Control: What Happens When the Plan Meets Reality?

This is the third article in a series exploring why Vision, Control, and Value are so important to the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District—and why the City should lead the process rather than turn that responsibility over to a single developer.

The first two articles focused on Vision.

I looked at two major questions St. Petersburg should answer before deciding who will develop the Historic Gas Plant District: What should happen to I-175? And what kind of parks and public spaces should be created?

Those are just two parts of a much larger vision. But they illustrate a fundamental point:

Before choosing a developer, the City should first decide what it wants.

Now we turn to the second principle:

Control.

Why does it matter that the City retain control of the Historic Gas Plant District? And what could St. Petersburg give up by turning that control over to a single master developer?

By control, I do not mean that the City should become the developer or build the Historic Gas Plant District itself.

I mean that the City should remain in charge of the overall redevelopment: establishing the master plan, determining where the streets, parks and public spaces go, deciding how and when different parts of the property are developed, and retaining the ability to adjust those decisions as circumstances change.

Developers would still do what developers do best: design, finance and build individual projects.

But the City—not a single private development team—would remain responsible for guiding the future of the entire 86 acres and protecting the public interest as circumstances change.

Why does that matter?

The answer begins with a simple reality:

The redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District will unfold over decades.

No one knows what the economy, housing market, interest rates, construction costs, financing environment, or community priorities will look like 10, 20, or 30 years from now.

A city can create an extraordinary vision for a major public property. But a vision created today cannot anticipate every challenge that will arise over the decades required to build it.

• Markets change.
• Interest rates rise and fall.
• Construction costs increase.
• Financing becomes more difficult.
• Community priorities evolve.
• Political leadership changes.

That is precisely why control matters.

The question is not whether unexpected challenges will occur.

They will.

The question is:

When circumstances change, who remains in control?

A Twenty-Year Warning From Brooklyn

Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn provides an important example.

When the project was announced more than twenty years ago, it was envisioned as a catalyst for the surrounding area, bringing housing, office buildings and a professional basketball arena to a 22-acre site near downtown Brooklyn.

The promises made in Brooklyn sound remarkably familiar.

• More housing.
• New jobs.
• Parks and open space.
• A revitalized neighborhood.

These are many of the same aspirations being discussed for St. Petersburg’s Historic Gas Plant District.

But more than twenty years later, the project remains unfinished.

Broken Promises

The New York Times recently described Atlantic Yards as “a symbol of broken promises and the pitfalls of taxpayer-subsidized mega-projects.”

Some parts of the project have been completed. Barclays Center opened in 2012, along with eight mixed-use buildings and other improvements. But more than twenty years after Atlantic Yards was announced, large portions of the project remain unfinished, and many of its original promises have yet to be fully realized.

The project has been delayed by lawsuits, financial problems and other challenges. One developer defaulted on its loans. The slow delivery of 2,250 promised affordable apartments became a major source of controversy.

Now New York State economic development officials have announced a new $5 billion plan intended to finally complete Atlantic Yards.

The proposal calls for six additional high-rises, 5,600 homes—including approximately 1,242 affordable apartments—and about five and a half acres of additional open space.

It could take another decade or more to build.

And because several of the buildings would be constructed over active rail lines, state officials estimate the project could require approximately $700 million in additional public subsidies.

Even then, the new proposal must still clear significant hurdles before construction can begin. Work may not start until 2028.

In other words, a redevelopment announced more than twenty years ago could still be under construction more than thirty years after it began.

That should matter to St. Petersburg.

This Is Not About Criticizing Developers

Atlantic Yards is not evidence that developers are incapable of building outstanding projects.

Nor is this a criticism of the development team Mayor Ken Welch has selected to negotiate the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District.

Large redevelopment projects are extraordinarily complex.

No developer can control the economy. No developer can guarantee what interest rates will be ten years from now. No developer knows what the housing market will look like in twenty years.

That is exactly the point.

The issue is not whether a developer is good or bad.

The issue is who should remain responsible for guiding the redevelopment when circumstances inevitably change.

The City?

Or a master developer?

Why Control Matters

The Historic Gas Plant District consists of 86 acres in the heart of St. Petersburg.

Its redevelopment will likely unfold over decades. A great deal can change during that time. That is why I believe the City should retain control of the redevelopment for as long as practical.

There is an important distinction between leading a redevelopment and building a redevelopment.

The City should lead. Developers should develop.

The City should remain responsible for the larger decisions that shape the future of this extraordinary public property:

• The streets.
• The parks.
• The public spaces.
• The infrastructure.
• The location and mix of uses.
• The timing of development.
• Which parcels are developed next.
• And how the plan should evolve as circumstances change.

Developers should do what they do best: design, finance, and construct exceptional projects.

The City can establish the vision, create the master plan, build or oversee the public infrastructure, and then invite outstanding developers to compete for individual parcels.

Instead of placing the future of 86 acres in the hands of one development team, the City can benefit from the ideas, expertise, capital, and competition of many developers over many years.

That approach preserves something enormously valuable:

Flexibility.

Instead of tying the future of the entire Historic Gas Plant District to the fortunes of a single developer, the City retains the ability to adapt while development continues.

If the developer of one parcel cannot move forward, the rest of the Historic Gas Plant District can continue to develop. The City can select another developer for that parcel without putting the future of the entire 86 acres at risk.

And as circumstances change over the years, the City can adjust the timing, uses, and development of future parcels while remaining guided by the overall master plan.

The Real Question

Atlantic Yards is a reminder that major redevelopment projects rarely unfold exactly as originally planned.

The question most often asked is:

Who should develop the Historic Gas Plant District?

The more important question is:

Who should remain in control of its future?

I believe that answer should be the City of St. Petersburg, acting on behalf of its citizens.

• The City should create the vision.
• The City should establish the plan.
• The City should retain control.
• And developers should compete for the opportunity to build it.

Related Reading

First Decide What We Want
Why the City should create the vision before choosing who will build it.

What Should Happen to I-175?
Why major public decisions should be resolved as part of a comprehensive public planning process.

Great Cities Begin With Great Parks
Why parks and public spaces should shape the master plan rather than be fitted around development afterward.

The Central Avenue/Ellison Development
A local example of how development plans can change repeatedly over time—and why the City must protect its interests when circumstances change.

Six Cities That Got It Wrong
Lessons from major redevelopment projects that failed to deliver what was originally promised.