Category Archive: Preservation News
-
Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
Laurel: To Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation and Preservation Pittsburgh. The groups have joined forces in seeking a historic landmark designation for Mellon (nee, the Civic) Arena. The Penguins, the 41-year-old building’s primary tenant, want to tear it down to build a mixed-use complex. The ‘Guins hope to build, with public help, a new hockey arena.
But Landmarks President Arthur Ziegler says the arena, which features what once was the world’s largest retractable domed roof, is worth saving for other uses – if they can be found. He’s right.
-
City planners back plan for park
By Tom Barnes,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 08, 2002The city Planning Commission has endorsed a proposal to create a 10-mile-long “grand urban river park” called Three Rivers Park along the Ohio, Monongahela and Allegheny rivers.
The commission yesterday unanimously supported the idea, which was first proposed in October by the Riverlife Task Force, a 2-year-old, 40-member group trying to find the best uses for the 200 prime acres of land and water stretching from the West End Bridge over the Ohio to the 10th Street Bridge over the Mon and to the 16th Street Bridge over the Allegheny.
The task force’s vision for the riverfronts extending several miles from the Point contains nine principles, which the commission also supported.
One states that the three rivers “are Pittsburgh’s premier public domain” and “diverse river uses” should be encouraged, as long as they don’t conflict with each other.
Another principle says that the city’s “history and traditions [should] inspire” whatever new development occurs along the rivers, and public opinion should play a key role in what goes in along the riverfronts.
The plan also calls for making the many bridges spanning the rivers a key aspect of Three Rivers Park, for connecting public parks and green space to the edge of the water, and for “minimizing industrial obstacles along the rivers.”
“These are the guiding principles” of developing Three Rivers Park over the next 10 to 20 years, said Lisa Schroder, task force director. These tenets will form a framework for “evaluating riverfront development projects” as they come up in the future, she added.
Having the Planning Commission endorse the goals, Chairman Tom Armstrong said, will give additional emphasis to future developers that the city is serious about improving the look of the riverfronts.
Besides the long-range vision statement, Schroeder said, there are three immediate goals to be pursued as part of creating Three Rivers Park.
One is getting $8 million in state and federal funds to continue building Allegheny Riverfront Park from Ninth to 11th streets north of the new David L. Lawrence Convention Center, which is currently an underused section of riverfront. The task force is working with the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority on that project.
Another goal is improving and renovating Point State Park, which the task force is working on with the Allegheny Conference on Community Development.
The third short-term goal is lighting the Clemente Bridge over the Allegheny. The task force is working on this with the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation and Duquesne Light Co. Duquesne Light is providing about $350,000 to buy new light fixtures and apparatus and to maintain it for 10 years.
Backers had hoped to begin lighting the bridge this spring, but now it looks like it won’t start until summer or fall. John Laudenslager, Duquesne Light spokesman, said he hopes the lights, wiring and related equipment can be erected in July and the lights turned on by August.
But Cathy McCollom of the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation said the August date might be too optimistic.
“We can’t control when some of these lighting fixtures arrive,” she said.
The project is quite extensive, she said, involving replacing all the lights on the bridge and adding a considerable number of new lights.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Mellon Arena labeled historic
Preservation groups’ push could hamper development plans
By Tom Barnes,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 07, 2002Calling Mellon Arena “unique in the history of modern design,” two historic-preservation groups yesterday nominated the eye-catching, silver-domed structure for a city historic designation.
If City Council grants it that status, it would make it much harder to demolish the 41-year-old building in the lower Hill District.
In turn, that could hamper efforts by the Penguins to have the city build a new $225 million hockey arena between Centre and Fifth avenues. Part of the plan includes razing Mellon Arena and seeking companies to erect new office buildings, stores, housing and a hotel on its 25-acre site.
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation and Preservation Pittsburgh are working together to have the arena, which opened in 1961, designated as historic.
“Here we have a very important building in Pittsburgh,” said History & Landmarks President Arthur Ziegler. “It’s unique. There’s no other building like it anywhere that I know of. We don’t want to discard that building if we have a chance to see if there are alternate uses. Let’s have an open process and take a look at other uses.”
Rob Pfaffmann, a local architect and member of Preservation Pittsburgh, said, “Mellon Arena is an engineering landmark. At the time it was built, it was the largest clear-span dome in the world. It was, and is, a good piece of modern architecture.”
The two groups have asked Penguins officials for a meeting to discuss the future of the arena. It’s expected to happen within a couple weeks, said Ken Sawyer, president of the Lemieux Group, the investors that Mario Lemieux brought together in 1999 to buy the then-bankrupt team.
Ziegler and Pfaffmann said there should be a broad-based community process, including much input from Hill District residents, before deciding what to do with the arena.
In a letter to Sawyer, preservationists said, “We are quite concerned that the [Penguins’] plan was done secretly. One of the sad legacies of the Lower Hill is that the mid-20th century planning was carried out without significant citizen input.”
The new arena would be built across Centre Avenue from Mellon, down the hill toward Fifth Avenue. The Penguins hope city and county officials will come up with a financing plan for it by June 30.
Along with plans for the new arena, the team also recently unveiled a plan to build new housing, stores, office buildings and a hotel on the site. They said these new buildings would generate additional taxes for the city.
But Pfaffmann and Ziegler said other uses for the existing arena should first be sought. They said the building might be suitable as a station for a proposed high-speed “magnetic levitation” train that would run from the airport through Downtown and eastward to Greensburg.
But Patrick Hassett, a city planner, said yesterday that the high-speed maglev group, called Maglev Inc., had looked at the arena as a “magport” and concluded it wouldn’t be feasible. The maglev train station, if built, would go closer to being atop the Crosstown Expressway, he said.
Pfaffmann said Mellon Arena might be suitable for housing or some other reuse. Sports arenas in Europe have been turned into housing, he said.
Sawyer said the Penguins’ biggest desire is for the city to build a new hockey arena. The team’s goal isn’t to demolish the existing building, he added.
However, the Penguins don’t want the existing arena, if it survives, used as a competing venue for circuses, wrestling, concerts and other events in such a way to take business away from the new arena, he said.
In drafting a development plan for the land where Mellon Arena now sits, Sawyer said the Penguins were simply trying to show the city the kind of tax-producing buildings that could occupy the site.
Ziegler, however, expressed doubts about whether the local market could support enough offices, hotel and stores to make the Penguins’ intensive development plan viable.
The city has an eight-month process for deciding whether a building deserves historic status. After hearings and recommendations by the Historic Review Commission and the city Planning Commission, City Council makes the decision.
If a building is rated historic, it can’t be demolished or have exterior changes made without approval from the Historic Review Commission.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Fifth-Forbes Update
The Plan C Task Force, charged with developing a plan for the revitalization of the Fifth and Forbes corridor, delivered its list of recommendations to Mayor Tom Murphy. In mid-March President, Arthur Ziegler and Director of Operations and Marketing, Cathy McCollom sat on the Plan C Task Force since its initiation some 18 months ago. The Task Force has met weekly and after careful and detailed discussion developed a new blueprint for the revitalization program for Fifth and Forbes.
In early April, Mayor Tom Murphy announced a plan of action for moving forward based on Plan C Task Force’s recommendation. The Mayor issued a Five Point Plan:
1. Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) through the Department of City Planning, seeking a private development partner;
2. Begin development of a financing plan that includes the prominent participation of a private development partner;
3. Direct the Department of Engineering and Construction to begin a major infrastructure investment project in the Central Business District with particular focus on the $8 million reconstruction of Forbes Avenue, Smithfield Street, and Market Street to compliment the reconstruction of Fifth Avenue and Wood Street;
4. Direct the Urban Redevelopment Authority to expand the Façade Grant Program, as well as to create new loan programs to allow existing buildings and tenants to improve the condition of their businesses and attract new businesses to the corridor; and
5. Direct the Bureau of Building Inspection to undertake a strict and aggressive building code enforcement program on properties in the Central Business District.
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation is pleased with the Mayor’s response to the Plan C Task Force recommendation. Much of the recommendations offered by Plan C reflected the earlier plan proposed by architectural firm Erhenkrantz, Eckstut and Kuhn, and submitted to the Mayor by Landmarks.
Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation supports the work of the Mayor and hopes to see the Plan C recommendations put into action. We were pleased to be able to assist in this process.
-
Improvements planned for Gilfillan Park, homestead
By Vince Guerrieri
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 30, 2002Upper St. Clair officials are working with the historical society to draw more people to Gilfillan Park and soon, Gilfillan House.
Commissioners approved a resolution outlining a cooperative relationship with the Upper St. Clair Historical Society to address parking and traffic concerns at Gilfillan House as well as build a visitors’ center in Gilfillan Park.Margaret Gilfillan died last year at age 100, and had lived at the Gilfillan home at the corner of Washington and Orr roads for 98 of those years. She willed the home and the 15 acres it sits on to the historical society with the idea of turning it into a historical site.
The house is already recognized by the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation as an important building in Allegheny County history. Previously, the Gilfillans gave about 60 acres to the municipality, which became known as Gilfillan Park.
Municipal Manager Doug Watkins said the township will develop a site plan for the home and its outbuildings, as well as the park and a proposed visitors’ center at the park.
“I think we have some pretty focused visions that we’d like to see,” Watkins said.The historical society has been working to renovate the home, but President Jean Brown said that unexpected obstacles have come up, giving the example of a bathroom restoration that led to floor repair. She said restoration was going on, but slowly.
Of course, visitors will not be allowed in the home until a parking lot is made and some traffic problems are addressed. Municipal officials are looking into expanded turning lanes and a left turn signal.
“We can’t open until we get the parking,” Brown said.
For the full story, read Wednesday’s Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Vince Guerrieri can be reached at vguerrieri@tribweb.com or (412) 380-5607.
-
Busway as HOV lane refused
By Jim Ritchie
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, April 12, 2002The West Busway could relieve the Downtown congestion caused by the Fort Pitt Tunnel closing by allowing access to car poolers, according to a Downtown agency’s recommendations.
“The agonies of the Fort Pitt closing are showing up as unmanageable congestion in the triangle,” said George White, Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation transportation chairman and former head of the University of Pittsburgh’s Transportation Systems Research Center. He sent his recommendations Thursday to several elected city, county and state officials.
“If you provide relief to both ? using the West Busway and Tenth Street Bypass ? you’ve got it licked.”
Port Authority and PennDOT previously have discussed allowing HOV traffic on the busway as a way to alleviate problems during the Fort Pitt Tunnel closing, but agreed to shelve the proposal because of safety and cost concerns, said Port Authority spokesman Bob Grove.
“It was their decision which we concurred with,” Grove said. “The idea was discussed for a couple of years about using the West Busway as an HOV. There were safety concerns. The West Busway was not designed to be used by vehicles.”
However, White contends that the use of the busway by HOV traffic ? vehicles with two or more people ? and the reopening of the Tenth Street Bypass would clear the Downtown streets that have clogged since the outbound Fort Pitt Bridge and Tunnel closed early Saturday.
White chairs the agency’s transportation committee and formerly headed the University of Pittsburgh’s Transportation Systems Research Center. He sent his recommendations yesterday to several elected city, county and state officials.
PennDOT detours over the Liberty and West End bridges have worked well since the closure. However, getting to them has been tricky, especially from Downtown.
PennDOT had earmarked more than $1 million for Port Authority to use for an HOV system on the busway. At some point, the agencies decided to use the money instead to provide more bus service during the tunnel project.
“The earmarked money was shifted from HOV to putting in additional buses,” said PennDOT spokesman Dick Skrinjar. “The consensus opinion was the money would be better spent by using additional buses in the conventional system.”
White argues use of the West Busway would work better.
“You would double the number of cars each hour going across the Mon River,” he said. “Anybody going farther than Carnegie on I-279 has a beautiful route for bypassing the jam in the triangle.”
The Tenth Street Bypass has been closed by the Sports & Exhibition Authority during the David L. Lawrence Convention Center project. It blocks traffic from flowing from Fort Duquesne Boulevard into the Strip District.
Along with the traffic detoured by the Fort Pitt Boulevard closing, many drivers find they have to cross the triangle to get to the Boulevard of the Allies and the Parkway East. White said the authority’s closing of the bypass, which provides access to Smallman Street in the Strip District, is not necessary.
“They don’t have to do that,” he said. “They use it to store stacks of materials and position cranes. It’s convenient for them to use it as a front yard to construction.”
The authority plans to completely reopen the bypass in March 2003. Calls left with the authority seeking comment yesterday were not returned.
Jim Ritchie can be reached at jritchie@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7933.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © The Tribune-Review Publishing Co
-
Plan C: More weasel words
Thursday, April 4, 2002
Call it Tom Murphy’s big “but.”
The mayor of Pittsburgh went before the scriveners, microphones and cameras Tuesday in his first extended comments on the Plan C Task Force’s blueprint to redevelopment the Fifth-Forbes corridor.Within a month, at least one private developer is expected to be hired to begin work on the $363 million Downtown rehabilitation plan; others will follow. The Urban Redevelopment Authority has been told to expand its grants for facade improvements. Building inspectors have a new charge to make sure that buildings are up to code.
That’s all well and good. But then there’s Mr. Murphy’s big “but” – eminent domain.
“We have not authorized eminent domain,” he said. “So when we approach a building owner now, we will be negotiating with them amicably in attempting to come to a fair price without the threat of eminent domain there. We are ruling it out right now, but (emphasis ours) I can’t speak for the future.”
Oh, what weasel words!
Here’s the translation: We’ll play nice – for now. But if property owners don’t like our price, or if they don’t want to sell – POW! It’s called the cudgel of eminent domain, and the mayor obviously still considers it his trump card.
Tom Murphy once forswore the use of eminent domain in any Market Place progeny. He reneged. Now he offers up some weaselly verbiage that should make every independent property owner in the Fifth-Forbes corridor do one thing and one thing alone:
Hire an attorney.
-
Seattle can identify with Pittsburgh’s Plan C
By Dave Copeland
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, April 4, 2002As Pittsburgh officials begin to move forward with a Downtown redevelopment plan that won’t allow them to use eminent domain, developers in Seattle say the task will be difficult, but not impossible.
Seattle civic leaders reversed the decline of the Pacific Northwest city’s downtown retail core in a state that prohibits the use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects. It was one of the cities mentioned by Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy on Tuesday, when he announced he would move forward with the Plan C Task Force proposal for Downtown redevelopment while attempting not to use eminent domain.“I would encourage you to go look at other cities in America, because you can see the good of what can happen and the bad of what can happen,” Murphy said. “There are areas in Seattle that looked very similar to Fifth and Forbes five or seven years ago that have been completely rejuvenated.”
Downtown Seattle is one of the projects that city planners and private developers love to cite when they talk about urban business districts that work. The city redeveloped three blocks, putting in more than 1 million square feet of new retail space from 1996-98. The development, known as Pacific Place, sparked an urban renaissance of sorts.
The retail-heavy redevelopment led to new housing space, new office space, a more vibrant cultural district and an expanded convention center.
“I think the best thing is that at almost any time of the day — not just on normal weekdays, but on Saturdays and Sundays and weekday evenings — you can walk out on Pine Street and see all these bobbing heads,” said Matt Griffin, one of the key developers in Seattle’s downtown redevelopment effort. “It reminds me of walking out on a street in New York City. People are coming to downtown Seattle.”
Griffin and three partners formed Pine Street Associates in 1993 to begin working on the plan.
At the time, retail was dying downtown. The historic Frederick & Nelson department store closed in 1992, and two years later L. Magnin followed. Nordstrom Inc., the national retailer based in Seattle, was threatening to move its flagship store and corporate headquarters to Seattle’s suburbs.
Pine Street Associates put together a plan to buy the old F&N store and trade it to Nordstrom for their smaller store and an adjacent building Nordstrom was using for office space. In addition to rebuilding a parking garage, the plan called for Pine Street Associates to refurbish the old Nordstrom store and fill it with retail and office tenants.
Griffin acknowledges that despite only having four major property owners to deal with, acquiring the property for the three-block redevelopment effort was difficult without having eminent domain.
“One or two property owners can hold out and you end up paying too much,” Griffin said. “We really only had to deal with four property owners, and we clearly ended up paying at the high end of our range.”
Where Griffin and his partners only had to conduct negotiations with four property owners, Pittsburgh officials are eyeing a redevelopment area that has more than 60 individual property owners. While not all of the properties need to be acquired, and some of the substantial property owners are already backing the Plan C Task Force proposal, Pittsburgh officials concede acquiring all the property will be difficult.
“I believe it will be difficult, and I think finding a developer willing to go forward without eminent domain will be difficult,” Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Mulugetta Birru said. “But the mayor is very adamant that he doesn’t want to use eminent domain.”
Without eminent domain, the developers used corporate investments, such as Nordstrom’s commitment to stay in downtown Seattle, to convince property owners to join the plan. The redevelopment has been successful not because it offers many options that can’t be found in suburban shopping malls, but because it offers several options in a single place, Griffin said.
“You’ll never find the fabric we have downtown in a suburban shopping center. It’s not a question of just having national stores and being able to see ‘A Beautiful Mind.’ It’s being able to see the symphony or visit the arts center as well,” Griffin said. “Those things will never be replicated in a shopping mall. We both have great stores, but it’s the idea of having all these things come together.”
Dave Copeland can be reached at dcopeland@tribweb.com or (412) 320-7922.