Riverlife panel offers the obvious
By Eric Heyl
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2001
In devising a comprehensive city riverfront plan that flaunts the obvious, the Pittsburgh Riverlife Task Force appears to have been operating in a no-wake zone.
Unfortunately, I don't mean panel members were on a waterway where boats must move leisurely enough not to create waves for other crafts. I mean they were not awake.
Slumberland is perhaps the easiest explanation for the tired, trite suggestions the 40-member panel appointed by Mayor Tom Murphy finally released Monday. This after spending two years and $2.4 million of mostly private funds on what originally was billed as a one-year, $100,000 mission.
The riverguys' primary recommendation was the creation of Three Rivers Park, a sprawling riverfront common extending along the Ohio, Allegheny and Monongahela rivers.
Two years to come up with that plan• The idea is so in-your-face obvious you could feel its breath, if only such concepts had respiratory systems and could actually breathe.
The strike force suggested finding an "appropriate government agency" to oversee the development of Three Rivers Park. That was an apparent reference to the Sports & Exhibition Authority, the local government entity currently renovating the North Shore riverfront.
Of course, the authority will need a new name to go with its new duties. An obvious choice is the Sports, Exhibition, Waterfront & Riverlife Authority. The public probably would tolerate the SEWR acronym.
The task force also suggested the development of park space along the Monongahela Wharf. This would be an obvious aesthetic improvement to an area which for decades has been used primarily for parking, occasionally for mugging.
So obvious, in fact, that the idea has been floating around at least since Sophie Masloff was mayor. Masloff left office at the end of 1993. That's one durable piece of intellectual driftwood the riverguys hauled out of the water.
They also suggested reconnecting the Fort Duquesne Bridge walkway to the North Shore. This would certainly represent progress, considering the walkway once linking the span to Three Rivers Stadium has abruptly ended in mid-air since the stadium was demolished in February.
Imagine the effort put in by the high-priced task force consultant who tackled this one. Peering up at the walkway from a North Shore parking lot, he probably said: "Yessirree, I think we need to bring this baby back down to the ground. I think we need to do that, and soon, too. Whew, I'm tired, let's call it a day."
The riverguys also want to locate additional space where recreational boaters can put their crafts in the water. Me, I'm guessing the shoreline will surface as the ideal locale. It's an obvious choice.
The task force has no authority to implement its ideas and no money to pay for them. Much of its plan involves privately owned real estate whose owners are under no obligation to share the panel's riverfront vision.
Yet this benign proposal's release was praised by such bigwigs as Allegheny County Executive Jim Roddey and Mayor Murphy, who at one point opined, "Too often, we settle for something far less than we ought to."
He wasn't referring to the riverfront plan, but he should have been. By spending millions on a plan of such impotent unoriginality, it appears the Riverlife Task Force was asleep at the wheel.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.