City Commission Declines to Decide on Flamingo Tennis Facilities

At its meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, the City Commission was unable to decide upon the configuration of Tennis Courts and Tennis Facilities.  The existing plan calls for 17 clay courts at Flamingo Park, was adopted by the Commission on September 9, 2009, and also approved by the CMB Historic Preservation Board.   Community advocates have called for 5 hard courts at Flamingo or at some other facility. 

The position of the Flamingo Park Association is Seventeen is ENOUGH.  One of the best presentations of this viewpoint was prepared by Steve Mouzon.  His blog may be accessed at ---

http://www.originalgreen.org/OG/Blog/Entries/2010/4/13_Parks_vs._Recreation_Centers.html

The article is also presented as follows:

The Original Green


Parks vs Recreation Centers

Parks are essential elements of vibrant and sustainable neighborhoods, while recreation centers get most of their DNA from super-sizing and sprawl. Both parks and recreation centers foster fitness activities, but there are several differences crucial to the health of the neighborhood and the greenness of the city.

Parks are places where people can enjoy countless outdoor activities. See the patch of grass the people above are sitting on? Earlier that morning, it might have been used for a pick-up softball game. After these people leave, a few kids might kick around a soccer ball. Later in the day, you might see a couple young lovers on a stroll along the shadows at the edge of the field. Most activities are relatively unplanned. Most often, park recreation planning goes something like “hey, let’s go down to the park and see if anyone wants to play ball,” like the guys in the picture below. You don’t have to pay admission or get permission to go to the park.



Recreation centers, other than the fact that they also involve physical activity, are quite the opposite. Recreation centers have extensive facilities for certain organized sports: a swimming pool, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.



Because recreation centers require major investments, they often have to charge admission of some sort to help pay back that investment. You also may need to be a member of the recreation center’s association to gain access. As a result, many of the activities in recreation centers occur behind walls or chain-link fences.



Once, a basketball court or two, a baseball diamond, a couple tennis courts, or even a soccer field were often tucked around the edges of many parks. More recently, however, our penchant for super-sizing everything, plus our deference to major sporting events that might happen only once or twice a year have resulted in the need to expand one or two of everything to dozens of everything. Two tennis courts are now no longer good enough... gotta have a couple dozen in order to possibly host a city-wide tournament at some point in the future. One baseball diamond? Forget it... gotta have eight so you can host a tournament there, too. There are several hidden problems with these super-sized recreation centers:







You can’t walk your dog on the tennis courts. Or in the swimming pool. Or on the basketball court. A tennis-focused recreation center, for example, is only useful to people who play tennis. Because recreation centers focus on single-use recreational uses (like sprawl does with land use in general,) they eliminate fields for dog-walking, tossing a frisbee, pick-up games of whatever you want to play, or just laying in the sun or sitting on the park bench watching the world go by.



Do we need specific-use recreational facilities like tennis courts, swimming pools, etc.? Of course. It’s just a question of proportion.



Here’s one of the problems with proportion: If only a fraction of the population within walking distance of a recreation center play tennis, then building enough tennis courts to hold a major tournament means that most of the people playing on those courts will have to drive to get there. There are several sustainability ramifications here: Most obvious is the fact that you’re burning a lot of gas to get there. But you also have to surround the recreation center with lots of parking for all the cars. Plus, you’re clogging the streets of the neighborhood with traffic. Also, because the recreation center doesn’t attract nearby neighbors for all the general-use stuff like dog-walking, you’re starving the neighborhood streets of pedestrians that would otherwise make the neighborhood more vibrant and safe as I described in this post.



There are a couple rules of thumb distinguishing between parks and recreation centers: First, parks are made up primarily of multi-use fields. This means that less than half of the space in a park should be dedicated to single-use recreational facilities. A much better number is less than one-fourth single use, with the vast majority being multi-use. Many great parks are completely multi-use.







There’s also the Grandstand Rule: If an activity needs a grandstand, it’s probably drawing a crowd from further around than just the neighborhood.

So is there a place for a recreation center? Yes: Out on the highway somewhere. They are large, expensive, sprawl-based facilities, but if your community can’t do without one, then put it where it belongs: where lots of traffic can get to it quickly and easily. But by all means, don’t put it in a neighborhood. It’s not a good neighbor. It needs to keep to itself.



Parks, on the other hand, are necessary parts of a sustainable neighborhood. Everybody should be within a five-minute walk of a park, and smaller playgrounds for kids should be scattered throughout the neighborhood so that every kid is within a two-minute walk of a playground. Town planners such as those at the Congress for the New Urbanism, of which I’m a member, support these park principles.



There is a growing threat to neighborhood parks today: they’re increasingly being eaten up for single-use recreational activities, so in effect, they’re being transformed into recreation centers right under our very noses! My own Flamingo Park in Miami Beach is in grave danger of this fate. Already, so much of the land has been given over to single-use activities that there are only two general-use fields left, and they constitute a ridiculously low percentage of the entire park. Now, the tennis advocates want to take one of those two fields so that they can add to the seventeen tennis courts they have already! Might as well change the name to the Flamingo Rec Center and build a new parking lot on the other remaining field to handle all the extra traffic!



~Steve Mouzon

City Commission to Decide Flamingo Tennis Facilities on Wed, April 14, 2010, sometime after 5pm

The City Commission will decide upon whether to adjust the Flamingo Park Tennis facilities at its meeting on Wed, Apr 14, 2010.  The discussion has been scheduled for sometime after 5pm along with a number of items of importance to the Flamingo neighborhood and other neighborhoods of the City, including consideration of an amendment to short term rental ordinance.  In Sep 2009, the Commission adopted a plan for 17 courts and a new Tennis Facility.  Controversy on whether the courts should be clay or hard surface has now led to a proposal to increase the number of courts.

The Historic Preservation Board at its last meeting approved the 17 court plan with the statement that the adopted plan fits the need for a balance in varied recreational facilities and green open space respite in a way that respects  the original plan for the park.

Our neighbor and member Wanda Mouzon shares with us the following article and thoughts:

Here is a link about Urban Parks and lists some of the great Urban Parks. I have been to all but 3 of them, and I agree that they are all examples of successful parks. The key to this success is in the definition. The larger and more dense the city, the more important it is to provide residents a place to escape into nature and experience trees, grass, flowers and the like. These parks depict the many ways that this "escape" can be realized and is often based on the local climate, topography, etc. The important point is that if we allow Flamingo park to be consumed by single use recreations, this escape to nature is lost and the primary purpose for an urban park is not even achieved!

http://architecture.about.com/od/landscapedesign/tp/cityparks.htm


Great City Parks
Landscape Design in City Parks and Urban Spaces
By Jackie Craven, About.com Guide

As cities grow, it has become important to set aside green space where urban dwellers can enjoy trees, flowers, lakes and rivers, and wildlife. Landscape architects work with urban planners to design city parks that integrate nature into an overall urban plan. Some city parks have zoos and planetariums. Some city parks encompass many acres of forested land. Other city parks resemble town plazas with formal gardens and fountains. Listed here are landmark examples of city park design.

Central Park in New York City1
Central Park in New York City was officially born on July 21, 1853 when the State legislature authorized the City to buy more than 800 acres. The enormous park was designed by America's most famous landscape architect, Frederick Law Olmsted.

Parque Güell in Barcelona, Spain
Spanish architect Antoni Gaudí designed Parque Güell (pronounced par kay gwel) as part of a residential garden community. The entire park is made of stone, ceramic, and natural elements. Today Parque Güell is a public park and a World Heritage monument.

Rock Creek Park in Washington D.C.
Rock Creek Park in Washington D.C. extends 12 miles from the Potomac River to the border of Maryland. With hiking trails, a planetarium, an amphitheater, a dock, and riding stables, Rock Creek Park offers a retreat from city life.

Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California6
Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California is a vast 1,013-acre urban park with extensive gardens, museums, and memorials. Once covered with sand dunes, Golden Gate Park was designed by William Hammond Hall and his successor, John McLaren.

Forest Park in Queens, New York7
Designed by Frederick Olmsted in the 1890s, Forest Park has 538 acres of trees and fields. Forest Park is located in the New York City neighborhood of Queens.

Balboa Park in San Diego, California8
Balboa Park in San Diego, California is sometimes called the "Smithsonian of the West" for the concentration of cultural institutions. Balboa Park encompasses 8 gardens, 15 museums, a theater, and the San Diego Zoo.

Manito Park in Spokane, Washington9
Manito Park in Spokane, Washington has a perennial garden, a rose garden, a conservatory with tropical plants, and a 3-acre formal European garden designed and built in 1913.

City Park in New Orleans10
Spanning about 1300 acres, City Park in New Orleans is one of the biggest urban parks in the USA. A highlight of City Park is the Bestoff Sculpture Garden.

Bryant Park in New York City11
Bryant Park in New York City is modeled after small urban parks in France. Bryant Park is located in mid-town Manhattan.

Cherokee Park in Louisville, Kentucky12
Amenities like A 2.4 mile scenic loop, a fenced dog park, and a bird sanctuary, make Cherokee Park in Louisville, Kentucky one of the most-visited parks in the USA.

To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://architecture.about.com/od/landscapedesign/tp/cityparks.htm

©2010 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.

Letter to Mayor and Commissioners: Seventeen is Enough!

Mayor Matti Bower and
Members of the City Commission
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139

Re: Flamingo Park Tennis Facilities

Dear Mayor Bower and Commissioners:

The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association favors the plan for tennis facilities adopted by the City Commission on September 9, 2009 and approved by the Historic Preservation Board at its last meeting.

The adopted plan calls for seventeen tennis courts and a new tennis building facility placed along the central axis across from the Swimming Pool. The plan was a result of well over a year of active professional input by Wolfberg Alvarez and extensive dialogue on what would be best for the whole community. Many, many options were considered and scores of meetings were held at the neighborhood and community level, in the Finance and City wide Projects Committee as well as discussion and action by the City Commission. We think a good result emerged and should be advanced into implementation.

SEVENTEEN IS ENOUGH!

As noted by the testimony and findings at the Historic Preservation Board, there are many uses and functions that are accommodated – even celebrated -- within Flamingo Park. It is important that these be balanced and guided by the history and aesthetic of the park plan. We have been advocates of the park as an important green open space amenity within a very urban, fully developed neighborhood. We certainly recognize the importance of the park as an active recreational venue and understand and support the goal of balancing the many intended uses and functions of the park. Seventeen courts certainly provide adequate tennis facilities for use by residents of the neighborhood and the City.

SEVENTEEN IS ENOUGH!

Flamingo Neighborhood Projects have experience substantial delay in implementation:  Delay in Flamingo stormwater drainage and water/sewage project while Ocean Drive is complete. Delay in Flamingo streetscape improvement projects while Washington Avenue is complete. Delay in the Flamingo Park project while South Point Park is complete.

We have been good neighbors and we have supported the bond issue and Ocean / Washington / SoFi communities, but surely our turn has come. Reopening this project to additional discussion, planning and redesign will result in another delay of work in our neighborhood. If even more courts are needed we would support the City in its expressed intention to fund such additional courts on school property, on the Par Three property, at Polo Park and/or elsewhere. Certainly, we too want what’s very best for our school children, as well.

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS FOR FLAMINGO -- SEVENTEEN IS ENOUGH!

It’s just good business to make a plan and then implement it. It’s just good government to move from the adopted plan into project implementation. Let’s learn a lesson from the National Agenda and embrace a clarion call for the fierce urgency of now in the implementation of projects in Flamingo – Tennis Projects, Park Projects, Stormwater projects, Water and sewage projects and Streetscape projects.

We urge you to move forward in the implementation of the existing adopted plan with seventeen courts at Flamingo Park….now.

Sincerely,

Denis Russ for
Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association.

Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce considers Tennis in Flamingo Park; Takes No Action at this Time

The Board of Director of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce met on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.  Among itesm on a full agenda was Flamingo Tennis.

The discussion -- originally called for 4pm -- got moved eventually to 5pm. At that time Commissioner Ed Tobin presented his views on Tennis, clay courts, location at high school, tennis tournaments, etc.

Denis Russ presented the position of the Flamingo Park N'hood Assn supporting the 9-9-09 adopted plan: Seventeen is Enough! The discussion among the board reflected the positive feelings they have for tennis tournament play. And they would likely be supportive of plans that included major tennis tournament play.

While the Board was certainly respectful of both presentations, their sympathies were with tournament play.  During the discussion they detected the absence of a quorum and took no action. Although they might at some subsequent meeting.

City Commission Neighborhoods Committee moves the decision on Flamingo Tennis Facilities to the Commission

The City of Miami Beach Neighborhood Committee met on April 6, 2010 to consider a revised plan for Tennis Courts and Facility at Flamingo Park. The Committee forwarded all option to the City Commission at their meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 2010


Commissioner Libbin proposed that 5 new hardcourts be built in Polo Park for the High School, thereby allowing the City to proceed with the Flamingo tennis facility as previously approved by the Commission. However, he still held out the possibility of building 18 courts rather than 17 by removing the ficus tree which is currently located at the SW corner of the tennis facility, and he is still open to 2 or 3 of the Flamingo courts being hard courts. He also remains open to consideration of the tennis player proposal for 20 courts, if the 5 courts at Polo Park turn out to be unacceptable to the full Commission.

Both staff and Commissioners stated that any expansion of the tennis center beyond the currently approved proposal for 17 courts would have to go back to the Historic Preservation Board, and that its decisions on this matter are decisive and are not subject to being overturned by the Commission. Commissioner Tobin stated that he found the deliberations of the HP Board quite convincing on this issue of balancing uses at Flamingo Park.

Commissioner Wolfson attended the meeting, although he is not a member of the committee, and expressed strong support for 17 courts at Flamingo. He was not pleased with the Polo Park proposal, because he believes that it would be unlikely to get built, just resulting in further delay of the Flamingo Park project.

Tammy Tibbles and Jack Johnson testified on behalf of the FPNA position. Rebecca Boyce and David Berger testified in support of just 17 courts and expressed support for Commissioner Libbin’s suggestion of courts at Polo Park as a way to resolve the call for hard courts by the High School. Informally, the Tennis Players’ Association continues to advance their 20 court proposal.

There was assertive testimony from high school parents and teachers calling for 5 hard courts in Flamingo Park. Actually the tone of their advocacy seemed to alienate all others and seemed focus only on winning the day rather than reasonably exploring alternative possible solutions. Commissioners seemed put off by their tone.

At the end of the meeting, Commissioners Libbin, Tobin and Exposito voted unanimously to require city staff to come up with a rough estimate of the cost of building 5 new hard courts at Polo Park and to present that to the full Commission at its April 14 meeting. However, they also voted unanimously to require staff to develop an estimate of the cost of requiring Wolfberg Alvarez to develop a new plan for the tennis center based on the tennis player's 20 court proposal.

It appears that the 14 City Commission meeting on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 will be decisive on this issue, and all Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association activists should plan to be present at that meeting if humanly possible.

Tennis Player's Association Representatives Share Plans; Flamingo maintains: Seventeen is Enough

At the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Meeting on Monday, April 5, 2010, Rebecca Boyce and David Berger and members of the Miami Beach Tennis Players Association described their efforts at re-planning and improving the plan for tennis facilities. Their new plan would call for 15 clay courts, 5 hard courts and a total of 20 courts with the tennis building facility located along Eleventh Street.


After considerable discussion it was agreed that FPNA would not consider alternative plans at this time, but would move forward on advocacy of the existing plan with just seventeen courts.

Adopted Position

1. Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association supports the existing plan for Tennis Facilities adopted by the City Commission on September 9, 2009: Seventeen is Enough!

2. FPNA favors clay courts in the Flamingo Park Tennis Center, as better for seniors, adults and young people. [ONLY IF NO FURTHER ADVANCEMENT OF 20 COURTS]

3. FPNA would support City funding of hard courts at the High School, on the Par Three Golf Course, or elsewhere. [ONLY IF NO FURTHER ADVANCEMENT OF 20 COURTS]

4. FPNA requests the creation of temporary working groups to work within the existing plan's footprint to achieve the greatest form and function for each aspect of the park.

City Commission to Decide on Short Term Rentals on Wed, Apr 14, 2010

At the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Meeting on Monday, April 5, 2010 it was reported that the draft Ordinance to be presented to the City Commission at its meeting on Wed, April 14, 2010 is consistent with the position of the Flamingo Neighborhood previously adopted by resolution.

Accordingly there will be consistent advocacy on behalf of adoption of the proposed ordinance by the Association.

A copy of the staff report and recommendation to the commission can be accessed at the following link:

http://flamingomb.org/2Q2010/CMB-short_term_rentals_Memo_4-14-10.pdf

A copy of the ordinance will be posted as it is made available.