COST TO BUILD??? COST TO MAINTAIN??? WTF???
By Geoff Page
For anyone who may not be aware, the City is conducting a fourth survey of opinions about a new OB pier. This survey followed the last public workshop the city held on Saturday, April 6 at Liberty Station.
So, imagine going to a car dealer who brings you out three cars to look at: a VW Bug, a Ford RAV, and a full sized, four-door, black BMW sedan, with no pricing on them, and being asked, which one you “preferred.” The BMW would be the winner for sure.
Then, the dealer shows you a list of fancy options and asks which ones you ‘prefer” and you go for heated seats of fine leather and other unnecessary niceties, with no pricing.
This is how the City of San Diego settled on the most expensive new pier design — it is a preference based only on its fancy look. This is how the city is now offering “options” to the public, based on “preferences.”
Nowhere, in any of this effort, has the city ever apprised the public of what each of the three pier designs would cost to build and maintain. It is the same with the list of options the city is now asking the public to opine on. There is no information on the costs of each option or the costs of maintaining them.
The pier design and selection process has produced an architectural fantasy devoid of common sense.
The poll link is here https://www.sandiego.gov/cip/ocean-beach-pier-renewal. Scroll down to the Workshop #4 and there is a link to the survey. Once taken, the survey will not reopen.
This survey is fatally flawed because it does not provide the crucial two pieces of information needed for any informed decision, initial cost and maintenance cost. This information was also missing when the public was asked to opine on the three possible pier designs.
The public went for the most exotic design, only because it looks, well, cool. They had no idea the price tag compared to the other two designs or any idea of the on-going possible maintenance costs, which would clearly vary a great deal from one design to another.
Lighting
Workshop Survey #4 opens first by asking which of four lighting designs a person prefers, overhead, bollard, or linear, all of which have different – unknown – costs. There is a fourth choice, “artistic lighting” with no detail as to what that is.
There is much more about lighting. “Which lighting strategy is preferred for fishing at night?” The same four choices are offered, overhead, bollard, linear, or artistic. This one is a real head shaker. How big is the community of people of fish at night and how many of that small group will ever see this survey?
And, why would anyone fishing at night want bollard, linear, or artistic lighting? People fishing at night want to see what they are doing, overhead would be the only choice. Polling what the fishing public wants is information that should have been gathered at the beginning of the design process.
The lighting questions become a bit bizarre. “Which lighting strategy is the most respectful of the marine environment?” Same four choices. People who make up survey questions should be required to sign their questions so they can be asked directly, what the hell they were thinking?
The last lighting question, “Which lighting strategy make you feel safest and most comfortable?” Same four choices. Safety and comfort are two entirely, almost opposite, things. Regardless, the question is worthless because it is completely subjective, person by person.
The Plaza
The Survey finally moves off lighting to the “plaza” asking “Which plaza is the best for gathering?” There are three options, Upper Plaza with Infinity Edge, Stepped Terrace, or Amphitheater and Ocean Edge. All three options would have different costs to construct and to maintain, again, unknown.
The very existence of a pier 1,900 feet out over the ocean promotes “gathering,” no special design is needed. The only three questions to ask are, what each design costs, what each design will cost to maintain, and do we have faith it will be maintained?
It is the next question that most reflects the separation from reality that seems to exist with this design effort. The question is “Which plaza is the best for reflection and solitude?” Same three choices. Reflection and solitude? It seems they had a contest for worthless survey questions and this one won. You want reflection and solitude, the last place to go would be a busy fishing pier. No design of any kind can change that.
The next question, “Which plaza design best emphasizes the ocean experience?” is no better. What more emphasis of the “ocean experience” can there possibly be than walking on a pier over the ocean with crashing waves below? This question took second place.
Shade
The survey asks “Which locations would benefit the most from shade?” There are four choices, Infinity Plaza, Surfers Lounge. Pier Arms, and Rooftop Deck. The choices seem to show that the major features, Infinity Plaza, Surfers Lounge, and the Rooftop Deck, are done deals.
The survey asks “Which type of shade is the most appropriate?” Appropriate? For what? There are four choices, solid shade, dappled shade, lattice shade, and “Bring your own.” The cost to construct and maintain would clearly be different for the choices offered.
Educational Elements
“Which subjects do you find the most information/useful if applied to educational elements on the pier?” There are seven choices all of which most people would say yes to but none of which has anything to do with the pier design.
FINALLY – Fishing Amenities
Finally, question 13 asks practical questions about fishing, the most popular use of the pier by far, “Which fishing amenities would be the most beneficial? (Please select 3” There are seven choices and anyone who fishes off the pier would certainly want to have six of the options. Limiting this to three choices makes no sense. The seven are:
- Rod holders
- Bait Cutting Board
- ADA Access for Fishing
- Umbrella Holders
- Shade
- Cleaning Stations
- Seating
The only questionable item would be ADA Access for fishing. ADA access to the pier and its amenities is required by law, that is not a choice. But, what exactly did the survey writer mean by “ADA Access for Fishing” beyond that?
Retail
“What type of retail would you like to see on the pier? (Please Select 3)” There are six choices but what this question as to do with the pier design is a mystery.
Restaurant
“What type of restaurant would you like to see on the pier? (Please select 1)” Four choices, one of which is “Upscale dining.” Another question that has nothing to do with the pier design.
That is the survey. Not a single word about cost or maintenance. It is a waste of time and our resources being spent on this effort.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, I saw that survey, and laughed. Was anyone going to not pick the most expensive thing possible?
Geoff,
Thank you for your article. I too was dismayed by such a survey and thought the same thing – what a waste of time – not only for the folks wanting to weigh-in on the first time presented “preferred design”, but also for the team that will try to make any meaningful evaluation of the confusing results from the confusing questions. This survey was flawed from the start – they revised it three times since the original posting.
It is also important to note that this first time “preferred design” is an amalgamation of three design options presented in earlier community workshop meetings. It would have been valuable if the survey had included questions/opinions on the main components of the design (rather than focusing on minor secondary components) since this was, in fact, the public’s first time seeing it.
You also make a good point about the associated costs (original construction cost as well as maintenance once built) on the earlier three options, which would have been helpful in guiding the public to the “preferred design”.
Up to this last survey, the public outreach efforts have been generally very successful and commendable. However, the lack of opportunity of public weigh-in on this first time presented design in this latest survey is baffling to me. And in my mind, it begs the question, is it more important to win some sort of a design award, or more important to provide a new pier with features that people need and want?
For folks that want to provide additional feedback, please go back to the city website – https://www.sandiego.gov/cip/ocean-beach-pier-renewal – but skip the survey and navigate down to the very bottom of the main page. There one will see a box to provide your comments. They do actively gather all the public’s comments in that section.
And 6 days left to weigh in on the survey.
Where is the choice for the same basic pier design for fishing as the historic pier; only elevated higher to hopefully avoid getting hammered in big surf conditions and forever growing high tides coming our way?
Survey is very leading, containing questions like:
Which plaza is the best for gathering?
Which plaza is the best for reflection and solitude?
Which plaza design best emphasizes the ocean experience?
We have never asked for a plaza, a theater, nor a restaurant. It’s a fishing pier, WTF?
Seriously.
All our household’s input to date has been for a basic, well-built fishing pier, easy to clean, easy to maintain. Simple.
Clean, easy to maintain restrooms, a bait shop, simple seating, energy efficient overhead lighting.
A simple fishing pier is for reflection, ocean experience, gathering, exercise, fishing, etc.
Perfectly put, Vern, exactly.
Where is the opportunity for in person public comment on this pier design from locals from Ocean Beach and the people who have enjoyed this pier for generations? Keep OB OB and keep the OB pier the OB pier. We need to rally grassroots locals to stop this monstrosity of a pier design that takes very little actual consideration into the historic nature, spirit, and usage of this pier. This isn’t Hermosa Beach. This is Ocean Beach.
If you have any questions or comments about the Ocean Beach Pier Renewal project, please fill out the form below or email
obpierrenewal@sandiego.gov
https://www.sandiego.gov/cip/ocean-beach-pier-renewal
Thanks for the links!
Is a pier not an observation deck over the ocean? So why exactly would we want to pay to construct an additional observation deck over our observation deck that is the pier?
Everything is so fricking absurd.
If you want it to be “OB” then maybe OB could pay for it?
Chaz I appreciate that you are a true OB soul. But, we need people to think about the pier as a pier for the whole city and county. There are people in San Diego who don’t have a high opinion of OB. Those people, and everyone else, need to understand this is not just a pier for OB, it just happens to be in OB. Money will have to come from everywhere to build a new pier. As long as people understand that the pier benefits a great number of people, much more than just OB, they will be willing to contribute to the effort.
Yes, don’t say the quiet part out loud. And the second observation deck is for perspective viewing of the first observation deck. Isn’t that obvious? There, I’m going back to my reflection and solitude.
Ahhh Chris I see. But will that prove to be the plaza design that best emphasizes the ocean experience?
It’s a fishing pier, has said it right over the entrance gate since it was built. People already have come from all over to enjoy it for the basic fundamental structure it has always been.
Most. if not all of those designs, all mysteriously void of any price tags mind you, look like an upcoming episode of “Engineering Catastrophes” waiting to happen.
I was literally the first one here saying $75-100 million and looks like I was $100 million off. LOL. The ocean experience/ sales pitch has to be sold to a wide swath of people with this price tag. I also think a small admission ($1-2 dollars) would go a long way to recoup over time and be an easier sell.
this is the San Diego Fishing Pier It happens to be in the community of Ocean Beach. Its main use has always been fishing and there is no doubt that will continue. It has been a nice place to walk on and out to for breakfast on the pier, it does happen but how often. It is a nice walk on water, tourist no doubt love it. As far as community gatherings, that would be nice but it is hard to get a gathering at the rec center and you can drive there. I was impressed by the turn out at the 4-6-24 Liberty Station presentation. The only gatherings that I am a where of are the Pancake breakfast and the Jr life guard jump.
I do like the present design, its fancy and will make a statement and no doubt more expensive than the others and will bring people to OB just to see it.
But isn’t it called the ocean beach municipal pier or something? And its said “Ocean Beach Fishing Pier” on the top of it since maybe inception.
Obviously that means nothing towards who is entitled to use it, but it is the name because of it’s location.
You are acting like the pier will actually be built. If you think that any mayor will spend as much money as is required for ANY pier to be built (permits, coastal commission approval, legal fees, challenges, actual construction), while they are fighting for votes from ALL of SD, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you
.
Funding will come by way of Federal and State Grants, not out of SD City budgets.
With the state in dire financial straits and the country circling the drain, I highly doubt that.
Once again the city thinks it’s an east coast town in the 50s. Unless Daddy Warbucks is actually paying for these options, most are not needed & somewhat ridiculous.
I’d prefer it gets done. Make it ADA, a shitty (organic?) most likely expensive restaurant & be done with it
I’m all for ideas. None of this plan has a budget. Just make it useful. Fine bad fisher people for leaving nets & kelp.
These plans are a pipe, green organic maybe. But a dream. 10 yrs from now they may rebuild what is there now.
Please. No gathering spots of such.
Of course, how are we going to pay for a new pier (and first how are we going to pay to demolish the existing one) is an important, but not necessarily the first question to be answered. The city did, and continues to do, an outstanding job of obtaining citizen input for this attraction/amenity. We now have the first question (what do we want?) answered.
The pier benefits OB, San Diego City and County, California, and in fact the nation (we are indeed a national tourist attraction), and those entities are where the money needs to come from.
$200 million isn’t all that much for something so well used. We just spent $150 mil on the West Mission Bay Drive Bridge, and we just committed $65 mil for the USS Midway pier/park, surely, we can find multiple funding sources for this replacement project, and while we do that we might as well do it right, with the intent of the pier lasting as long as possible.
Is the design “over the top”? Yes, but it addresses the many uses of the pier, fishing being just one, and I say one of the lesser uses. Do the details matter (lighting, fishing amenities, bathrooms)? Yes, everything about the pier should be built for rugged and mischievous use. Politicians: find the money, let’s build an ocean appreciation facility that will be a jewel and beloved by everyone who uses it. Go big or get out of the away.
David, the City and State have massive deficits.
Do you go outside, see our decaying and decrepit infrastructure? How many homeless folkes live in the bushes in your neighborhood. How much time have you actually spent on any pier in California let alone the OB Pier?
This is the Pacific Ocean largest and one of the most unpredictable oceans, susceptible to massive tide swings made worse by a heating ocean. Not some sleepy quiet static lake.
There are several weather phenomena and factors that will endanger all of these ridiculous designs designated to drain taxpayers of as much money as possible to construct. All of these designs look like an upcoming episode of “Engineering Catastrophes” waiting to happen. A $200 million catastrophe. But designers and developers will have already cashed their checks when any of these monstrosities get consumed by Mother Ocean.
This is just another cost plus project that it would seem that you are in some way looking to profit from Dave, given your slick endorsement here. We are San Diegans and we are intelligent enough to see through the slick renderings and PR sales pitches.
$200 million isn’t all that much for something so well used.
ROTFLMAO. The last navy pier I worked on was $110 million ( 1600 ft long x 120 ft wide with far more pilings, electrical, and anchoring). Can we drive on it like W Mission Bay Dr.?
Well 101 Ash is what, $300M and counting? Hasn’t been used at all! just have faith in the process man.
Bond out now? Borrow money to overspend $200 million, at the highest interest rate this century? For a design and a project that we are not even sure is vialble from an engineering, and construction perspective? Most importantly, these are sketchings, not architectural blueprints imaginary pretty renderings of designs THAT NOBODY IS ASKING FOR!
Too bad the asbestos riddled 101 Ash St building wasn’t so lethally toxic, maybe we could make a pier out of it. Kill both of these austerity-inflicting, incompetent, crooked and corrupted backroom deals with one stone.
Lol. Just tip it over and bolt some railings on top!
I disagree with this sentence, “We now have the first question (what do we want?) answered.” No, this is the answer to what people “desire.” A decision on what people really want could only be made by providing the cost information that is missing. Desiring and wanting are very different.
But it was when I read this wording, “fishing being just one, and I say one of the lesser uses,” that I realized you don’t know anything about the subject your are commenting on, the pier.
It would have been really nice to show a range of cost for the 3 alternatives. Yes I’ll take the BMW not the Kia. But the Kiawill get you there just like the expensive one and you don’t care so much if the seagull craps on it.
I am looking forward to the EIR release and I hope it exams a no project alternative.
An impressive group of younger adolescent children from Sherman and City Heights bravely spoke in their own words to plead the Budget Committee to reconsider the $2.5 million budget cut restoring Kenwood Park., because they had to.