Category Archive: Historic Properties
-
Opposition to amphitheater plan must be resolved
Saturday, January 11, 2003
Daily CourierThe Great Meadows Amphitheater, for decades largely dormant and unused, was a symbol of inaction by Fayette County’s elected leaders. It would be a shame if efforts to reverse that trend were thwarted.
Yet, it appears that is what is happening now that the county has found someone willing to invest in the amphitheater site to create what is hoped to be a major tourist attraction.Fayette Films LLC is seeking a five-year lease to use the Great Meadows site, located off Route 40 in Wharton Township. The company wants to create a motion picture studio at the site. However, the project has been met with opposition from groups who feel it would detract from what is already one of the county’s most popular tourist attractions: Fort Necessity National Battlefield.
Fort Necessity, site of the first battle in the French and Indian War, is located on property adjacent to Great Meadows. Officials from Fort Necessity, and groups such as the Sierra Club, Preservation Pennsylvania and Kiski-Conemaugh River Basin Alliance are concerned there is not an adequate buffer between the amphitheater and acreage around Fort Necessity. They claim the scenic beauty surrounding the fort would be jeopardized by a large new development at the amphitheater and the crowds that will flock there.
We can sympathize with supporters of Fort Necessity and share their concerns. The battlefield is among the most historically significant attractions, not only in Fayette County, but in all of Pennsylvania. It is already an established tourist attraction and should not be compromised for the possibility that another attraction may draw more visitors to the area.
On the other hand, we know that the Great Meadows’ site has gone unused for far too long. The buildings there have fallen into disrepair, at great cost to the county, and the land, among the most pristine in the county, could and should be used for a better purpose. The property is doing nothing for the county’s finances, because it is off the tax rolls. Having the land bought and developed is something for which the county should strive.Fayette County commissioners, while right pursuing suitors who would develop the Great Meadows site, must do so with the protection, preservation and well-being of existing resources (including Fort Necessity) in mind. For example, an adequate buffer area between the sites is imperative and should be part of any development plans.
We urge commissioners and representatives of Fort Necessity to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to all parties involved. Plans to develop the Great Meadows site should not be terminated. The potential for the amphitheater has gone unmet far too long already.
-
Landmarks Testimony Before the Historic Review Commission on Proposed Legislation by Councilman Bob O’Connor to Restrict the Nomination of Religious Properties
January, 9th 2003
Given by Elisa Cavalier, Attorney and Landmarks Staff Member
We are here today to consider Council Bill 1148 proposed by Councilman O’Connor. Let’s look more closely at issue at hand. It is the ….
People — that have a faith
People– that have — and continue to –help to build religious structures in which to exercise their religion,
People (not the church as a separate entity)
who have a constitutional right through the First Amendment to the free exercise of religion … to express their religious views, to associate, and assemble for that purpose.People who have a right, through Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, “to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.”
It is for thePeople through the Declaration of Policy in Pennsylvania’s History Code that “the irreplaceable historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural heritage of this Commonwealth should be preserved and protected…[for] future generations.” [37 Pa. C.S. § 102]
and it is thePeople, as well as non-profit organizations, school boards, and businesses … ALL whom have the right under our existing ordinance to claim an ECONOMIC HARDSHIP as a remedy to application of the ordinance.
Yet it is the Church that claims that Pittsburgh’s preservation law interferes with the people’s right to the FREE EXERCISE of religion.
So what is there solution?
EXCLUDE the PEOPLE!!!
Our government and its laws are to be
OF THE PEOPLE
BY THE PEOPLE and
FOR THE PEOPLE.This legislation takes away from the people, — whether they are members of the congregation or the general public — the ability to participate in our democratic form of government. It prohibits PEOPLE to nominate religious structures for historic designation.
The proposed ordinance sets the church apart on a law of general applicability. Councilman O’Connor’s bill is inappropriate and should not be endorsed.
-
Bill would restrict who is able to nominate churches as historic
Monday, November 25, 2002
By Timothy McNulty, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
City Councilman Bob O’Connor plans to introduce a measure today that he says would free churches and other religious structures from some of the city’s historic preservation regulations.
His amendment to the city’s historic preservation code would allow only the owners of religious structures to nominate them as historic sites. Currently, any city resident can nominate structures for historic designation.
If a site is designated historic, plans to externally renovate or demolish it have to go before the city’s Historic Review Commission before they can be implemented.
According to O’Connor, the designation makes upkeep of historic buildings too expensive for religious groups. Plus, he doesn’t think just anyone should have nomination power over religious structures.
“I would certainly not appreciate it if someone out of the blue nominated my church simply because they felt they should,” he said in a statement. “I believe that places of worship and their symbols such as altars, stained glass windows and statues, are sacred expressions of religious faith and should be respected.”
Historic nominations now can be forwarded by the mayor; members of City Council, the Historic Review Commission and the city planning commission; building owners, and people who have lived in the city for one year or more. O’Connor’s amendment would allow only the owners of a “church, cathedral, mosque, temple, rectory, convent or similar structure used as a place of religious worship” to nominate it.
His bill will be sent to the historic review and planning commissions for comment before a public hearing is held and, finally, a City Council vote is taken. He already has four co-sponsors — council members Twanda Carlisle, Alan Hertzberg, Jim Motznik and Gene Ricciardi — meaning if a vote were taken today, it would pass.
O’Connor has been working with religious leaders for more than a year on the proposal, but today’s timing is significant: It will not come up for a vote until early next year, when City Council’s most experienced and vocal preservationist, Jim Ferlo, will be serving in the state Senate. Ferlo won election to the 38th District seat on Nov. 5.
Ferlo wandered into O’Connor’s office yesterday to complain about the measure, saying it is a “bad bill” that could stand in the way of adaptive re-uses of vacant church buildings, such as for restaurants and apartment buildings.
Referring to a battle O’Connor led years ago to keep St. Paul Cathedral outside the Oakland Historic District, Ferlo asked O’Connor if he was pushing through another “immaculate exception” for the Catholic Church. He also joked that O’Connor has a conflict of interest on church matters since his son, Terry, is a Catholic priest.
An ecumenical church group called Christian Leaders Fellowship is set to endorse O’Connor’s bill today, but the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh has long led fights over historic preservation.
The diocesan spokesman, the Rev. Ron Lengwin, has said the church believes in preserving its prominent old buildings but without being forced into it by government. Designation is also a government-mandated drag on finances, he said.
“We believe to force historic designation on a houses of worship carries a real threat of requiring them to divert limited financial resources from schools and social service agencies toward much more costly maintenance of buildings,” Lengwin said.
“It is an unwarranted intrusion in their function and mission.”
Mark DeSantis, chairman of the Historic Review Commission, argued that designations actually help church coffers, not hurt them. Private organizations, such as Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, can help with renovation costs, which city government cannot, and the designations themselves are a helping hand in fund raising, he said.
“Not only has designation not been a burden, but many of [the churches] use that designation as a way of directing funding and renovation efforts toward buildings that would otherwise have trouble attracting those funds,” DeSantis said.
He said he would make the case to City Council that the measure would inappropriately treat classes of building owners differently.
“I can’t imagine there is a worse thing for a community to do than identify two classes of citizens in any community. You either make laws that apply to everyone or make laws that apply to no one. It seems to me patently unfair to other types of property owners,” he said.
DeSantis said he was unaware of O’Connor’s legislation until late last week. He said he was “very disappointed” to hear the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese had been working on the bill, saying he and other preservationists have been working with the diocese at the same time to identify churches that could benefit from historic designation.
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
-
Bill would limit historic status designation
By Andrew Conte
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, November 25, 2002The public would no longer be able to nominate houses of worship for historic designation status in Pittsburgh under legislation Councilman Bob O’Connor plans to introduce today.
Only the owner could seek such status, removing a significant hurdle the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and others face when they seek to close or raze a church.
Parishioners and community groups have been able to delay or thwart such closings by nominating churches for city historic status.
Once a building has been nominated, the owner cannot make significant changes to its exterior until the city’s Historic Review Commission reviews the application. If a building is designated as an historic landmark, the commission has jurisdiction over all proposed new construction, demolition and exterior work to the structure.
O’Connor’s legislation has the support of four co-sponsors: President Gene Ricciardi, James Motznik, Twanda Carlisle and Alan Hertzberg.
“I don’t think anyone has the right to put an undue burden on” the owners of houses of worship, said O’Connor, whose son is a Catholic priest and whose office has a picture of his son with the pope.
“I have always been on the side of churches,” O’Connor said. “I believe it really is a hardship on them.”
When St. Nicholas Church on the city’s North Side was designated an historic structure by City Council last year, it affected the diocese’s plans to sell the church to PennDOT ? and the transportation department’s Route 28 expansion project.
The Christian Leaders Fellowship, an organization representing 10 local bishops and denominational executives, supports the legislation, said the Rev. Ronald Lengwin, the Catholic Diocese spokesman who also works with the leaders fellowship.
“The position of the church is to preserve our churches,” Lengwin said. “We are absolutely for preservation, but the crux of the matter is if it comes down to maintaining the exterior of the church or providing funds to educate children in the faith or assist people with needs, we’re going to follow our ministry.”
While the proposed changes would afford religious groups a greater say over how their property is used, it also takes away public initiative to preserve historic structures for the greater good, said Cathy McCollom, spokeswoman for the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation.
“In preservation, the designation of a building is the only safeguard there is,” McCollom said. “Any cathedral could come down.”
O’Connor’s bill seeks to make two changes to the city code. It would define religious structures as a “church, cathedral, mosque, temple, rectory, convent or similar structure used as a place of worship.” He also would add language saying the “nomination of a religious structure (for historic status) shall only be made by the owner(s) of record of the religious structure.”
The city’s Historic Review Commission and Planning Commission will have 30 days to review the legislation and report back to City Council. O’Connor then plans to hold a public hearing on the proposal before council votes on it.
Andrew Conte can be reached at aconte@tribweb.com or (412) 765-2312.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © The Tribune-Review Publishing Co
-
Fixing hole where rain gets in only half the job
By Robert Baird
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, September 30, 2002Gone are the initials scratched by street gang members and others into the paint on window sills at Henry Hobson Richardson’s landmark Allegheny County Courthouse.
New paint covers the window ledges and walls, vintage lights gleam down the center of the hallways and a handsome wooden bench, donated by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, adorns the fifth floor of the stately 114-year-old masterpiece.
In July, just after county workers put the finishing touches on the painting and plastering, a roof leak during a heavy rain sent water cascading down the walls at the Ross Street end of the building, staining and buckling ceiling tiles.
As a late-night jury deliberated the fate of a homicide defendant, acoustical tiles in the hallway filled with water, then burst like mini-dams, splashing rainwater in the hallway.
Since the damage, the water leak has never recurred.
But the gaping holes in the ceiling tiles remain as silent testimony to what can sometimes happen to the best-laid plans of mice and men.
Visitors to the building might think the unrepaired tiles in an otherwise spotless white ceiling are evidence of neglect.
“It looks terrible,” said Common Pleas Judge Lawrence O’Toole, who was presiding in his nearby courtroom at the homicide trial on the night the rainwater broke through the ceiling in the hall.
He said county workers are probably “waiting to see if it rains again.”
The judge had no idea his speculation was correct.
Margaret Philbin, county spokeswoman, said the public works department fixed the roof shortly after the leak and was waiting for the first heavy, steady rain, which occurred last Thursday and Friday.
“They went up Thursday night and Friday and checked, and found no leak,” she said. “The tiles will be fixed this week according to Tom Donatelli, director of public works.”
The unrepaired tiles on the fifth floor spoiled the effect of the many improvements recently made in the courthouse’s appearance.
Workers have been busy completing a new courtroom on the fifth floor for the summary appeals section, with chambers for Common Pleas Judge Robert Gallo, and offices for other staff members.
While there are other missing ceiling tiles in the building, they appear to have been taken down for “work in progress.”
Meanwhile, just one flight down on the fourth floor near the electrical shop, a stack of used ceiling tiles rests against a wall, alongside an electrical hoist used in replacing the tiles and burned-out lights.
Some courthouse observers suggested that the less-than-perfect tiles could have been used as replacements until the roof leak was checked out. Then, the new tiles could have been used without much chance of further damage.
Robert Baird can be reached at (412) 391-8650.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © The Tribune-Review Publishing Co
-
No death knell for our old morgue
By Dan Majors,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Friday, September 06, 2002There was a time, a long time ago, when buildings were built of sterner stuff. Not having access to modern lightweight materials, builders relied on bigger, heavier, stronger components. Like giant stones and rocks.
That’s how they built the pyramids. And the Great Wall of China. And, of course, the Allegheny County Morgue.
Our morgue is a Romanesque structure built Downtown a hundred years ago on what was then called Diamond Street, later renamed Forbes Avenue. Even then, it was an awesome edifice.
But after a couple of decades, long about 1929 or so, some local elected officials decided that the morgue had been built in the perfect location … for the new County Office Building.
So Kress-Oravetz House Moving Co. was hired to pick up the 6,000-ton morgue and move it 300 feet, to the other side of Fourth Avenue, where it sits today.
You have to understand that, back then, it was often easier to move a building than it was to tear it down and rebuild it. Not only because of how well they were built, but because there weren’t as many obstructions such as overhead power lines.
Nowadays, if you want to put up a building somewhere, you just level whatever stands in your way and quickly throw up a new one. Remember the B&O Railroad Terminal? Jenkins Arcade? Three Rivers Stadium?
Currently on Allegheny County’s drawing board are plans for a $40.1 million, eight-story office building, the county’s first new such structure since the County Office Building was finished in 1927. It’ll be built Downtown, where the old jail annex stands.
The top two floors will be new digs for the coroner’s forensic laboratories.
But that doesn’t mean that the current morgue will be left to rot. The county is planning to spend $4.3 million refurbishing it.
The City Council is expected to vote Wednesday on a recommendation that the old morgue be designated a city historic building.
City development reporter Tom Barnes tells us that the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation nominated the morgue for historic status in February. The city’s Historic Review Commission recommended approval in May, and the planning commission followed suit shortly afterward.
The official designation could be on the mayor’s desk for his signature before the end of the month.
It’ll be nice to see the old morgue get a new life.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Historic Review Commission to vote on mortuary status
By Ellen James
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, September 3, 2002On Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission will consider whether Allegheny County’s century-old mortuary should be designated an historic structure.
Pittsburgh architect Frederick J. Osterling, a disciple of the jail and courthouse’s architect, designed the mortuary to match the two other buildings and to create a fortress-like enclave of government centered Downtown, according to a county report about the construction of the three buildings.And it is that urban design that prompted the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation to nominate the building, built between 1901 and 1903, as a city-designated historic structure.
“Our position was that the mortuary exemplified urban design techniques and overall quality of design or detail,” said Cathy McCollom, director of operations and marketing for the foundation. “Osterling picked up on exterior details from the jail and worked them into the mortuary.”
McCollom said the review commission will vote Wednesday on whether to recommend the mortuary as an historic structure.
If the structure, a solidly built Romanesque building with two gargoyles guarding its entrance, is approved, it would then have to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Final approval would come from Mayor Tom Murphy.
The building originally faced Forbes Avenue along Diamond Street. In 1929, county officials needed a new building for deeds, wills and lawsuits, but the mortuary sat in the spot that would be most convenient for the new building, which is now the County Office Building.
Instead of demolishing the morgue, officials decided to move the 8,000-ton granite building 297 feet to its present location along Fourth Avenue.
It took three months to move the building, but that didn’t stop the regular day-to-day business of the morgue. As Levi Bird Duff, a consultant in the move, said in an interview shortly before his death, “People were killing and dying every day. The coroner’s functions couldn’t be stopped.”
Routine business such as autopsies and inquests continued; and water, gas, plumbing, telephone and electrical service were uninterrupted.
In a feat of engineering prowess, the mortuary was raised 20 feet off its foundation and placed on 22 tracks of hundreds of rails and slowly pulled to its present location by a team of horses. The building then had to be lowered another 7 feet to fit into its present foundation.
The building survived the move with minimum damage.
“It really was a marvel of engineering,” said Tom Donatelli, director of public works for the county.
If the building is approved as an historic structure, the county couldn’t make any changes to the exterior without city approval. There has been no objection from county officials regarding the proposed status.
Ellen James can be reached at epjames02@yahoo.com.
-
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.