Too Much, or Too Little? - First, I recognize my posts have been somewhat irregular lately. My home computer has been giving me fits, and having gotten it back from the repair shop last week it developed a new trick last night and wouldn't boot up at all. May be time for an upgrade... Along with that are a couple of unanswered questions, I will get to those in the next couple of days.
For today, I want to get to a question of my own. I hear a lot of comments about the pace things are happening downtown, and there is a very interesting dichotomy; on one hard, some folks are concerned about how quickly things are changing. On the other hand, many others are concerned that the economy will get away from us, and that redevelopment has to be taken as far as it can be while conditions are right. Connected to that side is the issue of getting projects that bring public parking to fruition as quickly as possible.
Of course many of the variables that control the timing of these things are not in the city's control - the aforementioned economy, for example, or the retirements of the Baby Boomers which will have a huge effect on us in the coming years. But in spite of that, my question is this: What do you think about the pace of things? Is it all just too much, too fast, or do you favor, if redevelopment is inevitable anyway, seeing as much done as possible while the iron is hot? There are no right or wrong answers of course, but I think this could be an interesting discussion. Please, make me right!
For today, I want to get to a question of my own. I hear a lot of comments about the pace things are happening downtown, and there is a very interesting dichotomy; on one hard, some folks are concerned about how quickly things are changing. On the other hand, many others are concerned that the economy will get away from us, and that redevelopment has to be taken as far as it can be while conditions are right. Connected to that side is the issue of getting projects that bring public parking to fruition as quickly as possible.
Of course many of the variables that control the timing of these things are not in the city's control - the aforementioned economy, for example, or the retirements of the Baby Boomers which will have a huge effect on us in the coming years. But in spite of that, my question is this: What do you think about the pace of things? Is it all just too much, too fast, or do you favor, if redevelopment is inevitable anyway, seeing as much done as possible while the iron is hot? There are no right or wrong answers of course, but I think this could be an interesting discussion. Please, make me right!
posted by Michael McNees at 11:55 AM
26 Comments:
Historically, communities rarely experience slow and steady growth over extended periods. Instead, cities grow in leaps in bounds. Successful cities are those who know how to manage the growth while capitalizing on the opportunities it presents for public benefit.
Sarasota is lucky. Several years ago City leaders, predicting significant growth in our future, wanted to steer the growth to our advantage, rather than leaving it purely to market forces. So just before the recent real estate boom, we hired Andres Duany to help create a plan. Duany had a common-sense approach toward meeting the Commission’s goals: If we wanted certain things in certain places, then let’s plan for them to be there, and then create incentives so that developers would not only fulfill our vision, but do the work for us. So we got the plan in place, and “boom” the real estate market went crazy.
So why all the fuss? Well, it seems that a portion of the community forgot about the idea of giving something to get something. They began to view the developmental incentives which were offered, and which were an integral part of Duany’s plan, as our City Commissioners simply “giving away the farm”.
I believe we have done a good job at this. Could we have done a little better? Yes. But hind-sight is always 20/20, and urban planning is not an exact science.
What do I think about the pace of development? I think that we need to take advantage of any and all growth opportunities, provided we continue to ensure that all growth is in synch with the vision we have created. Personally I think it is easier to tolerate a large growth spurt in a short time, because constructing building after building on such large scales creates a lot of hardship for a small city like ours. Why not build it all now and then get rid of the cranes and enjoy things for a while.
I am reminded of the many times someone would ask my Dad why he and my Mother decided to have all their 7 children in just under 11 years. His answer was always the same: “I just wanted to get it over with.” Of course his problem wasn’t cranes, it was storks.
Interesting topic. Duany had a vision that Sarasota embraced. Yet, any City needs to assess its plan periodically and make adjustments if necessary. Perhaps a "walking" City is only as good as the destimations available to walk toward.The small town feeling with urban amenities may need readdressing. A reassessment might be in order to determine exactly what the present development has brought to enhance the urban amenities and what is lacking. A City needs more than buildings and attractive sidewalks and streetscapes. It needs life. It needs something to draw people toward it. Sarasota has an artistic and cultural reputation that could be built upon. I think perhaps a more concerted effort in the Cultural District/Bayfront area also tying into St. Armand's would be a unique approach. Thinking outside of the "Duany" box might be in order. The City has the waterfront which has been largely overlooked. There had been a mention of water taxis at one time. What about unique waterfront shops along the bayfront, with pedestrian bridges if necessary, from the City. What would make the City of Sarasota unique from other areas simply redeveloping? It is never easy to know what the future will hold. I am not privy to land the City owns within the downtown area. There is parking attached to City Hall. Could that be multilevel parking with reserved spots for employees if required? Usually when inveating the key word is "Location." You have that and I think developers know it. I don't agree in the incentives given to developers unless there are some meaningful clauses returning a future benefit to the City.
Recently the lease for Marina Jack was discussed concerning an extension. Perhaps this and other leased properties should be looked at as if there was no present use. Look at it as if the area was available for either the same, similar or even a different use but compare the rental received to what the fair market value would be if the City was not the landlord. Maybe the payment has been calculated in this manner. However, if the mooring field becomes a part of this lease in the future then accurate revenue figures should be developed so that the City receives the full benefit and not a private leaseholder. Have the audired financials been requested and reviewed to asssure that the City is receiving a lease payment that reflefcts what it could receive if it was a private firm, reflective of the present market demand and projected for the future. Sometimes we get so used to an establsihed presence that we overlook what might be. Location is the key and this certainly is a prime City location. The need for an extension to amortize what the leaseholder has put in to the leasehold should not necessarily deter the City from doing what may be best for all of its citizens. Perhaps a concept plan for the area or at least "taking a look" at other possibilities would be in order.
The downtown growth has a lot to do with how wonderful our area is for people to be. Who could ask for a better city? We have so much to offer and it is a beautiful place to walk around and in. I think we will continue to grown up and people will have to become used to our city becoming a real city and not a small town.
I hope the commission does not feel the need to rush some things. Such as the Pineapple Square project seems to be a rush and really for no real reasons. Things like this could go a little slower but all in all the growth is good.
The bayfront should be connected to our downtown more as talked about in the Duany sessions.
Also the city needs to be very careful to not hurt the current businesses and the hardship that is being placed on them with all the construction and lack of parking. Remember with the construction comes more workers making the parking problem even worse. It seems the surrounding areas around Main Street have the worst parking problems because Whole Foods parking has helped that core part that also has State Street, First Street and other small lots. But the rest of downtown is hurting with parking needs and construction crews. So while the city is all go on new projects, we need to really patronize and think of incentives for the long standing retailers and businesses.
Depending on joint projects for city parking should be reconsidered. Developers know that in time the City will move on to other business and eventually will "forget" about the public parking in those buildings. Or the site will profess that not enough parking is available for its own business and it needs the spaces. A new deal will be negotiated. Then the developer will inherit the spaces and, thus, public land. A city-built and owned parking garage for the public is the way to go.
FROM SOS BLOG
Rigorous Objectivity?
The SHT editorial today comments on the recent Pineapple Square decision and what is ahead. The editorial asks some very critical questions. We hope these questions are not swept aside as were Commissioner Palmer's questions during the evaluation of the term sheet.
After the big Pineapple Square proposal got another vote of confidence last week from Sarasota city commissioners, some of them essentially told their staff to make the project happen. Whatever that might mean, the phrase has a troubling ring -- for two reasons:
While a couple of individual commissioners may want staff to make it happen, that is not the commission's official policy directive. The 4-1 vote Tuesday was not to finalize Pineapple Square, but rather to incrementally approve term-sheet revisions and start deeper contract negotiations.
No matter how much conceptual support Pineapple Square enjoys, it cannot be built until and unless the developer wins approval of several key components -- a still-to-come process that should be handled with rigorous objectivity by city staff and, of course, commissioners.
We also were troubled by the comments directed toward the City Manager and his staff at the close of this portion of the meeting.
Since the city commissioners have chosen to invest upwards of $18M in city property and funds, it would seem prudent, at the least, to make sure all the facts concerning this proposal are laid out for public scrutiny. The city staff needs to be able to do this without "veiled directives". This needs to be done openly, fully and with attention to detail. We need to get beyond outright dismissal of the parking and appraisal consultants' expertise. Their input needs to be reviewed and honestly discussed.
A proposal of this magnitude must not be swept out of public view by telling the staff to "make it happen, now."
The City Hall renovation has been going on for some time. The mantra of "on time and under budget" is comforting but if the budget is high enough then it can be met. How does the cost per square foot for this and the renovation of the Federal Building project compare to other projects in other municipalities. Has a comparison been done? Also, based on a previous post could a parking garage be placed in the area adjoining the City Hall. Maybe "thinking out of the box" would be to consider offices as a part of the parking garage if feasible. If we can't have developer paricipation to secure parking downtown then we might have to do it ourselves and consider renting reserved employee spaces to surrounding businesses during non work hours.
I like the idea of a parking garage at City Hall. It is a central location, the land is already owned, and it really can't be used for anything else as long as City Hall is located there. We could probably build offices surrounding the perimeter, and move everyone from the federal building back on to one campus. Then to off-set the cost of construction, we could sell the federal building property to a developer to build affordable housing! Of course there is that whole historic preservation thing, but there might be a work around. If the State St. lot was "worth" 11 million, then the federal building site should be worth twice that. What do you think Mike?
I like the idea of a parking garage on STATE STREET, land the city owns and will own 80 years from now. Just think what could be done on that lot in 80 years for the city. Exchanging this land for parking on air space with part of it on rented land is just awful planning for the long term interests of the city.
James said:
It seems with all the artsy people and architects around that a very inviting, safe, interesting, and creative overpass for pedestrians could be developed across US 41 to the bayfront. Offer up a challenge and see what you get.
I have a drawing that I made several years ago about an idea for a pedestrian bridge to the bayfront. It was lined with shops similar to the Ponte Vecchio bridge in Florence, Italy. The renaissance architecture would blend nicely with Sarasota, and it would be a one of a kind in the U.S. Construction costs could be recovered through leasing, or we could offer it for RFP and let someone else build it. Instead of the long ugly ramps for ADA reqs., elevators would be located at each end. Looking south on lower Main it would look like the road and buildings just continued up and over 41 towards the water. Of course, you should probably have more stuff to do on the other side once you got people there.
To some of the questions: City Hall renovation; I don't think any comparison has been done per square foot to other cities' projects, in the case of city hall we won't have all the costs until the project is done. For the Federal Building I think comparisons would be difficult because the was such a complete restoration, but I suppose it could be compared to other historic restoration projects. My belief on that one is that it was extremely well managed, especially for a renovation project. For the most part City Hall has gone well also, but Murphy's Law as it applies to remodeling work caught up to us a bit, of course it had to happen with the Commissioner's and City Manager's offices and problems with some subcontractors and things got behind.
Parking garages at City Hall - The idea of a parking garage on the City Hall parking lot has been discussed, and is an option. I don't think the site is big enough to include much if any other development, however. We've had a sophisticated study done of downtown parking needs and availability, and that study points to where parking is most badly needed. For now, the garage at 100 Central meets much of the demand in this area, but the idea is still worth considering. (For the skeptics, I say pull in there on a busy night and find out for yourself - I've done that myself a few times recently and have always found spaces available.) As for tearing down the Federal pbuilding for some other development, I say OMIGOD I hope that never happens - that is such a great historic preservation/redevelopment project, I hope it is preserved forever. The POST OFFICE, however, that's another story...
Now for pedestrian bridges; I think we should look at all available options, regardless of whether or not they seem crazy on the surface. Shawn, what I have trouble visualizing with your idea, and I've thought about it in the past, is exactly where such a thing would come down on the bay side, especially if you're talking about connecting it to some sort of entertainment or food-related development, even if it's small scale. What are you thinking? I agree about elevators, otherwise the ADA-required slopes kill us from a practicality standpoint. But - do you think people would wait for an elevator, as opposed to just waiting for the stoplight ot change? If we're talking restaurants or something "up there", that's a pretty big structure, too. End to end, where do you see it fitting?
Mike, I was thinking that you could have pairs of curving stair cases on either side of Main Street on both sides of 41 in line with the sidewalks. The elevators would only service those with disabilities. The landing would be approximately in line with and just in front of the two large tower structures which were designed to be reminders of the old City Hall building (I think they are there) and now mark the entrance to Marina Jacks.
The width of the "Ponte Sarasota" pedestrian bridge would be the same as the Main Street ROW from outside edges of sidewalk to sidewalk. (maybe 50'?) Once reaching the top of the stairs which would curve inward towards the center of the bridge and land in line with a 15 foot wide pedestrian lane repleat with bench seating and public art. The lane could be offset from the bridge centerline to allow deeper buildings on one side. Perhaps 25 foot deep on one side and 10 on the other. These are perfect for small shops which are accessed through a service window, rather than entering a store.
I have been to the Ponte Vecchio in Florence and it is a must see destination for anyone visiting the area. It services thousands of people each day, and was built on a bridge that I believe dates back to Roman times. It happens to be a good place to buy jewelry and gold if you are in the market.
Visually it could be very cool from all angles, and would provide the average joe with an elevated view of the bay and of our busy Main Street. From the road it could be a good spot to place banners, like those on the light poles, promoting downtown functions and direct people to parking.
I will bring the drawing in next week and leave it for your viewing enjoyment.
Mike, One other thing. I remember back to some discussions about a ped. bridge across 41 near Blvd. of the Arts during the Mission Harbor (now Renaissance Project) RFP. It seems to me there was some issue with air rights over a State Road. So all this typing may be for not.
Mike, I agree with you about the Federal Building. It is a jewel and quite honestly I think its historical design adds more to the City than any proposed new construction. The management of its renovation was never in question. The City took great pains to assure it was managed well by using an Architect, CM, Staff and an owner's representative. The concern was how City budgets for projects compare to similar projects elsewhere in order to determine if our budgets are where they should be. I like your comment about the Post office. If there could be a joint effort with the County and the Feds in that arena even the concept of a governement center there would make sense. Perhaps County offices, City offices, incorporporating the Federal Building, and even Police.
I like the way Shawn is thinking. Even if an idea is only a concept it spawns other creative ideas and should be considered. You and the Commission probably know facts and figures that we do not simply because you are closer to the issues. Perhaps assessing and itemizing what we have gained as far as amenities and what we have lost would provide us with direction as to what is needed to not only develop but to assure that the City achieves a unique character and provides amenities for the future that will continue to draw not only residents but visitors.
Like the Ponte Sarasota idea but if it didn't work out, maybe a pedestrian crossing could be like a railroad crossing with the arms coming down across the street. It, too, could be creative. This town has so much expertise, retired folks with a huge amount of experience in all fields, folks who have traveled, engineers of all kinds, why not ask for input? Maybe even a tunnel under the street if air rights are a problem. Underground Sarasota! Or a trolley-crossing, those who want get on and go across.
I hate the idea of pedestrian overpasses along our bayfront!!
Why are we creating a bayfront that is totally secondary to the vehicles?
The city needs to reconsider changing some of the north to south traffic north of the city and making the bayfront 2 lanes like the consultants suggested.
This is a very inportant part of our city and a part of the city life for the residents so why are we considering anything unless it is really an improvement to the pedestrian experience?
Because if you make it two lanes it is only a matter of time before some developer comes in and makes an urgent proposal that needs an immediate decision for the city to give away land that is not that open to the public any more since it is only 2 lanes, could stand development on it, and condos sprout up like mushrooms along the bayfront so no one can see the water. That is probably the most beautiful drive in Florida.
Dear City Manager - speaking of our beautiful and growing downtown, isn't it about time (and this is the second time I have written) someone at least told Mr. Hotdog man, at the corner of lst and Lemon, to cleanup or at least control his oil/grease slick, which is slowly oozing out from under his cart. I know there are important issues confronting all of us on the growth and beauty of our fair city, but I was so happy to see all that wonderful brick work put in and now that whole corner has turned into an ugly, slippery mess. Those are our bricks and the hot dog guy should at least be required to place some sort of mat under his operation. Take a look, will ya - and you will agree, it is a mess and a liability just waiting to claim someone. Thanks
Hot Dogs - I believe our folks have already spoken to the vendor you mention about the grease issue. I did take a look for myself when I received your earlier post, and at least on that day and a few others when I've walked by I didn't see a problem. We will take another look.
Reconnecting with the Bay Front - This is something that has a great deal of support, unfortunately there don't seem to be quick or simple answers, and re-routing US 41 has been ruled out as of now based on lack of fully defined traffic. options. I believe some of the community's energy will have to be devoted to this issue to come to acceptable, and workable solutions
Development downtown should be encouraged but not at the expense of all our open space. Pineapple Square sounds to me like its already too big and should be studied more. I dont agree in giving away city owned land, in exchange for parking. If the developers are committed to there projects they WILL buy it, and dont they have to provide ample parking for there projects anyway? Roads that surround downtown should be expanded to create a bypass. Walkways over US41 to the bayfront sound like a good idea. The roadway needs to remain 4 lanes. Downtown seems to be progressing just fine....
If we examined installing overpasses over US41 that travels past our bay front then we would be creating structures that will block our views as pedestrians. We would need more than just one overpass. One would have to be installed at Ringling, another at Main and another at Gulfstream. Just one overpass in the center would not satisfy the need for pedestrians to pass 41 safely. The bay front should be a benefit to being downtown either if you are a visitor or a resident. It should not be a highway circling our city that is dangerous to pass with the benefit being mostly for the vehicles.
Take a look at the underpass on Longboat Key under state route 789. It is south of the shopping center where Public's is located. Most people don't even notice it is there.
It is located near the bay/ocean and seems to work fine. This would solve the issue of blocking bayfront views from downtown with the use of pedestrian overpasses.
The best and cheapest solution would be for the city to take over route 41 and do significant traffic calming and traffic redesign so that walking across Bayfront Drive would not be the difficult experience it is now.
With all the talk about our need for parking downtown it just baffles me why the City Commissioners would consider giving away our city owned State Street for a meager 350 public parking spaces.
State Street could be a parking structure with 7-800 or maybe even 900 public parking spaces. This would help with all the shops on main and the downtown that are historic and old that have no parking. Then maybe, at least for a few blocks around Main Street the parking issues would be really satisfied.
Then, the city could rent space to the "new upscale restaurants" the Pineapple Square people are proposing, give space to Patrick's that will loose the Church parking lot and have tons left over for shoppers, employees and visitors.
The 350 spaces in Pineapple Square will be eaten up by their restaurants and retailers. And let's not forget the encumbrance of the Church on our city owned parking spaces every Sunday. Is this not a responsibility of the Isaacs?
So, lets get this straight. The city is giving up a huge property State Street that we own for air space in a building the city will not own. The parking spaces will be partially on leased land that expires in 80 years, when I think we will still have a parking problem. We have to give up our public spaces every Sunday to the Church so the Isaacs can get their deal done to put in Condos that will make them money. Who is really benefiting by this deal and how is this justified?
It appears that most of the topics on this blog relate to the development downtown. What about the total area of the
City. I am sure you have the numbers and reports but maybe a synopsis of what exactly rhe downtown development has brought to the City would be helpful. How many residences, how many commerical spaces, offices. What will the actual and proposed development mean as far as tax dollars and how will this benefit all City residents. Are there projections available as to the future rental of all of these spaces? Also, perhaps a summary of what has been replaced or what has left the City during the same time.
I would also hope that since you are nearing another budget session that you look more closely at your organization and perhaps the duplicity of some of the functions or reassigning certain functions. In light of the recent articles about the stadium maybe a closer look at consolidation with some of the County's operations in the areas of administration would be in order. The City is a small entity compared to the County and the School Board. Perhaps consolidating fleet, including the cooperative use of refueling areas, procurement, parks maintenance and other functions would reduce the employee burden on the City. Identifying possible duplicty in your own organization and also determining if there are areas for City, County and School Board consolidation would assist an entity like the City.
I disagree with the last poster.
The city residents and property owners do not want to consolidate with the County. The county covers a huge area and deal with many issues but not detailed like the city staff on one specific area. Also we demand a lot more in a city with different issues than a suburb area deals with. Every city in Sarasota County has its own government and it should stay that way. And I think the governments have figured out ways to work together on things that make sense like the fire department.
Post a Comment
<< Home