A Guide to the Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment and the Future of St. Petersburg

Last Updated: May 2026

The Historic Gas Plant redevelopment is one of the most important planning decisions facing St. Petersburg.

Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment in 60 Seconds

The Historic Gas Plant District is an approximately 86-acre public redevelopment site in St. Petersburg, Florida, centered around and surrounding the current Tropicana Field property.
The site represents one of the most important public land and redevelopment opportunities in the city’s history.
St. Petersburg is currently evaluating how redevelopment should occur and whether long-term implementation should be led through a single development structure or a more city-led process.
This guide explores the planning, redevelopment, governance, public land, and long-term value questions surrounding that decision.
St. Petersburg does not need to choose between doing nothing and selecting one master developer.
The city can retain long-term public flexibility while hiring world-class planners, architects, developers, and financial experts.
Long-term redevelopment projections are concepts—not guarantees.
Goals like affordable housing, jobs, and opportunity are more likely to succeed when the City keeps flexibility and adapts over time rather than relying on one long-term agreement.
Planning first may preserve public value, civic flexibility, and long-term opportunity.

What This Guide Covers

This guide covers the major questions surrounding the Historic Gas Plant redevelopment and broader redevelopment decisions facing St. Petersburg.

Topics include:

Current status of the redevelopment process
Historical background and redevelopment timeline
Why redevelopment proposals can be difficult to evaluate
Long-term planning versus long-term promises
Whether cities must rely on master developers
Public land and long-term value creation
Alternative approaches to redevelopment
Key documents and source materials

Table of Contents

Current Status of the Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment
Gas Plant Redevelopment Timeline
Why This Is Difficult to Evaluate
Long-Term Projections Are Not Guarantees
Experienced Teams Can Participate Without Controlling the Property
The Vision Should Belong to the City
What I Am Proposing Instead
Why This Matters
Key Takeaways
Frequently Asked Questions
Key Documents and Resources
Related Reading
Updated Data and Developments

Current Status of the Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment

The Historic Gas Plant District is an approximately 86-acre redevelopment site owned by the City of St. Petersburg and centered around the Tropicana Field property.

The City is currently considering how redevelopment should proceed after the collapse of the previous redevelopment agreement. Three broad approaches have been presented for consideration:

• Two proposals would place a master developer in charge of planning and implementing much of the redevelopment over time.

• A third proposal would allow the City to retain ownership and control of the property while hiring outside experts and implementation partners to help manage redevelopment.

The Mayor is expected to recommend a path forward, but any major redevelopment proposal ultimately requires approval by the St. Petersburg City Council.

The central question facing the City is not whether redevelopment should occur. The question is whether St. Petersburg should transfer long-term control of the property to a master developer or maintain greater public control while using outside expertise to help guide redevelopment over time.

Because the property represents one of the largest public redevelopment opportunities in the city’s history, decisions made today may influence housing, public space, transportation, economic development, and public finances for decades.

Gas Plant Redevelopment Timeline

Historically

The Historic Gas Plant District was once a thriving African-American community before being displaced through urban renewal and the construction of interstate highways and public facilities.

1990

Tropicana Field opened and became the home of Major League Baseball’s Tampa Bay Rays.

2022–2024

The City selected a redevelopment proposal anchored by the Rays and development partners.
The proposal contemplated a new ballpark, mixed-use development, affordable housing, and public benefits.

2024

Following financing challenges, hurricane-related issues, and changing circumstances, the redevelopment agreement unraveled and the future of the site was reopened for consideration.

2025

St. Petersburg began evaluating alternative approaches for redeveloping the approximately 86-acre site.
New proposals emerged, including both master developer and city-led concepts.

2026

The Mayor is evaluating three redevelopment approaches.
Two proposals would rely primarily on a master developer structure.
A third would retain greater city ownership and control while using outside experts and implementation partners.
Any major redevelopment proposal ultimately requires approval by the St. Petersburg City Council.

What Happens Next

The City will determine whether to proceed with a master developer model, a city-led approach, or another alternative.
Future decisions will affect land use, housing, transportation, public space, historical recognition, and the long-term value created from one of the city’s largest public assets.

Why This is Difficult to Evaluate

Before getting into this, let me say something important.

I have spent the last several years following the Historic Gas Plant discussions closely, reading proposals, attending meetings, listening to presentations, reviewing financial structures, and trying to understand what is actually being proposed.

What has become increasingly clear to me is that this process is extraordinarily difficult for the average citizen to evaluate.

Why most citizens struggle to evaluate redevelopment proposals

Not because people do not care. But because people are busy. They have families, jobs, businesses, responsibilities, and lives to manage.

And redevelopment proposals like these are incredibly complicated.

The expertise gap

Most people are not experts in:

urban planning
development structures
infrastructure finance
land valuation
public-private partnerships
long-term city planning.

So when one development team confidently says one thing and another says something completely different, it becomes very hard for the public to know how to evaluate what they are hearing.

Ultimately, the challenge is not deciding which person, proposal, or presentation to trust. The challenge is creating a process that helps the city, City Council, and the public determine the best path forward.

At times, the process can begin to feel more like a competition between presentations and personalities than a thoughtful public discussion.

Long-Term Projections Are Not Guarantees

Recently, I read comments from a respected member of the community expressing support for one proposal largely because of the specificity of what it projected in each phase of development.

That reaction is understandable.

Specific numbers, timelines, renderings, housing projections, and development schedules can create the impression of certainty.

Why specificity can be misleading

But one of the central points of this article is that these long-term redevelopment proposals are not guarantees.

No one can know today:

what market conditions will look like 10 or 20 years from now,
how financing conditions will change,
what future housing economics will support,
what construction costs will become,
or what future city priorities may be.

Affordable housing projections, development schedules, financing assumptions, and many other details contained in these proposals are ultimately dependent on future economics and conditions that nobody can fully predict today.

That is why choosing one proposal over another primarily because of attractive renderings, phase projections, or highly specific long-term estimates can create a false sense of certainty about outcomes that are inherently uncertain.

Specific numbers, timelines, renderings, and projections can create the impression of certainty—but long-term redevelopment outcomes are inherently uncertain.

Experienced Teams Can Participate Without Controlling the Property

I have also seen support expressed for certain proposals because they include nationally recognized firms, experienced development organizations, and teams with strong track records on major projects elsewhere.

That reaction is understandable as well.

Experience matters.

Expertise matters.

But St. Petersburg does not need to give away long-term control of the property in order to benefit from that expertise.

In fact, the proposals being considered reinforce this point. The developers plan to assemble planners, architects, infrastructure experts, affordable housing advisors, and consultants—the same types of expertise the City itself could retain directly through a city-led process.

If the city leads the process itself, many of these same planners, etc. could still participate in helping shape and build the district over time.

The difference is that they would be participating within a city-led framework designed around long-term public flexibility and public control rather than through a structure that transfers long-term control of the property itself.

Expertise does not require transferring long-term control.

The Vision Should Belong to the City

I have also seen support expressed for proposals because they align with Mayor Welch’s priorities regarding affordable housing, historical recognition, and equitable redevelopment.

Those priorities are important.

But decisions of this magnitude should emerge from a broader citywide planning process involving community input, independent advisory structures, outside expertise, and long-term public discussion — not simply from the vision of one administration or one individual.

The history of the Gas Plant community deserves meaningful recognition and lasting investment.

Affordable housing is also an important challenge facing St. Petersburg.

But those goals do not require the city to surrender long-term control of one of the most important public assets in the city’s history.

Decisions of this magnitude should emerge from a broader citywide planning process involving community input, independent advisory structures, outside expertise, and long-term public discussion.

What I Am Proposing Instead

I am not suggesting the city do this alone. I am suggesting the city lead.

1. Establish a Public Vision First

Create a city-led planning framework that defines priorities for land use, public space, housing, transportation, economic opportunity, historical recognition, and long-term value creation before selecting long-term implementation partners.

2. Determine the Right Governance Structure

Before deciding who should implement the plan, the city should determine what governance structure makes the most sense. Different cities use different approaches, including redevelopment corporations, advisory councils, implementation partners, public development authorities, and other public entities. The goal should be to create a structure that provides expertise, accountability, transparency, and continuity over time.

The city should also consider bringing in experts who have helped other cities design redevelopment governance structures so St. Petersburg can learn from what has worked elsewhere.

Determining the right governance structure should occur before deciding who is best suited to fill those roles.

3. Create an Independent Advisory Structure

Bring together outside expertise, community input, and independent analysis to support decision-making on issues of this scale and complexity.

Planning is important—but so is making sure the plan survives changes in leadership. Cities that do these projects well usually put protections in place so the vision does not change every time a new administration takes office. That can include adopting the plan publicly, using independent advisory groups, creating clear rules for how land is sold, and requiring major changes to go through a public process.

4. Hire Nationally Recognized Experts

Use planners, architects, financial advisors, infrastructure experts, and development professionals to help design and execute the plan.

5. Build Infrastructure in Phases

Allow investment and infrastructure decisions to evolve as economic conditions, city priorities, and public needs change over time.

6. Release Parcels Competitively Over Time

Allow multiple developers and institutions to participate within a city-led framework rather than relying on one organization to determine outcomes over multiple decades.

This approach would still allow experienced private partners to help shape and build the district.

The difference is that the city retains flexibility, public control, and the ability to adapt over time.

I am not suggesting the city do this alone. I am suggesting the city lead.

Why This Matters

This decision affects more than real estate.

It affects:

affordability
public space
historical recognition
long-term public finances
economic opportunity
future flexibility
public trust

The choices made today may shape St. Petersburg for decades.

Future residents will live with decisions made during this process.

Future leaders may inherit either flexibility or constraints.

Good planning assumes future leaders may see things differently. Cities put rules and protections in place so important decisions do not keep changing every time leadership changes.

That is why process matters.

That is why public understanding matters.

And that is why establishing a public vision before transferring long-term control may deserve more attention than it is receiving today.

Regardless of which proposal people ultimately support, this decision deserves careful evaluation and broad public discussion.

This decision affects more than real estate—it may shape St. Petersburg for decades.

Key Takeaways

Planning and process

St. Petersburg does not need to choose between “doing it alone” and giving control of the Historic Gas Plant District to a single master developer.
The city can lead the process itself successfully by hiring planners, experts, architects, and development professionals to help guide redevelopment.
Decisions about affordable housing, museums, parks, land use, and historical recognition should come from a broad public planning process before long-term control of the property is transferred.
The issue is not whether the city needs expert help — it does. The issue is whether the city should give away long-term control before the public vision is fully established.

Expertise and Development

Many of the features people are reacting to in current proposals are concepts – not guarantees.
Large master developers typically do not build entire districts themselves; many different developers, investors, architects, and builders ultimately participate over time.
With the right advisory structure and expert assistance, the city can successfully coordinate that process itself.
If proposal teams truly care about helping St. Petersburg succeed, they should help preserve long-term public value and flexibility through a city-led process rather than encouraging the transfer of control too early.

Public Value and Risk

A city-led framework preserves flexibility so future leaders can adapt the property to changing economic conditions, public priorities, and new opportunities over the next 20 to 30 years.
Concentrating long-term control of an 86-acre public asset into one development structure also concentrates long-term financial, political, and execution risk.
Maintaining public control may ultimately create more flexibility and more long-term financial capacity to support affordable housing, historical recognition, and other public priorities.
Recent independent appraisals commissioned by the City suggest the Historic Gas Plant property may be worth substantially more than some redevelopment proposals would pay for the land. That raises an important question: How should the City evaluate long-term public value before making irreversible decisions about one of its most important public assets?
Giving up control would mean giving up hundreds of millions of dollars — and potentially far more over time.
Cities can protect what matters to the public by creating clear rules and oversight instead of turning long-term decisions over to a private developer.
No private developer can realistically guarantee long-term outcomes decades in advance. Cities preserve flexibility by keeping options open and adjusting over time.

The issue is not whether the city needs expert help — it does. The issue is whether the city should give away long-term control before the public vision is fully established.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Historic Gas Plant District?

The Historic Gas Plant District is an approximately 86-acre redevelopment area in St. Petersburg centered around the Tropicana Field property. The site includes publicly owned land that may be redeveloped over many years and represents one of the largest redevelopment opportunities in the city’s history.

Who owns the Gas Plant property?

Most of the redevelopment site is owned by the City of St. Petersburg. Because the property is publicly owned, city leaders must decide how it should be planned, developed, and managed over time.

How many acres are involved?

The redevelopment area covers approximately 86 acres. After accounting for streets, parks, and public infrastructure, the amount of land available for development may be significantly smaller.

What decision is the City currently making?

The City is deciding how redevelopment should proceed and what role private developers should play. Current discussions include both master developer approaches and alternatives that would allow the City to retain greater control while using outside expertise.

Who makes the final decision?

Major redevelopment decisions ultimately require approval by the St. Petersburg City Council.

How long will redevelopment take?

Redevelopment of a site this size will likely occur over many years and may extend across multiple mayoral and City Council administrations. The exact timeline will depend on planning decisions, infrastructure needs, market conditions, and future development activity.

Does St. Petersburg have to select a single master developer?

No. Cities can retain control while hiring outside expertise.

Can affordable housing still happen under a city-led model?

Yes. Housing policy and public control are separate decisions.

Can a developer guarantee affordable housing, jobs, or other long-term outcomes?

No. Long-term outcomes depend on changing markets, financing, public programs, and future conditions. Cities preserve flexibility by planning first and adjusting over time rather than relying entirely on long-term projections.

Why are some residents concerned about land value?

Because the Historic Gas Plant District is one of the City’s largest public assets. Recent appraisals and redevelopment proposals have raised questions about how the City should evaluate long-term public value before making irreversible decisions about the property.

What is city-led redevelopment?

A process where the city establishes vision, infrastructure, and framework before selecting builders.

How does a city-led process remain protected if leadership changes?

A city-led approach does not mean trusting one mayor or one administration to always make the right decisions. Cities put rules and public processes in place so the plan stays on track even when leadership changes.

If the city leads redevelopment, who actually manages the project?

Different cities use different governance structures, including advisory councils, redevelopment corporations, implementation partners, and other public entities. Determining the right structure should be part of the planning process.

Why does planning order matter?

Because decisions made early may shape outcomes for decades.

Key Documents and Resources

Ark-Ellison-Horus – Historic Gas Plant Proposal PDF

The Burg Bid LLC – Historic Gas Plant Proposal PDF

Foundation Vision Partners – Historic Gas Plant Proposal PDF

Appraisal – Historic Gas Plant – Entreken – 5-7-26

Appraisal – Historic Gas Plant – Urban Realty Solutions – 5-5-26

Updated Data and Developments

This section will be updated over time as new information becomes available.

Topics may include:

public meetings
proposal changes
financial updates
city actions
timeline changes

Additional Resources

Urban Land Institute (ULI) — Research and best practices on redevelopment, housing, land use, and economic development.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy — Research on public land, land value, infrastructure, and long-term city development.

A Final Thought

This decision will shape St. Petersburg for decades.

Whatever people ultimately support, I hope we slow down, ask difficult questions, and make sure the public fully understands the tradeoffs before long-term decisions are made.

Because once control is transferred, it may be difficult to reverse.

The Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment Guide