St. Pete Pier redevelopment

[John F]

(Sorry if there is already a thread, please merge if that's the case)

The St. Pete Chamber of Commerce is looking for feedback on the plans that they have in a PDF file online:
http://www.stpete.org/news/the_pier/...2010_01_19.pdf

They asked for the feedback through twitter.

[tampamobster21]

I think that Option 3 is the best overall plan for the pier and Option 3 for the Upland area.

[TampaMike]

There was some discussion in the St. Pete Development thread, but not a official thread for this.

I think I picked Option 3 for the Pier and none that was existed in the new selection for the Uplands. I just don't see the need for more park space along the water. Option 1 has too much park space and will do nothing for the city. Option 2 has too much land covered by parking lots and too few buildings that could go along the water filled with restaurants and retail. And I don't know what is going on with Option 3. Why construct ponds/lakes when you have water all around you? All three options lack what that area needs. Parking garage, retail, restaurants, maybe a hotel. Things that will keep people in the area for a long time. Do you think park space will do that?

[Jahi98]

Upland Option 2 is the best one out of the ones presented, assuming those are parking garages and there's ground floor retail in them.

[TampaMike]

Originally Posted by Jahi98

Upland Option 3 is the best one out of the ones presented, assuming there's ground floor retail in those parking garages.

Where do you see parking garages in Option 3? There's only one area for parking and that's a parking lot. Which will likely be filled up with people using the docks or visiting the museum. They could easily build something 10x better than what Baywalk is today on this site. Instead, they want to add lakes, parking lots, and circles. Who hired these people?

[Jahi98]

I meant Option 2. I'll revise my post.

[TampaMike]

Originally Posted by Jahi98

I meant Option 2. I'll revise my post.

No problem man. Although I'm betting its just parking lots and not parking garages.

I wish there were video archives of these public meetings so I could see how many of the people that joined were against any retail and in favor of the green space. Its not that I'm against green space, but the whole waterfront has enough already. From Vinoy to Albert Whitted is basically covered with parks. Is it neccesary that this needs to be a park as well?

[I-275westcoastfl]

Is it bad I'm already losing hope in the new Pier? I don't get it either what the hell is the point of having lakes with land surrounded by water? It seems they won't really make it much different than the current one except for making it look nicer. If that's the case just let the thing fall into the bay.

[John F]

They need to think outside the box -- or scrap the pier entirely. Be different, not the same.

[sam06pr]

I like the navy pier....It looks awesome...


Also I went to St Pete and saw lot of dead fish, rays and turtles...what gives???

[TampaGuy]

Originally Posted by sam06pr

I like the navy pier....It looks awesome...


Also I went to St Pete and saw lot of dead fish, rays and turtles...what gives???

Cold weather maybe, if it gets below a certain temperature, they can be paralyzed

[John F]

Cold weather indeed led to a huge number of fish and sealife kills. There are stories all over the local papers about that

[Jasonhouse]

^Killed many of the bugs and lizards too. I don't know when, but at some point during the spring or summer, we're going to be miserable with the bug explosion.

As far as the pier... I think they use it to it highest and maximum use... So, whatever conceptual option results in the most expected potential annual revenue in terms of business done there, and taxes raised for the city, that is what they should do.

[I-275westcoastfl]

I agree.

[TampaMike]

St. Petersburg will look for more money in remodeling of the Pier
By Michael Van Sickler, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Monday, March 15, 2010

ST. PETERSBURG — The $50 million the city has available to remake the Pier won't be enough.

Newly released cost estimates for each of the six options under consideration exceed the money earmarked for the project.

The cheapest proposal, being called Option 6, places the Pier building on shore. It's the most radical departure from the current Pier design. Its estimate is $11 million below the next-cheapest proposal.

Still, even that option will cost $9 million more than county and city officials have made available in 2012 for a Pier overhaul.

The shortfall already has city officials scrambling.

Will Michaels, the president of Council of Neighborhood Associations who sits on the task force, said Mayor Bill Foster told him he will make finding more money for the Pier a top priority.

"(Foster) said the project was of such great importance that it was vital to find more money beyond the $50 million," Michaels said Friday. "He said we should do this right and not have a second-class operation at the Pier because of limited resources."

Foster couldn't be reached, but it's not clear where that money might come from, especially after Foster got into something of a spat last month with County Administrator Bob LaSala over how to spend the $50 million for the Pier.

If the council doesn't choose Option 6, then Foster will have to find a lot more money.

The most expensive to build? That would be Option 5, which would include a new building and a shorter but wider approach. It's estimated to cost about $92 million, 84 percent more than what is currently set aside.

Calculations were made to help the 20-member task force, which was formed last year to guide the council to decide how to best rebuild the city's landmark.

City staffers worked with the Miami engineering firm Bermello Ajamil & Partners to estimate what it would cost to build, engineer and design all six options the task force is now considering. They are not, however, precise estimates. Chris Ballestra, director of Downtown Enterprise Facilities, said the estimates were based on assuming that each concept will have the same number of square feet as the current Pier.

That obviously won't be the case. Ballestra said they wanted to "compare apples to apples" at this stage, and therefore used the same square footage in establishing what each concept would cost. Options 4, 5 and 6, Ballestra said, would be smaller, so the cost estimates are higher than what they might cost.

Just as important as the capital cost estimates are the operating cost estimates, which the task force also received.

Again, Option 6 is the cheapest. Because the actual Pier would be much smaller than with other options, maintenance, security and transportation costs would drop.

Overall, operating expenses, over the 40-year lifespan of the project, would be about $15 million to $40 million less than with other options.

With such low cost estimates in an era of shrinking government revenue, No. 6 has emerged as an early favorite. On Friday, the task force will meet and could narrow the choices down from six to three.

"It's early, but Option 6 has pulled ahead," said Ed Montanari, an airline pilot who is the task force's vice chairman. "From a purely financial standpoint, it's a favorite. I can't say that about any other option."

But Montanari and other task force members warned that placing too much emphasis on cost might be a mistake. Other variables, such as building a structure that will last and be iconic, must be considered.

"Cost is important, but it's more important that we do it right," said Randy Wedding, an architect and the task force chair. "My concern is whatever we do, it has to have a long lifespan and we don't have to revisit in 15 years because it is failing."

Michaels said the design committee that he sits on for the task force is already leaning toward options 3, 5 and 6.

Option 3 widens the approach to the pier, allowing more activity to take place and generating more revenue for the project, while keeping the building where it is. Option 5 may be the most expensive to build, but Michaels said its big advantage is that it shortens the time it takes to walk to the Pier.

After Friday's task force meeting, Ballestra said there's a workshop planned with the City Council on April 29. In the third week of May, the council will get a final presentation in what promises to be well attended.

"My mind is open on this," Michaels said. "I'm nowhere near making a final decision on this."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgo...e-pier/1079861

[TampaMike]

Inverted pyramid at The Pier in St. Petersburg headed for wrecking ball
By Michael Van Sickler, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Thursday, August 19, 2010

ST. PETERSBURG — For nearly four decades, the Pier's inverted pyramid has served as the city's instantly recognizable landmark.

In a Wednesday workshop that lasted less than two hours, the City Council endorsed Mayor Bill Foster's recommendation to demolish the icon and start from scratch.

"Now we get to rebrand our trademark for the next 100 years," Foster said. "Or 50 years. We won't be around. That's a pretty awesome responsibility."

Foster coaxed the decision from a council that has been hesitant to make a call on what to do with $50 million that will be made available to overhaul the Pier, which is entering its latest chapter in redevelopment.

The city opened the Mediterranean-style Million Dollar Pier in 1926, but demolished it in 1967 when it slid into disrepair. The exotic and some say funky upside down pyramid pier opened in 1973, but its condition has declined. For more than a year, a task force has discussed options, but didn't narrow down what to do next.

On Wednesday, Foster described the indecision as "analysis-paralysis." He pushed council members to support his recommendation not just for scrapping the existing building, but its base, too. He said the Pier needs to come closer to shore.

While the council voted in a straw poll 5-3 to support the demolition, it's not binding or official. But it does indicate, for the first time, the direction council wants to take.

Not all council members supported the decision.

"Underwhelming" is how Bill Dudley described it. He said the residents he has talked to told him they want to keep the Pier as is.

"St. Louis didn't decide the (Gateway) Arch was too old and they were going to replace it," Dudley said. "The idea of that pyramid, it's very identifiable, people recognize it. I don't like reinventing the wheel."

Wengay Newton, who described his own emotional attachment to the design, said the Pier shouldn't be changed either.

"Not only is the Pier historic, it is St. Pete," Newton said. "We have a pier that the world recognizes. I think with $50 million, we can go in there and renovate that building, make it more cost efficient."

But Foster convinced other council members it was time to do away with the upside down design.

"Everyone I've talked to said it's a waste of money to spend $50 million on what we have now," said Council Chairwoman Leslie Curran.

"I'm as strong a preservationist as anyone," said Jeff Danner. "But preservation has chapters. The Pier's history is in its location."

Council member Jim Kennedy wanted to salvage the Pier's base because he thinks it can still be used for several more years. Studies have shown that the concrete pilings under the base of the Pier and the approach have been degraded and are increasingly unstable.

Because of that, he didn't join Curran, Danner, Herb Polson, Steve Kornell and Karl Nurse in voting to support demolishing the Pier and to bring it closer to shore with a new base and approach. They all ruled out building it on land.

The city will next draft a request for qualifications that will be sent to engineering and architectural firms from around the world. Bids are scheduled to come back to the city next summer, when three to six firms will be chosen as finalists for a design competition.

The winner will design the new pier by 2012.

After the meeting, Foster said the inverted pyramid will hardly be missed.

"People still talk about the Million Dollar Pier," Foster said. "My parents still talk about it. I'm not sure in 30 years people will miss the inverted pyramid."

Word of the vote spread quickly to the Pier on Wednesday, where parking attendants waited for long stretches between customers as a stiff breeze offset 95-degree heat. Inside, shoppers barely outnumbered employees.

Rameh Baydoun scowled from behind the counter of Burger Bay, the first-floor restaurant he has maintained for 23 years, when told of the council's decision.

"We don't see locals here anyway," said Baydoun, 51. "Zero."

Uncertainty has spread through the building in recent months.

"It seems like everyone is asking us what's going on, and we don't know ourselves," said Rebecca Holdick, 28, an employee of the Pier Aquarium.

"I've heard a lot of people disappointed thinking it won't be here anymore," she added.

Danny Lopez, her co-worker, said local residents do swing by before or after Rays games. But he worries that could stop as long as its demise looms.

"They're going to stop showing up," said Lopez, 31.

Talk of the Pier's closing already has hurt business, said Nathaniel Pyle, who manages the Pier Winery.

"People think it's already closed," he said.

Even after the city rebuilds, Baydoun said he will not be back.

"I don't want to start from scratch again," he said.

Ditching the Pier's distinct look may prove costly, said Will Michaels, who sat on the task force and is the former president of St. Petersburg Preservation.

"My first preference was to save the building," said Michaels, who is president of the Council of Neighborhood Associations of South Pinellas County. "It's the city's logo. It's become the brand of our community. But each pier building represents a generation. So maybe there's a new look that will reflect St. Petersburg's heritage and past, while also representing its future."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busines...g-ball/1115988

[CubanBread]

Is foster even from St. Pete? I can remember my dad talking about the pier when I was growing up,... It is a landmark for that city. I'm usually all for bigger and better projects but I have to be honest I'm a little disappointed to hear they are going to demolish it soon.

[TampaMike]

It may be iconic for St. Pete and for some in the Tampa Bay area, but its seriously not iconic outside the Tampa Bay area or even recognizable. It would probably take you 750 people in Chicago to finally find someone that can recognize a pic of the Pier and say it's in St. Petersburg. The Space Needle is easily recognizable, same with the Arch in St. Louis and Golden Gate Bridge in SanFran, The Pier isn't.

I'm not native to the Tampa Bay area, but I can't really say it would change my mind any way.The pier before it lasted around the same length as this one, so hopefully something else can be built that can stay for 80 years or so.

[Jahi98]

The pier is recognizeable, but I wouldn't call it iconic. It's quite dated, IMO, and doesn't vibe well with the current look of downtown. I'm glad it will get torn down, and hopefully replaced with a more timeless structure.

[DShenise]

Its as dated as any other mid century modern architecture. The only difference is some places embrace the past as well as look forward to the future, while St.Pete craps on its past, builds faux monuments of designs that never really existed in the past and insists that the future doesn't apply to them so they don't have to worry about changing.

The biggest problems with the pier in its current form is they allowed those cubes to be built adjacent to the main structure in the eighties. They distract from the original form and junk up the presentation.