Learnings from a recent zoning issue I've been involved in

Sugar House Park in Salt Lake City, the park for which I am on the board, has an anomaly on its border.  

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Demolition crews take down the last of the old Sizzler restaurant by Sugar House Park in Salt Lake City on Thursday, April 18, 2024.

There is one piece of property that's private.  In 1942, when the site was the state prison, the parcel at the corner of 1300 East and 2100 South was sold off for private use.  It's just shy of an acre in size

Over the decades it's been a gas station, dry cleaner, and restaurant, among other uses.

There is tightly defined higher density mixed use zone across the street.  But this site has always been classified as low density and "neighborhood serving."

The proposed gas station at the corner of Sugar House Park was garish in design and posed traffic and other issues.

A few years ago there was an attempt by the once extant Kum and Go convenience store chain to open on the site.

It required a special exception use permit because it was a gasoline station (there are gas stations in this zoning classification) but ultimately it wasn't approved ("Neighbors aren’t all happy with what’s planned for the old Sizzler site in Sugar House," "Can neighbors actually stop that gas station near Sugar House Park?," Salt Lake Tribune).  

Surprisingly, the firm didn't make an offer on the property contingent on approvals (developers call these "entitlements") they signed a lease upfront.  So they, and then the successor company (Maverik, based in Salt Lake as it happens) were stuck with it.

Rendering of a seven-story hotel proposed for the western edge of Sugar House Park

Before that particular proposal and afterwards a hotel was proposed possibly involving a land swap with the park.  

Unfortunately at the time, the president(s) of the Park board were not in the habit of disclosing in detail their conversations with various principals on various matters such as this, so I was never a party to those discussions.

Because people don't want the property to remain a permanent eyesore--it's been vacant since covid, which led to the closing of the then Sizzler restaurant on the site--and those discussions, the lessee and underlying property owner--who has zero interest in selling the city to the park, and has made this clear many times--thought a hotel would likely be approved by the board and the community.

But for it to work out financially, it required an upzone.  One of the reasons I argued against the upzone is that the property owner was intransigent, valuing the property as if it were part of the Sugar House Town Center Mixed Use district, which now allows for buildings up to 150 feet tall.  But that wasn't the zoning, which is for low scale buildings and neighborhood serving uses.  

And the residents and stakeholders who worked on creating the community master plan, which called for density in an area of the city that didn't have it, were very clear about tight geographic boundaries.  The east side of 1300 East, where the park is, was considered a hard border against intensification, as it basically served as the gateway to the low density residential neighborhoods north and east of the site.

I argued that an upzone would reward the property owner's intransigence.

The board ended up being split.  I was decidedly in the no camp, because the proposal for a 90 foot tall building at that particular site, appeared to be in the park, and would forever reshape the viewshed from many directions.  But it was close.  The government representatives had to abstain as did one board member, so it was a tie, 3-3.

The developer continued his quest, with various community groups, seeking approvals.  In Salt Lake, community councils are neighborhood groups designated to address development proposals in their geography.

The community generally was against the proposal, but a small and vocal minority favored the project, seeing it as a neighborhood benefit, and that ground floor uses like a cafe would support the park.

The three key points in the anti-argument.  (1) A tall hotel would forever alter the park's viewshed both outside and within the park. (2) It would be placed in a manner that appears as if it is part of the park, a commercial use within a public, civic asset.  (3) The zoning for the site is low scale, under 35 feet in height, and classified as community serving.  A hotel does not categorize as neighborhood serving and requires an upzone to make financial sense.

No major urban park nor urban square in the US has tall commercial buildings seemingly located within its grounds.  Sure there can be institutional-civic uses like the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the edge of Central Park, but tall and commercial buildings are across the street--definitely leveraging proximity to the park for profit, but still apart.

Central Park, New York City

Prospect Park, Brooklyn 

Not a lot of tall buildings, but they are on the edge, across the street from the park

Humboldt Park, Chicago

Union Square, San Francisco

How the building would have related to the park.  Note that the dimensions of the building in their renderings were inaccurate.  The actual massing is shown as lighter shading.  I argued it would reshape negatively the viewshed within the park, not just outside of the park, and that this was the most important decision concerning the park since it was founded 70 years ago.

What happened?  City Council voted no.  In Salt Lake the planning department makes recommendations to the planning commission concerning zoning changes, which trigger public input.  The Commission approved the change, with specious reasoning, completely ignoring (as did the planning department) that the request called for a significant height increase outside of the Town Center district.  

It also provided for a further upzone than what was approved by a recent city-wide upzoning--to support housing and transit oriented development--without that change having taken effect, and without supporting housing or TOD.  (The planning department justified the changes based on tax revenue and job increases, and some minimal community benefits.)

But the final arbiter is the City Council, which scheduled a set of hearings.

We ran a pretty tight campaign, focused on the "outside" -- getting residents to make their voices heard and to contact other representatives and the "inside" of working to get a Council majority to vote against the change.  

Given my experience with these kinds of matters in DC and elsewhere, I was adamant that as many of the people testifying at hearings had to have message discipline, ideally focusing on one element of the project in detail, rather than a mish-mash of opposing points, which tend to typify community member testimony and diffusing the message.  It turns out afterwards, a couple Councilmembers mentioned specifically they were surprised by the quality of the public comments.

When it came to vote a couple weeks after the hearing, the City Council voted, unanimously, not to approve the upzone ("SLC Council seals fate of hotel plans at Sugar House Park," SLT).  I knew we had at least four votes, but I was surprised and pleased by the unanimity.

Next steps.  I joked the vote was a beginning.  A group of us have been working on an alternative proposal that calls for a profitable use of the property, with park and civic functions as well, as a public-private partnership.  Hopefully, the lessee and the property owner will give it consideration.  We'll see.

Interesting learnings.  Discussions about this property and what to do with it have been going on for about 4 years.  These are the things that surprised me about the various views and opinions expressed.

1.  People don't understand land use context.  The property is relatively unique in that it is embedded within a park.  Most people weren't against a hotel in the greater neighborhood, just not at that particular site.  But so many of the arguments people made in favor or about the opposition lacked a sense of context.

E.g. one person equated the project with opposition to a Walmart years before.  But it was nothing like that, and the Walmart merely replaced a Kmart.  

Another to an intersection two miles away that had a couple of tall buildings--because it is abutting the University of Utah campus.  In fact I pointed out that his statement actually proved mine, because the area between the park and that intersection is all low density residential (plus a college) demonstrating how the "park corner" is a gateway to neighborhood scaled development, not intense commercial development.

Yet another equated opposition to another low scale development site in the neighborhood.  Frankly, why I agreed with him that opposition to that project, was groundless, the site is completely different, one corner of an intersection which had development on all corners, and was low density--I think the new buildings are no more than three stories, not seven stories, and there definitely isn't a park there.

Ironically then, the height of that project is about what the current zoning allows.  So in some way it was a better example for the opposition.

2.  This is probably the same point, but they don't seem to be very good at making "like for like" comparisons.  Tall and commercial versus short and and compatible with a civic use was an elusive concept.  To them a building is a building, and there is no difference between public or private use, or its size and placement.

3.  Most people didn't express much awareness of the concept of civic assets and public goods.  Yes, the property is private.  The park is not, it's public. But it's reasonable for citizens to want a compatible use on that site, even if privately owned. (This is an example of the "social contradiction" of property discussed in Planning the Capitalist City, when property owners have to accept public oversight and input if they want the state to regulate against the possibility of nuisance.)

4.  Many people don't understand the criteria on which zoning decisions are made.  Because the city is experiencing growth and intensification, many said "oh, the Council will agree, look at everything else happening in the city.  That's what they do.  They are stooges of developers" etc.

This was even stated in a brief piece in the Salt Lake City Weekly:

And now, because the city is anxious about the coming onslaught of people—and peripherally about housing affordability—it is fielding criticism over plans to build a seven-story hotel. The developer is seeking a zoning change that supporters believe will bring jobs and somehow “new recreational opportunities,” per KSL. There will be parking and traffic challenges, and one notable concern centers around the park’s birds potentially crashing into a 90-foot-tall building. But if history is an indicator, Sugar House—once a walkable, streetcar suburb turned suburban shopping area—will continue to grow up and out.

It wasn't about history.  The writer doesn't seem to understand that zoning is a legal construct and it dictates what can and cannot be built.  Sure plenty of sites within Salt Lake have been intensified.  It's not done willy nilly even if they think so, but through a path determined by the particular zoning classifications of those sites.  It's not just doing x because then are beholden to developers.  There is a set of criteria outlining a legal path for making such decisions.

(Fwiw, the City Council has tended to not give immediate approvals to zoning and upzone changes when the land use of adjacent parcels is so different.  This was such a case.)

Buildings on the west side of 1300 East are a mish mash of one story fast food and quick service restaurants like Olive Garden or Wendy's and commercial spaces up to about 6 stories tall--although the zoning allows for taller buildings.   

It is understood over time that the current retail taking up much of that district is likely to be rebuilt as mixed use and intensified.

OTOH, there is very clear evidence (planning history and decision making) that the intent of the Sugar House Master Plan was to make a hard boundary on the east between the west and east sides of 1300 South--one side dense, one side not.

Relatedly, lots of pro-development people argued the private property owner could do whatever she wanted, and set the property's value independent of the zoning classification.

While that is what the property owner tried to do, it didn't happen.  Early on in those discussions I made that point, that the same type of property across the street--a Chevron station--was valued at 1/3 of what the property owner claimed for their site.  Otherwise they were identical sites, except for the zoning, and the Chevron site lies in the Town Center district and could be developed into a multi-story complex--it was worth much more.

In fact, had the hotel developer tried to develop that site instead, the zoning there would have allowed for the use, with limited to zero grounds for opposition.

Dead mall in Gaithersburg finally getting demolished

Gaithersburg Mayor Jud Ashman speaks in front of the partially demolished Lakeforest Mall. Credit: Jacqueline Kalil.

Lakeforest Mall has languished for at least 18 years, since the Great Financial Crisis in 2008 if not before.  It went through various iterations of foreclosure and debtor in possession and special servicing and finally shut for good in 2023.

In 2013 and probably before the special servicer was Hines Interests, one of the nation's largest property firms.

I was at a conference out west and the guy in charge of the mall for Hines was talking to one of the presenters, a guy who did night markets in Australia, about the opportunity to do that to try to enliven and activate the property.

I said, just tear it down and redevelop it.  Now they are ("Lakeforest Mall demolition ushers in start of $1.2B redevelopment project," Bethesda Magazine).  15 years later.  From the article:

Opened in 1978, the mall once served as a central shopping and social hub for Montgomery County, featuring major department stores, an ice rink and later a movie theater and food court. For many residents, it was a place of first jobs, first dates and holiday shopping traditions.

To me it was one of Montgomery County's weak malls, declining even before the GFC, so it had a 30 year or less good run.  Montgomery Mall is somewhat upscale and still successful.  The Westfield Mall in Wheaton is successful as a middle income mall targeting Latinos and other segments.

Interior commercial district malls in Silver Spring and Rockville have never been successful.  While the White Flint Mall declined, interestingly at the time, the connected department stores did okay regardless.  Lord & Taylor (now defunct) even sued to keep the property owner.

The Curlicue sculpture by Chris Byars has been moved from Lakeforest Mall in Gaithersburg to the streets of Olney, Maryland.

But I don't think Lake Forest Mall was ever a particularly high performer.  

It was notable for public art ("Lakeforest Sculptures Relocated to Olney Hot Spots") and the ice rink, among other things.  

Montgomery County DOT booth at the Agriculture Fair.

I was only exposed to it because it was the staging point for parking used to support the Montgomery County Agriculture Fair at the nearby Fairgrounds.  Montgomery County RideOn bus transit did a very good system of shuttle buses back and forth.

It's going to be replaced with a mixed use development including residential, office space, and some retail-entertainment space.

A great newspaper article about St. Paul Minnesota's options for revenue generation | How about Packaging, Marketing, and Branding them into a Program?

 -- "How might St. Paul boost its tax base and stabilize property taxes?" in the St. Paul Pioneer-Press

One of the ideas is what's called a Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILOT, by nonprofits. This is done by cities to help to cover the cost of services to nonprofits not paying property taxes.  It's a voluntary program and most places feel they aren't getting enough--which is probably true.  

Boston's probably the best example.  To get around an unwillingness to agree, Providence proposed a "capitation tax" per college student, since so much of the city's property is owned by Brown University.

Interestingly, there was an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "O’Connor’s partnership approach brings millions to Pittsburgh from tax-exempt nonprofits, corporations," about PILOTs which has been a big issue there because the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Allegheny Health System, the University of Pittsburgh, and Carnegie-Mellon University control so much of the property.

Rather than focusing on negotiating a broader PILOT, which could include funding for annual operations, he has moved to getting various institutions committed to putting money towards capital projects.  For example, UPMC is paying for new ambulances--some of the trips the new ambulances make will end up at one of their facilities.  The Heinz Foundation, a strong supporter of the city and region, gave money to the city to finish its stalled new Comprehensive Land Use Plan.  Etc.

Map of St. Paul from Etsy.

In St. Paul, it turns out almost 60% of the nonprofit land is government owned, where no PILOT would be derived.  And the rest of the organizations are generally much smaller than those in Pittsburgh.

Making it harder, St. Paul is small, about 315,000 population, while the rest of Ramsey County is only 226,000 more.  Plus, the county has lost population since 2020.

Building the tax base through capital investment.  The article goes on to describe various options.  Some are what I call investment oriented, in that "you need to spend (invest) money to make money."

One of the items discussed is Tax Increment Financing, where you sell bonds to support development based on the idea that the new development will raise tax revenues.  So you get the loan against future benefits, which pay off the bond.

According to the article, a number of groups oppose more TIF, even though the city has the capacity for more, because they see it disproportionately benefiting developers, which I suppose it does.

Neighborhood TIF, Minneapolis.  But I couldn't help but think of the counter example of Minneapolis, which created a TIF system to fund neighborhood improvements.  Called the Neighborhood Revitalization Program, resident associations worked with the city, school district and parks district to make physical improvements with long term positive effects (case study, "Empowered Participation in Urban Governance: The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research).

Perhaps St. Paul could look at multiple approaches to TIF, neighborhoods as well as more traditional development projects.

Some MPAS4 projects.

Metropolitan Area Projects, Oklahoma City.  Another program, although more in terms of packing, is the MAPS program in Oklahoma City.  

It's an add on sales tax, which in different phases each with a preapproved capital projects plan, has funding major projects, from a sports arena, to a streetcar, to canal and river improvements, and physical improvements to schools ("Big League Cities: Small Cities," "Change isn't usually that simple: The repatterning of Oklahoma City's Downtown Streetscape"). 

From the Daily Oklahoman article, "What MAPS projects will start in 2024? Everything to know about ongoing OKC projects":

For three decades, Oklahoma City’s Metropolitan Area Projects program, better known as MAPS, has played a key role in ongoing development of the city.

The debt-free MAPS program is funded by a one-cent sales tax, approved by voters and currently expected to raise more than $1 billion between 2020 and 2028. The funds are used for capital projects, neighborhood improvements and job-creating initiatives.

Various projects for MAPS 4, the program’s current iteration, are underway, with all of them in different stages of development. Passed by voters in 2019, MAPS 4 encompasses 16 projects that address issues like homelessness, post-incarceration programming, youth and senior well-being, along with traditional MAPS projects like the fairgrounds coliseum and updates to the NBA Thunder's arena.

Note that the current MAPS4 program is less focused on big capital projects, and includes a number of social service facilities, transit development, and  "beautification" projects, as well as providing operating funding for some programs  ("Some OKC MAPS 4 programs will receive annual operating funds. Here's how that will work," Daily Oklahoman).  Operating funds will be provided long term, through a creation of a trust funded by MAPS. (Although I think that many of the funding commitments should instead be paid through a larger property tax.)

MAPS might not work that well for St. Paul as it's small, whereas OKC is as large physically, as many US counties.  A city exclusive tax wouldn't generate enough money.  But could the city and county develop a similar program, jointly?

Hennepin County Community Works.  The county next door to St. Paul (which is in Ramsey) is the home to Minneapolis.  In the 1990s Hennepin County realized that population leakage from Minneapolis as a result of suburban outmigration would also hurt its revenue stream.  

It studied the areas of the city that best retained their value, and found them proximate to lakes, parks, rivers, and trails.  So it created a program to make investments in the city to extend those qualities of livability to more places, both to retain population and to gain it.

This journal article, "A COUNTY AND ITS CITIES: THE IMPACT OF HENNEPIN COMMUNITY WORKS," Journal of Urban Affairs (2006), describes the program.   

Faced in the nineties with a growing imbalance between the declining prosperity of its core city (Minneapolis) and suburban municipalities, Hennepin County, Minnesota, pioneered a different path. In 1994, Hennepin County launched an urban redevelopment program, “Hennepin Community Works” (hereafter HCW) that clearly supplemented the more common models of county activity. HCW devised an entirely new redevelopment role for the county, and has consequently had a major impact on Minneapolis and its suburbs. 

Since its inception, Hennepin County commissioners have committed close to $200 million of infrastructure spending into a targeted redevelopment program with five goals: (1) to enhance the tax base; (2) to reshape troubled neighborhoods; (3) to improve transportation within the county; (4) to protect and develop green space; and (5) to create new jobs. While much of the U.S. urban past since the eighties has featured decreasing levels of public sector funding and involvement with urban affairs, Hennepin County voluntarily took on substantial additional financial and political commitments with this program

... HCW began here in 1994 as a public works program initially intended to address declining property values. Since then, HCW has significantly transformed portions of the county through major housing, transportation, parks, and environmental restoration investments. Through 2008, HCW launched nineteen projects, totaling $197.5 million in investments.

Later they added creating a light rail transit system as part of their overall investment program.

The city's peak population was 522,000 in 1950.  From 1980 to 1990 it was about 370,000.  It grew to 382,000 in 2000 and today is 435,000.  They have a ways to go to equal their peak but at the same time Hennepin County's population in 1950 was only about 150,000 people outside of Minneapolis.  Today the non-city population is almost 850,000 people.

Allegheny County Regional Asset District.  The Regional Asset District in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania is funded from a county-wide sales and use tax ("How the Regional Asset District rode to the rescue of Allegheny County attractions," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).

Historically, the City of Pittsburgh paid for and provided regionally-serving cultural assets (museums, zoo, etc.) without support from other area jurisdictions.  As cities lost population and business activity, funding such facilities became an increasing strain.  The RAD, also supporting cultural assets in the County, was a way to spread out the cost.

Business Revitalization District Zoning Overlay, Cleveland.  This calls for an extra level of review, including design, in designated zones where the city has already been investing, to ensure that each new project adds value to the whole, rather than diminishing it.  The classification has been subsumed into a broader category of design review.

"Outlines of a plan."  To me, St. Paul has had a relatively high turnover of mayors.  So some programs that have been introduced, like "Vibrant Places and Spaces":

• Ensure Saint Paul puts people first
• Encourage vitality through investment, private and public alike
• Create accessible places where people want to connect and spend time
• Promote healthy living
• Celebrate the city’s cultural diversity

get dropped when a new administration takes office.  

Plus, while I am contradicting the conclusion in the entry about Pittsburgh and the NFL Draft Day Event and many small projects versus one or two large ones ("Big events as priming actions: Pittsburgh and the NFL Draft | Go big, medium, or little? Go for a few projects or many?"), the placemaking focus on the Vibrant Places initiative improved places on the margins, but didn't contribute to a larger whole.

St. Paul has focused on leveraging the light rail, greening initiatives, and projects converting large vacant industrial properties ("Why hasn't light rail revitalized the Midway neighborhood of St. Paul | While it has for the Prospect Park neighborhood of Minneapolis").  And a soccer stadium ("Sports facilities and the reproduction of retail space often doesn't work for the locals").

St. Paul also has the Grand Round, a parkway system conceived of before Olmsted.  It's connective capacity ought to be leveraged in the same way Hennepin County focused on rivers, lakes, parks, and trails in Minneapolis as a way to stabilize neighborhoods and add population.

Conclusion.  These programs show various ways St. Paul could work with Ramsey County to develop a long term investment approach for the city and county based on creating a package of programs and funding sources.   

(Every Day Should Be) Local News Day

Local News Day is today.  

It's sponsored by various modes of community-serving media.  

There should be scads of participants--metropolitan newspapers, community newspapers, public radio and public television programs, I guess local television station news, although it tends to not be in depth, and digital only news sources.

There aren't that many member newsrooms so far.

======

-- "Inside the crisis facing local TV news" (2026)
-- "Davis Kennedy, a one time force in local community newspapers, dies at 87" (2026)
-- "Washington City Paper community media project" (2026)
-- "Another media tragedy: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is shutting down" (2026)
-- "New Jersey loses largest published newspaper: Newark Star-Ledger" (2025)
-- "Newspaper acquisition as an element of a conservative agenda" (2024)
-- "The impact of local radio news in England" (2022)
-- "Newspapers as public media: WBEZ, radio, an NPR affiliate, to merge with the Chicago Sun-Times" (2022)
-- "Louisville Courier-Journal mobile newsroom initiative and Salt Lake Tribune Innovations Lab" (2022)
-- "Orange County Register coronavirus tracker graphic is a great model" (2021)
-- "Local music used to define communities: today with radio chains and national music distribution systems, not so much" (2021)
-- "Newspapers, community media, and knowledge about and engagement in civic affairs" (2020)
-- "Revisiting community radio" (2020)
-- "Thinking anew about supporting community radio" (2019)
-- "Culture planning and radio: local music, local content vs. delivery nodes for a national network" (2019)
-- "One more blow against community media: Washington Post drops Thursday "county" news special sections" (2017)
-- "The ongoing tragedy of dying print media, the latest being community newspapers in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland" (2015)
-- "Grassroots communications capability in the city" (2015)
-- "Protest as Civic Engagement and the role of the media" (2007)

Big events as priming actions: Pittsburgh and the NFL Draft | Go big, medium, or little? Go for a few projects or many?

My first big professional conference that I attended was the National Trust for Historic Preservation in Cleveland in 2002, and it was simultaneous with an architecture and urban design conference.  I went on a bunch of tours and saw some amazing projects, and it seemed like many were timed to be ready by the time of the conference. 

I have past entries about big events like when the MLB All Star Game was in DC and the missed opportunity to move forward with more velocity some necessary infrastructure improvements ("Urban design considerations for the area around Washington Nationals Baseball Stadium in advance of the 2018 All-Star Game," "Sadly, DC won't show so well during the Baseball All-Star Game"), and the same about the Super Bowl, such as in Minneapolis ("Minneapolis Super Bowl: Urban Revitalization and Transformational Projects Action Planning") and the Olympics.

The reason special events like the All Star Game or the Super Bowl don't work out so well for the locals is that out-of-town visitors no longer are that interested in consuming the local experience outside of the event, and most of the money they spend: on transportation and accommodations in particular doesn't stay local because the firms aren't locally-based; although these visitors do spend money on food and drink, which tends to be the most benefits reaped by locally-owned businesses.  

The challenge is to convert the claims ("An All-Star Game in your hometown offers memories to last a lifetime," Washington Post) into reality.

But in terms of visionary projects, in my writings the problem is the difference between big and little.  This blog has a pretty expansive vision, e.g., at the scale of cities like Bilbao, Liverpool, Helsinki, Toronto and even Edmonton as discussed in a process I call "transformational projects action planning" ("Updating the best practice elements of revitalization to include elements 7 and 8 | Transformational Projects Action Planning at a large scale").

As well as the International Building Exposition (IBA) and the International Garden Festival process in Germany, where a region commits to an "international exposition" in ten years or so, planning, developing and implementing projects on a massive scale.  

IBA Hamburg Dock Building exhibit hall.

I saw some of that in Hamburg and Essen, but even in Hamburg, after ten years there were still projects to do.  Among Hamburg's projects were efforts in ten neighborhoods to do major, but holistic, development projects ("IBA Hamburg, a German approach on sustainable urban development," Construction21).

-- The contemporary International Building Exhibition (IBA) : innovative regeneration strategies in Germany, MIT thesis

The reality is that my expansive vision slams into the reality of project planning and financing on the ground.

Even ten years might not be long enough to achieve implementation--e.g. one such project in Hamburg was rebuilding a highway along side major rail lines, in order to recapture space and reknit communities that had been ripped apart by highway building decades before.

And that's one project.  Imagine working on several big projects simultaneously.  Competition for labor and materials drives up costs.

And with the time frame presented by the event owner like the Olympics or FIFA--they don't provide enough time to build major projects in democracies, which require a public process although they seem to have an easier time of it with autocracies.

Even the Milano-Cortina Olympics found them still building the hockey arena days before the Opening Ceremony (and interestingly, the Washington Post had an article, "The biggest sporting event in Milan on Saturday wasn’t the Olympics," about how soccer there still mattered a lot more.

Anyway, maybe I should compromise amongst three choices:

1.  Think IBA and IGF and minimum of 10-15 year time frames that can extend  even further (Hamburg converted its IBA project into a community development corporation charged with finishing all the projects IBA had conceptualized.).

2.  Maybe a big project or two, but mostly small ones.

3.  Small projects only.

But definitely, if you don't do much in response to the opportunity you won't get much real economic return  ("Panini Chowdhury: Pittsburgh can use the NFL Draft to change the city").

Mega-Events, Modest Returns. Independent research finds that projected windfalls routinely overshoot reality, with the spectacles having little sustained effect on metro employment or fiscal trends. The pattern of short-term visitor spending and long-term budget hype repeats from Super Bowls to All-Star Games to drafts.

Leading sports Economists like Victor Matheson find that while host cities often project hundreds of millions in windfalls from mega-events, the actual net gains are usually only 10 to 25% of forecasts, with little to no long-term impact on jobs or regional GDP. In reality, host cities rarely recover the full costs of staging an event like the NFL Draft, once expenses for public safety, public works, infrastructure upgrades and staff hours are accounted for.

That’s why Pittsburgh must look beyond the party. The city (and the region) must make changes in policies and practices that will improve the Draft event but have a positive long-term effect on life here.

Crowds fill an area outside of the draft stage during the second round of the NFL football draft, Friday, April 26, 2024, in Detroit. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Definitely (3) is the case for the NFL Draft.  I am still skeptical of the reports about how it is an economic boom ("San Francisco is not Santa Clara: How Santa Clara/San Jose are poorly represented by Super Bowl programming, even though it's home to the event").

I mean, is Pittsburgh really going to have 700,000 visitors from it ("As NFL Draft in Pittsburgh gets closer, registration for fan experiences opens," "How the NFL Draft exploded from hotel ballrooms to a massive outdoor spectacle," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "NFL draft attendance record set with more than 775,000 fans attending the event in Detroit," AP).

The reality is that my job isn't to be skeptical (well it is) but to figure out how to best leverage the revitalization potential of such events.  

It it helps a community to bring about inward investment on improvements to infrastructure and placemaking, you would be foolish to not take advantage of the opportunity.

That's what Pittsburgh is doing.  The NFL Draft Day Event is April 23-25.  

In the meantime, projects like a 100 foot fountain at Pointe Place Park ("Point State Park fountain reaches over 100 feet — just in time for the NFL Draft," PPG), refurbishment of downtown parks ("New riverfront park completed, the first of several Downtown projects to wrap up ahead of NFL Draft," PPG) and a number of other improvements are coming on line ("Pittsburgh unveils branding and color strategy for 2026 NFL draft").

From the park article:

Riverlife broke ground on renovations in April 2025. Over the past year, the group has replaced the park’s weathered surface with new, bluestone pavers, removed struggling plants and planted 35 new trees. Riverlife also expanded open areas to create space for small pop-up events and upgraded the park’s lighting.

“What you're seeing is a space that is now truly accessible,” Riverlife President and CEO Matthew Galluzzo said, flanked by the Andy Warhol and Rachel Carson bridges at the front of the new space. “It's more resilient and more welcoming.”

The $5.4 million renovation is the first in the park’s three-decade history. The space was once a “6-foot concrete sidewalk,” said Laura Solano, a partner with the New York-based architecture firm Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. Working with the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, Ms. Solano helped transform it into one of Downtown Pittsburgh’s first riverfront parks in the 1990s. “Do-overs in life are just so rare, and yet here we are in the reimagined and incredibly beautiful upper level park,” she said.

The article also discusses other projects.  Maybe I can criticize them as being small and ephemeral.  After all, I argue that all projects need to be conceptualized as part of a bigger whole, creating and connecting and building a larger path of improvement.  For example, the park project is part of a larger project aimed to fill in open space gaps across the Downtown.  

In a few weeks, Arts Landing, the new outdoor venue, will open to the public behind the Allegheny Riverfront Park. Crews on Thursday filed in and out of the construction site, where an arched, white canopy hovers atop a bandshell at the tip of the 4-acre complex.

Soon after, a revamped Market Square will be unveiled, with expanded space for outdoor dining and a new open-air pavilion.

And across the Golden Triangle, the Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership will complete more than 100 different “vibrancy” projects before the end of the month, including new, pop-up retailers, window displays in vacant storefront and sidewalk repairs.

... The park’s completion comes just over a month after Riverlife and the city of Pittsburgh launched a new initiative to provide different organizations with resources for riverfront trail and park maintenance. Through the program, several riverfront trail cleanup events will be held before the NFL Draft, focusing on areas expected to see the most foot traffic during the event, Mr. Galluzzo said.

"Railroad trestles at Strip District entrance will be painted black and gold for NFL Draft"

Conclusion.  Pittsburgh might disagree but I'd argue that they chose the "small projects only" route.  The thing is that all the small projects contributed to a greater plan, so that the cumulative impact is greater than evaluating on a project by project basis.

Going forward, the trick is to sustain, build upon, and continue the momentum ("The NFL Draft gave Downtown a deadline. Now, leaders are eyeing the future," "Editorial: Pittsburgh prepares for its Draft Day close up").  From the editorial:

But if the last weekend in April is to be worth the effort and resources that are going into it, the extravaganza will also have to be a beginning. The Pittsburgh that emerges on the other side of the draft cannot be the same city that was chosen two years ago. Projects, programs and policies designed to make the city ready for tourists and television cameras should, if successful, be made permanent. And the national limelight must be leveraged for long-term gains to the city’s economy and reputation.

Like the title of the The The song, "Life is What You Make It?"  Pittsburgh shows that you can leverage such events for long term improvements.  

“It gave us a deadline,” Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato said at the meeting. “It helped us meet goals we didn’t know were possible.”

Other places and past experience show that not doing taking that approach fails to generate multiplicative improvements, inherently reducing the return on investment.

Multiple paths to success.  Although big multiple projects for places like Bilbao, Liverpool, and Edmonton have also been good approaches.  And the "Metropolitan Area Projects" approach in Oklahoma City ("Change isn't usually that simple: The repatterning of Oklahoma City's Downtown Streetscape").

It shows that there isn't "one best approach, one best fix."

WRT the plethora of projects in Pittsburgh, also see:

-- Litter reduction: "New initiative — dubbed the ‘Immaculate Collection’ — aims to clean up Pittsburgh ahead of the NFL draft"

-- Outdoor vending: "As NFL Draft nears, city adds new outdoor vending locations in Downtown"

-- Draft beer bar crawl: "PicksBURGH is cranking the NFL Draft to 11 with a music crawl and more"

-- Road and public space improvements: "Pittsburgh begins $16.3 million street paving with NFL Draft focus: Downtown streets around Market Square, Arts Landing get first attention" and "Ahead of the NFL Draft, Pittsburgh is getting a facelift — and officials say changes are here to stay"

-- Speculation about special out of sight out of mind approaches to homelessness: "NFL Draft in Pittsburgh could be 'incredibly difficult' for those experiencing homelessness, advocates say"

-- Free transit sponsored by the Scheetz convenience store chain: "The T will offer free rides during NFL Draft weekend in Pittsburgh with a boost from Sheetz," also "PRT gets $350,000 to expand bus and light rail service for NFL Draft weekend" and "How Pittsburgh transit and city leaders plan to move 500,000+ visitors around the NFL Draft"

-- Ongoing development in the stadium district: "Ahead of the NFL Draft, Pittsburgh's North Shore is changing rapidly"

-- Leveraging the event: for running "Course map for 5K during NFL Draft in Pittsburgh released" and improvement of the presentation of history, "Fort Pitt Museum to close for upgrades ahead of the 2026 NFL Draft"

WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 5: Making a better transit network | Connecting heavy rail + light rail + railroad -- a concept for New York City

This last entry in the series was prompted by a recent Substack post (below)

-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2a | The Original Approved Metrorail System (1968-1970)"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2b | Lessons learned: Proposed expansions and the Metrorail system we don't have"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 3 | Stations"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 4 | Buses"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 5: Making a better transit network | Connecting heavy rail + light rail + railroad -- a concept for New York City"

Benjamin Schneider, in his "The Urban Condition" Substack, has a two part series on how the original proposal for a TriboroRX by the Regional Plan Association in 1996--now separated into two projects, one a Metro North rail project called Penn Station Access, adding four stations in the Bronx and a connection of the Harlem Line to Grand Central Station, and the Interborough Express (IBX) for Queens and Brooklyn--could still come to a kind of fruition, through making better connections between the various modes.

In "Unlocking the full potential of the IBX" he makes the point that network connection planning doesn't happen very well, because planning tends to be mode specific (in silos).

These two projects, the IBX and Penn Station Access, were once envisioned by the RPA as a single line within a grand regional rail system. Now, they are on totally separate tracks, literally and figuratively. Though these two services come within about a mile of one another, passengers will not be able to transfer between them. This outcome is a reflection of the region’s siloed approach to transit network planning, and its limited ambitions with each individual transit project it pursues.

In the first piece in this series, I did make the point about creating a regional transport association and using transit infrastructure projects as a way to drive improvements across the transit network.

And in the stations piece, I discuss planning and implementing for access before a station/line is opened, not afterwards, to put transit's best foot or visage forward, from the start, rather than sometime far after the opening.

Past entries on the Purple Line, Silver Line, and Blue Line make similar kinds of points, not just about access but driving necessary improvements forward, leveraging the power of new infrastructure, etc.

-- "Codifying the complementary transit network improvements and planning initiatives recommended in the Purple Line writings," (2022) 
-- Setting the stage for the Purple Line light rail line to be an overwhelming success: Part 1 | simultaneously introduce improvements to other elements of the transit network (2017)
-- Part 2 |   the program (macro changes) (2017)
-- Part 3 |   influences (2017)
-- Part 4 |   Making over New Carrollton as a transit-centric urban center and Prince George's County's "New Downtown" (2017, originally 2014)
-- PL #5: Creating a Silver Spring "Sustainable Mobility District"
-- Part 6 |  Creating a transportation development authority in Montgomery and Prince George's County to effectuate placemaking, retail development, and housing programs in association with the Purple Line (2017)
-- Part 7 | Using the Purple Line to rebrand Montgomery and Prince George's Counties as Design Forward (2017)
-- Revisiting the Purple Line article series after one year: Part 1 | a couple of baby steps (2018)
-- Revisiting the Purple Line (series) and a more complete program of complementary improvements to the transit network (2019)

-- "Using the Silver Line as the priming event, what would a transit network improvement program look like for NoVA?," (2017)

-- "A "Transformational Projects Action Plan" for the Metrorail Blue Line," (2020)

Schneider offers a number of recommendations for connection.

As I wrote in part one of this piece, the IBX will have a transformative impact on mobility in Brooklyn and Queens from the day that it opens, largely because of transfers to express subways that will quickly get riders to popular destinations like Midtown, Downtown Brooklyn, and the JFK Airtrain at Jamaica.

With a few complimentary transit projects, the mobility benefits of the IBX could be extended to the Bronx and beyond, as envisioned by the RPA thirty years ago. With a handful of more ambitious initiatives, the benefits of the IBX could reach even further, to Long Island and New Jersey; as well as to air travelers landing at LaGuardia and intercity train passengers on the Northeast Corridor.

This piece lists those projects in order of difficulty and expense. Most of the following ideas are speculative and have not been formally proposed by a government agency. However, they follow transit planning best practices as reflected in white papers from advocacy groups like the RPA.

The central premise of these conceptual projects is to better integrate the IBX and the rest of the New York City subway system with what is now called the “commuter rail” system. These projects seek to make the most of existing infrastructure as much as possible, rather than building expensive new lines. And they embody the notion that travel to and from the downtown core is no longer the central, overriding purpose of transit planning.

More connections, more access, faster trips.

His list:

• Add high-frequency ferry service between Brooklyn Army Terminal, Staten Island and New Jersey
• Make the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Branch a super-express subway line
• Extend the G Subway, which serves Queens and Brooklyn exclusively, on the north and south to connect to the IBX
• Build an IBX-LIRR infill transfer station near 51st Ave. in Queens
• Extend the IBX one mile to connect with Metro North’s Penn Station Access project, providing a link to the Bronx, Westchester and Connecticut
• Extend the IBX to LaGuardia Airport
• Upgrade the IBX-Metro North transfer station into an intermodal Northeast Corridor rail-air hub
• Build the Harbor Tunnel for passengers and freight

I've written a piece like this about Baltimore ("More remonstration about the molasses of change: Transit planning, Baltimore County, Maryland and Towson," "Transit agenda for Greater Baltimore"), merging the VRE and MARC "commuter railroads" into a 24/7 passenger rail system like the S-Bahn ("One big idea: Getting MARC and Metrorail to integrate fares, stations, and marketing systems, using London Overground as an example," "A new backbone for the regional transit system: merging the MARC Penn and VRE Fredericksburg Lines,"  and leveraging the once proposed, since cancelled Maglev system ("DC, Transformational Projects Action Planning, and the Baltimore-Washington Maglev project ).

The second entry in this series:

-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2a | The Original Approved Metrorail System (1968-1970)"
-- "WMATA's 50th anniversary from the start of service, Part 2b | Lessons learned: Proposed expansions and the Metrorail system we don't have"

provides a framework for the heavy rail part.  Some of the recommendations in the Purple Line series do for Maryland-side commuter rail:

• Integrate MARC and VRE fare payment into the SmarTrip/ CharmCard fare media system (note that with their regular tickets, MARC and VRE provide reciprocity, and include free rides on Baltimore local transit)
• Introduce bi-directional passenger rail service between DC and Frederick on the MARC Brunswick Line
• Consider charging DC-Montgomery County trips on a bi-directional Brunswick Line using the Metrorail/Purple Line tolling/fare schedule. That would treat mileage from railroad trips in the context of a complete (linked) trip on railroad+subway+light rail as a single fare
• The White Flint Sector Plan calls for an infill MARC station. Plans to build that station should be accelerated as part of this proposal.
• Build an infill train station in DC on the Penn Line, serving the New York Avenue corridor
• Set the opening of the Purple Line as the deadline for the integration of the MARC Penn Line and VRE Fredericksburg Line into one combined railroad passenger service
• + the Baltimore area recommendations in "Transit agenda for Greater Baltimore"
• + the Eastern Shore ("Letter to the editor in the Washington Post about passenger railroad service to the Eastern Shore")

Dan Malouff's proposed passenger rail system.  He didn't include Southern Maryland because at the time they were planning a light rail line to Charles County.  It also doesn't have a line from Baltimore to Frederick, nor the Penn Line to Delaware.

I don't have a handle on what to recommend on the Virginia side.  

Many years ago, at the BeyondDC blog, Dan Malouff provided a couple of schematics of how an integrated passenger rail system could provide service deeper into Virginia, connections to Pennsylvania, and an extension of the Penn Line to Delaware.

His framework provides a pretty good agenda for Virginia.  It complements various rail passenger expansion efforts throughout Virginia by the State, through its Amtrak Virginia program, support of VRE and exploration of other rail service options, and acquisition of right of way from CSX ("Virginia to build Long Bridge and acquire CSX right of way to expand passenger train service," Washington Post). 

Chicago, Inglewood, Minneapolis and commercial corridor redevelopment | Stadiums, arenas, and downtown transit malls

I was reading an article about Minneapolis' transit (bus) mall, Nicollet Mall ("Nicollet Mall tries to look beyond retail in latest attempt at reinvention," Minneapolis Star-Tribune), and I was struck by this paragraph:

The Downtown Council is creating a “Nicollet Mall prospectus” for prospective investors. It will include an inventory of vacancies, points of contact, any relevant incentives or financing tools and outline civic leaders’ priorities and ideas for the mall.

I made such a suggestion, that commercial district revitalization programs needed all this information at their fingertips for each property in their district, when I was doing consulting in Pittsburgh in 2008!  

This image makes Nicollet Mall look prety fun.

And considering all the articles over the past ten years about Nicolett Mall (e.g., "Revamping Nicollet Mall as a 24-hour district is one idea for downtown Minneapolis," "Frey’s plan to take buses off Minneapolis’ Nicollet Mall next year meets resistance") it should have already occurred to them.

(WRT the bus proposal idea.  It's true.  A bus mall is not a congenial places.  Buses are loud.  And that was my experience with Nicolett Mall quite some time ago.)

Similarly, when I first got involved in Main Street commercial district revitalization c. 2002 at some point I came across an article by Neal Peirce, "Main Street Niches in a Mass Sales World," making the point that revitalization is a process that takes a couple decades, and never really ends.

I wrote about that at the onset of covid, "From more space to socially distance to a systematic program for pedestrian districts (Park City (Utah) Main Street Car Free on Sundays)," making the point that commercial districts should have been planning for multi-modal access long before the distancing requirements arising from covid best practice.  Also see "A point about pedestrianizing streets: Boulder; Alexandria, Virginia, Cleveland Park, DC."

Lots of empty space around SoFi Stadium.

The LA Times has an article about Inglewood's Market Street commercial district, "Inglewood’s downtown still struggles. Can it spark to life before World Cup, Super Bowl?," and how it languishes despite its proximity to SoFi Stadium and Intuit Dome, home to the LA Clippers basketball team.  From the article:

The sports and entertainment corridor along Prairie Avenue has become a major economic driver for the city of Inglewood, with SoFi Stadium grossing over $175 million in revenue and bringing in 1 million visitors in 2023 alone, according to Billboard.

And yet, on most nights, Inglewood’s downtown is subdued and inactive. While a few longstanding businesses have managed to attract regular customers on the otherwise empty street, many others have closed due to rent hikes and eminent domain to make way for planned transit centers.

SoFi had the Super Bowl in 2022 and the Washington Post had an article, "A home Super Bowl is good for the Rams. But is SoFi Stadium good for Inglewood?," about how the rest of the city didn't seem to be experiencing improvement in the face of the stadium.

My criticism is that you shouldn't be allowed to build such facilities without adjacent access to high frequency rail transit.  Inglewood now is planning various surface transit improvements including a couple of bus hubs on Market Street ("Project Overview -- Inglewood Transit Connector").  Ultimately they were supposed to get a People Mover mode to connect to the LA Metro--at least ten years after the stadium opened.  But that doesn't seem to be happening (" A $2.4B Rail Project For The 2028 L.A. Olympics Has Been Suspended—Here’s What’s Happening Instead," Secret LA).

My thought was um, why don't cities develop mitigation/improvement plans in association with stadiums and arenas before they open, including funding from the team owner as a condition of the contract?

Not having such plans is why I've developed "Framework of characteristics that support successful community development in association with the development of professional sports facilities" as a way for a community to try to get the best possible outcomes from sports facilities deals.

From the Axios article, "Renderings: New project looks to transform United Center, West Side."

I don't know if Chicago is getting funding from the owner of the Bulls basketball team, but in association with the construction of a new arena there, they are preparing an improvement plan for the adjacent district ("Chicago seeks to make the West Side's Madison Street shine again," Chicago Sun-Times).  From the article:

... the thoroughfare is the focus of a city study aimed at helping bring new retail, housing and other activity to three miles of Madison Street, stretching from the shadow of the United Center to the heart of K-Town.

“Madison [is] probably the most visible and historically significant commercial corridor on the West Side,” Chicago Department of Planning Supervising Planner Brian Hacker said of the Madison Street Corridor Study. “We’re looking at the levers that we can pull as a city planning department — zoning, regulatory, environmental ... to facilitate development.”

Madison Street could see a rebirth, according to plans being developed by the city and and West Side community groups.Pat Nabong/Sun-Times 

It’s not a bad time to rethink Madison Street, particularly within the study’s boundaries that include the Near West Side, East Garfield Park and West Garfield Park.

East of the study area, construction will soon begin on the 1901 Project, a $7 billion effort by the Reinsdorf and Wirtz families to turn those barren parking lots around the United Center, 1901 W. Madison St., into a new neighborhood and entertainment district.

(Of course, the question is why didn't the basketball team owners do such a project to begin with, instead of making barren an area already distressed.)