Mr. STANIZZO,

Great letter! Development of the land and demolition of the civic/mellon arena makes sense. It's the only plan that makes sense. Making it a petting zoo, movie theater, whatever these "save the igloo" people want to do it ridiculous. New businesses including bars and restaurants will be great on any night and awesome on game nights. This area has the potential to have a great atmosphere, bring jobs and tax money to the city with new development and that can't be done with an old and empty arena sitting there for years while people twiddle their thumbs wondering what "artistic" idea they can think of to "reuse" it.

Inevitably, they will jump on here and criticize me and the letter that you wrote, but that's normal. They will quote stats and figures, but no substance. No ideas on a plan to "reuse" the arena that will be able to make a profit and keep the doors open. But, you can't argue with idiots. Can't wait to hear from LeBro either. "Lemieux is scum and a thief!" Sure, LeBro. All of you haters are a joke. Keep hatin!

LeBro never said "Lemieux is scum and a thief" but if that is what you feel he is, I will go along with it.

Can the writer or one person on this panel tell me how any of these sports facilities have benefited the residents who live around them?

This I gotta see.

I am not going to criticize anyone, everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I am going to ask though is if you have been following this closely enough to know that if the Arena is demolished before the SEA goes through a proper Section 106 process they could lose all federal funding for the redevelopment of the Lower Hill and it will remain a parking lot for the next 50 years. I urge you to read the letter written by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to the SEA that outlines the law and why the SEA should go through the proper process. You can find it here, http://ow.ly/2zGbT

I will not come on here and denounce your ideas because they are legitimate and a mixed use development would be great for the area. I will however say that one single person can not expect their opinion, professional or not, to be the deciding factor in what is done. I do not believe that Mr. Stanizzo has done enough research to determine that the Civic Arena's sheer shape and size are not conducive to adjacent development. There are all these "rules" being tossed around by people in the industry to make it seem like an adaptive reuse isn't possible. I say prove it or shut up. A proper Section 106 process would prove it and would also help find the best possible use of the area with the arena or without it. I think people who wish to see the Igloo torn down are scared to go through the process and that is why it was made federal law. Read the letter, learn about the National Historic Preservation Act and then come back and write an educated letter that shows you are dedicated to this project instead of just trying to make the most money out of it.

crazy:

But how do these kinds of facilities benefit the residents that live around them?

myreply,

As a hockey arena or multipurpose arena, they don't. I have had the opportunity to talk to many people in the Hill and they say they enjoyed going to the Civic Arena but it never directly benefited their community except for a few jobs at the Arena. Supergenius seeems to think that a few bars and entertainment venues around retail and businesses with new residential thrown in would be nice. Nice for who? The rest of the city and the people who come in for events or the people of the Hill? The Section 106 process would give every stakeholder the opportunity to explore all options and the best choice would be the winner. We at Reuse the Igloo do not wish to just keep it up no matter what. We want what everyone else wants, we just want to use the Arena to accomplish that. If the process confirms that an adaptive reuse is not economically viable then we will not be opposed to its demolition. We just want justice for the building and the community and the current process does not give that to them.

LeBro wrote:

...never said "Lemieux is scum and a thief" but if that is what you feel he is, I will go along with it.

I would say Lemieux is an extortionist. He threatened to move the team out of Pittsburgh if he didn't get his publicly funded sports palace. Look up the definition of "extortion".

I would also note that Mario Lemieux called the NHL a "Gargage League".

Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

I have mae a post twice, and it states "post will be reviewed by an administrator".

No expletives, just a point of view. I would hope that the P-G isn't censoring viewpoints

Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

garyenglish:

Become a Regulator (Reguhater) and you can say anything you want. No censoring whatsoever.

Hey, it works for them.

A relatively simple issue but with no simple answer. I favor the retention of the arena, but only if a viable plan is created that is economically healthy and addresses the reconnection of the Hill to downtown and is practical and forward looking. there are great minds in Pittsburgh who have solved other more complicated problems.
But granting that saving the arena may not be a feasible option, before it is demolished there should be a plan in place for development, complete with financing and essentially ready to go the day after demolition is completed. Otherwise you run the risk of the mistakes of Three Rivers Stadium which was a relative oasis within a land of desolation, of projects never realized. And then, when the next edition of Rick Sebak's "Things That Aren't There Anymore" comes out, we will be wondering why a unique engineering marvel was ever destroyed.

Maybe we should just tear down the whole city and start from scratch to keep construction workers working and the developers raking in the cash. PNC Park and Heinz Field are going to be a whole decade old next year. Time for them to go! Maybe they could build one big stadium to host both teams!

Lebro, you're a joke! You have called Lemiuex a criminal before. Amazing. A man who kept hockey alive, kept the team here, helped get a new arena, does great charity work gets dirt talked about him. Very sad. All of you haters amaze me.

That's cool, I'll be using the Arena for years with my Pens season tickets. Laughing at you haters!

Gary, the PG is probably tired of you posting 25 pages of propaganda, stats and empty ideas for "reuse" on every letter about the civic arena.

Supergenious;

Pot, kettle, black.

It's okay to post your baseless assertions, but when I back it with fact it gets censored?

I guess the SEA's own "Effects Report" is propaganda too?

Obviously you never read the SEA's report otherwise you could comment and/or attack my position. So you support wasting RAD taxes and increasing the Nat'l debt by $30.8 million.

Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

@supergenius I am with you on the new Arena, I think it was needed and will be great. All I am saying is we need to do this right so that we get the best outcome.

Just because some lobbyists (thats what they sound like, Pittsburgh Regional Building and Construction Trades Council) says that a mixed use development is the best option doesn't mean it is. A true process is the only way to go and there should be no "endorsing" until a bunch of viable plans are laid out and researched. I also like the idea of UMOC where we make sure all the plans are in place so we aren't left with a parking lot for the next 10 years.

Part I

The letter starts out, “On behalf of the men and women represented by the Pittsburgh Regional Building and Construction Trades Council”. No self-interest here right? A building trades organization that seeks demolition and construction contracts at the public’s expense. We’ve already identified $30.8 million in federal earmarks to demolish and redevelop the site, with much more in state, county and local tax dollars.

Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania must be viewed as corrupt and wasteful spenders. The two stadiums on the North Shore were built despite an overwhelming majority opposed to construction and funding of them.

Unlike Pittsburgh, Europe dwells and thrives with heritage by saving historic landmarks for future generations. Their culture is rich. If we were to believe this letter writer, then he should be condemning the Rankin Bridge ramp project for our steel heritage.

See the August 19th report at: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/...95533.html

Part 2

Congressman Doyle wants to spend $30 million for this ramp/site, while the Carrie Furnace would still need an additional $75- $100 million to renovate the multi-tower furnace complex. We already have representation of the steel heritage, engineering and architectural asset in that of the Civic Arena.

But this is all about jobs and spending our tax dollars to accomplish this.

Indeed, the Civic Arena is a stand alone, just as the Consol Energy Center. But the development of a new arena wasn’t necessary. In its construction, the cost siphoned off over $450 million in gaming revenues that were promised to give us a 60% school property tax reduction the Governor promised eight years ago.

See: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/...97883.html

Part 3

Mr. Stanizzo closes with, “We urge the Sports & Exhibition Authority to act accordingly.”

Act accordingly? How about representing the will of the people? The majority of the people favor preservation. The most recent poll taken by WTAE favors preservation. Even the SEA’s own “Effects Report” located at:
http://www.pgh-sea.com/images/LHR_DRAFTeffects_report_6.15.10_watermark.pdf

If you read the 106 page report, you’ll discover 102 of 123 correspondence favor preservation.
Mr. Stanizzo, we’re not anti-jobs, but are pro-preservation and fiscally conservative. There is plenty of work for the building trades to go around.

I would refer you to the repair of our locks and dams at: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg...51-192.stm

Meanwhile, take a look around at some other immediate needs.

To wit:

Bridges: http://tiny.cc/4sjbd
Roads: http://tiny.cc/jmhec
Steps: http://tiny.cc/9cfix

Ah yes, “Bread & Circuses”
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Your right on point. It's time to reconnect the Hill District with the downtown area. It's time to develop the land there and move on!

Quipman,

Right one point by whom?

The fact is, the Civic Arena is a regional asset of historic proportions. Demolition will violate RAD law and waste $37 million in tax monies, leave a Civic Arena debt of $14.3 million and trigger spending $30.8 million in federal earmarks that will raise the national debt and untold state, county & local matching funds.

That's not a good option.

Reconnecting the hill?

Center & Fifth Avenues do just that. I believe Bedford Avenue connects to crosstown/Grant Street.

Reconnecting the Hill by replacing the former street grid still has teh Crosstown Boulevard as a barrier.

I look at this issue from both a historic and taxpayer point of view. Both point to preservation as the most cost-effective way while preserving a historic structure.

I'm using both the PHMC and SEA's documentation to support this position. I would love to hear your views with some facts and figures to back it up.

Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Regardless of whether I believe that the Civic Arena should be preserved, or a moratorium on its destruction be put in place, it seems to me that the talk of "re-connecting the Hill" is whimsy.

Communities - neighborhoods like the old Hill District - have an organic quality to them that can't be captured by a planned development.

Ain't gonna' happen.

Would look like Washington Landing, or some similar atrifice.

For the fact that there is so much disagreement on this issue - means that all should take a deep breath and give this much thought before going ahead with any idea.

This can either be a "shinning jewel on the Hill", or another concrete box. Those, I believe are the choices.

Which will it be?

Indeed, there has been much disagreement on preservation vs redevelopment.

The political discourse of the Sports & Exhibition Authority has been dishonest and can prove it.

Just one of many examples, the "Mothball" report or monthly holding costs of the Civic Arena. The report embellished the monthly costs but FAILED to include the daily revenues from parking.

Since this is owned and supported by the taxpayers of Allegheny County, removal of the politics is what I've sought by placing the decision on the November 2nd ballot.

Government, of, for and by the people.

Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Gary:

Know what is so disheartening about a referendum vote? It means nothing and is not binding by any law.

I found this out when talking to my rep. about a referendum to limit terms.

He told me that it just shows the "will" of the people - but is not binding to any gov. or local entity.

The will of the people. The founders actually thought that was important.

Unfortunately, that was then.

A referendum can be binding, just as the Regional Renaissance Initiative sales tax and amending the Home Rule Charter to allow Council to run for higher office w/o having to resign their current seat.

The outcome of the RRI was somewhat adhered to. They didn’t impose the sales tax, but did raise/spent other taxes and built the stadiums anyhow. The Council/Charter amendment was defeated and was binding.

The will of the people is and shall always be important. But we can not lay down and allow politicians to run roughshod over the Constitution.

If you’re with me, allowing a vote on this issue, up or down, I would implore you to contact County Executive Dan Onorato’s office at: 412-350-6500.

Gary J. English
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Maybe a referendum can be binding, but mostly it is just a feeler about what people think.

Lemieux is a leech. Must be nice to let your customers pay DIRECTLY to build your playhouse.

The letter writer is the epitomy of a union hack.