Menu Contact/Location

Category Archive: Pittsburgh Tribune Review

  1. Pitt wants to clean Cathedral

    By Bill Zlatos
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Thursday, June 19, 2003

    After 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.

  2. Historic status for Mellon Arena rejected

    By George Aspiotes
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Thursday, February 27, 2003

    Pittsburgh 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

  3. City council approves historic designation law

    By Andrew Conte
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Wednesday, February 26, 2003

    Only 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

  4. Downtown plan may use Philly strategies

    By Stephanie Franken
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Thursday, January 30, 2003

    Gov. Ed Rendell likely will use tax incentives and grants to attract more businesses and residents to downtown Pittsburgh.

    Rendell used such a strategy to encourage investment in Philadelphia when he served as the city’s mayor, and he likely will try a similar approach in Pittsburgh, said Ken Snyder, a spokesman for the governor. Mayor Tom Murphy has been working for several years to attract investment in the ailing Fifth and Forbes corridor, once a bustling retail district.

    “Individuals don’t just move in” to lackluster downtowns, Snyder said. “They move into developed properties where rent is affordable and it’s an attractive place to live, and there are things to do. The governor relied a lot on tax incentives to bring developers (to Philadelphia) to build these attractions, and also used some bond money.”

    Rendell has convened an “economic crisis task force” that would, in part, explore using similar tools in Pittsburgh, Snyder said.

    It is too early to know how much money would go toward improving Downtown, or what type of aid might be available. Snyder also didn’t identify where Rendell would get the money, although he said during the campaign he would issue bonds for economic- revitalization projects.

    Mulugetta Birru, executive director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, said he and eight others met with Rendell about 10 days ago to discuss the Downtown. Birru said he could not offer details about their four-hour conversation, but said the meeting was “an excellent beginning to signal that Gov. Rendell has placed a high priority on economic development.”

    Birru said the city would need at least $10 million to $15 million from the state for the Fifth and Forbes project. Former Gov. Tom Ridge gave the city a $10 million grant, but the money was used for North Shore development after Downtown revitalization efforts stalled, Birru said.

    Craig Kwiecinski, Murphy’s spokesman, said, “Creating a vibrant Fifth and Forbes corridor continues to be a top priority for the mayor, and we look forward to partnering with Gov. Rendell on this important issue for Pittsburgh.”

    Murphy’s initial plan to improve the corridor called for $100 million in taxpayer money to attract national retailers, the razing of as many as 62 buildings and the threat of eminent domain to force owners to sell their properties to the city. Murphy abandoned those plans in 2000 in the face of criticism.

    The mayor resurrected efforts to revitalize the corridor in November 2000.

    He formed a task force that produced a report in 2002, known as Plan C, that called for preserving more buildings, keeping local retailers, and creating more residential and hotel space. The plan calls for $51.5 million in public money, $39.5 million in corporate and philanthropic investment, and $264 million in private investment.

    The city has not named a developer to lead the project.

    Birru has said the city is having a hard time attracting a developer because, in part, it needs to own more property in the corridor to attract a developer. Companies often would rather develop government-owned land that is ready to build on, rather than having to buy properties from private owners.

    Still, Downtown Works, a division of King of Prussia-based Kravco, said it is interested in the project.

    “Pittsburgh has something going for it that most other cities don’t have, and that’s a great array of department stores,” Midge McCauley, director of Downtown Works, said last week. “What they don’t have is the glue to hold those department stores together, the infrastructure between them.”

    By taking advantage of city, state and federal incentives, she said, her firm could profit from the project.

    “You have a new governor who is very pro-development and a mayor who understands what he needs to do to make the city economically healthy,” McCauley said.

    Snyder, Rendell’s spokesman, said an estimated state deficit of $2.5 billion is daunting, but “the governor doesn’t believe that economic development is a place to skimp.”

    “The governor’s going to fly this plane while he’s fixing it,” Snyder said.

    The mayor’s Plan C task force will meet on Feb. 10. The group hasn’t met for several months, and Kwiecenski, Murphy’s spokesman, would not discuss the purpose of the meeting.

    Plan C task force member Cathy McCollom, director of operations and marketing for the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, said she hopes that Tom Cox, executive assistant to Murphy, and Susan Golomb, the city’s planning director, will name a developer for the Fifth and Forbes project.

    Stephanie Franken can be reached at sfranken@tribweb.com.

    This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

  5. Opposition to amphitheater plan must be resolved

    Saturday, January 11, 2003
    Daily Courier

    The 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.

  6. O’Connor wants church owners to have control

    By Stephanie Franken
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Sunday, January 5, 2003

    Pittsburgh Councilman Bob O’Connor fought to save his former church, but when the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh decided it had to close St. Philomena in Squirrel Hill 10 years ago, he acquiesced.

    O’Connor said he believes parishioners or others shouldn’t stand in the way when leaders decide it’s time for a place of worship to close.

    At least 25 churches and temples could be affected by a bill he proposed that would prevent the public from nominating places of worship for city historic status, which often blocks the closing of the buildings. The legislation would allow only the owners of the buildings to nominate the structures.

    “When they closed my church, it was the worst thing that happened to me outside a death in my family,” said O’Connor, the father of a priest. O’Connor’s proposal is supported by the diocese. “We fought to keep it open. We tried to raise money. But in the end, it was not to be.”

    O’Connor’s bill “deprives all church members and all citizens of the right to protect their buildings through the nomination process, and it leaves the decision solely in the hands of the owners of the buildings, which are generally the diocese or other church leaders,” said Arthur Ziegler, president of the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation.

    A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for 4 p.m. Wednesday before the city Historic Review Commission, 200 Ross St.

    The public also may comment at meetings scheduled for Jan. 14 and 28 before the city Planning Commission. Ultimately, the city council will get the final say.

    The Historic Review Commission so far has received only a handful of comments, said Angelique Bamberg, the city’s historic preservation planner. All oppose the legislation.

    Ziegler said the measure could open the floodgates for other groups.

    “Under the general principle (of the bill), any group could say that historic designation poses a problem for them. Why churches, and why not schools or factories or individual houses?”

    Today, any city resident may nominate a building to become a City Designated Historic Landmark. The designation prevents alterations or demolition of structures without approval from the Historic Review Commission.

    To be eligible for the designation, a building must be linked to historical events or people, represent a noted architectural type or have archaeological significance.

    Six houses of worship have the designation today. Twenty-five more are eligible. A half-dozen local houses of worship are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which does not protect a building against demolition by private landowners. At Rodef Shalom Temple in Oakland, completed in 1907 and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Executive Director Jeffrey Herzog said he has no problem with O’Connor’s bill.

    “There is probably a difference of knowledge between the parishioners and the people who run the institution,” Herzog said. “In the case of the diocese, they would know whether a building is of significance as opposed to a parishioner, who would have an emotional tie.”

    Pastor Michael Poloway, of St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church on the South Side, agrees.

    “A parishioner could make a suggestion,” Poloway said, “but a pastor is in charge, not the parishioner.”

    Stephanie Franken can be reached at sfranken@tribweb.com.

    This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

  7. Bill would limit historic status designation

    By Andrew Conte
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Monday, November 25, 2002

    The 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

  8. PNC is anxious for progress in Fifth-Forbes revival

    By Stephanie Franken
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Wednesday, November 13, 2002

    PNC Financial Services Group is anxious for progress in the city’s efforts to redevelop the Fifth and Forbes corridor.
    “We’d like to see a new Fifth Avenue,” said Gary Saulson, director of corporate real estate for PNC’s Realty Services Division. “From that standpoint, we might be a little disappointed.”

    PNC has a large stake in Downtown, with about 7,000 employees and 2.5 million square feet of office space.

    The company has 12 properties between Market and Wood streets on Fifth Avenue, making it one of the biggest players in the redevelopment of the corridor.

    Saulson said he doesn’t blame the city for the delay, and he appreciates that the city is making an effort to redevelop the area in a manner that is more sensitive to existing businesses.

    Saulson was a member of Mayor Tom Murphy’s so-called Plan C task force that crafted the latest redevelopment plan in March, after previous, more elaborate Murphy plans collapsed. Plan C, unlike earlier plans, calls for preserving and renovating some buildings, rather than clearing the corridor for redevelopment.

    Saulson remains optimistic that the area near PNC’s headquarters buildings on Fifth and Liberty avenues can be much more than it is today.

    “Fifth and Forbes is never going to be Michigan Avenue,” Saulson said, referring to Chicago’s vibrant downtown office, retail and residential corridor. “But there’s no reason it can’t be a smaller version.”

    Craig Kwiecinksi, spokesman for Mayor Murphy, said the redevelopment project “is a very important but difficult transaction. We are working to identify a private development partner for the revitalization of the corridor. While we are committed to the project, we cannot move forward until we have identified a private development partner.”

    Don Hunter, the consultant who led the Plan C task force, said large property owners such as PNC or Saks Fifth Avenue are understandably reluctant to redevelop their own properties when a larger plan for the area is looming.

    “Not much has really happened that’s visible in the past year, which is frustrating,” Hunter said. “We had some momentum as of this time last year through January. I’m not sure what the problem is.”

    Hunter has said he would like to take a leadership role in the redevelopment project, but has not heard whether he’ll be selected.

    PNC’s Saulson said numerous factors have led to the slowdown: an “underwhelming response” from developers, a weak economy, and a lack of public and private money.

    Moreover, other developments — The Waterfront in Homestead, Station Square, the SouthSide Works and even the plans for the North Shore — are drawing attention away from Downtown, Saulson said.

    Mulugetta Birru, executive director of the city’s Urban Redevelopment Authority, has said that Plan C could take more time than many had expected. The city URA, also a major property owner in the Fifth-Forbes corridor, cannot afford to do more than buy a few buildings at a time until it amasses enough property to turn over to a developer. Most recently, the city bought the G.C. Murphy buildings near Market Square, which are across the street from PNC’s properties.

    PNC does not plan to take on the role of a redeveloper, Saulson said. “We’re not interested in building speculative space, whether it’s office space or retail space or whatever,” he said.

    Saulson said PNC hasn’t ruled out selling its properties to a developer.

    Some of PNC’s buildings on Fifth Avenue near its headquarters, are occupied. Among the tenants are a General Nutrition Center, Bradley’s Book Center, Mo-Gear, and Penn Wigs & Fashions. But several are vacant, including the storefronts formerly occupied by Kidsburgh, Cyrus Beauty Supplies, and Fifth and Wood Men’s Shop

    Downtown has assets to build on, Saulson said, including large numbers of offices and Downtown workers, a vibrant cultural district, and a good transit system.

    “I’m fairly optimistic that Downtown will be developed,” he said. “The question remains as to the time frame.”

    Like PNC, Saks Fifth Avenue is bullish on Pittsburgh, but wants to be part of a larger effort before it starts an expansion project Downtown, said Alison Strieder Mayher, vice president and general manager for the Pittsburgh Saks at Fifth Avenue and Smithfield Street.

    “I think you could say that we are excited and optimistic about the city,” Mayher said. “We certainly are planning, down the road, to do a renovation — and the outcome of the Fifth and Forbes corridor depends upon all of us together just putting our heads together and doing it.

    “That will be a few years down the line, I’m sure. But Saks is actively working on it.”

    Stephanie Franken can be reached at sfranken@tribweb.com.

Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation

100 West Station Square Drive, Suite 450

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Phone: 412-471-5808  |  Fax: 412-471-1633