MIAMI | Development Thread

[VisionMIA]

Originally Posted by Siriusly

Half the size how? Skyline? Judging from the two examples, I would say it's about a quarter of Chicago.


Miami is definitely America's Dubai though when it comes to the pace of growth, congrats, but how come no supertalls?

to Miami's fairness that pic you had of it was a bit too far away!



I said Almost half.. not half..Geezus. relax Chicago man!

just chop half of Chicago..you see Miami is Almost.

[VisionMIA]

Chicago's other half

[Cityseed]

I see the similarities as far as the linear skyline along a body of water is concerned. But to suggest that Miami is even 1/4 of the way there is a bit ambitious. I too wait eagerly for supertalls to arrive on the Miami skyline as I was born and raised here and would love for the Miami skyline to kick butt...but we need a reality check. It just doesn't hack it with the big dogs like NY or Chicago. You can analyze aerial pictures all you want but from the ground level (which is what counts) it is a deficient skyline. Where is the density? Where are the office buildings? Where are the supertalls? Have you noticed that the Miami skyline only looks good from one side (off the bay)? Yes, the Miami skyline has made strides in the past 4 years and added a gazillion condos but nothing impressive like say a 1000' office tower. I think the majority would aesthetically rate a skyline by its density and height. Who cares about a bunch of 5-600' condos up and down biscayne blvd. and brickell ave? It doesn't have the same effect as if they were built around a core. Condos are built differently than office buildings and have balconies which give them a ghastly ribbed look. It erks me that zoning would allow a beautiful building like Marquis at almost 700' to be built so far away from the center. Same thing with the Four Seasons tower. To me it skews the beauty of the skyline if you have 1, 2, 3, in order of height, so far apart when they could've fit them around the center. In Chicagos case, the Sears tower was built off center because there actually wasn't any other place to put it (due to density). However, I understand that most developers want waterfront property and such but I don't think zoning should've allowed it. Furthermore, the density problem Miami is facing is because there are so many satellite cities that allow their own business zones that I think retracts from the demand for office space in downtown. Somehow I hope that the demand for office space increases as the costs to operate a business decrease and for city management to wisen up.

[NewAtlantisMiami]

I think the way the city's skyline is spread out between the Rickenbacker Causeway and the Julia Tuttle Causeway and between I-95 and Biscayne Bay is actually a good thing for Miami. I think it helps to relieve traffic congestion since we don't have a really good mass transit system. I also think having tall buildings spread out in this way adds to the beauty of the skyline because it makes these buildings more distinguishable from one another rather than being hidden behind each other. And if you've been following the news and the postings, we have office towers under construction that haven't gone vertical yet, and supertalls planned, one of which is slated to be the city's signature building, One Bayfront Plaza. And I don't agree with a lot of guys on the issue of density being such a good thing either.

[NewAtlantisMiami]

Originally Posted by Cityseed

but from the ground level (which is what counts) it is a deficient skyline.

This makes no sense! And I think the Miami skyline is quite impressive approaching it from SR-836 as well as the causeways. You sound more like someone from New York or Chicago rather than someone who lives here.

[NewAtlantisMiami]

Originally Posted by Cityseed

I too wait eagerly for supertalls to arrive on the Miami skyline as I was born and raised here and would love for the Miami skyline to kick butt...but we need a reality check. It just doesn't hack it with the big dogs like NY or Chicago.

No American city can hack it with the big dogs New York and Chicago. Those two American cities have set the standard for the rest of the world for over one hundred years and are that much ahead of any other American city. The best any other American city can do is third place. San Francisco has been third. Houston has been third. And now Miami has written its own page in skyscaper history by blasting its way into third place in the 21st century with buildings in the 400 feet tall and up range after having only four buildings over 500 feet tall at the end of the last century. In spite of what the market is doing now, interest in developing Miami further is still very strong with properties having been bought by more powerful developers to build in the future. We are still on the way there. We are not stopping right here. And I think all the things that you've said about the Miami skyline that detract from it are, in my opinion, actually what set it apart and make it unique to Miami. People often think things have to be a certain way because it's always been done that way, but Miami is doing this its own way. The Miami skyline is already kicking serious butt in terms of tall buildings that have made it to construction thus far. That is the real reality check people need to get. The quote from the former Miami city commissioner that I use as my signature line below is actually turning out to be true. And as far as very tall buildings with balconies having an ugly ribbed look, it is only because of recent advances in skyscraper technology that very tall buildings are able to have balconies. Prior to that, it was thought that the balconies catching the wind would cause the building to collapse, so as ugly as that look might be to you, it is actually an advancement that makes the Miami skyline rather futuristic.

[Cityseed]

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

This makes no sense! And I think the Miami skyline is quite impressive approaching it from SR-836 as well as the causeways. You sound more like someone from New York or Chicago rather than someone who lives here.

What you said doesn't make sense....Why can't I call it like it is just cause I live here? Just cause I live here doesn't mean I have to also live in denial.

You sound like one of these transplants that's still riding the Miami hype. Oh, and I've only lived in Dallas and that was for about a year. The rest of my life has been spent living here. And by the way, Dallas' skyline kills Miami's. Does it bother you? Like I said before, my rant was about having a quality skyline, not one with a lot of quantity. Although numbers do help. Just not when they're all condos between 500-700 feet and spread out all over

Back to the relevant. One Bayfront Plaza is an awesome proposal, no doubt. I'd love to see it come to fruition.

[Juan_M2118]

Originally Posted by VisionMIA

Ah yes!LOL!!! poor trees! I remember that photo. one of my favorites..

and yeah there is similarities but can't compare Miami to Chicago...
only in the fact that both cities are on the edge of land with a river rippin through..but Miami has come a long way in that pic. to think that 75% of Miami's buildings are no more than 4 years old is amazing.. and It's already almost half the size of Chicago..Miami has come a long way from what is was 4 years ago.. and in that pic of Miami you can clearly see that.

Well I was raised in chicago, and i could tell you that aside from any WARM city, CHICAGO would be the most similar than any other city, even Atlanta, New York, or Boston, BOTH chicago and miami have ariver with archictecture sorrounding it, BOTH cities have a body of WATER by its downtown, BOTH cities have MANY CRANES and new buildings(( chicago has sooo many buildings that are goign up, around 70, and like another 91 or more planned, 134 were made after the year 2000)) chicago is WAY more modern than new york or any other city, parlty because it was burned, so it had a chance to grow "in a better, more modern way", BOTH cities have beautiful beaches, and warm summers, BOTH cities have a sort of amusement center by the ocean(lake)> bayside and navy pier, although navy pier is WAY better. BOTH cities are HUGE on tourism, BOTH cities have a highway running on its west side by downtown, BOTH cities are important gateways to the US (miami-the americas) (chicago- Europe ans asia), about SIZE, unfortanely, miami still has a LONGGGGG time before it even reaches half of what chicago is, CHICAGO is not just what you see on the picture above< chicagos skyline might not be one of the dense(s) skyline ever, but it sure is one of the longest ever MIAMI is about less than a quarter of the size of chicago's downtown, and about the size of the city itself, miami is way less than a quarter of chicago,!!!
THANKS

[Cityseed]

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

No American city can hack it with the big dogs New York and Chicago. Those two American cities have set the standard for the rest of the world for over one hundred years and are that much ahead of any other American city. The best any other American city can do is third place. San Francisco has been third. Houston has been third. And now Miami has written its own page in skyscaper history by blasting its way into third place in the 21st century with buildings in the 400 feet tall and up range after having only four buildings over 500 feet tall at the end of the last century.

Thats the thing, Miami is only 3rd in terms of numbers. You're arguing a different point that isn't what I was talking about to begin with. You're bent on numbers.

This brings me to my next point. You mention that buildings shouldn't be built around a core because then some will block others, right? Well, if you do that, you're creating a skyline that is one dimensional. I think a skyline should be appealing from all angles and should have different faces. Besides, isn't the point of Miami21 to convert it into a walkable urban city? Where you could walk everywhere in the urban core? Well lets say you lived in Marquis, 900 Biscayne, Marina Blue, or 10 Museum park and you wanted to have a drink or dinner in Mary Brickell Village. Would you walk there? Yeah, you could take a cab but then again you could take a cab anywhere. It defeats the purpose of Miami21. Point is, the buildings built around a core offer everthing in walking distance.

[Cityseed]

Originally Posted by Juan_M2118

miami still has a LONGGGGG time before it even reaches half of what chicago is, CHICAGO is not just what you see on the picture above< chicagos skyline might not be one of the dense(s) skyline ever, but it sure is one of the longest ever MIAMI is about less than a quarter of the size of chicago's downtown

Thanks. Although it is not the densest, its still dense enough to stand in any part of the downtown area and get completely lost in the buildings. This was my point as to how density adds to the effect of an amazing downtown. Its that feeling when you look up and get dizzy and feel tiny.

[Rebeldon]

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

San Francisco
Houston
Dallas
Los Angeles?

I'm impressed with your stats and knowledge of the area. I thought I was the only one looking at the numbers that closely and came up with the same results you did. Few people outside of South Florida know that Miami Beach is not in Miami, but is its own separate city.

Thanks. I'm a stat junky. I've been keeping skyscraper stats since NY and Chicago were the only cities with buildings over 1,000 feet. The internet makes it a lot funner and easier.

I'm from Jacksonville, Florida. I keep my eye on down South.


The answer to my question is (you know the first two): Toronto - 133, Houston - 103, San Francisco -90, Mexico City - 85

[NewAtlantisMiami]

Originally Posted by Cityseed

Thats the thing, Miami is only 3rd in terms of numbers. You're arguing a different point that isn't what I was talking about to begin with. You're bent on numbers.

This brings me to my next point. You mention that buildings shouldn't be built around a core because then some will block others, right? Well, if you do that, you're creating a skyline that is one dimensional. I think a skyline should be appealing from all angles and should have different faces. Besides, isn't the point of Miami21 to convert it into a walkable urban city? Where you could walk everywhere in the urban core? Well lets say you lived in Marquis, 900 Biscayne, Marina Blue, or 10 Museum park and you wanted to have a drink or dinner in Mary Brickell Village. Would you walk there? Yeah, you could take a cab but then again you could take a cab anywhere. It defeats the purpose of Miami21. Point is, the buildings built around a core offer everthing in walking distance.

You said in the beginning that you wanted the skyline to kick serious butt, but you don't say how to begin with. I told you how it already kicks serious butt in terms of the numbers. Now if you don't think it kicks butt aesthetically as you indicated in your opinion later, then you are entitled to that. Yes, it does need more buildings that are taller and of some architectural merit to kick butt aesthetically like that of Dallas that you mentioned. Aesthetically, I would place San Francisco third.

"You mention that buildings shouldn't be built around a core because then some will block others, right?"

That is not what I said, this is what I said:

"I also think having tall buildings spread out in this way adds to the beauty of the skyline because it makes these buildings more distinguishable from one another rather than being hidden behind each other."

Now, while I cannot say that I'm a big advocate of density, I am a big advocate of mixed-used projects, especially where skyscrapers become cities within themselves, where ideally you can live, work, play, have dinner, and shop all in the same building or cluster of buildings. Miami certainly needs more of these with our limited highway and mass transit system and not necessarily in a dense urban core. I'm a native Floridian who has lived in South Florida 24 years, btw, but moved here by way of California, both L.A. and San Francisco. I understand all your points. I just wanted to be sure you were getting all of mine.

[NewAtlantisMiami]

Originally Posted by Cityseed

What you said doesn't make sense....Why can't I call it like it is just cause I live here? Just cause I live here doesn't mean I have to also live in denial.

You sound like one of these transplants that's still riding the Miami hype. Oh, and I've only lived in Dallas and that was for about a year. The rest of my life has been spent living here. And by the way, Dallas' skyline kills Miami's. Does it bother you? Like I said before, my rant was about having a quality skyline, not one with a lot of quantity. Although numbers do help. Just not when they're all condos between 500-700 feet and spread out all over

Back to the relevant. One Bayfront Plaza is an awesome proposal, no doubt. I'd love to see it come to fruition.

"but from the ground level (which is what counts) it is a deficient skyline."

This made no sense to me because I saw ground and sky as two different things. Wasn't sure where you were coming from with that. I don't particularly care for the skyline of Dallas, but it does not bother me that you think Dallas' skyline kills Miami, as you are entitled to your opinion. And no, I am not living in denial because, yes, we do have a long ways to go to have a great skyline, but we have done well to have gotten what we got out of this "boom" at least in the terms of the numbers.

[NewAtlantisMiami]

Originally Posted by Rebeldon

Thanks. I'm a stat junky. I've been keeping skyscraper stats since NY and Chicago were the only cities with buildings over 1,000 feet. The internet makes it a lot funner and easier.

I'm from Jacksonville, Florida. I keep my eye on down South.


The answer to my question is (you know the first two): Toronto - 133, Houston - 103, San Francisco -90, Mexico City - 85

I was born in Jacksonville. Before I moved to California, I actually watched the Modis tower go up when it was the headquarters for Independent Life back in 1974.

[Rebeldon]

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

I was born in Jacksonville. Before I moved to California, I actually watched the Modis tower go up when it was the headquarters for Independent Life back in 1974.

I remember it too. I remember my father taking me to see the construction site of the Independent Life Building. They were still doing site excavation at the time, and he pointed at the dirt and explained that this was going to be the tallest building in Florida. I may have been five or six at the time--I don't recall. The tallest building in Jax at the time was the Gulf Life Tower. I remember going to Friendship Park and looking at it thinking it was some kind of palace where the president lived.

[Rebeldon]

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

"but from the ground level (which is what counts) it is a deficient skyline."

This made no sense to me because I saw ground and sky as two different things. Wasn't sure where you were coming from with that. I don't particularly care for the skyline of Dallas, but it does not bother me that you think Dallas' skyline kills Miami, as you are entitled to your opinion. And no, I am not living in denial because, yes, we do have a long ways to go to have a great skyline, but we have done well to have gotten what we got out of this "boom" at least in the terms of the numbers.

over 700' over 600' over 500' over 400' over 300'
Dallas 5 6 17 26 54
Miami (city limits only) 3 9 25 54 82
Greater Maimi (w/ beaches) 3 9 32 78 123

[NewAtlantisMiami]

Originally Posted by Rebeldon

over 700' over 600' over 500' over 400' over 300'
Dallas 5 6 17 26 54
Miami (city limits only) 3 9 25 54 82
Greater Maimi (w/ beaches) 3 9 32 78 123

Imagine if Miami-Dade county consolidated the way Jacksonville did in 1968 and we ended up with the Miami Beach and Sunny Isles Beach skylines counted along with the Miami skyline as well creating one long list, but then Jacksonville Beach wasn't part of that anyway as I recall.

[NewAtlantisMiami]

Originally Posted by Cityseed

You sound like one of these transplants that's still riding the Miami hype.

I moved to South Florida in 1984 after living under the skylines of both L.A. and San Francisco for 10 years altogether where I became a skyscraper enthusiast and watched buildings go up in both cities. I only moved to Miami because I have family here and settled on South Beach partly because it was the part of South Florida that was the most like California to me. It wasn't even called South Beach then.

Almost every time I drove across the causeways into Miami, I would imagine what it would look like with a skyline like San Francisco's spread along Biscayne Bay the way San Francisco is set against San Francisco Bay. My last apartment on South Beach in 1999, before I bought in Miami, had a 15th floor bay view, and of course I would look out over my balcony and imagine the same thing when I looked at the Miami skyline. I thought it would never happen. Then, all of a sudden, a bigger skyline than San Francisco's is rising up out of nowhere. I'm dumbfounded that it actually happened, let alone what the buildings look like. Can you imagine me kneeling on my balcony and praying to God to send me a skyline. That's kinda what happened, so I'm not complaining. It's going to get better!

[Siriusly]

edit

[Cityseed]

Originally Posted by NewAtlantisMiami

My last apartment on South Beach in 1999, before I bought in Miami, had a 15th floor bay view, and of course I would look out over my balcony and imagine the same thing when I looked at the Miami skyline.

I can remember South Beach in the late '90's. No one wanted to live south of 5th. All of a sudden, whoever had something there was suddenly in the money. If you owned that condo then and held it till '06, you made some nice cash. If only I had been wise enough.

The skyline coming from the Macarthur Cswy looks real nice. Its also real nice if you're on a boat in the bay NE of the Rickenbacker. That is my favorite view since you capture all buildings within your line of sight.