Top Banner
BROWNFIELDSCENTER WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA 8 TH AVENUE OFFICES AND LOFTS IN HOMESTEAD LOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: < 1 acre FEATURES: Proximity to Universities and Downtown, Access to 837, Public Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront Development OWNER: Karl Haglund, Judith Tener & David Lewis, and 225 E. 8th Street Associates LP – (three separate parcels) CURRENT USE: Office, Loft, and Retail Space PAST USE: Retail, Lodging, Commercial, and Residential CONTAMINANTS: None TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown Homestead Bank & Life Insurance purchases over 123 acres of farmland. Homestead Mill is introduced. The Homestead Strike occurs. Homestead Steel Works expands and the buildings are converted into small apartments for steel workers. Homestead Mill closes. The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County gives a façade easement for the Seventh Avenue building elevation and the facades are restored according to historic guidelines. TIMELINE 1871 1880 1892 1942 1980 2005 OVERVIEW Close to the Golden Triangle, downtown Pittsburgh, the city’s regional amenities, employment centers, and universities, Eighth Avenue has experienced Homestead’s rise and fall. Soon after the introduction of the Homestead Mill in 1880, Homestead was a busy commercial center. For the 100 years that the mill had been active Eighth Avenue alternated between retail, entertainment, and residential use. By 1980, the mill closed and the area was desolate. Homestead entered Act 47, but the successful redevelopment of the Homestead Mill into a shopping mall, The Waterfront, in 1999 pulled Homestead out of municipal bankruptcy. The mall spans the three boroughs of Homestead, West Homestead, and Munhall and is about five minutes driving distance away from the following Eighth Avenue case study properties. Contrary to the expectations of residents, the Waterfront’s prosperity was isolated within their development. Many residents of the three boroughs realized the disparity between The Waterfront and the nearby Avenues and utilized the assets of the community, in particular, its history. In the 1990’s a group of local citizens was able to place the buildings of Homestead’s Main Street into National Register of Historic Places. Also, seven local businesses and property owners on East Eighth Avenue formed the Down Street Development Consortium to spearhead a revitalization project for the Homestead area. Some current plans to draw attention beyond The Waterfront include the Seventh Avenue Initiative and “Homestead Happens.” The http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/ Case Studies Completed in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles SOURCES Baron, Jennifer. “New rental lofts part of redevelopment efforts in Pittsburgh’s Homestead neighborhood.” 21 May 2008. Pop City Media. <http://www.popcitymedia.com/developmentnews/hmstd0521.aspx > Dee, Jordan. “East Eighth Avenue developers plan U-Turn.” 21 May 2005. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ s_336623.html > “The Avenues: Beyond the Waterfront” The Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center, Redevelopment Workshop. 27 May 2008. Vellucci, Justin. “Planners target revitalization in Homestead.” 31 May 2008. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. <http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/ pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_570322.html > former is a proposal to repair and renovate the Seventh Avenue-side rears of East Eighth Avenue’s buildings - eyesores visible from The Waterfront. It is funded by the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County. “Homestead Happens” is a mini-festival that includes a sidewalk sale and bike night. The consortium secured $380,000 for the construction of 14 loft-style apartments on East Eighth Avenue above the storefronts. The following property owners have been part of this initiative by successfully retaining and rehabilitating these buildings on East Eighth Avenue. Picture courtesy of Google Maps
72

Pittsburgh Brownfield Case Studies

Apr 10, 2015

Download

Documents

melynnduh
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/

8TH AVENUE OFFICES AND LOFTS IN HOMESTEADLOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: < 1 acre FEATURES: Proximity to Universities and Downtown, Access to 837, Public Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront Development OWNER: Karl Haglund, Judith Tener & David Lewis, and 225 E. 8th Street Associates LP (three separate parcels) CURRENT USE: Office, Loft, and Retail Space PAST USE: Retail, Lodging, Commercial, and Residential CONTAMINANTS: None TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown

TIMELINE 1871 Homestead Bank & Life Insurance purchases over 123 acres of farmland. 1880 Homestead Mill is introduced. 1892 The Homestead Strike occurs. buildings 1942 Homestead Steel Works expands and theworkers. are converted into small apartments for steel 1980 Homestead Mill closes. 2005 The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County gives a faade easement for the Seventh Avenue building elevation and the facades are restored according to historic guidelines.

OVERVIEW Close to the Golden Triangle, downtown Pittsburgh, the citys regional amenities, employment centers, and universities, Eighth Avenue has experienced Homesteads rise and fall. Soon after the introduction of the Homestead Mill in 1880, Homestead was a busy commercial center. For the 100 years that the mill had been active Eighth Avenue alternated between retail, entertainment, and residential use. By 1980, the mill closed and the area was desolate. Homestead entered Act 47, but the successful redevelopment of the Homestead Mill into a shopping mall, The Waterfront, in 1999 pulled Homestead out of municipal bankruptcy. The mall spans the three boroughs of Homestead, West Homestead, and Munhall and is about five minutes driving distance away from the following Eighth Avenue case study properties. Contrary to the expectations of residents, the Waterfronts prosperity was isolated within their development. Many residents of the three boroughs realized the disparity between The Waterfront and the nearby Avenues and utilized the assets of the community, in particular, its history. In the 1990s a group of local citizens was able to place the buildings of Homesteads Main Street into National Register of Historic Places. Also, seven local businesses and property owners on East Eighth Avenue formed the Down Street Development Consortium to spearhead a revitalization project for the Homestead area. Some current plans to draw attention beyond The Waterfront include the Seventh Avenue Initiative and Homestead Happens. The former is a proposal to repair and renovate the Seventh Avenue-side rears of East Eighth Avenues buildings - eyesores visible from The Waterfront. It is funded by the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County. Homestead Happens is a mini-festival that includes a sidewalk sale and bike night. The consortium secured $380,000 for the construction of 14 loft-style apartments on East Eighth Avenue above the storefronts. The following property owners have been part of this initiative by successfully retaining and rehabilitating these buildings on East Eighth Avenue.Case Studies Completed in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles

Picture courtesy of Google Maps SOURCES Baron, Jennifer. New rental lofts part of redevelopment efforts in The Avenues: Beyond the Waterfront The Western Pennsylvania Pittsburghs Homestead neighborhood. 21 May 2008. Pop City Media. Brownfields Center, Redevelopment Workshop. 27 May 2008. Vellucci, Justin. Planners target revitalization in Homestead. 31 May Dee, Jordan. East Eighth Avenue developers plan U-Turn. 21 May 2005. 2008. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/

Karl and Walter Haglund Urban Design Ventures, LLC. 212 East Eighth Avenue*TIMELINE

LOCATION: Homestead, PA SIZE: < 1 acre FEATURES: Proximity to Universities and Downtown, Access to 837, Public Transportation, Adjacent to the Waterfront Development OWNER: Karl and Walter Haglund of Urban Design Ventures, LLC. CURRENT USE: Office Space and Apartments PAST USE: Movie Rental Store CONTAMINANTS: None TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Unknown

1880 Homestead Mill is introduced. 1980 Homestead Mill closes. 2004 Karl & Walt Haglund purchase 212 East Eighth Avenue in November and begin construction soon after. 2005 Urban Design Ventures is established. 2005 The Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County gives a faade easement for the Seventh Avenue building elevation and the facades are restored according to historic guidelines. 2007 The development of the Haglund property is completed in August.

HISTORY Before this sites redevelopment, 212 East Eighth Avenue was home to a movie rental store. On November 3, 2004 the same day that Karl and Walt Haglund buy the property they also start renovations. Two years after, the site is ready to house offices and apartments. The Haglunds completed development in August 2007. SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL This property was owned by Scott W. Reisch in 1991, Kitty Lesko in 2000, and finally Karl and Walt Haglund in 2004. The Haglunds were able to salvage and renovate the one building on the development. There was no need for zoning changes due to the nature of pre- and post-development site use. There were also no covenants restricting land use and no tax liens on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS There was no need to perform environmental assessments, and the owners reported no contamination found on the site prior to development.

211 East Seventh Avenue Facade Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Prior to redevelopment, water, power grid, sewage, cable/DSL, phone, and cellular lines were existing and adequate. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE All of the financing for physical infrastructure came from private funds. Financing for the development itself was made possible from a combination of public and private funds. Of that, public funds made up about 40% of Interior the total funding. These public funds came from development grants and Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund loans from state and local sources. Specifically, Walter Haglund received $54,286 from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency low-interest loan program for two new apartments in his building at 211 E. 8th Ave. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED Because Eighth Avenue is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, much care had to be taken to preserve the history of the area. This site is completely redeveloped, and the development was able to create four jobs.* First of three properties included in 8th Avenue Offices and Lofts in Homestead Case Study Completed in Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles 211 East Seventh Avenue Facade Photo courtesy of Karl Haglund

SOURCES Baron, Jennifer. New rental lofts part of redevelopment efforts in Pittsburghs Homestead neighborhood. 21 May 2008. Pop City Media. Haglund, Karl. Urban Design Ventures. Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center Online Survey. 23 June 2008. The Avenues: Beyond the Waterfront The Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center, Redevelopment Workshop. 27 May 2008. The Tribune-Review. Real Estate notes. 25 March 2007. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. FINAL REPORT Ambridge Area Brownfields Partnership: 20012006. The Brownfields Center. 2006. Hallas, Steve. Merchant Street: The Commercial District of Ambridge, PA. Keystone Profiles Brownfield Site Development in Beaver Falls. BC Economic Development Story. Beaver County Minutes. Looking ahead: Good reasons to be hopeful in Ambridge. Times Online. 30 June 2008. < http://www.timesonline.com/ articles/2008/06/30/opinion/editorials/doc4864e24b1fc9c097411902.txt> New 9-1-1 Center to be located in Ambridge. Borough of Ambridge - Official Site. < http://ambridgeboro.org/index. asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B7764D577-521B-4DAB-B2A0BC997989EE81%7D&DE=%7B4CA10365-8D5C-48FC-85D1C4C67B41E092%7D> Pash, Gene and Debi Leopardi. Value Ambridge Properties, Inc. Faceto-Face Interview. 7 July 2008.

Bort, R. Michael and Frank Mancini, Jr. Demolition, Remediation, and Renovations Northern Ambridge Redevelopment Project Beaver County, Preserve America Community: Ambridge, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. < http://www.merchantstreet.org/Brownfields%20Development/ Preserve America: Explore and Enjoy our Heritage. Demolition,%20Remediation,%20and%20Renovations.pdf> The Sprout Fund. The Sprout Fund. CED. Australian Developer Begins Ambridge Brownfield Conversion. CED. Online. 16 Nov. 2007. < http://www.merchantstreet.org/Brownfields%20 Development/Ambridge%20Demolition%20Project%20Continues.pdf> Committee to Clean and Beautify Ambridge. Pittsburgh 250 Community Connections Application . < http://merchantstreet.org/Pittsburgh%20250%20 Theodore, Larissa. 911 center among Ambridge development Community%20Connections%20Grant%20Application.pdf> plans. Times Online. 25 June 2008. David, Brian. Ambridge, Midland Build Without Steel. Pittsburgh PostGazette. 16 Feb. 2005.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfield

CARRIE FURNACELOCATION: Allegheny County, PA SIZE: 168 acres FEATURES: Large Parcel, Flat Land, and Riverfront Location OWNER: Allegheny County CURRENT USE: Vacant Land PAST USE: Blast furnace CONTAMINANTS: PCBs, Sulfates TOTAL ACTUAL COST: no specific dollar amount obtained TIMELINE

1881 Carrie Furnace is built 1892 Carrie Furnace takes part in Battle of Homestead 1898 Carrie Furnace is purchased by Andrew Carnegie Furnace 1901 CarrieCorp. becomes part of the US Steel 1978 Carrie Furnace is shutdown 1988 Carrie Furnace is sold to Park Corporation 2005 Allegheny County buys site from Park Corporation 2006 Carrie Furnaces 6 and 7 become a National Historic Landmark

HISTORY The Carrie Blast Furnace site was built in 1881. It produced iron for the Homestead Works from 1907 to 1978. During its peak production, the furnace produced 1000 to 1250 tons of iron a day. In 1892, the site was part of the Battle of Homestead, a labor dispute that displayed the strength of unionism and also started the onset of a nearly 50 year union in the steel industry. In 2006, Carrie Furnaces 6 and 7 became a National Historic Landmark. TOPOGRAPHY The 168 acre flat piece of land is along the Monongahela River, with approximately 135 acres on the north bank of the river and the remaining 33 acres are on the south side of the river. The property is not readily accessible as it is isolated from the adjacent communities by railroad tracks and circuitous access by road. The site itself straddles the boroughs of Rankine, Swissvale, Whitaker and Munhall.Photo courtesy of www.tacoma-trains.com

MARKET CONDITIONS The surrounding communities have a low median income. In particular, Braddock and Rankin are among the most economically distressed communities in Allegheny County and have been considered Act 47 Municipalities, a state program for financially distressed municipalities, for more than ten years. Since 2004, county officials have invested nearly $10.7 million in housing, road work and community projects in order to improve the surrounding communities. Officials hope that improving the nearby communities will make the Carrie Furnace site more attractive to developers and investors.Picture courtesy of Google Maps

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL The Carrie Furnace site was acquired by Andrew Carnegie in 1898. In 1901, the US Steel Corporation purchased the site. In 1988, the Park Corporation purchased the site from US Steel. Both parties mutually agreed to handle designated areas of environmental concern. In 2005, Allegheny County bought the entire site from the Park Corporation for $5.75 million. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Underground storage tanks that were used to store gasoline were removed in 1994. Two above ground storage tanks used to store fuel oil were also removed. Asbestos was removed from buildings. The ground was also contaminated with sulfates and PCBs. Phase I environmental assessment was conducted in 2007. Phase II environmental assessment is currently being conducted SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE The Carrie Furnace Community Steering Committee gathers community input regarding the future development of the site. The committee is composed of representatives from nearby municipalities as well as local community leaders. The committee developed a plan that articulated a viable and marketable land use strategy that benefits the surrounding neighborhoods and celebrates the history of the steel industry. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE The Park Corporation performed demolished all structures except the following: Blast Furnaces 6 and 7, a blower engine house for Blast Furnaces 6 and 7, a storage building, a 15-ton ore bridge (crane), and north ore bins in the stock yard for Blast Furnaces 6 and 7. These structures plan on being preserved by Allegheny County. It is proposed that they will eventually be part of an interactive museum that will be constructed on the site. There is a railroad track that runs through the site. A $2.7 billion leg of proposed the Mon-Fayette Expressway may run along a nearby hillside. The Mon-Fayette Expressway is a 66 mile, 4-lane highway that has been proposed since the 1950s. Only 35 miles of this highway has been completed so far. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE It is estimted that $70 million to $100 million will be required to convert the sites industrial structures into

a steel heritage museum. Allegheny County projected that the environmental cleanup would cost $3 million to $5 million. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED Although the site, which is one of the few remaining riverfront brownfield sites in the area, is currently vacant, redevelopment planning is underway. The redevelopment of the site includes efforts of Allegheny County, several municipalities, and the Steel Industry Heritage Council, to historically preserve the mill structure while also utilizing the site for economic development. The plan calls for he furnaces to be refurbished into an interactive museum. The remaining area would be developed using a mixed-use redevelopment plan. Housing, office buildings, a hotel, a conference center and a transportation center are also planned. The hot metal rail bridge that connected Carrie Furnace to the Homestead Works will be converted to an automobile bridge that allows for easy access to the site while at the same time, connecting to the Waterfront, a retail development across the Monongahela River. The Plan also includes a large parking area that could serve as a park-and-ride for commuters using buses, and possibly water taxis and a light rail. The transportation center would tie into a tramway that would also be built in the area.Completed by Ronald Papa, Summer 08

SOURCES

ENVIRON International Corporation. Final Report Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Carrie Furnace Works Rankin, Rennsylvania. March 2003 National Park Service. Battle of Homestead and Carrie Furnaces 6 and 7. September 2002. PA Governors Center for Local Government Services. Annual Report. June 30, 2006. Ploetz, Adam and Singer, Molly. Old Tools and New Measures: Local Government Coordination of Brownfields Redevelopment for Historic and Cultural Reuses. Rivers of Steel. Carrie Furnaces. 19 June 2008 < http://www.riversofsteel.com/ros.aspx?id=26&h=80&sn=95> Gaydos, Ron. Heritage Health Foundation, Inc. Interview. June 27, 2008

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/

CORK FACTORY LOFTS (ARMSTRONG CORK FACTORY)LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 4 acres

1860 Thomas M. Armstrong starts the Armstrong Cork Co. Cork 1901 Armstrongbuilt. Co. factory in the Strip District is FEATURES: Located Near Downtown, Public Transportation, Waterfront 1974 The factory closes. 1996 Hammel and Beynon buy the property in bankruptcy court sale. OWNER: McCaffery Interests/Big River Development L.P. of Chicago, Charles 2004 Buildings on the site are designated historic landmarks. Hammel III, & Robert Beynon 2004 Daniel McCaffery Interests of Chicago becomes new general partner in the sites CURRENT USE: Loft and Retail Space development. 2005 Construction on the Cork Factory Lofts begins. PAST USE: Cork Factory 2006 The parking structure is completed. CONTAMINANTS: VOCs, SVOCs, 2006 The lofts are available for lease in November. Benzo(a) pyrene, TCE, Benzene, Methyl 2007 Construction on the Cork Factory Lofts and Chloride, Arsenic, Mercury, Asbestos, garage is completed. and Lead Paint 2008 Construction on the marina is completed.TOTAL ACTUAL COST: Over $78 million 2008 The garages retail complex opens. (projected)

TIMELINE

HISTORY In 1860, Thomas M. Armstrong and John D. Glass started the Armstrong Cork Co. by carving bottle stoppers from cork by hand. After a fire at its original factory location in the Strip District, a massive new building was constructed in 1901. The factory reached its peak in production by 1930 when 1,300 people were employed. However, by the time the factory closed in 1974, there were only 300 employees. Since the closing, many developments failed at the site, including those led by York Hannover, Preservation Photo courtesy of Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation Investments Inc. of Boston, and Landmark America of Maine. They were unsuccessful because of the lack of funding for redevelopment. In 2004, Daniel McCaffery Interests of Chicago stepped in to finance redevelopment. All three of the structures on site were salvaged and renovated according to historic landmark guidelines. TOPOGRAPHY The Cork Factory site is bounded by the Allegheny River to the north and Grants Hill to the south (the high hill east of the confluence of the three rivers) in Pittsburgh. The site is located in the Lawrenceville Enterprise Zone, two miles from downtown in Pittsburghs Historic Market District, also known as the Strip District - a narrow piece of land located on a flood plain.

MARKET CONDITIONS The Cork Factory Lofts is located in the Strip District near downtown. In addition to its proximity to the city, the Strip District is a wholesale area with its own distinct personality - a mixture of groceries, restaurants, and vendors lining the streets. Recent counts indicate that 22,406 cars enter the Strip and 24,800 individuals use the bus to access the Strip District daily. The Strip District is not residential, but several locations in the area have also been converted into loft housing: Brake House Lofts and the Otto Milk Building. SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL This site includes two parcels: the former Armstrong Cork Factory and a portion of the Smallman Street Property. While the Cork Picture courtesy of Google Earth Factory was a cork-manufacturing plant from the 1900s to 1970s, the Smallman Street Property was a small machine shop and meat packing plant from the late 1800s until the 1930s. Before Armstrong Square, Inc. acquired the property, the site belonged to Stonecraft Trade Center, Inc. In April 1996, long after the Cork Factorys closing, Charles Hammell III, owner of Pitt-Ohio Express (a trucking company), and Robert Beynon of Beynon & Co. Inc. (a commercial real estate brokerage and insurance firm) acquired the property. The site sold for just over $1 million at a bankruptcy sale from former owners, Bert Slutsky and Barney Silverman. The adjacent Smallman Street Property belonged to the Consolidated Rail Corporation, The Strip Corporation, Landand Company, and Morrison & McCluan, Inc. CLH Properties, Inc. owned the entire Smallman Street Property by the late 1990s. The residential and commercial use of this site is consistent with the sites existing zoning and land use laws. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Because many developers had an interest in this site, the Cork Factory received a number of Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments before McCaffery Interests of Chicago entered the picture in 2004. According to the Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (Act 2), the property met the requirements of a Special Industrial Area and the developers signed a Consent Order and Agreement (COA) between the Department of Environmental Protection and Big River Development, LP of Chicago. In October 2003, Big River submitted a Baseline Environmental Report prepared by Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. In 2004, Big River discovered two abandoned underground storage tanks near the former boiler house. One of these tanks held compressed air so it was relatively empty, while the other held a small amount of heating oil. There is no evidence of leaks from either tank. The tanks were removed and disposed. Regulated contaminants, benzo(a)pyrene and TCE, were found in one-totwo foot surface soils. Those contaminants exceeded the Medium Specific Concentration (MSC) for residential property. Additionally, benzo(a) pyrene, TCE, benzene, methyl chloride, arsenic, and mercury were found in waste pile material. Those contaminants exceeded direct contact for residential property, but they did not for nonresidential property. Several volatile organic compounds, one semi-volatile organic compound, and two metals were found in the groundwater. Asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint were found in the buildings on the site. Also, vapor contamination was well below indoor air quality thresholds. Because of the vapor contaminations low concentration, chemical of potential indoor air concern (COPIAC) was not a concern for the site. Also, based on findings of the risk assessment, Big River did not remove the metals, VOCs, and SVOCs in the soil and groundwater. The control Artists rendering courtesy of Daniel McCaffery Interests of these substances is enough to allow safe residential and commercial use of the site. In order to do so, Big River eliminated potential pathways to these contaminants by prohibiting groundwater use, constructing and maintaining engineering controls like buildings and pavement in those contaminated areas, and abating

asbestos and lead-based paint. The contaminants were managed according to the Site-Specific Cleanup Standard. The COA cited that remediation must be completed on or before December 30, 2007. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE The local community group, Neighbors in the Strip (NITS), evolved from the Strip Business Merchants Association with the goal of promoting the Strips Parking Garage - July 10, 2008 economic development opportunities, while keeping its unique character. Since the redevelopment of the Cork Factory meant preservation of the history of the factory and more opportunities for an underutilized area, NITS has been an active supporter of this development. The group worked with the developers as a facilitator, assisting with zoning hearings, rentals, and marketing.Project Financing Sources*Bank Financing Private Cash Contribution Growing Greener II Grant Equity Land Contribution URA Public Space Improvement Grant Faade Easement Pentrust & Federal Historic Tax Credits Federal Historic Tax Credits RACP Grant for Parking Garage CRP Grant for Public Art and Trail Design C2P2 Grant RACP Grant for Retail Core and Shell TOTAL

$43,700,000 $15,055,997 $760,000 $2,100,000 $2,900,000 $800,000 $1,857,118 $7,872,882 $2,040,654 $750,000 $50,000 $135,000 $500,000 $78,521,651

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Because of the Cork Factorys close vicinity to downtown, public transportation is readily available near the area, several blocks away from the site. Limited parking in the Strip District was remedied in 2006 with the addition of a three-level, 126,000 sq. ft mixed-use parking structure built on the Smallman Sreet Property. The total amount for this projects construction is $6,396,285. The structure can accommodate 427 parking spaces and approximately 47,000 square feet of ground level retail space. All of the sites utilities were nonexistent prior to construction. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE The majority of the development was privately financed; although federal tax credits from the National Park Service for historic sites cover some of the costs. The developers sold these credits to Sherwin-Williams Co. of Cleveland for $8.5 million. Due to the limited time frame for remediation, environmental clean-up was mostly privately funded. Public funding in the form of historic tax credits was used towards asbestos and lead-paint abatement. The total amount of public grant funds are $2.995 million or 2.8% of total cost.

*July 2008 Figures

Financing Breakdown*$60,115,847Construction Hard Costs (includes garage, Cork Factory, & public space improvements)

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED The 383,000 square foot factory was renovated into a 297-unit luxury $10,659,488 Development Soft Costs apartment complex. These units include studio, one, two or three $3,189,646 Construction Pd Interest bedroom loft style apartments with the average unit being 1,018 sft. Riverwall and Walking Trail Two of the buildings are seven floors, while the third is ten floors. $2,556,670 Design/Engineering and Construction Developers were careful to meet Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission $2,000,000 Retail Core and Shell approval because the buildings were designed by notable Pittsburgh TOTAL architect Frederick Osterling and designated national historic landmarks $78,521,651 *July 2008 Figures in 2004. The parking structures anchor tenants include Cioppino Seafood and Chop House and Right By Nature Organic Grocery. The restaurant will occupy 10,000 square feet of this space, while the natural foods market will occupy 15,000-18,000 square feet. The remaining space is planned to be leased to a wine and cigar bar and a specialty grocery store all local operators. In June 2008, the 60 slip boat marina on the Allegheny River was completed. It was made for the exclusive use of Cork Factory residents.

The completion of the walking trail depends on funding to extend the riverwall. The riverwalk is projected to be completed by Spring 2009 and is estimated to cost $2.2 million. The prior multiple setbacks in the development of this site place a huge emphasis on the importance of private and public funding. The sites designation on the National Register of Historic Places availed some funds, although it restricted design plans according to the history of the development.Artists rendering of riverwalk Picture courtesy of Carl Walker Construction

ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT The project was estimated to generate 325,000 job hours and $20,145,000 in wages and benefits for union construction workers. The rental rate is higher than the management at the Cork Factory predicted. At the grand opening of the lofts in 2007, it was announced that already 45% of the complex, or 135 units, were rented.Case Study Completed Summer 2008 by Melinda Angeles

SOURCES Big River Development, LP, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Consent Order and Agreement. Re: Former Armstrong Cork Property. 22 Dec. 2004. Cigar Bar, Specialty Grocery Store Coming To Pittsburghs Strip District. 29 Jan. 2008. Client Case Studies. GSP Consulting. Commercial (Parking Structure Projects): 2006& 2007. Carl Walker Construction. Cork Factory Loft Apartments and Garage. The ERECT Funds. Cork Factory restoration to get $1.5m for parking garage, public trail. 5 April 2006. DaParma, Ron and Sam Spatter. Cork Factory apartments get bubbly reviews. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 5 May 2007. Elliott, Suzanne. Armstrong Cork project set to go. 7 Nov. 2003. Hammel, Chuck, III - Owner of the Cork Factory. Face-toFace Interview. 10 July 2008. Labors Capital Deals. Loft Apartments on the River.

Cork Factory Lofts - July 10, 2008 Neighbors in the Strip. Pitz, Marylynne. Pop Goes Cork Factory: Strip District lofts offer views, resort-like amenities to tenants. 5 May 2007. Matviya, John. Letter to Charles Hammel, III. Re: ECP Special Projects Act 2. Baseline Environmental Report Approval. Armstrong Lofts. Railroad Street Strip District. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: Southwest Regional Office. 25 Feb. 2004. Reinhart, Joseph. Babst, Calland, Clements, & Zomnir. Environmental Attorney for Big River. Phone Interview. 8 July 2008. Roberts, Debbie General Manager of the Cork Factory Lofts. Phone interview. 17 June 2008. Rodgers, Becky. Neighbors in t he Strip - Executive Director. Phone Invterview. 2 July 2008. Schooley, Tim. Natural foods market, Italian restaurant aim to feed Cork Factory. Pittsburgh Business Times. 8 June 2007. Spatter, Sam. Popping the Cork. Pittsburgh TribuneReview. 23 Aug. 2006. The Cork Factory Pittsburgh, PA. Plant Construction Company. Troy, Dennis. Cork Factory Lofts - Project Fact Sheet. DTI Development, Inc. July 2008. Urban Living Uncorked. 27 Sept. 2006.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

DUQUESNE CITY CENTER (DUQUESNE STEEL WORKS)LOCATION: Duquesne, PA SIZE: 250 acres FEATURES: Size, Riverfront Location, Transportation, and Potential Accessibility OWNER: Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) PAST USE: Steel Works CONTAMINANTS: Heavy Metals & PFCs TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1984 1987 1990 2004

Duquesne Steel Works stops production. Duquesne Steel Works closes its doors. RIDC purchases the site. Hurricane Ivan floods the area.

HISTORY The City Center of Duquesne lies on the 250-acre site of the former Duquesne Steel Works. With the collapse of the steel industry, the region lost half of its manufacturing base, and the real property tax base and population in the Valley plummeted by 75 percent. The Duquesne Steel Works abandoned production in 1984 and closed its doors in 1987 when Allegheny County took control of the former steel mill site. TOPOGRAPHY The steel works elevated the Duquesne City Center above the river with slag fill to prevent flooding, making the river difficult to access. The surrounding neighborhood is very close to the site; however, active railroad tracks run between the community and the property. MARKET CONDITIONS This site is large in an area with an economically disadvantaged population. The attack of Hurricane Ivan in 2004 placed the area in a state of emergency with a reported $3 million in flood-related damage.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL Allegheny County took control of this site and later sold it to the Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) in 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS RIDC did not pursue environmental insurance for the City Center of Duquesne. The City Center of Duquesnes primary contaminents were heavy metals and PFCs. The environmental assessments found that the site would require at least 12 inches of fill spread over the entire site in order for approval as a lightindustrial commercial property. Dredged material from a nearby construction project, the Braddock Dam, was deemed an acceptable source of this fill. The 12-inch buffer would limit incidental human exposure to any surface contaminants. Also, demolished blast furnaces that are laden with asbestos have presented a large obstacle to redevelopment of the sites southern end.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE Because railroad tracks run between the community and the property, the community seems to maintain the feeling of separation from the site. Though that may be the case, community input is key in deciding the future purpose of the site. The conclusions of the community and RIDC have not been reached. The West-to-West Coalition was formed in order to serve as an economic developer for this and many sites. The Coalition represents 21 communities and has been selected to receive various EPA grants. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Additional improvements at the Duquesne site include filling and covering a large iron ore pit near the blast furnaces, renovating several buildings, and demolishing an obsolete pedestrian bridge across State Route 837. Access to the site is available via water and rail. One transportation dilemma at this location results from trains blocking access to PA-837. RIDC welcomes the newly proposed funding for flyover ramps. Their construction would improve vehicular access over extremely active rail lines. The City Center of Duquesne is currently accessed by an at-grade crossing on the Norfolk Southern Railroad, which creates significant traffic, pedestrian delays, and safety risks. Transportation by ground, specifically trucking access, is a key issue for this site. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave $8 million in loans and grants to redevelop the City Center of Duquesne as well as the Industrial Center of McKeesport. The demolition of fifteen blast furnaces on the Duquesne site used a combination of Section 108, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) and Commonwealth Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP) funds, and the environmental assessments were funded by the Department of Community and Economic Developments (DCED) Industrial Sites Reuse Program.

A partnership forged between RIDC, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and Pittsburgh District allowed for the local allocation of over 400,000 cubic yards of dredged materials from the Monongahela River to be used as fill. The deal was mutually beneficial and saved the government over $4 million in allocation of grants. To date, a total of $31 million has been committed to the Duquesne and McKeesport projects. The funding includes: $8.0 million in loans and grants from HUD; $4.5-million grant from the RACP; $1.0-million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and $17.5 million in earmarked federal transportation Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/ funding. The Allegheny County Department of Economic Development worked with the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County (RAAC) and the Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) to take advantage of HUDs Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, which enables public entities to leverage Community Development Block Grants into additional funding. HUD awarded the County a $2.0-million BEDI grant and a $6.0-million Section 108 loan. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED There are current talks of more revitalization within the area. Also, its easy accessibility by rail via the Norfolk Southern Railroad creates heavy traffic, long delays, and hazerdous risks to pedestrians and motorists. RIDC will have to overcome this obstacle and establish trucking routes for this site. ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT The redevelopment of this site is expected to generate more than 450 jobs.Case Study Completed Summer 2007SOURCES Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Onorato Announces Additional $8.0 Million in Funding for Brownfields Redevelopment in Duquesne and McKeesport. 12 Oct. 2005. 15 June 2007 Interview with William E. Burroughs, Vice President of Development RIDC. Conducted via telephone, 9 May 2007 PA Site Finder. City Center of Duquesne. Revers, Stanley. A Study of Keystone Commons, the Industrial Center of McKeesport, and the Duquesne City Center May 2007. Student Work

Photo courtesy of www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

HAZELWOOD (LTV)LOCATION: Hazelwood, PA SIZE: 178 acres FEATURES: High Traffic, Size, Location, and Accessibility OWNER: Almono LP CURRENT USE: Robotics Research & Vacant Land PAST USE: Iron & Steel Industries, Boatbuilding, and Trade and Transport CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum/ Petroleum Products, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1884 J&L opens its first industrial plant in the area. 1906 J&L adds worlds largest collection of beehive coke ovens to the Eliza Furnace. 1974 LTV buys the site. 1981 Eliza Furnaces close. 1997 Hazelwood plant closes. 2002 Almono purchases site.

HISTORY Once a vast area covered by hazelnut trees that was home to some of the areas wealthiest families in the 1880s, Hazelwood is a neighborhood in transition. With the advent of iron and steel industries during the 1900s, Hazelwood made a progression from a large farm and estate community to an industrial center. This time in Western Pennsylvania history saw the first rail lines established in the Pittsburgh area. During the late 1870s through 1910, the area became home also to the boatbuilding, trade, and transport business. In 1884, the J&L Company found the area very promising and opened its first industrial plant in the area.

TOPOGRAPHY This 168-acre land is the last large brownfield left within the Pittsburgh city limits, making it attractive to the hospitals and universities that reside in Oakland. There have been various site designs that have worked to capture the interesting urban landscape of the site, while integrating the needs and current conditions of the nearby community. It is also the only brownfield owned by local foundations. This allows for a unique development opportunity within the city. It is the first urban brownfield in the city in which development will not be managed by local government agencies or departments. MARKET CONDITIONS Hazelwood was home to more than 200 businesses in Picture courtesy of Google Earth the 1960s. These included large markets, independent grocers, hardware stores, jewelers, and financial institutions. Less than forty years later, Hazelwood suffered a striking blow as the J&L plant, then incorporated as LTV, closed its doors. The rise of overseas competition crushed the once dependable industry and hurt the backbone of the local economy. There is a lot of interest in this site since it is the last large piece of land in the city, and it is also close to Oaklands the medical centers and the universities. The site will likely be a big draw for universitypartnered research and development companies looking to setup near the universities. There are currently only two buses that access Hazelwood and no grocery stores in the area. These sorts of amenities will be important to any employees planning to relocate to the area. There has already been some interest in the housing market by the robotic researchers currently using the site. SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL The 178-acre Hazelwood LTV site was sold as one parcel to the Almono LP, which is comprised of four local foundations: Benedum Foundation, Heinz Endowments, Richard King Mellon Foundation and McCune Foundation. The managing partner is the Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC). The site was sold in 2002 to Almono for $10 million. This sites assembly and control is unique in the history of brownfields in Pittsburgh. It will be the first brownfield developed by foundations, and it does not include the Urban Redevelopment Authority as a development partner. This allows the foundations to control the vision of the site. They will set the tone and make final decisions for development rather than the city or private developers. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS With the fall of the steel industry, LTV demolished much of its plant because it recognized that its former facilities would no longer be reused. This included decontamination & de-commissioning (which involves asbestos abatement, PCB removal, and pipe removal). The site has currently cleared Act II remediation. The entire site has been cleaned for commercial use and much of the site would need little or no remediation for future housing. Hazelwood is considered relatively clean for the level of industrial activity that took place over many decades. The only hot spot areas are located around the remains of the coke ovens. This is a significantly small area considering the size of the overall site.

SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE The community has made it clear that they do not want another dirty industry along the river. They have been waiting for the new development to begin, and with a strong community effort, plan to be a part of the next steps. A group of individuals from various backgrounds joined together to form a group with the common goal of the betterment of the Greater Hazelwood area. Their group was dubbed the Hazelwood Initiative, Inc. (HI) and their mission is to act as a catalyst for the revitalization of the Greater Hazelwood community. In collaboration with the city, county and state representatives, they aim to create a healthy community through community planning, business redevelopment, affordable housing development, homeowner reinvestment, and youth programming. HI also serves as a vehicle to address resident concerns and accomplishments relating to various city services and to all community stakeholders. The group is very active with the possible outcome of the site. It supports the ongoing efforts of neighborhoods activists, local residents, churches, city planners, outside consultants, and other community organizations and encourages further community involvement with the site. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Like many brownfields within urban areas, Hazelwood has a wealth of physical infrastructure that will be an asset for future development. There are two rail lines that cross on either side of the site. One of the rail lines connects to downtown, and the other travels up Panther Hollow to Oakland. The site also has a working and licensed dock system that would allow for barge traffic. It is bounded by Second Avenue, which is the main commercial corridor of the neighborhood. The option of building a Mon-Fayette Expressway is still in the air currently. It could have negative or positive effects in the community. Also the site, like most old steel mills in Pittsburgh, is located on a large parcel of flat land, which is unusual for the city. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure costs will be significant during future development. It can be difficult to redevelop former steel mill sites due to the large building foundations that are often left after building teardowns. These foundations take a considerable amount of money to remove. There is also a history of water and sewer lines, and other abandoned infrastructures

that will need to be addressed during redevelopment. This site will likely need a large investment to dig out some areas and fill in others to repair, replace or bury previous infrastructure so development can move forward. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED The site is currently occupied by many different companies, including the Field Robotics Center at Carnegie Mellon, a robotics research facility, and GTECH Strategies, Inc., a small start-up company that currently has a pilot project onsite for the purpose of greening the site while researching biofuel production and brownfield reclamation on urban vacant lots. The site has sat undeveloped for more than five years now. The vacant lots are similar to lunar landscapes. There has been no serious land reclamation or habitat restoration. There are serious issues to overcome to return the land to a level where plants can flourish. The entire site may be capped, topped, and graded to the river with soil to make it more habitable for growth. The community is still waiting for the final decision regarding the construction of the MonFayette Expressway. The sites new use can be better determined once that decision has been made. ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT The land has yet to be developed. With potential housing and commercial opportunities, the community has a chance to benefit greatly.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007SOURCES Banja, Judy and Linda Braund. The Early History of the 15th Ward of the City of Pittsburgh. (1925, copyrighted 2005). http://ftp. rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/allegheny/ history/local/kussart31-60.txt Fraser, Jeff. Philanthropic Field, H Magazine, vol. 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004, pp. 20-27. http://www.clpgh.org/exhibit/neighborhoods/ hazelwood/, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, April 2007. Hazelwood: Making New Connections. Capstone Seminar in Economic Development, Policy and Planning. Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh. Spring 2001. Koch, Chris. Hazelwood LTV Apr. 2007. Student Work The Future of Oakland: A Community Investment Strategy. Urban Design Associates. January 2003.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

KEYSTONE COMMONS (WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC)LOCATION: Turtle Creek, PA SIZE: 92 acres FEATURES: Rail and Highway Accessible, Existing Buildings are Structurally Sound OWNER: Holtec International & Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) CURRENT USE: Turnkey Goods Supplier, Office, and Laboratory PAST USE: Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Plant CONTAMINANTS: Asbestos TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown TIMELINE

1880 Westinghouse purchases the site. 1988 Redevelopment plans for this site is conceived. 1989 Production on the Westinghouse Plant ceases. 1989 RIDC purchases the site for $12 million. 2004 Hurricane Ivan floods the area.

HISTORY George Westinghouse purchased the site in 1880 from local farmers. Westinghouse employed over 20,000 workers on this site during the 1940s. Eventually production at the site declined and by the time the place closed on Dec. 31, 1988, it had a crew of 1,000 employees. TOPOGRAPHY Keystone Commons topography created unique problems in the redevelopment process. The site is located within the Turtle Creek watershed. The developers had to make certain to avoid contamination of this natural resource. In 2004 another issue related to Keystone Commons location within the Turtle Creek watershed arose. Hurricane Ivan devastated the Gulf Coast of the United States. Much of the eastern portion of the country received nearly six inches of rainfall. The Turtle Creek watershed was unable to retain this

Photo courtesy of http://www.holtecinternational.com/

above normal precipitation and the area became flooded. William Burroughs, Vice President of Development for RIDC, recalled the flooding and commented, If we could do it all over again, thered be great benefits to raising the first floor elevation of the entire site. MARKET CONDITIONS The redevelopment for this site was very rapid. Within six months of plan conception, construction already started on this site, making it a huge visible success in the area. The Business in Our Sites (BOS) program was established by Governor Rendell as an economic stimulus to help communities develop ready-toPicture courtesy of Google Maps build sites for new and expanding businesses. It is interested in the Keystone Commons site. BOS provided funding for its infrastructure and site preparation, environmental clean-up, demolition, renovation, construction, and professional services. SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL The Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) of Southwestern Pennsylvania purchased the former Westinghouse site for $12 million dollars on January 1, 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS The former Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Plant was principally contaminated with asbestos. However, heavy-metal contamination was also present in lower levels. RIDC chose not to seek environmental liability insurance for the Keystone Commons site. It was determined during Phase-I and Phase-II operations that contaminant levels were within acceptable limits and the possibilities of future discoveries of potential dangers were negligible. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE The use for the land is still up in the air for this site. Consideration of the communitys interests is key for the success of the site. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE For both economic and historic preservation purposes, RIDC attempts to refinish existing structures rather than raze them and begin anew. RIDC was able to maintain this approach to a greater degree at Keystone Commons due to the quality of building maintenance Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing had performed. We had to selectively demolish some buildings for parking.

But we kept most of the buildings, because Westinghouse kept them impeccably well, RIDC remarked. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE As with many brownfield redevelopment sites, government funding to begin the project was very important. The Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) administers the Industrial Sites Reuse Program (ISRP). ISRP makes funding available in the form of lowinterest loans and grants. These monies were used for Phase-I environmental assessments. Later ISRP funds were used to clean up hazardous materials. Keystone commons received a $5 million grant from BOS and a $5 million BOS construction loan from the Commonwealth Financing Authority. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED Developers for the site have been considering proposals for its redevelopment, but the Westinghouse building has already been converted to office and warehouse space. The site has attracted 50 companies employing 2,000 people. Businesses vary from metal fabrication to chocolate and cookie making. ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT Officials are working on projects that will spur economic development in the Mon Valley, hopefully turning the area into a revenue generator.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007SOURCES Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Onorato Announces Additional $8.0 Million in Funding for Brownfields Redevelopment in Duquesne and McKeesport. 12 Oct. 2005. 15 June 2007 Interview with William E. Burroughs, Vice President of Development RIDC. Conducted via telephone, 9 May 2007 PA Site Finder. Keystone Commons. < http://www.pasitefinder.state.pa.us/Site_ details.asp?ID=27&County=Allegheny&SaleT ype=Both&optLocationType=County&MinSal ePrice=&MaxSalePrice=&MinPropertySize=& MaxPropertySize=&MinBuildingSpace=&Max BuildingSpace=&MinLeasePrice=&MaxLease Price=> Revers, Stanley. A Study of Keystone Commons, the Industrial Center of McKeesport, and the Duquesne City Center May 2007. Student Work

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

MARINO SCRAP YARDLOCATION: Rochester, PA SIZE: 3 acres FEATURES: Riverfront, Industrial Accessibility OWNER: The Borough of Rochester CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) PAST USE: Scrap Yard CONTAMINANTS: Heavy Metals (Cadmium & Lead), PCBs, Oil TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1900s This site is used as a scrap yard. 1924 Marino & Son opens a second-hand store on the site. 1993 Nine municipalities, including Rochester Borough, adopt the Beaver County Riverfront Development Program. 1998 The scrap yard ceases operation. 1999 The land is donated to the Borough of Rochester. 2002 PENNDOT reconstructs Railroad Street.

HISTORY In the early 1900s, this area was used as a junk yard. In 1924, Marino & Son opened a second-hand store on the site, but eventually took over the entire area and built a scrap yard with a crusher, disposing mill slag and scrap metals. They transformed the second-hand store into offices and storage space. The scrap yard ceased operation in 1998. TOPOGRAPHY The three-acre Marino Scrap Yard is located between the Ohio River and Railroad Street in the Borough of Rochester in Beaver County. There is no pedestrian accessibility to the river, and the bank to the Ohio River is steep; however, the site has excellent boat access to the Ohio River and its tributary, the Beaver River. It also has access to major freight lines, making it ideal for industrial use. Three major state roads intersect nearby 65, 68, and 51. Public transportation is deficient in the area. MARKET CONDITIONS The area would be most easily redeveloped as industrial land - it is nearby a concrete supplier and various commercial properties; the site has excellent access by truck, boat, and rail; and Act II legislation in Pennsylvania would permit a less costly remediation of the site for an industrial use. However, the Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development (BCCED) has plans to develop this site as a recreational area as part of the Beaver County Riverfront Development Program.

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL The scrap yard ceased operations in 1998, and the property was donated to the Borough of Rochester the following year. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) found high levels of heavy metals such as cadmium and lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil on the site. They also found free-product oil floating on the groundwater. The contamination is most severe on the surface, but even soil samples that were 12 feet below the surface contained high level concentration of the contaminants. Besides the oil, no problems were found with the groundwater.Picture courtesy of Google Maps

The contaminant levels are so high that it is unacceptable to dig into the existing soil on the site. Since the site is below the flood plain, some contaminated soil eroded into the river. It is estimated that more than 570 cubic yards of contaminated soil will need to be removed from the site and moved to a disposal site in Ohio and the site will need to be capped for future development. This area has been cleaned according to site-specific standards. This program developed by the state allows the remediator to consider exposure and risk factors to establish cleanup levels appropriate for the intended use of the site. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Code, Act 247 of 1968, a community wishing to establish a local planning agency can form a planning commission, a planning department, or both. Beaver County has chosen to operate a planning commission. The Beaver County Planning Commission is responsible for preparing a comprehensive plan and keeping a record of all its actions for the sites development. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE There is no public transportation to the site and none is planned. Car access is limited to a ramp that comes off of a major intersection in the Borough of Rochester. Pedestrians would find it hazardous to travel to the area since there are no sidewalks on the ramp or the street leading to the site. The street leading to the site is a half mile of narrow, potholed road that allows only one truck to pass at a time. Plans have been made to resurface the road; however, expansion would be difficult since it is bordered by an active rail line on one side and properties on the other. Some water/sewer lines have been updated. Since the storm-water discharge pipe was excavated as part of the cleanup, the DEP saved Rochester $240,000 and gave it a head start on the elimination of its Combined Sewer Overflow problem. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE The BCCED has taken on the responsibility of coordinating, planning, funding, and negotiating the terms for the assessment of environmental

conditions and the subsequent remediation work to be performed. BCCED is a 501 C (6) non-profit corporation whose economic development mission includs the pursuit of government grant resources, loan investments, and real estate development projects. Using Pennsylvanias Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) Industrial Sites Reuse Program, BCCED obtained $122,662 to help fund the environmental assessment for the site. The estimated cost to complete the investigation at the site is $500,000. Rochester also received a $171,000 state grant in use towards developing the riverfront as a recreational area. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED Rochester Borough acquired ownership of the Marino site without understanding the potential liability of a brownfield site. Their failure to take the appropriate steps in analyzing the potential risks has delayed the redevelopment of the site. Funding for environmental assessments was available for use before their actual ownership of the site. Had the site been fully investigated, these funds may have been used. Prior environmental reports could potentially leverage remuneration for at least some portion of the cleanup. However, Rochester negotiated free transfer and the deed without a Phase I environmental assessment. The Beaver County YMCA planned to use the site to construct a new facility and to expand the riverfront development; however, plans were changed when an environmental assessment revealed high levels of contamination in the solids and groundwater. Currently the site is undergoing a possible change from scrap yard to shopping area. Officials in Rochester hope that the long-vacant property can become an area similar to Pittsburghs Strip District. ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT BCCED plans to turn this site into a recreational area as part of the Beaver County Riverfront Development Program. They have already done this along the Beaver River, which is mostly recreational with a boat launch and a marina/ restaurant complex. Once this area finds a new commercial use, it is expected to revitalize the area.Case Study Completed Summer 2007Sources: Case Study: Marino Brothers Scrapyard, Pennsylvania Brownfields Site. Environmental Protection Agency. Davidson, Lois, Mira De, and Dewitt Peart. Marino Scrap Yard Brownfield Site / Beaver County. 1 Dec. 1999. Brownfields and Economic Revitalization of the Inner City. Defining Results: 2001 Annual Report Appendices. 2001. Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program. DEP Secretary Tours Beaver County Scrap-Yard Cleanup Site. 26 July 2002. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. DEP to Hold Public Hearing on Hazardous Scrap Yard Site. 24 March 2000. Department of Environmental Protection.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

http://www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/brownfields/

MCKEES ROCKS (P&LE RAILROAD)LOCATION: McKees Rocks, PA SIZE: 104 acres FEATURES: Accessible, Flat Land, Significant Acreage OWNER: PK Brown, Bill Meides of Clifton Steel, Enterprise Bank, Randy Castriota of Castriota Metals & Recycling, John Krugle of JRR Rail, LLC (A C Railroad Service Company) CURRENT USE: Underutilized - Scrap Yard and Storage PAST USE: Railyard & Steel Mill CONTAMINANTS: Petroleum & VOCs TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1879 P&LE Railroad begins business on the site. 1881 Iron City Bridge Works is housed by the railroad. 1882 The land near the railroad houses Pittsburgh Steel Works, Vulcan Forge and Iron Works, Long & Co. 1888 P&LE builds a maintenance and repair facility in McKees Rocks. 1992 CSX buys P&LEs tracks. 1996 P&LE files for bankruptcy. 1997 ARPI buys the southern part of the site. 1997 Environmental Site Assessment Phase II is conducted. 1999 Ownership of the southern part of the site is tranferred to five tenants. 2005 McKees Rocks receives funding for rail repair.

HISTORY The industrialization of McKees Rocks started with the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad (P&LE) in 1888. P&LE built a maintenance and repair facility that housed a machine shop, repair shop, electric shop, paint shop, car erection shop, planning mill, and passenger station. Three local steel mills that housed facilities on the site prospered once P&LE started operation Iron City Bridge Works, Pittsburgh Steel Works, and Vulcan Forge. The railroad, which became a New York Central subsidiary in 1889, maintained its own identity when New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad merged to form Penn Central in 1968. When Penn Central went bankrupt in 1970, P&LE was on its way to independence. P&LE began to lose business in the 1980s because of the declining steel industry. P&LE sold its New Castle to McKeesport, PA line to CSX in 1991, and P&LE ended service the next year. Afterwards, CSX purchased what remained of Pittsburgh & Lake Eries trackage not including the McKees Rocks facility, locomotives, and rail cars. TOPOGRAPHY Less than five miles to the west of Pittsburgh, McKees Rocks is on the southern bank of the Ohio River. This particular site is located along the CSX lines crossing Stowe Township and McKees Rocks Borough. The site is divided into two parts by the McKees Rocks Bridge. The piece south of the bridge is about 30 acres and contains the old P&LE facilities. The northern piece is approximately 70 acres and contains the majority of the trackage. The site is relatively flat and accessible by the McKees Rocks Bridge and Pennsylvania Routes 65 & 51.

Photo courtesy of http://www.kahndog.com

MARKET CONDITIONS Since the 1950s, McKees Rocks has been on the decline, physically and economically. There has been no groundbreaking for new development in the area since the turn of the century. SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL In 1997 Allegheny Railroad Properties Inc. (ARPI) bought the McKees Rocks facility, locomotives, and rail cars. Two years later, ARPI breached its contract with P&LE Properties by missing a mortgage payment. Consequently, ownership of the site reverted back to P&LE. P&LE sold the land to five distinct tenants, including Pittsburgh Limosine Company, Proline, and Clifton Steel. Since then, ownership has changed drastically. While Bill Meides of Picture courtesy of Google Maps Clifton Steel still owns some of the site, the majority of the site is now owned by PK Brown. Enterprise Bank, Randy Castriota of Castriota Metals & Recycling, and John Krugle of JRR Rail, LLC occupy the rest of the site. The McKees Rocks Community Development Corporation (MRCDC), formerly known as the McKees Rocks Planning Commission, is currently developing a plan for adaptive reuse of the site. All five of the buildings on the site are salvageable, and public transportation by bus or train is available in McKees Rocks and Stowe Township. However, future development of this site is restricted by railroad tracks on one side and sewer lines that run parallel to the McKees Rocks Bridge. The present use of the site is limited to a metal scrap yard (on six acres of the site) and storage of school buses and portajohns. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was performed in 1998. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reported that P&LE had produced or allowed petroleum contamination of the soils and nearby sewers in the late 1980s. Consequently, it issued a series of orders requiring P&LE to assess the property and to implement necessary remediation. P&LE agreed to install monitoring wells and a recovery trench, sample the groundwater quarterly, remediate the soil, remove waste drums, and conduct Phase II prior to selling the land. Phase II indicated that VOCs were in the groundwater and the soil. Pesticides, lead, and mercury were found in the soil, as well. Major tanks, transformers, and drums have been removed; however, piles of debris and abandoned infrastructure are still present on the site. After P&LE went bankrupt, ARPI did not continue with the remediation of the site, and did not use the installed recovery trench. The site may need a second Phase II Site Assessment before it is shovel-ready for future redevelopment. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE The McKees Rocks Planning Commission was formed in order to attract development in the borough. In 1999, the group sent a conceptual plan for a high-tech industrial park to Allegheny County. Their plan included the renovation of two buildings on the site for office space. A year after, the Planning Commission reformed into the McKees Rocks Community Development Corporation (MRCDC). Their goal is the same enacting a plan of an adaptive reuse of the site. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE There is no cable/DSL available on the site, and the majority of the public utilities, including water and sewage, are in disrepair. Water lines were increased to fix this inadequacy. Phone lines, however, are adequate.

Public transportation is good for the McKees Rocks and Stowe Area a bus line runs parallel to the site. Also, plans for a new roadway will increase public accessibility into the site. ARPI planned to tear down a footbridge spanning across the CSX tracks because of its condition. The community rallied against its demolition because it links the area to Stowe Township, and the footbridge provides the only access outside of the isolated community in case of a flood. As of right now, the bridge is still in existence, but closed. In 2005, Governor Rendell announced funding made available for infrastructure repair. Since the 2004 flooding by Hurricane Ivan, the Governor approved more money towards rail freight improvement projects. McKees Rocks received $2.1 million for repair along 43 miles of rail. Also, some of the buildings are eligible for listing in the National Registry of Historic Places including the Diesel Shop. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE The area received $400,000 in EPA funding. This amount has not been distributed yet. The exact amount assigned to McKees Rocks will be known in Fall 2008. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED Several of the plans for the sites growth fell through, including a $15 million redevelopment plan in Stowe Township. This was due to an accumulation of factors, one being site assembly. ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT The P&LE site is still idle and ripe for renewal.

Case Study Updated Summer 2008SOURCES Baron, Jennifer. $15M brownfield redevelopment planned for Stowe Twp. Pop City Media. 23 May 2007. Erzi, Ipek and Priscila Vargas. Old P&LE Railyard McKees Rocks. Brownfields and Economic Revitalization of the Inner City. 8 Dec. 1999. Governor Rendell Announces Funding for Rail Grants that Promote Jobs, Economic Development, Repair Flood Damage. PA PowerPort. Feb 2005. McKees Rocks. 2005. Reynolds, Dan. County Plans Big Brownfield Redevelopment. 11 May 2007. Spatter, Sam. Steel Factory Corp. of McKees Rocks Plan Wins Tax Abatement. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 10 May 2007. Vrcek, Taris. Phone interview. 19 June 2008. Wereschagin, Mike. Onorato Vows to Keep Talks Going. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 11 Nov. 2005.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

MCKEESPORT (US STEEL NATIONAL TUBE WORKS)LOCATION: McKeesport, PA SIZE: 135 acres FEATURES: Elevated, Turnpike Access, Transportation (rail, truck, and water) OWNER: Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) CURRENT USE: None (Vacant Land) PAST USE: Metal Tube and Pipe Manufacturing CONTAMINANTS: Fuel Oil and Heavy Metals TOTAL ACTUAL COST: unknown TIMELINE

1795

McKeesport is founded.

1890s The Tube Works employs nearly 10,000 people. 1901 US steel purchases the site. 1989 2004 RIDC purchases the site. Hurricane Ivan floods the area.

HISTORY The Industrial Center of McKeesport was originally the site of various metal tube and pipe manufacturing companies. In 1901, US Steel purchased the site and its resident companies. These ten companies were American Bridge Company, American Sheet Steel Company, American Steel Hoop Company, American Steel & Wire Company, American Tin Plate Company, Carnegie Steel Company, Federal Steel Company, Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines, National Steel Company, and National Tube Company. These former competitors were merged to form the US Steel National Tube Works. The incorporation of US Steel National Tube works marked the birth of historys first billion-dollar company, United States Steel Corporation, with an authorized capitol of $1.4 billion.

Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh

TOPOGRAPHY The Industrial Center of McKeesport is located beside the Monongahela River. As with most sites of former steel mills in the Pittsburgh region, the land had been elevated some 25 feet on average by industry to prevent flooding and provide a stable surface for building structures. Slag, a waste product of steel making, was the most common fill. The Industrial Center of McKeesport offers land, water, and rail access. It is close to the turnpike and next to the river; although rail access competes with ground transportation (such as trucking) due to obstruction of passing trains. MARKET CONDITIONS The Mon Valley is in need of revitalization. With the new redevelopments in McKeesport, the Mon Valley has the opportunity to increase their market for retail, housing, and dining. An active use for the area will boost the area economically.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps

SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL The Regional Industrial Development Corporation of Southwestern Pennsylvania (RIDC) purchased the site in 1989. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Most contamination was due to fuel oil and heavy metals. The RIDC decided to forgo environmental insurance purchases. It believed it was unnecessary after all cleanup projects were completed. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE The use for the land is still up in the air for this site. Consideration of the communitys input is key for the success of the site. In particular, the West-to-West Coalition was formed in order to serve as an economic developer for this and many sites. The Coalition represents 21 communities and has been selected to receive various EPA grants for brownfield redevelopment projects. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE The McKeesport project includes construction of an overpass of the CSX Railroad and will connect Lysle Boulevard with Industry Road. Federal earmarks totaling $17.5 million have been secured for the construction of both ramps. Also, the RIDC was able to preserve many of the original structures to some degree after Hurricane Ivan hit the area in 2004. Interior renovations allow tenants to customize buildings to their specific needs.

Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh

COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE The RIDC used the Department of Community and Economic Developments (DCED) Industrial Sites Reuse Program funds Phase-I and Phase-II assessment and cleanup projects. Also, $8.0 million in loans and grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were sent to redevelop the City Center of Duquesne and the Industrial Center of McKeesport. To date, a total of $31 million has been committed to the Duquesne and McKeesport projects. The funding includes: $8.0 million in loans and grants from HUD; $4.5-million grant from the Commonwealth Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP); $1.0-million grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and $17.5 million in earmarked federal transportation funding. Of the $1 million in EPA funding, the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County is receiving $600,000. A third of that sum is directed towards the cleanup of the former Firth Sterling steel plant in McKeesport. The Allegheny County Department of Economic Development worked with the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County (RAAC) and the Regional Industrial Development Corporation (RIDC) to take advantage of HUDs Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, which enables public entities to leverage Community Development Block Grants into additional funding. HUD awarded the County a $2.0-million Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant and a $6.0-million Section 108 loan. CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED Projects at the McKeesport site include site cleanup, demolition of an old office building, renovating several other buildings and relocating a pipe yard from the riverfront. ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT Officials are working on projects that they hope will spur economic development in the Mon Valley. The sites development has already generated 300 new jobs in the area. The redevelopment of Firth Sterling is expected to create 500 industrial jobs and generate $17 million in investment for the City of McKeesport.Case Study Completed Summer 2007SOURCES Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Onorato Announces Additional $8.0 Million in Funding for Brownfields Redevelopment in Duquesne and McKeesport. 12 Oct. 2005. 15 June 2007 Interview with William E. Burroughs, Vice President of Development RIDC. Conducted via telephone, 9 May 2007 PA Site Finder. McKeesport. Revers, Stanley. A Study of Keystone Commons, the Industrial Center of McKeesport, and the Duquesne City Center May 2007. Student Work

Photo courtesy of WPIC, University of Pittsburgh Smith, Bonnie. EPA Awards $1 Million to Redevelop Brownfields throughout Allegheny County. Environmental Protection Agency. 27 Sept. 2005.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

NEVILLE ISLANDLOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 1,200 acres (whole island), 400 acres (brownfields only) FEATURES: Access by Rail, River, and Highway; Flat Land; Proximity to the Airport and Downtown, Significant Acreage OWNER: The 33 parcels of land are held by more than 19 property owners, including Neville Development Company and Neville Township CURRENT USE: Hotel (currently being developed), Restaurants (expected), None (vacant land) PAST USE: Military Production CONTAMINANTS: Lead, Tetrachloroethane (PCE), Arsenic TOTAL ACTUAL COST: n/a TIMELINE

1803 General John Neville dies on Neville Island. 1918 The islands first ammunition plant is constructed.

1945 The end of World War II brings unemployment. 1992 Pittsburgh International Airport opens a new terminal in the area.

1998 Neville Island opens a sports center. 1999 The Neville Island Development Association is formed. 1999 The township receives an EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot grant. 2000 The township receives an EPA Loan Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Fund grant. 2003 The Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center facilitates a workshop focusing on Neville Island. 2008 Fairfield Inn is expected to open its doors.

HISTORY Neville Island is named for its first owner, General John Neville, who was given the property by Congress because of his valuable service during the Revolutionary War. There is no evidence that the island, previously referred to as Montours Island or Long Island, was inhabited prior to that time. Neville died on the island in 1803, and later, the island became high-quality farmland. However, the land usage changed from agricultural to industrial when two bridges were constructed at the North and South ends of the island. This connection joined the island to the rapidly industrializing Pittsburgh region. In 1918 during World War I, the U.S. Government acquired 130 acres of the island for use as a large ammunition plant. After the war, more than 50 industries, ranging from steel companies to chemical plants, existed on the island. The Dravo Machining Corporation, specializing in shipbuilding, made a large mark on the history of the island. After the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, Dravo officers were contracted to produce 300 ships for the war effort. This greatly expanded development of heavy industrial infrastructure on the island. In addition to inplant transportation and parking needs, the Navy built five miles of four-lane highway and an auxiliary timber bridge to connect the island to the shore. Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/

The end of the war resulted in rapid employment reductions. The closure of many industrial facilities and increased environmental regulation has hindered further economic development in the island. TOPOGRAPHY Neville Island, located on the Ohio River, is approximately five miles long and 2,000 feet wide. One-third of the island, or 400 acres, are brownfields. The island, just a few miles northwest of Pittsburgh, is favored for its easy access, level topography, and natural amenities. Picture courtesy of Google Maps It is serviced by multiple transportation networks including Interstate 79, Route 51, Route 65, the Ohio River, freight rail lines, and the Pittsburgh International Airport. The terrain of the island appears relatively flat thanks to many years of industrial land filling. The island also has functional infrastructure, including additional capacity for water supply, sewers, and natural gas and access to two separate electrical grids, and significant parcels of underutilized property. MARKET CONDITIONS Neville Island is in close proximity to the Pittsburgh International Airport. When the new airport terminal was open in 1992, the facility was expected to attract substantial new development to the entire area, including Neville Island; however, development in the area has not been considerable. The construction of the Island Sports Complex in 1998 encouraged some development in the northwestern part of the island. Formerly a Superfund site, the sports complex was able to bring more outside interest into the area. Nearly one-fifth of the islands total area is available for immediate development. In spite of this, a local community group, the Neville Island Development Association (NIDA), has been unable to overcome the long-time negative image as a regional toxic waste dump site. The heavily industrialized eastern end of the island continues to have a declining tax base (2006). SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL Thirty-three parcels of land on the island are held by more than nineteen different property owners, including Neville Development Company, Neville Island Commons, and Calgon Corporation. Twenty acres of the site, formerly owned by Vulcan Materials Company, has operated under various owners since 1912. That site is known today as the AMG Resources site. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS In 2001, Chester Engineers created the Brownfield Revitalization Initiative Environmental Strategic Plan. Approximately thirty parcels were studied, their environmental history was documented, and clean up procedures were recommended. Information was also provided from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. By 2003, Neville Township received funding for two Phase I investigations. A Phase II investigation for most of those sites was abandoned following the collapse of negotiations for a commercial development near the I-79 interchange. A 20-acre site that formerly housed Vulcan Materials Company completed clean up in Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/

2000. The site, now called AMG Resources, conducts recycling of tin-plated ferrous scrap and postconsumer cans. Elevated lead concentrations, PCE, arsenic, and a high soil pH were found on the property. Electrolytes leaked and contributed to the contamination. Their site-specific clean up standard required either pathway elimination by asphalt pavement or six-inch gravel covers. Other sites, such as Allegheny Shenango, Inc. and Allegheny West Rentals, Inc., have completed sitespecific clean ups. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE Neville Island is part of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance a ten-county public-private partnership that advocates legislative and regulatory changes to promote economic development in southwestern Pennsylvania. Also, in 1999, the Neville Island Development Association (NIDA) was formed as a 501c3 charitable organization by the Neville Township Commissioners. The organizations purpose is to promote and facilitate development on Neville Island. NIDA also initiated the Neville Island Business Association (NIBA) as a communications forum for the islands business community. In 2003, Neville Township Board of Commissioners and NIDA in cooperation with the Western Pennsylvania Brownfields Center at Carnegie Mellon University (WPBC) conducted a workshop to look at the redevelopment of brownfields on Neville Island. The focus of the workshop was to improve the image of the island. The WPBC brought national redevelopment experts into the area. They spent several days surveying the land and providing their unbiased opinions and comments regarding the community and possible development. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Various locations on the island have a multitude of existing infrastructure, such as water, sewers, natural gas, and electricity. The islands proximity to the airport adds to the infrastructure of the site. A regional water and sewer plan must be developed. While some area townships have extensive and well-developed systems, others do not. This inconsistency has held back the entire airport area. COSTS & ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE In 1999, the township applied for and received an Photo courtesy of US Environmental Protection Agency EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot grant of $200,000 to perform Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments on approximately five sites, to complete an inventory of the islands brownfields, to design clean up plans for assessed sites, to educate the community about the assessment, to clean up, and to redevelop. However, the Phase II assessment had been abandoned as of 2003. In 2000, the township and NIDA jointly applied for and were awarded and EPA Brownfields Clean Up Revolving Loan Fund grant of $500,000 to make low interest loans for environmental clean up activities. In 2003, the state legislature designated fifty-one acres on Neville Island, known locally as the Light Metals site and the Dravo Boatyard site, as a Keystone Opportunity Zone, as a Keystone Opportunity Zone (KOZ). The principal benefit of a KOZ is the elimination of all local, county, and state taxes on activities in the zone. Also in 2003, the township considered a tax abatement schedule for commercial and industrial properties on the island. The program, known as a Local Economic Revitalization Tax Act (LERTA), permits forgiveness of increased real estate tax assessments due to new construction or substantial reconstruction activities.

CURRENT STATUS AND LESSONS LEARNED In 2007, the area began its Neville Road beautification project. The program involved planting trees and landscaping. NIDAs Streetscape Revitalization Plan and Riverfront Redevelopment Strategy hopes to initiate the communitys revitalization process. The Marriot Fairfield Inn & Suites being constructed near the I-79 interchange is expected to open by mid-2008. It is just one of a handful of hotels that Concord Hospitality Photo courtesy of http://www.coalcampusa.com/ Enterprises Co. has in mind for development. With the Fairfield Inn as an incubator for more business, the 2007 redevelopment plans for this area also include a Kings Restaurant, a Subway Restaurant, a 100-employee office building, and a second sit-down restaurant with a bar. This site is a reminder of the time a brownfield redevelopment sometimes requires patience. ECONOMIC/COMMUNITY IMPACT In 2007, a representative from NIDA estimated, Right now if everything goes as planned, within five to 10 years were looking at increasing the islands net worth to $100 million.

Case Study Completed Summer 2007SOURCES An Advisory Services Panel Report: Pittsburgh International Airport Area A Development Program for the Airport Market Area. 13 Sept. 2002. Urban Land Institute. Brownfields Assessment Pilot Fact Sheet: Neville Township, PA. 23 Oct. 2006. Environmental Protection Agency. Cleanup Plan Approved for Neville Island Scrap Metal and Tin Recycling Firm. 9 June 2000. Department of Environmental Protection. Defining Results: 2001 Annual Report Appendices. 2001. Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program. EPA Gives Neville Township 200K to Redevelop Brownfields. 21 June 1999. Environmental Protection Agency. Guo, David. Neville development plans start to gel: Proposals call for hotel, restaurant, shops on Neville Island. 26 July 2007. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Neville: An Island of Opportunity. 27 Sept. 2003. Brownfield Workshop Briefing Document. Neville Township The Place to Live, Work, and Play. Neville Island Development Association (NIDA). Brochure. Schooley, Tim. Marriot hotel on Neville Island part of Concords regional plans. 23 March 2007. Pittsburgh Business Times.

BROWNFIELDSCENTER

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA

PITTSBURGH TECHNOLOGY CENTER (LTV)LOCATION: Pittsburgh, PA SIZE: 48 acres FEATURES: Location, Accessibility, Flat Land, and Riverfront OWNER: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) CURRENT USE: High-tech Research and Development PAST USE: Iron Manufacturing CONTAMINANTS: Tar Pits, Waste Oil, Oily Water, and Ferrous Cyanide TOTAL ACTUAL COST: $104 million TIMELINE

1849 The Pittsburgh and Boston Copper Smelting Works occupies the site. 1853 Jones and Lauth Company forms. 1863 Site is renamed to the Jones and Laughlin Company. 1887 The Hot Metal Bridge is constructed to connect the hot pig iron from the north to the processing facility from the south. 1968 J&L is sold out to LTV. 1981 The Park Corporation purchases the site. 1983 The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh purchases the site. 1993 Date of groundbreaking. 2001 The site is completed.

HISTORY The steel production on the northern region was owned by Benjamin Franklin Jones. In 1853 Jones merged his operations with the South Sides American Iron Works, which was co-owned by the brothers Bernard and John Lauth. This resulted in the formation of the Jones and Lauth Company. When the Lauth brothers sold the corporation to a banker named James Laughlin in 1863, the company took the name Jones and Laughlin Company. In 1887 a bridge connecting the north and south shores of the Monongahela River was constructed to transport the hot pig iron manufactured on the northern shore to the processing facility in the south. This bridge known as the Hot Metal Bridge has been renovated for vehicular traffic presently. J&L was, by far, the major competitor to the Carnegie Steel, the top steel producer at the time. At its peak it produced almost 3.4 million tons of pig iron, steel and other products, while employing almost 22,000 people. The company employed about 10,000 personnel from in and around the Pittsburgh region. Such tremendous growth made Pittsburgh an attractive target for immigrants from Europe, who

settled to take advantage of the labor needs of the steel industry and the broader economy. The industry had severe denigrating impacts on the environment of Pittsburgh and especially the waterfront regions where most of the plants were located. The plants, apart from using the rivers as a means of transportation of raw materials and finished products, were also responsible for largescale pollution of the rivers. More importantly, they cut off the river from the general public.Picture courtesy of Google Maps

TOPOGRAPHY J&L operations were concentrated mainly four kilometers upstream on the northern shore of the Monongahela River from downtown Pittsburgh. The site has riverfront access; however, an active railroad blocks public access to the water and occupies land that might be used as a riverfront park. The site is less than two miles away from the city and two major universities, the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University. MARKET CONDITIONS Presently the site is successfully generates revenue for the area; however, the development for this site was slow as its first occupant, the University of Pittsburgh Center for Biotechnology, was not located until 1991. SITE ASSEMBLY AND CONTROL The 1960s and 1970s saw the fall in demand for steel within the United States. Further rise in operational costs and cheaper steel imports began to cut into profit margins of the steel industry. This called for some kind of consolidation among the steel companies and some did respond to this. J&L was one of them. J&L agreed to sell out to Texas based Ling Temco Vought (LTV) works, in 1968. LTV took control of all the plants and facilities of J&L along the Monongahela River including the Aliquippa facility, and soon the green and yellow colors of the J&L name was replaced forever with the red and blue colors of LTV. In later years the green and yellow colors of J&L employees came to the fore during protests and strikes against the LTV during the painful closure of the facilities. In the case of J&L, the properties within Pittsburgh were bought up by Ohio- based Park Corporation in 1981. Unable to decide on the next course of action the site was left idle for the two years. Sensing the Park Corporations lack of ideas and motivation towards any serious redevelopment the

URA stepped in and bought up the vast strip of 48-acre site wedged between the 2nd Avenue and the Monongahela River in 1983. This action, while fully supported by the City of Pittsburgh, was also funded by numerous other public organizations. Once the purchase was completed, various opportunities were investigated. This task was handed over to Urban Land Institute (ULI) with URA funding. The ULI, after detailed analysis of the site and its surroundings, noted the sites close proximity to downtown Pittsburgh as well as the hub for research and development The Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Environmental inspections found tar pits, waste oil (2,000 gallons), oily water (420,000 gallons) and ferrous cyanide. The tar and water were discovered and dealt with initially, while ferrous cyanide was found much later. The ferrous cyanide was found in an underground pit in the middle of construction. For two months construction was halted while its origins were researched. It was discovered that a gas company left the ferrous cyanide in a pit for long-term disposal. It was deemed harmless, as it was sealed in a well-designed container, and construction began again. Apart from having to move Carnegie Mellons research structure so that it would not be built above the pit, there were no other major issues with construction. SOCIAL/COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE As for communities around this site, there werent many. Most of the communities were either near Southside Works across the Monongahela River or near the Hazelwood facilities