Related just won approval to build a 37st tower, so that must be outside the eight block area.
NIMBYs win in Hollywood, 65 foot height limit on beach
HOLLYWOOD
65-foot height cap on horizon
City commissioners moved to slash the maximum height of new buildings on eight blocks of Hollywood beach.
BY JERRY BERRIOS
[email protected]
In a surprise move that will significantly restrict development on Hollywood beach, commissioners Wednesday voted to cut the maximum height of new buildings from 150 to 65 feet in an eight-block area.
The tentative approval drew cheers from about 100 gleeful residents in the City Commission chambers for the three-hour discussion. The measure requires a second vote slated for June 15.
Attorney Alan Koslow, who represents a proposed project on the Mirador hotel property in the newly restricted area said the commission was infringing on property rights. Bill Spencer, a second Mirador attorney, said the city may have opened itself up to a lawsuit.
''They reduced the height from 150 feet that has been there for years,'' Spencer said. ``. . . There would appear to be no basis for it.''
Hollywood commissioners reversed a previous vote that would have limited new buildings to 60 feet on five blocks -- from Van Buren to Madison streets between State Road A1A and Surf Road -- and implemented a ''stepped-down'' plan on three others, in which building height would be tiered to blend with existing buildings. Planning Director Jaye Epstein proposed that idea.
Many residents from the 24-story Summit Towers showed up on Wednesday to voice their concerns about traffic, safety, and keeping the beach's character.
''The Summit seems to be the bad guy here,'' said John LaMarche, president of the condominium association. ``But we didn't have anything to do with the planning.''
Summit resident Deborah Mihm said beautiful cities have low-rise development of six to eight stories. Her examples: Barcelona, Paris, Rome.
''It's how you do it,'' Mihm said.
Mayor Mara Giulianti said she came up with the 65-foot height limit originally when she noticed that beach properties were being gobbled up at exorbitant prices.
''That created an alarm for me,'' Giulianti said.
During the previous vote in April, Vice Mayor Cathy Anderson, who represents the beach, opposed the planning director's tiered proposal, because she wanted the entire area to have a maximum height of 65 feet.
This time, the majority of the commission agreed with her.
Commissioner Fran Russo was the dissenting vote.
65-foot height cap on horizon
City commissioners moved to slash the maximum height of new buildings on eight blocks of Hollywood beach.
BY JERRY BERRIOS
[email protected]
In a surprise move that will significantly restrict development on Hollywood beach, commissioners Wednesday voted to cut the maximum height of new buildings from 150 to 65 feet in an eight-block area.
The tentative approval drew cheers from about 100 gleeful residents in the City Commission chambers for the three-hour discussion. The measure requires a second vote slated for June 15.
Attorney Alan Koslow, who represents a proposed project on the Mirador hotel property in the newly restricted area said the commission was infringing on property rights. Bill Spencer, a second Mirador attorney, said the city may have opened itself up to a lawsuit.
''They reduced the height from 150 feet that has been there for years,'' Spencer said. ``. . . There would appear to be no basis for it.''
Hollywood commissioners reversed a previous vote that would have limited new buildings to 60 feet on five blocks -- from Van Buren to Madison streets between State Road A1A and Surf Road -- and implemented a ''stepped-down'' plan on three others, in which building height would be tiered to blend with existing buildings. Planning Director Jaye Epstein proposed that idea.
Many residents from the 24-story Summit Towers showed up on Wednesday to voice their concerns about traffic, safety, and keeping the beach's character.
''The Summit seems to be the bad guy here,'' said John LaMarche, president of the condominium association. ``But we didn't have anything to do with the planning.''
Summit resident Deborah Mihm said beautiful cities have low-rise development of six to eight stories. Her examples: Barcelona, Paris, Rome.
''It's how you do it,'' Mihm said.
Mayor Mara Giulianti said she came up with the 65-foot height limit originally when she noticed that beach properties were being gobbled up at exorbitant prices.
''That created an alarm for me,'' Giulianti said.
During the previous vote in April, Vice Mayor Cathy Anderson, who represents the beach, opposed the planning director's tiered proposal, because she wanted the entire area to have a maximum height of 65 feet.
This time, the majority of the commission agreed with her.
Commissioner Fran Russo was the dissenting vote.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
all the better... keep the development in miami, around mass transit and in the center of everything
Gleeful for one reason...This will artificially inflate thier property values BIGTIME over the coming years, just as such hieght restrictions such as this have consistently done all over the country for decades. Who wouldn't be happy when they just scammed thier local government into doling out a legislated windfall that will surely be tabulated in 6 figures, possibly 7?The tentative approval drew cheers from about 100 gleeful residents in the City Commission chambers for the three-hour discussion.
And with the state's silly property tax laws, these people will never have to shell out much more in taxes, no matter how much thier property appreciates over time... Talk about living life easy! Sit on thier land for a decade or so, sell it at a HUGE profit, rake in a few million, and who cares what the zoning allows then?
I'm sure that these seasoned citizens have more than just reason to effect development and the progress of a nation, but what an interesting study for the young folks. Whatever the reason, why does their vote effect what it is right.Jasonhouse said:Gleeful for one reason...This will artificially inflate thier property values BIGTIME over the coming years, just as such hieght restrictions such as this have consistently done all over the country for decades. Who wouldn't be happy when they just scammed thier local government into doling out a legislated windfall that will surely be tabulated in 6 figures, possibly 7?
And with the state's silly property tax laws, these people will never have to shell out much more in taxes, no matter how much thier property appreciates over time... Talk about living life easy! Sit on thier land for a decade or so, sell it at a HUGE profit, rake in a few million, and who cares what the zoning allows then?
Hey...young folk...do you want a pure democracy (that is where old folks in Hollywood vote against any new projects that might bring residents that might vote against them.) or would you like a reprsentative republic (what we have in the United States of America).
this isn't necessarily a bad thing...with the height limit, developers may be more willing to attempt creating structures that meet the street in a more urban fashion!...just an inkling I have
in a perfect world street, yes, that would b cool if this encouraged shorter, more urban developemnt
but u and I both know that this will just mean short, bulky, long horizontal buidlings sitting on top of big square parking garages set back 100 feet from the street without even a pedestrian walkway out onto the street...
but u and I both know that this will just mean short, bulky, long horizontal buidlings sitting on top of big square parking garages set back 100 feet from the street without even a pedestrian walkway out onto the street...
^I have a little more faith
well, this would definitely explain the deal in daytona beach shores and ponce inlet, here in central fla.
Hmm, well you guys got off better then we did. We have an ordinance banning anything over 30ft from the I-5 to the coast in San Diego (excluding downtown).
Still this isn't good news.
Still this isn't good news.
And probably less understanding of local zoning codes, which require that a development contain all of its own parking, and have certain setbacks. Combined with other conditions, it is basically gauranteed that squatty, gentrified slabs is what gets built.streetscapeer said:^I have a little more faith
How in the world does reducing the height limit increases the value??? :bash:Gleeful for one reason...This will artificially inflate thier property values BIGTIME over the coming years, just as such hieght restrictions such as this have consistently done all over the country for decades. Who wouldn't be happy when they just scammed thier local government into doling out a legislated windfall that will surely be tabulated in 6 figures, possibly 7?
And with the state's silly property tax laws, these people will never have to shell out much more in taxes, no matter how much thier property appreciates over time... Talk about living life easy! Sit on thier land for a decade or so, sell it at a HUGE profit, rake in a few million, and who cares what the zoning allows then?
The higher the limit, the more you can build, therefore the higher the value.
The height of the building has nothing to do with the streetscape. It has more to do with what you put on the ground level. A 50 story building with retail frontage is a lot more urban and pedestrian friendly than a 5 story building with a plain lobby.this isn't necessarily a bad thing...with the height limit, developers may be more willing to attempt creating structures that meet the street in a more urban fashion!...just an inkling I have
In Hollywood there is more supply (space) than there is demand. This would reduce the supply but wouldn't affect pricing because there would still be more supply than there is demand. Again in the urban areas this would reduce pricing. If I can only build 50 units on a lot instead of 100 units then the lot is therefore worth less. The only places were height restrictions increase value is when you have a mature markets and/or markets with boundaries like Manhattan or DC.It will increase THEIR home values as they will own a limited commodity. Duh.
Perhaps you misunderstood, the home value is what will be greater, not the land.
If you have space for 100 people but only have 10 people who want to be there, then reducing the space to an amount for 50 people doesn't increase value. And Hollywood is decades if not centuries away from that.
The people in Hollywood do stupid stuff like this because the old people don't like urbanization. How is a 65 foot building any different than a 150 foot building?
As I mentioned before its all about the building form not the the building height. The only thing the height limit does is decrease the density which works to make it less urban.
But most old people in Hollywood don't know anything about architecture or urban planning and are afraid the big bag developer.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
7660 Replies
calatravavx
2300 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1699 Replies
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!
