Proposed ‘Green City’ Would Move UDB, Add Thousands Of Homes

Property owners are proposing to extend Dade’s Urban Development Boundary westward with a massive new project.

The project would be called Green City, according to plans submitted last month. It could add about 26,000 new residents and thousands of new jobs near the edge of the Everglades.

Planned for the 859 acres include 11,401 homes, 1.36 million square feet of retail, 925,000 square feet of office, 350,000 square feet of industrial, 475,000 square feet of government and educational uses, and 660 hotel rooms.

Ownership of the property is controlled by several different entities who have combined for the application.

Extending development beyond the UDB is controversial due to concerns about sprawl and other environmental issues. Others, including the politically connected Jeff Soffer’s Turnberry Holdings have also been trying to move it. A supermajority vote is required by Dade’s commission.

 

 

35 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
6 years ago

Y’know, enough is enough. If city “leaders” want to continue the march west to the Everglades, we should just give up on Miami. We live next to some of the most sensitive ecological habitats, and we treat them as roadblocks that need to be removed.

Call me a treehugger, but the Everglades, our coral reefs, the mangroves — I think they’re all worth a hell of a lot more than some shitty suburban development.

Anonymous
6 years ago

Nothing green about moving the sprawl limit further west.

Anonymous
6 years ago

Why couldn’t the developers find some vacant land in the city to do this instead of being cheap and going out as far as they can for a quick buck ???

marc
6 years ago

That’s exactly it. Instead of flipping land that actually needs to get redeveloped they want to get dirt cheap land in the boondocks and tell you this is where people need to live. Who needs a UDB?

Anonymous
6 years ago

All they are thinking about is money and I’m pretty sure there is land left not encroaching on the protected everglades. I wish the City would demand more from these developers instead of giving them incentives to invest in locations that don’t need to be.

Anonymous
6 years ago

The County is not giving them anything YET. In fact… that area is slated for “potential” development in 2020 due to the growth of the city.

Again… if they stick to the proposed plan then this will be a good project

Anonymous
6 years ago

Where else in Miami-Dade can you find such a large piece of land with the potential that this one has for development. I agree that this is a sensitive issue and area BUT… if the plan remains as proposed then it can only be good for the area.

Oscar
6 years ago

This is a joke, right? Another obvious ploy to get the UDB moved that, if successful, will lead to another suburban subdivision, not the plan put forward, and certainly not a “Green City.”

Anonymous
6 years ago

It would be better to build this adjacent to the city’s core (where there is actually some semblance of public transportation and a reasonable demand for mid-density buildings) instead of mindlessly plopping it far off into the Everglades and expecting people to flock to it. It’s not the 1950s or even the 2000s anymore. The housing crisis has changed things.

Anonymous
6 years ago

I agree, but there are two things you always have to take into consideration in Miami – NIMBY’s and people who feel anything over four stories tall is too high.

Anonymous
6 years ago

Four stories would actually be pretty great. Not much of Miami is zoned for that density though.

Anonymous
6 years ago

I think we should keep the Everglades, thanks.

Anonymous
6 years ago

Is it going somewhere?

Anonymous
6 years ago

lipstick on a pig

Anonymous
6 years ago

A big city in the everglades and small gas station sized buildings downtown. Does anyone have an answer for this lol?

Really???
6 years ago

Here’s the thing, why aren’t developers building thousands of homes on the vacant land throughout Miami? The issue is that that land in more central locations, closer to existing transportation and infrastructure cost more. So instead developers would rather go out to where the land is basically free. Not at some point that’s going to have to happen but were definitely not there yet.

So if they want to build out there in the middle of nowhere fine, but then they need to pay for all the infrastructure themselves. Are they going to run highways, metrorail etc. out to their location. Probably not. Either you connect to the existing infrastructure or you pay for it. But then at that point it would cost just as much as building in an existing central location where people prefer to live anyway.

Danny
6 years ago

Middle of nowhere? The everglades?

Also, they don’t pay for all the infrastructure. It is bonded and billed back annually to the residents.

Really???
6 years ago

The additional Roads, highways, rail lines, etc aren’t bonded and billed back annually to the residents. And that my point. Basically when you build in the suburbs you go out and buy cheap land because it’s not connected, build the basic necessities and make a profit selling cheaper houses. Then once the houses are full the roads are packed and we need additional highways, transit etc. the cost to build those things gets pushed off on to ALL the tax payers. So in effect developers/buyers of suburban lots are getting subsidized by everyone.

Whereas if you build homes in an urban location near existing highways, transit lines you are just adding density to existing transit lines making them more efficient.

My argument is that if you want to go out and building near the everglades which yes is the middle of nowhere, developers should have to pay to provide those services.

Danny
6 years ago

The infrastructure within their property line is bonded. I was not talking outside the property line.

AO
6 years ago

Only the initial capital costs are paid by the developers. After that the maintenance is handed over to the county. Looks ok for one lifecycle—added tax revenue at no charge! But obviously the ad valorem on this stuff will never pay the replacement costs or even the maintenance costs on the infrastructure that is being built, even if they were to put 100% of it into trust for such use. Of course, they aren’t, though, they’re going to use it to fix the failing infrastructure on previous bone-headed developments that we’re now responsible for. How are the sewers looking in the county these days?

Jason
6 years ago

This is an absolutely horrid idea. Please for once don’t sell out our city to developers.

Anonymous
6 years ago

Um, that area is not in the city of Miami.

Anonymous
6 years ago

Totally ridiculous. There’s plenty of land that can be developed east of 95 from the Design District all the way to Brickell. I mean enough for half a million more residents. Why build outside of the Urban District is irresponsible. Where are the plans for mass transit? That should be paramount…..

Anonymous
6 years ago

You talk as if these property owners of this project own all of that land “east of 95 from the Design District all the way to Brickell” or they can just developed “Willy Nilly” where ever they want but chose to pick on the Everglades. And mass transit is totally different subject.

Really???
6 years ago

I don’t think anyone is saying these specific property owners have to develop anywhere else.

These property owners purchased cheaper land because it is OUTSIDE the UDB and therefore not developable. Now after they obtain the land at a cheaper rate they want to have the UDB moved to accomade their land therefore making it more valuable.

Meanwhile other developers ARE developing on land they purchased WITHIN the UDB. Again, it just seem unfair to the rest of the developers unless they are going to make them pay for all the extra and ancillary infrastructure that is going to be needed.

Basically we need to stop subsidizing suburban development.

To make the point clearer Image a developer goes out 10 miles into the everglades and builds 5 houses. They building the roads, electrical, plumbing, sewer, etc around those 5 houses. Then the turn to the City, State and Federal government and say hey, now connect your infrastructure 10 miles out my projects. So basically taxpayers are subsidizing that developer and those 5 homeowners. And it makes money because the land is basically free because its in the middle of nowhere. So sure some guy says hey I’ll buy a brand new house in the middle of nowhere because its large, new and half the cost because of the cheaper land and the government subsidy.

If we don’t move the UDB then as Miami fills in naturally it will get more and more dense with development moving west because it has to and by then the increased infrastructure will have already move near this area. Let it happen one an even playing field instead of subsidizing a few greedy developers now.

Danny
6 years ago

Agreed

Anonymous
6 years ago

“I don’t think anyone is saying these specific property owners have to develop anywhere else.”

What’re you talking about? The previous anonymous commenter wrote “Totally ridiculous. There’s plenty of land that can be developed east of 95 from the Design District all the way to Brickell.”

Why would that comment appear on this article if this previous poster isn’t specifically wishing these property owners would consider developing somewhere else?

Really???
6 years ago

I’m assuming they’re talking about development in general. There is plenty of land to be developed elsewhere. If the developers who own this land chooses not to develop somewhere else who cares???? It’s not as if no one is going develop anywhere else if we don’t move the boundary.

Anonymous
6 years ago

“I’m assuming they’re talking about development in general. There is plenty of land to be developed elsewhere.”

Assume all you want, but his/her comment didn’t appear on some other article, the commenter should’ve sticked to the subject at hand, and that is about the property owners of this land wanting the UDBL moved a little further out. Construction east of I-95 is another subject.

Anonymous
5 years ago

The main developer behind the project is the Cordoba family of Key Biscayne, which has been assembling much of the site since the 1990s

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article25455628.html#storylink=cpy

Yet Another Anonymous
6 years ago

If they could get it good enough to be entirely off the grid for being outside the UDB then it wouldn’t be that damaging other than traffic. If it was in the UDB you wouldn’t complain about traffic?

AnonymouS
6 years ago

Dudes,whether you like it or not,people will keep coming and development will happen.This one looks pretty nice,east of Krome,which will become a major Hwy and it’s not taking any active farmland.

marc
6 years ago

Not active? The fields next to Kendall and 167 are still going strong.

Laz
6 years ago

build an expressway and people will come, not everyone wants to live in an urbanist dream of a carless miami

Anonymous
6 years ago

Not wanting to live in an urban environment is not an excuse for being environmentally irresponsible. South Florida does not have additional land on which to sprawl. It’s absurd that we are even considering this.

Not everybody wants to live in your world of traffic gridlock, salinated Everglades (from which we get MOST OF OUR POTABLE WATER), and the other innumerable biological and developmental issues that come with irresponsible growth.