ShareThis Page

History haunts developer Buncher's project in Strip District

| Thursday, Nov. 7, 2013, 11:45 p.m.
Justin Merriman | Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
The landmark Produce Terminal in the Strip District on Tuesday, June 10, 2012.

Designating the Strip District's Produce Terminal as a historic building would likely sink a $400 million riverfront project, a developer warned Pittsburgh City Council members Thursday.

“We will likely have no choice but to walk away” if the designation prevents partial demolition of the building, Buncher Co. President and CEO Thomas J. Balestrieri wrote in a letter obtained by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

“We will be doing so knowing that we did all we could to advance a project that would benefit so many in our community. Will you be equally comfortable knowing that you voted to delay or stop this project in exchange for an uncertain future and to satisfy one group of individuals as opposed to the greater good of the community?” Balestrieri wrote.

Council postponed a preliminary vote on the designation until after a public hearing set for 9:30 a.m. Nov. 26.

The city's Historic Review and Planning commissions previously recommended the designation, though members of the latter commission chastised a preservation group for waiting until May to seek historic status for the Produce Terminal. The project has been discussed publicly for several years. Buncher has had a $1.8 million option on the Urban Redevelopment Authority-owned building since December 2010.

The nonprofit group Preservation Pittsburgh, along with Lawrenceville architect Sarah Kroloff, said they nominated the Produce Terminal as a last resort after Buncher applied for a permit to demolish one-third of the 1,500-foot-long building that once served as the hub of the city's food distribution industry.

Buncher has said the demolition would allow it to extend 17th Street to the edge of the Allegheny River, where it plans housing, office and retail development between 11th and 21st streets. It would renovate the remaining two-thirds of the terminal for commercial use.

Demolition critics have proposed establishing multiple “pass-throughs” to provide vehicle and pedestrian access through the terminal.

Buncher has said that approach would be far more expensive than its plan, expected to cost $22 million to $25 million.

“We believe it is highly unlikely that any responsible developer will be able to justify and finance the extraordinary costs and expenses of preserving the entire building without a great deal of subsidy or financial support from governmental sources,” Balestrieri wrote, adding that even if such funding could be secured it would “clearly alter the plans for access to the riverfront and the public spaces currently designed.”

If council rejects the historic designation, Balestrieri's letter stated, the developer would move quickly to begin the Produce Terminal demolition and renovation. It also would trigger a provision on the $1.8 million option requiring it to begin work on a residential building with at least 75 units within 18 months.

“Your vote to reject the proposed designation creates an opportunity to continue the rebirth of the city,” said Balestrieri, who could not be reached on Thursday.

Council President Darlene Harris of Spring Hill did not comment on Buncher's letter.

“The reason we have a public hearing is to hear from all people. I will wait until after that before I make any decisions,” Harris said.

Tom Fontaine is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7847 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.