Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 72

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

BROWNFIELDSCENTER http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/

8TH AVENUE OFFICES AND LOFTS


IN HOMESTEAD
LOCATION: Homestead, PA TIMELINE
SIZE: < 1 acre 1871 Homestead Bank & Life Insurance purchases over 123
acres of farmland.
FEATURES: Proximity to Universities
and Downtown, Access to 837, Public 1880 Homestead Mill is introduced.
Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront
Development
1892 The Homestead Strike occurs.
OWNER: Karl Haglund, Judith Tener & David
Lewis, and 225 E. 8th Street Associates LP –
(three separate parcels) 1942 Homestead Steel Works expands and the buildings are
converted into small apartments for steel workers.
CURRENT USE: Office, Loft, and Retail Space
1980 Homestead Mill closes.
PAST USE: Retail, Lodging, Commercial, and
Residential
2005 The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County gives
a façade easement for the Seventh Avenue building
CONTAMINANTS: None elevation and the facades are restored according to
historic guidelines.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown

OVERVIEW
Close to the Golden Triangle, downtown Pittsburgh, the city’s regional amenities, employment centers, and universities, Eighth Avenue
has experienced Homestead’s rise and fall. Soon after the introduction of the Homestead Mill in 1880, Homestead was a busy
commercial center. For the 100 years that the mill had been active Eighth Avenue alternated between retail, entertainment, and
residential use. By 1980, the mill closed and the area was desolate. Homestead entered Act 47, but the successful redevelopment of
the Homestead Mill into a shopping mall, The Waterfront, in 1999 pulled Homestead out of municipal bankruptcy. The mall spans the
three boroughs of Homestead, West Homestead, and Munhall and is about five minutes driving distance away from the following Eighth
Avenue case study properties. Contrary to the expectations of residents, the Waterfront’s prosperity was isolated within their development.
Many residents of the three boroughs realized the disparity between The Waterfront and the nearby Avenues and utilized the assets
of the community, in particular, its history. In the 1990’s a group of local citizens was able to place the buildings of Homestead’s Main
Street into National Register of Historic Places. Also, seven local businesses and property owners on East Eighth Avenue formed the
Down Street Development Consortium to spearhead a revitalization project for the Homestead area.
Some current plans to draw attention beyond The Waterfront include the Seventh Avenue Initiative and “Homestead Happens.” The
former is a proposal to repair and renovate the Seventh
Avenue-side rears of East Eighth Avenue’s buildings
- eyesores visible from The Waterfront. It is funded
by the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County.
“Homestead Happens” is a mini-festival that includes a
sidewalk sale and bike night.
The consortium secured $380,000 for the construction
of 14 loft-style apartments on East Eighth Avenue above
the storefronts. The following property owners have
been part of this initiative by successfully retaining and
rehabilitating these buildings on East Eighth Avenue.
Case Studies Completed in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles
SOURCES Picture courtesy of Google Maps
Baron, Jennifer. “New rental lofts part of redevelopment efforts in “The Avenues: Beyond the Waterfront” The Western Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh’s Homestead neighborhood.” 21 May 2008. Pop City Media. Brownfields Center, Redevelopment Workshop. 27 May 2008.
<http://www.popcitymedia.com/developmentnews/hmstd0521.aspx > Vellucci, Justin. “Planners target revitalization in Homestead.” 31 May
Dee, Jordan. “East Eighth Avenue developers plan U-Turn.” 21 May 2005. 2008. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_570322.html >
s_336623.html >
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/
BROWNFIELDSCENTER
Karl and Walter Haglund
Urban Design Ventures, LLC.
212 East Eighth Avenue*
LOCATION: Homestead, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: < 1 acre
1880 Homestead Mill is introduced.
FEATURES: Proximity to Universities
and Downtown, Access to 837, 1980 Homestead Mill closes.
Public Transportation, Adjacent to the
Waterfront Development 2004 Karl & Walt Haglund purchase 212 East
Eighth Avenue in November and begin
OWNER: Karl and Walter Haglund of construction soon after.
Urban Design Ventures, LLC.

CURRENT USE: Office Space and 2005 Urban Design Ventures is established.
Apartments
2005 The Redevelopment Authority of
PAST USE: Movie Rental Store Allegheny County gives a façade
easement for the Seventh Avenue
CONTAMINANTS: None building elevation and the facades are
restored according to historic guidelines.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown
2007 The development of the Haglund
property is completed in August.

HISTORY
Before this site’s redevelopment, 212 East Eighth Avenue was home to a movie rental store. On
November 3, 2004 – the same day that Karl and Walt Haglund buy the property – they also start
renovations. Two years after, the site is ready to house offices and apartments. The Haglunds
completed development in August 2007.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
This property was owned by Scott W. Reisch in 1991, Kitty Lesko in
2000, and finally Karl and Walt Haglund in 2004. The Haglunds were
able to salvage and renovate the one building on the development.
There was no need for zoning changes due to the nature of pre- and
post-development site use. There were also no covenants restricting
land use and no tax liens on the property.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
There was no need to perform environmental assessments, and
the owners reported no contamination found on the site prior to
development.
211 East Seventh Avenue Facade
Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Prior to redevelopment, water, power grid, sewage, cable/DSL, phone,
and cellular lines were existing and adequate.
COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
All of the financing for physical infrastructure came from private funds.
Financing for the development itself was made possible from a combination
of public and private funds. Of that, public funds made up about 40% of
Interior the total funding. These public funds came from development grants and
Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund loans from state and local sources.
Specifically, Walter Haglund received $54,286 from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency low-interest
loan program for two new apartments in his building at 211 E. 8th Ave.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Because Eighth Avenue is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, much care had to be taken to preserve the
history of the area.
This site is completely redeveloped, and the development was
able to create four jobs.
* First of three properties included in “8th Avenue Offices and Lofts in
Homestead”
Case Study Completed in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles

211 East Seventh Avenue Facade


Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund

SOURCES
Baron, Jennifer. “New rental lofts part of redevelopment efforts in
Pittsburgh’s Homestead neighborhood.” 21 May 2008. Pop City Media.
<http://www.popcitymedia.com/developmentnews/hmstd0521.aspx >
Haglund, Karl. Urban Design Ventures. Western Pennsylvania Brown-
fields Center Online Survey. 23 June 2008.
“The Avenues: Beyond the Waterfront” The Western Pennsylvania
Brownfields Center, Redevelopment Workshop. 27 May 2008.
The Tribune-Review. “Real Estate notes.” 25 March 2007. Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/busi-
ness/realestate/s_498937.html
“Urban Design Ventures, LLC.” 2008. Manta. <http://www.manta.com/
coms2/dnbcompany_jvqs60 >
Vellucci, Justin. “Planners target revitalization in Homestead.” 31 May
Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund 2008. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitts-
burghtrib/news/cityregion/s_570322.html >
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/
BROWNFIELDSCENTER
Judith Tener and David Lewis
Five and Ten Lofts
213-215 East Eighth Avenue**
LOCATION: Homestead, PA TIMELINE
1880 Homestead Mill is introduced.
SIZE: < 1 acre
F.W. Woolworth Company moves into
FEATURES: Proximity to Universities 1924 the space.
and Downtown, Access to 837,
Public Transportation, Adjacent to the 1980 Homestead Mill closes.
Waterfront Development
A fire destroys the upper floors of the
1988 property.
OWNER: Judith Tener & David Lewis
1999 Judith Tener and David Lewis purchase
CURRENT USE: Commercial and the property.
Residential Space
2000 Tener/Lewis receive a grant from
the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks
PAST USE: Commercial and Foundation and restore the Eighth
Residential Space Avenue Facade.

CONTAMINANTS: None 2007 A green roof is installed in the Lewis


property.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown 2008 “Five and Ten Lofts” is ready for
occupancy in June.

HISTORY
The area containing this site was undeveloped until 1871 when Andrew
and Ann Harper bought the lot. The Harpers built a two-story house,
listed now as 215 East Eighth Avenue. When this property changed
hands to John and Malissa Irwin in 1885, it was subdivided into three
lots and sold to his three daughters. Eleven years later in 1896, John
Irwin designed a three-story building for the property now known as
213 East Eighth Avenue. By 1912, a third story was added to the
215 East Eighth Avenue property, as well. In 1924, F.W. Woolworth
stepped in and occupied the first floors of 213-215 East Eighth Avenue.
Woolworth’s Five-and-Dime Store was the major tenant there for nearly
40 years, with a billiard parlor in the rear and office & residential space
on the top floors. In the 1960’s, Woolworth’s Five-and-Dime Store
closed and was replaced by Gil’s Discount Store. It did not last long,
and by the late 1970’s the first floor was rented out to a Pennsylvania
State Liquor Store. A fire in 1988 destroys the upper floors of the
property and leaves those floors vacated. In 1990, the last tenant, Rite
Discount Stores, rented the first floor. They moved out in 1995.
Four years later, Judith Tener and David Lewis purchased the
property. Since then, they have received grants and loans to assist in
the redevelopment of the site into “Five and Ten Lofts,” aptly named in Front Elevation of Five and Ten Loft building
recognition of the site’s history. Picture courtesy of www.myspace.com/fiveandtenlofts
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
Since 1924, these two buildings were primarily commercial with residential spaces on their second and third floors. Ownership of
the commercial space has changed hands from F.W. Woolworth (1924-1960’s), the Grand Billiard Hall (1929-?), the Family Loan
Company (1945-?), Gil’s Discount Store (1960’s-1978), the Pennsylvania State Liquor Store (1978-1990), and Rite Discount
Stores (1990-1995). The residential space on the top floors included Floyd and Grace Osborne (1929-1951), O.W. Colgan
(1929-?), Irene Knepshield (1929-?), James Gould (1929-?), Edna I. Neen (1929-?), Patrick O’Hare (1945-?), William J.C. Lamb
(1945-?), Helen H. Winner (1973-1978), and John and Patricia Gentilcore (1978-1998).
After it became vacant when Rite Discount Stores moved out in 1995, Judith Tener and David Lewis purchased the property.
There were no covenants that restricted
development; however, there were many tax liens
imposed on the property. All are paid now.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
There was no need to perform environmental
assessments, and the owners reported no contamination
found on the site prior to development.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
No additional parking structures were needed on
the site. Tenants are allowed permit parking in a
municipal lot across the property, and metered
parking is available.
Before this site was redeveloped, cable/DSL was
nonexistent and the water, power grid, and phone Photos courtesy of www.myspace.com/fiveandtenlofts
lines were existent but inadequate. All public utilities were made adequate by the developer, and each unit is cable and internet ready.
Frequent buses allow easy access to Oakland and Downtown Pittsburgh, while stores, theatres, and bars are within walking distance.
COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Funding for the development was made possible by a mix of public and private sources. According to the Steel Valley Enterprise
Zone, millions of private dollars are being invested in properties, including Lewis-Tener and Ranii. Also, the Mon Valley Initiative
and the Homestead-area Economic Revitalization Corp. provided $103,142 towards the development of Five and Ten Lofts. The
Initiative provided $162,856 to renovate six apartments in two buildings at 216-218 East Eighth Ave. David Lewis also received
a grant from the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation (PHLF) to restore the Eighth Avenue Façade of his buildings. In
addition, Three Rivers Wet Weather, a non-profit venture involved with improving water quality, gave a grant towards adding a
green roof to this property.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Because of the fire in 1988, Tener and Lewis internally reconstructed both buildings. A PHLF grant allowed them to restore the
building’s façade. They also repaired the roof and replaced missing and fire-damaged windows.
By 2007, structural stabilization, the framing of apartments, and green roof installation were completed. Although the roof costs
about 25% more than a normal one, it will save on utility costs for the residents by helping insulate and improve the water quality
of runoff.
In June 2008, the Five and Ten Lofts became ready for occupancy. Since then, all units have been occupied except for one.
** Second of three properties included in “8th Avenue Offices and Lofts in Homestead”
Case Study Completed in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles

SOURCES
Baron, Jennifer. “New rental lofts part of redevelopment efforts in Pittsburgh’s Home- Lewis, David. Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center Online Survey. 23 June
stead neighborhood.” 21 May 2008. Pop City Media. <http://www.popcitymedia.com/ 2008.
developmentnews/hmstd0521.aspx >
“The Avenues: Beyond the Waterfront” The Western Pennsylvania Brownfields
“Conveniently Green.” Reporter: Sally Wiggin. Channel 4 Action News. Online Video Center, Redevelopment Workshop. 27 May 2008.
Link. <http://mfile.akamai.com/12932/wmv/vod.ib sys.com/2007/0802/13808877.200k.
wmv > The Tribune-Review. “Real Estate notes.” 25 March 2007. Pittsburgh Tribune-
Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/realestate/s_498937.
Dee, Jordan. “East Eighth Avenue developers plan U-Turn.” 21 May 2005. Pittsburgh html
Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_336623.html >
Vellucci, Justin. “Planners target revitalization in Homestead.” 31 May 2008. Pitts-
“Five and Ten Lofts.” 9 June 2008. Myspace. <http://www.myspace.com/fiveandten- burgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/
lofts> s_570322.html >
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/
BROWNFIELDSCENTER
Joe Ranii and
225 East Eighth Street Associates, LP.
225 and 227 East Eighth Avenue***
LOCATION: Homestead, PA TIMELINE
SIZE: < 1 acre
1871 Homestead Bank & Life Insurance
FEATURES: Proximity to Universities purchases over 123 acres of farmland.
and Downtown, Access to 837, 1880 Homestead Mill is introduced.
Public Transportation, Adjacent to the
Waterfront Development
1892 The Homestead Strike occurs.
OWNER: 225 E. 8th Street
Associates LP 1980 Homestead Mill closes.

CURRENT USE: Loft and 2005 The Redevelopment Authority of


Commercial Space Allegheny County gives a façade
easement for the Seventh Avenue
PAST USE: Boarding House and building elevation and the facades are
Curiosity Shop restored according to historic guidelines.
2007 The Ranii property begins development
CONTAMINANTS: None in October.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown 2008 The development for the Ranii property is
scheduled to be completed in October.

HISTORY
This site was once home to a curiosity shop in the first floor and a cheap boarding house above. The curiosity
shop and boarding house ceased operations when 225 E. 8th Street Associates purchased the property in 2003.
The two buildings on the site were inactive for four years until the owners renovated them to include loft and
commercial space in October 2007.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
When the buildings housed a curiosity shop and flop house, Ann Stewart was the
owner. In October 2003, 225 E. 8th Street Associates, LP purchased the property. The
two buildings that existed on the site before development were able to be salvaged.
The whole 8,800-square-foot building on 225 East Eighth Ave. was used, while only
3,300 square feet of the 4,100-square-foot building on 227 East Eighth Ave. were
salvaged.
There were no covenants in the buildings’ deeds that restricted land use, and the site’s
current zoning is consistent with its past zoning.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
There was no need to perform environmental assessments, and the owners reported
no contamination found on the site prior to development.
225 East Eighth Avenue Exterior
Photo courtesy of Joe Ranii
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The water, power grid, sewage, cable/DSL, phone,
cellular, and fiber optic were all existing and adequate
prior to development.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


A lot of the financing for the development of this site
came from private funds. According to the Steel Valley
225 Interior Enterprise Zone, millions of private dollars are being
Photo courtesy of Joe Ranii
invested in properties that include this one.
Public funds, geared towards physical infrastructure and development, has been available in the form
of local grants and loans, state loans, and federal and state tax incentives.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


The site is still in the construction phase and is
scheduled to be completed in October 2008, a
year after development started. Also, because the
area is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, much care had to be taken to preserve the
architecture of the building.
*** Third of three properties included in “8th Avenue Offices and Lofts
in Homestead”
Case Study Completed in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles

225 Seventh Avenue Exterior


Photo courtesy of Joe Ranii

SOURCES

Dee, Jordan. “East Eighth Avenue developers plan U-Turn.” 21 May 2005. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.
com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_336623.html >

Ranii, Joe. Cityscape Construction Company. Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center Online Survey. 23 June 2008.

“The Avenues: Beyond the Waterfront” The Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center, Redevelopment Workshop. 27 May 2008.

Vellucci, Justin. “Planners target revitalization in Homestead.” 31 May 2008. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pitts-
burghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_570322.html >
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

THE MOLTONI AND NARDELLI


DEVELOPMENT IN AMBRIDGE AREA
LOCATION: Ambridge, PA TIMELINE
SIZE: 39 acres 1900 The American Bridge Company is formed.
FEATURES: Flat Land, Location -
1905 Ambridge is incorporated.
Proximity to Airport, River, Rail, and 1905 The Ambridge Industrial Center
Interstates manufactures electrical components.
1909 Alex Laughlin buys the Pittsburgh Steel
OWNER: Rob Moltoni and Pat Construction Company and renames it
Nardelli Central Tube Company.
CURRENT USE: Light Industry,
1940 H.H. Robertson buys out the Central Tube
Company.
Vacent - Underutilized 1971 Ambridge passes a historic preservation
PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use ordinance.
(Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, 1983 The American Bridge Company ceases
and Residential Uses)
operation in Ambridge.
1985 Ambridge Historic District is placed on the
PAST USE: Steel Manufacturing National Register of Historic Places.
2005 Moltoni purchases the properties in July.
CONTAMINANTS: Oil, Asbestos,
Debris, PCBs
2006 The H.H. Robertson plant is demolished.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $65 million
(proposed)

HISTORY
The Borough of Ambridge may not have existed without the formation of the American Bridge Company in 1900. The
American Bridge Company was the result of a merger between twenty-eight small bridge and structural steel companies.
It was stationed in a town that the company built for its workers, later named Ambridge.
The oil embargo of the 1970s and the importation of foreign steel gradually eroded the profitability of the Ambridge plant. In 1983,
the economic relationship between Ambridge and American Bridge ended when American Bridge moved out of the area.
Many of the brownfields that are in Ambridge and Harmony Township were formerly used by the steel industry in steelmaking,
fabrication, transportation (rail lines), and disposal (slag) processes associated with the American Bridge Company. The major
industries in this development area included H.K. Porter Inc. (c. 1905), H.H.
Robertson Company (1916), National Electric Division (1920), and Central
Tube Company (1904).

TOPOGRAPHY
Moltoni’s properties is about half an hour or twelve miles downstream
from from Pittsburgh and span from 11th Street to 19th Street between
Route 65, a four-lane highway, and Duss Avenue. The corridor is flat and
extends through the center of town. Route 65/Ohio River Boulevard and rail
lines separate the site on the western side from the Ohio River.
MARKET CONDITIONS
The Ambridge/Harmony area has many positive assets, including housing
stock, human capital–community pride and cultural diversity, the school Picture courtesy of Gene Pash, Value Ambridge Properties, Inc.
system, churches, proximity to the Pittsburgh International Airport and interstate
highways, an existing central business district, and history present in Old Economy
state museum. Additionally, Old Economy Village was designated a National Historic
Landmark and Preserve America community, and the Ambridge Area just opened a
new high school in 2008.
An Australian developer Rob Moltoni has initiated a project in 2005 to take advantage
of Ambridge’s pedestrian scale and the local historic Old Economy Village. This
development may include retail space and housing options on 10 acres of the site, but
plans are not finalized.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
The Moltoni site is comprised of three main areas:
- New Economy Business Park (NEBP) (former Central Tube Company and H.H.
Robertson property) occupying approx. the northern third of the site from 19th Street
Picture courtesy of Google Maps to 16th Street.
- The Toth and Centria Properties
(former H.H. Robertson property) occupying
approx. the center third of the site, extending
south from 16th Street to 14th Street
- Ambridge Industrial Center
(former H.K. Porter Company, Inc. and
National Electric Division property) occupying
approx. the southern third of the site between
14th and 11th Streets

The first of the three was owned by the


Pittsburgh Steel Construction Company, later The three main areas of the site.
named Central Tube Company by owner Alex Map courtesy of “Demolition, Remediation, and Renovations Northern Ambridge
Redevelopment Project Beaver County, Pennsylvania.” (M. Bort and F. Mancini, Jr.)
Laughlin in 1909. The Central Tube Company
was later bought out by H.H. Robertson in 1940. Moltoni bought this area as well as the Toth and Centria properties in
July 2005 and dubbed the site “New Economy Business Park.” NEBP is a 17.4-acre site with 325,000 square feet under
roof. Recently he bought eight to ten acres of property on 11th Street from Thomas Allen. The last property rights have
been secured in 2007.
The Ambridge Industrial Center itself consists of four main areas: Straight Steel, the Rosenberger Land Company,
the Economy Industrial Properties/Bollinger Steel, and the remainder southern portion of the site (consisting of twelve
buildings).
There are limited controls present on these properties preventing unauthorized personal from entering. Local officials were
able to change the site’s zoning from manufacturing & industrial to commercial to make way for the development.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The first area, the H.H. Robertson property, was a metal building materials manufacturer and galvanizing operation. They
produced steel building products that used galbestos coating process and asphalt operation.
Similarly, the Toth Property housed these operations:
- Galbestos sheet manufacturing
- Floor deck, ventilator, and skylight manufacturing
- Asphalt product manufacturing
- Office buildings
- Storage buildings and areas
- Boiler, furnaces, and electrical
- Bulk storage area including coal piles and lumber storage
Before

The Centria Property was the Research and Development Center for the former H.H.
Robertson Corporation.
Finally, the Ambridge Industrial Center included metal casting, metal cleaning operations
(alkaline and acid pickling), galvanizing (and sherardizing-zinc diffusion coating), planting/
electro-plating, machining, metal presses, copper wire drawing, rolling mills, painting/
enameling, cotton fabric manufacture, vulcanizing rubber, and weatherproofing.
Phase I environmental assessments have been performed on all properties through the
Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development’s Industrial Sites
Reuse Program (ISRP). After

The Toth Property and the Ambridge Industrial Center hosted tar pits, painting facilities, oil
drums, underground and aboveground storage tanks, electrical and mechanical equipment,
and other potentially polluting chemical agents in the past. Phase I noted the presence of
two 430,000 gallon oil tanks to the east of the area, miscellaneous debris, PCBs, possible
asbestos-containing materials, an oil container, miscellaneous fill materials across the site,
former rail sidings, and railroad ties. Site soils contained only limited areas of potential
contamination. Most of the preliminary groundwater data are within acceptable levels.
After demolishing about 10 acres of buildings and debris on the former Toth property and
H.H. Robertson sites, 26 underground storage tanks were removed, and land was graded July 2008
to rebuild.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
In 2001, the manager of Ambridge Borough approached the Brownfields Center of Western
Pennsylvania at Carnegie Mellon University (WPBC) to facilitate a series of workshops
focused on 60-acres of the brownfields existent in the community. The WPBC was able Demolition of factory along 11th Street,
to spotlight the area by bringing in national redevelopment experts to survey the land and across from Ambridge Municipal building.
Before & After photos courtesy of
provide their unbiased opinions and comments regarding the community and possible http://www.ambridgeboro.org
development. A few years after the first workshop, the area garnered international fame
when an Australian developer, Rob Moltoni, became interested in the site.
In September 2003, at a Redevelopment Authority of Beaver County (RABC) meeting, representatives of the Borough of
Ambridge and Moltoni introduced and presented the proposed development project. Because of this presentation and the
Borough’s support, the RABC unanimously approved a motion to support the project, as well. The Beaver County Board of
Commissioners approved the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds to pay for the services of a consultant to begin
this redevelopment project.
In 2006, the WPBC reviewed the progress of the community and the Moltoni development in a second workshop with many of
the same experts. To aid the WPBC in orchestrating the workshops, a community-based team, the Ambridge Area Brownfield
Partnership, formed. Its main goal was to continue interest in the development of the corridor.
During the workshop, the Brownfields Center and the Ambridge Area Brownfield Partnership set up community meetings and
distributed two surveys–one in 2001 and the other five years later–to the attendees. These surveys gauged the public awareness
of the developer’s intent of construction and public awareness of the concept of brownfields. The survey process revealed
that the community and the development might benefit from greater avenues of communication and increased education about
brownfields and a brownfield’s inherent opportunities.
Later in 2006, several Ambridge residents formed the Committee to Clean and Beautify Ambridge. It is a volunteer group that
has picked up trash from Merchant Street to Route 65. In 2008 they applied for and won a $5,000 grant from the Sprout Fund,
a nonprofit organization supporting community projects, to construct a water element in P.J. Caul Park. New Economy Business
Park works in cooperation with the Commitee to Clean and Beautify Ambridge to landscape their property.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Two state roads run through Ambridge, Route 65/Ohio River Boulevard and State Route 989. Route 65/Ohio River Boulevard
is a multi-lane road that traces the north shore of the Ohio River to the Pittsburgh city limits.
Ambridge is within 30 minutes of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh International Airport and the booming North Hills/Cranberry Township area.
Allegheny County’s Port Authority and the Beaver County Transit Authority provide mass transit service to and from Pittsburgh.
Route 65/Ohio River Boulevard provides three main access points into Ambridge; however, transportation access may be limiting
the area’s development. Within the borough, the roads were designed for a time when short haul railroads were common,
and the primary means of local transportation was muscle-powered. This means that
the streets are fairly narrow with short blocks. Route 989/Duss Street is wide enough to
accommodate turns by large trucks. There are a number of one-ways streets, too. While
this is advantageous from pedestrian design perspectives, these qualities hinder easy
truck access to the Toth site and other properties within the industrial district.
In terms of site utilities, new water connections and valves may be preferable to using the Water element installed in PJ Caul Park
existing infrastructure in order to prevent leakage.
The development made great progress with the demolition of the H.H. Robertson plant in late 2006, and in
2007 the surrounding area underwent a $1.2 million main street initiative in order to update the façade of its
buildings.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


New Economy Business Park was identified by the Pennsylvania Department for Environmental Protection as
a Brownfield Action Team site and a priority project by Governor Rendell’s Community Action Team. RABC
obtained a Business in Our Sites planning grant and is providing other servises to assist this development.The
site also received a $30,000 grant for a Phase I Assessment on 19 properties. The RABC has also secured
a $3.5 million grant for demolition, renovation, and remediation at the site. Moltoni received a $175,000 state
planning grant through the County Redevelopment Authority for the preparation of the site. The project was
awarded $3 million in Capital Budget funding in 2006. He also received a $500,000 grant from the Commonweath
for improvements including exterior renovation, landscaping, and construction of new access roads. The Beaver
County Corporation for Economic Development sponsored a $1.2 million PIDA loan though the Pennsylvania
Department of Community and Economic Development. The State Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program
grant makes this development economically viable. A new access road and exterior and interior renovations
at NEBP were completed at a cost of $600,000. The estimated cost of demotion/renovation of 19 buildings,
remediation, asbestos abatement, and disposal of drums, tires, and debris on the former Toth and Centria
Porperties is $1,400,000. The same work on the NEBP’s Economy Industrial Properties, known as the Eleventh
Street Property, is estimated to cost $1,500,000.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Ambridge engaged in smart growth practices by opening a Park and Ride in 2002, and the historic district opened
a visitor’s center in 2003, increasing employment and promoting tourism. Also, Merchant Street has undertaken
the Main Street Program to renovate the facade of buildings. It also
Before started in 2003.
Moltoni kept NEBP as an industrial park where he can lease space
to companies for light to heavy industrial use. Demolition of the
buildings on the properties began in July 2007, and the existing
buildings are mainly vacant or underutilized.
This development is the largest in the region since Value Properties
purchased the former Armco seamless pipe plant in 1988.
The successful private/public partnership of local and state
investments in this development makes this project possible.
After
Pat Nardelli of Castlebrook Development joined the project to
support the Australian developer. Since then, he has been working
with Dentis, owners of Kuhn’s Market, to possibly create a location
on the site. Kuhn’s is a Pittsburgh-area grocery chain; Ambridge
had been without one since Foodland closed in April 2007.
The Beaver County Commissioners announced in late December
2007 that the site will be home to the Beaver County 911 Emergency
Services Center. Ambridge was selected from 15 locations around
the county because of the area’s access to adequate telephone
communications lines, its location is outside the 10-mile evacuation
The north end of the old H.H. Robertson property
across from the old Foodland. zone for the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station and the area’s
‘Before’ picture courtesy of Silk House Cafe. easy access to Route 65, one of the county’s major highways. The
Before

18,000 square-foot, $12-$15 million one-story facility will be built along 14th Street
on the site of the former H.H. Robertson office buildings. Castlebrook plans to break
ground on the 911 Center in Fall 2008. The new center should be ready for use in
the near future.

After
ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
Keeping NEBP as an industrial leasing
space is expected to cost $3.4 million, retain
90 existing jobs, and create 54 new jobs.
The Moltoni/Nardelli development’s success
thus far has driven the expansion of H.H.
Robertson Floor Systems, an offshoot
of Centria, and other businesses in the
Demolition north of 14th Street, former H.H Robertson plant.
“Before” photo courtesy of http://ambridgeboro.org.
area. Also the market value of housing is
“After” photos courtesy of http://merchantstreet.org/ (merge of two photos) expected to increase after the development
is completed.
Before After

Case Study Updated in Summer


2008 by Melinda Angeles

Example of streetscape work in the area.


Before & After photos courtesy of
http://merchantstreet.org/

SOURCES

“Ambridge Facility Wins Governor’s Award for Environmental Excellence.” Development/16%20Feb%2005%20-%20Ambridge,%20Midland%20


Department of Environmental Protection. 23 May 2005. < http://www.depweb. build%20without%20steel.doc>
state.pa.us/news/cwp/view.asp?Q=506376&A=3>
“FINAL REPORT – Ambridge Area Brownfields Partnership: 2001-
“Ambridge Historic District Economic Development Board. 7 Nov. 2006.” The Brownfields Center. 2006.
2007. <http://merchantstreet.org/Ambridge%20Historic%20District%20
Economic%20Development%20Board%20Meeting%20Notes%207%20 Hallas, Steve. “Merchant Street: The Commercial District of Ambridge,
Nov%2007.pdf> PA.” <http://www.merchantstreet.org/>

Anderson, D., Fontaine, M., Isovitsch, S., Quattrone, C., & Schultzer, S. “Keystone Profiles – Brownfield Site Development in Beaver Falls. BC
“Brownfields and Community Revitalization: Spring 2002 – Rebuilding Economic Development Story.” Beaver County Minutes. <http://www.
Ambridge: A Community Invests in its Future.” Carnegie Mellon University beavercountyarea.com/minutes/Project%20Summaries25.doc>
Course.
“Looking ahead: Good reasons to be hopeful in Ambridge.”
Baron, Jennifer. “Ambridge Spearheading Main Street Projects, Brownfield Times Online. 30 June 2008. < http://www.timesonline.com/
Development.” 31 Jan. 2007. Pop City Media. <http://www.popcitymedia.com/ articles/2008/06/30/opinion/editorials/doc4864e24b1fc9c097411902.txt>
developmentnews/46ambrdg.aspx>
“New 9-1-1 Center to be located in Ambridge.” Borough of
Beaver County Planning Commission. “Annual Report - 2003.” PDF Ambridge - Official Site. < http://ambridgeboro.org/index.
Document. <http://www.co.beaver.pa.us/Planning/Reports/Annual%20 asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B7764D577-521B-4DAB-B2A0-
Report_bookmarked_2003.pdf> BC997989EE81%7D&DE=%7B4CA10365-8D5C-48FC-85D1-
C4C67B41E092%7D>
“Brownfields in Our Neighborhood: 2001-2006 – Stronger Than Steel!” The
Brownfields Center. 15 Aug. 2006. Pash, Gene and Debi Leopardi. Value Ambridge Properties, Inc. Face-
to-Face Interview. 7 July 2008.
Bort, R. Michael and Frank Mancini, Jr. “Demolition, Remediation, and
Renovations Northern Ambridge Redevelopment Project Beaver County, “Preserve America Community: Ambridge, Pennsylvania.”
Pennsylvania.” < http://www.merchantstreet.org/Brownfields%20Development/ Preserve America: Explore and Enjoy our Heritage. <http://www.
Northern%20Ambridge%20Redevelopment%20Project%20-%20 preserveamerica.gov/03-24-08PAcommunity-ambridgePA.html>
Demolition,%20Remediation,%20and%20Renovations.pdf>
“The Sprout Fund.” The Sprout Fund. <http://www.sproutfund.org/>
CED. “Australian Developer Begins Ambridge Brownfield Conversion.” CED.
<http://www.merchantstreet.org/Brownfields%20Development/Australian%20 Theodore, Larissa. “Ambridge demolition project continues.” Times
Developer%20Begins%20Ambridge%20Brownfield%20Conversion.pdf> Online. 16 Nov. 2007. < http://www.merchantstreet.org/Brownfields%20
Development/Ambridge%20Demolition%20Project%20Continues.pdf>
Committee to Clean and Beautify Ambridge. “Pittsburgh 250 Community
Connections Application .” < http://merchantstreet.org/Pittsburgh%20250%20 Theodore, Larissa. “911 center among Ambridge development
Community%20Connections%20Grant%20Application.pdf> plans.” Times Online. 25 June 2008. <http://www.timesonline.com/
articles/2008/06/25/news/doc4862ed496c03e852294955.txt>
David, Brian. “Ambridge, Midland Build Without Steel.” Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette. 16 Feb. 2005. <http://www.merchantstreet.org/Moltoni%20
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

BAKERY SQUARE IN EAST LIBERTY


(NABISCO FACTORY)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA TIMELINE

SIZE: 6 acres 1918 The Nabisco Bakery is built.

FEATURES: Proximity to Downtown 1998 Nabisco Factory closes.

OWNER: Walnut Capital


1999 RIDC takes control of the building.
2004 The Bake-Line Group declares bankruptcy.
CURRENT USE: Retail Space, Office
Space, Fitness Center, and Hotel 2006 City of Pittsburgh declares site as “blighted.”
PAST USE: Nabisco Factory 2007 RIDC receives DEP grant for environmental
remediation.
CONTAMINANTS: Asbestos, PCBs, 2007 Environmental remediation begins.
and Lead-Based Paint
2007 Walnut Capital purchases the property from
the RIDC.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $113 million
(projected) 2007 Construction begins on the site.

HISTORY
In 1918 the Nabisco Bakery was built in the East Liberty neighborhood of Pittsburgh as part of a
nationwide expansion by the National Biscuit Company. The Regional Industrial Development
Corporation (RIDC) bought the plant in 1999 after Nabisco closed the plant’s doors. RIDC leased
the building to Atlantic Baking Company. During the peak of production, the company had seven
plants and 1,300 employees. It was eventually taken over by the Bake-Line Group.
However, the group declared bankruptcy in January 2004, closing
all seven plants and ending jobs for 290 bakery workers. The
building has remained vacant since then, and was even declared
as “blighted” by the City of Pittsburgh in 2006.
A year after this declaration, a developer, Walnut Capital, came
forward with plans for redevelopment. Walnut Capital dubbed
the project “Bakery Square,” recognizing the site’s history in the
production of baked goods.

TOPOGRAPHY
The Bakery Square development resides in Pittsburgh’s East End
and is less than six miles from the heart of downtown Pittsburgh.

Photo courtesy of The Strategic Investment Fund


MARKET CONDITIONS
This area, the East Liberty neighborhood of
Pittsburgh, is densely populated with 350,000
people residing within a 5-mile radius of the site;
575,000 within 7 miles. This consumer base is
affluent (100,000 people in the trade area have
an average household of $81,774/year.), young
(the average age is 35.5 years.), and educated
(52% of the population within a 1-mile radius
Picture courtesy of Google Earth are college educated or above.).
This development plans to address the area’s hotel and retail demand, spurred by nearby hospitals and
universities. The site also sits across the street from Mellon Park on Penn Avenue, and less than a block
from the major urban commuting avenues, Fifth Avenue and Washington Boulevard.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


This site passed through many hands before it
reached Walnut Capital for redevelopment. For
the majority of the 20th Century, the Nabisco
Company owned the factory. When the East
Liberty location closed in 1998, the RIDC took
over and leased the property to Atlantic Baking
Company. The factory was eventually leased
to the Bake-Line Group of Oak Brook, Ill until it
declared bankruptcy in 2004.
Walnut Capital purchased the property for $5.4
million from the RIDC in 2007, and the property
is currently under Urban Industrial Zoning.
Photo courtesy of the official Bakery Square website

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The site received a $1 million grant from the state Department of Environmental Protection towards environmental
remediation. The property was found to contain asbestos, PCBs, underground storage tanks (UST), and lead-
based paint. The RIDC held an environmental site assessment before Walnut Capital entered the picture, and
they dealt with the removal of drums of hazardous materials and USTs. The RIDC contributed an additional
$335,000 towards the clean-up.
Walnut Capital updated that site
assessment in May 2007 and, with $1
million, capsulated the asbestos and
lead paint. After the contamination
was abated, another site assessment
was taken. The site was cleaned up
according to state regulations.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
Walnut Capital contacted the
community before redeveloping the
former Nabisco factory, specifically
council members and East Liberty
Development, Inc. (ELDI).

Artist’s rendering of Bakery Square


Picture courtesy of official Bakery Square website
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The developers deemed road access improvements vital to the redevelopment. One-way traffic
along most of East Liberty’s Penn Circle is one of the biggest barriers of growth in the area. The
project of rerouting East Liberty for two-way traffic is expected to cost $2.8 million. Of that, $2.5
million will be financed with new tax revenue from Bakery Square. The rest of the $10 million in tax
increment financing (TIF) is used to pay property taxes, and improve traffic signals.
In 2007, the news reported negotiations with the Port Authority to establish a bus station opposite
the development.
Bakery Square plans also include a 932-vehicle garage in addition to the 99 surface parking.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


The total cost for Bakery Square is projected to be between $105 and $125 million. This amount
includes a mix of private and public funding; however, over 90% of the total cost is sponsored
by private sources. The development received historic tax credits, $10 million state loans in tax-
exempt financing, and money from the Urban Redevelopment Authority. The state’s Commonwealth
Financing Authority approved the loan under the Building PA program. The project’s TIF funds
will be used to help finance the parking garage and infrastructure improvements. Also, the DEP
contributed $1 million for remediation.
CURRENT STATUS AND
LESSONS LEARNED
Walnut Capital was able
to keep the factory as
part of its development
and add a tower, while
only demolishing a section
of the site’s three-story
structure. The rest was
refurbished. Three or four
buildings on the site are to
be devoted to retail, and
one is designated to be a
hotel. The Marriot Spring
Hill Suites hotel was
planned as part of a joint
Artist’s rendering of Bakery Square
venture with locally-based
Picture courtesy of official Bakery Square website Concord Hospitality.

Urban Active, a national upscale fitness center chain, is designated to occupy Bakery Square’s 41,550-square-
foot fitness center in the spring of 2009.
This development has also pursued LEED green building certification. It has been separated into two projects:
one using the existing Nabisco factory building and the other encompasses all the adjacent newly constructed
retail buildings. While the latter targets a LEED Certification, the former targets a LEED Silver or better
because of its adaptive reuse of the building. Its architect, Astorino, has a sustainable design strategy that
includes the use of on-site renewable energy technologies such as photovoltaic panels and roof-mounted wind
turbines, a green roof, and recycled building materials. Walnut Capital also plans to incorporate education and
outreach components by displaying educational material in the development.
Along with sustainability design, public funds took a major role in this development. A representative from the
Urban Redevelopment Authority said that without financial backing from TIF, the project would have been one-
tenth the size.
ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
Since the spread of suburbanization in the 1960’s, East Liberty had been on a decline. Nearly
twenty years passed before the creation of a nonprofit community development corporation, ELDI.
Their efforts in the 1980’s are gradually pulling East Liberty out of this descent; ELDI attracted
approximately 200 new businesses and over $80 million in new investment since the 1980’s,
including this development.
The state expects Bakery Square to create 1,600 jobs. Of those, 560 are office jobs and 600+ will
go towards the retail and dining industry that will be created at the site. In summer 2008, Walnut
Capital reported that it is working on lease agreements for the development’s 216,080 square feet
of office space, 136,460 square feet of retail space, 110-room hotel, and 38 residential units.

Case Study Completed


Summer 2008

Artist’s rendering of Bakery Square


Picture courtesy of official Bakery Square website
SOURCES

“Bakery Square.” Official Website. <http://www.bakery-square. Heinrichs, Allison M. “RIDC gets $1M to prep shuttered
com/ > Nabisco site.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 10 Feb. 2007.

“Bakery Square gets $10M loan from state.” Pittsburgh Lord, Rich. “Port Authority looks to reroute East Liberty.”
Business Times. 27 June 2008. <http://orlando.bizjournals. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 26 Jan. 2008. <http://www.post-
com/orlando/othercities/pittsburgh/stories/2008/06/23/daily34. gazette.com/pg/08026/852422-53.stm >
html?b=1214193600%5E1661308 > “Special Projects: Bakery Square.” Walnut Capital. <http://
www.walnutcapital.com/commercial_bakerySquare.php >
“Bakery Square gets TIF.” Pittsburgh Business Times. 17
Dec. 2007. <http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/ Spatter, Sam. “East Liberty’s Bakery Square project will
stories/2007/12/17/daily6.html > receive $10M.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 10 Aug. 2007.
Spatter, Sam. “Part of Ex-Nabisco Plant Razed.” 20
Baron, Jennifer. “$113M mixed-use Bakery Square project Sept. 2007. <http://www.bakery-square.com/news_
receives $10 M TIF.” Pop City Media. 19 Dec. 2007. <http:// articles/9_20_07.php >
www.popcitymedia.com/developmentnews/baksq1219.aspx >
“Special Projects: Bakery Square.” Walnut Capital. <http://
Belko, Mark. “Blight designation prepares Larimer block for www.walnutcapital.com/commercial_bakerySquare.php >
developer.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 6 Dec. 2006.
Staff Reports. “State approves loan for Bakery Square
DaParma, Ron. “Tax Breaks sought for Nabisco site.” project.” 27 June 2008 <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 12 Oct. 2006. pittsburghtrib/business/s_574902.html >

Dolan, Anthony. Real Estate Developer – Walnut Capital. Stewart, Charlie. “Redeveloping East Liberty.” Shady Ave.
Phone Interview. 19 June 2008. Spring 2006.

Fralick, Kelsey. “Gym Signs at Bakery Square Redevelopment. “Walnut Capital To Pursue Green Building Certification for
Urban Active Plans 2009 Occupancy at Mixed-Use Complex.” Bakery Square.” Bakery Square. 21 Aug. 2007. < http://
CoStar Group. 5 Dec. 2007. <http://www.bakery-square.com/ www.bakery-square.com/news_articles/LEED.php >
news_articles/12_05_2007.php >

Green, Elwin. “$1 million state grant to aid Bakery Square


project.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 10 Feb. 2007.
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfield

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

CARRIE FURNACE
LOCATION: Allegheny County, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 168 acres 1881 Carrie Furnace is built
FEATURES: Large Parcel, Flat Land,
and Riverfront Location 1892 Carrie Furnace takes part in Battle of
Homestead
OWNER: Allegheny County 1898 Carrie Furnace is purchased by Andrew
Carnegie
CURRENT USE: Vacant Land
1901 Carrie Furnace becomes part of the US
Steel Corp.
PAST USE: Blast furnace

CONTAMINANTS: PCBs, Sulfates


1978 Carrie Furnace is shutdown

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: no specific 1988 Carrie Furnace is sold to Park


Corporation
dollar amount obtained
2005 Allegheny County buys site from Park
Corporation
2006 Carrie Furnaces 6 and 7 become a
National Historic Landmark

HISTORY
The Carrie Blast Furnace site was built in 1881. It produced iron for the Homestead Works from 1907 to
1978. During its peak production, the furnace produced 1000 to 1250 tons of iron a day. In 1892, the
site was part of the Battle of Homestead, a labor dispute that displayed the strength of unionism and also
started the onset of a nearly 50 year union in the steel industry. In 2006, Carrie Furnaces 6 and 7 became
a National Historic Landmark.

TOPOGRAPHY
The 168 acre flat piece of land is along the
Monongahela River, with approximately 135 acres
on the north bank of the river and the remaining
33 acres are on the south side of the river. The
property is not readily accessible as it is isolated
from the adjacent communities by railroad tracks and
circuitous access by road. The site itself straddles
the boroughs of Rankine, Swissvale, Whitaker and
Munhall.
Photo courtesy of www.tacoma-trains.com
MARKET CONDITIONS
The surrounding communities have a low median income.
In particular, Braddock and Rankin are among the most
economically distressed communities in Allegheny
County and have been considered Act 47 Municipalities,
a state program for financially distressed municipalities,
for more than ten years. Since 2004, county officials
have invested nearly $10.7 million in housing, road
work and community projects in order to improve the
surrounding communities. Officials hope that improving
the nearby communities will make the Carrie Furnace
site more attractive to developers and investors.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps


SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
The Carrie Furnace site was acquired by Andrew Carnegie in 1898. In 1901, the US Steel Corporation
purchased the site. In 1988, the Park Corporation purchased the site from US Steel. Both parties mutually
agreed to handle designated areas of environmental concern. In 2005, Allegheny County bought the entire
site from the Park Corporation for $5.75 million.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Underground storage tanks that were used to store gasoline were removed in 1994. Two above ground
storage tanks used to store fuel oil were also removed. Asbestos was removed from buildings. The ground
was also contaminated with sulfates and PCBs. Phase I environmental assessment was conducted in
2007. Phase II environmental assessment is currently being conducted

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The Carrie Furnace Community Steering Committee gathers community input regarding the future
development of the site. The committee is composed of representatives from nearby municipalities as well
as local community leaders. The committee developed a plan that articulated a viable and marketable land
use strategy that benefits the surrounding neighborhoods and celebrates the history of the steel industry.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The Park Corporation performed demolished all structures except the following: Blast Furnaces 6 and 7,
a blower engine house for Blast Furnaces 6 and 7, a storage building, a 15-ton ore bridge (crane), and
north ore bins in the stock yard for Blast Furnaces 6 and 7. These structures plan on being preserved by
Allegheny County. It is proposed that they will eventually be part of an interactive museum that will be
constructed on the site.
There is a railroad track that runs through the site. A $2.7 billion leg of proposed the Mon-Fayette
Expressway may run along a nearby hillside. The Mon-Fayette Expressway is a 66 mile, 4-lane highway
that has been proposed since the 1950s. Only 35 miles of this highway has been completed so far.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


It is estimted that $70 million to $100 million will be required to convert the site’s industrial structures into
a steel heritage museum. Allegheny County projected that the environmental cleanup would cost
$3 million to $5 million.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Although the site, which is one of the few remaining riverfront brownfield sites in the area, is currently
vacant, redevelopment planning is underway. The redevelopment of the site includes efforts of
Allegheny County, several municipalities, and the Steel Industry Heritage Council, to historically
preserve the mill structure while also utilizing the site for economic development. The plan calls for
he furnaces to be refurbished into an interactive museum. The remaining area would be developed
using a mixed-use redevelopment plan. Housing, office buildings, a hotel, a conference center and
a transportation center are also planned.
The hot metal rail bridge that connected Carrie
Furnace to the Homestead Works will be
converted to an automobile bridge that allows
for easy access to the site while at the same
time, connecting to the Waterfront, a retail
development across the Monongahela River.
The Plan also includes a large parking area that
could serve as a park-and-ride for commuters
using buses, and possibly water taxis and a
light rail. The transportation center would tie
into a tramway that would also be built in the
area.
Completed by Ronald Papa, Summer ‘08

SOURCES
ENVIRON International Corporation. “Final Report Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Carrie Furnace Works
Rankin, Rennsylvania.” March 2003
National Park Service. “Battle of Homestead and Carrie Furnaces 6 and 7.” September 2002.
PA Governor’s Center for Local Government Services. “Annual Report. “ June 30, 2006.
Ploetz, Adam and Singer, Molly. “Old Tools and New Measures: Local Government Coordination of Brownfields
Redevelopment for Historic and Cultural Reuses.”
Rivers of Steel. “Carrie Furnaces.” 19 June 2008 < http://www.riversofsteel.com/ros.aspx?id=26&h=80&sn=95>
Gaydos, Ron. Heritage Health Foundation, Inc. Interview. June 27, 2008
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

CORK FACTORY LOFTS


(ARMSTRONG CORK FACTORY)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA TIMELINE
SIZE: 4 acres 1860 Thomas
Cork Co.
M. Armstrong starts the Armstrong
1901 Armstrong Cork Co. factory in the Strip
District is built.
FEATURES: Located Near Downtown,
Public Transportation, Waterfront 1974 The factory closes.
1996 Hammel and Beynon buy the property in
bankruptcy court sale.
OWNER: McCaffery Interests/Big River
Development L.P. of Chicago, Charles 2004 Buildings on the site are designated historic
Hammel III, & Robert Beynon
landmarks.
2004 Daniel McCaffery Interests of Chicago
becomes new general partner in the site’s
CURRENT USE: Loft and Retail Space development.
2005 Construction
begins.
on the Cork Factory Lofts
PAST USE: Cork Factory
2006 The parking structure is completed.
CONTAMINANTS: VOCs, SVOCs, 2006 The lofts are available for lease in November.
Benzo(a) pyrene, TCE, Benzene, Methyl
2007 Construction on the Cork Factory Lofts and
Chloride, Arsenic, Mercury, Asbestos, garage is completed.
and Lead Paint 2008 Construction on the marina is completed.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Over $78 million 2008 The garage’s retail complex opens.
(projected)

HISTORY
In 1860, Thomas M. Armstrong and John D. Glass started
the Armstrong Cork Co. by carving bottle stoppers from
cork by hand. After a fire at its original factory location in
the Strip District, a massive new building was constructed
in 1901. The factory reached its peak in production by
1930 when 1,300 people were employed. However, by
the time the factory closed in 1974, there were only 300
employees.
Since the closing, many developments failed at the site,
including those led by York Hannover, Preservation Photo courtesy of Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation
Investments Inc. of Boston, and Landmark America of Maine. They were unsuccessful because of the lack of
funding for redevelopment.
In 2004, Daniel McCaffery Interests of Chicago stepped in to finance redevelopment. All three of the structures on
site were salvaged and renovated according to historic landmark guidelines.
TOPOGRAPHY
The Cork Factory site is bounded by the Allegheny River to the north and Grant’s Hill to the south (the high hill east
of the confluence of the three rivers) in Pittsburgh. The site is located in the Lawrenceville Enterprise Zone, two
miles from downtown in Pittsburgh’s Historic Market District, also known as the Strip District - a narrow piece of land
located on a flood plain.
MARKET CONDITIONS
The Cork Factory Lofts is located in the Strip District near
downtown. In addition to its proximity to the city, the Strip District
is a wholesale area with its own distinct personality - a mixture
of groceries, restaurants, and vendors lining the streets. Recent
counts indicate that 22,406 cars enter the Strip and 24,800
individuals use the bus to access the Strip District daily. The
Strip District is not residential, but several locations in the area
have also been converted into loft housing: Brake House Lofts
and the Otto Milk Building.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


This site includes two parcels: the former Armstrong Cork Factory
Picture courtesy of Google Earth
and a portion of the Smallman Street Property. While the Cork
Factory was a cork-manufacturing plant from the 1900’s to 1970’s,
the Smallman Street Property was a small machine shop and meat packing plant from the late 1800s until the 1930’s.
Before Armstrong Square, Inc. acquired the property, the site belonged to Stonecraft Trade Center, Inc. In April 1996, long
after the Cork Factory’s closing, Charles Hammell III, owner of Pitt-Ohio Express (a trucking company), and Robert Beynon
of Beynon & Co. Inc. (a commercial real estate brokerage and insurance firm) acquired the property. The site sold for just
over $1 million at a bankruptcy sale from former owners, Bert Slutsky and Barney Silverman.
The adjacent Smallman Street Property belonged to the Consolidated Rail Corporation, The Strip Corporation, Landand
Company, and Morrison & McCluan, Inc. CLH Properties, Inc. owned the entire Smallman Street Property by the late
1990’s.
The residential and commercial use of this site is consistent with the site’s existing zoning and land use laws.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Because many developers had an interest in this site, the Cork Factory received a number of Phase I and II Environmental Site
Assessments before McCaffery Interests of Chicago entered the picture in 2004. According to the Pennsylvania Land Recycling
and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (Act 2), the property met the requirements of a Special Industrial Area and
the developers signed a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) between the Department of Environmental Protection and Big
River Development, LP of Chicago. In October 2003, Big River submitted a Baseline Environmental Report prepared by Civil &
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
In 2004, Big River discovered two abandoned underground storage tanks near the former boiler house. One of these tanks held
compressed air so it was relatively empty, while the other held a small amount of heating oil. There is no evidence of leaks from
either tank. The tanks were removed and disposed.
Regulated contaminants, benzo(a)pyrene and TCE, were found in one-to-
two foot surface soils. Those contaminants exceeded the Medium Specific
Concentration (MSC) for residential property. Additionally, benzo(a)
pyrene, TCE, benzene, methyl chloride, arsenic, and mercury were found
in waste pile material. Those contaminants exceeded direct contact for
residential property, but they did not for nonresidential property.
Several volatile organic compounds, one semi-volatile organic compound,
and two metals were found in the groundwater. Asbestos-containing
materials and lead-based paint were found in the buildings on the site.
Also, vapor contamination was well below indoor air quality thresholds.
Because of the vapor contamination’s low concentration, chemical of
potential indoor air concern (COPIAC) was not a concern for the site.
Also, based on findings of the risk assessment, Big River did not remove
the metals, VOCs, and SVOCs in the soil and groundwater. The control Artist’s rendering courtesy of Daniel McCaffery Interests
of these substances is enough to allow safe residential and commercial
use of the site. In order to do so, Big River eliminated potential pathways to these contaminants by prohibiting groundwater use,
constructing and maintaining engineering controls – like buildings and pavement – in those contaminated areas, and abating
asbestos and lead-based paint. The contaminants were managed according to
the Site-Specific Cleanup Standard.
The COA cited that remediation must be completed on or before December 30,
2007.
SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The local community group, Neighbors in the Strip (NITS), evolved from the
Strip Business Merchants Association with the goal of promoting the Strip’s Parking Garage - July 10, 2008
economic development opportunities, while keeping its unique character. Since
the redevelopment of the Cork Factory meant preservation of the history of the factory and more opportunities for an
underutilized area, NITS has been an active supporter of this development. The group worked with the developers as
a facilitator, assisting with zoning hearings, rentals, and marketing.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Project Financing Because of the Cork Factory’s close vicinity to downtown, public
Sources* transportation is readily available near the area, several blocks away
$43,700,000 Bank Financing from the site.
$15,055,997 Private Cash Contribution Limited parking in the Strip District was remedied in 2006 with the
$760,000 Growing Greener II Grant addition of a three-level, 126,000 sq. ft mixed-use parking structure
$2,100,000 Equity built on the Smallman Sreet Property. The total amount for this
$2,900,000 Land Contribution project’s construction is $6,396,285. The structure can accommodate
$800,000 URA Public Space Improvement Grant 427 parking spaces and approximately 47,000 square feet of ground
$1,857,118 Façade Easement level retail space.
$7,872,882 Pentrust & Federal Historic Tax Credits All of the site’s utilities were nonexistent prior to construction.
$2,040,654 Federal Historic Tax Credits
$750,000 RACP Grant for Parking Garage
COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
$50,000 CRP Grant for Public Art and Trail Design The majority of the development was privately financed; although federal
$135,000 C2P2 Grant tax credits from the National Park Service for historic sites cover some
$500,000 RACP Grant for Retail Core and Shell of the costs. The developers sold these credits to Sherwin-Williams
Co. of Cleveland for $8.5 million.
$78,521,651 TOTAL Due to the limited time frame for remediation, environmental clean-up
*July 2008 Figures
was mostly privately funded. Public funding in the form of historic tax
credits was used towards asbestos and lead-paint abatement.
Financing Breakdown* The total amount of public grant funds are $2.995 million or 2.8% of
total cost.
$60,115,847 Construction Hard Costs (includes
garage, Cork Factory, & public space
improvements)
CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED
$10,659,488 Development Soft Costs The 383,000 square foot factory was renovated into a 297-unit luxury
apartment complex. These units include studio, one, two or three
$3,189,646 Construction Pd Interest bedroom loft style apartments with the average unit being 1,018 sft.
$2,556,670 Riverwall and Walking Trail Two of the buildings are seven floors, while the third is ten floors.
Design/Engineering and Construction
Developers were careful to meet Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission
$2,000,000 Retail Core and Shell approval because the buildings were designed by notable Pittsburgh
$78,521,651 TOTAL
*July 2008 Figures
architect Frederick Osterling and designated national historic landmarks
in 2004.
The parking structure’s anchor tenants include Cioppino Seafood and Chop House and Right By Nature Organic Grocery.
The restaurant will occupy 10,000 square feet of this space, while the natural foods market will occupy 15,000-18,000
square feet. The remaining space is planned to be leased to a wine and cigar bar and a specialty grocery store – all
local operators.
In June 2008, the 60 slip boat marina on the Allegheny River was completed. It was made for the exclusive use of Cork
Factory residents.
The completion of the walking trail depends on funding to extend the
riverwall. The riverwalk is projected to be completed by Spring 2009
and is estimated to cost $2.2 million.
The prior multiple setbacks in the development of this site place
a huge emphasis on the importance of private and public funding.
The site’s designation on the National Register of Historic Places
availed some funds, although it restricted design plans according to
the history of the development.

Artist’s rendering of riverwalk


Picture courtesy of Carl Walker Construction

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
The project was estimated to generate 325,000 job hours and $20,145,000
in wages and benefits for union construction workers. The rental rate is
higher than the management at the Cork Factory predicted. At the grand
opening of the lofts in 2007, it was announced that already 45% of the
complex, or 135 units, were rented.
Case Study Completed Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles

SOURCES Cork Factory Lofts - July 10, 2008


Big River Development, LP, and the Commonwealth of Neighbors in the Strip. <http://www.neighborsinthestrip.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. com/>
Consent Order and Agreement. Re: Former Armstrong Cork
Property. 22 Dec. 2004. Pitz, Marylynne. “Pop Goes Cork Factory: Strip District
lofts offer views, resort-like amenities to tenants.” 5 May
“Cigar Bar, Specialty Grocery Store Coming To Pittsburgh’s 2007. <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07125/783217-30.
Strip District.” 29 Jan. 2008. <http://www.wpxi.com/ stm >
news/15163940/detail.html >
Matviya, John. Letter to Charles Hammel, III. Re: ECP –
“Client Case Studies.” GSP Consulting. <http://www. Special Projects – Act 2. Baseline Environmental Report
gspconsulting.com/8303031124449/blank/browse.asp?A=38 Approval. Armstrong Lofts. Railroad Street – Strip District.
3&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=51927 > Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:
Southwest Regional Office. 25 Feb. 2004.
“Commercial (Parking Structure Projects): 2006& 2007.” Carl
Walker Construction. <http://www.carlwalkerconstruction. Reinhart, Joseph. Babst, Calland, Clements, & Zomnir.
com/npcomm.php > Environmental Attorney for Big River. Phone Interview. 8
July 2008.
“Cork Factory Loft Apartments and Garage.” The ERECT
Funds. <http://www.pentrustonline.com/erectfunds/portfolio/ Roberts, Debbie – General Manager of the Cork Factory
details.php?id=40&PHPSESSID=352938dbb32fb7b7126ba5 Lofts. Phone interview. 17 June 2008.
2d19f20d7d >
Rodgers, Becky. Neighbors in t he Strip - Executive
“Cork Factory restoration to get $1.5m for parking garage, Director. Phone Invterview. 2 July 2008.
public trail.” 5 April 2006. <http://www.popcitymedia.com/
developmentnews/cork0405.aspx > Schooley, Tim. “Natural foods market, Italian restaurant
aim to feed Cork Factory.” Pittsburgh Business Times. 8
DaParma, Ron and Sam Spatter. “Cork Factory apartments June 2007. <http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/
get bubbly reviews.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 5 May stories/2007/06/11/story4.html >
2007. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/
business/s_506185.html > Spatter, Sam. “Popping the Cork.” Pittsburgh Tribune-
Review. 23 Aug. 2006. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/
Elliott, Suzanne. “Armstrong Cork project set to go.” 7 pittsburghtrib/search/s_467236.html >
Nov. 2003. <http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/
stories/2003/11/10/story1.html > “The Cork Factory – Pittsburgh, PA.” Plant Construction
Company. <http://www.plantconstructioncompany.com/
Hammel, Chuck, III - Owner of the Cork Factory. Face-to- current-proj/project_5.html >
Face Interview. 10 July 2008.
Troy, Dennis. “Cork Factory Lofts - Project Fact Sheet.” DTI
“Labor’s Capital Deals.” <http://www.heartlandnetwork.org/ Development, Inc. July 2008.
steelasp/in_the/index.asp >
“Urban Living Uncorked.” 27 Sept. 2006. <http://www.
“Loft Apartments on the River.” <http://www.thecorkfactory. mccafferyinterests.com/content/current/thecorkfactory.htm >
com/ >
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

DUQUESNE CITY CENTER


(DUQUESNE STEEL WORKS)
LOCATION: Duquesne, PA TIMELINE

SIZE: 250 acres 1984 Duquesne Steel Works stops


production.
FEATURES: Size, Riverfront Location,
Transportation, and Potential 1987 Duquesne Steel Works closes its
Accessibility doors.

OWNER: Regional Industrial 1990 RIDC purchases the site.


Development Corporation (RIDC)

CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) 2004 Hurricane Ivan floods the area.

PAST USE: Steel Works

CONTAMINANTS: Heavy Metals &


PFCs

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a

HISTORY
The City Center of Duquesne lies on the 250-acre site of the former Duquesne Steel Works. With the
collapse of the steel industry, the region lost half of its manufacturing base, and the real property tax base
and population in the Valley plummeted by 75 percent. The Duquesne Steel Works abandoned production
in 1984 and closed its doors in 1987 when Allegheny County took control of the former steel mill site.

TOPOGRAPHY
The steel works elevated the Duquesne City Center
above the river with slag fill to prevent flooding,
making the river difficult to access.
The surrounding neighborhood is very close to the
site; however, active railroad tracks run between the
community and the property.

MARKET CONDITIONS
This site is large in an area with an economically
disadvantaged population. The attack of Hurricane
Ivan in 2004 placed the area in a state of emergency
with a reported $3 million in flood-related damage.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
Allegheny County took control of this site and later
sold it to the Regional Industrial Development
Corporation (RIDC) in 1990.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
RIDC did not pursue environmental insurance for
the City Center of Duquesne.
The City Center of Duquesne’s primary
contaminents were heavy metals and PFCs. The
environmental assessments found that the site
would require at least 12 inches of fill spread over
the entire site in order for approval as a light-
industrial commercial property. Dredged material
from a nearby construction project, the Braddock
Dam, was deemed an acceptable source of this
fill. The 12-inch buffer would limit incidental
human exposure to any surface contaminants.
Also, demolished blast furnaces that are laden
Picture courtesy of Google Maps
with asbestos have presented a large obstacle to
redevelopment of the site’s southern end.
SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Because railroad tracks run between the community and the property, the community seems to
maintain the feeling of separation from the site. Though that may be the case, community input is
key in deciding the future purpose of the site. The conclusions of the community and RIDC have
not been reached.
The West-to-West Coalition was formed in order to serve as an economic developer for this and
many sites. The Coalition represents 21 communities and has been selected to receive various
EPA grants.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Additional improvements at the Duquesne site include filling and covering a large iron ore pit near
the blast furnaces, renovating several buildings, and demolishing an obsolete pedestrian bridge
across State Route 837.
Access to the site is available via water and rail. One transportation dilemma at this location results
from trains blocking access to PA-837. RIDC welcomes the newly proposed funding for flyover
ramps. Their construction would improve vehicular access over extremely active rail lines. The
City Center of Duquesne is currently accessed by an at-grade crossing on the Norfolk Southern
Railroad, which creates significant traffic, pedestrian delays, and safety risks. Transportation by
ground, specifically trucking access, is a key issue for this site.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave $8 million in loans and
grants to redevelop the City Center of Duquesne as well as the Industrial Center of McKeesport.
The demolition of fifteen blast furnaces on the Duquesne site used a combination of Section
108, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and Commonwealth Redevelopment
Assistance Capital Program (RACP) funds, and the environmental assessments were funded by the
Department of Community and Economic Development’s (DCED) Industrial Sites Reuse Program.
A partnership forged between RIDC, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, and Pittsburgh
District allowed for the local allocation of over 400,000
cubic yards of dredged materials from the Monongahela
River to be used as fill. The deal was mutually beneficial
and saved the government over $4 million in allocation
of grants.
To date, a total of $31 million has been committed to
the Duquesne and McKeesport projects. The funding
includes: $8.0 million in loans and grants from HUD;
$4.5-million grant from the RACP; $1.0-million grant
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
and $17.5 million in earmarked federal transportation
funding. Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/

The Allegheny County Department of Economic Development worked with the Redevelopment
Authority of Allegheny County (RAAC) and the Regional Industrial Development Corporation
(RIDC) to take advantage of HUD’s Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, which enables public
entities to leverage Community Development Block Grants into additional funding. HUD awarded
the County a $2.0-million BEDI grant and a $6.0-million Section 108 loan.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


There are current talks of more revitalization within the area.
Also, its easy accessibility by rail via the Norfolk Southern Railroad creates heavy traffic, long
delays, and hazerdous risks to pedestrians and motorists. RIDC will have to overcome this
obstacle and establish trucking routes for this site.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
The redevelopment of this site is expected to generate more than 450 jobs.
Case Study Completed Summer 2007
SOURCES

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. “Onorato


Announces Additional $8.0 Million in Funding
for Brownfields Redevelopment in Duquesne
and McKeesport.“
12 Oct. 2005. 15 June 2007
<http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/
news/2005/251012.asp>

Interview with William E. Burroughs, Vice


President of Development – RIDC. Conducted
via telephone, 9 May 2007

PA Site Finder. “City Center of Duquesne.”


<http://www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us/Site_
details.asp?ID=91&County=&SaleType=Both&
optLocationType=County&MinSalePrice=&Ma
xSalePrice=&MinPropertySize=&MaxProperty
Size=&MinBuildingSpace=&MaxBuildingSpac
e=&MinLeasePrice=&MaxLeasePrice=>

Revers, Stanley. “A Study of Keystone


Commons, the Industrial Center of
McKeesport, and the Duquesne City Center”
Photo courtesy of www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us May 2007. Student Work
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

HAZELWOOD
(LTV)
LOCATION: Hazelwood, PA TIMELINE
SIZE: 178 acres 1884 J&L opens its first industrial plant in the
area.
FEATURES: High Traffic, Size,
Location, and Accessibility 1906 J&L adds world’s largest collection of
beehive coke ovens to the Eliza Furnace.
OWNER: Almono LP 1974 LTV buys the site.
CURRENT USE: Robotics Research
& Vacant Land 1981 Eliza Furnaces close.

PAST USE: Iron & Steel Industries, 1997 Hazelwood plant closes.
Boatbuilding, and Trade and Transport

CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum/ 2002 Almono purchases site.


Petroleum Products, Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a

HISTORY
Once a vast area covered by hazelnut
trees that was home to some of the
area’s wealthiest families in the 1880’s,
Hazelwood is a neighborhood in transition.
With the advent of iron and steel industries
during the 1900’s, Hazelwood made a
progression from a large farm and estate
community to an industrial center. This
time in Western Pennsylvania history
saw the first rail lines established in the
Pittsburgh area. During the late 1870’s
through 1910, the area became home also
to the boatbuilding, trade, and transport
business. In 1884, the J&L Company
found the area very promising and opened
its first industrial plant in the area.
TOPOGRAPHY
This 168-acre land is the last large brownfield left
within the Pittsburgh city limits, making it attractive to
the hospitals and universities that reside in Oakland.
There have been various site designs that have worked
to capture the interesting urban landscape of the site,
while integrating the needs and current conditions of
the nearby community.
It is also the only brownfield owned by local foundations.
This allows for a unique development opportunity within
the city. It is the first urban brownfield in the city in which
development will not be managed by local government
agencies or departments.

MARKET CONDITIONS
Hazelwood was home to more than 200 businesses in
Picture courtesy of Google Earth the 1960’s. These included large markets, independent
grocers, hardware stores, jewelers, and financial institutions. Less than forty years later, Hazelwood
suffered a striking blow as the J&L plant, then incorporated as LTV, closed its doors. The rise of overseas
competition crushed the once dependable industry and hurt the backbone of the local economy.
There is a lot of interest in this site since it is the last large piece of land in the city, and it is also close
to Oakland’s the medical centers and the universities. The site will likely be a big draw for university-
partnered research and development companies looking to setup near the universities.
There are currently only two buses that access Hazelwood and no grocery stores in the area. These sorts
of amenities will be important to any employees planning to relocate to the area. There has already been
some interest in the housing market by the robotic researchers currently using the site.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


The 178-acre Hazelwood LTV site was sold as one parcel to the Almono LP, which is comprised of
four local foundations: Benedum Foundation, Heinz Endowments, Richard King Mellon Foundation and
McCune Foundation. The managing partner is the Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC).
The site was sold in 2002 to Almono for $10 million. This site’s assembly and control is unique in the
history of brownfields in Pittsburgh. It will be the first brownfield developed by foundations, and it does
not include the Urban Redevelopment Authority as a development partner. This allows the foundations to
control the vision of the site. They will set the tone and make final decisions for development rather than
the city or private developers.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
With the fall of the steel industry, LTV demolished much of its plant because it recognized that its former
facilities would no longer be reused. This included decontamination & de-commissioning (which involves
asbestos abatement, PCB removal, and pipe removal).
The site has currently cleared Act II remediation. The entire site has been cleaned for commercial use and
much of the site would need little or no remediation for future housing. Hazelwood is considered relatively
clean for the level of industrial activity that took place over many decades.
The only hot spot areas are located around the remains of the coke ovens. This is a significantly small
area considering the size of the overall site.
SOCIAL/COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
The community has made
it clear that they do not
want another dirty industry
along the river. They have
been waiting for the new
development to begin, and
with a strong community
effort, plan to be a part of
the next steps.
A group of individuals from various backgrounds joined together to form a group with the
common goal of the betterment of the Greater Hazelwood area. Their group was dubbed the
Hazelwood Initiative, Inc. (HI) and their mission is to act as a catalyst for the revitalization of the
Greater Hazelwood community. In collaboration with the city, county and state representatives,
they aim to create a healthy community through community planning, business redevelopment,
affordable housing development, homeowner reinvestment, and youth programming. HI also
serves as a vehicle to address resident concerns and accomplishments relating to various city
services and to all community stakeholders. The group is very active with the possible outcome
of the site. It supports the ongoing efforts of neighborhoods activists, local residents, churches,
city planners, outside consultants, and other community organizations and encourages further
community involvement with the site.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Like many brownfields within urban areas, Hazelwood has a wealth of physical infrastructure
that will be an asset for future development. There are two rail lines that cross on either side
of the site. One of the rail lines connects to downtown, and the other travels up Panther
Hollow to Oakland. The site also has a working and licensed dock system that would allow for
barge traffic. It is bounded by Second Avenue, which is the main commercial corridor of the
neighborhood.
The option of building a Mon-Fayette Expressway is still in the air currently. It could have
negative or positive effects in the community.
Also the site, like most old steel mills in Pittsburgh, is located on a large parcel of flat land,
which is unusual for the city.
COSTS & ECONOMIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure costs will be
significant during future
development. It can be difficult
to redevelop former steel mill
sites due to the large building
foundations that are often
left after building teardowns.
These foundations take a
considerable amount of
money to remove. There
is also a history of water
and sewer lines, and other
abandoned infrastructures
that will need to be addressed during redevelopment. This site will likely need a large investment
to dig out some areas and fill in others to repair, replace or bury previous infrastructure so
development can move forward.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


The site is currently occupied by many different companies, including the Field Robotics Center
at Carnegie Mellon, a robotics research facility, and GTECH Strategies, Inc., a small start-up
company that currently has a pilot project onsite for the purpose of greening the site while
researching biofuel production and brownfield reclamation on urban vacant lots.
The site has sat undeveloped for more than five years now. The vacant lots are similar to
lunar landscapes. There has been no serious land reclamation or habitat restoration. There are
serious issues to overcome to return the land to a level where plants can flourish. The entire
site may be capped, topped, and graded to the river with soil to make it more habitable for
growth.
The community is still waiting for the final decision regarding the construction of the Mon-
Fayette Expressway. The site’s new use can be better determined once that decision has
been made.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
The land has yet to be developed. With potential housing and commercial opportunities, the
community has a chance to benefit greatly.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007

SOURCES

Banja, Judy and Linda Braund. The Early


History of the 15th Ward of the City of
Pittsburgh. (1925, copyrighted 2005). http://ftp.
rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/allegheny/
history/local/kussart31-60.txt

Fraser, Jeff. “Philanthropic Field,” H Magazine,


vol. 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004, pp. 20-27.
http://www.clpgh.org/exhibit/neighborhoods/
hazelwood/, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh,
April 2007.

Hazelwood: Making New Connections.


Capstone Seminar in Economic Development,
Policy and Planning. Graduate School of
Public and International Affairs, University of
Pittsburgh. Spring 2001.

Koch, Chris. “Hazelwood LTV” Apr. 2007.


Student Work

The Future of Oakland: A Community


Investment Strategy. Urban Design
Associates. January 2003.
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

KEYSTONE COMMONS
(WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC)
LOCATION: Turtle Creek, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 92 acres
1880 Westinghouse purchases the site.
FEATURES: Rail and Highway Acces-
sible, Existing Buildings are Structur-
ally Sound 1988 Redevelopment plans for this site is
conceived.
OWNER: Holtec International & Re- 1989 Production on the Westinghouse Plant
gional Industrial Development Corpo- ceases.
ration (RIDC)
1989 RIDC purchases the site for $12 million.
CURRENT USE: Turnkey Goods Sup-
plier, Office, and Laboratory 2004 Hurricane Ivan floods the area.
PAST USE: Westinghouse Electric and
Manufacturing Plant

CONTAMINANTS: Asbestos

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown

HISTORY
George Westinghouse purchased the site in 1880 from local farmers. Westinghouse employed over
20,000 workers on this site during the 1940s. Eventually production at the site declined and by the
time the place closed on Dec. 31, 1988, it had a crew of 1,000 employees.
TOPOGRAPHY
Keystone Commons’ topography created unique
problems in the redevelopment process. The
site is located within the Turtle Creek watershed.
The developers had to make certain to avoid
contamination of this natural resource.
In 2004 another issue related to Keystone Commons’
location within the Turtle Creek watershed arose.
Hurricane Ivan devastated the Gulf Coast of the
United States. Much of the eastern portion of the
country received nearly six inches of rainfall. The
Turtle Creek watershed was unable to retain this Photo courtesy of http://www.holtecinternational.com/
above normal precipitation and the area became
flooded. William Burroughs, Vice President of
Development for RIDC, recalled the flooding and
commented, “If we could do it all over again, there’d
be great benefits to raising the first floor elevation of
the entire site.”

MARKET CONDITIONS
The redevelopment for this site was very rapid.
Within six months of plan conception, construction
already started on this site, making it a huge visible
success in the area.
The Business in Our Sites (BOS) program was
established by Governor Rendell as an economic
stimulus to help communities develop ready-to-
Picture courtesy of Google Maps build sites for new and expanding businesses. It
is interested in the Keystone Commons site. BOS provided funding for its infrastructure and
site preparation, environmental clean-up, demolition, renovation, construction, and professional
services.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


The Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) of Southwestern Pennsylvania
purchased the former Westinghouse site for $12 million dollars on January 1, 1989.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The former Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Plant was principally contaminated with
asbestos. However, heavy-metal contamination was also present in lower levels.
RIDC chose not to seek environmental liability insurance for the Keystone Commons site.
It was determined during Phase-I and Phase-II operations that contaminant levels were
within acceptable limits and the possibilities of future discoveries of potential dangers were
negligible.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The use for the land is still up in the air for this site. Consideration of the community’s interests
is key for the success of the site.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
For both economic and historic
preservation purposes, RIDC attempts
to refinish existing structures rather
than raze them and begin anew.
RIDC was able to maintain this
approach to a greater degree at
Keystone Commons due to the quality
of building maintenance Westinghouse
Electric and Manufacturing had
performed. “We had to selectively
demolish some buildings for parking.
But we kept most of the buildings, because Westinghouse kept them impeccably well,” RIDC
remarked.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


As with many brownfield redevelopment sites, government funding to begin the project was very
important. The Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) administers
the Industrial Sites Reuse Program (ISRP). ISRP makes funding available in the form of low-
interest loans and grants. These monies were used for Phase-I environmental assessments.
Later ISRP funds were used to clean up hazardous materials.
Keystone commons received a $5 million grant from BOS and a $5 million BOS construction
loan from the Commonwealth Financing Authority.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Developers for the site have been considering proposals for its redevelopment, but the
Westinghouse building has already been converted to office and warehouse space.
The site has attracted 50 companies employing 2,000 people. Businesses vary from metal
fabrication to chocolate and cookie making.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
Officials are working on projects that will spur economic development in the Mon Valley,
hopefully turning the area into a revenue generator.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007


SOURCES

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. “Onorato


Announces Additional $8.0 Million in Funding
for Brownfields Redevelopment in Duquesne
and McKeesport.“
12 Oct. 2005. 15 June 2007
<http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/
news/2005/251012.asp>

Interview with William E. Burroughs, Vice


President of Development – RIDC. Conducted
via telephone, 9 May 2007

PA Site Finder. “Keystone Commons.”


< http://www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us/Site_
details.asp?ID=27&County=Allegheny&SaleT
ype=Both&optLocationType=County&MinSal
ePrice=&MaxSalePrice=&MinPropertySize=&
MaxPropertySize=&MinBuildingSpace=&Max
BuildingSpace=&MinLeasePrice=&MaxLease
Price=>

Revers, Stanley. “A Study of Keystone


Commons, the Industrial Center of
McKeesport, and the Duquesne City Center”
May 2007. Student Work
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

MARINO SCRAP YARD


LOCATION: Rochester, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 3 acres
1900s This site is used as a scrap yard.
FEATURES: Riverfront, Industrial
Accessibility 1924 Marino & Son opens a second-hand
store on the site.
OWNER: The Borough of Rochester
1993 Nine municipalities, including Rochester
CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) Borough, adopt the Beaver County
Riverfront Development Program.
PAST USE: Scrap Yard
1998 The scrap yard ceases operation.
CONTAMINANTS: Heavy Metals
(Cadmium & Lead), PCBs, Oil 1999 The land is donated to the Borough of
Rochester.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a
2002 PENNDOT reconstructs Railroad Street.

HISTORY
In the early 1900s, this area was used as a junk yard. In 1924, Marino & Son opened a second-hand store
on the site, but eventually took over the entire area and built a scrap yard with a crusher, disposing mill slag
and scrap metals. They transformed the second-hand store into offices and storage space. The scrap yard
ceased operation in 1998.
TOPOGRAPHY
The three-acre Marino Scrap Yard is located between the Ohio River and
Railroad Street in the Borough of Rochester in Beaver County. There is
no pedestrian accessibility to the river, and the bank to the Ohio River
is steep; however, the site has excellent boat access to the Ohio River
and its tributary, the Beaver River. It also has access to major freight
lines, making it ideal for industrial use. Three major state roads intersect
nearby – 65, 68, and 51. Public transportation is deficient in the area.
MARKET CONDITIONS
The area would be most easily redeveloped as industrial land - it is nearby a concrete supplier and various
commercial properties; the site has excellent access by truck, boat, and rail; and Act II legislation in Pennsylvania
would permit a less costly remediation of the site for an industrial use. However, the Beaver County Corporation
for Economic Development (BCCED) has plans to develop this site as a recreational area as part of the Beaver
County Riverfront Development Program.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
The scrap yard ceased operations in 1998, and the property was
donated to the Borough of Rochester the following year.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) found high levels
of heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in soil on the site. They also found free-product
oil floating on the groundwater. The contamination is most severe
on the surface, but even soil samples that were 12 feet below the
surface contained high level concentration of the contaminants.
Besides the oil, no problems were found with the groundwater.
Picture courtesy of Google Maps
The contaminant levels are so high that it is unacceptable
to dig into the existing soil on the site. Since the site is
below the flood plain, some contaminated soil eroded into
the river.
It is estimated that more than 570 cubic yards of contaminated
soil will need to be removed from the site and moved to a
disposal site in Ohio and the site will need to be capped for
future development.
This area has been cleaned according to site-specific
standards. This program developed by the state allows the
remediator to consider exposure and risk factors to establish cleanup levels appropriate for the intended use
of the site.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Code, Act 247 of 1968, a community wishing to establish a local
planning agency can form a planning commission, a planning department, or both. Beaver County has
chosen to operate a planning commission.
The Beaver County Planning Commission is responsible for preparing a comprehensive plan and keeping a
record of all its actions for the site’s development.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
There is no public transportation to the site and none is planned. Car access is limited to a ramp that comes
off of a major intersection in the Borough of Rochester. Pedestrians would find it hazardous to travel to the
area since there are no sidewalks on the ramp or the street leading to the site.
The street leading to the site is a half mile of narrow, potholed road that allows only one truck to pass at a
time. Plans have been made to resurface the road; however, expansion
would be difficult since it is bordered by an active rail line on one side and
properties on the other.
Some water/sewer lines have been updated. Since the storm-water
discharge pipe was excavated as part of the cleanup, the DEP saved
Rochester $240,000 and gave it a head start on the elimination of its
Combined Sewer Overflow problem.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


The BCCED has taken on the responsibility of coordinating, planning,
funding, and negotiating the terms for the assessment of environmental
conditions and the subsequent remediation work to be
performed. BCCED is a 501 C (6) non-profit corporation
whose economic development mission includs the pursuit
of government grant resources, loan investments, and real
estate development projects.
Using Pennsylvania’s Department of Community and
Economic Development (DCED) Industrial Sites Reuse
Program, BCCED obtained $122,662 to help fund the
environmental assessment for the site. The estimated cost
to complete the investigation at the site is $500,000.
Rochester also received a $171,000 state grant in use towards developing the riverfront as a
recreational area.
CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Rochester Borough acquired ownership of the Marino site without
understanding the potential liability of a brownfield site. Their failure
to take the appropriate steps in analyzing the potential risks has
delayed the redevelopment of the site. Funding for environmental
assessments was available for use before their actual ownership
of the site. Had the site been fully investigated, these funds may
have been used. Prior environmental reports could potentially
leverage remuneration for at least some portion of the cleanup.
However, Rochester negotiated free transfer and the deed without
a Phase I environmental assessment.
The Beaver County YMCA planned to use the site to construct a new facility and to expand the
riverfront development; however, plans were changed when an environmental assessment revealed
high levels of contamination in the solids and groundwater.
Currently the site is undergoing a possible change from scrap yard to shopping area. Officials
in Rochester hope that the long-vacant property can become an area similar to Pittsburgh’s Strip
District.
ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
BCCED plans to turn this site into a recreational area as
part of the Beaver County Riverfront Development Program.
They have already done this along the Beaver River, which
is mostly recreational with a boat launch and a marina/
restaurant complex.
Once this area finds a new commercial use, it is expected to
revitalize the area.
Case Study Completed Summer 2007
Sources: land_recycling/annual_reports/2001_appendices.
“Case Study: Marino Brothers Scrapyard, Pennsylvania pdf>
Brownfields Site.” Environmental Protection Agency.
<www.kvvm.hu/szakmai/karmentes/egyeb/us_epa/22_Ma “DEP Secretary Tours Beaver County Scrap-Yard
rino%20Brothers%20CS[1].pdf> Cleanup Site.” 26 July 2002. Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection. <http://www.dep.
Davidson, Lois, Mira De, and Dewitt Peart. “Marino Scrap
state.pa.us/newsletter/default.asp?NewsletterArticleI
Yard – Brownfield Site / Beaver County.” 1 Dec. 1999.
D=7189&SubjectID=>
Brownfields and Economic Revitalization of the Inner City.
<http://www.ce.cmu.edu/Brownfields/Nsf/Sites/envlplan.
“DEP to Hold Public Hearing on Hazardous Scrap
htm>
Yard Site.” 24 March 2000. Department of Envi-
“Defining Results: 2001 Annual Report Appendices.” ronmental Protection. <http://www.ahs.dep.state.
2001. Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program. <http:// pa.us/newsreleases.default.asp?ID=284&varQueryT
www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/lib/landrecwaste/ ype=Detail>
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

MCKEES ROCKS
(P&LE RAILROAD)
LOCATION: McKees Rocks, PA TIMELINE
1879 P&LE Railroad begins business on the site.
SIZE: 104 acres
1881 Iron City Bridge Works is housed by the
railroad.
FEATURES: Accessible, Flat Land,
Significant Acreage 1882 The land near the railroad houses
Pittsburgh Steel Works, Vulcan Forge and
OWNER: PK Brown, Bill Meides
Iron Works, Long & Co.
of Clifton Steel, Enterprise Bank, 1888 P&LE builds a maintenance and repair
Randy Castriota of Castriota Metals & facility in McKees Rocks.
Recycling, John Krugle of JRR Rail, 1992 CSX buys P&LE’s tracks.
LLC (A C Railroad Service Company)
1996 P&LE files for bankruptcy.
CURRENT USE: Underutilized - Scrap 1997 ARPI buys the southern part of the site.
Yard and Storage
1997 Environmental Site Assessment Phase II is
PAST USE: Railyard & Steel Mill conducted.

CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum & VOCs 1999 Ownership of the southern part of the site
is tranferred to five tenants.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a 2005 McKees Rocks receives funding for rail
repair.

HISTORY
The industrialization of McKees Rocks started with the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad (P&LE) in 1888. P&LE built a
maintenance and repair facility that housed a machine shop, repair shop, electric shop, paint shop, car erection shop,
planning mill, and passenger station.
Three local steel mills that housed facilities on the site prospered once P&LE started operation – Iron City Bridge
Works, Pittsburgh Steel Works, and Vulcan Forge.
The railroad, which became a New York Central subsidiary in 1889, maintained its own identity when New York Central
and the Pennsylvania Railroad merged to form Penn Central in 1968. When Penn Central went bankrupt in 1970, P&LE
was on its way to independence. P&LE began to lose business in the 1980s because of the declining steel industry.
P&LE sold its New Castle to McKeesport, PA line to CSX in 1991, and P&LE ended service the next year. Afterwards,
CSX purchased what remained of Pittsburgh & Lake Erie’s trackage – not
including the McKees Rocks facility, locomotives, and rail cars.
TOPOGRAPHY
Less than five miles to the west of Pittsburgh, McKees Rocks is on the southern
bank of the Ohio River. This particular site is located along the CSX lines
crossing Stowe Township and McKees Rocks Borough. The site is divided
into two parts by the McKees Rocks Bridge. The piece south of the bridge
is about 30 acres and contains the old P&LE facilities. The northern piece is
approximately 70 acres and contains the majority of the trackage. The site is
relatively flat and accessible by the McKees Rocks Bridge and Pennsylvania
Photo courtesy of http://www.kahndog.com
Routes 65 & 51.
MARKET CONDITIONS
Since the 1950s, McKees Rocks has been on the decline, physically
and economically. There has been no groundbreaking for new
development in the area since the turn of the century.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


In 1997 Allegheny Railroad Properties Inc. (ARPI) bought the McKees
Rocks facility, locomotives, and rail cars. Two years later, ARPI
breached its contract with P&LE Properties by missing a mortgage
payment. Consequently, ownership of the site reverted back to
P&LE. P&LE sold the land to five distinct tenants, including Pittsburgh
Limosine Company, Proline, and Clifton Steel.
Since then, ownership has changed drastically. While Bill Meides of
Picture courtesy of Google Maps Clifton Steel still owns some of the site, the majority of the site is now
owned by PK Brown. Enterprise Bank, Randy Castriota of Castriota Metals & Recycling, and John Krugle of
JRR Rail, LLC occupy the rest of the site.
The McKees Rocks Community Development Corporation (MRCDC), formerly known as the McKees Rocks
Planning Commission, is currently developing a plan for adaptive reuse of the site. All five of the buildings
on the site are salvageable, and public transportation by bus or train is available in McKees Rocks and Stowe
Township. However, future development of this site is restricted by railroad tracks on one side and sewer lines
that run parallel to the McKees Rocks Bridge. The present use of the site is limited to a metal scrap yard (on
six acres of the site) and storage of school
buses and portajohns.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
was performed in 1998. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) reported that P&LE had produced
or allowed petroleum contamination of the
soils and nearby sewers in the late 1980s.
Consequently, it issued a series of orders
requiring P&LE to assess the property and
to implement necessary remediation.
P&LE agreed to install monitoring wells and a recovery trench, sample the groundwater quarterly, remediate
the soil, remove waste drums, and conduct Phase II prior to selling the land.
Phase II indicated that VOCs were in the groundwater and the soil. Pesticides, lead, and mercury were found
in the soil, as well.
Major tanks, transformers, and drums have been removed; however, piles of debris and abandoned infrastructure
are still present on the site. After P&LE went bankrupt, ARPI did not continue with the remediation of the site,
and did not use the installed recovery trench.
The site may need a second Phase II Site Assessment before it is shovel-ready for future redevelopment.
SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The McKees Rocks Planning Commission was formed in order to attract development in the borough. In 1999,
the group sent a conceptual plan for a high-tech industrial park to Allegheny County. Their plan included the
renovation of two buildings on the site for office space. A year after, the Planning Commission reformed into
the McKees Rocks Community Development Corporation (MRCDC). Their goal is the same – enacting a plan
of an adaptive reuse of the site.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
There is no cable/DSL available on the site, and the majority of the public utilities, including water and sewage,
are in disrepair. Water lines were increased to fix this inadequacy. Phone lines, however, are adequate.
Public transportation is good for the McKees Rocks and
Stowe Area – a bus line runs parallel to the site. Also,
plans for a new roadway will increase public accessibility
into the site.
ARPI planned to tear down a footbridge spanning across
the CSX tracks because of its condition. The community
rallied against its demolition because it links the area to
Stowe Township, and the footbridge provides the only access outside of the isolated community in case
of a flood. As of right now, the bridge is still in existence, but closed.
In 2005, Governor Rendell announced funding made available for infrastructure repair. Since the
2004 flooding by Hurricane Ivan, the Governor approved more money towards rail freight improvement
projects. McKees Rocks received $2.1 million for repair along 43 miles of rail.
Also, some of the buildings are eligible for listing in the National Registry of Historic Places – including
the Diesel Shop.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


The area received $400,000 in EPA funding. This amount has not been distributed yet. The exact
amount assigned to McKees Rocks will be known in Fall 2008.
CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Several of the plans for the site’s growth fell through, including a $15 million redevelopment plan in
Stowe Township. This was due to an accumulation of factors, one being site assembly.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY
IMPACT
The P&LE site is still idle and ripe
for renewal.

Case Study Updated Summer 2008


SOURCES

Baron, Jennifer. “$15M brownfield redevelopment Reynolds, Dan. “County Plans Big Brownfield
planned for Stowe Twp.” Pop City Media. 23 Redevelopment.” 11 May 2007. <http://pittsburgh.
May 2007. <http://www.popcitymedia.com/ bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2007/05/14/story2.
developmentnews/pittsburghplant.aspx> html>

Erzi, Ipek and Priscila Vargas. “Old P&LE Railyard Spatter, Sam. “Steel Factory Corp. of McKees Rocks
– McKees Rocks.” Brownfields and Economic Plan Wins Tax Abatement.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Revitalization of the Inner City. 8 Dec. 1999. 10 May 2007. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/
<http://www.ce.cmu.edu/Brownfields/Nsf/Sites/ pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_506895.html>
McKeesRocks.htm>
Vrcek, Taris. Phone interview. 19 June 2008.
“Governor Rendell Announces Funding for
Rail Grants that Promote Jobs, Economic Wereschagin, Mike. “Onorato Vows to Keep Talks
Development, Repair Flood Damage.” PA Going.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 11 Nov. 2005.
PowerPort. Feb 2005. <http://www.state.pa.us/ <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_
papower/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=440884&pp=3> 393420.html>

“McKees Rocks.” 2005. <http://www.


coolspacelocator.com/csl/home/neighborhoods/
McKeesRocks.htm >
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

MCKEESPORT
(US STEEL NATIONAL TUBE WORKS)
LOCATION: McKeesport, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 135 acres
1795 McKeesport is founded.
FEATURES: Elevated, Turnpike
Access, Transportation (rail, truck, and
water) 1890s The Tube Works employs nearly
10,000 people.
OWNER: Regional Industrial 1901 US steel purchases the site.
Development Corporation (RIDC)

CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) 1989 RIDC purchases the site.

PAST USE: Metal Tube and Pipe


2004 Hurricane Ivan floods the area.
Manufacturing

CONTAMINANTS: Fuel Oil and Heavy


Metals

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown

HISTORY
The Industrial Center of McKeesport was
originally the site of various metal tube and pipe
manufacturing companies. In 1901, US Steel
purchased the site and its resident companies.
These ten companies were American Bridge
Company, American Sheet Steel Company,
American Steel Hoop Company, American Steel
& Wire Company, American Tin Plate Company,
Carnegie Steel Company, Federal Steel Company,
Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines, National
Steel Company, and National Tube Company.
These former competitors were merged to form the
US Steel National Tube Works. The incorporation
of US Steel National Tube works marked the birth of
history’s first billion-dollar company, United States
Steel Corporation, with an authorized capitol of $1.4 Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh
billion.
TOPOGRAPHY
The Industrial Center of McKeesport is located beside the
Monongahela River. As with most sites of former steel mills in
the Pittsburgh region, the land had been elevated some 25 feet
on average by industry to prevent flooding and provide a stable
surface for building structures. Slag, a waste product of steel
making, was the most common fill.
The Industrial Center of McKeesport offers land, water, and
rail access. It is close to the turnpike and next to the river;
although rail access competes with ground transportation (such
as trucking) due to obstruction of passing trains.

MARKET CONDITIONS
The Mon Valley is in need of revitalization. With the new
redevelopments in McKeesport, the Mon Valley has the
opportunity to increase their market for retail, housing,
and dining. An active use for the area will boost the area
Picture courtesy of Google Maps
economically.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
The Regional Industrial Development Corporation of Southwestern Pennsylvania (RIDC) purchased the
site in 1989.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Most contamination was due to fuel oil and heavy metals.
The RIDC decided to forgo environmental insurance purchases. It believed it was unnecessary after all
cleanup projects were completed.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The use for the land is still up in the air for this site. Consideration of the community’s input is key for
the success of the site.
In particular, the West-to-West Coalition was formed in order to serve as an economic developer for
this and many sites. The Coalition represents 21 communities and has been selected to receive
various EPA grants for brownfield
redevelopment projects.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The McKeesport project includes
construction of an overpass of the
CSX Railroad and will connect Lysle
Boulevard with Industry Road. Federal
earmarks totaling $17.5 million have
been secured for the construction of
both ramps.
Also, the RIDC was able to preserve
many of the original structures to
some degree after Hurricane Ivan hit
the area in 2004. Interior renovations
allow tenants to customize buildings
to their specific needs. Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh
COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
The RIDC used the Department of Community and Economic Development’s (DCED) Industrial Sites
Reuse Program funds Phase-I and Phase-II assessment and cleanup projects.
Also, $8.0 million in loans and grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) were sent to redevelop the City Center of Duquesne and the Industrial Center of McKeesport.
To date, a total of $31 million has been committed to the Duquesne and McKeesport projects. The
funding includes: $8.0 million in loans and grants from HUD; $4.5-million grant from the Commonwealth
Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP); $1.0-million grant from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); and $17.5 million in earmarked federal transportation funding. Of the $1
million in EPA funding, the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County is receiving $600,000. A third
of that sum is directed towards the cleanup of the former Firth Sterling steel plant in McKeesport.
The Allegheny County Department of Economic Development worked with the Redevelopment Authority
of Allegheny County (RAAC) and the Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) to take
advantage of HUD’s Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, which enables public entities to leverage
Community Development Block Grants into additional funding. HUD awarded the County a $2.0-million
Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant and a $6.0-million Section 108 loan.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Projects at the McKeesport site include site cleanup, demolition of an old office building, renovating
several other buildings and relocating a pipe yard from the riverfront.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
Officials are working on projects that they hope will spur economic development in the Mon Valley.
The site’s development has already generated 300 new jobs in the area. The redevelopment of Firth
Sterling is expected to create 500 industrial
jobs and generate $17 million in investment for
the City of McKeesport.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007


SOURCES

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. “Onorato


Announces Additional $8.0 Million in Funding for
Brownfields Redevelopment in Duquesne and
McKeesport.“
12 Oct. 2005. 15 June 2007
<http://www.county.allegheny.pa.us/
news/2005/251012.asp>

Interview with William E. Burroughs, Vice President


of Development – RIDC. Conducted via telephone, 9
May 2007

PA Site Finder. “McKeesport.”


<http://www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us/Site_details.
asp?ID=90&County=Allegheny&SaleType=Both&opt Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh
LocationType=County&MinSalePrice=&MaxSalePrice
=&MinPropertySize=&MaxPropertySize=&MinBuildin Smith, Bonnie. “EPA Awards $1 Million to Redevelop
gSpace=&MaxBuildingSpace=&MinLeasePrice=&Ma Brownfields throughout Allegheny County.” Environmental
xLeasePrice=> Protection Agency. 27 Sept. 2005. <http://yosemite.epa.
gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/
Revers, Stanley. “A Study of Keystone Commons, the 32121a7c894f825285257089005035ef!OpenDocument>
Industrial Center of McKeesport, and the Duquesne
City Center” May 2007. Student Work
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

NEVILLE ISLAND
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA TIMELINE
1803 General
Island.
John Neville dies on Neville
SIZE: 1,200 acres (whole island), 400
acres (brownfields only) 1918 The island’s first ammunition plant is
constructed.
FEATURES: Access by Rail, River,
and Highway; Flat Land; Proximity to 1945 The end of World War II brings
unemployment.
the Airport and Downtown, Significant
Acreage 1992 Pittsburgh International Airport opens a
new terminal in the area.
OWNER: The 33 parcels of land are
held by more than 19 property owners,
1998 Neville Island opens a sports center.
including Neville Development 1999 The Neville Island Development
Association is formed.
Company and Neville Township
1999 The township receives an EPA
CURRENT USE: Hotel (currently Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
being developed), Restaurants Pilot grant.
(expected), None (vacant land) 2000 The township receives an EPA
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan
PAST USE: Military Production Fund grant.
CONTAMINANTS: Lead, 2003 The Western Pennsylvania Brownfields
Tetrachloroethane (PCE), Arsenic Center facilitates a workshop focusing on
Neville Island.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a 2008 Fairfield Inn is expected to open its doors.

HISTORY
Neville Island is named for its first owner, General John Neville, who was given the property by Congress
because of his valuable service during the Revolutionary War. There is no evidence that the island, previously
referred to as Montour’s Island or Long Island, was inhabited prior to that time.
Neville died on the island in 1803, and later, the island became high-quality farmland. However, the land
usage changed from agricultural to industrial when two bridges were constructed at the North and South ends
of the island. This connection joined the island to the rapidly industrializing Pittsburgh region.
In 1918 during World War I, the U.S. Government acquired
130 acres of the island for use as a large ammunition
plant. After the war, more than 50 industries, ranging
from steel companies to chemical plants, existed on the
island.
The Dravo Machining Corporation, specializing in
shipbuilding, made a large mark on the history of the
island. After the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, Dravo
officers were contracted to produce 300 ships for the
war effort. This greatly expanded development of heavy
industrial infrastructure on the island. In addition to in-
plant transportation and parking needs, the Navy built five
miles of four-lane highway and an auxiliary timber bridge
to connect the island to the shore. Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/
The end of the war resulted in rapid employment reductions.
The closure of many industrial facilities and increased
environmental regulation has hindered further economic
development in the island.

TOPOGRAPHY
Neville Island, located on the Ohio River, is approximately five
miles long and 2,000 feet wide. One-third of the island, or 400
acres, are brownfields.
The island, just a few miles northwest of Pittsburgh, is favored
Picture courtesy of Google Maps
for its easy access, level topography, and natural amenities.
It is serviced by multiple transportation networks including Interstate 79, Route 51, Route 65, the Ohio
River, freight rail lines, and the Pittsburgh International Airport. The terrain of the island appears relatively
flat thanks to many years of industrial land filling. The island also has functional infrastructure, including
additional capacity for water supply, sewers, and natural gas and access to two separate electrical grids, and
significant parcels of underutilized property.

MARKET CONDITIONS
Neville Island is in close proximity to the Pittsburgh International Airport. When the new airport terminal was
open in 1992, the facility was expected to attract substantial new development to the entire area, including
Neville Island; however, development in the area has not been considerable.
The construction of the Island Sports Complex in 1998 encouraged some development in the northwestern
part of the island. Formerly a Superfund site, the sports complex was able to bring more outside interest
into the area.
Nearly one-fifth of the island’s total area is available for immediate development. In spite of this, a local
community group, the Neville Island Development Association (NIDA), has been unable to overcome the
long-time negative image as a regional ‘toxic waste’ dump site.
The heavily industrialized eastern end of the island continues to have a declining tax base (2006).

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


Thirty-three parcels of land on the island are held by more than nineteen different property owners, including
Neville Development Company, Neville Island Commons, and Calgon Corporation. Twenty acres of the site,
formerly owned by Vulcan Materials Company, has operated under various owners since 1912. That site is
known today as the AMG Resources site.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
In 2001, Chester Engineers created the Brownfield Revitalization Initiative Environmental Strategic Plan.
Approximately thirty parcels were studied, their environmental history was documented, and clean up
procedures were recommended. Information
was also provided from Environmental Data
Resources, Inc.
By 2003, Neville Township received funding
for two Phase I investigations. A Phase
II investigation for most of those sites
was abandoned following the collapse of
negotiations for a commercial development
near the I-79 interchange.
A 20-acre site that formerly housed Vulcan
Materials Company completed clean up in Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/
2000. The site, now called AMG Resources, conducts recycling of tin-plated ferrous scrap and post-
consumer cans. Elevated lead concentrations, PCE, arsenic, and a high soil pH were found on
the property. Electrolytes leaked and contributed to the contamination. Their site-specific clean up
standard required either pathway elimination by asphalt pavement or six-inch gravel covers.
Other sites, such as Allegheny Shenango, Inc. and Allegheny West Rentals, Inc., have completed site-
specific clean ups.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Neville Island is part of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance – a ten-county public-private
partnership that advocates legislative and regulatory changes to promote economic development in
southwestern Pennsylvania.
Also, in 1999, the Neville Island Development Association (NIDA) was formed as a 501c3 charitable
organization by the Neville Township Commissioners. The organization’s purpose is to promote and
facilitate development on Neville Island. NIDA also initiated the Neville Island Business Association
(NIBA) as a communications forum for the island’s business community.
In 2003, Neville Township Board of Commissioners and NIDA in cooperation with the Western
Pennsylvania Brownfields Center at Carnegie Mellon University (WPBC) conducted a workshop to look
at the redevelopment of brownfields on Neville Island. The focus of the workshop was to improve the
image of the island.
The WPBC brought national redevelopment experts into the area. They spent several days surveying
the land and providing their unbiased opinions and comments regarding the community and possible
development.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Various locations on the island have a multitude of
existing infrastructure, such as water, sewers, natural
gas, and electricity. The island’s proximity to the airport
adds to the infrastructure of the site. A regional water
and sewer plan must be developed. While some area
townships have extensive and well-developed systems,
others do not. This inconsistency has held back the
entire airport area.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


In 1999, the township applied for and received an Photo courtesy of US Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot grant of $200,000 to perform Phase I and Phase
II environmental assessments on approximately five sites, to complete an inventory of the island’s
brownfields, to design clean up plans for assessed sites, to educate the community about the
assessment, to clean up, and to redevelop. However, the Phase II assessment had been abandoned
as of 2003.
In 2000, the township and NIDA jointly applied for and were awarded and EPA Brownfields Clean
Up Revolving Loan Fund grant of $500,000 to make low interest loans for environmental clean up
activities.
In 2003, the state legislature designated fifty-one acres on Neville Island, known locally as the Light
Metals site and the Dravo Boatyard site, as a Keystone Opportunity Zone, as a Keystone Opportunity
Zone (KOZ). The principal benefit of a KOZ is the elimination of all local, county, and state taxes on
activities in the zone.
Also in 2003, the township considered a tax abatement schedule for commercial and industrial
properties on the island. The program, known as a Local Economic Revitalization Tax Act (LERTA),
permits forgiveness of increased real estate tax assessments due to new construction or substantial
reconstruction activities.
CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS
LEARNED
In 2007, the area began its Neville Road
beautification project. The program involved
planting trees and landscaping. NIDA’s
Streetscape Revitalization Plan and Riverfront
Redevelopment Strategy hopes to initiate the
community’s revitalization process.
The Marriot Fairfield Inn & Suites being
constructed near the I-79 interchange is
expected to open by mid-2008. It is just one
of a handful of hotels that Concord Hospitality
Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/ Enterprises Co. has in mind for development.
With the Fairfield Inn as an incubator for more business, the 2007 redevelopment plans for this
area also include a King’s Restaurant, a Subway Restaurant, a 100-employee office building,
and a second sit-down restaurant with a bar.
This site is a reminder of the time a brownfield redevelopment sometimes requires patience.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
In 2007, a representative from NIDA estimated, “Right now if everything goes as planned, within
five to 10 years we’re looking at increasing the island’s net worth to $100 million.”

Case Study Completed Summer 2007


SOURCES

“An Advisory Services Panel Report: Pittsburgh “EPA Gives Neville Township 200K to Redevelop
International Airport Area – A Development Brownfields.” 21 June 1999. Environmental
Program for the Airport Market Area.” 13 Sept. Protection Agency. <http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
2002. Urban Land Institute. admpress.nsf/ee765cb97fbff562852572a000651fdf/
8b4dec5a4def0675852570d60070fa45!OpenDocument>
“Brownfields Assessment Pilot Fact Sheet: Neville
Township, PA.” 23 Oct. 2006. Environmental Guo, David. “Neville development plans start to gel:
Protection Agency. <http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/ Proposals call for hotel, restaurant, shops on Neville
bf/html-doc/nevlltwn.htm> Island.” 26 July 2007. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. <http://
www.post-gazette.com/pg/07207/804378-57.stm>
“Cleanup Plan Approved for Neville Island Scrap
Metal and Tin Recycling Firm.” 9 June 2000. “Neville: An Island of Opportunity.” 27 Sept. 2003.
Department of Environmental Protection. <http:// Brownfield Workshop Briefing Document.
www.ahs.dep.state.pa.us/newsreleases/default.
asp?ID=449&varQueryType=Detail> “Neville Township – The Place to Live, Work, and Play.”
Neville Island Development Association (NIDA). Brochure.
“Defining Results: 2001 Annual Report
Appendices.” 2001. Pennsylvania Land Recycling Schooley, Tim. “Marriot hotel on Neville Island part of
Program. <http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/ Concord’s regional plans.” 23 March 2007. Pittsburgh
landrecwaste/lib/landrecwaste/land_recycling/ Business Times. <http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/
annual_reports/2001_appendices.pdf> pittsburgh/stories/2007/03/26/story8.html?f=et185&b=117
4881600%5E1435799&hbx=e_vert>
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

PITTSBURGH TECHNOLOGY CENTER


(LTV)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 48 acres 1849 The Pittsburgh and Boston Copper
Smelting Works occupies the site.
FEATURES: Location, Accessibility,
1853 Jones and Lauth Company forms.
Flat Land, and Riverfront
1863 Site is renamed to the Jones and
OWNER: Urban Redevelopment Laughlin Company.
Authority (URA) 1887 The Hot Metal Bridge is constructed to
connect the hot pig iron from the north to
CURRENT USE: High-tech Research the processing facility from the south.
and Development
1968 J&L is sold out to LTV.
PAST USE: Iron Manufacturing 1981 The Park Corporation purchases the site.
CONTAMINANTS: Tar Pits, Waste Oil, 1983 The Urban Redevelopment Authority of
Oily Water, and Ferrous Cyanide Pittsburgh purchases the site.
1993 Date of groundbreaking.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $104 million
2001 The site is completed.

HISTORY
The steel production on the northern region was owned by Benjamin Franklin Jones. In 1853 Jones
merged his operations with the South Side’s American Iron Works, which was co-owned by the brothers
Bernard and John Lauth. This resulted in the formation of the Jones and Lauth Company. When the Lauth
brothers sold the corporation to a banker named James Laughlin in 1863, the company took the name
Jones and Laughlin Company.
In 1887 a bridge connecting the north and south shores of the Monongahela River was constructed
to transport the hot pig iron manufactured on the
northern shore to the processing facility in the
south. This bridge known as the Hot Metal Bridge
has been renovated for vehicular traffic presently.
J&L was, by far, the major competitor to the
Carnegie Steel, the top steel producer at the time.
At its peak it produced almost 3.4 million tons of
pig iron, steel and other products, while employing
almost 22,000 people. The company employed
about 10,000 personnel from in and around the
Pittsburgh region.
Such tremendous growth made Pittsburgh an
attractive target for immigrants from Europe, who
settled to take advantage of the labor needs of the
steel industry and the broader economy.
The industry had severe denigrating impacts on
the environment of Pittsburgh and especially the
waterfront regions where most of the plants were
located. The plants, apart from using the rivers as
a means of transportation of raw materials and
finished products, were also responsible for large-
scale pollution of the rivers. More importantly, they
cut off the river from the general public.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps

TOPOGRAPHY
J&L operations were concentrated mainly four kilometers upstream on the northern shore of the
Monongahela River from downtown Pittsburgh. The site has riverfront access; however, an active
railroad blocks public access to the water and occupies land that might be used as a riverfront
park.
The site is less than two miles away from the city and two major universities, the University of
Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University.
MARKET CONDITIONS
Presently the site is
successfully generates
revenue for the area;
however, the development
for this site was slow as
its first occupant, the
University of Pittsburgh
Center for Biotechnology,
was not located until
1991.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND


CONTROL
The 1960s and 1970s saw the fall in demand for steel within the United States. Further rise in
operational costs and cheaper steel imports began to cut into profit margins of the steel industry.
This called for some kind of consolidation among the steel companies and some did respond to
this. J&L was one of them. J&L agreed to sell out to Texas based Ling Temco Vought (LTV) works,
in 1968.
LTV took control of all the plants and facilities of J&L along the Monongahela River including the
Aliquippa facility, and soon the green and yellow colors of the J&L name was replaced forever with
the red and blue colors of LTV. In later years the green and yellow colors of J&L employees came
to the fore during protests and strikes against the LTV during the painful closure of the facilities.
In the case of J&L, the properties within Pittsburgh were bought up by Ohio- based Park Corporation
in 1981. Unable to decide on the next course of action the site was left idle for the two years.
Sensing the Park Corporation’s lack of ideas and motivation towards any serious redevelopment the
URA stepped in and bought up the vast strip of 48-acre site wedged between the 2nd Avenue
and the Monongahela River in 1983. This action, while fully supported by the City of Pittsburgh,
was also funded by numerous other public organizations.
Once the purchase was completed, various opportunities were investigated. This task was
handed over to Urban Land Institute (ULI) with URA funding. The ULI, after detailed analysis
of the site and its surroundings, noted the site’s close proximity to downtown Pittsburgh as well
as the hub for research and development – The Carnegie Mellon University and the University
of Pittsburgh.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Environmental inspections found tar pits, waste oil (2,000 gallons), oily water (420,000 gallons)
and ferrous cyanide. The tar and water were discovered and dealt with initially, while ferrous
cyanide was found much later. The ferrous cyanide was found in an underground pit in the
middle of construction. For two months construction was halted while its origins were researched.
It was discovered that a gas company left the ferrous cyanide in a pit for long-term disposal. It
was deemed harmless, as it was sealed in a well-designed container, and construction began
again. Apart from having to move Carnegie Mellon’s research structure so that it would not be
built above the pit, there were no other major issues with construction.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
As for communities around this site, there weren’t many. Most of the communities were either
near Southside Works across the Monongahela River or near the Hazelwood facilities. The
Urban Land Institute came up with the proposal of building a full fledged high-tech research
center which could prove to be an incubator for companies and the universities to come
together. This plan was approved and potential customers or tenants included were University
of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. The University of Pittsburgh’s research facility
eventually became the anchor tenant in 1993.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The mill’s Eliza Furnace, famous for its red
glow, was one of the structures that had
to be demolished. The only structure left
above ground after the demolition was Soho
Works. Old maps and records of the site
aided underground clearing, leaving only the
foundation of the Hot Street Mill untouched.
Its thickness ranges from 6 to 34.75 inches.
Although the URA wanted to increase
access to the riverfront in this area, the
active railway line on the bank of the river
prohibits access.
Existing infrastructure required renovations and some new infrastucture was required. None
of the existing roads within the site were used. New sewer lines, electric lines, and a road
system were constructed. The renovation of the Hot Metal Bridge was carried out in 2000.
COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
This site used Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to fund the completion of the $104 million
development. Because of its almost immediate success, the $7.5 million taken from TIF was
repaid 12 years ahead of schedule.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


The first two tenants, University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Biology and Bioengineering
and Carnegie Mellon University, led to other companies, including Union Switch & Signal,
Aristech, and the Oakland Consortium.
Today the URA is considering the development
of 1 million square feet for more office space
on the vacant sites on this property because
of its success and continued interest shown
by private organizations. Also, by doing this,
the URA realizes that the current research
center landscape is a suburban use of land in
an urban area. By making more land available
for office space, the URA can use more smart
growth practices.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
The Pittsburgh Technology Center successfully
converted an industrial site into a hub for
research. The site increases property values,
employs about 1000 people in high-tech and
research interests, and brings in about $1 million yearly in taxes.

Source of Case Study Completed Summer 2007


Governmental Funding SOURCES

$10,000,000 PA Department of Commerce Darby, Lauren. Changing Spaces, Department of


Design, CMU
$8,300,000 PA Department of Community Affairs
– Strategy 21 Plan Paull, Evans. Using Tax Increment Financing for
$2,300,000 City of Pittsburgh Brownfields Redevelopment
Presentation, lecture, and articles from class
$1,500,000 Urban Redevelopment Authority of
Pittsburgh Santoro, Carla and Adrienne Messenger.
$2,900,000 Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority Brownfield Development: the Implications for Urban
Infrastructure. The Brownfields Center: PTC Case
$300,000 Private Foundations Study. Carnegie Mellon University. Aug. 1998.
$25,300,000 TOTAL
Thiagarajan, Sathappan. “Pittsburgh Brownfields,
The Pittsburgh Technology Center, Final Report.”
Apr. 2007. Student Work
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

PNC FIRSTSIDE CENTER


(B&O RAILROAD)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 4.5 acres
1871 B&O Railroad establishes tracks in
FEATURES: Location, Scenic, Pittsburgh.
Accessibility, and Public
Transportation 1980 CSX Corporation is established,
consolidating all the major railroads.
OWNER: PNC Financial Services 1991 Part of the site is turned into the County
Group Jail while the URA holds the remaining
area.
CURRENT USE: Bank Operations
1995 The site is restored and remediated
PAST USE: Passenger Train Station under Land Recycling Program by CSX
Real Property.
CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum 2000 Construction begins on the site.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $120 million 2000 Construction of building is completed.
2001 Construction of a new rail station is
completed.

HISTORY
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O) was one of the oldest railroads in the United States, with an
original line extending from the port of Baltimore, Maryland, west to the Ohio River at Wheeling and
Parkersburg, West Virginia.
The site, during its use as a train station, supported an industrial city. But as the steel industry began
to shut down, economics pushed this station out of use. CSX, the new owner of the property decided to
remediate the site in order to be able to put it up on the market again.
TOPOGRAPHY
The 10th Grant Street Site, as it is referred to by the
Land Recycling Program, competed well with various
other sites that PNC considered for this project (17 other
options considered).
The property offered great views, strategic location and
an urban setting for the PNC Firstside Center. The linear
shape of the site along the river allowed for elongated
floor plans and worked well with the design requirement.

Photo courtesy of http://www.10000friends.org/


MARKET CONDITIONS
Their real estate department carried out an extensive cost benefit
analysis based on liability, internal rate of return, percent increase
in property value, and investor satisfaction in terms of meeting
aspirations for green building. Easy access to public amenities such
as the 1200 capacity parking garage transport infrastructure tipped
the balance in favor of the brownfield site. As for the analysis done
by PNC, a greenfield site would have required 20 acres more land
to provide the same amount of facilities. For this particular site, no
onsite parking was required as many employees use the public
transport systems.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


When owned by the CSX Company, the site was a total of 18.5
acres. A 1991 Consent Order and Agreement between the URA
and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was made
regarding 13.9 acres of the original site. It eventually became the
Picture courtesy of Google Maps County Jail.
CSX formerly owned all of the property at the Grant Street site. The land that did not become the County Jail
was redeveloped into PNC Firstside Center. The site was remediated under the Land Recycling Program, Act
2, alleviating issues of liability on PNC as a future owner of the property. The site was remediated to meet
the standards required for commercial development.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
No extremely hazardous contaminants were found on site. Petroleum was found in the soil, excavated and
disposed off site. No other chemical contamination was found.
The site was remediated to the Statewide Health Standard.
This might have been due to the future intended commercial use of the site. This standard is derived from
medium-specific chemical concentrations that take into account use and non-use as well as residential and
nonresidential exposure factors at a site. Under the Act 2 program the following documentation required the
location of disposed hazardous substances, and the description of the type of hazardous substances disposed
on the site.
PNC also carried out the Hazmat hazardous materials abatement test prior to the construction of the
building.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The PNC building has helped reinforce the city’s green building movement, which is one of the recent success
stories for the city. As a commercial project in the commercial district with no public money involved, there
is no direct involvement of the community in the project. However input drawn from local organizations such
as the Green Building Alliance, and local architectural consultants, such as Astorino, informed the design
decisions.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The Port Authority of Allegheny County agreed to build the First Side Light Rail Station based on anticipated
ridership of PNC Firstside Center employees and surrounding business. The Pittsburgh Parking Authority also
agreed to locate the municipal garage next to PNC Firstside at the edge of Pittsburgh downtown based on
PNC’s encouragement.
COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
The site was restored and remediated in 1995 by CSX under the Land Recycling Program, Act
2 at private expense. Documentation, including a property description section concerning the
hazardous substance disposal on the site and the description and location of the type of hazardous
substances disposed on the site was submitted to meet the Act 2 requirements. It was approved
on December 12, 1995 with the intent to remediate files in October 1995.
The total project cost of this development was $108 million. Numerous decisions were made using
a two-year payback cutoff.
The real payback is expected in the worker productivity and retention rates, the potential savings
of which dwarf the construction costs.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


The site now has one of the most progressive offices building in Pittsburgh built to LEED silver
standards.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
Built adjacent to the structure, PNC Park provides outdoor space for the employees and serves as
a public amenity. PNC is thus able to reach out to the city, extending the benefits beyond the site
boundaries. This would not have been possible on a greenfield site which would have been out of
reach of most of the city population.
PNC wanted this to be a destination spot for trail users, families, office workers and others,
according to Steven Gillespie, one of the park’s two designers.
PNC was able to reach out to its shareholders and contribute to the progress of the downtown
area. Image building and exhibiting commitment to the development of the region’s economy was
thus an important aspect of the objectives
Case Study Completed Summer 2007 for the project.
SOURCES The director of corporate real estate for
Agarwal, Minu. “A Healthy Workplace Built on a Brownfield
PNC commended the property, saying,
Site: PNC Firstside Center” Apr. 2007. Student Work “These buildings are good for the
employees, good for the customers and
Allegheny County, Southwest PA, PNC Firstside Center good for the community so, of course,
http://www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us/docs/SS_new3.pdf
they are good for PNC.”
Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling Program: 1996 Year End
Progress Report
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/
lib/landrecwaste/land_recycling/annual_reports/
96yearendprogressreport.doc

GBA case studies http://www.gbapgh.org/casestudies_


Firstside.asp

Department of Community and Economic Development


Marge Ryan (margeryan@state.pa.us Ph: 717-720-1425)

Astorino (Architects) Catherine T. Sheane, PE,


Sustainable Design Manager (csheane@astorino.com)

John J Matviya SW Regional Manager Environmental


Cleanup Program (jmatviya@state.pa.us)

“Final Report” at the SW Regional Manager Environmental


Cleanup Program Office [ECP File No. 5-2-1-367]
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

ROUTE 8 CORRIDOR
SHALER TOWNSHIP
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA TIMELINE
1895 Glenshaw Glass Company is built.
SIZE: 61 acres (The Route 8 Corridor
is comprised of approximately 2,100 1904 Ball Chemical moves into the corridor.
acres.)
2004 Hurricane Ivan floods the Route 8
FEATURES: Riverfront, Accessibility Corridor.
(Roads, Rail, and River) 2005 Glenshaw Glass closes.
OWNER: More than 15 different owners 2005 The area receives funding for
total - Anchor landholder: Glenshaw assessment and redevelopment through
Glass - Bill Kelman the Riverside Center for Innovation (RCI)
and Allegheny River Towns Enterprise
CURRENT USE: Light Industry/ Zone (ARTEZ) partnership.
Manufacturing, Storage, Retail,
2006 New owner resumes a lower capacity of
Warehouse, None (Vacant) plant activity at Glenshaw Glass.
PAST USE: Light Industry/ 2006 ARTEZ and Shaler Township approach
Manufacturing, Retail, Storage the Western Pennsylvania Brownfields
Center (WPBC) regarding a 1.5-mile
CONTAMINANTS: VOCs, PCBs portion of Route 8 Corridor.
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown 2007 WPBC facilitates a workshop in the area.

HISTORY
The industry on Route 8 began when four men raised enough money to build the Glenshaw Glass Factory
in 1895. In 1904, Ball Chemical moved in nearby the plant firmly establishing the corridor’s industrial
character. After a see-saw of on-site fires and out-of-state expansions in its 100-year history, Hurricane
Ivan flooded Glenshaw Glass in 2004, severely damaging the plant and discouraging potential investor
Sun Capital Partners, Inc. In 2005, the plant closed, resulting in more than 300 layoffs. A year later, plant
activity resumed with one of three furnaces active when new owner Bill Kelman bought the site.

TOPOGRAPHY
The Route 8 Corridor lies on the north bank of the Allegheny
River. The area includes approximately seven miles of river
frontage. Rail lines run within the area, and the corridor straddles
Route 8, a major North-South road that connects downtown
to the suburbs. The site is within twelve miles of Pittsburgh’s
Golden Triangle. The corridor also lies along Pine Creek, a
major tributary of the Allegheny River.
Also, while the total acreage of available land is significant, the
parcels of land that make up the Route 8 Corridor are relatively
narrow, bounded by the railroad on one side and Pine Creek on
the other.
Photo courtesy of http://taxprof.typepad.com
MARKET CONDITIONS
More than 700 jobs have been lost along the Route 8 corridor since
Hurricane Ivan flooded the corridor. The area’s businesses continue
struggle with persistent flooding, transit, transportation, and land use
challenges.
After the former owner of the Glenshaw Glass Factory John Ghaznavi
defaulted on a loan in 2005, the plant closed. The next year, businessman
Bill Kelman purchased the 25-acre site for $3.8 million. Kelman has
opened a scaled-down version of the former operations and auctioned
off the excess equipment.
Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone (ARTEZ) and the township
hope to stimulate business in this area. The corridor has many points of
access (river, rail, and road), a skilled labor force, various building sites,
available housing, and excellent school districts.
Incentives for incoming business include tax credits on investment and
Picture courtesy of Google Maps low-interest loans for expansions or relocations into the area.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
The 1.5-mile portion of the corridor under most intense consideration is bound by Glenshaw Glass in the
south, Spencer Lane on the north, and flanked by Pine Creek and the Allegheny Valley Railroad. This
portion of the Route 8 Corridor contains 15 different owners. Businesses in the area include Glenshaw
Glass, Ball Chemical, Benshaw Glenshaw Steel, East Liberty Electroplating, Pannier, Works in Wood,
Eastley Inc., Nicklas Supply, Krebs Toyota, Urso Racing Supplies, Miller Homes, and Triangle Machine &
Manufacturing.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone
(ARTEZ) established an environmental
assessment partnership with the Riverside Center
for Innovation (RCI). Seven properties were
assessed in the first year of the partnership.
The Ranbar property on Route 8 was once home
to both Ranbar and previously, Ball Chemicals.
Environmental consultants investigated the
presence of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
on the site. Photo courtesy of Kevin Creagh, Shaler Township Engineer

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
This 14-mile Route 8 Corridor passes through Etna Borough, Shaler Township, Hampton Township,
and Richland Township. Etna Borough maintains its urban character with a mixture of residential,
commercial, and industrial properties. Shaler Township has housing available in all price ranges and
a mixture of old and new industrial and commercial developments. Hampton Township has primarily
commercial development, and Richland Township is the most rural of the four.
The Riverside Center for Innovation (RCI) is a community development corporation involved in the
corridor. Incorporated in 1964, RCI’s purpose is to be a resource for businesses and communities to
foster the creation of new enterprises, the rapid commercialization of innovations, and the expansions of
existing businesses. The group works on projects that include housing, small commercial real estate,
and neighborhood advocacy.
In 2002 the Route 8 Partnership – a community coalition formed by the Borough of Etna, Shaler Township,
Hampton Township, and Richland Township, assisted by the North Hills Council of Governments, the
Allegheny County Department of Planning and
Economic Development, the Port Authority of
Allegheny County, the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation, and the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Commission developed the
Route 8 Corridor Economic Development
Plan. This was a long-range strategic plan that
imagined what the Corridor should look like in
2020. The plan included a policy framework,
marketing, transportation improvement, and the
development of public land.
In 2003, Allegheny River Towns Enterprise
Zone (ARTEZ), an economic development
agency was formed to collaborate with seven
communities along the Allegheny River
Photo courtesy of Kevin Creagh, Shaler Township Engineer – Milvalle, Etna, Shaler, Sharpsburg, O’Hara,
Aspinwall, and Blawnox. All seven are joined together by Route 28, the Norfolk Southern Railroad
and by the shoreline of the Allegheny River. This area includes a portion of the Route 8 Corridor.
The group also joined four established enterprise zones in Allegheny County – three in Mon Valley,
plus the City of Pittsburgh’s technology zone which is managed by the Urban Redevelopment
Authority. ARTEZ’s goal is to revitalize the distressed neighborhoods within these areas and promote
business.
In 2007, Shaler Township and ARTEZ approached the Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center
(WPBC) at Carnegie Mellon University to facilitate a workshop to study 1.5 miles of the 14-mile Route
8 Corridor. (This 1.5-mile portion is delineated in the section Site Control and Assembly.) The workshop
entailed the participation of national redevelopment
experts that could provide the community and
property owners with unbiased courses of action for
redevelopment while overcoming the struggles with
persistent flooding, transit, transportation, and land
use.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
In 2005 Shaler, Etna, Hampton, and the Northern
Allegheny Chamber of Commerce formed a
partnership to conduct the Route 8 Corridor Study,
completed by Environmental Planning and Design.
This study was paid for by grants from the County Photo courtesy of Kevin Creagh, Shaler Township Engineer
of Allegheny and the State Department of Economic
Development and noted improvements that could be made in order to make the area more attractive
to new businesses. The study recommends designated areas for certain types of businesses as well
as traffic improvements.
For instance, Krebs Toyota is vacant partially because it is dangerous to pull out make a northbound
movement on Route 8 from the site due to the “blind spots.”
Also, due to Route 8’s industrial heritage, natural gas, and electric utilities enjoy surplus capacity to
meet anticipated future demand. However, storm water sewers remain inadequate, shown in the
immediate flooding of Hurricane Ivan.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


The Riverside Center for Innovation (RCI) and ARTEZ received funding for assessment, remediation,
and redevelopment in 2005. Some of these funds may be available for use in the corridor.
CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED
The WPBC workshop held in the corridor engaged local property owners, and discussions made clear
that existing businesses would benefit from the development of synergistic business clusters.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
An improved business development has the potential to return jobs to the community and make the
roadway safer for travel.

Photo courtesy of Kevin Creagh, Shaler Township Engineer

Case Study Completed Summer 2007


SOURCES

Adam, Jan. “Brownfield redevelopment plan has “Etna Economic Development Corporation.” 2006.
river towns joining forces.” 23 June 2005. Pittsburgh Etna Borough. <http://www.etnaborough.com/edc.
Post-Gazette. <http://www.post-gazette.com/ htm>
pg/05174/526654.stm>
“RCI Company Information.” 2002-2007.
“Brownfields 2005 Grant Fact Sheet: Riverside Riverside Center for Innovation. <http://www.
Center for Innovation, Allegheny County, PA.” 23 Oct. riversidecenterforinnovation.com/rci.asp>
2006. US Environmental Protection Agency. <http://
www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/05grants/riversidecenter. “RE: Request for proposal for marketing and outreach
htm> services for the economic development programs
of the Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone, Inc.
Baron, Jennifer. “Route 8 corridor assessed by (ARTEZ).” 3 Aug. 2006. ARTEZ.
western PA brownfields center, municipal officials.”
16 May 2007. Pop City Media. <http://www. Stephen, John & Peter Meyer. “A Case Study of Inter-
popcitymedia.com/developmentnews/route80516. Municipal Cooperation on Brownfield Redevelopment.”
aspx> 19 April 2007. Allegheny River Towns Enterprise
Zone, Inc. Business of Brownfields Conference.
Belko, Mark. “EPA hands out $1 million for
redevelopment.” 28 Sept. 2005. Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette. <http://www.post-gazette.com/
pg/05271/578809.stm>

“EPA Awards $1 Million to Redevelop Brownfields


throughout Allegheny County.” 28 Sept. 2005. PA
Department of Environmental Protection. <http://
www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecy/cwp/view.
asp?a=3&q=495743>
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

SOUTHSIDE WORKS
(LTV)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA TIMELINE
SIZE: 123 acres
1893 Monongahela Water Company first
FEATURES: Location, Significant develops the site.
Acreage, and Flat Land 1974 LTV acquires J&L Steel.
OWNER: Soffer Organization & the 1993 The URA purchases the site.
Urban Redevelopment Authority
1996 The URA purchases the former Hot
(URA) Metal and MONCON Bridges.
CURRENT USE: Retail, Dining, 1997 URA completes the design of the
Entertainment, Office and Sports renovation of the MONCON Bridge.
Training Area 1998 LTV ceases operations and demolishs
the facilities in its steam plant in SSW.
PAST USE: Finishing Mill 2000 Renovations of the MONCON Bridge are
completed.
CONTAMINANTS: PCBs & Iron
Cyanide Metals 2004 A series of mixed-use structures
including the Cheesecake Factory is
TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $265 million completed.
funding, from public and private.

HISTORY
The steel plant on the site had operated since 1893 and housed open hearth furnaces and blooming and billet
mills. In 1947, James J. Ling started an electrical construction and engineering firm in Dallas, Texas. Through
a number of takeovers and mergers, the company that Ling established eventually became known as Ling-
Temco-Vought (LTV). When LTV took over Republic Steel and combined with J&L to form LTV Steel Co., it
became the second largest steel producer in the nation. LTV was set to have a large station in Pittsburgh as
J&L is a Pittsburgh-based company. All three of its manufacturing facilities were located there, including South
Side Works.
At its peak in the 1960s, J & L employed about 8,500 people. In 1968, LTV purchased J & L, and then merged
with Republic Steel in 1985. One year later, Republic Steel was forced to close due to foreign competition, high
labor costs, and a lack of modern steel-making equipment. The property
was abandoned and the mill was demolished in the early 1990s.

TOPOGRAPHY
This site which housed the South Side Works plant was owned by LTV.
This site had an area of 123 acres. It is located between Carson Street
and the Monongahela River. The South Side Plant was connected to the
plant on the northern side of the river by the Hot Metal Bridge.

MARKET CONDITIONS
Currently, this development is a good source of employment for the area.
Its existence also encourages housing opportunities and new
developments in surrounding areas. Property values in this
area have risen significantly.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


The site was purchased in 1993 by the Urban Redevelopment
Authority (URA) of Pittsburgh, after the plant idled. From 1994
to 1996, the URA completed community consensus efforts
related to development of the site. Over the next few years,
the URA solicited interest for development of all components
of the site, while completing environmental, infrastructure, and
traffic enhancement efforts and executing a Tax Increment
Picture courtesy of Google Maps Financing package with the three taxing bodies.
At one point during its abandonment, the LTV site attempted to become a historic landmark. It was thought
that the Bessemer converter building, an open-hearth building, and a J&L sign could be preserved to remind
Pittsburgh of its heritage; however, the discovery of its hazardous materials prevented this from coming to
fruition.
The Soffer Organization acquired 34 of the 123 acres of the South Side Works between 26th and 29th Street
while the URA and the City was responsible for the rest of the land.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
During 1996 and 1997 the URA continued environmental
studies on the property, while completing major remediation
and continued with the modeling and assessment of the
groundwater on the site.
By 1998 most of the assessments and minor environmental
remediation on the site were complete. No special
conditions were required for work on the site except to
implement a Health and Safety Plan and to clean up any
contamination found during construction.
SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The strong community surrounding the site was well integrated in the development plan, which considered
the community’s input.
Various South Side groups have been involved in the LTV site almost from the day the defunct steel plant
began coming down in the early 1990s. Community input ensured that the new buildings mimicked an
existing urban setting by coming right up to the sidewalks. The Southside Local Development Company was
one of those groups.
Formed in 1982, South Side Local Development Company is a non-profit community development organization
with the goal to preserve and develop Pittsburgh’s South Side.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
During 1996 the URA bought the former Hot Metal and MCON Bridge structures, believing that Hazelwood
would cease operations in short time. LTV demolished all the existing facilities but the Steam Plant and
accessory infrastructure.
During the initial stages of
the project, these operations
became a liability to the
immediate development of
the site.
During 1996 and 1997 the
URA focused on several
predevelopment efforts,
including selecting a master developer to partner with, as well as completing several traffic,
utility & geotechnical, and environmental remediation efforts. In 1997 the City designated
special zoning for the plan establishing the design and development goals, strategies, and
guidelines. The URA focused on accelerating traffic and access enhancements. They also
finished the design of the renovation of the MONCON Bridge. This former railroad bridge
was converted to a two lane vehicular bridge that connects the site to Oakland, PTC, and the
downtown. The bridge and approaches were completed and opened in July of 2000.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


A Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan was adopted by the
city, county and school district. This TIF is considered the
centerpiece of public funding needed to allow development
to proceed. Through this TIF the URA generated up to $25
million in financing proceeds to pay for public infrastructure
on the $300 million site. These proceeds were used with
other public funding to pay for and implement road and
infrastructure improvements for the project and to fill
funding gaps for parking structures.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


The site is a mixed-use development, including office space, a sports medicine complex and practice fields,
housing and retail. It contains approximately 330,000 square feet of specialty retail, restaurants, a hotel,
residential urban living units, and up to 700,000 square feet of class A office space. It utilizes the area by
providing many storied buildings for extra office or loft space and structured parking.
In addition to the job creation and housing potential of the development, public access to the riverfront will
be created.
A 38,000 sq. foot fitness center, a riverfront pavilion, a 200 room hotel, and 150 unit condo are planned
for the site. Also, Hofbräuhaus, a brewery, is to be built behind The Cheescake Factory. It is scheduled
to be open in the Fall of 2007.
ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
Southside Works is a first-class riverfront development utilizing a mix
Project Financing of office, medical, recreational, housing and retail uses. It is a private
investment of $250 million, providing up to 5,400 employment opportunities
(projected) and over 400 housing units. Employment generated by initial development
amounted to approximately 1,500 jobs.
$23,427,461 City / URA Funding

$16,250,000 Private Garage Funding


$16,992,000 State Funding Case Study Completed Summer 2007
$12,525,000 Pittsburgh Water & Sewer
SOURCES
Authority
$25,000,000 Tax Increment Financing Messenger, Adrienne. Brownfield Development: the Implications for Urban
Infrastructure. The Brownfields Center: Case Study Site – LTV South Side
$11,000,000 HUD Section 108 Loans
Works. Carnegie Mellon University. Aug. 1998.
$1,500,000 HUD Brownfields Economic
Development Initiative (BEDI) Saavedra, Loreto. “South Side Works” May 2007. Student Work
Grant
Soffer Organization Presentation
$1,000,000 HUD Economic Development
Initiative (EDI) Grant
Soffer Organization web page, http://www.sofferorganization.com/ss_works.
$7,245,039 Other Sources htm

URA web page, http://www.ura.org/showcaseProjects_ssWorks3.html


$103,666,500 Total
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

STATION SQUARE
(P&LE RAILROAD)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 40 acres

FEATURES: Riverfront Location, 1873 P&LE Railroad is first chartered.


Accessibility 1879 P&LE Railroad is open for traffic.
OWNER: Forest City Enterprises, 1970 The railroad system‘s popularity declines.
The Allegheny Foundation, & The
Pittsburgh History and Landmarks 1976 The site is considered for retail reuse.
Foundation
1994 Ground is broken on this site.
CURRENT USE: Retail, Dining,
Entertainment, and Hotel 1994 Forest City Enterprise buys the site.

PAST USE: Railroad & Coal Freight 2002 The site is competed.
and Box-Car Leasing

CONTAMINANTS: Oil and other


railway fuel contaminants

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $72 million

HISTORY
Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad (P&LE) was first chartered in 1873 and opened in 1879 connecting the
rich coal and coke industries of Southwest Pennsylvania to Lake Erie region. It flourished with the financial
mainstays of coal freight and boxcar leasing.
TOPOGRAPHY
Topography plays an important role in the success of
this redevelopment project. Its prime location on the
southern bank of Monongahela River makes it a prime
riverfront property. It is proximal to downtown and Mt.
Washington and opposite the Golden Triangle. Two
Victorian transportation routes, the Duquesne and the
Monongahela Incline, also surround it.
One of the oldest bridges in America, the Smithfield Street
Bridge connects the site to downtown.
Station Square was the first brownfield redeveloped in
Pittsburgh, located between the Smithfield Street Bridge
and the Fort Pitt Bridge on the E. Carson street. It was
developed as a 3-mile long rail route at the southern
bank of Monongahela River.
Three years of site study and detailed discussion led
to a plan for creating an upscale mixed-use center in a
predominantly industrial area and to preserve the existing
historic structures. Also, the fact that this was the first
redevelopment project in Pittsburgh made government-
based tax incentives readily available.

MARKET CONDITIONS
Increasing popularity of air and road traffic after the
Second World War degraded the passenger business
of the railroad systems. The once active and important
Picture courtesy of Google Maps railroad stations became deserted, leaving the
magnificent spaces empty. The great railway complex covering forty acres, an express house, and
several other minor buildings were in a danger of becoming a commercial cemetery. Pittsburgh
History and Landmarks Foundation (PHLF) recognized a significant market for entertainment in the
area.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL


This site was purchased by Forest City Enterprise in 1994. With the help of a grant from the Allegheny
Foundation, PHLF adapted five historic P&LE buildings in Station Square.
Station Square was developed as a mixed-use center based on its location in a blue-collar industrial
area, existing historic buildings as well as its prime riverfront location to allow Pittsburgh residents to
enjoy the riverfront.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The site’s previous use as freight
storage as well as a railway transport
system contaminated the site. It
required almost three years to study
and treat the site contaminants.
The major contamination - oil
seepage and some other railway
fuel contaminants - were easily
treated and did not require further
monitoring. The site did not have
serious environmental concerns.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
The community was taken into consideration while deciding the site’s use. Previously the station
provided transportation for Pittsburgh residents, and its current mixed use provides the community
with employment, recreation, and aesthetics, preserving its architectural structures.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The forty-acre riverside site development was funded by The Allegheny Foundation, a Scaife
family trust, which served as a prime developer. A non-profit organization, PHLF, sought a
challenging large commercial restoration project. The freight house was adapted as a “themed”
shopping center containing 70 shops. Site amenities, including the railroad and the trolley cars,
were exhibited at the old train platforms behind the station. The Bessemer court was transformed
into a major recreational spot with a unique dancing fountain.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


The Allegheny Foundation provided the funding for a major preservation demonstration that would
simultaneously create jobs, help downtown grow, and establish a new model from urban renewal
for Pittsburgh and the nation. The development cost $72 million, and its initial investment was
$35 million.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Station Square is an abandoned railroad that transformed into a tourist destination. Its 52-acre
riverfront was developed into a landing fleet for excursion boats, a museum of artifacts, an outdoor
amphitheater, a river walk, and a number of shops and restaurants. It is the first development
program in Pittsburgh that utilized a riverfront for entertainment rather than industry.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
Station Square is a residential and entertainment complex, but it also provides a substantial
amount of employment. It is also estimated to have traffic of about 2.5 million per year.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007

SOURCES

Patel, Meghna. “Station Square, “History Revived”


Apr. 2007. Student Work
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

SUMMERSET AT FRICK PARK


(NINE MILE RUN)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 238 acres
1922 Site is used as slag dump by Duquesne
FEATURES: Location, Significant Slag Co.
Acreage 1982 Department of Planning publishes first
development proposals for site.
OWNER: Urban Redevelopment
Authority of Pittsburgh (URA), the City 1995 URA purchases site for $3.8 million.
of Pittsburgh, & the Summerset Land 1996 Master plan is released for residential
Development Associates development
CURRENT USE: Housing 1999 Groundbreaking for Summerset.

PAST USE: Steel By-product Storage 1999 Regrading of slag begins.

CONTAMINANTS: Chromium 2007 Phase I is completed.

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $22 million

HISTORY
Nine Mile Run was originally a wooded stream valley, nestled between the areas of Squirrel Hill and Swisshelm
Park. In 1910, Frederick Law Olmstead recommended it as the best opportunity for a large park within the city,
writing, “Its long meadows of varying width would make ideal playfields; the stream...will be an attractive and
interesting element in the landscape; the wooded slopes on either side give ample opportunity for enjoyment
of the forest for shaded walks and cool resting places.”
However, the site’s close proximity to the riverfront made it prime industrial real estate. In 1922 it was
purchased by Duquesne Slag Company, and for 50 years it was used to dump slag, the by-product from
smelting metals.

TOPOGRAPHY
By 1972, there were approximately 17 million cubic yards
of slag in the valley piled as high as 120 feet with very
steep sides. Slag does not retain water and is extremely
alkaline so no vegetation was able to grow.
Summerset at Frick Park is bordered by the Nine Mile
Run valley and stream, which is undergoing a multi-million
dollar restoration. Surrounding are the communities of
Squirrel Hill, Swissvale, Wilkinsburg and Edgewood, and
there is excellent access to the Waterfront and Rt. 376.
Summerset is approximately five miles east of Pittsburgh’s
Golden Triangle.

MARKET CONDITIONS
Initially, the city proposed four development options.
First, 71 acres would be residential and the rest would
be non-residential, primarily offices and light industry.
Second, the site would be entirely residential. Third,
the site would be entirely non-residential, which was
an unlikely option because the surrounding areas are
residential. And finally, it would be mixed residential
Picture courtesy of Google Maps and non-residential, similar to the first option, but with a
heavier emphasis on non-residential.
Later, the city was considering constructing an additional limited-access highway to the area that would
help to relieve traffic to downtown. There would have been a large interchange with Rt. 376 next to the
site, and private developers showed great interest in the site - among them was J. Gumberg Company
- to create a mega-mall and office center on the site. However, the adjacent communities protested the
additional highway, and the complex was deemed impossible without increased access.
In 1994, the city revealed plans to develop the site into a strictly residential neighborhood. The success
of the nearby Rosemont development showed a strong market for new urban residences, and the mayor
believed that the key to the revitalization of Pittsburgh was to lure suburbanites back into the city limits.

SITE ASSEMBLY
In October 1995, the URA paid $38 million for the 238 acre site. 116 acres of which was deemed
developable. In June 1996, a nine member master development team was chosen by the city, headed by
the Rubinoff Company.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment determined two areas of concern. First, there was a high
level of chromium found at the site, but since plans required the slag to be covered in topsoil (to retain
water and re-grade slopes to allow vegetation to grow), this was deemed harmless. Second, there was
sewage overflows in Nine Mile Run.
The heavily polluted Nine Mile Run stream underwent a $7.7 million restoration. A natural watershed of
approximately 7 square miles, Nine Mile Run is the largest stream on the east end of the city and raw
sewage was overflowing into the stream, along with many non-point source contaminants common to
urban watersheds.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
Summerset is located between four
neighborhoods in Pittsburgh: Squirrel
Hill, Edgewood, Swissvale, and
Wilkinsburg, and all of the areas
adjacent to the site are residential.
There were at least forty community
meetings about this development.
Local community resistance to the
development centered on the
increased traffic due to the
new residents, environmental
improvements to and
maintenance of the stream
flowing though the property, and
the possibility of contaminants
in the slag becoming airborne
during contruction activities.
The developer had installed
air monitors to appease this
concern.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The developers built a main road throughout the housing development, complete with sidewalks.
Also, the area is host to public transportation in the form of PAT buses.
Because there was no existing infrastructure, everything had to be constructed. Its total public
financing was just under $39 million.

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE


The development received various grants and bonds for building and infrastructure construction. In
terms of public financing, more than $11.5 million was given from city bonds, $12.5 million from the
Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP), and $8.2 million from the Pittsburgh Water
and Sewer Authority.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED


Summerset at Frick Park is currently in Phase II of development. Phase I included 221 homes on
27 acres of land. Phases II will include 270 additional homes on 42 acres, and Phase III will include
213 homes on 40 acres. Phase I sales were a success.
Its neighborhood is a new urbanist community; however, it remains somewhat geographically and
socio-economically isolated.

ECONOMIC / COMMUNITY IMPACT


The development is thriving, shown by its ability to raise the property taxes for the area. The project
is expected to generate over $2.9 million in annual revenue.

Public Financing Case Study Completed Summer 2007


$ 11,687,766 City Bond SOURCES
$ 3,101,828 Land Proceeds
$ 330,000 EPA Grant
$ 750,000 Foundations
$ 12,500,000 State - RACP
$ 742,080 State - Growing Greener
$ 1,500,000 County - LCTF
$ 8,235,000 PWSA

$ 38,846,674 TOTAL
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WASHINGTON’S LANDING
(HERR’S ISLAND)
LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA TIMELINE
1903 PA Railroad buys a portion of the island
SIZE: 42 acres on which to rest livestock.
FEATURES: Location, City View, 1966 Packing companies closes.
Waterfront
1987 Herr’s Island is renamed Washington’s
OWNER: Urban Redevelopment Landing.
Authority (URA) 1989 The URA and the state acquire all the
land on the island.
CURRENT USE: Upscale Housing,
Marina, and Park 1989 The first tenant, the Three Rivers Rowing
Association, opens their doors.
PAST USE: Meat Packing Plant,
Scrap Yard, & Rail 1990 Clean-up is completed.
1990 Construction of the Washington’s
CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum, Heavy Landing Marina Inc. begins.
Metals, Organic Waste, PCBs, and
1993 The Pennsylvania Department of
PAHs Environmental Protection moves onto the
TOTAL ACTUAL COST more than $44 site.
million 1997 The Village on Washington’s Landing is
completed.

HISTORY
In 1753, George Washington’s raft capsized, and he landed on a nearby island.
He ended up sleeping on Herr’s Island, which was later renamed to Washington’s
Landing because of this historic event. Its renaming marked the island’s break
from its former use into its new residential use.
In 1903 Pennsylvania Railroad bought a portion of the island to be used as a
stop-over for its route from Chicago to New York. By law, livestock was required
to have rest, food, and water after every 36 hours of travel. The island also
became a site for meatpacking and rendering. It emanated a foul smell which
drifted for miles.

TOPOGRAPHY
The site’s location on an island isloates it from surrounding communities. It is
proximal to the city, giving it a good view of downtown. Access by land is
restricted to only one main road that travels to and from the island.
Also, its relatively flat landscape makes it easy for construction.

MARKET CONDITIONS
The developer Rubinoff recognized a market for upscale homes in this site.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
In 1978, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) bought .5 acres from
the Western Packing Company and, in 1979, 20 acres of the Buncher
Company’s land. The state bought 2.8 acres for a park and a marina from
Inland Products Company in 1981. After delays by the Buncher Co., the
City Planning Commission agreed to the rezoning of the northern two-
thirds of the island for development. The URA bought Buncher’s land in
March 1989 after a year of delays.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
According to an environmental assessment of the central and northern part
of the island, waste materials from rendering operations were found on
site. These non-hazardous materials give off a noxious odor. Groundwater
also did not meet drinking water standards because of the placement of
Picture courtesy of Google Maps ash, sand, slag, cinders, and other granular materials in the fill.
An investigation of River Avenue revealed high levels of heavy metals and total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPHs) due to a 550-gallon underground storage tank (UST) abandoned on the site. The UST was drained
and disposed, and contaminated soils were covered with crushed stone to be used as a boat storage
area/parking lot.
The southern part of the island conatined hazardous waste, including Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs) (maximum of 430 ppm) and PCBs (maximum of 200 ppm). The Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) accepted concentration levels are at a max of 13 ppm for the former and a maximum of 0.1 ppm
for PCBs. The PCBs were linked back to old electrical transformers from a salvage plant operating in the
1980’s.
To dispose of the contaminated soil, the URA
encapsulated the soil underneath what are now tennis
courts.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Because of its history with livestock, surrounding
communities wanted a development that would also
remove the stench from the area. Since this site is
an island, neighborhood integration was not a primary
concern.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
To create the marina, sunken barges had to be lifted
out of the water. A traffic study of the island showed that the road system could not support the traffic
associated with commercial buildings. That is why construction focused primarily on residential housing.
The design and engineering of the tennis court encapsulation cell by Atlas Services Corporation cost
$750,00 with the construction costs of $2,654,000. The option of shipping the soil off-site estimates as
much as $6 million. By the encapsulation method, millions of dollars were saved.
10,000 tons of organic wastes were
hauled away, costing up to $792,000.
Other wastes like decayed carcasses of
animals were taken to an Ohio landfill.
The design of new roads, a connection
to the 31st Street Bridge, and water and
sewer lines cost $150,000. Demolishing
cattle pens and a meat-packing plant and
building utility lines and a ¼ mile spine
road cost over $1 million. A $4 million
bridge was built connecting Herr’s Island
Investment
to River Road and East Ohio Street, while $19,900 was $2,400,000 Washington’s Landing Associates I
also spent to repair an 85-year-old bridge so the resulting $2,900,000 Washington’s Landing Associates II
bridge has synchronized signals, minimizing delay. $1,500,000 Three Rivers Rowing Association
$3,288,000 Sports Technology Group

COSTS AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURE $3,000,000 Washington’s Landing Marina


$2,600,000 600 Waterfront Drive
This project cost over $44 million, with $26.5 million from $2,900,000 800 Waterfront Drive
public investment, $7 million from the City of Pittsburgh, (projected)
and over $11 million from the government.
$4,000,000 Automated Healthcare Inc. and
(projected) Manufacturing Facility
CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED $21,000,000 The Village at Washington’s Landing
The site houses the Three Rivers Rowing Association, (projected)
Washington’s Landing Marina Inc, a land-fill tennis complex,
office buildings that house the Pennsylvania Department of $43,588,000 TOTAL
Environmental Protection among them, and 100 upscale
townhouses called The Village.
The URA also plans to improve pedestrian transit by remediating the
South Railroad Bridge.
The island’s limited access addresses the concern about public
facilities. A public park, tennis courts, biking trails, and hiking trails are
only easily accessible to island homeowners and local employees,
making ‘public’ a misleading term.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
When the meat packing company closed, revenue was lost. Now the
island has thriving offices and an exclusive townhouse neighborhood
that produces tax dollars.

Financing
$2,280,590 U.S. Economic Development Administration
$2,300,000 PA Department of Community Affairs
$2,400,000 PA Department of Commerce
$3,140,000 PA Department of Environmental Resources
$1,850,000 Appalachian Regional Commission
$4,400,000 City of Pittsburgh CDBG Funds
$1,301,000 Urban Redevelopment Authority Case Study Completed Summer 2007
$3,248,000 City of Pittsburgh Bond Funds
SOURCES
$800,000 Port Authority Transit
$585,500 Urban Redevelopment Authority Program Coile, Heather. “Washington’s Landing: A Case Study” Apr.
Income 2007. Student Work
$1,200,000 Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority
Putaro, Sarah M. and Kathryn A. Weisbrod. Brownfield
$3,000,000 PA Strategy 21 Funding (park and open Development: the Implications for Urban Infrastructure.
spaces) The Brownfields Center: Case Study Site – Former Army
Ammunition Plant, in the Hays Community of Pittsburgh.
$26,505,090 TOTAL Carnegie Mellon University. Aug. 1998.
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
BROWNFIELDSCENTER

THE WATERFRONT
(HOMESTEAD STEEL WORKS)
LOCATION: Homestead, PA
TIMELINE
SIZE: 256 acres 1892 The Battle of Homestead – steelworks
against Pinkerton guards – is staged.
FEATURES: Location, Riverfront,
High Utility Capacity, Flat land 1901 U.S. Steel is formed.
1986 The Homestead Works of U.S. Steel
OWNER: Continental Real Estate closes.
Companies
1988 The site is sold to the Park Corporation.
CURRENT USE: Retail, Dining, and 1996 The site is sold to Continental Real
Entertainment Estate.
PAST USE: Steel Mill
1999 The developer breaks ground on the
property.
CONTAMINANTS: Asbestos, 2002 Site is completed.
Underground Storage Tanks
Containing Lubricants

TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $300 million

HISTORY
This area was occupied by a steel mill headed by the US Steel Industry. At its peak, there were
450 buildings on the site. In its history, the Homestead Works produced more than 200 million
tons of steel for use in railroads, armor, and beams. In its high point during World War II, an entire
neighborhood of 8,000 people was razed to expand the mill even further.

TOPOGRAPHY
The Waterfront property is approximately
256 acres located on the Monongahela River
directly across the city of Pittsburgh. It is the
largest riverfront development project in the
region. The topography of the site is flat, and
it is nearby other prime locations in Pittsburgh,
such as Squirrel Hill.

Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/


Its location is not easily accessible to
communities within walking distance to
the site. Active railroad tracks separate the
development from surrounding communities.

MARKET CONDITIONS
Prior to the development of the Waterfront,
the surrounding community of Homestead
was in financial distress.
This new development increased the value of
the property by bringing interest from outside
Picture courtesy of Google Maps
retailers, thereby increasing the housing
market around the area.
SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL
Park Corporation owned this site and completed the initial cleaning of the land. After the initial
cleaning, the property was sold to Continental Developers, who drafted a master plan for the
site.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
The lubricants used by the steel mill were housed in underground storage tanks, which leaked
and contaminated the soil. These tanks were easily detected because of accurate recordings of
each of their locations, making remediation easy.
There was also asbestos contamination, which required soil cleaning. Before the site could be
developed, a storm runoff test was conducted.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
When the mills closed, most of the workers
belonged to the United Steel Workers Union.
The citizens formed a non-profit citizens’
development corporation (CDC) and a
Homestead Economic Redevelopment
Corporation (HERC). The state formed The
Enterprise Zone program. Together, HERC
and the Enterprise Zone were able to
develop two master plans, one for the mill
site and one for the rest of the community.

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
During the purchase of the property a
traffic study was completed to estimate
the proximity of this area to affluent areas.
The development of the main streets was
undertaken by the developers.
Many physical changes were made;
however, the developers noted the history
of the site by leaving the stacks of the steel
mill as statues.
COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
The flat land of the site reduced
the initial cost involved with
grading the land.
A $10 million grant was provided
by the state to the Park
Corporation for the development
of the land. When the land
was taken up by Continental
Developers the only government
support it received was by means
of Tax Incremental Financing
(TIF), providing $30 million.
The TIF spanned across three
communities: Homestead, West
Homestead, and Munhall.
CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Its anchor tenants are Dave & Busters, Barnes & Noble, Loews Theatre, Macy’s, Lowe’s Home
Improvement, and Giant Eagle.
The development was based on the suburban model. Its land would be better utilized if storied
buildings as well as structured parking was also part of the development plans. Also, its riverfront
is unutilized. It sits on the water; however the development effectively blocks off direct use of the
water.

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT
The site is currently generating revenues of about $6 million per year, taking Homestead out of
Act 47 - municipal bankrupcy.
However, the site’s transformation of this area to a lifestyle mall was not based on the surrounding
community. The decision of was based on the presence of the affluent neighborhoods of Shadyside
and Squirrel Hill.
The fact that the site caters to these neighborhoods is reflected by the inaccessibility of the site
from the closer neighborhoods, Homestead and West Homestead.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007


SOURCES

Class Presentation and Personal Interaction


with David Lewis

Class Presentation and Personal Interaction


with Mike Hudec from Continental Developers

Sinha, Neeharika. “Metamorphosis of


Brownfield to Lifestyle Center” Apr. 2007.
Student Work

Centres d'intérêt liés