Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Miami Beach board approves demolition, conditions reconstruction for 1600 Washington Avenue tower
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board approved a certificate of appropriateness allowing demolition of two structures at 1600 Washington Avenue and a 15‑story mixed‑use tower, conditioned on reconstructing the front ~10 feet of the historic Laurel Apartments façade at the property line and coordination with pending zoning amendments.
The Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board voted May 12 to approve a developer’s plan to demolish two existing structures at 1600 Washington Avenue and build a 15‑story mixed‑use tower, while requiring a reconstructed homage to the two‑story Laurel Apartments be relocated to the front property line.
Staff recommended approval of application HPB25‑0656 after describing a structural report that found the contributing 1938 Laurel Apartments structurally compromised and a design that retains a nearby five‑story garage and incorporates an etched‑glass ‘‘homage’’ to the historic façade in the new lobby, Michael Belalouch told the board.
The applicant, represented by Nissan Casden of Acreman and owner Ambassador Paul Seahas, said the project brings long‑term year‑round housing to Miami Beach’s urban core and follows the CD3 overlay’s goals to prohibit short‑term rentals. Architect Jose Gomez showed design changes intended to increase articulation on the southern façade, add a rhythm of projecting balconies, and create a three‑dimensional glass lobby with an internal printed layer meant to recall the original Hoouser design.
Preservation advocates urged denial. Meg Lustto, executive director of the Miami Design Preservation League, accused the owner of allowing a contributing building to deteriorate to justify demolition and called the proposal ‘‘demolition by neglect.’’ Neighbors and online callers expressed similar concerns about outreach, massing and the loss of authentic historic fabric.
Applicant representatives and the structural engineer emphasized the building’s condition. The team presented engineering tests and chloride‑damage findings they said make retaining significant portions of the existing masonry unsafe and economically unfeasible; the applicant offered reconstruction of the front 10 feet or the etched‑glass homage as alternatives.
Board members split between preservation and pragmatism. Several members urged retaining original fabric where possible; others accepted the engineer’s assessment and prioritized a conditioned compromise that both recognizes the historic building and allows the new construction. After debate and an amendment to require reconstructed façade documentation and staff coordination of the ground‑floor treatment, the board took a roll call. Votes were: Mr. Haulingworth (yes), Mr. Meyer (no), Miss Levelvel (yes), Mr. Chelpy (yes), Mr. Novik (no), Mr. President (yes), Mr. Kamago (yes). The motion passed.
The board’s approval is conditioned on the project meeting the draft order’s requirements and is tied to the pending LDR (CD3 urban core) amendments; staff said the developer cannot obtain a demolition permit until the new construction permit is in hand. The board also required the applicant to provide final renderings and detail drawings of the reconstructed/recreated façade element for staff review and approval.
The applicant said the project will return to staff with the agreed documentation. The board’s decision allows the development to move forward while attempting to preserve a visible fragment of the site’s historic character.
