HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #26 - Discussion Itemk..: Y, ., Y F r aYiz: ... ..
00
Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
Jim Reid, Director
Planning Department
j l I t f 1 A r. LA
;,NTT-7.R-CFF It:2 ',I-E'0ORANL."U1 it Lv ULC 1
1
3 V
t� u
December 8, 1980
Bavfront Park Plan - Review
and Comment
On October 30, 1980 the City Commission instructed t}ie.Administra-
tion to prepare a response to the presentation of a nlan for Bay -
front Park by Messrs. Charles Pawley, .Jorge Arango and Robert
Brown. After discussions with the Departments of Parks and Public
works and the Downtown Development Authority, and two meetings with
the plan author, we offer the following comments and recommendations:
As the plan was presented in the spirit of a conceptual exercise,
it would be inappropriate to fulIN- respond- to its design details
or debate the propriety of possible specific alternatives. Rather,
our comments are addressed to ~ghat wo perceive to be four basic
concepts inherent in the plan -
1) Biscayne Boulevard Redesign
The plan calls for realignment, redesign and
beautification of the Boulevard to reduce its
present effect as a barrier between downtown
and the par}-, to simplify its function by nar-
rowing its width through elimination of median
parkint,, and to enhance the image of the boule-
vard north of 6th Street, we agree that all of
these measures :Ire legitimate and overdue concerns
that should he addressed through dctailoo study
by both the City and Dade Count%,. II,e question
the need for or j,ti sdom of a radical eastward
realignment that mould sever the Boulevard from
doi,tntown and change its role ;is a hi gllly urban
throughfare to that of a parkway, ithile placing
added circulation burdens on NW''nd Avenue. Brid-
ging or covering the Boulevard to accommodate
pedestrian movements seems an unnecessary expense
10, provided the above mentioned redesign and simpli-
ficatioll of the boulevard can he accomplished
through improved pedestrian crossings, signalization,
uniform street widths, elimination of parking,
and simplified trafficc circulation.
00,
r
Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
Page 2
December 8, 1980
2) Development of Activity Centers
Though not a new idea, this plan suggests the most
aggressive program for Joint public -private deve-
lopment of residential, commercial, entertainment
and cultural uses in the park vet discussed.
Proposed activity centers in J3icentenni.al Park,
the FEC tract, "ti.amarina, the existing auditorium
site and along Biscayne Boulevard are conceived
as strategies for bringing the City into the
park. It is our judgement that all of these sites
should be seriously considered for some level of
private participation in developing needed active
use centers in and along the park. lie particu-
larly stress our attraction to the concept of
opening a broader green edge along the boulevards
western side (though not necessarily to the extent
shown in their plan) and structuring a much more
commercially active use of ground level downtown
frontage on Biscayne Boulevard.
3) Economic Leverage for Putting the Park in the City -
The City in the Park
The plan impl icitiN, suggests a "trade-off" strategy
for extendin4; needed open space into the urban core
area. By offering choice part: sites for private deve-
lopment opE�o1•tinlit:ies are created for land swaps with
propert", ol•.ners ;11011g Biscayne Boulevard and perhaps
even more importantly, within the heart of downtown.
A sort of transfer of development rights, this approach
would mean that valuable public open space would not
be lost, merely redistributed on the hasis of greatest
public need and welfare. In addition, the lease of
r, ?"
Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
Page 3
00, December 8, 1980
public land for above mentioned private development
creates revenues to finance public park development.
A third trade-off could involve the private construction
of public cultural arts space as part of development
rights to park lands.
We endorse these forms of economic leverage of City
resources and feel they open up several avenues for
extending public park benefits that should be care-
fully considered by the City.
4) Unification of the Total Public Bayfront
The fourth major concept of the plan is the need
to functionally and aesthetically join Bicentennial,
the FEC tract, the :Marina complex and the Noguchi
plan into an integrated whole. The plan envisions
a strong north -south bayfront pedestrian axis and
a landscape design vocabulary that is consistant
throughout the one mile long open space system.
This objective would not preclude a special
character, scale change or diversity of ,activity
from accenting different sub -areas of the park.
It does, however, suggest greater attention be
given to functional and design linkages between
the Noguchi Flan ;and the evolvins, Bayfront Auditor-
ium area, ;and that the Port Boll le\'ard/1'I'C tract
barriers will require a strong physical statement
to bridl(ie them and unite the entire area.
Additional concerns that must he desalt with include the desirability
of moving the Biscayne Boulevard DPM Station to a location direct-
ly interfacing the Park, enhancing pedestrian access to the DP"t
stations from both the City and the Park at Flagler Street and
NE 9th Street/Park West area and buffering park activities from
hcavv Port traffic.
In conclusion, we do not see any aspect of these four concepts that
dictates a conflict with the Noguchi plan as currently designed.
If serious and timely attention is given to the refinement of the
four concept issues, we feel that work on present plans for the
Noguchi Park, the Bayfront Park bulkhead and baywalk can continue
without risk of long term conflicts.
JR/JL:ck