In 2023, the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission unanimously approved an application to demolish a historic building in the city’s Uptown neighborhood. The developer took that decision to the Pittsburgh Planning Commission for approval in an April 2, 2024 hearing. The HRC approval had no basis in law and preservation practice. Despite serious questions raised by my testimony and statements submitted by other parties opposed to the project as proposed, the Pittsburgh Planning Commission voted to approve the project (five affirmative votes, one abstention), including the demolition of Joe Tito’s former garage and beer distributorship.

Here is the testimony that I submitted:

Lashawn Burton-Faulk, Chairwoman
Pittsburgh Planning Commission
100 Ross Street, Suite 202
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Email: planningcommission@pittsburghpa.gov

RE: Case DCP-ZDR-2021-12009. 1903 Fifth Ave.

Dear Chairwoman Burton-Faulk,

I am writing to urge the Pittsburgh Planning Commission to deny the application submitted for the construction of 1903 Fifth Ave., a “254-unit transit-oriented mixed use development.” On July 5, 2023, the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission issued a certificate of appropriateness to the applicant for the demolition of 50% of an individually landmarked City of Pittsburgh historic site, the Tito-Mecca-Zizza House at 1817 Fifth Ave.  The 1903 Fifth Ave. proposal includes demolishing one of two buildings that comprise the historic site: the garage at 1818 Colwell St. that once served during Prohibition as the home for the Tito family’s bootlegging truck fleet and later, after the end of Prohibition, as the Latrobe Brewing Company’s first Pittsburgh beer distributorship.

As the author of the successful City of Pittsburgh historic landmark nomination, I am intimate with the property’s history and its historical significance. I am a professional historian with more than 40 years of experience in historic preservation, including teaching historic preservation at the graduate level and as the former chairman of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Historic Preservation Commission. I have prepared hundreds of historic preservation documents in local, state, and federal proceedings on behalf of project proponents and opponents. While serving in Montgomery County, I was the county’s historic preservation expert witness in zoning and other land use cases. My professional work has appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals, and it is widely cited in professional and academic studies, federal regulatory decision making proceedings, and court cases.

In my professional opinion, the HRC erred in approving the COA for the demolition of the building at 1818 Colwell St. The approval lacked historic preservation justification, i.e., the building is not in danger of collapsing and the owner is not suffering an economic hardship. By approving the demolition of 50% of the landmarked historic site, the HRC set a dangerous precedent that is at odds with established historic preservation practice and law. The former garage/beer distributorship is the only building designed and constructed by the Tito family whose ties to the property make it historically significant. Furthermore, the historic events tied to the former garage/beer distributorship — Prohibition-era bootlegging and the first place where Rolling Rock beer was sold — make for a strong case that it is the more historically significant of the two buildings that comprise the Tito-Mecca-Zizza House. That is not just my opinion; it is the professional, expert opinion, offered by the many respected professionals who offered testimony in the 2021-2022 landmarking proceedings.

The demolition of 1818 Colwell St. would adversely affect the Tito-Mecca-Zizza House historic landmark. The new construction, within the historic site’s boundaries, would compound that adverse effect by introducing incompatible architectural elements (new construction) inconsistent in style, materials, and scale with the historic buildings and setting.

The proposed demolition and the proposed new construction are not consistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. These are the foundational guiding principles that the HRC and other historic preservation regulatory review bodies throughout the United States use to render decisions for proposals involving individual historic sites and historic districts. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines are federal regulations published at 36 CFR Part 68. In the absence of property-specific guidelines for city-designated properties, Pittsburgh’s historic preservation law requires that the HRC use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines in rendering COA decisions:

The Commission shall use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation after a property is nominated for historic designation, until it develops guidelines specifically for a structure, district, site, or object, with recommendations from the community. These Guidelines cover the treatment of all work requiring a building, demolition, or sign permit, and may cover non-permit projects as defined under Exterior Alteration.

City of Pittsburgh code of ordinances §1101.02(g)

I also want to address the stakeholder engagement process that occurred as the 1903 Fifth Ave. project was working its way through the HRC. In the Development Activities Meeting held Jan. 17, 2023, several representatives from Hill District community groups (Registered Community Organizations) noted that they were unable to comment on the proposal because the applicant had not engaged with them and had not provided sufficient information to render informed opinions. None of these organizations were parties to, or participated in, the three HRC hearings held in 2023 prior to the HRC approving the COA. In fact, after the March 19, 2024, Planning Commission briefing for this project, the Hill CDC published this statement in its weekly newsletter March 23, 2024: “The Fountain Residential team has not engaged with the DRP, the Hill District’s unified and comprehensive community review process. As such, we have been unable to provide community feedback or offer support or guidance on the project.”

The HRC erred in approving the COA for the 1903 Fifth Ave. project. The Planning Commission should take that into account, along with the serious allegations that the applicant failed to adequately engage stakeholders and the RCO concerns about the proposed project’s potential to contribute to gentrification pressures in one of the city’s most marginalized communities. There is compelling evidence that this proposal is not consistent with the City of Pittsburgh’s historic preservation law, that it is inconsistent with community planning objectives (published in the 2017 “Uptown West Oakland EcoInnovation District” plan), and that its approval is not in the public interest. For these reasons, the Planning Commission should deny this application.

©2024 D.S. Rotenstein

Shortlink for this post: https://wp.me/p1bnGQ-42H