Icon Brickell Update [Archive]

Roark

December 13th, 2008, 07:35 AM

I think its a shame he spent a billion dollars building this monstrosity. For that amount, we could have had a empire state building, or something with real class and urbanism. This building will be a fad, and will not last. Its mostly plastic covering, that in years will give way.
I would have rather seen him buy the park west area during that time and develop somthing similar to worldcenter With the amount of money that was spent on this project, he could have easily developed 8-10 blocks of midrises, giving us a REAL CITY.
Hopefully one day Miami can wake up and build a real city for everyone. I cant believe the pride and praise that is given to a residential building that os only for a mere few. Miami needs to wake up and build real icons, not this garbage immitation that wont last the test of time.
Although the building does have a small hotel comonent, the building is in reality a single use, single income building that inhibits diversity. Its so big yet it manages to commit the same mistakes every Miami building commits. Its completely disconnected from the street, there is a driveway directly next to the sidewalk. The only uncovered spot of the garage is of course facing the parks. The three restaurants along its corners are poor attempt to engage the pedestrian and this building essentially is a superblock that inhibits walkabilityand diversity in the city.
In las Vegas he at least wanted to create a street scene that imitated Las Ramblas in Barcelona. Although I doubt one could recreate that, at least there was an attempt to engage the street and the city. Miam, nevertheless was not so lucky.
I AM SICK OF THESE SICK OF THESE INDIVIDUALISTIC BUILDINGS THAT IGNORE EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE AROUND THEM!
What makes South Beach so great, cuz it definetely not most of the people. ITS THE AMAZING URBANISM! Thats what lasts...
Great post Exloratus...this is my favorite line "Hopefully one day Miami can wake up and build a real city for everyone." How about YOU put your money where you mouth is, and you do it? Why not? I'll be rooting for you all the way!
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Exploratus

December 14th, 2008, 04:11 PM

Just because I dont have the money and I am a crticizing does not mean that the point is not valid. And just because someone does or builds something, does not mean they are right. Some of the wisest people never did anything, Socrates comes to mind. Some of the worst people have done a lot, a handful of dictators, dubai, exxon valdez, destruction of the environment, and a myriad of other things come to mind.

Please stop quoting lame references and put your brain to work. I am trying to make a valid point and hoping to get some feedback, whether you agree or diagree. What interests me is if people really think this building is that great? I am interested because I like architecture and cities and to me this is a really lame project. Ssome real type of discussion would be appreciated. All you can do is quote a lame reference without really knowing who I am?

Furthermore, I want to point out that by crticizing me, you became a critic also. Weird ah?

305Lover

December 14th, 2008, 11:24 PM

My turn!!! LOL... I personally love the architecture of Icon. It is different from the rest; I love the East facade of the base, with the curve. I, personally, like the mojon (poo) shaped columns. The interior is a little bit too weird for me, but knowing myself, I would not use the amenities so I would almost never see them. I love the location and the way the buildings are shaped for the location (the South tower has somewhat of an angle). The fact that it is not "pedestrian friendly" is not an issue for me, it is for most of you. It is an "ICON" for Miami. I give it 9/10...

Architek

December 14th, 2008, 11:33 PM

.
Although the building does have a small hotel comonent, the building is in reality a single use, single income building that inhibits diversity. Its so big yet it manages to commit the same mistakes every Miami building commits. Its completely disconnected from the street, there is a driveway directly next to the sidewalk. The only uncovered spot of the garage is of course facing the parks. The three restaurants along its corners are poor attempt to engage the pedestrian and this building essentially is a superblock that inhibits walkabilityand diversity in the city.

...

I dont agree with most of your other points but I do agree with this, the architecture of the buildings is crap, pomo crap to be exact, they try and seem as minimalistic ice blocks but fail horrible because of the massiveness of the scale of the project..the project is completely for those who live there, why would a resident venture to the riverwalk that was "created" if this giant parking garage is in the way, in my opinion the buildings should not be this one superstructure instead three individual buildings, with a street running b/t leading to the bay, and the podiums could of had some kind of pedestrian use...instead we have a giant driveway with tacky architecture...this should be in dubai or sunny isles.

Roark

December 15th, 2008, 12:36 AM

Furthermore, I want to point out that by criticizing me, you became a critic also. Weird ah? I did not criticize you. Not at all. I did point out that you criticized some other person's accomplishments.

It is true that we have never met personally, and there is no way that I'd attack you personally. If we met personally and someone was attacking your work you can count on me correcting any inaccuracies and certainly defending it if I liked it personally. Open minded readers will acknowledge this.

Again...I did not criticize you. In your rant, you criticized the work of Jorge Perez, Arqutectonica, and Phillippe Stark. I have met JP and PS personally, and their work on ICON is ambitious, risky, and great. Your rant went ALL CAP about how ICON (the park that Perez is developing, and the baywalk included) discounts everyone. Everyone? Does that count me? I'm not arrogant enough to speak for everyone like you are, but I am included in the zen diagram of everyone for sure. Icon does not ignore me.
"I AM SICK OF THESE SICK OF THESE INDIVIDUALISTIC BUILDINGS THAT IGNORE EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE AROUND THEM!" - Exloratus

They are men of action. The quote, from Teddy Roosevelt (the reference you claim is lame) is another man of action, delineates the difference between a man of action and a critic.

Your criticisms are definitely valid Achitck, I would never take that away from you. Please don't misunderstand me, people that sit on their ass and criticize are a very important part of our American Experience, so are men that actually take the risk, put their money where their mouth is and DO things. Don't think of it as an insult, it just is what it is is. Some men create, build and make things happen, and others say, "if I had the money" and critique the men that find the money, have an idea good enough to attact the money and make things happen. From my end, it isn't personal at all. It is not critical...it is observational.

If you want feedback about the project...there are many many different angles that I could chime in on after walking by more than a dozen times and having several tours.
Architecturally, the unit layouts are good, the entry is exquisite and will prove to be lasting. The Baywalk is extraordinary. The TWO ACRE amenities deck may be the most extraordinary in the US or the world, but definitely in Florida. A replica of the Champs D'Elyssse on a pool deck??? Fantastic.

As I think back to the baywalk and Brickell Avenue interaction of the Sheraton Hotel, it is obvious and clear the the Icon is an exponential improvement from what it used to be like. Icon Brickell's baywalk next to the Miami circle is a great entry to the Brickell are Baywalk. Incredible the way that they have considered the neighbors with the bay walk and the park next door.
In fact, my lady and I are going to walk along the bayfront right now. Actually walking and experiencing the world is so much favorable to me than taking someone else's opinion.
by the way Exploratus, what day was it that you toured the Icon Brickell?

Roark

December 15th, 2008, 02:20 AM

..the project is completely for those who live there, why would a resident venture to the riverwalk that was "created" if this giant parking garage is in the way, in my opinion the buildings should not be this one superstructure instead three individual buildings, with a street running b/t leading to the bay, and the podiums could of had some kind of pedestrian use...instead we have a giant driveway with tacky architecture...this should be in dubai or sunny isles. Wow! This is tough crowd! So is it COMPLETELY for those that live there as you post? I'm planning on walking up there with my lady friend in a few, we are going to have a couple cocktails along the way and have dinner at a restaruant in the area...
Are you sure? Gosh, I hope that people don't just post out of their arse without ever being in the place that they post about, but it may be a trend.
I'd like an opinion of the restaurants in the area, have you actually been inside of any of them? Doesn't matter, post about it anyway!

Writing a restaurant review about a place you have never been would be like posting about Icon and saying, "the project is completely for those who live there" without actually having been there.

mileageman

December 15th, 2008, 02:54 AM

Roark

December 15th, 2008, 03:01 AM

I believe that a coffee-shop is planned for the front on Brickell Avenue. The reality is that there is relatively little frontage actually on Brickell, a good chunk of it is behind the bridge. Accessibility to the bay through the two parks should be enough. Also, the uncovered parts of the garage will be covered with vegetation, similar to garages in South Beach.That is correct. There is little frontage on the site...Icon provides better interaction than there was before, and the park next door is a great amenitiy that Related will enhance. It is hard to understand what the All Cap rants are about...
Mileagman...your posts are great, and you have a great ability to address the loonies that don't know what they posting about. You don't address them at all!!! You set a great example...I'll try harder to follow that!
Correction: It's raining...the bird and I aren't going for a walk. Damned Perez for making it rain for everyone except those that live in ICON!!!!!!!!

305Lover

December 15th, 2008, 03:13 AM

LOL... That Perez!!

Architek

December 15th, 2008, 06:36 AM

roark, just because i may not live in miami that doesn't mean I haven't been to that site and compared it more than many of the people who are on this forum...and i agree its better than before, it has a bridge disrupting the flow,and it has a small amount of frontage..my problem stems from the fact that the entrance should happen more towards the miami circle side, and the building itself should be closer to brickell-and a promenade similar to one miami would have been nice.

my main problem is w/ ingress -egress of cars

Endeavor305

December 15th, 2008, 06:46 AM

QuantumX

December 15th, 2008, 07:40 AM

Just as a reminder to you guys, this is what the Miami skyline looked like in 1998, and when I moved here in 1984, the Wachovia building and the Stephen P. Clark Center were the only buildings over 500 feet tall, so just to keep things in perspective, that's why I don't complain much about the new buildings.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2685102728_91119874d8_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2685102728_91119874d8_b.jpg

QuantumX

December 15th, 2008, 10:37 AM

4 beats
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2953342268_32255b525d_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2953342268_32255b525d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3161/2835480098_f8b1a4f6d7_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3161/2835480098_f8b1a4f6d7_b.jpg

4 beats
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2835447344_8f5909d20a_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2835447344_8f5909d20a_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2760319841_c0b59eb4ea_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2760319841_c0b59eb4ea_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2833816039_1222d1ebe0_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2833816039_1222d1ebe0_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2833836333_9dc2ee6fde_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/2833836333_9dc2ee6fde_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2953348740_72f38e5c8e_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2953348740_72f38e5c8e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2765912915_4cff0dfc33_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2765912915_4cff0dfc33_b.jpg

Exploratus

December 15th, 2008, 03:54 PM

I am a person that loves cities and loves walking. I have been to many places around the world, and I live here because Miami is so young and has so much possibility. Nevertheless, when I see buildings such as these I am reminded of everything I dont like about Miami. Social Isolation, Income separation, and separation of classes. These buildings could have been so much more. Like I said, 1 billion would have developed all of Park West in 8-10 story midrises with a few high rises.

I wonder, what would you guys prefer? These towers or eight blocks of a real bustling city?

Architek

December 15th, 2008, 06:30 PM

900Biscayneguy

December 15th, 2008, 06:45 PM

Architek, I agree with you about Icon. It is not pedestrian friendly at all on the entrance side. Most of the frontage is devoted to auto entrances for the hotel and the residences. At least at the Biscayne wall buildings, the fronts have very little vehicular involvement. I am very disappointed with the street level experience at ICON.

Endeavor305

December 15th, 2008, 07:21 PM

I wonder, what would you guys prefer? These towers or eight blocks of a real bustling city?

Both. Just give it time.

QuantumX

December 15th, 2008, 08:23 PM

this picture by quantum demonstrates my comment, if you look at this picture it shows that cars are going to dominate that site...we can only imagine the amount of vehicular traffic thats going to leaving-arriving there once open, its not even close to being friendly to pedestrians.

usually when i'm in miami i walk from brickell to downtown on the icon side of the street now i'll probably walk on the other side to cross the bridge because i'm sure that there will be tons of cars going in and out of that place.

Here are more from yesterday for those of you who haven't looked at the QuantumPX thread.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/3109287100_da9783d60b_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/3109287100_da9783d60b_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/3109287116_ff730d0018_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3029/3109287116_ff730d0018_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/3109287132_d2554181f3_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/3109287132_d2554181f3_b.jpg

Endeavor305

December 15th, 2008, 08:33 PM

Architek, you are right about the entrance being small and prone to congestion, but what else could have been done? The site was that size and there's no way to make it bigger. I doubt they could have the bridge moved either.

I know you said they should have developed 8-10 blocks with that money, but maybe we can have both someday. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective), they decided to build this first. I for one am glad Icon got built first because I like the way it looks and makes the skyline look bigger. But then again that's my opinion. I also don't believe you could redevelop 8-10 blocks with that amount of money AND have any high-rises (40+ floors). The land alone would eat up a big chunk of that money.

QuantumX

December 15th, 2008, 09:16 PM

I wonder, what would you guys prefer? These towers or eight blocks of a real bustling city?

Both. Just give it time.

I take those towers first in a heartbeat!

Architek

December 15th, 2008, 11:30 PM

QuantumX

December 15th, 2008, 11:37 PM

this is how i would love icon to look at streetlevel, break up the superblock and create a little promenade to the bay...its a dream but i wish it could happen, and it would cater to the pedestrian a lot more than the current building.

Wow! Good one, Architek! It is a dream for Icon Brickell, but you might give future architects and developers a better idea of how to build a project.

Endeavor305

December 15th, 2008, 11:59 PM

That's a nice drawing, and I don't know if you are an experienced architect or not, but how do you know that your drawing is feasible or up to standards? Perhaps Perez would have liked to do something similar to what you drew, but couldn't because of approval standards or requirements.

A project of this magnitude must take many things into consideration. All these things must meet the requirements in unison. I don't know all of them, but I can imagine the shape/design has to be able to deflect wind in such a way to alleviate stress on it in case of a hurricane. As well as meet standards in fire, flood, height, maybe even in weight because of the ground. Other things that might influence the design and prevent it from being as spectacular as your drawing (:lol:) are insurances. The way the utilities are set up in the ground might also influence it's design. Or probably the biggest one, the ability to make a profit. Your design might be too costly and non-profitable. The list goes on and on. So it may be easy to criticize, but maybe that was the best he could do within the limits provided, who knows?

I hate to say this, but I have to agree with Roark when he says that even if that wasn't Perez's best effort, at least he accomplished something grander than anything I've ever done. So kudos to him. Someday you might accomplish something as big and I'm sure someone will criticize it, but you would deserve kudos for it nonetheless. And I actually really like Icon's design and I know others on here do to. So even more kudos to Perez. All I can say is if you hate it that much than make billions of $$ so you can buy the project outright and knock it down.

EDIT: You should of left the big brown turds in your drawing hehehe

Exploratus

December 16th, 2008, 01:32 AM

I think that if Icon Las Vegas (the las ramblas thing) had been built there, that would have been much better. With a terminating view of the bay on one side, and connecting to the street where 500 biscayne is on the other. That would have been real nice. The whole street lined with the poop statues as a pedestrian arcade a la Gaudi. hehehe....

That would have been something. We could have still had the same cool towers (which I think are nice). The massive pool deck is nice, but a bustling strret a la lincoln rode on the bay and connecting with the riverwalk would have been stupendous.

Roark

December 16th, 2008, 05:24 AM

Your Opinion Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck)
:) Your best post ever! When clicking the link I was hoping for Jeffrey and Jesus to be there. The Endeavor abides.

Roark

December 16th, 2008, 05:37 AM

this picture by quantum demonstrates my comment, if you look at this picture it shows that cars are going to dominate that site...we can only imagine the amount of vehicular traffic thats going to leaving-arriving there once open, its not even close to being friendly to pedestrians.It is a good picture, the driveway is EXACTLY the same width as the other side of the street, so what's the difference?
What really strikes me from that picture is the big waterfront Miami Circle park with all that green to the North, and the shady tree park to the South.
I like how Icon has all that outdoor seating to take advantage of the riverfront and the greenspace. You can't see it in that picture, but the baywalk is very nice too.

QuantumX

December 16th, 2008, 12:20 PM

EDIT: You should of left the big brown turds in your drawing hehehe

The whole street lined with the poop statues as a pedestrian arcade a la Gaudi. hehehe....

I never thought of them that way until somebody mentioned it. I'm the type who is more likely to think baked Idaho potatoes, but they are supposed to echo the statues of Easter Island.

http://www.miamiangelproperties.com/blog/the-new-miami-icon.htm

Exploratus

December 16th, 2008, 04:53 PM

The reason this will be an auto dominated building is because it makes walking inconvenient and unpleasent. Its a self defeting prophecy.

havok100

December 17th, 2008, 05:19 AM

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_8I15QyU5SKI/SUXLxJ7hkNI/AAAAAAAAAxE/ovj3R7WAtuk/s640/DSCN0192.JPG
View from Brickell Park, recently renovated.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8I15QyU5SKI/SUXLyWzzJXI/AAAAAAAAAxc/ypW4Z6wIuAE/s640/DSCN0195.JPG
New Bay Walk.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_8I15QyU5SKI/SUXLxqaYVnI/AAAAAAAAAxM/0KTRD0w5XE8/s512/DSCN0193.JPG

Endeavor305

December 17th, 2008, 11:58 PM

After looking at those few shots of Icon ^^ I don't see how anyone could not say Icon is modern and nice.

Roark

December 18th, 2008, 06:55 AM

...but they are supposed to echo the statues of Easter Island. That's right. And in Phillippe Stark's own words, he sees them as the soldiers that protect you as you enter your castle.
There are dozens of them on the entry way to the residential towers.
everyone is signed by PS, and some of them have illuminated eyes that look at the driveway.
I think it is a spectacular building loaded with incredible ideas and a development vision achieved with great risk and extraordinary accomplishment.
Like most developments and neighborhoods posted about, it is really best to walk the whole thing to really appreciate it.

spellbound

December 18th, 2008, 11:14 AM

There are dozens of them on the entry way to the residential towers.
everyone is signed by PS, and some of them have illuminated eyes that look at the driveway.

That's kinda creepy, actually, but overall I like (and love) most of the project.

The car stuff is what it is. This is Miami we're talking about. It isn't like there's a subway station around the block. Those condos wouldn't sell without space for cars---for better or worse.

Exploratus

December 18th, 2008, 09:11 PM

Until you guys demand better, things wont change....

QuantumX

December 18th, 2008, 09:25 PM

Until you guys demand better, things wont change....

Well, considering what I lived with here in South Florida from 1984 until the beginning of the 21st century, I'm not going to be so demanding. We were blessed to have gotten the Wachovia building at that point.

Roark

December 18th, 2008, 11:47 PM

The entry way to Icon Brickell is on SE 5th Street. It is an intersection with a traffic signal.
The entry to Icon Brickell is on the East side and is EXACTLY as wide on the East side of Brickell as it is on the West side of Brickell.

Not suprisingly, the East and West side of SE 7th Street is EXACTLY the same width, and the same with SE 8th Street. As most street that cross Brickell Avenue, they are the same width on both sides with a few exceptions.

The Metromover station is exactly one block West of Icon at Brickell on SE 5th Street.

Exploratus

December 19th, 2008, 04:07 PM

Its to bad they could take advantage of that and build a real street with storefronts and real urbanism.

Roark

December 19th, 2008, 06:30 PM

Its to bad they could take advantage of that and build a real street with storefronts and real urbanism.
:) You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time!
Icon looks spectacular from the 42nd floor of 500 Brickell!! Exploratus, there was a great Dream in Green function there last night. Lot's of happy smiling people taking action for the enviroment and eating sustainable pizza.
You would have loved it...oh, probably not...but you might have had some fun trying to find out what was wrong with it though.

Endeavor305

December 19th, 2008, 08:59 PM

Has anyone here mentioned that street congestion (as in automobile traffic) will promote walking and street life more. Look at New York for example. It takes 10 minutes to go 2 blocks by car so many people walk. I think Exploratus' nightmare of traffic might be the push that's needed to make his dream come true of people walking. Ironic huh? I personally like the urban feel of traffic and cars honking and police blowing whistles etc. Makes the place feel alive.

Toucano

December 19th, 2008, 11:51 PM

Its to bad they could take advantage of that and build a real street with storefronts and real urbanism.

Agreed. These Buildings Suck. Period end of story. They might be tall but the last thing they encourage is pedestrian activity. We are building a city that will be wholly unnavigable for humans - people instead will interact with these buildings via cars because of their inhospitable entrances and massive parking pedestals...We have a suburban skyline of tall buildings resting atop of ridiculous parking standards...

spellbound

December 20th, 2008, 10:51 AM

Agreed. These Buildings Suck. Period end of story. They might be tall but the last thing they encourage is pedestrian activity. We are building a city that will be wholly unnavigable for humans - people instead will interact with these buildings via cars because of their inhospitable entrances and massive parking pedestals...We have a suburban skyline of tall buildings resting atop of ridiculous parking standards...

Strong stuff, Toucano, but I think a lot of it is valid.

We need more honesty about all this. Did the boom 'remake' the skyline? Absolutely. Was ALL of it good? No way. Certainly we got some beautiful, thoughtful edifices like Ten Museum and Marina Blue that enhance the city but there's also a fair share of astoundingly ugly buildings like 'One Miami' and 'One Broadway' that are just boring concrete eyesores.

Miami should never slavishly bow down to developers as if they're God's gift to the city. This isn't Buffalo for crissakes. A city in such a magnificent location deserves (and must demand) the best architecture possible. Could anyone see a 'One Broadway' rising unopposed on Lakeshore Drive in Chicago? Puhleeze. They'd tell that developer to stuff it, and rightfully so. If you want to build something badly enough in a given city then that city ALSO has the right to demand at least a minimum standard of excellence---from overall appearance to street-level interaction. Miami needs to get onboard that train full-time and not be the ones on the leash. Too many people from City Hall through the DDA have dropped the ball with it. There needs to be a truly independent review board with TEETH that puts Miami's best interests ahead of the quickest buck.

With the car stuff, it's difficult. The transit infrastructure is pretty bad and a little rubber-wheeled box looping around the same rectangle day after day isn't exactly the London Underground. Certainly, it's not the urban ideal to have all these condos so auto-oriented (like the Marlins proposed stadium, too) but without it I'm afraid we'd just have inertia at this point. It's what the public demands down there---at least for now. The whole thing has to be rejiggered away from Metrorail and into a logical and cohesive light-rail network, that much I'm sure of.

In any regard, nice to seeya again. For those that don't know, Toucano IS the man here and runs the best website on urbanity/transportation/Miami that you could ever hope to find. http://www.transitmiami.com/

Exploratus

December 20th, 2008, 05:05 PM

Roark

December 20th, 2008, 07:19 PM

Look at any map in Miami and it is either private land or land for vehicles. Very little of the city is actually for the public, this is rather sad. It is in the city's streets where social bonds, diversity and spontaneous interaction occur. Interesting point of view. Sad, that there is more privately owned land than public land???
Personally, I don't think its sad at all that private citizens own land.

I doubt that there is more privately owned land than public in Miami Dade, but forget about that for now. This is the Icon Brickell Update.

I like the park and the Bay walk to the NORTH of Icon.
I like the Bay walk to the EAST of Icon, and
I like the Park to the SOUTH of Icon.
It is a shame that there couldn't be a park and/or baywalk on all four sides, but that bridge and avenue do get in the way.

To make Exploratus happy it would take some very special challenges to be overcome. That 1 side is compromised by the grade increase of the Brickell Avenue Bridge (I am against tearing down the brand new Brickell Bridge). A tunnel at Miami Ave someday...that would be nice.

I have to make a correction from something posted the other day. The driveway entry on the East side of Brickell is not EXACTLY the same size as I previously posted. It is actually a bit smaller on the East side. So the crossing is much shorter for a pedestrian on the Icon side as it is across that intersection.

QuantumX

December 20th, 2008, 08:55 PM

Finally, some people who arent just giving in to poorly design buildings and rightfully expect so real urbanism and architecture.. AMEN!

Look at any map in Miami and it is either private land or land for vehicles. Very little of the city is actually for the public, this is rather sad. It is in the city's streets where social bonds, diversity and spontaneous interaction occur.

This condition feeds itself. People dont walk so we build buildings for automobiles, leading people to walk even less, and developers to ignore pedestrians even more. I do have to say that the condition is getting slightly better in brickell and other parts, but architects and developers need to get their head out of their a** and give us buildings that are finished all the way around. I mean, you look at marina blue and it seems that they just forgot most of the entire bottom of the building (except for the east side), or the architect just fell asleep. It looks rather silly, the drastic difference between the east side of the first 10 floors and the other three sides is absurb and a big no-no. The difference and drastice change is most apparent on the south side. The entire street west of biscayne blvd where the biscayne wall is is a shame, they damned that street. There isnt anything there for four blocks at street level, and thats a shame because there is two metromover stations on the west side and the arena is there, and that could have been an awesome place for cheaper transit oriented bars and convenience stores. It reallly kills and chance for the future of that street (pedestrian wise) and really brings down the overall design and quality of the whole building. No real architect is ever going to look at any of those buildings and say they are actually good, proportioned, and exectued well. They are sexy when you look at the top of them, but architecture is a lot more than that. They are disconnected, the retail is not at street level, and there are massive walls of innactivitiy. Especially for buildings that claim to provide an urban pedestrian future in the middle of the city. What, is the city only to the east of those buildings????

Transitmiami is awesome, someone who actually understands how cities should function.

Every time here someone says, oh well, at least we got a building, even if its not perfect is contributing to this problem. I find it rather strange, people have been building great urban buildings for thousands of years, yet we cant produce more than a handful here..

Transitmiami is awesome, someone who actually understands how cities should function.

After at least 10 years of stagnation, the city rolled the dice to see what they could get out of this boom, and I think this is the reason we got so many of the types of buildings that we did get and that you don't like. They approved as many projects as they did I think because they had no real way of knowing which projects would fail and which would make it.

Because of our climate and geography, this has long been a region where many people with money have had a second, third home, etc. Buildings like Marina Blue and Icon Brickell are where many of them would prefer to live rather than a mixed-use building where everybody has access. As they contribute to the property tax base, more of the types of improvements you would like to see made to the city become possible. I think that is just the nature of the beast here.

Now that a decent skyline is on the rise with a lot of property in the sky to add to the tax base, the city can focus on making Miami a more vibrant city at street level with projects like Brickell Financial Center II and One Bayfront Plaza along with what is planned for Park West.

Roark

December 20th, 2008, 10:48 PM

After at least 10 years of stagnation, the city rolled the dice to see what they could get out of this boom, With all due respect, that isn't really how it works.
Governments simply write the codes and guidlines that they expect in development.
Private property owners either follow the rules to the letter "as right", meaning as is their right under the law, or they may seek a hearing for a variance of the law/code. Many adjustments are handled at the staff level and don't even need a hearing in front of the elected officials.

Like children, some buildings will be born ugly and some will not. Governments don't, and they shouldn't, be the arbitor of ugly.
That they shouldn't is my opinion. That they aren't is a fact...for now.

There is a movement toward Central Planning where the governement will begin to tell private property owners what ugly is, and if their property sucks or doesn't. As in many of these movements aimed at conviscating property and value from private land owners, they start at high levels of 'intelligencia", infiltrate the institutions of higher learning, then teach our young impressionable students what is "poorly designed" and not "poorly designed" to suit the agenda. They teach what Governments should do to impede, limit, and otherwise thwort the efforts of the individual.

The City didn't build one single skycraper in this boom.

QuantumX

December 20th, 2008, 10:58 PM

When I went out shooting Thursday, I parked at the corner of SW 7th Street and South Miami Avenue. It's quite visible in this second pic. Then, I walked up to the South Miami Avenue bridge to shoot from there. Then, I wallked down the bridge to SW 6th Street and walked by the Brickell Financial Center. I cheered on the Brickell Financial Center contractors, pumping my fists in the air and yellling: "BFC 2, BFC 2!" One of the construction workers said "YOU HEAR HIM!" I said "YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE WORK! WE'RE GOING TO TURN THIS THING AROUND!":lol: Then, I went over to Icon Brickell and asked the security guard if I could shoot some pictures. Of course, he said no!

Then, I said what about from the Miami Circle? He said "Sure!" and pointed to where the Icon Brickell property ended beyond the Easter Island statues. In this second pic, the statues aren't there yet where he was indicating, but all of that green area is public property by the Bay.:) They just need to fix it up a bit to make it more of a park. It is from where I shot the picture of my new boat if you didn't see it on QuantumPx. On the way back to my car, I walked right past the SW 5th Street Metromover Station. I put more money in the meter and ate at my favorite place in Brickell Village. It was a very enjoyable walk. The TallertheBetter, I got two glasses of a very fine cabernet sauvignon for free for being a preferred customer! I could tell from the check I got. It should have been a lot bigger!

Nobody said a word about my new boat! I'm so hurt! :ohno: (Yeah, right!)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/3120064474_cf92d20a16_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/3120064474_cf92d20a16_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2765919447_3b41aa733b_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3290/2765919447_3b41aa733b_b.jpg

QuantumX

December 20th, 2008, 11:00 PM

With all due respect, that isn't really how it works.
Governments simply write the codes and guidlines that they expect in development.

The City didn't build one single skycraper in this boom.

Thanks, Roark! It really is more your arena than it is mine! :)

Exploratus

December 21st, 2008, 12:42 AM

QuantumX

December 21st, 2008, 04:10 AM

I was born here and lived here a big part of my life. I dont know why people keep excusing poor architecture and urbanism by explaining to me the history of the city and how it grew.

Maybe it's because we don't think it is as poor as you think it is and believe there are developers and city planners working to remedy this. What I really think there is no excuse for is how little Metrorail has expanded since 1984, but then that is another thread.

FIDEL CASTRO

December 21st, 2008, 05:09 AM

Like children, some buildings will be born ugly and some will not.
.

Like children?

:ohno:

QuantumX

December 21st, 2008, 05:14 AM

Like children?

:ohno:

Well, for people with money and power who don't want to be bothered with raising real kids to carry on their legacy, large projects like One Bayfront Plaza and Brickell Financial Center sometimes do become their children and Icon Brickell is turning out to be a pretty big, expensive baby for Jorge Perez.

Roark

December 21st, 2008, 08:47 AM

I was born here and lived here a big part of my life. I dont know why people keep excusing poor architecture and urbanism by explaining to me the history of the city and how it grew. I already know all this, I know where almost every single new building is and have been all over this city. In school, every paper I ever wrote including my 120 page thesis was about Miami and have ridden more buses in my life than probably anyone here.Interesting...thanks for your brief life history. That is some school curriculum that allows "every paper I ever wrote" to be about Miami!
At what point did you become did buildings make you sad and make you an angry person?
There is no excuse for the conditions we have today, excpet for three words, shortisghtendess, fear (isolation), and greed.
Today, I walked along the bay front. The conditions were sunny and 80 degrees, green and full of life. I loved the sculpture that Perez added to the public bay walk in front of Icon...it celebrates Freedom, and victory from Slavery, Nazism, and Apartheid among others. Brickell park is still very nice.
Exploratus sites three words: shortisghtendess, fear (isolation), and greed.
My three words are: Theseare great conditions!

Believe me...I tried to understand how people could get angry and negative about Icon but I could not. A reasonable person could complain that the plants on the parking pedestal is brown and the sod hasn't quite taken root. When you stand in the park 20% of the exposed building facade is the parking deck and it has plants that will eventually hide this fact, the plants haven't grown much yet. It's sort of negative, and might make some people mad, but probably isn't enough to make me call the developer names.

Great pick of you boat "MadSummer". It was there today as well. Here's a tip Quantum...
Pretend like you were a pedestrian walking north on Brickell...Icon side of the street, when you cross the traffic light at SE 5th Street, the bridge starts it's upward climb and there is a barrier that exists. Fact is, the barrier was there well before Icon broke ground, but I digress. As a pedestrian, you have 2 choices: Stay to the left and cross the bridge, or go to the right and follow the paved road to the waterfront. There isn't a guard and there isn't anyone to stop you. As you reach the waterfront (you did, you shot the picture of MadSummer form there), you can continue east. It is public land and is in shambles, but you can do it unimpeded. Walk along the waterfront and as you follow the riverbank to the south, it becomes beautifully paved and landscaped bay walk. This is set back on private land...now open for public access. For the majority of people, it is a pleasant bay walk with a new seawall, pavers, lighting, and sculptures paid for by Icon. For a minority of people, they will find something wrong with it.
As you continue south on the bay walk, the next parcel of land is a park. It to has landscaping, lighting, workout equipment/program, and large planters. Also paid for by Icon. The park has a lighted walkway that is safe and connects Brickell Boulevard to the bay walk.
The next parcel southbound is a Church. Just a parking lot, but connected.
If the angry people were mad at Jorge Perez...
Next parcels along the bay front, two more privately owned piece of land. Big wide bay walk with great sculptures. The memorable scene in "There's Something About Mary" where Ben Stiller is hiding behind a sculpture is filmed there.
Some people might believe that a building can discourage you from walking on the east side of the barrier, I say just do it. It is beautiful on the bay walk.
When I did it today, there weren't a hell of a lot of people, but they were all happy.
I'd encourage everyone who reads this to take a walk along the bay walk at Icon and the parks. If you really want a treat, wait for Jan. 15 and go to the rooftop of Viceroy...the view from the 50th floor is amazing.
In my opinion...it doesn't suck. :)

QuantumX

December 21st, 2008, 10:39 AM

This one I took lying down on the grass next to the river.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/3119265789_a1165529c6_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3119/3119265789_a1165529c6_b.jpg

Exploratus

December 21st, 2008, 01:33 PM

hey Quantum, how about you point that camera at ground level, where are i and the rest of the common folks are. Maybe I am crazy, but I dont know anybody that can fly and enjoy the buildings that way. A real building and its impact is measured at ground level. Thats where everyone is, thats were the city is.. Even the best skyscrapers have enviable urbanism...

How about you guys start shooting some real pics of these buildings at ground level, if not I'll have to pull out my collection of pics and show you how bad these buildings really are. tisk tisk..

Next thing I know, you guys are going to be showing me pictures of the Britto statue on that building on 36 St (Los Suenos) and tell me that at least we got art in Miami. PLeZe.....

305Lover

December 21st, 2008, 03:34 PM

OMG... If the buildings bother you that much then go to the New York forum and praise theirs. The past couple of weeks all of your posts have been so negative. It is really taking away from the enjoyment of the forum. You have made it very clear that what has come out of the boom has been nothing but crap. Get over it please. There is nothing you can do here, so go somewhere else and complain.

FIDEL CASTRO

December 21st, 2008, 04:31 PM

Next thing I know, you guys are going to be showing me pictures of the Britto statue on that building on 36 St (Los Suenos) and tell me that at least we got art in Miami. PLeZe.....

AHAHAHHAHAH:lol: The same thing happened to me when I complained about the lack of monuments in Miami. :nuts::nuts::nuts: Don't remember who, but someone in here said " We have monuments all over Miami" and posted a pic of that steel structure on Bayfront Park.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::rofl:

FIDEL CASTRO

December 21st, 2008, 04:34 PM

FIDEL CASTRO

December 21st, 2008, 04:35 PM

if not I'll have to pull out my collection of pics and show you how bad these buildings really are. tisk tisk..
...

Please do.

QuantumX

December 21st, 2008, 08:22 PM

hey Quantum, how about you point that camera at ground level, where are i and the rest of the common folks are.

I did that last Sunday because somebody requested it, and I posted the pics here.

Maybe I am crazy, but I dont know anybody that can fly and enjoy the buildings that way.

I take pictures of buildings from angles that I enjoy and that other people enjoy. If you don't enjoy them, I"m sorry, but I can't please everybody.

A real building and its impact is measured at ground level. Thats where everyone is, thats were the city is.. Even the best skyscrapers have enviable urbanism...

How about you guys start shooting some real pics of these buildings at ground level, if not I'll have to pull out my collection of pics and show you how bad these buildings really are.

It has already been established that I'm only interested in ground level to the degree that I want to capture the scale of a skyscraper. Ground level for the sake of ground level is simply not my thing, but I have been known to go out and take pictures of buildings at ground level simply because somebody requested it. I did that just last Sunday with the Biscayne Wall as well as Icon Brickell because somebody said "Q, I would like to see that." Your arguments become less plausible with every new post you create in trying to make a point.

And if you have pictures, I don't understand why you are keeping them to yourself. Is this for your own private enjoyment?

QuantumX

December 21st, 2008, 09:21 PM

hey Quantum, how about you point that camera at ground level, where are i and the rest of the common folks are.

It's pointed at ground level just like you said! :):cheers:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2766709840_6de57c2784_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3289/2766709840_6de57c2784_b.jpg

QuantumX

December 21st, 2008, 10:00 PM

These are from in front of Icon Brickell at ground level with Epic and Met2 from the seawall on the Miami River. They are all from the same shoot I did Thursday!

The three I posted of Icon Brickell at ground level (on page 6) I specifically went out and took because Kevin requested how Icon Brickell plays at street level, and it wasn't easy getting there from the Biscayne Wall with Bike Miami going on. I wasn't able to just drive straight over to Icon Brickell from Biscayne Blvd. I had to circumnavigate the CBD to reach Brickell from the Biscayne Wall last Sunday.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/3120064452_e2a6832878_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/3120064452_e2a6832878_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/3120064456_d22426e6b4_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/3120064456_d22426e6b4_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/3120133156_03c2e1e5d3_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/3120133156_03c2e1e5d3_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/3126320440_9218972c8f_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/3126320440_9218972c8f_b.jpg

Exploratus

January 28th, 2009, 06:35 PM

At least someone else thinks this building made some serious mistakes.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/top-stories/story/873746.html

I especially like the part where she says "But what you can see may not quite accord with the site's importance: a colossal new condo and hotel development that backs up to the site's southern edge with massive concrete walls, two yawning service garages and loading docks overlooking the ancient circle."

Damn... I mean, how does a 1 billion dollar building ignore the most important urban thing it has going for it? That park should have been integrated into the design. Perhaps some majestic staircases leading down from the podium into the park. Perhaps some choice ground level apartments sitting against the parks? Anything would have been better than what they did. Related had the seawall people out and they didnt even rebuild the parks seawall. The place looks like an abandoned landfill or something now...

The same think goes for the Brickell Family crypt on the other side, no one even knows its there and sits next to a driveway in the park. That park is also mostly fronted by a massive parking garage and driveways.

Sidewalks on the street? Same thing. Driveways!

Roark

January 28th, 2009, 07:25 PM

At least someone else thinks this building made some serious mistakes.Yeah, the Herald (probably under the editorial direction of Ellsworth Toohey), and some people getting paid by the government.
This is a teachable moment.
For whatever your personal taste, personal preference, or emotional reaction is to ICON; one thing is clear, the developers demolished the Sheraton, and build a very ambitious project and the government cannot get it's head out of its arse to complete the Miami Circle Park. Point in fact.
The State of Florida and all the archiologist, historians, beauracrats, etc had a head start of about 4 years, and now they are insulting and tearing down a private citizen that has accomplished his goal to build something useful on his piece of land. Incredibly arrogant.
How about this quote:
Bob McCammon, the history museum's president, says the national landmark designation from the U.S. secretary of the Interior will open the door to potential federal grants for the circle site. He's counting on Related CEO Jorge M. Perez to come through with money.
''Tell Jorge he can send us whatever they spent on wrapping those columns with whatever they're calling those things,'' McCammon said, referring to the Easter Island heads.
Wow! "Tell Jorge to send us", he says. What an attitude.

The Herald collects negative and snide remarks about Icon when really, people ought to be outraged at how arrogant, the "leaders" of this Miami Circle project are.
Perez used his and investors money for the ICON project. Don't get mad at him.
The State used OUR money, $27 Million of it, to buy the Miami Circle and can't get anything done.
Am I taking crazy pills? Where is the anger or the outrage at the government "leadership".
Damn... I mean, how does a 1 billion dollar building ignore the most important urban thing it has going for it? That park should have been integrated into the design.
Obviously, that is your opinion. The people that actually live there might argue the the most important thing going for it are the water views, Security, Privacy, 2 acre pool deck inspired by the Champ D'Elysse , Bay Walk, Restaurants, and location. In a poll, it would be interesting to see if Brickell Park would make the TOP 5 of most important things for the people that live there.
Anything would have been better than what they did. Related had the seawall people out and they didnt even rebuild the parks seawall. The place looks like an abandoned landfill or something now... What you seem to consistently miss are the importance of property rights, land ownership and who owns what on those three parcels. In a previous post, you mentioned the pedestrian interaction of the West property line without giving mention to the fact that the Brickell Bridge covers 75% of the frontage. One of Icon's biggest challenge was ingress and egress when there is minimal frontage on the Brickell Ave.
The same think goes for the Brickell Family crypt on the other side, no one even knows its there and sits next to a driveway in the park. No one knows it's there? Wow...so did you want to move the crypt around to suit your fancy?
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/Skyscrapers/Icon-StreetInteracation08.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/Skyscrapers/Icon-StreetInteracation09.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/Skyscrapers/Icon-StreetInteracation07.jpg
That park is also mostly fronted by a massive parking garage and driveways. You may have a different definition of "mostly", but I know for a fact, that the East side of the park is fronted by the bay, the South side by a Church, the West side by Brickell, and the North side is Icon. In my opinion, Icon has done a great job with the park and the Bay Walk. I do like how the parking structure has planters with vegetation, they will grow in with time.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/Skyscrapers/Icon-StreetInteracation03.jpg

Endeavor305

January 28th, 2009, 09:13 PM

I personally like ICON. The only thing about it that I thought could have been done better were the turd columns. But even those are starting to grow on me. I personally like the massiveness of the structure up onto the back against the water. I took this picture last year from across in Brickell Key:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/3098912132_fe6cee5acb_b.jpg

Tell me that's not a badass design! I think the massiveness of the project is exactly what was needed to built on that parcel of land. This is close to the center of downtown and the mouth of the river. I would of hated to see a skinny little tower there. I also think the massive pool deck inside the towers with an open end towards the water gives it a surreal view. I don't understand why there are people who greatly despise ICON's design. I guess it's proof that no matter what you build someone is going to have something negative to say.

I also have to say that whether you like ICON or not, you do have to realize that the developer makes a bold statement. I give the developer credit for going through with the project. The developer is entitled to build whatever he wants on his land. Again, I think he did a good job too. He could have built something plain like 'The Club at Brickell' (the ugly rectangular one with a huge green and blue parabola on the side). The developer of that building was only out for the money. I think in ICON's case you can see that the developer has a sense of pride in his work and is willing to spend more money even though it takes away from the bottomline. Unfortunately, due to the present economic situation, they may not be rewarded as much as they should be.

Exploratus

January 28th, 2009, 11:01 PM

A pool deck inspired by Champ D'Elysee???? HAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is the funniest thing I ever heard.... Exactly what is wrong with Miami..

Again, every picture you shot does not show a street level interaction of Icon. the one nice shot of the building from above, I will grant you is a damn sexy shot. Neverthelss, I walked that bay walk and most of the ground floor of the baywalk is a massive street and parking system under the buildings. When I walked up from the baywalk into the building all I saw was massive streets and parking. Yuck!
Furthermore, your pictures of the park on the south side are obviously aimed away from the building because the views towards the buiding suck! The one picture that does show the crypt and the Icon behind it highlights exactly what I said. If you see, there is a massive ten story parking wall and the driveway into the buildings right behind it. They are almost touching. Yuck

Im sorry, but you will never convince me that Icon could not have hiden all of its parking and ramps. 80% of the sites ground level is for CARS!!! AND both parks have massive parking walls on them. Thats is DUMB. The project is large enough that it could hav done a much better job hiding the parking. Furthermore, there is little interaction between the building and the city. It is isolated from the pedestrian.

Integrating important landmarks into other buildings is called Propriety. Read a little, and do me a favor, go travel the world.

You can keep defending projects such as these, or wake up and realize that youve been duped by glamour, Related parties, and stupid Miami lifestyles that are fake. IMO WorldCenter and Everglades on the bay is the way to go. Great Urbanism.

Endeavor305

January 28th, 2009, 11:36 PM

This is a perfect time for Lebowski...

Your Opinion Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck) :lol:

QuantumX

January 29th, 2009, 04:56 AM

the one nice shot of the building from above, I will grant you is a damn sexy shot.

I'm not sure which one that is you're referring to.

Endeavor305

January 29th, 2009, 05:49 AM

I'm not sure which one that is you're referring to.

I think he's/she's talking about the ones 900BiscayneGuy posted on here a few months back. Those were some really nice and "sexy" Icon pictures he posted.

QuantumX

January 29th, 2009, 06:01 AM

I think he's/she's talking about the ones 900BiscayneGuy posted on here a few months back. Those were some really nice and "sexy" Icon pictures he posted.

Well, it would be nice if he could repost it so we could know what he's talking about. BTW, that is a great perspective of Icon Brickell you captured and posted from Brickell Key. I would say that's a pretty "sexy" pic! :lol:

Endeavor305

January 29th, 2009, 06:09 AM

that is a great perspective of Icon Brickell you captured and posted from Brickell Key....that's a pretty "sexy" pic

Thank you sir. Not too shabby yourself. I was at a job in Brickell Key and I was thinking of you guys so I thought I'd take a picture to post on here to throw you guys a bone. I also wanted to show you guys how picture taking is done. :lol: lol. I'm just joking hehe.

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 06:57 AM

A pool deck inspired by Champ D'Elysee???? HAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That is the funniest thing I ever heard.... Exactly what is wrong with Miami.. Have you seen it Yes or NO?

Its great to know that you are laughing though, you usually come accross as angry. I'm curious...where does
"Perhaps some majestic staircases leading down from the podium into the park."
rank on your list of the "funniest things that you have ever heard"?

Perhaps some majestic staircase...ohh the folly, that would be fabulous and so worldly Exploratus!

QuantumX

January 29th, 2009, 10:30 AM

I was thinking of you guys so I thought I'd take a picture.

I'm touched. I didn't know you cared. :)

QuantumX

January 29th, 2009, 10:33 AM

Its great to know that you are laughing though, you usually come accross as angry...

One can laugh and be angry at the same time if one is being sarcastic!

spellbound

January 29th, 2009, 10:57 AM

I can't imagine a pool deck anywhere being compared to the Champs d'Elysee---or even why one would be---so I think perhaps this might just be an unintentional and innocent confusion of terms. The people who described it that way must have been thinking of something else in Paris. Maybe the pools by Tuilleres?

Doesn't look like that at all, either, actually...just grasping at straws here. But it's a damn fine pool deck, regardless.

Meanwhile, the Champs d'Elysee retains it's position as one of the most elegant, beautiful and LEAST interesting boulevards in the world. Absolutely the last place I'd want to be in Paris if you dropped me there tomorrow. Except maybe some forlorn Metro station out in the burbs at 4 a.m. (trust me, Moroccan thieves trailing a lost American tourist isn't fun). I'd say the same thing about Times Square or South Beach, too. Yawn. The real city in any of those places is elsewhere. It's not how---or where---99.5% of the population in any of those places live or even visit on an everyday basis.

The average Parisian lives a very unfashionable life in an ugly suburb. The average New Yorker lives far away from the glitz of Manhattan. The average Miamian lives much more in a 1970's stucco apartment complex in Hialeah than any kind of rarefied Brickell existence with indoor waterfalls and Viking appliances in the kitchen.

I think ALL of us here are guilty of presenting that lifestyle as normal when it's anything but.

It's pretty, though...

http://www.datendienst.at/blog/img/travel/france/paris/concorde2.jpg

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 04:27 PM

Anybody that actually believes that apool can simulate the environment of the Champ obviously has never been there...
How can you even compare a pool deck in a building designed for a few rich people that is private and ten stories of the ground to one of the amazing streets of the world.... Champ is an urban experience that brings people together. Its a main artery of a great city, has hundreds of years of history, and is flanked by one of the most important landmarks in France honoring one of the most important military leaders of France if not Europe.... The boulevard is an integral part of Parisian and French history...
Most Parisians might not live there, but it is still an integral artery that carries with it important memories of the cities history. Champ is an urban wonder that millions of people enjoy.... Furthermore, although Parisian might not live on the Champ, all the sidestreets coming off it are an urban maze and wonder of Parisian life. Furthermore, just because all of Paris doesnt live there does not mean that the street does not contribute to the identity and memories of Parisians and all of France... Buildings and streets are more than structures, they carry the memories of previous generations and provide a link to the past.

To say that a pool deck for some snotty rich people that overpaid for their appartment is comparable to the the Champ completely invalidates anything you say or two, you are taking some amazing halluginogens that make you imagine things that arent there. If is the latter, we need to get together, because I would love to imagine that something in brickell is even 1% of the exprience you get in a Parisian Street.

You can say that you are like the Champ, or that your auditorium is the Colleseum, or that my "package" looks like the eiffel tower, or you can make turd looking columns that look like easter island. But in reality, I or it is neither of those things...

No wonder Miami is where its at.

And by the way Im not angry at you guys, but I am angry at the crap that most of this last boom produced.....

DO I think its better that we have these buildings than no buildings at all? Probably. But I can still attempt to demand better quality buildings that integrate with their surroundings...

By the way, I do appreciate great arguments.... And IMO I am not trying to put anybodys opinions down, what I am trying to do is make you guys realize that although these buildings are tall and sexy and wonderful and dense and in the city and urban, most of these buildings have failed miserably at creating an exciting, diverse, and interactive street experience.

Lets just imagine for a second that every new building built in the last 6-10 years in downtown had the love and attention to the pedestrian that worldcenter is showing.. That my friends, would have been sweet...

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 04:35 PM

I also have to say that whether you like ICON or not, you do have to realize that the developer makes a bold statement. I give the developer credit for going through with the project. The developer is entitled to build whatever he wants on his land. Again, I think he did a good job too. He could have built something plain like 'The Club at Brickell' (the ugly rectangular one with a huge green and blue parabola on the side). The developer of that building was only out for the money. I think in ICON's case you can see that the developer has a sense of pride in his work and is willing to spend more money even though it takes away from the bottomline. Unfortunately, due to the present economic situation, they may not be rewarded as much as they should be.

Or he could have built somthing like worldcenter (with real urbanism) with that money, giving us a few blocks of public street life with cafes, stores, and much more. The reason Rockafeller Center is such a landmark is because it integrates itself with the city, and its sidewalks and streets interact with the public. The bldgs are not afraid of the city, like many buildings in Miami are....

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 04:39 PM

Have you seen it Yes or NO?

Its great to know that you are laughing though, you usually come accross as angry. I'm curious...where does
"Perhaps some majestic staircases leading down from the podium into the park."
rank on your list of the "funniest things that you have ever heard"?

Perhaps some majestic staircase...ohh the folly, that would be fabulous and so worldly Exploratus!

Much better that a majestic auto parking ramp and street system facing the park..... And I gurantee you that if there were stairs into the park, people would use them.. Rather than have to walk around vehicular service streets...

Parks are assets, that when probably used can spruce up an environment.... Now the park has become a liability, at least in the short term...

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 05:07 PM

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 05:35 PM

Anybody that actually believes that apool can simulate the environment of the Champ obviously has never been there...
You have totally lost context.
YOU said, " Originally Posted by Exploratus
Damn... I mean, how does a 1 billion dollar building ignore the most important urban thing it has going for it? That park should have been integrated into the design. BAD PREMISE. YOU think that the park is the "most important urban thing".
I suggested that the overwhelming majority will disagree with you. I'd say it's the location and water views; and the park that you suggest is MOST important wouldn't crack the top 5, but c'est la vie.
How can you even compare a pool deck in a building designed for a few rich people that is private and ten stories of the ground to one of the amazing streets of the world....Whoa...take a deep breath, put on your reading glasses and double check the quote...inspired by, is the phrase you should be looking for.
The people that actually live there might argue the the most important thing going for it are the water views, Security, Privacy, 2 acre pool deck inspired by the Champ D'Elysse , Bay Walk, Restaurants, and location.
You say "designed for rich people" as if it is a bad thing.

To recap: The little park to the south is NOT the most important urban thing about Icon Brickell.

The West side of Icon Brickell has a Brickell Bridge frontage that blocks nearly 75% of of the lot line.
The architects that designed Icon are not some 20 somethings with idealistic ideas of designing buildings for the collective. They are people that DO things, men of action. They dealt with the balance of ingress and egress in a very clever way. Supporting the weight of three towers on one pedestal is not an easy feat.
The building is oriented to the water, mostly by necessity. The pedestrian experience is on the Baywalk, mostly by necessity. Cute drawings and visions of a majestic staircase are lovely, but the engineering and design challenges have been handled nicely.

I like the park...when I walk in it, it doesn't make me whine. I like the baywalk, it is a great place relax.

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 05:41 PM

http://www.datendienst.at/blog/img/travel/france/paris/concorde2.jpg

Anyone who has been to both places will notice the inspiration.
http://www.zilbert.com/icon_brickell_tower_2/images/p6.jpg

Don't be a hater, enjoy things for what they are. You can't move the Brickell Bridge to satisfy you personal need for pedestrian interaction, you can't move the Brickell Family Cypt around so that people "know it's there", and even if you have have been to 10 countries around the world, you shouldn't post about a place you have never been as if you know what you are talking about.

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 05:49 PM

Hey Roark.

I did mean the park to the north that fronts the bay, not the one to the south.. And when that park is finished with the circle, it will be the nicest urban aspect of the site.... Especially, because it will connect to thhe baywalk.

I do have to say I like the baywalk part of the Icon. Its nice and well designed. I dont not like though that directly above 90% of the riverwalk are all the streets under the bldgs..

Endeavor305

January 29th, 2009, 05:52 PM

Or he could have built somthing like worldcenter (with real urbanism) with that money, giving us a few blocks of public street life with cafes, stores, and much more. The reason Rockafeller Center is such a landmark is because it integrates itself with the city, and its sidewalks and streets interact with the public. The bldgs are not afraid of the city, like many buildings in Miami are....

So are you suggesting that they should have tried to do something like Rockafeller center even though the location or the lot frontage is unsuitable for something like that? I bet if they tried to build something inspired by rockafeller center you would probably complain that there is only one Rockafeller center and it was stupid to try and imitate it (just like you did with the pool deck).

I'm now convinced that you're just a hater. You should cheer up cause your life is going to be miserable with that attitude. I'm just trying to help you by saying that.

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 06:42 PM

Integrating important landmarks into other buildings is called Propriety. Really, can you cite that? So if a property owner wants to cross over his property line onto some other property owners landmark and start building seawalls on someone else's property it is called "Propriety". I'd love to read more...
Read a little, and do me a favor, go travel the world. Do you another favor?
I just did you a favor. When you were whining and complaining about the "pedestrian interaction" at Epic, I goaded you to be a man of action and not a whiner.
As a man of action, you sent an e-mail about the chain link fence. Kudos to you sir, and you are welcome.

Now, don't you owe Phil Starck an apology? Just say, "I'm sorry that I spelled HAHA in all caps in my rant. I'm sorry that I suggested you don't know Paris, even though you live there and were born there 60 years ago. Maybe it isn't the funniest thing that I have ever heard. I really just didn't comprehend the quote correctly, and I have actually never been to the pool myself, I just posted about it. Now that I've been enlightened, I am man enough to admit that I was wrong and a little immature."

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 06:56 PM

Honestly Endevour. Just because I gave Rockafeller Center as an example does not mean I want an exact copy of that. There are hundreds if not thousands of wonderful spaces around the world that exhibit class and great urbanism.

Nevertheless, Rockafeller was a great concept. It brought jobs to the city and created spaces to be enjoyed for all. It sough international conpanies to create jobs in New York, helped push radio to the forefront. It has buildings of different scales and the quality of the materials and architecture is superb... It also contracted wondeful artists and was integrally connected to public transport. Until today, Rockafeller Center contributes in many ways to the wellbeing (economic and urbanistic) to the city. That my friend is a real ICON.... A real landmark, jewel of the city... EMulating that would not have been a bad thing. You think so?

There are countless jewels around the world. I choose this example only because its the first that came into my head... You want ten more?
ICON is not one of them. It could have been, just as Perez wanted. I wish Perez had attained the real goal he wanted. A landmark for the city... WHo knows, maybe I am wrong...

Please dont post things saying what I would probably say. You can ask me... :) I am not a hater.. I have said many many positive things throughout the board.... Nevertheless, the pedestrian interaction of ICON and many other buildings is not that great. Many buildings in Miami lack real urban interaction, thats not hating, its a fact... I just want better buildings, so that you and me can go get some coffee while we ride the metro. hehehe

Buildings like ICON do not encourage rich people to drive. It becomes easier and more pleasent to just take you car, which defeats the purpose of buildings in the core of the city. I only fight for better buildings because that is one of the things that will get people out of their car... Rich people walk in many other cities around the world not because they have to, but because it pleasent, beautiful, interesting, spontaneous, interactive, and safe. Buildings that speak to the street and create an honest connection contribute to those things.

Furthermore, just because the site is near the water and there is a bridge there, does not mean that the site could not have been planned better... They could have created a network of streets, worked something out with the church, done alterations to the bridge, changed the massing, and many many more things.

And yes Endevour, the pool thing was stupid. Because Champ is not a pool, its a street with stores and monuments, and cars, and buildings, and its really long, and its part of the city, and its creation was an important element of Paris's urban history, and its public. The pool is a pool for a condo project... Its really long for a pool, woohoo, with a couple buildings around it. Just like every other condo development in Miami with two towers and a pool in between. My old home at Plaza of the Americas must have been the Champ also.. It even had a community room at the end that almost looked like the Arc de Triomphe when I squinted my eyes and a bunch of Canadians speaking french.. hehe
I am not saying that the pool is not cool an awesome, its great! But architects and developers need to stop associating for markiting, urban qualities to things that are not urban. If they want Champ, build an awesome streets with stores. A pool is not Champ just like my apartment is not a store... He said it because it sounds good and it convinced some people to pay Champ like prices for these units..... People in Miami love nice words like that..

And yes, I have been to the pool. I live two blocks away, and my friend had put a deposit there for an apartment there that he decided not to buy.

Hey Roark, I apologize for the go travel and read comment. It came out more harsh than i wanted.. :) And about the propriety thing, the city I am sure would have been more than willing to work with Related on creating a great urban park (indian circle) to highlight its importance fronted by cafes and stores at the mouth of the river with a building that complements it. After all, its the maratime entrance to our city, a landmark spot.

QuantumX

January 29th, 2009, 07:38 PM

Exploratus, I don't totally disagree with you. Yes, those buildings leave a lot to be desired at ground level, but then, at the same time, I think they fill in the middle of the skyline quite nicely. To me, this more of a question of do you see the glass as half empty or half full. I simply choose to see it has half full.

kevinkagy

January 29th, 2009, 07:50 PM

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 08:55 PM

I do have to agree that they fill up the skyline quite nicely. That is for sure....

Anyways. So I went to Icon again today and walked around the entire site. (360) I took pictures all the way around. I discovered that there is no way for someone to walk from brickell, from the riverwalk, from the park on the south, or fron the park on the north without crossing automotive streets and being in contact with some type of automotive environment. Unlike many of the bldgs in brickell Key or on the Bay in Brickell, there isnt even a stairwell from the riverwalk that leads directly into pedestrian/human spaces...

If you are interested, here is the link..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbancityarch/sets/72157613090006299/

Except for the first picture, the images go chronologically from brickell ave bridge, then around the north side, then the riverwalk, then the southside, and then from brickell ave (south of the bldg).

Enjoy.

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 09:48 PM

I agree, Icon Brickell has definitely not lived up to being an ideal urban building. Its interactions with the sidewalks and public areas is horrible as are, unfortunately, many of the buildings that were built during the boom. Some buildings built during the boom that have great urban interaction IMO are: Loft 2, Loft, Everglades, 500 Brickell and BFC I.
What is an ideal urban building? Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?
Of all of the buildings that you have mentioned NOT ONE of them is on the waterfront or has a baywalk. I like walking on the waterfront.
NOT ONE of them is hemmed in with a bridge taking up 75% of the street frontage. The Architects that designed ICON know more than me, and they are certainly more adept at dealing with the site specific challenges. I applaud them.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/Skyscrapers/IconInteraction.jpg
The professional architects knew to give pedestrians a nice tree lined walkway to the waterfront. Which use and appreciate, it will still cause some people to whine, but I think it's great.
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/Skyscrapers/Icon-StreetInteracation03.jpg

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 09:58 PM

Roark, Im sorry. Icon is just not an urban bldg. Go to new york, go to san francisco, go to Rome or Paris. Go to London or Chicago or Philadelphia. If you cant, go to South Beach or go check out everglades on the bay... 500 brickell is right accross the street if you need. Putting some trees to line a walkway to the bay is not architecture, its common sense.... And by the way, in your picture, more than 50% of the walkway is being directly hit by the sun and there are no benches to sit on....

I dont know if you ever walked on the other side, but the Capital Grille Bldg is very well integrated into the bridge. There are multiple PEDESTRIAN stais that lead into the bldg and into the plaza from various points on the bridge. The bldg almost feels as if it is a part of the bridge. Now I dont think that the bldg is all that, but its attempt to engage the bridge is commendable... Great architects around the world have shown that difficult urban situations can become very unique urban and enjoyable spaces.... In Tokyo, they do the most amazing things with the most interesting and challenging spaces..

Putting streets completely separating the sidewalks from the bldg is not innovative. Its what architects in suburbia have been doing for 50 years.. the bldg is no different than the sheraton that was there before. it is much bigger, the architectural style is quite good, and it takes advatnage of more of the site, but it still was designed for people to drive in or out.. I cant imagine that anyone who pays what those units costs will walk through the 1/4 mile of roadways within the building, then walk into an inhospotable sidewalk which has nothing to do. They are going to drive, just as they did before they moved into downtown. This bldg is not going to convince anyone to get out of their car, excpet for the people at the hotel.

The riverwalk is great. I give you that. But the riverwalk is not the bldg. It is also only one side on the bldg, its best side.. I do want to point out nevertheless that the private roadways are directly above 80% of it.

Hey Roark do you work for Arquitectonica or Related? Just wondering.. :)

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 10:11 PM

If you are interested, here is the link..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbancityarch/sets/72157613090006299/Except for the first picture, the images go chronologically from brickell ave bridge, then around the north side, then the riverwalk, then the southside, and then from brickell ave (south of the bldg).
Enjoy. Nice pictures.
In your comments, you still fail to recognize that ICON does not own the Brickell Bridge. If you have an issue with that, don't whine about Icon, whine to your Federal Department of Transportation.
As for what the pictures from the Miami Circle....whine to your South Florida Historical Association consultant for the State Government. Don't whine about Icon.
Icon does not own the Brickell Park, don't whine about ICON.

As for the sidewalk interacation and tree cover...you answered that issue in another thread, but you haven't connected the dots yet.
The Brickell Streetscape enhancement will address all of those issues on the sidewalk.
Don't whine about Icon...hopefully, the property owners of the sidewalk, Bridge, Miami Circle, and park will all do as good a job as ICON has with their property.

Exploratus

January 29th, 2009, 10:20 PM

Roark.... Really man...

I cant believe that you have nothing else to say. There is like 30 pictures that pretty much cover the entire bldg at ground level, and there isnt a single welcoming pedestrian entrance. You cant see that???? You have nothing to say about that except that the park and bridge are owned by someone else? Who cares, that is not the point.

I grant you that you dont have to agree with me on everything, but in any conversation you have to give and take dude...

In my comments for the pics I never criticized the park or the bridge. I criticized the bldgs engagement or how the bldg fronts those things, which is COMPLETELY under the control of Icon and completely different from what you are saying!!! They didnt have to put service entrances facing the park, and they didnt have to put a plethora of streets fronting Brickell. Period...

Now I dont doubt that with a little money Icon could have adapted the bottom of the bridge, just as it is adapted directly on the other side (west). This is not necessary, but to say that they couldnt at all is ludicrous.. Where there's money and will there is a way.

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 10:31 PM

Roark, Im sorry. Icon is just not an urban bldg. Go to new york, go to san francisco, go to Rome or Paris. Go to London or Chicago or Philadelphia. I have been to each and every one of those cities at least once with the exception of Rome. Most of the 1,600 unit residential skyscrapers in those cities aren't on the waterfront. Can you name one?
I haven't drank the Kool-aid of new urbanism. I like it, but I'm not for forcing it down the throat of private property owners.
I dont know if you ever walked on the other side, but the Capital Grille Bldg is very well integrated into the bridge. There are multiple PEDESTRIAN stais that lead into the bldg and into the plaza from various points on the bridge. The bldg almost feels as if it is a part of the bridge. Yes, most recently last week. YES, but the bridge and stairs are not owned by American Capital Partners....the bridge is owned by FDOT... Do you get it yet!?!??!
In Tokyo, they do the most amazing things with the most interesting and challenging spaces..Yep, lived and studied there for a summer...I'd rather live in ICON anyday compared to Shinjuku. Can't remember a single interesting Baywalk though.
Putting streets completely separating the sidewalks from the bldg is not innovative. You still don't get it huh.
The access road to the Miami Circle site is NOT owned by ICON.
So don't whine about ICON.
The riverwalk is great. I give you that. But the riverwalk is not the bldg.
Not the building??? Just about everything you have been whining about is not the building. The park to the south, the park to the north, the access road to the West, the Bridge, the sidewalks in front of the park...NONE OF IT.

No, I don't work for Aquatectonica or Related. Did you grow up a whining moma's boy who got indoctrinated to new urbanism in some NY liberal arts college.

Really, redirect the anger and complaining to the lunkheads responsible for the access road to the Miami Circle and the Miami Circle. FDOT would do a good turn to open up that walkway under the Southside of the Bridge as well.

QuantumX

January 29th, 2009, 10:55 PM

I do have to agree that they fill up the skyline quite nicely. That is for sure....

Anyways. So I went to Icon again today and walked around the entire site. (360) I took pictures all the way around.

If you are interested, here is the link..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbancityarch/sets/72157613090006299/ Enjoy.

I can see you try to capture interesting angles as well in the slices that you took.

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 11:02 PM

There is like 30 pictures that pretty much cover the entire bldg at ground level, and there isnt a single welcoming pedestrian entrance. You cant see that????
You didn't really show the bay walk at all...for instance the width from the seawall to the building, and the open dining/cafe area on the South side.
It's almost as if you were trying to prove your point to the people that won't get up and look at it for themselves.
#1 I don't mind walking into Icon Brickell from the front.
#2 I like the Baywalk entry. The building has a TCO on one of the three towers. It will be more inviting to you in the future.
#3 ICON has the most challenging envelope of any building that I can think of. There is a very small seam in which to bring cars, park them and distribute them through the three very large towers.
#4 I have not seen the renderings or the master plan for the Miami Circle park. So, I won't embarrass myself by commenting about how Icon should or shouldn't have placed their service entrances on their property. I do however like the way Icon oriented the baywalk and meeting facilities to overlook the park.

Are you going to apologize to Starck for your comments...

kevinkagy

January 29th, 2009, 11:24 PM

Endeavor305

January 29th, 2009, 11:28 PM

Icon is just not an urban bldg.

Huh? What is it then?

the bldg is no different than the sheraton that was there before.

That really doesn't make sense. To start, the sheraton didn't have a pool inspired by the Champs!! :nuts:

There is like 30 pictures that pretty much cover the entire bldg at ground level, and there isnt a single welcoming pedestrian entrance. You cant see that????

I've never walked around Icon so I wasn't aware that there aren't any doors leading to the parks on either side, and I think it would have been nice to do so, but that is really being picky. It's not like you can't get to it at all. You were able to access them on your little adventure today. If someone really wants to go to the park from inside the building they can go out one of the main entrances, it's not much farther a walk and actually promotes more pedestrian traffic through the main entrance which I personally like.

Endeavor305

January 29th, 2009, 11:40 PM

buildings like Icon make it hell.

like Icon? So it's not just ICON, but you guys are singling this one poor building out. :ohno:

I don't want to walk through a million driveways, I want to walk past stores, parks, etc, things that invite people to walk comfortably on the streets.

a million? I thought there was only one driveway leading into Icon. Everyone acknowledges that Icon's entrance is tiny, yet they complain that there aren't stores, parks, cafes, etc. How the hell are they supposed to put all that stuff on such a small street front. Makes no sense to me. Y'all need to make up your mind on what to complain about.

Icon is poor urban design.

I think you know what Jeffrey Lebowski has to say about that...hehehehe

Roark

January 29th, 2009, 11:46 PM

Roark, first of all the "nice tree lined walkway to the waterfront" that you mention wasn't done by Icon, it's always been there, it's a public park, so Icon gets no credit for it. Secondly, the main entrance to Icon is one big driveway, and is completely uninviting to the pedestrian. Honestly...when was the last time you were in the park?
5 years ago, it was a neglected derelict park. If you were there 5 years ago, and have been there in the last 5 weeks. You would notice many, many, improvements from the derelict park that it was 5 years ago.
It wasn't magic. The pavers , the sod, the lighting, the planters, etc, etc, etc. didn't just show up there.
Kevin, any ideas how those things got there? If you guessed Icon, then you would be right, but you would have to rescind that comment, "Icon gets no credit". They should. I think it was the right thing to do.
YES, the main entry appears to be one big driveway to the uninformed.
The building might be nice from far away, but for the majority of us that have to walk the streets of Downtown and Brickell, buildings like Icon make it hell.I walk all the time. You call it hell? Wow, what a comfortable life you must have.
Of all the challenges in my life, walking on the sidewalk in front of Icon isn't Hell or even a challenge. In fact, I walked the sidewalk before the Icon, and it is exactly the same.

When walking along Brickell is it more hell to cross SE 5th Street on the West side, or to cross the street on the East side?

Kevin, there are NOT a million driveways. You can't have possibly been there recently. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept...but this parcel does NOT lend itself to the same interaction as building without bridges in front of them do. Not only is there a bridge in front of Icon, but there is a service road to the Miami Circle in front of the Viceroy.
If you stand in the middle of the intersection of SE 5th and Brickell Avenue and take a photograph due West, you will shoot down the yellow line of SE 5th Street. IF you turn and shoot due East, you shoot down the center line of a service road that leads to the Miami Circle. Difference? Yes. The West side is wider than the East side. Meaning a pedestrian has MORE street to cross on the West than on the Icon side.
Stay in the Middle of the intersection and face East. The Icon property line begins about 5 feet to the south of the of the curb cut of SE 5th Street. You can't put a store there. To the north of the SE 5th Street curb cut about 2 feet is a bridge. You can't put a store there either.
If you don't like it fine, it isn't for you.

Endeavor305

January 29th, 2009, 11:52 PM

I walk all the time. You call it hell? Wow, what a comfortable life you must have.

LOL. :lol: Perfect response. That s**t was funny.

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 12:06 AM

Roark and Endeavor.

Your right.... Icon is the best building in the world... I say lets scrap worldcenter and build one Icon on each block with huge driveways and disconnected streets....

Then well be Icon City...

Its no wonder Miami has buildings like these, with jokers like you.... Its as if you guys have associated your manhood with this building or something. Rather sad...

It dont matter though, because Miami 21 will do away with GARBAGE like Icon... Woohoo, then maybe you guys will wake up..

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 12:18 AM

Of all the challenges in my life, walking on the sidewalk in front of Icon isn't Hell or even a challenge. In fact, I walked the sidewalk before the Icon, and it is exactly the same.

Exactly Roark, its the same as it was before. ICON contributed zilch to the street life.... Thats what Ive been saying and we agree...

Roark

January 30th, 2009, 12:23 AM

Your right.... Icon is the best building in the world... I say lets scrap worldcenter and build one Icon on each block....
Then well be Icon City...
Its no wonder Miami has buildings like these, with jokers like you....I NEVER said that Icon is the best building in the world.
I said that whiners and complainers shouldn't whine and complain about Icon if they don't like the way Miami Circle is panning out.
Miami World Center should be great. Of course, there are no Brickell Bridges, Miami Circles, or Brickell Parks to challenge the architects.
I recognize the challenges, and applaud the efforts of the men that made Icon happen.
The critics and whiners don't really accomplish much, and don't really matter.

Now, are you going to apologize for saying that Starck doesn't know anything about Paris. Do that one all caps HAHA thing you did...it is very amusing.
Funniest thing you ever heard...

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 12:29 AM

I've never walked around Icon so I wasn't aware that there aren't any doors leading to the parks on either side, and I think it would have been nice to do so, but that is really being picky. It's not like you can't get to it at all. You were able to access them on your little adventure today. If someone really wants to go to the park from inside the building they can go out one of the main entrances, it's not much farther a walk and actually promotes more pedestrian traffic through the main entrance which I personally like.

Tisk Tisk Roark. You need to process what I say not just spew stuff out without thinking. Yes, you can walk around the entire building to connect to the park or walk through the parking/driveways to get to the park, but that doesnt encourage PEOPLE TO GET OUT OF THEIR CAR... Rich people wont do that... Did you even read what I wrote before? Is it really picky to expect a few pedestrian entrances in a building that is like 1/2 a mile in diamater? This project has more streets than a small town. Furthermore its rather dissapointing that you think the entrance to Icon is nice and its design will promote pedestrian traffic through it. Are you serious??? Is this another joke like the Champ joke. Did you get that from Starck also? Cuz I got my caps ready to laugh....

Stop taking comments that other people make and twisting them around to make yourself feel better. If someone like Kevin has a criticism you dont need to insult him. He wants better streets that are interactive and for everyone, not just for those with mercedes in the sky..

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 12:34 AM

I NEVER said that Icon is the best building in the world.
I said that whiners and complainers shouldn't whine and complain about Icon if they don't like the way Miami Circle is panning out.
Miami World Center should be great. Of course, there are no Brickell Bridges, Miami Circles, or Brickell Parks to challenge the architects.
Now, are you going to apologize for saying that Starck doesn't know anything about Paris. Do that one all caps HAHA thing you did...it is very amusing.
Funniest thing you ever heard...

I just want to point out that my complaints of Icon have nothing to do with the circle's condition, again, its Icon's interaction with it that bothers me. Thats like three times now I said that.. Do I think that they could have helped out with the park, yes, but that is beyond this discussion.

Also I am not appologizing to no one for a stupid comment.. The comment by starck was done purely for glamour and money, thats it.. He likes the color of green and he is by no means an authority on anything but tacky designs. I grant you some of his designs are interesting, and I have had a few drinks at the Delano and really enjoyed it. Nevertheless, how many Stark designs can one take. Theres a building in Panama that has many of his same signature things. The only reason there are easter island statues and references to Champ is to appeal to speculators (at the time) and to Miami people who dont know the difference. Since I didnt know that he was the one that said it at the time of my comment I will say that he propbably knows a lot about Paris, but it doesnt mean that his statement was done for anything other than money.

Miami will continue to change and bldgs will become more and more responsive to the environment. Some have succeeded some have failed, but the overall trend in Miami for the last ten years has been positive. ICON is not one that I hope others emulate. A project like Icon belongs in Aventura or something like that, were people can live in their little bubbles, drive ina nd out, and get great bay views without having to worry about outsiders. In downtown/brickell, I expect and demand buildings that communicate with the pedestrian.

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 01:04 AM

Huh? What is it then?

Its just a building or suburban building, no different than those buildings by the bay in Aventura.. They all have wonderful bay walks, green spaces, and awesome views to the bay, as well as all the nice amenities and do not engage pedestrians and are designed around the automobile.

You could take ICON and plop it there and would be no different..

QuantumX

January 30th, 2009, 01:29 AM

Its just a building or suburban building, no different than those buildings by the bay in Aventura.. They all have wonderful bay walks, green spaces, and awesome views to the bay, as well as all the nice amenities and do not engage pedestrians and are designed around the automobile.

You could take ICON and plop it there and would be no different..

Ideally, for its size and location, it should have been more mixed-use along the lines of what is planned for One Bayfront Plaza or Brickell Financial Center, but the way I've chosen to look at it is that no city is perfect and you can't have everything in life.

But what I can have is a great picture like this one. I wish you could have been there. This image was far more powerful and dynamic in person from the air. I captured it as best could be.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2953342268_32255b525d_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2953342268_32255b525d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2760319841_c0b59eb4ea_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/2760319841_c0b59eb4ea_o.jpg

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 02:50 AM

QuantumX

January 30th, 2009, 03:00 AM

Miami from the air or from the water is quite beautiful. When I go on a boat ride to go fishing, downtown is just spectacular.. Sometimes, when I have ridden up and down the bay from Aventura, I can just imagine the bay becoming a viable artery for transportation one day...

The city is in an awkward stage of adolescent development. Just wait until it matures and fills out. OH BABY! We just have to wait and see what the city is going to be when it grows up.

Endeavor305

January 30th, 2009, 03:01 AM

Roark and Endeavor. Your right.

I always speak realistically. I use facts and data to support my comments. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you can't let your opinion cloud the facts. That's all I'm saying. Thanks.

... Icon is the best building in the world... I say lets scrap worldcenter and build one Icon on each block with huge driveways and disconnected streets....

Then well be Icon City...

Aha, sarcasm. I notice that people resort to sarcasm when they begin to realize that their opinion is not accurate or just an opinion. About the multiple Icon idea, it would be cool, but I also think it's important to have variety. Due to that and architects not wanting to copy each other, I don't think it will happen. You could try doing it on your SimCity game though :lol:

Its no wonder Miami has buildings like these, with jokers like you.... Its as if you guys have associated your manhood with this building or something. Rather sad...

That is irony at its best. You saying that we have associated our manhood with this building yet you are the one that is crying like a woman that the building sucks. Last time I checked women cry not men. And please don't make a fag comment like real men cry. Men don't cry over something like a building's design. So the jokes on you buddy. Would you like a tissue? :lol:

BTW, some of Miami's buildings were designed by some of the world's best architects. So are they "jokers" also?

It dont matter though, because Miami 21 will do away with GARBAGE like Icon... Woohoo, then maybe you guys will wake up..

I'm sure Miami 21 would be happy to have the Arquitectonica people be more involved in their plans if they could.

QuantumX

January 30th, 2009, 03:06 AM

When I go on a boat ride to go fishing, downtown is just spectacular.. Sometimes, when I have ridden up and down the bay from Aventura, I can just imagine the bay becoming a viable artery for transportation one day...

It is largely this already. Stand on the bridges of the causeways for any length of time, and you'll be surprised how many boats pass under it at any given time on any given day. One of the reasons I like capturing waverunners against the skyline is because I sort of see this as Miami's futuristic mode of transportation as in Waterworld.

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 03:14 AM

Endeavor. I am sorry. You are wrong. I am not getting into more arguments about this. This story has run its course.... If you want go read some books written by Jane Jacobs, Aldo Rossi, or many others... Here is my last spiel on the subject...

I just attempted to point out some flaws in the building, which if fixed would make it great.. Is that so bad that you guys have to get all defensive. Criticizing and demaning people who are attemting to create a better city? Thats my friend is called progress, nothing is perfect, and every great person should be open to criticism. Why? Beacuse listening to criticism makes things better. You on the other hand, will be happy with your autocentric, wasteful, unwalkable, unaffordable, and unsustainable city for a precious few who think that a pool in a condo is the Champ... I just dont understand your blatant defense of this building, what interest do you have in it.. Like you said, you never even walked around the whole building, so what are you talking about... Next time Illl give you a little poop sculptue straight from my butt and you can marvel at it also for its resemblance to the mona lisa... Did I ever tell you guys that my butt produces wonderful sculputers and I provided the statues for the ICON??? Whats funny is the scupluteres dont even bother me that much, what does bother me about it is that its not for pedestrians to enjoy and touch, rather is for cars to drive around them...

I dont understand you and Roark. Me and a few people have made valid complaints about these buildings. Youve dismissed them all or even failed to recognize them. I and other have shown images and others have even drawn diagrams about what could have been done. Yes, they are simple things, but god is in the details.... You guys could have just said, those are some valid points that would have made the building amazing and a building for the people.. Nevertheless, you got super defensive about a building that offers nothing to people who dont live there and really is nothing more than an egotistical building that contributes nothing to the city, except in taxes. (Baywalk doesnt count, its mandatory, and I guarantee you if it wasnt, it would have become private and only for residents, like in Aventura) You guys just keep insulting and defending something without any backing, just saying, oh he built it, let it stand. Or the bridge is owned by the FDOT... Man, come on.... Well, you know what? Maybe with some feedback the next Icon will be a real ICON..

Miami, Like Quantum said is a teenager, and like EVERY teenager, needs some advice and feedback..... You guys are just trying to silence that feedback.

Also, what building were designed by the worlds best architects???? Which one??? The Herzog one in Lincoln??? That has fabuolous urbanism. Everglades by Fullerton? Great Urbanism....... What else??? The Symphony Theater??? Great public park that speaks to the building.. Mary Brickell Village is quite good although its not by a great architect.... Zyscovich buildings? Some have great Urbanism. Midtown Miami, great urbanism... Even 1060 is decent and so is One Broadway. Axis aint to bad either. On the other hand, ICON contributes zilch to the city...

I really dont know what you are saying, so please just stop and I will also... I've discussed things with people like you... You offer no real academic though or backing, you discuss things based only on your ego, and dont even fully read or comprehend what people tell you... You also take words, twist them around, ignore the context they were said in to suit your needs.. I think the buildings are gorgeous, and yes, they interact with the bay.. But any architect will tell you that architecture is more than massing and planning, its a strict adherance to detail...... In an urban environemnt, that means contributing to the creation of safe and enjoyable streets. ICON does not do that... 500 Brickell most deifenely does, as does Everglades and others..

Endevour, By the way, I just read through a bunch of your posts? What facts that you gave are you refering too? You make huge blanket statement that say nothing except preety words and demeaning comments..... You accusse me of being a hater just because I dont like a building and expected something that we could all enjoy.... You are the one that is a hater, not even willing to listen, process, and go research what people are saying. We are not saying terrible things, our comments are being made because we believe that things could be even better..

Endeavour the reason why you dont understand why we think this site could have been better planned could be because you are not an architect, but maybe I am wrong.......... The parks could have become quite interactive with stores and much more at the ICON bldg...

Dudes, just the fact thats its a massive condo development with super expensive units and a tiny hotel component shows how one sided and poorly planned this site was. This project will be a huge black eye for Related, financially speaking...

My architect friend from Miami came about a month ago and he couldnt believe how poorly planned many buildings in downtown are. Buildings dont take care of important corners, building leave massive huge parking structures exposed. Man, the entire back side of the biscayne wall is a travesty... Its absurd... Go ahead, defend those too.

I also just by coincidence today saw a show on Discovey on a huge Eco green city (Songdo) being built (collossal Construction). The architect (Kahn Fox) came out and said the entire city will be interactive, pedestrain orineted, with street fronts and all. He specifically said about 20 min into the show that large office buildings seprated or setback from the street create unsafe and unpleasent envirnment.. He said they want to create narrow, interactive, and interesting streets that speak to the pedestrian. Wow. He must be crazyy. He is only designing one of the most ambitious projects in the world.

I also just have to say that I am really enjoying this. We are all passionate and there is no resentment... That is great and quite enjoyable. Id rather be talking to you guys who are interested in the subject than my girlfriend who doesnt really care. :) Peace and love to all!

305Lover

January 30th, 2009, 03:38 AM

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 04:05 AM

That is irony at its best. You saying that we have associated our manhood with this building yet you are the one that is crying like a woman that the building sucks. Last time I checked women cry not men. And please don't make a fag comment like real men cry. Men don't cry over something like a building's design. So the jokes on you buddy. Would you like a tissue? :lol:

What are you talking about? I already asked you once to stop assuming what I would say... Also, dont use derogative comments like fag, others might not appreciate it...

You are the one that is crying over our criticism of this building man... You dont seem to be able to handle it... You havent accepted one thing we have said. I just want better buildings...

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 04:07 AM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/3237452140_a3337e9fcc.jpg
At least they planted vines like in Icon South Beach, so that should be something that should make it all better for those that are opposed to the building.

yeah, I thought about that.. That will at least help out... I just think they shouldnt have had that problem in the first place... Nevertheless, a huge grass wall will complement the park well.

Also, grass walls are usually a poor architectural solution.. At least in architecture school, that was always a cheap/shortcut way to fix a poor design desicion... Furthemore, grass walls are cooler when at least the ground floor is interactive, so you dont have to look up. PErfect example is the image shown on the Stadium thread on the parking garage in Lincoln Road. Its covered with grass, but no one even looksup cuz the street is interactive with store frontage.

These grass walls, if they are maintained, have nothing but driveways and service roads under them..

QuantumX

January 30th, 2009, 04:19 AM

Guys, what I like most about SkyscraperCity, particularly the Miami forum, is the level of intelligent conversation carried on by civilized men who probably would have done a better job with this city had the planning of it been a part of their chosen profession. Can we please stop lowering the level of conversation so that our forum can be something we can continue to be proud of as an example of how the world should be?

thetallerthebetter

January 30th, 2009, 05:58 AM

Yeah Q, it's been so long since anyone I know used the word fag, I forget that people under 30 still use it. :ohno:

Hia-leah JDM

January 30th, 2009, 06:16 AM

Talk about ridiculous! You dwelled waaayyy tooo much into the Champs-Élysées comment. Is it too difficult to notice the similarities between the two?!
I agree with some of what you say about ICON but you have taking the extreme road and can now be classified as ridiculous and radical. You are overblowing everything.
Im done. peace.

Roark

January 30th, 2009, 06:43 AM

Its as if you guys have associated your manhood with this building or something. Rather sad... Really?
That is your analysis? You are dead wrong again.
Wow, you are like 5' 8" 160lbs and are wishing for a "majestic staircase", and now are posting about my manhood? Be careful Adam.

Don't mischaracterized what I said. Your challenge that Phillepe Starck doesn't know anything about Paris, was likely incorrect. In retrospect, don't you feel a little silly for the HAHAHAHAHAH post?

You seem to think that you can compare the Everglades with the Icon footprint. It isn't even comparable. Not even close.
The professional, and highly successful architects that built Icon, did a great job in my opinion. The opinion of a twenty-something whiner is interesting to, but your opinions about the walk-ability or what a developer can do with other people's property is astounding. Buildings like Everglades have frontage with 4 sides on city streets. Easy to deal with. Icon, not easy to deal with.
Sure would be great if there wasn't a bridge on side, a state owned park on one and a city owned park on the other.
Any reasonably prudent person (that has seen the site) would understand the challenge. 1,600 units...not much frontage on the street.
Some people are smart enough to foresee that that State might eventually get their act together and develop the Miami Circle. When that happens, you can be assured that the access road between the bridge and the Viceroy entrance will be dealt with. I do understand your whining, the area under contruction/development doesn't look good yet. I'm just saying that I'm not whining about it.
Send another e-mail to the State of Florida, and tell them to add some stairs to their bridge, finish their part of the Bay/Riverwalk, and to make that access road do whatever you think access roads are supposed to do.

For instance, how was it a revelation to you that that chain link fence under the Brickell Bridge was an FDOT fence. Aren't you supposed to know that? How is it that you still don't get that the sidewalk is being handled in the Brickell Avenue Street scape project. Didn't you notice the spray painting on the sidewalks? Shouldn't a worldly genius know that?

Good luck on doing something. I truly wish you the best of luck if you decided to put your money where your mouth is.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

QuantumX

January 30th, 2009, 06:52 AM

Yeah Q, it's been so long since anyone I know used the word fag, I forget that people under 30 still use it. :ohno:

Well, as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. If they knew some of the "fags" I've known, they'd be terrified to use that word around them.

spellbound

January 30th, 2009, 10:51 AM

Am I going to have to bring Telly Savalas into this conversation to calm things down?

Seriously though, fellas, let's take it down a notch and not make things so damn personal. We certainly don't need to use terms like "fag" to make a point---or at least I would hope so.

Absolutey we can---and SHOULD---make bold statements here (you may have noticed that even our moderator, Toucano, is hardly shy about criticizing what he sees as crappy, uninspiring architecture) and certainly this forum needs to be an open discussion rather than some bland, sleep-inducing version of a Chamber of Commerce website that ultimately says nothing memorable...but we have to have those disagreements with some level of respect in mind or we won't have any real conversation at all.

I think all of us fall into the trap of thinking "I'm right, you're wrong" too often when the reality is that there isn't any genuine right or wrong with this stuff. It's OPINION. And none of us are sitting on Mount Olympus dispensing irrefutable evidence that can't easily be challenged. Some of it barely rises above the level of arguing about the weather or what color shirt goes best with a blue tie, y'know? Name-calling and dreary recitations of "expertise" (which NOBODY here truly has on ANY topic after three years of observation :lol:) just comes across as childish and more than a little desperate for validation. We can argue things at a higher level, imo.

But if not...there's always Savalas. He doesn't put up with any crap.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/binky73069/savalas.jpg

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 04:20 PM

Really?

Don't mischaracterized what I said. Your challenge that Phillepe Starck doesn't know anything about Paris, was likely incorrect. In retrospect, don't you feel a little silly for the HAHAHAHAHAH post?

The professional, and highly successful architects that built Icon, did a great job in my opinion. The opinion of a twenty-something whiner is interesting to, but your opinions about the walk-ability or what a developer can do with other people's property is astounding. Buildings like Everglades have frontage with 4 sides on city streets. Easy to deal with. Icon, not easy to deal with.
Sure would be great if there wasn't a bridge on side, a state owned park on one and a city owned park on the other.

To the first part of this statement, I already answered in a previous post... I think Starck made the comment because it sounds good and allowed them to charge crazy prices. I mean, even at the height of the boom, the prices at ICON where 50-100% higher than other bldgs.

To the second, if its so easy how come all the back end and sides of buildings on the biscayne wall suck? How come they all have 2-3 horrible sides (first ten floors)??? They are on regular 4 sided blocks... Arent a couple of those Arquitectonica???

And yes Roark, many years from now I will be acting much more.... I put myself through school as an architect without anybodys help, and in a few years Ill be a regsitered architect.... Ive been on my own since I was 18 and I am also have engineering training. Thats got to count for something, I could be sitting at home eating Cheetos talking to you guys. I even moved to brickell only because I want to support Miami's rebirth as an urban environment. I walk everywhere, left my car in Aventura, which hasnt been touched in months, and take the metromover and walk everywhere. Whle at UM, I almost always took the metro. Even from Aventura, I used to take the bus to downtown and then take the metro. I attend every street event, not because they are that fun, but because I want to be a presence on the street that encourages more people to come out. So I am speaking because I have avested interest in this. I think our lifestlye is crazy wasteful, encouraged in part by the built world.

I know that an architects career takes decades, its not something that usually happens overnight. The best thing I can do now is observe and work.. My whole life I will be designing and critcizing buildings. Thats what I do and will always do. My girlfriend gets upset travelling with me because I spend all day sketching and taking pictures of buildings (this is not an opening for you guys to attack) :) My interests are creating walkabale and enjoyabe streets, sustainable cities, so analyzing buildings such as ICON allows me to see simple mistakes that could have been averted. I cant even walk down a street without bumping into something, because my eyes are always looking at architecture.... IMO if I dont observe, praise, and criticize, then I will not learn the lessons I need t build a great building one day. It is buildings like Icon that teach me a lot. Its also buildings like Everglades on the Bay that also teach me a lot...

My real interest is building a sustainable lifestyle for everyone on this board. IMO our world is going down the tubes. Every day we build a more unsustaiinable environment, our children will have to pay for these sins, just as we are paying for our fathers blatant ignorance of the environment and common sense sustainable practices. Buildings and cars account for more than 50% of the energy and GHG emmitted in the world.

Every building that encourages people to drive, every building that is wasteful is an attack on sustainability... Miami is one of the most wasteful cities in the world, people in Miami have some of the highest per capita GHG emmisions in the WORLD... We are a land of automobiles and isolated container buildings. Thats nothing to be proud of.. Thats all.

I am not trying to attack anyone, or belittle Perez's or arquitectonicas accomplishments. I think that the work is commendable, Ive said it before, nevertheless, there are few things that would have made this project great. When I say a bldg in Miami has too much glass, its not because I dont love glass buildings, its because I dont think they are the most suitable for the natural environment in Miami. When I criticize ICON, its because I know people are not going to walk out of there usually, they will drive. People need to get out of their car, thats all...

Whats sad, is that countries like China and India, and Panama are now copying the american unsustainability model. For anyone who has been to Panama City (Panama), they have created a crazy autocentric world based on the Miami skyscraper model without any street interaction. In Mexico City, where I am from, the same thing happened in the outskirts of the city. Everyone is a slave to the car, and sidewalks are even nonexsitent in parts..

I live in the Plaza on Brickell, and my next door neighbor who works 3 blocks away, still drives even though it takes him longer. Why? Because the walk doesnt interest him, its not a safe and enjoyable walk. He doesnt even understand what walking is. He is one of these typical 30+ latin Miami guys who grew up in the suburbs and never learned to walk. He went from crawling to the automobile. (Again, this is not an insult on anyone on this board) Buildings on Brickell are set back and they dont embrace the people and dont encourage people to walk. The only way we are going to convince people liek that to walk, is to give them quality interactive streets that embrace the pedestrian in multiple ways. Thats all dudes....

Arquitectonica is good, but they are not great. They build massive projects that are great monuments for afar, but lack detail and interaction at the human level... Now, every project is not like that, some are great, IMO its just a trend of theirs.

And I take back the manhood comment, it was more of a question and really didint need to be in there...Sorry about that, Way out of line.. Peace and love.. I just didnt understand why you were so defensive of a bldg that with our suggestions might have been great, and as asset to everyone in the city, not just residents. Now nobody get super defensive about the arquitectonica comment, its only my opinon.

Like I said, I just want to leave this world a better place. Please no one take my criticism of a bldg negatively. I undertsand how difficult it is to build a building, what a massive undertaking it is. Nevertheless, bldgs have a huge responsability also. Bldgs alone account for 40% of the energy used. Much of that could be saved.... Every person we can convince to get out of their car, is a step in the right direction. ICON unfortunately does not facillitate that...I mean, you cant get into the buildings from any direction without walking through some type of automobile environment, or crossing private driveway. But who knows, maybe I am wrong.

Peace to all....

Roark here is another quote. Am I cool now too? Just jokin...

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 07:12 PM

Really?
That is your analysis? You are dead wrong again.
Wow, you are like 5' 8" 160lbs and are wishing for a "majestic staircase", and now are posting about my manhood? Be careful Adam.

What is all that supposed to be Roark... An insult? Or a threat? Is using my name supposed to scare me or something? Peace and love man, you dont have to resort to threats... You take things a little to personal.. Are you putting people down who are 5'8"? Cuz Im not.... What does being 5'8 have to do with a staircase. Again, I am lost.... Is there something wrong with people that are 5'8" or less that precludes them from using grand staircase?

You need to calm down dude... Ever since my first post criticizing Icon 1 month ago on a different topic (post 86) you came out guns blazing (post 88) in defense of the project. We know youve met Perez and other ppls but every negative comment of this bldg by anyone, and youve come back belittling their criticism and defending Perez as a man of action or arquitectonica as professionals. Thats not necessary and thats the only reason I asked you if you worked for any of them..

Roark

January 30th, 2009, 08:06 PM

To the first part of this statement, I already answered in a previous post... I think Starck made the comment because it sounds good and allowed them to charge crazy prices. I mean, even at the height of the boom, the prices at ICON where 50-100% higher than other bldgs. As a general rule, I keep most of my comments factual, who the hell asked for my opinion anyway.
I post the fact that the tree lined pool and large Arc d'Triumphy mantel piece was inspired by Champs.
You post that it is the "funniest thing you heard, HAAHAHAHHAHAH".
You post that anyone that has ever been to Paris...etc etc.
I post the fact that the man who said he was inspired was born there.
Your opinion that the designer used inspiration only to charge crazy prices is interesting, but doesn't matter. The fact is, that it is fact. First you tried to refute the fact.
To the second, if its so easy how come all the back end and sides of buildings on the biscayne wall suck? How come they all have 2-3 horrible sides (first ten floors)??? They are on regular 4 sided blocks... Arent a couple of those Arquitectonica???Easy relative the envelope that Icon had to work with. I don't know why the building on Biscayne don't please your personal preference. With the exception of the Federal Courthouse, I don't like Aquitectonica's buildings. My personal preference isn't strong or selfish enough to make me want to impose my personal preference on private land owners though.

On a serious and postive note: Your passion is commendable, and you clearly are. You have had the liberty to accomplish many of these things on your own efforts and a framework of freedom to do things and choose the path that you wanted.
For you, your girlfriend's, and other's sake, keep up the good work.
Also, for their sake be more curious, and less judgemental.
For instance, it is easy to judge the access road in front to Viceroy as being ugly. But why? Many people don't even think that far, they get stuck judging. There is a reason, and it is very important to know that the road will be modified along with the State of Florida plan for the Miami Circle.
It is your choice to judge or to be curious, and I'm not telling you what to do, but it's a little something that I hope you can use to your benefit.

Your choice to walk is great. I often chose to do the same, for health, fresh air, relaxation, study skyscrapers etc. Your building mate's choice to drive is his liberty. You suggest that he would drive no matter what. I know people like this. I don't blame the building or the sidewalk, it's the lazy ass that doesn't smell the roses and that is his right.
IMO our world is going down the tubes. Every day we build a more unsustaiinable environment, our children will have to pay for these sins, just as we are paying for our fathers blatant ignorance of the environment and common sense sustainable practices.
IMO our world is not going down the tubes.
Mother Earth was here before me, and will be here after me. Back in the days of "organic farm raised transportation", feces lined the streets and people died as a result. We managed to evolved from the sustainable horses and move onto a different type of transportation. We are constanting evolving. Every day we create a new cure for a disease, or find another way to feed people, our childeren will benefit from our gifts.
I don't feel like I am paying for my "father's blatant ingnorance".
In fact, more like reaping the benefits of a civilized experience.
Just a difference of opinion.
“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”Love the quote...

QuantumX

January 30th, 2009, 08:07 PM

Last time I checked women cry not men.

What book is this in? I've known men to cry because they risked there lives to save another and couldn't get to them in time. They cried to the extent that they cared about the person they could not save, and if they are real men, they don't care what you think about them crying because these are men with big hearts with have a deep capacity for caring for other people. And I don't know how someone's manhood can be wrapped up in a building they didn't design themselves. And I don't see how anyone can feel as though their manhood is being threatened by anything Exploratus said whether he is right or wrong. Do you actually feel that manhood is something that tenuous?

To me, manhood is what Chuck did, and that is to raise two children to adulthood and stick by them all the way. That is why when someone referred to him as a old idiot, I had to speak up and say "now wait just a minute here" because you have to give him credit for at least doing right by what a man is supposed to do.

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 08:18 PM

Roark, I feel like this conversation is ending quite well.. hehehehe :)

One thing Roark, I also do not wish to impart my preference design wise. Nevertheless large buildings, like people, have an obligation to the city and urban fabric around them. A sort of unspoken pact that is inherent in cities...

Style wise, I have never criticized a building. I like modern, I like traditional, I like deconstructivist, and I love classical. I love Victorian homes, and old brick bldgs. I love bldgs.... ( I dont like suburban cooki cutter home though :) ) I would never crticize style, at least I try not to, what I do criticize is the interaction of bldgs with their surroundings... I also criticize buildings that I feel are environmentally irresponsible. What I consider moral issues I guess you can say... Thats all.

In a city, a dense urban city, IMO, it is the duty of a building to respond to its surroundings. The streets are for everyone, and just because someone happens to own a block, doesnt preclude them from their duties to the streets below... I guess it might not be the most popular or practical approach, but thats how I feel. A city to me is more than a bunch of condos and offices, its a living breathing organism that carries the memories of its people.

And yes Roark for the record, I shouldnt have said that whoever said that comment obviously never went to Paris. Happy? :) Nevertheless, I still think its a silly statement of convenience. :)

Endeavor305

January 30th, 2009, 08:35 PM

Endeavor. I am sorry. You are wrong.

Right from the start you show your ignorance in this comment by saying that I'm wrong. All I have said or maintained is that Icon's design is a matter of opinion. No one is right or wrong. My opinion just differs from yours. That's all, no more no less.

This story has run its course.... If you want go read some books written by Jane Jacobs, Aldo Rossi, or many others... Here is my last spiel on the subject.

You made three subsequent posts since this one. So much for last spiel :lol:

I just attempted to point out some flaws in the building, which if fixed would make it great.

Who made you the supreme judge on what's right or wrong with someone else's design? I can understand if you meant a flaw from a weight support or engineering standpoint, but on a matter of preference? See what you are not understanding is they are not flaws but things you would prefer to change and not everyone may agree with you (such as I). That makes it a personal opinion not a flaw that needs to be fixed.

Criticizing and demaning people who are attemting to create a better city

Is exactly what you've done by trashing the developer. I on the other hand have not trashed anyone for their opinion. I only say whether I agree or disagree and state the reasons why.

Thats my friend is called progress, nothing is perfect, and every great person should be open to criticism. Why? Beacuse listening to criticism makes things better. You on the other hand, will be happy with your autocentric, wasteful, unwalkable, unaffordable, and unsustainable city for a precious few who think that a pool in a condo is the Champ.

Again, this is a matter of opinion. You are free to criticize the design, but I won't because I disagree with you. Maybe I like your perception of "autocentric, wasteful, unwalkable, unaffordable, and unsustainable city". Do you get what I'm saying now? Also, do me the favor and try not to convince me that you are doing this for the sake of 'making things better'. If that's the case then take a more proactive approach and go work with a developer. This isn't the place to do that. Nice try though :)

I just dont understand your blatant defense of this building, what interest do you have in it.

I just like the way the goddamn building looks. So what. I'm not "defending" it. I'm just saying that I like it and I disagree with you. That's all. You're the one going crazy because I don't agree with you.

I dont understand you and Roark. Me and a few people have made valid complaints about these buildings. Youve dismissed them all or even failed to recognize them. I and other have shown images and others have even drawn diagrams about what could have been done. Yes, they are simple things, but god is in the details.... You guys could have just said, those are some valid points that would have made the building amazing and a building for the people.. Nevertheless, you got super defensive about a building that offers nothing to people who dont live there and really is nothing more than an egotistical building that contributes nothing to the city, except in taxes. You guys just keep insulting and defending something without any backing, just saying, oh he built it, let it stand. Maybe with some feedback the next Icon will be a real ICON.

Please read again what you wrote here and tell me whether you think it's your opinion or fact. You and the others that have made complaints are only giving your opinion. That's what you don't get. What makes you think you're right and I'm wrong?

Thank you for the photos. I agreed with you that they maybe could have put access doors from the lobby directly to the park (if possible), but I also don't think it's such a big deal since you can get there by just walking out one of the main entrances. I'm also considerate enough to contemplate that maybe due to emergency or security purposes they could not do that. You on the other hand went off on a rant and demeaned the developer without ever even stopping to acknowledge that maybe it wasn't possible due to some other circumstances.

Miami, Like Quantum said is a teenager, and like EVERY teenager, needs some advice and feedback..... You guys are just trying to silence that feedback.

...our comments are being made because we believe that things could be even better.

If you want to see things built more towards your taste, then I don't blame you for voicing your opinion. But that doesn't mean that I should join you if I like things the way they are. You are having a hard time realizing that what you prefer is your opinion and not neccessarily better or a fact. Therein lies your problem.

ICON contributes zilch to the city...

...I think the buildings are gorgeous, and yes, they interact with the bay

So are they gorgeous and worth at least something/anything or is it zilch? For someone with alot of criticism you contradict yourself alot also.

any architect will tell you that architecture is more than massing and planning, its a strict adherance to detail...... In an urban environemnt, that means contributing to the creation of safe and enjoyable streets. ICON does not do that

How would you know what constraints the architect did or did not have? Maybe the problem with the design is that they did adhere to all the details and precautions in order to make it as safe as possible and that is what may have prevented them from putting in all the little things you like. Who knows? Or maybe the developer likes it best the way he did it. Who are you to say your opinion counts more than his or anybody elses?

You accusse me of being a hater just because I dont like a building and expected something that we could all enjoy.... You are the one that is a hater, not even willing to listen, process, and go research what people are saying. We are not saying terrible things

I never said you are saying terrible things. All I been saying (repeating actually) is the same thing. I like the way it is and you don't. Okay lets move on. But you couldn't accept that. You want to fight me and anyone else in here who disagrees with you. You make it seem like you are angry because I enjoy the building and you don't. So what else am I supposed to think? I think it was only natural of me to think you were just hating. If that offends you then sorry charlie.

Endeavour the reason why you dont understand why we think this site could have been better planned could be because you are not an architect, but maybe I am wrong

Well, you're right about me not being an architect. But do I need to be in order to give my opinion of the building? The guy who designed Icon is an architect. So what are you even saying?

Dudes, just the fact thats its a massive condo development with super expensive units and a tiny hotel component shows how one sided and poorly planned this site was....

Getting pretty tired of repeating myself here so I will just let Jeffrey speak on my behalf...Your Opinion Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck)

This project will be a huge black eye for Related, financially speaking...

Oooohhh really? Financially speaking huh? But not from an architectural reputation standpoint? Way to go out on a limb there "dude". Earth to Exploratus...any large scale project that is coming online in the middle of this major financial crisis (caused mainly by toxic mortgages no less) is going to take a hit...financially speaking :). This in no way is a reflection of the quality or design of the project, which is what you are criticizing. You are trying to conveniently tie in the circumstances of the times to enhance your opinion that the building is poorly designed. There is no direct connection between the two and the design is still a matter of opinion.

My architect friend from Miami came about a month ago and he couldnt believe how poorly planned many buildings in downtown are. Buildings dont take care of important corners, building leave massive huge parking structures exposed. Man, the entire back side of the biscayne wall is a travesty... Its absurd... Go ahead, defend those too.

Your friend came in from the same city he lives in??? :bash: This sounds like a "paquete" story to me (spanish speakers know what I mean). Anyways, your friend happens to have the same OPINION as you. He just happens to have the same taste as you, which is probably why you guys are friends. That doesn't mean he's right even if he is an architect. Or! Maybe as a friend he heard you whining and complaing so much and decided to agree just to cheer you up (most likely couldn't take the bitching anymore). You never know hehehehe. Also, has your architect friend ever worked on a project on the same scale as Icon? Think about it.

I also just have to say that I am really enjoying this. We are all passionate and there is no resentment... That is great and quite enjoyable. Id rather be talking to you guys who are interested in the subject than my girlfriend who doesnt really care. :) Peace and love to all!

Same here. This one was especially fun :banana:

Exploratus

January 30th, 2009, 08:48 PM

Endevour. I agree with one thing you said, my statement that you are wrong shouldnt have been said.

Anyways, a building such as this will never be built in downtown Miami if Miami 21 passes. It does many (not every) of the things that Miami-21 is trying to right. I dont think my ideas are that crazy....

Oh yeah, when I said the "Miami architect friend" I meant to say my Mexican architect friend that came to Miami. eheheheh :)

Endeavor305

January 30th, 2009, 08:57 PM

mileageman

January 30th, 2009, 09:32 PM

QuantumX

January 30th, 2009, 10:11 PM

Just want to make a quick clarification on my use of the word 'fag' the other day since it's seems to have ruffled a few feathers around here (which has me wondering why now). Apparently it isn't such a bad word if all of you keep repeating it.

Anyway, when I say fag I mean it in the sense of a guy who acts like a girl or a bitch. I'm not refering to homosexuality or someone's sexual preference. It's kinda like queer. It just so happens that alot of guys that act faggish or queer are homosexuals, but they are separate of each other. And yes Q there are some guys that are big and strong that could probably beat me up who happen to be homosexual, but they are not fags if they're not acting like women. At least not out in public :)

Endeavor305, I understand perfectly well where you are coming from and I feel the same way about the behavior of certain men. It's just that here in the forum, there is a way to express your opinion without resorting to name-calling and derogatory remarks. When I spoke of lowering the level of conversation in the forum, I was speaking of Exploratus' comment as well about producing a little Icon Brickell statue out of his butt because when you guys start talking this way, you come off as not being as worldly and sophisticated as others might have otherwise thought you were. I just want to keep the forum something we can all be proud of. :)

Aceventura

January 30th, 2009, 10:43 PM

The professional, and highly successful architects that built Icon,

I am interested to see the service elevator and service floor layout, to see if they got it even close to right. I would like to see Epic also.

Every large luxury hotel/condo I have seen has put a low priority on providing the best possible service to rooms. The buildings put the service employees at a disadvantage instead of putting them in a position to succeed.
Certain departments within a division being too far from each other, departments too far from the elevators, not enough elevators, or the need to share elevators with contractors are some of the design issues that can build up and slow service to guests if department heads are not on constant alert.

The Viceroy management in place will overcome despite any design flaws, I would like to see what obstacles they will have to overcome.

AddictedToSpace

January 31st, 2009, 01:51 AM

http://miamitodaynews.com/news/090129/fyi.shtml

CIRCLE OF SILENCE: What if Miami had a National Historic Landmark and no one knew about it? That's what occurred with the ancient Miami Circle, which the US Department of Interior declared a National Historic Landmark in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration. The site's local management agency, the Historical Museum of Southern Florida, never got formal notice from the federal government. But after it did learn of the designation it decided to stay mum until it could privately notify museum members and supporters. But after more than a week of keeping the news about the Tequesta Indian site to themselves, museum officials got a press inquiry Monday and decided to share the development with the public. "In hindsight we probably should have gotten this information out sooner," said Victoria Cervantes, the museum's external affairs manager, conceding that the public's more than $25 million investment in the circle gives it a big stake in its future.

Roark

January 31st, 2009, 06:21 AM

CIRCLE OF SILENCE:
It is aggravating.
Exploratus is onto something.
If instead of taking $25 Million dollars from taxpayers and trusting the government to make something of the Miami Circle, the government allowed Icon to integrate the property/design of the government property into the private property.
Politicians/beauracrates didn't make the United States great, the people did.

The Miami Circle is incomplete because of government. Not because of Icon.
Given the opportunity and a clear path people like Exploratus, myself, Perez, etc, would have a very nice park, baywalk, and riverwalk.
Left to the government, nothing has been done for years and years and years.
The government is in the way....again.

Exploratus

January 31st, 2009, 06:27 PM

I would say its incomplete because of a lack of cooperation between the two entities. As Roark has said it is not ICON's responsabilty to take make sure a quality park goes there, nevertheless it is in its interest... It will only make it that much more af an attractive place to visit and live in...

Roark

February 1st, 2009, 06:30 PM

I would say its incomplete because of a lack of cooperation between the two entities.You can say that, but you seem to keep the complaining directed to ICON and giving everyone else a pass.
Developers are always looking for ways to enhance their property, especially when they can leverage a park.
You are not sitting on a guarded secret.
As Roark has said it is not ICON's responsabilty to take make sure a quality park goes there, nevertheless it is in its interest... It will only make it that much more af an attractive place to visit and live in...The point that you made is very obvious.
What apparently isn't obvious to you is that the government has BOTH, the incentive AND the responsibilty. It is OUR taxpayer money.
Imagine Icon is your property and you really want to make a great project and you have to "cooperate" with this guy!
Quote from Miami Herald article:
Bob McCammon, the history museum's president, says the national landmark designation from the U.S. secretary of the Interior will open the door to potential federal grants for the circle site. He's counting on Related CEO Jorge M. Perez to come through with money.
''Tell Jorge he can send us whatever they spent on wrapping those columns with whatever they're calling those things,'' McCammon said, referring to the Easter Island heads.
Tell Jorge to send us.... Wow, just send me money partner while I mock you in the press.
Really?
No wonder there isn't a good park there. They say it takes two to Tango, but one bad partner can screw up the whole dance.

Exploratus

February 1st, 2009, 07:22 PM

Yeah. Roark. I agree. The park is the ultimate responsability of the city. Still, there are many things I do in life that sometimes, for the better of things, I just have to swallow. I am not trying to be all deep and philosophical here. All I am saying is that we ALL know how poorly run govt is, and sometimes, to get things done, you just got to do it yourself, whether its "fair" or not. Govt does have incentive and responsability, but come on Roark, its the govt..... We all know how govt operates....
ICON can ignore the park to the north, nevertheless IMO it will affect sales temporarily and just makes the whole site not look as good or complete.... IMO Icon should have been pushing the city to develop the park. I know there are many logstics involved, nevertheless, the cost involved are minimal compared to cost of the whole project. My guess, if it costs 1 or 2 million (additional contribution to the city funds already there) out of 1 billion, its only .1 or .2 % of the ICON budget. That aint to bad and is a minimal cost for something ICON could pitch as an added bonus or urban amenity.....
It seems to me that ICON was more interested in using the site to help them out with construction (wasnt the site used to help out the construction?) that to use it as a waterfront park.
I am hopeful in the end it will all be great, still, I am a little impatient probably cuz I live right down the street and I want to enjoy the park and and bay walk there. hehe

Exploratus

February 1st, 2009, 07:27 PM

I think the guy asked Perez for the money because Perez said he would make sure that park was finished and would help out with it, but maybe I am wrong. I, like him, was under the impression that Related would contribute financially and logistically to the parks creation. Maybe I am wrong, but that is the impression I got when the project was first announced and pitched to the city..

Endeavor305

February 1st, 2009, 08:31 PM

Maybe Jorge Perez is playing hard ball with the city as far as contributing, but still that McCammon guy was very unprofessional with his remark. How can a person that is the history museum president say something like that. To me that is immediate grounds for removal from his position. Not to mention, it isn't very smart to say something like that when you are still looking to deal with them.

Architek

February 1st, 2009, 08:49 PM

Toucano

February 1st, 2009, 11:37 PM

If I remember correctly when icon recieved approval, the city made many conditions with him about the circle site, including sprucing it up in return for using a piece of land as a construction staging area...so I believe the jorge owes them, whether or not he contributed already i dont know.

Nope - that was brickell park - the one to the south - there is no way the circle would have ever been used as a staging area...

Roark

February 2nd, 2009, 08:57 PM

Yeah. Roark. I agree. The park is the ultimate responsability of the city. Still, there are many things I do in life that sometimes, for the better of things, I just have to swallow. I am not trying to be all deep and philosophical here. All I am saying is that we ALL know how poorly run govt is, and sometimes, to get things done, you just got to do it yourself, whether its "fair" or not. Govt does have incentive and responsability, but come on Roark, its the govt..... We all know how govt operates....It's actually the State of Florida, not the city. I realize that the government isn't efficient, but they don't and shouldn't get a free pass from me. There is no doubt that Related would have wanted to have a nice park there, and I'm sure they tried.
The % of budget issue is a little silly, but since you brought it up, what is the % of cost of the park compared to the State of Florida's park budget.
The fact is, is that the State of Florida has owned the Miami Circle for years and years, and years and I'm not aware of any master plan or proposals for the park. I can assure you that if the Icon architects had any idea where the access roads, garbage bins, parking spaces were going to be in the Park they would have complimented/designed within those parameters.
I'm simply not going to heap all the blame on a developer that is CREATING wealth for the government, when the shortcomings of government are mostly to blame for that abysmal park. The government has cost us a great opportunity for an exceptional park. Hey! Let's give them some more money!

prican

February 2nd, 2009, 10:27 PM

Roark

February 3rd, 2009, 12:01 AM

Whats lost in all this discussion is the closing rate in Icon. I have it from sources in the project that they have closed only 20 units: 16 cash and 4 financed. MOL...
Banks are shying away from lending because of the condo hotel factor..
Welcome aboard!
Thanks for the info...terrible numbers.
"Shying away" is a huge understatement. There are a large combination of factors contributing to the abominal closing rate though.

Endeavor305

February 3rd, 2009, 12:26 AM

only 20? ouch!

Exploratus

February 3rd, 2009, 07:33 PM

Roark, you didnt need to convince me that govt sucks. You dont need to state how long the park was abandoned or how long the parks dept has had. We know this and it has alredy been commonly accepted for a long long time. Govt sucks, you know it, I know it, Perez knows it, even govt knows it.

I guess our opinion differs on your statement saying "I am sure they tried". I think if they tried they would have achieved it. I dont think they really tried, I think,(by seeing the layout and emphasis on the automobile and lack of pedestrian interaction and options) that they were happy to have a rather isolated bldg.

Roark

February 4th, 2009, 01:07 AM

Roark, you didnt need to convince me that govt sucks. You dont need to state how long the park was abandoned or how long the parks dept has had. We know this and it has alredy been commonly accepted for a long long time.
"We"? Oh...okay. Well, in your litany of complaints about Icon, you included
----the access road to the Miami Circle
----the seawall in the Miami Circle park
----the interaction of the bridge with pedestrians
----the lack of shade trees on the sidewalk

NOT ONE of those things are within the property or the control of ICON.

So, I'll repeat the point again. IF you are going to complain about the things that are wrong with ICON, THEN make sure to complain about ICON, not the myriad of things owned and operated by someone else.
It isn't a matter of opinion whether Related tried to work with the Miami Circle people, Related tried.

Endeavor305

February 4th, 2009, 01:21 AM

It's like saying if you tried, you would have gotten the padlock removed from the fence on the riverwalk. You sent that letter on Jan 20th!!! FDOT is still trying to figure out what fence you were writing about. And it is just a padlock!!

Yea, but if he REALLY tried, the lock would be off by now ;)

Exploratus

February 4th, 2009, 07:26 PM

No need to get harsh and over defensive Endevour. Geez...

And the fence lock will come off. Like I said Endevour, now for the third time, stop assuming what I say or do... You can ask me. You dont have to assume things to insult me... Not nice.. I have stayed on top of it, and sent two more emails to clarify which fence it was... I do believe, that the fence will come down... You must remember, I didnt even send the email to the right place, it was forwarded to the right people by the river authority...

Endeavor305

February 4th, 2009, 07:38 PM

Ive been sending back and forth emails to clarify which fence it was, and I believe it will be done. It might take a little while but it will be done...

I see a double standard here. It might take awhile to try and get a little lock and fence opened, but let's rip Jorge Perez for not having a multimillion dollar park project farther along. Hmmmm :bash:

Exploratus

February 4th, 2009, 08:05 PM

Endeavor305

February 4th, 2009, 08:25 PM

Yeah Endevour. Comparing my 12 day long mission to get a fence open to the 4 year old contruction site of a 1 billion dollar supposedly landmark project by one of the most powerful people in Miami makes a lot of sense.

I think the comparison is fair. It's a matter of proportion. You, a non influential person (as you suggest), trying to get a little fence that costs peanuts removed compared to Jorge Perez, a powerful developer in Miami, trying to get a multimillion dollar park project done. I think the ratio is similar. If anything it would lean more in favor of Jorge Perez since the park looking like crap doesn't help sales in ICON which in turn hurts his pocket. On the flip side, the fence doesn't affect your pocket (unless you're planning to open up a hot dog stand along the riverwalk :))

Ill let you know when the fence comes down.... :)

Please do, thanks!

Aceventura

February 6th, 2009, 02:37 AM

(unless you're planning to open up a hot dog stand along the riverwalk :))

Hmmmm......

http://www.neworleanscondotrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/lucky-dogs-in-new-orleans.JPG

Roark

February 6th, 2009, 07:49 PM

This should continue in the Miami River thread, but it is very pertitent to the discussion about my comment that "Related tried" to work with the state.
Exploratus said that he didn't think that they really tried.
Exploratus sent and e-mail on Janurary 20th 2009, requesting that the fence under the Florida Department of Transportation be removed.
It is now Feburary 6, 2009 (17 days later) and FDOT is still doesn't even know what fence he was referring to.
These e-mails are to remove a pad lock from a fence. 17 days later, the State of Florida is still trying to get input from the County Archiologist. !?!?!!?

Can you imagine trying to deal with the State of Florida when you are trying to build a 1,600 unit waterfront structure??

Reading about architecture, and all the wonderful things that professors profess are fine and dandy. The real world presents different challenges.
I am still certain that Related tried to work with the State to create some harmony with that park. The same way Related tried with the city to put $4M in art work on the Miami River Greenway in front of One Miami.

17 days to remove a padlock....no, I take that back....17 to find out where the padlock is, we are still waiting to see if they can take it down.

Again, I think Related tried to work with them...but you can't shut your project down for 3 days, or 17 days, or God knows how many days. If it didn't so cripple the political agenda and Governments lust for control, we the people should have just given Related a 10 year lease for $1 with the stipulation that he fix the seawall, build a museum, and maintain the property for that time. Related would gladly invest the money to make it viable, complementary, and useful.
Of course, people would still complain, but we'd have a nice park.

Exploratus

February 6th, 2009, 10:15 PM

Endeavor305

February 6th, 2009, 11:47 PM

First you guys (Roark and Endevour) were defending the urban/architectural criticisms of this building, saying nothing was wrong with the building. Now that you realize that the building does have some "challenges" you blame the shortcoming of the building on govt. You also blame its shortcomings on the site and its constraints, where in reality it is a FABULOUS SITE with so much missed potential.

Woah woah woah, hold on there tiger. I've never recanted what I said, not even a little, that Icon is great overall in my opinion. Is it perfect? No and I never said that. But my opinion still remains the same that it's a great design and building. I give it a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10.

When we first started debating about Icon the topic was its design. Your opinion was you thought it was designed poorly. I don't understand where you got the idea that I blamed Icon shortcomings on the government. ??? Especially when I don't think there are any major shortcomings, in my opinion.

I understand how you confused yourself though. You switched the topic to the park. When we started discussing the park, you put the blame for its poor condition on Related. This is where I (as well as Roark) tried to explain to you that Related tried and was willing to help, but the blame lies with the gov't since they are the ones that control the park. Somehow you took this and spun it into something totally different. As I start this sentence, I still cannot understand how you mistook the gov't's lack of action on the park into me saying that the building has shortcomings. ???

And yes planning and approvals take time, but it usually seems to take the gov't longer to get their own projects approved. Why? Developers pay for approval and permits to develop THEIR land up front. The city also increases property tax revenues on the back. So there are big incentives for the city, county and their politicians to have developers build. Where's the incentive for the city on spending millions on a park? None directly.

I agree with Roark when he says if the gov't really cared about the park being developed then they should have leased it over to Related under the conditions they fix and maintain it.

Roark

February 7th, 2009, 04:22 AM

Roark. This is really laughable. Whenever anyone deals with govt there is an expected delay in time. When you open a restaurant, when you try to install a gas line, when you open a business, when you get a govt fence open, or anything else. It takes 30-45 days just to get a restaurant plan review in Florida. Laughable?
What a shame. I thought this was a teachable moment.
You'd expect architectural students to open-minded and curious.
You aren't at all disgusted with the way that the Miami Circle has been handled on the gov't side?
Instead, you place the anger/frustration/criticism at the developer.
Some would say that it is typical class envy that might be indoctrinated in a New York liberal college. That couldn't possibly be the case could it?
This again, we all know. Whatever amount of time it takes, most of these things are eventually done.Really? Are you going to use as an example the Miami Circle to prove your point?
Then why are you whining, complaining about Related and the way that the building interacts with the park.
If I were a whiner and complainer, I'd be complaining that the State of Florida missed a golden opportunity to work with Related to have as nice a park (or better) as the riverwalk in front of One Miami.

GOVT did NOT impede (except for zoning- and even then there is variances) them from anything, they built what they wanted there, the EXACT same thing they rendered in their pictures. This is a fact.Really? A fact.
Can you provide one iota of evidence?
Have you seen a master plan for the Miami Circle site?
It's been over 5 years...
You are still directing your anger at Related? Seems twisted and misguided.
Like you guys said, they were more worried about the Champ pool deck.Who is "you guys"? You started this post addressed to Roark, and Roark never said anyone was worried about a pool deck.
What the hell are they teaching you kids. Find the argument, and stick to it.
Govt was a willing partner that was eager to have RELATED contribute to the neighborhood.
#1 Do you have one iota of evidence to support that or are you just making it up?
#2 What Govt are you referring to?
Experienced and fair thinking people know that Related has a long history of consistently addressing pedestrian interaction with their projects. Suddenly, Exploratus, and his hatred for rich people pools, believes that Related throws that out the window?
Related didnt seem to mind to pull all kinds of special permits to close the park for 3 years and use it as a staging ground??? Didnt they have to interact with govt to get that done?Ummm....yes....the City Government.
I don't want to insult the intelligence that you are sure you have but, do you know the difference between City, State, and Federal Government?

Just think for a minute. Really. Think. Think about One Miami. Related did a great job working on the pedestrian interaction with the waterfront.
If they were able to create that same vibe at Miami Circle.
Again and again and again Exploratus, they tried.
You can whine, complain, and whine some more, but the fact is that they tried. Related would have loved the opportunity to make something great there. The State of Florida didn't move as fast as they should have.

The good thing is buildings like these will not be allowed when Miami-21 passes. Hmmm....really. I'm sure you have thought Miami 21 all the way through, like you have thought the FDOT fence all the way through and the anyone who would suggest the Icon pool was inspired by the Champs has never been to Paris comment all the way through.

As you criticize developers and continually champion government burearacy and even accept gov't and give them a free pass, understand that the Government's Miami 21 plan won't allow some really great and creative offerings.
As an Architectural student, wouldn't it be interesting to learn what doers think?
I'm sure your Professors are good, but you know what they say, "Those that can't do, teach."

Hia-leah JDM

February 7th, 2009, 05:59 AM

This is refraining from you're discussion with Exploratus, but why does Miami 21 not allow that building . What exactly in it limits devlopments like those?

Endeavor305

February 7th, 2009, 08:11 AM

This is refraining from you're discussion with Exploratus, but why does Miami 21 not allow that building . What exactly in it limits devlopments like those?

We'll let Roark answer this, but I'll take a guess at what he means. I think he is suggesting that Miami 21's zoning regulations will ultimately not allow for anything unconventional or make it economically unfeasible. The design will be restricted in order to abide by Miami 21 standards/zoning. In essence, those standards will make an unconventional design unallowed or too expensive.

Roark

February 7th, 2009, 08:41 AM

This is refraining from you're discussion with Exploratus, but why does Miami 21 not allow that building . What exactly in it limits developments like those?Frankly, it seemed ludicrous when it was explained to me by the staff. Evidently, Miami 21 has rigid guidelines for setbacks and step backs. It was presented, and the feedback that I received was, "Expedite that, because that will never get done under Miami 21 because it doesn't step back enough from the street."
That staffer was clearly anti-Miami 21...he was recently fired.
You are either with the program or fired. It's a new age of change.
As anyone can see from the renderings, this building addresses the people and the pedestrian.
But like many Hope and Change political agendas, the Miami 21 will capture many fans that don't even have a clue about the details that form the policy that they are screaming, rooting, and shivering for.
And, for this Miami 21 post, we check the "show your signature" box...not that it will convert the loonies, but that the loonies know they are loony.

Endeavor305

February 7th, 2009, 09:29 AM

I see this project has had some direct affect on you...as also evidenced in your avatar. I have to say, if they build that thing it would be the badest of the badass buildings here in Miami. A design like that doesn't even need to be a supertall to take that award.

spellbound

February 7th, 2009, 11:41 AM

Just two (semi) quick points:

First, if that post about only 20 closings at ICON is accurate (and I have no idea if it is or isn't) then that in itself is the biggest issue in the here and now, isn't it? A project that size being basically a big, empty box devoid of life supercedes any temporary concerns about what the developers did/didn't get right. Those are VERY sobering numbers, if true, and a dark building is more troubling than fixable peripherals. We can't just live in an imagined future where everything is humming with activity just like it was promised in the sales brochures and nifty website videos. The people in those are computer-generated fantasy. We need more of the real thing.

Second, there ISN'T any black and white absolutes when it comes to developers rights versus government oversight---which I think this thread is peripherally about at this point. You could exhaust yourself writing about grotesque abuse from either perspective and never run out of examples to buttress your point. Both need regulation and parameters because both are equally capable of abusing unfettered power. There's obviously no perfect equilibrium within that dynamic but I would look towards someplace like Chicago as at least TRYING to get it right. Very strong tradition of being pro-development but ALSO quasi-independant design review (you know, those "college types") that look out for the city's best interests from a variety of perspectives and are able to extract meaningful concessions that benefit the greatest number without sandbagging construction.

A city that is truly confident in itself NEVER allows developers to run amok without oversight---nor does it gum up the works with useless, overzealous regulation that ultimately leads to stagnation. It's a balancing act---but one that is crucial to maintain.

Exploratus

February 7th, 2009, 03:35 PM

Some things Miami - 21 will not allow.

(this applies to T6 areas in downtown and brickell)
Driveways greater in size than 30' (about), distance between autotomotive driveays is at least 60', you cant have blank walls or blank parking lot walls (like 90% of new Miami bldgs), like 70-or 80% of a bldgs walls need to occupiable space at ground level, ( windows, door, retail), mandating garage liners of occupiable space to get rid of huge parking lots), setbacks, step back of bldgs as the ascend, and much much more. Of course, the closer you are to downtown and urban areas the more rigid it is, and the further away the more setbacks and less urban things need to be. )Some of these are approx., from what I remember)

It also gives ideas on how people should form public spaces, gives guidelines on green space, and changes the formula for how developers are allowed to zone a bldg and how many floors or units they are allowed to use. For example, if you are within 500 or 1000' (dont remember for a metrorail or metromover) and are T-6 you dont have to include parking in the bldg as a developer, which is not an option under the current zoning code that allows for more freedom and cheaper buildings. It also provides exceptions if you are with X feet of a bus, so you can have less parking in the bldg. Basically, it frees developers and architects from HAVING to build massive parking garages for every bldg. It also pushes for a lot of more pedestrian friendly elements such as Arcades. Pedestrian arcades, which are a great and very old Miami element, are basically impossible to implement in Miami now a days properly due to current zoning. Thats why many of the pedestrian arcades (like some of the bldgs north of downtown in Biscayne) are disconnected and setback from the actual sidewalk, rather than part of the actual sidewalk as in Europe. Another thing is it mandates that large blocks need to have pedestrian passage for circulation and incirporates LEED in a sense. (Think of the proposed paseos in WorldCenter)

In some parts it actually allows greater height.

Miami 21 does not dictate design or limit any developer or architect from designing a great building. What it does do, it prevents architects and developers from designing buildings that ignore one or more sides of the property. Buildings like Marina Blue, 900, or Marquis would have had to put liner units on their parking lots. The wall behind biscayne would have had to have retail, residences, and the massive unsighlty garage entrances would have to be better integrated and more pedestrian firiendly. ICON would have to put doors and windows and stores on the park fronts, and Plaza on brickell would not have been allowed to put a massive 10 story garage wall on Brickell Bay Drive. The goal is to move the City of Miami to become a more pedestrian oriented city.

Of course, there is variances and ways to get things changed if needed.

If you like WORLDCENTER, that was designed following Miami 21 zoning code. Midtown Miami is a similar idea, but not Miami 21. Worldcenter in fact owes much of its pedestrian coolness to following certain Miami 21 standards. The European type pedestrian spaces in Worldcenter (the Square for example) which are typically defined by buildings ar eout of the pages of Miami 21. Miami 21 is very flexible... Nevertheless, in downtown cores with high densities, it expects buildings to be responsible and responsive to the needs of the pedestrian. Huge blank parking garages and entire sides of bldgs without a single pedestrian door or window are just not cool.

You guys can go through the website. All the codes and changes are in there, Ive already read through it all various times and designed some buildings for it over the last couple of years... The code is not limiting at all... Its funny that Endevour and Roark are highly critical of it, but never opened a page of the code. I think change is desperately needed. Look at Brickell Bay drive for example, its a canyon of parking garages that terminates on the north side into a . . . parking garage... and on the south side into a . . . driveway with parking garage above... The entire street of brickell Bay drive, which is mostly developed is an automotive wet dream. The back of the biscayne wall (for the first 10 floors) is the same thing...

I want to clarify spellbound, I never advocated greater oversight or greater government. Never once. What I am advocating is for more civic duty and responsability towards the pedestrian from developers of MASSIVE buildings in a dense urban envioronment... Actually, for developers of any building in an urban environemnt. This is not the suburbs after all, its not Aventura.

http://www.miami21.org/PDFs/0425-Q1-18-Elkus_Manfredi_11-27-07_rev.pdf (Case Study notice the proposed passage through the middle of the bldg for pedestrians)
http://www.miami21.org/PDFs/0425-Q1-18-Nichols%20Brosch%2011-30-07.pdf (Bldg heigt a little smaller but there is no massive parking garage facing the street)

http://www.miami21.org/PDFs/0425-Q1-18-Revuelta%2011-30-07_revised.pdf (Minor changes)

Most of Downtown is a T6. http://www.miami21.org/T6_TypesPage.asp

Of course it has people who oppose it, like anything else in life. :)

Exploratus

February 7th, 2009, 05:57 PM

Laughable?
You aren't at all disgusted with the way that the Miami Circle has been handled on the gov't side?
Yes. I am, nevertheless, that is besides the point. WHY?? Because even if the park is fixed in two years, the interaction of ICON with the Parks and street STILL SUCKS!!!!! Put the best park ever, and there is still going to be a service entrance over 100' long with massive trucks and garbage trucks!

Instead, you place the anger/frustration/criticism at the developer.
Yes, they built the 1 billion dollar building.... They had the crews and architects to do anything they wanted. Am I angry at govt also? Yes...
Some would say that it is typical class envy that might be indoctrinated in a New York liberal college. That couldn't possibly be the case could it?
No, I never went to a liberal arts college in NY. Hmm... I was in the Navy nevertheless Mr Conservative... (if we are going to be throwing labels around) Envy huh? Ouch, you cut me deep.... hahaha.

Really? Are you going to use as an example the Miami Circle to prove your point?
Then why are you whining, complaining about Related and the way that the building interacts with the park.

You are the one that keeps using the Miami Circle to prrove your point.
The Miami Circle and the way the building interacts with it are TWO different things. Dont you understand that? When the parks gets built the interaction of ICON will STILL SUCK.. Yes, I wish the park was better but it will get done, the buidling's interaction with it will always be poor. They are two different things, dont you get it???? One is completely under ICONS control (the footprint of the bldg near touching the park), the other could have been if they wanted (the actual park). Both arent necessary but would be nice, what I am directing at Related is the interaction, the way the building lands at ground level, not the way the park looks. For example, the park on the southside is finished, but most of the ICON interaction with it is weak. (Except at the riverwalk). On the northside, it will be even worst... Nothing but bldg service doors, utility, gas tanks, and even a 100'+ truck delivery area for the bldg.. Even if you put a 100 million dollar park there, there will still be nasty utilities, a gas tank, and huge trucks delivering stuff facing the park...
Just because a building doesnt own the sidewalks and streets in front of it, doesnt mean that the building cannot front the street and sidewalks with store fronts, street level residences, windows, doors, and such. SAME THING for the park....

If I were a whiner and complainer, I'd be complaining that the State of Florida missed a golden opportunity to work with Related to have as nice a park (or better) as the riverwalk in front of One Miami.
They both missed a golden opportunity Roark. ICON also had a lot to gain, stop absolving ICON of everything. How can govt miss the opportunity, but ICON not? They both did. The ultimate responsability lies with the City, but as next door neighboor to the site, ICON has a very high vested interest. Therefore = both missed a golden opportunity.

Your faith in money making developers is a bit extreme. Developers and architects are responsible for some of the greatest buildings, but also for some of the worst....

Again roark, the complaint is not aimed at the riverwalk portion of the park. Its aimed at the interaction of the bldg at ground level with the park (s)..

Really? A fact.
Can you provide one iota of evidence?

Yes, they built basically the exact building that was rendered and proposed to the city... Related never complained or proposed a bldg (publicly) that was more responsive. Are you suggesting that Related attemted to give us an awesome reponsive urban site and the City/State govt didnt go along with it. Are you suggesting that Related wanted to fix the park and govt told them not to? Please clarify...

You are still directing your anger at Related? Seems twisted and misguided.
Who is "you guys"? You started this post addressed to Roark, and Roark never said anyone was worried about a pool deck.
What the hell are they teaching you kids. Find the argument, and stick to it.
I really dont know what you are talking about here. I think my argument has been very constant, and you are just babbling here. Us kids grandpa??? Again, this part escapes me...

#1 Do you have one iota of evidence to support that or are you just making it up?.

What am I making up??? Be specific.. They built what they wanted, got what they wanted... I didnt hear anyone at Related compalining.

#2 What Govt are you referring to??.
I think I was very clear in my post. Fed, State, and city. I KNOW there are different entities, and yes, Related had them all at the site. I know this is a bit confusing for you, but there are mechanisms for private industry to engage public govt.
There is no way they built that building without FDOT knowing about it and being informed. Govt is ALWAYS a willing partner in any construction, there is no way to build it without them. You need them to give you all the permits and inspections, to get water, electricity, etc. FPL, the water dept, the federal govt, the state, the city, the county, all are involved at one point or another..

Experienced and fair thinking people know that Related has a long history of consistently addressing pedestrian interaction with their projects. Suddenly, Exploratus, and his hatred for rich people pools, believes that Related throws that out the window??

Haha, experienced and fair people? Where do you come up with this stuff. It sound real nice, but what does it mean? You love to give your arguments validity by writing things that sound real nice.

Related has a fairly good history of pedestrain interaction on some projects. Yet others are terrible. Yes, they have contributed to the city. Still, that doesnt mean ICON is one of thos fabulous projects.

Related is not any fantabulous developer. They are out to make every penney they can make... They saw the value in investing in a ridiculously massive pool, but not the value in integrating with a FUTURE park... They did what they wanted. They did throw out great interaction out the window in favor of a resort and isolated Brickell lifestyle more typical of 80's condo design. You dont see this?

Ummm....yes....the City Government.
I don't want to insult the intelligence that you are sure you have but, do you know the difference between City, State, and Federal Government???
Then dont cuz I am not confused.... You seem confused and unable to read a whole statement. I know the difference very well and I know that to build that building, all three had to be contacted in some way... FDOT has to know and give persmission for the impact on the street. Federal govt had to give permission and permits to build a sea wall. I really dont know what this is supposed to mean? Why are you even saying this, any building on the bay and next to a state road or bridge involved the copperation of multiple entities? You dont understand this?? All I was saying is that when Related wanted (as one example, you want more?), they were able to pull permits when they wanted. Stop cherry picking parts of statements and process the entire post..

Just think for a minute. Really. Think. Think about One Miami. Related did a great job working on the pedestrian interaction with the waterfront.
If they were able to create that same vibe at Miami Circle.
Again and again and again Exploratus, they tried.
You can whine, complain, and whine some more, but the fact is that they tried. Related would have loved the opportunity to make something great there. The State of Florida didn't move as fast as they should have.

Again, how do you know they tried? They tried, they tried, they tried, you sound like a tired cheerleader.. Dude, give it up and go cash in your ICON propoting check... Perez never chipped in a penny of the money he was supposed to donate. Yeah, they tried.
Furthermore, AGAIN and AGAIN, the complaint is not about the park, its about the interaction of the building with the park. The way the bldg lands at ground level. When the park is fixed, the bldgs interaction will still suck. Even when the park is finished. That is the point... Related could have been a little more forward thinking.

Hmmm....really. I'm sure you have thought Miami 21 all the way through, like you have thought the FDOT fence all the way through and the anyone who would suggest the Icon pool was inspired by the Champs has never been to Paris comment all the way through..

Ive been going over the Miami 21 code for two years, probably a little more than you... Ive also designed some stuff in support of it.

When didnt I think the fence through? What does that mean?? I knew it would take a while, it hasnt even been that long. Govt moves slow, so what? That doesnt discourage the strong.. I found the right person to email and have kept in contact. What didnt I think through????

Champs comment? Alrady been addressed.

As you criticize developers and continually champion government burearacy and even accept gov't and give them a free pass, understand that the Government's Miami 21 plan won't allow some really great and creative offerings...

I never championed more govt beurocracy therefore I never continually championed govt beurocracy? What are you talking about? If anything, I champion greater responsability from the private industry in dense urban env. Furthermore, how do you know that Miami 21 wont allow some really great and creative offerings? Like which ones dude? Sounds like a blanket statement that just sounds nice for your argument. What are you talking about? You never even opened up the code.... I favor changing an antiquated zoning code for a new code that is more responsive and has learned from many of the new challenegs brought on by changes of the 20th century. Are you suggesting that the current code is adequate? I dont know, but by looking at the streets of our city, I see some obvious changes are needed. Furthermore, some of the changes in Miami - 21 are to remove ceratin govt rules that prohibit creativity in design. For example, our ridiculous car/people ratio that turns buildings into massive vehicle containers.

What free pass have I given govt? I saw a fence that needs to be removed and I expect govt to fix it. This is not a free pass in any way or form. IMO, its the complete opposite, putting the city to task.. Again, you say a lot of nice things that lack reality...

As an Architectural student, wouldn't it be interesting to learn what doers think?
I'm sure your Professors are good, but you know what they say, "Those that can't do, teach."

Ahh. I am not a student anymore, at a school at least. But I am a student of the real world.

And that little quote is rather narrowminded, there are some great teachers who have accomplished a lot. Furthermore, some teachers believe that teaching is doing. But from you Roark, I couldnt expect anything else.... How do you think knowledge gets passed on? You think teachers aren't doers?? Please, stop delighting us with your witty and nice sounding quotes and words, they dont make up in anyway for ICON's shortcoming.. Most of the time, they are not even relevant to the conversation...

You seem to like to throw nice little quotes around, nevertheless, they lack much substance in a real conversation. Us liberal college types, actually like to use something called logic..