Hopefully they are never built. They are illegal on county, state and federal grounds. Another sweetheart deal rammed down the citizens throat with little planning (except by the developers lawyers who drafted the new ordnance) and allowance for public input. People of Miami should be outraged!!! These things will be 40 stories tall. Sucks if you had a view from one of the many condos on the venetian or near the Artsht.
I like the idea. Arts Center will be transformed into a flashy Times Square. It is exciting. Move over New York & Vegas, here comes Miami.
Oh yeah! Great plan! I love it!
Can someone tell me where I can purchase a derivative security on these? I want to short them – – big time – – – because the first category 1 hurricane that comes through is going to take those signs with it.
I feel sorry for the folks that bought into condos in that area because – – and this is just me – – I would hate to have the view from my place obstructed by one of these signs. Another concern for these folks should be the tremendous light being projected on them – – hopefully it won’t reflect back and disturb residents. (See, e.g. the holiday lighting on the AON building’s south side and the way it projects onto the condo development next door)
scriv
Agree w/ Rod. These towers are going to look ridiculous and will be a major eyesore to local residents. And the fact that the City has disregarded superseding law is mind-boggling.
This new mayor Regalado is a joke. How can Miami expect to attain prominence with a 63-yr old mayor that barely speaks English and has the personality of a fish.
I which Miami would follow California and tried to remove all the super banners from buildings. California used the fire code to remove some of the super banners. Miami is taking a step in the wrong direction. They should have gone with historical sign restrictions like the City of Miami Beach follows. One more reason not to invest in the lawless area of Downtown Miami.
Miami is attempting to follow through on this vision.
http://www.miami-miamibeach.com/docs/Miami.pdf
Foreigners should Google map the downtown area and bring up the a street view. They will laugh at what the proposed drawing and actual area looks like now. Don’t forget to Google the street view of the business around the old sports arena. Comedy at its best.
All they are doing is creating glare for nighttime residential units. Cannot wait until they try to do this on Watson Island. They can destroy the east views for the rest of the condominium owners.
Youtube like to a video of the proposed project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_qIfc-ENYE&feature=player_embedded
“These things will be 40 stories tall. Sucks if you had a view from one of the many condos on the venetian or near the Artsht.”
What exactly would is be blocking a view of? Look on a map where it’s located. It doesn’t block any ocean views. And if you have a city view now you have a times square like view instead of a empty lot view.
Here is a picture showing a view from the north plus the light emitted from the project as compared to other downtown projects.
Tacky! Miami’s vision and what developers end up building is unfortunately so very different it leaves me with a sick feeling in my stomach! Greed and corruption is first on the mind of these developers and they have very little, or no vision for a livable city. For example look at the edifices on Biscayne Blvd. They have no street presence and never will. They know how to draw a pretty city they just don’t know how to build one!
These 40 story electronic billboards are just another example of city leaders who don’t have a clue and greedy businessmen who know how to play them!
It is a horrible idea. I live near several of this type of sign, in my unnamed city, and nothing short of blackout shades prevents these images from flashing on my ceilings. I live in a $2 million dollar home in a “fancy building.”
I pity the poor neighbors who must live with these eyesores. Oh, and flashing lights do not make a city NY or Las Vegas.
Of course Gixxer would take the contrarian view.
And only an idiot would post a bullsh*t picture prepared by the project developer or developer’s consultants that purportedly downplays the emitted light. Like a fake photo or a fake video can accurately depict how these billboards will actually appear.
And the issue is not necessarily the brightness of the lights, its the content. People don’t mind a lit-up skyscraper; but they do mind a giant, garish sign advertising Club Space or a Mamma Mia show.
Terrible idea.
I wonder how much input they got from condo owners in the area? Zero sounds about right.
And of course the people who predict doom for Miami would not like this project. It’s like they would rather see Miami fail just so there gloomy predictions come true.
And actually there was a lot of input from condo owners. Here is the video from the meeting:
http://miami.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=309
Around the 4 hr mark is where you start to here people giving remarks. There are plenty of people for and against the project. Many people living in the area came out to voice there opinion in support.
Siffin has also held many additional meetings with the community residents as described in the meeting.
But yet people come here who have probably just heard about this project from Lucas and make ridiculous statements.
If you are for it fine, if you are against it fine, but at least take time to understand what you’re talking about before you start throwing out ridiculous claims.
How long before Gixxer 1000 and Makes Me Think claim these eyesore monstrosities will cause condo prices to RISE?
3 … 2… 1 …
What are the “ridiculous statements” and the “ridiculous claims”? From an aesthetic perspective, its terrible. From a legal perspective, it violates existing county, state and federal law. This story has been covered at length in the Miami Herald and I’m certain many readers here have received their information from that source, not Lucas’ quip. So I think most people know what they are talking about.
Joe,
This is what I’m talking about. Again there are both people who advocate for and against this project. I just find it odd that people that want/think real estate price will decline refer to it as a two “eyesore monstrosities”.
But if you actually went to or watched the meeting you would have seen that it has overwhelming support of the people who actually live in the area. And yes I think it will help the condo prices in the area rise. Right now the area is a run down lot that attracts the homeless and crime. You really think adding these towers, parking and retail isn’t going to make the area more attractive???
I went to one of the public hearings. Most were supportive. I do not know who these people on this blog are and what authority they have to criticize. Most locals in the OMNI area support these towers. As such their view matters the most. Everyone else can have an opinion but they are irrelevant. I have one thing to say to all these people crying tears for me as how they would throw glare through my condo or block my “view” and any other imaginary nightmare. Just LAY OFF!
Drew,
I was mainly referring to AZ88’s comment that there was zero input from condo owners when even the Miami Herald reported that there was. And you can look at the meeting and hear people from the community making remarks about contact with the developers at these meetings.
You say from an aesthetic perspective it’s terrible. This is your opinion. Clearly people think otherwise. You’re never going to please everyone.
As far as it violating laws that a pretty ridiculous argument considering they are revising the laws. That like saying you can’t end segregation because it would violate laws. No shit, that’s why you’re revising the laws.
This is what the median mesh looks like:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/City%20Square/media-mesh.jpg
It’s different from a billboard that you cant see through or wind can’t pass through. The times are changing, the technology is changing and the codes need to reflect that.
The people that live in the area want this project and it shouldn’t be built because some random people on a blog that want these peoples condos to further decrease in value think it’s ugly???
Constance,
Exactly! The people who live in the area and have a stake in this had a chance to go in and speak their mind and they did in overwhelming support for the project. Which led to a unanimous decision.
Got me wrong on this one joe,
I’m more for the understated elegance of the place. Leave the bright light and flashing neon to Vegas and times square. Miami has natural beauty those other cities don’t.
for the record, I don’t make claims about condo prices rising. I have simply stated that last spring was a good time to buy and that I wouldn’t be surprise if there is another bubble in 12 years. I still believe Condo’s in general are terrible investments. I also believe Miami/South Florida in general are unique real estate markets much like southern Cal, SF and NYC. The normal rules don’t always apply to these places, they tend to be in a permanent bubble.
You are the one making predictions about prices. I try to point out the flaws in your logic.
Media mesh on a smaller scale at AA Arena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHtkBNvLTnU&feature=player_embedded
Speaking of eyesore monstrosities – how about an aircraft carrier parked next to the AA arena? This city will never fail to amaze me. I am renting at 900 and the last thing I want is a hulking grey mass of a warship below my balcony. Granted, this is from 2008 so it’s not likely to come to fruition. How come we don’t hear about people in Marina Blue complaining about the large screen pasted onto the AA arena? Is this a botheration? I guess now that LeBron and Bosh are in town, people don’t mind so much…
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/news/17259
Biggest Boat Bound for Miami?
America already has several aircraft carrier attractions: the Midway in San Diego, the Lexington in Corpus Christi, Texas, the Intrepid in New York, the (haunted) Hornet in Alameda, California, the Yorktown in Charleston, South Carolina — and probably others as well (America has a lot of surplus flattops). Now a group of South Florida Navy buffs wants to bring the recently-mothballed U.S.S. John F. Kennedy into the mix, a carrier that makes the others seem quaint by comparison. At 1,052 feet long, the JFK easily beats any other attraction afloat, even the Queen Mary.
The problem with something so big is finding a place to put it. Paul Troxell, who heads the JFK Memorial Foundation, says that he’s found the perfect spot: an empty rectangle of water just north of the American Airlines Arena on Biscayne Bay in downtown Miami. Indeed, size comparisons show that the JFK would just fit.
Troxell and his group want to turn that rectangle into the world’s largest bathtub. It would be excavated and lined with concrete. After the JFK is floated into it, a massive wall would be built across its opening and all of the water would be pumped out. The ship’s hull would be welded to huge beams anchored into the cement, essentially turning the carrier into a building, safe from hurricanes and tidal surges. Then the tub would be filled with fresh water, where scuba divers could frolic and tourists could examine the hull from a submerged plexiglass tunnel.
Troxell told us that the cost for the project would be around $50 million, a bargain compared to the start-up numbers that we’ve seen for some other proposed tourist attractions. The rectangle of water is already there, Troxell explains, and the military would probably chip in on the delivery costs, to avoid the expense of storing something as big as the Empire State Building.
Unfortunately, the mayor of Miami has reportedly been cool to the idea, principally because he feels that the ship would clash with the city’s glitzy waterfront architecture. Troxell believes otherwise. “It’s not going to be a gigantic hulk just sitting there,” he told us. “It’s not a big, dwarfing thing. It could be beautiful.”
Troxell feels that if he can sway a few important people, the U.S.S. JFK will be a “destination attraction” in Miami by 2012. “All those people buying bay front condos — they want to look at ships.”
Gixxer I guess you don’t find it odd that the developer was able to rewrite the city ordinance and design the permitting process, nor find it curious that the city has disregarded other laws regarding signage adjacent to interstates. Just because a limited # of residents show up at a meeting and express their approval does not mean that due process can be ignored.
Nice one comparing signage laws to segregation laws. That makes sense, genius. Let’s hold these state/fed signage laws unconstitutional or revise a fed law simply because a greedy developer and the City of Miami wants to break that law. And if you seriously think that if there was resident opposition then one or more of the commissioners would have voted differently, you’re even more clueless that I thought.
As a non-resident unfamiliar with the politics of Miami, you have no business even commenting on this issue. Stick with the stats, please.
The best similarities can be the Media mesh on AAA. It is beautiful aesthetic and eye catching. It has not adversely affected anything about the AAA or its surrounding environs. I have not heard a single complaint about that LED mesh mural. Let me ask you people on this blog. Do any one of you live in Marina Blue on the 25th floor to below? As this building is right smack opposite the AAA, can anyone living in those lower floors tell me that you are actually bothered by the flashing message board or that your quality of life is reduced by any means because of the AAA media mesh? I don’t think so.
This is a building that is a few feet from the ad mural. It is utterly ludicrous that people in Venetian Islands are complaining that the OMNI media towers will bother them!! These people should get a life.
As far as aesthetics are concerned. To each his own. I am a 55 year old man and I am always in wonder and amazement when ever I go to Times Square. I am awe stuck like a little kid who is visiting Disneyland for the first time. I think all those flashing lights are the most beautiful thing man has created.
Drew,
Well I’m actually a resident now, not that it makes a difference.
And no I don’t find it odd that the ordinance had to be rewritten considering this is a new type of technology and therefore old rules don’t make sense. The thing you are leaving out of you’re argument it what was the benefit for the original regulations. And regardless who wrote the regulations the city is approving them. And if you would have been at the meeting or at least watched it you would see that the city put in amendments that benefit the city.
First the argument is that the people who live in the neighborhood don’t want this, citing how the light would disturb everyone even though the lights on the Marquis project emit more light and no one complains about that.
Now you’re saying that this is breaking the old laws even though they city is revising those laws so that it will be in compliance. And adding amendments that bring value to the city.
So basically this is a bad ideal because it would have been against the old regulations but no where in you’re argument do you point out how it provides any negative impacts.
The people in the neighborhood benefit from the development and helps to create a safer and more desirable environment.
The City benefits from getting $1.2m yearly from the ad revenue. That’s revenue without taxation, I would think most of the conservative folks on this blog would be ok with this.
The revenue from advertising makes it easier for the developer to make money on the entire projects that will bring in needed retailers and a pedestrian friendly environment instead of the big box retailers that might have come or yet no development at all.
But you say its bad because you don’t like how it looks.
I can see if you simply said you personally don’t like it. Or pointed out real negative effects. But instead you get worked up like Joe into some philosophical argument that doesn’t make sense.
Let’s say the city is not being transparent and they are cutting a back room deal to get this project done quicker. Yes that would be wrong. But in the end who cares? This is private land. They either get the $1.2 million a year or they don’t. Where is the negative impact?
This is a real estate blog not moral ethics blog.
Actually I misspoke. It’s $2.28m per year and $800k towards the Museum Park operating fund.
Gixxer 1000 — At 1:49 p.m., you said there were “plenty of people for and against the project.”
Then, at 3:14 p.m., you said the project has the “overwhelming support of the people” who live in the area.
Um, which one is true?
——
Also, I’m calling B.S. on Gixxer 1000’s constant claims of being accepted to a bunch of big-time grad schools. This guy doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re” or “they’re” and “there.” If grammar and spelling like that can get one into big-time grad schools these days, this country is doomed.
Gixxer 1000 said: “Let’s say the city is not being transparent and they are cutting a back room deal to get this project done quicker. Yes that would be wrong. But in the end who cares?”
— Boy, with an attitude like that, you’ll be right at home in Miami. Wow.
Thank you Joe. Nor do I believe any of these personal claims from a wannabe urban planner. He’s full of crap.
“Let’s say the city is not being transparent and they are cutting a back room deal to get this project done quicker. Yes that would be wrong. But in the end who cares?”
How can you intelligently argue with a guy who makes statements like that? When your argument has no basis in law, then you can justify anything. By the way, “in the end,” a judge would probably care.
My God you’re a moron. Or, as you would say, “your a moron.”
Gixxer is very correct when he said “overwhelming support of the people who live in the area.”
In the public meeting and on the sidelines of the meeting they had in the Arsht center, 9 out of 10 residents of OMNI who live in the shadow of this project overwhelmingly supported this project. Only Barbara of Venetia building and some pony tailed gentleman by the name Rich who actually lives a mile north in Edgewater are the only vocal opponents. People could not believe how unreasonable they sounded. But in the end no one paid them any attention.
All I can say is that we want this and we support this project. If Skeeta and others have a problem, they can pay our property taxes and we will respect your sensibilities. If not please don’t tell us how to live or use our neighborhood the way we think is best for us.
I highly doubt that more than 0.1% of the people in the area even knew about this meeting. Regardless, this is NOT a strictly OMNI area issue. Nobody would care if these electric billboards were street level ala Times Square and American Airlines Arena. If that were the case, then it would be a 100% OMNI issue.
However, the reason “outsiders” care is that these structures will intrude majorly into the overall Miami skyline. One of the great night-time views in Miami(Beach) is looking over the Bay into the city at night and seeing the IM Pei BOFA tower (especially during holidays).
http://www.photos4travel.com/wallpaper_stock_images/251106/large/Downtown_Miami_Night_Miami%20City_Florida.jpg
Now take that night-time view and introduce something that looks like Gixxer’s link- ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHtkBNvLTnU ) 30-40 stories above the ground (x2 billboards).
Also, REMEBER these are electronic video billboards. They are not static images. Envision crossing the causeway at night or looking out at the Bay and having a “vibrating” billboard in your view. It doesn’t need to be particularly bright to distract you. Have you ever noticed the green and red navigation lights on a moving boat at night? How many watts do you think they put out?
Anyways, I doubt this project will get off the ground. However, if it does, I hope they show some restraint.
I am glad to learn that residents in the immediate area support the project. They are the ones who have to live with the monstrosities. Ask them in a year how they feel.
Most of the people leaving these blogs are embarrassing themselves by their misinformed comments. If they took the time to go to one of the presentations like I did since I live in the area around the PAC, they’d realize the towers have little to do with “flashy ads” and EVERYTHING to do with the internet and the digital age. They’re about content, not commercials, so we’ll be able to interact on our blackberries and i phones with the info on the screen.TOO COOL. The light also won’t even reach any of our buildings since LED gives off less foot candles than the PAC, the ugly billboard ad on the back of the Herald, heck, even less than the M on the Marquis building, but you wouldn’t know that if didn’t go to the website or a presentation. They told us they’re also built like a condo tower, so they have to withstand 200 mph winds, so don’t count on them falling over in a hurricane, instead, they’ll be warning us when one is coming! I respect if you’re informed and you don’t like these, but come on, at least do a little homework. I’m excited because we’ll get a free parking garage for the PAC, a gorgeous retail plaza we can actually walk to with a movie theater, restaurants and stores and I’ll stop living in the dark surrounded by drug addicts and homeless people! That’s why the majority of us neighbors who are actually” informed” are supporting this. We choose light over blight. But for those of you naysayers, feel free to stay in your little neck of the world when it’s complete and we’ll enjoy it all for ourselves! (Something tells me, you’ll be the first to come when it’s open, though).
So these two monstrosities are going to single-handedly eliminate the homeless problem? Wow.
Wow,
Thanks Denise, hopefully you can tell the person that made this marketing piece that the rendered ads are all wrong. I didn’t realize the video was a fake. Thanks for the clarification.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_qIfc-ENYE
Drew:
Thanks for posting the article. I particularly enjoyed the first line. ” …. [i]t’s easy to be queasy …”
One of the troubling aspects of this project is that it will require a lot of electricity to operate these billboards. The power demands alone should have raised a red flag for the city – – particularly in a political environment where the party in power stresses the importance of “going green.”
Granted the city appears to have jumped on the project because the developer is shelling out a big number in exchange for approval: “… annual permitting fee of $2.2M to the city and has agreed to contribute $8M toward the construction of Museum Park as part of a concession package.” But what of the costs of operating the project.
With this in mind, I would like to share the following article. It is the story of the Mildred and Claude Pepper Fountain, designed by Japanese artist Isamu Noguchi in the late 80s as part of a reworking of Bayfront Park. Here is the relevant part of the article:
” Months after opening, Miami Commissioner J.L. Plummer told the park trust “the fountain’s electricity and operation is going to be very expensive.” He suggested running the fountain sparingly. So the trust decided to let water flow only for weekday lunch hours and 90 minutes at night “until a full cost-analysis can be determined.”
Next, the trust passed the hat, asking corporations to donate to keep the fountain flowing. FPL donated $70,000 in electricity. To supplement that, the plan was that companies would each sponsor an hour a day of spray.
But donations were a trickle, so for the trust’s 1992-93 budgeting, it produced an inch-thick packet of scenarios for the fountain, stating to board members, “The fountain currently poses the greatest challenge to the organization, from both a public perception and operational standpoint.” The trust never met the challenge.
To keep water flowing day and night, the trust was told, would cost $544,000 a year, $350,000 more than the total of park revenue from rentals and the paltry $50,000 the chintzy city itself was willing to provide. Even to run the fountain just four hours a day, the trust was told, would cost $61,000 more than the trust could amass.
And so the fountain began to go, bit by bit. Only enough water flowed to keep the pipes from rusting up. Then the trust ripped out the computerized plumbing and retrofitted a civic centerpiece into a trickle of shame. In the end the bone-dry, 170-foot-diameter splash basin looked like an inverted flying saucer as the centerpiece of a seldom-visited, sun-baked plaza.
There’s a lesson, if anyone in the city is paying attention, about disrespect for both history and beauty, municipal penny-pinching, and failure to plan for operations before construction.
To save $61,000 a year, the city destroyed the memorial to Claude Pepper, a giant who served Miami for more than 40 years in Congress. It ruined the $20 million Bayfront Park plan by design genius Isamu Noguchi to create a waterfront focal point.”
http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/071011/story-viewpoint.shtml
The issue of “spot zoning” aside, the issue is: who is really going to bear the costs of running this project? The developer will eventually pass this project to another entity to operate.
The City of Miami’s track record on these projects, as evidenced by it miserable failure with the Mildred and Claude Pepper Fountain, is far from stellar.
scriv
Joe,
How do those two statements contradict each other. There are plenty of people for and against this project but when you look at people who actually live in the area most seem to support it.
As far as where I was accepted to school why does that even matter? If my logic is wrong simply point out where it’s wrong. How does where I go to school play into this? It was mentioned because at the time I was excited about going to school and I explained that my excitement for UM was a big reason in selecting UM over the other schools. I’m not putting forth my acceptance into these schools as a basis for my argument. And as mentioned I’d be willing to meet up with anyone interested in real estate and development and have drinks and wouldn’t mind bringing my acceptance letters scholarship info.
As far as my grammar is concerned I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this is an anonymous blog. I don’t type out my response, proof read it, print it out and ask a friend to proof read it before I hit the submit button. I know the difference between there and they’re but when your typing a mile a minute and spell check obvious doesn’t catch the error because its spelled correctly I miss it. Who cares. Yes it’s the age of blogs, facebook and twitter and grammar is officially dead. You sound like the old useless guy at the office who walks around and complains that email and cell phones has destroyed face to face communication only because his inability to use them make him useless.
I’m cool with the occasional name calling and derogatory remarks while trying to make a valid counter argument but criticism to my argument seems to be only about my grammar and your belief that I’m attending the University of Phoenix online.
So again this is a privately owned development. The city approval means that instead of the big box retail that was originally proposed or even worst it remains vacant for years the city now gets $2.28m per year in revenue, $800k a year for the Museum Park operating fund, and development that brings jobs and much needed retail to the area.
Instead of arguing against these points the two main complaints here seem to be 1. they personally don’t like it and 2. they feel the proper process was circumvented to put this project on the fast track for approval.
So to the first point, you don’t like the look of it, point taken. But there are many others who do. Which oddly enough seem to be the younger mid 30 and under crowd. So you don’t like the look of it, fine, don’t live near it, problem solved.
And to the second point if the process was circumvented point out how their actions are actually bad for the city. It’s not like they had someone else looking to buy the property and build a park. What would have been a better and probably alternative?
It easy to watch what someone else is doing while sitting back and criticizing. It’s harder to actually come up with a workable solution.
You have city budget strapped for cash and developers comes forth with a project that brings the city $2.28m and another $800k for the Museum Park operating fund and the residents in that area are in the meeting begging them to approve the project so the city allows the regulation to be rewritten to allow this and this is supposed to be the poster child for corruption?
scriv,
What in the world are you talking about. This is a PRIVATELY owned garage. The PRIVATE owner will be required to operate and pay for the necessary electricity to run the media towers.
I swear sometime the people here have no clue. The owner of these media towers will receive MILLIONS of dollars of ad revenue. From that revenue they will have to pay a fee of $2.28m to the city as a fee to run the towers.
I don’t know why people keep acting like this is some sort of public project. This is privately owned land. The only reason the city is involved is because they needed to get approval to for the Media Towers. If not they could have built whatever they want on this land as long as it fit withing code. The original proposal was for a big box retailer like a Walmart that would have done little for the vibrancy of the community.
The only argument here about power consumption what so ever would be about wasting energy and global warming, that could be applied to every other light current on other downtown projects. No one complains about Miami tower which emits about 3 times as much light.
The $2 million from the billboard permit fee can be renegotiated down to a few thousand dollars once the center opens. I expect the owners will request a renegotiation of the permit fees within two years of opening. The billboard companies can actually charge the city if their billboards get blocked by sound walls or trees. They have the best zoning rules in the world. They also have the best lawyers. In a few years they might only have to pay $9.99 in permit fees.
Some other South Florida failures and budget mistakes:
Biltmore Hotel.
Seaway Corp., which has operated The Biltmore Hotel since 1992, stopped paying the rent in April 2009.
Jungle Island 2009
Struggling theme park Jungle Island asked Miami’s government for a $2.4 million subsidy.
Performing Arts Center 2009
The Performing Arts Center Trust, asked the county for nearly $700,000 to cover operating expenses and capital-improvement projects.
Watson Island Development 2009
The project owes more than $400,000 in rent
What unbiased source says people in the area suport this thing?
I think what happened is you had the developer and city officials -who want to ram this through- call a quick meeting and stuffed it with a handful of supporters. Wait till this story gets more widespread and you’ll see what residents really think.
————————————–
From the Miami Herald Board:
Replying to arjunreddy1 (07/25/2010 03:17:49 PM):
“Most naysayers sound so ignorant. Do not feel bad for the residents. overwhelming number of residents who live in the shadow of this project approve this. If OMNI residents have no objection, who are you to say no? They know that this will transform their neighborhood. Having City Square develop…”
vasklar wrote on 07/25/2010 07:10:57 PM:
:Actually, I am a resident of the Omni-Edgewater neighborhood, and I don’t approve it. Where do you get the figures that most people in the neighborhood approve this. Actually, the only existing resident’s association in the neighborhood DISAPPROVES of it. It was too bad that there was NO PUBLIC INPUT SESSION held on this proposal– only a last minute community meeting only advertised the day before it was to be held for constituents of Commissioner Sarnoff (and most who attended were construction union members told to show up if they wanted more work).
Wild Bill — Exactly right. Anyone who thinks these guys will be writing checks for $2.2 million per year in perpetuity obviously isn’t familiar with Miami.
Again the people here are completely clueless.
The Biltmore Hotel is owned by the city. Again this is private land. Also the Seaway corp has agreed to a repayment plan to repay tax payers:
http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2010_3rd/Jul10_BiltmoreCoralGables.html
Jungle Island asked for subsidy that would have to be repaid.
This is complete nonsense. Were talking about a permit fee to operate media towers that will generate millions of dollars per year. Pay $2.28m to collect $50 million in ad revenue or don’t pay the permit fee and collect nothing. Seems like an obvious choice. If you knew anything about the project you would know that the main concern was getting the the permit fee high enough because these towers are going to generate a lot of money. I believe the original fee proposed had a limit of $1.2m and the city am mended up to the $2.2m with no limit in case someone builds a media tower somewhere else.
Let’s see … Locals who know how Miami operates express concern about the deal, while Gixxer 1000, who has been in Miami for about 7 minutes, says the locals are “completely clueless.”
Does your luxury rental have any mirrors, Gixxer 1000?
Gixx:
It is private for now. But is it sustainable?
scriv
Joe- Can’t you see how Gixxer operates?
As a non-resident (or, as he claims, a recent resident), he has very little to zero knowledge of current local events, whether it be sports, politics, law, business, etc. When a topic comes up, he maniacally scours the Internet for information (with little regard for source credibility) and then quickly positions his counterpoint based off his hastily acquired research…and he’s done it over and over and over…
And this differs to how you guys operate how??? Are you telling me that you guys were actually at these meetings. At least I watched the actual meeting. Unless you’re an actual city council member or the developer the only thing you know about this project is what’s reported in the paper as well.
You guys read the same articles, but instead focus on opinion pieces instead of credible facts and report the end of humanity which is basically regurgitating another persons ideological and political agenda. For the millionth time no one in this thread has addressed the real issues of how this project is actually good or bad for the area based on anything other than their opinion.
The article that Drew posted earlier was and Op Ed piece as in OPINION EDITORIAL. Before the article starts it says ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTARY, which means it’s basically some guy at the newspaper’s opinion.
At least the proponents for the project have pointed to the additional $2.2 million to the city, the $8 million to the Museum Park operating fund, increased development in the community, increased retail, increased jobs, increased pedestrian activity, etc. etc.
The only opposition is that the money will never be received because this is Miami, the lights will blind everyone and that I attend the University of Phoenix.
So yes when I come across something I don’t know about I take the time to READ about it from several sources and look for facts like number, statistics, etc. and try to discern between them and what’s opinion.
My information for this project has come from the Miami Herald and South Florida Business Journal and watching the actual city commission meetings. If you have more credible sources please let me know.
scriv,
What the heck do you mean it’s private for now?? That’s like saying Met 1 is private for now. When, why and how would it ever become public?
And why are you asking if it’s sustainable? Please list one other private project downtown that is sustainable. It’s a parking garage not a museum. Private projects are built to make money not be sustainable. If being sustainable helps profitability then fine, but tell me which of the other private projects built in the last 10 years are sustainable.
Again you keep confusing this project with some sort of public project. If you have a garage that cost you $5m a year and you make $10m a year I don’t think the owner cares if its sustainable. Again your argument is more about global warming and saving the planet than anything else.
Normal cities don’t cater to billboard companies. They don’t allow you to block up windows in buildings to create banner walls. They don’t allow you hang flammable graphics blocking windows. They don’t encourage billboards. They don’t allow you build blank concrete block walls on the edge of buildings to hang banners.
The City of Miami is horrible. In the interest of safety the City of Miami doesn’t even adhere to basic life safety codes.
How another city handles this.
Businessman held on $1-million bail in supergraphic case
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/28/local/la-me-billboard28-2010feb28
” The supergraphic covers many windows, making it difficult for firefighters to enter during an emergency. Also, because the sign lacks permits, building inspectors have not ensured that it is safely attached to the building, Carter said.
“You have a supergraphic that weighs hundreds, if not thousands of pounds. . . . If it were not installed correctly, it could fall and injure or kill people on a highly congested corner where hundreds of thousands of people walk every day,” he said.”
Look at the Herald building. Covered in flammable banners. Our own newspaper building which houses a school has banners blocking the windows.
Gixxer, well said regarding #46 and #47. At least you take the time and research the information that you do not know unlike many who just post what they feel like.
I always held Scrivs opinion in high regard as he seems to be very knowledgeable about titles , Deeds and other legal stuff. But I am scratching my head in disbelief at his ridiculous comments and even arguing how long this will be private etc.
What has happened here? Why are rational people behaving like they are possessed? Wild Bill will be Wild Bill. No surprises there. But normally sane folks are acting totally mad.
That is why public opinion is not always good. As someone commented earlier, after the public voted to fund the ball park, I will not take their opinion too seriously. Marc Sarnoff has been generally good and proved himself to be smart. I am sure he has the best interests of Downtown in mind when he voted for this project along with the other commissioners. A neglected area is about to be transformed and come alive. Unless you wish ill upon the people of Miami, why would you object? As Mark Siffin the developer said, If not for this project, the next alternative is a big box store in that area (most likely a Walmart) which is an unimaginable nightmare. I would any day prefer these ad murals to a big box retailer there.
Gixxer 1000 — After you’ve lived in Miami for more than 7 minutes, you’ll learn you don’t need to be at the meetings. They’re all the same: Lip service about the “public good” and “huge benefits to the city,” blah blah blah, followed by a late-night, 2:00 a.m. vote in favor of the special interests, and then, a year or two later, after people’s attention has moved on to something else, a quick and quiet renegotiation of the original deal’s terms. THAT’s how Miami operates, and if you believe otherwise, I have a couple condo towers I’d like to give you.
By the way, I noticed this project is carved into a Phase One and a Phase Two. In Miami, Phase One is usually where the developers and politicians line their pockets, and then Phase Two — which is typically chock full of benefits for the “public good” — often has a way of quietly disappearing. We’ll see.