The plan to redo Bicentennial Park was interesting and I can't say I didn't like it. It had some good components. Planner, Victor Dover, mentioned one: They placed both the museums up along the North end of the park (along the highway) and shared a plaza.
The plan did remind me of an over-produced musical. They threw in a lot! They even had stuff in the water.
I was wondering how they planned to keep the homeless out of all the fountains (I was told the current fountain at Bicentennial Park had to be closed because of homeless bathers). The problem that most people had in the audience: That the plan was so far along with out any public input (and it appeared to have had a lot of museum input in it and I think this made neighborhood stake-holders feel left out).
The planners seemed unaware of a need for safety. For instance, the planners wanted to create two hills/elevation areas. People had nixed the elevation changes of the old park long ago as it hurt safety (sight lines) in the park. And, the planners had many places where people up to no good could hide (behind hedges in a maze-like area). I think the planners were thinking of an area for contemplative serenity, I was thinking it looked like a good place to get hit over the head.
The plan did seem like it would be expensive to execute as well. Many people still complained about having two museums in the park. They wanted more green space. It was suggested that the museums be raised off the ground so there would be space under them for the public to use. Curiously, one person proposed yet another building: a community center (?). When people are complaining about 2 buildings, why would you add a third?
I think they have a good start and some in the community had good suggestions for improving on it. Good luck with the park!
16 comments:
The homeless issue is important, considering how widely used the park currently is among them. If built, you can expect a hostile ordinance prohibiting them from lingering, especially considering how PAC officials have reacted to "panhandling" around the facility.
What's with the bridge at the end of the deep water slip? Do the planners realize that they are severely limiting the use of the slip for maritme attractions? Remember when the Tall Ships visited Miami from around the world in 2000? The way this plan looks, they would no longer be able to use that slip for dockage, or much else. I continue to be amazed that a City practically surrounded by water has very little awareness of, or interest in, promoting water dependent activities.
It is a draw bridge. It can go up or sideways (forget which). The maritime attractions were discussed at the meeting and the Tall ships were brought up. I think the planners heard these concerns. I don't not know what all the stuff in the water is...but I do think they were not married to the water plan. They were attempting to get people on land out over the water. I think had they talked to maritime people-- you would not have seen all that stuff over the water.
It's important to note that the original re-design workshop for Bicentennial Park - back in 1999 held by the Bayfront Park Trust with funding from the Dade Community Foundation and the UEL - called for many public spaces and one small building to bring people back to the park and create some eyes on the space. The behemoth cultural museums have taken over where the Florida Marlins left off. I wonder why there can't be some better combination of a community center- sorely needed in downtown Miami- and some exhibition space in a very building footprint. Having two hunky museums on the park is a big mistake in my view. They are not "water dependent and water related" as the County CDMP has called for in County public spaces on the waterfront. Shouldn't the county money be spent for public places that conform to their own CDMP?
I have other concerns:
1. How much will the park as a park cost and who will pay for it? The museums from their marketing department budget? I am concerned that it will not be a truly public space (whatever that means these days) but a marketable space - which is what so much of the rest of the park seems to portend. "Event spaces" is the direction of where so much of the park seems to be heading - so that it will all be driven by commercial ends - and not any sense of a public purpose. The two are not equal. Who benefits from this? Friends of those in power? How much will it cost to "rent" the space in the Science museum? WE were never told in the public meeting - and will probably not be told in the coming weeks.
2. How and when is the money from museum donations to be held to account? Who does it and how public is the process? Yesterday we got alot of evasive answers.
3. I was appalled at the Mayor's comment that government was unable to manage the space. He's the Mayor and seeks to give public assets away to private entities? What does that say about his view of the competency of government these days or his ability to manage his own government? It appears he has given up on his own government. And the Parks Director was never heard from in this public meeting. He is so mute ---because?
3. When is the next public meeting in this process? This was the first significant meeting in several years of semi-private meetings dominated by museum insiders- and it was pushed into existance by Nancy Leibman of the UEL. But this is clearly inadequate in the overall game plan for this space. When is the next meeting Mr. Mayor?
4. I remain convinced that serious analysis of this process will be done someday and will show what a farce it has been so far. From the economic study by Dover/Kohl/Don Zucelli (sp?) to the dominance of the design process by the museums - this exercise in democracy for this era is a disgrace. It has been a series of window ornaments for a public process-similar to the approach for Va Key and other public parcels. Where are non-profits who stand up for the public land -rather than the needs of the cultural elite?
It is not to late to get it together but the final hours are near.
Final comment: so many people are intimidated by the power structure here in Miami that assessing the true sentiment towards this park remains so difficult. I have heard many prominent people - who all like the general idea of new museums- say that this location and this plan is stupid by taking so much of our precious final waterfront property. Yet so many people either get bought off by the system or co-opted by it that few speak out. We need a fresh airing of concerns about the public spaces in our region that are so rapidly disappearing. Yet how do we speak out? What forums exist - other than this one ? The Herald did not report on this meeting. Who will wake up to this challenege? And who makes up for the lost public park land in this game plan? I think the museums should pay for their "free land" with alternative spaces for the public.
Concerning Bush's final comment: that is assuming that the land will not be conducive to public use, which i doubt. Also, if the idea of two new museums is good but not the waterfront placement is not, then where do u suggest the two museums go? Especially considering all the fuss about finding land downtown for the marlins. And given the current dilapidated state of the waterfront park, what alternate plan would be better suited to enhance it's use? I would be more concerned with the ridiculous plans for Island Gardens on Watson Island (public land) than the plans for Museum Park. oops, i meant, Bicentennial.
That's the idea- thank you Javier - for raising the need for new perspective for the museums. here are four ideas
1. In the revamped Herald building (originally an idea of Steve Hagen's). If it is to be a tall bulding - why not have a few lower floors be museum space?
2. In the old Miami Arena site.
3. In a site where the stadium was slated to go - north of the Clark Gov Center.
4. Bob Powers at the pulic hearing suggested a site over I-395 or next to it but north of the Metromover from what I understood.
The bottom line is to think outside the box which is what the Bicentennial Park/Waterfront Renewal Committee was supposed to consider - or so I imagined - when I helped to form it with Comm. Winton and others back in 1999. This process has been hoodwinked and glossed with the front of a democratic process. Look at the language of the bond issue referendum. Did people have any clear idea what they were voting for based on the language used in the referendum?
g.w., here are my thoughts on the alternate proposals:
1. Herald Building: How is Pedro Martin going to play into the whole deal? He owns the land. What incentive does he get? More importantly, this site implies a much more scaled down version of the current plan and the museum would risk being, literally, overshadowed by the tower it resides in.
2. North of the Stephen P. Clark Center: This depends on the Marlins not succeeding in getting the stadium built there. Frankly, for the sake of interior development in Overtown and other peripheral benefits, I hope they succeed. Were it not to, then museums situated on that inconspicuous site would risk not being noticed by the masses--like the MAM's current location in the CBD is barely noticeable and the main reason MAM representatives want to move it.
3. The Miami Arena: Glen Straub, the owner, is planning on demolishing it. He would have to sell the property off because he wouldn't stand to profit much from such a risky venture. It would be too expensive to buy him out and who would do so, the government? HA! Whereas the city already owns Bicentennial Park.
4. The I-395 idea seems like a pipe dream in consideration of the FDOT's plans to reposition the overpass. Also, to build in the area to the north of it involves having to acquire numerous parcels from various individuals--something that may not voluntarily happen unless the government forces the issue which is unlikely.
I agree with thinking outside of the box, but at the same time, I think we have a good thing going with the current plans and i'd hate to see them get stalled. As far as the BPWR committee is concerned, they probably wasted government funds and time. I haven't read the referendum's language but'll check it out. Good remarks GW.
Thanks for the 411 Genius of DEspair
Bob:Miami
Govt funds for the BWRC? It was largely volunteer labor- hundreds of hours of it by several dozen people- aside from hiring Dover Kohl and the economic analyst. We needed to stop the stadium.
Thanks for providing a forum for truth in Miami as we sure need it!
We are posting a two page document below which comments on the Cooper Robertson Plan for Bictennial Park, a park that does need lots attention and landscaping. a green park voters taxed themselves to crete in 1974.
The two pages critique the Cooper Robertson plan in reference to the public charette which was held in February of 2004. The plan may look great if you are not intimate with what has gone on and the history of the park.....If readers
want aone or seven page hisgtory of the park they can write StevenMIA@aol.com and say "Park Historhy" in the subject line with ttheir name.
The plan falls far short of what over 300 participants, including museum supporters wanted in Bicentennial Park. It needs much more work.
BTW....there are five buildings in the park covering more land than the 4-5 acres of gardens. If people love plazas over parks, they will love this plan.
Steve Hagen and Judy Sandoval, co chairs Parks & Public Space Committee of Miami Neighborhoods United
Draft March 20. 2007
Comments on the Cooper Robertson Plan for Bicentennial Park
by the Parks & Public Space Committee of Miami Neighborhoods United
According to the contract between the contractor, Cooper Robertson and the City of Miami, CR may have fulfilled their contract, however the problem with their plans for Bicentennial Park is that the city has failed to communicate the wishes of the people of Miami to CR. The City has instead drafted a contract with CR which reflects the special interests needs of museums, ignoring the public charette the city conducted in February of 2004.
If there was to be a serious public review of what the 300 plus charette participants said and drew in February of 2004, it would be clear that they wanted the park to remain mostly green, to be improved naturally with the usual features found in parks including: large shade trees with benches, meandering pathways with lighting, lush South Florida landscaping, play areas for children including a carousel and interactive fountains, a historical plaque walk, play fields for adult sports, places to swim and places to interact with the bay including kayak rentals, small kiosks for drinks and snacks and views to the ocean. And 25% of the tables said they wanted two museums but drew them no larger then 1.5 acres and verbally described them as modest in size.
There was consensus that Bicentennial Park should remain a traditional green passive park with limited commercial activities as Bayfront Park with its amphitheatre and shopping complex was already the active, high-density, high use part of our waterfront. While the word “activating” the park was used by the participants, activating was never defied as high density use by large numbers of people attending organized events. The words passive, natural and quiet were the words most used. Participants said it was not important that the park had to “pay for itself” with commercial events. Participants expected a quality, natural park as part of regular city services.
Since Bicentennial is just over 29 acres, we believe the CR plan uses far to much acreage, nearly twenty five acres, for museums, restaurants, undefined “auxiliary” buildings, maintenance buildings, ingress and egress roads, underground parking entrances, hard surface promenades, and “open green space” with no apparent use, with just 4-5 acres dedicated to landscaped areas.
Therefore, to more fully meet the expectations of the charette participants, we ask that the following changes be incorporated into the Cooper Robertson plan:
All buildings, excluding the existing sewer pump station, should be confined to a maximum of three acres total, about ten percent of the park area. If there is to be a museum building, it should exhibit our historical connection with the Miami River, Biscayne Bay, the ocean and related topics.
It is unclear if the proposed grand promenade in front of the proposed museums is placed on the same axis as the Government Cut waterway as was suggested by charette participants so as to provide clear views to the ocean or if it rather provides vehicular access and outdoor exhibit space for museum related shows to be held in the park. If we are to have clear views to the bay and ocean, then perhaps this promenade should be repositioned to serve as a view corridor to the ocean instead of an accessory to the museums.
Instead of just 4-5 acres of landscaped gardens, we suggest at 18-20 or more of the 29 acres be heavily landscaped so a to provide the user a visual and experiential relief from the built environment as we need natural places to sit, walk, run, play, bike and swim.
Why should a Miami resident of visitor have to travel to Virginia Key or Miami Beach to enjoy a beach experience? Visitors to Bayfront Park now enjoy colourful beach chairs on the faux beach so why not expand that idea and install a faux beach with a faux swimming lagoon at Bicentennial Park for families to enjoy along side a traditional lap pool? Many Australian cities offer these amenities in various modes, so we suggest 2-3 acres be dedicated to celebrating water and swimming.
The acreage dedicated to “open green space” should be defined into 2-3 playing fields because so much open green space is not necessary for the general public to use on a visit to the park. We believe the abundance of open green space in the existing park is the primary reason the park has been under utilized. Open green space in Miami is simply to hot most of the year. In that regard, playing fields that should appear as open spaces in the landscaped park should be lighted so they can be used in the evening hours.
We believe lighting is extremely important as we foresee the park becoming the most romantic place to spend a day or evening in South Florida. We foresee the park attracting residents and tourists 24 hours a day every day of the year. There could be a provision for a small tourist information booth at the entrance to the park.
We believe the current park also failed because of the abundance of concrete along Biscayne Boulevard. The Cooper Robertson plan should be modified to bring more green and shade trees to the edge of Biscayne Boulevard and as the charette participants suggested the green needs to continue across Biscayne Boulevard with a greenway to Overtown.
While the long sweeping nearly straight pathways in the CR plan may be great for biking and security, they will not provide the natural experience Miami residents want and need. Perhaps with the conversion of addition of the landscaped space mentioned above the nearly straight pathways will serve as a means to get from one point to another quickly via running or biking in contrast to the expanded landscaped areas where walking and sitting will be enjoyed. Without more landscaped areas the space is more a plaza, far to formal and unnatural, the opposite of what the charette participants ordered.
I believe the Miami Art Museum is supposed to raise $210 Mil privately before they get access to any taxpayer money. I believe the Science Center is supposed to raise $100 Mil before they get access to the taxpayers money. I believe neither group has raised any money. Both groups were questioned at the Bicentennial Park meeting and both refused to answer.
Let us do a plan without allowing the two massive taxpayer funded buildings. If either "museum" ever finds private funding they can build something in Wynwood or Overtown. Obviously, they have no private funding.
No more long posts please......
think succinct!
This is a short and snappy site....
I hope they build it before all of their donors go broke.
There are no donors. The "museums" are counting on the politicians to give away the taxpayers money...
Just like with the PAC and with the MIA airport.
Now we hear the Miami Art Museum is not planning to pay for its parking. In fact, where will they put their cars? And are they expecting the taxpayers to bail them out for that too? Shades of PAC.
Manny Diaz refuses to disclose how much bond money they have advanced to the museums and how the money has been spent, in total violation of the Florida Sunshine Laws. This process has left the public in the cold. It stinks!!! People should go to jail!!! I need an pro bono attorney. Steve Hagen StevenMIA@aol.com
Have the "museums" raised any money?
Are they just scamming the taxpayers?
Post a Comment