Wanda Mouzon sends the message to City Hall: Diversity of Activites and Design Aesthetic Should Guide

Dear Mayor Bower and Commission,


I just read this interesting article and wish to share it with you. The statement that I found especially relevant to our Park renovation and our cause for the preservation of open green space is this:

" Studies show that depression correlates with the lack of access to green space, a plight of many inner-city residents; the physical isolation of suburbanites; and the immobility enforced on those who cannot drive but have no transportation alternative."

http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/how-urban-planning-can-improve-public-health-11408/

Let's not allow the disease of sprawl to infect our City OR our Neighborhood Park! The ad hoc aggregation of single-use projects and functions in a city OR in a park are contrary to creating communities that are socially diverse, environmentally sensitive and economically sustainable. Just as sprawl consumes land, is unsustainable, favors social inequality and causes traffic problems, allowing Flamingo Park to be largely consumed by single-use activities will do the very same thing!

Thank you for keeping this in mind as the final decisions are made concerning the Park. Please remember as well, the design elements and components that create the most beautiful and most enjoyable parks in the world. (that I shared with you all in an earlier email) These two items should be the key deciding factors.

Wanda Mouzon


How Urban Planning Can Improve Public Health

Miller-McCune Online
News and Options

April 28, 2010

A growing movement looks to change development patterns — as a matter of public health.
By Jonathan Lerner

Atlanta's Broad Street is often cited as an instance of urban planning that worked to created a sense of neighborhood.

(Courtesy of Congress for the New Urbanism)

You hardly need scientific research to pinpoint objectionable aspects of suburban sprawl. The big-box commercial jumble, the lifeless cul-de-sac subdivision, the traffic, the sameness — all are plain to see. Disagreeable qualities of half-empty downtowns and deteriorated city neighborhoods are equally visible. Still, people don’t usually think that the things they find aesthetically objectionable about their neighborhoods might literally be making them sick.

Yet a growing mass of scientific evidence does indicate that how places are designed and built can cause and complicate grave health problems for individuals and whole populations. Depression — the clinical kind, not the aesthetic and cultural malaise that sends people vacationing to, say, Barcelona — is one. Studies show that depression correlates with the lack of access to green space, a plight of many inner-city residents; the physical isolation of suburbanites; and the immobility enforced on those who cannot drive but have no transportation alternative.

As for cars, they don’t just spew pollution and trap people alone for wasted hours. They cause accident injuries and  deaths. Moreover, unwalkable distances and the culture of automobility encourage sedentary habits, contributing to obesity and diabetes and other illnesses. Plowing up farmland for new subdivisions at the metropolitan edge not only diminishes local food supplies and reinforces industrial agriculture — with negative implications for nutrition and resource conservation — it also forces those who must “drive till they qualify” for housing to need a car for almost every household member. Those automobile costs, usually overlooked, have exacerbated soaring rates of foreclosure and suburban poverty, with unhealthful knock-on effects like stress, displacement and homelessness.

Many examples beyond these lead to a conclusion: The crucial questions about how we build focus less on aesthetics — important as that is to our well-being — than on public health, in its broadest sense.

City planning originated, around the turn of the last century, out of concerns over health problems created by filthy slums and industries. Then the fields of public health and planning came uncoupled. Public health took on a mainly biomedical focus on individual genetics, biology and behavior and how clinicians could affect those, and on a narrowly biological approach to epidemiology and evidence. Meanwhile the planning of built environments was hijacked by the car.

Now the fields of city planning and public health — pushed by economic crisis, climate change and green technology, among other factors — are converging again. This month, the Congress for the New Urbanism was set to hold its national convention in Atlanta; it was organized with help from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the theme “New Urbanism: Rx for Healthy Places.”

The convention is hardly the first effort to address the relationships between urban form and health. The World Health Organization’s Healthy Cities movement was initiated in 1988; among other things, it encourages attention to health inequalities, participatory governance and the health considerations of economic and urban development. Some 1,200 European cities and many in Canada and Australia participate.

Back in the U.S., the Local Government Commission, an organization of elected and community leaders, government staff and planners and architects, adopted the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities in 1991. (The principles were named for the Yosemite National Park lodge where they were agreed to). The principles targeted the dysfunctional qualities of sprawl-pattern development; these ideas came to underlie the New Urbanism and Smart Growth movements. Meanwhile, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Active Living Research program supports extensive research into the urban form/public health nexus. The CDC’s Healthy Community Design initiative does the same.

Dr. Howard Frumkin, special assistant to the CDC director for climate change and health and co-author of Urban Sprawl and Public Health: Designing, Planning, and Building for Healthy Communities, actually calls the Congress for the New Urbanism “a public health group. By promoting walkability, mixed use, connectivity and civic space within communities, we know more and more, based on emerging evidence, that CNU is promoting public health.”

To anyone who thinks the New Urbanism makes sense, research conclusions on how built environments affect health can seem self-evident. For example, studies have demonstrated that neighborhoods with shops, schools, libraries, workplaces and homes within easy walking distance tend to support higher levels of physical activity and have lower rates of obesity. Public transit use has a similar effect on activity and fatness. Research has indicated that exposure to nature may improve attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, and that people with access to parks exercise more.

Like, duh. “So much research is proving the obvious,” says Ellen Dunham-Jones, associate professor of architecture and urban design at Georgia Tech and co-author of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. “But once you get the numbers, you can hopefully get policy changes.”

Research into the connection between urban life and public health is, however, also creating surprises. As an example, Dunham-Jones points to studies showing that compact communities reduce overall vehicular emissions — but that people who live next to highways and heavily trafficked arterial roads breathe in more emissions. “It may be healthy for the community at large but not for you,” she says.

Pinning down the implications of such research subtleties remains a challenge. Frumkin identifies two still-poorly understood correlatives of built environment: “We have reason to believe that community design and building design have impacts both on mental health and on social capital. Social capital in turn is a very important determinant of overall health.”

The plans for New Urbanism towns sometimes depict circles centered on retail areas, with radii labeled as the distance of a five- or 10-minute walk. But landscape architect Dee Merriam, a CDC community planner, says that even walkability, a seemingly unambiguous value, needs scrutiny. “The basic metric we’ve been using for urban design has been the automobile scale, and the walking scale is a totally different metric,” she says. “What is the distance of a five-minute walk? It’s probably very different for a young athlete than for an elderly woman or someone with toddlers.”

Merriam says more investigation is also needed into green space, despite its known health connections; Dunham-Jones agrees, saying that research has raised complex questions about trade-offs. “Cities would prefer to have one big central park to maintain, than to have a whole lot of little parks. To really get people jogging, you need a big park. But to get little kids to go play, it’s much better to have a lot of little parks,” she says. “We can improve health by doing all sorts of things, but we’re not at the point where we’re maximizing dollar investment.”

Some new efforts to find design solutions for health challenges involve food. Ideas range from turning abandoned space in declining neighborhoods into urban farms — projects like this are already under way in Detroit and elsewhere — and allotting space for community gardens in new developments. There is even a vision of “agriburbia,” where entire neighborhoods are landscaped with orchards and cropland that could feed people in and beyond the development while providing local employment opportunities.

A recent design workshop addressed another piece of the healthy living puzzle: multigenerational or “lifelong” communities, where people can continue to live actively as they grow old. Specialists on aging, developers, planners and architects tried to envision the transformation of parts of metro Atlanta, reiterating the “must-haves” of New Urbanism — transit and walkability, mixed uses, multiple housing types — but describing how such elements could better accommodate the aging with, for example, shorter walking distances and shuttles to transit stops and shopping areas.

So the Congress for the New Urbanism, the CDC and others are taking important steps to address the cause-and-effect relationships of built environment and public health. But for towns and cities to be less damaging to health, those connections must become more universally acknowledged by health professionals, designers, planners and the decision-makers and developers for whom they work. Moreover, for the environment to support better health, public consciousness has to change. Individual choices will have to sustain healthier patterns of development, and political support will be needed, too, because some of the proposed changes in development demand big cultural shifts, particularly around auto use.

Many advocates say what’s needed is a holistic view that considers health, the environment, social relations, political processes and the economy as part of the development process. Jason Corburn, associate professor of city and regional planning at University of California, Berkeley, and author of Toward the Healthy City: People, Places, and the Politics of Urban Planning, insists that architects and planners “need to recognize that they’re part of governance,” since a healthy city should invite open participation in its political processes, planning included. “This is not to say that design is not important,” he says, but that it should be just one piece of thinking relationally about multiple influences upon health.

One tool that helps government officials identify such influences is the health impact assessment, an evaluation
process similar to the environmental impact statement. Such health assessments are a relatively new phenomenon in the U.S., but several dozen have already been conducted, and the CDC is actively promoting their use. While there is a legal basis under environmental protection laws for evaluating health impacts of proposed projects, the officials responsible are often unfamiliar with the HIA concept, or can feel that it deals in types of evidence not traditionally considered valid in making development decisions.

But traditional thinking has produced the sickening built environments most Americans now inhabit. Even  “progressive” ideas won’t necessarily change them. For example, if everybody owned a car that drove 100 miles on a gallon of gas, the country would burn less oil — but sprawl would still be encouraged, and the population would continue to grow fatter, sicker and more isolated. It may be possible to influence the public to choose transit over cars; entrenched attitudes toward tobacco were changed after all. But to change transport habits, America needs to provide transit systems and walkable destinations as practical options, and that’s where the architects and planners come in.

Flamingo Neighborhood Meeting -- Monday, May 3rd, 5:30 pm -- AGENDA

Meeting Notice
Monday, May 3, 2010, 5:30 pm
at The Seymour, 945 Pennsylvania Avenue
Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association
Building and Sustaining Our Quality of Life

Please note that our meeting on Monday will begin at 5:30pm


AGENDA

1. Communications Program -- Tammy Tibbles Young  -- postponed

2. Planning / Zoning / Historic Preservation -- Jeff Donnelly and Mark Needle
Alton Road Overlay District; Short Term Rentals

3. Flamingo Neighborhood Street Improvements -- Judy Robertson
Euclid Avenue; Street Trees

4. Flamingo Park Improvement Program – Wanda Mouzon
Tennis Courts and Facility

5. Safety / Pedestrian Safety Project -- Aaron Sugarman


The Historic Urban Neighborhood in South Beach
from Washington to Alton / from Fifth to Lincoln
All Residents of the Neighborhood are Invited to Attend and Participate


Other Meeting NoticesMon, May 3, 6:30pm, Shane Water Center -- Mayor on the Move
Tues, May 4, 8:30am, Commission Chambers -- Design Review Board
Wed, May 5, 5:30pm, 21st St Recreatn Ctr -- Park & Recreation Facilities Board
Fri, May 7th, 9:00 am, Commission Chambers -- Board of Adjustment

Mon, May 10, 3:30pm, 1755 Meridian Av, #200-- Transportation & Parking Committee
Mon, May 10, 5:30pm, Commission Chambers -- CIP Oversight Committee
Tues, May 11, 9:00am, Commission Chambers -- Historic Preservation Board
Wed, May 12, 9:00am, Commission Chambers -- CMB City Commission Meeting
Thur, May 13, 3:00 pm, TCD Conf Rm 555 17 St -- Special Events Neighborhood Review
Thur, May 13, 6:00pm, MB Conv Ctr, Rm C220 -- Design Workshop - Convention Ctr Masterplan


Denis Russ Direct Line -- 305-672-4782
Miami Beach CDC -- at The Seymour
945 Pennsylvania Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Denis@MiamiBeachCDC.org

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.

Flamingo Streetscape Projects -- Issues Raised on First Phase Implementation -- Abstract from BODR 2002

The First Implementation Section of Flamingo Neighborhood Capital Improvement Projects will address:  Washington Avenue to Meridian Avenue, 7th Street to 9th Street;  + Meridian Avenue to 10th Street, + Penn Plaza – south toward 6th Street. 

Issues Raised:  Detail Design Requirements, Lighting, Euclid and Pennsylvania Avenues, Crosswalk Treatment, Roadway Alternatives, Greater Opportunities, and Issues Outside First Implementation Section.  The full description of these issues can be found at the following link:   POSSIBLE ADVOCACY ISSUES

To further shed light on these issues, please note the following Comments from Basis of Design Report – June 2002.

Each of the proposed above-ground improvement projects . . . include assorted amounts of pedestrian scale street lights, wayfinding signage and historic district markers.

Traffic Calming  . . . Another one of the most requested neighborhood improvements was for more traffic calming. The planning exercise identified several locations in need of traffic calming and several alternatives were studied and proposed. Each of the proposed funded projects have some measure of traffic calming such as the reduction of travel lanes, the reduction of crosswalk lengths, the creation of a "tighter" section through the introduction of street trees, etc.

One traffic calming alternative has been selected to be utilized in locations where there is no other proposed funded project planned. Bump-outs contain each of the above-mentioned traffic calming devices and provide visual and physical "calming" effects when placed at specific intersections in a coordinated pattern (Appendix "B" – Sheet 20).

Euclid Avenue  . . . Euclid Avenue is a heavily traveled North/South vehicular corridor through the Flamingo neighborhood that connects 5th Street to Lincoln Road. The existing section of the Avenue consists of two 17’-0" wide travel lanes with +/- 2’-6" planting strips and 5’-0" sidewalks on either side. The Avenue was identified by residents as being the least pedestrian friendly Avenue in the neighborhood due to the speed of traffic and the lack of shade along the sidewalks.

The proposed improvement is to modify the existing section to match that of the "preferred" Meridian Avenue section. This would require relocating the existing curb & gutter to allow for +/- 7’-6" planting strips with a continuous shade tree canopy. This would also "calm" the traffic by reducing the travel lanes widths to +/- 12’-0". To further improve the pedestrian experience, the existing sidewalks will be widened to +/- 6’-0" where possible (Appendix "B" – Sheet 21).

Pennsylvania Plaza:   This unique site is located at the intersection of 7th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue and Washington Avenue. The existing site is an underutilized, partially paved, partially planted trapezoidal shaped right-of-way bordered by 7th Street and Washington Avenue and on axis with Pennsylvania Avenue with a view of the Sony Building on Lincoln Road. This site provides an opportunity to provide a "pocket park" and serve as a focal point for both the Flamingo and Lummus neighborhoods.

The proposed improvement is to "clean up" the existing site by repairing and replacing the concrete surface and organizing the site planting to formalize and reorient the plaza to its surroundings. A new double row of shade trees will be planted on axis with Pennsylvania Avenue to provide shade from the afternoon sun as well as screen an existing adjacent residential parking lot. Pedestrian plaza scale lighting will be provided to ensure a safe, more pleasant environment and to illuminate a proposed textured map of the City’s Designated Historic Architectural District (Appendix "B" – Sheet 25).

Pennsylvania Avenue:   The two blocks along lower Pennsylvania just north of the proposed Pennsylvania Plaza include several multi-story buildings that "front" Washington Avenue and present a "back" to the low-rise residential buildings across Pennsylvania Avenue.

The proposed improvements include sidewalk repair and new bump-outs with shade trees to mitigate the effect of the scale and character of the larger buildings that front Washington Avenue on the smaller buildings that front Pennsylvania. The shade trees will also protect and define the existing parallel parking lanes (Appendix "B" – Sheet 27).

Issues Arising Outside the First Implementation Area

10th Street:   10th Street is the only uninterrupted street in the Flamingo/Lummus neighborhood that connects Biscayne Bay to the Atlantic Ocean. It is a unique opportunity to create a direct pedestrian link between the two bodies of water.

The proposed improvement is to provide a pedestrian friendly corridor with wide sidewalks and a continuous row of shade trees through the Flamingo/Lummus neighborhood. The street trees will be planted in tree grates (or equivalent) and the sidewalks widened to +/- 7’-6". The street trees will encroach +/- 2’-9" into the parking lanes at +/- 20’-0" centers to help shade and delineate individual parking spaces. The placement of the trees should not reduce the number of existing parking spaces. In order to achieve the proposed street section and "calm" the traffic, the travel lanes will be reduced to 10’-0" each and the parallel parking lanes to 7’-0" wide similar to the streets east of Washington Avenue (Appendix "B" – Sheet 19).

Drexel Avenue  . . . Two of the Flamingo Park neighborhood’s most interesting pedestrian oriented streets/destinations are located only two blocks apart but are unconnected and their proximity remains unknown to many. A pedestrian friendly link between Lincoln Road and Española Way has been a community priority for several years. Several proposals were designed and evaluated each consisting of wider walks, shade trees and ample signage.

The proposed improvement is to connect Lincoln Road and Española Way by way of a median promenade down the center of Drexel Avenue from Lincoln Lane South to 15th Street. The character of the promenade will relate to the existing improvements at Lincoln Road and the soon to be existing improvements at Española Way including the proposed plaza and fountain. An extensive street renovation will include the replacement and relocation of sidewalks, curbs & gutters and travel lanes and the construction of a new +/- 20’-0" wide tree lined walkway with a special pavement treatment and pedestrian scale street lighting. This proposed improvement requires the modification of the existing traffic pattern including restricting left turn movements from Drexel Avenue onto 16th and 15th Streets. **Modified by Commission

Find this information at --
http://flamingomb.org/1Q2010/BODR_Abstract_SouthEast_Section.doc

High School Tennis Players could play on the High School Campus

Aaron Sugarman points out that the high school can build their own courts on their property with the following advantages:

1. Eliminate transportation/safety issues to Flamingo, Polo Park, Normandy, etc..
2. On-site locker rooms, showers, etc.
3. Intramural and "gym class" use of tennis courts
4. Plenty of parking for tournament games
5. Upgrades the high school with its own 5 courts
6. Preserves greenspace and existing tennis footprint at Flamingo Park
7. Preserves clay courts for regular tennis players and MBTPA
8. Uses County/School land for seasonal school use
9. Uses County/School funds for county/school use

He and Tammy Tibbles have collaborated on an analysis of the school property and develped an image that suggests that the Tennis Courts will fit!

See the image through the following link:   Campus Tennis Courts

http://flamingomb.org/1Q2010/TennisCourts_HighSchoolCampus.JPG

Aaron makes the following observation --

Tammy helped me mock-up an aerial photo showing 5 tennis courts at the high school athletic field.  I do not know if the measurements are exactly to scale, but my crude analysis leads me to speculate that 4-5 courts might fit at the north end of the field.

Judy Robertson Appeals to Mayor and Commission -- Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association Says 17 is Enough! -- HPB Agrees and Calls for Holding the Line at the Present Footprint

Dear Mayor and Commissioners:

Surely you are suffering the same fatigue from this issue that we in the Flamingo Park Neighborhood are suffering, albeit absent the outrage.

It pains us to see our elected leaders so blind to the unfairness of this drawn-out process to the residents of this neighborhood (let us be clear about the hardship on Flamingo Park residents to take time during business hours to keep participating in these repeated discussions, while tennis players, the majority of whom reside outside the Neighborhood and are not, as a group, representative of the working class in our City, are much more able to voice their position during mid-day hearings).

It angers this voter to witness an old Commission taking an approval action on one day, and then a newly-elected Commission succumbing to special interest pressure and granting a "do-over" to some late-comer on another day. (who the heck is David Berger, what are his credentials, and what gives him any say in this matter???...)

It infuriates us to discover that City Staff is entertaining outside, unnoticed, discussions like the one transcribed below, a clear miscarriage of the process conducted over A PERIOD OF YEARS that led to last September's approval of the Master Plan Option L, and was upheld by the Historic Preservation Board's approval March 9 of this year.

It is outrageous that the City is asking our Neighborhood to defend, over and over and over again, a position that it supported and adopted last year.

What is most saddening is our perception that City Hall has opted out of its longstanding partnership with this Neighborhood. Years of reasoned and thoughtful dialogue have gone into this relationship, and many wonderful improvements have been accomplished as a result of our combined efforts. Is the Commission willing to put that enduring relationship in jeopardy and risk the resentment of the largest voting block in the City over this issue?

Judy Robertson for the
Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association

William Cary Clarifies Research Findings, Position of HPB, and Role in Any Further Plans

Subject: RE: Meeting of MBTPA and City Staff 3/16/10 re: Flamingo Tennis Center


Mr. Cary was aware of most of the assertions made by Ms. Boyce and Mr. Berger at the meeting, but disagrees with many of those assertions based on his own research and examination of historic aerial photographs, as well as the original master plan for Flamingo Park, and his personal field observations of on-site of activities that currently occur in the open green space and have occurred there historically, as well as testimony given by Flamingo Park Neighborhood residents at the March 9th HPB meeting that diverse activities in the open green area are ‘good’ and desirable.

Mr. Cary further observed at last night’s meeting that members of the HPB at the March 9th HPB public hearing expressed serious concern about the appropriateness of expanding the density and length of the tennis court area further northward in the southeast quadrant of the park and the adverse impact that this would have upon the adjacent historic residential district, and Mr. Cary stated that this is an ‘appropriateness’ determination that only the Historic Preservation Board can make.

Any new proposal to the HPB would have to convince the Board members otherwise.

Wm Cary
MIAMIBEACH
William H. Cary, Assistant Director
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7550 / Fax: 305-673-7559 / www.miamibeachfl.gov

On Tues, Mar 16th Representatives of Miami Beach Tennis Players Association Met with City Staff to Discuss a New Tennis Center Plan

From: Rebecca Boyce [mailto:rboyce@astidavis.com]


Subject: Meeting of MBTPA and City Staff 3/16/10 re: Flamingo Tennis Center

Meeting of MBTPA and City Staff, March 16, 2010.

Attending were: Kevin Smith, Mario Gonzalez-Pola, William Cary, David Berger, Diana Fontini (Aide to Commissioner Gongora) and Andy Plotkin and Rebecca Boyce

Meeting started at about 5:45 and ended about 7:30 p.m.

David Berger opened the meeting with a presentation of the 'Berger' plan, consisting of an option to located the tennis pavilion in an east/west location in the middle of four banks of tennis courts of 5 courts each (total twenty courts). The option would include 5 hard and 15 clay courts.

David Berger explained that the plan is a compromise:

1. The plan would involve infringing on only about 60-75' of the green space north of the park and would in return increase the north/south corridor fulfilling the desire of the FPNA to increase the width of the north/south pedestrian walkway) as an extension of Jefferson Avenue by an additional approx. 50 feet. The prior plan (e.g. Plan ‘L’) had the building located very near the border of the pedestrian sidewalk.

2. The high school would have its desired 5 hard courts; the tennis center would lose 2 clay courts for a net gain to the tennis facility of 3 courts. (Total courts would be 5 hard and 15 clay vs. the existing 17 clay courts and in contrast with the currently approved plan that includes 12 clay courts and 5 hard).

· Rebecca Boyce and David Berger met yesterday morning with Dr. Sidener, Principal of the Miami Beach Senior High School. Dr. Sidener supports the ‘Berger’ plan and will write a letter and attend City meetings to that affect.

William Cary's concerns were:

1. Could a building in that location be architecturally satisfactory to accommodate the needs of tennis players and aesthetically attractive enough (particularly with an entrance facing east that would include a public bathroom at the east side of the building).

· Mr. Berger pointed out that the issue of the location of a public bathroom for benefit of the tot lot users might be an issue that could be considered outside the current discussion and that the construction of the tennis pavilion should probably not hinge on the public bathroom issue, and that there are more than likely other options that could provide access to a public bathroom for the tot lot users.

2. Would the HPB consider it proper use of infringing on the green space by about 60-75 feet to leave an adequate amount of open green space for the intended use of that open green space.

· Mr. Cary was not aware of what the FPNA wants to use that space for – he was under the impression that the neighborhood wanted to use that green space for free activity such as pick-up soccer games.

1. Mr. Cary was informed that the FPNA seems to want to use that space for leisure passive activity only.

2. Mario Gonzalez-Pola informed Mr. Cary that the space was intended to be landscaped with undulation and foliage that would preclude the land use for play activities.


3. Mr. Cary raised the issue of whether having tennis courts in the green space under consideration would be a valid option at all from a historical perspective, in that no tennis courts existed in that area prior to the 1984 construction of the Holtz stadium and its clay courts.

· Mr. Cary was unaware that there were 3 clay courts located at the site of the former Holtz stadium (in the green space under consideration). He though there had only been one court at that location. Those 3 courts were demolished along with the stadium in 2007, leaving the current 17 clay courts (formerly 20 clay courts).

· Mr. Cary was informed that historically, per its 1930 blueprints, there were originally 24 courts located at Flamingo Park – 12 at the current site, and 12 at the site of the football field, therefore raising the question of whether questioning the use of space issue from a historical perspective is relevant.

1. Mr. Berger pointed out that the City has chosen to reduce the historical number of tennis courts at will while increasing use of the park for other venues – one soccer field, two baseball fields, one track and football field, swimming pools, tot lots, bark parks, public vehicle parking, etc. Mr. Berger went on to assert that the historical issue of whether use of space for tennis is valid is largely irrelevant as the City of Miami’s inclination has been to take land originally intended for the sport of tennis and to allocate it elsewhere as the needs of the community have changed.


Kevin Smith stated that the decision of whether or not to use the green space for other than its current designation rests with the HPB, not with the Commission.

· David Berger questioned Mr. Cary whether the HPB would consider a new plan for the space – Mr. Cary responded that the HPB would consider a new plan provided it was not the same as a plan previously submitted.

Mario Gonzalez-Pola brought up some concerns:

1. Logistical issues with the Berger plan would arise with respect to access to the storage/utility room area. Delivery of clay and access to the courts would be most likely possible from an eastern entrance to the building from Meridian Avenue. That would involve a curb carve-out and entry gate from Meridian.

· Currently, clay is brought in by truck along the pedestrian walkway and then loaded onto carts that then bring it into the storage area of the facility.

· Current plan L would deliver clay in the current fashion.

· The Berger plan could also deliver clay in this fashion.

1. Wouldn’t it be better, however, to deliver the clay along Meridian than to bring trucks onto the pedestrian sidewalk?

2. The plans for the new pavilion are nearly complete and that the Berger plan would require creating a new building. He would like to avoid additional delays.

The discussion turned to other options:

1. A Berger plan modification #1 locating the tennis pavilion in an east/west placement along the north edge of the tennis courts between the courts and the green space.

2.  A Berger plan modification #2 locating the tennis pavilion in an east/west placement along the south edge of the tennis courts along 11th Street.


Both plans have merit:

a. Mario Gonzalez-Pola indicated that the existing plans for the new pavilion could be used in large part.

b. Concerns for the tot lot bathroom were raised again regarding distance for a public facility not too near the tot lot.

The meeting ended with Mario Gonzalez-Pola agreeing to confer with Charles Carreno (who will speak with Jorge Gomez) regarding obtaining a go-ahead to request preliminary presentation of plans for Berger Plan Options #1 and #2 – locating the tennis pavilion north of the courts (#1) or South of the courts (#2) for the Neighborhood Committee meeting of March 30, 2010, if possible. If this cannot be done before that meeting, it was agreed that presentation of this item should be deferred to the April 27, 2010 Neighborhood Committee meeting.

Flamingo Studying CIP Plans -- City to Enter Into Design/Build Contract for Initial Work Area -- Important Decisions at April 5th Meeting

Judy Robertson convened an ad hoc meeting to discuss CIP Right of Way program.  The City anticipates entering into a design build contract with RicMan.  The Scope of the work would include:

above ground streetscape improvements, storm water drainage and water distribution -- from Washington to Meridian, from 7th Street to 9th Street, extending North on Meridian to 10th Street and South on Washington toward 6th Street.

 It was agreed to develop a list of Potential Advocacy Issues, present those issues to the next Flamingo Meeting on April 5th, and based upon priority selection thereafter move forward to advocacy with the City.   You may access the report of our meeting at the following link --

Possible Advocacy Issues .

Design Element

 Must take into account current existing conditions and uses on a block by block, lot by lot basis including hardscape, landscaping, electric, etc. [ i.e., trees, lighing, auto raming, dumpster ramps and all other conditions].

 Lighting

•  Frequency of Pedestrian Acorn Lights along the streetscape
• Design of Pedestrian Acorn Lights
• Cobra Lighting Plan
• Retention / Replacement of Existing Cobra Lights
• Alternative Designs of new and replacement Cobra Lights

 Euclid Avenue / Pennsylvania Avenue

•  Width of Auto Travel Lanes
• Width of Parking Lanes
• Width of Swale Area (Possibility of Paved Swale Area)
• Width of the Sidewalk Area
• Treatment of areas with Parking Meters – Do not replace meters, rather kiosks
•  Reclamation of Right of Way -- from Private Encroachments

 Do the Plans call for Cross Walk Treatment

•  Advocate Cross Walks at Every Intersection
• Should Cross Walks be painted or textured

 Alternative Roadway Improvements

•  Diagonal Parking
• One Way Streets
• Serpentine Streets
• 4-Way Stop Signs at Every Intersection in Flamingo

 Opportunity for Greater Streetscape Improvements

•  In those areas where all existing lights and trees are to be removed / replaced
• In those areas without streetscape improvements – e.g., Meridian Avenue
• Upon replacement of sidewalks, Opportunities; Impact upon Roots and Trees.

 Issues Arising Outside the First Implementation Area

•  The 60% Drawings for Drexel (from Espanola to Lincoln) call for Las Ramblas
• Reclamation of Tenth Street Private Property Encroachments – Alton to Michigan  but not on other Streets (e.g., 8th or 9th) nor Avenues (e.g., Euclid).

CMB Neighborhods Committee will decide on Tennis Courts on Tues, Mar 30th, 2:30pm; Jeff Donnelly, Chair of HPB -- reports to the Commission: 17 is Enough!

The City of Miami Beach Neighborhoods Committee will meet on Tuesday, March 30th for another  final decision on the number of Tennis Courts.  It is very important to Show Up, Stand Up, Speak Up.  The Historic Preservation Board did a wonderful job and the City Commission referred the matter to the Neighborhoods Committee.

To: Mayor and City Commissioners -- City of Miami Beach
Subject: Fwd: Flamingo Park Tennis -- Historic Preservation Board

Good afternoon.

I wanted to report to you that the HP Board on Tuesday approved a plan for the tennis center at Flamingo Park that had already been approved by the Commission in September 2009:

17 courts and the tennis facility building directly facing the pool facility to create a plaza and preserve the view corridor into the park entrance looking north from Jefferson and 11th.

The HP Board vote on March 9 in support of the Commission's September 2009 position was 7-0.


Jeff Donnelly, Chair
Historic Preservation Board

1. HPB File No. 6088, 1200 Meridian Avenue - Flamingo Park Tennis Center. The
applicant, the City of Miami Beach, is requesting revisions to a previously issued
Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing single story tennis
facility and single story restroom building, and the construction of a new single
story tennis facility and associated tennis courts. Specifically, the applicant is
requesting to expand the area of tennis courts northward into the park with the
construction of five (5) additional tennis courts.

APPROVED WITHOUT ANY NEW TENNIS COURTS

This plan, as you know, represented a compromise. This plan does extend the current footprint of the tennis facility approximately 15 feet to the north at the north side and about 30 feet to the west on the northern half of the west side of the facility. At previous discussions, some on the HP Board did not want to lose these spaces, one of which is regularly used by parents of children in the tot lot, but the Board did agree to this compromise.

Historic Preservation Board says "Seventeen is Enough!" City Commission will meet Tomorrow, Wed, Mar 10th

This morning the Historic Preservation Board met to consider the Flamingo Park Tennis Facility and Courts.  Upon request for expanding to 22 tennis courts, a very thoughtful staff presentation, and community input the Board took the position that there be no more than 17 courts.  In related action the Board agreed to provide an extension of time for one additional year for the Tennis Facility and Court Masterplan adopted by the City Commission on Sep 9, 2009.

Members of the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association testifying before the Board -- Tammie Tibbles, Judy Robertson, and Denis Russ-- supported the Planning staff recommendation limiting the number of courts to 17 and supported the good plan of Sep 9, 2009 as a balanced approach to providing recreational facilities and open green space amenities for the community.  Congratulations to the Planning Board on their good and sensible action today.

Please note that the City Commission will be meeting tomorrow, March 10th, from 9am, in the Commission Chambers, at City Hall.  Judy Robertson reviewed the Agenda and points out the following matters that have been of interest to the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association.

Committee Reports:
- C6B: Short Term Rentals (LUAD) January 28 mtg...
- C6D: Status of Flamingo Neighborhood Improvements (CIPOC)
- C6E: Short Term Rentals (LUAD) February 25 mtg...
            AND proposed Alton Road overlay district

Regular Agenda Items:
- R7C: Operational Guidelines/South Pointe Park
- R9A/R9A1: Board and Committee appointments (Frank Krusczewski to Planning Board?)
- R9E: Discussion / status of Baywalk
- R9F: Discussion / red sidewalks
- R9G: Discussion / Tennis courts in Flamingo Park

We urge your attention to matters coming before the Commission on behalf of our Flamingo! Agenda.

Staff To Recommend that Historic Preservation Board Deny the Request to Expand the Tennis Facilities by 5 Additional Courts into the Great Lawn

The Historic Preservation Board will meet at 9am on Tuesday, March 9th, in the City Commission Chambers, at City Hall.    About an hour into the Agenda, at HPB File No. 6088, the City of Miami Beach (as applicant) will request to expand the area of tennis courts northward into the park with the construction of five additional tennis courts.

Historic Preservation / Planning staff recommends that the application be DENIED. The staff report can be accessed at

http://flamingomb.org/1Q2010/FlamingoPkTennis_HPB_Mar9_2010.pdf

The Staff analysis finds that the application is not in compliance with required criteria. The Staff reports notes --

The proposed tennis court expansion will substantially encroach upon the green open lawn area that was recently restored to its near original condition after the Holtz Tennis Stadium was demolished, reducing the transparency and cross circulation into and through the park.

The position of the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association is Seventeen is Enough! We fully support the Staff analysis and recommendation which also goes on to note --

Clearly, the proposed tennis court expansion to 22 courts will substantially encroach upon the open green lawn area…..

The proposal will also significantly reduce the original transparency…and curtail the larger public use of the open green space for neighborhood activities.

Additionally, cross circulation through the park…by neighborhood residents will be entirely blocked.

All of the activities currently supported by this restored historic open green space…make for a safer, greener, and more neighborhood-friendly public Flamingo Park.

Please join us at the Historic Preservation Board Meeting on Tuesday, March 9th, at 9:00 am to preserve open green space for multiple recreational and open space activities and uses in Flamingo Park.

Historic Preservation Board will be asked to Reconsider Number of Tennis Courts in Flamingo Park

On  TUESDAY, March 9th, beginning at 9:00 a.m., the Historic Preservation Board will meet in the Commission Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall.  One of the important items will be to consider the Flamingo Park Masterplan -- particularly the number of Tennis Courts to be included in the refurbished Tennis Center.
While current plans call for 17 clay courts, there has been a call by school tennis players to add up to five additional hard courts.
The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association has called our -- Seventeen is Enough!
Recent Newspaper articles have reported on the complex issues involved, including the effort to attract major tournaments to the new facility.    http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/04/1511609/push-on-to-bring-prominent-tennis.html

It is very important that the Flamingo Neighborhood show up, stand up and speak up on behalf of a Park and a Masterplan that maintains its dual role as a recreational and green space resource for the neighborhood, the city and the region.  Join us on Tuesday at the Historic Preservation Board Meeting.

Flamingo Continues to Seek Positive Resolution of Short Term Rental Issue

At its meeting on Monday, March 1st, the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association heard a report on the Short Term Rental Issue, discussed the issue, and reaffirmed its support to continue to seek a positive resolution on Short Term Rentals.  and adopted the following position::

Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association continues to support the process of trying to obtain Commission approval of a short-term rental ordinance

•  that comports with the FPNA resolution of September 2009,
• that prohibits short-term rentals in the Flamingo neighborhood, and
• that provides eligibility criteria by which current property owners doing short term rentals might obtain an exception of the prohibition if they can show a consistent history of short term rentals and compliance with local and state requirements for resort, sales and other taxes. 

Flamingo Pedestrian Safety Project to Discuss: Designation of Walk Friendly Communities; Becoming Florida's Most Pedestrian Friendly Neighborhood

Flamingo Neighborhood will meet on Monday, March 1st at 5pm, at The Seymour, 945 Pennsylvania Avenue -- to move forward on Pedestrian Safety Project.

Walk Friendly Communities Program


The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center is developing a Walk Friendly Communities (WFC) designation program, to be launched in 2010. The aim of the program is to encourage towns and cities throughout the United States to establish or recommit to a high priority for supporting safer walking environments, and to be recognized for their efforts. The WFC program will recognize communities that are working to improve a wide range of conditions related to walking, including safety, mobility, access, and comfort. It will be comparable to the Bicycle Friendly Communities program currently operated by the League of American Bicyclists. The program will promote the use of the 5 Es (engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation) that are needed to help communities become excited about becoming more walkable and to set clear goals and plans for achieving those goals.

Communities interested in receiving recognition will complete a WFC application form. The application process is designed to assist communities in developing and documenting their comprehensive pedestrian safety and encouragement plan. Each applicant will receive suggestions and resources on how to make needed improvements. Designated Walk Friendly Community applicants will be featured in various marketing and promotion materials, to serve as role models and inspiration for other communities.


Brainstorming to Become
Florida’s Most Pedestrian-Friendly Neighborhood

Outline Results of Feb. 1st, 2010 Brainstorming, Flamingo Park Neighborhood Assoc. (with a few additions/suggestions by the moderator, Ben Batchelder)

Flamingo Neighborhoood Meeting will include discussion of Police - Community relations raised by ACLU accusations. -- at meeting on Mon, Mar 1st at 6pm

From The Miami Herald:
Gay tourist: Miami Beach cops made up charges, arrested him after he reported to 911 that they beat a man


BY STEVE ROTHAUS, srothaus@MiamiHerald.com

The ACLU of Florida says two Miami Beach police officers yelled epithets at a gay tourist and falsely accused him of trying to break into cars after he witnessed them kicking and punching a handcuffed man at Flamingo Park.

As Officers Frankly Forte and Elliot Hazzi approached witness Harold Strickland, they didn't know he was on his cellphone reporting the beating to a Miami Beach 911 dispatcher, said Robert F. Rosenwald Jr., director of the ACLU Florida's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Advocacy Project.

“This is an issue that we have hoped to address for a long time. Miami Beach Police have for a long time harassed gay men around Flamingo Park without probable cause,'' Rosenwald said Wednesday.

Miami Beach police first learned of the alleged incident – which occurred last March – on Wednesday afternoon and immediately began an internal affairs investigation, spokesman Detective Juan Sanchez said.

“At this time, the department cannot comment nor is it a practice to comment on an intended issue that is going to be [the] subject of litigation by the city,'' Sanchez wrote in an e-mail to The Miami Herald.

Detective Gus Sanchez, vice president of the Miami Beach Fraternal Order of Police, also said he couldn't discuss an open investigation.

Forte and Hazzi both were hired by Beach police as new officers in February 2007. They were still on duty Wednesday, Juan Sanchez said.

The incident began about 1 a.m. March 13 as Strickland, a former Beach resident now living in Los Angeles, walked past Flamingo Park near 14th Street and Michigan Avenue.

Strickland called 911 when he saw a man being beaten by two men just outside the park.

“I saw a guy running and then I saw two, what looked like undercover cops running. And they pushed this guy down on the ground, the one cop did, and the other cop came up as if he was kicking a football … and kicked the guy in the head,'' Strickland, 45, told a dispatcher during a recorded phone call to 911.

For nearly five minutes, he talked to the dispatcher, who encouraged him to get closer for more detail “if it doesn't put you in any danger.''

A few seconds later, Strickland told the dispatcher: “Now they're coming after me!''

The two men, later identified as officers Forte and Hazzi, approached Strickland and could be heard saying, “What are you doing here? Where do you live? Let's see some ID.'' A few seconds later the line went dead.

Strickland later told the ACLU that Forte and Hazzi grabbed his cellphone and disconnected the call.

“The officers then told Strickland: ‘We know what you're doing here. We're sick of all the f---ing fags in the neighborhood.' The officers pushed Strickland to the ground and tied his hands behind his back,'' Rosenwald wrote in an ACLU letter delivered Wednesday to Miami Beach Mayor Matti Herrera Bower.

“While Strickland was on the ground, the officers continued to spew anti-gay epithets. They called him a ‘f---ing fag' and told him he was going to ‘get it good in jail.'''

Bower and City Manager Jorge Gonzalez also declined to comment.

Strickland called 911 at 1:06 a.m., according to dispatch records.

Forte wrote in an arrest report that 30 minutes later – at 1:36 a.m. – he saw Strickland trying to break into six cars at 14th Street and Michigan Avenue near Flamingo Park.

Strickland said he tried to tell the officers about his call to 911, but that they wouldn't listen to him. They took him to jail on a loitering-or-prowling charge. At a hearing the next day, a judge told him that he would get out of jail faster if he pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor, Rosenwald said.

Strickland agreed, left jail and called the ACLU. He later changed his plea to not guilty. The State Attorney's Office later dropped the charge.

Loitering and resisting-arrest-without-violence charges also were dropped against Oscar Mendoza, the man Strickland reported being beaten near Flamingo Park.

Miami Herald staff writer David Smiley contributed to this report.

Miriam Levine and John Lane: Additional courts block sight lines with high chain link fences and large areas of dark green mesh, defeating the goals of the park improvement plan.

Dear Madam Mayor and Commissioners:


Thank you for all your work to improve Flamingo Park. We strongly advise you to cap the number of Flamingo Park tennis courts at 17 for the following reasons:

Seventeen courts adequately serve the tennis playing population.

Additional courts would add to neighborhood traffic and reduce open space.

Additional courts block sight lines with high chain link fences and large areas of dark green mesh, defeating the goals of the park improvement plan.

Additional courts require an increase in maintenance and therefore an increase in costs.

More than 17 tennis courts does not benefit the Flamingo Park neighborhood residents—adults and children—rather it locks them out, restricting them to a smaller area.

While we recognize that there are competing interests for the use of the park, we believe that an increase in the number of courts favors a small minority. The park is for all of us!

Please do the right thing for the residents of our precious neighborhood.

Sincerely,  Miriam Levine and John Lane

Aaron: miami dade public school system takes more than 1/3 of our tax dollars, they can build their own courts on their own land. 17 courts is plenty

In 2000, there were roughly 16,000 residents living in Flamingo Park, with limited green-space and recreational areas.

The City just spent $22,000,000 renovating South Point Park to provide enormous amounts of greenspace for SoFi residents, while prohibiting almost all forms of recreational sports.

Flamingo Park residents have been awaiting restoration of Flamingo Park greenspace for decades, with $11,000,000 in bond funds waiting, and top on our list in this park devoted to recreational areas, is having some peaceful greenspace...

A respite in an otherwise car-heavy, fast-paced urban environment.

We are surrounded by buildings here, living here, with no bay-walk and wide expanse of greenery within walking distance. And, we have debated the Park design for years, and we have torn down the Stolz Stadium to create more green-space, and we have plans for that greenspace.

Flamingo Park does not belong to the tennis center, or the Miami-Dade Public School System which has existing land to build tennis courts at various locations, including a nearby vacant lot at 14th Place and Euclid Ave.

The current Park design plans call for 17 tennis courts, most of which, based on current usage, are empty during much of the day. 

There is no rational basis for slapping Flamingo Park residents in the face, yet again, and denying us an opportunity to have a pleasant park to relax in, with trees, and foliage, and beauty.

We can understand that the "tennis people" represent a powerful lobby, but it
seems they are never satisfied... 

Are we to continue to satisfy them, like an insatiable child, hungry for more more and more?

What about the thousands of year-round and seasonal residents who still live in areas surrounding the Park, and seek solace in Flamingo Park?

Do we have a voice?  Or, should we step aside and be content to peer through the fence at the soccer field, as the last open space, and sigh, like an animal peering out of a cage?

If we are re-opening this debate, I propose reducing the number of courts to 14 courts, 7 clay courts and 7 hard courts.

I propose reducing the footprint of the Tennis Center, while increasing the amount of greenspace to provide the vast majority of the resident population, who do not play tennis, a place to relax and enjoy greenery.

The park needs more green areas, and certainly can do with less tennis courts, which are already scattered throughout the City for the many people who presently drive to Flamingo Park to play tennis.

Barry Zaid: What we want and need and support is more breathing space, space to walk, to socialize, to relax, to see the sky, to recreate.

We, the residents of the Flamingo Park neighborhood, have long fought to get the intrusions of the Property management department and the condemned Abel Holtz stadium out of the Flamingo Park.  Now that we have achieved these goals and we have opened up some green space, we hear there is a movement to expand the tennis facilities and take over the newly created "Great Lawn".

This is unacceptable.

The park as it is is filled with space dedicated to all sorts of specialized athletic pursuits. The tennis courts take up a large area of the park as it is. What we want and need and support is more breathing space, space to walk, to socialize, to relax, to see the sky, to recreate.

What Flamingo Park stopped being stopped being, over the years, is a PARK.

Let the tennis players decide among themselves what kind of courts they want. Let them do anything they want within the space they already occupy, and if they feel they must have more space, let them find it in other less utilized parks or other parts of the city, or even in the City of Miami.

We residents have worked hard to achieve more green space. We want a PARK, not more pavement.

Respectfully,   Barry Zaid

Judy Robertson: The promise was clear in September of last year, and remains clear now: The green space that has been reclaimed by demolishing the Abel Holtz stadium shall remain green space.

Dear Neighborhood and Community Affairs Committee members:


By now you will have received various emails and letters from residents of the Flamingo Park Neighborhood, standing up for our Great Lawn in Flamingo Park and speaking out against expanding the proposed Tennis Center into what is now open, green space. Tomorrow, you will see many of the faces that go with those emails. For those new to the Commission, you may not have an appreciation of the enormous effort leading up to the Commission's approval last September of the Master Plan "L", which finalized the footprint of the tennis center to include a maximum of 17 tennis courts. You won't have a memory of the hundreds of people who spoke before the Commission and its sub-committees over a decade, who took time off from work to share their concerns with City Boards, who attended the design charrettes going all the way back to 1997, who walked the Park's perimeters with planners and park staff, and who volunteered their time to sit on the evaluation committee to select the best design firm for the job.

I have a very clear memory of all that, as do many of my neighbors, colleagues, and friends. The Commission runs the grave risk of negating all that effort and alienating a huge portion of our community if it doesn't keep its promise on this issue. The promise was clear in September of last year, and remains clear now: The green space that has been reclaimed by demolishing the Abel Holtz stadium shall remain green space.

Imagine, if you will, approaching the good residents of South Pointe, and proposing that they relinquish a portion of their beautiful new, open, green, South Pointe Park, just so that a contentious disagreement among tennis players over preferred playing surface could be resolved. Would the residents of South Pointe sit quietly by and accept the City's excuse of, 'we looked for a couple of months and couldn't find anywhere else to put them, and this would settle the argument'?

Unacceptable! The burden of creating a compromise between tennis players is squarely on the City, not on our Neighborhood at large. Go back to the approved plan, look at the language the City used in guiding the planners it hired, wherein it MANDATES the restoration and creation of green space in our new Park. We worked extremely hard to bring this plan to fruition, and be assured we will work even harder to keep it.

Judy Robertson,  Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association

Ilona Wiss: Most importantly, it does not seem fair that the residents of the Flamingo Park neighborhood should have to fight this battle again when we have spent years fighting for greenspace in our "Central Park",...

Dear Neighborhoods Committee Members:


It has come to my attention that you will be revisiting the approved Flamingo Park Plan at your meeting on February 16th, to consider further modifications and expansion of the tennis center. I am writing to express my opposition to the addition/expansion of any additional active-use features in our very busy park, including more tennis courts.

I have lived on Michigan Avenue, across from Flamingo Park since 1989. In the early 1990s, I began attending planning meetings hosted by various City departments and neighborhood groups to discuss and plan for the revitalization of Flamingo Park. It has taken all these years, many meetings, a lot of hard work, and a few false starts, to arrive at the point where we are today......ready to start the renovation of our park, in accordance with a plan that reflects the community's vision......improved recreational facilities and the addition of much needed greenspace.

The demolition of the tennis stadium and the relocation of the property maintenance facility offered us a unique opportunity.....to introduce passive-use greenspace to our neighborhood park. Anyone who knows the park and uses it knows that, until the demolition of the tennis stadium, there was no open greenspace that was not designated for sports activities. Flamingo Park is the heart of the densely populated South Beach residential community, and its residents need a place to picnic, lounge in the grass and enjoy occasional outdoor events.  The last thing we need is to expand recreational facilities that will attract even more people to the park. As it is, there is frequently insufficient parking to meet the needs of park visitors. Just today (Sunday), a car was parked on the swale in front of my house yet again, right in front of the No Parking Tow Away sign indicating that parking there is restricted to Zone 3 residents. Our historic, single family neighborhood has serious traffic congestion problems that will only be exacerbated by further expansion of the tennis center.

I strongly encourage you to focus on other options. In my view, South Pointe Park would be the perfect place to build additional tennis courts, if they are truly needed. Many years ago, there were active recreational facilities in that park....basketball courts. Further, there are many tennis playing residents in South Pointe who would be very enthusiastic about such an addition to their neighborhood park. It seems only fair that all our neighborhood parks have a balance of active and passive uses, so that no single park is over burdened. Flamingo Park truly needs the additional greenspace to bring it into balance....and South Pointe Park's serenity would not be diminished by the introduction of a few tennis courts.

Most importantly, it does not seem fair that the residents of the Flamingo Park neighborhood should have to fight this battle again when we have spent years fighting for greenspace in our "Central Park", just because the tennis community has initiated an intense lobbying effort, rekindling the issue. The previous commission understood our concerns and approved the Plan which is finally about to be implemented. Please do not undo all the hard work that we did before some of you were in office. If you are convinced that additional courts are needed to meet the high school's needs, please find another place to put them, and allow us to have the greenspace our urban neighborhood desperately needs.

PLEASE NOTE: MANY OF US ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND MEETINGS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF YOU WOULD ADJUST TUESDAY'S AGENDA SO THAT THIS ITEM IS HEARD AS LATE AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.

Ilona Wiss, Esq.

Wanda Mouzon: Parks and green space in dense urban areas are extremely important for the sustainability of the place.

Dear Mayor Bower and Commission,


I wish to add my thoughts for your consideration concerning the consumption of more green space in Flamingo Park for additional tennis courts. I am a full time resident of South Beach and live in the Flamingo neighborhood. I LOVE this neighborhood, as it is historic, walkable, and dense to name a few reasons. And one of the most special things about the Flamingo neighborhood is the park. So I feel we must all approach this plan with great care and thought. Making it the most desirable and useful for the most people should be the main priority. Consuming the green space that we have all already agreed upon as necessary, useful and much enjoyed by the residents, is quite troublesome. My feelings are so strong about this that I request that you reconsider and not give in to the pressure of a much smaller group of users. Parks and green space in dense urban areas are extremely important for the sustainability of the place. My husband and I have an architectural practice that is based entirely on creating Sustainable Places. You might be interested in this blog by Steve Mouzon on the subject of neighborhood parks and their role in creating a sustainable place.

http://www.originalgreen.org/OG/Blog/Entries/2009/3/18_Parks_and_Sustainable_Places.html

Thank you for your time and consideration!  Local Resident,  Wanda Mouzon

Flamingo Tennis Courts: 17 No More! -- Neighborhoods Committee Meets Tues, Feb 16th -- Flamingo Issue is 16th on the Agenda

The City of Miami Beach Neighborhoods Committee is scheduled to consider the composition of Tennis Courts at its meeting on Tuesday, February 16th, starting at 2:30pm.  The issue is the last item listed on the Agenda  -- Number 16 --  and is framed as follows:  

Discussion of the revised masterplan recommendations for the Flamingo Park project to provide for seventeen (17) clay service and an additional five (5) hard surface courts at Flamingo Park.

The Neighborhood has participated in scores of meetings, workshops and City Finance Committee meetings and also City Commission meetings before passage of the Flamingo Park Masterplan in Sep 2009.  Now, instead of moving forward to implement the plan, the City Commission apparently recommended that five additional tennis courts be added to the Tennis Center and referred the matter to the Neighborhoods Committee.

The City Manager memorandum describing the issue can be accessed at the following link:

http://flamingomb.org/1Q2010/FlamingoPkTennis_NCAC_February_16_2010[1].pdf

It remains crucially important that the Flamingo Neighborhood fully engage this issue.

CMB Neighborhoods Committee: Choose -- Clay Courts or Hard Courts; But Don't further Erode Flamingo Park's other role as an important Urban, Green Space Amenity

The City Commission Neighborhoods Committee will meet on Tuesday, February 16th, at 2:30 pm.  The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association has consistently advocated an increase in passive green space for Flamingo Park as an important green space amenity for the neighborhood and the City.  Already Flamingo Park is the most intensively used active recreational facility in the City -- with players who come from throughout the city and the entire region. 

After months of planning the decsion was made that the 17 tennis courts at Flamingo would be clay courts.  It was planned that hard courts would be installed at other facilities, i.e., at Polo Park and at the site of the Par 3 golf course.    There is now a call to install hard courts at Flamingo Park either by replacing the clay courts or by adding additional courts.  It has long been the position of the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association to contain the dedicated special uses in the park, including tennis uses and to make available increased passive green space. 

As reported in The Miami Herald ........

After 18 months of public meetings and a dozen designs, Miami Beach residents probably thought the plan for a revamped Flamingo Park was finally complete last September when elected officials signed off on a redesign.

Think again.

On Feb. 3, the City Commission opened the door for additional changes to the $10.4 million park master plan after tennis enthusiasts again butted heads over clay versus hard courts.

At issue: All 17 tennis courts in the plan approved in September were clay, leaving players who want hard courts out of the 36-acre park.

Miami Beach Senior High's tennis team, mothers whose children play tennis, recreational players and even School Board member Martin Karp packed the commission chambers for two hours. They either lobbied for all clay courts, changing some clay courts to hard courts, or adding additional hard courts at the old Abel Holtz Stadium site, where the current plan calls for an open field.

Commissioners eventually agreed to either convert five clay courts to hard courts or add hard courts in the green space near Meridian Avenue and 13th Street, though they did so with the prediction that building more courts would irk those who aren't as enamored with tennis.

They were right.

"That's the worst possible outcome. That is just the pits,'' Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association co-chairman Jack Johnson said in a phone interview Feb. 4. "We have been working with the commission for so long on this issue. I can't believe they don't get it. We advocated for the demolition of Holtz Stadium because we wanted the green space.''

The City Commission has already made the decision to add a skate park to Flamingo Park -- over the opposition of the great majority of the Flamingo Park neighborhood community.  There is a practical limit to the amount of active, attractive uses that the park and the neighborhood can adequately accommodate.

The number of tennis courts in Flamingo Park ought not be increased above 17!

Our Colleague, Wanda W. Mouzon, shares the following discussion on the role of the Sidewalk -- urban amenity vs. social equity

Sidewalks: Conflict and Navigation Over Public Space
By Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris and Renia Ehrenfeucht
MIT Press, 2009, 341 pp., hardcover $28
Review by Philip Langdon

Sidewalks in Anaheim, California, legally need be only four feet wide — which is too narrow for couples to pass each other while strolling. Los Angeles requires sidewalks at least five feet wide, which is more comfortable. Oakland mandates a six-foot minimum.

Some cities have extensive guidelines aimed at making the sidewalks a pedestrian-friendly public environment. Others cities do relatively little in that regard. In just about every respect, sidewalks are treated in very different ways from one municipality to another.

Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space, by Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris of the UCLA Department of Urban Planning and Renia Ehrenfeucht of Planning and Urban Studies at the University of New Orleans, is described by its publisher as the first book-length analysis of the sidewalk as a distinct social space. It traces the historical evolution of sidewalks in the US, examines conflicts that have arisen over their competing uses, and discusses some of the municipal standards now applied to these public rights-of-way.

Long ago, Jane Jacobs and William H. Whyte showed how city sidewalks could be useful, enjoyable, sociable parts of neighborhoods and downtowns. The authors of this new book are not oblivious to enjoyment and sociability, but they seem more concerned about how to create “a just city.” This leads them in directions that will disconcert quite a few readers. Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucht want people to think about whether panhandling should be allowed, whether the homeless have a right to sleep in public spaces, and whether protesters have an overriding right to demonstrate, among other issues.

They contend that activities currently prohibited by some cities or business improvement districts — such as asking for money or sleeping on the sidewalk — cause discomfort for middle-class people but do not inflict harm on anyone. Indeed, the authors at times suggest that seeing distressed homeless individuals may be useful because it can motivate people to solve a social problem. Perhaps so, but the argument seems one-sided. We know for sure that when sidewalks accommodate too much troubling activity, those who have choices stay away. The city becomes a dismaying place. Its economy is hobbled. It’s hard to see how this ends up being anything other than bad for most of a city’s inhabitants, the homeless included.

Loukaitou-Sideris and Ehrenfeucht oppose design interventions that might cause “the nonconsuming public” to feel it is being excluded from public spaces. They point out that some cities, in encouraging sidewalk dining, have either allowed café owners to place fences around outdoor areas or have mandated them. “Whereas in Paris the private space of the café blends seamlessly into the public space of the sidewalk, in US cities, fences create an abrupt border,” they observe. Some cafes and restaurants in this country “extend their control over public space” by posting signs that order people not to skateboard, loiter, tie their dogs to the fence, or engage in other forms of “inappropriate behavior” on the sidewalk, the authors say.

The book contains a moderately interesting chapter on “sidewalk as urban forest,” which looks at how cities deal with street trees. On the whole, though, Sidewalks seems geared more to social justice advocates than to people who are trying to bring vitality and prosperity to urban locales.

Evaluation of Residents Guide -- Ch 1, Problem Identification; Ch 2 Who Can Help

Over the last six months the Flamingo Neighborhood Association has participated in a testing of the Resident’s Guide for Safe and Walkable Communities, under the auspices of the Pedestrian Bicycle Information Center PBIC within the University of North Carolina.


PBIC has requested that we respond to a survey to evaluate the first two chapters of the Resident’s Guide. A copy of the survey instrument can be accessed at the following link:  

http://flamingomb.org/1Q2010/Survey_ResGuide.pdf

Please provide any of your own personal responses which you want to be incorporated into our response to the survey. We will submit the Flamingo response by the deadline target date, February 10th. So please submit any information you wish be included as soon as possible – and no later than February 9th.

If you wish to discuss the Readers’ Guide or the survey response, give me a call at your early convenience or you may join me on this Saturday morning at 9:30 am for a quick discussion about the project. If you let me know that you’re coming, I’ll do something about providing the coffee.

You may want to refer to the relevant information in the Resident's Guide.  You can access Chapters One and Two through the following links:

http://flamingomb.org/ResidentGuideCh1ProblemIdentification.pdf 

http://flamingomb.org/ResidentGuideCh2WhoCanHelp.pdf