The fallout over John Tierney's NYT column blasting Pittsburgh's redevelopment history continues. The latest is in the form of a letter to the editor from one Charley Trimble. Trimble argues:
Gateway Center is one of the more successful urban renewal projects, paid for entirely by private funds. It is our own Rockefeller Center. To say that "its leaders razed 80 buildings in the 1950s near the riverfront park Downtown ... [and] replaced a bustling business district" shows that he either wasn't born when the project was initiated, or he just doesn't remember it properly. To say "an array of bland corporate towers surrounded by the sort of empty plazas that are now considered hopelessly retrograde" shows that he either hasn't ever visited Gateway Center or has absolutely no idea of what Point State Park and Gateway Center replaced.
I'll have to agree with him on East Liberty and, perhaps, the Hill District. Mistakes have been made, but certainly Pittsburgh is not the poster city for that!
If Mr. Tierney believes that the buildings replaced by Gateway Center or the Hill District would still exist, then he's smoking funny cigarettes. If he believes that eminent domain is not needed to accomplish anything meaningful on Fifth and Forbes, then he is whistling in the dark. His conclusions are all too simplistic.
Fine. Let's assume from here on out that Gateway Center is the grandest success in the history of American architecture and design. An Eiffel Tower, Rockefeller Center, Taj Majal and Roman Coliseum all wrapped up into one. Everyone loves to look at it, be in it, drive past it and work near it. Everyone talks about it at the water cooler and the dinner table. Show a still photo of it on television and it will be, simultaneously, the top sitcom, top drama and top news program. A model of it on Broadway opens to rave reviews.
Great. Now listen very carefully: It was still a failure.
It is not enough for it to be nicer than what it replaced. It is not even enough for it to be nice by some stronger standard. As a public redevelopment project, we measure its success by whether or not it generated REDEVELOPMENT.
How do we know it did not? Because over the past few decades, the City of Pittsburgh has decided that it has to purchase vast swaths of property downtown. Why? Because private developers won't. Or at least they won't buy it and pursue the kind of projects the city considers a success. See the post below regarding Baltimore's fiasco with the Inner Harbor, Camden Yards and their convention center. These things--which are widely viewed as successes along the same lines of Gateway Center--simply have not spurred the desired development and investment.
Revitalization was what developers promised when they build Gateway Center. It has been decades now. If it was a success, shouldn't the Forbes/Fifth area be "vital" already? If it's not, why not?
At the risk of sounding "simplistic," let me say it again now.
It.
Didn't.
Work.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05198/539275.stm
Posted by: Al L'Agheny | July 17, 2005 at 08:23 AM
Oops...let's try that again...
From the other angle of economic development, Will this "Experiment" work this time? Even the PG article asks as much...
Posted by: Al L'Agheny | July 17, 2005 at 08:26 AM
You have a very thoughtful blog.
One need not look further than Alleghney Center, Civic Arena, Penn Circle for urban redevelopment nightmares in the burgh.
If the pinheads would have poured money into the waterfronts over the years and left vibrant historic neighborhoods(the Hill) alone, quality of life would have been much better.
It's all about allocating pork rather than what the folks want from the clueless good old boy's in city government.
Posted by: penny | July 18, 2005 at 04:23 PM
Here's an idea I haven't heard floated by anyone... develop the Point. You can leave the fountain and a greenbelt, maybe even the outline of Fort Pitt, but why not develop the rest of it? Concurrently, being the process of developing greenspace around Market Square for a new urban park that will become a magnet for surrounding development. Take three blocks that are in disarray.
I think the point that "The Point" is not fully utilized is valid. Opening that up to development makes a lot of sense. You could definitely develop mixed use building there with lots of residential (perhaps expensive, but does it really matter?) potential.
Alternatively, a park at Fifth and Forbes makes more sense for bringing the downtown area together.
Was wondering if anyone has considered this instead of waiting for a savior?
Posted by: RichW | July 24, 2005 at 02:29 PM