Miami Beach HPB delays decision on demolition request for 1800 Michigan Avenue; staff urges preservation of existing house

The Historic Preservation Board on July 8 continued an application by trustees seeking a certificate of appropriateness (COA) to demolish the contributing 1935 house at 1800 Michigan Avenue and replace it with a new residence, after staff said more study was needed and the board signaled reservations about full demolition.

Staff planner Debbie Tackett told the board the structure, designed by Carlos Schopel and Arnold Southwell, is a contributing house in the Palm View Historic District and that staff “does not believe that the total demolition of the home is warranted” and prefers an approach that explores retaining character‑defining portions and removing only later unpermitted additions.

Why it matters: The property is part of a larger four‑lot assemblage where two adjoining homes at 1810 and 1818 were recently demolished following building‑official orders; the board must weigh the neighborhood’s architectural history against owners’ claims of severe structural and flood‑related constraints.

What staff, engineers and the applicant said Debbie Tackett (Historic Preservation staff) said the applicant provided a structural engineering report documenting deficiencies but that the report did not show life‑safety conditions that would require immediate total demolition. She urged the board to allow more time for staff and the applicant to evaluate whether parts of the original 1935 house could be retained and restored.

Attorney Michael Larkin, representing the trustees who own the assemblage, said the owners are carrying out fiduciary duties and submitted plans for a new, context‑sensitive design. Larkin recounted the property’s recent legal and financial history and asked the board to approve the COA for a replacement house if demolition were found necessary.

The owner’s structural expert, Youssef Hashim (structural engineer), described extensive problems when staff and the board inspected the house: water intrusion, termite damage, spalled and weak concrete, carbonation of concrete that has allowed rebar corrosion, shallow and unreinforced slab sections and missing ties between roof and walls. Hashim said the core samples he had tested showed low compressive strengths — in his summary four cores “came in between 1,000 to 1,300 PSI,” far below today’s typical design values — and that much of the house would require such extensive structural replacement that “at the very end of the process you essentially have a new house.”

Architect Jennifer McConney (Studio MCG) presented the replacement design the applicants proposed and said they had tried to respond to the district character, retain basic massing and use traditional materials (stone on the lower floor, stucco and wood shutters above), and raise the house to a new flood elevation while keeping a scale compatible with neighboring homes.

Public comments and concerns Roger Goldblatt of the Miami Design Preservation League and several nearby homeowners opposed demolition and urged the board to treat the application as a case of ‘‘demolition by neglect,’’ saying the trustees or their managers had allowed the building to deteriorate and that approval would set an undesirable precedent for Palm View. Other neighbors urged the board to protect the intact, historic fabric and questioned whether the trustees had pursued all repair options.

Applicant reply and board discussion The trustees’ representatives disputed claims of deliberate neglect, said they had spent money addressing violations on the assemblage and described prior litigation and fiduciary constraints. Larkin and trustee Anthony Aceta emphasized that the property owners had sought professional advice on lifting the building and other mitigation measures but that the engineer did not support lifting the existing structure because of the concrete condition.

Board members expressed mixed views. Several members said the new design was compatible with neighborhood scale, but others — and staff — wanted the applicant to explore retaining portions of the original structure and to provide clearer engineering justification that total demolition was the only feasible option. After discussion the board voted to continue the item to the board’s September 16 meeting to allow staff and the applicant to develop preservation options and additional evidence.

Action taken The board continued the 1800 Michigan Avenue COA application to the September 16 Historic Preservation Board meeting for further review and study. The roll call recorded four votes in favor of continuance and one opposed.

What’s next The applicant may present additional structural analysis, a plan showing which original portions could be retained, or revised designs that keep the most significant character‑defining features. Staff said it will work with the applicant on options including partial demolition or repair, and reiterated that property maintenance violations should be addressed while the case is pending.

Quotes (selected) • "Staff does not believe that the total demolition of the home is warranted." — Debbie Tackett, Historic Preservation staff • "By the time you do all these steps of repair...it's a brand new home." — Youssef Hashim, structural engineer • "These are two professionals that are in charge of carrying out the last wishes of Rita and Ybor." — Michael Larkin, attorney for the trustees

Ending The board left open the possibility of allowing demolition if the applicant later demonstrates demolition is the only feasible path, but for now directed staff and the applicant to pursue alternatives that prioritize retention and careful restoration of the house’s character‑defining elements.