Category Archive: News Wire Services
-
Farmers like option to ‘save’ agriculture
By Michael Aubele
VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Sunday, December 2, 2007Butler County farmer Ed Thiele said he has no regrets about enlisting in the state’s Farmland Preservation program.
“I’ve had a lot of people tell me I was foolish for doing it,” he said. “But I did it to preserve the ground. We have to do something to preserve our farmland. We’re losing too much of it.”
The state paid Thiele $363,432 in 1996 for development rights on his dairy farm in Jefferson and Winfield townships. The easement guarantees the farm remains designated for agricultural use.
Thiele likely could’ve earned much more by selling his farm, or a portion, to a developer. But he said he has plans to keep the farm working and pass it on to his children.
The goal of the program is to conserve valuable farmland that can’t be reclaimed once it’s developed, That’s because the soil won’t be suitable for agriculture after it’s been so seriously disturbed.
Thiele and a few other Butler County farmers said the state’s program has been successful in reaching that goal. “There are always people stopping by, asking if I’ll sell them a portion to build a house or a church,” he said. “I tell them right off the bat that there’s a deed restriction on it.
“It’s a pretty big decision if you’re going to do it. If you’re going to do it, you’d better make sure it’s the right thing,” Thiele added. “If your goal is to make money, don’t get into the program. If it’s to preserve the land, then do it.”
Thiele said that once a farmer decides to sell development rights to the state, there’s no turning back.
“It’s not something you can get into and then get back out of again,” he said. “I’ve heard of cases where people tried to get out by paying back the money plus interest but couldn’t.”
According to the state Department of Agriculture, there are more than 100 farms in Allegheny, Armstrong, Butler and Westmoreland counties that are protected by the state’s program. About a dozen of those farms are in the Alle-Kiski Valley — the bulk of them in Butler County.
Agriculture department officials said more than 370,000 acres are preserved in the state, representing about 5 percent of the state’s farmland.
“Pennsylvania leads the nation in farmland preservation,” said Doug Wolfgang, director for the agriculture department’s Bureau of Farmland Preservation.
Wolfgang said it is unknown how many of the state’s farms would qualify for the program. The USDA, he said, has classified 7.65 million acres in Pennsylvania as farmland.
According to the American Farmland Trust, about 150,000 acres in the state have been developed over the last 10 years.
“Pennsylvania is blessed with a lot of good soil that’s better used in the long run keeping it farmland,” said Jim Baird, American Farmland Trust official. “There is other suitable land available to put buildings on to deal with growth.”
Ed Goldscheitter, who farms in Buffalo and Clinton townships, agreed and said that’s why he decided to protect his land through the state’s program.
“For 40 years I’ve been concerned about losing farmland to development and urban sprawl,” he said.
Goldscheitter has two parcels in the state’s program. He said he intends to pass the property down to family.
“We’re stewards of the land,” he said. “You just can’t keep putting up housing plans on it and continuing to destroy it. It’s not something we can let disappear because we don’t understand the value of it.
Goldscheitter said that when he decided to enter his second parcel into the program, he was one of the farmers forced to wait for funding to become available.
But he declined to say he felt any disappointment at having to wait. He said that’s the nature of the program.
“It is more difficult to get in now,” he said. “You make the assumption that farmers want to keep their land in the family and continue farming.”
Goldscheitter said he doubts farmers seek out the program to make money.
Fellow Butler County farmer Harold Foertsch estimated that he could earn three times as much money by selling his land to a developer than by selling development rights to the state.
Still, Foertsch said that didn’t dissuade him from applying this year for the program.
Foertsch farms corn, beans, wheat and potatoes and raises cattle. He said he’s seeking to have 100 acres protected and has been told his farm was accepted although he hasn’t been paid yet.
Like Thiele and Goldscheitter, Foertsch said his concern is watching good farmland turn into developed property that can’t be returned to agricultural use.
Farming for Foertsch is a family affair and he said he plans to keep it that way.
“It’s a way of life,” he said.
Michael Aubele can be reached at maubele@tribweb.com or 724-226-4673.
-
Private, public groups encourage farm protections
By Bob Stiles
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, December 2, 2007Levi Miller’s straw hat and long, white beard moved from side to side as he shook his head at the notion of the Amish accepting government money to preserve farmland.
“I don’t think any of our people would go for that,” said Miller, 80, of Smicksburg, Indiana County, who has farmed for more than 50 years. “They don’t take pay for something they don’t do.”Amish farmers in the counties of Indiana, Somerset or Lawrence — areas with large Amish settlements — don’t participate in farmland preservation programs, according to preservation officials in those communities. But in Eastern Pennsylvania, Amish in fast-growing counties such as Lancaster and Chester have come to realize that preservation programs may be the best way to preserve farmland.
“I think part of it is, in southeastern Pennsylvania, it’s right in your face,” said Matt Knepper, director of Lancaster County’s farmland preservation program. “The conversion of farmland to other uses, we see it every day.”
With the preservation program, a farmer sells the right to develop the property, and receives a set amount of money per acre in exchange for keeping the land in agriculture. The amount varies from county to county, based on real estate values and the money available, agriculture officials said.
There has been less of a push with the farm preservation program in southwestern Pennsylvania than in eastern counties, where development is more rapid. The Amish in Western Pennsylvania also tend to be more conservative than those in the southeast, Kraybill said.“They won’t accept any money from the government,” said Susan Moon, assistant manager of Somerset County’s conservation district.
Pennsylvania’s Amish population of about 48,600 ranks second to Ohio’s nearly 55,000 Amish residents, according to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Lancaster County. Amish settlements in Lancaster County, Indiana County and the New Wilmington region of Lawrence County are among the largest in the country, according to the college’s Web site.
Pennsylvania ranks No. 1 in the nation in farmland preservation, according to the American Farmland Trust. About $536 million has been spent through the state’s conservation easement program, preserving 344,465 acres and nearly 3,050 farms.
Knepper said time, more liberal thinking among some Amish religious leaders and a better understanding of the purpose of the money were factors in getting the Amish involved.
Betty Reefer, of Westmoreland County’s agriculture preservation program, said that’s helped encourage Amish participation.
“In the beginning in Lancaster County, it was very tough getting them involved in farmland preservation because it involved the government, but they were able to convince them it fit into their lifestyle, and it caught on,” she said.
Of the 694 farms preserved through the Lancaster County program, about 25 involve Amish farmers, Knepper said. Most of those became involved in the program within the last three years, he said.
Karen Martynick, executive director of the nonprofit Lancaster County Farmland Trust, said about 60 percent of the 273 farms preserved through the trust, or approximately 165 farms, involve the Amish.
She said her group’s use of private money appealed to more Amish than the government-funded preservation program, even though the Trust is paying about $800 per acre compared to the $3,000 to $4,000 per acre typically paid through the state-county preservation program.
“They see changes on the horizon, and they see more and more young people going off the farms,” Martynick said. “They want to see it stay in agriculture.”
The trust began accepting government funding in 2005. Martynick said that money isn’t used to preserve Amish properties if the Amish object.
Henry Beiler, an Amish farmer in Lancaster County who participates in the preservation program, said many Amish farmers didn’t understand how they could receive money for something they couldn’t see.
Donald Kraybill, professor of sociology at Elizabethtown College and a noted Amish scholar, said the Amish reluctance to participate with the government stems from an age-old conviction.
“In general, they’ve always drawn a line between the church and the state,” he said.
They don’t take out insurance policies, Kraybill added, because “they feel the church should take care of its members and its people.”
About 20 Amish farms are included in the more than 200 farms preserved through Chester County’s open space and farmland-preservation programs, said Bill Gladden, director of the county’s open space program.
He said efforts of public and private groups have met with the Amish and that has made a big difference.
A farmland-preservation arm of the private Brandywine Conservancy was formed a few months ago, and Patrick Fasano of the conservancy said two Amish farms have been preserved so far through the conservancy’s efforts.
Bob Stiles can be reached at bstiles@tribweb.com or 724-836-6622.
-
Farmers line up to preserve land for agriculture
By Michael Aubele
VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Sunday, December 2, 2007Pennsylvania’s Farmland Preservation program arguably is the leading program of its kind in the country in terms of money spent on protecting land and acres acquired.
Since creating the program in 1988, the state has invested roughly $1 billion in purchasing development rights — known as easements — from farmers who want to ensure their land remains dedicated to agricultural use.But even with the vast amount of money being spent on easements and success of conservation efforts, many interested farmers find themselves being told they have to wait for a chance to participate.
While the state has preserved more than 3,300 farms, about 2,000 farmers have their names on a program waiting list, according to the Department of Agriculture.
Meanwhile, the state ranks sixth among those losing farms to development most rapidly.
Agricultural experts say even though Pennsylvania’s farm preservation efforts could be considered a model program, more funding is needed to prevent prime farming land from being converted to housing, commercial or industrial developments.State leaders say finding additional funding might will be difficult and that there’s no guarantee throwing more money at the program will make it more successful.
“It is the nation’s leader, unquestioned,” Jim Baird, an official with the American Farmland Trust, said about Pennsylvania’s program. “But there really is more that needs to be done.
“The development pressure that is out there still is looming.”
The Trust, a nonprofit created in 1980, is lobbying Congress to allocate more money to farmland preservation and was involved in helping Pennsylvania create its preservation program.
The federal government spends money on protecting farms through the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program. But Baird said the bulk of money being spent on farmland protection is done at the state and county levels.
Farmers who enter the program voluntarily sell development rights to the state, which guarantees that the farms remain agricultural land. This is “for perpetuity,” according to the state’s agriculture department.
Through Pennsylvania’s program, easements are purchased from farmers through state, county or local dollars or a combination.
Farmers interested in the program apply through the county. They must meet criteria, such as soil type, acreage and location.
The program is competitive. Farms are ranked and then offers are made by the county through an appraisal process. Final approval comes from the state.
As for the farmers waiting for a chance to participate in the program, state and county officials said they keep confidential the names on the program waiting list.
The backlog, state officials said, is an indication of how well the program is working.
“The key to Pennsylvania’s success has been farmers’ willingness to participate,” said Doug Wolfgang, director of the agriculture department’s Bureau of Farmland Preservation.
State Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, said the state spent a record $102 million on easements last year when Growing Greener II was approved. In 2005, he said, the state spent from $35 million to $40 million on the program.
“That boost saved an awful lot of farm acreage that otherwise wouldn’t have been funded,” Ferlo said.
The state appropriated $40 million for this year, said Betty Reefer, Westmoreland County farm preservation administrator.
But, Reefer expects the appropriation to drop to about $34 million for next year.
“Whether or not there will be another effort for conservation that might be in the early stages of debate, I don’t know,” she said. “I’m thinking there will be a slight decrease in next year’s appropriation, but it’s not until February that the state announces what the appropriation will be.”
“It is likely to be less than this year’s allocation because the Growing Greener II bond monies have been obligated,” Wolfgang said.
Reefer said she’d like to see more money allocated because her county can only protect about 10 percent of the farms on her waiting list each year.
“The most applications we’ve gotten in one year was 65,” she said. “And in one year, the most we can protect is maybe five farms.
“We just don’t have the adequate funding to move ahead with it. I wish we had enough dollars to protect the farms of all the farmers that apply.”
She said some farms have been on the county’s waiting list for as long as 10 years.
“That shows that the level of dedication among farmers is very strong,” she said. “I’m sure there were opportunities that might have come along to subdivide or sell part of their farms.”
Reefer said now is the time to dedicate the funding to protecting those farms.
State Rep. John Pallone, D-New Kensington, sees it differently, however. While an ardent supporter of the program, he doesn’t believe that pumping more money into the program is the answer.
“The intent of the program is being met, based on my knowledge of it,” he said. “I think we’re meeting our goals, and I don’t know that throwing more money at the program will make it any better.”
Pallone suggested the state might be on the tail end of farms that would qualify for a preservation easement.
“It becomes a matter of whether or not it would be prudent to preserve these lands,” he said. “Obviously, we want to preserve as much green space as possible and as much farm land as we can,” he said. “But, and I say this with reservation, I don’t know that we should preserve 100 percent of our farmland. If we continue to do things at a reasonable pace, we can implement reasonable controls on development.”
Pallone said that, at the county level, officials are working diligently to review the applications and that throwing more money at the program could jeopardize how thorough the review process is.
Ferlo said that, at some point, the state might revisit how it funds its farm preservation program but that, right now, it’s not being discussed.
“We have to deal with the hand we’ve been dealt,” he said. “There are so many competing needs out there, such as infrastructure. I want to fund all of these programs, but it’s a question of whether or not the Legislature has the appetite for binding debt.”
HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS
The state’s Farmland Preservation program was developed in 1988 to help slow the loss of prime farmland to nonagricultural uses. The program enables state, county and local governments to purchase conservation easements (sometimes called development rights) from owners of quality farmland. Counties participating in the program have appointed agricultural land preservation boards with a state board created to oversee this program. The state board is responsible for distribution of state funds, approval and monitoring of county programs and specific easement purchases.
Eligible farms must be part of an Agricultural Security Area (ASA), which is a designation made at the local level based on several criteria. In addition to being part of an ASA, the farm is rated against other eligible parcels according to the following criteria:
• Quality of the farmland. State regulations require that easements be purchased for farms containing 50 acres or more. Parcels as small as 10 acres may be preserved if adjacent to existing preserved farmland or used for the production of crops unique to the area. At least half the tract must either be harvested cropland, pasture or grazing land and it must contain soil that meets the state’s quality criteria .
• Stewardship. Farms are rated on the use of good conservation practices and best management practices of soil nutrients and control of soil erosion and sedimentation.
• Likelihood of Conversion. Easements offered for sale to counties will be scored and ranked for acquisition based on a variety of factors, including proximity of farm to sewer and water lines; extent and type of nonagricultural uses nearby; amount and type of agricultural use in the vicinity; amount of other preserved farmland in close proximity.
Farmers can receive the proceeds from easement sales in a lump sum payment, installments up to five years, or on a long-term installment basis. Many farmers use the proceeds from easement sales to reduce debt loads, expand operations, and as a way to pass on farms to the next generation.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
COMPETING WITH DEVELOPMENT
According to American Farmland Trust, Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the country among states losing prime farmland to development. Here’s a look at the top 10.
1. Texas
2. Ohio
3. Georgia
4. North Carolina
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Indiana
8. Tennessee
9. Michigan
10. Alabama
Michael Aubele can be reached at maubele@tribweb.com or 724-226-4673.
-
Rebuilt West Newton station newest gem on riverside trail
By Richard Robbins
For The Valley Independent
Monday, November 26, 2007Jack Cusick eyeballed the sloping, overhanging roof, the antique-looking lights attached to the red-brick exterior and the smartly appointed conference room and office, and said, “It’s a culmination.”
Cusick was talking about West Newton Station on the Youghiogheny River Trail, a new structure that resembles the old Pennsylvania and Lake Erie Railroad Station devastated by fire four decades ago.
The rebuilt West Newton Station will serve as a visitors center for trail users and as headquarters for Regional Trail Corp., the nonprofit partnership that sponsored the development of the Youghiogheny River Trail.
An open house at the station is slated from 6 to 9 p.m. Thursday.
The $750,000 one-story building represents an effort that started in the late 1980s with the “concept” of converting the abandoned P&LE rail line into a biking-hiking trail. Cusick was on the original Regional Trail Corp. board of directors and now is a trail volunteer.
The idea grew into reality. One estimate places the number of annual visits to some portion of the 132-mile Great Allegheny Passage, which includes the Youghiogheny River Trail, at more than 700,000.The West Newton Station will have special appeal because the design came directly from blueprints left behind by the P&LE, said Cathy McCollom, regional director of Trails Town Initiative, an alliance of towns along the passage from Cumberland, Md., to McKeesport.
With the West Newton facility, visitor centers are available about every 45 miles.
John Markle, a West Newton businessman and retired educator, lauded the Yough River Environment and Education Center, headquartered in a railroad car next to the station.
He said the center reflects the growth of the trail concept from small pieces. In its final form, sometime next year, the combined Great Allegheny Passage and the C&O Canal Towpath will stretch 335 miles from Pittsburgh to Washington, D.C.
Richard Robbins can be reached at rrobbins@tribweb.com or 724-836-5660.
-
Pittsburgh architect draws admirers, awards
By David M. Brown
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, November 25, 2007Pittsburgh architect Art Lubetz admires the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, the 20th-century visionary who designed Fallingwater in Fayette County and other masterpieces inspiring to generations of architects.
Lubetz differs with the master, though, on one professional observation.
“Frank Lloyd Wright used to say he didn’t draw a line until he had the whole building in his mind,” says Lubetz, 67, of Oakland. “That might be true. He might have been a super-duper genius. But for schleps like me and most other architects, it’s hard work to get there.”
The self-effacing comment hardly meshes with how others see him.
Lubetz is a visionary thinker in his own right, a gifted architect whose designs have added flare, vigor and rare dimensions to many buildings and abodes throughout his native Western Pennsylvania and other locales across the nation, say his peers, associates and a former student.
He speaks out to preserve worthy old structures, loves cats, collects vivid Czechoslovakian vases, reads vociferously, draws insight from 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza and admits that years ago, he once pushed his Alfa Romeo to 118 mph late at night on the Parkway West.
Lubetz recently received an American Institute of Architects Honor Award at the Design Pittsburgh Awards. He was recognized for “extremely well done” work in the expansion and renovation of the Squirrel Hill branch of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. He is founder and president of Lubetz Architects, an Oakland-based firm celebrating its 40th anniversary this fall.
“It’s notable that Art brings that kind of passionate approach to all the work he does, whether it’s residential, commercial or a public building, like a library,” said Anne-Marie Lubenau, an architect and executive director of the Community Design Center of Pittsburgh, a nonprofit that supports quality architecture.
“He is continually searching to bring fresh ideas to architecture, thinking out of the box, and creating places for people that are inspiring,” she said.
The library project, completed in April 2005, transformed what had been a nondescript structure at the corner of Forbes and Murray avenues into an architectural showcase with copper trimmings and abundant aqua glass. The glass-cube lobby juts out an angle toward Forbes Avenue. The $4.7 million renovation added 7,000 square feet, or 38 percent, new space for library users.
“Our buildings generally are noticeable,” says Lubetz, petting a pair of calico cats — Za and Ha — that paw at the architect for a share of his attention. The cats, sisters, are named after architect Zaha Hadid.
“As a result, people imagine that we are arrogant or something,” he says, “but it’s not for people to notice us. It’s for people to notice the architecture and notice what’s been done, so that maybe their awareness will be raised when they think about architecture.”
“I’m very intrigued by materials that are acted on by nature and change over time. We like copper because it changes. Glass changes throughout the day depending on how the sun hits it.”
The library’s glass walls and skylights were designed to let in sufficient sunlight to create the feeling of reading on a porch.
“Lots of light. That’s one characteristic of almost all our work. Light activates the life within architecture,” Lubetz said.
The panel of architects that bestowed the award said the library’s design “makes people re-think any preconceptions” about urban public libraries. “We bet this place just hops because it really strikes us as a place the community can own,” the panel said.
Among previous awards, Lubetz received honors for his Lincoln Towers housing complex near New York City and his design of the Hartford, Conn., City Hall.
He has taught architectural studio courses at Carnegie Mellon University since 1988. His wife, Karen Myres, a former CMU educator, is president of the Executive Women’s Council.
Former student Dan Cohen, 23, of Squirrel Hill, a recent CMU graduate, described Lubetz as inspirational.
“He taught us architecture is more than just four walls and a roof. It’s more than a pretty facade,” Cohen said. “It’s about putting into it this extra level of thought, which hopefully can translate over to something that the user can experience, and that’s what makes great architecture.”
As president of Preservation Pittsburgh in 2000, Lubetz was one of the leaders of a successful effort to block an attempt to demolish six square blocks of buildings in Downtown — the core of then-Mayor Tom Murphy’s development plan in the Fifth and Forbes corridor.
“He is a Pittsburgh architect who has long been in the forefront of modern design, but has enormous respect for the architecture of our past, and he is willing to stand up and defend it,” said Arthur Ziegler, president of Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, another organization that opposed the plan to raze 68 buildings.
Lubetz has battled through some tough challenges — physical and professional — over the course of his life.
As a 19-year-old architecture student at then-Carnegie Institute of Technology, Lubetz was diagnosed with cornea disease that was leading to blindness. The prognosis threatened his career, but cornea transplants saved his vision. In his early 40s, he suffered a bout of multiple sclerosis that debilitated his right leg. A rigorous therapy regiment restored his use of it.
In July 1996, tragedy struck when his partner, architect Jill Watson, was killed in the crash of TWA Flight 800 near Long Island, N.Y. “She was a partner in the firm and in life and even in drawing. We would fight each other to put the next line on the paper,” Lubetz said at the time.
At a 40th anniversary celebration for his business, a guest asked Lubetz: “Wow. How did you do it?”
“Sometimes I can’t figure it out,” says Lubetz. “Our work is and has always been unusual.
“I think three characteristics I have gotten me through. I’m doggedly determined because I love what I do. I’m tenacious. And I have a major ability to deal with disappointment. I work hard for what I want and I work even harder to be happy with what I end up getting.”
David M. Brown can be reached at dbrown@tribweb.com or 412-380-5614.
-
District presses to close Schenley
By Bill Zlatos
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, November 20, 2007Sixty-eight percent of the materials tested at Schenley High School contained asbestos, according to a report released Monday by city schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt.
AGX Inc., Wexford-based environmental consultants, collected 406 samples from the plaster, ceiling, tiles, carpet and other areas of the Oakland school and found that 277 contained asbestos.The firm collected the samples five years ago, but the Pittsburgh Public Schools released the data for the first time to quell concerns that the district was overreacting to the asbestos problem.
“This is the only building I know (in the district) where every ceiling, every wall on every floor has asbestos in it,” said Richard Fellers, the district’s chief operating officer, during a tour of the building with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
The danger of the asbestos and falling plaster, coupled with the cost of renovating the school, has prompted Roosevelt to recommend for a second time that the school board close Schenley after this school year.
During the past four years, estimates for the cost of abating the asbestos and renovating the building’s mechanical systems have ranged from $42.4 million to $86.9 million. Roosevelt has touted $64.4 million as the best estimate.“You’re talking about a basic gut job where every system needs to be replaced,” Roosevelt said at a news conference yesterday.
Fellers and a team of architects and other professionals noted some of the 10,000 patches made to repair falling plaster last summer. Asbestos was used in the 91-year-old building for binding plaster, insulation and as a fire retardant.
Patches, bubbles or sites of fallen plaster sealed with bridging compound could be seen in some hallways. In some stairwells, hallways or classrooms, fallen plaster had caused holes or exposed the brick behind a radiator.
Roosevelt assured that the school is safe. He said the district monitors the plaster three times a week and the air quality once a week.
“Every decision I make is based on the question: ‘Would this be right for my child?’ ” Roosevelt said.
He has suggested that Schenley’s ninth-, 10th- and 11th-graders go to the former Reizenstein school in East Liberty and graduate with a Schenley diploma.
Schenley’s asbestos problem is compounded by a lack of ventilation that causes the plaster to bubble and fall. Because of the school’s historic status, Fellers said, the district was required to choose a type of window that preserved the building’s architectural character but accelerated its deterioration through insufficient ventilation.
The proposal to close Schenley has stirred student and parent protests. Schenley advocates went to Allegheny Common Pleas Court last week in an unsuccessful attempt to block the school board from hiring an architect and construction manager for the renovation of Reizenstein.
The uncertainty over the school’s fate has caused a family feud.
Vidya Patil, the district’s acting director of facilities, is in charge of maintaining the building and keeping it safe. His daughter, Oona, 16, is a junior at Schenley and unhappy with the proposal to close it.
“I’m very concerned about the deteriorating condition in the building — particularly the asbestos,” Patil said. “The amount of monitoring and dollars it takes to keep it safe is almost unbearable.”
Bill Zlatos can be reached at bzlatos@tribweb.com or 412-320-7828.
-
Art meets architecture in Bellevue
By Richard Byrne Reilly
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, November 22, 2007Graphic artist Jesse Hambley found what he was looking for less than five miles from Pittsburgh.
Looking to create a clubhouse where artists and like-minded creative people could gather and work, he found a three-story former department store in Bellevue that fit the bill. The space was ideal: large rooms easily converted to darkrooms and photo studios. High ceilings and plenty of light. An extra bonus was that the property owner was eager to work with Hambley and his vision, which he called Creative TreeHouse.
“I started it because I saw a need for it. The hope was to establish a place for people to get together and collaborate. Especially for people who couldn’t afford to have their own studio,” said Hambley, 24.
Hambley’s vision took off. Today, Creative TreeHouse has 30 members — graphic artists like Hambley, students and photographers — who pay a $25-a-month membership fee. Many members are from the city, and their membership gives them access to facilities to paint, develop photos and enjoy coffee. Hambley hosts one event per month, such as art openings and concerts, and has used viral advertising on Craigslist and MySpace to great advantage.
“It’s just going to keep growing,” Hambley said. “You don’t have to deal with a lot of the issues like you do in the city, like parking. It’s not as busy. It costs me 25 cents to park for 1 1/2 hours.”
Hambley isn’t alone. City dwellers and those from out of state are increasingly seeking and finding old factories, warehouses and row houses to fix up and turn into artist work places. The value comes in cheap rents and preserving the fading architectural grandeur of a region still struggling to define itself after the steel mills closed in the early 1980s, said Braddock Mayor John Fetterman.“There is definitely a market and interest for live-and-work spaces where rents and prices are a consideration. That’s what’s driving the flight to these neighborhoods outside Pittsburgh. The post-industrial ascetic is desirable to people,” Fetterman said.
Fetterman has emerged as a regional champion of preserving former factories and their conversion to artist spaces. Fetterman, armed with a master’s degree from Harvard, bought a former warehouse in 2003 for $2,000 and turned it into his home. The upper floors contain his living spaces while he turned the lower portions into a gallery.
Lured by cheap rents and word of mouth, artists have begun moving to Braddock from Brooklyn, N.Y., Portland, Ore., and other American cities, Fetterman said. There are currently about 40 artist work spaces in his town.
Fetterman says the area’s preoccupation with destroying old buildings could hurt the region long-term. On the upside, he says buildings can be bought and fixed up for a fraction of the prices of other major cities. Preserving the area’s architectural heritage is crucial and helps drive the influx of artists looking for the next new thing.
“The trade-off is you get your own space and get to do your own thing and you can easily get to and from Pittsburgh. Why should the county pay good money to destroy these buildings when you can pay a small sum and create your own live-and-work space? It is the harbinger of all grassroot economic development,” Fetterman says.
Artists are trying to produce the same momentum in Homestead, but believe the Waterfront stores and restaurants detract from their desire to work anonymously, Fetterman said.
Those seeking to create artistic havens need to do their homework. Jane Misutka and her husband purchased an old Franciscan friary on three acres in Ben Avon in 2004 with the idea to attract musicians and artists. Initially, a few musicians showed up, and later, the old friary housed four Hurricane Katrina refugee families. Ultimately, the plan didn’t work out.
“We bought the house as a weekend retreat. I wanted it to be used and not have it torn down,” Misutka said, who has since put the structure on the market.
Collaboration is the key to making the live/work spaces thrive, Hambley said.
“This is very much a group effort. The idea is to keep costs low,” he said.
Richard Byrne Reilly can be reached at rreilly@tribweb.com or 412-380-5625.
-
Charleroi historic
By Chris Buckley
VALLEY INDEPENDENT
Tuesday, November 20, 2007Charleroi’s historical heritage has been confirmed with its inclusion on the National Register by the National Park Service.
The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission approved Charleroi’s application to add much of the Magic City to the National Register of Historic Places at a meeting Sept. 11. The federal agency notified the commission Nov. 9 that it has accepted the nomination.
Bill Callahan, state representative from the commission office in Pittsburgh, previously reviewed the district, and encouraged Charleroi’s application as a historic district.
Terry Necciai, who served as Main Street program manager in Charleroi in the late 1980s, now is an architect working for the historic preservation firm John Milner Associates in its Alexandria, Va., office.
He has submitted 58 nominations for National Register of Historic Places, but said Charleroi’s was the most difficult and time-consuming process.
Inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places is approved for one or more of the following:
* A site associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
* A site associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
* A site that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
* A site that yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Necciai said most historic properties are a combination of more than one of these criteria.
In the 1980s, the state decided it had enough CDBG grants from such Valley communities as Charleroi, Donora and Monongahela for historic building facade improvements that officials came out and developed maps of the historic regions.
In 1982, Necciai filed with the National Register of Historic Places for Monongahela because he “did not like that so many buildings were being torn down.”
The year before Necciai became Charleroi’s Main Street manager in 1987, the state reviewed Charleroi’s downtown area.
State officials believed at the time that Charleroi was already protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 because of the architectural character and age of the downtown area.
From that time forward, Charleroi received more consideration for improvement project grants in the downtown area.
When state officials reviewed Charleroi in 1986, it recognized the eligibility for inclusion on National Register of Historic Places a section stretching from the 900 block to the 1300 block of Lincoln Avenue and Railroad Street as well as from First to 13th streets.
When state officials toured Charleroi in 2004, however, they said the boundary should be extended to include 120 blocks of Charleroi, about 80 percent of the Magic City.
Necciai returned to the Valley every weekend for four years developing an inventory for 1,800 buildings in the proposed district. The argument for Charleroi’s inclusion totaled 40 pages. The inventory is about 100 pages.
“In 1986, the state said it was historic, but this expanded the scope of the historic district,” Necciai said. “It proves what was true all along, that it is an historic district.”
The state reviewed Charleroi’s initial nomination, which was revised over several months prior to the commission meeting in September.
In September, the PHMC staff presented Charleroi’s case to the commission board
Once an application is approved at the state level and forwarded to the keeper of the national register – an office of the National Park Service – the federal agency has 90 days to act.
Necciai said the National Register of Historic Places designation will be a great marketing tool for Charleroi.
For example, he pointed to Alexandria, Va., where he lives.
During the first half of the 1960s, many buildings in a two- to three-block section of the city were razed.
But when the National Historic Preservation Act was passed in 1966, Alexandria was among the first cities to file nominations.
Four decades later, Alexandria has become the 11th densest community in the country with a steady stream of tourists, Necciai said.
Necciai pointed to the Torpedo Factory Art Center. Once a torpedo factory during World War II, it is now home to more than 165 artists in every form of media from painting, ceramics, photography and jewelry to stained glass, fiber, printmaking, and sculpture.
It also is home to various studios and workshops.
Federal government offices and political action committees also call Alexandria home, adding greatly to its growth, Necciai noted.
“But a part of the equation is that the community decided to not only value what it had, but do something about it,” Necciai said.
Chris Buckley can be reached at cbuckley@tribweb.com or 724-684-2642.