Conceptual master plan image from the City of St. Petersburg’s 2018 Tropicana Field planning study prepared by HKS.
This City-commissioned planning work shows the kind of plan-first approach St. Petersburg has already used.
A common argument for a proposal-first, master-developer approach at the Gas Plant site is that the City isn’t equipped to plan something this large or complex on its own.
The City’s own record shows otherwise.
This post builds on my earlier work advocating for a plan-first, city-led redevelopment of the Gas Plant site, grounded in the City’s own planning history and current practice.
Over the past several years, St. Petersburg has repeatedly led major planning efforts for large, sensitive, and valuable public land — hiring experienced planning firms, engaging the community, and establishing public frameworks before deciding how development should occur. The Gas Plant is not an exception. It fits a clear pattern.
The Gas Plant (2018)
In 2018, the City hired HKS to prepare a concept master plan for the Tropicana Field site, commonly referred to as Scenario 2. The plan was prepared for the City — not for a developer — and explored how the 86-acre site could be planned without relying on a proposal or a single anchor.
That plan restored the city street grid, integrated transit, defined public open space, and broke the site into 23 distinct development parcels. It called for incremental development and identified early parcels that could move forward first, with others following over time. It was shaped by public meetings and stakeholder engagement, reflecting community input early in the process.
Most importantly, the plan was explicit about how value is created. It states:
“Land use, open space and access is the key combination that generates real estate value on the site.”
In plain terms, long-term value is created by public decisions — streets, access, open space, and land-use mix — not by who builds first. Those decisions belong to the City.
The Innovation District
More recently, the City partnered with Kimley-Horn on an updated master plan for the Innovation District along the waterfront. That effort focused on long-term growth, connectivity, public access, resilience, and flexibility — not on selecting a developer or locking in a single project.
The Innovation District plan was framed as a long-range framework rather than a fixed blueprint, shaped by City priorities and community input. Again, planning came first.
Albert Whitted Airport
At Albert Whitted Airport, the City followed a similar approach. Rather than issuing a developer RFP for the entire site, the City convened committees and issued RFQs to study aviation and non-aviation futures. Firms such as HR&A Advisors and Kimley-Horn were evaluated to help the City understand options before policy decisions were made.
The process evolved, but the posture remained the same: understand the land and its value first; decide what to do with it second.
District 2 Master Plan
Today, the City is doing this again through the District 2 Master Plan. The City has hired WSP to develop a long-range, community-driven plan for its northernmost council district — an area that serves as a major gateway and includes the county’s largest employment center.
That work is being released in phases, with residents, workers, and visitors invited to shape priorities before outcomes are set. There is no developer proposal driving the plan. The City is leading.
The Pattern Is Clear
Across different sites and circumstances, the City has shown a consistent approach:
Hire experienced planning firms
Define the public framework first
Engage the community early
Preserve flexibility over time
This is how St. Petersburg plans.
What Planning First Does — and What It Doesn’t
Planning first does not decide who will build the project, how many developers there will be, or what form development will ultimately take. It simply decides who controls the plan.
Under a plan-first approach, the City sets the basics up front — the street layout, block sizes, public spaces, infrastructure, and overall phasing. The City leads this planning work by hiring experienced outside planners, engineers, and advisors to help develop that framework, the same way it does on other major City projects.Only after that framework is adopted does the City decide how development will be carried out.
Importantly, this does not mean the City becomes the master developer or builds the project itself. The City’s role is to plan, set the rules, and protect the public interest — not to build buildings or take on private development risk.
That later stage could involve selling or leasing parcels over time to multiple builders. It could also involve working with a master developer in a limited coordination role. What matters is that any such arrangement comes after the plan, and within City-set rules. A master developer in this context does not “do the whole deal” or control all the land; buildings are developed parcel by parcel, at fair value, within the public framework the City has already adopted.
Planning first keeps options open. Proposal first locks them in.
Why This Matters Now
The City is at a decision point. Once a proposal-first deal is selected, control over the plan — and much of the long-term public value — is effectively transferred.
The City’s own planning history shows that another path is available, but only if it is chosen before that handoff occurs. After that, the opportunity to lead with a plan, phase development over time, and retain public value largely disappears.
The real decision is whether the City will set aside the proposal-first approach and instead commit to a plan-first, city-led process at the Gas Plant — adopting a clear master plan, putting durable governance in place, and offering parcels over time — or whether it will hand over control and roughly $1 billion in long-term public value in a single deal.
Once-in-a-generation public land deserves the same deliberate, city-led planning the City already uses elsewhere. The record is clear. Now it is a matter of choice.
A Note for Readers
If you agree that the City should lead with a plan before committing to a deal, you may wish to share your perspective with City Council. Referencing the City’s own planning work — including the Tropicana Plan – Scenario 2 and the other City-led efforts described above — can help ground that conversation in the City’s established practice.
