Downtown St. Pete moves front and center once again.

And you thought that Waterfront Master Plan was going to work for all of St. Pete.

St. Petersburg, Fl

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Author: In Search of Robin

Tuesday March 15, yes its primary election day, the St. Pete Pier will move to the top of the Kriseman Administrations' Agenda.

Here is the Announcement from The New St. Pete Pier website:

Barbara Wilks, from W Architecture and the Pier Approach Design team invite you to join them on Tuesday, March 15th at the University of South Florida Student Center. This is a workshop designed to hear from you as the design team presents conceptual layouts for the Pier Approach.

Pier Approach Public Workshop
Tuesday, March 15, 2016 7 p.m. – 9 p.m.
Please note: start time for this event has changed to 7:00 p.m.
USF St. Petersburg Student Center Ballroom – 2nd Floor 200 6th Avenue South

Free parking in the USF parking garage at 250 5th Avenue S. Levels 2- 5.

There is no doubt in my mind that this will be a very well done, thoughtful and informative presentation with a detailed public input format. Over the years, City staff has become exceptionally good at putting these types of presentations together.

The timing could have been a little better, but perhaps the Kriseman team hopes the presidential primary will keep the Pier approach a back-story from a media perspective.

Since this presentation deals with the approach and building an elaborate and expensive front yard for the Vinoy and Beach Drive look for most of the usual special interests to be ready with a number of suggestions designed to enhance their property values.

One of the things I find curious is for an administration that seems to be concerned about climate change and sea-level rise, the Kriseman team doesn't seem to be too concerned about spending $20 million on a development that could be underwater if the global warming people are even partially right. The new Beach Drive could be somewhere between 4^th and 5^th streets if the predictions are accurate.

I have thought from the beginning that this whole uplands project is a waste of money, especially in light of the City's infrastructure problems, failing schools, south side crime problems and the fact that just over 30 blocks away kids cannot get a decent education.

On the other hand, it does meet many of the Kriseman administrations' requirements: it is big, bright, shiny and makes the Chamber and the rich folks happy.

And you thought that Waterfront Master Plan was going to work for all of St. Pete.

E-mail Doc at mail to: dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.

Disclosures:
Contributor: Bob Gualtieri for Pinellas County Sheriff

OMG – what if the millennials don't like the name St. Pete Pier.

St. Pete Pier. Not new, unique or clever and not very millennial at all.

St. Petersburg, FL

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want Blog.

The whole concept of Pier Park was touted as a place where one could walk, run, kayak, bike and enjoy nature. It is a Park on a Pier

With the recent disclosure that the name Pier Park was already trademarked; the City has marshaled all of its collective creativity and renamed the venue the St. Pete Pier.

You know the place famous for the inverted pyramid.

There was the Railroad Pier, the Electric Pier, the Million Dollar Pier and the Inverted Pyramid Pier all with some unique characteristic.

Now it's just the St. Pete Pier. What do you do on a Pier?

Fish.

Maybe Mayor Kriseman had it right when he said, "Let's build the Damn Pier"

Damn Pier – has a nice ring to it.

Pier Park was kind of catchy. Was it a Pier or a Park? It was enough to make the online searcher at least drop one more click and maybe even enough to encourage the Beach tourist to take a trip downtown.

Some may see this as just a marketing problem and feel that spending a few more bucks on promotion will overcome any issues.

Maybe not.

The millennials are all about getting rid of the old and replacing it with the new.

The couch in my mom's house was over 20 years old. The sofa in my home is about seven years old and most of the millennials I know don't have a stick of furniture over 3 years old.

They want things new, shiny and with names that reflect the millennial era. Just look at the names of new cars, rental properties, bars, beers and startup businesses.

What if they decide they just don't like it and the visiting millennials can't figure it out or just decide to pass?

Could be a real problem.

Will the name change affect anything in the Pier Park/St. Pete Pier project?

Probably not.

The St. Pete Pier (AKA Pier Park) will still be a structure of questionable practicality with limited access and functionality, demanding a high taxpayer  subsidy to support and now maybe not nearly as appealing to its primary target customers and tourists.

Phooey you say. A pier is a Pier a park is a Park. What's the big deal in the name?

Google was originally called BackRub. Hot mama became EVEREVE and for you non millennials there was the Ford debacle called Edsel.

Names matter. A Pier is not a Park, and a Park is not a Pier. The name of St. Petersburg's $70 million dollar waterfront investment should reflect what it actually is.

E-mail Doc at mail to:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.

Disclosures:
Contributor: Waterfront Charter Amendment (Vote on The Pier), Carly Fiorina for President

What else don't we know about the St. Pete Pier AKA Pier Park?

One has to wonder what new surprises await in the "New" St. Pete Pier (Pier Park) design.

St. Petersburg, FL
Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want Blog.

  

This past week we were informed that the Kriseman administration has known since June of 2015; the name Pier Park was an infringement of a trademark owned by the St. Joe Company.

See in Bay Post Internet my Post The name game Pier Park now St. Pete Pier.

There was no valid reason to keep all of this on the hush hush when the best the Kriseman team could do for a new name was the St. Pete Pier.

While this may seem a bit trivial in the long run, it begs the bigger question what else are they keeping under wraps?

Most of the design modifications are being conducted just out of public eyesight by the same team that brought us the LENS. Reports to City Council have been broad brush at best, and it is a pretty sure bet that not a single council member has a clue what's actually going on in this phase of a $40+ million dollar contract.

Same can be said for the hastily arranged and approved $20 million "uplands project" where there is even less transparency.

Based on experience it seems unlikely that the Kriseman administration will willingly open up and provide significant information about either of these projects.

One has to wonder what new surprises await in the "New" St. Pete Pier (Pier Park) design. 

The Kriseman administration is desperate to get both projects moving and as this recent revelation would indicate they are really not playing straight with the public or the City Council.

It is time for some serious fact finding. City council would be wise to take some steps to ensure they don't find themselves backed into a political corner on both of these significant and costly projects.

E-mail Doc at mail to:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.
Disclosures:

Contributor: Waterfront Charter Amendment (Vote on The Pier), Carly Fiorina for President

The name game Pier Park now St. Pete Pier

St. Pete Pier – kind of bland I think. Here's a thought.

St. Petersburg, FL

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want Blog.

According to a Post in saintpetersblog by Janelle Irwin St. Pete’s Pier Park won’t be named Pier Park the City was notified of a trademark infringement in June.

Additional detail in Tampa Bay Times Waverly Ann Moore article St. Petersburg's Pier Park now simply the St. Pete Pier.

The St. Joe Company owns the Rights to "Pier Park" as shown on their web site Pier Park® North — a joint venture with Casto and Strategic Retail Advisors (SRA), Pier Park® North is a vibrant shopping center located across from Pier Park Lifestyle Center in Panama City Beach. Featuring numerous national retailers, this shopping center opened in 2014 and is currently leasing the limited vacant space it has remaining.

The Kriseman administration reaction from Ben Kirby: "We never really called it Pier Park. Pier Park was the concept name, and we'll call it the St. Pete Pier going forward."

Actually, they did call it Pier Park for quite a while.

It's a pier with a park stuck on it. Obviously, the St. Joe Company doesn't see the irony in all of that and hinted at a law suit. After some significant foot dragging, and I suspect a lot of hand wringing the City opted for the name change.

St. Pete Pier – kind of bland I think. Here's a thought.

Let's set up a committee of citizens to select a more appropriate name.

Kriseman could bring back Mike Connors to chair the committee, for members select a couple of Beach Drive restaurateurs, someone from the Chamber of Commerce, add Lisa Wheeler-Brown for a sure vote on the Mayor's choice, maybe a couple of the lemmings from the original selection committee and an actual citizen or two. Take suggestions from the public and let them think they are actually part of the name selection process.

Connors could write an eloquent rant on why the name St. Pete Pier is a throwback to the past and doesn't capture the grandeur of a park on a pier.

It worked before - right up to the final vote.

E-mail Doc at mail to:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.

Disclosures:
Contributor: Waterfront Charter Amendment (Vote on The Pier), Carly Fiorina for President

How Do You Treat an Icon Part 2

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want Blog .

About a week ago I Posted How Do You Treat an Icon? a kind of loose comparison between Daytona and how they are looking at refurbishment of the Daytona International Speedway verses how the City administration is approaching the issue of the Inverted Pyramid. I included a picture of the signage around the speedway which includes the line: "Pardon our dust as we reimagine an American Icon".

The Post inspired an e-mail response from the Kriseman administration: "Pretty sure we have a similar sign by the pier as the one you reference in your story."

The response raised my curiosity a bit so I took a trip to the Pier to check it out.

I thought it would be a bit odd for the Kriseman administration to admit the iconic status of the inverted pyramid on a public sign given their almost fanatical desire to tear it down.

Sort answer: no they don't have such a sign - not even close. The immaturity of Kriseman's inner circle and their lack of knowledge of reality continue to show.

Above is the sign posted at the entrance to the Pier approach.  No reference to the iconic status of the Pier. No reference to a new Pier.

To further indicate the level of respect or lack thereof the administration has for the current structure, the sign on every Pier entrance door is a simple sheet of letter stock printed on an inkjet printer. The sign says only "BUILDING CLOSED".

I am not sure where all of this lack of respect or appreciation for a structure that drew 10s of millions of people to St. Petersburg over the years comes from or the fanatical desire to tear it down.

To his credit Mayor Kriseman did open the approach to the Pier and the area around the structure, but there is just a port-a-potty and no drinking water or concessions.

The day I was there a couple of people were fishing on the approach and some people taking a few pictures. I sat out at the Pier head for a while and could not help thinking about all of those millions of visitors who came to see this unique structure and the literally millions and millions of pictures with that structure in the background in photo albums all over the world.

Something is terribly wrong.

From the beginning the plan was never to tear down the Pier. That idea, tearing the Pier down driven primarily by one or two people, has now influenced two mayors and convinced them that the public should not be listened to.

City Council now holds the key to the Pier's future. It's time for common sense to prevail.

E-mail Doc at mail to:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos

Pier design selection - How does the process work?

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want Blog .

Here is the Florida State Statute that the City is operating under regarding the Pier Selection process.

Title XIX Chapter 287.055

 Acquisition of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties.

Section (4) Competitive Selection (a, b)

(a)   For each proposed project, the agency shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and shall conduct discussions with, and may require public presentations by, no fewer than three firms regarding their qualifications, approach to the project, and ability to furnish the required services.

(b) The agency shall select in order of preference no fewer than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. In determining whether a firm is qualified, the agency shall consider such factors as the ability of professional personnel; whether a firm is a certified minority business enterprise; past performance; willingness to meet time and budget requirements; location; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and the volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the agency, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified firms. The agency may request, accept, and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid under the contract only during competitive negotiations under subsection (5).

The first question that comes to mind is, can the City Council or the Administration delegate away the City Council's responsibility as defined in the State Statute? I do not see in the Statute anywhere the "Agency" is allowed to delegate their responsibility.

Second, did the City Council actually, by formal vote, delegate the final ranking of the top three Pier designs to the Selection Committee? Or is the Selection Committee's final output simply a report for

The St. Pete Pier Process a way to the end

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD

Coauthor of: So You Want Blog

Mayor Rick Kriseman's crass statement "build the damn Pier" is a testament to how little he and his deeply inexperienced senior staff fail to understand the office of a strong Mayor. Faced with the very process he created crumbling before his eyes the Mayor is frustrated and his staff is clueless.

This is not the time for barroom rhetoric; it is the time for insightful leadership. It's time to calm the waters not stir the pot. It's time to be a leader.

We will never know for sure whether Kriseman's handpicked Selection Committee Chairman Mike Connors screwed up with his rant against the current pier or was simply following orders like the good solider he is.

What is obvious is the Mayor's failure to step in and do some damage control regarding the Connors' rant and reassure the Selection Committee that they have his full support has left the people serving on the Selection Committee in a very difficult spot.

There has been a lot of talk about how the Committee can only evaluate on the merits of the proposers.

The objective of this formal selection process is to get a project built. One of the merits must be how the customer views the quality, suitability and functionality of the proposed design.

One Survey and two polls provide the answer.

The thing to keep in mind is the customer for this project is not the Mayor, not the Selection Committee, not Mike Connors, not the Mayor's Dream Team, not City Council; it is you the citizen and taxpayer. The Selection Committee must accord your opinion the merit it deserves.

There seems to be general agreement that all of the remaining designs can be constructed. The bigger question is which one can actually be approved and actually built?

The Selection Committee has a responsibility to evaluate all of the merits including the public's opinion, which is a functional merit, and that merit is simply acceptability.

It is unreasonable for the Selection Committee to rank a design team first when it is highly unlikely the project with that team will actually be approved due to lack of public and/or political support.

The five people on the Selection Committee have the opportunity to make a historic decision that will allow City Council to move St. Pete forward or create a firestorm which will distract the Kriseman administration, the City Council and the community for months if not years to come.

The Selection Committee can do the City of St. Petersburg a great service by simply following the rules and looking at all of the merits.

E-mail Doc at mail to:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos

There may be more options for City Council on Pier decision

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want Blog .

Steve Nichols Channel 13 has raised an interesting question in his Fox News 13 piece: What Happens if council can't agree on a Pier design? 

Steve explores the issues raised by William Ballard in his Letter to City Council which is reproduced in its entirety below.

MEMORANDUM

To:  The Honorable Charlie Gerdes, Chair, and Members of City Council of

        St. Petersburg, Florida                       

From: William C. Ballard, a resident and registered voter of the City

Date: April 9, 2015

Subject:   Options for City Council in the event the pier design selection committee report   to Council accords the number one ranking to a design concept which was not  favored by the City’s voters (as determined by the City’s own non-scientific  survey and confirmed by St. Pete Polls scientific survey)

The writer is a licensed attorney in the state of Florida, but he is writing only in his capacity as a citizen urging a course of action upon his city’s governing body.  No reader should regard the writer’s statements or opinions as legal advice directed at him or her.  For advice on the legality of the courses of action discussed in this memorandum, consult your own attorney.

Under Article III of our municipal charter, all legislative powers are vested in City Council.  The Mayor is the chief administrative official.  City administration can recommend, only Council can legislate.  Based on the conduct, on March 20^th, of the City administration’s representative, who chairs the pier design selection committee, it appears obvious that City administration is determined that the inverted pyramid will not remain on our waterfront and that the selection committee is being steered to achieve that result.  The committee chair’s dismissal of all pier businesses other than those operated by the Gonzmarts as “unsuccessful” despite many of them having sustained themselves,

The Problems with ALMA (The Big Banjo)

ALMA

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb, PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want to Blog

While the Pier Selection Committee gathers "more information" the pot boils and the plot thickens.

First, with ALMA the thing out at the end is a concrete rectangular box. That's it - a box. No matter how you look at it, it is a box. Not much imagination, even if you turn it upside down its still a rectangular box. You don't have to wonder about what the designer was thinking or what motivated him - it's a box.

Looking at the inverted pyramid you also have to wonder what was the designer thinking? Why a Pyramid, why upside down, why not right side up or on its side? You actually have to think and stretch your mind.

When you look at ALMA from above it looks like a big Banjo. Since the push here seems to be to the millennials and as far as I can tell other than Deliverance they're not than fond of banjo music. It seems to me that promotional material for something that looks like a big Banjo may not bring the millennials in the droves anticipated by the ALMA supporters.

And there is that Box thing. It's kind of like the LENS who would wear a T-shirt with that thing on it?

When you look at Destination St. Pete Pier from above there is an interesting approach and at the end this structure that kind of boggles the mind. What is it? I really need to see this for myself. And when you do your imagination can run wild.

It will also make one really neat T-shirt.

Finally I think some of the members of the Kriseman Dream Team and City staff, along with a few of the Selection Committee members have convinced themselves that the citizens of St. Pete are neither hip enough, or intelligent enough to know what works on the Pier. I believe you hold that view at your own peril. 

Last time around the issue of ignoring the public was almost as big as the total dislike of the LENS design.

You all probably already know the definition of insanity. 

E-mail Doc at: mailto:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com%20or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos