Biscayne Boulevard from the upper 50s to 79th Street has already arrived, except for the strip club. There are lots of restaurants, several of them excellent. A++ for The Blue Collar. Ni.Do. has wonderful Italian food. Balans is a standard. Michy's has clearly stood the test of time. I no longer eat there, though, because it's too expensive for too little food, and it's noisy and crowded. I would definitely skip the Indian place, Namaste, on the west side of the street. It's not at all good.
On 78th Street just east of Biscayne, where Ouzo's used to be, is a place called Big Fish. Excellent food, now downright classy and expanded, and a nice setting outside. It's not cheap, but it's not unreasonable for the high quality of the food. The fish is tasty, the recipes are most pleasing, and the side dishes and bread are fulfilling. I sort of forgot to blog this place, but Walter and Erica Pettis recently ate there, they loved it (they now intend to be regulars), and they suggested I get the word out. It's out. Go to Big Fish.
Around the corner on 79th Street, the gentrification continues. Liza Meli, who used to own Ouzo's, has now reopened the same kind of place on the north side of the street between Biscayne and NE 8th Avenue. She now calls herself BarMeli. Pretty much the same food, and why not, since it worked very well. Still the same friendly, if occasionally harried, service. And if Liza the knockout isn't there, Alexandra the other knockout is. Liza still features music, at least from time to time. I don't know if it's because this place is still a bit new, or if it's because it's Liza, but you never know quite what's on the entertainment menu. Liza was also planning to start one of her special evenings, which was to be on Thursdays. The deal was tasting the wine of the week or month, and whatever other wines she wanted to add to it, and "tapas" (every trendy place has to serve "tapas" nowadays) for $25. This program hadn't actually started by the end of her second week, but it may well have by now. There's always a reason to eat at whatever restaurant Liza owns. The only precaution this time is the lamb chops. In a word, don't. They're surprisingly tiny, and they're surprisingly expensive, for such little chops. They were also not particularly good. Get anything else on the menu, though. And Liza always makes sure she stocks excellent wine. Still the case. "Happy Hour" is 5-7, and you'll get wine for $5 a glass, or beer for $3 a glass.
A year or so ago, I was at one of the WDNA jazz concerts, and the caterer was Boteco's. They have restaurants on NE 79th Street (between 9th and 10th Avenues) and on South Beach. Their offerings were terrific, and for who knows what reason, I never got around to going to the actual restaurant. Until tonight. Boteco features music on some sort of schedule, and tonight, the performers were Rose Max and Ramatis. I've heard them twice before, and they're spectacular. She sings Brazilian jazz, and he, her husband, plays guitar. So that was enough to make tonight the night to try Boteco for real. I went with three other people, and we got "tapas," other appetizers, a Brazilian salad, and a bottle of wine. The food was exceptionally good. We got two kinds of chicken, one kind of fish (one chicken dish and the fish were croquettes), fried yuca, a black bean and bacon side dish, and the salad. I wanted one of their spicy jerked beef dishes, but they didn't have anything with jerked beef tonight. We also got a bottle of Malbec for $26. The food was perfect, and so was the wine. We never even got to regular entrees. The other thing that was perfect was Rose Max and Ramatis. Boteco also has a special all-you-can-eat menu for lunch on Sundays, and they have special menus for Thursday dinner and Saturday lunch. The Saturday all-you-can-eat lunch deal is feijoada. I haven't had feijoada from Boteco, yet, but if you don't know this dish, do yourself a favor. It's a Portuguese white bean and meat stew, more or less like Spanish fabada or French cassoulet. From what I tasted of their other dishes, I would put money on their feijoada. There are other promotions, too. You can find them online.
By the way, if you haven't been, check out Marky's Gourmet (Russian) Store. Remarkably good gourmet foods and ingredients, and the prices are actually good for this stuff. Marky's has been there for decades. The staff are amazingly helpful. Marky's is on the north side of 79th Street between about NE 7th and 8th Avenues.
PS: In a word, or two identical words, Tunky-Tunky. It's not on 79th Street. It's on Biscayne at 110th, where North 110 was. The menu is Peruvian, and the food is amazingly good. I did say amazingly, didn't I? Portions are generous, the service is practically a show of its own, if you like handsome and cut waiters, and the food is as tasty as the day is long. I don't know enough about Peruvian food to know if it's authentic, but it sure was good. The raw fish dish was spectacular, in substantial part because of the sauce. The prices were not at all bad, either.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
About the Placement of that Zaluski...
I can tell this story by naming names or by not naming names. I think it's easier to follow if I name names.
Last month, in Barbara Watts' absence, the Commission tasked the Manager to find a place for the Zaluski sculpture. We reminded the Manager, Heidi Shafran, that the last time this happened, the then Manager convened a joint seating of the Parks and Parkways, Planning and Zoning, and Ecology Boards, invited the "public" (a number of whom showed up to voice opinions), and received and accepted a conclusion as to where to place the first sculpture. It stands in Griffing Park. Heidi did in fact convene exactly such a joint Board, a few of us non-Board members came and opined, and the joint Board unanimously decided to assign the Zaluski to the same Griffing Park. I can confess, since it's not a secret, that Heidi hoped for placement in front of Village Hall, as did Chuck Ross, and I hoped for placement at the Recreation Center. But we got outvoted, so to speak, and Griffing Park it was. I think frankly that we are more satisfied with the process than we were disappointed that some of us didn't get what we wanted. After all, Chuck and Heidi and I didn't want Griffing Park, so that's three people, one of whom doesn't live in BP, and nine Board members did want Griffing Park.
Last night at the Commission meeting, Heidi presented the conclusion to the Commission for its affirmation, or perhaps just rubber stamp. In theory, of course, this was not necessary, since the Commission had already asked Heidi to solve a problem, or answer a question, and she did it. Case closed(?).
Barbara Watts was, by some estimations, fit to be tied. She didn't dislike the sculpture, or at least she seemed to suggest she didn't dislike it, but she disliked extremely the decision to place it in Griffing Park. She had a couple of reasons, the most relevant and salient of which was that the subject matter of the sculpture lent itself to the Recreation Center. You're preaching to the choir with me, there, Barbara. David Coviello similarly thought the piece was a natural for the Rec Center. Roxy Ross was a bit on the fence, feeling Village Hall was a charming spot for the piece, but noting the joint Board had made the statement it was asked to make. Bob Anderson liked Griffing Park, which he also suggested should be set aside as an "art park."
I've already said that I think we are in a special position to have and generously use and elevate resident Boards, and that my inclination would always be to act in accordance with what our Boards recommend, absent some overpowering reason to ask them to reconsider. Having a different opinion or different taste is not, in my opinion, an overpowering reason. So I said I agreed with Barbara and David, that the most natural-seeming placement, and the one I prefer, would be the Rec Center, but that the process by which (Griffing Park) placement was chosen had been perfect, and I would under no circumstances vote for anything but to affirm the joint Boards' conclusion.
At this point, Barbara turned to me and asked if I was saying that I would vote for the Boards' conclusion, even though I personally thought some other conclusion was better. Correct. Dave asked if I wouldn't rather urge a more "optimal" placement, which was roughly the same question as Barbara's. I pointed out that my opinion is not more "optimal" than the Boards'. It's just different. It's no more than my opinion. If opinions can be right or wrong, how do I know who's right and who's wrong? I had my reasons, and they had theirs. We all said what we thought.
I accepted being outvoted by our joint Boards. There were nine members. They all live here, just like I do. Some of them donated to prior sculptures, and some will most likely donate to the Zaluski. So they all care. They all agreed with each other. Now, I'm given an opportunity to out-muscle them, by invoking the power of the Commission, of which there are only five members, one of whom agrees with the joint Boards anyway. I would decline such an opportunity every time.
I'm very happy to report that Roxy and David changed their minds about the chance to set aside the conclusion of the joint Boards. Bob already agreed with the Boards. So four of us voted to support the opinions of nine of our neighbors, who are devoted members of our volunteer Boards. That's the way it should be. Unless it could be argued that it should have been all five of us.
Board members are chosen by the Commissions, and they are entrusted with a serious responsibility in Biscayne Park. As they are entrusted, they should be trusted. Some of us didn't get our way? Not exactly big news. I realize all of this sounds pedantic, and I'm sorry for that, but it's a point I made when I was running, and I will take every opportunity to reiterate and demonstrate it.
Last month, in Barbara Watts' absence, the Commission tasked the Manager to find a place for the Zaluski sculpture. We reminded the Manager, Heidi Shafran, that the last time this happened, the then Manager convened a joint seating of the Parks and Parkways, Planning and Zoning, and Ecology Boards, invited the "public" (a number of whom showed up to voice opinions), and received and accepted a conclusion as to where to place the first sculpture. It stands in Griffing Park. Heidi did in fact convene exactly such a joint Board, a few of us non-Board members came and opined, and the joint Board unanimously decided to assign the Zaluski to the same Griffing Park. I can confess, since it's not a secret, that Heidi hoped for placement in front of Village Hall, as did Chuck Ross, and I hoped for placement at the Recreation Center. But we got outvoted, so to speak, and Griffing Park it was. I think frankly that we are more satisfied with the process than we were disappointed that some of us didn't get what we wanted. After all, Chuck and Heidi and I didn't want Griffing Park, so that's three people, one of whom doesn't live in BP, and nine Board members did want Griffing Park.
Last night at the Commission meeting, Heidi presented the conclusion to the Commission for its affirmation, or perhaps just rubber stamp. In theory, of course, this was not necessary, since the Commission had already asked Heidi to solve a problem, or answer a question, and she did it. Case closed(?).
Barbara Watts was, by some estimations, fit to be tied. She didn't dislike the sculpture, or at least she seemed to suggest she didn't dislike it, but she disliked extremely the decision to place it in Griffing Park. She had a couple of reasons, the most relevant and salient of which was that the subject matter of the sculpture lent itself to the Recreation Center. You're preaching to the choir with me, there, Barbara. David Coviello similarly thought the piece was a natural for the Rec Center. Roxy Ross was a bit on the fence, feeling Village Hall was a charming spot for the piece, but noting the joint Board had made the statement it was asked to make. Bob Anderson liked Griffing Park, which he also suggested should be set aside as an "art park."
I've already said that I think we are in a special position to have and generously use and elevate resident Boards, and that my inclination would always be to act in accordance with what our Boards recommend, absent some overpowering reason to ask them to reconsider. Having a different opinion or different taste is not, in my opinion, an overpowering reason. So I said I agreed with Barbara and David, that the most natural-seeming placement, and the one I prefer, would be the Rec Center, but that the process by which (Griffing Park) placement was chosen had been perfect, and I would under no circumstances vote for anything but to affirm the joint Boards' conclusion.
At this point, Barbara turned to me and asked if I was saying that I would vote for the Boards' conclusion, even though I personally thought some other conclusion was better. Correct. Dave asked if I wouldn't rather urge a more "optimal" placement, which was roughly the same question as Barbara's. I pointed out that my opinion is not more "optimal" than the Boards'. It's just different. It's no more than my opinion. If opinions can be right or wrong, how do I know who's right and who's wrong? I had my reasons, and they had theirs. We all said what we thought.
I accepted being outvoted by our joint Boards. There were nine members. They all live here, just like I do. Some of them donated to prior sculptures, and some will most likely donate to the Zaluski. So they all care. They all agreed with each other. Now, I'm given an opportunity to out-muscle them, by invoking the power of the Commission, of which there are only five members, one of whom agrees with the joint Boards anyway. I would decline such an opportunity every time.
I'm very happy to report that Roxy and David changed their minds about the chance to set aside the conclusion of the joint Boards. Bob already agreed with the Boards. So four of us voted to support the opinions of nine of our neighbors, who are devoted members of our volunteer Boards. That's the way it should be. Unless it could be argued that it should have been all five of us.
Board members are chosen by the Commissions, and they are entrusted with a serious responsibility in Biscayne Park. As they are entrusted, they should be trusted. Some of us didn't get our way? Not exactly big news. I realize all of this sounds pedantic, and I'm sorry for that, but it's a point I made when I was running, and I will take every opportunity to reiterate and demonstrate it.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
We Failed. Commission Meeting, 2/4/14.
The meeting started precisely on time, and the room was nearly full. It got more full as time went by. It was a very satisfying sight.
A road engineer named Ekri Suarez presented the State's plan to resurface 6th Avenue. Suarez brought two colleagues with him, though they mostly weren't needed, and he congratulated himself on finishing his presentation in 10 minutes. Little did he realize, however, that it wasn't going to be that simple. He explained in some detail why the project would not include installing sidewalks along 6th Avenue, and the reason was simply that very few people cross that street, at least not during a certain Tuesday and a certain Thursday in September last year. And to make it more clear, no one even got killed there. So what do we need sidewalks for? He added a half a dozen other irrelevant reasons, but no pedestrian traffic, or even an attention-grabbing death, was the real reason. This was the reason we're not getting crosswalks, either. Roxy Ross and Harvey Bilt tried to explain to Mr Suarez that the reason there is so little pedestrian traffic along or crossing 6th Avenue is precisely because there are no sidewalks or crosswalks (Harvey said we "would have to be crazy" to walk along 6th Avenue as it is), but Mr Suarez either didn't get it, or it just wasn't what he wanted to hear. He did tell us we could ask the State to install crosswalks, at least, but he sort of reassured us we're not going to get them, for the aforementioned reason(s). This discussion took much more time than it should have, what with all Mr Suarez's pussyfooting about our not getting sidewalks and crosswalks.
The Consent Agenda passed quickly.
There was a lively discussion about annexation. Several of our neighbors expressed opinions about whether we should or we shouldn't, and who should decide. One of our neighbors thought we shouldn't, and that the decision should reflect the opinions of Village residents at large. All other neighbors agreed we should, we should annex as much as we can, and then maybe more, and that the Commission should decide. Three Commissioners thought we should annex as much as we can, one thought we should annex the small piece only, and one didn't want to annex anything at all. The vote to apply for the larger tract was met with vigorous applause from the audience.
There was also a surprising amount of discussion regarding the structure of our Boards, and of adding a new one: a Public Art Advisory Board. In the end, we agreed to make some changes in how our Board members are chosen, and to add the Art Board.
We're moving ahead with plans to landscape our entry: both sides of the bridge. Parks and Parkways has devised a plan, and the Commission was fully supportive. Roxy Ross' MLK Day of Service wound up raising just over $1000, and this will enhance the money we were planning to earmark for the landscaping. The result should be very pleasing.
Bob Anderson thinks we should have an "Art Park," as they do in Chattanooga (Bob and Janey love Chattanooga), and he'd like to see it be Griffing Park. This is where we already have one sculpture on display, and it's where a combined Board decided to display Zaluski's "Ballplayer." Whether the Lorenson we're expecting will go there remains to be seen, but I have a suspicion it will. Bob says in Chattanooga, the art is for sale (neither Chattanooga nor anyone who lives there had to buy it to get it to be there), and he'd like to see us make a similar offer to artists. Manny Espinoza and I were thinking alike: how about if we charge successful artists a fee or commission of some sort, if they make sales. Instead of our buying art from them, they're buying "gallery" space from us. And we get a nice display in the meantime. That Manny, he's got a good head for business.
In a related vein, Dave Coviello wants us to "market" ourselves. He's looking for us to develop a brand of some sort. It could involve art, or it could involve something else. Homes, trees, birds, or who knows what. It's on the table for continued discussion and consideration. He's looking for a motto, too. If you have any ideas, leave a comment in this blog, or write to Dave at dcoviello@biscayneparkfl.gov.
We may be on the hunt for grants. Barbara Watts got wind of one or two, so we'll pursue.
I already told you about where the Zaluski is going, and that's it. Everyone, more or less, was happy.
The problem is that all of this took us until about 10:50, which is way over the limit. We did not succeed in keeping the meeting to two hours. Next time.
A road engineer named Ekri Suarez presented the State's plan to resurface 6th Avenue. Suarez brought two colleagues with him, though they mostly weren't needed, and he congratulated himself on finishing his presentation in 10 minutes. Little did he realize, however, that it wasn't going to be that simple. He explained in some detail why the project would not include installing sidewalks along 6th Avenue, and the reason was simply that very few people cross that street, at least not during a certain Tuesday and a certain Thursday in September last year. And to make it more clear, no one even got killed there. So what do we need sidewalks for? He added a half a dozen other irrelevant reasons, but no pedestrian traffic, or even an attention-grabbing death, was the real reason. This was the reason we're not getting crosswalks, either. Roxy Ross and Harvey Bilt tried to explain to Mr Suarez that the reason there is so little pedestrian traffic along or crossing 6th Avenue is precisely because there are no sidewalks or crosswalks (Harvey said we "would have to be crazy" to walk along 6th Avenue as it is), but Mr Suarez either didn't get it, or it just wasn't what he wanted to hear. He did tell us we could ask the State to install crosswalks, at least, but he sort of reassured us we're not going to get them, for the aforementioned reason(s). This discussion took much more time than it should have, what with all Mr Suarez's pussyfooting about our not getting sidewalks and crosswalks.
The Consent Agenda passed quickly.
There was a lively discussion about annexation. Several of our neighbors expressed opinions about whether we should or we shouldn't, and who should decide. One of our neighbors thought we shouldn't, and that the decision should reflect the opinions of Village residents at large. All other neighbors agreed we should, we should annex as much as we can, and then maybe more, and that the Commission should decide. Three Commissioners thought we should annex as much as we can, one thought we should annex the small piece only, and one didn't want to annex anything at all. The vote to apply for the larger tract was met with vigorous applause from the audience.
There was also a surprising amount of discussion regarding the structure of our Boards, and of adding a new one: a Public Art Advisory Board. In the end, we agreed to make some changes in how our Board members are chosen, and to add the Art Board.
We're moving ahead with plans to landscape our entry: both sides of the bridge. Parks and Parkways has devised a plan, and the Commission was fully supportive. Roxy Ross' MLK Day of Service wound up raising just over $1000, and this will enhance the money we were planning to earmark for the landscaping. The result should be very pleasing.
Bob Anderson thinks we should have an "Art Park," as they do in Chattanooga (Bob and Janey love Chattanooga), and he'd like to see it be Griffing Park. This is where we already have one sculpture on display, and it's where a combined Board decided to display Zaluski's "Ballplayer." Whether the Lorenson we're expecting will go there remains to be seen, but I have a suspicion it will. Bob says in Chattanooga, the art is for sale (neither Chattanooga nor anyone who lives there had to buy it to get it to be there), and he'd like to see us make a similar offer to artists. Manny Espinoza and I were thinking alike: how about if we charge successful artists a fee or commission of some sort, if they make sales. Instead of our buying art from them, they're buying "gallery" space from us. And we get a nice display in the meantime. That Manny, he's got a good head for business.
In a related vein, Dave Coviello wants us to "market" ourselves. He's looking for us to develop a brand of some sort. It could involve art, or it could involve something else. Homes, trees, birds, or who knows what. It's on the table for continued discussion and consideration. He's looking for a motto, too. If you have any ideas, leave a comment in this blog, or write to Dave at dcoviello@biscayneparkfl.gov.
We may be on the hunt for grants. Barbara Watts got wind of one or two, so we'll pursue.
I already told you about where the Zaluski is going, and that's it. Everyone, more or less, was happy.
The problem is that all of this took us until about 10:50, which is way over the limit. We did not succeed in keeping the meeting to two hours. Next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)