Congress Square Redesign Study Group — Portland, ME
Date: 2014-11-05

Agenda
 Congress Square Redesign Study Group
 November 5, 2014 5:00 to 6:45 pm
 Room 24, City Hall

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Review and accept meeting minutes

3. Presentation of Two Concepts and Cost Estimates (5:05 – 5:35pm)

  Concept designs for each option
  Cost estimates for each option

 Kaki Martin, KMDG and Cordelia Pitman, Wright-Ryan Construction

4. Evaluation of two options with Q&A (5:35 – 6:00pm)

  Scorecard provided

 Led by Co-Chairs Donoghue and Marshall

5. Recommendation to Council (6:00 – 6:45pm)

  Discussion and possible vote on the options to meet the charge from Council
 and November 17 deadline



Attachments:

 1. Minutes (9.17.14)
 2. Memorandum – Staff Evaluation of 2 Redesign Options
 3. Observations –Friends of Congress Square Park
 4. Concept Design Images (Source: KMDG/Utile)
 5. Cost Estimates (Source: Wright-Ryan Construction)
 6. Blank scorecard

Meeting Minutes (draft, not approved by CSRSG)
 Congress Square Redesign Study Group
 November 5, 2014 5:00 to 6:45 pm
 Room 24, City Hall

Call to order 4:04pm

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, Sally Streuver (Portland Museum of Art), Bree LaCasse,
 Steve Hewins, Lynn Tillotson, Jaime Parker, Councilor Jon Hinck, Michael
 Boucher, Alex Jaegerman (staff), Caitlin Cameron (staff), Jeff Levine (staff)

 Not in attendance: Jack Lufkin

Review and accept meeting minutes

 Three amendments proposed to minutes by Bree LaCasse, David Marshall,
 and member of the public Don Elliot.

 Landry moved, B LaCasse seconded [16-0 passes, Lufkin absent]

Presentation of design concepts for two park options and cost estimates (Kaki Martin,
KMDG and Tim Love, Utile, and Cordelia Pitman, Wright-Ryan Construction)

Attachments:

 1. Memorandum – Staff description, design parameters
 2. Design Concepts
 3. Cost Estimates
 4. Scorecard

The design team and cost estimator presented the design concepts for each of the
options being considered by the CSRSG. Those materials can be found in the
attachments.

Questions from CSRSG members:

Parker asked what the square feet of event space would be. Love responded that
the total square feet of event center was 8,300sf with a 5,000sf main event room.

Bass asked whether the concept design represents that 8,300sf of event center
space. Martin responded that it did.
Graef asked how the money from the sale of the land would be used in the option 2
scenario – could staff clarify the CDBG situation since this parcel is currently not
eligible for CDBG activities. Levine responded that this site is currently not eligible
for CDBG funds so the money from the sale of the parcel would be used to offset the
cost of a CDBG eligible activity elsewhere in the city unless in the next round of
evaluation this area were to become CDGB eligible which is also a possibility.

Graef asked how long that CDBG process would take. Levine responded that next
year’s round would be for July 2016.

Steuver asked for clarification on whether this group would be making a decision on
anything beyond the plaza area at this time since the rest of the intersection,
sidewalk and square are depicted in the same way in both options. The response
was that no, the design process would continue after this decision to address the
remainder of the square and that was not part of the current task given.

Bassett asked about Item 17 in the cost estimate – does the word “excavation” refer
only to excavation work for the event center building? Pitman responded that yes,
all aspects of Item 17 are exclusions directly related to the event center building
itself.

Bass asked the design team to explain how the grade change across the parcel is
managed in Option 1. A second question was how much of the roof would need to
be taken up by mechanical equipment. Martin demonstrated with the slides that the
park surface slopes down from Congress Street to the hotel entry level. The back
corner of the park would be elevated with access from ramps and stairs. The
mechanical equipment question is a good one and the design team does not have an
answer without being able to work with the event center architect. The building
needs would have to be developed in tandem with the rooftop park design with
coordination on things like that. Love added that in order to maximize the park
area, some things like the mechanicals could be incorporated into the screen wall or
onto the neighboring roof.

Donoghue asked whether the event center in this scheme was in the same location
as the design presented by Rockbridge previously. Love responded that the design
team had to change the proportion and position of the event center building
footprint in order to accommodate the ADA accessible ramping system on site.

Donoghue further asked whether the design team changed the elevation of the event
center. Martin responded that no, the height and level of the event center remain
the same and could not be sunk lower because of access reasons from the existing
hotel entrance.
Landry asked where there would be railings. Martin responded that railings would
be present on one side of each ramp and on top of the roof for those areas where
there is a falling safety risk.

Landry further asked what those railings would look like as they appeared to be
rendered like glass in the design concepts. Martin responded those details would be
worked out – the railings are shown as glass but could be designed in different ways.

Landry asked what the grade of the landforms between the ramps was. Love
responded that they did not know the exact ratio but that they were too steep to be
occupied. Landry followed with the observation that those areas would be difficult
to mow.

Landry also asked about the green space depicted at the back of the alley in Option 2
and what that was intended to be. Love responded that was not meant to be green
and was simply the back of the egress alley at ground level as it is now.

Hinck inquired if the Spanish Steps were a part of the influence of the Option 2
design, why were the steps not started closer to the street and why were they made
so angular. Love responded that the design intention was to keep a plaza space at
the street level to be used for performance. The designers also didn’t want to break
the façade lines of the existing buildings on Congress Street and just have the
canopy peek out past that line. Hinck responded that it was clear the design team
had thought about these points and made conscious decisions.

Hinck asked whether the designs need structures and water features in both options
and if the designers knew of examples of places that still have working fountains in
this climate. Love responded that the structures are critical in both schemes for
human comfort and placemaking. The particulars of these elements can be tweaked
but they ground the space and the upper trellises indicate the elevated space is
open. The fountains are in-ground and can be made to accommodate the weather.

Hewins asked whether either scheme has public restrooms. Martin responded that
no, there are not public restrooms in either option. Love added that in his
experience, cities do not want the expense of maintaining restrooms.

Turek commented that the square feet of event space as reported in the scorecard
does not look proportionate or accurate. Cameron responded that particular line
item is for the major open space in each scheme and it is possible the numbers are
off slightly.

Public Comment

 Barry Hoffman: Asked whether the ADA guidelines are met, what happens at
 Free Street, and what is the situation with easements.
 Judith MacCallister: Asked what the designers have done to prevent people in
 the park from accessing the lower apartments at the back corner.

 John Eder: Asked who is going to bear the additional costs of the event center
 since the public has already voted against the sale of the land.

 Ian Jacobs: Pointed out there should be an allowance for the entry structure
 and kiosk in the estimate and asked what the cost of those items would be.
 Also pointed out that storm drainage should be taken into account, especially
 with ramp ice melt.

 Don Elliot: Pointed out that winter happens here and the roof option is
 problematic in that sense. Urged the CSRSG to keep in mind that this is part
 of the whole square and would like to see views of the park space from
 within the square. The pergolas are superfluous and in the way – the square
 should be open and the surface treatment can add character to the space
 rather than the pergolas. He prefers the ground-level option.

 Carl Eppich: Asked for clarification on the different levels of Option 2 design.

 Joan Grant: Pointed out that the park is currently used by ADA users and
 wondered if it is really feasible to use these ramps. Asked how much it
 would cost for restrooms which are badly needed. She also asked if these are
 the only two options to vote on.

 Tony Sully: Asked whether Rockbridge would absorb the costs to hold park.

Answers to questions

Jaegerman responded that the easement for egress is retained in both options.

Love affirmed that both schemes are ADA compliant.

Love responded that they weren’t aware of the access issues to the neighboring
apartments and would need to look at that further.

Pitman pointed out that there is an allowance in Option 1 for the kiosk structure and
that dollar amount could be applied to both options.

Martin responded that storm water is an important issue and could be addressed
with further design work.

Love pointed out on the slides that the Option 2 has three levels – ground plaza, a
mid-level terrace, and then the upper terrace.
Pitman commented that the cost of restrooms would depend on the structure and
there is the possibility of using pods. This is something they could find out if
needed. Love added that code compliant and ADA restrooms also become more
expensive.

Marshall responded that the additional costs would be borne by the public for extra
structure. Pitman added that they would need more information for an accurate
dollar amount on these costs.

CSRSG deliberation on two options

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

Tillotson commented that the city has a significant lack of convention space and
loses money and events to other cities every week. There is an economic benefit
with visitors coming and spending money in the city; it is not just a benefit to the
Westin. The goal is to get events here.

The CSRSG moved to recommend Option 1, the ground-level park to Council.

Parker moved, Graef seconded.

 B. LaCasse included a statement (attached) from the Friends of Congress
 Square Park. She reinforced the role of Friends of Congress Square Park in
 the future success of the space and asked the CSRSG to join them in believing
 in the economic and social value of great public space for generations to
 come.

 Graef stated that she has heard nothing that addresses the concerns about
 ownership and maintenance costs. If these things do not work or it is
 expensive, what then?

 Steuver reads a statement from Mark Bessire stating discouragement at the
 state of the Schwartz building in the square and the negative impact it has
 had for several years. The PMA supports Option 1 with further discussion
 and attention needed.

 Hewins reiterated that it’s PDD’s role to maintain this public open space and
 is dedicated to that task regardless of the outcome. He supports Option 2 if it
 works as an urban public space – as a park first and an event center second.
 He likes both concepts except for the lack of public restrooms. Does not
 know about the financing but either way, that is not part of the CSRSG
 purview. He is uncomfortable with the cost estimates and believes they are
 moot to making this decision because it is too difficult to estimate for Option
 2 separate from the event center. The public wants convergence – Option 2
can be a win-win and PDD has similar view on economic value of the event
center as Lynn Tillotson. There is a need to create more opportunity
downtown.

Bass found both designs compelling. Option 2 takes a lot of space for
circulation and getting to the top of the park. Would like to hear from
Rockbridge whether Option 2 is even possible.

Wennerstrom responded that these design concepts give the group
something tangible to talk about and he is encouraged by both. The event
center idea came from data on the need for such a space. The hotel is still
committed to finding a win-win and make a structure that works for
everyone. Originally, the event center space was 9,600sf and this is smaller,
there is a loss of natural lighting, but these things can be worked out.

Turek referred to the statement distributed (attached). He prefers the
ground plan park as a vital space for the Parkside neighborhood residents. It
is vital to community. A revitalized park space is also an economic
development magnet. He also stated the desire to amend the recent open
space ordinance to include Congress Square Park.

Bassett thanked the designers for their work and ideas – it was more work
than was expected. Both options would activate the space, are dynamic and
exciting places. GPL has always been concerned with how the park fits into
the entire intersection where there is some of the best architecture in the
city. A question for Rockbrige (Wennerstrom) – would Rockbridge be willing
to contribute additional investment? Wennerstrom responded that they are
willing to talk about it. Bassett continued that both options have good
textures and that a ground lease option may be possible for Option 2.

Hinck felt that more discussion was needed about the designs and hoped that
the designs would be available online for people to comment on. In Option 1,
the diagonal cut through is appealing. In Option 2, the benefits include the
views, getting away from traffic, and access to more sun. As a citizen, he
would not want to pay more for the benefit to go to someone else and Option
1 is probably better for that return on public investment. He will vote
against the motion because he wants to hear from the public before making a
decision.

Boucher commented that the traffic changes proposed here are big changes
by itself and either option chosen should include these changes. Unifying
pavement is strong and creates the illusion of a big open space. There is a
balance yet to be struck with diversity and complexity with flexibility and
timeless character of the space. Timeless spaces tend to be more simple.
Rather than the fragments of elements it would be better to have larger
 spaces of each type of space combined. The kiosk might also move to the
 corner. He proposed making it simpler and more unified. He liked the use of
 the diagonal but felt it should be scaled down.

 P. LaCasse read a statement (attached) which emphasized the important
 considerations for siting artwork – sight lines, accessibility, and visibility.
 The ground option allows for more options to site artwork. Accessibility is
 key – the art needs to be accessible and the ground option works for that.
 Option 2 has more rigid sight lines, less clear accessibility, and is still not
 physically accessible to all abilities. The green space is not all useable.
 Flexibility is key. Option 1 will give what is needed here.

 Landry like Option 2 more than he anticipated but there are too many
 unsurmountable issues. Visual access for neighbors – it is too close to their
 apartments. Option 1 is not perfect, yet, and there could be more active uses
 along the back wall. He supports the motion and feels we can arrive at a
 good solution for the City and hotel.

 Parker reminded the group that there has been a long discussion about this
 space with the consideration of a rooftop option in the past but the ship has
 sailed on the putting a building on this site. He stated that it feels forced. It is
 clear what Rockbridge is willing to do and it is not enough. The cost
 estimates seem low between the two options but cost is less important to the
 decision. He is looking forward to getting back to the original charge and
 move ahead and believes through the use of vertical elements there is a way
 to deal with the problematic back corner.

 Hewins asked a procedural question about the Council Order – does the
 CSRSG have to make a recommendation and if not, why is the group making a
 motion to recommend one option? Hewins stated he did not think it was
 appropriate to vote.

 Bassett asked what the deadline was from the Council Order. Marshall
 responded that the Council is expecting the CSRSG to report back on
 November 17th.

 Vote taken on the proposed motion [10-5 passes, 1 abstention, Hewins
 abstained. Lufkin absent.]

Meeting adjourned 6:50pm