Congress Square Redesign Study Group — Portland, ME
Date: 2014-09-17

Agenda
 Congress Square Redesign Study Group
 September 17, 2014 4:00 to 6:00
 Room 24, City Hall

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Review and accept meeting minutes

3. Review of data

  Assessment of existing conditions (Source: KMDG, staff)
  Vision (Source: City visioning process)
  Program (Source: City visioning process, staff, PPS report)


4. Evaluation of two options

  Program/Needs
  Cost Estimates – Cost estimates for the two options are itemized to clarify the
 implications of each component
  Examples – Examples representing both options are meant to be comparative
 based on the size of the city, the physical characteristics, the needs, vision,
 and proposed program for Congress Square

5. Next Steps

  Discussion on how to proceed to meet charge from Council and November 17
 deadline

Attachments:

 1. Memorandum – Staff Evaluation of 2 Redesign Options
 Includes: Design program, Summary of Needs/Opportunities, Vision
 Statement, Examples

Meeting Minutes
 Congress Square Redesign Study Group
 September 17, 2014 4:00 to 6:00
 Room 24, City Hall

Call to order 4:06pm

Welcome and Introductions

 In attendance: Co-chair Kevin Donoghue, Co-chair David Marshall, Rosanne
 Graef, Frank Turek, Alex Landry, Peter Bass, Hilary Bassett, Pandora LaCasse,
 Bruce Wennerstrom, Kristen Levesque, Bree LaCasse, Steve Hewins,
 Councilor Jon Hinck, Christine Cantwell (representing PSA), Alex Jaegerman
 (staff), Caitlin Cameron (staff)

 Not in attendance: Jack Lufkin, Lynn Tillotson, Jaime Parker

Review and accept meeting minutes

 Landry moved, Graef seconded [13-0 passes, Turek, Lufkin, Tillotson,
 and Parker absent]

Review of data and Presentation of two options (staff)

Attachments:

 1. Memorandum – Staff evaluation of 2 redesign options
 Includes: Design program, Summary of Needs/Opportunities,
 Vision Statement
 2. Examples: Option 1
 3. Examples: Option 2

 Staff presented the contents of the meeting materials including a description of
 the program needs and vision statement for Congress Square. Staff then went
 on to present precedents and examples of existing spaces representing the
 possibilities for each option. Cost estimates based on square feet of hardscape,
 landscape, and extensive/intensive roof landscaping were presented based on
 staff analysis of numbers from various consultants. Finally, the presentation
 concluded with an opportunities/challenges analysis pointing out the potential
 limitations and opportunities of each option.

 CSRSG members were then given a chance to respond to the presentation.
Levesque asked who pays for the structural reinforcing of the roof and the
egress. Jaegerman responded and Wennerstrom confirmed that any costs
associated with the park would be borne by the City.

Graef asked staff whether they knew of any comparable ownership model as is
being proposed for the event center/rooftop park option including maintenance
and liability. Staff responded that they were not aware of a comparable
example. The closest example is privately-owned public spaces where the
property is owned privately but open to the public. In most cases, it is not the
City that is responsible for maintenance of the space and does not own the
space.

Hinck mentioned St. Mary’s Square in San Francisco as another example of a
public park that is on a roof. He asked what the ownership and maintenance
arrangement was in that case. Staff did not know the answer to that but did
know the example and that it was a public park in some form.

Hewins reminded the group that regardless of ownership, Portland Downtown
District (PDD) would have the responsibility of maintenance for Congress
Square spaces.

Hewins asked how much of the existing square feet of Congress Square Park
would be elevated in the Option 2. Jaegerman responded that the current plaza
space is 14,800 sf , the event center would occupy 10,000 sf. Wennerstrom
confirmed that the event center is 10,000 sf.

Hewins followed up asking whether there would be a ground level open space
component as well. Staff responded yes, most likely at the Congress Street side.

Marshall asked whether the ground level open space was included in the
estimate. Jaegerman confirmed and referred the group to the 7.21.14 Council
memo table which shows the plaza surface costs. Cameron reminded the group
that these costs do not include features such as water, art, furniture, etc.

Marshall stated that it was important to consider the total costs as a
comparison.

B. LaCasse expressed concern that one source of the cost estimate numbers was
coming from the architect hired by Rockbridge and who is designing the event
center project.

Marshall asked whether there could be an ADA accessible ramp up to the
rooftop space. Cameron responded that it is not clear whether there is enough
space on the site to accommodate that but it is possible.
 Bassett asked how the plaza/park schemes fit into the whole square design.
 Cameron and Jaegerman responded that the urban design needs and shared
 space components need to be met either way, with either scheme and that it is
 important to keep in mind that this is a smaller piece of a large whole.

Turek arrives at 5:07pm

Donoghue asked whether either option works with the proposed square concept.
Cameron responded that each option could be made to work with the square design
but that there is likely a need for a built element of some kind whether it’s the event
center or a kiosk/restrooms, an armature for projection, etc.

Landry asked how we define “active use.” Landry stated that he thinks the active
use piece of the project is really challenging. Landry did not consider the event
center to be an active edge and does not provide a true active edge. Cameron
responded that there are different degrees of activity and that staff considers the
event center an active edge but agree that it is not as active as a retail use, for
example but more active than the current conditions. Marshall asked staff whether
they thought the hotel entrance would be considered an active edge in which case
he agreed with Landry that the park space already has an edge that is a hotel
entrance and would not necessarily make the new space any more active.

Marshall asked staff which option, based on their expertise, best accommodated the
needs and desires of the community as expressed through the data generated
during the visioning process. Cameron responded that Option 1 would be better
suited to accommodate accessibility, physical and visual, and creating the
perception of an open and accessible space which would be more difficult to
accomplish with an elevated park.

Public Comment

 Barry Hoffman: Is there a rendering? (Jaegerman responded no, that was not
 part of the task assigned to staff). It’s premature to ask who will pay for what.
 Go for what you want.

 Patrick Costin: Are the needs of Rockbridge/the hotel considered here?
 (Wennerstrom responded that yes, they have been present for two years and
 have made their needs known). So, it appears there is no room for play with
 the needs of the event center.

 Unknown name: Clarify the statement in the staff report about
 accommodating restrooms etc. (Cameron responded that with a built
 component, whether the event center or otherwise, program needs such as
 restrooms and storage are more likely and easily to be accommodated.
 Without a design, this is a possibility only).
 Ian Jacobs: The cost estimates are problematic and likely too low. The
 Lincoln Center, for example, was $15.6 million.

 Don Elliot: Some examples given are not comparable context to what we have
 here – the change of grade on the site is a challenge and the programmatic
 implication of the current spatial configuration is in support of planned,
 staged events, but hinders casual use.

 Anne Pringle: Please clarify the statement about the hotel entrance as an
 opportunity for an active edge. Would it be publicly accessible? When the
 plaza was created originally, the intention was for that entrance to have a
 24/7 aspect. Also, our parks already have hours and are open from dusk
 until dawn – it would not be unreasonable for the rooftop option to have
 similar hours.

 Patrick Costin: I would urge the CSRSG to use the design team to help
 evaluate each option before making a decision with cost estimates and
 concrete concepts therefore giving the group a real sense of the value that
 would be gotten from either option. The time that we as a city have already
 invested in this place means that this decision deserves a thorough
 evaluation.

Evaluation of two options

Members of the CSRSG provided their opinion on the options and how to proceed.

Cantwell stated that the Portland Society for Architecture appreciates that the
referendum brought the park space back into the public realm. She is equally open
to both options at this point and the PSA believes the space could be successfully
designed either way. She further stated that design is how all of these things, such
as program and needs become form. This is more than just a checklist but goes
beyond these programmatic concerns. She then asked how the city can create
capacity for public/private partnership and legal models to do it right.

Wennerstrom stated that we have work that was begun by KMDG and that we
should keep going with that work to see what comes out of it. He felt that he needs
to see the two concepts to make a decision. He also reminded the group to keep the
sale of the parcel money in mind as an income source. There would also be income
in property taxes to the City for a new building.

Turek felt that within the existing plaza footprint the roof option does not fulfill the
assessed needs. The existing challenges are design challenges that can be met and
solved but the option with the roof does not address all the community needs.
B. LaCasse agreed that the challenges presented by the ground level park can be met
through design solutions but the challenges in an elevated park are inherent in the
design = creating challenges and problems. Safety and access barriers are important
considerations here – over the course of the summer Friends of Congress Square
Park have observed events where several people in wheelchairs attended – they
would not have been able to observe and feel included had they needed to find a
way to get up to the roof.

Hewins commended the impressive improvements and changes that have resulted
from the Friends of Congress Square Park so far. PDD has the responsibility to
maintain the space regardless. He supports either direction but favors an option
that generates economic development with the event center. He therefore leans to
the opportunities presented by the event center, the income to the City, and the
money from the sale. Hewins also mentioned the Spanish Steps as an example of an
elevated public space that is very successful and well-used. With the roof option,
the PDD would have additional money/income for maintenance of the public spaces.
Finally, he felt that there is an opportunity to unite people with the hybrid option.

P. LaCasse responded to the staff memo statements about the proportion and size
saying that the proportion of the space is 1:4 which is a good proportion and that
she feels it is not too large. The Post Office Park example in Boston is a good
example of what we could aim for. The rooftop has a lack of ebb and flow, flexibility,
street presence. A public open space is successful when people see people. Public
Art is another important component – art can activate edges, is interactive, creates
identity, and is placemaking. The elevated park would limit all of these possibilities.
Rooftop parks are a trend but most public open spaces are on the ground level for a
reason and we need to make a timeless space. She would vote for Option 1.

Hinck agreed that the success of public space is a priority. The best outcome is if
this could be combined with the event center but was skeptical about the cost of
that option. He was not convinced design couldn’t solve the access and visibility
issues. Design concepts are needed for each option from the design team - designs
that minimize the costs based on our limited resources. He asked whether the event
center could start lower in the ground to create less elevation to be reached. St.
Mary’s Square in San Francisco is a good example of a rooftop public space that has
a free flow. Requests that we spend as little as possible on concepts but the group
needs real design and dollars to make a decision.

Bassett agreed with the PSA in that Greater Portland Landmarks is open to either
strategy. The quality of design and relationship to the entire square/intersection as
well as the historic context should be considered in this decision.

Bass stated that he still thinks the event center would be good for the arts district.
He respects the outcome of the referendum – the question to be asked is which
option fulfills the desire of the public. He didn’t think the elevated park would be an
easy solution to meet the desires/vision of the public. Both situations are design
problems but we are better with what is tried and true. Therefore, he stated a
preference for Option 1 but need professional design to make the decision.

Landry repeated that active edges remain a top concern. The elevated park would
be more difficult and expensive and difficult to get what we want out of the
program. He agreed it is a design problem but that it could be a lot of money to get a
good solution. He reminded the group of weighing the value of each option and felt
that the elevated option would bring value to fewer people, fewer people would
access it and be served and it would be less accessible needing to be closed at night.
He felt Option 1 would give what we wanted for the value.

Graef stated her concerns include the cost and legal arrangement. She pointed out
that as density increases on the peninsula access to neighborhood green spaces
becomes more important. Great strides were already made through Lighter,
Quicker, Cheaper options. She supported phasing to get us to the end solution but
that is not possible with the elevated option and it is also less reversible. Finally,
she concluded that the rooftop option eliminates large gathering spaces.

Levesque stated that the highest and best used is desired. From the PMA’s
perspective, this area is the front yard of the museum and its visual appearance is
important to the image of the city and the square and the museum. She wanted to
see concept designs.

Next Steps

 Donoghue asked staff how to meet the need of the CSRSG to proceed.
 Jaegerman responded that he would recommend using KMDG as our
 contracted design team to produce conceptual designs for each option. The
 question is how detailed the designs would need to be to make the decision.

 Marshall pointed out there is limited time and the CSRSG would need to meet
 once more.

 B. LaCasse asked how the CSRSG members could be involved with the design.
 Donoghue responded that it would be another meeting for the CSRSG to
 weigh the options based on the desire expressed at this meeting to have
 visual representation with costs.

 Marshall asked staff to communicate with the design team about the
 schedule and how to proceed with concepts. He further echoed Councilor
 Donoghue’s assessment there was not a clear consensus on direction to take.
 The CSRSG directs staff to work with the Councilors and design team to
 come up with a process around design and cost estimates and report
 back to the CSRSG.

 Marshall moved, Hewins seconded.

 Bassett wanted to clarify the staff direction as a call for conceptual designs.
 Jaegerman responded that staff will have to talk with KMDG about the cost to
 do this work and the schedule.

 Vote taken on the proposed direction to staff [10-4 passes, Landry, B.
 LaCasse, P. LaCasse, and Turek opposed. Lufkin, Tillotson, and Parker
 absent]

Meeting adjourned 6:09pm