HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal1Uoh80d Unhtad
Parks and Parkland Issues
Presentation to the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami
By Miami Neighborhoods United, July 7, 2005
iami Parks — The facts and problems
A. Miami level of service compared to other cities — three charts
B. Current standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient
C. Current Impact Fees are deficient
D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
are deficient
E. Neighborhood participation in the development of Miami 21 goals was totally absent
II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed
A. Immediate correction of Impact Fees and other considerations.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' participation in drafting the revised Evaluation
and Appraisal Report
C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21
D. Integrate Current Parks and Waterfront Advisory Boards into Planning Process
III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed
A. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active, reoccurring participation in drafting
amendments to the Parks & Recreation section and all other sections of the
Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active participation in drafting Miami 21
Goals, Regulating Plan and Form Based Code
C. Initiate a plan to locate a substantial number of parks in four commission Districts
which are deficient.
D. Establish a Concurrency Information Center.
IV. Long Term Corrective Actions Needed
A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive with other
high density population cities.
B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation.
C. Increase operation funding for Parks and Recreation.
V. Conclusions
Page 1 of 18
7:-/Z1
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM Dli.1 ON
06- 00.6191
Parks and Parkland Issues
Presentation to the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami
By Miami Neighborhoods United, July 7, 2005
Introduction
We are here today because the entire membership of Miami Neighborhoods United has serious
concerns about the deficient amount of parkland in Miami. We are here to express the long-
standing and critical need for more parkland given our impending population explosion,
especially in four commission districts, which are incredible deficient.
Our parks are used 365 days a year. We have nearly that many days of bright sunshine and
most of the year we have good rainfall. These ingredients make it possible for Miami to create
incredible parks, showcasing plant material able to grow only in South Florida. We are stuck
with some incredibly small parks, but we can transform them into wonderful oasis where
residents will be able to relax in as well as play in, with the addition of plant material and
creative features. Our parks can be the envy of any city. But we have much planning to do
and most importantly there must be a commitment of this Commission and Mayor to embrace
the recommendations we will make.
I. Miami Park Acreage — The facts and problems
A. Miami level of service compared to other cities — three charts
Miami is rated as a high population density city and the first chart you will see compares
Miami to other similar cities. This study was conducted by the Trust for Public Land in 2002.
You will see Miami ranks 12 out of 12 cities in term of park acreage per 1000 residents..
We will look briefly at medium -high and medium low population cities and you will see that
Miami is again last. If we had added some parkland between 2002 and now we could have
maintained our 3.1 acreage figure but we declined to 2.9 acres. If we showed you the low
population density cities such as Jacksonville, Miami would still be last. In total we are last
out of 55 major US cities.
Page 2 of 18
Source: The Trust for Public Land "The Excellent City Park System", May 2003,
Appendix III Page 37
City
Minneapolis
Washington, D.C.
Oakland
Boston
Baltimore
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Long Beach
New York
Chicago
Miami
Average
Total
High Population Density Cities
Population Acres All
Parkland *
383,000 5,694
572,000 7,576
399,000 3,822
589,000 5,451
651,000 5,749
3,695,000 30,134
777,000 5,916
1,518,000 10,621
462,000 2,792
8,008,000 36,646
2,896,000 11,676
362,000 1,138
20,312,000 127,215
Acres per 1000
Persons
14.9
13.2
9.6
9.3
8.8
8.2 Median
7.6
7.0
6.0
4.6
4.0
3.1-2.9
8.0
6.3 Ave by Population
* NOTE: "All Parkland" includes all parks and preserves owned by municipal, county,
metropolitan, state and federal agencies within the boundary of the city.
Miami was at 3.1 acres per thousand residents in 2002 but because population has been
added and no parks have been added the ratio has diluted to 2.9 acres per thousand
residents.
Page 3 of 18
City
San Diego
Portland, Ore.
Cincinnati
Dallas
Arlington, Tex
Las Vegas
Denver
Seattle
St. Louis
Sacramento
Pittsburgh
Toledo
Detroit
Cleveland
San Jose
Fresno
Average
Medium -High Population Density Cities
Population Acres All Acres per 1000 Persons
Parkland *
1,223,000
529,000
331,000
1,189,000
333,000
478,000
555,000
563,000
348,000
407,000
335,000
314,000
951,000
478,000
895,000
428,000
38,993
12,959
7,000
21,670
4,151
5,416
6,251
6,024
3,385
3,694
2,735
2,206
5,890
2,884
3,858
1,323
31.9
24.5
21.1
18.2
12.5
11.3
11.3
10.7
9.7
9.1
8.2
7.0
6.2
6.0
4.3
3.1
12.2
Median
Source: The Trust for Public Land "The Excellent City Park System", May 2003,
Page 4 of 18
Miami also ranks last as well if we compare ourselves to Medium -Low Population Density
cities such as Tampa, which we included for comparison purposes.
City
Medium -Low Population Density Cities
Populatio Acres All Acres per 1000
n Parkland * Persons
El Paso 564,000 26,372 46.8
Albuquerque 449,000 17,746 39.5
Colorado Springs 361,000 10,150 28.1
Phoenix 1,321,000 36,944 28.0
Louisville/Jefferson 694,000 14,209 20.5
County
Fort Worth 535,000 10,554 19.7 Median
Tulsa 393,000 7,110 18.1
Memphis 650,000 10,490 16.1
Milwaukee/ 940,000 15,115 16.1
Milwaukee County
Indianapolis 792,000 11,868 15.0
San Antonio 1,145,000 16,503 14.4
Columbus 711,000 8,494 11.9
Tampa 303,000 3,408 11.2
Houston 1,954,000 21,252 10.9
New Orleans 485,000 5,228 10.8
Atlanta 416,000 3,235 7,8
Mesa 396,000 2,862 7.2
Tucson 487,000 3,175 6.5
Average 12.2
* NOTE: "All Parkland" includes all parks and preserves owned by municipal, county,
metropolitan, state and federal agencies within the boundary of the city.
In Summary, the Miami ranks 12 out of 12 of high density population cities. If we compare all
cites in the study, Miami ranks 55 out of 55 cities.
Page 5 of 18
B. Current standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient.
The Miami Comprehensive Plan has as no goal or objective to increase the amount of
parkland, recreation space, or other open space. It only states:
Policy PR-1.4.4: The acceptable Level of Service Standards for the City of Miami with regards
to Recreation and Open Space will be a minimum of 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000
residents.
The Trust for Public Land study of 2002 said Miami had 3.1 acres of park land per thousand
residents. Miami's actual park acreage has been adjusted down to 2.9 acres per 1000 residents
because Miami has added population but has made no significant progress in adding new
parkland. This is a 3.2% decline in level of service is just three years. When the estimated
60,000 new residents move into their new condos over the next 36 months our parks Level of
Service will decline from 2.9 to 2.46 acres per thousand residents.
Almost 41% of our reported 1195 acres of parkland is on Virginia Key. Of the remaining 709
acres of parkland, we need to subtract 68 acres which are offshore islands and not easily
accessible to the public and 52 acres from Watson Island which has been counted, but
technically is not parkland and which will substantially be leased to private enterprise.
The addition of twelve acres of the Little Haiti Park will not compensate for the loss of parks
space on Watson Island and Bicentennial Park with major buildings be constructed at those
locations. Additional parkland has already been lost to various facilities being built in various
parks and the contemplated police horse stables in Lummus Park represent a further loss of
parkland.
Refer to Chart Four: Miami Parks Acreage by Commission District
Please note that 79% percent of our total park acreage lies in Commission Distinct 2, proof that
four Commission Districts desperately need more parkland. Residents in four Commission
Districts had made this request when meetings were held for the Comprehensive Plan but the
results of those meeting were ignored by the administration.
The Comprehensive Plan has no stated goal of how parks should be maintained, or the amount
of plant material or other features usually found in parks outside Miami.
C. Current Impact Fees are deficient.
Miami Impact Fees on new construction do not provide sufficient funds for the purchase of
parkland to even maintain the level of level of service we had in 2002, much less make an
improvement to the overall level of service. When population is added to the city, there must
be provisions that the 3.1 acres per thousand residents (thru a combination of on and off site
public accessible green space) be maintained which means any new projects should meet at
least that standard.
Page 6of18
The current policy of collecting only fifteen cents per square foot for parks from construction in
the downtown area on the theory that the downtown already has Bicentennial Park and needs
no additional parks is simply wrong. This practice ignores the fact that Bicentennial Park has
been paid for by property taxes collected on property all over the city. Residents who live in
the four districts west of downtown have paid for Bicentennial Park and other district two parks
but yet have no significant parks in their neighborhoods.
The Impact Fees collected for parks currently are not set aside for the purchase of new park
land as they should be but are used for multiple purposes.
Current Impact Fees vary according to seven development areas and in most cases, including
the downtown area, residential buildings pay less fees for parks than non residential buildings.
This practice ignores the purpose of a residential building is to house additional population.
On the other end of the fee spectrum, non residential buildings in all areas of the city except in
the downtown area pay no fees toward parks.
With every new building permit issued our problem becomes worse and the cure more difficult.
We have also learned that many Impact Fees over the last four years have not been collected.
Audit Number 05-010 dated February 25, 2005, shows that between October 2001 and July 31,
2004 only $7 million of Impact Fees were collected on all construction projects in Miami. The
Audit found that over $1.336 million went uncollected and $62,580 dollars were overcharged.
MNU has not learned if the undercharged Impact Fees have been collected.
D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
are deficient.
The Planning Department has not responded to MNU requests for open dialogue relating to
revisions to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
The Parks Committee of MNU has identified many flaws in the Parks & Recreation section of
the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.
Mayor Diaz and the city web site both speak about increasing parkland but no plan to acquire
new parkland has been revealed beyond the Homeland Security Bond program. That program
money is being used substantially to construct buildings and little is being invested to acquire
new parkland.
E. Neighborhood participation in the development of Miami 21 goals was totally absent.
Aside from initial meetings with neighborhoods scheduled to begin later this week, there has
been no known process or meetings which has involved neighborhoods in the development of
the goals of Miami 21. At this date, MNU and other neighborhood groups are doubtful their
input will be heard in regard to the further development of Miami 21, its Regulating Plan and
the form based zoning code.
Page 7 of 18
II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed
A. Immediate Correction of Impact Fees and other Considerations.
As presented above, there is a significant deficit in providing for additional parkland,
specifically because new residents are allowed to move into new residences without adequately
contributing toward the creation of new parks.
A family, which buys a single family home, pays a premium for green space outside their four
walls, for a front, side and back yard. Multi family buildings, be they rental or ownership,
should provide their residents with some on site green space, plus perhaps a pool and or some
exercise area. Consider that space as a back yard. But where is their front yard? We submit
that parks are the front yards, the public yards for everyone to enjoy and new residents need to
contribute to, not dilute our parkland acreage.
The Parks Level of Service of 3.1 acres per 1,000 persons, which we had in 2002, must be
maintained as the minimum standard. When new residents are added to the city, there must be
a requirement that residential buildings provide a combination of on site and off site parks
space open to the public equal to at least 3.1 acres per thousand residents.
We ask this Commission to place a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of all building permits
larger than a duplex residential unit in order that your Planning and Finance Departments can
develop a new Impact Fee Schedule. We recommend that the impact fee for parks be
standardized throughout the City. If the Mayor is serious in creating "One Miami", as he has
publicly stated, then there must be equality among neighborhoods. Such a schedule must take
into consideration that property tax payers all over this city have paid for downtown parks and
that new residents of Miami need to pay their fair share toward parks, which they will enjoy.
New bonds and property taxes should not be an option for maintaining a 3.1 acre per 1,000 for
new residents.
During the 45 day moratorium, this Commission should consider adding a requirement such as
Tampa imposes, which requires that 35% green space be left around buildings located on
waterfront property. Tampa and other cities require 10% green space to be included around
other buildings. Tampa has one developer who voluntarily makes 15% of his units available at
less that $200,000. For comparison purposes Tampa has 50,000 fewer residents but provides
fourteen swimming pools, while Miami has ten.
Park Impact fees collected must be set aside exclusively for the purchase of additional
parkland, there must be a time frame for land acquisition and park improvement and the
process needs to be detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. This Commission must assure that
Impact Fees for Parkland Purchase are segregated in a separate account with transparent
administration and oversight.
MNU will work with the Planning and Finance Departments, the Parks Advisory Board and to
prepare recommendations of new Park Impact Fees for the Commission.
Page 8 of 18
Any parkland covered by buidlings larger than 1500 feet , including existing and new buildings
on Watson Island, Bicentennial Park and the Meese Golf Course must be replaced with green
parkland elsewhere before any project is allowed to proceed so as to avoid a further decline in
parkland.
We recommend that each of you set aside 90 minutes to review the drawings and video tapes of
the Bicetennial Park charette to see if granting of four acres to each of two musuems truly
represented the desires as spoken and drawn by the 280 participants.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders participation in drafting the Revised Evaluation
and Appraisal Report.
Please instruct the Planning Department to work constructively with MNU on changes to the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report relating to the Parks and Recreation section.
C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21.
Please insure that the Miami 21 project puts in place a process for participation in drafting and
review of proposed plans together with both the Miami 21 consultants and the Planning
Department. There is no such explicit process described in any Miami 21 materials made
available so far.
For instance, the public was told on April 16 that there is already model form based zoning
codes for several areas of the City. MNU and other stakeholders need immediate access to
such models and to all other planning goals being used.
As far as MNU has been able to investigate, no contract has yet been signed to formally engage
Duany Plater-Zyberk and therefore no Scope of Work or other information concerning the
contract has been made available to the public or to MNU. A more explicit process should be
incorporated in the contract, to insure timely and broad neighborhood participation in the
setting of goals and the planning process
The initial schedule announced on April 16 for the first quadrant does not seem tenable based
on the current situation and total lack of information.
D. Integrate Current Parks and Waterfront Advisory Boards into Planning Process
The Parks Advisory Board and the Waterfront Advisory Board should have more access to
infoimation and planning activities and much more latitude in making recommendations to this
Commission, also including participation by Miami Neighborhoods United and other
stakeholders of Miami in a transparent, open process.
Page 9 of 18
III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed
A. Assure MNU and other stakeholders of active and reoccurring participation in
drafting amendments to the Parks & Recreation section and all other sections of the
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.
Major modifications of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan are necessary namely
because it fails to address a major finding of the consultant's report which stated that residents
in four out of five districts expressed the need for more park space in their neighborhoods.
Nearly every line of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan needs revision, as current
Goals, Objectives and Policies are inadequate, vague and not measurable in most instances.
The plan needs details and time frames for achievement. For example, there needs to be
specific goals added to address the kind and amount of plant material and other standard
features found in most parks.
The MNU Parks Committee looks forward to working closely with the Planning Department,
the Parks Advisory Board and Waterfront Advisory Board in reviewing and drafting all parks -
related proposed amendments going forward. Please instruct the Planning Department to work
with your Parks Advisory Board, your Waterfront Advisory Board and MNU.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders active participation in drafting Miami 21 Goals,
the Regulating Plan and the Form Based Code
We commend you for launching the Master Plan study for our parks being conducted by
Goody, Clancy and Associates as part of Miami 21 and look forward to working closely with
them and with the Planning Department on the Plan and necessary amendments to the MCNP.
Please insure that the Miami 21 process incorporates full disclosure and that participation and
input is taken seriously.
C. Initiate a plan to locate substantial number of parks in four commission districts,
which are deficient.
The completed Master Plan for parks must include the addition of parks and greenways in
neighborhoods of the city where none exist. The city should work toward an initial goal of
providing a park within one half -mile walk of every residence. The future goal will be to
provide a park within one -quarter mile as recommend by the Trust for Public Land.
To finance additional parkland MNU strongly recommends that in addition to increasing
impact fees specifically for parkland acquisition that you also allocate a substantial portion of
property tax dollars coming from new construction toward the purchase of parkland. Other
sources of monies should also be identified. These new monies can be leveraged with state,
Page 10 of 18
federal and private grants to be able to reach the new, much higher Standard of parkland per
thousand residents.
D. Establish a Concurrency Information Center
MNU recommends the establishment of a Concurrency Information Center, which shall
provide to the public, upon request, information on existing and anticipated capacities and
Levels of Service of all services addressed. This information shall reflect existing facility and
service capacities, planned and committed facility and service capacity increases or extensions
and existing and committed service demands. Tampa has such a center.
IV. Long Term Corrective Action
A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive with
other high density population cities.
Miami's Level of Service Standard for parkland per thousand residents must be radically
increased to a level somewhere between the average acres per 1,000 by population of high
population density cities which is now 8.02 and the median city which happens to be Los
Angles at 8.2 acres.
MNU will be conducting detailed investigations and analyses in preparation for discussion with
the consultants and Planning Dept. on this issue.
B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation.
The Independent Board should be given management authority including developing the
budget for parks operation and mainenance, including the disposition of park bond funds. With
staff assistance, the Independent Board should be responsible for establishing at least one Park
Trust group for every NET area. There shoud be allowace for every park to have a trust group
if the neighbhood so choses. Each trust group should be the liason between the needs of the
neighborood and the Independent Board.
A separate Park Land Acquisition Board should oversee the funds set aside exclusively for park
land acquisition and improvement.
Neighborhood trust groups can be elected by city residents as is done in Minneapolis,
Minnesota which has one of the finest parks systems in the United States.
C. Increase operation funding for Parks and Recreation
Parks need to be considered as a service provided to the residents of Miami and to our visitors.
Large open spaces, while they can serve to host commercial activities on an infrequent basis,
should not be considered a major factor in designing a park. Our parks should include play
Page 11 of 18
fields but the remaining area should be green, planted and shaded to serve residents without
having to generate revenue.
Consideration should be given to establishing a police force dedicated to patrolling parks and
additional funding must be dedicated toward regular replacement of plant material,
maintenance and programming in order that our parks can grow greener as they should, given
our unique twelve month growing climate.
V. Conclusions
Immediate action is necessary to collect Park Impact Fees for purchase of additional parkland -
on a standardized basis from all new development projects across the whole City.
The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan was written many years ago and needs a
complete re -write based on the City's current situation and future growth goals. It needs
specific, measurable goals and objectives with detailed policies so residents can be assured that
the quality of life will not flounder from one administration to another.
Miami 21 is a tremendous, positive effort on the part of the Mayor and the Commission to
create a wonderful vision for Miami and the legal/regulatory infrastructure to accomplish it.
However, there are immediate, short-term and long-teruu needs, which must be addressed if we
are to raise our parks and other attributes of our city to world -class status.
Page 12 of 18
APPENDIX A
Are Parks Important?
Sure, parks are nice. But are they important? Do parks contribute to a
community's health and vitality in the same way traditional urban infrastructure does?
Recent studies say yes. Parks have a far-reaching impact on neighborhood economics,
health, education, and safety.
• According to the Centers for Disease Control, Americans living closer to parks are
more likely to exercise regularly, leading to weight loss, increased energy, and better
overall health.
• Economic surveys conducted by private and public sector agencies confirm that parks
increase residential and commercial property values.
• Studies show that urban parks deliver significant environmental benefits, filtering
pollutants from the air and helping to control storm water runoff during rainy seasons.
• Teachers report that parks enhance education by serving as destinations for local field
trips and outdoor classrooms that illustrate natural and life science lessons.
• Police departments document sharp declines in juvenile arrests after recreational
facilities open in low income neighborhoods.
• Urban planners agree that well -maintained parks improve communities by increasing
neighborhood cohesion. After parks open, neighbors are more likely to interact, take
pride in their communities, and form neighborhood watch and other local improvement
groups.
Parks aren't an "extra" that can be ignored in tough economic times. As a part of the
urban infrastructure, they're as essential as roads, bridges, and utilities. A TPL white
paper, "Parks for People: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space,"
presents additional research describing the importance of park space in urban areas. The
white paper is available at www.tpl.org/pforp.
Source: No Place To Play by The Trust for Public Land
Page 13 of 18
Appendix B ENDNOTES
1 The Trust for Pubic Land plans to expand this Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
analysis to include additional cities as data become available. We encourage other
metropolitan areas to improve their data collection practices and participate in future park
access analyses. To stay informed as additional information becomes available, sign up for the
Parks fror People edition of TPL's Landlink electronic newsletter at ww.tpl.org/newsletter
2 Increasing Physical Activity: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on
Community Preventive Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 26,
2001, p. 1 ("Increasing Physical Activity"), available at:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/n5018a1.htm. See also, Emily B. Kahn, Leigh T.
Ramsey, Ross C. Brownson, Gregory W. Heath, Elizabeth H. Howze, Kenneth E. Powell,
Elaine J. Stone, Mummy W. Rajab, Phaedra Corso, and the Task Force on Community
Preventive Services, "The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity,"
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002;22 (4S), pp. 87-88.
3 See, for example, John L. Crompton, The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property
Values and the Property Tax Base, (Ashburn, Va.: National Recreation & Park Association,
2000). Mark R. Correll, Jane H. Lillydahl, and Larry D. Singell, "The Effect of Greenbelts on
Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space," Land
Economics, as cited in "Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway
Corridors," 4th Edition, National Park Service, 1995, p.14, available at:
www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ_all.pdf.
4 USDA Forest Service Pamphlet #R1-92-100, cited in "Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas,"
Web page, Colorado Tree Coalition, Available at: www.coloradotrees.org. See also David J.
Nowak, "The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality," USDA Forest Service, available at
www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/gif/trees.pdf, and Jeff Beattie, Cheryl Kollin, and Gary Moll, "Trees
Help Cities Meet Clean Water Regulations," American Forests, Summer 2000, p.18.
5 See Peter Harnik, "The Excellent City Park System: What Makes It Great and How to Get
There;" The Trust for Public Land, 2003 and "Healing America's Cities: How Urban Parks Can
Make Cities Safe and Healthy," The Trust for Public Land, 1994.
6 See Robert J. Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush, "Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods
Does It Lead to Crime?" Research in Brief, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Depai intent of
Justice, Feb. 2001, pp. 1-2. Available at: www.ncjrs.org/pdffilesl/nij/186049.pdf.
Page 14 of 18
Appendix C Miami Parks Acreage by Commission District
Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District
1 2 3 4 5
African Square Park
Albert Pallot / Magnolia Park
Allapattah Mini Residential
Allapattah Mini Park Site
Allen Moms AMCO
Antonio Maceo Park
Armbrister Park
Athalie Range Park
Bay of Pigs
Bayfront Park
Baywood Park
Belfonte - Talcocy
Belle Meade Mini Park
Bicentennial Park
Billy Rolle / Coconut Grove Mini Park
Biscayne Heights Mini Park
Biscayne Park
Blanche Park
Brickell Park
Broward Circle Mini Park
Bryan Park
Buena Vista Park
City Cemetery
Coconut Grove Tennis Courts
Coral Gate Park
Coral Nook Park
Crestwood
Cuban Memorial Plaza
Culmer Mini Park
Curtis Park
David T. Kennedy Park
Miller Dawkins
Dinner Key Picnic Islands #4,5,6
Dorsey Park
Douglas Park
Eaton Park
E. G. Sewell Park
Elizabeth Steele Mini Park
Elizabeth Virrick Park
Ernesto Lecuona Park
Fern Isle Park
Flagami Mini Park
Fort Dallas
Gibson Park
0.33
0.40
3.65
0.25
27.70
1.00
10.33
8.41
3.00
.10
5.13
61.30*
1.87
.40
30.30 **
.17
.04
7.32
1.50
2.20
10.00
.30
20.89
56.70***
2.52
10.00
6.21
0.50
4.65
0.65
0.20
0.25
1.00
2.07
3.62
.25
1.02
1.17
11.85
3.09
1.20
1.00
0.60
8.04
Page 15 of 18 MNUParksPresentationFINALHWSHA.doc
Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District
1 2 3 4 5
Glen Royal Mini Park
Grapeland Park
Grove Mini Park
Hadley Park
Henderson Park
Highland Circle Mini Park
Jose Marti Park
Juan Pablo Duarte Allapatah Comstock Park
Kenneth Myers Park
Kinloch Park
Kirk Monroe
Legion Park
Legion Park Picnic Island #2
Lemon City Park
Lincoln Park
Little River Commerce
Lummus Park
Margaret Pace Park
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Silver Bluff Mini Park
Martel Park
Maximo Gomez Domino Park
Melrose Park
Merri Christmas Park
Miami River Rapids
Miami River Walk
Moore Park
Morningside Park
Morningside Picnic Island #3
North Bay Vista
0.50
Oakland Grove
0.20
Pace Park Picnic Island #1
Paul Walker Mini Park
Peacock Park
Pine Heights Mini Park
Plaza De Cubanidad
Pullman Park
0.40
Rainbow Village Park
1.52
Range Park #1
0.11
Reeves Park
3.44
20.00
9.16
3.49
2.60
0.85
0.25
10.00
1.44
13.70
11.49***
0.22
5.90
12.00
.50
0.60
5.39
0.70
42.38
19.28
11.02
0.12
9.40
0.20
0.50
3.50
5.60
0.11
0.25
29.70
0.25
2.30
0.50
19.6(
Page 16 of 18
MNUParksPresentationFINALHWSHA.doc
Riverside Park
Roberto Clemente Park
Robert King High Park Carlos Arboleya Campground
Shenandoah Park / Pool
Simonhoff Park
1.50
Simpson Park
South Bay Vista
0.20
4.89
3.50
8.21
17.00
1 0.00
Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District
1 2 3 4 5
Southside Park 2.23
Spring Garden Point Park 1.14
Stearns Park 5.40
Torch of Friendship Park na
Town Park 0.86
Triangle Park 0.50
Twelve Avenue Mini Park na
Unity Hall Park 0.26
Virginia Key 486.00
Virrick Gym 4.46
Wainwright Park 21.44
Watson Island 51.96 ****
West Buena Vista 1.10
West End Park 6.94
Williams Park 5.03
Woodson Park 0.40
Total Acreage by Commission District 88.42 944.79 25.05 41.90 95.56
Total Acreage for entire city 1,195.72
Percentage of acreage in each district 7.39% 79.03% 2.09% 3.50%
7.99 %
* Approximately 30 acres or 50% is covered with cement structures and retail, which renders most of the park
useless for normal park activities.
** Approximately 8 acres or 30% will be covered with two massive museum buildings, which will eliminate
the only opportunity in the entire city where residents could have the opportunity to escape to a great natural
green park and not be able to view buildings. The land remaining after the construction of two massive
museums will not be large enough to provide any type of natural experience. The only other substantial green
area remaining where a resident will be able to have a natural experience to escape the concrete of Miami
will entail taking a trip to Virginia Key which is not quickly or easily accessible by any Miami resident.
*** The 68.18 acres on the picnic islands are not easily assessable by any Miami resident.
**** Approximately 45 acres of Watson Island has been or will be covered with buildings used for
commercial purposes.
Page 17 of 18 MNUParksPresentationFINALHWSHA.doc
The above four instances effectively means 151 acres counted in Commission District Two or ten percent of
our total park acreage is not available for traditional park uses. In addition 486 acres on Virginia Key are not
easily accessible to the vast majority of Miami residents.
Page 18 of 18
MNUParksPresentationFINALHWSHA.doc