Category Archive: Downtown Development
-
2 years after Plan A failed, the city works on Plan C – Corroding Fifth/Forbes awaits rebirth
By Tom Barnes and Timothy McNulty,
Post-Gazette Staff Writers
Sunday, August 04, 2002David Kashi, a Downtown jewelry store owner, says some of his friends think he’s crazy to invest money in a neighborhood where graffiti has replaced gleaming glass and empty buildings hover over silent sidewalks.
Kashi, who’s had a store for 15 years in the rundown lower section of Fifth Avenue just off Liberty, is spending thousands of dollars to renovate a former Candy-Rama store at Fifth and Wood streets and will move his jewelry store into that space.
He said he’s decided to move ahead even before Mayor Tom Murphy unveils his long-awaited “Plan C” for reinvigorating the area.
“Everybody told me not to invest money in the city — to get out of the city,” he said last week. “They said it’s a dead horse.”
Kashi’s former store at 210 Fifth Ave. now sits empty, adjacent to a forlorn stretch of the street from Graeme to Market streets, where three stores are deserted, with graffiti on the windows. Across the street at Market and Fifth, the boarded-up windows of another empty store have been painted with an urban mural titled “Celebrate Pittsburgh.”
But there isn’t much to celebrate.
Nearly two years after Murphy abandoned his much-criticized “Marketplace at Fifth and Forbes” plan, which would have demolished more than 60 older buildings and replaced them with 40 new ones, he’s now working on an alternative called Plan C.
But administration officials aren’t saying when an actual proposal for redevelopment will be put forward.
“They have been talking about [improving the area] for so long,” Kashi said. “There is no help from the authorities, so I took the initiative.”
The portions of Fifth and Forbes just off Market Square “look bad and are getting worse every day,” said Mulugetta Birru, director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority. “The city can’t wait too long. We are missing out on opportunities” to attract new stores.
“I am anxious to see something happen,” said Bonnie Klein, co-owner of Camera Repair Service, just off Market Square.
She was one of 13 members of Murphy’s Plan C Task Force on Fifth and Forbes, which spent more than a year studying options for renewal before delivering its report to Murphy in April.
In early June, in response to Murphy’s request, a handful of development companies submitted proposals for shopping, residential and hotel projects in the area roughly bounded by Fifth, Forbes, Market Square and Smithfield Street.
Klein and several others on the Plan C task force said they were still in the dark about what Murphy wants to do with the Fifth-Forbes area.
The city has done “nothing at all” to keep up the commercial stretch of Forbes, said Gabriel Fontana, who has run Gabriel Shoe Repair on the street for 26 years. That neglect affects business, he said.
“There aren’t too many people [here] like there used to be,” he said. “There are a lot of stores closing up, a lot of empty stores.”
Craig Kwiecinski, a spokesman for Murphy, said things were happening and would be announced shortly.
“We are still reviewing the applications and meeting with the development community,” he said, but added he couldn’t speculate on a time frame for action.
Cathy McCollom, an official of Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation and also a member of the Plan C task force, said there could be an upside to the length of time it has taken to improve the area.
While it’s difficult to see the number of empty storefronts and deteriorated facades, she said, the wait could eventually bring down asking prices and make it easier for the city to assemble the properties it needs to make something happen.
Time is not on Murphy’s side.
The Fifth-Forbes area took a serious hit in February, when a McDonald’s at Forbes and Wood shut down. Its boarded windows are a frequent target for graffiti.
In that same area along Forbes, National Record Mart and the large G.C. Murphy are closed, adding to the forlorn appearance of the block.
The old NRM is partially occupied by a discount store that sells, among other things, “trouser socks” and “flavored blunt wrap” used by people who roll tobacco and other things.
Walking west toward Market Square, there’s a T-shirt and trinket shop outside the so-called “Skinny Building” at Forbes and Wood across from the former McDonald’s. It’s an arts showcase run by activists from Ground Zero, a group formed to oppose Murphy’s first redevelopment plan.
The second floor of the narrow building is smeared with large, looping graffiti. Pat Clark of Ground Zero said the paint would be removed soon. Sidewalks are crumbling or patched with lumps of asphalt.
There are some improvements to report.
At Forbes and Smithfield, a new brick facade is being added to the CVS drugstore. The outside of the Chart Room Cafe has a new paint job, partly funded by Ground Zero supporters who patronize the bar.
The front of Mama Gina’s pizza shop, which is bustling at lunchtime, is dappled with bright new pastel paints. Cardamone’s Hair and Nail Salon at Forbes and Wood was also recently renovated and expanded.
Murphy said recently that the city received “five, maybe seven” responses from developers interested in some aspect of the Fifth-Forbes renewal.
He hasn’t released the names, but Donald Hunter of Annapolis, Md., who served as a consultant to the Plan C task force, is one of them.
One of his ideas is to turn the old G.C. Murphy, at least its ground floor, into a “public market,” which also, possibly, could spill out into Market Square.
Birru wasn’t sure that would be a good idea, however, saying it could hurt the farmers markets now operating in the Strip District.
Hunter is interested in creating a new hotel in the triangular area bounded by Liberty, Forbes and Stanwix. He said that hotel would, however, have to wait until after a proposed hotel is built next to the new convention center.
Another good idea for invigorating Fifth Avenue, he said, is expanding the current Saks Fifth Avenue store so that it actually has a presence on Fifth, where a former Revco drugstore now sits next to Lazarus.
Hunter said he wasn’t a developer of retail or residential uses, but he was certain other companies could take on those type of projects.
He said buildings shouldn’t be done in a piecemeal way. That approach “won’t turn things around in the eyes of skeptical investors and a skeptical public,” he said.
Birru agreed, saying that a successful Fifth-Forbes project “has to have a critical mass” of buildings. “Acquiring just a few buildings isn’t going to do it.”
Murphy’s previous “Marketplace” plan foundered, in large part, because he wouldn’t swear off the use of eminent domain, the city’s power to condemn and take over privately owned property. A nonprofit law firm from Washington, D.C., offered to defend property owners for free in court.
Some historic preservationists opposed Murphy’s “Marketplace” plan because they wanted to save 100-year-old structures along lower Fifth and lower Forbes.
Murphy has said he wouldn’t use the eminent domain power for the new Plan C.
Yet Birru thinks such a stance also could complicate property-acquisition efforts. Some property owners are content just to sit on their property and hope the city will pay inflated prices for it, he said.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Mellon Arena’s future still in limbo
By Stephanie Franken
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, July 10, 2002Even as the public sounds off over the proposal to preserve Mellon Arena as a historic landmark, the question of what to do with it remains unanswered.
And those involved with plans for a new Penguins arena doubt there is room enough in Pittsburgh for two.The Historic Review Commission of Pittsburgh today will hear public testimony about whether 41-year-old Mellon Arena has sufficient historic and architectural value to receive historic landmark status.
The proposal for a new $225 million arena and surrounding development Uptown calls for demolishing Mellon Arena, but a “City Designated Historic Structure” status would block or at least slow demolition plans. Today’s public hearings at 200 Ross St., Downtown, begin at 1 p.m. and comments about Mellon Arena will be heard beginning at 2:50 p.m.
Last month, the commission voted 4-0 to begin the process of determining whether the arena should receive historic status.
Today is the first step in a two-part process that will lead to a final vote on Aug. 7 to either approve or deny the historic designation, commission Chairman John DeSantis said. Ultimately, Pittsburgh City Council would vote to make the designation official after the Historic Review Commission puts forth a recommendation.
“The city’s going to be looking for the highest and best use for the land,” said Paul Anderson, a Marquette University law professor and associate director of the National Sports Law Institute.
The owner of Mellon Arena, the Sports & Exhibition Authority, already has made its position on Mellon Arena clear. It is working on a financing plan for a new Penguins arena — and those plans do not include the old arena, SEA spokesman Greg Yesko said.
“It was a marvel when it first opened. No one wants to downplay that,” Yesko said. But if the structure is allowed to stand after a new arena is completed, the SEA would bear the burden of owning and operating both facilities, he said.
“The overlap in the cost would be prohibitive. The cost of maintaining an obsolete facility with limited use is not a logical decision.”
In a handful of other North American cities, older hockey arenas that weren’t razed have continued to exist as spaces for entertainment and sports events. According to the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law School, old hockey arenas in Calgary, Montreal , Philadelphia, Toronto and San Jose continue to be used for civic, social and athletic events.
In Boston, Chicago, Colorado, Detroit, New York City and St. Louis, older hockey arenas were demolished.
In Buffalo and in Washington, D.C., old arenas that weren’t demolished now stand vacant, according a Marquette report.
The SEA “doesn’t have a timeline, necessarily,” for a new arena, said Yesko, adding that the hockey team has a lease for the existing arena until 2006. But once construction of a new facility gets under way, he said, the old one should go.
Ken Sawyer, president of the Lemieux Group LP, said the Penguins view the historic designation of Mellon Arena as a separate matter from the team’s plans to build a new arena. “It’s definitely up to the public to determine the fate of the old arena,” he said.
Nevertheless, the Pens’ proposal to add housing, retail and office space near the new arena requires demolition of the old one.
“The only issue is that we do not believe the old arena should be used for events that could be held in that new arena,” Sawyer said.
In addition to hosting hockey games, a new arena would serve as a venue for events such as concerts — and it would be used for major events 140 to 150 days per year, Sawyer said.
Mellon Arena currently hosts hockey games, concerts and other major events an average of 130 days per year, give or take 10 to 15 days, said Doug Hall, general manager for SMG at Mellon Arena. In addition, there might be several smaller events taking place on any given day at the arena, he said.
The Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Association, along with Preservation Pittsburgh, nominated Mellon Arena for historic designation in May.
History & Landmarks spokeswoman Cathy McCollom said her organization thinks Mellon Arena is an important building and should be saved but isn’t adamant. By nominating the site for historic status, it simply provides an opportunity for the public to weigh all possible uses for the structure — and choose the best one.
“While the nomination is in place, right now, the building cannot be demolished,” she said. But the Historic Review Commission could grant a demolition permit even after historic status has been granted.
Historic status only protects the exterior of a building. It would not prevent substantial changes to the inside of Mellon Arena.
-
Questions surround Plan C
By Stephanie Franken
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, June 23, 2002Damian Soffer has big dreams for the South Side: art films, new sidewalk cafes, loft apartments and an outdoor theater for concerts or Shakespeare performances.
The developer behind the SouthSide Works, the $170 million entertainment, housing and office complex under construction on the former LTV Steel site, Soffer said, “Everything that will happen in Pittsburgh will start or finish or run through the SouthSide Works.”But what about Downtown, wonders Landy Benaquista.
“There is no life. There are no shoppers here on Saturday. There’s nothing Downtown to draw anybody,” said Benaquista, gesturing across the street as she stood outside Candy-Rama, the 50-year-old Fifth Avenue store owned by her husband and brother-in-law.
With six new development projects planned or under way, Pittsburgh’s urban core will see substantial changes over the next decade. The projects promise trendy stores and restaurants, plus new office space and housing. If successful, the developments could enrich the neighborhoods they border by drawing more visitors and residents.
In a city lacking the population growth that often drives real estate development, however, gains for some mean losses for others.
Most developers, economists, city officials and store owners agree that Pittsburgh consumers will embrace newer developments at the expense of the old.
Among the vulnerable could be Downtown itself, sleepy past 6 p.m. and awaiting its third, $363 million redevelopment plan for the Fifth and Forbes area.
Candy-Rama’s Benaquista said she is optimistic that Plan C could give the area the boost it needs — once it gets under way. But during the wait, she said, area stores are moving on or dying off.
BIG PLANS
Meanwhile, developers outside Downtown are trying to seize their own share of Pittsburgh’s market, proposing more than $1 billion in new development.
Less than five miles up the Monongahela from the SouthSide Works, The Waterfront — a massive $300 million retail, office and housing complex — holds court. It is a mature development, now complete with the exception of eight acres adjacent to Loews Theatre. Farther down East Carson Street at Station Square, a hotel expansion, plus more stores, bars and restaurants are cropping up in a $71 million expansion.
On the other side of Downtown, an expanse of parking lots on the North Shore is the proposed home for another new urban neighborhood with $200 million in facilities for living, working and playing. On 25 acres near Mellon Arena, the Pittsburgh Penguins are devising a $500 million plan of their own that could include retail and entertainment space and a new hockey arena.
Circling the urban core are more than 20 shopping areas — enclosed malls and strip malls — such as The Waterworks Mall in Aspinwall and The Mall at Robinson.
In a market analysis that assesses the viability of Plan C, author Hunter Interests Corp. said the region’s declining population was reason for concern to developers.
“In the simplest sense, these two trends — decreasing population and increasing retailing — cannot continue indefinitely,” the study said.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
The Plan C task force devised a plan to help the project succeed: add nearly 600 new apartments to the Downtown mix.
To History and Landmarks Foundation President Art Ziegler, that’s why the proposal surpasses two previous Downtown redevelopment plans.
“It’s not about malls. It’s about housing,” he said.
But the fundamental issues raised by the Plan C market study remain: Unless Pittsburgh’s population booms unexpectedly, new developments will compete for the same pool of customers.
Experts disagree on the effect these new stores and office buildings will have on Pittsburgh’s economy.
Bob Gleeson, a Duquesne University professor who specializes in urban planning, said real estate development can spawn economic growth.
As private developers — especially those from other cities or states — build new developments, they have a big incentive to see them succeed, he said. As a result, they would pump up Pittsburgh and perhaps succeed in bringing new businesses here, in order to make their own projects succeed.
But Columbia University urban planning professor Elliott Sclar, in New York, disagreed. “It’s industries that drive growth, not real estate development,” he said.
“Whenever you get a new scheme for real estate development, it’s not going to change the basics. Entrepreneurship, industry growth, education, access to capital … they have nothing to do with a pretty store front.”
To Elizabeth Deakins, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of California at Berkeley, the outcome of a new development is a clearer win for the private developer than the city.
“A developer can tell you he can make a viable development and often, he’s right. That doesn’t mean he’s not going to do it by moving the market from Downtown or from older shopping centers to newer ones.”
With so many new projects under way, Pittsburgh may see older, locally owned stores lose out to new, national competition, Deakins said.
Whether or not that harms the city is a matter of opinion, she said.
Mulugetta Birru, executive director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, agreed, saying new developments probably will weaken the city’s more obsolete restaurants and stores — even some old favorites.
They also may alter plans for Downtown.
“I feel all these developments will have a negative impact on the entertainment potential for Downtown,” Birru said. “At the end of the day, there is a limit to how much entertainment the area can support.”
While that reality might force a revision of expectations for the area, it doesn’t necessarily crush them.
Birru cited a feasibility study conducted by CB Richard Ellis for Deer Creek Crossing, a new shopping center proposed for Harmar Township, which found Pittsburgh has less shopping space per capita than the national average. While the national average is 19.6 square feet per capita, Pittsburgh averages 16.6.
Birru said there is no reason to intervene as outmoded establishments lose ground to newer ones. “It’s a natural market situation.”
University of Pittsburgh professor Edward Muller had a similar view.
“This is the nature of American Capitalism, to constantly have entrepreneurs — in this case often developers and large corporations — try to find their niche and boot others out of business,” Muller said.
“This kind of eating up of ourselves — cannibalism — that is the nature of the beast.”
LESSONS FROM DENVER
Whether or not each development succeeds, and whether or not local businesses find success along with them, is partly a matter of proximity.
Some local store owners are readying themselves for two possibilities: Either they will be close enough to new developments to gain from increased pedestrian traffic, or they will be too far away from those developments — and lose customers.
Downtown Pittsburgh might take a few lessons from Denver, another city that recently confronted blight and undertook massive new projects for renewal, said UC Berkeley’s Deakins.
Over the past decade, downtown Denver has undergone a renaissance. Infusions of taxpayer funds led to new housing and entertainment complexes in the heart of the city. A pedestrian walkway now cuts a swath through Downtown, encouraging foot traffic and giving rise to sidewalk cafes and stores. The city’s new baseball stadium, Coors Field, also is Downtown, adding to the area’s buzz.
Compared to Denver, Pittsburgh’s new developments aren’t as concentrated.
“They surround but do not reinforce the Downtown as one would hope,” said Thomas Clark, professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Colorado at Denver.
That means those new developments could compete against — not complement — each other. And local business could be caught in the crossfire.
Benaquista fears her store will be too far away from new developments on the two shores across from Downtown. She’d like to see a few big, inexpensive national retailers such as Target or Costco come Downtown, because she believes they would give people a reason to make the trip to an area where parking is inconvenient.
On the South Side’s East Carson Street, however, some shopkeepers say they are close enough to the SouthSide Works and optimistic that it will bolster an already lively area.
“We depend on foot traffic. Lots of businesses here depend on the numbers of people who come to see the South Side,” said Anne Oates, co-owner of Spotlight Costumes Co. At her 13-year-old store, visitors are greeted with South Side’s signature quirkiness: an array of colorful wigs and costumes, plus two chubby dachshunds named Kiwi and Brownie.
QUALITY WINS
For developers and retailers alike, it’s important to remember that customers will be faithful to places they love — new or old, said Bill Kunkel, manager of the Carlton Restaurant Downtown. “Our feeling is that there’s a piece of the pie for everybody. We’ve always felt that way. We’re a good restaurant, so we get our regular customers,” he said.
“I don’t know if that’s the case with everybody.”
Beyond stores and restaurants, however, what Pittsburgh needs to fill the gaps is stronger economic growth, said James Starman, managing director of L.J. Melody & Co., a real estate banking firm.
And when the future of new development projects is pondered, the health of the local economy represents the greatest unanswerable question.
But time is on the side of area developers. Most projects won’t be complete for several years. SouthSide Works, for instance, is under way now, but it is being completed one building at a time and won’t be finished until 2004.
It’s the time span for completion of new projects that increases their likelihood of success, said Mark Schneider of the Rubinoff Co.
“Do I think the markets are here for 750,000 square feet in one year? No. Do I think the markets are here for 750,000 square feet over seven years? Probably.”
Stephanie Franken can be reached at sfranken@tribweb.com.
-
Preserving, improving Pittsburgh with Art Ziegler
By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, May 11, 2002Four decades ago, Arthur Ziegler was a grassroots activist fighting to preserve Pittsburgh’s neighborhoods from the rampaging bulldozers of urban renewal.
Today, as president of Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, he is a major player in the city’s development and preservation scene.
In addition to developing Station Square into the city’s premier tourist draw for out-of-towners in the late 1970s, his group has been nationally acclaimed for preserving architectural landmarks and for restoring inner-city neighborhoods without dislocating their residents.
Ziegler played an important role in challenging — and ultimately improving — Mayor Murphy’s original, primitive plan for redeveloping Fifth and Forbes avenues Downtown. And this week his group joined with Preservation Pittsburgh to nominate the Mellon Arena for city historic designation, a move which, if enacted, would make it difficult to demolish the 41-year-old landmark. I talked to Ziegler by telephone Wednesday.
Q: Knowing what you know about the historical preservation business in this town, what are the odds that the Mellon Arena is going to be standing five years from now?
A: The odds I can’t predict. What we are asking for is simply time to see if any feasible new use can be found for the arena. If none can be found, I don’t think it will be standing. But if we can find good uses, I think it will be.
Q: What, realistically, can it be used for without competing with a new arena next door?
A: I’m assuming that it has to be uses that do not compete. That the Penguins need their new arena and they need it exclusively, so we have to find altogether different uses for this building.
We proposed one already to be studied, having it as a maglev stop for downtown Pittsburgh. If maglev is built, it would make a fantastic train station and intermodal center. It could have two floors that could be developed for restaurants or entertainment, themed perhaps — African-American or nationalities.
Q: Could it end up being used for a sports museum, a jazz museum, shopping?
A: Yes. It could end up being anything. We think the people from the Hill District should be deeply involved in leading this effort, and it should involve all the surrounding land, to weave the Lower Hill and the city back together. Maybe this building could be the principal address.
Q: Fifty years after the city wiped it out. I guess there’s irony there — also indictments there, but that’s another story.
A: I’d agree with all of that.
Q: So in other words, the arena could be changed considerably inside and still hold on to its historical value.
A: I’m assuming it cannot be a sports arena, that we have to find altogether new uses for it. But it is an incredible structure. It’s unique.
Q: It’s almost like a work of art now.
A: It’s interesting also that Edgar Kaufmann, who really was the proponent behind moving the Civic Light Opera there (in the 1960s), is represented. His legacy to Pittsburgh is two fabulous early-modern buildings, Fallingwater and the Civic Arena.
Q: Switching over to Station Square, which you once had quite a hand in, is it still healthy and evolving in a good way?
A: Yes. It has had a transition here, as the hotel was totally renovated and had another 100 rooms added. The new buildings are going in and will open I think in July or August.
There’s going to be a new food court in the shops building and hopefully a direct connection from the shops right to the incline – right from inside the building, up an elevator and across Carson Street into the incline. I think you’re going to see a great revitalization there.
Q: What about Plan C in Downtown at Fifth and Forbes? Are you optimistic that it is going to be done in the right way?
A: I think everyone is together on the plan – the city, the merchants, us. I have heard no dissents from the plan.
Q: Not counting eminent domain?
A: Right. Eminent domain has been put to the side.
Q: Does the plan lack anything?
A: I think the plan is really good.
Q: And it includes residential, retail, keeps the local merchants there?
A: It has all the residential we proposed in our plan (three years ago), both new buildings and loft buildings. It has a market house, which we need Downtown, and new retail and restored retail.
Q: What’s your synopsis of what has gone on over the last three or four years at Fifth and Forbes?
A: I think the winners are all of us, because we now have a plan that all of us believe in. I think the problem was that so often Pittsburgh planning is not grassroots in origin. It tends to be top-down. And here, I think that top-down and grassroots finally came together and we have a good, solid plan.
Q: I’m looking here at an article that says that big malls are dying – super malls, anyway – and that American shoppers are seeking more offbeat, unique shopping options. Have we lucked out. Is Plan C going to appeal to this new trend?
A: I think it’s very timely. People are back looking at downtowns as they have existed in the past. That’s what they seem to want. They’re back to main streets like Carson Street. Carson Street is an enormous success, without any public subsidy and, in fact, without any real planning.
Q: I always say that the places people would want to live in are the places that planners have not touched – South Side, Bloomfield, Squirrel Hill, Shadyside … .
A: That’s right. It’s all the places that are grassroots, that respond to a genuine market … . And they all have residential all around them.
Q: You started out as a grassroots guy. Are you still a grassroots guy? You’re more of a player now.
A: Well, I know that what we try to do is play on behalf of the community. It’s the same with the Civic Arena. What we’re saying is, “Let’s not have the Penguins or Landmarks lead this thing. Let’s have the interests of the Lower Hill lead this, and Downtown interests, and come together on a plan that we all think will work.”
Q: So you are obviously learning from the mistakes of the past.
A: That’s right.
Q: If you could turn the clock back 40 or 50 years, what’s the most important thing you could have done to stop or change some decision that would have kept something around that isn’t here now?
A: I wish we could have started 10 years earlier and stopped the urban renewal plans of the ’50s and ’60s, including the Lower Hill, Allegheny Center, East Liberty.
I think that those demolitions wiped out potentially vital ingredients in the city and did a great deal of permanent harm. They focused on the cores, and removed the hearts of these areas.
I think we’ve got to address — and we have the opportunity with the Lower Hill — how to get them going again. There’s good work going on in East Liberty now to get it back into the physical configuration it once was.
Bill Steigerwald is the Trib’s associate editor. Call him at (412) 320-7983. E-mail him at: bsteigerwald@tribweb.com.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © The Tribune-Review Publishing Co
-
Fifth-Forbes Update
The Plan C Task Force, charged with developing a plan for the revitalization of the Fifth and Forbes corridor, delivered its list of recommendations to Mayor Tom Murphy. In mid-March President, Arthur Ziegler and Director of Operations and Marketing, Cathy McCollom sat on the Plan C Task Force since its initiation some 18 months ago. The Task Force has met weekly and after careful and detailed discussion developed a new blueprint for the revitalization program for Fifth and Forbes.
In early April, Mayor Tom Murphy announced a plan of action for moving forward based on Plan C Task Force’s recommendation. The Mayor issued a Five Point Plan:
1. Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) through the Department of City Planning, seeking a private development partner;
2. Begin development of a financing plan that includes the prominent participation of a private development partner;
3. Direct the Department of Engineering and Construction to begin a major infrastructure investment project in the Central Business District with particular focus on the $8 million reconstruction of Forbes Avenue, Smithfield Street, and Market Street to compliment the reconstruction of Fifth Avenue and Wood Street;
4. Direct the Urban Redevelopment Authority to expand the Façade Grant Program, as well as to create new loan programs to allow existing buildings and tenants to improve the condition of their businesses and attract new businesses to the corridor; and
5. Direct the Bureau of Building Inspection to undertake a strict and aggressive building code enforcement program on properties in the Central Business District.
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation is pleased with the Mayor’s response to the Plan C Task Force recommendation. Much of the recommendations offered by Plan C reflected the earlier plan proposed by architectural firm Erhenkrantz, Eckstut and Kuhn, and submitted to the Mayor by Landmarks.
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation supports the work of the Mayor and hopes to see the Plan C recommendations put into action. We were pleased to be able to assist in this process.
-
Plan C: More weasel words
Thursday, April 4, 2002
Call it Tom Murphy’s big “but.”
The mayor of Pittsburgh went before the scriveners, microphones and cameras Tuesday in his first extended comments on the Plan C Task Force’s blueprint to redevelopment the Fifth-Forbes corridor.Within a month, at least one private developer is expected to be hired to begin work on the $363 million Downtown rehabilitation plan; others will follow. The Urban Redevelopment Authority has been told to expand its grants for facade improvements. Building inspectors have a new charge to make sure that buildings are up to code.
That’s all well and good. But then there’s Mr. Murphy’s big “but” – eminent domain.
“We have not authorized eminent domain,” he said. “So when we approach a building owner now, we will be negotiating with them amicably in attempting to come to a fair price without the threat of eminent domain there. We are ruling it out right now, but (emphasis ours) I can’t speak for the future.”
Oh, what weasel words!
Here’s the translation: We’ll play nice – for now. But if property owners don’t like our price, or if they don’t want to sell – POW! It’s called the cudgel of eminent domain, and the mayor obviously still considers it his trump card.
Tom Murphy once forswore the use of eminent domain in any Market Place progeny. He reneged. Now he offers up some weaselly verbiage that should make every independent property owner in the Fifth-Forbes corridor do one thing and one thing alone:
Hire an attorney.
-
Seattle can identify with Pittsburgh’s Plan C
By Dave Copeland
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, April 4, 2002As Pittsburgh officials begin to move forward with a Downtown redevelopment plan that won’t allow them to use eminent domain, developers in Seattle say the task will be difficult, but not impossible.
Seattle civic leaders reversed the decline of the Pacific Northwest city’s downtown retail core in a state that prohibits the use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects. It was one of the cities mentioned by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy on Tuesday, when he announced he would move forward with the Plan C Task Force proposal for Downtown redevelopment while attempting not to use eminent domain.“I would encourage you to go look at other cities in America, because you can see the good of what can happen and the bad of what can happen,” Murphy said. “There are areas in Seattle that looked very similar to Fifth and Forbes five or seven years ago that have been completely rejuvenated.”
Downtown Seattle is one of the projects that city planners and private developers love to cite when they talk about urban business districts that work. The city redeveloped three blocks, putting in more than 1 million square feet of new retail space from 1996-98. The development, known as Pacific Place, sparked an urban renaissance of sorts.
The retail-heavy redevelopment led to new housing space, new office space, a more vibrant cultural district and an expanded convention center.
“I think the best thing is that at almost any time of the day — not just on normal weekdays, but on Saturdays and Sundays and weekday evenings — you can walk out on Pine Street and see all these bobbing heads,” said Matt Griffin, one of the key developers in Seattle’s downtown redevelopment effort. “It reminds me of walking out on a street in New York City. People are coming to downtown Seattle.”
Griffin and three partners formed Pine Street Associates in 1993 to begin working on the plan.
At the time, retail was dying downtown. The historic Frederick & Nelson department store closed in 1992, and two years later L. Magnin followed. Nordstrom Inc., the national retailer based in Seattle, was threatening to move its flagship store and corporate headquarters to Seattle’s suburbs.
Pine Street Associates put together a plan to buy the old F&N store and trade it to Nordstrom for their smaller store and an adjacent building Nordstrom was using for office space. In addition to rebuilding a parking garage, the plan called for Pine Street Associates to refurbish the old Nordstrom store and fill it with retail and office tenants.
Griffin acknowledges that despite only having four major property owners to deal with, acquiring the property for the three-block redevelopment effort was difficult without having eminent domain.
“One or two property owners can hold out and you end up paying too much,” Griffin said. “We really only had to deal with four property owners, and we clearly ended up paying at the high end of our range.”
Where Griffin and his partners only had to conduct negotiations with four property owners, Pittsburgh officials are eyeing a redevelopment area that has more than 60 individual property owners. While not all of the properties need to be acquired, and some of the substantial property owners are already backing the Plan C Task Force proposal, Pittsburgh officials concede acquiring all the property will be difficult.
“I believe it will be difficult, and I think finding a developer willing to go forward without eminent domain will be difficult,” Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Mulugetta Birru said. “But the mayor is very adamant that he doesn’t want to use eminent domain.”
Without eminent domain, the developers used corporate investments, such as Nordstrom’s commitment to stay in downtown Seattle, to convince property owners to join the plan. The redevelopment has been successful not because it offers many options that can’t be found in suburban shopping malls, but because it offers several options in a single place, Griffin said.
“You’ll never find the fabric we have downtown in a suburban shopping center. It’s not a question of just having national stores and being able to see ‘A Beautiful Mind.’ It’s being able to see the symphony or visit the arts center as well,” Griffin said. “Those things will never be replicated in a shopping mall. We both have great stores, but it’s the idea of having all these things come together.”
Dave Copeland can be reached at dcopeland@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7922.
-
Murphy says eminent domain not a threat at present time
By Dave Copeland
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, April 3, 2002Without completely ruling out its use, Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy said the city will attempt to implement the Plan C Task Force proposal for redeveloping Downtown without using eminent domain.
“We have not authorized eminent domain. So when we approach a building owner now, we will be negotiating with them amicably in attempting to come to a fair price without the threat of eminent domain there,” Murphy said Tuesday in his first public comments on the proposal. “We are ruling it out right now, but I can’t speak for the future.”The mayor also outlined a plan for moving forward with the task force’s recommendations and said he hopes to name a developer within two months.
The task force, made up of government officials and private stakeholders, unveiled a strategy for redeveloping the Fifth-Forbes corridor last month. The group had urged Murphy to go back on a November 2000 pledge not to use eminent domain, saying it would take too long to redevelop Pittsburgh’s tired retail core without using the controversial technique.
Murphy’s statements brought at least temporary relief to opponents of eminent domain, a legal tool governments can use to take property for a public purpose.
“As long as we’re not using eminent domain, I can support the plan,” said Patty Maloney, one of three Plan C Task Force members who signed a minority opinion against using eminent domain. She owns the Card Center on Wood Street.
Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said he was encouraged that “some progress has been made with the mayor,” but said Murphy did not go far enough in making his pledge not to use eminent domain. The Washington, D.C.-based institute has said it would defend any Fifth-Forbes property owner who wants to fight eminent domain proceedings.
“Mayor Murphy should pledge not to use eminent domain in the Fifth and Forbes area now and forever,” Bullock said. “Leaving the door open, even a little bit, will create uncertainty for property owners and will actually discourage investment in the area, because people will not know for sure whether the city will come after their property.”The task force was formed after Murphy’s plan, Market Place at Fifth & Forbes, unraveled in 2000. The mayor charged the 13-member group with forming a consensus on redeveloping Downtown. Among the chief criticisms of his first plan were its failure to preserve historic buildings, the use of eminent domain and what was seen as a limited housing component.
Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Mulugetta Birru, who will play a key role in any redevelopment plan, said it will be “very difficult” to get a developer to undertake the project without eminent domain.
“That’s the mayor’s commitment and, therefore, there is no eminent domain in place. All of us support his decision,” Birru said. “Eminent domain assures the developer we can get control of the properties. Now the question is whether or not we can find a developer to invest all that money and be willing to take the properties as we’re able to buy them.”
Without eminent domain, Murphy and Birru said, one property owner who holds out for more money can derail portions of the project.
City Councilman William Peduto said he would have supported using eminent domain in the plan.
“I see it as a tool that can be used when one person or one group tries to stop the will of the community or holds out for an unreasonable amount of money,” Peduto said. “If council gets to the point where we have to make that call, I hope the body will rely on common sense.”
Peduto said, however, that he felt the Plan C proposal was an improvement over the mayor’s original plan. He said he felt the expanded housing component and a proposed hotel would add the critical mass needed to support the district, and the Plan C blueprint made more of an effort to preserve historic buildings.
Challenges for the Downtown overhaul don’t end with eminent domain.
When city officials first began discussing Downtown redevelopment plans five years ago, the region was under-retailed. Now, with The Waterfront in Homestead, a new mall at Robinson Towne Center, the expansion of Station Square and plans for a new development between PNC Park and Heinz Field, the Fifth-Forbes district will have heavy competition, Murphy said.
Murphy said he envisions Fifth-Forbes being the Golden Triangle’s centerpiece, bridging the cultural district to other parts of Downtown.
“I think part of the challenge for a developer responding to this request for proposals is answering the question, ‘What’s the niche for this Downtown in the context of all the other investments taking place?'” the mayor said.
—
The plan
Mayor Tom Murphy unveiled a five-point plan Tuesday for implementing the Plan C Task Force Downtown redevelopment proposal. He would not speculate how long it would take for the project to be completed.
Among the components of the plan:The city planning department will seek proposals from developers. Murphy hopes to name a developer within two months.
Once a developer is selected, the city will hammer out a financing plan. Murphy said it was too soon to tell whether that plan would resemble the one recommended by the task force, which called for a $360 million development funded mainly with $51.5 million in public money, $39.5 million in corporate and philanthropic donations and $264 million in private investment.
Begin an $8 million, city-funded infrastructure improvement program in the Central Business District, with a focus on reconstructing Forbes Avenue, Smithfield Street and Market Street.
Direct the Urban Redevelopment Authority to expand a grant program for restoring building facades, as well as create new loan programs to allow existing tenants and building owners to improve their properties. The URA would focus its existing loan programs on the Central Business District.
Begin an aggressive program to enforce city building codes in the Fifth-Forbes area.
Dave Copeland can be reached at dcopeland@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7922.