Bermello Ajamil & Partners presentation to St. Pete City Council re: The Pier

8/7/2019 Bermello Ajamil & Partners presentation to St. Pete City Council re: The Pier

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bermello-ajamil-partners-presentation-to-st-pete-city-council-re-the-pier 1/110

Feb ruary 17, 2011

THE PIER

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL



s c

o p e



GOALS

• Dete rmine c ore p rinc ip les and vision• Ana lyze integra tion o f Pier with Waterfront p a rk system a nd

downtown core• Determine ped estrian and vehic ula r transporta tion/ parking ac c ess

requirements• Eva luate view c orridors and vista s rela tive to height, loc a tion a nd

ma ssing o f projec t c omponents• Define development c onstra ints and environmenta l permittingissues inc lud ing viab ility o f a c auseway op tion

• Forma lize and va lida te fina l overa ll vision fo r the Pier p rojec tthrough an inc lusive p roc ess of pub lic input



PLANNING TASKS

• Task 1.1 Summarize work to date

• Task 1.2 Workshop / Kick -o ff

• Task 1.3 Prog rammatic a lternatives

• Task 1.4 Public prog ramming presenta tion

• Task 1.5 Pier a lternatives

• Task 1.6 Waterfront integration

• Task 1.7 Workshop• The role of the Pier to the City• The c om me rc ial suc c ess of the Pier• The integration o f the p rojec t in the wate rfront

• Ove ra ll c osts



PLANNING TASKS

• Task 1.8 Massing model

• Task 1.9 Public presentation

• Task 1.10 Detailed a lternatives

• Task 1.11 Workshop

• Task 1.12 Pub lic presentation

• Task 1.13 Environmental issues (by others)

• Task 1.14 Selec tion and plan imp lementation

• Task 1.15 Final presentation



PART 1

The ind ividua l p iec es



• Overa ll p rogram

• Pier p rogram• Leng th of Pier

• Runway imp ac t•

Height Limita tions• Wid th of Pier• Alignment o f Pier• Environmental• Economic

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES



Question Newton Kenned y Dud ley Danner Kornell Nurse Polson Ma yor

1

Is there a pa rticular fea ture of the pier you fe el is historic?

Pier

Structure

2a Should the new fac ility be com me rcially self sufficient?

2b Should it pa y for the c ap ital?

2c

What c riteria d o yo u use to justify subsidies - jobs, tourism?

Jobs

Tourism

3aIs there a p ressing requirement to ma intain the p ier as long a sit currently is?

3b

How long's long?

Shorter

Sam e Length

Longer

4 Is there a need for a w ide p ier with pa rking?

5 Is the c ausew ay vs. pier opt ion purely a c ost d ec ision?6a Is the Pier a w alkable c om po nent of the wa terfront?

6b Should w e link up north and south?

7 Ca n the Pier be wa lkab le from the p arking?

8aAre the re a ny uses that the Counc il does not ag ree onincluding?

8b

Reta il in the mainland is struggling, should wa terfront reta il be

a m ajor use?9

How op en is Co unc il to e xploring a ll forms of "Ic onic"landmarks?



Question Newton Kenned y Dud ley Danner Kornell Nurse Polson Ma yor

1

Is there a pa rticular fea ture of the pier you fe el is historic?

Pier

Structure

2a Should the new fac ility be com me rcially self sufficient?

2b Should it pa y for the c ap ital?

2c

What c riteria d o yo u use to justify subsidies - jobs, tourism?

Jobs

Tourism

3aIs there a p ressing requirement to ma intain the p ier as long a sit currently is?

3b

How long's long?

Shorter

Sam e Length

Longer

4 Is there a need for a w ide p ier with pa rking?

5 Is the c ausew ay vs. pier opt ion purely a c ost d ec ision?6a Is the Pier a w alkable c om po nent of the wa terfront?

6b Should w e link up north and south?

7 Ca n the Pier be wa lkab le from the p arking?

8aAre the re a ny uses that the Counc il does not ag ree onincluding?

See m inutes to m ee ting for det ailed lists

8b

Reta il in the mainland is struggling, should wa terfront reta il be

a m ajor use?9

How op en is Co unc il to e xploring a ll forms of "Ic onic"landmarks?



WHAT WE LEARNED FROM COUNCIL

• St Pete will ha ve a p ier

• There is no need to sub stitute in kind• We don’ t have to be as long as it is

• Should be wa lkab le c omponent of the wa terfront

• The p ier should not pay for the c ap ita l• Justify through the impac t on tourism and jobs

• It should reduc e or elimina te the annua lsubsidies

• Do not c ompete w ith the d owntown



WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT THE PIER?

• Its about be ing on the water

• Awa y from the City

• Looking back a t the City

• Water experience

• Eating, dining

• Landmark • An integral pa rt of the wa terfront

• Gathering and public spa ces

• Tourist a ttrac tion

• Family attrac tion • The b eac h is an unexploited asset

• Connectivity

• It is not a bout shopp ing



p r o g r a m

Max imum Height: 108’



RevenuePositive

Compatiblewith the

waterfront

Candidate foriconic

Architecture

DestinationDraw

Dining, themed restaurants and b ars

Unique shop p ing, reta il

Amusement

Event venue

Hotel

Thea ter, performing a rts

Museum

EducationPub lic Buildings

Farmers market

Wate r related func tions[fishing, d ay c ruise, ec o]

Banquet, multi-func tion, large assem b lyevents

POSSIBLE USES



EVALUATION MATRIX

D i n i n g , t h

e m e

d

r e s

t a u r a n

t s

U n

i q u e s

h o

p p

i n g

&

r e t a

i l

A m u s e m

e n

t

E v e n

t v e

n u e s

T h e a

t r e ,

p e r f o

r m i n g a r t s

M u s e u m

E d u c a

t i o n

P u

b l i c b u

i l d i n g s

F a r m e r s m

a r k e

t

F i s h i n g , b

o a

t i n g

B a n q u e

t , m u

l t i - f u n

t i o n

Water dependent

Needs to be a wa y from the City

Views

Water experienc e

Eating , d rinking

Landmark

Integ ra l pa rt o f wa terfrontGa thering a nd p ublic spa c es

Tourist a ttrac tion

Family attrac tion

Bea c h integ ra tion

ConnectivityNot ab out shopp ing



EVALUATION MATRIX

D i n i n g , t h

e m e

d

r e s

t a u r a n

t s

U n

i q u e s

h o

p p

i n g

&

r e t a

i l

A m u s e m

e n

t

E v e n

t v e

n u e s

T h e a

t r e ,

p e r f o

r m i n g a r t s

M u s e u m

E d u c a

t i o n

P u

b l i c b u

i l d i n g s

F a r m e r s m

a r k e

t

F i s h i n g , b

o a

t i n g

B a n q u e

t , m u

l t i - f u n c

t i o n

Water dependent

Needs to be a wa y from the City

Views

Water experienc e

Eating , d rinking

Landmark

Integ ra l pa rt o f wa terfrontGa thering a nd p ublic spa c es

Tourist a ttrac tion

Family attrac tion

Bea c h integ ra tion

ConnectivityNot ab out shopp ing



PROGRAM VISION

• Over the wa ter spac e a nd pa rk

• Vistas• Experienc e the Bay

• Tourist d raw

• Small event venue• Intermittent events

• Regula r events

• Landmark




SUGGESTED PROGRAM - THE NEW PIER

• Full Service Restaurant a nd Banq uet Fac ility (4,000 to 10,000 ft2)• Quic k Servic e Food and Beverage Conc ession (1,000 to 2,000 ft2)• Ente rta inment and Performanc e Sta ge• Amphitheater (200 to 400 seats)• Water Rela ted Ac tivities

• Fishing

•

Boating• Cruises

• Wading

• Touching

• Marina•

Community Events Plaza / Farmer’ s Ma rket• Ob serva tion Dec k/ Pla tform• Public Restrooms• Centra l Water Fea ture/ Enterta inment Att rac tion• Tourist Information



THE REST OF THE WATERFRONT

• Ma jor amphithea ter (+5,000 peop le, on-land )• Family enterta inment p ark• Op en spac e

• Marinas• Move the shopp ing and more d ining on shore• Nea r the c ity• Ad jac ent to p a rking

• On the wa ter



l e

n g t h




LENGTH

• Views to and from the City

• Environmenta l Impac t on new struc ture• Height restric tions a t d ifferent loc a tions from

shoreline•

Costs to c onstruc t size of p ier struc ture



Maximum Height: 108’

No Structures

Maximum Height: 158’

A IRSPACE AND BUILDING RESTRICTIONS

1,016 feet 427 feet

401 feet*



BUILDING HEIGHTS

• No struc ture to be a ligned with p rimary N-S

runway a t a irport• Ma ximum height o f 158 feet b eyond 1,200 feet

from shore• Maximum he ight of 108 feet within transition

zones



452 feet

VIEWS – SHORTEST LENGTH – 450 FEET



735 feet

VIEWS – MID LENGTH – 735 FEET



1016 feet

VIEWS – FULL LENGTH – 1,000 FEET



TOOLS – 3 D MODEL

P



PRELIMINARY DIRECTIONS

• Onc e the c ommerc ia l p rogram is off the p ier,

the need to func tiona l red uce the leng th of thep ier is no longer there• Therefore views and experienc e c ontrol

• Preliminary recommendations:• Ma inta in c urrent length for now• Ma inta in op tion to shrink bac k to mid -length for

budget p urposes

h



w i d t h


W



WIDTH

• The b iggest fac tor in reduc ing c osts

• Wid th impac ts environmenta l permitting issues• Wid th a ffec ts the ongoing ma intenance c osts

• Ac c essib ility fo r• Pedestrian• Servic e / emergenc y vehic les• Trolley

W



WIDTH IS A FUNCTION OF:

• Uses

• Program• Density

• Flexibility

• The c urrent 100 fee t w ide approac h is afunction of roadway and parking



A means or journey to the end?

……..or an end onto itself?

Is the p ier app roac h

O ?



OPTION – THE APPROACH AS OPEN SPACE?

• Very expensive

• The downtown has ap lethora of greenunprogrammedop en spac e

• The key is theterminus

W



Existing Pier100’

WIDTH - CURRENT



SAN FRANCISCO EMBARCADERO



SAN FRANCISCO EMBARCADERO

• 16’ wide c irc ula tion• Tota l wid th = 20’

NEW YORK HIGHLINE



NEW YORK HIGHLINE

• Most = 25‘ wide

PROMENADE PLANTÉE PARIS



PROMENADE PLANTÉE, PARIS

• 25’ to 30 ‘ w ide

EPCOT



EPCOT

• Major pedestrian ways–

30’ to 40’ wide

PEDESTRIAN ONLY 24 ‘



PEDESTRIAN ONLY – 24

TROLLEY ONLY 20’



TROLLEY ONLY – 20

DUAL SIDEWALK + TROLLEY 40’



DUAL SIDEWALK + TROLLEY – 40

OPTIMIZED DUAL SIDEWALK + TROLLEY 30’



OPTIMIZED DUAL SIDEWALK + TROLLEY - 30

LEVELS OF SERVICE WALKING AREAS



LOS A35 sq ft (3.3 m2) perperson o r grea ter

LOS B25 sq ft (2.3 m2)-35 sq ft

per pe rson

LOS C 15 sq ft (1.4 m2)-25 sq ftper pe rson

LOS D10 sq ft (0.93 m2)-15 sq ft

per pe rson

LOS E5 sq ft (0.46 m2)-10 sq ft

per pe rson

LOS F5 sq ft (0.46 m2) per

person o r less

LEVELS OF SERVICE – WALKING AREAS

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS



PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

• The full wid th p ier is una ffordab le

• It m inimizes the over the wa ter experienc e• It will make the p lace look empty

• Recommendations

• A ped estrian / tram / servic e a nd emergenc y only ac c ess• No c urb design• Flexib le use of surfac e• Range w ill be near 40 fee t

• With 40’ b y 1000’, the p ier c an hand le 2,500 to 4,000 peop le wa lking

• Ma inta in the 30’ as a viab le c ost c utting measure

INTEGRATING RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION



INTEGRATING RECREATION & TRANSPORTATION

a



e n v i

r o n m

e n t a l

SEAGRASSES



Potentia l Sea Grass

Locations

SEAGRASSES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES



ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

• Change o f footprint•

Protec tion o f Sea Grasses• Water Base Use Requirements• Fill imp lic a tions and limita tions•

Permitt ing Timeframe



PART 2

Putting it a ll together

ts



c o n c e p t s


GOALS



GOALS

GOALS



GOALS

• Widen the over-the-wa ter experienc e

• Engage the entire waterfront• Make the b eac h a foc a l point• Streng then linkages

• The p ier as a land mark• A unique p ier

•Maximize views

• Crea te the maximum b ay interac tion

TWO DISTINCT PARTS



TWO DISTINCT PARTS

• The p ier

• A journey experienc e

• The terminus• A reason to go

es



t h

e m

e s


1



Theme 1-

A c ontinua tion of history

1

SAME APPROACH……..

1



SAME APPROACH……..

1

REUSE OF EXISTING FOOTPRINT

1



US O S G OO

• Same p ier a lignment

• Narrower p ier

• Like b efore c hange the p rogram and terminus

• Foc us on the p rogram• Bette r integ ra ted into the park• More open spac e

• More Bay interac tion• Fina nc ia lly more suc c essful

1

1



1

1



Tow er with Observa tionPlatform

Amphitheater

Transit turna round

Water Basin Sta ge

Pier to Ma inland

1

2



2

Theme 2 -

……a p ier unlike any o ther p ier………………



Just like St Pete d id many years ago, these

p iers, op ted to rebuild on the ir oldfootprint……

…….stra ight p rograms from the land out

……what if?.....................



A NEW EXPERIENCE

2



• A pedestrian b ridge tha t a llows an interac tive

journey over the bay• Connectivity• A pedestrian experienc e

• A round trip journey

2

2



2

2




Amphitheater

Plaza for Co mmunityEvents

Wate r Basin Sta gePier to Ma inland(Pedestrian Access Only)

Pier to Ma inland(Vehicular Ac c ess Only)

Island Feature

2

2A CONNECTED PARK SYSTEM



2

2FUTURE CONNECTIVITY



2

2ACCESS TO THE PIER END



2

Trolley

Va let Parking

3



Theme 3 -

Further develop ment

3

SEPARATION OF THE ICON FROM THE EXPERIENCE

3



• Less expensive

• Bring the stage c loser to the City• Mainta in the terminus for a symbolic landmark

3

3



3

3



Pier to Ma inland(Pedestrian Only Access)

Light House Pier

Pier ExtensionPedestrian only

Tower with

ObservationPlatform

Amphitheater

Water Fea ture/ Stage

Community EventsPlaza

3

4



Theme 4 -

The beac h as a sta ge fo r St Pete

4

LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE LANDMARKS



ACTIVATING THE BEACH

4



• The Bay bea c h cannot compete with the Gulf

beac hes for swimming

• However……………wha t if………..

4

BEACHES

4



• Nice

•Acapulco

• Copacabana• Bondi• Marbella

• South Beac h• Waikiki• Malibu

• St Petersburg beac h

4



4THE BEACH AS A FOCAL POINT AND STAGE



4

4



4

4



Promena de to Ma inland

Light House Island / Pier

Pier ExtensionPedestrian AccessOnly

Tower withOb serva tion Platfo rm

Amphitheater

Wate r Fea ture/ StageCommunity Events

Plaza

Pub lic Bea c h

4

5



Theme 5-

The island destina tion

5

THE SCULPTURED PIER

5



• Ever c hanging views of the b ay and the City

• A symb olic rec rea tion of the historic app roac h

• A lighted guidew ay to the terminus

• A c ontinuous c elebra tion of being in the Bay

5

5



5

5




Amphitheater

Plaza for Co mmunity Events

Origina l Pier Sup ports

Wate r Basin Sta ge

Pier to Ma inland

5

6



Theme 6 -

A to ta l ove r water experienc e

6

WHY GO OUT THERE?6



• The p ier as is offers a sing le destina tion

• What if multip le d estina tions• With multip le uses

• And multip le audiences c ould ac c ommodated

•????????

6

THE BAY AS A STAGE

6



• The p ier bec omes an interlinking route to aseries of ac tivity elements

• A series of areas maximizing the opportunity toexperienc e the Bay

• Exerc ise• Passive

• Arts• Fishing• Viewing

6

6



6



6




Community Events PlazaPedestrian Pier to Island

Water Basin/Sta ge

Pier to Ma inlandVehicular Access Only

Pier to Ma inlandPed estrian Ac c ess Only

6

7



Theme 7 -

Waterworld

7

THE PIER AS A POINT OF ARRIVAL

7



• Marina

• The marina as a foc a l point

7

7



7

Pier Island 7



Tower withObservationPlatform

Co mmunity EventsPlaza

Pedestrian Pier to Island

Water Basin/Sta ge

Marina

Pier to Ma inland

Pier Island

Amphitheater

7






Community Events PlazaPedestrian Pier to Island

Water Basin/Sta ge

Pier to Ma inlandVehicular Access Only

Pier to Ma inlandPed estrian Ac c ess Only













ATTRACTION





EVENT



l i t y



a

f f o r d a b i






1 2

3 4 5

6 7



Feb ruary 17, 2011

THE PIER

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL

EVALUATION MATRIX



1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Water dependent 6 5 5 4 3 2 1

Needs to be away from the City 1 1 1 1 1 1

Views 6 5 4 3 2 1 2

Water experienc e 7 2 1

Ea ting , d rinking 1

Landmark 1

Integra l pa rt of wa terfront 1

Ga thering and pub lic spac es 1Tourist a ttrac tion 7 1

Family a ttrac tion 1

Documents

Bermello Ajamil & Partners presentation to St. Pete City Council re: The Pier