Since I usually walk or run(mostly walking now with my advanced age) Back Bay many times during the week I have ample opportunity to dwell on improvements that I would like to see.
I was disappointed that the area was not picked for the skatepark. Given the wide array of activities in the area, the ease of accessibility and other factors, the skatepark would have been a great addition. Plus the park is needed!
Paddle/flat water course. If you have ever seen the windsurfers out on the water during a windy day you can appreciate how appealing it is visually. Wouldn't it be nice to have a kayak or olympic course set up on the cove? Laying out the course with buoys and flags and allowing LL Bean or Cadillac Mountain to rent boats would accentuate the bay, create new appeal and utilize the bay even more. No structures would have to be built and no motorized watercraft would per permitted. How about sculling? How about races? We have this resource...lets use it!
On the corner near Hannaford is a modern looking building currently housing a chiropracter. I have always liked that building--it was for sale about 10 years ago and I wish we had bought it. I have always envisioned a sport shop: bikes, skate, surf boards etc with a wholistic cafe/coffee shop/smoothie store. Build a big outdoor deck overlooking the cove and the corner could be the hub for the walkers, bikers and joggers on the trail. It seems a natural tie in and would solidify the cove and the path as the city's outdoor hub.
just a few thoughts.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Old Port Nightlife
As a former nightclub owner for 14 years in Portland' Old Port I have had the opportunity to view Old Port issues as both an insider and now an outsider. In short, the attitudes, policies and reactions to Portland nightlife by policy makers is so out of place and out of step with mainstream thought that it boggles the mind.
As Portland becomes more hip, more urban and more reliant on young professionals it too needs a social scene that appeals to this demographic. Unfortunately classism, elitism and socialism come heavily into play with regards to Portland nightlife. Even commentators and pundits suffer from serious hypocrisy. What do I mean?
Never spoken but often followed:
"Nightlife is appropriate and allowable when it meets MY definition of fun and appropriate."
Older city councilors support restaurants and brewpubs but decry hard edge shows, loud bands, nightclubs and college bars. Hipsters and beatniks support live music venues and divebars but mock upscale joints. Club kids and college students support night spots and cheap dives but ignore the rest. No offense Chris, but you often take people to task for coming down on bars that you patronize and then you turn around and mock the bars that you don't. Your part of the same problem.
There are venues for all types of people--and in the end, the businesses that don't meet customer needs will fail. The governments job is to create frameworks via licensing, code and zoning ordinances. If a prospective business owner meets ALL those requirements then they can open. It's the fundamental pact between business and government. More than once the city has ignored that and played fast and loose to prohibit and otherwise legal business from opening. Headliners anyone? Just look at the recent license approval of Good Fellas. Legally, the city could not deny a new application but they threatened to do so unless the owner(Andrew Cole) agreed to some onerous and odd "rules". Over the years I've been a victim of these "special circumstances"--usually at the hand of Portland's "other" bureacracy: Portland Police Department. Unlike other city where police enforce laws, the PDD under Chief Chitwood took over broad powers of law making, policy creation and licensing.
Currently the Old Port is poised for massive change. Liquid Blue/Diggers/Plush(all one liquor license) has been denied by the City of Portland. Even if Tom appeals the decision the city can deny the bars their entertainment license which is issued by the municipality and not at the state level. Rumor has it that Iguana and Threeways will not be getting their leases renewed by the new property owner and Cake is not faring too well. With the Pavilion closed, Industry gone, Headliners gone, Alehouse gone, and the imminent loss of Iguana, Liquid Blue, Diggers, and perhaps Threeways and Cake not only will Wharf St undergo and substantial change but the overall nightlife scene in Portland will change.
Portland is a city, small in comparison nationally, but still Maine's largest urban area. A city needs to appreciate and accomodate a diversity of people and their needs, and a vibrant nightlife is an important part that. That nightlife should not be just made up of what decision makers deem "acceptable" entertainment, but what the market creates, is an important idea that needs to be examined.
As Portland becomes more hip, more urban and more reliant on young professionals it too needs a social scene that appeals to this demographic. Unfortunately classism, elitism and socialism come heavily into play with regards to Portland nightlife. Even commentators and pundits suffer from serious hypocrisy. What do I mean?
Never spoken but often followed:
"Nightlife is appropriate and allowable when it meets MY definition of fun and appropriate."
Older city councilors support restaurants and brewpubs but decry hard edge shows, loud bands, nightclubs and college bars. Hipsters and beatniks support live music venues and divebars but mock upscale joints. Club kids and college students support night spots and cheap dives but ignore the rest. No offense Chris, but you often take people to task for coming down on bars that you patronize and then you turn around and mock the bars that you don't. Your part of the same problem.
There are venues for all types of people--and in the end, the businesses that don't meet customer needs will fail. The governments job is to create frameworks via licensing, code and zoning ordinances. If a prospective business owner meets ALL those requirements then they can open. It's the fundamental pact between business and government. More than once the city has ignored that and played fast and loose to prohibit and otherwise legal business from opening. Headliners anyone? Just look at the recent license approval of Good Fellas. Legally, the city could not deny a new application but they threatened to do so unless the owner(Andrew Cole) agreed to some onerous and odd "rules". Over the years I've been a victim of these "special circumstances"--usually at the hand of Portland's "other" bureacracy: Portland Police Department. Unlike other city where police enforce laws, the PDD under Chief Chitwood took over broad powers of law making, policy creation and licensing.
Currently the Old Port is poised for massive change. Liquid Blue/Diggers/Plush(all one liquor license) has been denied by the City of Portland. Even if Tom appeals the decision the city can deny the bars their entertainment license which is issued by the municipality and not at the state level. Rumor has it that Iguana and Threeways will not be getting their leases renewed by the new property owner and Cake is not faring too well. With the Pavilion closed, Industry gone, Headliners gone, Alehouse gone, and the imminent loss of Iguana, Liquid Blue, Diggers, and perhaps Threeways and Cake not only will Wharf St undergo and substantial change but the overall nightlife scene in Portland will change.
Portland is a city, small in comparison nationally, but still Maine's largest urban area. A city needs to appreciate and accomodate a diversity of people and their needs, and a vibrant nightlife is an important part that. That nightlife should not be just made up of what decision makers deem "acceptable" entertainment, but what the market creates, is an important idea that needs to be examined.
Maine State Pier Development II
While we all watch from the sidelines the ongoing debacle that is the MSPD Process continues on. It's unfortunate that such a large project with long term implications for Portland seems to have been mishandled from the very start. It's certainly true that the timeline for proposals all but excluded most any other regional or national developer from submittal.
While the short submittal timeline was predicated by a "cash short fall" emergency: lack of tenants for the state pier, the reality is that there was no cash shortage, just lost revenue. At the same time an urgent drumbeat proclaimed the imminent collapse of the entire structure. No less than $15 million was needed to "repair" the pier!
It's curious how the evolution of the pier development process parallels politically driven processes... While I have no partiality towards either developer(though in full disclosure my father is involved in supporting Ocean Properties) one can't help but think that the entire process was orchestrated behind the scenes. Rumors abound of vague whisperings from former city councilors...of a process that was jumpstarted for a particular developer. How then do you develop a property under strict waterfront zoning restrictions?
Induce fear tactics about revenue shortfalls...lost property taxes...huge infrastructure costs that would be borne by taxpayers and top it off with the assertion that are no viable tenants.
Unfortunately there was a commercial tenant: Cianbro. Blocked from the Pier they have relocated their new operations to the defunct Eastern Fine Paper mill in Brewer.
Initially I was outraged when both developers asked for corporate handouts, incentives and tax financing. As a small business owner I grow increasingly disillusioned watching huge companies get tax breaks while small businesses are overlooked. That's a conversation for another day... It's almost amusing that once the competition heated up both companies dropped their tax break requests...quickly and without fanfare. Guess it wasn't that critical to the bottom line. If Liberty can develop the Jordan Meat Plant without tax breaks you have to wonder why the MSP developer would.
Arguably the MSP is the single most valuable piece of property in Maine. So if it's valuable what are the developers going to pay? Lots of attention is being paid to property tax revenue...but that goes with the territory. What will the city realize in terms of lease/rent payments? This is where it gets confusing.... Apparently both companies include the cost of repairing the pier AND pier maintenance as a "payment" to the city. For some of us however that's just smoke and mirrors. Business owners who lease a property pay maintenance and upkeep on the property--on top of the rent/lease payments. Additionally, any space occupied by a business tenant needs improvements and renovations to get the business running. Sometimes those costs can be factored into the rent negotiations but oftentimes those are accepted costs called "buildout".
Any new hotel development anywhere needs ground work and prep before construction can begin: earth moving, levelling, etc. In this case, the "groundwork" will be done to the pier: strengthening, pylon support etc. It's all part of the process of putting buildings on any piece of land or property. It SEEMS that both developers see this prep work as a net benefit to the city and somehow an ancillary and additional to the project process. Thus pier improvements are added into the rent figure to the city. Given that the work needs to be done anywhere...and given that the developers wants a 99 year lease it seems like any pier work is directly benefitting the developer and required anyway. Excluding overall benefits like property taxes, employment, tourism etc.. city revenues from the development will = Rent + Maintenance + Pier Improvements. I think it can be argued that maintenance and pier improvements are both necessary, normal and intregral to the buildout then all that leaves is pure rent. ie payment for the use of land/pier for 99 years.
Putting it into perspective, land traditionally gets leased on 99 year terms for big developments and such a lease is less than the cost of a existing land/building combination. Current lease rates in Portland for commercial space ranges from $12-$30+. The Old Port is around $16-$20/sq'. For instance, the Pavilion Nightclub paid approx $15,000 mos to lease it's space...Liquid Blue/Diggers also around $15k/mos. Or $225,000 year. Based on what I have read both Olympia and Ocean are offering the city $200k-$250k in "pure" rent payments. Another few hundred thousand is property maintenance and improvement costs(improvements are amortized, maintenance is expensed) which they add to the figure to come out with the impressive sounding $450k +- rent to the city. If I am incorrect I hope someone corrects me. Personally I feel that the rent figure is much to low.
If I had my way the process would be re-started with a reasonable timeline for submission. With the drop in residential development, there may be many developers looking for investment opportunities of this scale. I know that won't happen and I think both Olympia and Ocean will do an excellent job--whatever that may be. But either way..this development involved the city relinquishing an incredible piece of property for 100 years! We should make whoever gets it pay through the teeth.
While the short submittal timeline was predicated by a "cash short fall" emergency: lack of tenants for the state pier, the reality is that there was no cash shortage, just lost revenue. At the same time an urgent drumbeat proclaimed the imminent collapse of the entire structure. No less than $15 million was needed to "repair" the pier!
It's curious how the evolution of the pier development process parallels politically driven processes... While I have no partiality towards either developer(though in full disclosure my father is involved in supporting Ocean Properties) one can't help but think that the entire process was orchestrated behind the scenes. Rumors abound of vague whisperings from former city councilors...of a process that was jumpstarted for a particular developer. How then do you develop a property under strict waterfront zoning restrictions?
Induce fear tactics about revenue shortfalls...lost property taxes...huge infrastructure costs that would be borne by taxpayers and top it off with the assertion that are no viable tenants.
Unfortunately there was a commercial tenant: Cianbro. Blocked from the Pier they have relocated their new operations to the defunct Eastern Fine Paper mill in Brewer.
Initially I was outraged when both developers asked for corporate handouts, incentives and tax financing. As a small business owner I grow increasingly disillusioned watching huge companies get tax breaks while small businesses are overlooked. That's a conversation for another day... It's almost amusing that once the competition heated up both companies dropped their tax break requests...quickly and without fanfare. Guess it wasn't that critical to the bottom line. If Liberty can develop the Jordan Meat Plant without tax breaks you have to wonder why the MSP developer would.
Arguably the MSP is the single most valuable piece of property in Maine. So if it's valuable what are the developers going to pay? Lots of attention is being paid to property tax revenue...but that goes with the territory. What will the city realize in terms of lease/rent payments? This is where it gets confusing.... Apparently both companies include the cost of repairing the pier AND pier maintenance as a "payment" to the city. For some of us however that's just smoke and mirrors. Business owners who lease a property pay maintenance and upkeep on the property--on top of the rent/lease payments. Additionally, any space occupied by a business tenant needs improvements and renovations to get the business running. Sometimes those costs can be factored into the rent negotiations but oftentimes those are accepted costs called "buildout".
Any new hotel development anywhere needs ground work and prep before construction can begin: earth moving, levelling, etc. In this case, the "groundwork" will be done to the pier: strengthening, pylon support etc. It's all part of the process of putting buildings on any piece of land or property. It SEEMS that both developers see this prep work as a net benefit to the city and somehow an ancillary and additional to the project process. Thus pier improvements are added into the rent figure to the city. Given that the work needs to be done anywhere...and given that the developers wants a 99 year lease it seems like any pier work is directly benefitting the developer and required anyway. Excluding overall benefits like property taxes, employment, tourism etc.. city revenues from the development will = Rent + Maintenance + Pier Improvements. I think it can be argued that maintenance and pier improvements are both necessary, normal and intregral to the buildout then all that leaves is pure rent. ie payment for the use of land/pier for 99 years.
Putting it into perspective, land traditionally gets leased on 99 year terms for big developments and such a lease is less than the cost of a existing land/building combination. Current lease rates in Portland for commercial space ranges from $12-$30+. The Old Port is around $16-$20/sq'. For instance, the Pavilion Nightclub paid approx $15,000 mos to lease it's space...Liquid Blue/Diggers also around $15k/mos. Or $225,000 year. Based on what I have read both Olympia and Ocean are offering the city $200k-$250k in "pure" rent payments. Another few hundred thousand is property maintenance and improvement costs(improvements are amortized, maintenance is expensed) which they add to the figure to come out with the impressive sounding $450k +- rent to the city. If I am incorrect I hope someone corrects me. Personally I feel that the rent figure is much to low.
If I had my way the process would be re-started with a reasonable timeline for submission. With the drop in residential development, there may be many developers looking for investment opportunities of this scale. I know that won't happen and I think both Olympia and Ocean will do an excellent job--whatever that may be. But either way..this development involved the city relinquishing an incredible piece of property for 100 years! We should make whoever gets it pay through the teeth.
Old Port Commuter Transit
It appears that one of the big issues for any development at the end of Commercial St. is the lack of adequate parking. Both Olympia and Ocean Properties have differing solutions, but ultimately, neither plan will meet future demand.
My idea is running a small commuter train (light rail not a trolley) on the existing rail line from the end of Commercial to Presumpscot St. Presumpscot St. is underdeveloped industrial area, has available land (sub market prices btw), is adjacent to 295 and the rail line continues north to Yarmouth, Freeport etc. Building a parking garage (or lot initially) on Presumpscot would allow people to commute directly into the Old Port area from outer 302, Freeport and Yarmouth etc.
Such a system could service the three new developments (cruise terminal, Riverwalk and Maine State Pier) by shifting employee parking offsite, allow cruise ship passengers better accessibility to Freeport, allow additional parking for island residents and offer a more comprehensive parking solution for Old Port.
Future development could include a new 295 ramp onto Presumpscot St. for southbound commuters and a tie in to the Amtrak/bus station off of congress. This would create an integrated system of public transportation (rail, air, bus) with Portland as a key hub.
A top down view can be found here:
http://maps.yahoo.com/broadband#mvt=m&q1=washington%20ave%20portland%20maine&trf=0&lon=-70.227613&lat=43.706601&mag=5
Benefits:
1. Create efficient public transportation.
2. Utilize Presumpscot St. area and jumpstart development
3. Relieve parking congestion
4. Add a valuable service to the new cruise ship terminal.
5. Solve future parking needs for new pier/terminal and Riverwalk developments
6. Jump start efficient and usable commuter transit in Portland
7. Tie-in with the south bound Amtrak could expand Maine commuter rail service
Satellite parking garages combined with mass transit rail works in major cities everywhere. The rail line that crosses the mouth of Back Cove hasn’t been used in years and I’m sure there are a host of legal issues with the existing rail line...but… it seems like an idea worth exploring further?
My idea is running a small commuter train (light rail not a trolley) on the existing rail line from the end of Commercial to Presumpscot St. Presumpscot St. is underdeveloped industrial area, has available land (sub market prices btw), is adjacent to 295 and the rail line continues north to Yarmouth, Freeport etc. Building a parking garage (or lot initially) on Presumpscot would allow people to commute directly into the Old Port area from outer 302, Freeport and Yarmouth etc.
Such a system could service the three new developments (cruise terminal, Riverwalk and Maine State Pier) by shifting employee parking offsite, allow cruise ship passengers better accessibility to Freeport, allow additional parking for island residents and offer a more comprehensive parking solution for Old Port.
Future development could include a new 295 ramp onto Presumpscot St. for southbound commuters and a tie in to the Amtrak/bus station off of congress. This would create an integrated system of public transportation (rail, air, bus) with Portland as a key hub.
A top down view can be found here:
http://maps.yahoo.com/broadband#mvt=m&q1=washington%20ave%20portland%20maine&trf=0&lon=-70.227613&lat=43.706601&mag=5
Benefits:
1. Create efficient public transportation.
2. Utilize Presumpscot St. area and jumpstart development
3. Relieve parking congestion
4. Add a valuable service to the new cruise ship terminal.
5. Solve future parking needs for new pier/terminal and Riverwalk developments
6. Jump start efficient and usable commuter transit in Portland
7. Tie-in with the south bound Amtrak could expand Maine commuter rail service
Satellite parking garages combined with mass transit rail works in major cities everywhere. The rail line that crosses the mouth of Back Cove hasn’t been used in years and I’m sure there are a host of legal issues with the existing rail line...but… it seems like an idea worth exploring further?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
