Staff: MCS Application Received: 4/5/2016

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Staff Report & Recommendation

To: Chairperson and Members Historic & Environmental Preservation Board

From: Megan Cross Schmitt Preservation Officer

Applicant: Lynn Lewis, Vice-Chair, City of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board

Subject: Item No. 4 – The Babylon, 240 SE 14th Street

BACKGROUND:

On April 5, 2016, Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) Vice-Chair Lynn Lewis directed Preservation Office staff to prepare a Preliminary Designation Report for the Babylon Apartments, located at 240 SE 14th Street. On May 3, 2016 the HEPB approved the Preliminary Designation Report under HEPB-R-2016-022, and directed staff to present a Final Designation Report at the July 5, 2016 meeting.

THE PROPERTY: The Babylon is located within the lower section of Brickell in an area named Point View. Point View is located between SE 14th Street and SE 15th Road and is comprised of two semi-circular roads that form an inner and outer ring that each start at Brickell Avenue, then swing out towards the bay and return back to Brickell Avenue. Around the outer ring at the circular edge, the lots are all irregularly shaped.

The lot on which the Babylon sits is approximately 15,000 square feet with the footprint of the structure conforming to the constraints of the shape of the irregular lot. Rising six stories, this residential structure is dwarfed among the taller high rises that surround and contains thirteen residential units, with a mixture of one, two, and three-bedroom apartments. Structurally, the Babylon is framed with reinforced concrete footings, columns, and beams that supported each floor’s pre-fabricated concrete slab and stucco wall skin.

Acting as a primary focal point of the structure is the front façade, a stair-stepped two-dimensional wall plane constructed of concrete block that is coated in stucco, and painted a vivid red color. This façade is referred to as a “ziggurat” and it is stated that it is “reminiscent of many Dutch 17th century facades” in the text description within the catalogue

HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 1 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

produced for an exhibition of Arquitectonica’s work between 1977 and 1984. A reason given for the stepped design is so that the architecture could conform to the constraints of the lot as well as those of the setbacks required under the then zoning code.

HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 2 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

CURRENT PHOTO:

Figure 1. Babylon Apartments, east façade.

HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 3 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

ANALYSIS:

Sec. 23-4. - Designation of historic resources, historic districts, and archaeological sites and zones.

(a) Criteria for designation. Properties may be designated as historic resources, historic districts, or archaeological sites and zones only if they have significance in the historical, cultural, archaeological, paleontological, aesthetic, or architectural heritage of the city, state, or nation; possess integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and meet one or more of the following criteria:

(1) Are associated in a significant way with the life of a person important in the past;

(2) Are the site of a historic event with significant effect upon the community, city, state, or nation;

(3) Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical, or social trends of the community;

(4) Portray the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles;

(5) Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or method of construction;

(6) Are an outstanding work of a prominent designer or builder;

(7) Contain elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship of outstanding quality or which represent a significant innovation or adaptation to the South Florida environment; or

(8) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

(b) Criteria exceptions. Ordinarily cemeteries, birth places, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for listing in the Miami register of historic places. However, such properties will qualify for designation if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria, or if they fall within the following categories:

(1) A building or structure that has been removed from its original location but is significant primarily for architectural value, or is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event;

(2) A birthplace or grave of a local historical figure of outstanding importance if no appropriate site or building exists directly associated with his or her productive life;

HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 4 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

(3) A cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of outstanding importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events;

(4) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented appropriately as part of a restoration master plan and no other building or structure with the same association has survived;

(5) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance;

(6) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is exceptionally important; or

(7) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance.

Because the building is not yet fifty years old (completed in 1982, it is currently 34), Chapter 23 of the City Code says that it must be found to be “exceptionally important” in order to be designated.

Staff’s analysis as documented in the Final Designation Report found the building to meet the following criteria:

(3) Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical, or social trends of the community;

The Babylon is located within the lower section of Brickell in an area called Point View. Originally, this neighborhood served as one of Miami’s first subdivisions, providing ample sized lots to accommodate grand homes for many significant residents of the City’s early history. This semi-circular layout of the neighborhood created pie-shaped as well as irregularly shaped lots that can still be seen in the plan of the subdivision today.

By the time the Babylon was constructed in 1982, virtually all of the mansions had been demolished to make way for high-rise condominiums. When condo sales failed and the owners of the Babylon tried to rezone the property to allow for partial office use, the building found itself at the heart of the battle between the “new” Brickell, that of density and high rise office buildings, and the “old” Point View, a more quaint and residential neighborhood. It was the Babylon’s design and height that lead to the suggestion that it remain in perpetuity to serve as the protective barrier, the transition between these two worlds.

(5) Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or method of construction;

The Babylon tells a story of development within the City of Miami, particularly in Brickell and Point View. Its bold façade creates a lasting impact signifying good design dictated by the constraints of the first Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This also points to its artistic and aesthetic merit and overall integrity that the structure has retained during its lifetime.

Due to these restrictions, primarily with the required setbacks for the side yards that increased with each escalation in height, the structure takes on its iconic ziggurat form.

HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 5 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

Within the description in the 1978 P/A Awards issue, it states, “the city building code stipulates a certain number of parking spaces and describes a set-back formula interpreted as a ziggurat envelope.” The firm was inventive with the regulations that were set forth at the time, a creativity that was not always evident in construction of the period. As stated in a 1986 article in the Pennsylvania Gazette, “Arquitectonica International’s exuberant accomplishments may be all the more remarkable because many of them work within such restraints of urban surroundings as density, parking space, and city codes.” Arquitectonica was generating new design that was visually interesting and architecturally innovative, providing designs that were dream-like yet buildable.

(6) Are an outstanding work of a prominent designer or builder;

Early on, the firm gained widespread praise. Almost immediately following the formation of Arquitectonica, the original founders won their first award, the P/A (Progressive Architecture) Citation Award for the Babylon apartments in 1978. Departing from what many of their peers were doing during this time period, Arquitectonica did not create designs in the newly coined style, Postmodernism. Instead they used the Modern style as a basis with an added twist to create a fresh and innovative take. Arquitectonica was a firm that marched to the beat of their own drum and made designs unique to their time.

The “Fifty-Year Rule”

At this point, the analysis must clearly turn towards exceptional importance and the so-called “fifty-year rule.” In evaluating a property for exceptional importance, the first thing to understand is the history of why the minimum age “rule” is in place and how a piece of architecture would qualify under this exception. John H. Sprinkle, Jr., Historian for the National Park Service, wrote an article about the origins of the “fifty-year rule” which he describes as “probably the best-known, yet also the most misunderstood preservation principle in America.”1

Sprinkle begins by explaining that the 1935 Historic Sites Act spearheaded a survey to identify potential sites that could become part of the National Park System. Part of refining eligibility for consideration involved the removal of “all sites of contemporary or near contemporary nature which might lead to controversial questions.”2 This created the first minimum age requirement which the National Park Service set at the year 1870. Over the next thirty years, various recommendations were made on the amount of lapsed time necessary to determine significance, including the separation between properties that qualified “for their association with nationally significant events or persons and properties that were significant in the history of architecture.”3 It was not until 1961, after the establishment of a National Registry of Historic Landmarks, that the “fifty-year rule” was

1 Sprinkle, Jr., John H., “”Of Exceptional Importance”: The Origins of the “Fifty-Year Rule” in Historic Preservation.” The Public Historian, Volume 29, No. 2 (Spring 2007), pp. 81-103. University of California Press on behalf of the National Council on Public History. Page 82. 2 Ibid. Page 83. 3 Ibid. Page 86-87. HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 6 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016 first codified and then it was further ratified with the adoption of criteria set forth for the National Register of Historic Places in 1966.

The concept was not without its critics. Sprinkle writes:

In 1941, after a briefing on National Park Service programs, the arbitrary cut-off date of 1870 was widely criticized by members of the newly formed American Society of Architectural Historians. Henry-Russell Hitchcock’s observation that ‘often primary monuments of modern architectural history are wantonly destroyed’ was reinforced with an anecdotal list of demolished or threatened important buildings.”4

And Sprinkle includes this quote from Robert Utley, who served as the Chief Historian for the National Park Service:

Unfortunately, what was considered as kind of a general guideline has been translated by ignorant and well-meaning people, or by evil people with bad designs in mind, into a criterion. It’s become almost a cliché. The thinking was that in general you need a 50 year perspective to have a good professional judgement of whether a property qualifies or not. But it was never intended to be rigidly applied…5

And according to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:

Before 1966, historic preservation was mainly understood in one- dimensional terms: the proverbial historic shrine or Indian burial mound secured by lock and key—usually in a national park—set aside from modern life as an icon for study and appreciation. NHPA largely changed that approach, signaling a much broader sweep that has led to the breadth and scope of the vastly more complex historic preservation mosaic we know today. Like the American culture it mirrors, historic preservation today is perhaps best defined in terms of its diversity.

Even since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, historic preservation has often been criticized for its lack of diversity. Years of narrowly defined approaches to “significance” left many voices, histories, cultures, architectural styles, etc., out of the dialogue. And as the field matures, so should our understanding of how to implement preservation theory into policy. It is time to look carefully at something like the “fifty-year rule,” especially when the intent of the language can be just as easily achieved by phrases such as, “sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective,” as is used by the State of California. It is perhaps worth noting that not all local ordinances use the fifty-year rule in their designation criteria. In his article, Sprinkle points out that the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission requires buildings to be at least thirty years old in order to be considered for evaluation. Closer to home, Miami Beach’s historic preservation ordinance does not specify a minimum age for historic designation.

4 Ibid. Page 87. 5 Ibid. Page 101. HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 7 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

Exception Importance

As stated in the Final Designation Report, staff found competent and substantial evidence that the Babylon meets Criteria (3), (5) and (6), making it eligible for designation prior to applying the criteria exception for properties that have achieved significance within the last fifty years. Despite the building’s age, staff believes that enough time has lapsed to allow for a scholarly perspective to be established. However when it is compared to other Arquitectonica buildings that were built around the same time, staff finds that it is challenging to distinguish it as exceptional.

According to National Register Bulletin #22 – Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years, “In evaluating and justifying exceptional importance, it is critical to identify the properties in a geographical context that portray the same values or associations and determine those that best illustrate or represent the historical, architectural, cultural, engineering, or archeological values in question.”6 This is where staff has reservations about characterizing the Babylon as “of exceptional importance.”

The other Arquitectonica buildings that were constructed in the early 1980s such as the Palace, the Atlantis Condominium and the Imperial were perhaps even more celebrated than the Babylon in the national and international press. Furthermore, just as the Babylon found itself at the center of a battle that pitted neighbors against development, so, too, did the Atlantis. In 2001, the proposed 28-story Brickell Bay Village apartment project threatened to obstruct the “famous” view of the Atlantis from I-95 – not to mention the light and air of the 96 apartments in the Atlantis itself. In an Op-Ed published in the Herald on March 29, 2001, Hervin Romney, one of the founders of Arquitectonica and identified in the article as the architect of the Atlantis, makes a compelling argument as to why the building is so iconic. The list of popular culture references he cites may be more than can be done for the Babylon.

Letters asking the City Commission to “save” the Atlantis poured in from local home owner associations, local advocacy organizations and internationally acclaimed architects. There is even a letter from the Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources stating that despite being “conspicuously less than fifty years old,” a review of preliminary documentation provided to their office found that the Atlantis “should be considered for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.” The building was just 19 years old at the time.

To be fair, an early and important profile of Arquitectonica that appeared in Progressive Architecture wrote about both the Atlantis and the Babylon, saying, “Two apartment buildings by Arquitectonica – one large, one small – capture the aura of their time and place.”7 The piece closes with the following remarks:

Ironically enough, the Babylon, still unoccupied after a change in ownership, stands within sight of the 41-story Palace, and opposite the site

6 National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1991). Page 3. 7 Viladas, Pilar.”Rich and Famous.” Progressive Architecture. February, 1983. Page 99. HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 8 of 9

Staff: MCS Application received: 4/5/2016

of the 1.9 million-square-foot Helmsley Center, a mixed-use project scheduled for completion in 1984. Under different circumstances, the sight of the Babylon, dwarfed by the gargantuan Helmsley project (which will have a real keystone base), might bring a smile to those observers of the firm who knew them when. For Arquitectonica, however, there never really was a when; it was a very short trip to the major leagues. So the Babylon serves instead as a rather winsome reminder of lean and hungry years the firm never had.8

The Preservation Office believes that this is a very unusual scenario, where a local firm catapulted into international fame right from their very first designs. Additionally, the fact that Brickell is home to so many early and contemporaneous Arquitectonica buildings makes it all the more challenging to call one out as exceptional over the others. This is especially true when so much attention was being paid to the projects as a set.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The Preservation Office believes that the Babylon is eligible for designation by meeting Criteria (3), (5) and (6), however the building cannot be found to be more exceptionally significant within its context than the other contemporaneous work of Arquitectonica in Brickell.

If the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 14 Street possesses quality and character through it architectural design, historical and political trends within the city of Miami, and represents the work of master architects as stated in the criteria below and that the Babylon contains characteristics of exceptional importance and meets the requirements of the criteria consideration for a building under 50 years old you must find that such criteria exists, and is present and include such findings if the structure is to be designated and must be approved by five or more affirmative votes;

Conversely, if the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 14 Street possesses quality and character through it architectural design, historical and political trends within the city of Miami, and represents the work of master architects as stated in the criteria below but does not possess exceptional importance and does meet the requirements of the criteria consideration, then the building cannot be designated as one which is under 50 years old because it is not exceptionally important.

8 Ibid. Page 106. HEPB- JULY 5, 2016 Page 9 of 9

THE BABYLON

240 SE 14 Street

Final Designation Report

REPORT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI PRESERVATION OFFICER TO THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ON THE POTENTIAL DESIGNATION OF 240 SE 14 STREET AS A HISTORIC SITE

Prepared By: Megan Cross Schmitt Historic Preservation Officer

Trisha Logan Historic Preservation Planner

Passed and Adopted On:

Resolution Number:

Contents

I. General Information

II. Statement Of Significance

III. Historical Context of the Site

IV. Architectural Description

V. Analysis

VI. Preservation Incentives

VII. Application of Criteria

VIII. Bibliography

IX. Photographs & Figures

List of Figures Figure 1: Tax Card Photos of 240 SE 14 Street

Figure 2: Tax Card Map of 240 SE 14 Street

Figure 3: 1948 Aerial View of 240 SE 14 Street

Figure 4: 1969 Aerial View of 240 SE 14 Street

Figure 5: Zoning Map - Ordinance 6871 (1960)

Figure 6: Zoning Map - Ordinance 9500 (1982)

Figure 7: Zoning Map - Ordinance 11000 (1990)

Figure 8: Zoning Map - Miami 21 (2010)

Figure 9: College of Architecture, University of Houston

Figure 10: The AT&T Building , New York, New York

Figure 11: The Pyramids, Indianapolis, Indiana

Figure 12: Villa Savoye, Poissey, France

Figure 13: Babylon Apartments, east façade.

Figures 14 & 15: Babylon Apartments, northeast façade.

Figures 16: Babylon Apartments, streetview.

Figure 17: Babylon Apartments, rendering (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 18: Progressive Architecture magazine, January 1978

Figure 19, 20, & 21: Schematic line drawings of Babylon Apartments. (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 22: Babylon Ground Floor Plan (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 23: Babylon 2nd & 3rd Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 24: Babylon 4th and 5th Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 25: Babylon 4th and 5th Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

I- General Information

Historic Name: The Babylon

Current Name: The Babylon

Date of Construction: 1982

Location: 240 SE 14 Street Miami, Florida 33131

Present Owner: Babylon International, Inc. 180 Island Drive Key Biscayne, Florida 33149

Present use: Multi-Family Residential

Zoning: T6-8-R

Folio No.: 01-4139-068-0001 01-4139-068-0010 01-4139-068-0020 01-4139-068-0030 01-4139-068-0040 01-4139-068-0050 01-4139-068-0060 01-4139-068-0070 01-4139-068-0080 01-4139-068-0090 01-4139-068-0100 01-4139-068-0110 01-4139-068-0120 01-4139-068-0130 01-4139-068-0140

Boundary (Legal Description): Babylon Towers Condo Point View Sub PB 2-93 Lot 5 Less Nly 10ft for R/Q & S ½ of outlot less nly 25 ft for R/W blk 2 lot size 15,646 sq ft F/A/U 01-

Setting: The structure is located on SE 14 Street within the lower section of Brickell in an area called Point View.

Integrity: The structure has not been subject to major alterations on the exterior and retains a high level of integrity.

II- Statement of Significance

The Babylon is one of the first projects completed by Arquitectonica within the City of Miami. This world-renowned architectural firm was founded in Miami in the late 1970s and from the start, their work has been credited with changing the skyline of the city. Statements such as this one regarding their significance were being made as early as 1984:

And today Miami is recognized for its association with Arquitectonica, a firm whose unmistakable style, distinguished by high-spirited and unambiguous forms set off in brilliant colors, has created landmarks along Biscayne Bay.1

Arquitectonica was inventive with the zoning regulations that were set forth at the time, producing many designs that were dream-like yet buildable. Early on, the firm gained widespread praise with multiple news sources vying for interviews with the young principals during the early 1980s. Almost immediately following the formation of Arquitectonica, the original founders won their first award, the P/A (Progressive Architecture) Citation Award for the Babylon apartments in 1978.

Departing from what many of their peers were doing during this time period, Arquitectonica did not create designs in the newly coined style, Postmodernism. Instead they used the Modern style as a basis with an added twist to create a fresh and innovative take, making the end product something that was unique to the time in which they were designing. The Babylon’s most unique and eye-catching feature is of course the ziggurat form that faces SE 14 Street. Part of the significance and boldness of this form comes from the red color that is vividly on display.

It is clear that this structure was an advancement for the architectural firm Arquitectonica and provided an opportunity for them to launch a successful career. The Babylon also tells a story of development within the city of Miami, particularly in the neighborhoods of Brickell and Point View. Its bold façade creates a lasting impact signifying good design dictated by the constraints of the first Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, where many other buildings failed. This also points to its artistic and aesthetic merit and overall integrity that the structure has retained during its lifetime.

With this achievement at the launch of their career, and the larger scale projects that coincided within this same time period, Arquitectonica as a firm received recognition from international news sources. Their work has also been critiqued globally, usually highlighting the Babylon as one of the firm’s achievements in design. Comparatively to their peers at the time who were mostly following the trend and creating architecture in the Postmodern Style, Arquitectonica marched to the beat of their own drum and made designs unique to their time.

1 Koeper, Frederick. Arquitectonica, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: An exhibition of drawings, models, plans and photographs, 1977-1984. Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984.

III- Historical Context of the Site

History of Point View The Babylon is located within the lower section of Brickell in an area named Point View. Point View is located between SE 14th Street and SE 15th Road and is comprised of two semi-circular roads that form an inner and outer ring that each start at Brickell Avenue, then swing out towards the bay and return back to Brickell Avenue. Around the outer ring at the circular edge, the lots are all irregularly shaped.

Originally, this neighborhood served as one of Miami’s first subdivisions, providing ample sized lots to accommodate grand homes for many significant residents of the City’s early history. Locke T. Highleyman was the developer, creating the plan of the subdivision and selling the first lots in 1911.2 As described in Dade Heritage Trust’s, Brickell South Tour, “Highleyman was a banker, real estate broker, and developer. He arrived in Miami in 1903 and made it his permanent home in 1913.”3 He used dredge from the bay to infill portions, creating additional land and the semi- circular shape of the neighborhood. This semi-circular layout of the neighborhood created pie- shaped as well as irregularly shaped lots that can still be seen in the plan of the subdivision today.

Over time, all of the houses were demolished to make way for high-rise condominiums. Aerial maps show that much of the neighborhood was still mostly intact as of 1961 but by 1969, it appears that several large condominiums had been constructed on the outer ring of the subdivision.

Figure 1: Tax Card Photos of 240 SE 14 Street

2 Parks, Arva Moore. “Point View.” Date Unknown. 3 Piket, Casey. “Brickell South Tour.” Dade Heritage Trust. 2016

Figure 2: Tax Card Map of 240 SE 14 Street

Figure 3: 1948 Aerial View of 240 SE 14 Street

Figure 4: 1969 Aerial View of 240 SE 14 Street

Arquitectonica Arquitectonica was founded by five members in 1977: Bernardo Fort-Brescia, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Hervin Romney and Laurinda Spear. By the early 1980s, Duany, Plater- Zyberk and Romney had moved on, and Fort-Brescia and Spear were left as the remaining principals of the firm.4

Arquitectonica’s work has been making a strong impression since its inception. In 1978, the firm completed its first project, The Pink House, a Miami Shores residence designed for Laurinda Spear’s parents. Once described as “ultramodern and romantic, unrestrained and disciplined, shocking and pleasing, inviting and challenging all at the same time,” the house caused controversy and delight.5 Five different shades of pink were used in the painting of the house: “There were parades of sightseers, anonymous phone calls, angry letters, committee meetings. And then praise, approbation, esteem, when the house became the darling of the international design press.”6

This contradictory reaction to Arquitectonica’s work may have originated with its first project but it has persisted ever since. In 1982, Miami Herald architecture critic Beth Dunlop wrote: “Arquitectonica’s work is inventive and infuriating, provocative and provoking, elegant and arrogant. It’s delightfully child-like, offensively cute, sleekly sophisticated and sometimes very sloppy. All at once.”7

In the same article, Dunlop went on to say this about the Babylon:

The Spear house was completed in 1978, and for a while, it was Arquitectonica’s only finished product. But that same year, the firm won its first Progressive Architecture award, an annual prize by that magazine for promising design work. The drawings for the Babylon split jurors, one of whom praised its “Chagallian, Star Wars” look and another of whom said it was ugly. But more than the Pink House (which, after all, was done in conjunction with Koolhaas and for one partner’s parents), the award represented Arquitectonica’s real launching.

The Babylon is finally being completed at the corner of SE 14th Street and South Bayshore. And – speaking here sheerly in terms of design – it turns out to be a pretty nice apartment building, neither surreal, nor ugly. It’s right in scale with the adjacent neighborhood mansions, and despite its colors – brick red, bright red, turquoise and gray (right now) – it slides beautifully into its context.

Each succeeding floor of the six-story Babylon steps back, ziggurat style, and that accomplishes two things: It gives the building a ship-like scale and it hearkens back to

4 Dunlop, Beth. Arquitectonica (New York: Rizzoli, 2004), 37. 5 Allman, T.D. Miami: City of the Future (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987), 33. 6 Kron, Joan. "My Son, the Architect: Houses for Parents." New York Times (New York), November 12, 1981. 7 Dunlop, Beth. "Arquitectonica Turns Design into Child’s Play." Miami Herald (Miami), April 4, 1982, Architecture/Comment sec.

early modern European buildings. With a false top and cookie cutter windows, it’s very entertaining.

Were it not for a real failure to attend to the finishing details of construction, the Babylon would be the best achievement of Arquitectonica: the painted walls have a wonderful cardboard–thin quality to them, and the stepbacks and the cutouts give the building a delightful silhouette.8

This is one of many references made specifically to the Babylon by both local and national newspapers and magazines profiling the firm in the early 1980s. Though some of their other projects such as the Palace, the Atlantis Condominium and the Imperial may have been better known outside of Miami, the Babylon seems to have stood out on its own, never falling into the shadow of the other, larger-scale projects. It was even described as a “landmark in Point View” as early as 1983, just one year after its completion.9

Award Winning Progressive Architecture or otherwise known as P/A magazine was a well-respected architectural publication that published their record of new and groundbreaking architectural design starting in the early 1940s through the mid-1990s. An early architecture and drafting magazine, Pencil Points, which began in 1920 merged with Progressive Architecture in 1943. Starting in 1972, John Morris Dixon, a career long architectural magazine editor, took over as the Editor of Progressive Architecture magazine and continued in that role until Architecture magazine took over is 1996.

Each year, the Progressive Architecture Magazine would hold an awards competition “to recognize the most promising architecture before construction.”10 Entries were submitted as “paper architecture”11 in the form of plans, as the projects were in the design phase and were yet to be built. New York Times architecture critic, Ada Louise Huxtable, commented that, “Nothing stops the magazine Progressive Architecture from the completion of its annual task: the P/A awards that both herald and record the state of the art with amiable regularity.”12 As of 1988, the magazine stated that, “In the thirty-five years since it started, 224 renowned judges “have reviewed some 26,000 submissions and chosen 849 for recognition.” 13 The deadline for applications was September of the previous year, with judging following shortly after the submissions were received. Awards were divided into three separate divisions; architectural design, planning and urban design, and applied research. Within each of these divisions, the

8 Dunlop, Beth. "Arquitectonica Turns Design into Child’s Play." Miami Herald (Miami), April 4, 1982, Architecture/Comment sec. 9 Zaldivar, R.A. “Gary’s Banker Friend Asks Zoning Variance.” Miami Herald (Miami), September 23, 1983, Local sec. 10 Sarfatti Larson, Magali. Behind the Postmodern Façade: Architectural Change in Late Twentieth Century America. University of California Press, Ltd., London, England, 1993. Page 185 11 Ibid. Page 185. 12 Huxtable, Ada Louise. “Award Winners – Outrageous Yet Appealing.” The New York Times 26 February 1978: Page D25. Print 13 Sarfatti Larson, Magali. Behind the Postmodern Façade: Architectural Change in Late Twentieth Century America. University of California Press, Ltd., London, England, 1993. Page 184. In reference to P/A Magazine Issue January 1988.

awards were given in three categories; “First Award” went to the overall winner, “Award” typically went to several submissions as a second place, and the rest of the winners were labeled “Citations.” The results showcased within the magazine which published a special awards issue in January. Within the awards issue of the P/A magazine, each award-winning project was listed and displayed with “iconographic presentations with excerpts of the judges’ debates.”14

Awards have been used as a way to distinguish new architecture, setting apart groundbreaking projects and innovative design from the rest as well as acting as record of the trends. Ada Louise Huxtable, architecture critic, stated, “Styles seem to change with the seasons, supported by ideas ranging from superficial to profound.” Awards also have the ability to give credit and a nod of approval from the industry to up-and-coming architects who are just starting their careers. The P/A Awards were no different. Architect Rob Quigley is cited as stating that, “Of course they all submit, they see a PA award as enormously prestigious; they all want that sanction from the community of architects.”15

Throughout the years, the P/A Awards went through several highs and lows, and the winners that were selected each year were highly dependent on who was selected for the panel of judges. The magazine would attempt to diversify their jurors by adopting “parameters that are not merely geographic, but stylistic and technical as well” 16 and would tend to dictat the architectural debate. In reference to the jury of 1975, Peter Eisenman stated that “this year’s (jury) reasserts the necessary aspect of architectonic quality and development toward a solution, as opposed to process only or good intention. I think this restatement of the architect’s role, the spatial answer to a programmatic statement, is reassuring.”17

As of the 25th Annual Progressive Architecture Awards, the jury consisted of eight members that were divided between each category. Architecture or planning firms of each jury member were not allowed to submit if they were serving on the jury and all entries were anonymous, leaving the process as neutral as possible. Three jurors were assigned to the initial review of the architecture design submission, two for planning and urban design, and two for applied research. After the initial review, the full committee of jurors would come together to finalize the selected winners.

This period of time also coincided with a financial crisis that struck during the mid-1970s and continued for several years, impacting planned developments. There was a huge decrease in the number of entries into the Progressive Architecture Awards due to the economic crisis, but this also brought on a change in the way projects were evaluated and designed. Peter Eisenman, a juror from the 1975 Progressive Architecture Awards, “stressed the intrinsic virtues of design” and the “architect’s role as avant-garde artist.” 18 Additionally developers “spurred on

14 Ibid. Page 187. 15 Ibid. Page 185 16 Ibid. Page 187 17 Ibid. Page 185 18 Sarfatti Larson, Magali. Behind the Postmodern Façade: Architectural Change in Late Twentieth Century America. University of California Press, Ltd., London, England, 1993. Page 227

architectural revisionism” and clients “wanted their buildings to look rich, playful, and different.”19 The chart below shows the varying number of entries submitted between 1975 through 1984, but also shows the inconsistencies between the number of awards given compared to the number of entries.

Year Number of Number of Percentage Entries Awards (awards/entries)

1975 737 21 2.84

1976 462 20 4.30

1977 619 27 4.36

1978 654 34 5.19

1979 923 28 3.00

1980 928 28 3.00

1981 1049 31 2.95

1982 1066 22 2.06

1983 1040 26 2.50

1984 934 28 2.99 20

Arquitectonica won several P/A Awards and Citations as an up-and-coming architecture firm. But even prior to the founding of Arquitectonica, Laurinda Spear won her first award in 1975 for a design that she collaborated on with Rem Koolhaas for her parent’s home in Miami Shores, Florida.

As a newly established firm, Arquitectonica won its first Citation for Architectural Design for the Babylon Apartments for the 25th Annual P/A Awards (1978). The graphics that are displayed in P/A magazine’s awards issue accurately reflect what was built several years later. The jury commented on the quality the graphics, and one juror even went so far as to explicitly state that they did not support giving an award to this project. These comments were included as part of the Progressive Architecture January 1978 edition:

Charles Moore: I like the Chagallian, Star Wars quality of the graphics… drawn in a pseudo-archaic manner… [It is} a return to a previous era and strikes a nostalgic note that has appeal partially as a reaction against many of the other directions

19 Ibid. Page 243 20 Ibid. Page 256

that are evident today, and partly because of the sheer romance of certain parts of the plan. It would be fun to live in it. The same feeling of joy might occur each time you return to the building.

Natalie de Blois: It would be a mistake to give this building an award. It’s ugly, it doesn’t make sense. The drawings are cute… but the building is indistinguishable it terms of architecture.21

Additional commentary regarding the 1978 awards was included as part of Ada Louise Huxtable’s architecture column in the New York Times. Huxtable states that, “if the group of architectural design award winners indicates the state of the art today – and it is fair to say that they are generally on the cutting edge of esthetic [sic] exploration – then architecture is in a curious and troubling phase.”22 Going further she comments that “the results tend to be both outrageous and appealing – a paradox in itself.”23 The P/A Award winners under the Architectural Design category for 1978 range in building type, with single family homes winning five of the nineteen awards24, but also stylistically. Further on in Huxtable’s review she states, “What we are given this year, in fact, is an extremely mixed architectural bag.”25

1978 Jury Members Architectural Design: William Bain, Jr., FAIA, Partner, Naramore Bain Brady & Johanson, Seattle Natalie de Blois, FAIA, Senior Project Designer, 3D/International, Houston Richard Meier, FAIA, Richard Meier and Associates, New York Charles Moore, FAIA, Professor of Architecture, UCLA, Los Angeles

Planning and Urban Design: Calvin Hamilton, Director of Planning, City of Los Angeles David Lewis, AIA, ARIBA, AIP, founder and Partner, Urban Design Associates, Pittsburgh

Applied Research: Robert Gutman, Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, and Visiting Professor of Architecture and Planning, Princeton University Robert Shibley, Architect, Office of the Chief Engineer, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington26

21 Dixon, John Morris, “The 25th P/A Awards.” Progressive Architecture. January 1978. Page 83. Print. 22 Huxtable, Ada Louise. “Award Winners – Outrageous Yet Appealing.” The New York Times 26 February 1978: Page D25. Print 23 Ibid. 24 Dixon, John Morris, “The 25th P/A Awards.” Progressive Architecture. January 1978. Page 66. Print. 25 Huxtable, Ada Louise. “Award Winners – Outrageous Yet Appealing.” The New York Times 26 February 1978: Page D25. Print 26 Dixon, John Morris, “The 25th P/A Awards.” Progressive Architecture. January 1978. Page 65. Print.

1978 Architectural Design P/A Award Winners Award Type Project Architect Location First Award Single Family House The Pink House Edward Mills Friendship, MD Award Pavilion for ski resort Pavillon Soixante-Dix Peter D. Rose with St-Sauveur, Peter Lanken and James Quebec V. Righter Award Single Family House Kornaza Residence Chimacoff/Peterson Montauk, NY Award Training Center Petromin Refining Perkins & Will Saudi Arabia Training Center Award Office/Warehouse Chem-Fleur Factory Michael Graves Newark, NJ Addition and Renovation Citation Warehouse Graves Warehouse Michael Graves Princeton, NJ Renovation into Single Renovation Family House Citation Multi-Family Lovett Square William T. Cannady Houston, TX Condominiums Citation Multi-Use Westlake Park Mitchell/Giurgola Seattle, WA Architects Citation Pedestrian Bridge Gymnasium Bridge Steven Holl Bronx, NY Citation Single Family House Mason Truc Robert S. Livesey Mt. Kisco, NY Prototype Citation Multi-Family The Babylon Arquitectonica Miami, FL Condominiums Apartments Citation Warehouse/Offices Morgenstern Eric Moss and James Los Angeles, CA Warehouse Stafford Citation Office Building Monroe Center C.F. Murphy Associates Chicago, IL Citation (44) Single Family Ghent Square Barton Myers Norfolk, VA Houses Associates Citation (55) Single Family Braemar Ridge John Perkins Associates Braemar Ridge, Houses B.C. Citation Office Building Office building for a RIA Architects Vancouver, B.C sawmill Citation Adaptive Re-Use of Jessie St. Substation W.A. Werner Associates San Francisco, CA Substation Citation Private Museum and Goebel Collectors’ Robert Wagenseil Jones Stamford, CT Office Club & Associates Citation Single Family House Vacation House Jorge Silvetti Djerba, Tunisia 27

Architectural critics for various newspapers would provide commentary about the awards throughout the years with mixed reviews. The columnists would remark about whether or not the P/A Awards were actually meaningful, particularly since the jurors were judging buildings that were to potentially be built based on plans, models, and renderings. One such column in the Chicago Tribune was entitled, “The awards for buildings deserve the booby prize,” with the first sentence reading, “Progressive Architecture magazine has announced the winners of its 22d [sic]

27 Ibid. Pages 68-91.

annual [and still nonsensical] awards competition.”28 Even with the critical review the magazine often received throughout the years, it still serves its overall purpose – as a record of architectural style and trends that will prove as an invaluable resource for historians in the future.

Site Zoning Constraints The Babylon was designed in 1979, with construction completed in 1982. It was subject to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which was first adopted under Ordinance 6871 in 1960. The zoning for the property at the time of design was “R-5”, entitled High Density Multiple. The following outlines the constraints of construction on the lot where the Babylon is located as described within Article X – High Density Multiple – R-5 District:

Section 1 – Use Regulations No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used or land or water used in whole or in part, for other than one or more of the following specified uses: (4) Apartment building and apartment hotel not exceeding a density of (1) dwelling unit for each four hundred and fifty (450) square feet of lot area. (Ord. 7508)

Section 2 – Area (1) The lot area shall be at least ten thousand (10,000) square feet with a minimum average width of one-hundred (100) feet. (2) A lot which as less width or less area that here and above required, which was a platted lot of record prior to September 25, 1946, the date of Ordinance No. 3179, may be utilized for a multiple-family dwelling if it has an average width of at least forty-five (45) feet, and a lot area of at least forty-five hundred (4500) square feet. If it has an average width of less than forty (40) feet, or a lot area of less than four thousand (4000) square feet, it may be utilized only for a single-family dwelling. (Ord. 7624)

Section 3 – Yards (1) Front Yard: (Ord. 7508) (a) Every lot shall have a front yard not less than twenty (20) feet in depth, and in no instance shall any point on the build be closer to the centerline of the front street than one-half (1/2) the height of said point above grade. (2) Side Yard: (Ord. 7508) (a) Every lot used for a one-family, two-family, or a multiple-family dwelling shall have a side yard on each side, each of which shall have a width of least (15) percent of the width of the lot, provided that no side yard shall be less than nine (9) feet nor required to be greater than eighteen (18) feet in width for a building not exceeding a height of twenty-five feet. (d) The width of the above-required yards shall be increased by one (1) foot for every two (2) feet of building height above twenty-five (25) feet. Where a side lot line abuts a

28 Gapp, Paul. “The awards for buildings, deserve the booby prize.” Chicago Tribune 23 February 1975: Page E13. Print

street, the side yard required shall in no case be greater than twenty (20) feet, but no point on the building shall be closer to the centerline of the side street than one-half (1/2) the height of said point above grade. (3) Rear Yard. (Ord. 7508) (a) Every lot shall have a rear yard not less than twenty (20) feet in depth.29

Due to these restrictions, primarily with the required setbacks for the side yards that increased with each escalation in height, the structure takes on its iconic ziggurat form. Within the description in the 1978 P/A Awards issue, it states, “the city building code stipulates a certain number of parking spaces and describes a set-back formula interpreted as a ziggurat envelope.”30 The firm was inventive with the regulations that were set forth at the time, a creativity that was not always evident in construction of the period. As stated in a 1986 article in the Pennsylvania Gazette, “Arquitectonica International’s exuberant accomplishments may be all the more remarkable because many of them work within such restraints of urban surroundings as density, parking space, and city codes.”31 Arquitectonica was generating new design that was visually interesting and architecturally innovative, providing designs that were dream-like yet buildable.

Figure 5: Zoning Map - Ordinance 6871 (1960) Figure 6: Zoning Map - Ordinance 9500 (1982)

29 City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, adopted under Ordinance No. 6871: Article X – High Density Multiple – R-5 District. Revised 1-1-1976. Page 39 30 Dixon, John Morris, “The 25th P/A Awards.” Progressive Architecture. January 1978. Page 83. Print. 31 Author Unknown. “Miami Virtue: Arquitectonica.” The Pennsylvania Gazette. April 1986. Page 31. Arquitectonica Archives, History Miami.

Figure 7: Zoning Map - Ordinance 11000 (1990) Figure 8: Zoning Map - Miami 21 (2010)

Babylon: The Early Years Once constructed, the Babylon sat empty.

According to the testimony of attorney Robert H. Traurig at the July 11, 1983 Zoning Board meeting, the condominiums were not selling:

We went to the Planning Department and said, “We have tested the market with this condominium, residential condominium, and the market has rejected it and we can’t sell apartments and we would like to use the building and it’s really on 14th Street and not on the Point View curve and wouldn’t it be reasonable if we gave you an agreement not to take advantage of the SPI-5 ordinance in order to build a big building but just to get the uses that SPI-5 permits if we limited those uses to a combination of residential at the top, with offices at the bottom,” and we agreed and we have a covenant to submit that says , “We will not change the structure at all and we will limit the building to the three residential units on the top floor and the rest of the building will be, could be used for offices if we desire…”32

What is more, the adjacent property to the south of the Babylon, 3517 South Bayshore Drive (lot 4), appears to have been one of the last surviving mansions from the original Point View development and was fighting for its own future. Alan Bliss, the owner of the property (referred to as the Commodore), testified at the same Zoning Board meeting in favor of the rezoning for his own property:

32 Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board’s July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5.

I have been trying to sell the property and have found, the same as the Babylon found, that nobody is buying residential today. There’s foreclosure but there’s no buying. I have come up with an idea that I’m trying to promote to keep the Commodore as a restaurant.33

Bliss goes on to explain that potential investors were interested in the site but only if they could introduce office space due to what the market was demanding.

Not surprisingly, the proposal to introduce office use was met with strong opposition from neighbors who were concerned about the increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic they feared would come to their street. And not all residents were buying the “market demand” argument in support of the rezoning. Jean Ryder, a resident of a nearby building, saw the Babylon’s challenges differently:

Furthermore, I really don’t, again quote Mr. Traurig, I really don’t think that you can test the market, the realty market, with a building like the Babylon. I think you’re testing what people consider a livable building. It is unfortunate and I’m sure they, both the builders and the lenders, are suffering financially from what they put up there.34

The curve from SE 14th Street into South Bayshore Drive seems to have been caught in a battle between the “new” Brickell, that of density and high rise office buildings, and the “old” Point View, a more quaint and residential neighborhood. Interestingly, the Babylon was being positioned as the protective barrier between these two worlds. Attorney Traurig stated:

Then you have the opportunity to transition with the Babylon by having the existing building retained with a slight change in use and an increase in landscaping and so forth…We urge you to at least support the Planning Department’s recommendations which are reasonable recommendations and give protection to this neighborhood.35

One of the recommendations from the Planning Department stated:

It is understood that the structure on Lot 5 [the Babylon] will be retained with residential use in the upper portion and this will serve as a buffer between the residential and non-residential zoning districts. The existing residential area should be preserved to retain the concept of needed housing close in to the downtown area…36

33 Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board’s July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5. 34 Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board’s July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5. 35 Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board’s July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5. 36 Staff Analysis included in an Inter-Office Memo from Sergio Rodriguez, Executive Secretary to the Planning Advisory Board to Howard V. Gary, City Manager, dated December 8, 1983.

In the end, the City Commission approved the rezoning that would allow the Babylon to expand to some restricted office uses. In addition, ownership proffered a restrictive covenant that, among other things, said that the building would be preserved, and that any modifications to the interior or exterior would be limited to those required to adapt to the new use. It also had a provision that mentioned that an appointed representative from the Point View Association, Inc. “may require a change in the color of the exterior of the building to a color more in harmony with the colors of buildings in the Point View neighborhood…”37

37 Declaration of Restrictions included in an Inter-Office Memo from Sergio Rodriguez, Executive Secretary to the Planning Advisory Board to Howard V. Gary, City Manager, dated December 8, 1983.

IV - Architectural Description

Architectural Influences The early work produced by the firm Arquitectonica could be categorized as the Modern Style, but with a twist of the time in which they were creating. Even though many architects during the late 1970s and early 1980s were contributing to the Post-Modern movement, Arquitectonica does not identify its early work as Post-Modern primarily because they do not follow even the most basic principles of the style.38 “A lot that was wrong with architecture had to do with modernism, but instead of turning away from modernism with postmodernist historical touches, as most of their colleagues were doing, Spear and Fort-Brescia sought a way in which to make modernism work.”39 Many architects and architectural critics were going through a love and hate relationship with Postmodernism at the time, and for some a departure from this trend was seen as a positive.

Arquitectonica was not necessarily creating a new style, but looking to update simplified structures with added visual interest using colors and geometry in experimental ways. “Arquitectonica is building on the spirit of daring and experiment that characterized the avant- garde earlier in this century. ‘We are not trying to create a new style.’ Says Laurinda Spear, 33, one of the founding partners. ‘We are just trying to make modern architecture more lively and up to date.’ “40

By using geometrical shapes and forms, there can be relationship drawn between the Modern Style and imitation of historic forms with the exterior appearance and overall shape of the Babylon, the ziggurat. The ziggurat form can be seen throughout architectural history and is replicated in many ways. The ancient Mesopotamian city, Babylon, could also potentially act as the namesake for this condominium structure as it was home to the original ziggurat, Etemenanki. Utilizing ancient forms in a simplified form creates a historic illusion.

Other structures that were completed during this same time period and also imitated historic form in a modern dialect are the College of Architecture at the University of Houston constructed in 1983-1985 and designed by Johnson/Burgee Architects and Morris-Aubry Architects; the AT&T Building in New York City constructed in 1984 and designed by Philip Johnson and John Burgee; and the Pyramids in Indianapolis, Indiana constructed in 1972 and designed by Kevin Roche.

38 Van der Marck, Jan. Arquitectonica, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: An exhibition of drawings, models, plans and photographs, 1977-1984. Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984. 39 Roberts, Patricia. “Making It in Miami.” Publication Unknown. March 1983. Pages 71-76 Arquitectonica Archives, History Miami. Page 74 40 Von Eckardt, Wolf. “Jazzing Up The Functional.” Time Magazine. July 23, 1984. Page 91. Arquitectonica Archives, History Miami.

Figure 9: College of Architecture, University of

Houston (http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/p15195coll3)

Figure 10: The AT&T Building , New York, New York (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/ photocredit/achievers/joh0-050)

Figure 11: The Pyramids, Indianapolis, Indiana ( http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/pyramids.html)

This moment served as an important crossroads in architecture with several of the early modernist architects ending their careers, and leaving an entire new generation of architects to emerge as leaders with new ideas. Fort-Brescia stated in an interview in the mid-1980s that,

“ ‘There’s a whole new design revolution going on,’ he says. ‘And there’s a whole new generation of people who are more demanding about the product they’re going to buy to live in.’ ”41

41 Ferrell A.I.A., Stephanie. “Architecture at Fifty-Five Miles Per Hour: Arquitectonica.” Southern Homes, Tampa Bay Edition. Summer 1985.

Possible correlations could also be drawn to early modern architects such as Le Corbusier, who often used a combination of geometrical forms within his architectural creations. One such example is of his creation, Villa Savoye that was constructed between 1929 to 1931 in Poissey, France. He utilized flat plane surfaces joined together and supported in layers of space with geometric punctuations throughout, creating both interior and exterior spaces within the main primary form. Within the AIA Guide to Miami Architecture, correlation is also drawn specifically between the Babylon’s stair-stepped feature and early twentieth century work designed by French architect Henri Sauvage.42

Figure 12: Villa Savoye, Poissey, France (http://www.architravel.com/architravel/building/villa-savoye/)

Architectural Description The lot on which the Babylon sits is approximately 15,000 square feet with the footprint of the structure conforming to the constraints of the shape of the irregular lot. Rising six stories, this residential structure is dwarfed among the taller high rises that surround and contains thirteen residential units, with a mixture of one, two, and three-bedroom apartments. Structurally, the Babylon is framed with reinforced concrete footings, columns, and beams that supported each floor’s pre-fabricated concrete slab and stucco wall skin.

Acting as a primary focal point of the structure is the front façade, a stair-stepped two- dimensional wall plane constructed of concrete block that is coated in stucco, and painted a vivid red color. This façade is referred to as a “ziggurat” and it is stated that it is “reminiscent of many

42 Shulman, Allan T.. Robinson Jr., Randall C., and Donnelly, James F. Miami Architecture: An AIA Guide Featuring Downtown, the Beaches, and Coconut Grove. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 2010.

Dutch 17th century facades” 43 in the text description within the catalogue produced for an exhibition of Arquitectonica’s work between 1977 and 1984. A reason given for the stepped design is so that the architecture could conform to the constraints of the lot as well as those of the setbacks required under the then zoning code.

Facing the street, the front façade features a ziggurat design void of decoration, that folds inwards into the lot. This inward fold creates an L-shaped cove that provides access via a zigzag stairway to the second floor open-air lobby and residential units. Punctured into the façade are rectangular window openings, fitted with clear fixed panes of glass, and aluminum sliding glass doors along the horizontal plane of the structure, each opening onto the balconies. Giving an additional sense of detail on the portion of the front façade that folds inward are square-shaped openings fitted with glass block. A pipe railed balcony runs the full length of the façade, creating a linear pattern and further accentuating the depth of the lot.

Going upwards at each level, the structure further narrows to match the bold ziggurat façade containing sixteen apartment units. There are a total of five one-bedroom units, six two-bedroom units, and five three-bedroom units. The first floor of the usable space is raised in order to accommodate parking at grade level, creating a base for the structure. The base is constructed of concrete with an opening on the front façade allowing cars access into the space directly from the street. The concrete base was originally scored with masonry lines and painted a gray color to mimic Florida keystone. Today this base is still painted gray however, the scoring lines have disappeared.

The first level, referred to as “Ground Level” in the plans, provides an open-air lobby and entry terrace, along with access to elevators and staircases that give access to the upper levels. Habitable space starts at the second level. Within each of the units, they are typically laid out in a linear fashion with semi-open floor plans that connect the kitchen, dining, and family rooms with the bedroom(s) located at the opposite end. At the second floor the structure separates, providing an open courtyard that is centralized on the plan containing the pool deck. This central clearing makes way for a second visible ziggurat form that closely mirrors the outline of the front façade. If viewed from an angle, looking southwards from SE 14th Street, the image of the double façade and the overall length of the lot is captured.

43 Van der Marck, Jan. Arquitectonica, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: An exhibition of drawings, models, plans and photographs, 1977-1984. Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984.

V - Analysis

Preservation of the Recent Past It has been fifty years since the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which was enacted by Congress in 1966, and from this act, the National Register of Historic Places was created. Outlined within the criteria for placement on the National Register are also exceptions, one of which is the exception of the fifty-year age requirement.44 Since this enactment of the Preservation Act, there have been examples of properties that are less than fifty years old that have been analyzed and have proved exceptional significance. These properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as within their respective State and Local listings.

In evaluating a property for exceptional importance, the first thing to understand is the history of why the minimum age “rule” is in place and how a piece of architecture would qualify under this exception. John H. Sprinkle, Jr., Historian for the National Park Service, wrote an article in The Public Historian, a journal for the National Council on Public History about the origins of the “Fifty-Year Rule” in historic preservation. Sprinkle says this exception, Criterion G, “is probably the best-known, yet also the most misunderstood preservation principle in America.”45

In the first part of the article, he sets the stage for the creation of the NHPA, first describing a survey that was initiated as a result of the 1935 Historic Sites Act. As part of this survey to identify potential sites that could become national parks, historians submitted a report that “omits all sites of contemporary or near contemporary nature which might lead to controversial questions.” 46 This created the first minimum age requirement which the National Park Service set at the year 1870. Over the next thirty years, various recommendations were made on the amount of lapsed time necessary to determine significance including the separation between properties that qualified “for their association with nationally significant events or persons and properties that were significant in the history of architecture.”47 It was not until 1961, after the establishment of a National Registry of Historic Landmarks that the fifty-year rule was first codified and then it was further ratified with the adoption of criteria set forth for the National Register of Historic Places.48

44 National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1991), 37. 45 Sprinkle, Jr., John H., “”Of Exceptional Importance”: The Origins of the “Fifty-Year Rule” in Historic Preservation.” The Public Historian, Volume 29, No. 2 (Spring 2007), pp. 81-103. University of California Press on behalf of the National Council on Public History. Page 81. 46 Ibid. Page 83-84. 47 Ibid. Page 86-87. 48 Ibid. Page 90, 99.

DoCoMoMo (International Committee for the documentation and conservation of buildings, sites, and neighborhoods of the modern movement) takes the evaluation further using a more focused approach by outlining the following criteria that can be applied when evaluating properties that fall within the modern movement.

1. Technological merit: Does the work employ innovative modern technology to solve structural, programmatic, or aesthetic challenges? 2. Social merit: Does the design reflect the changing social patterns of 20th century life? Did the designer attempt to improve either living or working conditions, or human behaviors through the work's form or function? 3. Artistic and Aesthetic merit: Does the work exhibit skill at composition, handling of proportion, scale and material and detail? 4. Cannonic merit: Is the work and/or architect famous or influential? Is it exemplary work? 5. Referential Value: Did this work exert an influence on subsequent designers as a result of one or more of its attributes? 6. Integrity: Is the original design intent apparent? Have material changes been made which compromise the architectural integrity of the structure or site?49

It is perhaps worth noting that not all local ordinances use the fifty-year rule in their designation criteria. In his article, Sprinkle points out that the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission requires buildings to be at least thirty years old in order to be considered for evaluation. He also mentions the California Register of Historic Places, which states that “[a] resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance…”50 Closer to home, Miami Beach’s historic preservation ordinance does not specify a minimum age for historic designation.

49 “How to evaluate modern buildings and sites: Selection Qualifiers.” DoCoMoMo. Last accessed May 29, 2016. http://www.docomomo-us.org/register/how_to_evaluate 50 “California Office of Historic Preservation Techical Assistance Series #6. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register).” Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento, California. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf

Cases of Exceptional Importance of the Recent Past In an effort to compare how other cases for “exceptional importance” were established, this section will discuss buildings that were found to be eligible prior to turning 50 – on both the Miami and the National Register of Historic Places.

Local Miami Register of Historic Places Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe/ Miami Marine Stadium On October 7, 2008 by Resolution No. HEPB-2008-56, the City of Miami’s Historic and Environmental Preservation Board designated the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe/ Miami Marine Stadium to the Miami Register of Historic Places. Constructed in 1963, the stadium was 45 years old at the time of designation, five years shy of the widely known, widely accepted “Fifty- Year Rule.” The HEPB determined that the building sufficiently met the following Criteria of Chapter 23-4 of the Miami City Code to merit designation:

III. Exemplifies the historical, cultural, political, economical or social trends of the community;

IV. Portray the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles;

V. Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or period or method of construction;

VII. Contains elements of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship of outstanding quality or which represent significant innovation or adaptation to the South Florida environment.

Additionally, the designation report (see attached) specifically states that an exception to the standard fifty-year threshold could be made in the case of the stadium because it is “a work of exceptional importance at the national, state or local level, it is the object of scholarship, it represents a building or a structure whose development or design value is quickly recognized as historically significant by the architectural or engineering profession.”51 In this case, the evidence provided within the analysis was sufficient to establish the “exceptional importance” of the site:

“Our understanding” of its history and its significance is well consolidated in the historic context of our region. It is an exceptional example of mid-century design at the local, state, national and even international levels. It has received scholarly attention, being included in Randall C. Robinson’s and Eric Nash’s book MiMo: Miami Modern Revealed, and a forthcoming book by Alan Shulman with a chapter on the Marine Stadium by Jean-François Lejeune. It represents “an international style of architecture . . . related to numerous

51 Hernandez, Jorge L. “Designation Report for the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe Miami Marina Stadium.” October 7, 2008. Page 12.

political and social events and individuals” (N.R. Bulletin). It has received recognition by the professional community and in the last six months, the effort for its preservation and designation has captured the passion and support of a groundswell of individuals and community organization, including the support of local, state, national and international preservation institutions and the local as well as national media.52

Bacardi Building Complex – Tower and Annex On May 26, 2011 the City Commission upheld the HEPB’s designation of the Bacardi Building and the Annex Building with modifications to the original conditions that had been proffered with Resolution No. HEPB-2009-64. The buildings were found to have sufficiently met the following Criteria of Chapter 23-4 of the Miami City Code to merit designation:

III. Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical or social trends of the community;

V. Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or period or method of construction.

Once again, the designation report (see attached) acknowledges that neither building had reached the age of fifty at the time of the vote; the Bacardi Building was 46 years old in 2009 and the Annex Building was 36 years old. The following explanation was given as to why both should be considered exceptionally significant:

The Bacardi Buildings are of exceptional significance for their design which incorporates elements of the International Style. The tower building is also a tour de force in its engineering. The buildings have come to symbolize the determination and abilities of the Cuban exile community. The buildings are also constructed at a pivotal time in the Bacardi Company’s history as it becomes internationally known. The Bacardi Complex is perhaps the most popular of all of Miami’s Modernist buildings.53

National Register of Historic Places Dulles International Airport Construction was completed on Dulles International Airport in 1962, just one year after the death of its world-renowned architect, Eero Saarinen. Calls to have the building listed on both the National Register as well as the Virginia Landmarks Register started as early on as 1974.54 By 1978, the Keeper of the National Register had issued a determination that the terminal building was, in fact, eligible:

52 Hernandez, Jorge L. “City of Miami Historic Designation Report for the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe Miami Marina Stadium.” October 7, 2008. Pages 12-13. 53 Lavernia, Laura. “City of Miami Historic Designation Report for the Bacardi Buildings.” October 6, 2009. Page 20. 54 Collection of letters regarding the potential designation of Dulles International Airport, 1974-1977.

As the first airport designed exclusively for jet travel, Dulles is significant as an outstanding architectural symbol of twentieth-century technology and as Eero Saarinen’s greatest masterpiece. As conceived by Saarinen, Dulles is a symbolic gateway.55

Though the building has yet to be listed on the National Register due to issues related to ownership, the determination of its eligibility only fifteen years after it was built is perhaps the most extreme example of sufficient perspective occurring well before the fifty-year threshold.

Exceptional Importance of the More Recent Past Research and precedence has been set for properties constructed in the nineteen fifties and even the sixties. It is becoming more relevant to discuss properties that were constructed even later in the 20th century where the importance of these styles has not been fully established. Within the last several years, structures that were constructed in the more recent past that have attributed to architectural, engineering, and social progression have become threatened with demolition. The more notable recent stories are of the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago, Illinois and the Portland Public Service Building in Portland, Oregon. For each of these structures preservationists have reacted to these proposals of demolition in protests and rallies of support that have not been seen since early in the preservation movement.

Two of the three structures are currently standing, the Astrodome constructed in 1965 and the Portland Public Service Building constructed in 1982, but neither have been locally designated and may face threats of demolition in the future. The one structure that has been demolished, Prentice Women’s Hospital, completed 1975 and designed by Brutalist architect, Bertrand Goldberg, contributed greatly to this on-going discussion of the National Register’s criteria exception for the age requirement.

The reports for each of these properties outlines the way in which each structure qualifies for exceptional importance and the ability to meet Criteria Consideration G. In the Astrodome National Register Nomination report, it states that the structure is an “exceptionally significant example of stadium construction.”56 Within the Portland Public Service Building report it states that the structure fulfills the requirement of Consideration G because it is the, “first large-scale manifestations of a new architectural style coming on the heels of the Modern movement.”57 The report for Prentice Women’s Hospital is written for the City of Chicago rather than for the National Register, but does outline the structure’s exceptional importance throughout the report. Exceptional importance is primarily in the importance of innovation in concrete

55 Krulitz, M. Letter to Honorable Brock Adams, Secretary of Transportation regarding the eligibility of Dulles International Airport to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 28 March 1978. 56 Powell, Ted. “The Astrodome.” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. MacRostie Associates, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1013. 57 Minor, Kristen and Johnson, Ian P., “Portland Public Service Building.” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Peter Meijer Architect, PC, Portland, Oregon, March 1, 2011.

engineering, and specifically states that, “Since the time of construction architects, engineers, and historians have recognized Prentice as exceptionally forward-thinking in its design, structure, and program. It exemplifies the sculptural freedom, cultural optimism, and technological experimentation that characterize modernist architecture.”58

VI – Preservation Incentives

Upon designation, the property owner may avail itself of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program as described in Chapter 23-6 and the Ad Valorem Tax Exemption program as described within Chapter 23, Article II.

58 Ribstein, Susannah. “Prentice Women’s Hospital.” Prentice Chicago Landmark Nomination Final Report, Chicago, Illinois, July, 2012.

VII - Criteria for Designation If the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 14 Street possesses quality and character through it architectural design, historical and political trends within the city of Miami, and represents the work of master architects as stated in the criteria below and that the Babylon contains characteristics of exceptional importance and meets the requirements of the criteria consideration for a building under 50 years old you must find that such criteria exists, and is present and include such findings if the structure is to be designated and must be approved by five or more affirmative votes;

conversely, if the Board finds that the Babylon located at 240 SE 14 Street possesses quality and character through it architectural design, historical and political trends within the city of Miami, and represents the work of master architects as stated in the criteria below but does not possess exceptional importance and does meet the requirements of the criteria consideration, then the building cannot be designated as one which is under 50 years old because it is not exceptionally important.

(3) Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical, or social trends of the community; The Babylon is located within the lower section of Brickell in an area called Point View. Originally, this neighborhood served as one of Miami’s first subdivisions, providing ample sized lots to accommodate grand homes for many significant residents of the City’s early history. This semi-circular layout of the neighborhood created pie-shaped as well as irregularly shaped lots that can still be seen in the plan of the subdivision today.

(5) Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or method of construction; The Babylon tells a story of development within the City of Miami, particularly in Brickell and Point View. Its bold façade creates a lasting impact signifying good design dictated by the constraints of the first Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This also points to its artistic and aesthetic merit and overall integrity that the structure has retained during its lifetime.

Due to these restrictions, primarily with the required setbacks for the side yards that increased with each escalation in height, the structure takes on its iconic ziggurat form. Within the description in the 1978 P/A Awards issue, it states, “the city building code stipulates a certain number of parking spaces and describes a set-back formula interpreted as a ziggurat envelope.” The firm was inventive with the regulations that were set forth at the time, a creativity that was not always evident in construction of the period. As stated in a 1986 article in the Pennsylvania Gazette, “Arquitectonica International’s exuberant accomplishments may be all the more remarkable because many of them work within such restraints of urban surroundings as density, parking space, and city codes.” Arquitectonica was generating new design that was visually interesting and architecturally innovative, providing designs that were dream-like yet buildable.

(6) Are an outstanding work of a prominent designer or builder; Early on, the firm gained widespread praise. Almost immediately following the formation of Arquitectonica, the original founders won their first award, the P/A (Progressive Architecture) Citation Award for the Babylon apartments in 1978. Departing from what many of their peers were doing during this time period, Arquitectonica did not create designs in the newly coined style, Postmodernism. Instead they used the Modern style as a basis with an added twist to create a fresh and innovative take. Arquitectonica was a firm that marched to the beat of their own drum and made designs unique to their time.

VII- Bibliography

Allman, T.D. Miami: City of the Future (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987).

Author unknown. “Rich and Famous.” Progressive Architecture, February, 1983.

Berger, Philip. “Demolishing History: Helmut Jahn, Gene Summers, and The Threat to Chicago’s Postmodern Legacy.” www.design.newcity.com, Chicago, Illinois. Last accessed May 17, 2016.

Boles, Daralice and John Morris Dixon. “Winners Rise.” Progressive Architecture, January 1986.

Brown, Patricia Leigh. “Designs on Miami.” Esquire, December 1984.

“California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register).” Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento, California. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%2 0update.pdf

Calonius, L. Erik. “Architectural Firm Alters Miami’s Skyline and Calls National Attention to Its Designs.” The Wall Street Journal (New York), July 7, 1983.

City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, adopted under Ordinance No. 6871: Article X – High Density Multiple – R-5 District. Revised 1-1-1976. Page 39

City of Miami, Florida. Aerial maps, 1948

City of Miami, Florida. Aerial maps, 1969

City of Miami, Florida. Tax Card 3-43-3513, Point View Subdivision.

Declaration of Restrictions included in an Inter-Office Memo from Sergio Rodriguez, Executive Secretary to the Planning Advisory Board to Howard V. Gary, City Manager, dated December 8, 1983.

Dixon, John Morris, “The 25th P/A Awards.” Progressive Architecture. January 1978. Print.

Dunlop, Beth. Arquitectonica (New York: Rizzoli, 2004).

Dunlop, Beth. "Arquitectonica Turns Design into Child’s Play." Miami Herald (Miami), April 4, 1982, Architecture/Comment sec.

Ferrell A.I.A., Stephanie. “Architecture at Fifty-Five Miles Per Hour: Arquitectonica.” Southern Homes, Tampa Bay Edition. Summer 1985.

Hernandez, Jorge L. “Designation Report for the Commodore Ralph Middleton Monroe Miami Marina Stadium.” October 7, 2008.

Huxtable, Ada Louise. “Award Winners – Outrageous Yet Appealing.” The New York Times 26 February 1978: Page D25. Print

Gapp, Paul. “The awards for buildings, deserve the booby prize.” Chicago Tribune 23 February 1975: Page E13. Print

“How to evaluate modern buildings and sites: Selection Qualifiers.” DoCoMoMo. Last accessed May 29, 2016. http://www.docomomo-us.org/register/how_to_evaluate

Koeper, Frederick. Arquitectonica, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: An exhibition of drawings, models, plans and photographs, 1977-1984. Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984.

Kron, Joan. "My Son, the Architect: Houses for Parents." New York Times (New York), November 12, 1981.

Lavernia, Laura. “City of Miami Historic Designation Report for the Bacardi Buildings.” October 6, 2009. Page 20.

Minor, Kristen and Johnson, Ian P., “Portland Public Service Building.” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. Peter Meijer Architect, PC, Portland, Oregon, March 1, 2011.

National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1991).

National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years. (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1998).

Miami, Florida, Municipal Code Chapter 23 Historic Preservation.

Parks, Arva Moore. “Point View.”

Piket, Casey. “Brickell South Tour.” Dade Heritage Trust. 2016

Powell, Ted. “The Astrodome.” National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. MacRostie Associates, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1013.

Ribstein, Susannah. “Prentice Women’s Hospital.” Prentice Chicago Landmark Nomination Final Report, Chicago, Illinois, July, 2012.

Roberts, Patricia. “Making It in Miami.” Publication Unknown. March 1983. Pages 71-76 Arquitectonica Archives, History Miami.

Sarfatti Larson, Magali. Behind the Postmodern Façade: Architectural Change in Late Twentieth Century America. University of California Press, Ltd., London, England, 1993.

Shulman, Allan T.. Robinson Jr., Randall C., and Donnelly, James F. Miami Architecture: An AIA Guide Featuring Downtown, the Beaches, and Coconut Grove. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 2010.

Sprinkle, Jr., John H., “”Of Exceptional Importance”: The Origins of the “Fifty-Year Rule” in Historic Preservation.” The Public Historian, Volume 29, No. 2 (Spring 2007), pp. 81-103. University of California Press on behalf of the National Council on Public History.

Staff Analysis included in an Inter-Office Memo from Sergio Rodriguez, Executive Secretary to the Planning Advisory Board to Howard V. Gary, City Manager, dated December 8, 1983.

Transcript from the City of Miami Zoning Board’s July 11, 1983 meeting; Items 4 & 5.

Unknown. “Miami Virtue: Arquitectonica.” The Pennsylvania Gazette. April 1986. Page 31. Arquitectonica Archives, History Miami.

Van der Marck, Jan. Arquitectonica, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: An exhibition of drawings, models, plans and photographs, 1977-1984. Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, Florida 1984.

Viladas, Pilar.”Rich and Famous.” Progressive Architecture. February, 1983. Pages 99-106.

Von Eckardt, Wolf. “Jazzing up the Functional.” Time Magazine. July 23, 1984.

Zaldivar, R.A. “Gary’s Banker Friend Asks Zoning Variance.” Miami Herald (Miami), September 23, 1983, Local sec.

VIII- Photographs & Figures

Figure 13: Babylon Apartments, east façade.

Figures 14 & 15: Babylon Apartments, northeast façade.

Figures 16: Babylon Apartments, streetview. 38

Figure 17: Babylon Apartments, rendering (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 18: Progressive Architecture magazine, January 1978

Figure 19, 20, & 21: Schematic line drawings of Babylon Apartments. (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica). 41

Figure 22: Babylon Ground Floor Plan (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 23: Babylon 2nd & 3rd Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 24: Babylon 4th and 5th Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica).

Figure 25: Babylon 4th and 5th Floor Plans (courtesy of Arva Moore Parks/Arquitectonica). 43