Category Archive: Historic Properties
-
County Executive Jim Roddey Commissions Historic Bench Reproduction
Executive James C. Roddey recently commissioned an historic reproduction bench to be placed in the Courthouse public areas. (Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation underwrote the first). The bench, designed by Jerry Wilson of Wilson and McCracken, Lawrenceville, will be etched with Mr. Roddey’s name. It is hope that the County Executive’s commission will spur others to participate as well.
-
Pitt wants to clean Cathedral
By Bill Zlatos
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, June 19, 2003After more than 60 years of wearing a coat of soot, the Cathedral of Learning may get scrubbed if the University of Pittsburgh can raise $3.5 million.
“When people come from other places, they say, ‘What a magnificent building. It would be great if you can clean it,” said Ana Guzman, associate vice chancellor of facilities management.And the cleanser that Pitt would use to remove that grime would be the same stuff people use to bake a batch of cookies or brush their teeth: Baking soda.
The cleaning idea is part of Pitt’s $1 billion capital campaign to spruce up the campus. Since the summer of 1995, it has spent $516.4 million renovating buildings. The university already has removed the dirt from Thackeray Hall, Schenley Quadrangle, the Stephen Foster Memorial and the old Masonic Temple.
Now it wants to hose down its most visible building.
“It’s the flagship of the University of Pittsburgh,” Guzman said. “It’s the physical identity of the university in Oakland. You can see it for miles away. It’s a national monument.”Pitt gets no argument about the significance of the Cathedral from architecture lovers.
“It’s a landmark to education well-known throughout the nation as well as architecture lovers around the world,” said Louise Sturgess, executive director of the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation.
Sturgess endorses cleaning the Cathedral but said some Pittsburgh buildings look better in black. She cites Trinity Cathedral, Downtown, as an example.
“The sandstone has absorbed all the Pittsburgh soot and grime since the building was constructed in 1870 and has turned a rich velvety black,” she said of Trinity Cathedral. “It’s a wonderful contrast to the neighboring buildings clad in terra cotta.”
Cleaning the Cathedral of Learning will help preserve it, said Angelique Bamberg, the city’s historic preservation planner. The Cathedral was built to last 300 years.
“Soot is not good for masonry,” Bamberg said. “It’s pollution, dirt and grime that has built up over many years from many sources.”
She said Pitt would have to apply to the Historic Review Commission to remove the dirt, but the panel routinely approves such requests.
The Cathedral of Learning, named by a draftsman, was built between 1926 and 1937 under then-Chancellor John Bowman. He wanted to construct the biggest classroom building in the world as a symbol of aspiration for Pittsburgh’s working class, said architecture historian Walter C. Kidney.
“They could go to the University of Pittsburgh, get an education and improve their life,” he said.
Although the Mellons donated the 14-acre site, 97,000 schoolchildren anted up a dime each to help pay for construction. The building was built from Indiana limestone and a steel frame encased in concrete.
The 42-story building houses 2,000 classrooms and occupies 9 million cubic feet of space.
The Cathedral, Kidney said, is bigger than the Great Pyramid of Giza. That pyramid sits on 13 acres and is 450 feet tall. The Cathedral occupies 14 acres and rises 535 feet.
Pitt has a lot of scrubbing to do.
The university tested different methods for removing the dirt. Pitt decided against acids because they could etch the metal, and the runoff could kill grass and other vegetation.
Sandblasting also is taboo, Bamberg said. It can erode the surface of the masonry, damage the mortar that binds the blocks and erase ornamental carvings.
Pitt tested baking soda on the building and liked the results.
“It’s a mild abrasive,” Guzman said. “That’s why it works on teeth.”
A section of the building that has been cleaned reveals the tan limestone with orange streaks of iron, and silver aluminum panels that had been hidden by the soot.
No work will start on the building’s exterior until Pitt raises the $3.5 million it will cost to clean it, Guzman said.
Al Novak, interim vice chancellor of institutional advancement, and his staff are brainstorming ways to raise the money that harken back to the campaign for the building’s construction.
One popular idea is giving Pitt’s 200,000 living alumni a chance to clean a part of the building. But Pitt hasn’t decided how much an alum would have to give and what size of spot they would get to clean.
Another idea is trying to figure out what the students’ dimes from the Depression would be worth in today’s dollars and asking for that amount now.
“It’s such an inspiring story,” Novak said. “We want to do that first story justice.”
Bill Zlatos can be reached at bzlatos@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7828.
-
Pittsburgh City Council opposes saving Mellon Arena
Landmark status loses in preliminary 5-0 vote
Thursday, February 27, 2003
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
When it comes to winning historic landmark status, Mellon Arena doesn’t have any friends on City Council.
In preliminary action, council members voted 5-0 yesterday against giving city historic designation to the 42-year-old silver-domed hockey rink in the Lower Hill District.
“Just because something is old — and the arena isn’t even that old — doesn’t mean it’s a landmark,” said Councilwoman Barbara Burns. “I don’t think this meets the city’s criteria as a historic structure. I don’t think the advocates presented a good argument for making it historic.”
Mellon Arena opened as the Civic Auditorium in 1961. The name was later changed to Civic Arena. Mellon Financial bought the naming rights four years ago.
Councilman Sala Udin has been adamant that the domed structure either be demolished or dismantled and moved to some other site. He would like new housing and stores built on its 28 acres.
He is still angry about how city officials in the late 1950s tore down a largely black neighborhood where he and hundreds of other people lived, forced the residents to move and built the arena as a home for the Civic Light Opera.
Councilman William Peduto said he personally “loves the arena. I skated there last month. It’s a semi-religious structure and I would be sad if it’s torn down.”
On the other hand, “it was built as an opera house and it failed as an opera house, and now it’s a hockey rink and the National Hockey League players recently voted it the worst place to play hockey,” Peduto noted.
Councilman Alan Hertzberg said, “I saw that Jean-Claude Van Damme movie on TV the other night — ‘Sudden Death,’ the one where the Civic Arena gets blown up. It’s a bad movie, but it was a tremendous way to bring this whole [historic designation] issue to a conclusion.”
As a way to ensure Mellon Arena’s long-term future, two historic preservation groups, Preservation Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, nominated the arena for historic status in May. That was soon after Penguins owner Mario Lemieux went public with a pitch for a new arena.
Designating the arena as a historic landmark would make it more difficult to tear it down. Historic structures can’t be razed without approval from the city’s Historic Review Commission.
But even the review commission, in a 4-3 vote, recommended against making the arena historic. The city planning commission also recommended against it.
City Council’s final vote is set for Tuesday.
Mellon Arena is likely to remain standing, at least in the short term. The Penguins have a lease to play there until mid-2007.
If a new arena is ever built for the Penguins — the proposed site is just south of Mellon Arena, between Fifth and Centre avenues — the current arena’s future could be in question. Penguins officials have said they don’t want Mellon Arena used for hockey, circuses, wrestling, tractor pulls or anything else that could compete with activities in a new arena.
Building a new arena is, however, dependent on finding up to $270 million in city, county and state funds, a difficult political hurdle.
Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1548.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Historic status for Mellon Arena rejected
By George Aspiotes
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, February 27, 2003Pittsburgh City Council on Wednesday unanimously voted against a measure to grant landmark status to the 42-year-old Mellon Arena, the home of the Penguins hockey organization in the Lower Hill.
In a preliminary vote, council voted 5-0 against granting the status, which was sought by Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation President Arthur Ziegler; Sandra Brown, president of Preservation Pittsburgh; and architect Rob Pfaffman, a member of Preservation Pittsburgh.
Council will take a final vote Tuesday. Council members Gene Ricciardi and Twanda Carlisle were absent from the preliminary vote.
“I will be sad the day it gets torn down,” Councilman William Peduto said. “It was part of an urban renewal and it has failed.”
Peduto said the arena, formerly called Civic Arena, never became a link between the Hill District and Downtown, as planners originally hoped. Mellon Arena is the oldest arena in the National Hockey League.
The city’s Historic Review and Planning commissions already voted against designating the arena as a historic site. The Historic Review Commission voted 4-3 against historic status, while the Planning Commission rejected the measure 7-1.Last June, Pfaffman told Planning Commission members he would like to see the building used as a hotel or for apartments. The groups nominated Mellon Arena for landmark status last May.
Neither Pfaffman, Ziegler nor Brown returned telephone messages seeking comment yesterday.
Councilwoman Barbara Burns said Mellon Arena did not meet the city’s criteria for a historic landmark. Just because a structure is old, it is not necessarily a historic landmark, she said.
Burns and Councilman Sala Udin said they felt the arena was nominated more as a sign of opposition to building a new arena, rather than as an attempt to preserve the building.
“I think that in some ways the nomination was a ruse by people who were opposed to the building of a new arena,” Udin said.
The Penguins are trying to secure money to build a new $270 million arena, which the club has said is crucial to its future. Under a lease, the Penguins will play at Mellon Arena through 2007.
Ken Sawyer, president of the Lemieux Group, said council’s vote really was not a concern for the Penguins. He said the vote would not have changed the club’s goal of building a new arena. The Penguins have proposed Mellon Arena be razed to make way for development of a hotel and retail shops near a new arena.
The Sports & Exhibition Authority, the city-county agency that owns the arena, opposes giving the arena historic designation status. Authority officials have said they could not afford to operate both Mellon Arena and a new facility, if one is built.
George Aspiotes can be reached at gaspiotes@tribweb.com or 412-320-7982.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
-
City council approves historic designation law
By Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, February 26, 2003Only the owners of religious buildings will be able to nominate the structures for historic status in Pittsburgh under legislation approved by City Council on Tuesday.
Councilwoman Barbara Burns, who had opposed the measure in a preliminary vote, supported it in the end. She was joined by Bob O’Connor, the primary sponsor; President Gene Ricciardi, Jim Motznik, Twanda Carlisle and Alan Hertzberg. William Peduto and Sala Udin remained opposed.
Mayor Tom Murphy has not said whether he will veto the measure, which council might not be able to override with O’Connor’s departure. He left council yesterday to run Gov. Ed Rendell’s Southwestern Pennsylvania office.
“We believe in preservation rather than designation,” said the Rev. Ronald Lengwin, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, which supported the bill. He said the diocese has no immediate plans to close any parishes.
Udin said the bill takes too much authority away from council. “It removes the mayor, City Council and congregations from the process of historic designation for churches,” he said. “O’Connor’s bill is written in such a way that the only ones who can save a historic church are the ones who want to destroy it.”
In other business, council also unanimously approved spending $100,000 to light new Ultimate Frisbee fields in Highland Park and $50,000 to install Jersey barriers along McArdle Roadway.
Finally, Motznik introduced legislation directing the mayor’s office to investigate nightclubs and other venues where people gather for concerts. He wants the administration to also create an emergency training program for operators of those venues in the event of fires and other hazardous incidents.
His bill follows an incident in Rhode Island Thursday in which 97 people died in a nightclub fire. Four days before that, 21 people died in a stampede at a Chicago nightclub. Motznik’s legislation comes up for discussion and a preliminary vote March 5.
Andrew Conte can be reached at aconte@tribweb.com or (412) 765-2312.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
-
Church landmark exemption OK’d – City Council gives proposal slim preliminary approval
By Timothy McNulty,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Thursday, February 20, 2003A slim majority of Pittsburgh City Council members tentatively approved exempting religious structures from the full weight of the city’s historic designation law, after beating back a proposed compromise plan.
In a 5-3 vote, council approved a change that will allow only the owners of churches and other religious structures to nominate their buildings for historic designation.
Once designated, any exterior renovation or demolition of a building requires approval by the city’s Historic Review Commission. Currently any city resident can nominate structures, along with the mayor, council or members of the Historic Review or city planning commissions.
Religious leaders, led by the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, lobbied for the change, saying nominations by non-owners infringed on religious business and increased their building maintenance costs.
Preservationists countered that the religious structures are vital parts of Pittsburgh history, there is little proof of cost burdens, and it would be illegal, under city law, to give religious groups special treatment.
The council members who preliminarily voted in favor of the change were Twanda Carlisle, Alan Hertzberg, Jim Motznik, Bob O’Connor and Gene Ricciardi. Barbara Burns, William Peduto and Sala Udin cast negative votes. A final vote is set for Tuesday.
Carlisle, of Homewood, was the swing vote.
In behind-the-scenes deal-making Tuesday, she blocked a bid to fast-track the legislation and hold the final vote today. Then yesterday she considered voting for an amendment by Udin that would have held off the bill even longer.
Diocesan officials have long complained that city residents have used historic nominations to block decisions to sell or demolish churches. So Udin introduced an amendment yesterday that would prevent residents from nominating any structures, including churches and other buildings, but still allowing the mayor, council and the review and planning commissions to nominate them.
The amendment would have required the city to hold more public hearings and studies over several weeks — effectively blocking the church legislation, since O’Connor, the measure’s main sponsor, would have to resign by then to join the Rendell administration — but Carlisle refused to wait. She voted against holding the bill and it was approved.
The councilwoman liked Udin’s idea but said she sided with ministers in her District 9 community who did not want city oversight of their buildings.
“The government needs to step back from that situation and let churches handle church business,” she explained later.
Should council finally approve the bill Tuesday, it would go to Mayor Tom Murphy for his signature. O’Connor said Murphy’s executive secretary, Tom Cox, has assured him the mayor will approve the legislation, but officially the administration is saying it has to give it more review.
The mayor has 10 days after he receives bills to sign or veto them, or let them become law without his signature. It takes six council votes –one more than the legislation currently has — to override a veto.
That means the fate of the legislation and O’Connor’s remaining days on council are still unclear, though with Carlisle’s vote they are looking closer to being finished.
Right after the noontime vote yesterday, O’Connor left the council table to confer with diocesan officials attending the meeting. Carlisle followed, grasping O’Connor’s arm.
“You owe me big time,” she said.
Tim McNulty can be reached at tmcnulty@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Testimony By Angelique Bamberg, Department of City Planning and staff for the Historic Review Commission & Planning Commission on the Proposed Exemption of Religious Properties From Nomination as City Historic Structures Except By their Owners of Record:
Facts :
1. On December 4, 2002, Councilman Bob O’Connor introduced Bill 1148 into City Council. If passed, this bill would amend the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to exempt religious properties from nomination except by their owners of record.
2. City Council has requested that the Historic Review Commission and the City Planning Commission conduct a review of this proposed legislation and report their findings to Council within 60 days.
3. The Historic Review Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed legislation on January 8, 2003. The HRC voted unanimously to recommend that Council NOT ADOPT the proposed legislation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on January 14, 2003 and another on January 28th, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that Council NOT adopt the proposed legislation.
4. Current Ordinance and Nominating Procedures:
a. Under the City of Pittsburgh’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Title 11 of the City Code of Ordinances, a Historic Structure, Site, or Object may be nominated by:
i. the Mayor;
ii. a member of City Council;
iii. a member of the Planning Commission;
iv. a member of the Historic Review Commission; or
v. its owner of record or any resident of the City of Pittsburgh who has lived here for at least one year.
b. Once a property has been nominated to become a City Historic Structure, Site, or Object, the Historic Review Commission and City Planning Commission hold public hearings on the proposed designation and make recommendations to City Council.
c. City Council receives the recommendations of the Historic Review and Planning Commissions, holds its own public hearing, and votes on the proposed designation. If the property owner objects to the designation and/or if either Commission submits an unfavorable recommendation, a supermajority (six votes) of Council is required to vote for designation.
d. Once a building is nominated and until City Council votes on whether it should be designated, no exterior alteration (including demolition) may take place without the review and approval of the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission.
5. Religious Properties Currently Designated by the City of Pittsburgh
The City currently has six (6) religious properties designated as City Historic Structures and 11 located in City Historic Districts. One City Historic Structure, a church, was demolished in 2000.
a. Shrine of St. Anthony of Padua, 1700 Harpster Street, Troy Hill
City Historic Structureb. John Wesley AME Zion Church, 594 Herron Avenue, Hill District
City Historic Structurec. St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church, 1326 E. Ohio Street, East Allegheny
City Historic Structured. Former St. Michael’s Catholic Church and Rectory, 21 Pius Street, South Side Slopes
City Historic Structuree. Greater Faith Tabernacle Church (demolished), 550 N. Homewood Avenue, Homewood
City Historic Structuref. Emmanuel Episcopal Church, 957 West North Avenue, Allegheny West
City Historic Structure, Allegheny West Historic Districtg. Calvary United Methodist Church, Allegheny and Beech Avenues, Allegheny West
City Historic Structure, Allegheny West Historic Districth. Tabernacle Cosmopolitan Baptist Church, 1240 Buena Vista Street, Mexican War Streets
Mexican War Streets Historic Districti. First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh, 159 N. Bellefield Street, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtj. St. Paul’s Cathedral, Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtk. Bellefield Presbyterian Church, 4001 Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtl. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Cathedral, 419 Dithridge Street, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtm. Heinz Chapel, Bigelow Boulevard and Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtn. New Zion Baptist Church, 1304 Manhattan Street, Manchester
Manchester Historic Districto. Islamic Center of Pittsburgh, 4100 Bigelow Boulevard, Oakland
Schenley Farms Historic District6. Applications to the Historic Review Commission
Since 1977, the Historic Review Commission has received a total of 20 applications for exterior work from owners of designated historic religious properties. Of these, 19 were approved, including two for demolition (one of a church, one of an accessory building); one application (for the installation of aluminum awnings) was denied.
7. Legal Issues
Religious institutions are not exempt from zoning and other local land-use laws, as long as the laws do not threaten the free expression of religion. However, several pieces of legislation at the national, state, and local levels currently limit the amount of regulation that local governments may place on religious institutions. The validity of these new laws is to be decided by the courts.
As it stands, the Pittsburgh Historic Preservation Ordinance is a neutral statute, applying equally to all classes of property and to all property owners. The proposed changes to the ordinance would single out religious properties for unique treatment under the law. The City Law Department is currently conducting a review of the legality of the proposed Council Bill in order to determine if preferential treatment of religious institutions by a city government is valid under the Pennsylvania constitution as well as other federal and state statutes.The following issues must be closely considered in the proposed legislation:
a. Equal Treatment Under the Law
The Pittsburgh Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes that historic preservation is a compelling public interest for its ability to, among other things, “promote the economic and general welfare of the City of Pittsburgh” (City Code, Title 11, 1.1[b]). The Ordinance does not distinguish between classes of persons or properties who share this interest, but provides for a public process by which all citizens may participate in every activity of municipal preservation, from nomination and designation of property to hearings on work applications and economic hardship.
The test of applicability of the ordinance is the historical and/or architectural significance of a structure, district, site, or object, not the financial or other circumstances of an individual property owner or class or property owners.
The proposed bill would single out religious institutions as a distinct class and provide for their preferential treatment under the law. This would benefit the owners of religious properties by making compliance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance optional on their part. Staff urges the Commission to consider whether this would benefit the general public of the City of Pittsburgh, in whose interest the law was created.
b. Existing Relief from Undue Burdens
In speaking publicly about this proposed change, its advocates have spoken about the “burdens” of historic designation and benefits to them of being exempt. Yet there are existing means by which religious property owners may seek relief from the perceived burdens of historic designation.
i. The Historic Designation Process
The designation process itself provides two checks against unwanted designation. First, the Historic Review Commission holds a Preliminary Determination hearing to determine whether a new nomination has merit. This serves as a weeding process for frivolous or inappropriate nominations, and those which do not meet the test have the regulation of the Historic Review Commission lifted for the duration of the process.
Second, a supermajority (six votes) of City Council is required to designate a property over its owner’s objections. Owners of nominated religious properties have the opportunity to argue their position before Council in every case. Although it is not a written rule, Council has generally been reluctant to designate property over an owner’s objections.ii. Certificate of Economic Hardship
An applicant who is denied a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Review Commission for any exterior work may apply for a Certificate of Economic Hardship. If the Historic Review Commission determines that denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness has resulted in loss of all reasonable use and/or return from the property or substantial hardship for the property owner, the Commission will then consult with the Department of City Planning about provision of relief from the economic hardship in the form of loans, grants, tax abatements, transfer of development rights, or other means.iii. Historic Religious Properties Initiative
Funds are available to assist the owners of religious properties with historically appropriate repairs and renovations. Each year, Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation awards between $50,000 and $60,000 in grants to historic religious institutions for bricks and mortar projects. Technical assistance is also awarded to several institutions each year. To qualify, a religious institution must be located in Allegheny County, be at least 50 years old, have an active, though not necessarily large congregation, and be of architectural or historical significance.A nonprofit organization called Partners for Sacred Places performs a similar function on a national level. Grants are also available from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
iv. Tax Exemption
Of course, we must acknowledge that the purpose of tax-exempt status is not to provide a fund for preservation activities. However, freedom from taxation is a costly civic burden of which religious institutions have already been relieved. This suggests that religious institutions do not suffer unduly from obligations which apply equally to the taxed.c. Applications to the Historic Review Commission by Religious Institutions
Historic Review Commission records do not support the claim that historic designation has been a burden on religious property owners.In the 26 years since the first religious structures were designated by the City of Pittsburgh, only one application (for the installation of aluminum awnings) has been denied by the Historic Review Commission, and only one religious building (St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church) has been designated over the objections of its owner, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.* In 95% of cases before the Historic Review Commission concerning the treatment of religious structures, the applicant and the Commission have been in agreement over preservation methods, materials, and design.
The concerns of religious property owners appear to be about the potential burdens of future applications and nominations. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance provides for fairly resolving these, as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, as shown above.*(Another property, the former St. Michael’s Church and Rectory, also was designated against the wishes of the Catholic Diocese, but since this church was desanctified and not used for religious worship at the time, it would not have been considered a “religious structure” under the definition in the proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In any case, St. Michael’s is currently being rehabilitated as condominiums by its new owner, with plans that have been approved by the Historic Review Commission.)
8. The staff for the Historic Review Commission and the Planning Commission stated that she did not believe that sufficient evidence exists that the current Historic Preservation Ordinance creates a burden for the owners of religious properties, or interferes with the free expression of religion, to justify the proposed changes to the Ordinance.
Rather, staff finds that the owners of religious properties are treated fairly and equally with other citizens under the ordinance, and the proposed changes would create a remedy for a burden that is imagined, but does not currently exist. The current ordinance provides adequate opportunities for every property owner to seek relief from burdensome Historic Review Commission decisions on a case-by-case basis without providing a blanket exemption for one class of citizens. In addition, assistance is available in the form of loans and grants to the owners of historic religious buildings.
Although exemptions for religious properties from historic preservation regulations do exist in a few other communities, these have been and will continue to be challenged in the courts. By passing the proposed amendments to Pittsburgh’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the City would be making unnecessary changes to a fair and functional law and opening itself to costly and time-consuming litigation.
As of this date, the required public hearing before Council has not been scheduled. We concur and urge the public to write Council of their concerns regarding this legislation.
-
Historic site: Who decides? – O’Connor ‘optimistic’ about his proposal
By Tom Barnes,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14, 2003City Councilman Bob O’Connor isn’t letting a little setback with the Historic Review Commission get him down.
Last week, the commission unanimously recommended against a significant change that O’Connor wants to make in the city’s historic preservation ordinance.
O’Connor said the historic review panel’s stance “really doesn’t mean anything” because the final decision is still up to City Council. He said he thinks he has the support he needs to make the preservation ordinance less of a burden on those responsible for churches, synagogues and other religious buildings.
O’Connor said the historic commission’s vote is “just a recommendation to council. It’s nonbinding. I don’t think we expected anything different from them.”
O’Connor will try again today when the proposal comes before the city planning commission, which also will make a recommendation to council on the measure.
Under O’Connor’s revision, only the owner of an actively used religious building would be permitted to nominate it for historic status. Currently, many city officials, preservation groups and anyone who’s lived in the city for at least a year can make such a nomination, which could end up limiting what a church group can do with the exterior or the demolition of a building.
The Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese, which owns St. Nicholas Church on the North Side, was upset when that 100-year-old building was nominated for historic status, which was then approved by City Council. As a result, it’s much harder for the building to be sold to state transportation officials, who plan to raze it in order to widen heavily congested Route 28.
Leaders from across the religious spectrum, including Catholics, Episcopalians, Luth-erans, Orthodox officials and Jewish rabbis, are in favor of O’Connor’s bill.
Historic preservationists oppose it, saying it would weaken city efforts to preserve culturally and architecturally important church buildings.
In cases where the historic panel opposes nomination of a building, it takes a council super-majority of at least six votes to override the panel’s recommendation. But in this case, O’Connor said he just needs the normal five-vote majority of the nine-member council.
After the planning commission takes a stance on O’Connor’s measure, council will hold a public hearing on it and probably vote next month, O’Connor said.
“I’m optimistic it will be approved,” he said. “We feel strongly about this. I want to go ahead with my plan.”
Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1548.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette