LOL YMCA Cancels Ball game

From: Ashton Hayward
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:07 PM
To: City Council
Subject: YMCA Lease

Ladies and Gentlemen of the City Council,

Last night, the CMPA voted to disregard your vote recommending the YMCA lease be approved in concept for Parcel 8 at the Community Maritime Park. As your agent, it is important that the CMPA take direction from you, their client. I encourage the Council to take whatever action is necessary to reaffirm your prior decision on the YMCA lease and move the project forward without delay.

Ashton J. Hayward III
Mayor, City of Pensacola

Very little precious space left at the park. Really the whole park is to small to cram every lil thing Stupider wants.


I'm sure if Oats had been at these meetings barking his pro park mentality, they'd of surely approve the Y idea.

Whew. Lucky us.

CG, any idea how that yogurt place in the stadium is doing? Last time I dropped by the park (non game day) there was NOBODY buying yogurt.
Did the other retail spot (in stadium) get rented out yet?

Isnt it just odd that no biz wants to build anything at the maritime park. Stupider has to wave a big ole $ flag just to get someone interested? Come on now. I'd like Stupider better if he could draw in some higher paying jobs, rather than part time stadium jobs paying minimum wages.

Really be nice if Stupider bought the old ECUA property and gave it to the Y. Bigger location, parking problem solved. Win win for Y members.

I have said all along the Y belongs over the western retention area with an elevated building and still access to the waterfront. All over this country folks are building over retention areas, and this would bring it closer to Main Street and utilize space which had not been allocated.....a win/win proposition which allows wonderful access for maritime activities for the Y. If you saw my earlier posts, I wanted the Y over the retention pond, which currently requires about a 15 foot FEMA flood line, so it is perfect for the elevation.

There are many reasons astute businessmen do not build on Wharf's and other places that are only assailable from one side. Had Mr Stooder and friends conducted a feasibility study this would have been obvious.
I watched the entire 4 hour meeting of the CMPA. At one point Mr Stooders spokesman whines about how expensive it is to build at the CMPA citing Piling issues, wind load requirements Etc. Duh!!!
We now have a white elephant. No parking, no access, too expense to build, No plans, no one seems to be in control of the destiny of the park.
There is a very strong possibly that Stooders facade is showing hair line cracks. Mr Reeves seems not to be a Studerite.
The YMCA was a vote against the strong arm tactics of Mr Quint Studer.
No one should be shocked that this is quickly turning into a F'ed up mess.
It was obvious...

I really cannot stress how perfect the current retention area would be for an elevated YMCA. First, they could get a lower lease fee because it was never calculated as an additional building site, but because of the FEMA building line requirements, it will have to be elevated and the area below the building can still be used for retention like it is all over the country. This also decreases the walk to the parking structure. I personally would never like anything built on 8 and as Eric used to say the wide open space is very functional for other types of activities. You could still get the same number of building locations and lease revenue, but you could also put some kid's soccer fields adjacent to the waterfront and keep it open. I like the idea of the Y in the Park, but I think this could be a home run, and I do not find this discussion entirely inappropriate. I think reasonable people will find a solution, and I certainly would like to see the area over the retention pond at a reduced lease fee made available and some nominal rental rate for soccer fields.......not too close to the water.....soccer balls are expensive.

You could also do a joint venture with the city which involves putting a multi story parking garage over the retention and engineer the loads so that the top two stories of the structure could house the Y. There are plenty of innovative ideas which could be very cost effective which involve allocation of the cost of the parking structure into future leases for the other parcels. There is not enough creative thinking going on. Mr. Studer could have fronted the first five million for the parking structure which allowed an inexpensive two story precast structure for the Y with great view on top of the sixth or seventh floor overlooking the bay with elevators and loads of parking for all uses at the park and old stinky. I drive right into Biloxi to a parking structure at the Beau Rivage which has exceptional views of the water, and again this retention area could give the Y a lease free location if they shared some of the cost of the garage and elevators because again the other lots would have an up front lease cost built into the parking structure. Folks are so busy attacking Studer, that they are forgetting there are many strategies which could actually be a win/ win solution.

I could see this retractable roof and walls on an olympic size pool facing the bay, which could be open during warm weather with huge patios over looking the bay with a large outdoor workout area. This simply could be world class and entirely affordable with some cooperative thought. My criticism of the Y process has not been thinking of future economy of scale use of the park. If you nail a parking deck now and incorporate it over the current retention areas you get a virtual freebee on the lease payments and can design a huge parking garage and a spectacular YMCA.

Using this same concept you could put a hotel on top of the Y and simple create a business Condo type of ownership of the space over the retention, of course within the scope of the leasehold.

So you put 6 floor parking garage, a two story YMCA which opens up to the bay with wrap around patios and convertible olympic size pool on the 7th and 8th floor, and then put four more floors of a hotel which would share the pool, parking, and Y facilities as part of the nightly fee. Where is the creativity. Instead of people pointing fingers, how about mutual solutions without always blaming studer.

He is dividing the city, bit by bit. Rest assured, that is his goal.


I do not think so. I think there are such hard feelings that there cannot be brainstorming for win/win solutions without some always blaming studer. I have done projects where they involved multi entities and the results have been spectacular. The economy of scale of a parking structure being talked about now which incorporates the Y and a hotel with Mr. Studer putting his five million down first, and the city floating bonds on the balance with the Y and Hotel paying smaller lease fees than using one of the existing lots, and incorporating the balance of parking spaces allocated to each lot which would be built into the bond to allow a five year window for development would finally make this park very marketable, and it would be a win win solution. There is no reason for this key large are to lay fallow while a lot 8 build out right now would be very expensive for the Y and maybe not the best location. I argued when this issue first came out that the retention area is simply not being recognized as a building site. Yes with a large parking structure, future building sites would also have to carve out additional retention under their elevated building locations, but the cost of elevation is easily off set by the certain risk of destruction in a hurricane without the same. Win/win