'Lens' Picked as Top Pier Design
The Pier jury ranked the final three, with the top choice "The Lens," followed by "The Wave" and then "The Eye." The City Council will vote on its choice Feb. 2.
After more than four years of deliberations and an international competition, the St. Petersburg Pier jury ranked "The Lens" as its top design choice.
Friday morning at City Hall, the five-member jury ranked the piers:
1. "The Lens";
2. "The Wave";
3. "The Eye."
City staff said negotiations with Michael Maltzan Architecture would begin almost immediately.
According to the jury, some of the benefits of "The Lens" design over the other proposals included the anticipated low public subsidy and the design’s flexibility.
Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch, a jury member, noted that “'The Lens' is just an extension of our waterfront and our parks and trail system. It’s different than what the Pier has been.
"The Lens" pier design is "best for affordability, attractive for local residents and has lower subsidy,” Welch added. “That’s why I ranked it at the top of my list.”
Many parts of "The Lens" can be built incrementally, with the public having input at each step.
“There (are) enormous opportunities to have a constant engagement with the public with what 'The Lens' will become over time,” said Pier jury member James Moore.
“The fundamental question is: Are we prepared to change the functionality of the Pier to have this path versus a single destination?” Welch asked.
Pier jury members noted that the current Pier as a “destination” has not generated enough revenue over the years to offset costs.
Councilor Leslie Curran agreed with "The Lens" as the top choice but argued that the Pier’s functionality is not changing.
“I don’t think we are losing a destination or changing the functionality,” Curran said. “It will be a destination.”
Earlier this week, the Council of Neighborhood Associations gave its recommendations for the Pier. "The Lens" had the most positive comments in its report.
From those that responded to the city, those in favor of the new Pier swayed heavily toward "The Lens," the city said.
The city has $45 million for phase one.
In Michael Maltzan Architecture's original proposal for "The Lens":
- What you get for $44.9 million
- Above-water dive.
- Above-water pedestrian bridge.
- Pier promontory.
- Elevator Tower.
- Balconies.
- Lens canopy.
- Underwater reef.
- Marina/Dock.
- What you get for an additional $95.5 million
- Amphitheater ($36.6 million).
- Welcome mat, which includes enhanced lighting, landscaping, retaining walls and water feature ($8.9 million).
- Civic loop & civic green, which includes a community garden ($11.8 million).
- Water park ($17.9 million).
- Hub, which includes a broadcast studio, enhanced landscaping and a pavillion ($10.7 million).
- Energy Flotilla, which includes concrete bath tubs and an island with 30 wind turbines. ($9.6 million).
"The Wave" for many, including Welch, was at the top at first, but concerns grew about cost and programming.
Pier jury member Moore said "The Wave" is “very much, here it is. Take it or leave it,” he said.
According to city staff, "The Wave" had the highest subsidy, though still lower than the current Pier. There were also a lot of unknowns with "The Wave"’s programming.
“I love 'The Wave,' ” said Curran. “That is just the most incredible piece of architecture when you really look at it.”
Other concerns about "The Wave" were the lack of downtown views from the structure, other than the rooftop viewing point. Jury members also did not believe the public would swim off "The Wave."
Before the jury took its final vote, it was clear "The Lens" and "The Wave" were the only two designs realistically under consideration.
“Anyone want to talk about the Eye?” Curran asked, which was followed by laughter in the audience.
“None of us favor that,” answered jury member Susan Fainstein.
What’s Next?
While the jury has made the decision to negotiate with Michael Maltzan Architecture the details moving forward are far from ironed out.
On Thursday, Jan. 26, the Council will host a workshop to discuss the Pier jury’s decision. The following week, on Feb. 2, city staff is set to recommend approval of the jury’s report, which includes the pier rankings.
A second reading of the Pier selection is scheduled for Feb. 16.
At both the Feb. 2 and 16 meetings, the public will have an opportunity to express its opinions on the jury’s selection. Public comment is not allowed during the workshop.
The workshop will include discussions of the design input process, the demolition, scaling down the budget, the schedule, helpin current tenants of the Pier and phasing out the existing pier.
For Welch, getting public participation on the project is of the most importance.
“I do have a ranking, but after we end our duties (as a member of the Pier jury) I’ll still be here as a resident and taxpayer,” Welch said. “I don’t think that these three are the totalities of options out there.”
Curran said the public has had ample opportunities to comment to this point.
“This started in 2007,” Curran said. “I’ve read every single comment. I received every email, received phone calls. (The Pier) is on the minds of the majority of people in St. Petersburg.
“We need to let them to know that once this selection is made, they are the net step. We have to engage the public,” Curran said.
Pier jury member Stanley Saitowitz said, “budgetary issues are strengthening the process,” he said. “Refinements are going to take place. I think we have to pick something today.
“There are a million possibilities,” Saitowitz said of getting more input on pier designs. “We could start again and again every day.”
While the process going forward was not unanimous, the rankings were. "The Lens" will be voted on by the Council on Feb. 2.
“You are shaping … the brand for the St. Pete for the next 50 – 75 years,” Mayor Bill Foster told the Pier jury. “You know what (the Pier) means to the citizens of St. Petersburg. Now the fun begins.”
Bob Andelman
1:05 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
Seriously, they recommended that? Of course, I think all three proposals are pie-in-the-sky fantasies. I agree The Pier is tired and needs to be replaced. But is there really a consensus in the city that this is it? And that residents and tourists will attend this architectural boondoggle than spend the day at the beach 15 minutes away? Or that the final cost will be even close to the budgeted amount? (Which is, apparently, only one-third of the total price to get the full Lens.) Dream on and get serious. Toss all three designs and start over with new architects who can come up with something compatible the city as it is, not the way it will be when The Jetsons spend their winters here.
Bob Wilson
1:29 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
The sad fact is that most people didn't like any of these choices, they should have gone back to the drawing board with this instead of picking the least objectionable design. I want to know where they think the extra $95.5 million to finish this plan is coming from, that's more than double the first phase cost and they didn't even guess at where the budget for that is going to come from!
CJ
2:05 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
exactly
Scott Bitterli
2:29 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
The additional phases will have a high cost, but also a high impact to the improvement of the area.
The citizens also recently voted for the creation of a comprehensive waterfront masterplan. The additional phases is a great start to that.
CJ
2:03 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
There was no mention of the opinion that the existing pier should have been renovated. Until the economy shows solidly that it is improving, projects like this need to be tabled. Even after the economy takes a positive turn, it will be a long while to be anywhere near as strong as it was. That is a long time away. Renovation would have been enough for now. Improvemenst in security along the shore from the pier to the downtown area are key to ''anything'' having success in that area. Without that, all plans will fail and be a waste of money. I still like the pier the way it is now. Most people I talk to agree. But, we want it to be safer. Why is that viewpoint being ignored?
Cindy Wenzelburger
2:14 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
I would have to agree. All three are pie-in-the-sky concepts. I would suggest requesting realistic designs from additional firms prior to a final decision. And on a similar note, I am very disturbed at the Mayors "idea" of closing the pier October 1.
CJ
2:34 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
..yes..and both stories on the same day..can you believe that?
CJ
2:53 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
We are new here. To us ''newbies'', our obsevation is that the goal is to have a waterfront area similar in success to what Tampa has. That would be nice to see in St Pete. I can see that being a genuine possibility. Imagine the St Pete Bayfront be virtually equal to the Tampa Bayfront and non-stop water shuttles going back and forth between the two. It would be fantastic to see that happen in the stretch of waterfront from south of The Dali and north to the Pier and beyond. I think I read that Tampa claims to have the ''world's longest continuous waterfront sidewalk''..or something like that. Why can't St Pete maybe have the 2nd longest? As I said, that is just an obsevation of ours since we moved here. Compared to where we moved from, St Pete is sheer paradise..even with The Pier just the way it is. We love it all. It is hard for us to believe we now live where others go for vacation. We can't stop pinching ourselves to make sure this is not a dream.
w
11:59 am on Saturday, January 21, 2012
Have you actually been to both waterfronts? There is absolutely no comparison. I do not think anyone in their right might would try to argue that the Tampa waterfront is anything remotely close to downtown St. Pete and the adjacent waterfront park system which is one of the largest in the US.
Tampa is a great example of how to waste a waterfront, IMHO. Take Bayshore Blvd. It is a very busy 4 lane road with only a couple feet of sidewalk carved off for public enjoyment! So lets see.... I can jog though a dozen parks along the waterfront from Coffee Pot to Albert Whitted, or I can squeeze in on the sidewalk on Bayshore and listen to cars honking while inhaling exhaust. Beach Drive, by the same token, has no parallel. To spite the name "Channelside", there is no water to be enjoyed there.
CJ
12:18 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
B---I stand corrected. After I wrote that I reflected on my short visits to both areas and realized I may not have had any idea of what i was talking about. I then looked at each area from google maps..and I saw that my comment was prety silly. I said I was new here..and I mean ''very'' new. I am still practically a tourist..so go ahead and laugh your head off at me. I deserve it this time. My comments about the need to make a ''sincere'' and ''permanent'' improvement to the security of the area are true, though. If people don't feel completely safe...they could put a Disneyland down there and people will stay away. I am just trying to find my place in the city to lend support, and I am feeling my way along and making some mistakes. When I see things like that shopping area near the bay obviously struggling (understatement) , the talk about closing the Pier due to buget issues, and I see with my own eyes that the entire area down there feels a bit unsafe...It pains me...because there is so much to offer along the bay. It is no wonder many people just settle for going to the beaches instead. In our short time here, our family has had a couple scares security wise over by the bay area...and even we are ''already'' practically going to the beach areas exclusively. You are right, though...the St Pete bay area will never be like the Tampa one..but I like them both.
Jonathan Kind
5:11 pm on Friday, January 20, 2012
I'm a relative newbie who has lived in many cities in both America and Europe. Imho, all of these designs are awesome and easily trump the 70's era, crumbling thing we have now. Sure they are pie in the sky. That is what designers do, they dream. Models always get scaled back to reality and as Stanley said, budgetary constraints will help refine the design to match local opinion even more. Its part of any design process.
I chose @StPeteFl over Geneva, NYC, San Diego, San Fran, Sofia -BG, Denver and others as a place to put down roots because I applaud everything the jury has done, all the council people, and the people who live here. The televised debate today was great. For me it showed how much thought and effort is put into these things. Its not easy to please everyone. I wonder if we would have central park in NYC today if Robert Mosses had to handle the public as today's elected officials and technocrats do. I looked forward to the continued improvement. The artistic, holistic, environmental and global fashion, panache and guts with which this city has always tried to achieve.
Edith
3:21 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
When the Patch article of 11/30/11 initially revealed the proposed designs for the pier, the public reaction was that of disapproval. On 12/4/11, Gene "Doc" Webb's article suggested that residents push for a pier referendum. It also stated that a poll of 2,149 registered voters overwhelmingly agreed that the question should be put on the ballot. We were given an opportunity to vote for our choice of designs on 12/7/11, and, of the 486 votes, "the one that's there now" was the clear winner! We were advised that (and I quote), "The results will be used by the jury when it makes its final recommendation for the Pier, which is scheduled for January 2012." On 1/19/12 we learned that CONA (Council of Neighborhood Associations) had voted for the Lens--totally ignoring the voice of the people. As of today, the consensus still leans toward keeping the present structure rather than accepting any of the proposed plans for revision of the Pier. Will the final vote reflect what the people have been saying all along or will the committee members decide that this exorbitant amount of money can be spent on something the majority does not want?
CJ
6:34 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
I agree, Edith. I believe I read that money has been spent on this idea of improving The Pier since 2005. In 2005, the economy was still quite good. I can only imagine how much money has been spent since 2005. Enought that if it had been spent on renovation of the exisiting pier, that it woud be looking very good by now and the work would also be already completed. It is not too late for CONA to do the smart thing. With the economy ''still'' being such an unknown that few foresaw would last this long, it is not a wise risk for the huge expense of any of the 3 new plans...''The Lens'' or otherwise. Unfortunately, even spending the money for renovating the existing pier is also a risky expense..but seems like what should be done for now. The crime issues of the area make anything down there hard to succeed and there does not look like that is going to change. It will get worse before it gets better, I think is the old saying. The only way you can sefely do things down there is to drive from venue to venue, instead of simply parking your car one time and walking everywhere. If you put in a ''long full day'' in that area and find yourself in a situation where you have a ''long walk'' back to your car in the dark...it is not a good situation to be in.
Catherine
3:48 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
Since moving to Saint Petersburg in 1990 I have NEVER liked the design of the Pier; however, this city is not in a position to be spending the massive dollar amount at this time to totally renovate with a new design. Rather than rebuild and entire new Pier at this time, it's simply common sense to fix that which is broken with the structure. In the future when our city has a much more healthy budget, at that time knock down and rebuild an entirely new structure. We can use the money at this time to hire more police and take care of other budgetary matters.
CJ
12:49 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Exactly..well put!
Even having ''more'' busineeses, offices, restaurants, shops, entertainment, open and up and running during entertainment hours (up to 2-3am?) proide a lot of security in itself. The Pier is nice, it's parking lot ''OK'' but step outside of it and you are in questionable safety. There needs to be other venues/business directly adjacent to each other from The Pier to The Trop..and from The Pier to Downtown. Make the ''entire area'' a destination..instead of several all separated from each other. Honestly, even hopping in your car and jumping from one to the other is not excatly that safe either..plus the parking fees would eat you up.
CJ
6:50 pm on Saturday, January 21, 2012
It is obviously most people agree with everything you say, but I think most people like the Inverted Pyramid Design. It was almost comical when I read how you don't like it..but to each thier own...lol! I have always thought that it seems like a real waste of the space that leads up to the Inverted Pyramid to mostly be used by Taxis, limos, and people just down there hanging out that are not even going inside the shops and resturants. That whole area could be more of a park and entertainment area instead of just a circle drive for vehicles. Imagine The Pier without a single car on it? I know..you have to be able to get up to it somehow...but if they had one of those ''people mover'' moving sidewalks like they use at airports..that could be cool. You could do it where you could step off of it whever you wanted to along the way. Only have a road that leads up there for delivery trucks but have them park somewhere they can't be seen as much. Someone is going to write me back about how goofy that idea is..lol!
Jonathan Kind
6:22 pm on Sunday, January 22, 2012
Obviously I'm a dissenting opinion here, but $50-100 mil is not a "massive amount of money" for a capital projects like this. I'll remind everyone that the decisions made on Friday were actually a jury ranking of the proposed designs. Nothing is finalized. There has been and will continue to be ample opportunity for public opinion to shape the final design. We need to move on from people who are afraid to walk around downtown and get out of their cars. The current pier is too long, crumbling and a product of the end of the Eisenhower car, suburb and highway system. We have great assets here lets invest in the future of urban, beach, eco-friendly, high design, innovative tourism rather than the dated concept of dilapidated strip mall neon motels on the gulf. @StPeteFL has awesome resources waiting to be unleashed. If we could convert the current trop into park and affordable housing and move the Rays closer to the pier project we would have a world class downtown to compete with the like of Paris, London. Sydney, Vienna, San Paulo, Goa, Cape Town and Tokyo,
Think big!
CJ
7:37 pm on Sunday, January 22, 2012
You're right, the amount wasn't bad for this. But then you said:''We need to move on from people who are afraid to walk around downtown and get out of their cars''.
Did you really say that?
That issue is making many people relunctant to get on board with this project. This problem has been and currently is effecting the success of anything In the St Pete Downtown/Bayfront area. You are not giving that problem enough importance.
As far as the ''dilapidated strip mall neon motels on the gulf'' comment..you miss the whole point of why people flock there over the bay..it has ''the beach''. Plus it is safer over there depending on how you look at it.
In general, the crime problems in the St Pete downtown, bayfront and a large part of South St Pete are expanding and already effect Gulfport and are spreading to the beach areas. The whole area is under threat with the housing economy making rapid, spreading changes in all lower income housing areas. Foreclosures are ruining many neighborhoods.
The fear is whether the economy returning to better days will undo some of the crimes problem areas that have emerged. The crime risks could remove Pinellas country off the the maps as tourist destinations.
I think your most ''dissenting opinion'' is when you said ''Make Trop a park?'' Don't you realize that The Trop is ''already'' close to The Pier? The problem is that it is not safe to walk that distance.
Control crime and people will back projects.
Jonathan Kind
11:10 pm on Sunday, January 22, 2012
All goods points CJ. I guess my point was by concentrating both the pier redesign and whatever might come next for MLB in tampa bay you have a chance to decrease the crime problems simply by having more people for safety. I might argue that it is the distance, 2.3 miles from trop to pier, 4.6 round trip and massive parking lots and empty lots between the two that is more of a deterrent to pedestrian browsing than a fear of crime, but that could also just be my bias.
CJ
12:33 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I am wondering if they put The Trop where it is to put it in a safer hurricane CAT zone possibly? I agree it would be bettr for it to be ''closer'' to The Pier and Downtown...but accordoing to Google..it is only a littlle over 2000 ft away. That's less than a 1/2 mile walk...less than you walk at a shopping mall. Look at the maps and see for yourself.
2.3 miles is over 12,000 feet. It's ''not'' anywhere near that far. They would have to seize properties, etc to move it closer. If the area between was safe to walk through 24/7..it is still failry close depending on where you park. It would make more sense to put shopping/busines/ restaurants in the area between The Trop and The Pier...then you accomplish several cool things at the same time.
Again..you downplay the very real threat of crime in the area. It is as if you don't even live here. Are you even lookng at it from the eyes of women walking alone, kids, families, etc? Perhaps you ride a bike through the area and make your statement based on something like that. From a pedestrian and tourist point of view the area instantly conveys a visual of an area to be cautious of..or to avoid for safety by foot.
It seems many people agree that sprucing up The Pier would ''BE GREAT'' and welcome...tearing it down and putting up any of these new projects seems overboard and excessive. It is already a very nice thing the way it is.
CJ
11:12 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
With all the stories I read about how ''due''we are for a big Hurricane hit..one thing is for sure..the existing inverted pyramid looks to be the strongest. Any of these 3 new designs look like they would sustain heavy damage very easily. It would not even have to be a CAT 1 level storm. What are these people thinking with desgns like these?
Jonathan Kind
12:42 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
From my understanding a new pier will raise the walkway to 100 year flood level and upgrade to CAT 5, but i'm not 100% on that.
CJ
1:08 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I did not know that. Some structure they design and build today are deceiving about how strong they are. Maybe these desgns are stronger than I think. That said, I think all bets are off with a CAT 5. Nobody ever wants to think of one of them ..''anywhere''. A Cat 1-3, though, is a very real possiblity..and obviously not a great visual either. Whether they improve the existing Pier, or build one of these new desgns..I am excited about seeing them when they are done. New things and changes are always ..if nothing else,...interesting and fun. Compared to where I moved from (Kansas)..everything here is paradise to me just the way it is. I just can't say enough about how much we love it here...it sounds like you feel the same way!
Red
6:38 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012
The people NEVER had a chance . .. .. the fix was in. What was wanted was never an option , the fix was in. What was best for our city was never a consideration because after all . .. ...the fix was in.
CJ
7:07 pm on Thursday, March 15, 2012
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be making your point clear..don't you mean the fix was in?