When the Flagler Beach City Commission got its first look at the redesigned A-Frame area at the pier last month, it was not impressed. It did not like the “gingerbread,” the overly ornate exterior of the bathrooms, the roofing that could block portions of the iconic “Flagler Beach” on the A-frame roof.
The commission told Moffat & Nichol, the design firm, and Flagler Beach’s JPA (Joseph Pozzuoli Architects) to try again.
The plans submitted last Thursday drew raves, design-wise. But they did not fare better cost-wise. What started as a $1.5 million project has ballooned to $2.8 million, with several design elements that were not part of the original concept as commissioners understood it, including a covered portion of the 4,200-square-foot promenade.
“I can’t get behind a project that has gone so far out of bounds on the money side,” Commissioner Eric Cooley said. “My issue is with the bells and whistles and shiny objects that are all over the plan.”
“I’d like to push forward with this project, but in the same breath,” Commission Chair James Sherman said, “we’ve definitely got to maybe try to see where we can cut some more costs.”
Example: stick to wood, which decays faster and needs more maintenance, instead of composite materials for the Promenade and railing.
City Manager Dale Martin said the bid process could determine lower costs. He cautioned commissioners not to be stuck on design cost estimates, which could come down at bidding. “We do have tools as we go forward with this process,” he said.
Commissioner Spradley preferred not to go that route. He liked the design. He didn’t like the cost. “I hate to ask for the design team to come back yet again, but that might be something that should be considered,” he said, “because that seems to be the one area that we were all in agreement on, is that we need to get that thing closer to the budget.”
His motion to table the project for the second time in four weeks was approved 5-0.
The project is paid for in part with a $745,000 from the Tourist Development Council. The rest is to be drawn from the city’s reserves. It consists of rebuilding the structure under the A-frame into a 2,700 square foot services building, including naturally ventilated and larger bathrooms walled with stone veneer. It includes renovations of the A-frame’s look from beneath, a new breezeway and three slanted roofs on the new structure.
Pozzuoli had met with the mayor and the commissioners to lay out the plans, and on Thursday gave them a brief architecture seminar, putting the project in its local context.
“So mid-century, modern architecture is what you’re looking at,” Pozzuoli said, displaying an image of the 13-room Ridge Manor Motel on State Road 50 in Hernando County, built in 1959 with high hopes of turning Ridge Manor around. The hopes were dashed. The motel is no longer there. “Low-pitched roofs, shed roofs, monument signage, which are proportionally integrated with the architecture beautifully. Our design reflects and pays homage to Old Florida architecture during this mid-century modern phase.”
The service building would have three slanted shed roofs, lowered 3.5 feet, with their pitch also lowered, since Commissioner Rick Belhumeur had complained last month that the higher roofs were blocking the view of the A-Frame. The “Fla.” portion of the roof signage remains blocked from certain perspectives.
“We’re not repairing the A-frame at all. The A-frame is structurally fine. It’s in good condition. What I would like to do is clean it up, though,” Pozzuoli said, such as moving a pipe out of a railing, creating space and using haint blue staining to bring out the architectural detail of the structure. “So the intent is to clean up everything at a pedestrian scale, a human scale, and then rejuvenate the A-frame with the haint blue.”
A breezeway connects to the Promenade to the south. Belhumeur isn’t a fan. He was alone in that regard. He’s not thrilled by the use of space under the A-Frame, and he is especially irritated by the three sloped roofs.
“We’ve got five different roof lines, and each one’s dumping water on the other one, and then the last one dumps water on the wings of the A-frame,” Belhumeur said. “So that just seems to be a lot going on, and having to control that rainwater. We’re trying to save money to be able to have the composite decking. So I don’t know why we need three roof lines or five.” Gutters could resolve that issue, Pozzuoli said.
Commissioners wanted a composite material instead of timber decking for the Promenade decking, railing and stairs. “Composite is expected to cost more, potentially by about 50 percent,” Perdomo, the designer, said. “That’s for the construction costs. The overall life-cycle cost, of course, would be less and lower maintenance, and we understand that composite is preferred by the city.” He recommended keeping both options open.
Perdomo was hoping to get the commission’s approval to go to 60 percent design and complete that by November, with the 100 percent document completed by February 2026. He did not get that go-ahead. Commissioners weren’t interested in moving the design to 60 percent with so many questions unanswered, and the risk of no longer being able to make significant changes at 60 percent. “It does make it very challenging at the 60 percent level to make major changes,” Perdomo said.
Cooley was most critical of the cost increases. Cooley had been dubious about the originally quoted price of $1.5 million, but that was the advertised price. “Along the way, the budget has doubled, or potentially tripled on this,” Cooley said. “I love all the architecture, I love all that stuff. It’s phenomenal. But it’s not what we approved. We approved a project that was originally supposed to cost $1.5 [million]. What we’re looking at is a $4 million structure, I would assume, and that, to me, is not fiscally responsible. That’s almost a bait and switch.”
He reminded the designers that the commission had “recoiled” when the price began to rise, and issued directions for “value engineering.” That did not happen, he said. For example, the Promenade was never supposed to be covered. Nor were the showers. Now they are.
“That is far, far out of line with what the original intent was,” Cooley said. He wants a more “utilitarian” structure in line with its purposes–bathrooms, service space. “It’s not a tourist center,” he said (though in fact it is, next to the beach, the most touristy site in the city.)
“I didn’t realize the cost had gone up that much either,” Commissioner John Cunningham said. “But I do like the design. It’s great.”
This commission has always had Spradley as its Solomon. He reads the room, his colleagues’ concerns especially, sums up the issue, and proposes a way forward.
“I for one see the areas that I was most interested in and concerned with either changed or retained to the present form,” Spradley said. He reached that conclusion after conversations with constituents. He was fine with the second design. He doesn’t mind the slanted roofs. He finds them “pleasing to the eye,” and he prefers to leave that level of detail to the architect.
At the same time, he saw “uniformity” in concerns about costs, leaving the commission with little choice but to ask the designers and the architect to go back to, in this case, the literal drawing board.
Doug says
The pier will be a destination for more tourists than locals, so why not have the Tourist Development Council foot the entire bill? Oh wait, that makes too much sense. Let’s tax the residents instead.
Shark says
Why waste any money. It will be gone this hurricane season or the next ones !!!!
Tim says
The more I read the more I think they put the cart before the horse. When ever I priced a job I need a finished plane to give a quote to a customer. Well it’s not there money so no need to be responsible with it . Nice job
Mike says
I remember the old Church St Station build sold bricks with names to generate revenue for the venue. Any thoughts on outside revenue to help defray cost.