Planning is the City’s job. Development is the developers’ job.
Editor’s Note: This post was prompted by a recent Power Broker Magazine article discussing whether the finalist development teams would be willing to develop all or only part of the Historic Gas Plant site.
The Wrong Question
Recent reporting has focused on one question:
Should one developer redevelop the Historic Gas Plant, or should the site be divided between two developers?
Isn’t the better question:
Who should plan the Historic Gas Plant?
The best cities create the plan. Only then do developers compete to build it.
This isn’t a new idea. In an earlier post, I highlighted ten cities that successfully transformed major public properties by first creating a city-led master plan and then inviting developers to compete to build individual projects within that framework.
In another post, I examined several high-profile redevelopment projects where cities selected developers before completing the planning process. Those projects experienced years of delays, repeated revisions, escalating costs, or failed to deliver what had originally been promised.
St. Petersburg has the opportunity to learn from both sets of examples.
The goal isn’t to reinvent the process. It’s to use the approach that has consistently produced the best long-term results.
Haven’t We Already Planned?
Mayor Ken Welch has often said that the City has already completed extensive planning. He has pointed to years of public meetings and has emphasized goals such as creating affordable housing, honoring the history of the Historic Gas Plant neighborhood, creating jobs, expanding economic opportunity, and providing community benefits.
Those are important goals, and I agree they should guide the redevelopment.
But goals are not a master plan.
Goals describe what we want to accomplish.
A master plan explains how we accomplish it.
A master plan answers questions such as:
- How should the land be organized?
- What transportation, parks, and public spaces are needed?
- How should housing, jobs, and community amenities fit together? What infrastructure should be built—and in what sequence?
- How should development occur over time?
Those are the questions that successful cities answer before they transfer development rights.
What a Master Plan Actually Does
Whether one developer receives all 86 acres or two developers each receive part of the property, the City is still asking developers to shape the future of one of St. Petersburg’s most valuable public assets.
That turns the planning process upside down.
Major redevelopment decisions affecting an entire city should not be shaped primarily through negotiations between a small number of public officials and one or two development teams.
That is not how successful cities approach the redevelopment of major public assets.
Instead, they broaden the process by engaging nationally recognized planning and urban design experts, their own planning staff, a broadly representative citizen advisory council, and extensive community input before developers are selected.
The Historic Gas Plant District should be planned as one coordinated neighborhood—not as separate projects with separate visions. Streets, parks, Booker Creek, utilities, infrastructure, public spaces, transportation, and land uses all need to work together as one integrated community.
It means the City should create one comprehensive master plan and one coordinated infrastructure plan. Once that framework is in place, developers should compete to build individual parcels within it.
The goal is simple:
- One neighborhood.
- One master plan.
- One coordinated infrastructure system.
- Multiple competing developers.
Before any development rights are awarded, the City should undertake a comprehensive planning process.
That process should be led by the City’s planning department, supported by nationally recognized planning and urban design experts, and guided by a broadly representative citizen advisory council. Throughout the process, residents, businesses, neighborhood organizations, and other stakeholders should have meaningful opportunities to provide input.
Together, that team should determine:
- Where the streets belong.
- Where parks and public spaces belong.
- How Booker Creek should be restored and integrated.
- What infrastructure is needed.
- What mix of housing, offices, retail, hotels, and civic uses best serves the public.
- How affordability, transportation, resiliency, historic preservation, and long-term economic value should be balanced.
Only after those decisions are made should developers compete to build individual portions of the plan.
Why Public Control Matters
Developers are not deciding what the City should become.
They are competing to build the community the City has already decided it wants.
Whether the City selects one developer or two, the fundamental issue remains the same.
The City would still be transferring enormous control over one of its most valuable public assets before deciding exactly what it wants to create.
That means giving up control not only of the vision, but also of the pace of redevelopment.
As I discussed in an earlier post about the former St. Petersburg Police Headquarters site, major redevelopment projects can be delayed for many reasons—changing market conditions, financing challenges, rising construction costs, permitting issues, legal disputes, or unforeseen events. Regardless of the cause, when a single developer controls an entire district, the entire project can slow down with it.
A city-led master plan with multiple development parcels creates a very different outcome.
If one project encounters delays, other projects can continue moving forward.
The City maintains flexibility, competition, and momentum instead of tying the future of an 86-acre district to the progress of a single development team.
Just as importantly, the City retains the ability to adapt over time.
Neighborhood needs change. Markets change. Technology changes. Public priorities change.
A city-led master plan allows the City to respond to those changes while preserving the overall vision for the district.
That is why many successful cities prepare the master plan first and then invite developers to compete for individual sites within that framework.
The City retains control of the vision while benefiting from private-sector expertise, competition, and innovation.
Why Land Value Matters
The recent discussion also overlooks another critical issue: the value of the land itself.
In a recent post, I highlighted two downtown St. Petersburg properties totaling just 1.8 acres that sold for $32.5 million—about $18 million per acre.
The City has also commissioned independent appraisals estimating the Historic Gas Plant property to be worth approximately $380 million to $390 million before redevelopment.
Those facts raise an important question.
If the land is already worth approximately $380 million to $390 million before redevelopment, why should the City sell it now—before the planning process creates even more value?
In my recent post about downtown land values, I pointed out that nearby downtown property has sold for the equivalent of approximately $18 million per acre.
The Historic Gas Plant District includes roughly 60 acres of land that could ultimately be developed after accounting for streets, parks, and other public spaces.
If a thoughtfully planned, fully developed district eventually approaches the value of surrounding downtown land, the property could ultimately be worth well over $1 billion.
No one knows exactly what that future value will be. It will depend on the final master plan, market conditions, and many other factors.
But one thing is certain.
Creating a great neighborhood—with coordinated streets, parks, public spaces, infrastructure, and private investment—creates tremendous value.
The question is:
Who should benefit from that increase in value?
If the City sells the land before creating the plan, much of that future appreciation is transferred to the purchaser.
If, instead, the City retains ownership, completes the master plan, installs the coordinated public infrastructure, and then releases development parcels over time through competitive requests for proposals, the public has the opportunity to capture much more of the value that redevelopment creates.
Those proceeds could help fund streets, parks, public spaces, infrastructure, affordable housing, and other public priorities—not only within the Historic Gas Plant District, but throughout St. Petersburg.
That approach also gives the City greater flexibility.
If market conditions change or community priorities evolve, the City can adjust future phases of development without renegotiating control of an entire district.
That is how many successful cities create lasting public wealth from publicly owned land.
Instead of selling the opportunity, they create the value first—and then allow the public to benefit from it.
Affordable Housing Requires Good Planning
The Power Broker Magazine article also compares the amount of affordable housing proposed by the competing development teams.
Those numbers are worth considering, but they should not be confused with guarantees.
No one knows today exactly how much affordable housing can ultimately be built. Construction costs, financing, interest rates, infrastructure expenses, market conditions, public subsidies, and many other factors will influence what is ultimately delivered.
These are projections—not promises.
More importantly, affordable housing should not be viewed in isolation.
It is one of many community goals that should be incorporated into a city-led master plan, alongside parks, transportation, economic development, historic preservation, public spaces, resiliency, and other community priorities.
The City should first determine how much affordable housing it wants, where it should be located, what level of affordability it should provide, and how it should be financed.
Developers should then compete to achieve those objectives.
A city-led planning process doesn’t reduce the importance of affordable housing.
It makes affordable housing a requirement of the redevelopment instead of simply a projection within competing proposals.
The Real Question
The discussion should not be whether one developer receives the entire Historic Gas Plant or whether two developers divide the property.
The discussion should not be whether one proposal is slightly better than another.
The real question is much more fundamental.
Who should plan the Historic Gas Plant?
The experience of successful cities across America points in the same direction.
Cities create the plan.
Developers compete to build it.
Planning is a public responsibility.
Development is a private opportunity.
When cities create the master plan first, they retain control of the vision, preserve the value of public land, reduce risk, encourage competition, and create flexibility as the project evolves.
The Historic Gas Plant District deserves nothing less.
Key Takeaway
The issue isn’t whether one developer or two developers redevelop the Historic Gas Plant.
The issue isn’t whether Proposal A, Proposal B, or Proposal C is selected.
The issue is whether the City creates the master plan before awarding development rights.
That is the approach recommended by many nationally recognized planning and urban design experts.
It is the approach used by many successful redevelopment projects across America.
And I believe it is the approach most likely to create a Historic Gas Plant District that serves the people of St. Petersburg for generations to come.
Previous Articles in This Series
