Updated 'Lens' Pier Design Presented
Lisa Wannemacher has been meeting with multiple community groups, and recently City Council, to give an updated presentation on the "Lens."
The most significant St. Petersburg Pier news last Thursday was City Council's 5-3 decision to possibly put the future of the pier up for a vote on the Nov. 6 presidential ballot.
However, local architect Lisa Wannemacher also made a big splash by presenting an updated and much more specific presentation about the "Lens".
The "Lens," is the design by Michael Maltzan Architecture currently slated to replace the existing inverted pyramid. It is the design that has received significant backlash, which the group VoteOnThePier.com said helped push its petition drive past its goal of collecting nearly 16,000 signatures to force a vote on the issue.
Wannemacher has been meeting with several organizations over the past few weeks to give that presentation.
Additional "Lens" Design Specifics Presented
- Shade breakout balconies along the walkway
- A small restaurant at the end of the pier
- A beer garden/event space
- New boardwalk out over the existing jetty with possible additional concession stands
- "Welcome Mat" at the Hub, which would be at the base of the pier approach, that could serve as an event space. Possibly host food truck rallies.
- Waterfront restaurant at the Hub, near Spa Beach.
"(We) listened to comments and advanced the conceptual idea ... trying to illustrate what there is to do out there," Wannemacher said.
The fate of the underwater garden/reef is still up in the air, according to Wannemacher. The oyster-bed cleansed reef design has been a point of contention with locals who argue that there is no making Tampa Bay waters clear.
"The goal at the underwater reef, is to create an attractive underwater design feature, highlight the estuary and engage the public, she said.
More meetings with ocean teams and marine scientists are planned to explore the "practical realities of such an element," Wannemacher said.
The City and the Pier: A Failure to Communicate?
Council members Leslie Curran and Jeff Danner, who voted against holding a pier referendum Thursday, said Wannemacher's presentation is exactly what the pubic needs to see and hear.
They said her presentation, which was more specific than the designs previously shown to the public, is proof that the city is following the process. The architecture teams received public input and feedback and altered the specifics as the time came into focus, Curran said.
While Mayor Bill Foster said Thursday that the city should honor the petitions collected and have a referendum, he also said the pier process to this point has worked. Wannemacher's presentation, he said, is proof of that.
"Can they build in shading, climate control, put a restaurant at the end," Foster said of the feed back from the public. "That’s what the people said they wanted. So the process is working."
Danner took issue with how the city communicated its plans for the pier since Council approved a contract with Maltzan in February until now.
Curran, who was the chair of the Pier jury that selected the "Lens", agreed.
"I said we are setting this up for failure," Curran added. "They were open mike sessions to say whatever you wanted without a clear dialogue."
"We should have been doing a better job," he said. "A lot of people asking the questions that are answered right here (in the presentation.)"
He said the four public input meetings on the "Lens" did not help the city's cause. The meetings, he said, lost focus from their purpose.
"If the object was to get input on the 'Lens' we did a horrible job of it," Danner said. "That was our responsibility and we dropped the ball on that one."
Foster said the passion of VoteOnThePier.com is not new and better communications would have not stopped their efforts.
"They’ve been working on that for two years," Foster said of the group trying to save the pier. "I respectfully disagree that if we had just marketed more and campaigned more and had more meetings, and roundtable discussions that somehow that was going to thwart their process."
On Aug. 2, the Council will hold a public hearing regarding the pier referendum. At that time the Council will also approve the multiple questions about the future of the pier, including the "Lens" design.
Red
9:32 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
The pier vote: yeah-yeah get up a petition, if you want change. B) OK you got a petition so what ? Maybe we will LET you vote on the issue. C)Sorry, not enough time to get it on the ballot or well it's a non-binding vote. (We still do what we want)or the fix is in and we know better than the people.
Sam
9:40 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
There has been limited information concerning how this multi-million dollar project will be financed in the long run. There are a lot of citizens in St. Petersburg that are not filthy rich and are contending with increased costs coming from almost every direction. In fact, the city is running a deficit and of course will need more money via NEW FEES (Still a tax in disguise!), increased existing fees, and albeit, increased real estate taxes. Food, fuel, medical care continue to increase exponentially. Property values are still on the decline. I will resist any attempts to push this project through until information is provided as to how this project will be funded. The city is proposing a financial disaster for its residents.
Brian Longstreth
9:52 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
The Lens was presented as a concept with changes to come from community input....this is exactly how it should be done... I like the concept and look forward to a new PIER!
Voteonthepier
10:34 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
What should have exactly been done would be to ask the public FIRST: Refurbish, or Demolish. Then go to step two. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
JW
12:39 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Exactly, a concept needs time to become a complete design. The process has really just begun and should be given an opportunity to develop and improve. I like the Lens possibilities and think that a pier with a protected marina in the center is a new and good idea. I also like the subsidy reduction. New doesn't have to be bad.
Voteonthepier
12:50 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Usually people vote on a PLAN, not a concept. LOL! How can you feel comfortable with a concept that started out by wooing people with something they can never have, and then whittle it down to fit into the budget later? What a farce this is and you are helping in that farce.
Voteonthepier
10:32 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
I would like people to notice where Lisa Wannemacher compares the amount of pilings on the current pier, which has circa 1926 pilings, which are much closer together than modern bridge spans. This was deceptive, and an insult to the intelligence to anyone that knows anything about this issue. It would have been fair for her to compare a modern bridge, the same length as the approach and pier head, with the current, modern spacing inbetween spans. Have they not heard that the approach needs to be replaced? There is no argument there. A new approach to the completely new, renovated pyramid would have much fewer pilings. It really is deceptive, and a bad move on her part. This new presentation is simply grasping at straws, trying to garner support for a project that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the public. The lens input meetings were overwhelming landslides against the lens. If the city, and the architects would be honest here, they would have received the message loud and clear: The public does not support the lens, no matter how many shady spots you add. And with the elimination of so many features of the 150 million dollar total concept, where does the money come to add all the new grasping at straws measures? They had to delete the wood decking for pete's sake! And the steel railing, and much more to fit into the confines of the budget.
Voteonthepier
10:32 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
The meeting where this was presented to council, the media, and the packed council chamber, was full of applause for hours during award presentations. The room clapped for everyone that day. With the exception of this very presentation. When the architect was finished, not one person clapped, she was met with silence. We are not against change, but we are against forced change, against the will, and without the consent of the voting public. The taxpayers of St.Pete have spoken in the form of roughly 22,000 signed petitions. We believe in preservation, modernization, and protecting our waterfront. I would like to point out, that, out of the 22,000 signed petitions, roughly 98% of people would put a mark next to the YES- in favor of refurbishment option. These people believed, that by petitioning the government, they could somehow have a say in how our city spends our hard earned tax dollars, and how they make use of our waterfront, as John Wilson said, "The waterfront belongs to everyone."
Voteonthepier
10:33 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Nothing the lens architects can do will change these facts. They should have honorably bowed out by now. I wouldn't want a project in my resume that was literally forced onto an unwilling public. What a legacy for an architect to have. Let the people decide in a fair, unbiased, binding vote. If the people vote for the lens, the lens wins. If a refurbished pier wins, then we get to keep our history, and the 74 million dollar a year economic impact on the entire county. Has anyone stopped to think WHY Pinellas County pays for half of the loan? It's because Pinellas County benefits monetarily from the yearly economic impact, and every commissioner supports a referendum.
Voteonthepier
11:04 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
""Can they build in shading, climate control, put a restaurant at the end," Foster said of the feed back from the public. "That’s what the people said they wanted. So the process is working."
Working? The Lens input sessions showed that the public is against the lens overwhelmingly. How can they say that people gave them recommendations? SOME did, but the VAST majority said no to the lens. What do people have to do around here to get people to listen, it's mind boggling!
CJ
11:53 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
We might as well get used to this. It does not look as if the petition, etc, efforts will be any more than noble efforts for the will of the people. The wheels are already in motion on this and appear past the point of stopping.
Whoopee..can't wait for the food truck rallies...
Now, ''there'' is some quality entertainment value you'd expect in return for the destruction of the beloved Pier, and the millions that will be spent.
Voteonthepier
12:34 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
This is nothing but grasping at straws. Noble efforts? How about HISTORIC effort? You have to have faith in people CJ. The city would be very unwise to move forward with such a despised project. Just because an architect tries to add some features in this horrible design doesn't mean anything except that they are grasping at straws.
CJ
12:18 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
hmmmm...just saw something interesting. It actually has gone a long way to make me feel the new ''Lens'' concept is ''not'' all bad. Up to now, all I have seen of it were vague artist drawing of it that hardly gave you a feel for what it was going to look like. This story here, has an short video presettation that is the most useful tool I have seen yet to help citizens, such as myself, to better understand ''what exactly'' this ''Lens'' thing is/was. After viewing it...I have to admit...if the existing Pier has to go...this new plan ''does'' look entertaining. The real shame is that The Lens has to be built at the expense of ''losing'' the existing Pier and it's iconic landmark Inverted Pyramid. That said...even though the time period during the constrrction is going to be grueling...the finished product that awaits is ''not bad''. I suggest people watch this video, because it will help ease the pain. It seems clear the present Pier is soon to be history. This video made me almost look forward to seeing The Lens completed. The views and artist drawings...the way it was explained in this video...all looked very nice indeed. It sure made me think what a lousy way this has been marketed to us all. What a poor job they have done to convince people to ''let go'' of the existing Pier and welcome something new. These people could make ice cream seem bad.
Voteonthepier
12:46 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
There is NO ECONOMIC IMPACT with a one trick pony walkway to nowhere. it is dangerous to our economy to have tourists quit visiting because there is nothing they want to do out there. What will happen when it storms everyday in summer out on that thing? it will close that's what. Some economic impact that will be. there are hosts of reasons that design is bad, and that's just one of them.
JW
12:55 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
My key points for a new pier
The caissons are already 40 years old so renovating a 4 story building on top of them will only last a limited time and we'll be back in this pickle. A new Pier however can have a complete 75year lifespan.
The existing pier would never be developed by a private developer, very expensive construction, remote parking, and difficult to access, but somehow we believe the city can be a better developer a put a mall over the water. If this were a private business it would be bankrupt just like Johns Pass is filling. If you keep lots of retail businesses out there then you keep the large subsidy.
I just don't believe you can build another 80 foot wide approach capable of supporting traffic and a new upside down pyramid in the budget.
If we vote to save the pier and it indeed comes in over budget then what. You can't exactly make the approach shorter which you can do in a new plan.
Your stuck with it and the tax payers will be stuck with a larger bill.
This could really back fire.
Voteonthepier
1:53 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Are you aware that the lens uses those very same caissons you say cannot be used? They are surrounding them with concrete to stop further erosion, just as we have suggested for a refurb, yet people say it can't be done? LOL. Why would a municipally funded attraction, paid for by taxpayers, be developed by a private developer? It makes no sense. The pier is for the people. The large subsidy? ^ bucs a year is too much for you to handle? And the tenants pay 1.3 million to 1.5 million a year in rents. The refurbishment option 80ft wide approach is NON VEHICULAR. It's interesting that the city approved the wave design at 54 million, which included demolishing, building a new approach, to a new multi story building. If we somehow get the lens gets shoved down our collective necks, and it comes in over budget, then what? What happens when it rains out there, or has a thunderstorm? It closes where the current pier stays open and offers safe shelter. All opinions are valued if they are based on facts, and not assumptions. Like the caissons...the lens is using them, so that argument does not hold water.
Dharma
2:49 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I am sorry your wrong about this whole issue, I seldom say that to anyone but its not an issue of either or, its an issue of we dont need a new pier. Plain and simple. Let me repeat that. We do not need a new pier. WE do not need to spend that sort of money, when people are hungry, starving and this bizzare need to spend money acts as if no one went to school to study economics.
Voteonthepier
1:56 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
*The subsidy is 6 bucs year per resident per year. Not breaking anyones bank. With that logic, we should demolish the trop, the mahaffey, the coliseum, sunken gardens, the port of tampa....all are subsidized.
Dharma
2:47 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
None of this is of any interest to me nor should it be to any citizen living in St Petersburg. Its the dollar amount being spent on it and the simpler of facts is the people of St Pete's do not want this. That is the only important inforamtion that anyone needs. We Do Not Want It. Where is the confusing, people have not stood up for this or decided it needed a direction of any kind. We Do Not Want This.
DRaymond
9:23 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Sounds like a bunch of grumpy old men sitting around complaining. If it costs more to repair than replace, as the pier pilings will fail sooner than later, the choice is clear. It must be replaced.
N.A.W.
8:15 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It does not cost more to repair our history. And I am FAAAR from a grumpy old man! lol
The pilings on the approach and pier head need to go, but there are 1100 of them, and they won't all fail at once, lol. The caissons supporting the pier are fine, more than fine, they are not an issue. The original tif funding was for fixing what we have, so lets stick to the agreement.
Dan Therrien
5:59 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
fix what we have and add to it, an amusement park, public beach, FREE parking.
Dharma
9:53 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
I agree with Dan, fix it and add for the people and then those who want to draw and make money will. Make it a fun place for all. And don’t do the worry things about bad elements etc. Just do and enjoy for those who work, live, love and pay here. We must remember what we become when we assume. Smile