The Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board on Oct. 21 heard a public presentation and comment on a proposal to demolish a contributing Henry Hohauser building at 1600 Washington Avenue and build a proposed 210-unit market-rate rental tower that the applicant said would require increases in allowable height and floor-area ratio (FAR).

The proposal, presented by representatives for the property owner, seeks design approval and the demolition of the existing contributing structure before any separate legislative action on a Washington Avenue overlay that would raise height and FAR limits. The design team said the project will be residential, will include a covenant prohibiting short-term or vacation rentals, and includes revisions recommended by staff, notably new brise-soleil shading elements and a revised ramp to meet the city's flood-elevation requirements.

Why this matters: The parcel sits within Miami Beach's historic downtown and the proposed demolition would remove a building the public preservation group characterized as a “contributing” resource. The project also hinges on legislative zoning changes — a height increase from the current allowable 100 feet to 150 feet and a 0.5 FAR increase — that must be acted on separately by the City Commission. Those legislative changes, if adopted, would affect future development along portions of Washington Avenue.

Applicant presentation and project details

Project representatives, including presenter Enrique Norton and a separate speaker identified as Mr. Cherry, described the design as a contemporary, “simple” building that responds to modern-period context and said they had already incorporated staff recommendations. Norton said the project team had revised facades and added brise-soleil devices to the southern elevation and maintained similar elements on the north elevation; he also described a required ramp and raised finished-floor elevation to comply with updated city flood codes.

The team said the project would be a 210-unit market-rate rental building and that a zoning covenant would prohibit short-term or vacation rentals on the site. The applicant stated the proposal seeks an increase of approximately 0.5 FAR and an increase in maximum height to 150 feet; the presentation noted that the height and FAR changes are legislative matters to be considered by the City Commission and not decisions for the preservation board.

Public comment: preservation group opposes, business group supports

Julie Isaacson, a member of MDPL’s advocacy committee, opposed the demolition and the proposed design. “We oppose the proposed demolition of the contributing Henry Hoelhauser streamlined modern building and the design of the proposed apartment building,” Isaacson said, accusing the owner of “demolition by neglect” and arguing the new design is incompatible with the historic district’s character. She urged stronger public benefits if additional development rights are granted, including more two-bedroom units and restrictions tied to short-term rentals.

Annabelle Yopis, executive director of the Lincoln Road Business Improvement District, spoke in favor of the project, saying the neighborhood needs more year-round residents and that the proposal aligns with nearby commercial investment, including a flagship Zara store and ongoing street improvements. “We need more year-round residents. We need young professionals moving into our district,” Yopis said.

Board questions, preservation concerns and structural assessments

Board members pressed the applicant on several matters: the appearance and extent of balcony railings shown in renderings, the proposed rooftop landscaping and railing, how internal alleys and loading would function, and whether portions of the Hohauser-era facade could be retained. The applicant described two internal service alleys intended to contain garbage and loading activity and said one alley on Washington would be gated and that vehicle access would circulate to Sixteenth Street.

Several board members asked whether structural salvage or partial retention of the existing Hohauser building was feasible. An engineer who spoke during the meeting said tests showed compressive concrete strength around 1,500 psi and described the existing building as “in bad shape,” which the applicant representatives and their engineer said limits salvage feasibility.

Board members also debated voting thresholds for demolition of a contributing building. Legal staff clarified that the question of increased height and FAR is a legislative matter for the City Commission; the preservation board’s role at this hearing is to review design and any demolition of the contributing structure under the certificate-of-appropriateness criteria in the city code.

Affordability and public-benefit requests

At least one board member said they would withhold support for a height increase unless the project included affordable units. “If you want to receive my vote on this for height increase, you have to add affordability units or you will not get my vote. Plain and simple,” a board member stated during deliberations. Applicant representatives and the owner’s team countered that the proposed FAR and height increases are the minimum necessary to make the project financially feasible as a market-rate rental building.

Design revisions and site details

The applicant said renderings had been updated to better show horizontal balcony pickets and that the proposed rooftop could include landscaping visible behind a glass railing. The team confirmed revisions to facades following staff advice and said the ramps were rearranged to meet the city’s updated flood elevation requirements. The presentation noted the previously approved 2018 design differed and that the new proposal would have a taller massing and different articulation.

Next steps

No formal demolition approval or design decision is recorded in the portion of the meeting provided. The project team and board members discussed outstanding questions and requested further study of whether portions of the existing facade can be salvaged. Any change to height or FAR would require separate legislative approval by the Miami Beach City Commission. The preservation board will proceed under the certificate-of-appropriateness criteria for design and demolition decisions; if the applicant seeks the legislative overlay and zoning amendments, those would return to the commission for separate public hearings.

Ending

The hearing reflected a central tension in Miami Beach planning discussions: balancing new residential development and economic activity in the Lincoln Road/Washington Avenue corridor with preservation of contributing historic fabric. The record shows organized public opposition from a preservation advocacy group and endorsement from a major business-improvement district, and board members signaled that affordability and facade-retention questions will be central to any final approvals.