LOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: < 1 acre FEATURES: Proximity to Universities and Downtown, Access to 837, Public Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront Development OWNER: Karl Haglund, Judith Tener & David Lewis, and 225 E. 8th Street Associates LP – (three separate parcels) CURRENT USE: Office, Loft, and Retail Space PAST USE: Retail, Lodging, Commercial, and Residential CONTAMINANTS: None TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown

TIMELINE 1871 Homestead Bank & Life Insurance purchases over 123 acres of farmland. 1880 Homestead Mill is introduced. 1892 The Homestead Strike occurs. buildings 1942 Homestead Steel Works expands and theworkers. are converted into small apartments for steel 1980 Homestead Mill closes. 2005 The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County gives a façade easement for the Seventh Avenue building elevation and the facades are restored according to historic guidelines.

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

Picture courtesy of Google Maps SOURCES 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. < > 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. < Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. < pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_570322.html > s_336623.html >



Karl and Walter Haglund Urban Design Ventures, LLC. 212 East Eighth Avenue*

LOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: < 1 acre FEATURES: Proximity to Universities and Downtown, Access to 837, Public Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront Development OWNER: Karl and Walter Haglund of Urban Design Ventures, LLC. CURRENT USE: Office Space and Apartments PAST USE: Movie Rental Store CONTAMINANTS: None TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown

1880 Homestead Mill is introduced. 1980 Homestead Mill closes. 2004 Karl & Walt Haglund purchase 212 East Eighth Avenue in November and begin construction soon after. 2005 Urban Design Ventures is established. 2005 The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County gives a façade easement for the Seventh Avenue building elevation and the facades are restored according to historic guidelines. 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. < > Haglund, Karl. Urban Design Ventures. Western Pennsylvania Brownfields 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. < “Urban Design Ventures, LLC.” 2008. Manta. < coms2/dnbcompany_jvqs60 > Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund Vellucci, Justin. “Planners target revitalization in Homestead.” 31 May 2008. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. < >



Judith Tener and David Lewis Five and Ten Lofts 213-215 East Eighth Avenue**

LOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: < 1 acre FEATURES: Proximity to Universities and Downtown, Access to 837, Public Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront Development OWNER: Judith Tener & David Lewis CURRENT USE: Commercial and Residential Space PAST USE: Commercial and Residential Space CONTAMINANTS: None TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown

1880 1924 1980 1988 1999 2000

Homestead Mill is introduced. F.W. Woolworth Company moves into the space. Homestead Mill closes. A fire destroys the upper floors of the property. Judith Tener and David Lewis purchase the property. Tener/Lewis receive a grant from the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation and restore the Eighth Avenue Facade. A green roof is installed in the Lewis property. “Five and Ten Lofts” is ready for occupancy in June.

2007 2008

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 Picture courtesy of recognition of the site’s history.

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 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 Homestead neighborhood.” 21 May 2008. Pop City Media. < developmentnews/hmstd0521.aspx > “Conveniently Green.” Reporter: Sally Wiggin. Channel 4 Action News. Online Video Link. < wmv > Dee, Jordan. “East Eighth Avenue developers plan U-Turn.” 21 May 2005. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. < > “Five and Ten Lofts.” 9 June 2008. Myspace. <> Lewis, David. Western Pennsylvania Brownfields 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 TribuneReview. < html Vellucci, Justin. “Planners target revitalization in Homestead.” 31 May 2008. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. < s_570322.html >



Joe Ranii and 225 East Eighth Street Associates, LP. 225 and 227 East Eighth Avenue***

LOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: < 1 acre FEATURES: Proximity to Universities and Downtown, Access to 837, Public Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront Development OWNER: 225 E. 8th Street Associates LP CURRENT USE: Loft and Commercial Space PAST USE: Boarding House and Curiosity Shop CONTAMINANTS: None TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown

1871 Homestead Bank & Life Insurance purchases over 123 acres of farmland. 1880 Homestead Mill is introduced. 1892 The Homestead Strike occurs. 1980 Homestead Mill closes. 2005 The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County gives a façade easement for the Seventh Avenue building elevation and the facades are restored according to historic guidelines. 2007 The Ranii property begins development in October. 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. < >



LOCATION: Ambridge, PA SIZE: 39 acres FEATURES: Flat Land, Location Proximity to Airport, River, Rail, and Interstates OWNER: Rob Moltoni and Pat Nardelli CURRENT USE: Light Industry, Vacent - Underutilized PROPOSED USE: Mixed Use (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, and Residential Uses) PAST USE: Steel Manufacturing CONTAMINANTS: Oil, Asbestos, Debris, PCBs TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $65 million (proposed) TIMELINE

1900 The American Bridge Company is formed. 1905 Ambridge is incorporated. 1905 The Ambridge Industrial Center manufactures electrical components. 1909 Alex Laughlin buys the Pittsburgh Steel Construction Company and renames it Central Tube Company. 1940 H.H. Robertson buys out the Central Tube Company. 1971 Ambridge passes a historic preservation ordinance. 1983 The American Bridge Company ceases operation in Ambridge. 1985 Ambridge Historic District is placed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2005 Moltoni purchases the properties in July. 2006 The H.H. Robertson plant is demolished.

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 to 16th Street.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps

- 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. “Demolition, Remediation, and Renovations Northern named Central Tube Company by owner Alex Map courtesy of Project Beaver County, Pennsylvania.” (M. Bort and F.AmbridgeJr.) Redevelopment Mancini, 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


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). 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 to rebuild.


July 2008

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, from Ambridge Municipal to spotlight the area by bringing in national redevelopment experts to survey the land and across & After photos courtesy of building. Before provide their unbiased opinions and comments regarding the community and possible 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 zone for the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station and the area’s across from the old Foodland. ‘Before’ picture courtesy of Silk House Cafe. easy access to Route 65, one of the county’s major highways. The


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.

Demolition north of 14th Street, former H.H Robertson plant. “Before” photo courtesy of “After” photos courtesy of (merge of two photos) Before 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 area. Also the market value of housing is expected to increase after the development is completed.
Case Study Updated in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles
Example of streetscape work in the area. Before & After photos courtesy of

SOURCES “Ambridge Facility Wins Governor’s Award for Environmental Excellence.” Department of Environmental Protection. 23 May 2005. < http://www.depweb.> “Ambridge Historic District Economic Development Board. 7 Nov. 2007. < Economic%20Development%20Board%20Meeting%20Notes%207%20 Nov%2007.pdf> Anderson, D., Fontaine, M., Isovitsch, S., Quattrone, C., & Schultzer, S. “Brownfields and Community Revitalization: Spring 2002 – Rebuilding Ambridge: A Community Invests in its Future.” Carnegie Mellon University Course. Baron, Jennifer. “Ambridge Spearheading Main Street Projects, Brownfield Development.” 31 Jan. 2007. Pop City Media. < developmentnews/46ambrdg.aspx> Beaver County Planning Commission. “Annual Report - 2003.” PDF Document. < Report_bookmarked_2003.pdf> “Brownfields in Our Neighborhood: 2001-2006 – Stronger Than Steel!” The Brownfields Center. 15 Aug. 2006. Development/16%20Feb%2005%20-%20Ambridge,%20Midland%20 build%20without%20steel.doc> “FINAL REPORT – Ambridge Area Brownfields Partnership: 20012006.” The Brownfields Center. 2006. Hallas, Steve. “Merchant Street: The Commercial District of Ambridge, PA.” <> “Keystone Profiles – Brownfield Site Development in Beaver Falls. BC Economic Development Story.” Beaver County Minutes. <http://www.> “Looking ahead: Good reasons to be hopeful in Ambridge.” Times Online. 30 June 2008. < articles/2008/06/30/opinion/editorials/doc4864e24b1fc9c097411902.txt> “New 9-1-1 Center to be located in Ambridge.” Borough of Ambridge - Official Site. < asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B7764D577-521B-4DAB-B2A0BC997989EE81%7D&DE=%7B4CA10365-8D5C-48FC-85D1C4C67B41E092%7D> Pash, Gene and Debi Leopardi. Value Ambridge Properties, Inc. Faceto-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.” < Preserve America: Explore and Enjoy our Heritage. <http://www. Northern%20Ambridge%20Redevelopment%20Project%20-%20> Demolition,%20Remediation,%20and%20Renovations.pdf> “The Sprout Fund.” The Sprout Fund. <> CED. “Australian Developer Begins Ambridge Brownfield Conversion.” CED. < Theodore, Larissa. “Ambridge demolition project continues.” Times Developer%20Begins%20Ambridge%20Brownfield%20Conversion.pdf> Online. 16 Nov. 2007. < Development/Ambridge%20Demolition%20Project%20Continues.pdf> Committee to Clean and Beautify Ambridge. “Pittsburgh 250 Community Connections Application .” < Theodore, Larissa. “911 center among Ambridge development Community%20Connections%20Grant%20Application.pdf> plans.” Times Online. 25 June 2008. < articles/2008/06/25/news/doc4862ed496c03e852294955.txt> David, Brian. “Ambridge, Midland Build Without Steel.” Pittsburgh PostGazette. 16 Feb. 2005. <



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 6 acres FEATURES: Proximity to Downtown OWNER: Walnut Capital CURRENT USE: Retail Space, Office Space, Fitness Center, and Hotel PAST USE: Nabisco Factory CONTAMINANTS: Asbestos, PCBs, and Lead-Based Paint TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $113 million (projected) TIMELINE

1918 The Nabisco Bakery is built. 1998 Nabisco Factory closes. 1999 RIDC takes control of the building. 2004 The Bake-Line Group declares bankruptcy. 2006 City of Pittsburgh declares site as “blighted.” 2007 RIDC receives DEP grant for environmental remediation. 2007 Environmental remediation begins. 2007 Walnut Capital purchases the property from the RIDC. 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 are college educated or above.). Picture courtesy of Google Earth 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 leadbased 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 taxexempt 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 venture with locally-based Artist’s rendering of Bakery Square Concord Hospitality. Picture courtesy of official Bakery Square website Urban Active, a national upscale fitness center chain, is designated to occupy Bakery Square’s 41,550-squarefoot 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 onetenth 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. com/ > “Bakery Square gets $10M loan from state.” Pittsburgh Business Times. 27 June 2008. <http://orlando.bizjournals. com/orlando/othercities/pittsburgh/stories/2008/06/23/daily34. html?b=1214193600%5E1661308 > “Bakery Square gets TIF.” Pittsburgh Business Times. 17 Dec. 2007. < stories/2007/12/17/daily6.html > Baron, Jennifer. “$113M mixed-use Bakery Square project receives $10 M TIF.” Pop City Media. 19 Dec. 2007. <http:// > Belko, Mark. “Blight designation prepares Larimer block for developer.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 6 Dec. 2006. DaParma, Ron. “Tax Breaks sought for Nabisco site.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 12 Oct. 2006. Dolan, Anthony. Real Estate Developer – Walnut Capital. Phone Interview. 19 June 2008. Fralick, Kelsey. “Gym Signs at Bakery Square Redevelopment. Urban Active Plans 2009 Occupancy at Mixed-Use Complex.” CoStar Group. 5 Dec. 2007. < news_articles/12_05_2007.php > Green, Elwin. “$1 million state grant to aid Bakery Square project.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 10 Feb. 2007. Heinrichs, Allison M. “RIDC gets $1M to prep shuttered Nabisco site.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 10 Feb. 2007. Lord, Rich. “Port Authority looks to reroute East Liberty.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 26 Jan. 2008. < > “Special Projects: Bakery Square.” Walnut Capital. <http:// > Spatter, Sam. “East Liberty’s Bakery Square project will receive $10M.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 10 Aug. 2007. Spatter, Sam. “Part of Ex-Nabisco Plant Razed.” 20 Sept. 2007. < articles/9_20_07.php > “Special Projects: Bakery Square.” Walnut Capital. <http:// > Staff Reports. “State approves loan for Bakery Square project.” 27 June 2008 < pittsburghtrib/business/s_574902.html > Stewart, Charlie. “Redeveloping East Liberty.” Shady Ave. Spring 2006. “Walnut Capital To Pursue Green Building Certification for Bakery Square.” Bakery Square. 21 Aug. 2007. < http:// >



LOCATION: Allegheny County, PA SIZE: 168 acres FEATURES: Large Parcel, Flat Land, and Riverfront Location OWNER: Allegheny County CURRENT USE: Vacant Land PAST USE: Blast furnace CONTAMINANTS: PCBs, Sulfates TOTAL ACTUAL COST: no specific dollar amount obtained TIMELINE

1881 Carrie Furnace is built 1892 Carrie Furnace takes part in Battle of Homestead 1898 Carrie Furnace is purchased by Andrew Carnegie Furnace 1901 CarrieCorp. becomes part of the US Steel 1978 Carrie Furnace is shutdown 1988 Carrie Furnace is sold to Park Corporation 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

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


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 <> Gaydos, Ron. Heritage Health Foundation, Inc. Interview. June 27, 2008



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 4 acres

1860 Thomas M. Armstrong starts the Armstrong Cork Co. Cork 1901 Armstrongbuilt. Co. factory in the Strip District is 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 landmarks. Hammel III, & Robert Beynon 2004 Daniel McCaffery Interests of Chicago becomes new general partner in the site’s CURRENT USE: Loft and Retail Space development. 2005 Construction on the Cork Factory Lofts begins. 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 and a portion of the Smallman Street Property. While the Cork Picture courtesy of Google Earth 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-totwo 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.
Project Financing Sources*
Bank Financing Private Cash Contribution Growing Greener II Grant Equity Land Contribution URA Public Space Improvement Grant Façade Easement Pentrust & Federal Historic Tax Credits Federal Historic Tax Credits RACP Grant for Parking Garage CRP Grant for Public Art and Trail Design C2P2 Grant RACP Grant for Retail Core and Shell TOTAL

$43,700,000 $15,055,997 $760,000 $2,100,000 $2,900,000 $800,000 $1,857,118 $7,872,882 $2,040,654 $750,000 $50,000 $135,000 $500,000 $78,521,651

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Because of the Cork Factory’s close vicinity to downtown, public transportation is readily available near the area, several blocks away from the site. Limited parking in the Strip District was remedied in 2006 with the addition of a three-level, 126,000 sq. ft mixed-use parking structure built on the Smallman Sreet Property. The total amount for this project’s construction is $6,396,285. The structure can accommodate 427 parking spaces and approximately 47,000 square feet of ground level retail space. All of the site’s utilities were nonexistent prior to construction. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE The majority of the development was privately financed; although federal tax credits from the National Park Service for historic sites cover some of the costs. The developers sold these credits to Sherwin-Williams Co. of Cleveland for $8.5 million. Due to the limited time frame for remediation, environmental clean-up was mostly privately funded. Public funding in the form of historic tax credits was used towards asbestos and lead-paint abatement. The total amount of public grant funds are $2.995 million or 2.8% of total cost.

*July 2008 Figures

Financing Breakdown*
Construction Hard Costs (includes garage, Cork Factory, & public space improvements)

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED The 383,000 square foot factory was renovated into a 297-unit luxury $10,659,488 Development Soft Costs 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. Riverwall and Walking Trail Two of the buildings are seven floors, while the third is ten floors. $2,556,670 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 TOTAL architect Frederick Osterling and designated national historic landmarks $78,521,651 *July 2008 Figures 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 Big River Development, LP, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Consent Order and Agreement. Re: Former Armstrong Cork Property. 22 Dec. 2004. “Cigar Bar, Specialty Grocery Store Coming To Pittsburgh’s Strip District.” 29 Jan. 2008. < news/15163940/detail.html > “Client Case Studies.” GSP Consulting. <http://www. 3&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=51927 > “Commercial (Parking Structure Projects): 2006& 2007.” Carl Walker Construction. <http://www.carlwalkerconstruction. com/npcomm.php > “Cork Factory Loft Apartments and Garage.” The ERECT Funds. < details.php?id=40&PHPSESSID=352938dbb32fb7b7126ba5 2d19f20d7d > “Cork Factory restoration to get $1.5m for parking garage, public trail.” 5 April 2006. < developmentnews/cork0405.aspx > DaParma, Ron and Sam Spatter. “Cork Factory apartments get bubbly reviews.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 5 May 2007. < business/s_506185.html > Elliott, Suzanne. “Armstrong Cork project set to go.” 7 Nov. 2003. < stories/2003/11/10/story1.html > Hammel, Chuck, III - Owner of the Cork Factory. Face-toFace Interview. 10 July 2008. “Labor’s Capital Deals.” < steelasp/in_the/index.asp > “Loft Apartments on the River.” <http://www.thecorkfactory. com/ >

Cork Factory Lofts - July 10, 2008 Neighbors in the Strip. <http://www.neighborsinthestrip. com/> Pitz, Marylynne. “Pop Goes Cork Factory: Strip District lofts offer views, resort-like amenities to tenants.” 5 May 2007. < stm > Matviya, John. Letter to Charles Hammel, III. Re: ECP – Special Projects – Act 2. Baseline Environmental Report Approval. Armstrong Lofts. Railroad Street – Strip District. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: Southwest Regional Office. 25 Feb. 2004. Reinhart, Joseph. Babst, Calland, Clements, & Zomnir. Environmental Attorney for Big River. Phone Interview. 8 July 2008. Roberts, Debbie – General Manager of the Cork Factory Lofts. Phone interview. 17 June 2008. Rodgers, Becky. Neighbors in t he Strip - Executive Director. Phone Invterview. 2 July 2008. Schooley, Tim. “Natural foods market, Italian restaurant aim to feed Cork Factory.” Pittsburgh Business Times. 8 June 2007. < stories/2007/06/11/story4.html > Spatter, Sam. “Popping the Cork.” Pittsburgh TribuneReview. 23 Aug. 2006. < pittsburghtrib/search/s_467236.html > “The Cork Factory – Pittsburgh, PA.” Plant Construction Company. < current-proj/project_5.html > Troy, Dennis. “Cork Factory Lofts - Project Fact Sheet.” DTI Development, Inc. July 2008. “Urban Living Uncorked.” 27 Sept. 2006. <http://www. >



LOCATION: Duquesne, PA SIZE: 250 acres FEATURES: Size, Riverfront Location, Transportation, and Potential Accessibility OWNER: Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) PAST USE: Steel Works CONTAMINANTS: Heavy Metals & PFCs TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1984 1987 1990 2004

Duquesne Steel Works stops production. Duquesne Steel Works closes its doors. RIDC purchases the site. Hurricane Ivan floods the area.

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 lightindustrial 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 with asbestos have presented a large obstacle to redevelopment of the site’s southern end.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps

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 Photo courtesy of funding. 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 < 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.” < 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” May 2007. Student Work

Photo courtesy of



LOCATION: Hazelwood, PA SIZE: 178 acres FEATURES: High Traffic, Size, Location, and Accessibility OWNER: Almono LP CURRENT USE: Robotics Research & Vacant Land PAST USE: Iron & Steel Industries, Boatbuilding, and Trade and Transport CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum/ Petroleum Products, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1884 J&L opens its first industrial plant in the area. 1906 J&L adds world’s largest collection of beehive coke ovens to the Eliza Furnace. 1974 LTV buys the site. 1981 Eliza Furnaces close. 1997 Hazelwood plant closes. 2002 Almono purchases site.

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 universitypartnered 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 MonFayette 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. history/local/kussart31-60.txt Fraser, Jeff. “Philanthropic Field,” H Magazine, vol. 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004, pp. 20-27. 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.



LOCATION: Turtle Creek, PA SIZE: 92 acres FEATURES: Rail and Highway Accessible, Existing Buildings are Structurally Sound OWNER: Holtec International & Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) CURRENT USE: Turnkey Goods Supplier, Office, and Laboratory PAST USE: Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Plant CONTAMINANTS: Asbestos TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown TIMELINE

1880 Westinghouse purchases the site. 1988 Redevelopment plans for this site is conceived. 1989 Production on the Westinghouse Plant ceases. 1989 RIDC purchases the site for $12 million. 2004 Hurricane Ivan floods the area.

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

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-toPicture 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 lowinterest 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 < 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.” < 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



LOCATION: Rochester, PA SIZE: 3 acres FEATURES: Riverfront, Industrial Accessibility OWNER: The Borough of Rochester CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) PAST USE: Scrap Yard CONTAMINANTS: Heavy Metals (Cadmium & Lead), PCBs, Oil TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1900s This site is used as a scrap yard. 1924 Marino & Son opens a second-hand store on the site. 1993 Nine municipalities, including Rochester Borough, adopt the Beaver County Riverfront Development Program. 1998 The scrap yard ceases operation. 1999 The land is donated to the Borough of Rochester. 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: “Case Study: Marino Brothers Scrapyard, Pennsylvania Brownfields Site.” Environmental Protection Agency. < rino%20Brothers%20CS[1].pdf> Davidson, Lois, Mira De, and Dewitt Peart. “Marino Scrap Yard – Brownfield Site / Beaver County.” 1 Dec. 1999. Brownfields and Economic Revitalization of the Inner City. < htm> “Defining Results: 2001 Annual Report Appendices.” 2001. Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program. <http:// land_recycling/annual_reports/2001_appendices. pdf> “DEP Secretary Tours Beaver County Scrap-Yard Cleanup Site.” 26 July 2002. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. <http://www.dep. D=7189&SubjectID=> “DEP to Hold Public Hearing on Hazardous Scrap Yard Site.” 24 March 2000. Department of Environmental Protection. <http://www.ahs.dep.state. ype=Detail>



LOCATION: McKees Rocks, PA SIZE: 104 acres FEATURES: Accessible, Flat Land, Significant Acreage OWNER: PK Brown, Bill Meides of Clifton Steel, Enterprise Bank, Randy Castriota of Castriota Metals & Recycling, John Krugle of JRR Rail, LLC (A C Railroad Service Company) CURRENT USE: Underutilized - Scrap Yard and Storage PAST USE: Railyard & Steel Mill CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum & VOCs TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1879 P&LE Railroad begins business on the site. 1881 Iron City Bridge Works is housed by the railroad. 1882 The land near the railroad houses Pittsburgh Steel Works, Vulcan Forge and Iron Works, Long & Co. 1888 P&LE builds a maintenance and repair facility in McKees Rocks. 1992 CSX buys P&LE’s tracks. 1996 P&LE files for bankruptcy. 1997 ARPI buys the southern part of the site. 1997 Environmental Site Assessment Phase II is conducted. 1999 Ownership of the southern part of the site is tranferred to five tenants. 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 Routes 65 & 51.

Photo courtesy of

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 planned for Stowe Twp.” Pop City Media. 23 May 2007. < developmentnews/pittsburghplant.aspx> Erzi, Ipek and Priscila Vargas. “Old P&LE Railyard – McKees Rocks.” Brownfields and Economic Revitalization of the Inner City. 8 Dec. 1999. < McKeesRocks.htm> “Governor Rendell Announces Funding for Rail Grants that Promote Jobs, Economic Development, Repair Flood Damage.” PA PowerPort. Feb 2005. < papower/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=440884&pp=3> “McKees Rocks.” 2005. <http://www. McKeesRocks.htm > Reynolds, Dan. “County Plans Big Brownfield Redevelopment.” 11 May 2007. <http://pittsburgh. html> Spatter, Sam. “Steel Factory Corp. of McKees Rocks Plan Wins Tax Abatement.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 10 May 2007. < pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_506895.html> Vrcek, Taris. Phone interview. 19 June 2008. Wereschagin, Mike. “Onorato Vows to Keep Talks Going.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 11 Nov. 2005. < 393420.html>



LOCATION: McKeesport, PA SIZE: 135 acres FEATURES: Elevated, Turnpike Access, Transportation (rail, truck, and water) OWNER: Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) PAST USE: Metal Tube and Pipe Manufacturing CONTAMINANTS: Fuel Oil and Heavy Metals TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown TIMELINE


McKeesport is founded.

1890s The Tube Works employs nearly 10,000 people. 1901 US steel purchases the site. 1989 2004 RIDC purchases the site. Hurricane Ivan floods the area.

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 billion.

Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh

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 economically.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps

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 < news/2005/251012.asp> Interview with William E. Burroughs, Vice President of Development – RIDC. Conducted via telephone, 9 May 2007 PA Site Finder. “McKeesport.” < asp?ID=90&County=Allegheny&SaleType=Both&opt LocationType=County&MinSalePrice=&MaxSalePrice =&MinPropertySize=&MaxPropertySize=&MinBuildin gSpace=&MaxBuildingSpace=&MinLeasePrice=&Ma xLeasePrice=> Revers, Stanley. “A Study of Keystone Commons, the Industrial Center of McKeesport, and the Duquesne City Center” May 2007. Student Work

Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh Smith, Bonnie. “EPA Awards $1 Million to Redevelop Brownfields throughout Allegheny County.” Environmental Protection Agency. 27 Sept. 2005. <http://yosemite.epa. gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/ 32121a7c894f825285257089005035ef!OpenDocument>



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 1,200 acres (whole island), 400 acres (brownfields only) FEATURES: Access by Rail, River, and Highway; Flat Land; Proximity to the Airport and Downtown, Significant Acreage OWNER: The 33 parcels of land are held by more than 19 property owners, including Neville Development Company and Neville Township CURRENT USE: Hotel (currently being developed), Restaurants (expected), None (vacant land) PAST USE: Military Production CONTAMINANTS: Lead, Tetrachloroethane (PCE), Arsenic TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1803 General John Neville dies on Neville Island. 1918 The island’s first ammunition plant is constructed.

1945 The end of World War II brings unemployment. 1992 Pittsburgh International Airport opens a new terminal in the area.

1998 Neville Island opens a sports center. 1999 The Neville Island Development Association is formed. 1999 The township receives an EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot grant. 2000 The township receives an EPA Loan Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Fund grant. 2003 The Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center facilitates a workshop focusing on Neville Island. 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 inplant 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

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 for its easy access, level topography, and natural amenities. Picture courtesy of Google Maps 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

2000. The site, now called AMG Resources, conducts recycling of tin-plated ferrous scrap and postconsumer 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 sitespecific 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 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 International Airport Area – A Development Program for the Airport Market Area.” 13 Sept. 2002. Urban Land Institute. “Brownfields Assessment Pilot Fact Sheet: Neville Township, PA.” 23 Oct. 2006. Environmental Protection Agency. < bf/html-doc/nevlltwn.htm> “Cleanup Plan Approved for Neville Island Scrap Metal and Tin Recycling Firm.” 9 June 2000. Department of Environmental Protection. <http:// asp?ID=449&varQueryType=Detail> “Defining Results: 2001 Annual Report Appendices.” 2001. Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program. < landrecwaste/lib/landrecwaste/land_recycling/ annual_reports/2001_appendices.pdf> “EPA Gives Neville Township 200K to Redevelop Brownfields.” 21 June 1999. Environmental Protection Agency. < admpress.nsf/ee765cb97fbff562852572a000651fdf/ 8b4dec5a4def0675852570d60070fa45!OpenDocument> Guo, David. “Neville development plans start to gel: Proposals call for hotel, restaurant, shops on Neville Island.” 26 July 2007. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. <http://> “Neville: An Island of Opportunity.” 27 Sept. 2003. Brownfield Workshop Briefing Document. “Neville Township – The Place to Live, Work, and Play.” Neville Island Development Association (NIDA). Brochure. Schooley, Tim. “Marriot hotel on Neville Island part of Concord’s regional plans.” 23 March 2007. Pittsburgh Business Times. < pittsburgh/stories/2007/03/26/story8.html?f=et185&b=117 4881600%5E1435799&hbx=e_vert>



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 48 acres FEATURES: Location, Accessibility, Flat Land, and Riverfront OWNER: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) CURRENT USE: High-tech Research and Development PAST USE: Iron Manufacturing CONTAMINANTS: Tar Pits, Waste Oil, Oily Water, and Ferrous Cyanide TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $104 million TIMELINE

1849 The Pittsburgh and Boston Copper Smelting Works occupies the site. 1853 Jones and Lauth Company forms. 1863 Site is renamed to the Jones and Laughlin Company. 1887 The Hot Metal Bridge is constructed to connect the hot pig iron from the north to the processing facility from the south. 1968 J&L is sold out to LTV. 1981 The Park Corporation purchases the site. 1983 The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh purchases the site. 1993 Date of groundbreaking. 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 largescale 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 Governmental Funding
$10,000,000 $8,300,000 $2,300,000 $1,500,000 $2,900,000 $300,000 $25,300,000
PA Department of Commerce PA Department of Community Affairs – Strategy 21 Plan City of Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority Private Foundations TOTAL

Case Study Completed Summer 2007
SOURCES Darby, Lauren. Changing Spaces, Department of Design, CMU Paull, Evans. Using Tax Increment Financing for Brownfields Redevelopment Presentation, lecture, and articles from class Santoro, Carla and Adrienne Messenger. Brownfield Development: the Implications for Urban Infrastructure. The Brownfields Center: PTC Case Study. Carnegie Mellon University. Aug. 1998. Thiagarajan, Sathappan. “Pittsburgh Brownfields, The Pittsburgh Technology Center, Final Report.” Apr. 2007. Student Work



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 4.5 acres FEATURES: Location, Scenic, Accessibility, and Public Transportation OWNER: PNC Financial Services Group CURRENT USE: Bank Operations PAST USE: Passenger Train Station CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $120 million TIMELINE

1871 B&O Railroad establishes tracks in Pittsburgh. 1980 CSX Corporation is established, consolidating all the major railroads. 1991 Part of the site is turned into the County Jail while the URA holds the remaining area. 1995 The site is restored and remediated under Land Recycling Program by CSX Real Property. 2000 Construction begins on the site. 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

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 County Jail. Picture courtesy of Google Maps 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 for the project. Case Study Completed Summer 2007 SOURCES The director of corporate real estate for PNC commended the property, saying, Agarwal, Minu. “A Healthy Workplace Built on a Brownfield “These buildings are good for the Site: PNC Firstside Center” Apr. 2007. Student Work employees, good for the customers and Allegheny County, Southwest PA, PNC Firstside Center good for the community so, of course, they are good for PNC.”
Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling Program: 1996 Year End Progress Report lib/landrecwaste/land_recycling/annual_reports/ 96yearendprogressreport.doc GBA case studies Firstside.asp Department of Community and Economic Development Marge Ryan ( Ph: 717-720-1425) Astorino (Architects) Catherine T. Sheane, PE, Sustainable Design Manager ( John J Matviya SW Regional Manager Environmental Cleanup Program ( “Final Report” at the SW Regional Manager Environmental Cleanup Program Office [ECP File No. 5-2-1-367]



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 61 acres (The Route 8 Corridor is comprised of approximately 2,100 acres.) FEATURES: Riverfront, Accessibility (Roads, Rail, and River) OWNER: More than 15 different owners total - Anchor landholder: Glenshaw Glass - Bill Kelman CURRENT USE: Light Industry/ Manufacturing, Storage, Retail, Warehouse, None (Vacant) PAST USE: Light Industry/ Manufacturing, Retail, Storage CONTAMINANTS: VOCs, PCBs TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown TIMELINE

1895 Glenshaw Glass Company is built. 1904 Ball Chemical moves into the corridor. 2004 Hurricane Ivan floods the Route 8 Corridor. 2005 Glenshaw Glass closes. 2005 The area receives funding for assessment and redevelopment through the Riverside Center for Innovation (RCI) and Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone (ARTEZ) partnership. 2006 New owner resumes a lower capacity of plant activity at Glenshaw Glass. 2006 ARTEZ and Shaler Township approach the Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center (WPBC) regarding a 1.5-mile portion of Route 8 Corridor. 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

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 river towns joining forces.” 23 June 2005. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. < pg/05174/526654.stm> “Brownfields 2005 Grant Fact Sheet: Riverside Center for Innovation, Allegheny County, PA.” 23 Oct. 2006. US Environmental Protection Agency. <http:// htm> Baron, Jennifer. “Route 8 corridor assessed by western PA brownfields center, municipal officials.” 16 May 2007. Pop City Media. <http://www. aspx> Belko, Mark. “EPA hands out $1 million for redevelopment.” 28 Sept. 2005. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. < pg/05271/578809.stm> “EPA Awards $1 Million to Redevelop Brownfields throughout Allegheny County.” 28 Sept. 2005. PA Department of Environmental Protection. <http:// asp?a=3&q=495743> “Etna Economic Development Corporation.” 2006. Etna Borough. < htm> “RCI Company Information.” 2002-2007. Riverside Center for Innovation. <http://www.> “RE: Request for proposal for marketing and outreach services for the economic development programs of the Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone, Inc. (ARTEZ).” 3 Aug. 2006. ARTEZ. Stephen, John & Peter Meyer. “A Case Study of InterMunicipal Cooperation on Brownfield Redevelopment.” 19 April 2007. Allegheny River Towns Enterprise Zone, Inc. Business of Brownfields Conference.



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 123 acres FEATURES: Location, Significant Acreage, and Flat Land OWNER: Soffer Organization & the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) CURRENT USE: Retail, Dining, Entertainment, Office and Sports Training Area PAST USE: Finishing Mill CONTAMINANTS: PCBs & Iron Cyanide Metals TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $265 million funding, from public and private. TIMELINE

1893 Monongahela Water Company first develops the site. 1974 LTV acquires J&L Steel. 1993 The URA purchases the site. 1996 The URA purchases the former Hot Metal and MONCON Bridges. 1997 URA completes the design of the renovation of the MONCON Bridge. 1998 LTV ceases operations and demolishs the facilities in its steam plant in SSW. 2000 Renovations of the MONCON Bridge are completed. 2004 A series of mixed-use structures including the Cheesecake Factory is completed.

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 LingTemco-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 of office, medical, recreational, housing and retail uses. It is a private investment of $250 million, providing up to 5,400 employment opportunities and over 400 housing units. Employment generated by initial development amounted to approximately 1,500 jobs.
Case Study Completed Summer 2007
SOURCES Messenger, Adrienne. Brownfield Development: the Implications for Urban Infrastructure. The Brownfields Center: Case Study Site – LTV South Side Works. Carnegie Mellon University. Aug. 1998. Saavedra, Loreto. “South Side Works” May 2007. Student Work Soffer Organization Presentation Soffer Organization web page, htm URA web page,

Project Financing (projected)
$23,427,461 $16,250,000 $16,992,000 $12,525,000 $25,000,000 $11,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $7,245,039 $103,666,500
City / URA Funding Private Garage Funding State Funding Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority Tax Increment Financing HUD Section 108 Loans HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) Grant HUD Economic Development Initiative (EDI) Grant Other Sources Total



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 40 acres FEATURES: Riverfront Location, Accessibility OWNER: Forest City Enterprises, The Allegheny Foundation, & The Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation CURRENT USE: Retail, Dining, Entertainment, and Hotel PAST USE: Railroad & Coal Freight and Box-Car Leasing CONTAMINANTS: Oil and other railway fuel contaminants TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $72 million TIMELINE

1873 P&LE Railroad is first chartered. 1879 P&LE Railroad is open for traffic. 1970 The railroad system‘s popularity declines. 1976 The site is considered for retail reuse. 1994 Ground is broken on this site. 1994 Forest City Enterprise buys the site. 2002 The site is competed.

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 governmentbased 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



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 238 acres FEATURES: Location, Significant Acreage OWNER: Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh (URA), the City of Pittsburgh, & the Summerset Land Development Associates CURRENT USE: Housing PAST USE: Steel By-product Storage CONTAMINANTS: Chromium TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $22 million TIMELINE

1922 Site is used as slag dump by Duquesne Slag Co. 1982 Department of Planning publishes first development proposals for site. 1995 URA purchases site for $3.8 million. 1996 Master plan is released for residential development 1999 Groundbreaking for Summerset. 1999 Regrading of slag begins. 2007 Phase I is completed.

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 and non-residential, similar to the first option, but with a Picture courtesy of Google Maps 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
$ 11,687,766 $ 3,101,828 $ 330,000 $ 750,000 $ 12,500,000 $ 742,080 $ 1,500,000 $ 8,235,000 City Bond Land Proceeds EPA Grant Foundations State - RACP State - Growing Greener County - LCTF PWSA Case Study Completed Summer 2007

$ 38,846,674 TOTAL



LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 42 acres FEATURES: Location, City View, Waterfront OWNER: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) CURRENT USE: Upscale Housing, Marina, and Park PAST USE: Meat Packing Plant, Scrap Yard, & Rail CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum, Heavy Metals, Organic Waste, PCBs, and PAHs TOTAL ACTUAL COST more than $44 million TIMELINE

1903 PA Railroad buys a portion of the island on which to rest livestock. 1966 Packing companies closes. 1987 Herr’s Island is renamed Washington’s Landing. 1989 The URA and the state acquire all the land on the island. 1989 The first tenant, the Three Rivers Rowing Association, opens their doors. 1990 Clean-up is completed. 1990 Construction of the Washington’s Landing Marina Inc. begins. 1993 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection moves onto the site. 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 twothirds 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


to River Road and East Ohio Street, while $19,900 was also spent to repair an 85-year-old bridge so the resulting bridge has synchronized signals, minimizing delay. COSTS AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURE This project cost over $44 million, with $26.5 million from public investment, $7 million from the City of Pittsburgh, and over $11 million from the government.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED The site houses the Three Rivers Rowing Association, 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.

$2,400,000 $2,900,000 $1,500,000 $3,288,000 $3,000,000 $2,600,000 $2,900,000 (projected) $4,000,000 (projected) $21,000,000 (projected)

Washington’s Landing Associates I Washington’s Landing Associates II Three Rivers Rowing Association Sports Technology Group Washington’s Landing Marina 600 Waterfront Drive 800 Waterfront Drive Automated Healthcare Inc. and Manufacturing Facility The Village at Washington’s Landing

$2,280,590 $2,300,000 $2,400,000 $3,140,000 $1,850,000 $4,400,000 $1,301,000 $3,248,000 $800,000 $585,500 $1,200,000 $3,000,000
U.S. Economic Development Administration PA Department of Community Affairs PA Department of Commerce PA Department of Environmental Resources Appalachian Regional Commission City of Pittsburgh CDBG Funds Urban Redevelopment Authority City of Pittsburgh Bond Funds Port Authority Transit Urban Redevelopment Authority Program Income Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority PA Strategy 21 Funding (park and open spaces)

Case Study Completed Summer 2007
SOURCES Coile, Heather. “Washington’s Landing: A Case Study” Apr. 2007. Student Work Putaro, Sarah M. and Kathryn A. Weisbrod. Brownfield Development: the Implications for Urban Infrastructure. The Brownfields Center: Case Study Site – Former Army Ammunition Plant, in the Hays Community of Pittsburgh. Carnegie Mellon University. Aug. 1998.

$26,505,090 TOTAL



LOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: 256 acres FEATURES: Location, Riverfront, High Utility Capacity, Flat land OWNER: Continental Real Estate Companies CURRENT USE: Retail, Dining, and Entertainment PAST USE: Steel Mill CONTAMINANTS: Asbestos, Underground Storage Tanks Containing Lubricants TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $300 million TIMELINE

1892 The Battle of Homestead – steelworks against Pinkerton guards – is staged. 1901 U.S. Steel is formed. 1986 The Homestead Works of U.S. Steel closes. 1988 The site is sold to the Park Corporation. 1996 The site is sold to Continental Real Estate. 1999 The developer breaks ground on the property. 2002 Site is completed.

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

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 retailers, thereby increasing the housing market around the area.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.