Work it out: Successful cities plan good developments
Does Pittsburgh really want a giant, lighted sign at the end of its grand boulevard? Does the city really want a concrete behemoth looming over its sparkling waterfront casino? Does it really want to drop a new arena at the foot of the Hill District without ensuring significant improvement to the surrounding neighborhood?
The answer to all three questions is "no."
Most Pittsburghers are proud of the picture-postcard quality of the Golden Triangle that has brought the city worldwide distinction. It's usually the first thing any local wants to show a visitor.
There is an important, related question, though. Does Pittsburgh really want a reputation as a place where roadblocks to development are routinely thrown up?
The answer to that also is "no."
Richard Stanizzo, business manager of the Pittsburgh Building and Construction Trades Council, raised the last question in an interview and recent letter to city and county officials. He was denouncing two separate appeals filed recently, one over the size of the casino garage and the other over the arena project. He said his organization, which represents about 20,000 tradesmen and women, do not support any effort to prevent the projects from moving forward.
We follow him up to a point.
Of course, nobody wants to see unnecessary delay on important local projects. (The third is a proposed 20-by-60-foot digital billboard on the new bus station at the end of Grant Street, which will undergo City Council review.) But the emphasis must be on "unnecessary."
In the case of the billboard, it appears that city zoning regulations were sidestepped. In the casino's case, architectural renderings made public when developer Don Barden was applying for a state license showed a garage that was only two stories taller than the main building, not the five-story disparity that showed up in later plans. And the One Hill Community Benefits Coalition, a group of tough negotiators, is seeking only what has come to pass in other cities -- an agreement that leverages a publicly subsidized project (like a new Penguins arena) to improve the adjacent neighborhood.
None of these episodes suggest that Pittsburgh is anti-development at all. What they do say is this is a city that cares about results -- not just for developers, their employees and customers, but also for the community that must live with the projects.
Successful cities require good planning. That means working out the details before they deliver a legacy of ugly buildings, garish aesthetics and missed opportunity.
First published on February 25, 2008 at 12:00 am
The answer to all three questions is "no."
Most Pittsburghers are proud of the picture-postcard quality of the Golden Triangle that has brought the city worldwide distinction. It's usually the first thing any local wants to show a visitor.
There is an important, related question, though. Does Pittsburgh really want a reputation as a place where roadblocks to development are routinely thrown up?
The answer to that also is "no."
Richard Stanizzo, business manager of the Pittsburgh Building and Construction Trades Council, raised the last question in an interview and recent letter to city and county officials. He was denouncing two separate appeals filed recently, one over the size of the casino garage and the other over the arena project. He said his organization, which represents about 20,000 tradesmen and women, do not support any effort to prevent the projects from moving forward.
We follow him up to a point.
Of course, nobody wants to see unnecessary delay on important local projects. (The third is a proposed 20-by-60-foot digital billboard on the new bus station at the end of Grant Street, which will undergo City Council review.) But the emphasis must be on "unnecessary."
In the case of the billboard, it appears that city zoning regulations were sidestepped. In the casino's case, architectural renderings made public when developer Don Barden was applying for a state license showed a garage that was only two stories taller than the main building, not the five-story disparity that showed up in later plans. And the One Hill Community Benefits Coalition, a group of tough negotiators, is seeking only what has come to pass in other cities -- an agreement that leverages a publicly subsidized project (like a new Penguins arena) to improve the adjacent neighborhood.
None of these episodes suggest that Pittsburgh is anti-development at all. What they do say is this is a city that cares about results -- not just for developers, their employees and customers, but also for the community that must live with the projects.
Successful cities require good planning. That means working out the details before they deliver a legacy of ugly buildings, garish aesthetics and missed opportunity.
First published on February 25, 2008 at 12:00 am