MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — Miami Beach’s famed collection of Art Deco buildings is iconic.

Seasonal resident Saskia Molenschot agrees.

“(Art Deco is) my favorite,” she said. “Being from Europe, being raised with all kinds of beautiful architecture, this is why I chose for Miami, to be snowbird and this is why I am staying here because I love it so much, all these beautiful art deco buildings.”

But according to city leaders, a proposed update to the state’s Live Local Act, which was adopted Tuesday and aims to incentivize developers to add more workforce housing units to new projects, could wipe the historic buildings here off the map.

“What is being proposed by Tallahassee would only protect eight buildings in our entire city,” said Miami Beach Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez. “Only buildings that have self-designation under the national registry would be protected and that is unacceptable because it would turn us into Manhattan or even Sunny Isles to some extent.”

They point to a house amendment filed by State Rep. Vicki Lopez Tuesday morning, which states that, in part, “The municipality must administratively approve the demolition of an existing structure associated with a proposed development under this subsection…maximum height allowed for any building in a zoning district irrespective of any conditions.”

Said Miami Beach Commissioner Alex Fernandez: “Now Tallahassee is saying that they want to bulldoze these buildings and replace them with these tall 50-story towers. That is not only going to displace residents, it is going to destroy the character of low-scale neighborhoods that are known for being beautiful. You can see the sky here in Miami Beach. That is why people escape New York to come and live here, but they don’t want it to become Manhattan.

“It will become Manhattan with 50-story towers all over South Beach. They should be exempting historic districts. It is the collection of the buildings that make these districts so special.”

The move would strip away local control of historic preservation and open the door to explosive density that city leaders said could impact the local economy.

“The 33139 zip code generates more revenue than any other place than Florida apart from Disney World,” said Rosen Gonzalez. “If the state wants sound fiscal policy, it should completely exempt Miami Beach’s Art Deco collection.”

The officials said it could also create a public safety hazard when it comes to storm evacuation routes and strain existing infrastructure.

“Our evacuation routes today are at a failing level of service and that is based at FDOT maps from the state of Florida, so if we up-zone our city with 50-story towers all over South Beach, God forbid there is an evacuation, it would be the most devastating thing that could happen because today those evacuation routes are at an F level of service,” said Fernandez.

Added Rosen Gonzalez: “It makes no sense.”

Tuesday’s news conference was staged along Ocean Drive, with the Cardozo Hotel in the background.

George Neary bore witness to the decades-long fight to create the historic Art Deco district, choosing to speak with Local 10 News next to a statue featuring the bust of Barbara Baer Capitman gazing at the Art Deco buildings decorating Ocean Drive. Capitman was the movement’s founder.

“We want them to know, history is here. We are a part of that,” he said. “They are our pyramids, they are our Eiffel Tower.”

Neary said this is what he wants state lawmakers to know: “The colors, the neon, the design, it is so unusual and it is so wonderful, and we want to keep that for future generations. We love this district, we are going to fight for it.”

Said Fernandez: “Protect Miami Beach’s history, protect Miami Beach’s families, protect our identity so what we fought so hard for generations continues to exist as the most beautiful destination in the state of Florida.”

STATEMENT FROM STATE REP. FABIAN BASABE:

“Regarding SB 1730, which passed today, it’s important to clarify that the bill does not strip Miami Beach of its authority to approve or deny development projects. However, the original language the city proposed would have blocked nearly 80 percent of workforce housing opportunities. It was a calculated move to undermine Live Local and protect a system that rewards pay-to-play luxury development backed by political donors and insider consultants.

“If this were truly about preservation, then why haven’t we heard from the commissioner now scrambling to posture as its champion? He’s running for reelection, desperate to rebrand himself, yet silent until the cameras rolled. Ask yourself why. Look at where his husband works. Look at the special interest groups funding his campaign. This is not advocacy. It’s grandstanding at its worst.

“The city should not be allowed to weaponize historic identity to block housing for working families while quietly paving the way for high-rise luxury towers. That is not preservation. That is manipulation.

“The real threats to public safety and infrastructure in Miami Beach are the result of failed local leadership. They tied the hands of law enforcement, embraced a tourism model that destroys our beaches and streets, and forced businesses into survival mode. They destabilized the city and now want to point fingers elsewhere.

“Miami Beach has not raised impact fees since 1995. For nearly three decades, residents and small businesses have subsidized overdevelopment rubber-stamped by the same political elite now crying foul. There has been no comprehensive plan, no safety study, and no accountability. Just land grabs, insider deals, and photo ops.

“SB 1730 keeps local authority intact. What it threatens is the political grip of those who have failed this city for years.”

— State. Rep Fabian Basbe

FROM THE AMENDMENT:

““The municipality must administratively approve the demolition of an existing structure associated with a proposed development under this subsection, without further action by the governing body of the municipality or any quasi-judicial or administrative board or reviewing body, if the proposed demolition otherwise complies with all state and local regulations. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘allowable density’ means the density prescribed for the property in accordance with this subsection without additional requirements to procure and transfer density units or development units from other properties.”

“The term ‘highest currently allowed’ in this paragraph includes the maximum height allowed for any building in a zoning district irrespective of any conditions.”

“ A municipality may not restrict the floor area ratio of a proposed development authorized under this subsection below 150 percent of the highest currently allowed, or allowed on July 1, 2023, floor area ratio on any land in the municipality where development is allowed under the municipality’s land development regulations. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ”highest currently allowed floor area ratio" does not include the floor area ratio of any building that met the requirements of this subsection or the floor area ratio of any building that has received any bonus, variance, or other special exception for floor area ratio provided in the municipality’s land development regulations as an incentive for development. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘floor area ratio/ includes floor lot ratio and lot coverage.”

— Amendment text

If not approved, the city could end up footing the bill for the developer.

“The court shall give any civil action filed against a municipality for a violation of this subsection priority over other pending cases and render a preliminary or final decision as expeditiously as possible. (m) If a civil action is filed against a municipality for a violation of this subsection, the court must assess and award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party. An award of reasonable attorney fees or costs pursuant to this subsection may not exceed $250,000. In addition, a prevailing party may not recover any attorney fees or costs directly incurred by or associated with litigation to determine an award of reasonable attorney fees or costs.”

“The county must administratively approve the demolition of an existing structure associated with a proposed development under this subsection, without further action by the board of county commissioners or any quasi-judicial or administrative board or reviewing body, if the proposed demolition otherwise complies with all state and local regulations. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘allowable density’ means the density prescribed for the property in accordance with this subsection without additional requirements to procure and transfer density units or development units from other properties.’”

ADDITIONAL LINKS

Senate Bill 582

House Bill 717

Miami Beach officials claim state housing bill puts Art Deco at risk

About The Author

Christina Vazquez