The LENS is no more!

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by BucFan

One of the biggest complaints about the current location of the Rays' stadium is the location - so would moving the stadium east a few blocks improve attendance much? Doubt it.

From my experience the true sport fan isnt too concerned about stadium/arena location,its what goes on inside thats important.
The pier is a rather important part of the St Pete milieu as can be seen in this Wiki History.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Pier
I can see where the tradition might want to be kept alive, its a St Pete landmark.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by jambo101

From my experience the true sport fan isnt too concerned about stadium/arena location,its what goes on inside thats important.

The thing is you obviously don't have enough of them to sustain a team,so you have to appeal to the social fan.

[tjax1000]

Originally Posted by BBI

Impossible to spend money that's already been set aside for a construction project? We have tens of millions of dollars and there is no fight over whether to spend it. Both mayoral candidates want a pier, city council wants a pier, even the people who started the "Stop the Lens" movement want a pier. That's not recipe for inaction. Picking a design should be easy at this point. The only people who were vocal about the design last go-round were the "Stop the Lens" people who thought the existing pier is iconic. Give them an upside down pyramid. Done.

A new upside down pyramid, or the old one? The current structure in its entirety will apparently take more than the available funds to restore. And that was before the stuff inside was auctioned off.

The reason why the Lens got such a negative reaction is because it was the thing that actually got funded. I guarantee that if they decide to build a new inverted pyramid with what is left of the $50 million (or even attempt to restore the existing one) you'll see a reaction with an equivalent magnitude. The "Stop the Lens" people I talked to were all over the board, I don't think you can characterize them all as inverted pyramid sympathizers.

[chi_tino]

Originally Posted by BBI

Impossible to spend money that's already been set aside for a construction project?

Was this money being kept in an Al Gore lockbox? They were going to raise taxes on those of us who actually do pay taxes.

They do not have $50M idling in an account. Where did you get this info?

[BBI]

Originally Posted by chi_tino

Was this money being kept in an Al Gore lockbox? They were going to raise taxes on those of us who actually do pay taxes. They do not have $50M idling in an account. Where did you get this info?

Set aside in the budget, not physically set aside. The plan is periodic payments from general funds into a development trust, but more or less a pay-go system. Same as (nearly) every government project.

Originally Posted by tjax1000

A new upside down pyramid, or the old one? The current structure in its entirety will apparently take more than the available funds to restore. And that was before the stuff inside was auctioned off.

The reason why the Lens got such a negative reaction is because it was the thing that actually got funded. I guarantee that if they decide to build a new inverted pyramid with what is left of the $50 million (or even attempt to restore the existing one) you'll see a reaction with an equivalent magnitude. The "Stop the Lens" people I talked to were all over the board, I don't think you can characterize them all as inverted pyramid sympathizers.

The negative reaction was driven by the design process and, in particular, Kathleen Ford. She spearheaded Concerned Citizens to "save the pier." That group argued for preservation, but the thrust of their argument was that the design process was flawed, among other reasons, because refurbishment of the existing (supposedly) iconic pier was not evaluated. Concerned Citizens then re-branded as Stop the Lens, which was singularly focused on design process. Read the "our views" section on stopthelens.com. It's 100% design process. Ford is a city councilperson and an attorney; as process-oriented as you'd expect. Process is what this fight was about.

Of course, not everyone with a "Stop the Lens" sign in his or her yard cared about design process. For instance, I voted against he Lens because I think spending $50MM on a pier is dumb. But I also know that my fiscally conservative view almost always loses, so I expect it to lose now. That I'm going to lose has been pretty much confirmed by Foster and Kriseman. Foster said before the vote that, if the Lens failed, he'd work with City Council on the right design process for a new pier. Since the vote, he has created the 8/28 Alliance to work on a new design process. Kriseman said, if elected, he'd appoint a task force to come up with the right design process and that he'd make sure a new pier was built by 2015.

To me, new or refurbish is just semantics. It's a design choice. Either way you have a significant construction project resulting in a pier. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any economic analysis of simple refurbishment of the existing pier (this is one of the things Concerned Citizens was pissed about). Foster's $70-80MM figure comes from an analysis of both refurbishing and significantly expanding the exisiting pier. Ford has filed an appeal to stop destruction of the existing pier, but, again, we're talking about a process fight. She wants to be sure that the refurbishment option is fully evaluated before destruction. There's not any question that she's open to a new pier. Just look at her campaign ads, many of which have pictures with a new pier with a glass upside down pyramid. It's the upside down pyramid that's iconic, not the physical materials in the existing pier.

Anyway, I think what we'll see is the refurbishment option at least gets priced out, and then the design process will lead to a bunch of ideas that incorporate an upside down pyramid. To that end, the 8/28 Alliance -- despite Foster not asking for it -- is keeping the refurbish option on the table, provided it's price-competitive. As long as Ford gets the process she wants, which she will this time, there will not be any meaningful political opposition to the process or design because there will not be any meaningful political figure driving any opposition. Everyone knows that half of the town will hate the design -- half of people hate all new public art -- but no one will care unless a real driving force steps up. And fiscal conservative guys like me will lose, as per usual.

[vaughanwilliams]

I heard the same bitchin' and moanin' when the old pier was built. "It's ugly, it costs too much, only hippies will go there, I'm scared."

Well, too bad-the old pier is a wreck and it's going to be replaced with something that (Surprise!) not everyone will like.

[Not_liking_FL]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

i heard the same bitchin' and moanin' when the old pier was built. "it's ugly, it costs too much, only hippies will go there, i'm scared."

well, too bad-the old pier is a wreck and it's going to be replaced with something that (surprise!) not everyone will like.

lmao