Icon Bay | 42 Floors | 457 ft | Under Construction

  • Pin It

Project Data:

Groundbreaking date: March 2013

 

Location: 452 NE 29th St. and 460 NE 28th St., Miami

 

Developer: Related Group (Jorge Perez and Stephen Ross)

Architect: Arquitectonica
Cost:
Height: 42 floors, 457′
Units: 300
Contractor: Plaza Construction

Related Group is moving forward with plans for a tower at the former Onyx 2 site.

The name of the new tower is Icon Bay.

The PZAB granted approval on Wednesday July 18, 2012 to close the street adjacent to the site. Related will be building an Arquitectonica designed park on the land. The design for the actual tower is not yet complete.

The property is located at 452 NE 29th St. and 460 NE 28th St.

Sales for the new tower will begin in September 2012, with construction in early 2013.


47 Comments

  1. Sean

    August 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    It’s hard to tell without really hunting through the plans for the park, but those plans give an idea of the location and massing of the tower. It looks like Related is building the park so they can have all of the air above the former street for the tower. The park is not going adjacent to the tower, it is going under it. The public will still have access to the waterfront, but they won’t be able to see it anywhere except directly inside the park.

    I posted the plans here:
    http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2012/08/01/related-trades-public-views-for-a-public-park.php

  2. UMdev

    August 1, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Sean, post: 1616, member: 42 wrote: It’s hard to tell without really hunting through the plans for the park, but those plans give an idea of the location and massing of the tower. It looks like Related is building the park so they can have all of the air above the former street for the tower. The park is not going adjacent to the tower, it is going under it. The public will still have access to the waterfront, but they won’t be able to see it anywhere except directly inside the park.

    I posted the plans here:
    http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2012/08/01/related-trades-public-views-for-a-public-park.php

    Your post on curbed makes it sound a lot more sinister than it is. The land at the end of 28th st isn’t really big enough to do any kind of park that would be worth while. Meanwhile they have land on both sides of 28th. They could just as easily build towers on both sides of the street leaving nothing but a narrow passage way to the bay. Pretty much all the views on the block will be destroyed anyway. The only person with a view would be whoever wan’ts to stand in the middle of the street.

    If you look at the footprint that is above the park where the dotted lines are they are only covering about 30% of the park area. You can see where they show the columns. The dog park and pretty much everything along the bay is open. I can’t see the scale but knowing the lot size it looks like they are taking about 2,000 SF of open space from the road and giving 10,000 SF of open space from their property.

  3. langbro

    August 1, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    UMdev is correct – the public basically has access to nothing right now other than street.

    Related does not have some evil plot here, they are building a waterfront park here adjacent to the tower that will make the area much more pleasant which will help make their new residential tower more desirable. Not sure how you are seeing the park as being ‘under’ the tower. Additionally, the city of Miami will not have to pay for maintenance, it will be maintained by the owners of the tower.

    Incidentally, Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross is a 25% partner in this project.

  4. langbro

    August 1, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Also note how the plans contain detailed drawings for the Crimson Tower site… wonder if Related will be taking it over.

  5. Afi K. James

    August 1, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    This is gonna be nice.

  6. Sean

    August 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    I disagree. There will be a wide building at the end of the street where there used to be sky and bay.

  7. UMdev

    August 2, 2012 at 8:15 pm

    Pictures of the park. Funny it doesn’t look like its under a building. How “shady” of them.

  8. UMdev

    August 2, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    Here is the condo. Like I was saying before while a small portion of the building is over the park the vast majority of the park wraps around the building. This actually gives more views to whatever gets developed along 27th.

  9. langbro

    August 2, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    more detail of the 40-story Icon Bay tower




  10. sandman

    August 2, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    Sean, post: 1623, member: 42 wrote: I disagree. There will be a wide building at the end of the street where there used to be sky and bay.

    The City of Miami commission approved it with almost no discussion last week… the vote was unanimous.

  11. Sean

    August 2, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    People always complain about condo towers cutting off views of the waterfront, and here it’s happening without question. Related is getting all those air rights just for installing a relatively inexpensive park. Look how monolithic that thing is!

  12. langbro

    August 2, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Sean, post: 1628, member: 42 wrote: People always complain about condo towers cutting off views of the waterfront, and here it’s happening without question. Related is getting all those air rights just for installing a relatively inexpensive park. Look how monolithic that thing is!

    Having seen the drawings above, I now agree with you.

  13. Sean

    August 2, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    Thank you!

  14. Sean

    August 2, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    Did Related pay the city anything for the former street, or did they just agree to build and operate a park on it? Do we know all the terms of the deal?

  15. sandman

    August 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    You can find some details here:

    http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/Legistarweb/Attachments/67782.pdf
    http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/Legistarweb/Attachments/67783.pdf
    http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/Legistarweb/Attachments/67784.pdf

    ….but they also added some changes at the last minute that aren’t included in the above documents, including putting a fence around the park and keeping operating hours limited to sunrise to sunset (supposedly at the request of the ‘edgewood homeowners association’).

  16. langbro

    August 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm

    Icon Bay e-brochure

    [embed]http://www.scribd.com/doc/102083839″]

  17. Sean

    August 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    “illuminated water fountain located in center of bay” < -- interesting

    Oh, and they don’t have anyone to proofread over there? This city of ours could easily win for ‘worst grammar,’ if there ever was such an award. (Yes, I know I’ve made a few grammatical snafus on Curbed).

  18. sandman

    August 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    The brochure looks to be very preliminary. They will no doubt have all of those small errors fixed in the final version.

    Not sure what kind of permit they will need to put an illuminated fountain in Biscayne Bay.

  19. UMdev

    August 10, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    New rendering showing fountain:

  20. Sean

    August 10, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Miami Condo Investments keeps beating me to the Icon Bay goodies
    http://www.miamicondoinvestments.com/miami-real-estate/new-rendering-of-icon-bay

  21. Sean

    August 10, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    This image must be in reverse. The amenity deck is situated on the other side of the inlet

  22. langbro

    August 12, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Sean, post: 1697, member: 42 wrote: Miami Condo Investments keeps beating me to the Icon Bay goodies
    http://www.miamicondoinvestments.com/miami-real-estate/new-rendering-of-icon-bay

    The image showing the fountain was already posted on here a week ago, it is in the brochure.

    Sean, post: 1698, member: 42 wrote: This image must be in reverse. The amenity deck is situated on the other side of the inlet

    No, I think it is correct.

  23. langbro

    August 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Icon Bay has released more details, more renderings, including what the back of the building will look like

    Scroll through the pages to see all of the new info:

    [embed]http://www.scribd.com/doc/102845865″]

  24. langbro

    August 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    The western facade of the building and the parking garage look absolutely terrible.

    It is the same garbage that arquitectonica was churning out during the last boom… hard to believe that no lesson has been learned by all of those involved.

  25. UMdev

    August 14, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    langbro, post: 1716, member: 2 wrote: The western facade of the building and the parking garage look absolutely terrible.

    It is the same garbage that arquitectonica was churning out during the last boom… hard to believe that no lesson has been learned by all of those involved.

    I don’t think that portion of the rendering is actually complete. The ground floor of the garage would have to be lined with something else. Right now they just show some trees.

  26. langbro

    August 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    UMdev, post: 1717, member: 80 wrote: I don’t think that portion of the rendering is actually complete. The ground floor of the garage would have to be lined with something else. Right now they just show some trees.

    The design of western facade of the building is horrible, and at 40 stories it will be visible for miles around.

    Same crap that arquitectonica pulled at Marina Blue and Marquis.

  27. UMdev

    August 14, 2012 at 6:42 pm

    langbro, post: 1718, member: 2 wrote: The design of western facade of the building is horrible, and at 40 stories it will be visible for miles around.

    Same crap that arquitectonica pulled at Marina Blue and Marquis.

    The western facade is the same as the eastern facade except for the addition of the elevator shaft so you’re not making much sense there.

    Marquis is a very successful building. Calling it crap is just pure hyperbole. A building selling at $400+ SF downtown obviously isn’t crap. I’m not a fan of the completely blank wall along the back side on 2nd avenue. Yeah, nothing is there now but it’s not like they are going to rebuild it when the area starts growing. This clearly isn’t allowed under Miami 21 and should be addressed in this building.

    As far as it being seen for miles around, the area is zoned for 36 stories. So you can take comfort that when the area is built out the only people seeing it will be the people driving down to the end of the street.

  28. langbro

    August 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    UMdev, post: 1719, member: 80 wrote: The western facade is the same as the eastern facade except for the addition of the elevator shaft so you’re not making much sense there.

    Marquis is a very successful building. Calling it crap is just pure hyperbole. A building selling at $400+ SF downtown obviously isn’t crap. I’m not a fan of the completely blank wall along the back side on 2nd avenue. Yeah, nothing is there now but it’s not like they are going to rebuild it when the area starts growing. This clearly isn’t allowed under Miami 21 and should be addressed in this building.

    As far as it being seen for miles around, the area is zoned for 36 stories. So you can take comfort that when the area is built out the only people seeing it will be the people driving down to the end of the street.

    The western facade of Icon Bay appears to be mostly stucco, while the eastern facade is mostly glass. Same crap arquitectonica did at blue, marina blue, marquis.

    This building might not even be miami-21 compatible, they are probably just be reusing the old Onyx MUSP.

  29. UMdev

    August 14, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    langbro, post: 1720, member: 2 wrote: The western facade of Icon Bay appears to be mostly stucco, while the eastern facade is mostly glass. Same crap arquitectonica did at blue, marina blue, marquis.

    This building might not even be miami-21 compatible, they are probably just be reusing the old Onyx MUSP.

    And that makes it crap??? Again hyperbole. It looks like they have private elevator access to each unit. It’s a single loaded corridor so on one side they can have all windows and on the other side you cant. They still put balconies on the west side in the same zig zag pattern. I’m sure the architect would rather all of the elevators to be glass and clad the entire western facade in the coolest material available. But in the real world architects don’t get to make those decisions. The people who will be buying this unit are going to have an entry way from a private elevator on the west and are going to have floor to ceiling windows on the east to take advantage of the views.

    This has nothing to do with design and everything to do with functionality and market demand. No developer is going to add millions of dollars to project that no one is going to pay for just to make some random guy on the internet happy.

    As for them using the MUSP you can’t make changes this substantial and still use the old MUSP. In most cases you have the scenario like at 1101 where the shell of the building stays the same and they just make arrangements to the interior of the building. Were looking at purchasing a building that has a MUSP and we ran into a scenario where we could buy land next door to make the building more efficient. The problem was that if we made the changes we lost the MUSP. But Miami 21 didn’t allow the same buildable area. So it was build a larger inefficient building or a smaller efficient one.

  30. langbro

    August 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    UMdev, post: 1722, member: 80 wrote:

    This has nothing to do with design and everything to do with functionality and market demand. No developer is going to add millions of dollars to project that no one is going to pay for just to make some random guy on the internet happy.

    As for them using the MUSP you can’t make changes this substantial and still use the old MUSP. In most cases you have the scenario like at 1101 where the shell of the building stays the same and they just make arrangements to the interior of the building. Were looking at purchasing a building that has a MUSP and we ran into a scenario where we could buy land next door to make the building more efficient. The problem was that if we made the changes we lost the MUSP. But Miami 21 didn’t allow the same buildable area. So it was build a larger inefficient building or a smaller efficient one.

    There is no excuse for the architects at Arquitectonica being incapable of designing all sides of the building within design and budget. This is not exactly a low end building, it is priced much higher than 1100 millecento. The eastern facade of Icon Bay is OK, but not exactly award winning.

    No one can possibly look at the backside of Marina Blue and admire the design. Arquitectonica are either too arrogant to see how flawed these designs are, or too inept to actually produce a decent design within budget.

    And yes, MUSPs can be recycled with pretty significant changes (see 1100 millecento and brickell house). Which MUSP were you looking at purchasing?

  31. UMdev

    August 15, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Again, you seem to not understand that architects work for developers not the other way around. Icon Bay and Marina Blue are SINGLE LOADED CORRIDOR buildings. The developer went to the architect and said I want 300 units and I want ALL of them facing east because that makes the units more valuable. You now have the “back” of ALL of the units on the west side. No one in the unit cares about how the back side of their unit looks. Sure they would like it to be made of gold but they aren’t going to pay extra for it. As a result the developer is going to go with a cheaper facade no matter what the architect wants to design. It’s not a matter of budget. Most developers aren’t going to pay extra for something that they aren’t going to get value from. Especially when no one seems to care except random people on the internet. The balconies on the west side aren’t even actual balconies for the units. They are there to provide access to the two required egress points. They could have easily just made those balconies straight but then instead decided to build them in the triangle patter to mimic the eastern facade so the look the same.

    1100 Millecento isn’t located on the water. Therefore it’s not imperative that all the units face east. So instead you get a building with a central corridor and units facing all directions, so essentially their is no “back” of the building for you to complain about.

    So comments like this just make you sound foolish:

    “No one can possibly look at the backside of Marina Blue and admire the design. Arquitectonica are either too arrogant to see how flawed these designs are, or too inept to actually produce a decent design within budget.”

    I’m sure Related will see Arquitectonica’s inept and arrogance and fire them for designing what they actually wanted.

  32. langbro

    August 17, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    The City of Miami ought to have come up with some type of scheme to reward developers holding existing MUSPs for converting to Miami-21 compatible design.

    Those outdoor corridors that exist on Marina Blue, Blue and as proposed for Icon Bay are an architectural atrocity. Regardless of the motivation, whether it be FAR bonus, fire code etc., the architect should be ashamed to even propose such crap.

  33. langbro

    August 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Word is that 23% of Icon Bay has already been reserved after the first week of sales.

  34. UMdev

    August 22, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    langbro, post: 1770, member: 2 wrote: Word is that 23% of Icon Bay has already been reserved after the first week of sales.

    Pretty good sales for a project that others feel the architect should be ashamed off.

  35. sandman

    August 24, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Icon bay launch event photo gallery: http://fb.me/25YOAWGR0

  36. langbro

    August 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm


  37. miami1

    August 27, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Tner garage is horrible! They should add lofts to the sides facing the streets.

  38. sandman

    August 28, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Updated title to reflect 42 story height, approved status.

    Construction likely to begin within six months.

  39. sandman

    August 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    This was the old project approved for this site in 2004 prior to Icon Bay:

    Onyx 2, a 543-foot, 49-story high mixed-use structure consisting of 117 total multifamily residential units, and 163 total parking spaces. Designed by Bermello Ajamil

    Note the huge blank rear wall and garage


  40. sandman

    September 10, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    The project will appear before the City of Miami Urban Development Review Board on September 19, 2012.

  41. sandman

    November 2, 2012 at 2:08 pm

  42. sandman

    November 2, 2012 at 2:10 pm

  43. yellows2k

    December 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Related’s 300-unit IconBay downtown development, where units are about $500 per square foot, is 95 percent reserved in three months of sales.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/realestate/residential/art_class_2kSg8wb53tA45BxI5tOkOM

  44. sandman

    March 13, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Icon Bay is now just weeks away from commencing construction.

  45. langbro

    March 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm

  46. langbro

    March 14, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Site work underway today.

    Photos posted above.

  47. langbro

    April 11, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    More construction.

    ‘Public park’ are now closed to the public

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>