|
|
With the passing of columnist, William Safire, Peggy Noonan writes in Time Magazine, that he once told her, "Write what you see, because 'what history needs more of is first-person testimony'."
So this should serve as my first person testimony. I am going to write here about what I see is happening and what I think we should do about it. It will mainly talk about issues of architecture and construction and sometimes overflow into the local political scene.
I hope that you will leave me comments as well.
Enjoy,
Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP President United Architects, Inc.
-
Posted by Administrator on February 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM under
0 comments
In
my previous blog I was very excited for those who may be in serious jeopardy of
losing their homes, but then I read an interesting letter to the editor in the
Miami Herald, February 21, from Professor Donal Jones, law professor at the University of Miami.
Apparently,
from what Professor Jones says, my enthusiasm was baseless. He says, "If it [the house] is not sold the
bank is often able to maintain the repossessed house on its books without
showing a loss. The bank can list the value of its asset based on what it would
be at ''maturity.'' The now-empty house may have been vandalized and have
rotted drywall. But on paper the repossessed house is as valuable as it was
before the bubble burst. The bank has no skin in the game."
Moreover,
since so many of these homeowners at risk of foreclosure are underwater with
their mortgages, without a considerable amount of debt forgiveness, homeowners
who continue to pay their mortgages will continue to pay mortgages in which
they will have no equity for a long, long time, unless the real estate market miraculously
recovers soon.
Professor
Jones tells us that the Federal government has started a Foreclosure
Alternative Program, where they pay incentives to mortgage companies to allow
homeowners to sell their homes through short sales or to allow homeowners to
turn over their homes in lieu of foreclosures.
Apparently,
Mediation is not the panacea that I thought.
It looks that the Federal government will have to lend a hand to
homeowners after all.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on January 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM under
0 comments

We Floridians
have been watching the foreclosure crash for a year now while our Federal
government bailed out major banks across the country. While Main Street sat in ruins, Wall Street
continued to reward their executives with millions of dollars in bonuses and
pay back only a portion of the losses caused by the banking and insurance
industries.
Almost all of us have heard of
somebody who lost his house to foreclosure after losing his job. And although this presents excellent opportunities
for those who have cash to buy foreclosures, remodel them, thereby adding value
and then selling them at a profit, it must be a gut wrenching experience for
those who put their hard earned money into their homes, only to lose them to
foreclosure.
Good news in
on the way for homeowners in Florida who are in jeopardy of losing their homes.
The Supreme Court of Florida on Monday, according to the Miami Herald editorial
on Saturday, "issued an administrative order requiring a statewide managed
mediation program to handle all the foreclosures inundating state courts." The courts are forcing banks which are
reluctant to offer homeowners alternative to foreclosure to sit down, talk, and
"to negotiate rather than automatically foreclose."
I think this
is welcome news for desperate homeowners, overworked courts, and the majority
of us who think this will be a benefit to the middle class in Miami-Dade County
by stabilizing neighborhoods and allowing otherwise responsible citizens some
time to work out their financial problems without losing their largest asset.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on October 24, 2009 at 11:42 AM under
0 comments

Views of Barcelona - El Ensanche
Yesterday was a great day for the City of Miami. The new Miami 21 Zoning Code was approved by the City of Miami commissioners.
Miami 21 is the most comprehensive zoning code change I have seen in any part of Miami-Dade County in my over 25 years of practicing architecture. It took 4 years of meetings and discussions to complete.
The very talented town planning firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, hired as the lead consultant to produce this code, held hundreds of meetings throughout the city and took testimony from many residents. It was a controversial process.
Architects took sides. There was the Duany Plater-Zyberk and their University of Miami colleagues and then there was the Bernard Zyscovich side. The AIA had meetings about it. Generally, there were many fights about density and height restrictions - and design, of course!
While most codes are based on the multiplication of a number times the size of the lot to obtain such things as maximum lot coverage, maximum buildable area, floor area ratio, green area, etc., this new code emphasizes physical results. It is a form-based code. It does not care so much about the size of the lot, as what the building will look like. Will it have porches, covered walkways, and other items which make it pedestrian friendly? Will people want to walk down the street in this new designed city? Yes, that's the idea!
What makes a city walkable or what makes it anti-pedestrian? Liz Plater-Zyberk has lectured often on this issue, and at one of the many meetings, she explained their planning theories and their system of Transets T1 to T6.
Among the many issues they discussed, one of the most important, is the issue of car parking. Large parking lots, whether surface parking or garage parking, will deaden any street. No live human will want to walk in front of a parking garage or parking lot. So in their code visible surface parking on a major street is prohibited
In traditional zoning, if the lot is large, then the building (as a multiplication of the size of the lot) gets to be a tall large building. In this zoning, the zoning tells the owner how many stories to build. Everyone on the same street gets to build the same number of stories. So one lot won't have a huge, tall building with the lot next door allowed only a much shorter building.
Many parts of the city will have mixed-zoning with the street level dedicated to commercial space with residential units above that.
The opposition's position is the new code would limit "design flexibility".
As I attended meetings, listened to, or read about the discussions, I was reminded of the many cities I have walked - Barcelona, Paris, Munich, Madrid, South Beach, etc. And then I think of the ones I would never walk - Miami, Atlanta, Houston, etc.
Many things limit design flexibility - our present City of Miami Zoning Code. It has setbacks, it has height restrictions, and it has all kind of details that hamper design flexibility. Our current code does not produce any cohesive cityscape. It produces a bunch of independent buildings which have no cohesion as a group, a neighborhood, or a city.
I spent a summer in Barcelona, while I was in college, working for an architectural firm on a student exchange program. I think this is why I am such a fan of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. That summer in Barcelona I walked and walked and walked. I took rolls of photographs and discovered the contemporaries of Antonio Gaudi. See, Gaudi did not work in a vacuum. I am sure he influenced his contemporaries and his contemporaries influenced him. His buildings are in context. They are a part of the city. That is what Miami needs - buildings in context, not floating, independent self-involved structures who fail to integrate with their environment.
In physical codes (and I am sure that Barcelona must have one) things change but they stay the same. Here I have several photos of Barcelona streetscapes and you can see for yourself. The number of stories must be regulated. The location of the building on the lot must be regulated. See for yourself, balconies change, but there is a consistency which makes the buildings flow from one balcony to the next. Some details change while some stay the same. There are no shocking changes - radical height changes, radical recessions from the street, etc. The ground floor is all commercial. The parking lots are sheltered from the main street.
In my opinion what we will see eventually is that there are a many design possibilities within the constraints of this code. And by implementing this code we will see the new cohesiveness that will develop within city buildings. Where there is always a tension between independence in building design and a unified urban plan, the pendulum had swung in the direction of independent building design. Now it will swing once again in the other direction. I, for one, I think that yesterday was a great day, the start of a movement toward an organized pedestrian city we can all enjoy!
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM under
1 comment
For every person who buys a property at foreclosure, there is a terrible story of someone who lost a valuable asset. It is the story of someone who saved and saved until he was able to provide a downpayment for a new house and then paid for that mortgage one year or 20 years. We don't know. What we do know is that the loss of the house was probably due to this horrible economic downturn which all of us in the construction business are suffering.
So what can be done now to turn this terrible crisis around? Well, I don't know if I can tell you what to do, but I can certainly tell you what not to do.
|
I read Jackie Bueno Sousa's column this yesterday in the Miami Herald, Disconnect in home values is killing deals. Apparently, the new property appraiser which we elected in 2008, Pedro J. Garcia, is not counting foreclosures in his appraisals.
But the appraiser's website states," ...I set out to establish the right values for all properties in the County. The assessments on the 2009 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes (TRIM Notice) mailed to you last month, reflected market value reductions of as much as 20% to 30% in some municipalities. I have met my promise to you, the property owners of Miami-Dade County and my Office has done its job." The question becomes, if he counted foreclosures, how much lower would these values be?
Sousa states in her column that a purchaser gave up on a deal when he found out that a house which sold for $600,000 a couple of years ago and was now on the market for $300,000 would still be taxed at the higher value. How can this be? Apparently, from what Sousa says, this is happening all over Miami-Dade County
killing deals and preventing the economic recovery that could so help the county as a whole.
How is it possible that Mr. Garcia can just ignore foreclosures?
Here is what the Florida Statutes says on "factors to consider in deriving a just valuation":
- 1. The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller...
- 2. The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration the legally permissible use of the property...
- 3. The location of said property
- 4. The quantity or size of said property;
- 5. The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon;
- 6. The condition of said property;
- 7. The income from said property; and
- 8. The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale...
It seems to me that if the property appraiser follows the Florida Statutes above, particularly "1" and "2", he would be forced to consider whether the property in question actually went through a foreclosure, whether the property value of said property is being affected by a nearby foreclosed property, or whether the selling price is actually much lower than the last time it sold. Once the property sells it should be assessed at the lower value!
If we can get the construction industry moving again with the restoration of the real estate market and the reconstruction of many of these distressed properties, we can again move Miami into the economic engine it usually is, and get make more jobs available to those who have suffered so much in this environment.
Maybe it's time to get the legislature to put more teeth into the Florida Statutes and make sure the local property appraiser considers foreclosures in his valuations. Contact your representative and make sure he knows about your wishes on this issue.
|
-
Posted by Administrator on October 9, 2009 at 11:07 PM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Anonymous on October 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM under
0 comments
Very interesting find. What could be done so that the premiums are not raised and the industry be overhauled instead? It is very frustrating but these systems really go unchecked and end up being uphill battles in which the homeowners don't come out on top. Have you checked your FPL bill lately? Did you notice that your vehicle registration is now about 60% more than last year? Did you notice that many in our community are getting paid less or don't have jobs? It is an outrage! YM
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM under
3 comments
Last Thursday, October 1, I was driving around when a new report on WLRN piqued my interest. The report said that Florida was going to allow the raising of insurance premiums again for homeowner’s policies.
I wondered how this could happen. After all, we haven’t had a hurricane in 4 years. Those insurance companies must be raking in the profits - 4 years of not having to pay out on any losses, 4 years of not having to send out any insurance adjusters, 4 years of sitting around on a pile of cash. “Hum, how could this happen?” I asked myself. The story stated that one of the reasons was that the insurance companies were losing too much money on the wind mitigation credits - they were not getting enough money from premiums.
As it stands now wind mitigation credits are offered for strengthening roofs by reinforcing roof-towall connections, roof decking and attachments. Concrete slab roofs also yield mitigation credits. In addition, credits are also granted for preventing water intrusion with secondary water barrier protections. And lastly, protecting door and window openings with shutters, or providing impactresistant windows, also qualify for credits.
So why are the companies losing money on the credits?
I decided to research the issue. I came across a couple of articles on the internet that speak to the issue and can actually give us more details. The Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, Windstorm Mitigation Committee Hearing Report (September 17) states that some counties are actually paying too little while others are paying too much. But then the report adds:
Florida Association of Insurance Agents Executive Vice President Scott Johnson provided testimony relating to agent issues. After his presentation, there was significant discussion regarding inspection fraud and that some agents may passively allow fraud to occur. Mr. Johnson recommended that policies should be adopted to give a policyholder "skin in the game" regarding verification of premium reductions. Dr. Nicholson noted that the system is "sick" and that there should be laws against tying financial incentives to wind inspections. Agents should not have business relationships with inspectors.
There is also an interesting article by Scott S. Koedel, CPA, president and COO of Don Meyler Inspections, Ensuring the accuracy of windstorm mitigation credits, where he argues:
As awareness of the windstorm mitigation inspection has increased, so has the sheer quantity of inspectors performing inspections, which now number in the thousands. This rapid growth has resulted in a widely varying level of quality control processes among inspection companies. While one company may … submit them to a quality control department run by a professional engineer, another may handwrite the inspecti on results on a paper form and leave it behind with the homeowner.
Koedel continues:
Unfortunately, fraud has become a topic of concern. Underwriters have reported numerous instances of inspectors not entering policyholders' homes or attics, an obvious prerequisite for a proper windstorm mitigation inspection. In the most examples of impropriety, doctoring of the mitigation inspection form has occurred.
In the article, he continues with what steps could be taken to rein in the inspectors.
So apparently, the problem is not the issue of the wind credits, but the fraud that is occurring with the inspections.
The other question which could be asked would be: Would the credits save insurance companies money if a hurricane were to occur?
If we go back to the September 17 report:
Applied Research Associates Chief Technical Officer Larry Twisdale continued his presentation on a loss relativity study from the previous Committee meeting. The study indicated that a well-mitigated building will reduce loss by 40-60 percent.
In conclusion, the problem that the insurance companies are losing money is not due to the mitigation credits when they are properly applied. A building which is properly built to the new building codes, and roofs which are either concrete or have the latest attachments and roof coverings, will reduce the losses that an insurance company will have to pay out should a hurricane hit the area.
So the solution to the problem should not be to raise premiums but to control who can sign off on wind mitigation credit forms.
Residents of the state should demand that inspectors hold a special license where they are liable, as any professional engineer, or architect, or general contractor would be. Or as an alternate, they must be licensed architects, professional engineers, or general contractors. The inspection for should be sent directly to the state by the professional. No leaving behind any forms for the homeowners to doctor or fill out. And, then we can demand that premiums remain the same and not be increased.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM under
0 comments
With the passing of columnist, William Safire, Peggy Noonan writes in Time Magazine this week, that he once told her, "Write what you see, because 'what history needs more of is first-person testimony'."
So this should serve as my first person testimony. I am going to write here about what I see is happening and what I think we should do about it. I will mainly talk about issues of architecture and construction and sometimes overflow into the local political scene.
I hope that you will leave me comments as well.
Enjoy,
Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A.
-
Posted by Administrator on October 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM under
0 comments
This is the place to contact me and ask any questions you might have. No question is stupid and I am here to help you. Please feel free to leave any question you may have regarding architecture, construction, or the management of a construction project. I don't know everything, but I can be of help on many issues about which you may have questions. See frequently asked questions below.
-
Posted by Admin on December 28, 2005 at 2:00 AM under
0 comments
 Florida Supreme Court forces alternative to foreclosure
-
Posted by Administrator on February 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM under
0 comments
In
my previous blog I was very excited for those who may be in serious jeopardy of
losing their homes, but then I read an interesting letter to the editor in the
Miami Herald, February 21, from Professor Donal Jones, law professor at the University of Miami.
Apparently,
from what Professor Jones says, my enthusiasm was baseless. He says, "If it [the house] is not sold the
bank is often able to maintain the repossessed house on its books without
showing a loss. The bank can list the value of its asset based on what it would
be at ''maturity.'' The now-empty house may have been vandalized and have
rotted drywall. But on paper the repossessed house is as valuable as it was
before the bubble burst. The bank has no skin in the game."
Moreover,
since so many of these homeowners at risk of foreclosure are underwater with
their mortgages, without a considerable amount of debt forgiveness, homeowners
who continue to pay their mortgages will continue to pay mortgages in which
they will have no equity for a long, long time, unless the real estate market miraculously
recovers soon.
Professor
Jones tells us that the Federal government has started a Foreclosure
Alternative Program, where they pay incentives to mortgage companies to allow
homeowners to sell their homes through short sales or to allow homeowners to
turn over their homes in lieu of foreclosures.
Apparently,
Mediation is not the panacea that I thought.
It looks that the Federal government will have to lend a hand to
homeowners after all.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on January 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM under
0 comments

We Floridians
have been watching the foreclosure crash for a year now while our Federal
government bailed out major banks across the country. While Main Street sat in ruins, Wall Street
continued to reward their executives with millions of dollars in bonuses and
pay back only a portion of the losses caused by the banking and insurance
industries.
Almost all of us have heard of
somebody who lost his house to foreclosure after losing his job. And although this presents excellent opportunities
for those who have cash to buy foreclosures, remodel them, thereby adding value
and then selling them at a profit, it must be a gut wrenching experience for
those who put their hard earned money into their homes, only to lose them to
foreclosure.
Good news in
on the way for homeowners in Florida who are in jeopardy of losing their homes.
The Supreme Court of Florida on Monday, according to the Miami Herald editorial
on Saturday, "issued an administrative order requiring a statewide managed
mediation program to handle all the foreclosures inundating state courts." The courts are forcing banks which are
reluctant to offer homeowners alternative to foreclosure to sit down, talk, and
"to negotiate rather than automatically foreclose."
I think this
is welcome news for desperate homeowners, overworked courts, and the majority
of us who think this will be a benefit to the middle class in Miami-Dade County
by stabilizing neighborhoods and allowing otherwise responsible citizens some
time to work out their financial problems without losing their largest asset.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on October 24, 2009 at 11:42 AM under
0 comments

Views of Barcelona - El Ensanche
Yesterday was a great day for the City of Miami. The new Miami 21 Zoning Code was approved by the City of Miami commissioners.
Miami 21 is the most comprehensive zoning code change I have seen in any part of Miami-Dade County in my over 25 years of practicing architecture. It took 4 years of meetings and discussions to complete.
The very talented town planning firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, hired as the lead consultant to produce this code, held hundreds of meetings throughout the city and took testimony from many residents. It was a controversial process.
Architects took sides. There was the Duany Plater-Zyberk and their University of Miami colleagues and then there was the Bernard Zyscovich side. The AIA had meetings about it. Generally, there were many fights about density and height restrictions - and design, of course!
While most codes are based on the multiplication of a number times the size of the lot to obtain such things as maximum lot coverage, maximum buildable area, floor area ratio, green area, etc., this new code emphasizes physical results. It is a form-based code. It does not care so much about the size of the lot, as what the building will look like. Will it have porches, covered walkways, and other items which make it pedestrian friendly? Will people want to walk down the street in this new designed city? Yes, that's the idea!
What makes a city walkable or what makes it anti-pedestrian? Liz Plater-Zyberk has lectured often on this issue, and at one of the many meetings, she explained their planning theories and their system of Transets T1 to T6.
Among the many issues they discussed, one of the most important, is the issue of car parking. Large parking lots, whether surface parking or garage parking, will deaden any street. No live human will want to walk in front of a parking garage or parking lot. So in their code visible surface parking on a major street is prohibited
In traditional zoning, if the lot is large, then the building (as a multiplication of the size of the lot) gets to be a tall large building. In this zoning, the zoning tells the owner how many stories to build. Everyone on the same street gets to build the same number of stories. So one lot won't have a huge, tall building with the lot next door allowed only a much shorter building.
Many parts of the city will have mixed-zoning with the street level dedicated to commercial space with residential units above that.
The opposition's position is the new code would limit "design flexibility".
As I attended meetings, listened to, or read about the discussions, I was reminded of the many cities I have walked - Barcelona, Paris, Munich, Madrid, South Beach, etc. And then I think of the ones I would never walk - Miami, Atlanta, Houston, etc.
Many things limit design flexibility - our present City of Miami Zoning Code. It has setbacks, it has height restrictions, and it has all kind of details that hamper design flexibility. Our current code does not produce any cohesive cityscape. It produces a bunch of independent buildings which have no cohesion as a group, a neighborhood, or a city.
I spent a summer in Barcelona, while I was in college, working for an architectural firm on a student exchange program. I think this is why I am such a fan of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. That summer in Barcelona I walked and walked and walked. I took rolls of photographs and discovered the contemporaries of Antonio Gaudi. See, Gaudi did not work in a vacuum. I am sure he influenced his contemporaries and his contemporaries influenced him. His buildings are in context. They are a part of the city. That is what Miami needs - buildings in context, not floating, independent self-involved structures who fail to integrate with their environment.
In physical codes (and I am sure that Barcelona must have one) things change but they stay the same. Here I have several photos of Barcelona streetscapes and you can see for yourself. The number of stories must be regulated. The location of the building on the lot must be regulated. See for yourself, balconies change, but there is a consistency which makes the buildings flow from one balcony to the next. Some details change while some stay the same. There are no shocking changes - radical height changes, radical recessions from the street, etc. The ground floor is all commercial. The parking lots are sheltered from the main street.
In my opinion what we will see eventually is that there are a many design possibilities within the constraints of this code. And by implementing this code we will see the new cohesiveness that will develop within city buildings. Where there is always a tension between independence in building design and a unified urban plan, the pendulum had swung in the direction of independent building design. Now it will swing once again in the other direction. I, for one, I think that yesterday was a great day, the start of a movement toward an organized pedestrian city we can all enjoy!
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM under
1 comment
For every person who buys a property at foreclosure, there is a terrible story of someone who lost a valuable asset. It is the story of someone who saved and saved until he was able to provide a downpayment for a new house and then paid for that mortgage one year or 20 years. We don't know. What we do know is that the loss of the house was probably due to this horrible economic downturn which all of us in the construction business are suffering.
So what can be done now to turn this terrible crisis around? Well, I don't know if I can tell you what to do, but I can certainly tell you what not to do.
|
I read Jackie Bueno Sousa's column this yesterday in the Miami Herald, Disconnect in home values is killing deals. Apparently, the new property appraiser which we elected in 2008, Pedro J. Garcia, is not counting foreclosures in his appraisals.
But the appraiser's website states," ...I set out to establish the right values for all properties in the County. The assessments on the 2009 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes (TRIM Notice) mailed to you last month, reflected market value reductions of as much as 20% to 30% in some municipalities. I have met my promise to you, the property owners of Miami-Dade County and my Office has done its job." The question becomes, if he counted foreclosures, how much lower would these values be?
Sousa states in her column that a purchaser gave up on a deal when he found out that a house which sold for $600,000 a couple of years ago and was now on the market for $300,000 would still be taxed at the higher value. How can this be? Apparently, from what Sousa says, this is happening all over Miami-Dade County
killing deals and preventing the economic recovery that could so help the county as a whole.
How is it possible that Mr. Garcia can just ignore foreclosures?
Here is what the Florida Statutes says on "factors to consider in deriving a just valuation":
- 1. The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller...
- 2. The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration the legally permissible use of the property...
- 3. The location of said property
- 4. The quantity or size of said property;
- 5. The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon;
- 6. The condition of said property;
- 7. The income from said property; and
- 8. The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale...
It seems to me that if the property appraiser follows the Florida Statutes above, particularly "1" and "2", he would be forced to consider whether the property in question actually went through a foreclosure, whether the property value of said property is being affected by a nearby foreclosed property, or whether the selling price is actually much lower than the last time it sold. Once the property sells it should be assessed at the lower value!
If we can get the construction industry moving again with the restoration of the real estate market and the reconstruction of many of these distressed properties, we can again move Miami into the economic engine it usually is, and get make more jobs available to those who have suffered so much in this environment.
Maybe it's time to get the legislature to put more teeth into the Florida Statutes and make sure the local property appraiser considers foreclosures in his valuations. Contact your representative and make sure he knows about your wishes on this issue.
|
-
Posted by Administrator on October 9, 2009 at 11:07 PM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Anonymous on October 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM under
0 comments
Very interesting find. What could be done so that the premiums are not raised and the industry be overhauled instead? It is very frustrating but these systems really go unchecked and end up being uphill battles in which the homeowners don't come out on top. Have you checked your FPL bill lately? Did you notice that your vehicle registration is now about 60% more than last year? Did you notice that many in our community are getting paid less or don't have jobs? It is an outrage! YM
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM under
3 comments
Last Thursday, October 1, I was driving around when a new report on WLRN piqued my interest. The report said that Florida was going to allow the raising of insurance premiums again for homeowner’s policies.
I wondered how this could happen. After all, we haven’t had a hurricane in 4 years. Those insurance companies must be raking in the profits - 4 years of not having to pay out on any losses, 4 years of not having to send out any insurance adjusters, 4 years of sitting around on a pile of cash. “Hum, how could this happen?” I asked myself. The story stated that one of the reasons was that the insurance companies were losing too much money on the wind mitigation credits - they were not getting enough money from premiums.
As it stands now wind mitigation credits are offered for strengthening roofs by reinforcing roof-towall connections, roof decking and attachments. Concrete slab roofs also yield mitigation credits. In addition, credits are also granted for preventing water intrusion with secondary water barrier protections. And lastly, protecting door and window openings with shutters, or providing impactresistant windows, also qualify for credits.
So why are the companies losing money on the credits?
I decided to research the issue. I came across a couple of articles on the internet that speak to the issue and can actually give us more details. The Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, Windstorm Mitigation Committee Hearing Report (September 17) states that some counties are actually paying too little while others are paying too much. But then the report adds:
Florida Association of Insurance Agents Executive Vice President Scott Johnson provided testimony relating to agent issues. After his presentation, there was significant discussion regarding inspection fraud and that some agents may passively allow fraud to occur. Mr. Johnson recommended that policies should be adopted to give a policyholder "skin in the game" regarding verification of premium reductions. Dr. Nicholson noted that the system is "sick" and that there should be laws against tying financial incentives to wind inspections. Agents should not have business relationships with inspectors.
There is also an interesting article by Scott S. Koedel, CPA, president and COO of Don Meyler Inspections, Ensuring the accuracy of windstorm mitigation credits, where he argues:
As awareness of the windstorm mitigation inspection has increased, so has the sheer quantity of inspectors performing inspections, which now number in the thousands. This rapid growth has resulted in a widely varying level of quality control processes among inspection companies. While one company may … submit them to a quality control department run by a professional engineer, another may handwrite the inspecti on results on a paper form and leave it behind with the homeowner.
Koedel continues:
Unfortunately, fraud has become a topic of concern. Underwriters have reported numerous instances of inspectors not entering policyholders' homes or attics, an obvious prerequisite for a proper windstorm mitigation inspection. In the most examples of impropriety, doctoring of the mitigation inspection form has occurred.
In the article, he continues with what steps could be taken to rein in the inspectors.
So apparently, the problem is not the issue of the wind credits, but the fraud that is occurring with the inspections.
The other question which could be asked would be: Would the credits save insurance companies money if a hurricane were to occur?
If we go back to the September 17 report:
Applied Research Associates Chief Technical Officer Larry Twisdale continued his presentation on a loss relativity study from the previous Committee meeting. The study indicated that a well-mitigated building will reduce loss by 40-60 percent.
In conclusion, the problem that the insurance companies are losing money is not due to the mitigation credits when they are properly applied. A building which is properly built to the new building codes, and roofs which are either concrete or have the latest attachments and roof coverings, will reduce the losses that an insurance company will have to pay out should a hurricane hit the area.
So the solution to the problem should not be to raise premiums but to control who can sign off on wind mitigation credit forms.
Residents of the state should demand that inspectors hold a special license where they are liable, as any professional engineer, or architect, or general contractor would be. Or as an alternate, they must be licensed architects, professional engineers, or general contractors. The inspection for should be sent directly to the state by the professional. No leaving behind any forms for the homeowners to doctor or fill out. And, then we can demand that premiums remain the same and not be increased.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM under
0 comments
With the passing of columnist, William Safire, Peggy Noonan writes in Time Magazine this week, that he once told her, "Write what you see, because 'what history needs more of is first-person testimony'."
So this should serve as my first person testimony. I am going to write here about what I see is happening and what I think we should do about it. I will mainly talk about issues of architecture and construction and sometimes overflow into the local political scene.
I hope that you will leave me comments as well.
Enjoy,
Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A.
-
Posted by Administrator on October 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM under
0 comments
This is the place to contact me and ask any questions you might have. No question is stupid and I am here to help you. Please feel free to leave any question you may have regarding architecture, construction, or the management of a construction project. I don't know everything, but I can be of help on many issues about which you may have questions. See frequently asked questions below.
-
Posted by Admin on December 28, 2005 at 2:00 AM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Administrator on February 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM under
0 comments
In
my previous blog I was very excited for those who may be in serious jeopardy of
losing their homes, but then I read an interesting letter to the editor in the
Miami Herald, February 21, from Professor Donal Jones, law professor at the University of Miami.
Apparently,
from what Professor Jones says, my enthusiasm was baseless. He says, "If it [the house] is not sold the
bank is often able to maintain the repossessed house on its books without
showing a loss. The bank can list the value of its asset based on what it would
be at ''maturity.'' The now-empty house may have been vandalized and have
rotted drywall. But on paper the repossessed house is as valuable as it was
before the bubble burst. The bank has no skin in the game."
Moreover,
since so many of these homeowners at risk of foreclosure are underwater with
their mortgages, without a considerable amount of debt forgiveness, homeowners
who continue to pay their mortgages will continue to pay mortgages in which
they will have no equity for a long, long time, unless the real estate market miraculously
recovers soon.
Professor
Jones tells us that the Federal government has started a Foreclosure
Alternative Program, where they pay incentives to mortgage companies to allow
homeowners to sell their homes through short sales or to allow homeowners to
turn over their homes in lieu of foreclosures.
Apparently,
Mediation is not the panacea that I thought.
It looks that the Federal government will have to lend a hand to
homeowners after all.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on January 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM under
0 comments

We Floridians
have been watching the foreclosure crash for a year now while our Federal
government bailed out major banks across the country. While Main Street sat in ruins, Wall Street
continued to reward their executives with millions of dollars in bonuses and
pay back only a portion of the losses caused by the banking and insurance
industries.
Almost all of us have heard of
somebody who lost his house to foreclosure after losing his job. And although this presents excellent opportunities
for those who have cash to buy foreclosures, remodel them, thereby adding value
and then selling them at a profit, it must be a gut wrenching experience for
those who put their hard earned money into their homes, only to lose them to
foreclosure.
Good news in
on the way for homeowners in Florida who are in jeopardy of losing their homes.
The Supreme Court of Florida on Monday, according to the Miami Herald editorial
on Saturday, "issued an administrative order requiring a statewide managed
mediation program to handle all the foreclosures inundating state courts." The courts are forcing banks which are
reluctant to offer homeowners alternative to foreclosure to sit down, talk, and
"to negotiate rather than automatically foreclose."
I think this
is welcome news for desperate homeowners, overworked courts, and the majority
of us who think this will be a benefit to the middle class in Miami-Dade County
by stabilizing neighborhoods and allowing otherwise responsible citizens some
time to work out their financial problems without losing their largest asset.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on October 24, 2009 at 11:42 AM under
0 comments

Views of Barcelona - El Ensanche
Yesterday was a great day for the City of Miami. The new Miami 21 Zoning Code was approved by the City of Miami commissioners.
Miami 21 is the most comprehensive zoning code change I have seen in any part of Miami-Dade County in my over 25 years of practicing architecture. It took 4 years of meetings and discussions to complete.
The very talented town planning firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, hired as the lead consultant to produce this code, held hundreds of meetings throughout the city and took testimony from many residents. It was a controversial process.
Architects took sides. There was the Duany Plater-Zyberk and their University of Miami colleagues and then there was the Bernard Zyscovich side. The AIA had meetings about it. Generally, there were many fights about density and height restrictions - and design, of course!
While most codes are based on the multiplication of a number times the size of the lot to obtain such things as maximum lot coverage, maximum buildable area, floor area ratio, green area, etc., this new code emphasizes physical results. It is a form-based code. It does not care so much about the size of the lot, as what the building will look like. Will it have porches, covered walkways, and other items which make it pedestrian friendly? Will people want to walk down the street in this new designed city? Yes, that's the idea!
What makes a city walkable or what makes it anti-pedestrian? Liz Plater-Zyberk has lectured often on this issue, and at one of the many meetings, she explained their planning theories and their system of Transets T1 to T6.
Among the many issues they discussed, one of the most important, is the issue of car parking. Large parking lots, whether surface parking or garage parking, will deaden any street. No live human will want to walk in front of a parking garage or parking lot. So in their code visible surface parking on a major street is prohibited
In traditional zoning, if the lot is large, then the building (as a multiplication of the size of the lot) gets to be a tall large building. In this zoning, the zoning tells the owner how many stories to build. Everyone on the same street gets to build the same number of stories. So one lot won't have a huge, tall building with the lot next door allowed only a much shorter building.
Many parts of the city will have mixed-zoning with the street level dedicated to commercial space with residential units above that.
The opposition's position is the new code would limit "design flexibility".
As I attended meetings, listened to, or read about the discussions, I was reminded of the many cities I have walked - Barcelona, Paris, Munich, Madrid, South Beach, etc. And then I think of the ones I would never walk - Miami, Atlanta, Houston, etc.
Many things limit design flexibility - our present City of Miami Zoning Code. It has setbacks, it has height restrictions, and it has all kind of details that hamper design flexibility. Our current code does not produce any cohesive cityscape. It produces a bunch of independent buildings which have no cohesion as a group, a neighborhood, or a city.
I spent a summer in Barcelona, while I was in college, working for an architectural firm on a student exchange program. I think this is why I am such a fan of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. That summer in Barcelona I walked and walked and walked. I took rolls of photographs and discovered the contemporaries of Antonio Gaudi. See, Gaudi did not work in a vacuum. I am sure he influenced his contemporaries and his contemporaries influenced him. His buildings are in context. They are a part of the city. That is what Miami needs - buildings in context, not floating, independent self-involved structures who fail to integrate with their environment.
In physical codes (and I am sure that Barcelona must have one) things change but they stay the same. Here I have several photos of Barcelona streetscapes and you can see for yourself. The number of stories must be regulated. The location of the building on the lot must be regulated. See for yourself, balconies change, but there is a consistency which makes the buildings flow from one balcony to the next. Some details change while some stay the same. There are no shocking changes - radical height changes, radical recessions from the street, etc. The ground floor is all commercial. The parking lots are sheltered from the main street.
In my opinion what we will see eventually is that there are a many design possibilities within the constraints of this code. And by implementing this code we will see the new cohesiveness that will develop within city buildings. Where there is always a tension between independence in building design and a unified urban plan, the pendulum had swung in the direction of independent building design. Now it will swing once again in the other direction. I, for one, I think that yesterday was a great day, the start of a movement toward an organized pedestrian city we can all enjoy!
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM under
1 comment
For every person who buys a property at foreclosure, there is a terrible story of someone who lost a valuable asset. It is the story of someone who saved and saved until he was able to provide a downpayment for a new house and then paid for that mortgage one year or 20 years. We don't know. What we do know is that the loss of the house was probably due to this horrible economic downturn which all of us in the construction business are suffering.
So what can be done now to turn this terrible crisis around? Well, I don't know if I can tell you what to do, but I can certainly tell you what not to do.
|
I read Jackie Bueno Sousa's column this yesterday in the Miami Herald, Disconnect in home values is killing deals. Apparently, the new property appraiser which we elected in 2008, Pedro J. Garcia, is not counting foreclosures in his appraisals.
But the appraiser's website states," ...I set out to establish the right values for all properties in the County. The assessments on the 2009 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes (TRIM Notice) mailed to you last month, reflected market value reductions of as much as 20% to 30% in some municipalities. I have met my promise to you, the property owners of Miami-Dade County and my Office has done its job." The question becomes, if he counted foreclosures, how much lower would these values be?
Sousa states in her column that a purchaser gave up on a deal when he found out that a house which sold for $600,000 a couple of years ago and was now on the market for $300,000 would still be taxed at the higher value. How can this be? Apparently, from what Sousa says, this is happening all over Miami-Dade County
killing deals and preventing the economic recovery that could so help the county as a whole.
How is it possible that Mr. Garcia can just ignore foreclosures?
Here is what the Florida Statutes says on "factors to consider in deriving a just valuation":
- 1. The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller...
- 2. The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration the legally permissible use of the property...
- 3. The location of said property
- 4. The quantity or size of said property;
- 5. The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon;
- 6. The condition of said property;
- 7. The income from said property; and
- 8. The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale...
It seems to me that if the property appraiser follows the Florida Statutes above, particularly "1" and "2", he would be forced to consider whether the property in question actually went through a foreclosure, whether the property value of said property is being affected by a nearby foreclosed property, or whether the selling price is actually much lower than the last time it sold. Once the property sells it should be assessed at the lower value!
If we can get the construction industry moving again with the restoration of the real estate market and the reconstruction of many of these distressed properties, we can again move Miami into the economic engine it usually is, and get make more jobs available to those who have suffered so much in this environment.
Maybe it's time to get the legislature to put more teeth into the Florida Statutes and make sure the local property appraiser considers foreclosures in his valuations. Contact your representative and make sure he knows about your wishes on this issue.
|
-
Posted by Administrator on October 9, 2009 at 11:07 PM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Anonymous on October 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM under
0 comments
Very interesting find. What could be done so that the premiums are not raised and the industry be overhauled instead? It is very frustrating but these systems really go unchecked and end up being uphill battles in which the homeowners don't come out on top. Have you checked your FPL bill lately? Did you notice that your vehicle registration is now about 60% more than last year? Did you notice that many in our community are getting paid less or don't have jobs? It is an outrage! YM
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM under
3 comments
Last Thursday, October 1, I was driving around when a new report on WLRN piqued my interest. The report said that Florida was going to allow the raising of insurance premiums again for homeowner’s policies.
I wondered how this could happen. After all, we haven’t had a hurricane in 4 years. Those insurance companies must be raking in the profits - 4 years of not having to pay out on any losses, 4 years of not having to send out any insurance adjusters, 4 years of sitting around on a pile of cash. “Hum, how could this happen?” I asked myself. The story stated that one of the reasons was that the insurance companies were losing too much money on the wind mitigation credits - they were not getting enough money from premiums.
As it stands now wind mitigation credits are offered for strengthening roofs by reinforcing roof-towall connections, roof decking and attachments. Concrete slab roofs also yield mitigation credits. In addition, credits are also granted for preventing water intrusion with secondary water barrier protections. And lastly, protecting door and window openings with shutters, or providing impactresistant windows, also qualify for credits.
So why are the companies losing money on the credits?
I decided to research the issue. I came across a couple of articles on the internet that speak to the issue and can actually give us more details. The Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, Windstorm Mitigation Committee Hearing Report (September 17) states that some counties are actually paying too little while others are paying too much. But then the report adds:
Florida Association of Insurance Agents Executive Vice President Scott Johnson provided testimony relating to agent issues. After his presentation, there was significant discussion regarding inspection fraud and that some agents may passively allow fraud to occur. Mr. Johnson recommended that policies should be adopted to give a policyholder "skin in the game" regarding verification of premium reductions. Dr. Nicholson noted that the system is "sick" and that there should be laws against tying financial incentives to wind inspections. Agents should not have business relationships with inspectors.
There is also an interesting article by Scott S. Koedel, CPA, president and COO of Don Meyler Inspections, Ensuring the accuracy of windstorm mitigation credits, where he argues:
As awareness of the windstorm mitigation inspection has increased, so has the sheer quantity of inspectors performing inspections, which now number in the thousands. This rapid growth has resulted in a widely varying level of quality control processes among inspection companies. While one company may … submit them to a quality control department run by a professional engineer, another may handwrite the inspecti on results on a paper form and leave it behind with the homeowner.
Koedel continues:
Unfortunately, fraud has become a topic of concern. Underwriters have reported numerous instances of inspectors not entering policyholders' homes or attics, an obvious prerequisite for a proper windstorm mitigation inspection. In the most examples of impropriety, doctoring of the mitigation inspection form has occurred.
In the article, he continues with what steps could be taken to rein in the inspectors.
So apparently, the problem is not the issue of the wind credits, but the fraud that is occurring with the inspections.
The other question which could be asked would be: Would the credits save insurance companies money if a hurricane were to occur?
If we go back to the September 17 report:
Applied Research Associates Chief Technical Officer Larry Twisdale continued his presentation on a loss relativity study from the previous Committee meeting. The study indicated that a well-mitigated building will reduce loss by 40-60 percent.
In conclusion, the problem that the insurance companies are losing money is not due to the mitigation credits when they are properly applied. A building which is properly built to the new building codes, and roofs which are either concrete or have the latest attachments and roof coverings, will reduce the losses that an insurance company will have to pay out should a hurricane hit the area.
So the solution to the problem should not be to raise premiums but to control who can sign off on wind mitigation credit forms.
Residents of the state should demand that inspectors hold a special license where they are liable, as any professional engineer, or architect, or general contractor would be. Or as an alternate, they must be licensed architects, professional engineers, or general contractors. The inspection for should be sent directly to the state by the professional. No leaving behind any forms for the homeowners to doctor or fill out. And, then we can demand that premiums remain the same and not be increased.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM under
0 comments
With the passing of columnist, William Safire, Peggy Noonan writes in Time Magazine this week, that he once told her, "Write what you see, because 'what history needs more of is first-person testimony'."
So this should serve as my first person testimony. I am going to write here about what I see is happening and what I think we should do about it. I will mainly talk about issues of architecture and construction and sometimes overflow into the local political scene.
I hope that you will leave me comments as well.
Enjoy,
Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A.
-
Posted by Administrator on October 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM under
0 comments
This is the place to contact me and ask any questions you might have. No question is stupid and I am here to help you. Please feel free to leave any question you may have regarding architecture, construction, or the management of a construction project. I don't know everything, but I can be of help on many issues about which you may have questions. See frequently asked questions below.
-
Posted by Admin on December 28, 2005 at 2:00 AM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Administrator on February 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM under
0 comments
In
my previous blog I was very excited for those who may be in serious jeopardy of
losing their homes, but then I read an interesting letter to the editor in the
Miami Herald, February 21, from Professor Donal Jones, law professor at the University of Miami.
Apparently,
from what Professor Jones says, my enthusiasm was baseless. He says, "If it [the house] is not sold the
bank is often able to maintain the repossessed house on its books without
showing a loss. The bank can list the value of its asset based on what it would
be at ''maturity.'' The now-empty house may have been vandalized and have
rotted drywall. But on paper the repossessed house is as valuable as it was
before the bubble burst. The bank has no skin in the game."
Moreover,
since so many of these homeowners at risk of foreclosure are underwater with
their mortgages, without a considerable amount of debt forgiveness, homeowners
who continue to pay their mortgages will continue to pay mortgages in which
they will have no equity for a long, long time, unless the real estate market miraculously
recovers soon.
Professor
Jones tells us that the Federal government has started a Foreclosure
Alternative Program, where they pay incentives to mortgage companies to allow
homeowners to sell their homes through short sales or to allow homeowners to
turn over their homes in lieu of foreclosures.
Apparently,
Mediation is not the panacea that I thought.
It looks that the Federal government will have to lend a hand to
homeowners after all.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on January 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM under
0 comments

We Floridians
have been watching the foreclosure crash for a year now while our Federal
government bailed out major banks across the country. While Main Street sat in ruins, Wall Street
continued to reward their executives with millions of dollars in bonuses and
pay back only a portion of the losses caused by the banking and insurance
industries.
Almost all of us have heard of
somebody who lost his house to foreclosure after losing his job. And although this presents excellent opportunities
for those who have cash to buy foreclosures, remodel them, thereby adding value
and then selling them at a profit, it must be a gut wrenching experience for
those who put their hard earned money into their homes, only to lose them to
foreclosure.
Good news in
on the way for homeowners in Florida who are in jeopardy of losing their homes.
The Supreme Court of Florida on Monday, according to the Miami Herald editorial
on Saturday, "issued an administrative order requiring a statewide managed
mediation program to handle all the foreclosures inundating state courts." The courts are forcing banks which are
reluctant to offer homeowners alternative to foreclosure to sit down, talk, and
"to negotiate rather than automatically foreclose."
I think this
is welcome news for desperate homeowners, overworked courts, and the majority
of us who think this will be a benefit to the middle class in Miami-Dade County
by stabilizing neighborhoods and allowing otherwise responsible citizens some
time to work out their financial problems without losing their largest asset.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on October 24, 2009 at 11:42 AM under
0 comments

Views of Barcelona - El Ensanche
Yesterday was a great day for the City of Miami. The new Miami 21 Zoning Code was approved by the City of Miami commissioners.
Miami 21 is the most comprehensive zoning code change I have seen in any part of Miami-Dade County in my over 25 years of practicing architecture. It took 4 years of meetings and discussions to complete.
The very talented town planning firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, hired as the lead consultant to produce this code, held hundreds of meetings throughout the city and took testimony from many residents. It was a controversial process.
Architects took sides. There was the Duany Plater-Zyberk and their University of Miami colleagues and then there was the Bernard Zyscovich side. The AIA had meetings about it. Generally, there were many fights about density and height restrictions - and design, of course!
While most codes are based on the multiplication of a number times the size of the lot to obtain such things as maximum lot coverage, maximum buildable area, floor area ratio, green area, etc., this new code emphasizes physical results. It is a form-based code. It does not care so much about the size of the lot, as what the building will look like. Will it have porches, covered walkways, and other items which make it pedestrian friendly? Will people want to walk down the street in this new designed city? Yes, that's the idea!
What makes a city walkable or what makes it anti-pedestrian? Liz Plater-Zyberk has lectured often on this issue, and at one of the many meetings, she explained their planning theories and their system of Transets T1 to T6.
Among the many issues they discussed, one of the most important, is the issue of car parking. Large parking lots, whether surface parking or garage parking, will deaden any street. No live human will want to walk in front of a parking garage or parking lot. So in their code visible surface parking on a major street is prohibited
In traditional zoning, if the lot is large, then the building (as a multiplication of the size of the lot) gets to be a tall large building. In this zoning, the zoning tells the owner how many stories to build. Everyone on the same street gets to build the same number of stories. So one lot won't have a huge, tall building with the lot next door allowed only a much shorter building.
Many parts of the city will have mixed-zoning with the street level dedicated to commercial space with residential units above that.
The opposition's position is the new code would limit "design flexibility".
As I attended meetings, listened to, or read about the discussions, I was reminded of the many cities I have walked - Barcelona, Paris, Munich, Madrid, South Beach, etc. And then I think of the ones I would never walk - Miami, Atlanta, Houston, etc.
Many things limit design flexibility - our present City of Miami Zoning Code. It has setbacks, it has height restrictions, and it has all kind of details that hamper design flexibility. Our current code does not produce any cohesive cityscape. It produces a bunch of independent buildings which have no cohesion as a group, a neighborhood, or a city.
I spent a summer in Barcelona, while I was in college, working for an architectural firm on a student exchange program. I think this is why I am such a fan of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. That summer in Barcelona I walked and walked and walked. I took rolls of photographs and discovered the contemporaries of Antonio Gaudi. See, Gaudi did not work in a vacuum. I am sure he influenced his contemporaries and his contemporaries influenced him. His buildings are in context. They are a part of the city. That is what Miami needs - buildings in context, not floating, independent self-involved structures who fail to integrate with their environment.
In physical codes (and I am sure that Barcelona must have one) things change but they stay the same. Here I have several photos of Barcelona streetscapes and you can see for yourself. The number of stories must be regulated. The location of the building on the lot must be regulated. See for yourself, balconies change, but there is a consistency which makes the buildings flow from one balcony to the next. Some details change while some stay the same. There are no shocking changes - radical height changes, radical recessions from the street, etc. The ground floor is all commercial. The parking lots are sheltered from the main street.
In my opinion what we will see eventually is that there are a many design possibilities within the constraints of this code. And by implementing this code we will see the new cohesiveness that will develop within city buildings. Where there is always a tension between independence in building design and a unified urban plan, the pendulum had swung in the direction of independent building design. Now it will swing once again in the other direction. I, for one, I think that yesterday was a great day, the start of a movement toward an organized pedestrian city we can all enjoy!
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM under
1 comment
For every person who buys a property at foreclosure, there is a terrible story of someone who lost a valuable asset. It is the story of someone who saved and saved until he was able to provide a downpayment for a new house and then paid for that mortgage one year or 20 years. We don't know. What we do know is that the loss of the house was probably due to this horrible economic downturn which all of us in the construction business are suffering.
So what can be done now to turn this terrible crisis around? Well, I don't know if I can tell you what to do, but I can certainly tell you what not to do.
|
I read Jackie Bueno Sousa's column this yesterday in the Miami Herald, Disconnect in home values is killing deals. Apparently, the new property appraiser which we elected in 2008, Pedro J. Garcia, is not counting foreclosures in his appraisals.
But the appraiser's website states," ...I set out to establish the right values for all properties in the County. The assessments on the 2009 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes (TRIM Notice) mailed to you last month, reflected market value reductions of as much as 20% to 30% in some municipalities. I have met my promise to you, the property owners of Miami-Dade County and my Office has done its job." The question becomes, if he counted foreclosures, how much lower would these values be?
Sousa states in her column that a purchaser gave up on a deal when he found out that a house which sold for $600,000 a couple of years ago and was now on the market for $300,000 would still be taxed at the higher value. How can this be? Apparently, from what Sousa says, this is happening all over Miami-Dade County
killing deals and preventing the economic recovery that could so help the county as a whole.
How is it possible that Mr. Garcia can just ignore foreclosures?
Here is what the Florida Statutes says on "factors to consider in deriving a just valuation":
- 1. The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller...
- 2. The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration the legally permissible use of the property...
- 3. The location of said property
- 4. The quantity or size of said property;
- 5. The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon;
- 6. The condition of said property;
- 7. The income from said property; and
- 8. The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale...
It seems to me that if the property appraiser follows the Florida Statutes above, particularly "1" and "2", he would be forced to consider whether the property in question actually went through a foreclosure, whether the property value of said property is being affected by a nearby foreclosed property, or whether the selling price is actually much lower than the last time it sold. Once the property sells it should be assessed at the lower value!
If we can get the construction industry moving again with the restoration of the real estate market and the reconstruction of many of these distressed properties, we can again move Miami into the economic engine it usually is, and get make more jobs available to those who have suffered so much in this environment.
Maybe it's time to get the legislature to put more teeth into the Florida Statutes and make sure the local property appraiser considers foreclosures in his valuations. Contact your representative and make sure he knows about your wishes on this issue.
|
-
Posted by Administrator on October 9, 2009 at 11:07 PM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Anonymous on October 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM under
0 comments
Very interesting find. What could be done so that the premiums are not raised and the industry be overhauled instead? It is very frustrating but these systems really go unchecked and end up being uphill battles in which the homeowners don't come out on top. Have you checked your FPL bill lately? Did you notice that your vehicle registration is now about 60% more than last year? Did you notice that many in our community are getting paid less or don't have jobs? It is an outrage! YM
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM under
3 comments
Last Thursday, October 1, I was driving around when a new report on WLRN piqued my interest. The report said that Florida was going to allow the raising of insurance premiums again for homeowner’s policies.
I wondered how this could happen. After all, we haven’t had a hurricane in 4 years. Those insurance companies must be raking in the profits - 4 years of not having to pay out on any losses, 4 years of not having to send out any insurance adjusters, 4 years of sitting around on a pile of cash. “Hum, how could this happen?” I asked myself. The story stated that one of the reasons was that the insurance companies were losing too much money on the wind mitigation credits - they were not getting enough money from premiums.
As it stands now wind mitigation credits are offered for strengthening roofs by reinforcing roof-towall connections, roof decking and attachments. Concrete slab roofs also yield mitigation credits. In addition, credits are also granted for preventing water intrusion with secondary water barrier protections. And lastly, protecting door and window openings with shutters, or providing impactresistant windows, also qualify for credits.
So why are the companies losing money on the credits?
I decided to research the issue. I came across a couple of articles on the internet that speak to the issue and can actually give us more details. The Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, Windstorm Mitigation Committee Hearing Report (September 17) states that some counties are actually paying too little while others are paying too much. But then the report adds:
Florida Association of Insurance Agents Executive Vice President Scott Johnson provided testimony relating to agent issues. After his presentation, there was significant discussion regarding inspection fraud and that some agents may passively allow fraud to occur. Mr. Johnson recommended that policies should be adopted to give a policyholder "skin in the game" regarding verification of premium reductions. Dr. Nicholson noted that the system is "sick" and that there should be laws against tying financial incentives to wind inspections. Agents should not have business relationships with inspectors.
There is also an interesting article by Scott S. Koedel, CPA, president and COO of Don Meyler Inspections, Ensuring the accuracy of windstorm mitigation credits, where he argues:
As awareness of the windstorm mitigation inspection has increased, so has the sheer quantity of inspectors performing inspections, which now number in the thousands. This rapid growth has resulted in a widely varying level of quality control processes among inspection companies. While one company may … submit them to a quality control department run by a professional engineer, another may handwrite the inspecti on results on a paper form and leave it behind with the homeowner.
Koedel continues:
Unfortunately, fraud has become a topic of concern. Underwriters have reported numerous instances of inspectors not entering policyholders' homes or attics, an obvious prerequisite for a proper windstorm mitigation inspection. In the most examples of impropriety, doctoring of the mitigation inspection form has occurred.
In the article, he continues with what steps could be taken to rein in the inspectors.
So apparently, the problem is not the issue of the wind credits, but the fraud that is occurring with the inspections.
The other question which could be asked would be: Would the credits save insurance companies money if a hurricane were to occur?
If we go back to the September 17 report:
Applied Research Associates Chief Technical Officer Larry Twisdale continued his presentation on a loss relativity study from the previous Committee meeting. The study indicated that a well-mitigated building will reduce loss by 40-60 percent.
In conclusion, the problem that the insurance companies are losing money is not due to the mitigation credits when they are properly applied. A building which is properly built to the new building codes, and roofs which are either concrete or have the latest attachments and roof coverings, will reduce the losses that an insurance company will have to pay out should a hurricane hit the area.
So the solution to the problem should not be to raise premiums but to control who can sign off on wind mitigation credit forms.
Residents of the state should demand that inspectors hold a special license where they are liable, as any professional engineer, or architect, or general contractor would be. Or as an alternate, they must be licensed architects, professional engineers, or general contractors. The inspection for should be sent directly to the state by the professional. No leaving behind any forms for the homeowners to doctor or fill out. And, then we can demand that premiums remain the same and not be increased.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM under
0 comments
With the passing of columnist, William Safire, Peggy Noonan writes in Time Magazine this week, that he once told her, "Write what you see, because 'what history needs more of is first-person testimony'."
So this should serve as my first person testimony. I am going to write here about what I see is happening and what I think we should do about it. I will mainly talk about issues of architecture and construction and sometimes overflow into the local political scene.
I hope that you will leave me comments as well.
Enjoy,
Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A.
-
Posted by Administrator on October 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM under
0 comments
This is the place to contact me and ask any questions you might have. No question is stupid and I am here to help you. Please feel free to leave any question you may have regarding architecture, construction, or the management of a construction project. I don't know everything, but I can be of help on many issues about which you may have questions. See frequently asked questions below.
-
Posted by Admin on December 28, 2005 at 2:00 AM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Administrator on February 28, 2010 at 3:14 PM under
0 comments
In
my previous blog I was very excited for those who may be in serious jeopardy of
losing their homes, but then I read an interesting letter to the editor in the
Miami Herald, February 21, from Professor Donal Jones, law professor at the University of Miami.
Apparently,
from what Professor Jones says, my enthusiasm was baseless. He says, "If it [the house] is not sold the
bank is often able to maintain the repossessed house on its books without
showing a loss. The bank can list the value of its asset based on what it would
be at ''maturity.'' The now-empty house may have been vandalized and have
rotted drywall. But on paper the repossessed house is as valuable as it was
before the bubble burst. The bank has no skin in the game."
Moreover,
since so many of these homeowners at risk of foreclosure are underwater with
their mortgages, without a considerable amount of debt forgiveness, homeowners
who continue to pay their mortgages will continue to pay mortgages in which
they will have no equity for a long, long time, unless the real estate market miraculously
recovers soon.
Professor
Jones tells us that the Federal government has started a Foreclosure
Alternative Program, where they pay incentives to mortgage companies to allow
homeowners to sell their homes through short sales or to allow homeowners to
turn over their homes in lieu of foreclosures.
Apparently,
Mediation is not the panacea that I thought.
It looks that the Federal government will have to lend a hand to
homeowners after all.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on January 3, 2010 at 10:55 AM under
0 comments

We Floridians
have been watching the foreclosure crash for a year now while our Federal
government bailed out major banks across the country. While Main Street sat in ruins, Wall Street
continued to reward their executives with millions of dollars in bonuses and
pay back only a portion of the losses caused by the banking and insurance
industries.
Almost all of us have heard of
somebody who lost his house to foreclosure after losing his job. And although this presents excellent opportunities
for those who have cash to buy foreclosures, remodel them, thereby adding value
and then selling them at a profit, it must be a gut wrenching experience for
those who put their hard earned money into their homes, only to lose them to
foreclosure.
Good news in
on the way for homeowners in Florida who are in jeopardy of losing their homes.
The Supreme Court of Florida on Monday, according to the Miami Herald editorial
on Saturday, "issued an administrative order requiring a statewide managed
mediation program to handle all the foreclosures inundating state courts." The courts are forcing banks which are
reluctant to offer homeowners alternative to foreclosure to sit down, talk, and
"to negotiate rather than automatically foreclose."
I think this
is welcome news for desperate homeowners, overworked courts, and the majority
of us who think this will be a benefit to the middle class in Miami-Dade County
by stabilizing neighborhoods and allowing otherwise responsible citizens some
time to work out their financial problems without losing their largest asset.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A., LEED AP on October 24, 2009 at 11:42 AM under
0 comments

Views of Barcelona - El Ensanche
Yesterday was a great day for the City of Miami. The new Miami 21 Zoning Code was approved by the City of Miami commissioners.
Miami 21 is the most comprehensive zoning code change I have seen in any part of Miami-Dade County in my over 25 years of practicing architecture. It took 4 years of meetings and discussions to complete.
The very talented town planning firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company, hired as the lead consultant to produce this code, held hundreds of meetings throughout the city and took testimony from many residents. It was a controversial process.
Architects took sides. There was the Duany Plater-Zyberk and their University of Miami colleagues and then there was the Bernard Zyscovich side. The AIA had meetings about it. Generally, there were many fights about density and height restrictions - and design, of course!
While most codes are based on the multiplication of a number times the size of the lot to obtain such things as maximum lot coverage, maximum buildable area, floor area ratio, green area, etc., this new code emphasizes physical results. It is a form-based code. It does not care so much about the size of the lot, as what the building will look like. Will it have porches, covered walkways, and other items which make it pedestrian friendly? Will people want to walk down the street in this new designed city? Yes, that's the idea!
What makes a city walkable or what makes it anti-pedestrian? Liz Plater-Zyberk has lectured often on this issue, and at one of the many meetings, she explained their planning theories and their system of Transets T1 to T6.
Among the many issues they discussed, one of the most important, is the issue of car parking. Large parking lots, whether surface parking or garage parking, will deaden any street. No live human will want to walk in front of a parking garage or parking lot. So in their code visible surface parking on a major street is prohibited
In traditional zoning, if the lot is large, then the building (as a multiplication of the size of the lot) gets to be a tall large building. In this zoning, the zoning tells the owner how many stories to build. Everyone on the same street gets to build the same number of stories. So one lot won't have a huge, tall building with the lot next door allowed only a much shorter building.
Many parts of the city will have mixed-zoning with the street level dedicated to commercial space with residential units above that.
The opposition's position is the new code would limit "design flexibility".
As I attended meetings, listened to, or read about the discussions, I was reminded of the many cities I have walked - Barcelona, Paris, Munich, Madrid, South Beach, etc. And then I think of the ones I would never walk - Miami, Atlanta, Houston, etc.
Many things limit design flexibility - our present City of Miami Zoning Code. It has setbacks, it has height restrictions, and it has all kind of details that hamper design flexibility. Our current code does not produce any cohesive cityscape. It produces a bunch of independent buildings which have no cohesion as a group, a neighborhood, or a city.
I spent a summer in Barcelona, while I was in college, working for an architectural firm on a student exchange program. I think this is why I am such a fan of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company. That summer in Barcelona I walked and walked and walked. I took rolls of photographs and discovered the contemporaries of Antonio Gaudi. See, Gaudi did not work in a vacuum. I am sure he influenced his contemporaries and his contemporaries influenced him. His buildings are in context. They are a part of the city. That is what Miami needs - buildings in context, not floating, independent self-involved structures who fail to integrate with their environment.
In physical codes (and I am sure that Barcelona must have one) things change but they stay the same. Here I have several photos of Barcelona streetscapes and you can see for yourself. The number of stories must be regulated. The location of the building on the lot must be regulated. See for yourself, balconies change, but there is a consistency which makes the buildings flow from one balcony to the next. Some details change while some stay the same. There are no shocking changes - radical height changes, radical recessions from the street, etc. The ground floor is all commercial. The parking lots are sheltered from the main street.
In my opinion what we will see eventually is that there are a many design possibilities within the constraints of this code. And by implementing this code we will see the new cohesiveness that will develop within city buildings. Where there is always a tension between independence in building design and a unified urban plan, the pendulum had swung in the direction of independent building design. Now it will swing once again in the other direction. I, for one, I think that yesterday was a great day, the start of a movement toward an organized pedestrian city we can all enjoy!
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM under
1 comment
For every person who buys a property at foreclosure, there is a terrible story of someone who lost a valuable asset. It is the story of someone who saved and saved until he was able to provide a downpayment for a new house and then paid for that mortgage one year or 20 years. We don't know. What we do know is that the loss of the house was probably due to this horrible economic downturn which all of us in the construction business are suffering.
So what can be done now to turn this terrible crisis around? Well, I don't know if I can tell you what to do, but I can certainly tell you what not to do.
|
I read Jackie Bueno Sousa's column this yesterday in the Miami Herald, Disconnect in home values is killing deals. Apparently, the new property appraiser which we elected in 2008, Pedro J. Garcia, is not counting foreclosures in his appraisals.
But the appraiser's website states," ...I set out to establish the right values for all properties in the County. The assessments on the 2009 Notice of Proposed Property Taxes (TRIM Notice) mailed to you last month, reflected market value reductions of as much as 20% to 30% in some municipalities. I have met my promise to you, the property owners of Miami-Dade County and my Office has done its job." The question becomes, if he counted foreclosures, how much lower would these values be?
Sousa states in her column that a purchaser gave up on a deal when he found out that a house which sold for $600,000 a couple of years ago and was now on the market for $300,000 would still be taxed at the higher value. How can this be? Apparently, from what Sousa says, this is happening all over Miami-Dade County
killing deals and preventing the economic recovery that could so help the county as a whole.
How is it possible that Mr. Garcia can just ignore foreclosures?
Here is what the Florida Statutes says on "factors to consider in deriving a just valuation":
- 1. The present cash value of the property, which is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller...
- 2. The highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate future and the present use of the property, taking into consideration the legally permissible use of the property...
- 3. The location of said property
- 4. The quantity or size of said property;
- 5. The cost of said property and the present replacement value of any improvements thereon;
- 6. The condition of said property;
- 7. The income from said property; and
- 8. The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual and reasonable fees and costs of the sale...
It seems to me that if the property appraiser follows the Florida Statutes above, particularly "1" and "2", he would be forced to consider whether the property in question actually went through a foreclosure, whether the property value of said property is being affected by a nearby foreclosed property, or whether the selling price is actually much lower than the last time it sold. Once the property sells it should be assessed at the lower value!
If we can get the construction industry moving again with the restoration of the real estate market and the reconstruction of many of these distressed properties, we can again move Miami into the economic engine it usually is, and get make more jobs available to those who have suffered so much in this environment.
Maybe it's time to get the legislature to put more teeth into the Florida Statutes and make sure the local property appraiser considers foreclosures in his valuations. Contact your representative and make sure he knows about your wishes on this issue.
|
-
Posted by Administrator on October 9, 2009 at 11:07 PM under
0 comments
-
Posted by Anonymous on October 8, 2009 at 11:43 PM under
0 comments
Very interesting find. What could be done so that the premiums are not raised and the industry be overhauled instead? It is very frustrating but these systems really go unchecked and end up being uphill battles in which the homeowners don't come out on top. Have you checked your FPL bill lately? Did you notice that your vehicle registration is now about 60% more than last year? Did you notice that many in our community are getting paid less or don't have jobs? It is an outrage! YM
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 8, 2009 at 9:44 PM under
3 comments
Last Thursday, October 1, I was driving around when a new report on WLRN piqued my interest. The report said that Florida was going to allow the raising of insurance premiums again for homeowner’s policies.
I wondered how this could happen. After all, we haven’t had a hurricane in 4 years. Those insurance companies must be raking in the profits - 4 years of not having to pay out on any losses, 4 years of not having to send out any insurance adjusters, 4 years of sitting around on a pile of cash. “Hum, how could this happen?” I asked myself. The story stated that one of the reasons was that the insurance companies were losing too much money on the wind mitigation credits - they were not getting enough money from premiums.
As it stands now wind mitigation credits are offered for strengthening roofs by reinforcing roof-towall connections, roof decking and attachments. Concrete slab roofs also yield mitigation credits. In addition, credits are also granted for preventing water intrusion with secondary water barrier protections. And lastly, protecting door and window openings with shutters, or providing impactresistant windows, also qualify for credits.
So why are the companies losing money on the credits?
I decided to research the issue. I came across a couple of articles on the internet that speak to the issue and can actually give us more details. The Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology, Windstorm Mitigation Committee Hearing Report (September 17) states that some counties are actually paying too little while others are paying too much. But then the report adds:
Florida Association of Insurance Agents Executive Vice President Scott Johnson provided testimony relating to agent issues. After his presentation, there was significant discussion regarding inspection fraud and that some agents may passively allow fraud to occur. Mr. Johnson recommended that policies should be adopted to give a policyholder "skin in the game" regarding verification of premium reductions. Dr. Nicholson noted that the system is "sick" and that there should be laws against tying financial incentives to wind inspections. Agents should not have business relationships with inspectors.
There is also an interesting article by Scott S. Koedel, CPA, president and COO of Don Meyler Inspections, Ensuring the accuracy of windstorm mitigation credits, where he argues:
As awareness of the windstorm mitigation inspection has increased, so has the sheer quantity of inspectors performing inspections, which now number in the thousands. This rapid growth has resulted in a widely varying level of quality control processes among inspection companies. While one company may … submit them to a quality control department run by a professional engineer, another may handwrite the inspecti on results on a paper form and leave it behind with the homeowner.
Koedel continues:
Unfortunately, fraud has become a topic of concern. Underwriters have reported numerous instances of inspectors not entering policyholders' homes or attics, an obvious prerequisite for a proper windstorm mitigation inspection. In the most examples of impropriety, doctoring of the mitigation inspection form has occurred.
In the article, he continues with what steps could be taken to rein in the inspectors.
So apparently, the problem is not the issue of the wind credits, but the fraud that is occurring with the inspections.
The other question which could be asked would be: Would the credits save insurance companies money if a hurricane were to occur?
If we go back to the September 17 report:
Applied Research Associates Chief Technical Officer Larry Twisdale continued his presentation on a loss relativity study from the previous Committee meeting. The study indicated that a well-mitigated building will reduce loss by 40-60 percent.
In conclusion, the problem that the insurance companies are losing money is not due to the mitigation credits when they are properly applied. A building which is properly built to the new building codes, and roofs which are either concrete or have the latest attachments and roof coverings, will reduce the losses that an insurance company will have to pay out should a hurricane hit the area.
So the solution to the problem should not be to raise premiums but to control who can sign off on wind mitigation credit forms.
Residents of the state should demand that inspectors hold a special license where they are liable, as any professional engineer, or architect, or general contractor would be. Or as an alternate, they must be licensed architects, professional engineers, or general contractors. The inspection for should be sent directly to the state by the professional. No leaving behind any forms for the homeowners to doctor or fill out. And, then we can demand that premiums remain the same and not be increased.
-
Posted by Maria Luisa Castellanos on October 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM under
0 comments
With the passing of columnist, William Safire, Peggy Noonan writes in Time Magazine this week, that he once told her, "Write what you see, because 'what history needs more of is first-person testimony'."
So this should serve as my first person testimony. I am going to write here about what I see is happening and what I think we should do about it. I will mainly talk about issues of architecture and construction and sometimes overflow into the local political scene.
I hope that you will leave me comments as well.
Enjoy,
Maria Luisa Castellanos, R.A.
-
Posted by Administrator on October 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM under
0 comments
This is the place to contact me and ask any questions you might have. No question is stupid and I am here to help you. Please feel free to leave any question you may have regarding architecture, construction, or the management of a construction project. I don't know everything, but I can be of help on many issues about which you may have questions. See frequently asked questions below.
-
Posted by Admin on December 28, 2005 at 2:00 AM under
0 comments
|
|