Input For Park Design Encouraged At Public Meeting

MuseumParkForum.com
September 22, 2007

With this single sentence, the public is hereby notified that responsibility for the oversight and development of the “Museum Park” project has been transferred to the Department Of Capital Improvements (CIP).

Apparently the Department of Capital Improvements has scheduled a public meeting for Thursday, October 4th at the Orange Bowl Stadium - Athletic Club at 4:30 PM - but it appears to be advisable to call (305) 416-1286 to hear that for yourself, as the actual time is not posted online as of this writing.

Isn't it high time to look at the entire Museum Park concept in the context of the proposed Bay Walk concept to ensure that the result comports with the recommendations of the experts?

Since the City Of Miami already paid good money to Project For Public Spaces to study the highest and best use of the waterfront, including the land behind the American Airlines Arena known as Parcel B (AKA “Maritime Park”), shouldn't we all at least consider their recommendations?

Among the recommendations for this parcel of land were a “Maritime Museum” and other alternatives that might serve to attract people to the waters edge.  Not recommended for this location were “ball fields” - perhaps owing to the fact that there are roads on two sides and water on the other two.  Take the time to read the recommendations of this highly respected urban planning entity (excerpted here), whose advice the City clearly sought, and paid for.

As stated by GeniusOfDespair over at Eye On Miami, an additional  charette hosted by Miami-Dade County regarding the most appropriate uses of Parcel B was well attended, though it seems the outcome was not widely circulated.

A Feasibility Study is presently underway by the Miami-Dade County Manager to determine the economic viability of a new "Bay Of Pigs Museum" on Parcel B - an opinion poll pertaining to which is featured here. Any such study will, by necessity, take into consideration the potential for direct and indirect tourism revenue, as measured against other potential uses of this land. 

As for the existing Museum Park rendering, note that the bridge over the mouth of the FEC slip is NOT proposed to serve as the solution to Bay Walk, as the grade/elevation required to transit the bridge would preclude barrier-free use, a requirement for public facilities.  This bridge is proposed to be operable, though the costs and maintenance and method of operation seem not to have been articulated.  What is the actual cost of the proposed improvements to the FEC slip?  What would all of the proposed cantilevered decks do in the event of a hurricane-driven tidal surge?

If the City is truly interested in public input, let's all make it a point to read the results of the Parcel B Study in the context of the broader vision for Bay Walk, and try to arrive at solutions that will draw the most people to actually use the waterfront, serving as a tourist attraction and most importantly, PAYING ITS OWN WAY, in perpetuity.

Opinion Poll and Comments