By Benjamin Morrison
March 4, 2021
“The right question is: what value does a well-designed facility provide to the residents of the city.”
At last night’s City Commission meeting, our leadership sent the following message to the residents of Fernandina Beach: The City does not place a value on good design. Unfortunately, this is a misguided approach that has haunted our community for as long as most can remember. Progressive municipalities around the globe have long understood that when they choose to invest in good design, it sets a precedent that trickles down through the rest of the community and creates an environment in which citizens have a sense of pride in their public facilities. It is time for our elected leaders to recognize this and provide our fellow residents with facilities that are worthy of the great community that we strive to be.
City staff, local historical experts, design professionals, concerned citizens, and members of the Friends of Bosque Bello have invested significant time and effort into developing the design concept for the new columbarium that was presented to the commission yesterday evening. The design itself was developed by the highly respected firm of Marquis Latimer + Halback, and represented the quality and attention to detail that we should expect from a facility to be placed in a location as important as the historic Bosque Bello Cemetery. Yet several of our commissioners chose to go down the same path of discussion that has led to disappointing public facilities for decades: can a solution be provided less-expensively by contracting directly with a manufacturer to design and install the entire facility, rather than investing in an independent design firm to develop a truly custom, unique, and site-sensitive solution for our community. As is always the answer, of course it can be. The problem is that the wrong question is being asked. The right question is: what value does a well-designed facility provide to the residents of the city.
I am providing two sets of examples to illustrate the differences in the product delivered to our community when a manufacturer is contracted to handle the design and installation of a facility versus when an independent Architect was used to develop a unique and context-sensitive solution. It is clear to see that there is no comparison between the two.
In both examples provided, the Architect-designed facility was able to be successfully funded almost exclusively through private donations primarily from folks right here in the city that saw the value they would provide. The manufacturer-designed facilities had to be funded entirely by the city. This is not coincidental. Our friends and neighbors want to see our public facilities reflect the standards that we aspire to be, and they are willing to put their own resources behind them to make that a reality. The supporters of the columbarium design that was presented last night understand that investing in quality design is a critical step towards ultimately being successful at raising private funding to help build the facility.
If city staff and the residents of our community can see and value the benefits of good design, why is it so difficult for our leaders to do the same?
Editor’s Note: Benjamin Morrison of Cotner Associates is a community volunteer and serves as Vice President of 8 Flags Playscape, a non-profit organization. 8 Flags Playscapes and the City of Fernandina developed three parks: Pirates Playground, Egans Creek Park, and the soon to open Simmons Road Park. Morrison was heavily involved in the design phase.
To paraphrase “Good design is in the eye of the beholder”. To claim that any one person or group has an exclusive hold on what is “good design” goes beyond being egotistical. People of equal talents can respectfully disagree as to whether a particular design is “good” or “bad”. While often a matter of personal taste, a “good design” incorporates requirements to have the structure “fit” within its space and that fit also includes the economic aspect. Certainly a more utilitarian structure is probably not going to be viewed as being as attractive as a custom designed structure. But what is the cost difference. You fail to address in your two examples what was the total cost (including in-kind and private donations) of the various structures. Based on the discussions at the Commission meeting by Comm. Ross, there is a substantial difference in the costs of the brick columbarium versus an alternative material such as granite. Exactly how does a brick structure fit in the “new” part of the cemetery where there are no brick headstones but all the headstones are granite/marble?
There seems to be more of a local political agenda here in terms of a power struggle between groups that have very legitimate differences of opinion as to what would be the best design for the columbarium. There needs to be agreement as to basic requirements before any firm can be hired to develop detailed plans.
You are correct that design is entirely subjective. But that is why the city relies on trained staff, experts from our community, and the hiring of professionals to guide them through the process and develop appropriate designs. If the city commission wants the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to be analyzing the appropriateness of designs for public facilities here in the city, you would think that there would be at least one qualified design professional appointed to the committee with the experience and education to provide relevant feedback. That seems like common sense, correct? Until that happens, I think we should continue to defer to those who actually have the training and knowledge to lead us in the right direction when it comes to design-related matters.
I can’t speak to his professional credentials, but Eric Bartelt has been a member of PRAB for a number of years and I know he has been involved in the design efforts of the riverfront park through all of its iterations for more than 20 years. And what members of City staff have the design credentials you seem to believe are a necessity? Apparently none given the examples you provide in your opinion piece of what you regard as “bad” design.
But as you say, it is all subjective. I bet if you asked 5 different “professional designers” to present their designs for a columbarium at BB you are likely to get 5 totally different designs. We have seen that repeatedly with the riverfront park plan. Instead of using the 2012 Commission approved concept plan (that your business partner was significantly involved in creating), the City apparently gave the design firm a blank slate to start from and their initial design has required significant revisions.
As I noted in my earlier comment the only way to reduce that likelihood is to provide them on the front end a series of requirements as to size, materials, layout, style, etc. that are acceptable to the community as a starting point. What requirements, if any, were given by the City to the design firm for the columbarium? I have been unable to find such a document in the city archives but I know the various committes minutes are not up to date.
Well said. I agree with you and have experienced it myself. We live in the Historic District and the City holds us to very high and subjective standards. The City does not uphold the same standards for public space as it relates to construction and design in the community. I would also say they don’t let the experts do their job by not taking good recommendations and get involved in the design with the local volunteer groups, advisory boards, and the firm hired to design the project.
I couldn’t agree more with the author. For numerous election cycles, our elected leaders have demonstrated an amazing capacity to get mired in the way we’ve always done things instead of looking forward at what we want our communities to be. Stop looking in a rear view mirror, doing things on the cheap that degrade our property values and hamper the attraction of private capital to our community. It is penny wise and pound foolish.
The article presents a valid point. But projects need leaders. The way this one has had its can kicked down an unconscionable, convoluted path to termination speaks poorly regarding a significant roster or our city staff and elected officials. If they are not the boss, yet another necessary project that addresses a need and benefits the community will remain undone or be ineffectively done until staff and elected representatives learn to compromise and produce rather than grandstand and fail: sound and fury, signifying nothing.
.
The Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee does have a “qualified design professional with the experience and education to provide relevant feedback.” That would be me, a retired designer with 40 years of experience as a corporate design consultant, a 3-year Masters in Industrial Design from one of the top university design programs in the country, graduating 2nd in class. I co-founded two highly successful design firms before starting my own firm. Clients ranged from startups to multi-billion dollar corporations. Like many Industrial Designers, I’ve worked across many disciplines including Architecture, Interior Design, Product Design, Graphic Design, Exhibition Design, Advertising, and Branding. I’ve won a number of regional design awards and a national design competition, and my work has been published multiple times in leading national design publications. So, that’s my stuff, Ben. What’s yours?
As for the columbarium, this isn’t about good design or bad design. It’s about what’s appropriate design for fairly small, publicly owned, municipal cemetery where history, tradition, dignity and respect are more important than a grandiose design “statement”. In my view (and I’m just one of seven members of the committee), the columbarium should blend in with its surrounding grave sites, not outshine them or diminish them. It should be contextual, respecting the scale, materials, forms, heights, and prevailing orientation of the headstones and vaults. The proposed design raised many questions, such as why have a plan that removes trees (as acknowledged by the design firm at their initial presentation) when they can be incorporated into the design? Since Bosque Bello is running out of space, why have a columbarium that is spread out over a wide area when a smaller footprint would leave space for additional burial plots, thus extending the life of the cemetery? Why spend $1.3 million for a custom built brick columbarium when a less expensive granite one (like the ones at the Methodist and Presbyterian churches) would more than suffice. Is brick going to result in more sales of niches than granite and are purchasers going to not purchase because the columbarium is granite instead of brick? Why use a less durable material like brick, that the FL Building Code and our own ordinance doesn’t approve for cemeteries? There are many more questions and issues, both design and financial, that PRAC dealt with. We would have welcomed your input and design perspective, but you didn’t attend any of our meetings.
Thank you for your comments Eric. I have a lot of respect for you and everyone else who volunteers their time to serve on boards and committees here in the City. I know personally how much of a commitment it is.
I wish that I could have weighed in more in your all’s meetings, but I have been very busy leading partnerships with the City that actually get built.
The Parks &Rec. Advisory Committee is unanimously in favor of building a columbarium. Just not this design.
“We support a waterfront park, just not this design”
“We support a new park for the south end of the city, just not this design”
“We support a new columbarium, just not this design”
These are the words that have been used by obstructionists for decades to prevent progress from being made in our city. That was exactly what Len Kreger was referring to in his comments on Tuesday night. And he is correct.
Benjamin, the citizens DID agree to a design for the riverfront park back in 2012 (and formally approved by the Commission) and work was to start under the Forward Fernandina program, but a change in the political winds on the Commission withdrew the initial funding. So it was politics not design that stopped that effort. As to the latest riverfront park design, why was the consulting firm not told to make the necessary modifications to the commission approved 2012 plan rather than essentially being told you have a clean slate?
For the Simmons Road park, nearly all of the objection was its necessity as well as its location when there were alternative locations available that wouldn’t require removal of trees. As to the original “good design” of that park, it had to be substantially modified several times due to the tree conservation issue. I don’t know of anyone that was opposed to the “accessible to all” aspect of the park, just the location and the negative environmental impact it was creating. Personally, I have concerns about the activities that will take place there after dark given the poor visibility from the street. Time will tell.
As to the columbarium, Eric Bartelt’s comment below lays out a number of reasons why PRAC believed that the presented design was not appropriate for Bosque Bello. I would hope the Restoration Foundation, Friends of BB and PRAC could come together and through consensus develop a set of requirements that will drive the future design.
The 2012 Riverfront park plan was successful because care was taken to solicit input from all the stakeholders involved and seek consensus. I know that the more than 100 individuals that were involved in the charrettes and other review forums didn’t love every single element that was proposed for the park, but since it was a community effort there was a consensus in the design.
Mr. Bartelt,
Thank you for bringing your experience and expertise to the PRAC and to this project, in particular. You seem to be approaching design with respect to place. Bosque Bello is a uniquely beautiful place and worth a more carefully considered design that doesn’t clash or compete with it. PRAC is fortunate to have a volunteer member like you and readers need to have the facts not just opinions in these forums.
I agree with Dave Lott and Ms. Lehosit. The groups need to work together on a columbarium. And facts are important. The cemetery’s Master Plan states that since the cemetery is so old, it is not known where existing burials may be located. The Master Plan recommends the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to locate the old remains. After checking around on this, this is not a huge expenditure. Also, most columbarium companies recommend soil borings, as one representative put it, “you don’t want the leaning Tower of Pisa”. FYI: The Port erected a fabric warehouse due to borings that indicated inadequate support for a more substantial structure (after it had spent a substantial sum on construction and design plans for a substantial structure). From my perspective, as a PRAC member, I could not vote to approve an expenditure for construction drawings until the GPR and ground boring tasks were undertaken. The design can then hopefully meet the needs of the site’s constraints and the desires of the public.
Only from my perspective, funding mechanisms need to be addressed by the PRAC and the Commission. Using Parks and Recreation Impact Fee funds for the construction of a structure that houses cremains who are not recreating may be inviting legal issues. There are some other more suitable options that may be available.
Let’s hope we can all get on the same page with the columbarium for the sake of the cemetery’s financial future and care.