When Emelia Arencibia moved to Brickell Key in 2016, she believed her one-bedroom condo would be her last home. After the Surfside condo collapse in 2021, she faced a $47,000 assessment for building repairs and upgrades. She managed to secure a zero-interest loan and said the financing “saved my life, and saves a lot of people’s lives on this island.”
Now, Arencibia and other residents are facing another major expense: a planned $42 million replacement of the seawall that surrounds Brickell Key. The project is being led by the Brickell Key Master Association (BKMA), which is controlled by Swire Properties.
Brickell Key, once known as Claughton Island, began development in 1982 and includes 11 condominium buildings along with retail and office space. Swire Properties first invested in the island in the late 1970s.
According to a BKMA presentation from September 10, construction on the new seawall could begin in 2026. Nearly 3,000 unit owners may pay their share through lump sum payments or installments over several years. Depending on payment options chosen, costs range from about $3,581 for a small unit up to over $20,000 for larger condos.
Some owners claim Swire Properties’ U.S. arm is advancing the project now because it also plans to replace the seawall near its upcoming Mandarin Residences luxury development site. Although Swire only controls that property directly, it holds voting power over BKMA.
Earlier this year, presales at Mandarin Residences exceeded $1 billion; remaining units start at approximately $5 million. Swire has applied to demolish the current Mandarin hotel at 500 Brickell Key Drive via implosion—likely next year—before building two towers with residential and hotel units.
Six condo associations hired attorney Carl Goldfarb to communicate with BKMA and Swire about both the seawall replacement and baywalk renovation projects. In a September letter to owners, Goldfarb wrote: “This work conveniently coincides with the timing of Swire’s plans for development of the Residences at the Mandarin Oriental, even though the August 6, 2024 seawall inspection report commissioned by the BKMA concluded, ‘No immediate structural repairs are required at this time.’”
The August inspection found no significant settlement or notable deterioration compared to previous years but noted ongoing wear since inspections began in 2014 aside from repairs made in 2018.
A spokesperson for Swire stated that it has been transparent with residents and held more than ten town hall meetings recently.
The seawall must be maintained against severe flooding events per regulations; annual inspections are required. Some residents worry that demolition of existing structures and new construction could further impact an already aging seawall built in 1973. A geotechnical report completed earlier this year indicated vibrations from construction could affect the structure but expected damage would likely be cosmetic.
Swire intends to contribute roughly $8.4 million toward the project cost—about twenty percent—reflecting its responsibility for part of the seawall adjacent to its site; BKMA will cover costs for other portions. However, governing documents reportedly require only a minimal contribution from Swire due to its land holdings until after completion of its development project.
“Swire’s planned contribution ‘exceeds its pro-rata share according to the governing documents,’” said a company spokesperson.
Unit owners’ payments will be based on interior square footage plus half their balcony space. Collection may begin early next year; financing options are available through Banco Popular and BankUnited.
Disagreements over financial responsibility have extended beyond just seawall repairs. In 2015, Miami city officials amended an earlier order requiring Swire to develop—and maintain—a waterfront park open to public use as part of increased residential allowances on Brickell Key.
Resident Todd Worthe argued: “Swire agreed to maintain the public park in perpetuity,” yet maintenance costs have fallen on residents rather than Swire itself: “If we’re going to pay for it, shouldn’t it be privatized?”
Swire responded that neither city orders nor amendments require it to cover operating expenses for these parks.
For St. Louis and Isola buildings—which control their own sections of seawall but remain subject to BKMA covenants—BKMA General Manager Anna Brautigam suggested they join in on collective replacement efforts: “Choosing to replace their seawalls separately could present several challenges… both buildings stand to benefit greatly from being part of the larger project.”
Uncertainty remains among many residents regarding payment deadlines or amounts owed toward upcoming construction costs—a situation leaving some considering selling their homes if they cannot manage additional debt obligations.
“At the end of the day, I cannot pay the amount or ask for another loan,” Arencibia said. “I feel very insecure about it.”
