HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEPB 07-05-16 Staff Analysis & Final Designation ReportStaff: MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
CITY OF MIAMI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report & Recommendation
To: Chairperson and Members
Historic & Environmental Preservation Board
From: Megan Cross Schmitt
Preservation Officer
Appli.can : Lynn Lewis, Vice -Chair, City of Miami Historic and Environmental
Preservation Board
Subject: Item No. 4 — The Babylon, 240 SE 14th Street
BACKGROUND:
THE PROPERTY:
On April 5, 2016, Historic and Environmental Preservation Board
(HEPB) Vice -Chair Lynn Lewis directed Preservation Office staff to
prepare a Preliminary Designation Report for the Babylon Apartments,
located at 240 SE 14th Street. On May 3, 2016 the HEPB approved the
Preliminary Designation Report under HEPB-R-2016-022, and directed
staff to present a Final. Designation Report at the July 5, 2016 meeting.
The Babylon is located within the lower section of Brickell in an area
named Point View. Point View is located between SE 14th Street and SE
15th Road and is comprised of two semi -circular roads that form an inner
and outer ring that each start at Brickell Avenue, then swing out
towards the bay and return back to Brickell Avenue. Around the outer
ring at the circular edge, the lots are all irregularly shaped.
The lot on which the Babylon sits is approximately 15,000 square feet with the footprint of
the structure conforming to the constraints of the shape of the irregular
lot. Rising six stories, this residential structure is dwarfed among the
taller high rises that surround and contains thirteen residential units,
with a mixture done, two, and three -bedroom apartments. Structurally,
the Babylon is framed with reinforced concrete footings, columns, and
beams that supported each floor's pre -fabricated concrete slab and stucco
wall skin.
HEPB- JULY 5, 2016
Acting as a primary focal point of the structure is the front facade, a
stair -stepped two-dimensional wall plane constructed of concrete block
that is coated in stucco, 'and painted a vivid red color. This facade is
referred to as a "ziggurat" and it is stated that it is "reminiscent of many
Dutch 17th century facades" in the text description within the catalogue
Page 1 of 9
HEPB- JUL Y 5, 2016
Staff: MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
produced for an exhibition of Arquitectonica's work between 1977 and
1984. A reason given for the stepped. design is so that the architecture
could conform to the constraints of the lot as well as those of the setbacks
required under the then zoning code.
Page 2 of 9
CURRENT PHOTO:
°7(4
, ,, ,,,m,•,,,,,."',",
Figure 1, Babylon Apartments, east facade.
HEPB- JULY 5_2016
Page 3 of 9
Staff: MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
T
IL,r,,,AlugottgAnt
rid
Staff: MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
ANALYSIS:
Sec. 23-4. - Designation of historic resources, historic districts, and archaeological
sites and zones.
(a) Criteria for designation. Properties may be designated as historic resources, historic
districts, or archaeological sites and zones only if they have significance in the historical,
cultural, archaeological, paleontological, aesthetic, or architectural heritage of the city, state,
or nation; possess integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association; and meet one or more of the following criteria:
(1) Are associated in a significant way with the life of a person important in the past;
(2) Are the site of a historic event with significant effect upon the community, city,
state, or nation;
(3) Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical, or social trends of the
community;
(4) Portray the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more
distinctive architectural styles;
(5) Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, or period,
or method of construction;
(6) Are an outstanding work of a prominent designer or builder;
(7) Contain elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship of outstanding
quality or which represent a significant innovation or adaptation to the South
Florida environment; or
(8) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
(b) Criteria exceptions. Ordinarily cemeteries, birth places, or graves of historical. figures,
properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have
been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties
primarily commemorative in nature and properties that have achieved significance within
the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for listing in the Miami register of historic
places. However, such properties will qualify for designation if they are integral parts of
districts that do meet the criteria, or if they fall within the following categories:
(1) A building or structure that has been removed from its original location but is
significant primarily for architectural value, or is the surviving structure most
importantly associated with a historic person or event;
(2) A birthplace or grave of a local historical figure of outstanding importance if no
appropriate site or building exists directly associated with his or her productive life;
HEPB- JULY 5, 2016
Page 4 of 9
Staff: MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
(3) A cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of
outstanding importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events;
(4) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment
and presented appropriately as part of a restoration master plan and no other
building or structure with the same association has survived;
(5) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or
symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance;
(6) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years ifit is exceptionally
important; or
(7) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic
distinction or historical importance.
Because the building is not yet fifty years old (completed in 1982, it is currently 34), Chapter
23 of the City Code says that it must be found to be "exceptionally important" in order to be
designated.
Staffs analysis as documented in the Final Designation Report found the building to meet
the following criteria:
(3) Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical, or social trends of
the community;
The Babylon is located within the lower section of Brickell in an area called Point View.
Originally, this neighborhood served as one of Miami's first subdivisions, providing ample
sized lots to accommodate grand homes for many significant residents of the City's early
history. This semi -circular layout of the neighborhood created pie -shaped as well as
irregularly shaped lots that can still be seen in the plan of the subdivision today.
By the time the Babylon was constructed in 1982, virtually all of the mansions had been
demolished to make way for high-rise condominiums. When condo sales failed and the
owners of the Babylon tried to rezone the property to allow for partial office use, the building
found itself at the heart of the battle between the "new" Brickell, that of density and high
rise office buildings, and the "old" Point View, a more quaint and residential neighborhood.
It was the Babylon's design and height that lead to the suggestion that it remain in perpetuity
to serve as the protective barrier, the transition between these two worlds.
(5) Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, or
period, or method of construction;
The Babylon tells a story of development within the City of Miami, particularly in Brickell
and Point View. Its bold facade creates a lasting impact signifying good design dictated by
the constraints of the first Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This also points to its artistic
and aesthetic merit and overall integrity that the structure has retained during its lifetime.
Due to these restrictions, primarily with the required setbacks for the side yards that
increased with each escalation in height, the structure takes on its iconic ziggurat form..
HEPB- JULY 5, 2016
Page 5of9
Staff. MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
Within the description in the 1978 P/A Awards issue, it states, "the city building code
stipulates a certain number of parking spaces and describes a set -back formula interpreted
as a ziggurat envelope." The firm was inventive with the regulations that were set forth at
the time, a creativity that was not always evident in construction of the period. As stated in.
a 1986 article in the Pennsylvania Gazette, "Arquitectonica International's exuberant
accomplishments may be all the more remarkable because many of them work within such
restraints of urban surroundings as density, parking space, and city codes." Arquitectonica
was generating new design that was visually interesting and architecturally innovative,
providing designs that were dream-like yet buildable.
(6) Are an outstanding work of a prominent designer or builder;
Early on, the firm gained widespread praise. Almost immediately following the formation of
Arquitectonica, the original founders won their first award, the P/A (Progressive
Architecture) Citation Award for the Babylon apartments in 1978. Departing from what
many of their peers were doing during this time period, Arquitectonica did not create designs
in the newly coined style, Postmodernism. Instead they used the Modern style as a basis with
an added twist to create a fresh and innovative take. Arquitectonica was a firm that marched.
to the beat of their own drum and made designs unique to their time.
The "Fifty -Year Rule"
At this point, the analysis must clearly turn towards exceptional importance and the so-called
"fifty-year rule." In evaluating a property for exceptional importance, the first thing to
understand is the history of why the minimum age "rule" is in place and bow a piece of
architecture would qualify under this exception. John H. Sprinkle, Jr., Historian for the
National Park Service, wrote an article about the origins of the "fifty-year rule" which he,
describes as "probably the best-known, yet also the most misunderstood preservation
principle in America."r
Sprinkle begins by explaining that the 1935 Historic Sites Act spearheaded a survey to
identify potential sites that could become part of the National Park System. Part of refining
eligibility for consideration involved the removal of "all sites of contemporary or near
contemporary nature which might lead to controversial questions."' This created the first
minimum age requirement which the National Park Service set at the year 1870. Over the
next thirty years, various recommendations were made on the amount of lapsed time
necessary to determine significance, including the separation between properties that
qualified "for their association with nationally significant events or persons and properties
that were significant in the history of architecture."3 It was not until 1961, after the
establishment of a National Registry of Historic Landmarks, that the "fifty-year rule" was
I Sprinkle, Jr., John H., ""Of Exceptional Importance": The Origins of the "Fifty -Year Rule" in historic
Preservation." The Public Historian, Volume 29, No. 2 (Spring 2007), lap. 81-103. University of California Press on
behalf of the National Council on Public History. Page 82.
2 Ibid. Page 83.
3 Ibid. Page 86-87.
HERB- JULY 5, 2016
Page 6 of 9
Staff: MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
first codified and then it was further ratified with the adoption of criteria set forth for the
National Register of Historic Places in 1966.
The concept was not without its critics. Sprinkle writes:
In 1941, after- a briefing on National Park Service programs, the arbitrary
cut-off elate of 1870 was widely criticized by members of the newly formed
American Society of Architectural Historians. Henry -Russell Hitchcock's
observation that `often primary monuments of modern architectural history
are wantonly destroyed' was reinforced with an anecdotal list of demolished
or threatened important buildings."4
And Sprinkle includes this quote from Robert Utley, who served as the Chief Historian for
the National Park Service:
Unfortunately, what was considered as kind of agenera.l guideline has been
translated by ignorant and well-meaning people, or by evil people with bad
designs in mind, into a criterion. It's become almost a cliche. The thinking
was that in general you need a 50 year perspective to have a good
professional judgement of whether a property qualifies or not. But it was
never intended to be rigidly applied...5
And according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:
Before 1966, historic preservation was mainly understood in one-
dimensional terms: the proverbial historic shrine or Indian burial mound,
secured by lock and key ----usually in a national park —set aside from modern
life as an icon for study and appreciation. NHPA largely changed that
approach, signaling a much broader sweep that has led to the breadth and
scope of the vastly more complex historic preservation mosaic we know
today. Like the American culture it mirrors, historic preservation today is
perhaps best defined in terms of its diversity.
Even since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, historic
preservation has often been criticized for its lack of diversity. Years of narrowly defined
approaches to "significance" left many voices, histories, cultures, architectural styles, etc.,
out of the dialogue. And as the field matures, so should our understanding of how to
implement preservation theory into policy. It is time to look carefully at something like the
"fifty-year rule," especially when the intent of the language can be just as easily achieved by
phrases such as, "sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective," as is
used by the State of California. It is perhaps worth noting that not all local ordinances use
the fifty-year rule in their designation criteria. In his article, Sprinkle points out that the
New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission requires buildings to be at least thirty
years old in order to be considered for evaluation. Closer to home, Miami Beach's historic
preservation ordinance does not specify a minimum age for historic designation.
4 Ibid. Page 87.
' Ibid. Page 101.
HEPB- JULY 5, 2016
Page 7 of 9
Staff: MCS
Application received: 4/5/2016
Exce tion Im ortance
As stated in the Final Designation Report, staff found competent and substantial evidence
that the Babylon meets Criteria (3), (5) and (6), making it eligible for designation prior to
applying the criteria exception for properties that have achieved significance within the last
fifty years. Despite the building's age, staff believes that enough time has lapsed to allow for
a scholarly perspective to be established. However when it is compared to other
Arquitectonica buildings that were built around the same time, staff finds that it is
challenging to distinguish it as exceptional.
According to National Register Bulletin #22 — Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating
Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years, "In evaluating and
justifying exceptional importance, it is critical to identify the properties in a geographical
context that portray the same values or associations and determine those that best illustrate
or represent the historical, architectural, cultural, engineering, or archeological values in
question."6 This is where staff has reservations about characterizing the Babylon. as "of
exceptional importance."
The other Arquitectonica buildings that were constructed in the early 1980s such as the
Palace, the Atlantis Condominium and the Imperial were perhaps even more celebrated than
the Babylon in the national and international press. Furthermore, just as the Babylon found
itself at the center of a battle that pitted neighbors against development, so, too, did the
Atlantis. In 2001, the proposed 28-story Brickell Bay Village apartment project threatened
to obstruct the "famous" view of the Atlantis from 1-95 — not to mention the light and air of
the 96 apartments in the Atlantis itself. In an Op -Ed published in the Herald on March 29,
2001, Hervin Romney, one of the founders of Arquitectonica and identified in the article as
the architect of the Atlantis, makes a compelling argument as to why the building is so iconic.
The list of popular culture references he cites may be more than can be done for the Babylon.
Letters asking the City Commission to "save" the Atlantis poured in from local home owner
associations, local advocacy organizations and internationally acclaimed architects. There is
even a letter from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources stating
that despite being "conspicuously less than fifty years old," a review of preliminary
documentation provided to their office found that the Atlantis "should be considered for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places." The building was just 19 years old at the
time.
To be fair, an early and important profile of Arquitectonica that appeared in Progressive
Architecture wrote about both the Atlantis and the Babylon, saying, "Two apartment
buildings by Arquitectonica — one large, one small— capture the aura of their time and place."
The piece closes with the following remarks:
.Ironically enough, the Babylon, still unoccupied after a change in
ownership, stands within sight of the 41-story Palace, and opposite the site
6 National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form (Washington, DC: National Park Service,
1991). Page 3,
Viladas, Pilar.""Rich and 'Famous." Progressive Architecture. February, 1983. Page 99.
HEPB- JULY 5, 2016
Page 8 of 9
Staff: M CS
Application received: 4/5/2016
of the 1.9 million -square- Dot Helmsley Center, a mixed -use project
scheduled for completion in 1984. Under different circumstances, the sight
of the Babylon, dwarfed by the gargantuan Helmsley project (which will
have a real keystone base), might bring a smile to those observers of the firrn
who knew them. when. For Arquitectonica, however, there never really was
a when; it was a very short trip to the major leagues. So the Babylon serves
instead as a rather winsome reminder of lean and hungry years the firm
never had..8
The Preservation Office believes that this is a very unusual scenario, where a local firm
catapulted into international fame right from their very first designs. Additionally, the fact
that Brickell is home to so many early and contemporaneous Arquitectonica buildings makes
it all the more challenging to call one out as exceptional over the others. This is especially
true when so much attention was being paid to the projects as a set.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:.
The Preservation Office believes that the Babylon is eligible for designation by meeting
Criteria (3), (5) and (6), however the building cannot be found to be more exceptionally
significant within its context than the other contemporaneous work of Arquitectonica in
Brickell.
If the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 14 Street possesses quality and
character through it architectural design, historical and political trends within the city of
Miami, and represents the work of master architects as stated in the criteria below and that
the Babylon contains characteristics of exceptional importance and meets the requirements
of the criteria consideration for a building under 50 years old you must find that such criteria
exists, and is present and .include such findings if the structure is to be designated and must
be approved by five or more affirmative votes;
Conversely, if the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 1.4 Street possesses quality
and character through it architectural design, historical and political trends within the city
of Miami, and represents the work of master architects as stated in the criteria below but
does not possess exceptional importance and does meet the requirements of the criteria
consideration, then the building cannot be designated as one which is under 50 years olcl
because it is not exceptionally important.
Ibid. Page 106.
HEPB- JUL Y 5, 2016
Page 9 of 9
THE BABYLON
240 SE 14 Street
Final Designation Report
:';'1011111111111WAi
;:g1".2:;'iLa;g2,11itligatikatialij
Historic and Environmental Preservation Board
City of
Miami
REPORT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
PRESERVATION OFFICER
TO THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
ON THE POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF
240 SE 14 STREET
AS A HISTORIC SITE
Prepared By: Megan Cross Schmitt
Historic Preservation Officer
Trisha Logan
Historic Preservation Planner
Passed and Adopted On:
Resolution Number:
2
The Babylon, 240 SE 14 Street
0 0.0425 0.085
0.17 Miles
I
Contents
i General Information
}[ Statement 0fSignificance
Ill. Historical Context of the Site
IV. Architectural Description
V. Analysis
V[ Preservation Incentives
VU, Application ofCriteria
V|I[ Bibliography
IX. Photographs & Figures
List pfFigures
Figure 1:Tax Card Photos ofZ4OSE14Street
Figure 2.Tax Card Map ufZ4OSEl4Street
Figure ]:I948Aerial View of24OSEI4Street
Figure 4: 1969 Aerial View of 240SE 14Strzet
Figure S:Zoning Map - Ordinance 687l(1860)
FiOure6: Zoning Map - Ordinance 9�S08(l9QZ)
Figure 7:Zoning Map Ordinance 11O0Q(199O)
Figure 8: Zoning Map Miami 21(IQ1O)
Figure 9: College of Architecture, University of Houston
Figure 10:The AT&T Building, New York, New York
Figure 11:The Pyramids, Indianapolis, |mdiona
Figure 1Z:Villa Sa:voye,Poissey,France
Figure 13:Babylon Apartments, east fa�ado.
Figures 148'2S:Babylon Apartments, northeast fa�ade.
Figures16: Babylon Apartments, streetvievv.
Figure 17: Babylon Apartments, rendering (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).
Figure 18: Progressive Architecture magazine, January 1978
Figure 19, 20, & 21: Schematic line drawings of Babylon Apartments, (courtesy of Arva Moore
Perks/Arquitectonica).
Figure 22: Babylon Ground Floor Plan (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks,/Arquitectonica).
Figure 23: Babylon 2»u & 316 Floor Plans (courtesy ofAn/a Moore Parks/Arquitectnnica).
FigureI4:8abyUon4mand5tuF|oorP|ams(cnurtesyofArvaK8VoreParks/Arquitectnnica).
Figure 25: Babylon 41h and 51h Floor Plans (courtesy ofArva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).
5
I- General Information
Historic Name:
The Babylon
Current Name:
The Babylon
Date ofConstruction:
1982
Location:
2403E14Street
Miami, Florida 33131
Present Owner:
Babylon International, Inc.
I8OIsland Drive
Key Biscayne, Florida 33149
Present use:
K8u|U'Fam0yResidentia|
Zoning:
Folio No.:
01-4I39'068-0001
01'4139'068-00I0
01-4139'068-0020
01-4139'068-0830
01-4139'068-8040
01-4139-D68-0050
01-4139'068'0060
01'4139-068-00,70
01'4239-058-0080
01-4139'068'0890
01-4139'068-0100
01'4139'068-0I10
01'4139'068'0120
0I'4I39'058'0130
01'4139'068'0140
Boundary (Legal Deschption):
Babylon Towers Condo Point View Sub P82-9]Lot SLess 0|yIDf for K/[i8'S}fofnudntless
6
SettinR.
The structure is located on SE 14 Street within the lower section of Brickell in an area called
Point View.
Integrity:
The structure has not been subject to major alterations on the exterior and retains a high leve'l
of integrity.
7
11- Statement of Significance
The Babylon is one of the first projects completed by Arqmitectnnice within the City of Miami.
This world-renowned architectural firm was founded in Miami in the late 19705and from the
start, their work has been credited with changing the skyline of the city. Statements such asthis
one regarding their significance were being made asearly as19D4:
And today Miami is recognized for its association with Arquitectonica, a firm whose
unmistakable style, distinguished by high-spirited and unambiguous forms set off in
brilliant colors, has created landmarks along Biscayne Bay.'
Arquitectunica was inventive with the zoning regulations that were set forth at the time,
producing many designs that were dream-like yet buildable. Early on, the firm gained widespread
praise with multiple news sources vying for interviews with the young principals during the early
1S8Os.Almost immediately following the formation of/\rquitec1onica,the original founders won
their first award, the P/A (Progressive Architecture) Citation Award for the Babylon apartments
in1978.
Departing from what many oftheir peers were doing during this time period, Arguitectonicadid
not create designs in the newly coined style, Postmodernism. Instead they used the Modern style
as a basis with an added twist to create n fresh and innovative take' making the end product
something that was unique to the time in which they were designing. The Babylon's most unique
and eye-catching feature is of course the ziggurat form that faces SE 14 Street. Part of the
significance and boldness ofthis form comes from the red color that isvividly on display.
It is clear that this structure was an advancement for the architectural firm Arquitectonica and
provided an opportunity for them, to launch a successful career. The Babylon also tells a story of
development within the city of K4inrni, particularly in the neighborhoods of 8ricknQ and Point
View. Its bold fagede creates a lasting impact signifying good design dictated by the constraints
of the first Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, where many other buildings failed. This also points
to its artistic and aesthetic merit and overall integrity that the structure has retained during its
With this achievement atthe launch oftheir career, and the larger scale projects that coincided
within this same time period, Arquitectnnica as a firm received recognition from international
news sources. Their work has also been critiqued globally, usually highlighting the Babylon as one
of the firm's achievements in design. Comparatively to their peers at the time who were mostly
following the trend and creating architecture in the Postmodern Style, Arqui1ectonica marched
tothe beat oftheir own drum and made designs unique tntheir time.
zKucper Frederick. Arquitecuonica'Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Anexhibition ofdrawings, models, plans
and photographs, l977'1984.Center for the Fine Arts, K8iami,Florida 1984.
8
111111- Historical Context of the Site
HistoryofPoint View
The Babylon is located within the lower section ofBrickeU in an area named Point View. Point
View is located between SE lzI» Street and SE 1511
Road and is comprised of two semi -circular
roadsthatform an innerand outer ring that each start at Brickell Avenue, then swingouttowards
the bay and return back to DrickeO Avenue. Around the outer ring at the circular edge, the |ntn
are all irregularly shaped.
Originally, this neighborhood served as one of Miami's first subdivisions, providing arnp|g sized
lots to accommodate grand homes for many significant residents of the City's early history. Locke
T. Highleyman was the developer, creating the plan of the subdivision and selling the first lots in
1911.2 As described in Dade Heritage Trust's, Brickell South Tour, "Highleyman was a banker, real
estate broker, and developer. He arrived in K4iann| in 1903and made ithis permanent home in
1913."3 He used dredge from the bay toimfi|| portions, creating additional land and the semi-
circular shape of the neighborhood. This serm|-circular layout of the neighborhood created pie -
shaped as well as irregularly shaped lots that can still be seen in the plan of the subdivision today.
Over time, all of the houses were demolished to make way for high-rise condominiums. Aerial
maps show that much of the neighborhood was still mostly intact as of 1961 but by 1969 it
appears that several large condominiums had been constructed on the outer ring of the
subdivision.
f,
I
^
w
Figure 1: Tax Card Photos of 240 SE 14 Street
I�r
zRsrkx Aum [Nunrc. "Point View." Date Unknown.
~Pikyt, Casey. "B/ickeU South Tour." Dade Heritage Trust, 2016
9
��^
r
F 0...7
1?-140
i5
Figure 2: Tax Card Map of 240 SE 14 Street
Figure 3: 1948 Aerial View of 240 SE 14 Street
"`,71
Figure 4: 1969 Aerial View of 240 SE 14 Street
10
5'1
5'
1'4
Anquitectonica
Arqoitectnn|ca: was founded by five members in 1977: Bernardo For1'Bresda, Andres 0uanK
Elizabeth P|ater'Zvberk, Herv[n Romney and Laurinda Spear. By the early 1980s, Duany, P|aier'
Zyberk and Romney had moved on and Fort -Brescia and Spear were left as the remaining
principals nfthe firrn.*
Arquitectonica's work has been making a strong impression since its inception. |n197O,the firm
completed its first project, The Pink House, a Miami Shores residence designed for Lnuhnda
Spear's parents. Once described' as"ultramodern and romantic, unrestrained and disciplined,
shocking and pleasing, inviting and challenging all at the same time," the house caused
controversy and deUght.s Five different shades ofpink were used inthe painting nfthe house:
"There were parades of sightseers, anonymous phone calls, angry letters, committee meetings.
And then praise, approbation, esteem, when the house became the darling of the international
desi0mpress."a
This contradictory reaction to Arquitectonica's work may have originated with its first project but
it has persisted ever since. In 1982, Miami Herald architecture critic Beth Dunlop wrote:
°Arquitectonioa'svvnrk is inventive and infuriating, provocative and provoking, elegant and
arrogant. It's delightfully ch||d'hke, offensively cute, sleekly sophisticated and sometimes very
sloppy. All atonce."r
In the same article, Dunlop went on to say this about the Babylon:
The Spear house was completed /n197l,and for owhile, it was only
finished product. But that some year, the firm won its first Progressive Architecture
award, pnannual prize bythat magazine for promising design work. Thedrowingshor
the Babylon split jurors, one of whom praised its ^lhogo/0on, Star Wars" look and
another ofwhom said /twas ugly. But more than the Pink House (mdh/ch, after o/1,was
done /n conjunction with Kon/hoos and for one po/tncr's parents), the qvvmrd
represented An7u/tccton/co'sreal launching.
The Babylon /s finally being completed at the corner of SE 14th Street and South
8ovrhnra And — speaking here sheerly hnterms ofdesign —it turns out tnbeopretty
nice apartment building, neither surreal, nor ugly. It's right /nscale with the adjacent
neighborhood mansions, and despite its colors — brick red, bright red, turquoise and
gray (right now) —/tslides beautifully into its context.
Each succeeding Door of the six - story Babylon steps bock, zigguno/z/vle� and that
accomplishes two things: It gives the building a ship -like scale and it hearkens back to
^ Dunlop, Beth, Arquitectomica(New York: Kbzo|i'7004),37.
,Allman, T.D.Miami: Gtyofthe Future (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987),33,
Kron, Joan. "My Son, the Architect: Houses for Parents." New York Times (New York), November 12, 1981,
/Dunlop, Beth. ^ArquitectonicaTurns Design into Child's P|ay." Mimm/He/ /d($&iami),Aphi4` I982'
Architecture/Cornment sec.
11
early modern European buildings. With ofalse top and cookie cutter windows, Ws
very entertaining.
Were it not for o real failure to attend to the finishing details of construction, the
Babylon would be the best achievement ofArquitcctnnico: the pointed walls have m
wonderful cordbuo/d-th/nquality tnthem, and the stepbocksand the cutouts give the
building odelightful sJhuuette.»
This is one of many references made specifically tothe Babylon by both local and national
newspapers and magazines profiling the firm in the early 1980s. Though some of their other
projects such as the Palace, the Atlantis [ondVrn|nimnn and the Imperial may have been better
known outside of Miami, the Babylon seems to have stood out on its own, never falling into the
shadow of the other, larger -scale projects. It was even described as a "landmark in Point View"
asearly as19O3,just one year after its corop|etion.»
Award Winning
Progressive Architecture or otherwise known as PIA magazine was a well -respected architectural
publication that published their record ofnew and groundbreaking architectural design starting
in the early l940xthrough the mid'1980s.An early architecture and drafting magazine, Pencil
Points, which began in1920merged with, Progressive Architecture in1943.Starting im1972,John
Morris Dixon, a career long architectural magazine editor, took over asthe Editor of Progressive
Architecture magazine and continued in that role until Architecture magazine took over is 1996.
Each year, the Progressive Architecture Magazine vvnm|d hold an awards competition "to
recognize the most promising architecture before comstructivn."u»Entries were submitted as
"paper of plans, as the projects were in the design phase and were
yet in be built, New/ York Times architecture critic, Ada Louise Hmxtab|e, commented that,
"Nothing stops the magazine Progressive Architecture from the completion of its annual task: the
P/A awards that both herald and record the state of the art with amiable regularity."" As of 1988,
the magazine stated that, "|n the thirty-five years since it started, 224 renowned judges ''have
reviewed some 26,00�U submissions amd chosen 849 for recognition." o The deadline for
applications was September of the previous year, with judging [n||ovvimg shortly after the
submissions were received. Awards were divided into three separate divisions; architectural
design, planning and urban design, and applied research, Within each of these divisions, the
nDunlop Beth, "AruitectamicaTumsDesign into Child's Play"Miami Herald ([Niami)'April 4`l982
Arch iteuure/Corn mcntsec,
'Zaldivar, R.A. "Gary's Banker Friend Asks Zoning Variance," Miami Herald (Miami), September 23, 1983, Local
sac
1»SadaWLarson, K8vgv|i.Behind the Postmodern Fp(odc: Architectural Change hvLate Twentieth Centuq,4me,ico.
University vfCalifornia Press, Ltd,London'Eo&|and,I993.Page185
o Ibid. page 185.
zz*uxtab|c'Ada Lvu/="Award Winners - Outrageous Yet xppea|ing,^The New York Times zsFebruary z97u:Page ozs.Print
oSarfvttiLarson,&4a&aU.GehindthoPostnnuemFo�odc:Aoh/tec/om/[hongcin Late Twentieth Century America,
University of[alifbmixPress, Ltd,London, England, 1993.Page 184.|nreference toP/AMagazine Issue January
l98&
12
awards were given in three categories; "First Award" went to the overall winner, "Award"
typically went to several submissions as a second place, and the rest of the winners were labeled
"Citations." The results showcased vvithiothe magazine which published a special awards issue
in January. Within the awards issue of the PIA magazine, each award -winning project was listed
and displayed with "iconographic presentations with excerpts of the judges' debates,""
Awards have been used as a way to distinguish new architecture, setting apart groundbreaking
projects and innovative design from the rest as well as acting as record of the trends. Ada Louise
Huxtable, architecture critic, stated, "Styles seem to change with the seasons, supported by ideas
ranging from superficial to profound." Awards also have the ability tngive creclit and a nod of
approval from the industry to up-and-coming architects who are just starting their careers. The
P/AAvvards were no different. Architect Rob Quigley is cited nsstating that, "Of course they all
submit, they see a PA award as enormously prestigious; they all want that sanction from the
community ofarchitects.""
Throughout the years, the P/AAwards went through several highs and|nxvs and the winners that
were selected each year were highly dependent on who was selected for the panel of judges. The
magazine would attempt to diversify their jurors, by adopting "pararmeter»that are not merely
geographic, but stylistic and technical as vvc||"zsond would tend to dictat the architectural
debate. In reference to the jury Vf 1975, Peter Bsenman stated that "this year's (jury) reasserts
the necessary aspect of architectonic quality and development toward a solution, as opposed to
process only or good intention, I think this restatement of the architect's role, the spatial answer
to programmatic statement, is reassuring.""'
Aonfthe 25m Annual Progressive Architecture Awards, the jury consisted ofeight members that
were divided between each category, Architecture or planning firms of each jury member were
not allowed to submit if they were serving on the jury and all entries were anonymous, leaving
the process as neutral as possible. Three jurors were assigned to the initial review of the
architecture design submission, two for planning and urban design, and two for applied research.
After the initial review, the full committee of jurors would come together to finalize the selected
winners.
This period of time also oo|mddnd with a financial crisis that struck during the mid'1970s and
continued for several years, impacting planned developments. There was a huge decrease in the
number of entries into the Progressive Architecture Awards, due to the economic crisis, but this
also brought on a change in the way projects were evaluated and designed. Peter Eisenman, a
juror from the 1975 Progressive Architecture Awards, "stressed the intrinsic virtues ofdesign"
and the "architect's role as avant-garde artist.''m Additionally developers "spurred on
mIbid. paQe187.
"Ibid. Page185
�Ibid. Page 187
»Ibid. Page 1VS
�SvrfathLarson, NlaOaU.Behind the Postmodern Fo�ode Architectural Change inLate Twentieth Century America.
University of California Press, Ltd., London, England, 1993, Page 227
13
architectural revisionism" and clients "wanted their buildings to |nnk rich, playful, and
different."1e The chart below shows the varying number of entries submitted between 1975
through 1984, but a|an shows, the inconsistencies between the number of awards given
compared tothe number ufentries.
Year
Number of
Entries
Number of
Awards
Percentage
(owards/entri:es)
1 1975
737
21
2.84
1976
462
20
4.30
1977
619
27
436
1978
654
34
5.I9
�
1879
923
28
3.00
1980
928
28
100
1981
1049
31
2.95
� 1982
1066
22
2.05
1983
1040
26
2.58
1984
934
28
�
2.99
20
Arquitectonica won several P/A Awards and Citations as an up-and-coming architecture firm. But
even prior tothe founding ofArquitectom|ca, Laurinda Spear won her first award in 1975fnr a
design that she collaborated onwith Rem Koo|haasfor her parent's home im Miami Shores,
&sanewly established firm, 4rquitertonicawon its first Citation for Architectural' Design for the
Babylon Apartments for the Z5mAnnual P/A Awards (1978). The, graphics that are displayed in
PIA maBazioe's awards issue accurately reflect what was built several years later. The jury
commented on the quality the graphics, and one juror even went so far a:s to explicitly state that
they did not support giving an award to this project. These comments were included as part of
the Progressive Architecture January 1978 edition:
Charles Moore: / like the [ho Star Wars quality ofthe oroo6kz...drawn /n
opseudo'circhcicmonnec.[It is�oreturn tooprevious era and strikes onostalgic
note that has appeal partially as a reaction against many of the other directions
mIbid. Page 743
20rbid.Page 2S6
14
that are evident today, and partly because ofthe sheer romance nfcertain parts
ofthe plan, Itwould befun tmlive in it. The some feeling ojoy might occur each
time you return to the building.
Noto8e de Blois: /t would be ornistoke to give this building on award. It's ugly, it
doesn't make sense. The drawings are cute..but the building /s indistinguishable
it terms of 2z
Additional commentary regarding the 1978 awards was included as part of Ada Louise Huxtable's
architecture column in the New York Times. Huxtab|e states that, "if the group of architectural
design award winners indicates the state of the art today — and it is fair to say that they are
generally on the cutting edge of esthetic [sic] exploration —tMen architecture is in a curious and
o
troubling phase." Going further she comments that "the results tend to be both outrageous
and appealing —a paradox in itse|f.""The P/AAvvard winners under the Architectural Design
category for 1978 range in building type, with single family homes winning five of the nineteen
awards", but also styUstica||y. Further on in Huxtab|e's review she states, "What we are given
this year, in fact, is an extremely mixed architectural bag."zs
1978 Jury Members
Architectural Design:
William Bain, }c,FA|A,Partner, NarannoreBain Brady & Johanson, Seattle
Natalie deBlois, FA|/,Senior Project Des)Qmer,]0f|nternatiomaLHoostnn
Richard Meier, FA|/\Richard Meier and Associates, New York
Charles Moore, FAIA, Professor of Architecture, UCLA, Los Angeles
Planning and Urban Design:
Calvin Hamilton, Director ofPlanning, City nfLos Angeles
David Lewis, A|A, ARIBA, A|P,founder and Partner, Urban Design Associates, Pittsburgh
Applied Research:
Robert Gutman, Professor ofSociology, Rutgers University, and Visiting Professor of
Architecture and Planning, Princeton University
Robert Shibley, Architect, Office of the Chief Engineer, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington16
nDixon, John Morris, "The 25~P/A4wan1s,^Progressive Architecture, January I978.Page U3.Print.
nnuxtable,Ada Louise. "Award Winners - Outrageous Yet x+vea|i"x.^The New York Times zsFebruary ry78!Page oz5.pr�m
~|biu�
= Dixon, John Morris, "The 25*P/AAwprdc^Progressive Architecture. January l978.Page 6G.Print.
25' ftxtab|e, Ada Louise. "Award Winners -Outrageous Yet Appealing," The New York fimes 26 February 1978: Page D25. Print
z^Dixon, John Morris, "The 2JmP/AAwards."Progressive Architecture. January l978.Page 65.Print.
15
1978 Architectural Design P/A Award Winners
Award
Typo
Project
Architect
Location
First Award
Single Family House
The Pink House
Edward Mills
Friendship, MID
Award
Pavilion for ski resort
PaviUun3uixante'0x
Peter D.Rose with
Pete,Lanken and James
V.Righte/
St-Sauveur,
Quebec
Award
Single Family House
Knr aza Residence
Chimacoff/Peterson
Montauk, NY
Award
Training Center
PutmminRe-ning
Training Center
Perkins &VNU
Saudi Arabia
Award
Office/Warehouse
Chem'F|eurFactory
Addition and
Renovation
Michael Graves
Newark 0U
Citation
Warehouse
Renovation into Single
Family House
Graves Warehouse
Renovation
Michael Graves
Princeton, NJ
Citation
Multi -Family
Condominiums
Lovett Square
William T.Cannady
Houston, TX
Citation
Multi -Use
Westlake Park
K3itche|y5iurgo|a
Architects
Seattle, WA
Citation
PedesLrianghdge
Gymnasium Bridge
SuevenHoU
Bronx, NY
Citation
Single Family House
Prototype
Mason Tr c
Robert lLiv*sey
Mt. Kisco, NY
Citation
Multi -Family
Condominiums
The Babylon
Apartments
Ar uirectonica
[Niami'FL
Citation
VVarehnuse/OOices
Morgenstern
Warehouse
Eric Moss and James
Stafford
Los Angeles, C&
Citation
Office Building
Monroe Center
[.F.Murphy Associates
Chicago, IL
Citation
(44) Single Family
Houses
Ghent Square
Barton Myers
4u,udvtos
Norfolk, VA
Citation
(55) Single Family
Houses
Braemar Ridge
John Perkins Associates
Braemar Ridge,
B.C.
[ftation
Office Building
Office building for e
sawmill
�
0AArchitects
Vancuuve�B,C
Citation
Adaptive Re -Use of
Substation
Jessie St, Substation
VV.A.Werner Associates
San Francisco, C4
Citation
Private Museum and
Office
Goebel Collectors'
[lob
Robert VVagensei|Jones
&Assodato
Stamford, [T
Citation
Single Family House
Vacation House
Jorge Silvetti
Djerba, Tunisia
u
Architectural critics for various newspapers would provide commentary about the awards
throughout the years with mixed reviews. The columnists would remark about whether or not
1heP/A Awards were actually meaningful, particularly since the jurors were judging buildings that
were to potentially be hui|1 based on plans, models, and renderings. One such column in the
Chicago Tribune was entitled, "The awards for buildings deserve the booby prize,°with the first
sentence reading, "Progressive Architecture magazine has announced the winners of its 22d [sic]
� 7�bid. PoAes68-91.
16
annual [and still nonsensical] awards competition."' Even with the critical review the magazine
often received throughout the years, it still serves its overall purpose —as a record of architectural
style and trends that will prove as an invaluable resource for historians in the future.
Site Zoning Constraints
The Babylon was designed in 1979, with construction completed in 1982. It was subject to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which was first adopted under Ordinance 6871 in 1960. The
zoning for the property at the time of design was "R-5", entitled High Density Multiple. The
following outlines the constraints of construction on the lot where the Babylon is located as
described within Article X — High Density Multiple — R-5 District:
Section 1— Use Regulations
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used
in whole or in part, for other than one or more of the following specified uses:
(4) Apartment building and apartment hotel not exceeding a density of (1) dwelling unit for
each four hundred and fifty (450) square feet of lot area. (Ord. 7508)
Section 2— Area
(1) The lot area shall be at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet with a minirnum average
width of one -hundred (100) feet.
(2) A lot which as less width or less area that here and above required, which was a platted
lot of record prior to September 25, 1946, the date of Ordinance No. 3179, may be utilized
for a multiple -family dwelling if it has an average width of at least forty-five (45)feet, and
a lot area of at least forty-five hundred (4500) square feet. If it has an average width of
less than forty (40) feet, or a lot area of less than four thousand (4000) square feet, it may
be utilized only for a single-family dwelling. (Ord. 7624)
Section 3 — Yards
(1) Front Yard: (Ord. 7508)
(a) Every lot shall have a front yard not less than twenty (20)feet in depth, and in no
instance shall any point on the build be closer to the centerline of the front street
than one-half (1/2) the height of said point above grade.
(2) Side Yard: (Ord. 7508)
(a) Every lot used for a one -family, two-family, or a multiple -family dwelling shall have a
side yard on each side, each of which shall have a width of least (15) percent of the
width of the lot, provided that no side yard shall be less than nine (9)feet nor required
to be greater than eighteen (18) feet in width for a building not exceeding a height of
twenty-five feet.
(d) The width of the above -required yards shall be increased by one (1) foot for every two
(2) feet of building height above twenty-five (25) feet. Where a side lot line abuts a
Gapp, Paul. "The awards for buildings, deserve the booby prize." Chicago Tribune 23 February 1975:
Page E13. Print
17
street, the side yard required shall innncase be greater than twenty (20) feet, but no
point onthe building shall be closer to the centerline of the side street thonm7ehalf
(1/7)the height ofsaid point above grade.
EU Rear Yard. (Jnt 7508)
/o/Every lot shall have orear yard not less than twenty (2Q)feet /ndepth .2s
Due to these restrictions, phnnahHy with the required setbacks for the side yards that increased
with each escalation in height, the structure takes on its iconic ziggurat form. Within the
description in the 1978 P/AAvvards issue, it states, "the city building code stipulates a certain
number of parking spaces and describes a set -back formula interpreted as a ziggurat envelope."3 0
The firm was inventive with the regulations that were set forth at the time, a creativity that was
not always evident in construction of the period. As stated in a 1986 article in the Pennsylvania
Gazette, "ArouitoctVnica International's, exuberant accomplishments may be all the more
remarkable because many of them work within such restraints of urban surroundings as density,
parking space, and city codes."yz/4rquitectunica was generating new design that was visually
interesting and architecturally innovative, providing designs that were dream-like yet buildable.
Figure 5: Zoning Map ' Ordinance 687l(1060)
11 City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, adopted under Ordinance No. 6871:Artic�eX—High Density
Multiple —R.5District. Revised 1,11g7§.Page 39
30Dixon, John Morris, "The 25mP/AAwads.^Progressive Architecture. January 1978.Page 83.Print.
,zAuthor Unknown. "Miami Virtue: Ar uiu,ctonica.^The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 1986. Page 31.Ar uiteuonica
Archives, History Miami.
18
L'L'''Ytktkill$001,ga. 1,4 i4
Figure 7: Zoning Map - Ordinance 11000 (1990) Figure 8: Zoning Map - Miami 21 (2010)
Babylon: The Early Years
Once constructed, the Babylon sat empty.
According to the testimony of attorney Robert H. Traurig at the July 11, 1983 Zoning Board
meeting, the condominiums were not selling:
We went to the Planning Department and said, "We have tested the market
with this condominium, residential condominium, and the market has rejected
it and we can't sell apartments and we would like to use the building and it's
really on 14th Street and not on the Point View curve and wouldn't it be
reasonable if we gave you an agreement not to take advantage of the SPI-5
ordinance in order to build a big building but just to get the uses that SPI-5
permits if we limited those uses to a combination of residential at the top, with
offices at the bottom," and we agreed and we have a covenant to submit that
says, "We will not change the structure at all and we will limit the building to
the three residential units on the top floor and the rest of the building will be,
could be used for offices if we desire... "3 2
What is more, the adjacent property to the south of the Babylon, 3517 South Bayshore Drive (lot
4), appears to have been one of the last surviving mansions from the original Point View
development and was fighting for its own future. Alan Bliss, the owner of the property (referred
to as the Commodore), testified at the same Zoning Board meeting in favor of the rezoning for
his own property:
'Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board's July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5.
19
I have been trying to sell the property and have found, the same as the Babylon
found, that nobody is buying residential today. There's foreclosure but there's
no buying. I have come up with an idea that I'm trying to promote to keep the
Commodore as a restaurant.33
Bliss goes on to explain that potential investors were interested in the site but only if they could
introduce office space due to what the market was demanding.
Not surprisingly, the proposal to introduce office use was met with strong opposition from
neighbors who were concerned about the increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic they feared
would come to their street. And not all residents were buying the "market demand" argument
in support of the rezoning. Jean Ryder, a resident of a nearby building, saw the Babylon's
challenges differently:
Furthermore, I really don't, again quote Mr. Traurig, I really don't think that
you can test the market, the realty market, with a building like the Babylon. I
think you're testing what people consider a livable building. It is unfortunate
and I'm sure they, both the builders and the lenders, are suffering financially
from what they put up there.34
The curve from SE 14th Street into South Bayshore Drive seems to have been caught in a battle
between the "new" Brickell, that of density and high rise office buildings, and the "old" Point
View, a more quaint and residential neighborhood. Interestingly, the Babylon was being
positioned as the protective barrier between these two worlds. Attorney Traurig stated:
Then you have the opportunity to transition with the Babylon by having the
existing building retained with a slight change in use and an increase in
landscaping and so forth...We urge you to at least support the Planning
Department's recommendations which are reasonable recommendations and
give protection to this neighborhood.35
One of the recommendations from the Planning Department stated:
It is understood that the structure on Lot 5 [the Babylon] will be retained with
residential use in the upper portion and this will serve as a buffer between the
residential and non-residential zoning districts. The existing residential area
should be preserved to retain the concept of needed housing close in to the
downtown area...36
33 Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board's July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5,
34 Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board's July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5.
33 Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board's July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5.
36 Staff Analysis included in an Inter -Office Memo from Sergio Rodriguez, Executive Secretary to the Planning
Advisory Board to Howard V. Gary, City Manager, dated December 8, 1983.
20
|nthe end, the City Commission approved the rezoning that would allow the Babylon tVexpand
to some restricted office uses In addition, ownership proffered a restrictive covenant that,
among other things, said that the building would be preserved, and that any modifications to the
interior or exterior would be limited to those required to adapt to the new use. It also had a
provision that mentioned that an appointed representative from the Point View Association, Inc.
"nnayrequireachangeintheco|oroftheexteriorofthebui|d|mgtoaco|orrmo/einhannonyw/ith
the colors ofbuildings inthe Point View neighborhond—" 37
37 Dedaration of Restrictions included in an Inter -Office Memo frorn Sergio Rodriguez, Executive Secretarytnthe
Planning Advisory Board to Howard V. Gary, City Manager, dated December 8, 1983.
21
IV - Architectural Description
Architectural Influences
The early work produced bvthe firm Arqultectooica could be categorized as the Modern Style,
but with a twist of the time in which they were creating. Even though many architects during the
late 1970s and early 198Os were contributing tothe Post -Modern mnvennent,Arquitectonica
does not identify its early work as Post -Modern primarily because they do not follow even the
most basic principles of the sty|e.an "A |o1 that was wrong with architecture had to do with
modernism, but instead ofturning away from modernism with postmndernisthistorical touches,
esmost oftheir colleagues were doing, Spear and Fort -Brescia sought away inwhich tomake
rnodermismvvnrk."ayK4anyarchitectsandarchitecturaUcriticsvveregoing1hrouQha|oveandhate
relationship with Postmodernism at the time, and for some a departure from this trend was seen,
asapositive.
Arquitectomica was not necessarily creating a new style, but looking to update simplified
structures with added visual interest using colors and geometry in experimental ways.
"Arquitectonicaisbuilding onthe spirit Vfdaring and experiment that characterized the avant-
garde earlier in this century. 'We are not trying to create a new style.' Says Laurinda Spear, 33,
one of the founding partners. 'We are just trying 1V make modern architecture more lively and
up to dote! °'0
By using geometrical shapes and' forms, there can be relationship drovvm between the Modern
Style and imitation of historic forms with the exterior appearance and overall shape of the
Babylon, the ziggurat. The ziggurat form can be seem throughout architectural history and is
replicated in many ways. The mndent Mesopotamian city, Babylon, could also potentially act ms
the, namesake for this condominium structure as it was home to the original ziggurat,
Etcnnenanki. Utilizing ancient forms in a simplified form creates a historic illusion.
Other structures that were completed during this same time period and also imitated historic
form in a modern dialect are the College of Architecture at the University of Houston constructed
in 1983-1985 and designed by Johnson/Burgee Architects and Morris-Aubry Architects; the AT&T
Building in New York City constructed in 1984and designed byPhilip Johnson and John Burgee;
and the Pyramids in Indianapolis, Indiana constructed in 1972 and designed by Kevin Roche.
3'3Van der mrrck, Jan, *nvitcctonico'Yesterday, Today, and r"nno,row�xnexhibition ,f drawings, models, plans and
photographs, zy77zym4.Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984.
^,Moberts, Patricia. "Making It in k8iami.^ Publication Unknown. March 1983. Pages 71'76Ar4uitectouicaArchives,
History Miami. Page74
^^VunEckardt'VVo|t^]ozzingUpTheFuncdona|.^TimcK8ogadne.]u|yZ3'19X4.Page9l.ArquitcctnnicaArchi"e,'
History Miami.
22
!
_
__________'~
Figure 9: College of Architecture, University of
Houston (http://digital.lib,uh.edu/collection/pl5l95coII3)
Figure lO:The AT&T Building,
New York, New York
(httn://www.ach|evemertorg/amodod
phntocredit/achicvers/iuhOO50)
Figure 11: The PyramidsIndianapolis, Indiana
This moment served as an important crossroads in architecture with several of the early
modernist architects ending their careers, and leaving an entire new generation of architects to
emerge asleaders with new ideas. Fort -Brescia stated in an interview inthe mid'1980sthat,
"~Thene'snwhole new design revolution going nn,'hesays. 'And there's awhole new generation
of people who are more demanding about the product they're going to buy to live in.' "
4 1Ferrell A.|.A,Stephanie. "Architecture at Fifty -Five Miles Per Hour: Arquitectomka."Southern Homes, Tampa
Dayrd�tion, SummerI985.
23
Possible correlations could also be drawn to early modern architects such as Le Corbusier, who
often used a combination of geometrical forms within his architectural creations. One such
example is ofhis creation, Villa Savoye that was constructed between 1929to 1931 in Poissey,
France. He utilized flat plane surfaces joined together and supported in layers of space with
geometric punctuations throughout, creating both interior and exterior spaces within the main,
primary form, Within the A|AGuide to Miami Architecture, correlation is also drawn specifically
between the Babylon's stair -stepped feature and ear|y1vvent�ietM century work designed by
*z
French architect Henri Sauvage.
'
Figure 12:Villa SavoVe,9oissey,France
Architectural Description
The lot on which the Babylon sits isapproximately 15,OOOsquare feet with the footprint ofthe
structure conforming to the constraints of the shape of the irregular lot. Rising six stories, this
residential structure is dwarfed among the taller high rises that surround and contains thirteen
residential units, with a mixture of one, two, and three -bedroom apartnoemts. Structurally, the
Babylon is framed with reinforced concrete footings, columns, and beams that supported each
floor's pre -fabricated concrete slab and stucco wall skin.
Acting as a primary focal point of the structure is the front fagade, a stair -stepped two-
dimensional wall plane constructed of concrete blockthat is coated in stucco, and painted a vivid
red color. This fa�ada is referred to as a "ziggurat" and it is stated that it is "reminiscent ofmany
" Shulman, Allan '[. Robinson Jr., Randall [, and Donnelly, James F. Miami Architecture: An A]AGuide Featuring
Downtown, the Beaches, and Coconut Grove, University Press ofFlorida. Gainesville, Florida. 2010.
24
Dutch 1711 century facades"" in the text description within the catalogue produced for an
exhibition ufArquitectomica's work between 1977 and 1984. A reason given for the stepped
design is so that the architecture could conform to the constraints of the lot as well as those of
the setbacks required under the then zoning code.
Facing the street, the front fagade features a ziggurat design void of decoration, that folds
inwards into the lot. This inward fold creates an L-shaped cove that provides access via a zigzag
stairway to the second floor open-air lobby and residential units. Punctured into the fogade are
rectangular window openings, fitted with dear fixed panes of glass, and aluminum sliding glass
doors along the horizontal plane of the structure, each opening onto the balconies. Giving an
additional sense of detail on the portion of the front fagade that folds inward are square -shaped
openings fitted with glass block. Apipe railed balcony runs the full length nfthe fagade,creating
a linear pattern and further accentuating the depth of the lot.
Going upwards ateach level, the structure further narrows to match the bold zigguratfa�ode
containing sixteen apartment units. There are atotal offive one -bedroom units, six two -bedroom
units, and five three -bedroom units. The first floor of the usable space is raised in order to
accommodate parking at grade level, creating a base for the structure. The base is constructed
of concrete with an opening on the front fagade allowing cars access into the space directly from
the street. The concrete base was originally scored with nnasonrylines and painted agray color
to mimic Florida keystone. Today this base is oh|| painted gray however, the scoring lines have
disappeared.
The first level, referred to as "Ground Leve|" in the plans, provides an open-air lobby and entry
terrace, along with access to elevators and staircases that give access to the upper |eve|s.
Habitable apace starts at the second level. Within each of the units, they are typically laid out in
a linear fashion with semi -open floor plans that connect the kitchen, dining, and family rooms
with the bedroom(s) located at the opposite end. Atthe second floor the structure separates,
providing an open courtyard that is centralized on the plan containing the pool deck. This central
clearing makes way for a second visible ziggurat form that closely mirrors the outline of the front
f&cacle. Ifviewed from anangle, |onNsou
thwards Street, the image ofthe double
ta�adeand the overall length ofthe lot iscaptured.
mVan der Kxard'Jan. Ar uitecton�ca Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Anexhibition ofdrawings, models, plans
and photographs, 19771984.Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984.
25
Preservation ofthe Recent Past
It has been fifty years since the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which was enacted by
Congress in19O5,and from this act, the National Register nfHistoric Places was created. Outlined
within the criteria for placement on the National Register are also exceptions, one of which is the
exception of the fifty-year age requirement.44 Since this enactment of the Preservation Act, there
have been examples of properties that are less than fifty years old that have been! analyzed and
have proved exceptinma| significance. These properties are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, as well as within their respective State and Local listings.
In evaluating a prupertyfo,r exceptional importance, the first thing to understand is the history
of why the minimum ago "rule" is in place and how e piece of architecture would qualify under
this exception. John H. Sprinkle, Jr., Historian for the National Park Service, wrote an article in
The Public Historian, a journal for the National Council on Public History about the origins of the
"Fifty -Year Rule" in historic preservation. Sprinkle says this exception, Criterion G, "is probably
the best-known, yet also the most misunderstood preservation principle in America.1145
In the first part of the article, he sets the stage for the creation of the NHPA, first describing
survey that was initiated as a result of the 1935 Historic Sites Act. As part of this survey to identify
potential sites that could become national parks, historians submitted a report that "omits all
sites of contemporary or near contemporary nature which nni8h1 lead to controversial
questinns."16 This created the first rnininourn age requirement which the National Park Service
set atthe year 1870. Over the next thirty years, various recommendations were made on the
amount oflapsed time necessary to determine significance including the separation between
properties that qualified "for their association with nationally significant events or persons and
properties that were significant in the history ofarchitecture ."*r It was not until 1961, after the
establishment of a National Registry of Historic Landmarks that the fifty-year rule was first
codified and then it was further ratified with the adoption of criteria set forth for the National
Register ofHistoric Places .4 o
" Notional Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form (Washington, DC: National Park Service,
I991),]7�
4sSphnWe']r,]ohnH,~OfExcepbnua||mportance":The0/iginsofthe^Fifty-YearRu|c^inWsmhcPremrvauiou.^
The Public Historian, Volume 29,No. 2(Spring 28O7),pp, 8I'l03.University ufCalifornia Press onbehalf ufthe
National Council on Public History. Pa0eU1.
w|bid. Page83-84.
�Ibid. PaAe86'X7.
�Ibid. Pagc90, 99.
26
DoCnK4oMu (International Committee 'for the documentation and conservation of buildings,
sites, and neighborhoods of the modern movement) takes the evaluation further using a more
focused approach by outlining the following criteria that can be apphed when evaluating
properties that fall within the modern movement.
1' Technological merit:
Does the work employ innovative modem technology tosolve structural, programmatic, nr
aesthetic challenges?
2Social merit:
Does the design reflect the changing social patterns of20thcentury /ife7
Did the designer attempt toimprove either living or working conditions, or human behaviors
through the mmrk'sformurfuncti,on?
3.Artistic and Aesthetic merit:
Does the work exhibit skill at composition, handling of proportion, scale and material and
detmi/7
4L[onnonicmerit:
/s the work onuYornnch/tectfn/nousorinfluential? b/texemplary work?
5. Referential Value:
Did this work exert oninfluence onsubsequent designers usoresult nfone ormore ofits
attributes?
G./ntegrity:
Is the nrig/no/dcs/gn intent apparent? Have material changes been mode which compromise
the architectural integrity nfthe structure ors/te?w»
hisperhaps worth noting that not all local ordinances use thefifty-year rule intheir designation
criteria. An his article, Sprinkle poinits out that the New York City Landmarks Preservation
Commission requires buildings to be at least thirty years old in order to be considered for
eva|uation. He also mentions the California Register of Historic Places, which states that °[a]
resource less than fifty years old may beconsidered for listing in the California Register ifbcan
be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical innportamce—"s»
Closer to home, Miami Beach's historic preservation ordinance does not specify a minimum age
for historic designation,
'9"How toevaluate modern buildings and sites: Selection Owa|ifiers."DoCoK8oyNuLast accessed [Nay29,20l6,
http://www.docomomn'us.org/mgimrnhpw_to_evo|uate
'»~Ca|ifvrniu Office ofHistoric Preservation Techica|Assistance Scries#6. California Register and National Register:
A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register)." Office of Historic Preservation,
Department ofParks and Recreation, Sacramento, California,
http://nhp.Parks. ca.guv/napes/lO69/Ti|es/technlcv|%20ass�stance%2Uhv||etinN206y62V2011%20vpdate. pd/
27
Cases pfExceptional Importance ofthe Recent Past
In an effort to compare how other cases for "exceptional importance" were established, this
section will discuss buildings that were found to be eligible prior to turning 50 — on both the
Miami and the National Register of Historic Places.
Local Miami RegisterofHistoric Places
Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroel Miami Marine Jtod'ium
On October 7' 2008 by Resolution No. HEP8-2008'56, the City of M|anmi's Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board designated the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe/K8iurni
K4airime Stadium to the Miami Register of Historic Places. Constructed in 1963, the stadium was
45yearso|datthetirneofdesignatiom,fivnyearoshyofthevvide|yknnvvn,wide|yaccepted"Fifty-
Year Rule." The HEPB determined that the building sufficiently met the following Criteria of
Chapter 23'4ofthe Miami City Code tomerit designation:
Vl Exemplifies the historical, cultural, political,economical mrsocial trends nfthe
IV. Portray the environment in an era of history characterized by one ormore distinctive
architectural styles;
V. Embody those distinguishingcharacteristics ofonarchitectural style orperiod or
method of construction;
NYContains elements nf design, detail, materials orcraftsmanship nfoutstanding
quality orwhich represent significant innovation oradaptation tnthe South Florida
Additionally, the designation report bee attached) specifically states that an exception to the
standard fifty-year threshold could be made in the case of the stadium because it is "a work of
exceptional importance at the national, state or local level, it is the nbieri of scholarship, it
represents a building or a structure whose development or design value is quickly recognized as
historically sigmif]camLbythe architectural nrengineering profnssion.°s1 In this case, the evidence
provided within the analysis was sufficient to establish the "exceptional importance" of the site,
"Our understanding" nfits history and its significance is well consolidated in
the historic context ofour region. /tisonexceptional example of mid-century
dcsk7not the local, state, notional and even international levels. /t has received
scholarly attention, being included in Randall C. Robinson's and EricNosh'n
book &YVNV: M/o/n/ Modern Revealed, and o forthcoming book by Alan
Jhu/nnon with o chapter on the Marine Stadium byJeon'Fron�ois Lejeune. /t
represents "on international style of architecture . . . related to numerous
uHemandcz, Jorge L,"Designation Report for the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe Miami Marina Stodium,^
October 7'2U08. Page 12.
28
political and social events and individuals" (N.R. Bulletin). It has received
recognition by the professional community and in the last six months, the effort
for its preservation and designation has captured the passion and support of a
groundswell of individuals and community organization, including the support
of local, state, national and international preservation institutions and the
local as well as national media.52
Bacardi Building Complex — Tower and Annex
On May 26, 2011 the City Commission upheld the HEPB's designation of the Bacardi Building and
the Annex Building with modifications to the original conditions that had been proffered with
Resolution No. HEPB-2009-64. The buildings were found to have sufficiently met the following
Criteria of Chapter 23-4 of the Miami City Code to merit designation:
III. Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical or social trends of the
community;
V. Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or period or
method of construction.
Once again, the designation report (see attached) acknowledges that neither building had
reached the age of fifty at the time of the vote; the Bacardi Building was 46 years old in 2009 and
the Annex Building was 36 years old. The following explanation was given as to why both should
be considered exceptionally significant:
The Bacardi Buildings are of exceptional significance for their design which
incorporates elements of the International Style. The tower building is also a
tour de force in its engineering. The buildings have come to symbolize the
determination and abilities of the Cuban exile community. The buildings are
also constructed at a pivotal time in the Bacardi Company's history as it
becomes internationally known. The Bacardi Complex is perhaps the most
popular of all of Miami's Modernist buildings.53
National Register of Historic Places
Dulles International Airport
Construction was completed on Dulles International Airport in 1962, just one year after the death
of its world-renowned architect, Eero Saarinen. Calk to have the building listed on both the
National Register as well as the Virginia Landmarks Register started as early on as 1974.54 By
1978, the Keeper of the National Register had issued a determination that the terminal building
was, in fact, eligible:
52 Hernandez, Jorge L. "City of Miami Historic Designation Report for the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe
Miami Marina Stadium," October 7, 2008. Pages 12-13,
53 Lavernia, Laura. "City of Miami Historic Designation Report for the Bacardi Buildings.' October 6, 2009. Page 20.
54 Collection of letters regarding the potential designation of Dulles International Airport, 1974-1977.
29
Asthefirstairport designed excl/sh^elvfbrjct travel, Dulles issignificant cis on
outstanding architectural symbol of twentieth-century technology and as Eero
Soorinen's greatest /nosteqr/scc. As conceived by Soorincn, Dulles is o
symbolic gateway."
Though the building has yet to be listed on the National Register due to issues related to
ownership, the determination of its eligibility only fifteen years after it was built is perhaps the
most extreme example of sufficient perspective occurring well before the fifty-year threshold.
Exceptional Importance ofthe More Recent Past
Research and precedence has been set for properties constructed in the nineteen fifties, and even
the sixties. It is becoming more relevant to discuss properties that were constructed even later
in the 201h century vvhorm the importance of these styles has not been fully established. Within
the last several years, structures that were constructed in the more recent past that have
attributed to architectural, engineering, and social progression have become threatened with
dernoUtion. The more notable recent stories are of the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, Prentice
VVornen's Hospital in Chicago, Illinois and the Portland Public Service Building in Portland,
Oregon. For each of these structures preservationists have reacted to these proposals of
demolition in protests and rallies of support that have not been seen since early in the
preservation movement,
Two of the three structures are currently standing, the Astrodome constructed in 1965 and the
Portland Public Service Building constructed in 1982, but neither have been locally designated
and may face threats of demolition inthe future. The one structure that has been demolished,
Prentice VVomen's Hospital, completed 1975 and designed by Bru1a|ist architect, Bertrand
Goldberg, contributed greatly to this on -going discussion of the National Register's criteria
exception for the age requirement.
The reports for each of these properties outlines the way in which each structure qualifies for
exceptional importance and the ability to meet Criteria Consideration G. in the Astrodome
National Register Nomination report, itstates that the structure is an "exceptionally significant
example of stadium comstrucdnn."ssWithin the Portland Public Service Building report it states
that the structure fulfills the requirement ofConsideration G because it is the, "first large-scale
manifestations of new architectural style coming on the heels of the Modern movement.""
The report for Prentice VVornen's Hospital is written for the City ofChicago rather than for the
National Register, but does outline the structure's exceptional importance throughout the
report. Exceptional importance is primarily in the importance of innovation in concrete
-'-' Krulitz, M. Letter to Honorable Brock Adams, Secretary of Transportation regarding the eligibility of Du�s
International Airport to heUmed on the National Register *fHistoric Places, 28 March 1978.
51 Powell, Ted. "The Astrodome." National Register of Historic Places Reglstration Form. MacRostie Associates,
Washington, D.C,Apri| 15, 1013,
~ Minor, Kristen and Johnson, Ian P, "Portland Public Service Building." National Register nfHistoric Places
Registration Form. Peter Meijer Architect, PC, Portland, Oregon, N1n,ch 1' 2011.
30
engineering, and specifically states that, "Since the time of construction architects engineers,
and historians have recognized Prentice as exceptionally forward -thinking in its design, structure,
and program. It exemplifies the sculptural freedom, cultural optirniarm, and technological
experimentation that characterize modernist architccture."s»
VI — Preservation Incentives
Upon designation, the property owner may avail itself of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
Program as described in Chapter 23-6and the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption program as described
within Chapter I3,Article [[.
mRihae n,Susannah.^PrcvdceVVomen'sHnspbai~ Prentice Chicago landmark Nomination FinaI Report, Chicago
Illinois, July, 2012.
31
V|y-Criteria for Designation
If the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 14 Street possesses quality and
character through it architectural design, historical and political trends within the city of
K4|arni, and represents the work ofmaster architects usstated in the criteria below and
that the Babylon contains characteristics of exceptional importance and meets the
requirements of the criteria consideration for a building under 50 years old you must find'
that such criteria exists, and is present and include such findings if the structure is to he
designated and must be approved by five or more affirmative votes;
conversely, if the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 14Stneet possesses
quality and character through itarchitectural design, historical and political trends within
the city of Miami, and represents the work ofmaster architects as stated in the criteria
below but does not possess exceptional importance and does meet the requirements of
the criteria consideration, then the building cannot be designated as one which is under
50years old because itisnot exceptionally important,
(3) Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical, or social trends of the
community;
The Babylon is located within the lower section of Brickell in an area called Point View.
Originally, this neighborhood served as one of Miami's first subdivisions, providing
ample sized lots to accommodate grand homes for many significant residents of the
City's early history. This semi -circular layout of the neighborhood created pie -shaped
as well as irregularly shaped lots that can still be seem in the plan of the subdivision
today.
By the time the Babylon was constructed in 1982, virtually all of the mansions had
been demolished tomake way for high-rise condominiums, When condo sales failed
and the owners ofthe Babylon tried torezone the property toallow for partial office
use, the building foumd itself at the heart of the battle between the "new" 0rickeU,
that of density and high rise office buildings, and the "old" Point View, a more quaint
and residential neighborhood. |twas the Babylon's design and height that lead tothe
suggestion that it remain in perpetuity to serve as the protective barrier, the transition
between these two worlds.
/5\Embody those distinguishing characteristics ofanarchitectural style, orperiod, or
method ofoznstrucdon;
The Babylon tells a story of development within the City of Miami, particularly in
Brickell and Point View, Its bold fa�acle creates a lasting impact signifying good design
dictated by the constraints of the first Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This also
points to its artistic and aesthetic merit and overall integrity that the structure has
retained during its lifetime.
32
Due to these restricdums, primarily with the required setbacks for the side yards that
increased with each escalation in height, the structure takes nn its iconic ziggurat
form. Within the description in the 1978 P/AAwards issue, it states, "the city building
code stipulates a certain number of parking spaces and describes a set -back formula
interpreted asaziggurat enve|ope." The firm was inventive with the regulations that
were set forth at the time, a creativity that was not always evident in construction of
the period. Asstated in 1986artide in the Pennsylvania Gazette, "ArquitectVnita
International's exuberant accomplishme,nts may be all the more remarkable because
many ofthem work within such restraints ofurban surroundings as density, parking
space, and city codes." 4rqoitectenica was generating new design that was visuaOy
interesting and architecturally innovative, providing designs that were dream-like yet
(6)&re anoutstanding work ofeprominent designer orbuUdmr;
Early on, the firm gained widespread prnisc. Almost immediately following the
formation of Arquitemtomica, the original founders won their first award, the P/A
(Progressive Architecture) Citation Award for the Babylon apartments in 1978.
Departing from what many of their peers were doing during this time period,
Arquitectonica did not create designs in the mevv|y coined style, Postmodernism.
Instead they used the Modern style as a basis with an added twist to create a fresh and
innovative take. Arquitectonica was a firm that marched to the beat of their own drum
and made designs unique totheir time.
33
V01' Bibliography
Allman, T.D. Miami, City of the Future, (New York: Atlantic Monthly'Press, 1987).
Author unknown. "Rich and Famous," Progressive Architecture, February, 1883.
Berger, Philip. "Demolishing History: Helmut Jahn, Gene Summers, and The Threat to Chicago's
pos1nnodernLeeocy.°yyww.das[gn.newdty.com,Chicago,|||inois.LastaccessedMay17,2O1D.
Boles, Dara|iceand John Morris Dixon. "Winners Rise," Progressive Architecture, January 1986.
Brown, Patricia Leigh. "Designs on Miami" Esquire, Decernber1984.
"California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. California Register and
National Begister:4 Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California
Re8ister)."Office ofHistoric Preservation, Department ofParks and Recreation. Sacramento,
California.
http://Vhp.parks.ca s/10G9/fles/terhnica|962OassistanceY62OboOetin�/�DJ6`/`202011`/*2
Oupdate.Adf
[a|omios, L. Erik, "Architectural Firm Alters Miami's Skyline and [a|b National Attention to Its
Designs." The Wall Street Journal �(NevvYnrk\,July 7,l983.
City ofMiami Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, adopted under Ordinance No.6871:Article X—
High Density K4u[tip|e—R'5District. Revised 1'l-I976.Page 39
`
City nfMiami, Florida. Aerial rmaps,l948
City ofMiami, Florida. Aerial mops, 1969
City ofMiami, Florida, Tax Card 3-43-3513, Point View Subdivision.
Declaration nfRestrictions included in an Inter -Office Memo from Sergio Rodriguez, Executive
Secretary tothe Planning Advisory Board ioHoward V.Gary, City Manager, dated December O,
1983.
Dixon, John Morris, "The 25t* P/A Awards." Progressive Architecture, January 1978. Print.
Dunlop, Beth. /\rqoi1ectmnica (New York: Rizzo[i, 2004L
Dunlop, Beth. "Arquitectom|caTurns Design into Child's Play." K4|arn| Herald /MiarniLApril 4,
1982,Architecture/Comment sec.
34
Ferrell 414,Stephanie, "Architecture atFifty-Five Miles Per Hour: Arquitecton|ca."Southern
Homes, Tampa Bay Edition. Summer l9D5.
Hernandez, Jorge L. "Designation Report for the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe Miami
Marina Stadium." October 7, 2008.
Huxtabk�Ada Louise. "Award Winners —Outrageous Yet Appealing." The New York 77n/es 26
February 197V:Page O25.Print
Gapp,Paul. "The awards for buildings, deserve the booby prize." Chicago Tribune I3February
1975: PageE13. Print
"How tu evaluate modern buildings and sites: Selection C}ua|diers." DoCoK4oMo. Last accessed
Kneper, Frederick. Arquitertonica, Yesterday Today, and Tomorrow: An exhibition of drawings,
models, plans and photographs, l977-19U4.Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984.
Kron, Joan. "My Son, the Architect: Houses for Parents." New York Times (New York)
November 12,I9O1.
Lavernia, Laura. "City of Miami Historic Designation, Report for the Bacardi Buildings!' October
Minor, Kristen and Johnson, Ian P., "Portland Public Service Building." National Register of
Historic Places Registration Form. Peter Meijer Architect, PC, Portland, Oregon, March 1, 2011.
National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the Notional Register Form (VVashimgtun,DC:
National Park Service, 1991).
Notional Register Bulletin: Guide0nesforEvo/uatingondNon7/no//ng Properties that Hove
Achieved Significance Within the Post Fifty Years. (Washington, DC: National Park Service,
1998).
Miami, Florida, Municipal [ode Chapter23 Historic Preservation.
Parks, ArvoMoore. "Point Vievv."
PlkcL Casey. "BrickeU South Tour." Dade Heritage Trust, 2016
PovveU,Ted.°TheAstrodume."Nutiona|ReBistero[HistoricP|acesRegis1rationFu/nn.
K4mcRostieAssociatcs, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1013.
35
Ribstein, Susannah. "Prentice Women's Hospital." Prentice Chicago Landmark Nomination Final
Report, Chicago, Illinois, July, 2012.
Roberts, Patricia. "Making |tin Miami." Publication Unknown. March 1983. Pages 71,76
Arquitectonica Archives, History Miami.
SarfatdLarson, Maga|iBehind the Postmodern Fo�ode:Architectural Change /nLate Twentieth
Century America. University of California Press, Ltd., London, England, 1993.
Shulman, Allan l[.Robinson ]r,Randall [" and Donnelly, James F.Miami Architecture: AnA|A
Guide Featuring Downtown, the Beaches, and Coconut Grove. University Press of Florida.
Gainesville, Florida. 2010.
Sprinkle, Jr,John H,""UfExceptional |rnportamce":The Origins ofthe"Fifty-Year Rw|e"in
Historic PneservaMon."The Public Historian, Volume Z9,No. 2(Spring 2UU7),pp. Dl'1O3.
University ofCalifornia Press on behalf ofthe National Council on Public History.
Staff Analysis included in an Inter -Office Memo from Sergio Rodriguez, Executive Secretary to
the Planning Advisory Board to Howard V. Gary, City Manager, dated' Decenober8, 1983.
Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board's July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5.
Unknown. "Miami Virtue: Arquitec1onioa."The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 1886. Page Sl.
ArquitectonicaArchh/es, History Miami.
Van der Morck Jan. Arquitectonica,Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Anexhibition nf
drawings, models, plans and photographs, 1977-1984. Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida
1984.
Vi|oclos, Pi|ar."Bich and Famous," Progressive Architecture. February, 1983. Pages99'1O6.
Von Eckardt, Wolf. "Jazzing up the FmnctlomaU." Time Magazine. July 23, 1984.
Za|divar,R.A."Gary'sBanker Friend Asks Zoning Variance." Miami Herald (Miprni),September
J3,l983,Local sec.
36
VIII Photographs & Figures
,w�WrotlMn°,
Figure 13: Babylon Apartments, east facade.
37
•
Figures 14 & 15: Babylon Apartments, northeast facade.
, 0,0 00117 „
Figures 16: Babylon Apartments, streetview.
38
„dowonvor4r
'
404 effl,
U40" "I;r1v,,
?Slit 0101°.?nri'W 1N0
OAP
,0
,/4000,
004 0k,`,
7
Figure 17: Babylon Apartments, rendering (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica
39
Arqu itectcnica
Striking, dreamlike graphics pay'homage
to an earlier epoch in, the life of Miami,
under whose moon may soon rise this
new apa l,m nUziggrurail., The Babylon.
F'1rii r5'tr1 Laff....rr„^r a,'3;. r@rr er .°;Dlai (.S,r,
E ..rErae-h dtircEnDtrt t mlrt " rt r+atay?
t rr,.r and ,a °,,CINrrf 9 � � ,� pro ad<.,Irr rt,
'the r,;r¢,e d,t,atdtt or,!'as;'l add a iseaebrr'sr^,r,g pry tl.
caatr.),ar.e„l;'P^'ttrs;71:8$:kr^V^c Err,,';°d'Dorn
rC„Ve l:rrrgar"e lf:,;krcr Orl iE,E 4t."a"y.r'trs B.ca',° Bet.
,+atfsa' the riEt,e Icart,:dtdEed !'tr4M•,.4',,.ak
Cotdatatf'6'rod e ;rrt;f3. fhrrr r,rm.t 6 errrrr`,t kodarsl
'E ;r; bP l,o°drEg roe rt.,1 t ,ta" k ttE a.;t . oath.:E,ry
dt r, i CG r_ v': r•2�', ,:NM r'. entp rrer;eih: e.
So.' itertrt. lc
tat:°terarJEta ktt! ttonfDIME 9'>31ty
recta ;ir.,rr 3" EEe tn3r<r 40, ' rs a9Ew eJ?
y 0, urne',aala weu:i ka
ay., 't'4` ! rrirererrserne 1'a,.leicrreg untie ar 9iafikl r-
rr s'rat plrrirs,,r 'ta'e. C r` airs" rsr. e rlrrrr;
r,,rr,i.arrr .,;rsar'k
rrrrMl,iarp ,r rr,r a'ha',, d a ,a ;^i,k� ii r r-1t rrrr°arerlre
FOr dr: 7 i rEN rrh 1-e ((red reortCut ra ga
tY3r°^u, Et, ,iar1l.l.lrat v;Iw°kkrr ra ribmod il"rpEcE:r.
tsrl urEsl rat; EttEc,lrtz,o, 1: E acEe l Er,e
.'E„mit] ts,1r;k EzotE fl, Mhir'r ;a ;&:r; f 'rs '.:Saar r re.
t ar1 ',E orY"r`ic mass Ef a ',to/time. ^ 'wrti:
ea`u;,a"rde itEta 1t.pEr.) rak slai 15 Tiara :4,"aC:z'j":cr-errnG":".
rIv eh;
le re 'suer era. i9"wP3
't'ePerg:" r:a Virwter, 2e,[(ri,e2 eyea,r.Y .a
rr 1 I 1 r ,e::rceer TO a i ii rtetELs E E"Eu, alrt wrs;, aC; I`,, ?a.r
;v'1 Fier/ 1,at,tmiCr dt. ra11 rt ( fl'me: mass, M.
crtdat:.; rodttja t,✓Y,°p
a crr r ,r,r},
r:d! arEcE r.'a3rh i ar'e3
t9✓7are:rP sr.da ue..., :r .,re!uer ereere
past,. r r r e: ,o r z1t:_ ttzit7tEtt,EtEtt
Jury comments
Moore: 1 r. ke the ,
Eto aid :';1 dovrr s, rbt 1.11'+r"P
ps,.,r,y.aJ a rC,q..&",Ett Eti.rf Eno, .;.
NE ap;la . ➢,"i111. _arr{r',:y" ri rerry
r"rr'r,- er , ! ';r,', 1,.rrv, u. par, I1 r: O
1 t, r;std Err-3rErr-a-
are.to tie i r *.ire°r. r i.rraM.it E,d,aztat.al„
, a-a,r ndElitypta,, ,air:"t
met° 'r e , .,4+ t, r',, (r r., i d'r9' d' Y h'rr,i97; Y,
E;,rFrrr.rip ,rclorrr o a,_.'r fr be.'-r u eet.
.,e
/e kilS7l a .,.9 ,0,1. r.timtnttzt g' ye Esqs
,rrpArrrirr .Ir, ,, 11..,t':C
Tro.kf,, t;e rl ;y 1i'uC' ,akarralrES ;aa;a 1, a"m
wr,.r r e fui ream:,, r "..l s m"o o f;l. ,R.E_t,IEa
r(0 a1,:r8wtE,CLlr,!
Figure 18: Progressive Architecture magazine, January 1978
40
Project: The e3'aabvto
h9nr`k V.
Ar'chitec'ts„ o r
Mem bur rer H,Frre n
tl f Yjpre';, PES & .Prs A14
Driarsor,k, Er3oir31 do,",,.,r" z.lr °rr"'3.
lrl',rrr e.r Frk:krirarrirTh Dr1E4'err,it 4 rr>r.,%.
r„ u,.Rt
Client: P'aEtd r: ary sr e; carp .'- CorpotEalitY,
pro, FI
EA. Otterrerde
artt
I ° fl 1'�s,iw,;k us,.ia�mss Aerrrehrrtre u"rr,:iiail 63
Figure
I r-
y
19, 20, & 21: Schematic line drawings of Babylon Apartments. (courtesy of Arva
Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).
41
Figure 22: BabylonGround Floor Plan (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).
Figure 23: Babylon 2nd & 3rd Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).
42
Figure 24: Babylon 4th and 5th Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).
Figure 25: Babylon 4th and 5th Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).
43
Staff: MCS
Application received: 6/3/2016
CITY OF MIAMI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report & Recommendation
To: Chairperson, and Members
Historic Environmental Preservation Board
From: Megan Cross Schmitt
Preservation Officer
Applicant: Luiz Roberto Melo, Owner
Subject: Item No. 5 — 1015 NW 10 Court
The applicant, Luiz Roberto Melo, is applying for the demolition of a contributing
structure in the Spring Garden Historic District and the construction of a new single
family residence.
BAClGROUND: This is a new application.
THE PROPERTY: The subject property is a contributing residence in the Spring Garden
Historic District constructed in 1949.
HISTORIC PHOTO:
Not available.
HEPB- JULY 5, 2016
Page 1 of 3
CURRENT PHOTO:
ANALYSIS:
Staff: MCS
Application received: 6/3/2016
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and to construct
a new single family residence. The existing structure appears to be in an
advanced state of deterioration, however it is not currently on the City's
Unsafe Structures list.
The Preservation Office is once again faced with the difficult task of making
a recommendation regarding the proposed demolition of a building within a
historic district. This particular property is identified as contributing, and
appears to be in a serious state of disrepair. Recent photographs provided
by the applicant show extensive roofing and wall material to be missing,
thus leaving the structure significantly open to the elements.
HEPB- JULY 5, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Staff: MCS
Application received: 6/3/2016
Staff is uncomfortable with the situation we find ourselves in, because
recommending denial of the demolition could also result in prolonging what
appear to be extremely unsafe conditions at the beginning of hurricane
season.
Both the 1964 Venice Charter and the Secretary of the Interior Standards
for Historic Preservation that were first issued in 1977, state that new
construction in historic districts be differentiated from the original historic
fabric. New construction projects should not duplicate a style from the past,
but should rather compliment with the use of materials found within the
district as well as architectural features that are common in the
surroundings. Additionally, it is important that new construction projects
fit in with the overall sense of scale of the district, and compliments its
surroundings with appropriate massing and setbacks.
Staff recognizes the architect's reference to the existing structure in the new
design. The rooflines, the slump brick vertical features, and the eyebrow
features all seem to allude to the existing structure.
However, staff does have some concerns about the proposal:
• More detailed information about the proposed materials should be
provided in the form of manufacturer brochures and/or samples;
The use of slump brick, stone veneer and wood veneer creates a busy
appearance throughout the facade;
• The elongated rectangular windows proposed at all four facades are
not characteristic of the neighborhood;
▪ Storefront window system lends more of a commercial feel than a
residential one;
• Staff cannot assess the design of the proposed gate at the front of the
property due to lack of detail;
There appear to be discrepancies in the drawings when comparing
the plans to the elevations.
Staff believes that prior to approving the demolition of a contributing
structure, regardless of how deteriorated it may be, the new design being
proposed must be further along in detail than what the applicant has
submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Preservation Office recommends, in accordance with the Secretary of
the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, that the application for the
demolition of a contributing structure and the new construction of a single
family residence be Continued.
HEPB- JUL Y 5, 2016
Page 3 of 3