Eleven Examples of How Cities Shaped Their Own Future
Why Planning First Works — and Why St. Petersburg Should Lead the Gas Plant Redevelopment
St. Petersburg is approaching one of the biggest decisions in its modern history — the redevelopment of the historic Gas Plant.
The Tampa Bay Rays will be leaving the site in 3 or 4 years, and redevelopment of this extremely valuable 86-acre site can begin.
The central question for redevelopment:
Who should lead — one developer or the city?
It seems clear Mayor Ken Welch intends to pick one of two developers — Ark Ellison Horus or the Burg Bid — to develop the entire property.
But the experience of cities across America suggest there is a better approach.
The right answer is clear:
The city should lead.
The Mayor should stop his process and work with the City Council, which voted 6–2 for planning first.
Here are eight examples of cities that did this right.
They led — and developers followed.
Successful Cities Keep the Steering Wheel
Across the country, the most successful large-scale redevelopments share one rule:
A publicly led master plan comes first.
Only after the plan is adopted — including streets, parks, open space, infrastructure priorities, and design standards — do cities bring in developers.
In some cases, a master developer was later selected, but always under the city’s adopted plan and only after the public framework was locked in.
Planning first works because these cities — with the help of respected citizen-led advisory councils, the community, and national planners — defined:
- Where streets and parks go
• How neighborhoods connect
• What infrastructure comes first
• What remains public
• Housing goals, zoning, density, and land uses
• Affordability expectations
• Historical recognition
• Design standards
Why Planning First Works
This ensures:
- Clarity:Everyone competes on the same vision.
• Fairness: Developers compete on execution — not on who arrives first with the best rendering.
• Long-term value: The public keeps control of decisions that shape a city for decades.
• Better outcomes: Parks, infrastructure, housing, and public space work together.
St. Petersburg Is in an Even Stronger Position
Unlike many of the cities below that started with fragmented or contaminated private land, St. Petersburg already owns the entire 86-acre Gas Plant site outright.
This means the city does not need to hand over land appreciation to a master developer.
By completing a community-driven master plan and horizontal infrastructure first, then selling or ground-leasing development-ready parcels over time to multiple developers, St. Petersburg can retain full long-term ownership and capture significantly more value — recent proposals estimate over $510 million in phased land proceeds versus roughly $275–405 million in today’s bulk-sale bids.
That does not guarantee success.
But it may preserve more flexibility, retain more public control, and allow future generations to shape the site over time.
This approach is not theoretical.
Below are eleven examples of cities that followed this pattern.
These cities varied in geography, politics, financing, and scale — but they followed a surprisingly similar sequence.
11 Cities That Did This Right – Planned First
St. Petersburg — We Don’t Have to Look Any Further
Plan-first city building → St. Petersburg itself is an example of the model
What they did right:
- Established the original street grid and blocks that still organize downtown today
• Reserved public waterfront land rather than allowing continuous private waterfront development
• Created and protected parks and public open space over time
• Planned civic and cultural anchors throughout the city
• Extended infrastructure, utilities, and transportation to support growth
• Allowed different developers and property owners to build over time within the public framework
Results:
- One of America’s most successful public waterfronts
• A connected downtown street network that supports walking and economic activity
• Distinct districts that evolved over time rather than through one master project
• Public parks, museums, housing, offices, marinas, hotels, and neighborhoods created by many different builders across generations
• Long-term flexibility to adapt as the city evolved
Examples of what emerged over time under that framework:
- Downtown parks and waterfront public space
• Residential development by many different developers
• Office buildings developed over different eras
• Hotels developed as demand evolved
• Cultural institutions and museums
• The Innovation District
• The Municipal Marina
• Restaurants and retail districts
• Neighborhoods connected by a common public structure
Why it worked:
The city decided the streets.
The city protected the waterfront.
The city built the framework.
Different people and different developers built the city.
St. Petersburg did not become what it is because one developer was given the whole downtown.
It became what it is because the city established the public structure and private investment followed over time.
New York City — The City Designed the Framework, and Generations Built the Skyline
Plan-first city building → one of the greatest urban development examples in history
What they did right:
- Adopted the Commissioners’ Plan of 1811, establishing Manhattan’s street grid decades before most development occurred
• Created a predictable public framework of streets, blocks, and public rights-of-way
• Reserved major public spaces over time, including Central Park in the mid-1800s
• Extended infrastructure, transit, utilities, and public investments to support growth
• Established zoning and development rules that shaped future building form
• Allowed thousands of private owners and developers to create projects within the public framework
Results:
- One of the world’s most recognizable urban environments
• A street grid that supported centuries of growth and reinvention
• Central Park became one of the defining public spaces in the world
• Distinct neighborhoods emerged with different identities over time
• Extraordinary private investment occurred without one master developer controlling the city
Examples of what emerged over time under that framework:
- Empire State Building
• Chrysler Building
• Rockefeller Center
• Grand Central Terminal
• Fifth Avenue
• Times Square
• Residential neighborhoods developed across generations
• Office towers, hotels, retail districts, museums, and cultural institutions built by many different developers and owners
Why it worked:
The city decided the framework.
The city laid out the streets.
The city preserved major public spaces.
Developers competed to create great buildings.
New York did not become New York because one developer controlled Manhattan.
It became New York because the city created the public structure and generations of builders created everything inside it.
Chicago — The City Created the Structure, and Innovation Filled It In
Plan-first city building → one of America’s greatest examples of public framework and private creativity
What they did right:
- Established and expanded a connected street grid that organized long-term growth
• Protected and reserved major public lakefront land for public use
• Planned civic spaces, boulevards, transportation corridors, and infrastructure
• Rebuilt intentionally after the Great Chicago Fire with public leadership and coordinated planning
• Established development and zoning frameworks that guided future growth
• Allowed many different developers, architects, businesses, and institutions to build over time within the public structure
Results:
- One of the world’s most influential urban skylines
• Miles of publicly accessible lakefront
• Distinct neighborhoods with different identities and character
• Strong transportation connections and economic growth
• Extraordinary architecture created across generations
Examples of what emerged over time under that framework:
- The Loop
• Michigan Avenue
• Millennium Park
• The Chicago Riverwalk
• Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower)
• Tribune Tower
• Merchandise Mart
• Wrigley Building
• Residential neighborhoods developed across generations
• Hotels, offices, retail, cultural institutions, and public destinations created by many different developers and owners
Why it worked:
The city decided the framework.
The city protected the lakefront.
The city created the streets and public infrastructure.
Developers competed to create great buildings.
Chicago did not become Chicago because one developer controlled downtown.
It became Chicago because the city created the public structure and generations of builders created everything inside it.
Denver — Stapleton (now Central Park)
Plan-first excellence → one of America’s best-known redevelopment successes
What They Did Right
- City created a public master plan first
•Defined street grid, parks, open space, density, and land-use structure
• Set sustainability and design standards
• Only then issued RFPs for parcels to multiple developers
Results
- 12,000+ homes and over35,000 residents
• 50+ parks and 1,100 acres of open space
• 11–14 public schools
• Billions in new tax value
Why It Worked
City controlled the vision; developers competed within it.
Austin — Mueller
Plan-first redevelopment → former airport transformed into a complete neighborhood
What They Did Right
- Created a city-led master plan (with public input)
• Established parks, streets, affordability goals (25%+ of units), and land-use structure
• Sequenced development over time with multiple builders under the framework
Results
- ~6,900 total housing units (including ~1,725 affordable)
•140 acres of parks and 13+ miles of trails
• Mixed-income, sustainable community with major employment anchors
Why It Worked
The city decided the framework before private construction.
San Francisco — Mission Bay
Plan-first redevelopment → former industrial land turned into a new district
What They Did Right
- Planned infrastructure, transit, and open space first
• Organized land into phased development areas
• Embedded public goals (including affordability) into the plan
Results
- Over 6,000 homes (with substantial affordablecomponent)
• 34–50+ acres of parks and waterfront access
• Major employment centers and institutional anchors (UCSF)
Why It Worked
Public planning shaped private investment.
New York City — Battery Park City
Plan-first redevelopment → long-term public stewardship with private execution
What They Did Right
- Establisheda public authority and framework
• Defined streets, open space, and parcel organization
• Released development over time to multiple developers
Results
- Vibrant mixed-use neighborhood with millions of square feet of development
• Significant public parks and esplanade
• Long-term public value through ground leases
Why It Worked
The public decided the place; developers built the projects.
Portland — South Waterfront
Plan-first redevelopment → waterfront growth shaped through public planning
What They Did Right
- Planned streets, transit (streetcar), public spaces, and infrastructure first
• Established development framework before full buildout
• Structured phased implementation
Results
- Major mixed-use district with housing, medical/research facilities, and retail
• Strong public waterfront access and integrated transit
Why It Worked
Infrastructure and planning came before major development decisions.
Portland — Pearl District
Plan-first redevelopment → national example of planning-led urban redevelopment
What They Did Right
- Created detailed master planning
• Established land uses, blocks, parks, transit alignment, and density
• Structured phased parcel development with design guidelines
Results
- One of America’s most walkable mixed-use districts
• Strong tax base and integrated affordable housing
Why It Worked
City set the rules; developers competed on execution.
Pittsburgh — Urban Redevelopment Authority
Plan-first redevelopment → long-term public leadership across multiple projects
What They Did Right
- Establishedstrong public redevelopment capacity
• Coordinated land assembly, infrastructure, and investment
• Structured phased implementation across districts
Results
- Major redevelopment across multiple neighborhoods
• Mixed-use economic growth with sustained public influence
Why It Worked
The city created the framework and private investment followed.
Milwaukee — 30th Street Industrial Corridor
Plan-first redevelopment → coordinated public strategy for long-term growth
What They Did Right
- City and Redevelopment Authority led corridor-wide planning, brownfield remediation, and infrastructure priorities
• Organized land into phased redevelopment areas with clear public goals
• Aligned public investment with private development under the master framework
Results
- Industrial and commercial reinvestment (including Century City Business Park)
• Job growth, housing rehabilitation (e.g., historic Garden Homes), and green infrastructure
• Long-term momentum in a former industrial area
Why It Worked
Public priorities were established before development occurred.
What These Cities Had In Common
None of these cities are identical, but they generally followed the same sequence:
Decide what the place should become → Plan streets, parks, and public spaces → Organize land and development rules → Plan infrastructure → Then select developers → Build over time
The city did not become the builder.
But the city remained:
The planner.
The steward.
The keeper of long-term public priorities.
What About Housing, Jobs, and Honoring the History?
Mayor Welch has consistently emphasized several goals for the Gas Plant site:
- More housing — including affordable housing
• More jobs and economic opportunity
• Recognition and honoring of the site’s history
Those goals are important.
But the examples above suggest something worth considering:
These goals do not require giving control of the entire site to one developer.
In fact, many of the cities above pursued those same goals through public planning first.
Affordable housing was often built into the framework before development occurred.
Jobs were created by allowing multiple projects, employers, and uses to emerge over time.
History was recognized by preserving places, creating public spaces, restoring connections, and embedding community priorities into the plan itself.
Cities used different tools:
- Affordable housing targets and requirements
• Mixed-use zoning and density policies
• Public investment in infrastructure
• Parks and public gathering spaces
• Historic interpretation and cultural recognition
• Phased development to adapt over time
• Multiple developers competing within public goals
The result was not less housing.
Not fewer jobs.
Not less economic growth.
The difference was that those outcomes were guided by public priorities.
The question is not whether St. Petersburg should pursue housing, jobs, and honoring history.
It should.
The question is whether those goals are more likely to be achieved by selecting a developer first—
or by first deciding what the city wants to achieve and then bringing in developers to help deliver it.
St. Petersburg Has Already Shown It Can Lead With a Plan
A common argument for handing the entire Gas Plant site to a single master developer is that the City isn’t equipped to plan something this large or complex on its own.
The City’s own record shows otherwise.
Over the past several years, St. Petersburg has repeatedly led major planning efforts for large, sensitive, and valuable public land — hiring experienced national firms, engaging the community, and establishing strong public frameworks before making development decisions.
The Gas Plant is not an exception.
It fits a clear pattern the City has already used successfully.
The Gas Plant (2018)
In 2018, the City hired HKS to prepare a concept master plan for the Tropicana Field / Gas Plant site (commonly referred to as Scenario 2).
This City-commissioned plan — prepared for the public, not for any developer — restored the historic street grid, integrated transit, defined public open space, and broke the 86-acre site into 23 distinct development parcels.
It explicitly called for incremental, phased development, with some parcels able to move forward early while others followed over time.
The plan was shaped by public meetings and stakeholder input.
Most importantly, it stated clearly:
“Land use, open space and access is the key combination that generates real estate value on the site.”
In other words, the biggest value comes from the public decisions — streets, parks, connectivity, and land-use mix — not from who builds first.
Other Recent Examples
Innovation District (Waterfront)
The City partnered with Kimley-Horn on a long-range master plan focused on connectivity, public access, resilience, and flexibility — without locking in a single developer or project.
Albert Whitted Airport
Instead of issuing an immediate developer RFP for the whole site, the City used studies and advisor RFQs (HR&A Advisors, Kimley-Horn, and others) to understand aviation and non-aviation futures before major policy choices.
District 2 Master Plan (Ongoing)
The City hired WSP for a community-driven, long-range plan for a major gateway district.
Work is being released in phases with broad public input — again, planning first, with no developer proposal driving the process.
The Pattern Is Clear
Across these efforts, the City has consistently:
- Hired experienced national planning firms
• Defined the public framework first
• Engaged the community early
• Preserved flexibility for phased implementation
A Strong Local Example: The Municipal Marina
Just blocks from the Gas Plant, the City is currently leading a $165 million redevelopment of the 640-slip downtown Municipal Marina — a complex waterfront project on prime public land.
After a private operator deal fell through, the City took full control.
It is now:
- Hiring design-build firms and experts as needed
•Proceeding in phases
• Keeping the marina as a fully public asset under City ownership and control
No single master developer is taking the land or the long-term upside.
This demonstrates that St. Petersburg can successfully manage large, high-value redevelopment projects while retaining ownership and flexibility.
What Planning First Does — and What It Doesn’t
Planning first does not mean the City becomes the builder or takes on private development risk.
It simply means the City controls:
- The vision
• Streets and parks
• Infrastructure phasing
• Public benefits
• Historic character
Only after that framework is adopted does the City decide how to implement — whether through phased sales or ground leases to multiple developers, or even a limited master developer role under strict City rules.
The key difference:
Any developer works within the public plan — not the other way around.
Why This Matters Now
The City is at a decision point.
Selecting a proposal-first deal now would transfer control over the plan — and much of the long-term public value — before the public framework is set.
Yet the City’s own planning history and the ongoing marina project show that another path is available.
Once-in-a-generation public land like the Gas Plant deserves the same deliberate, city-led planning the City already uses successfully elsewhere.
The record is clear.
Now it is a matter of choice.
St. Petersburg Should Lead the Redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant
Cities that got this right generally did not start by choosing who would build. They first decided what they wanted to build.
St. Petersburg does not need to choose between development and leadership.
Cities across America suggest it can do both:
Decide the place first.
Then invite developers to build it.
Mayor Welch should stop choosing a developer and start planning for the city to lead the process.
Related Reading
- Understanding the Historic Gas Plant Redevelopment
- What It Looks Like When a City Leads — Denver Stapleton
- The Gas Plant — After the Trop
- The Mayor Owes the City a Pause—and an Explanation
- A $600 Million Borrowing — and a $1 Billion Giveaway?
