THE PIER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL. February 17, 2011

Transcription

1 THE PIER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL February 17, 2011

2 scope

3 GOALS Determine core principles and vision Analyze integration of Pier with Waterfront park system and downtown core Determine pedestrian and vehicular transportation/parking access requirements Evaluate view corridors and vistas relative to height, location and massing of project components Define development constraints and environmental permitting issues including viability of a causeway option Formalize and validate final overall vision for the Pier project through an inclusive process of public input

4 PLANNING TASKS Task 1.1 Summarize work to date Task 1.2 Workshop / Kick-off Task 1.3 Programmatic alternatives Task 1.4 Public programming presentation Task 1.5 Pier alternatives Task 1.6 Waterfront integration Task 1.7 Workshop The role of the Pier to the City The commercial success of the Pier The integration of the project in the waterfront Overall costs

5 PLANNING TASKS Task 1.8 Massing model Task 1.9 Public presentation Task 1.10 Detailed alternatives Task 1.11 Workshop Task 1.12 Public presentation Task 1.13 Environmental issues (by others) Task 1.14 Selection and plan implementation Task 1.15 Final presentation

6 PART 1 The individual pieces

7 DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Overall program Pier program Length of Pier Runway impact Height Limitations Width of Pier Alignment of Pier Environmental Economic

8 Question Newton Kennedy Dudley Danner Kornell Nurse Polson Mayor Is there a particular feature of the pier you feel is historic? 1 Pier Structure 2a 2b Should the new facility be commercially self sufficient? Should it pay for the capital? What criteria do you use to justify subsidies - jobs, tourism? 2c 3a 3b Jobs Tourism Is there a pressing requirement to maintain the pier as long as it currently is? How long's long? Shorter Same Length Longer 4 Is there a need for a wide pier with parking? 5 Is the causeway vs. pier option purely a cost decision? 6a 6b Is the Pier a walkable component of the waterfront? Should we link up north and south? 7 Can the Pier be walkable from the parking? Are there any uses that the Council does not agree on 8a including? Retail in the mainland is struggling, should waterfront retail be 8b a major use? How open is Council to exploring all forms of "Iconic" 9 landmarks?

9 Question Newton Kennedy Dudley Danner Kornell Nurse Polson Mayor Is there a particular feature of the pier you feel is historic? 1 Pier Structure 2a 2b Should the new facility be commercially self sufficient? Should it pay for the capital? What criteria do you use to justify subsidies - jobs, tourism? 2c 3a 3b Jobs Tourism Is there a pressing requirement to maintain the pier as long as it currently is? How long's long? Shorter Same Length Longer 4 Is there a need for a wide pier with parking? 5 Is the causeway vs. pier option purely a cost decision? 6a 6b Is the Pier a walkable component of the waterfront? Should we link up north and south? 7 Can the Pier be walkable from the parking? Are there any uses that the Council does not agree on 8a including? Retail in the mainland is struggling, should waterfront retail be 8b a major use? How open is Council to exploring all forms of "Iconic" 9 landmarks? See minutes to meeting for detailed lists

10 WHAT WE LEARNED FROM COUNCIL St Pete will have a pier There is no need to substitute in kind We don t have to be as long as it is Should be walkable component of the waterfront The pier should not pay for the capital Justify through the impact on tourism and jobs It should reduce or eliminate the annual subsidies Do not compete with the downtown

11 WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT THE PIER? Its about being on the water Away from the City Looking back at the City Water experience Eating, dining Landmark An integral part of the waterfront Gathering and public spaces Tourist attraction Family attraction The beach is an unexploited asset Connectivity It is not about shopping

12 Maximum Height: 108 program

13 POSSIBLE USES Revenue Positive Compatible with the waterfront Candidate for iconic Architecture Destination Draw Dining, themed restaurants and bars Unique shopping, retail Amusement Event venue Hotel Theater, performing arts Museum Education Public Buildings Farmers market Water related functions [fishing, day cruise, eco] Banquet, multi-function, large assembly events

14 EVALUATION MATRIX Dining, themed restaurants Unique shopping & retail Amusement Event venues Theatre, performing arts Museum Education Public buildings Farmers market Fishing, boating Banquet, multi-funtion Water dependent Needs to be away from the City Views Water experience Eating, drinking Landmark Integral part of waterfront Gathering and public spaces Tourist attraction Family attraction Beach integration Connectivity Not about shopping

15 EVALUATION MATRIX Dining, themed restaurants Unique shopping & retail Amusement Event venues Theatre, performing arts Museum Education Public buildings Farmers market Fishing, boating Banquet, multi-function Water dependent Needs to be away from the City Views Water experience Eating, drinking Landmark Integral part of waterfront Gathering and public spaces Tourist attraction Family attraction Beach integration Connectivity Not about shopping

16 PROGRAM VISION Over the water space and park Vistas Experience the Bay Tourist draw Small event venue Intermittent events Regular events Landmark

17 SUGGESTED PROGRAM - THE NEW PIER Full Service Restaurant and Banquet Facility (4,000 to 10,000 ft 2 ) Quick Service Food and Beverage Concession (1,000 to 2,000 ft 2 ) Entertainment and Performance Stage Amphitheater (200 to 400 seats) Water Related Activities Fishing Boating Cruises Wading Touching Marina Maximum Height: 108 Community Events Plaza/Farmer s Market Observation Deck/Platform Public Restrooms Central Water Feature/Entertainment Attraction Tourist Information

18 THE REST OF THE WATERFRONT Major amphitheater (+5,000 people, on-land) Family entertainment park Open space Marinas Move the shopping and more dining on shore Near the city Adjacent to parking On the water

19 Maximum Height: 108 length

20 LENGTH Views to and from the City Environmental Impact on new structure Height restrictions at different locations from shoreline Costs to construct size of pier structure

21 AIRSPACE AND BUILDING RESTRICTIONS 401 feet* 1,016 feet 427 feet No Structures Maximum Height: 108 Maximum Height: 158

22 BUILDING HEIGHTS No structure to be aligned with primary N-S runway at airport Maximum height of 158 feet beyond 1,200 feet from shore Maximum height of 108 feet within transition zones

23 VIEWS SHORTEST LENGTH 450 FEET 452 feet

24 VIEWS MID LENGTH 735 FEET 735 feet

25 VIEWS FULL LENGTH 1,000 FEET 1016 feet

26 TOOLS 3 D MODEL

27 PRELIMINARY DIRECTIONS Once the commercial program is off the pier, the need to functional reduce the length of the pier is no longer there Therefore views and experience control Preliminary recommendations: Maintain current length for now Maintain option to shrink back to mid-length for budget purposes

28 Maximum Height: 108 width

29 WIDTH The biggest factor in reducing costs Width impacts environmental permitting issues Width affects the ongoing maintenance costs Accessibility for Pedestrian Service / emergency vehicles Trolley

30 WIDTH IS A FUNCTION OF: Uses Program Density Flexibility The current 100 feet wide approach is a function of roadway and parking

31 Is the pier approach A means or journey to the end?..or an end onto itself?

32 OPTION THE APPROACH AS OPEN SPACE? Very expensive The downtown has a plethora of green unprogrammed open space The key is the terminus

33 WIDTH - CURRENT Existing Pier 100

34

35 SAN FRANCISCO EMBARCADERO 16 wide circulation Total width = 20

36 NEW YORK HIGHLINE Most = 25 wide

37 PROMENADE PLANTÉE, PARIS 25 to 30 wide

38 EPCOT Major pedestrian ways 30 to 40 wide

39 PEDESTRIAN ONLY 24

40 TROLLEY ONLY 20

41 DUAL SIDEWALK + TROLLEY 40

42 OPTIMIZED DUAL SIDEWALK + TROLLEY - 30

43 LEVELS OF SERVICE WALKING AREAS LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F 35 sq ft (3.3 m 2 ) per person or greater 25 sq ft (2.3 m 2 )-35 sq ft per person 15 sq ft (1.4 m 2 )-25 sq ft per person 10 sq ft (0.93 m 2 )-15 sq ft per person 5 sq ft (0.46 m 2 )-10 sq ft per person 5 sq ft (0.46 m 2 ) per person or less

44 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS The full width pier is unaffordable It minimizes the over the water experience It will make the place look empty Recommendations A pedestrian / tram / service and emergency only access No curb design Flexible use of surface Range will be near 40 feet With 40 by 1000, the pier can handle 2,500 to 4,000 people walking Maintain the 30 as a viable cost cutting measure

45 INTEGRATING RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION

46 environmental

47 SEAGRASSES Potential Sea Grass Locations

48 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Change of footprint Protection of Sea Grasses Water Base Use Requirements Fill implications and limitations Permitting Timeframe

49 PART 2 Putting it all together

50 Maximum Height: 108 concepts

51 GOALS

52 GOALS Widen the over-the-water experience Engage the entire waterfront Make the beach a focal point Strengthen linkages The pier as a landmark A unique pier Maximize views Create the maximum bay interaction

53 TWO DISTINCT PARTS The pier A journey experience The terminus A reason to go

54 Maximum Height: 108 themes

55 1 Theme 1- A continuation of history

56 SAME APPROACH.. 1

57 REUSE OF EXISTING FOOTPRINT Same pier alignment Narrower pier 1 Like before change the program and terminus Focus on the program Better integrated into the park More open space More Bay interaction Financially more successful

58 1

59 1 Pier to Mainland Tower with Observation Platform Transit turnaround Water Basin Stage Amphitheater

60 2 Theme 2 - a pier unlike any other pier

61 Just like St Pete did many years ago, these piers, opted to rebuild on their old footprint.straight programs from the land out what if?...

62 EVOLUTION

63 A NEW EXPERIENCE A pedestrian bridge that allows an interactive journey over the bay Connectivity A pedestrian experience 2 A round trip journey

64 2

65 Pier to Mainland (Vehicular Access Only) 2 Island Feature Plaza for Community Events Amphitheater Pier to Mainland (Pedestrian Access Only) Water Basin Stage Tower with Observation Platform

66 A CONNECTED PARK SYSTEM 2

67 FUTURE CONNECTIVITY 2

68 ACCESS TO THE PIER END 2 Trolley Valet Parking

69 3 Theme 3 - Further development

70 SEPARATION OF THE ICON FROM THE EXPERIENCE Less expensive Bring the stage closer to the City Maintain the terminus for a symbolic landmark 3

71 3

72 Light House Pier 3 Amphitheater Pier Extension Pedestrian only Community Events Pier to Mainland Plaza (Pedestrian Only Access) Tower with Observation Platform Water Feature/ Stage

73 4 Theme 4 - The beach as a stage for St Pete

74 LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE LANDMARKS

75 ACTIVATING THE BEACH The Bay beach cannot compete with the Gulf beaches for swimming 4 However what if..

76 BEACHES Nice Acapulco Copacabana Bondi Marbella South Beach Waikiki Malibu 4 St Petersburg beach

77

78 THE BEACH AS A FOCAL POINT AND STAGE 4

79 4

80 4 Amphitheater Light House Island/ Pier Public Beach Pier Extension Pedestrian Access Only Tower with Observation Platform Promenade to Mainland Community Events Plaza Water Feature/ Stage

81 5 Theme 5- The island destination

82 THE SCULPTURED PIER Ever changing views of the bay and the City A symbolic recreation of the historic approach 5 A lighted guideway to the terminus A continuous celebration of being in the Bay

83 5

84 5 Pier to Mainland Plaza for Community Events Tower with Observation Platform Water Basin Stage Amphitheater Original Pier Supports

85 6 Theme 6 - A total over water experience

86 WHY GO OUT THERE? The pier as is offers a single destination 6 What if multiple destinations With multiple uses And multiple audiences could accommodated????????

87 THE BAY AS A STAGE The pier becomes an interlinking route to a series of activity elements 6 A series of areas maximizing the opportunity to experience the Bay Exercise Passive Arts Fishing Viewing

88 6

89 ISLANDS OF ACTIVITIES

90 Pier to Mainland Vehicular Access Only 6 Pier to Mainland Pedestrian Access Only Tower with Observation Platform Water Basin/Stage Pedestrian Pier to Island Community Events Plaza

91 7 Theme 7 - Waterworld

92 THE PIER AS A POINT OF ARRIVAL Marina The marina as a focal point 7

93 7

94 Pier Island 7 Amphitheater Marina Pier to Mainland Tower with Observation Platform Pedestrian Pier to Island Water Basin/Stage Community Events Plaza

95 Maximum Height: 108 terminus

96 Pier to Mainland Vehicular Access Only Pier to Mainland Pedestrian Access Only Tower with Observation Platform Water Basin/Stage Pedestrian Pier to Island Community Events Plaza

97 FORMS

98

99 EVENT SPACE

100

101

102

103 ATTRACTION

104

105 EVENT

106 Maximum Height: 108 affordability

107 RELATIVE SIZE COMPARISON (PIER ONLY) Pier Footprint Terminus Footprint Total Footprint Total Difference from Existing % of base Existing 103, , , % 1 72,168 97, ,296 62,004 73% 2 76,666 73, ,978 81,322 65% 3 & 4 44,157 62, , ,087 46% 5 63,985 67, ,857 99,443 57% 6 120,066 54, ,901 56,399 76% 7 95,620 96, ,569 38,731 83% ALL VALUES ARE IN SQUARE FEET

108

109 THE PIER CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL February 17, 2011

110 EVALUATION MATRIX Water dependent Needs to be away from the City Views Water experience Eating, drinking 1 Landmark 1 Integral part of waterfront 1 Gathering and public spaces 1 Tourist attraction 7 1 Family attraction 1 Beach integration Connectivity Affordability