There seems to be a general conclusion that this week's
two day meeting marathon on the Pier was a major information overload for the
public.
Here is a
rundown of local media comments:
Tampa Tribune,
Steven Girardi: St.
Pete residents get closer look at Pier proposals
Creative Loafing,
Kate Bradshaw: Pier
presentations begin; public asked politely to weigh in, pretty please
Stpetersblog, Janelle Irwin: Throw them all out!
That’s the theme of public comment on new St. Pete Pier designs
No doubt that as the various proposers tried to cover
all the bases for the committee, the public got lost in the weeds.
Probably most disturbing is the general perception, as
reported in the media, that some of the public thinks the City should start
over yet again.
I feel that comes from a basically wrong approach to
planning the new pier.
Looking at the designs it appears the architects and
engineers started with producing an "iconic" design and are now
trying to figure out how to make it functional and cost effective. In other
words, they put form over function, pretty pictures over reality which is
exactly what the public indicated they did not want.
A much better approach would have been to come up with
a highly functional, more than likely less visually exciting design and then spend
the follow on effort making it more visually impressive.
The really big trap for the Kriseman administration is
to get a ranking from the public and the Committee only to find out after
adding the needed functionality, what is being proposed by the first place
contractor is way outside the budget. They are then faced with falling back to the
next in
ranking, which is obviously not the public's choice, and trying to force fit whatever limited functionality that can be accommodated by the budget. Not a good outcome and it could lead to another public revolt.
ranking, which is obviously not the public's choice, and trying to force fit whatever limited functionality that can be accommodated by the budget. Not a good outcome and it could lead to another public revolt.
I am not ready to start beating the drum for a redo, but
the Kriseman team needs to proceed with great care. Paring back some of the
esoteric design and putting significantly more functionality in place may be a
valuable approach.
There will be a push to put "none of the
above" on the upcoming survey, and the Kriseman team needs to tread
carefully on this one. Rejecting the request may rile up the people who were so
vocal about the LENS, while including the "none of the above" option
could easily send the Kriseman administration right back to square one.
Let's hope Mike Connors and the Pier Committee are
listening to the drums and are prepared to make some mid course corrections,
E-mail
Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request.
Twitter@DOCONTHEBAY. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and
Twitter. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay
Post Photos
Here's my solution at this point: Renovate the existing Pier (inverted pyramid) and replace the approach with something that the public can greatly benefit from, like a park along a roadway and some shops/eateries along the way. Personally, I like the inverted pyramid and think it's design can be adapted for modern times.
ReplyDelete