What a Mess

While many Portlanders are faulting City Council members for the tie vote Monday night on the Maine State Pier proposal; the reality seems to be that the expedited and faulty process that started the whole Pier development has finally caught up with everyone.Over several years the waterfront task force studied, debated and discussed the waterfront, its needs and future demand, and ultimately ended up with the Ocean Gate. A tax payer funded project that would accommodate ferries and cruise ships would take pressure off the cargo container port and allow for expanded capabilities and services for years to come. Unfortunately, the project went over budget and the deep water berth planned for Ocean Gate was put on hold. It's important to note that the process that ultimately chose the Ocean Gate project took years and input from many stakeholders. In comparison the process to put the Maine State Pier out to bid was quick, poorly planned and badly executed.When the rush to develop the Maine State Pier began, the RFP included requirements for cruise ships berthing to compensate for the lack of facilities at Ocean Gateway. This requirement, combined with a desire for an economically viable commercial project AND public use on the Maine State Pier created a quagmire of design conflicts. But let's be honest...neither proposal will ever win design awards, public space use awards or garner national attention. And if we choose a plan proposed by either developer that's what we will have...for 99 years.Having worked on the development team for the Portland Public Market, I saw a process that was geared towards creating a viable community space that would be embraced as a model for national urban planning. The Public Market won numerous national awards and while recognized for its design, was not commercially successful as a Public Market.Here we have another opportunity to revitalize a key public space, to spur growth and create jobs and economic opportunity. These are not mutually exclusive goals and it may be appropriate to stop the process and start again, from scratch.Waterfront needs have been roughly defined to be a working and expandable cargo port, an expanded docking and pier system for ferries and cruise ships and the repair and upkeep of the Maine State Pier. It seems obvious those three properties, each distinct, can fulfill the future needs of the city: Ocean Gateway needs to be expanded with a "mega-berth" pier, the cargo port needs to focus solely on its core competency (cargo not the "Cat") and the M.S.P can be repaired and meet the criteria set by the city. Obstacles:1. Mega Berth at Ocean Gateway needs to be funded to the tune of $6m2. MSP needs to be repaired at an estimated cost of $10-$15m (over several years and varying depending on load requirements).3. MSP should be developed in a way that defines it's valuable and unique niche to the city of Portland.While the latest City Council meeting created frustration among all parties, it also raised the very important issue of the "mega berth. Even more importantly, it was acknowledged that IF the mega berth could be built as intended at Ocean Gateway, the development criteria for the Maine State Pier could be considerably more flexible. In an act of seeming desperation the city once again proved how needs could trump bargaining power by offering development of the mega berth to the winning developer. Let’s step back for a sec. Does Portland really want a private developer to own, control and operate the mega berth? Like the Pier, isn't that an opportunity that shouldn't just be handed away because the city can't fund the project.Will the mega berth generate substantial income in docking fees and services? Do we want a private developer to have a hand in who can or cannot dock at the pier? Does this create conflicts of interest between private developers and the city's economic opportunities?Here are a couple of thoughts:1. Hire a design team to put together some concepts for the Maine State Pier. There ARE better ideas for public waterfront use than hotels and restaurants. These concepts could be used for the basis of a new RFP and guide any private developers proposal. Most large commercial building projects are first designed by an architect and then put out to bid to builders/developers. By asking developers to design the pier project your asking for a project that minimizes public benefit and maximizes financial return--an inherent conflict.2. Have the MSP development pay for the mega berth at Ocean Gateway. There is no need to hand off the project to a private developer. The city can dedicate lease payments of the MSP to pay for the mega berth OR can charge a front loaded lease fee to cover the mega berth cost. The city still gets development of the MSP but also funds the mega berth and keeps it city owned. The RFP can simply state that the city is requiring a minimum of $20m in payments over X period(to fund the mega berth and repair the pier) plus. Let’s see which developer puts more money on the table. The whole process has been backwards. The city can dictate lease terms and project criteria as part of the RFP proposal. It's SOP for commercial development.3. Look at other cities. Seattle, Philadelphia, Chicago etc have all developed their waterfronts and piers for public use. Making the Maine State Pier another lot for a Holiday Inn seems simplistic and banal.It's time we started the process from scratch and clearly identify the needs and wants of the city. We also need to put out a clear and objective RFP process and allow enough time for other developers who may want a shot at the project.