This is the second article in a series exploring why Vision, Control, and Value are so important to the redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant District—and why the City should lead the process rather than turn that responsibility over to a single developer.
The Historic Gas Plant consists of 86 acres of publicly owned land in the heart of St. Petersburg.
Some of that land could become one of the most important public spaces our city creates in the next hundred years.
But how much should become parkland? Where should the park be located? What should it look like? What should people be able to do there?
And perhaps the most important question:
Who should decide?
One mayor and one development team?
Or St. Petersburg?
The first article in this series focused on one example of why Vision matters: the future of I-175. Parks present another—and perhaps even more permanent—example.
Before deciding how an important public property should be developed, great cities first decide what kind of place they want to create. They determine how streets should connect, how people should move, where public spaces should be located, and how the decisions they make today will shape the city for generations.
The same principle should apply here.
- The City should bring in nationally recognized planners and landscape architects to work with our professional planning staff and a serious, broadly representative Citizen Advisory Council—with meaningful community participation—to help St. Petersburg decide what kind of park we want.
The Historic Gas Plant is simply too important—and the decisions we make too permanent—for its vision to be determined by one administration and one development team.
Successful large-scale redevelopment projects across the country have followed this approach: the public sector establishes the vision, supported by professional planning expertise and meaningful community involvement, before private developers are brought in to build it.
Who Should Decide?
Should these decisions be made by one mayor and one development team?
Or should the City bring in nationally recognized planners and landscape architects to work with our professional planning staff and a serious, broadly representative Citizen Advisory Council—with meaningful community participation—to help St. Petersburg decide what kind of park we want?
The Historic Gas Plant is simply too important—and the decisions we make too permanent—for its vision to be determined by one administration and one development team.
Successful large-scale redevelopment projects across the country have followed this approach: the public sector establishes the vision, supported by professional planning expertise and meaningful community involvement, before private developers are brought in to build it.
What Kind of Park Do We Want?
Former Mayor Rick Baker has proposed creating a 30-acre “St. Pete Commons” as the centerpiece of the Historic Gas Plant redevelopment. It is a compelling idea that deserves serious consideration.
Many people have expressed support for creating a significant park on the site—something more than ordinary green space. A signature park could become an iconic public place for St. Petersburg: a destination for families, residents, and visitors, and a civic asset that helps define the city for generations.
A 30-acre park would certainly have the scale to make that kind of impact. For comparison, Boston Common is approximately 50 acres, Chicago’s Millennium Park is approximately 25 acres, and Tulsa’s Gathering Place is approximately 66 acres.
Is 30 acres the right size? It may well be.
The exact size, location, design, and relationship to other public spaces should be determined through a comprehensive city-led planning process. That process might affirm a 30-acre St. Pete Commons, refine the concept, or identify additional ways to connect a major central park with Booker Creek, Campbell Park, and other public spaces.
There may also be possibilities that have not yet been proposed.
That is precisely the point.
Rick Baker has put forward an important vision for a major public park. It deserves to be a significant part of the conversation as St. Petersburg undertakes the broader process of deciding what kind of public space we want to create for generations.
A Park Is More Than Leftover Green Space
A great city park should not simply be whatever land remains after the buildings, streets, parking garages, and other development have been placed.
The park should be one of the first decisions.
- Should it have a great lawn?
- Shaded walking and jogging paths?
- Gardens and large trees?
- Playgrounds and places for families?
- Fountains and water features?
- Outdoor concerts and performances?
- Public art?
- Restaurants or coffee stands?
- Places to sit quietly?
- Should it tell the story of the Historic Gas Plant community?
- Should it connect to Campbell Park, Booker Creek, downtown, and surrounding neighborhoods?
- Should it be primarily a neighborhood park?
- Or should we think bigger and create a destination that attracts people from throughout St. Petersburg and beyond?
These are not minor design details.
They are questions about what kind of city we want St. Petersburg to become.
Look at What Is Being Proposed
The Burg Bid has assembled a talented and experienced development team. Its proposal includes substantial attention to parks and public spaces, including elevated walkways, overlooks, gathering spaces, and other distinctive design features.
Some people may love those ideas. Others may prefer something entirely different.
But that is not the issue.
The issue is that St. Petersburg has never independently decided what kind of park it wants.
Should our major public space include elevated walkways and structures? Should it instead emphasize open lawns and large shade trees? Should it be one large park or a connected system of smaller public spaces? How much of the 86 acres should remain permanently public?
I don’t know the answers.
But neither should one developer—or one mayor—make those decisions for the city.
This property is simply too important.
Developers and Cities Have Different Responsibilities
This is not a criticism of The Burg Bid or of developers generally. Developers invest substantial amounts of money and accept substantial risk. They are entitled to seek a reasonable return on that investment.
But that also means that every development team must ultimately consider whether its decisions make financial sense for the project.
A city has a different responsibility.
A developer is accountable to its investors.
A city is accountable to its citizens.
Those interests can align. Often they do.
But they are not always identical.
A developer may reasonably conclude that another acre of developable land creates more value for the project.
The City may conclude that the same acre should remain a park forever.
Neither conclusion is inherently wrong. They simply reflect different responsibilities.
And that is precisely why the City—not a developer—should make the fundamental planning decisions about the future of this property.
The City Should Lead With Its Own Experts
The City should control its own vision for the Historic Gas Plant and lead the planning process with its own independent professional expertise.
The City should retain nationally recognized urban planners and landscape architects to work with the City’s professional planning staff and a serious, broadly representative Citizen Advisory Council. Together, they should help St. Petersburg determine what would best serve the city over the next 50 to 100 years.
- They should study the world’s most successful urban parks.
- They should examine parks in cities with climates similar to ours.
- They should evaluate how much parkland makes sense, where it should be located, and what would make it a place people want to use every day.
- They should study connections to Campbell Park, Booker Creek, downtown, surrounding neighborhoods, transit, and the waterfront.
- They should present alternatives and engage the broader community before fundamental decisions are made.
That is what creating a city vision looks like.
What Previous Generations Got Right
Consider the question from another perspective.
Boston Common has occupied approximately 50 acres in the center of Boston for generations. Today, no one looks at Boston Common and asks how much more valuable Boston would be if those 50 acres had been covered with buildings.
The park is part of what makes the surrounding city valuable.
The same is true of St. Petersburg’s waterfront parks.
Imagine if previous generations had looked at our downtown waterfront primarily as valuable real estate to be developed.
They didn’t.
They made a decision about what kind of city they wanted to leave behind.
We benefit from that decision every day.
Now it is our turn.
The Decision Comes Before the Developer
Perhaps St. Petersburg should build a 30-acre St. Pete Commons.
Perhaps it should create something entirely different.
The purpose of a city-led visioning process is not to predetermine the answer.
It is to make sure we ask the question before the answer is effectively determined for us.
Before we decide where the buildings go, we should decide where the public belongs.
Before we decide how much land can be developed, we should decide how much land should remain public forever.
Before we select the design of a park, we should ask the people of St. Petersburg what kind of park they want.
And before we ask a developer to build any part of this property, we should decide what future we want them to build.
That is what Vision means.
The Historic Gas Plant is an 86-acre opportunity that St. Petersburg will never have again.
- We should bring in the best independent planners we can find.
- We should engage our own professional planning staff.
- We should create a serious Citizen Advisory Council.
- We should involve the broader community.
- We should study the best ideas from around the country and the world.
Then we should decide.
Not one developer.
Not one mayor.
St. Petersburg.
Related Reading
Vision: Why I-175 Belongs in the Conversation.
Rick Baker’s Open Letter on the Future of the Gas Plant
Next in the Series
With these first two articles, we have explored why Vision matters—and why St. Petersburg should establish its own vision before developers are brought in to build it.
Next, we turn to the second principle: Control.
Why does it matter that the City retain control of the Historic Gas Plant property as it is developed over the coming decades? And what could St. Petersburg give up by turning that control over to a single developer?
1 comment
I appreciate your perspective and thought leadership. Please continue to raise these important questions.
Comments are closed.