If we want to get the Gas Plant site in St. Petersburg right, it’s worth looking at a city that did.
The current direction under Mayor Ken Welch appears to be to select a single development partner for the Gas Plant site before a full, city-led plan is in place.
That decision matters.
Because it goes to the heart of a much bigger question:
What does it look like when a city actually gets this right?
When it follows the right order:
- Plan first — decide what this place should be: where the parks go, how people move through it, what gets built and what doesn’t
- Structure second — set the basic layout and rules: where the main streets run, where the parks are locked in, and what can be built on each parcel—the uses, height, and basic rules developers must follow
- Public priorities clearly defined — so decisions reflect the community, not just the market
- And only then — bring in developers to build what they do best—using their creativity, experience, and capital, within those rules
Not theory.
Not promises.
Not renderings.
But real land. Real decisions. Real outcomes.
And importantly—not by first transferring control of a generational public asset to a single development partner and asking that partner to help define the plan.
Instead, the city leads first: establishing the vision, the street network, the parks, the public spaces, the development parcels, and the rules—then inviting developers to compete to build within that framework.
New to this topic? Start here:
Understanding the Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment Debate
A guide to the issues, proposals, tradeoffs, and the case for a city-led approach.
This is the first in a short series looking at cities that took control of major redevelopment sites—and what happened as a result.
We’ll start with Denver.
Denver’s Stapleton: A City That Stayed in Control
When the old Stapleton International Airport closed in the 1990s, Denver was left with something very familiar:
A major piece of land near downtown.
Formerly important.
Full of history.
And full of potential.
The site was part of a much larger redevelopment area—but the core challenge was the same:
How do you turn public land into long-term public value?
What Denver Did Differently
Denver did not start by choosing a developer.
They started with a plan.
The city created a public structure to guide the redevelopment —in many ways a form of a community advisory structure—and brought in national planning expertise—Civitas, Cooper Robertson architects (now part of Corgan) and others – to work alongside that effort.
Together, they defined the fundamentals:
- The parks and open space network
- How neighborhoods would connect
- The mix of housing, retail, and civic uses
- The long-term vision for the site
That vision was then carried forward through a guiding document often referred to as the “Green Book.”
It wasn’t just a vision—it was a set of standards and principles that ensured the plan would be implemented consistently over time.
What firms like Civitas and Cooper Roberston actually add
This step is often misunderstood, but it’s critical.
Firms like Civitas and Cooper Roberston help a city do more than just create a plan.
They help the city own the plan—and steward it over time.
- Turn broad ideas into a coherent, buildable master plan
- Design how parks, streets, housing, and retail fit together physically
- Define how major streets, parks, and neighborhoods will come together
- Evaluate real tradeoffs (density vs. open space, revenue vs. livability)
- Structure community input so it becomes usable direction—not just opinions
- Create a framework that can guide development parcel by parcel over many years
And importantly:
It allows the city to stay in the land—to remain involved, deliberate, and in control as the site evolves.
Why the “Green Book” Matters
The “Green Book” is what made the plan hold over time.
Even as different phases were built—and different builders came in—the underlying rules stayed consistent.
It ensured that:
- The original vision wasn’t lost
- Each piece fit into a larger whole
- Development remained aligned with public goals
Only after that framework was in place did Denver move to implementation.
And when it did, it didn’t ask for glossy proposals.
It used a qualifications-based selection process—effectively an RFQ—focused on one question:
Who is best equipped to execute this plan?
That’s when Forest City Enterprises was selected as master developer.
But that was just one way to implement the plan.
Over time, multiple builders and development partners participated within that framework, as different phases and parcels were developed.
There Isn’t Just One Way to Do This
Once a city has a strong plan in place, it has options.
It can:
- Select a master developer to execute the plan over time
- Or—as we’ve been advocating—
develop the site parcel by parcel, selling or partnering on individual pieces as the plan unfolds
Both approaches can work.
But here’s the key:
They only work well if the plan comes first.
Because once the streets, parks, and framework are defined:
- Parcels can be developed incrementally
- Multiple developers can participate
- The city can adapt over time
- And long-term value stays with the public
Without that structure, those options disappear.
The Results
Today, the former Stapleton site—now known as Central Park—is widely viewed as one of the most successful large-scale redevelopment projects in the country.
- Thousands of homes across income levels
- Walkable neighborhoods
- Significant retail and commercial activity
- Large, connected park systems
- A strong, enduring tax base for the city
And most importantly:
The city shaped the outcome. It didn’t give that responsibility away.
Why This Sequence Matters for the Gas Plant Site
This wasn’t about avoiding developers.
It was about getting the order right.
Plan first.
Structure first.
Public priorities first.
Then—and only then—bring in a developer to execute.
What This Means for St. Petersburg
St. Petersburg could work with a master developer.
Or it could take a more incremental, parcel-by-parcel approach.
That’s not the issue.
The issue is when and how the decision gets made.
A better path would look like this:
- Bring in national planning expertise—firms like Civitas
- Work with the community to define the plan
- Establish the framework—the parks, major streets, and overall structure
- Then decide: one developer, multiple developers, or parcel-by-parcel
That’s how you preserve flexibility.
That’s how you maximize long-term value for the city.
The Real Question
This isn’t a choice between:
- Developer vs. no developer
It’s a choice between:
- City-led plan with the right partner
- Or developer-led plan with the city reacting
Denver chose the first.
St. Petersburg still has time to do the same.
What Comes Next
In the coming posts, I’ll look at other cities that faced similar redevelopment decisions—and what we can learn from them.
Because before St. Petersburg makes a once-in-a-generation decision on the Gas Plant site…
We should at least look at the cities that got it right.
