Javier Betancourt in the Miami Herald today asks and answers: The more pressing issue going forward is whether residential development outside the boundary should proceed. The answer to this question is a resounding ``No.'' He says, referring to last month's court victory:
Now that new commercial development on the fringe of the Everglades has been rejected, urban planners along with developers and business and civic leaders should turn their attention to the chief challenge facing Miami-Dade: how to create a sustainable community without expanding our geographic footprint.
By focusing our collective efforts on revitalizing and expanding existing communities through infill development, we will make better use of our land supply, reduce congestion and preserve our region's valuable natural resources. At the same time, we will realize a number of economic and urban planning benefits, including better connectivity between businesses and the labor force, more efficient use of our existing infrastructure and across-the-board increases in property values.
Miami was planned and developed after the advent of the automobile, so sprawl became a way of life in South Florida. Only now we are witnessing a reversal of this trend, as residents and businesses inject new life into urban centers that were long overlooked.
And, he ends with:
The court's decision in May supported the need for sustainable growth. Now the business and civic communities need to act by advocating against expanding the UDB and evaluating how to maximize our investments in the emerging urban centers within the boundary.
12 comments:
Infill sounds nice, but wait until you try it.
Example: There are homes in the area between Kendall Dr. and Sunset that sit on 1 acre parcels. Just try to buy one of those homes, split the parcel, and build 2 homes on 1/2 acre each. IMPOSSIBLE. Not "zero lot line" housing, just 2 homes on an acre.
All the folks that cry out for infill within the UDB are the first to yell and scream if you try and put 2 homes on 1 acre in their neighborhood.
m
Moderate: I have missed you!
M, I respectfully disagree. To me, the area your referring to was never really "infill", it was sprawl at it's worst. Being a developer of infill projects, there should be some type of urban core existing, not building houses, then putting in shopping malls, it's backwards. If there is a current zoning and land use in place for homes on one acre, that's more suburban, not urban. I would be mad if someone starting dividing the lots too. What's happening in Downtown Miami is a good thing and thanks to the plummeting condo prices, it's almost affordable - though still a little out of reach. South Beach used to be affordable when conversions started in the late 80's. You could walk to everything, then it became over developed starting in the 90's, hyped up, and an overcrowded playground.
For a project to be "infill" it needs a urban core existing or built before the housing comes in to play or the conversion of existing units.
JMHO
I loved the article and am glad the Herald actually published it!
What I think the real problem is in Florida, and in South Florida in particular, is that development is not being driven by demand. Instead, developers are building with the thought of creating demand or in anticipation of demand. Unfortunately, this problem may be further exacerbated by the new bill signed by Crist, which seems to subsidize this aspect of development by removing the costs of infrastructure development from developers. Theres in interesting article in the LA times that discusses the inevitable result of such poor planning. Def worth a read.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/16/nation/na-emptyapts16
Javier Betancourt and overpaid employees of the Downtown Development Authority should stop pandering to downtown slumlords and Park West speculators and make them renovate their downtown vacant lots and unused second floors. It is odd that the DDA invites speculators and slumlords to sit on its board. Is the DDA surprised downtown and Park West looks disgusting?
Last anon,
It may be "backward," but the only way Miami-Dade is going to realize any reasonable amount of infill is to intensify or modify existing residential areas. By the way, the only way you get commercial development to enter an area is to show that you have enough people living in the immediate vicinity.
You can't build a retail development in the hope that more infill residential occurs. Ths is why the retail space that has been built on the bottom floors of new condos in Miami tends to be empty. Developers were required to build these retail spaces but there is no market for them now.
Most of the County's development is suburban in character and downtown Miami is not going to be able to accomodate all of our growth.
Three relevant questions:
1. Guess what will be necessary to realize infill development?
Changes to comprehensive plans.
2. Guess what kind of comprehensive plan changes tend to be very controversial?
Those that increase density or change uses in existing developed areas.
3. Guess what impact Hometown Democracy will have on the likelihood of success of these kind of changes?
Not good.
Natasha's latest ordinace regarding foreclosed properties have bought sales of existing homes down in unincorporated Miami Dade. Maybe taht was her intention.
As was mentioned before infill will require some unpopular zoning and land use changes, throw in hometown democracy and we're in for some costly fireworks.
Overtown and Liberty City have many hundreds of vacant lots. Park West has 40+ acres of vacant lots. Downtown is a dump. There are many opportunities. Leadership is lacking. Abolish the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and watch its $6 mil budget get reinvested in the community. Imagine $6 mil being spent on paint, improvements and landscaping? Instead of overpaying and overbenefitting bureaucrats.
Lee Allen - I think some of what you wrote may hold true, but in major Cities, at least the one I grew up in (not in Florida), there's an urban core before suburban development begins. And, there's transportation cooridors too, which is something this County will never get with the current Commissioners. Redevelopment works - except maybe here in Miami Dade because there's so much bad planning and chipping away at the CDMP every cycle.
Scott, that was a very interesting article in the LA Times.
Seems as if the taxpayers are once again bailing out failed development, but this time, in the name of conservation.
Bottom line: at the bottom of supply is demand and at the bottom of demand is supply (Hazlitt).
We are destroying wealth is we build homes we don't need. I know the commissioners understand this.
The general population should be able to get their heads wrapped around this concept. Now is the time to do some talking and some teaching. If the community doesn't get on board now they never will.
If downtown looked better, more people would want to live downtown.
Post a Comment