Miami, Florida - The Riverfront, the Bayfront, and the Ridge: A Holistic Approach to Waterfront Resilience

Abstract

As a part of Miami’s efforts to be at the forefront of resilience planning, the City of Miami and the Miami Downtown Development Authority (DDA), the sponsors, asked the Urban Land Institute to conduct an Advisory Services Panel to provide strategic recommendations on design guidelines, funding opportunities, policy approaches, and an implementation plan to bolster the resilience of Miami’s waterfront, which the city considers its first line of defense against the impacts of sea level rise and climate change.

Full text

Waterfront Resilience
Miami, Florida
A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report
June 2–7, 2019
Advisory Services

Urban Land Institute
2001 L Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036-4948
uli.org
Waterfront Resilience
Miami, Florida
A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report
The Riverfront, the Bayfront, and the Ridge:
A Holistic Approach to Waterfront Resilience
June 2–7, 2019

THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE is a global, member-driven
organization comprising more than 45,000 real estate
and urban development professionals dedicated to advancing
the Institute’s mission of providing leadership in the
responsible use of land and in creating and sustaining
thriving communities worldwide.
ULI’s interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects
of the industry, including developers, property owners,
investors, architects, urban planners, public officials, real
estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,
and academics. Established in 1936, the Institute has a
presence in the Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific region,
with members in 80 countries.
ULI’s extraordinary impact on land use decision-making is
based on its members’ sharing expertise on a variety of factors
affecting the built environment, including urbanization,
demographic and population changes, new economic drivers,
technology advancements, and environmental concerns.
Peer-to-peer learning is achieved through the knowledge
shared by members at thousands of convenings each year that
reinforce ULI’s position as a global authority on land use and
real estate. In 2018 alone, more than 2,200 events were held in
about 330 cities around the world.
Drawing on the work of its members, the Institute recognizes
and shares best practices in urban design and development
for the benefit of communities around the globe.
More information is available at uli.org. Follow ULI on
Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.
About the Urban Land Institute
COVER PHOTO: ULI
© 2019 by the Urban Land Institute
2001 L Street, NW | Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20036-4948
All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents of
this publication without written permission of the copyright holder is prohibited.

THE GOAL OF THE ULI ADVISORY SERVICES program is
to bring the finest expertise in the real estate field to bear
on complex land use planning and development projects,
programs, and policies.
Since 1947, this program has assembled well over 700
ULI-member teams to help sponsors find creative, practical
solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land
management strategies, evaluation of development potential,
growth management, community revitalization, brownfield
redevelopment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and
affordable housing, and asset management strategies, among
other matters. A wide variety of public, private, and nonprofit
organizations have contracted for ULI’s advisory services.
Each panel team is composed of highly qualified professionals
who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for their
knowledge of the panel topic and are screened to ensure their
objectivity. ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide a holistic
look at development problems. A respected ULI member who
has previous panel experience chairs each panel.
The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is intensive. It
includes an in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the
site and meetings with sponsor representatives, a day of
hour-long interviews of typically 50 to 100 key community
representatives, and two days of formulating recommendations.
Long nights of discussion precede the panel’s conclusions. On
the final day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation of
its findings and conclusions to the sponsor. A written report is
prepared and published.
Because the sponsoring entities are responsible for significant
preparation before the panel’s visit, including sending extensive
briefing materials to each member and arranging for the panel
to meet with key local community members and stakeholders
in the project under consideration, participants in ULI’s five-day
panel assignments are able to make accurate assessments
of a sponsor’s issues and to provide recommendations in a
compressed amount of time.
A major strength of the program is ULI’s unique ability to draw
on the knowledge and expertise of its members, including
land developers and owners, public officials, academics,
representatives of financial institutions, and others. In
fulfillment of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this
Advisory Services panel report is intended to provide objective
advice that will promote the responsible use of land to enhance
the environment.
ULI Program Staff
Paul Bernard
Executive Vice President, Advisory Services
Thomas W. Eitler
Senior Vice President, Advisory Services
Deborah Kerson Bilek
Vice President, Advisory Services
Paul Angelone
Director, Advisory Services
Lauren McKim Callaghan
Director, Advisory Services
Jaqueline Canales
Director, Advisory Services
Cali Slepin
Senior Associate, Advisory Services
James A. Mulligan
Senior Editor
Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLC
Manuscript Editor
Brandon Weil
Art Director
Deanna Pineda, Muse Advertising Design
Graphic Designer
Craig Chapman
Senior Director, Publishing Operations
About ULI Advisory Services

Acknowledgments
On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, the panel
would like to thank the city of Miami and the Miami
Downtown Development Authority, the sponsors,
for the invitation to come to Miami to examine urban
waterfront resilience in downtown. A special thank
you goes to Patrice Gillespie Smith, Jane Gilbert,
Jeremy Calleros Gauger, Reinaldo Rodriguez,
and Melissa Hew for their support and for putting
together the panel’s briefing materials and setting
up stakeholder interviews.
In addition, thank you to the many other sponsor
committee members who made the week a success,
including Mayor Francis Suarez, Emilio Gonzalez,
Joseph Napoli, Dr. Nzeribe Ihekwaba, Greg West,
Chairman Ken Russell, and Alyce Robertson. The
panel also thanks Julie Medley and ULI Southeast
Florida/Caribbean for providing local knowledge and
insight. The panel would also like to acknowledge
the following entities that sponsored events during
the panel week on behalf of the panel sponsors:
American Flood Coalition, Schwartz Media, ZOM
Living, Swire Properties, and the Florida Inland
Navigation District.
Finally, the panel thanks the more than 80
residents, real estate industry and resilience
professionals, business and community leaders,
and representatives from Miami and Miami-Dade
County who shared their perspectives, experiences,
and insights with the panel throughout the week.

ULI
2
ULI Panel and
Project Staff
3
The Panel’s Assignment
6
Background
8
Downtown Market
Context
10
Waterfront Design
Concepts
20
Preparing Policy
for Action
23
Infrastructure Finance
Approaches
34
Implementation
40
Conclusion
41
About the Panel
Contents

Panel Chair
Ladd Keith
Chair, Sustainable Built Environments Program
University of Arizona, College of Architecture, Planning,
and Landscape Architecture
Tucson, Arizona
Panel Vice Chair
Michelle Beaman Chang
Founder and Chief Executive Officer
Imby Community Inc.
Washington, D.C.
Panel Members
Jason Bonnet
Vice President, Development
Brookfield Properties
San Francisco, California
Samia Byrd
Deputy County Manager
County of Arlington, Virginia
Springfield, Virginia
John Macomber
Senior Lecturer, Harvard Business School
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Michael Rodriguez
Leader, Market Research and Insight
CBRE Mid-Atlantic
Washington, D.C.
Susannah Ross
Consultant
Landscape Architecture
Boston, Massachusetts
Matt Steenhoek
Vice President, Development
PN Hoffman
Washington, D.C.
Byron Stigge
Founder
Level Infrastructure
New York, New York
Jay Valgora
Founder and Principal
Studio V Architecture
New York, New York
Panel Adviser
Kevin Rogan
Managing Director, Global Real Estate
and Hospitality Practice
Marsh & McLennan
Miami, Florida
ULI Project Staff
Lauren McKim Callaghan
Director, Advisory Services
Gretchen Sweeney
Senior Director, Awards
Leah Sheppard
Senior Associate, Urban Resilience
Rebecca Hill
Associate, Events and Logistics
ULI Panel and Project Staff
2A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

The study area for the panel, in downtown Miami, encompasses
Miami’s urban waterfronts along both the Miami River and
Biscayne Bay. Specifically, the study area extends from SE
26th Road (southern boundary) to NE 36th Street (northern
boundary) and NW 27th Avenue (western boundary) along the
Miami River.
Today the study area has an estimated population of about
250,000, based on information provided by the city. The
population is projected to continue to grow by 4 percent
annually and reach 304,000 by 2024. The median household
income is an estimated $40,846, with about 20 percent of
households earning $100,000 or more. An estimated 79
percent of the population in the study area identifies as being of
Hispanic origin, up from 77 percent based on the 2010 census.
Current estimates indicate that 14 percent of housing units
in the study area are vacant and the majority (61 percent) of
occupied units are renter occupied, compared to 26 percent that
are owner occupied.
The Assignment
As a part of Miami’s efforts to be at the forefront of resilience
planning, the city of Miami and the Miami Downtown
Development Authority (DDA) (the sponsors) asked the Urban
Land Institute to conduct an Advisory Services panel to provide
strategic recommendations on design guidelines, funding
opportunities, policy approaches, and an implementation plan
The Panel’s Assignment
MIAMI’S WATERFRONTS AND WATERWAYS have played a prominent role in its history. In its earliest days, the
Miami River was a source of food. Much later, the waterfront along the Bay of Biscayne helped attract tourists, many
of whom came by Henry Flagler’s railroad extension along the ridge to the west of the bay. This ushered in a real
estate boom in the late 1800s and helped shape the development of today’s Magic City.
ULI
3
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

JAY VOLGARA/ULI
The study area focuses on the downtown bayfront and riverfront of the Miami River.
to bolster the resilience of Miami’s waterfront, which the city
considers its first line of defense against the impacts of sea-
level rise and climate change. Specifically, the sponsors asked
the panel to focus on the following:
 Concentrate on economic resilience, update waterfront
design guidelines that incorporate the city’s resilience
goals, align with the city’s form-based code, and bolster
the Baywalk and Riverwalk. These design alternatives
should address the increasing flood risks to the physical
and economic viability of the waterfront, including
insurance rates, real estate investment, financing, and
enhanced livability.
 Define public and private-sector roles and recommend
financing strategies for green and gray infrastructure
improvements along the waterfront (especially the Baywalk
and Riverwalk).
 Develop a policy direction that informs both private and
public property modifications to enhance flooding and
storm surge resiliency, with a specific focus on high rises
and historic buildings that cannot be elevated and that are
not likely to be demolished. In addition, identify steps the
most forward-thinking cities are taking to ensure protection
of their waterfront assets (such as waterfront promenades)
and apply these to Miami.
Miami RiverMiami River
Study area
Biscayne Bay
Rickenb
a
c
k
e
r
C
a
u
s
e
w
a
y
4A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

 Integrate these recommendations into an action plan that
outlines short-, medium-, and long-term steps. This action
plan should be integrated with and leverage other resilience
planning work underway, such as Resilient Greater
Miami and the Beaches Strategy; the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE)’s Back Bay study; the Miami Baywalk
and Riverwalk Design Guidelines, the city of Miami’s
Stormwater Master Plan, and its overall strategic plan.
The Panel’s Key Recommendations
After briefings from the sponsor, a tour of the urban bayfront
and riverfront, and more than 80 interviews with a variety of
stakeholders, the panel prepared the following key takeaways
and recommendations:
 Embrace the legacy of the waterfront through design
to protect from water, live with water, and create value
from water.
 Adopt the draft Miami Baywalk and Riverwalk Design
Guidelines with a few modifications.
 Design and implement a Living Shoreline Demonstration
Project along the bayfront that helps build partnership
across agencies and the community and allows exploration
of long-term resilience strategies not currently in use both
out into the bay and further inland.
 Extend and apply these guidelines to the Riverwalk, the
Baywalk, and riverfront with a few additional resilience-
focused measures.
 Track and actively engage in the USACE Back Bay Study
and support the installation of an iconic tidal gate for
the river.
 Return to Miami’s history and embrace sensitive transit-
oriented development (TOD) on the ridge for future growth.
 Update the Downtown Miami Master Plan to bring existing
plans and visions together. Act on these strategies and
evaluate outcomes on a regular basis to address updates
in relevant forecasts and data and progress made in
resilience-related measures.
 Pursue a portfolio of financial strategies to become
the world leader in resilient finance, investment, and
construction.
 Use an expanded transfer of development density (TDD)
policy to encourage sensitive development in less flood-
prone areas and provide capital for existing buildings
to make investments in flood-proofing measures when
elevating or demolishing a building is untenable.
 Reduce uncertainty for the community and private market
through predictability, transparency, and accountability.
Pursue proactive community engagement strategies and
support networks to foster communication throughout
the city.
 Use incremental actions to lead to transformational
changes. Further refine the outlined action plan to
implement panel recommendations and take initial steps
that can lead to larger efforts and benefits in the years
to come.
5
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

From sea-level rise to heat waves, from storm surge to
drought, the many impacts of climate change threaten the built
environment in ways that have serious consequences for the
health, viability, and economic vitality of our cities.
Flooding
Sunny-day flooding, which refers to above-normal tide events,
has increased in recent years, forcing water into stormwater
outfalls and above walls onto streets, leading to corrosion of
cars and infrastructure, according to the Southeast Florida
Regional Climate Compact. This type of flooding is intensified
when it occurs during storms and surge conditions.
With urban development comes an increase in impervious
surfaces, such as roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and roofs.
Replacing the natural landscape with these surfaces leaves
fewer opportunities for water infiltration, which can prompt
more frequent flooding. Private-sector developers and
designers are playing a growing role in meeting cities’ water
management–related goals. Local regulators are seeking
increased participation from the private sector, requiring or
Background
AFTER HURRICANE ANDREW, HURRICANE KATRINA, SUPERSTORM SANDY, and other storms, communities like Miami are
increasingly focused on becoming more resilient, or how to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully
adapt to the adverse events. The region is expected to experience an increase in rainy season months and more frequent storm
events. These issues will be compounded by a forecast two-foot increase (over the next 40 years) in sea-level rise and associated
flood risks like king tides and tidal flooding. On the basis of these projections, a proactive approach that addresses these issues
and challenges is necessary. In 2016, Miami became part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative and added
a chief resilience officer to its city staff to focus on these issues. In addition, a number of studies, plans, and strategies have been
recently completed or are currently underway, including Resilient305, Miami Forever: Climate Ready strategy, the USACE Back
Bay study, the Miami Baywalk and Riverwalk Design Guidelines, and the city’s pending update to the stormwater master plan.
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
6A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

CITY OF M IAMI, MIAMI D OWNTOWN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Miami has experienced an increase of about 73 days annually with
temperatures above 90 degrees. Locally, these extremely hot days can be
particularly difficult on the elderly, the young, and low-income individuals.
incentivizing the real estate community to incorporate enhanced
water management mechanisms in new development projects.
In low-lying Miami with its porous ground composition, sea-
level rise and groundwater absorption are and will continue to
be issues that will affect the city’s resilience. These physical and
environmental factors do and will exacerbate existing challenges in
addressing heavy rainfall, seasonal tidal flooding (“king tides”), and
major storm events like Hurricane Irma, which had an associated
storm surge of three to six feet, based on information provided
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Flood mitigation and water management have become of interest
to the sponsors because of the flood risk in the greater downtown
area that is affected by two water sources—the bay and the river.
Heat
Urban areas are the most heat-at-risk locations in the United
States. Heat has the potential for devastating public health
consequences—as seen in the Chicago Heat Wave of 1995,
the European heat wave of 2003, and more recently, the near-
global summer heat wave of 2018. Miami had a record-setting
summer in 2019—71 days with temperatures at or above 92
degrees.
Extreme heat also has the potential for long-term impacts on
local economies and even consumer market preferences. The
built environment is ultimately both a contributor to and solution
for extreme heat, especially in cities, and presents numerous
opportunities for mitigation and adaptation at the building and
neighborhood levels. Although designing for heat is an emerging
issue that is not yet mainstream in many U.S. markets, it is likely
to become more prevalent as extreme heat increases and is
acknowledged by both consumers and local regulators.
According to information provided to the panel by the sponsors,
extreme heat has become a more prevalent issue in Miami. An
article in the New York Times points out that between 1970 and
2015, Miami has experienced an increase of approximately 73
days annually of temperatures above 90 degrees. Locally, these
extremely hot days can be particularly difficult on the elderly,
the young, and low-income individuals. Furthermore, these days
foster an environment conducive to an increase in the existing
population of mosquitos, which present their own public health
challenges. Heat in Miami is particularly challenging along the
waterfronts and downtown because of the lack of an existing
tree canopy to provide shade throughout the day.
Broader Panel Considerations
As the panel deliberated on its findings from the sponsor briefing,
study area tour, and stakeholder interviews, it also took into account
broader considerations when developing the recommendations.
One notable consideration was a holistic definition of resilience
that includes not only the waterfront, but also Miami more broadly,
including economic resilience. The panel also acknowledged that
the city has a responsibility to continue to mitigate greenhouse
gas emissions and reduce Miami’s contribution to climate
change.
In addition, the panel wanted to focus on ensuring that solutions
are not maladaptive—either unintentionally contributing
more
greenhouse gas emissions or inadvertently causing new
problems—such as installing water pumps to keep downtown dry
that might also increase pollution in the bay and harm the natural
environment, inadvertently adding to the impact of storm surge.
The panel also learned about a number of areas in which Miami
has been successful at furthering resilience efforts—and on
which the panel builds its recommendations. Current successes
that the panel applauds include the following:
 Participation in 100 Resilient Cities and continued support
of the chief resilience officer and Office of Resilience and
Sustainability;
 Creating and sustaining an active Sea Level Rise
Committee within the city of Miami;
 Release of Resilient305, a strategy to address resilience
challenges through collaboration within the community
and across several city and county jurisdictions;
 Development of a city-specific Climate Ready strategy
 Support of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change
Compact;
 Amendment to Miami21 to allow new structures to be
elevated up to five feet (freeboard) above base flood elevation;
 Current and ongoing update of the Stormwater Master
Plan (SWMP); and
 Being a leader in wind and storm-related building codes.
Days of heat in Miami
over 90° F.
Miami with greatest heat
index in U.S. by 2050.
7
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

Residential Market
Home prices have trended upward, with homes selling at
$416 per square foot in 2018, up 36 percent since 2012. By
comparison, rents in greater downtown have increased 16
percent to $2,627 over the same period. This suggests that
homeownership is becoming more expensive than rental
units according to current data from CBRE and CoStar. The
information also speaks to issues of housing affordability that
were conveyed to the panel during the panel week.
Commercial Market
Recent commercial trends also suggest a healthy downtown
market. Current office rents, retail rents, and multifamily
rents have all increased in the greater downtown. Importantly,
research indicates that the city of Miami is changing its
economy toward more professional and office-using jobs that
have pushed office vacancies in the Miami market (Brickell)
to levels under 12 percent. Downtown Miami office vacancy is
slightly higher, at around 15 percent as of the second quarter
of 2019.
Downtown Market Context
MIAMI IS A THRIVING GLOBAL ECONOMY AND A TOP DESTINATION as a national and global real estate
market. Among major global cities, Miami ranks fifth in U.S. yields (income returned on an investment) for
retail and industrial real estate. Between 16 and 20 percent of investment comes from other countries every
year, according to information provided by CBRE. An important point, the panel learned that the waterfront is
a key part of the economy, with 75 percent of the city’s jobs located within a half mile of the water.
ULI
8A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

Commercial properties (offices, retail establishments, and large
apartment buildings) are an incredibly important segment of the
downtown economy. By the panel’s estimate, these properties
comprise $21.1 billion in taxable commercial property value
(excluding owner-occupied space) in greater downtown
Miami. Of that, $5 billion exists within a quarter mile from the
waterfronts of Biscayne Bay or the Miami River.
The waterfront outperforms greater downtown in the retail and
multifamily segments although office rents close to the water
are lower ($37.95 per square foot versus $40.23 per square
foot). This is likely because the core office market is upland
toward the Metrorail where most of the key office inventory is
located.
Finally, since 2009 a total of $13.1 billion was invested in
commercial property in the Miami central business district,
indicating an active market. Although transaction volumes
have slowed to $1.2 billion in 2018, total volumes still remain
significant, especially with an active foreign investment market
that totals 23 percent in 2018 based on current data from CBRE
and Real Capital Analytics.
Important Commercial Market Indicators
Global investor market returns Fifth in U.S.
Fastest-growing markets Second in U.S.
Amount of investment in past 10 years $13.1 billion
Commercial real estate investment from abroad 20%
Sources: CBRE Inc.; Wallethub; Real Capital Analytics.
9
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

Resilient design knows no boundaries. Even in a city that
revolves around the ocean and waterways, the waterfront is
not the only place where design matters for a resilient city. In
Miami, the inland areas—and the ridge in particular—play a
critical role. Here the ridge refers to elevated areas of the city
of Miami that are less susceptible to climate risks such as sea-
level rise and storm surge. The panel focused on three areas
when constructing the following recommendations for a unified
approach to resilience: the bay, the river, and the ridge.
The panel’s goal was to develop a cohesive strategy for the
Baywalk and Riverwalk that unites these two distinct stretches
of waterfront while recognizing and responding to their unique
needs. The neighborhood character and physical condition of
each pedestrian route differ significantly, as do the adjacent
land uses. If the city can succeed in knitting them together
into a continuous route, they will form an invaluable economic,
recreational, and ecological asset. The panel recommends
extending the Baywalk guidelines to the Riverwalk. Doing
Waterfront Design Concepts
RESILIENT DESIGN IS A MULTIFACETED CONCEPT, and resilient design solutions are highly specific to place and time.
A strong resilient design strategy may include multiple and changing interventions and will need to evolve over time. The
panel recommends that the sponsors play a leadership role in designing Miami’s waterfront and be ready to repeat and
continue to build from the work that has already been done. The panel anticipates that it will be necessary to continually
adjust the waterfront design standards, with specific checkpoints to account for current and future sea-level rise and
storm projections as well as the evolving land use and demographic contexts. Given the urgency of addressing sea-
level rise, a single revision to current design standards will not suffice for the long term. Accordingly, the panel’s design
approach begins with recommendations for incremental improvements that have the potential to evolve and build a
more resilient city over time and pave the way for larger-scale interventions in the future.
ULI
10 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

so would bring a strong visual style to the whole Miami
waterfront and provide one form of continuity across different
parts of the city.
To create a comprehensive and cohesive strategy, the panel
has three sets of recommendations: one for the bay, one for the
river, and one for the ridge.
The Bay
The Baywalk and Riverwalk Design Guidelines currently
being prepared would introduce many improvements to the
current Waterfront Design Guidelines in Appendix B of the
Miami21 Zoning Code (2009). The panel largely agreed with
the sponsor’s analysis of the shortcomings of the current
Waterfront Design Guidelines—that they lack overall flexibility,
have some problematic design requirements, and do not allow
for elements, such as terracing, that could address storm surge.
The panel also supports the design approach and standards
proposed in the draft Baywalk and Riverwalk Design
Guidelines—under the brand “Miami Baywalk”—because
they address most of these shortcomings. These proposed
guidelines include living shorelines, increased flexibility for
pedestrians to engage with the water, a slightly raised seawall,
wider planting zones, permeable pavement, and removing the
mandate for coconut palms.
Some components of the draft design guidelines face
significant regulatory obstacles, in particular, Miami-Dade
County Environmental Resources Management has concerns
about allowing living shorelines to extend into Biscayne Bay.
Design Recommendations
The panel notes that the sponsors must look for ways to
address these concerns and recommends the following:
 Adopt the proposed Baywalk and Riverwalk Design
Guidelines with their existing minimum top elevation for
bulkheads of +5.71 feet NAVD (North American Vertical
Datum, a system used by surveyors and engineers as
the basis for elevation measurements, www.fema.gov).
This elevation provides enough current protection while
ensuring the bay is accessible to the community; 5.71 feet
NAVD correlated to existing bulkhead elevations plus 2.5
feet sea-level rise. The panel did not recommend raising
CITY OF M IAMI
Current waterfront design section.
11
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

the bulkhead all the way up to FEMA map 1 percent flood
elevations of AE 10/11 plus sea-level rise plus freeboard
(about +12 to 13 feet NAVD) because that would have
required a seawall eight to 10 feet higher than the existing
seawall, which would not be feasible from an urban-edge-
condition point of view.
 Engage and address relevant regulatory agencies to
advance a more expansive framework that allows for
softer edges that extend into the bay. A dialogue and
commitment at the highest levels of city and county
government are necessary to address the conflicting needs
of the shoreline and the bay.
CITY OF M IAMI
CITY OF M IAMI
Proposed waterfront design section.
Proposed living shoreline.
12 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

 Consider future alternatives for building to a higher
elevation and building farther into the bay. Establish a
process to review and update the design guidelines on a
regular basis, at least every 10 years. Changes to elevation
and the bay edge may need to be made based on updated
data and successful testing. Over time, more intensive
living shoreline solutions may become feasible.
 Create a demonstration project and test certain shoreline
typologies to foster collaboration and exploration for a
range of waterfront resilience design options.
 Reserve three feet (horizontally) of the 25-foot right-of-
way as a potential corridor for seawall in the future. This
length refers to the approximate width required to retrofit a
high seawall in the future, if feasible. The panel considered
recommending a higher minimum top elevation, for
example +10 feet; however, given the wide variance in
landownership, land use types, and opportunities for
new construction along the bay and river, achieving a
continuous and effective stretch of bulkhead at +10 feet
would be extremely challenging. The panel recognizes that
the bayfront will flood in an extreme storm event. However,
many buildings along the bay have already elevated their
lower levels and protected them from such an event, and
other buildings will need to take such measures.
The best approach for the bayfront now is acknowledging
and preparing for extreme storm event flooding. The city
may need to evaluate whether public or other assets are
at greater risk to determine if they need greater levels of
protection than these general recommendations provide.
Typology Discussion
The panel reviewed a few building typologies specific to the
downtown Miami area to formulate recommendations.
Bayfront large commercial building. The panel recommends
the adoption of the proposed Baywalk guidelines as they
pertain to the existing commercial building stock. This includes
less intensive ground-floor uses and taking measures to wet
ULI
One approach can include a living shoreline of the Barrier Islands and
mangroves.
CITY OF M IAMI AND PALM B EACH COUN TYCITY OF M IAMI AND PALM B EACH COUN TY
WHAT IS A LIVING SHORELINE?
Living shorelines are a green infrastructure technique that
uses native aquatic vegetation alone or in combination
with offshore sills to stabilize the shoreline. Here in South
Florida, they are composed primarily of natural lime rock
riprap boulders, sand infill, mangroves, cordgrasses, and
oyster bags. Living shorelines provide a natural buffer that
can bolster gray infrastructure, attenuate storm surge and
wave energy, enhance wetland habitat, sequester carbon, and
provide protection from costal inundation. According to NOAA,
about 15 feet of terrain can absorb 50 percent of incoming
wave energy. Although living shorelines are not suitable
for protecting against a powerful storm event, they are an
appropriate technique for mitigating the effects of tidal events,
sea-level rise, and some coastal events.
In New York, Brooklyn Bridge Park implemented salt marshes
along the edges of its design not only to filter the water of
pollutants but also to help protect the park and upland area
during a storm surge.
13
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

floodproof the ground floor, allowing the water to come in and
go back out.
Bayfront public end of road. This typology recommends a 25-
foot ramp of the existing road up to the seawall elevation of +5.7
NAVD that the draft Baywalk and Riverwalk Design Guidelines
propose. On the bayside of the seawall, the typology would have
terraced steps—known as a “get down”—into the water, with
riprap below the steps.
The River
The panel believes consistent guidelines for both the Baywalk
and Riverwalk will introduce a continuous pedestrian experience
and help establish a shared sense of community among diverse
waterfront neighborhoods. However, the flooding conditions
for the Miami River are quite different from those along the
bay and thus require different design elements. The river edge
and the surrounding communities experience more regular
flooding events from rain and king tides relative to bayfront
communities. Storm surge flooding along the Miami River is
lower than for Biscayne Bay—mostly +7.7 feet NAVD—which
is only two feet above the seawall elevation of +5.7 feet NAVD in
the design guidelines.
Whereas bayfront development consists primarily of large
commercial and multifamily residential uses, the Miami River
is a working waterfront over five miles long, and therefore
ULIULI
A concept of shoreline treatment for Bayfront commercial space with in-depth protection elements such as a bulkhead, wet floodproofing, and parking on the first floor.
A suggested approach to Bayfront public end-of-road locations includes terraced steps extending into the bay with riprap below the steps.
14 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

a continuous flood wall is not a practical solution. In fact,
stretches of the Riverwalk will run parallel to the river on nearby
streets rather than right along the water’s edge. Boats need to
access businesses, restaurants, and other uses at the typical
tidal water levels of +0 feet to +2 feet NAVD. Because of these
requirements, as well as the limited width of the river, creating
soft edges and ecological solutions within the river corridor is
much less feasible—although unique opportunities may exist.
Communities surrounding the Miami River, such as Little
Havana and Allapattah, are vibrant neighborhoods characterized
by single-family homes and smaller-scale multifamily
apartments in contrast to elevated condominium towers along
the bay. The flood zone below +7.7 feet NAVD on both sides
of the river is wide, leaving miles of streets and large swaths
of neighborhoods with limited resources exposed to flood
risk. Thus, even a moderate hurricane—like Irma was when it
reached Miami—has damaging effects in these communities.
The panel heard stories of power lines being down for over a
week and homes destroyed, which was a much different story
than was heard about residents in Edgewater, downtown, or
Brickell. Imagine what a Category 3 or higher storm would do to
these communities. The riverfront requires a different approach
to flood protection from the bay.
Infrastructure investment and coastal and stormwater design
standards resulting from the city’s update to the Stormwater
Master Plan have the potential to dramatically reduce flooding
in the neighborhoods adjacent to the Miami River. The update
will evaluate opportunities for expanding green infrastructure,
such as permeable and planted surfaces, as well as gray
infrastructure, such as larger drainage pipes, flood control
backflow prevention valves, and many other strategies.
Although the scope of this plan update does not primarily
focus on addressing long-term storm surge risk, the city and
its consultants have identified the update as an opportunity
to coordinate stormwater and coastal resilient infrastructure.
The panel recommends a continued emphasis on green
infrastructure in neighborhoods along the Miami River to
reduce flooding from sea-level rise and storm surge. Such
infrastructure has multiple public benefits, including reducing
surface and air temperatures and connecting communities to
nature and open space.
Design Recommendations
The panel identified the following recommendations specific to
the waterfront design guidelines:
 Clarify that the Miami Baywalk and Riverwalk Design
Guidelines cover the river and ensure they address the
unique characteristics of the river where few, if any,
opportunities exist for a living shoreline.
CITY OF N EW YORK
ULIULI
An example of terraced steps with riprap in Brooklyn Bridge Park.
The riverfront area has different typology from the bayfront. Flood zones (shown
in pale yellow) extend anywhere from five to 20 blocks into the neighborhoods.
A suggested section through the riverfront bulkhead.
Miami RiverMiami River
15
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

 Use a bulkhead height of +4 feet NAVD to allow boat
access and to permit pedestrians to be close to the water.
This is a lower elevation than the requirements along the
Baywalk because of the amount of direct water-to-land
interaction with commercial and leisure boat traffic along
the river’s edge. Raising the seawall too far from the
existing edge elevation would make boat traffic and the
pedestrian experience disjointed.
 Grade up to +8 NAVD before meeting building edges.
 Use vertical ecological solutions for the bulkhead to
encourage habitat formation, including eco concrete and
living shelves.
 Plant shade trees rather than coconut palms along
pedestrian paths.
Typology Discussion
The panel examined a site at 451 South Miami Avenue as a
place to apply its recommendations for a riverfront mixed-
use typology. This typology continues the graphic design
and landscape palette of the draft Baywalk and Riverwalk
Design Guidelines to ensure a continuity of experience for the
pedestrian. It comprises the following elements:
WIKIMEDIA COMMONSWIKIMEDIA COMMONS
The London Thames Barrier (top) and the Singapore Marina Bay Barrage
(above) are large-scale examples of tidal gateways. A smaller-scale tidal
barrier at the mouth of the Miami River could eliminate the significant
impacts of surge flood for the residential communities along the river.
LESSONS FROM THE GOWANUS CANAL
The Gowanus Canal is a 1.8-mile-long canal that runs
through Brooklyn, New York, and empties into the
New York Harbor. Built in the mid-1800s, the canal
was a heavily used working waterway for industrial
and transportation uses, including chemical plants,
paper mills, and gas plants, making it one of the most
contaminated bodies of water and eventually labeled as a
Superfund site in 2010. The city also initiated the Billion
Oyster Project to help improve water quality. Running
parallel to the canal cleanup projects, the city proposed
a neighborhood rezoning initiative that could mitigate
the effects of climate change, encourage economic
development, and remediate industrial pollution in this
neighborhood that prides itself on a growing creative
arts scene and large number of locally owned breweries
and other businesses, amongst a previously industrial
backdrop. In recent years, the neighborhood has already
begun experiencing a residential housing boom.
The plan, that would generate more than 8,000 new
apartments by 2035, is currently in a public hearing
period. The Department of City Planning is using this plan
to encourage more affordable housing units, create green
space, and spur economic development in the area, as
well as a vehicle to spur long-term resilience to rising sea
levels, flooding, and impacts of urban heat island effect,
promote pedestrian- and bicyclist-friendly routes along the
canal, and attract investment into the neighborhood, all
while maintaining the working character of the waterfront.
WIKIMEDIA COMMONSANDRE W J. DELGADO
Gowanus Canal as it is now (above), and future plans (below).
16 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

 Safety zone and bulkhead at +4 feet;
 Circulation zone width: eight feet to 12 feet with structured
seating up to +6 feet;
 Planting zone width: six feet;
 Transition zone width: six inches minimum; and
 A series of landscape design features to bring ground
elevation up to base flood elevation to +8 feet NAVD
between river edges and building edges.
Using the Waterfront to Its Fullest
The panel identified several recommendations that would not
only enhance the resilience of the study area to coastal-related
issues but could also boost economic well-being.
Create a tidal gateway. The panel saw great promise for the
USACE Back Bay study (the Miami-Dade Back Bay Coastal Storm
Risk Management Feasibility Study) to dramatically reduce
coastal storm risk for most of the flood zone along the Miami
River while also providing the opportunity for an inspiring and
iconic architectural gesture, such as the London Thames Barrier
or Singapore Marina Bay Barrage. A tidal barrier at the mouth of
the river would nearly eliminate storm surge flood risk to vast
swaths of low-wealth communities with a singular project.
Unfortunately, strict constraints on design, engineering, and
cost/benefit analysis as part of the federal process require that
USACE consider a purely functional set of solutions. Rather
than letting the process flow through its natural course, the
panel recommends finding a way for the widest possible public
outreach and engagement in the process to weigh in on design.
Imagine how an iconic architectural gesture could change the
image of Miami from “underwater” to a beautiful inspiration for
how a city overcomes the seemingly impossible task of holding
back a hurricane. Investing in an infrastructural feat right in the
heart of Miami’s waterfront to protect a diverse set of neighbors
and businesses downstream could singularly change the
narrative of Miami’s relationship to water.
The Back Bay study—still in its feasibility stage—may possibly
not conclude with a project that meets the needs of those living
and working in downtown, Brickell, or upstream communities. If
that happens, the city should look for other routes to implement
a bold and essential component of the Miami waterfront.
Encourage mixed-use working waterfront. The city should
encourage a rich mixed-use community that preserves the
working waterfront character. That means preserving existing
uses, while encouraging new residential uses that complement
the existing ones. Developments along the Gowanus Canal and
Vancouver waterfront can serve as examples of how to preserve
industrial and commercial waterfront uses and character while
adding a greater mix of uses.
Ensure preparedness plus social and economic resilience.
Whether or not the tidal gateway is built, the panel recommends
ensuring neighborhoods along the Miami River prepare for
flood events by focusing on other forms of resilience. That
might mean strengthening local social networks and the
Neighborhood Enhancement Team program to encourage a
resilient communal response to events, which is discussed later
in this report. It likely also will include asset-level enhancement
strategies, such as dry floodproofing and storm shutters,
ADVISORY SERVICES PANEL IMPACT: ARCH
CREEK BASIN, MIAMI–DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
In 2016, Miami–Dade County invited ULI to study the Arch
Creek Basin, a multijurisdictional area that comprises about
2,838 acres and four municipalities, as well as unincorporated
county land. The area is economically diverse and includes
sites that have experienced repetitive losses caused by routine
flooding, where households had unsuccessfully applied for
FEMA buyouts. The area is also likely to experience development
and change, because a future commuter-rail station will provide
an opportunity for transit-oriented development. The panel
sought to address the question of how long-term development
and land use patterns in Arch Creek could pivot to enhance
resilience, thus reversing the effects of decades of past
development that advanced regardless of flood vulnerability.
A key recommendation from the panel was to concentrate
development in transit-ready sites along the coastal ridge, such
as a new station proposed for NE 125th Street, described as
the Transit Opportunity Area. This promising opportunity area
offers relatively high ground, future transit connectivity, and
the opportunity for a considered mixed-income development
approach including dedicated relocation housing for flood-
vulnerable households.
In December 2018, the city of North Miami adopted a TOD
Mobility Study to establish a blueprint for implementing the
panelists’ recommendation for TOD on higher ground. In 2019,
the North Miami City Council adopted an ordinance to amend
the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to establish
the North Miami Transit Station Area Overlay District, a new
mixed-use district with residential, office, and retail uses as well
as spaces identified for parks and green trails.
17
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

and neighborhood-level strategies such as distributed energy
generation and storage, and emergency management solutions.
The Ridge
Higher ground within a half mile of the waterfront offers an
opportunity for climate-resilient development. The city of Miami
has existing and incoming transit assets and vibrant urban
fabric along the ridge. As one example, rail lines run along the
ridge between the neighborhoods of Wynwood and Edgewater,
following the original path of the railway that Henry Flagler
built. The panel heard that significant and growing development
pressure exists in lower-density neighborhoods west of the rail
line, such as Wynwood, and this momentum may continue into
adjacent neighborhoods such as Overtown. The city has a unique
opportunity that requires some urgency.
Transit-Oriented Development
The panel recommends that the city encourage transit-
supportive development that benefits both the neighborhoods
and the region and avoids widespread displacement of
current residents. A TOD strategy for this area serves multiple
purposes: it expands mobility options, potentially shifts
transportation mode share out of single-occupancy vehicles
and improves air quality, provides active transportation to
improve the health of communities, and enables multiple
solutions for safety and emergency planning and services
during storm events.
Recommendations
The panel had the following recommendations related to
the ridge:
 Support visioning and planning for the Northeast Corridor
rail line. The Miami-Dade Transportation Planning
Organization has engaged in land use scenario and
visioning planning to better understand the relationship
between transit and land development along the
Northeast Corridor. Brightline express trains, which
connect to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach,
currently run along this corridor, and the South Florida
Regional Transportation Authority’s Tri-Rail commuter
trains are set to run along it as well, to serve downtown
Miami at the new MiamiCentral station.
 Cultivate additional mixed-use transit nodes along the
corridor within a half mile of incoming and existing stations.
 Explore changes in existing zoning to allow more density
and transit-oriented strategies to encourage more
population to live in elevated areas.
 Link land use and planning along the Northeast Corridor
rail line to the Underline effort (a planned 10-mile trail and
park) south of the Miami River, which is also studying
transit-oriented development options. Ultimately build a
physical connection between these transit nodes north and
south of the river.
SOUTH F LORIDA REGION AL TRANS PORTATION AUT HORITY
ULI
Aventura is building a Brightline rail line to connect to downtown.
Higher densities along the transit ridge are encouraged (shown in red). This
will support transit planning with increased density within a half mile of
stations and mixed uses and commercial activity in areas less vulnerable to
surge and storm events.
18 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

 Use incentives for preserving current and developing new
affordable and workforce housing within a half mile of
train stations. Focus limited funds on preserving existing
affordable housing. Also introduce new options around
these transit nodes to create potential for an integrated
strategy addressing housing affordability within the greater
metropolitan area.
Living Shoreline Demonstration Project
Existing development conditions along the bayfront preclude
large-scale reintroduction of natural conditions due to the
prohibitive cost. However, over time, the city has an opportunity
to demonstrate and build consensus for a new relationship with
the shoreline and the bay that may eventually become feasible
or even a necessity. The panel recognizes that state regulations
currently do not allow building certain conditions, such as living
shoreline out into the bay. However, the panel recommends
demonstration projects going both inward and outward from
the existing shoreline that may give the sponsors the leeway to
test, document, and build trust in such solutions. In particular,
Proposed living shoreline demonstration project at Maurice A. Ferré Park.
ULI
the panel recommends a high-profile demonstration project
of a living shoreline, with the goal of creating a productive
conversation among stakeholders, including the sponsors,
regulatory agencies, and the public.
The panel notes that Maurice A. Ferré Park (formerly Museum
Park) offers a unique opportunity for a demonstration site,
because it brings together scale, partnerships, and adjacency
to missing links in the Baywalk. On this site, the partners
can test different resilient shoreline options within similar
conditions and discuss the opportunities and challenges. The
Phillip and Patricia Frost Museum of Science may be a potential
partner to engage on issues of resilience on this site and can
bring together educators to communicate the lessons of the
demonstration site to a wider range of audiences. The panel
also recommends engaging with the university scientific and
research community to test before-and-after conditions for
softer edges. The panel recommends the sponsors consider
Margaret Pace Park for additional demonstration projects or a
similar nearby location for a high-profile project.
19
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

Building on Existing Plans
Existing plans and policies to guide development of the
downtown waterfront area include the Miami21 Code form-
based zoning ordinance and the Miami River Greenway Action
Plan. Over time Miami has adopted pioneering waterfront
standards and regulations. Now the city has indicated a
goal and intent of developing new standards for the Miami
waterfront that are performance based and allow flexibility in
design. As presented to the panel, the city’s overarching intent
in updating these standards is to both allow and require the
Miami waterfront to perform well under current and projected
storm surges and king tides while also improving public access.
To understand the policy framework for design guidelines and
applicable regulatory requirements, a foundational element
is needed that can serve as a document unifying these plans
while refining or updating them as required. To address the
prescriptive nature, lack of flexibility, and outdated and detailed
design requirements that do not focus on resilience, the panel
recommends an update to the Downtown Miami Master Plan.
A key component that the panel believes should be added to
the plan is a focus on the areas of resilience and equity. These
are both evolving principles in planning that have not been
Preparing Policy for Action
AS A FOUNDATION FOR GROUNDING POLICY DECISIONS, a comprehensive land use plan or strategy that is updated
and refined over time is key to informing zoning, transportation, open space, housing, sustainability, public facilities,
and decisions on other critical areas regarding the city’s growth and development. Developing the specific master plans
or sector or area plans is a useful practice to further define a policy direction that is more than general principles and
objectives but can inform details about how specific properties should be planned, envisioned, and developed.
LEAH SHEPPARD/ULI
20 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

CITY OF M IAMI
CITY OF M IAMI
The Miami21 Code and the Downtown Miami Master Plan, among
other documents, provide guidance to the community on how
sites should be developed and what the downtown wants to be in
the future. The panel suggests that the two documents evolve to
include key components that focus on urban resilience and equity.
comprehensively considered in the context of existing land use
planning by the city.
A Downtown Miami Master Plan
Miami’s Downtown Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan
was adopted in 1989. As an element of this plan, in the same
year the city adopted the Downtown Miami Master Plan. The
latter appears not to have been revised or revisited to consider
waterfront resilience since its adoption. In 2009, the DDA
completed the 2025 Downtown Miami Master Plan. The goal as
stated in the plan is “to connect and maximize the potential of
the Central Business District (CBD), the Arts & Entertainment
(A+E) District, Brickell and Miami’s celebrated waterfront.
Building upon previous plans and studies, this Master Plan
provides specific action-oriented implementation items that will
increase the livability of downtown, encourage private sector
investment and ensure the proper investment of public dollars.”
From 2005 to 2009, the Miami DDA engaged with its board and
then with the public in a series of workshops and stakeholder
meetings focused on increasing understanding of existing
conditions, to gain input on how to go about revitalizing
downtown. The plan references a list of numerous plans,
studies, and guidelines developed between 2003 and 2009.
However, it is not a plan formally adopted by the city of Miami
nor does it include details that make the objectives tangible
based on specific properties or land use and zoning tools with
respect to resilience for downtown and the waterfront. The
broad goals and objectives and key areas recommended for
short-term action by 2025 do not provide a comprehensive
long-range vision for such key planning elements as
sustainability, equity, land use, housing, public and open space,
transportation, sustainability, building form, height and urban
design, historic preservation and cultural resources, economic
vitality, and public facilities.
The panel recommends reconsidering the Downtown Miami
Master Plan in the context of the work completed by the
DDA and others as a valuable next step. Previous plans and
studies are all pieces of a larger puzzle that seem to have been
developed separately from the city’s existing Downtown Miami
Master Plan. Further, the plans were completed by different
entities with varying focus, intent, and purpose. Missing from
21
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

existing planning is a comprehensive master plan for the
downtown and the waterfront that incorporates resilience.
The panel acknowledges that a great deal of work has been
done with respect to resilience in Miami. The next step is to
make this planning work with checklists and tool kits applicable
to downtown and waterfront plans such that the sponsors can
develop an updated master plan for the area that charts the
goals, objectives, and action items for resilience in downtown
long term. It should be comprehensive and consolidate all
efforts while still being considered iterative.
The panel recommends that with all the tools in place and a
significant amount of work already done, the city of Miami, in
coordination with the Miami DDA, should do the following to
address this:
 Evaluate comprehensively the inventory of work on
waterfront and downtown development, specifically with
a focus on resilience;
 Develop guiding principles based on an overall updated
vision and goals for the downtown and waterfront; and
 Build in benchmarks and goals to allow continuous
evaluation, feedback, and master plan evolution.
The ultimate goal in reevaluating and updating the Downtown
Miami Master Plan is that it will serve as a tool used to guide
development of properties to fulfill the city’s vision as it relates
to resilience and equity for the downtown waterfront. A city-
owned and updated plan can establish a high-level framework
with a vision, goals, objectives for the downtown, fundamental
recommendations for key planning elements, a range of short-
to long-term strategies to support the vision and goals, a list
of preliminary future implementation tools (zoning ordinance
amendment, land use changes), and issues that may require
future analysis for further study. Moreover, the process of
updating the master plan should incorporate an engagement
strategy that involves all stakeholders.
Further, the panel recommends that the sponsors evaluate
each of the previous studies and planning efforts that were
undertaken but have not been updated in the past 10 to 20
years. In doing so, the sponsors should consider whether
pieces of these plans and data can be collected into a
new comprehensive plan element focused specifically on
resilience or whether resilience needs to be incorporated
into these existing documents. Tailoring portions of these
documents to just the waterfront areas may be necessary. The
American Planning Association and other similar professional
organizations have tools and scorecards whereby localities
can evaluate their existing plans, policies, and regulations with
respect to resilience that the city may find useful in this effort.
The panel recommends that policies regarding resilience should
be shaped by a comprehensive or master plan. Missing from
the existing Downtown Miami Master Plan and all other efforts
is a comprehensive and unified approach. Too many plans that
are not coordinated and connected lead to fragmented and
disjointed policy decisions. With its current work and efforts
and a great foundation of previous efforts, the city is well
primed to take the final step of consolidating all efforts into a
unified vision with goals, objectives and clear recommendations
that provide sufficient detail to inform policy on waterfront
resilience: one direction, one road map, one narrative, unified in
one key document. This approach will provide predictability and
can bring certainty to the residents, the business community,
and others that the city has a direction and vision and
understands what it needs and what it wants to be.
NORFOLK’S DOWNTOWN 2020 PLAN
The city of Norfolk, Virginia’s approach to downtown
planning is to engage in a planning process with
stakeholders every 10 years, which allows for regular
updates and refinements and careful consideration of the
appropriate context and strategies to be able to set policy
priorities that are achievable and tangible. Norfolk uses
the opportunity for 10-year planning reviews to build on
the previous plan iterations and set the framework for
the next 10 years. This work is undertaken by the city’s
planning department, which works with consultants and
the community to complete the update. The sponsors may
consider an approach similar to that of Norfolk in pursuing
an update to the Downtown Miami Master Plan.
CITY OF N ORFOLK
City of Norfolk, Virginia, 2020 plan.
22 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

The Importance of Investing in Resilience
Broadly speaking, a city or private entity might take three basic
approaches to investing in strategies that promote resilience
with the knowledge that a weather, fire, or earthquake event
might occur.
A. Business as usual, no investment in resilience, no event
occurs.
B. Business as usual, no investment in resilience, an event
occurs (losses are notable).
C. Make an investment in resilience, an event occurs (losses
are minimal, it was worth making the investment).
The panel acknowledges the chance that investment may be
made and no weather event occurs: thus the investment could
be considered wasted. However, as the panel learned during
its visit, the Miami area is at risk for projected sea-level rise
of about two feet by 2060, future storm events like Hurricane
Irma, and consistent seasonal king tides—so the exposures are
very real.
Miami Perspective on the Importance
of Investing in Resilience
In this simplified conceptual illustration, Miami is assumed to
have three main courses of action with respect to investing in
resilience: (a) do nothing; (b) invest in the magnitude of $50
Infrastructure Finance Approaches
FINANCING SOLUTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE that supports waterfront resilience in downtown Miami
should have several key features. Solutions should be diversified so they remain viable through varying market
conditions, flexible so they are nimble and can evolve with time and changing needs, and focused to reflect
that they are grounded in mandate and not associated with political influences. These solutions should also be
positioned to respond to the future, not just the present, and be renewable to provide long-range sources of
funding for long-range challenges.
ULI
23
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

million to $100 million for the level of protection indicated in the
Baywalk design discussed earlier in this report; and (c) invest in
the magnitude of $500 million to $1 billion in robust defenses
such as a tidal gate at the river and high wing walls. All of these
investments would rely on multiple sources of funds, ranging
from USACE to city to private landowners to philanthropy, many
of which are discussed later in this section.
To perform a basic analysis of infrastructure investment for
the Miami waterfront, the panel assumed three basic weather
scenarios could unfold over the next 25 years:
 No important weather events;
 A series of king tides, rain bombs, or low-grade hurri-
canes; and
 A big hurricane during a king tide.
For illustrative purposes, each of these scenarios has a different
annual probability of occurrence. There is a 94 percent chance
of no event occurring, a 5 percent chance of high tides or a
Category 1 storm, and a 1 percent chance of a Category 5
storm during a king tide event.
Over the course of a 25-year period, the probability of each
these events occurring in at least one of the years increases to
100 percent, 72.3 percent, and 22.2 percent, respectively. These
probabilities are approximations for the discussion; next steps
for the city would include learning the real probabilities from
NOAA, FEMA, and private modeling sources like 427, Jupiter,
AIR, and RMS.
The panel analyzed each scenario from the perspective of
the economic costs from uninsured losses. Examples of
these losses could include direct costs of rebuilding, indirect
Investment in Resilience Scenarios (Millions)
Scenario A: No resilience investment, no bad event
Year 01234Tot al
Baseline investment $20 –$20
Additional resilience investment 0 0
Cash flow from operations $20 $20 $20 $20 $80
Stress event: cost 00000
Net cash flow $60
Scenario B: No resilience investment, a bad event
Baseline investment $20 –$20
Additional resilience investment 0 0
Cash flow from operations $20 $20 $10 $10 $60
Stress event: cost 0 0 $30 0–$30
Net cash flow $10
Scenario C: Investment upfront in resilience/adaptation, a bad event
Baseline investment $20 –$20
Additional resilience investment $10 –$10
Cash flow from operations $20 $20 $20 $20 $80
Stress event: cost 0 0 $10 0–$10
Net cash flow $40
Source: ULI.
24 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

costs of being out of business or displaced from home, and
human costs such as job loss and public health problems. The
vulnerability is largely inland along the Miami River. Although
these costs are hard to gauge except for a big hurricane during
a king tide, history shows that uninsured losses could be in
these ranges:
 Investment scenario A (do nothing): Losses would be
huge—probably on the order of $5 billion to $7 billion
in the study area. Considering the market values and
economic values discussed above, this scenario represents
the potential for a crippling loss, and the exposure is real.
 Investment scenario B (infrastructure consistent with the
Baywalk and Riverwalk Design Guidelines): Uninsured
losses would still be notable but less crippling than in
scenario A.
 Investment scenario C (robust resilience infrastructure):
This scenario provides a high level of protection, and
uninsured losses would be much lower than in the other
two scenarios.
Therefore, the expected value of each resilience investment,
less the value of uninsured losses, is illustrated in the table
above and reflects the conclusions outlined. Of course, if one
believes that over time the probability of incidence is increasing,
then that would have an additional impact on the investment
justification.
Ultimately, the flood risk figures are known, if arguable. The
costs of uninsured damages are not known at this time. Also,
the panel’s cost figures are only directional. Therefore, the panel
recommends that the city should further research the actual
possible losses and refine the design, engineering, and costs for
the various resilience interventions. Then sources of funds can
be rallied, the spending can be allocated, and the city can invest
accordingly.
Use of Funds Analysis
The benefits of both a more attractive and dynamic Baywalk
and Riverwalk are clear. The threat of inundation is also well
publicized with respect to, for example, 100-year flood lines. So
what are the costs that complete the equation?
The combined Riverwalk and Baywalk are about 15 miles in
length, including five miles on the bay and 10 miles including
both sides of the Miami River to a distance of about five miles.
The eventual end condition anticipates the current 50 feet of
clear space from seawall to building face, of which the 25 feet
nearest the water is usable for recreation and water access.
During interviews with stakeholders, panelists heard that about
80 percent of the Baywalk is complete to some level of quality.
About 20 percent of the Riverwalk is said to be complete. The
quality level is highly variable. Those who have contributed to
covering the costs for the walkways include private property
owners, public property owners, and the city of Miami.
Expected Investment Scenarios
Protection choice
Investment
(millions) Event size
Long-run
probability
Losses
(millions)
Weighted probability
(millions)
Expected value
cost (millions)
1. Do nothing
Big 22.2% $5,000 $1,111
$0 Medium 72.3% $500 $361 $1,472
Small 100.0% $0 $0
2. Midrange
Big 22.2% $4,000 $889
$50 Medium 72.3% $250 $181 $1,219
Small 100.0% $100 $100
3. Robust
Big 22.2% $500 $111
$500 Medium 72.3% $10 0 $72 $683
Small 100.0% $0 $0
Source: ULI.
25
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

Return on Investment
Who are the investors in Miami? And who might benefit from
investing in resilience infrastructure? During the panel’s time
in the city, the panel members talked to or interviewed more
than 80 people. Each had his or her own story and investment
of time or money into Miami. From the visiting tourist, to
waterfront condominium owners visiting for the weather and
amenities, to millennials moving from other urban cities looking
for better work/life balance and improved cost of living, to a
family of third-generation Miamians whose matriarch originally
moved to the city for the opportunity to achieve a better life for
future generations, each has his or her own investment and
hopes for a return on investment from the time spent in Miami.
Their expected return on investment is a better quality of life.
These individuals are all financing today’s Miami.
Another type of investor is the more traditional developer,
equity investor, pension fund, and bank—institutional-grade
investors that bring dollars into the Miami market through
asset purchases, bond financing, or other investments issued
or backed by the local municipalities. This type of investor is
already sophisticated and practiced in the methods of risk-
based analysis. They are grouping assets in risk-based tiers and
applying higher discounting to these investments, driven by
the risk quantification of climate change and extreme weather.
This is the current reality of the investment market in Miami.
Mother Nature is driving buy-and-sell decisions. Any resistance
or slowdown of movement to future-proof against increasing
inclement weather can be reflected in higher discount rates
bid by these sophisticated investors, which would manifest at
local municipalities through the downgrading of ratings and the
negative investment outlooks within those jurisdictions. This
can lead to a slowing of investment dollars into the local market,
or in the case of a major natural disaster, an immediate reaction
such as a large sell-off of assets.
In Miami, government agencies are also investors and the
facilitators and managers of investments back into the city that
originate from individuals and businesses through taxes. All
investors coming to Miami expect that the government agencies
will protect and continue to improve infrastructure as well as
regulations and laws about the built environment to establish a
resilient Miami. Investors are looking for predictability and risk
mitigation against rising waters, rising cap rates, and discounts
to land and property values. From what the panel learned during
its visit, the question is not if the next natural disaster will occur,
but when the next destructive storm will hit and cause damage.
To put an order of magnitude on the discussion, the panel
assumed that on a unit price basis, installation of seawalls in
the region costs $1,500 to $2,000 per running foot for a seawall
that will have about four feet of exposed height. The interior
fill and a simple asphalt cover are assumed to cost about $20
per square foot for a 25-foot width, or $500 per running foot.
This combination equates to about $2,500 per linear foot. If 20
percent of 15 miles remains to complete, the cost works out to
about $40 million. Funds of this magnitude would need to be
sourced from developers, grants, city budget, and philanthropy
or sponsorship. As stated previously, these figures are based
on what panelists heard from stakeholders during the panel
week and briefing materials, but the panel believes that a crucial
next step is for the city to obtain comparable quotes from local
engineering firms.
An aggregate budget for annual operations and maintenance
including repairs, aesthetics, plantings, benches, access
points, wayfinding, and other design amenities is an important
cost consideration. A rule of thumb for maintaining a capital
asset like this could be 10 percent of the original cost per year.
Assuming $2,500 of value per running foot across the entire
15 miles, the cost basis could be ballparked (in aggregate for
all holders) at just under $200 million. Much of this original
cost was already paid by property owners. However, for the
entire combined Baywalk and Riverwalk to be maintained and
programmed in an attractive, brand-building, value-enhancing,
all-city-welcoming manner, funds on the order of about $20
million per year would be required. The shortfall might come
from city budget, from new sources of revenue, or from grants,
philanthropy, and sponsorships.
If the Miami Baywalk design adds two feet to the top of an
already fully completed seawall, at a running cost of $500 per
foot, that would be an incremental capital expenditure across
15 miles of just over $39 million, which would have to be raised
from multiple sources. This plan might not add substantial flood
protection, particularly upriver.
As a thought experiment, if the bayfront barrage were to cost
about $200 million and adjacent wing walls to 14 feet above
NAVD at five miles times $10,000 per running foot, that would
total about $264 million. Although this plan might provide a
high level of confidence around protection of the waterfront
and upriver for an extended period of time, this money would
have to be raised from multiple sources. The operations and
maintenance budget for this design would be similar to the prior
illustration, if the scope of amenities and water access was also
envisioned to be similar.
26 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

The panel believes everyone can participate in financing Miami’s
future, today, with the tools outlined in this report.
The impact and costs to infrastructure and the built environ-
ment can be quantified, but no value can be placed on the
loss of life caused by poor preparation or by missing the
opportunity to invest and be proactive in embracing resilient
measures for Miami. As illustrated in the financial models at
the beginning of this chapter, the panel believes that the smart
investor will spend $1 today to be prepared and fortify assets
in the face of severe weather, rather than pay $100 tomorrow
for the high costs of repair and rebuilding roads, buildings,
utilities, and the like in reaction to storm damage and flooding.
One example of the costs of being unprepared is presented
by the now-bankrupt PG&E electric utility in California. PG&E
evidently failed to invest in resilience measures such as
more robust switchgear, transformers, poles, and wires or
the clearing of trees and brush from around its assets. As a
result, wildfires were much more destructive than expected,
resulting in dozens of lost lives and excess billions of dollars
in damages to infrastructure and homes.
Seeing a Return on Investment
Two major considerations when analyzing return on investment
are how much is one spending and what is the benefit. Many
investments in real estate add to top-line revenue, such as
adding a swimming pool. Others reduce operating costs, like
installing an efficient air-conditioning system. Investments
in resilience tend to show benefits by significantly reducing
the future cost of dealing with potential flood and weather
events and associated damages. The panel believes making
the investment in real estate results in a cash flow advantage.
Examples of the benefits of investing in resilience follow.
Insurance Premiums
The ability to insure property against acts of nature is a major
factor in maintaining asset values and protecting equity in an
investment, be it shopping centers, condominiums, or single-
family homes. On the basis of information provided to the
panel, insurance is held at “affordable” levels by the federal
government subsidizing rates and keeping them at these
artificially low levels. Unfortunately, the panel learned during its
visit that, moving forward, rates will only continue to increase
and never decrease. Will homeowners or investors be willing
or even able to pay for insurance to cover costs to repair and
rebuild after damages incurred from weather events such as
hurricanes, storm surge, and flooding? The panel recommends
that a larger economic resilience discussion needs to occur
that includes all parties while time still remains to be proactive
instead of reactive in the face of climate change and the rising
probability of inclement weather events.
Feedback from stakeholders informed the panel that many of
Miami’s property owners have already taken steps to increase
preparedness and have pursued proactive solutions on their
own. Incentivized by the opportunity to achieve discounted
insurance rates compared to the market-rate costs of flood
insurance, developers and owners are going beyond the
minimal building code by taking fortifying measures in their
design and construction of condominium buildings and office
towers to be ready for the next flood or storm event. The panel
observed that developers are already building with resilience
in mind. Therefore, the panel recommends that the city update
the building code to correspond with minimum investments
already seen in resilient designs undertaken by the real estate
market to minimize flood-related risks. Approaches by local
real estate industry leaders include raising the first floor of
buildings to provide extra “freeboard,” making basements
and lower levels easy to clean and get back into service after
inundations, locating sensitive mechanical equipment on
higher floors, building flood doors or seawalls, installing
pumping systems, investing in floodwater holding cisterns, and
incorporating “green infrastructure” elements like permeable
hardscape, saltwater-friendly plants, and earthen berms
to direct water flow. Although the city has guidelines and
regulations encouraging these design strategies, more could
be done to incentivize private-sector participation.
Impacts on Value
Two major cost components are related to property: the cost to
build and the ongoing cost to maintain the building. Insurance
is an ongoing cost. As these cost increase, they can affect the
valuation of a property. If the property owner is unable to afford
insurance costs, or even elects to waive insurance coverage,
then the owner will bear the costs of repair and maintenance
after every event.
Property values are a major economic driver in downtown
Miami, particularly commercial buildings such as offices,
hotels, and shopping centers. At the investor level, property
values are based on annualized income and expenses on a
consistent basis. Loss of income is a major valuation issue for
a commercial property such as a hotel, which can result from
power outages, flooded lobbies, or the inability to reach the
hotel because of downed trees or inaccessible roads. Forecast
climate and weather issues take a toll on the asset’s balance
sheet, particularly the need to increase the owner’s capital
27
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

reserve bucket. Repairing or replacing building systems and
components more often than the expected manufacturer’s
life span has a direct correlation to the value’s asset in the
salable marketplace. As annual expenses increase, values can
decrease. When commercial property values drop, it translates
into property tax losses.
One of the real estate product types most vulnerable to rising
water levels and major storm events is single-family homes.
Constructed of framed wood and usually built on lower
ground, houses are susceptible to a multitude of issues and
costs from the impact of a storm and its aftermath. Damage to
homes is not only an exposure that burdens the private sector
and the residents of these homes, but also a public burden
to social infrastructure such as health care and emergency
support systems.
Sources of Funding
By its nature, climate resilience or adaptation is a long-term,
ever-evolving challenge. It is one that Miami will continue
to grapple with and on which it must take serious proactive
measures. It is also a challenge that involves many related
assets and multiple sources of funding. Accordingly, the
financing sources that can help support this effort and
mobilization must be
 Diversified to remain viable through varying market
conditions;
 Flexible to evolve with time and changing needs;
 Focused and grounded in a long-view objective and
decoupled from short-term politics;
 Forward-oriented to respond to future risks and issues, not
just the present situations; and
 Renewable or scalable to provide continuous long-range
sources of funding for long-range challenges.
Project selection choices need to be compiled from evidence-
based solutions. The city must be able to recognize and
incorporate new solutions and data as they become available.
Further, these projects must consider both the initial capital
expenditures and the ongoing operational expenditures and,
crucially, the follow-up on benefits that will be created as a
result of forward-looking investment.
With the market value of properties in the urban waterfront area
exceeding $39 billion, the city of Miami relies on the downtown
and waterfront areas as its economic engine. The success and
vibrancy of the study area is vital to the solvency of the city’s
overall budget and to ensuring that Miami remains a key cultural
and tourism draw for South Florida. The sponsors are intimately
familiar with many of the potential funding sources available,
including the landmark $400 Miami Forever bond, other general
obligation and revenue bond sources, and grants at the state,
county, and federal levels. The panel recommends that these
opportunities continue to be leveraged and maximized. The
city should also explore several taxing, zoning, and budgeting
authorities as potential mechanisms for generating dedicated
and renewable streams of funding for climate-resilient projects
or other policy goals.
Organization and Administration
The panel identified organizational updates to implement
recommendations.
Resilient investment leader. The funding sources and tools
described in the following sections should be depoliticized and
able to be controlled in an open and transparent environment.
Therefore, the panel recommends that a nonpartisan and
independent resilient investment leader (RIL) oversee private-
sector funding of citywide strategies so the various funding
streams can be mutually supportive to leverage the various
millions into the productive billions the effort will require in
the years to come. The RIL role would fulfill a climate and
resilience mandate and should have the freedom to direct
investment with an objective perspective. Dedicated and reliable
funding streams that are of a magnitude commensurate with
the scale of the issue to be addressed should be identified and
controlled by the RIL. Finally, the RIL role must be carried out
with transparency and able to conduct business while also
sharing information with residents and local stakeholders at
important decision-making points. One method to enhance
the transparency of the process that the panel suggests is for
the sponsors to consider having the RIL publish an annual
scorecard and investment summary for the public. This first-of-
its-kind position would set a new precedent nationally and could
help Miami continue its leadership in embedding resilience into
municipal government.
Conservancy and commercialization. The panel recommends
that a conservancy model also be considered to fund moderate-
scale capital improvement campaigns, support operational
expenses, and manage events and programing for the Baywalk
and Riverwalk. These investments could include the creation
of shade structures or tree plantings to help mitigate heat. In
addition, both a conservancy and a place-based organization
(PBO) can play a significant role as advocates in raising and
directing philanthropic funding streams or other creative “value
28 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

add” investments. The Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy
(www.brooklynbridgepark.org/pages/aboutbbpc) is one
example of this model. According to its 2019 annual report, this
conservancy operates on a $2.7 million annual budget, roughly
38 percent of which comes from contributions and grants, 42
percent from events, and the remaining 20 percent from a mix
of other sources.
The panel believes opportunities for commercialization along
the Baywalk and Riverwalk areas, such as limited food and
beverage retailing, can help generate ongoing funding for
maintenance and programming while creating a community
amenity for all. Further, considerations for revenues from
advertising or sponsorships and private/public commercial
events should be considered as value-add investments that
support ongoing maintenance, operations, and programming.
The Riverwalk in particular offers significant opportunities to
leverage its existing working-waterfront character to create
a vibrant urban waterfront with a community character that
is distinct from the Baywalk experience. The city should
ensure that the regulatory framework would allow for the
commercialization of these waterfront spaces so long as
the revenue generated can be reinvested in the ongoing
programming and maintenance of said spaces.
Spruce Street Harbor Park in Philadelphia and the District Wharf
or Yards Park in Washington, D.C., offer compelling examples
of how sponsorship and commercialization of public spaces
can be leveraged to create truly unique and beloved community
environments that are safe, vibrant, and self-supporting.
Place-based organization. The Miami DDA provides a vital
service to the downtown Miami neighborhoods. It supports
an area with 92,000 residents and a daytime population of
more than 250,000. The DDA’s scope and responsibilities are
expansive. Accordingly, to focus on the unique resilience needs
of the geographically discrete area adjacent to the bayfront, the
panel recommends considering a PBO such as a community
improvement district or special improvement district to work
alongside the DDA. This entity should be structured to ensure
a framework of transparency, predictability, and accountability.
Possibly this PBO could remain within the framework of the
DDA if enabling regulations allow it and this approach is the
most effective means of implementation.
The PBO would be formed through the support of the property
owners within its boundaries and primarily funded by a
voluntary additional levy placed on those properties. Although
the exact boundaries would need to be refined, the area could
include the collective downtown properties that are between the
river and the higher elevated ridgeline that would experience an
immediate benefit from resilient infrastructure enhancements
reducing the risk of flooding and storm surge.
The panel recommends that the sponsors take actions to
build consensus and support from property owners within
this area by highlighting the collective benefits of insurance
and operational saving that property owners will see from
enhanced flood mitigation such as private bulkhead resilience
investments. A detailed cost/benefit analysis demonstrating
insurance and operational cost savings opportunities should be
commissioned to help frame the financial upside for property
owners from the formation of a PBO.
The formative purpose of the PBO would be to serve as the
convening and coordinating body for a group of property
owners who will self-fund appropriate infrastructure
improvements to undergo a FEMA Conditional Letter of
Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision process to have areas
remapped to positively amend flood inundation designations
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS VISIT PHILADELPHI A
The Yards Park in Washington, D.C.
Spruce Street Harbor Park in Philadelphia.
29
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

(current VE Zone designation to an AE Zone) of many waterfront
properties. As described to the panel, this remapping has
the potential to provide significant insurance cost savings
to individual owners and can be completed more effectively
in a coordinated rather than piecemeal approach. The PBO
can also serve as the implementing body for infrastructure
improvements that are necessary along public portions of the
Baywalk, such as parks and street ends, or for private property
owners with unique circumstances (religious institutions,
nonprofits, etc.). The panel believes that the city must ensure
that the regulatory, zoning, and building code framework exists
to minimize the entitlement friction for the PBO and individual
property owners to complete these improvements.
A PBO can also act as the coordinating entity to maximize
the productive value and output of grants or other potential
revenue streams as well as the ongoing operations of shared
public or quasi-public resources such as the Baywalk/
Riverwalk and parks within the PBO boundaries. This helps
reduce the city’s cost of maintenance and administration
of the spaces while ensuring for adjacent property owners
that these public or quasi-public spaces are maintained and
programmed at a level that provides a community benefit and
enhances property values.
A PBO or similar type of organization should also be
considered as the coordinating entity to support the goals of
the Riverwalk. For the Riverwalk, the focus of the PBO would
likely center around completing broken links in the walk,
providing clean-and-safe programs, and making investments
in shade and comfort.
Non-Tax Revenue and Funding Strategies
The panel believes that significant opportunities exist for the
city of Miami to be thoughtful about where growth is focused;
the city should seize the opportunity to think about density and
planning and how it considers the transportation network.
Transit-oriented development. Creative and deliberate changes
to the zoning code to allow increased density in the respective
TOD supportive areas or corridor, focusing on locations that
are naturally resilient and have the potential to encourage
sustainable transit use, is a sound planning policy that the panel
believes should be promoted.
Leveraging enhanced zoning in these corridors will not only
generate value for the city through investment and increased
property values, but can also create tools to build affordable
and workforce housing that enables the cocreation of wealth.
These investments can create jobs and opportunities for
local business participation in the construction and ongoing
operations for the developed corridors. The city needs to be
sure to capture value from these rezonings through transfer
of development rights (TDR), tax increment financing
(TIF), reasonable impact or infrastructure fees, or other
monetization of development density mechanisms available
to the city. If the proper mechanisms do not exist, a change
in the laws may be necessary. In addition, a large portion of
the areas that have potential for strong TOD investment are
currently defined as an Opportunity Zone. This designation
may open up additional strategies for maximizing value and
should be explored by the city.
Tax increment financing. Opportunities for the use of TIF
mechanisms can be created through the process of rezoning
properties along the transit corridors previously discussed.
These funding mechanisms may already have a track record in
the city of Miami, so existing expertise and familiarity can be
leveraged. The process of enlarging the zoning envelope along
the transit corridor will create properties with enhanced values
that generate taxes beyond what the properties were able to
create before the rezoning. The revenues from this incremental
tax can support the debt service on public bonds that are issued
to support identified investments. These investments, which
are made possible by the increased values of the newly zoned
properties, can support projects that improve resilience.
The panel believes that efforts should be made to structure
the bonds to ensure that the resulting infrastructure
investments can be delivered both inside and outside the
redevelopment area, as necessary to most effectively create
resilient infrastructure. Moreover, the enabling legislation
should be clear and transparent about precisely what types
of infrastructure investment can be funded using TIF funds.
Demonstrating the broader public benefit associated with
the investments will help increase public understanding and
acceptance of this valuable financial tool.
The panel acknowledges that TIF capacity will depend on the
additional levels of development and value that are unlocked,
but this mechanism can create the opportunity for significant
bonding capacity. As an example, the 3 million-square-foot
District Wharf project in Washington, D.C., is able to support
about $200 million in TIF/PILOT bonds through the roughly $70
million in annual tax increment that it is anticipated to produce
upon stabilization.
Transfer of development density. Numerous historic or
existing properties in areas vulnerable to flood or storm surge
have been developed below their maximum density and would
30 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

require significant investment to enhance their resilience
because they are not likely candidates for demolition, nor can
they be elevated. The panel recommends that an expanded
TDD program, beyond including only historic properties, is one
strategy that can help property owners generate income by
capitalizing on the otherwise unachievable density contained
within their site. This program will create a source of funds that
landowners would be able to use for the necessary resilience
capital investments.
The panel recommends expanding TDD to include all properties
in the floodplain with excess density. Creating a receiving
zone along the higher elevated ridge TOD corridor discussed
previously and a structure to allow further enhanced density
would help ensure a viable market for the TDD transfers to
generate meaningful income. Further, additional applications
for the TDD program may exist in other areas of the city when
diverting or enhancing density and investment is desirable to
achieve the city’s policy, planning, or resilience goals.
City-owned parcel land value capture. If the city is able to
identify key development parcels to sell, enter into a long-term
ground lease, or otherwise enter into transactions, the panel
recommends that proceeds from these property dispositions
can be used as another source to support resilience
investments. These transactions can take a number of forms,
such as a one-time arm’s-length property sale or a public/
private partnership with ongoing revenue sharing. The city
has a track record of using this tool in general, but it should
be considered to explicitly support investment in resilient
infrastructure.
If used, the city must be open and transparent about its
intended goals for each transaction so the public can
understand the associated public benefit. For example, if the
goal of the land value capture is leveraging the highest and
best use to create the greatest amount of money to support
resilience efforts, this should be transparent and explicit
because these transactions will largely be a zero-sum game
if the addition of proffers with financial implications in these
situations may dilute the city’s ability to maximize value capture.
When pursuing these transactions, the panel recommends
clearly establishing the goals and reasoning up front for a
particular disposition to ensure the city’s residents understand
and can support the city in its disposition of public assets. This
is particularly important because these goals may change from
project to project. For example, some dispositions may focus
on revenue generation, while others may focus on affordable
housing, green building, and sustainable development. The
city may also be able to leverage its own TDD opportunities, as
discussed earlier, if the circumstances and goals allow.
Tax-Based Revenue and Funding Strategies
The panel acknowledges that any increase in taxes can be a
contentious issue for some municipalities. However, the panel
recommends that the sponsors seriously consider the following
tools as one of the more direct ways to generate revenue that
can be used to pay for infrastructure needed for resilience
measures.
Enhanced homestead exemption/vacancy fee.
Homeownership is critical for building wealth among Miami
residents, but in Miami-Dade County homeownership rates
have declined from 61 percent in 2010 to 55 percent by 2017.
The panel believes that a larger homestead exemption coupled
with property tax increases would favor resident-homeowners
EXPLORING TDR AS A POSSIBLE CLIMATE
ADAPTATION STRATEGY
This report, led by ULI Southeast Florida and Caribbean,
summarizes the recommendations of a focus group convened
to explore the use of transfer of development rights (TDR),
sometimes referred to as transfer of development density, as
a climate adaptation strategy in South Florida. Convened by
Miami-Dade County, this focus-group project was a follow-up to
the ULI Arch Creek Basin Advisory Services panel hosted by the
county in 2016 and responds to the central question of whether
TDRs could be used as a mechanism to divert development
from low-lying, flood-prone areas. The major recommendations
are as follows:
 Adopt a new TDR program.
 Carefully manage supply and demand of TDR credits.
 Study future capital outlay needs in pilot areas to help
determine TDR values.
 Consider forming a TDR bank.
Read the full report, Exploring Transfer of Development Rights
as a Possible Adaptation Strategy, at americas.uli.org/research/
centers-initiatives/urban-resilience-program/reports.
31
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

and can serve to address economic resilience issues while
funding physical resilience programs.
The panel acknowledges that Miami already has a homestead
exemption. However, the panel recommends that if residential
property taxes are increased by 1 percent ($1 per $100 of
assessed value), and resident homeowners receive a full 1
percent homestead exemption, this would provide a technical
mechanism to implement a form of vacancy tax, or enhanced
homestead exemption. For example, in 2016 Vancouver
successfully instituted a similar tax on foreign buyers of real
estate to generate revenue for the city. Further research on the
need for state enabling authority may be required to pursue this
recommendation.
Such a tax reform can provide a source of revenue for physical
resilience while mitigating the housing unaffordability effects of
absentee property owners. The Connect Capital Miami report
(City of Miami, 2019) showed about 31,000 vacant properties in
Miami-Dade County. The same study estimated that a 1 percent
property tax on vacant residences in the city of Miami alone
could yield $98 million per year based on 2017 assessed values.
This is similar to existing taxes on empty houses such as the
vacancy tax in Vancouver, British Columbia, and a recently
proposed vacancy tax in New York City.
In addition to funding resilience efforts, an enhanced
homestead exemption such as the one described above
advances housing affordability by discouraging real estate
speculation among owners whose units will remain vacant
and will not contribute to the local economy during significant
parts of the year. Thus, market prices of homes become more
affordable to potential homeowners who want to live in Miami.
The economy benefits from year-round homeowners who work
locally, invest in local business, spend in the local economy, and
participate in their communities and civic associations.
Waterfront area commercial property tax. Commercial
property owners along the waterfront in Miami benefit from
resilience mitigation measures most by not suffering from
disruptions to their office workers or retail sales. Therefore, the
panel recommends that a progressive way to fund resilience
efforts is to increases the millage (property tax) rate on
commercial properties (office, retail, and large apartment
buildings) within an area in and around the waterfront.
By the panel’s estimate, a 1 percent annual property tax rate on
these properties within a quarter mile of the waterfronts could
yield $80 million in revenue per year, an amount that is likely to
increase significantly as property values grow. If this tax were
to be extended to include industrial, flex, and other types of
commercial uses, tax revenues would be even higher.
Citywide general property tax. Property taxes are the largest
part of the city’s budget, totaling $396.4 million in revenues, or
about 35 percent of the city’s general fund revenues. Ongoing
maintenance of resilience improvements along the Baywalk
and Riverwalk will likely be paid, in part, by these revenues.
The current millage rate in Miami is 21.2 cents per $100 of
assessed value, distributed among the city, county, and several
VANCOUVER’S EMPTY HOMES TAX
In 2016, the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, passed
a tax regulation, called the Vacancy Tax By-Law No.
11674 and also known as the Empty Homes Tax, to
decrease the number of uninhabited homes in the city
and slow quickly escalating home prices. The Empty
Homes Tax was designed to help encourage fuller
use and occupancy of existing housing stock, with an
eye toward mitigating foreign real estate investment.
Having empty homes occupied improves the quality
of a neighborhood, and a larger presence of “eyes on
the street” ultimately creates safer neighborhoods and
increases vibrancy.
This levy is designed to target foreign home investors
who leave the property empty for more than six months
of the year. If the property is deemed vacant for longer
than six months, the owner will be charged a 1 percent
vacancy tax on taxable assessed value of the parcel.
Each year, owners of residential property are required
to submit a property status declaration to determine
whether their home is subject to the tax at the end of the
year. Many homes are exempt from the tax, including
principal residences or homes rented for more than six
months of the year.
According to a CBC News posting on February 6, 2019,
the Canadian Press reported that the number of vacant
properties fell 15 percent in 2018, and a little more than
half of those homes shifted into the rental market.
Net revenue from the Empty Homes Tax is reinvested in
affordable housing initiatives that support creating more
homes with prices in reach for people who live and work
in Vancouver.
Read the full Vacancy Tax By-law at https://src.bna.
com/J3A.
32 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

jurisdictions. Of that, 7.57 cents accrue to the DDA and the
city of Miami. Because Miami millage rates are low, bringing
property taxes to levels commensurate with other global cities
and large U.S. cities can go a long way to fund resilience efforts.
By comparison to Miami’s 0.21 percent rate (a percentage of
total assessed property value), the total local property tax rate
is higher in cities like Houston (0.61 percent), Atlanta (0.41
percent), New York (12.6 percent), and Los Angeles (1.77
percent), according to information from municipal and county
tax assessor’s offices. Even just a 0.01 percent (one cent per
$100 assessed value) increase in the citywide general property
tax could generate approximately $45 million in additional
revenue annually.
Earlier in this report, the panel estimated that greater downtown
Miami has approximately $2.96 billion in commercial real estate
value at existing market prices and capitalization rates. The cost
of climate risk is severe by this measure: a 1 percent increase
to market capitalization rates could depress market values by
14 percent, or $424 billion in taxable real estate. This includes
only office, retail, and apartments and could represent a loss of
$32 million per year to the city—and increase each year as risk
increases.
The panel believes that the threat from sea-level rise and
climate change also threatens property values and therefore
taxes. If property owners increasingly internalize the risk of
making these resilience investments, this can lead to increases
in capitalization rates in the commercial real estate market (a
capitalization rate is similar to expected yield). The result would
be lower market values for properties and therefore decreased
revenues for the city. By this logic, resilience improvements
have a return on investment simply by preserving property
values in the commercial real estate market and therefore
preserving tax revenues for the city.
33
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

From Vision to Implementation
Although implementation hinges upon a variety of factors,
including resources, ownership, finances, and politics, enough
study and recommendation have been outlined in the currently
available reports, plans, and studies to be able to move forward.
The panel recommends that the city avoid seeking validation
through studies, reports, and plans. The panel recommends
conducting a comprehensive review of the various plans to
better understand whether gaps and redundancies exist. During
this exercise, the city should take note of recommendations
and considerations outlined in each of the studies, reports, and
plans, and what hindrances or challenges to implementation
have occurred and determine how these can be overcome.
The panel acknowledges that the city has a good toolbox for
execution in current plans and regulations, including Miami21,
the Baywalk and Riverwalk Draft Design Guidelines, and current
building codes. These are the framework for implementation,
and the panel recommends that those not yet adopted be
finalized for use by developers and others who can convert
plan to action. Adoption of plans and implementation does
not mean that evolution, updates, or changes do not occur,
but it facilitates the opportunity to take steps toward meeting
Implementation
THE CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI DDA HAVE PRODUCED A COMMENDABLE NUMBER of studies, reports, and plans
that have been completed over time, and many more are underway. However, there is such a thing as overplanning to the
point where it paralyzes a community from implementing those plans. The following set of recommendations provide
specific strategies to guide the city toward implementation of the ideals already presented in these planning efforts,
focusing on gaining legitimate community input and approaches that can be executed immediately to incrementally
enhance the resilience of Miami’s downtown and greater waterfront area.
CITY OF M IAMI
34 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

consensus-based goals and objectives. For example, building
codes should be clear and consistent—and coupled with a
public design review checklist that ensures proactive and timely
solutions to design troubles instead of wasting time and money
relitigating issues project by project.
These policies can be adapted and refined over time based on
the outcomes of implementation.
Success through Stakeholder
Engagement
Miami’s influx of residents from diverse cultures at times
reflects a divergent set of values that when viewed optimistically
is dynamic and lively but can break down into community
factions. Without a comprehensive vision and set of values,
it will be difficult for the city to move forward and meet the
challenge of climate change and water resilience as one.
Once a destination for immigrants in search of the American
middle-class dream, Miami struggled in the 1980s like many
U.S. cities with inner-city challenges. The city has experienced
explosive growth in the past 15 years and a boom of jobs in
tourism, finance, and tech that brought an economic vibrancy
and swagger to Miami’s art, food, and cultural center. This
growth has occurred nearly nonstop and today manifests itself
in inequality and an affordable housing crisis that affects many
lifelong Miami families. Low-paid service workers struggle
to support their families while they balance multiple jobs and
spend a disproportionate amount of income on rent.
Wealthy South American buyers flee unstable countries to
invest in Miami’s million-dollar waterfront condominiums. An
influx of millennials in search of job opportunities quickly drive
up rents in a region bounded by water, protected swampland,
and multiple jurisdictions in competition for limited resources.
Concern and preparation for an unknown future of hurricanes
and superstorms drops on the priority list for anyone who has
mold today, a rent check due, jobs across town in rush hour,
children’s education to pay for, and food to get on the table. That
is a lot to advocate for, so climate-related issues do not always
make it onto the list.
“We Dodged a Bullet”
Hurricane Irma should have been a wake-up call to Miami
residents. Roads turned into rivers; some neighborhoods were
cut off from electricity for nearly a week. Life essentially shut
down for some. Gone are the days of setting your watch to
light afternoon rainstorms; high-intensity weather patterns are
increasingly likely to become the norm.
Adaptation to unknown environmental conditions can be
intimidating and overwhelming, especially in the absence of
information. Progress can start now; solutions to resilience
are by definition incremental, and prevention of loss of life and
property can start today. To build more resilient communities
in the face of unknown and likely intense climate challenges,
the panel recommends the city of Miami create an engagement
strategy that includes all segments of the population equitably.
People Support What They Are Invested In
Public participation can seem like a hindrance at times,
especially in today’s modern era of soundbite everything.
Today, practitioners expect information to be easily digestible,
surveys to be entertaining, and public attendance to be a media
event that triggers jealousy from our peers for not attending.
However, that is not how democracy works at the local level—
or ever should—local governments can inform and engage their
citizens in ways that can lead to more immediate impacts on
their lives than they could expect on a state or federal level.
The panel believes that the city of Miami needs to be clear on its
definition of resilience—how it affects different communities
in the same city—and understand what actionable protection
measures the community can take starting today. The panel
sees enhanced education as a critical approach to economic
and social resilience before a major weather event occurrence,
as noted in the Resilient305 strategy.
The flow of information cannot occur in one direction.
Information needs to flow between citizens, government
staff and officials, local organizations, advocacy groups,
and businesses. The panel recommends establishing a
facilitator framework between city and residents that is
further supported with partner organizations, institutions,
and corporations to inform, educate, and be prepared when
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
Hurricane Irma should have been a wake-up call for Miami residents.
35
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

LESSONS FROM ARLINGTON COUNTY,
VIRGINIA: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
BEST PRACTICES
Like many municipalities, Arlington County, Virginia,
prioritizes gathering and engaging with the greater
community to provide perspectives and ideas on
community development projects. The PLACE initiative,
which stands for Participation Leadership and Civic
Engagement, is the county’s approach to expand and
better its ways of engaging with residents.
PLACE’s approach focuses on doing the following:
 Offering regular engagement training sessions for
residents, commissioners, and staff;
 Constantly finding new ways to encourage
thoughtful and constructive residents to engage in a
persistent way;
 Creating and updating a community map that
captures the county’s groups, leagues, organizations,
and other entities;
 Having ongoing community-wide conversations to
energize civic decision-making processes;
 Understanding and clearly sharing each sector’s
roles and how they are related to civic well-being;
and
 Aligning staff work streams with building effective
civic engagement.
To learn more about PLACE and Arlington County’s
engagement strategies, visit the Engage Arlington
website at https://topics.arlingtonva.us/engage.
a disaster strikes. A communication system that bridges
conversations between community and government, like
the Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET), meets people
where they are and can link the many organizations already
doing great work. NET’s physical presence in neighborhoods
makes it ideal to act as a resilience hub for community-driven
solutions, actions, and leadership to coordinate resources
before, during, and after a storm. Community resources
can intertwine efforts that already exist among Miami’s
organizations and could include the following, among others:
 Catalyst Miami, a nonprofit organization focused on
improving health and economic opportunity in low-wealth
communities in Miami-Dade County, pioneered the Clear
Program, a 12-week training program on climate resilience
that provides graduates with grounding to become
community leaders and organizers.
 The Frost Science Museum’s Volunteers for the
Environment partnered with the county’s Department
of Environmental Resource Management to educate
community members about the many benefits of living
shorelines and inspires volunteers to help restore natural
habitats along their waterfronts.
 Local organizations such as the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) provide certification programs for
volunteers to serve in disaster areas to assess damage and
recommend ways for residents to rebuild.
In addition, local universities, like Florida International
University (FIU), are partnering with climate change–focused
institutions like the CLEO Institute and FIU’s Sea Level Solutions
Center to host events, such as the annual Empowering Capable
Climate Communicators Symposium, that further prepare the
community on the impacts of climate change through targeted
trainings and facilitated sessions.
This list is not exhaustive. Numerous advocates and
organizations are ready, willing, and able to share with and
serve their neighbors. Proactive preparation and visioning
efforts with these groups will go a long way.
People Are More Important Than Real Estate
Resilience to climate change impacts comes in many forms.
Miami’s priority should remain its people. A government
resilience framework needs to prepare its citizens before,
during, and after a storm with conversations that address
issues of public health.
Sadly, the storm-preparedness and resilience of a residential
building often relies on the wealth of its residents. Poor
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems break down
during storm events in lower-wealth neighborhoods and the
impacts last longer, threatening public health.
The panel recommends the chief resilience officer develop a
cohesive resident resilience strategy that is built both bottom
up and top down to ensure the needs of people are met in
ways effective to them and in conjunction with this panel’s
recommended government facilitation network. The recently
published Resilient305 strategy is a step in this direction. The
panel also recommends that the government facilitation team
work directly with resilience hubs to provide resources to
36 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

residents before, during, and after a weather event, with year-
round access.
The panel further recommends equipping and procuring
emergency services that are able to access neighborhoods
vulnerable to high floods and winds during a weather event.
Hospitals and neighborhood resilience hubs, as mentioned
in the Resilient305 strategy, need to be prepared for worst-
case disaster and in an equitable way so all residents in all
of Miami’s structures can stay warm, safe, and dry. Building
systems in vulnerable neighborhoods that do not meet Miami’s
future top-notch code should be identified and prioritized
for storm protection using some of the finance methods laid
out earlier by this panel. Not all solutions cost money; often
knowledge sharing is the best first step. For instance, property
management best practices can be shared and distributed
regardless of resident income.
Civic Engagement and Advocacy
The panel recognizes that needs like affordable housing, job
attainment and opportunity, and food access are of the utmost
importance because many residents will choose to advocate for
solutions to daily needs rather than for resilient infrastructure
development necessary for when natural disaster strikes. That
is why the panel worked to make recommendations that tie
climate change to these pressing concerns, similar to the way
the new Resilient305 strategy does.
The panel recognizes that the downtown district is the front line
of storm defense but that inland neighborhoods usually suffer
limited access to electricity, sanitary water, and transportation
longer. The government facilitation network prioritizes and
ensures equitable access to information and resources
involving not only environmental resilience but also social and
economic resilience. By tying immediate needs to the needs
when a disaster strikes, engaging a broader community in the
conversation becomes easier, as does bringing Miami together
for the future. Communities with stronger social networks have
higher rates of resilience and wealth.
Transparency, Predictability, and
Accountability Are Key Leadership Traits
Greater Miami should adopt a holistic resilience strategy,
specific to Miami’s downtown, that takes into account the
intertwined social, economic, and environmental impacts.
A systems-focused way of thinking will be the most effective
model for shared leadership between community advocates
and local officials to ensure impacts are made where they are
needed most. Trust among stakeholders will be critical, and
it is important to remember that trust is difficult to build but
easy to break. A government framework that builds trust with
organizations will be better positioned through already existing
familiarity. Implementing an effective and ongoing resilience
strategy will require the city of Miami to build and maintain
public trust, which will require in equal measure transparency,
predictability, and accountability.
The digital revolution has brought a level of broader
transparency than ever available before. Although not
everyone has access to a personal device, digital access can
be provided by community-based organizations, including the
neighborhood Resilience Hubs. Information shared online and
in person travels faster than ever before—this is true for both
accurate and inaccurate information. To avoid the spread of
misinformation that occurs when a communication vacuum
exists, the sponsor will need to prioritize the dissemination
of fact-based communication and marry it with community
events and storytelling to ensure the message is heard and
understood. NET’s system of connecting community ideas
and opinions to city staff and officials to effect change can be
expanded through the use of software like New York City’s 311
service request map. (For more information, visit www.ny.gov/
agencies/nyc-311.)
The panel also recommends that the sponsor explore
crowdfunding/crowdsourcing platforms for organizations
in need of time, money, and materials that can be used
for community greening and resilience projects. Regular
attendance at local meetings of neighborhood associations
and a specific resilience newsletter, like one identified in the
Resilient305 strategy, that is available to all of Miami will help fill
in communication gaps.
The trust required to meet Miami’s resilience challenge will
also require predictability. Knowing when a conversation
will occur makes participation easier for a person or an
organization. Being part of the conversation and seeing
one’s ideas implemented will bring the personal investment
necessary to support an effort as large as this, which is only as
strong as its weakest link. Being resilient requires adaptability.
Predictability of process will ensure a fairness that Miami
is working together. The panel recommends a government
facilitation team—both online and offline—as an excellent
resource to notify residents, organizations, and businesses of
the next requests for information, events to connect ideas and
people, and opportunities to build on existing resources to meet
37
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

the challenge. Building predictable events within communities
will ensure a broader representation and understanding that
will equate to more equitable sharing of resources to meet and
recover from natural disaster when it strikes.
Establishing Implementation Metrics
A resilient Miami cannot happen or evolve without
accountability among so many different organizations,
agencies, and stakeholders. Collaboration in all aspects is
crucial to meeting and adapting to climate change impacts,
and keeping multiple stakeholders accountable will require a
transparent and predictable road map that clearly states roles,
responsibilities, and time frames available to every person in
Miami. The panel recommends metrics be set and measured
and remeasured to ensure the effectiveness of the solutions
proposed today for all Miamians, because what gets measured
gets made.
The Recommendation Road Map
The panel strongly believes that the city of Miami has an
opportunity to take steps toward enhancing the resilience of its
waterfront through the Baywalk and the Riverwalk, and greater
downtown area, now. To take full advantage of the momentum
created by the various initiatives and programs dedicated to
enhancing Miami’s resilience, the panel recommends following
the action plan set forth in the table to ensure all residents have
a profitable and increased quality of life for many years to come.
Policy Design Finance
Begin update of the Miami Downtown
Master Plan and conduct a plan audit to
ensure comprehensiveness.
Key players: Miami DDA, city of Miami
Update zoning and building codes to
incorporate resilience principles and meet
minimums that the real estate market has
already set as a baseline.
Key player: City of Miami
Create a place-based organization
or conservancy to facilitate private
investment and management for
the urban waterfronts.
Strengthen community preparedness
in vulnerable locations with emergency
management and other community partners.
Key players: City of Miami, Miami Emergency
Management, Resilience Hubs, local
stakeholders and residents
Refine and adopt the Miami Baywalk and
Riverwalk Draft Design Guidelines with
resilience concepts.
Key players: Miami DDA, city of Miami
Designate a resilient investment
leader.
Draft an evolving list of preparedness
resources on the city website, including
NET locations and contact information, and
formalize informative sessions to enhance
public education before an event occurs.
Key players: Resilience Hubs, city of Miami,
Miami DDA, NETs
Revise design guidelines for the riverfront
to allow boat access, incorporate an
ecological wall along the bulkhead, and
grade up to BFE.
Key players: Miami DDA, city of Miami
Identify funding uses for executing
a holistic resilience vision and
create a transparent checklist and
communications.
Key players: City of Miami, Miami
DDA, resilient investment leader
Support transit planning with land use policy
in terms of increased density within transit
stations and mixed-use and commercial
activity.
Key player: City of Miami
Engage with key agencies to build the case
for living shorelines.
Key players: Miami DDA, city of Miami,
Miami-Dade County, Department of
Environmental Resources Management
(DERM) and other related agencies,
nonprofits
Explore resilience finance tools
that leverage the real estate
market like TOD rezoning, TIFs,
and TDD.
Key players: City of Miami, Miami
DDA, resilient investment leader
Extend Baywalk guidelines from back of
seawall to Riverwalk, but consider solutions
on the seawall that encourage habitat
formation like eco-concrete and living
shelves.
Key player: Miami DDA
Select a specific source, or
sources, of dedicated long-term
funding beyond the Miami Forever
bond.
Key players: City of Miami, Miami
DDA, resilient investment leader
Short range/immediate
Recommended Next Steps of Larger Action Plan
Source: ULI.
38 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

Policy Design Finance
Install green infrastructure throughout
vulnerable neighborhoods adjacent to the
Miami River.
Key player: City of Miami
Actively engage with the USACE Back Bay
Study and search for ways to enhance
functional design so it represents the iconic
Miami style.
Key players: City of Miami, Miami DDA,
residents and stakeholders
Reach out to potential partners and design
demonstration projects such as the Living
Shoreline Demonstration Project.
Key players: Miami DDA, city of Miami,
DERM and other related agencies, Frost
Science Museum
Adopt master plan document that
incorporates resilience as a key element to
guide land use planning for downtown and
the waterfront.
Key players: City of Miami, Miami DDA
Test typologies and implement
demonstration project.
Key players: Miami DDA, city of Miami,
Miami-Dade County, DERM and other
related agencies, nonprofits
Approve a diversified financing
tool set and start to collect funds
to pay for recommendations.
Key players: City of Miami, DDA,
resilient investment leader
Preserve existing affordable housing and
create incentives for new affordable housing
in identified TOD zones.
Key player: City of Miami
Depending on the results of the Back Bay
Study, harness and begin promoting the
tidal gate plan as a highly visible, beautiful
icon and working with USACE to prioritize
its iconic status.
Key player: City of Miami
Use identified tools to facilitate
residential and commercial
development in designated TOD
areas along the ridge.
Key players: City of Miami,
Miami DDA, private development
community
Approve incoming TOD and affordable
housing development project along the
ridge.
Key player: City of Miami
Continue to develop higher-density mixed-
use and commercial projects along the ridge.
Key players: City of Miami, private
development community
Implement USACE tidal gate project with
feedback from community.
Key players: USACE, city of Miami
Focus on continued success in the
capital markets to attract dollars
and retain talent.
Key players: City of Miami, resilient
investment leader
Reevaluate and update plans and design
guidelines according to status of resilience
effor ts and updated forecasts and
projections for sea-level rise and
associated data.
Key players: City of Miami, Miami DDA
Short range/immediate Medium rangeLong range
Recommended Next Steps of Larger Action Plan
Source: ULI.
39
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

Converting plans to action, however, often requires funding.
The panel believes a strong case exists for a range of investors
to engage in building the resilience of Miami’s waterfronts,
given existing challenges and climate forecasts that indicate
continued and growing risks. Several funding mechanisms and
tools support and incentivize infrastructure improvements,
and the panel sees this as an opportunity for Miami to set an
example for other cities around the country.
Many people, businesses, and families for whom waterfront
resilience is critical have invested in Miami as their place of
business or home. As the sponsors begin to take real action
toward a more resilient Miami waterfront, they must keep in
mind that proactive stakeholder engagement, transparency,
and predictability of process are necessary in implementing
the panel’s recommendations. Change may be incremental,
but it has the potential to be lasting and transformational for
Miamians. Miami cannot afford to wait to take action. The
panel’s recommendations offer a holistic approach to enhancing
resilience in the downtown and greater Miami area to encourage
continued economic growth and vibrancy in the Magic City.
Conclusion
MIAMI HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD the national conversation about building resilient communities. By working
together, the city stakeholders can make Miami a leader in this area. As the sponsors noted, Miami’s waterfronts are the city’s
first line of defense from the impacts of sea-level rise, storm surge, and other water-related issues. To address the resilience of
Miami’s waterfronts, including human and built assets, the panel recommends a holistic approach that includes similar design
guidelines for the bayfront and riverfront as well as planning that promotes transit-oriented development along the city’s ridge.
The panel also identified a need to update and expand the Downtown Miami Master Plan, making it a framework document that
can incorporate past plans and studies and provide a broader vision for downtown with a resilience focus.
CITY O F MIAMI
40 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

About the Panel
Ladd Keith
Panel Chair
Tuscon, Arizona
Keith is chair of the Sustainable Built Environments Program
and will transition from lecturer to assistant professor in
planning at the University of Arizona in 2019. He researches
policy innovation in urban planning practice, including the use
of climate science in the planning and design of cities. He is
a research affiliate of CLIMAS (Climate Assessment for the
Southwest) and on the advisory team of CCASS (Center for
Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions).
He is currently the principal investigator of a NOAA-funded
research project evaluating the use of urban heat maps in urban
planning and is co-investigator on a project creating community
climate profiles tailored to community needs. He also leads the
Sustainable Built Environments degree program and teaches
Public Participation and Dispute Resolution and Planning for
Urban Resilience.
Keith has led the development and analysis of planning
policies at the local level, including land use and development
regulations, comprehensive plans, hazard mitigation plans,
and climate action plans. He recently completed a full eight-
year term on the city of Tucson’s Planning Commission and as
chair led the commission’s public participation process for Plan
Tucson: General and Sustainability Plan, which guides the city’s
long-range planning.
An active member of the Urban Land Institute, he has served
on the Sustainable Development Council and was a founding
member of the Center for Sustainability and Economic
Performance Advisory Board. In 2016, he was recognized as
one of the ULI’s 40 under 40, which represent the best young
land use professionals from around the globe, as selected by
members of ULI. He is also an active member of the American
Planning Association and serves as an academic liaison for the
Arizona Chapter.
Michelle Beaman Chang
Panel Vice Chair
Washington, D.C.
After 15 years in real estate development, Chang is founder and
chief executive officer of Imby Community, a hybrid grassroots/
digital platform that bridges conversations between community
members and real estate developers.
Originally from Kansas City, she moved to Philadelphia where
she joined a boutique real estate development firm and worked
on projects like a Robert Venturi–designed condominium
and the Curtis Institute of Music’s Lenfest Hall. Her passion
for social justice intersected with global forces to land a role
developing affordable housing in New York City for Catholic
Charities in 2008. She later moved to Washington, D.C.,
where she developed affordable, mixed-income, and historic
preservation projects for AHC Inc., spent a “gap year” at
home with two kids under three, and then joined Vornado/
Charles E. Smith to develop on their multifamily team. It was
while at Vornado that she became frustrated with the lack of
engagement tools that could genuinely and effectively reach a
larger audience of people who are busy but civically inclined and
want to participate in real estate development conversations in
their communities.
As a result, Chang founded Imby Community to focus on early,
nonconfrontational communication from a neighborhood
perspective that flips the paradigm to make it easier for real estate
developers to understand and manage predevelopment risk
while accessing ideas and opinions they can implement in their
building design and program to build support and meet hyperlocal
demand. The platform just wrapped its beta in four D.C.
neighborhoods and is gearing up for a fall 2019 full-scale launch.
Jason Bonnet
San Francisco, California
In his current role as vice president of development at
Brookfield Properties’ San Francisco office (previously vice
president of development for Forest City Realty Trust), Bonnet
41
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

oversees the 5M project in the SoMa neighborhood—$1 billion-
plus mixed-use development over four acres—and leads all
vertical residential development for the over $3 billion Pier 70
waterfront district, entitled for 2,000 residential units. He was
previously in the Washington, D.C., office where he led multiple
projects in the phase 1 development of the Yards, about 1,000
multifamily units and over 150,000 square feet of retail space,
as well as hotel and condominium uses. At completion, the
Yards will be a $2 billion vibrant waterfront district located over
48 acres.
Bonnet relocated back to Washington, D.C., to join the then
Forest City after obtaining a master’s in real estate development
at the University of Southern California. Before USC, he founded
a real estate development firm to pursue opportunities in
revitalization projects that supported and promoted urban
renewal within D.C. communities. During his career, Bonnet has
directed development projects from inception to completion
with responsibilities spanning entitlements, financing, design,
construction management, marketing, and sales and leasing for
numerous projects. He obtained his bachelor’s degree from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Samia Byrd
Springfield, Virginia
A native of Hampton, Virginia, Byrd has been a resident of Fairfax
County since 1995. She has more than 20 years of experience in
urban planning, housing, and community economic development
in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. She is a deputy
county manager for Arlington County where her portfolio
includes the Department of Community Planning Housing and
Development, which comprises the county’s Planning, Housing,
Neighborhood Services, Historic Preservation, Zoning, and
Inspection Services divisions. She is also liaison to the County
Board on behalf of the County Manager.
Before this position she served as a principal planner in
Arlington County’s Planning Division. She has managed and
facilitated the review of several notable complex, multifaceted,
development proposals and, having served as both site plan
and use permit coordinator, she was instrumental in providing
oversight of and managing the county’s special exception
land use and development review processes. Her work as a
planner for Arlington County builds upon her career providing
consulting expertise, research, and information to state and
local practitioners on housing and community economic
development policy, practices, and programs. Before joining
the county, Byrd served for more than eight years as a manager
with affordable housing management consulting firm Quadel
Consulting. She also was director of state fiscal analysis and
policy for the National Council of Nonprofit Associations and as
a research associate with the Urban Land Institute.
Byrd holds both a bachelor’s degree and master of city
planning from the University of Virginia and Georgia Institute of
Technology, respectively. She is an alumna of the ULI Regional
Land Use Leadership Institute and received her Certification of
Public Management from the George Washington University/
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. She is
an active member of the Urban Land Institute and the Martin
Luther King Jr. Memorial Planning Committee in the city of
Alexandria, Virginia.
John Macomber
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Macomber is a senior lecturer in the Finance unit at Harvard
Business School (HBS). His professional background includes
leadership of real estate, construction, and information
technology businesses. At HBS, his work focuses on the urban
impacts of private finance and delivery of public infrastructure
projects in both the developed and emerging worlds. These
include transportation, energy, water/sanitation, and real
estate investments that speed economic development, reduce
environmental impacts (notably air and water pollution),
and facilitate individual opportunity. His teaching combines
infrastructure finance (including public/private partnerships),
economic development, and urban planning as well as the
impact of new technologies.
Macomber is engaged in the Business and Environment
Initiative and Social Enterprise Initiatives at HBS and is a
member of the Executive Committee of the Harvard University
42 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

Center for African Studies. He teaches finance, real estate,
urbanization, and entrepreneurship courses in the elective
curriculum and in Executive Education. He is the former
chairman and chief executive officer of the George BH
Macomber Company, a large regional general contractor,
and remains a principal in several real estate partnerships.
He serves or has served on the boards of Young Presidents
Organization International, Boston Private Bank, Mount Auburn
Hospital, and the WGBH Educational Foundation.
Michael Rodriguez
Washington, D.C.
Rodriguez is the leader for market research and insights for the
Mid-Atlantic Region of CBRE Inc. As the region’s thought leader
on market trends, economics, and data, he works closely with
CBRE’s research and marketing teams across all real estate
asset types.
He has experience and expertise in the field of urban research,
specializing in real estate, land use, and transportation
economics and analysis. His broad professional background
in real estate and infrastructure includes being a consultant
to the World Bank’s transport group; advising dozens of
cities throughout the United States on real estate, housing,
and transportation issues; and leading major reports for
regional agencies like the Washington Area Metropolitan
Transit Authority and the Regional Plan Association. He is also
co-author of nationally recognized publications on walkability
and real estate, including Foot Traffic Ahead 2016 and Wa lkUP,
Wake-Up Call: New York.
In addition, Rodriguez serves as visiting director of research at
Smart Growth America and led the development of a nationally
leading fiscal impact of development model for state and local
governments. He is a member of the Urban Land Institute and
previously served on an Advisory Services panel for Commerce
City, Colorado, in 2018. He is a PhD dissertator in urban policy
at the George Washington University Trachtenberg School and
holds a joint MPA and an MS in urban and regional planning
from the University of Wisconsin–Madison La Follette School.
Susannah Ross
Boston, Massachusetts
Ross is an independent licensed landscape architect who
recently practiced for 16 years at Sasaki. There she managed
projects from master planning through construction
administration, including transformational urban projects such
as Schenley Plaza, the Ithaca Commons Redesign, and the
Council Bluffs, Iowa, riverfront. She was also the coordinator
for the landscape architecture discipline, overseeing staff
recruitment, hiring, and development, and a member of the
Technical Quality Control Committee, playing an active role
in ensuring that Sasaki’s work met the highest standards of
landscape design and documentation.
Ross is currently working as the project manager for the
team led by Agency Landscape + Planning and Sasaki that is
designing the 53-acre Sarasota Bayfront Park in Florida. The
project client, the Bay Park Conservancy, is working to create a
legacy, iconic, and aspirational park for all citizens and visitors
to Sarasota and the west coast of Florida, one that will serve as
a model for environmental sustainability and flood resilience.
Passionate about the design of public open spaces in urban
settings, Ross enjoys exploring the potential of landscape
design to enrich the daily life, health, and well-being of both city
dwellers and urban ecology, as well as to shape the core identity
of a city. She welcomes the challenge of designing to meet the
needs of a diverse set of interests in a complex physical context.
She received a master of landscape architecture and a BA in
anthropology from Harvard University. She is currently on the
board of directors for the Cultural Landscape Foundation and
previously served on the board of directors for the Salt Center
for Documentary Studies.
Matt Steenhoek
Washington, D.C.
Steenhoek joined PN Hoffman & Associates in 2005 and is
currently a vice president of development for PN Hoffman and
the project director for phase 2 of the Wharf, a 3.2 million-
43
Water front Resilience, Miami, Florida, June 2–7, 2019

square-foot redevelopment in Southwest Washington, D.C. His
primary responsibilities include the management of the building
design, transportation, sustainability, urban design, public
financing, and local entitlement components of the Wharf.
Before his involvement on the Wharf, Steenhoek was PN
Hoffman’s development manager for Constitution Square, a 1.6
million-square-foot LEED-ND Gold certified mixed-use project
in NoMa, seeing the project from master planning through to
construction completion. He has also completed developments
in Alexandria, Virginia, and the Kalorama neighborhood of
Washington, D.C.
Steenhoek received his BS in architecture from the University
of Maryland, is a graduate of the 2012 Urban Land Institute
Regional Leadership Institute, and holds a master of urban and
regional planning degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute. He
is a LEED Accredited Professional and member of the Anacostia
Watershed Steering Committee.
Byron Stigge
New York, New York
Stigge is the founder of Level Infrastructure, an engineering
and sustainability consulting firm based in New York City.
Level’s specialism is sustainable urban infrastructure design
planning and its work ranges from master plans to new city
plans to legislation and policy. Recently Level has worked in
New York, Boston, Portland, Kabul, Manila, and Jakarta to
develop resilience strategies for waterfront districts. The firm’s
collaborative approach seeks technical solutions that achieve
the social, environmental, and financial goals of its clients.
Stigge has lectured and taught at Harvard, Columbia, MIT,
Yale, Washington University in St. Louis, and Cornell. He has
engineering degrees from Washington University in St. Louis
and MIT and a planning degree from Harvard Graduate School
of Design. He is the coauthor of Infrastructural Ecologies
published by MIT Press in 2016.
Jay Valgora
New York, New York
Valgora’s Manhattan-based practice, STUDIO V Architecture,
is dedicated to the reinvention of the contemporary city. The
studio addresses multiple themes in its designs, including
transforming waterfronts, creating radical adaptive use, and
experimenting in innovative structures through fabrication.
STUDIO V has designed an extraordinary range of work
advancing these issues.
Valgora has 30 years of experience in multiple disciplines
including architecture, urban design, and industrial design. He
earned a master of architecture from Harvard and a bachelor
of architecture from Cornell University and was a Fulbright
Fellow to the United Kingdom where he began his studies of
reinventing former industrial waterfronts for London’s Canary
Wharf. He is expanding his work on the waterfront with his
recent appointment by the NYC mayor to the Waterfront
Management Advisory Board, which is tasked with rewriting the
city’s next comprehensive waterfront plan for 2020–2030.
Along with this appointment, Valgora is launching and leading
the Waterfront Initiative at the AIA New York Chapter, which will
bridge the gap between the design community and the city. He
has recently been appointed as an Urban Design Fellow for the
Urban Design Forum. Finally, Valgora is heavily involved with
the Urban Land Institute, serving on ULI New York’s Advisory
Board as well as its Infrastructure Council.
Valgora’s work has received numerous awards, including
national, state, and local AIA awards, International Design
Award, Architizer A+ Awards, among many others. His work
has been featured in numerous publications including the New
York Ti mes , Fast Company, Architectural Record, Dwell, the
Wall Street Journal, and New York magazine. He is currently
completing a book on the contemporary transformation of cities
titled Last Utopia.
44 A ULI Advisory Services Panel Report

Urban Land Institute
2001 L Street, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036-4948
uli.org