What happens when a historic church sits on land reportedly worth around $240 million, a global luxury brand wants to build 75 stories on it, and the neighbors just 160 feet away want a seat at the table?
Welcome to real estate in Miami.
The proposed Nobu development at First Presbyterian Church of Miami has fascinated me from the beginning. But now Icon Brickell Tower II has become part of the story, and for me, that makes it personal.
I’ve sold at Icon II and have clients there. When they purchased, we carefully studied the surrounding parcels, sight lines and future development potential. Fortunately, I don’t believe their particular views would be blocked.
But Icon II is only about 160 feet from the church property.
And its owners wanted a voice.
First Presbyterian was historically designated in 2003. In 2024, portions of the property were removed from historic protection while the sanctuary remained protected, opening the door for redevelopment.
Enter Nobu: a proposed 75-story, 296-residence branded tower.
The reported economics? Approximately $240 million in potential value to the church and more than $1 billion in reservations already reported for the project.
Icon II challenged the preservation process after initially being denied standing to intervene.
Then came the court.
In July, the matter was sent back for a new public, on-the-record preservation hearing.
The Nobu project wasn’t killed.
But Icon got its seat at the table.
There’s another reason I’m watching closely. Branded residences are the subject of my doctoral dissertation research, so seeing Nobu at the center of a case involving development rights, preservation and neighboring property values is fascinating to me.
It all comes back to a phrase we use constantly:
Highest and best use.
But best for whom?
The landowner? The developer? The church? The congregation? The neighbors? The city?
And here is where I would love to hear from my readers:
How much say SHOULD neighboring property owners have over what gets built on land they don’t own?
If you had a seat at this table, where would you draw the line between a property owner’s right to develop and a neighbor’s right to have a voice?