Received an email from Mort O’Sullivan on yesterday’s UWF Board of Trustees meeting concerning the Community Maritime Park. O’Sullivan writes that today’s PNJ headline (“Museum proposal rejected by UWF trustees”) is misleading. A more accurate description would be “UWF Trustees hear proposed compromise on Park Plan”.
“UWF didn’t reject anything,” O’Sullivan says. “The meeting was opened with comments from Chairman K. C. Clark that he intended for the meeting to be for informational purposes and did not expect a vote on anything today, while admitting that he couldn’t control if anybody chose to make a motion.” No such motions were made because the trustees wanted to give the faculty and UWF consultants time to review the compromise.
The point of contention is the western edge of the park that juts into Pensacola Bay and the location and size of U-shaped commercial building at the intersection of two roads that come on to the property from Main Street.
Here is the proposal presented to the UWF Board – which appears to be win-win:
1) The western wing of the “U” shaped building will be eliminated, retaining the “center cap” on the north end as well as the eastern half (“wing”) of the building. The building would not have the 45’ height restriction and could be built to the same height limits as the remainder of the private development (60’).
2) The University would not lease any waterfront property on Site B, but would retain the area previously shown on the north end of Site B on Main Street for the Diversity Museum and parking. The boat storage (Marine Service Center) function would not be on Site A either, but would be handled off-site.
3) The University would build parking beneath the museum. This replaces the lost underground parking from the reduction in size of the “U” building and also provides some parking for a)museum staff/patrons , b)short term off-loading parking for the eventual boat slips and c) some minimal parking for visitors to the open waterfront park.
4) The acceleration cost charge for Site A is completely removed as a financial obligation of the University. Part of the cost solution to accomplish this is to delay the dredging west of site A and south of Site B for a few years into the future.
5) And finally it is requested that the University’s construction on Site A be done in a north to south sequential manner. Based on estimated time tables that have been discussed, this likely means that the order would be first, Museum – Phase 1, second, the Research Center and finally, third, the Museum – Phase 2. This eliminates empty space between buildings and delays the southernmost structure until last.
According to O’Sullivan, the compromises are:
Point 1 Developer reduced the ground footprint of the “U” building by about 45%, which improves the view and prominence of the Museum.
Point 2, Both the City Council and CMPA Board have expressed concern over having boat storage at the park. The City already uses the Port for its PPD boats. According to O’Sullivan, the Trustees have concerns about how boat storage would function and want more specifics about where it would be if it’s moved off the Northwest corner. They want input from the faculty and program staff. The PNJ article mistakenly mentioned “moving the research center” off the Northwest site. It should have said “moving the marine service center” off the Northwest site.
“Any alternate site will need to offer assurance for long-term control/availability and a full understanding of what, if any, costs are involved,” says O’Sullivan.
Point 3, Each building must be elevated to 14’ above sea level and the developer hopes to build parking underneath each on it constructs. In reducing the size of the “U” building, some parking is lost so the developer has suggested UWF consider parking under the museum. The initial cost estimate is $900K but would be offset some by the developer from savings in not having to construct surface parking elsewhere.
“The Trustees are very concerned about controlling costs,” says O’Sullivan. “They clearly need and requested more time to get a number with which they’re more comfortable as to accuracy.”
Point 4, removing acceleration costs is favorable to UWF and also offsets cost of building parking under the museum. The trustees want the professional opinion of the staff and consultants concerning the timing of dredging needs, which are the biggest component of the acceleration costs.
Point 5, the sequential construction from north to south on site keeps the Maritime Museum prevents a big open area between the buildings that may take 15 years to construct. It also also the research center to be an active part of the museum experience. The Trustees want assurance from staff and consultants that building Phase 1, then the research center and finally phase 2 in sequential order works for the Museum. Staff and consultants will be back January 4th.
According to O’Sullivan, before adjourning the meeting, Chairman K. C. Clark asked that UWF Pres. Judy Bense and VP Hal White lead the university staff and consultants in considering all of the above after everyone returns in January. Recognizing the time required for proper consideration, it was suggested that the Trustees should expect to reconvene in mid-January once that input is received.
See New Park Layout for Museum.
See Museum views.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Hope things work out for everyone at the park. Thanks to all the trustees for their hard work.
To be clear, if UWF can work out an acceptable arrangement with the developer regarding the maritime museum, then great. But it sounds like they are very close to giving the proverbial “nuts to this” and walking away — and understandably so. If they leave, that’s two of the three original principals gone. Whibbs and Fetterman both represented the museum element, and the memory of those two men is what convinced many to vote for the park. If another petition drive starts (which it certainly would, because there would be a new council vote to replace the museum with something) it would succeed.
Mr. Wow states: “The plans presented here aren’t that different from the ones shown in the conceptual phase.”
Are you kidding? UWF is being pushed out, that means no maritime museum, no research facility, no amphitheater, no classroom/conference center. Instead we are getting wall to wall commercial development and the baseball stadium. That is light years away from the plan that was sold to the public in ’06.
I urge the Whibbs family to decline naming this tacky pile of junk after our great late mayor emeritus. The city may as well take off the maritime part off too and the designation park since it is now more concrete than green.
Maybe we should call it Greed Landing? I liked C. Ellis’ suggestion to build the Maritime Museum complex at NAS. UWF has other options and will not build a 3rd rate version of Fetterman’s dream just to satisfy the Downtown Greed Machine.
I worked tirelessly to get the referendum passed and was a die-hard supporter of the CMP. Now, all of that energy will go to support UWF no matter what they decide or where they eventually build.
I agree with most of the posters. The wonderful concept and UWF’s plan and the drawings sold the “park” to the voters. Now that the university, the maritime museum and the research institute have been pushed away in favor of chain restaurants and a 2nd-rate hotel, I can no longer support the project.
“Calling me a lair on Christmas, Anonaly. My, My. The key word is “conceptual.” We didn’t vote on a design.”
What did we vote on? Did we vote on pipe dreams and fairy wishes? No. We voted on the beautiful renditions of a Maritime museum, a lighthouse point, a strip of shops/ restaurants, a baseball stadium, a field of green. Why is it that now that the CMPA want something new is that wonderful initial drawing being treated like a vague outline? A lie is a lie no matter how you try to change the meaning. It is not an exageration.
If you’re not with the CMPA, you’re the villain!
I agree with C Ellis. If UWF’s out — and who could blame them after having the goalpost moved so many times? — I’m out too. The project would no longer bear any resemblance to the original concept; would they even keep the word “maritime” in the name?
Calling me a lair on Christmas, Anonaly. My, My. The key word is “conceptual.” We didn’t vote on a design. Read the wording of the referendum. And C. Ellis, too bad you and Marty couldn’t get the signatures for the petition. You have no falling for your negative view of this project. The park is being built and UWF will be a part of it. Your next petition drive will fail as miserably as your last one.
To Date:
- UWF has given up the original museum design and paid for new plans when at the last minute Quint Studer objected to the ‘modern’ facade.
- UWF has agreed to shrink the main facility from 96,000 square feet to 68,000.
- UWF has given up nearly a third of the linear waterfront footage in order to provide more public access to the water. That footage will now be used for commercial development.
- UWF has given up a third of their original footprint in order to provide more green space. That land area will now be used for commercial development.
So what has the CMPA/City given up? Not a darn thing. How can the PNJ repeatedly distort the facts and lie in order to paint UWF as the bad guy? The CMPA is hell-bent on pushing UWF off the water entirely and denying docking facilities for their research vessels. UWF should make a deal with NAS and build their full facility (museum and research center) on their property. Pensacola will have their strip mall on the bay and ridiculous ball park and NAS will have still another world-class attraction and research center. The only reason I voted yes on the referendum was because of the UWF input. The ball park was fine and a nice attraction but it was the State of Florida Maritime Museum and Underwater Archaelogy Research Center that sold the deal. I was lied to and so was everyone else. Mr. Studer, why are you so silent? Why have you betrayed your major partner that made your dream come true? I am disgusted and will eagerly work with Fairchild and Donovan to halt construction if UWF is pushed out. Mr. Studer, with all due respect sir, your pants are on fire.
Yes, there was a conceptual design that was used to garner the 2006 vote Gen X. Lying won’t change that. I find it a pitiable shame that the University is having to give in. Boooo.
Nice try, Charlie aka uwf alum:
The $13 million from the tax credits aren’t being brought to the table by UWF. It’s the City. There was no voted on design. Keep swinging and trying to kill the CMP. The park will be built and our university – UWF – will be a part of it.
Merry Christmas!
I read the article as pointing out that UWF, the most established of all entities involved, as having to make the majority of the concessions. Considering the tax credits and fund-raising ability it brings to the table, there is legitimate concern about access and visibility. One would hope the original (voted on design) is on display at all meetings to remind All the leaders how far they have deviated.
Aren’t headlines always misleading in some sense? Surely they present an angle, and an angle by definition isn’t he whole story?
I hear you Betty….believe me..
Typical anti-UWF smear from the PNJ.
It’s very obivious that the plans are being changed so that the season tickets holders of the seats along the third base line can see the sunset……………..lmao
I read the PNJ article and the the headline is somewhat misleading, but then again, a whole lot of PNJ headlines ARE misleading. Sometimes I read a PNJ headline, then the article and think “how did they get that headline from that story!”
BUT In reading this article, Dr. Bense makes an excellent point, (if this is indeed her quote), “The endless hours of senior staff time is taking away from our core mission,” Bense said. “We are reaching a tipping point where we’re focusing too much on this issue. It is getting extremely expensive for us to work on this.”