Advertisement

Editorial: Keep eye on costs, not pretty pictures, for St. Petersburg pier

 
Among the eight designs submitted last month for a new pier are grand visions of what might be, not necessarily what is possible within St. Petersburg’s $33 million construction budget.
Among the eight designs submitted last month for a new pier are grand visions of what might be, not necessarily what is possible within St. Petersburg’s $33 million construction budget.
Published Jan. 9, 2015

St. Petersburg residents who have yet to tune in to the latest round of ideas for replacing the downtown pier, fear not: Analysis due later this month from a city consultant will be the best gauge yet of what is actually feasible and affordable. And after that, the city's attention needs to turn to assessing which of those proposals actually make long-term sense financially and functionally for downtown. More than a half-decade into this conversation, it remains as vital as ever that the city and its residents apply common sense to this major investment.

To the casual observer, the eight designs submitted last month can be overwhelming and downright misleading. The competing architects, naturally prone to grand visions and rosy projections, have submitted plans with colorful artists' renderings showcasing a long-term vision for what might be — not just what is possible within St. Petersburg's $33 million budget for construction of a new pier.

A new concept to turn the pier area into more of a Central Park-type amenity with lagoons and various walkways in the uplands adjacent to the pier approach, for example, does not include money for any kind of clay liner for the lagoons, calling into question that additional cost or the plan's feasibility. Another idea aimed at rehabilitating the pier's inverted pyramid includes an eye-catching waterfall that spans the width of the building's west facade, but it isn't accounted for in the $33 million budget. The list goes on and on as some designs add jetties or boat slips or structures that aren't part of the initial budget but would be "future investments."

That's why the analysis expected this week at City Hall from Skanska USA, the contractor expected to manage the construction of the winning plan, is so crucial. Skanska's Tampa office has been hired to assess the eight plans' feasibility and construction assumptions but also what is doable for $33 million. Only firms that have a buildable plan within that budget will be eligible for consideration as finalists by the selection committee, Mayor Rick Kriseman has said. Then finalists will be subjected to a nonbinding public poll as part of the eventual decision process.

But Kriseman needs to be sure, going forward, that the information the public will be provided to inform their poll selections reflects what actually can be built within the city's budget. Renderings that show elements that cannot be built within that budget are highly misleading and amount to false advertising. Also important will be providing the public with as much information as possible about anticipated annual taxpayer subsidies. Residents should know not only construction costs but also the long-term financial commitment for amenities that they may decide, on balance, aren't worth the annual cost.

The hard questions are just starting for this latest pier process. The more transparent and accurate information City Hall provides to the public, the better.