Historic Preservation Board continues review of glass elevator proposal at 1116 Ocean Drive to Oct. 12

The Historic Preservation Board on Wednesday continued consideration of an application to install a round glass elevator in the courtyard at 1116 Ocean Drive, the former Versace property, citing unresolved questions about alternatives, long-term effects and accessibility.

The applicant, represented by attorney Alfredo Gonzales and architect Aris Kilar, told the board the proposed exterior glass elevator is intended to increase vertical accessibility without requiring demolition of original floor plates. Gonzales said the elevator “is not a fully accessible elevator, but we'll provide accessibility in many forms to the rooms that have never had it.” He added the modern, transparent design is “the least obtrusive in terms of potential harm or threat to the building.”

Board members and preservation advocates debated whether the intervention is sufficiently reversible and whether it would set a precedent for incremental changes to a highly valued historic property. Daniel Serrado of the Miami Design Preservation League said the proposal “can be undone” and supported staff’s view that it is a light intervention used in European adaptive‑reuse projects. Board members raised concerns that repeated, incremental approvals could cumulatively degrade the building’s historic character.

Board discussion touched on technical and programmatic points. Staff described the building as eligible for state waivers and noted that the elevator would not require an elevator pit or structural demolition. The applicant said the elevator would accommodate a standard wheelchair and that Liberty Elevator (a New York firm) is the vendor being consulted. Board members asked whether additional ADA work — roll‑in showers, modified bathrooms — would follow; the applicant said no further ADA upgrades were proposed at this time.

Several board members expressed sympathy for improving access but also strong reservations. One member urged the board to consider whether repeating changes over years could “chip away” at the property’s integrity. Another questioned whether alternatives, including internal locations or stairlift devices, had been explored thoroughly. The applicant provided drawings and a alternatives analysis showing why interior options would require demolition or would block egress and room entries.

After extended debate, the board voted to continue the application to the Oct. 12 meeting to allow a full board to review the proposal and for individual members to visit the rooms and courtyard. The roll call recorded three votes to continue and two opposed.