The St. Pete Pier Selection Committee is in a tough spot

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

The way I see it the five members of the St. Pete Pier Selection Committee, Kai Warren, Gary Mitchum, Melanie Lenz, James Jackson Jr. and Michael G. Meidel are in a tough spot.

Part of their dilemma is of their own making. Had they just ranked their three selections, regardless of the ranking, the spotlight would now be on City Council. Instead, as they did in the meeting where they could eliminate proposers, where they whiffed on the job and let way too many pass through to the next phase; they could not come to a decision at ranking time.

Now they are faced with a Mayor who wants to "build the damn Pier," a Chairman who figuratively jumped off the exiting Pier with his anti pyramid rant and the firestorm they created by at least hinting they are leaning toward ranking ALMA first the least popular design among the public.

There are a host of problems.

Some if not all of these Committee members may have to deal with the Chairman on future City projects or requests. As one who personally knows the Chairman, Mike Connors, has a long memory. Some Committee members may be looking past the Pier to the future.

The Mayor has, so far, stood behind the Connors' comments and he may be sending a message to the Committee or he may not, but it is clear the Mayor would not be disappointed to see the inverted Pyramid go. So do you buck the Mayor? Same problem as above.

Although the volume has died down a bit, a significant portion of those focused on the Pier are ready to pounce if the Committee's decision seems way off base to them.

The Committee, which seemed to be a bit hamstrung by the selection process, may be receiving some ease with comments from the Public and to some small degree the City Legal department. It will be interesting to watch the Chairman if the Committee begins to take a more liberal interpretation of the selection/ranking process, and what if any questions the Committee may have for the Legal department.

All in all a tough spot for five people who I believe genuinely wanted to be part of the Pier selection process.

This time around they need to have a short discussion; the less said the better, rank three and adjourn the meeting. A long winded rehash of the designs and any "new" information presented by the proposers or staff is a waste of time. It will just be fodder for what is likely to follow.

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

Sunday March 29, 2015 The Inverted Pyramid – Is 125 years really all that bad?

By: Eugene Webb, PhD
Coauthor of: So You Want to Blog

During the final Pier Selection Committee ranking meeting, Mike Connors, in a now widely reported mini rant, went to great lengths in an attempt to make a case for a lack of technical, feasible and pragmatic value of the current inverted pyramid.

One of his statements seemed to stick with me more than the others. Loosely paraphrased he said, if we renovate the existing inverted pyramid and it lasts the projected 75 years it will been representing St. Petersburg for almost 125 years and that's not the image I think we want to project.

The Mayan pyramids, which were built starting nearly 3,000 years ago, are perhaps the greatest tourist attractions of Mexico and Central America.

There is general agreement the Egyptian Pyramids were constructed beginning in about 2500 BC which would make them about 4700 years old. The Egyptians seem to be quite proud of them.

I have been to the Mayan Pyramid at Chichen Itza, all the way to the top and down into tombs.

Very impressive.

Connors kind of hissed the remark out through his teeth like St. Petersburg would be some sort of scourge on the planet with a 125-year-old inverted pyramid as its symbol.

Ok..Ok I get it, it's upside down. I sometimes think it's the whole upside down thing that really freaks some people out. As Spoc would say, "it's not logical."

Maybe if it were right side up it wouldn't bother people so much.

But looking at it logically, neither Egyptians nor the Mayans have made a head long rush to tear down their pyramids. Maybe we should not be quite so anxious to tear ours down either.

I can imagine a couple with their kids looking out over the bay 75 years from now standing on the Pier observation deck and saying, "You know this thing is almost 125 years old it's been here all this time watching over its City. It's pretty neat."

The baby boomers have come and are in the process of going, the millennials will come and go and over the next 75 years several more defined generations will also come and go.

The point is generations come and go but what anchors us all and ties us together are the things in this world that are consistent like pyramids be they right-side up or upside down.

E-mail Doc at: mailto:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or 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  

Wake up call

The Pier issue is heating up. 

Below is a letter sent to Mike Connors by Bill Ballard who was president of Concerned Citizens of St. Petersburg during the LENS Referendum process.

I am not speaking for Concerned Citizens.  The content of my March 23^rd letter to Connors and in the “Hijack” email are personal observations and opinions.

From:

William C. Ballard

1255 Brightwaters Blvd.

St. Petersburg, FL 33704

727-827-5021

March 23, 2015

To:

Michael J. Connors, P.E.

Chair, Pier Design Team Selection Committee

Municipal Service Building

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Dear Mr. Connors:

This letter is primarily intended as a wakeup call to our Mayor and City Council.  Your committee is stuck in the middle.  The fig leaf of “select the most qualified design team” is inadequate cover for the real task – making the choice between two highly disparate conceptual plans which have attracted highly different levels of public acceptance.  That choice should be made by our city’s elected leaders.  Your committee could then confine itself to its proper task, the selection of the most qualified design team to implement a specific project concept which the governing body has chosen.  The process to date has not been a loss.  It has produced two worthy conceptual choices, either of which could reward us greatly if implemented on a scale sufficient to make them successful.  They are, alphabetically, the Alma and Destination St. Pete.

This pause in your committee’s deliberations gives our city leaders the opportunity to confront reality.  A $50 million project budget, originally intended for reconstruction of the Municipal Pier in 2010, now diminished to $46 million, will not permit the construction of a project with a primary draw as recommended by the 2010 Pier Advisory Task Force.  That task force, armed with economic studies, concluded that every successful recreational pier needs a primary draw, and that for St. Petersburg that element should be provided by a restaurant based program; specifically, 26,000 square feet of space to accommodate multiple restaurants.  None of the 2015 design concepts could even half way meet this requirement in the context of 2015 construction costs.  The recent economic study you mentioned, if I heard you accurately, concluded that none of the seven design concepts will provide the economic impetus for our city that the pier project was expected to provide. 

The balance of this letter assumes nobody grabs the helm and your committee has to stay on its present course.

The Alma project puts its major restaurant structure on the uplands.  This core choice has direct operational benefits.  The Alma pier solution is a thousand foot long skinny pedestrian pier

The new St. Pete Pier. Are the wheels coming off this project yet again?

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD

Coauthor of: So You Want Blog .

After a poorly planned final review meeting, lack of willing participation by the Committee members and a mini rant by Mike Connors, City Public Works Administrator and chair of the Pier Selection Committee resulted in a "no decision", the public is starting to respond to the process.

Here are some posts you might want to check out:

Doc Webb: Patch The Pier Selection Committee

Doc Webb: Patch The St. Pete Pier Committee ranking of proposals, eight hours in the weeds and 3 hours ranking to no decision.

 Doc Webb: Patch: Sunday Post,  Is the Kriseman administration really playing straight on the Pier?

Janelle Irwin: saintpetersblog Pier Selection Committee to announce design ranking today

Janelle Irwin: saintpetersblog New poll finds only single-digit support for Alma design of St. Pete Pier

Peter Schorsch: saintpetersblog Why is St. Petersburg listening to Tampa about the future of its Pier?

Kate Bradshaw - Creative Loafing Waiting for the Pier: why the process for selecting a new Pier feels like an existential play

Here are just a few of reader's comments. Why don't you log in to one of these sites and post your thoughts or send them to me at dr.gwebb@yahoo.com and I'll be happy to share them.

Jay - We need to get rid of the pyramid and move on.

Nick - Too bad that's not what the majority of citizens want.

Jay - A vocal minority does not make a majority, but they usually get what they want.

Nick - Jay we collected 24,000 petitions from registered voters who wanted to have a vote in the fate of that building, not too shabby…the people at the first task force survey in 2010 chose a refurb plan, but pushed aside by the city(mahaffey theater vote). Now we have poll after poll saying the same thing….reuse the architecture. If you don't like the architecture, that's your right.

David - Destination St Pete Pier is just as described in the editorial. And there is nothing out there to determine what the clear choice of residents is. Both polls were worthless, so get off of that horse.

Joe - Except that the scientific poll taken by St Pete Polls essentially corroborated the same public sentiment. http://stpetepolls.org/files/StPetePolls_2015_Pier_March_19_H9RL.pdf

 Tom -     I like the idea about doing the phone survey, but they should do the Internet survey again. First they should let everyone know what happened, which they should have done immediately after the meeting on Friday the 20th. I would have prevented much frustration among the public. Now much of the public believe the committee is incapable of doing the job.

The phone survey should also identify the "Destination" pier design as the one that got the most votes by the public. I had to chose undecided on the phone survey because I wasn't sure what one it was.

Nancy - It is outrageous that the residents of St. Petersburg who are paying for the Pier with the tax dollars do not get to chose the design as promised.  No one likes the Alma but it is in the running.  Just who is get kick backs?

Roger - Let's not mince words. This entire "process" has been a political sideshow, pre-planned and orchestrated with the desired outcome known for over a year. Parading Casey Gonzmart out to speak publicly, with his ridiculous pleas, was the final straw, and a really stupid move by those pulling the strings in this city. There is no other explanation as to why a useless, disliked by most concept that does not follow the Pier Advisory Task force is sitting at #1. It was planned that way all along. The survey was nothing more than a feel-good exercise to placate the public, but it backfired on them. The real truth is coming out now. Mike Connors should be fired immediately if not brought up on charges for conspiracy, IMO. The City's only hope of tearing down the Inverted Pyramid lies with their final strategy that the public is worn out with Pier fatigue and will not participate in another protracted petition drive/battle. What they DIDN'T consider is that the previous opposing forces in Concerned Citizens, VOTP and most of the Lens fans have joined forces, and quite a few are either Attorneys or have very deep pockets (or both) and will not stand by and let Mike Connors and Rick Kriseman pull another stunt like Bill Foster tried. You can take that to the bank.

And Connors temper tantrum on video just proves it even more. Oh and by the way, here's more: Perhaps someone should ask Mr. Connors why the City filed a demolition permit request on September 11th, 2014 to demolish the entire Pier to the seawall, including the Pyramid, even though 11 of the 16 teams planned a renovation? Keep peeling the onion back, kids.

T - Why ask the citizens of St Petersburg which Pier design they would prefer, if 1 person on the Mayor's Committee picks HIS choice?
This is an insult to everyone who was asked to vote!
A majority of citizens selected "Destination St Petersburg" & that is the design that should be used!
Mr. Mayor, is this how your city government works?

Bill - Was all the voting just a big sham??? 

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

Is the Kriseman administration playing straight on the Pier?

By: Eugene Webb, PhD

Coauthor of: So You Want to Blog

It is not a secret that Mike Connors is no fan of the Pier and especially the inverted pyramid.

The Kriseman administration's decision to let Connors run the Pier project and chair the Selection Committee was a ticking time bomb that finally went off late Friday afternoon.

Following almost 8 hours of tedious discussion of all the remaining Pier proposals with Connors virtually dragging comments out of the committee members, Connors at one point sank back in his chair and commented he was getting tired.

Connors noted for his eloquent and often quaint handle on the English language has been a stalwart staffer for at least three Mayors. He is smart, fearless and those who don't respect him in the City organization are either very brave or really stupid.

Well beyond the point where most people would have thrown in the towel, Connors kept pushing along in the final Selection Committee meeting trying to get to his boss's objective of a ranking of three of the proposals. 

When the discussion got around to ranking the four, not three, remaining proposals, Connor's frustration was beginning to rise.

In what some might actually call a near rant, he expressed his strong disdain for anything a that retained the existing Pier or any of its structure, thus putting him in direct opposition the City's recent survey of public opinion which rank Destination Pier as their first choice.

So was Connors speaking for Connors, or was he speaking for the administration? It probably doesn't really matter because the perception is Connors is the City guy running the Pier show, and as they say in government perception is reality. The guy running the Pier project wants the inverted pyramid GONE.

It's been a long time since I saw Mike Connors come that unglued, and even longer since anything near his very public anti inverted pyramid mini rant.

This round of the Pier saga is starting to look like another train wreck.

When a representative of St. Pete Polls a local poling organization offered to share some of their results on the Pier Survey, he was allowed to speak, but then when he asked if he could have the poll shown on the screen and thus TV, Connors lateralled to the Legal Department who promptly said "no". The Poll supports the City survey and indicated Destination Pier is the overwhelming choice of the public.

Just kind of makes one wonder.

The end of Fridays meeting had to be some where close to Mayor Kriseman's worst nightmare. All this effort and not even a ranking and the old LENS opposition looking very concerned about ignoring the public's input.

Looking at the expressions on Mr. Ballard and Mr. Risser faces as they spoke at the end of the meeting, it seems the Kriseman dream team has some damage control to do.

E-mail Doc at: mailto:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or 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

The St. Pete Pier Committee ranking of proposals, eight hours in the weeds and 3 hours ranking to no decision.

By: Eugene Webb, PhD

Coauthor of: So You Want to Blog

Imagine being invited over to a friends house to view a paint drying.  Included in the invitation is the promise of $500 bottle of Dom Perignon if you stay and evaluate all of the colors.

Not bad you say I’m in.

You show up at your friend’s house and are shown into the paint chamber along with some friends. A painter enters and quickly paints the room. The paint begins to dry the group makes a few comments then suddenly the door opens and another painter comes in and begins to paint the room again.

What the invitation did not say was there are 6 different colors of paint and something like 16 shades of each color. This is obviously going to be a long evening. Would you stay to get your bottle of Dom?

Such was the situation at the Friday St. Pete Pier Selection Committee meeting.

The level of detail in the submission review was almost excruciating. After months of presentations, videos and a public survey, it was not clear why the detail review was necessary. Following the discussion was confusing at times. It was easy to get lost in the weeds.

There were no really new revelations

After eight hours of discussion the group eliminated three proposals leaving four. Since the objective was to get to three and rank them you would have thought the committee would simply eliminate one, rank the remaining three and call it a day.

Not a chance.

There was a motion to shortlist the remaining four, that when you think about it, made no sense at all. It passed after some public comment including suggestion that the Committee stop right there and hold another meeting with input from the finalists to answer some of the questions that had been raised.

As it appeared that Destination Pier was about to be ranked third, several from the audience began to cry foul since destination Pier had been the highest ranked in the public survey.

In the end Ed Montinari, long involved in in the Pier process and a frequent voice of reason, suggested the committee stop and reconvene.

They folded with no decision after almost 11 hours of discussion.

Follow the saga in saintpetersblog: Janelle Irwin's The Pier saga continues as final ranking is postponed

E-mail Doc at: mailto:dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or 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

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF ST. PETERSBURG STATEMENT ON NEW PIER DESIGNS

***** PRESS RELEASE *****
Concerned Citizens of St. Petersburg, Inc.

Contact: Gene Smith 727-385-4824

gatordem@gmail.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 25, 2015

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF ST. PETERSBURG STATEMENT ON NEW PIER DESIGNS

February 24 , 2015

Concerned Citizens of St. Petersburg, the group that led the campaign to stop the Lens, has followed the New Pier design process with great interest. Our slogan has been “St. Petersburg Can Do Better”. We have consistently advocated for establishing a transparent process in choosing a new Pier. This process focuses on the desires of the residents and the recommendations of the Pier Task Force and the Working Group/City Survey. We support Mayor Kriseman’s plan to establish just such a process.  We stood with the Mayor and endorsed this process when he announced it, and we do so now. The process has worked well so far, and we are now at the point where the residents are to record their opinions regarding the remaining designs.

In this process form follows function. These functions have been identified using extensive public input to the Pier Working Group, which built on the prior conclusions of the Pier Advisory Task Force. Those conclusions, the program for the new Pier, were included by the City in their Request for Qualifications to architects. We believe this process has led to much better results than was achieved by the last process. 

We have been repeatedly asked about our thoughts on the remaining designs, and if we intend to endorse one design over another. As has been our practice throughout this entire process, we believe such an endorsement would be inappropriate. We do wish to comment on and protect the process, and how these proposals relate to the original Task Force Report. We have reviewed the designs closely. Our review criteria include