Controversial Miami Parking Authority Plan For 33-Story Apartment Tower

·16 Comments

A Miami Parking Authority committee voted earlier this month to accept an unsolicited proposal to build a tower on MPA land in downtown Miami, but the deal could face a legal challenge from Moishe Mana.

The proposal submitted by Grand Station Partners calls for a 300-unit, 33-story apartment building next to the Courthouse Garage at 240 North Miami Ave. Grand Station Partners is a partnership between Vadia Development, headed by former Related Group employee Ricardo Vadia, and Roc Development, headed by Oscar Rodriguez.

Mana’s proposal would have seen a 55-story tower built both on MPA property and on an abutting site owned by Mana. It would have included two hotels, apartments, and office space.

At the committee meeting earlier this month, lawyers for Mana accused MPA officials of impropriety, saying they were told that they would be required to partner with Grand Station Partners to be included in the deal. According to Crespogram, there are rumors that one of the winning bidders is a “Tampa homeboy” of Art Noriega. Despite the cloud over the process, the board voted to award the deal to Grand Station.

 

rejected mana tower:

winning grand station bid:

Tags
Related
16 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Anonymous
4 years ago

The Mana 55 story rendering would be a nice addition to that area. Looks really nice.

7
Reply
ave maria
4 years ago

first the oak avenue garage palm greasing with david martin, now the palm greasing with ricky vadia, who is responsible for the sweetwater mayor’s firing. it’s time to get thugs like art noriega out of office.

on the flipside of the coin though, mana is not a developer so this would just be another play at land for him.

5
Reply
marc
4 years ago

I hope Mana’s lawyers light’s them up.

4
Reply
Yet Another Anonymous
4 years ago

Wow that’s sad. The mana render is stunning. Very European style but on a larger scale. Alas it is a very simple rendering, almost a massing, and could be inaccurate.

3
Reply
Danny
4 years ago

What garbage! I personally like Ricky Vadia but his proposal plain out sucks. He includes KVC? Which now locks them in with them and GT?

Mana sue away!

3
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

It should be noted that the vote was NOT unanimous with one of the Board members voting not to proceed because he thought the challenge and comments from Mr. Mana’s attorney should be vetted and the parties should meet to further explore and discuss. Thank you.

3
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

What ridiculous arguments. A few clarifications:

1. Every piece of vacant land is indeed not a potential park, and there are social, environmental, urban efficiency and other benefits from infilling development to create a continuous urban fabric – one that of course includes adequate parks! What great city do you know of that has a bunch of vacant lots scattered around?
2. There are still plenty of vacant buildable lots and areas even in or near downtown.
3. At the same time, Miami does not meet minimum standards for park space per capita and needs to acquire more land for parks through some strategy.
4. There is a massive amount of capacity for redevelopment at medium densities inside the Development Boundary.
5. The choice is not between expanding development into the Everglades or giving up parks inside the boundary, both goals can be achieved through proper planning.

1
Reply
Mondocondo
4 years ago

Award process appears corrupt. City commission should take a look.

0
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

I’m not a fan of Mana, and the irregular window frames on the front side are quite ugly. If fixed, I could love this tower. The last thing Downtown Miami needs is another dedicated parking garage.

0
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

Looks like Art Noriega is cheating on more than just his wife

0
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

Keep paving over every last green lot you have Miami. Another park slated for development….

-6
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

Those “green lots” as you call them are owned by someone. This issue has already been debated over and over and the people who wanted an Urban Boundary Development Line won, and that mean’t space inside the bounday line of the county must absord the brunt of construction. There’s only one choice. You either save the Everglades from further encroahment of civilization and allow empty land and lots in the cities to be developed more densely, or move the line. The county choose not to move the line, so don’t complain. Besides, surburbs are becoming soooo undesirable.

0
Reply
Yet Another Anonymous
4 years ago

I think some of this came out wrong. There should be an or in there somewhere.

1
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

These is – “or move the line.”

0
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

That is one BS bogus argument. You can’t have it both ways with no further nada zilch green space inside the boundary while at the same time you go before the county commission almost on a yearly basis to move and encroach on an agreed upon and established boundary.

4
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

That is not some “BS bogus argument.” If you don’t believe what I wrote, then do some research from past Miami Herald articles. Research what Miami 21 is all about. Areas in Miami changed zoning codes to allow more density because of the need to protect the Everglades from rampant new contruction. Downtown Miami alone had zoning codes changed to allow three times more density from what used to be allowed. And what happened to the last proposal that was brought before the county commission to move the boundary line? That’s right, it was shot down like most proposals are, so don’t give me anymore of your Ham Sandwich arguments please. No one is trying cover over every inch of green space in Miami, but every little spot with some grass on it does not make it some kind of grandiose park that needs protection.

-3
Reply