Yesterday (Aug. 6), the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission held a public
hearing on the nomination of the Pittsburgh Wool Company as a city
designated historic site.  After my testimony on behalf of Pittsburgh Wool,
urging preservation in place (please refer to my website for additional
background on the Pittsburgh Wool case: http://davidsr01.mindspring.com),
the general counsel for the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation
announced that the organization was withdrawing its support for the
nomination because they did not believe that development of the site for
heritage tourism purposes was viable and that the most "judicious" mode of
preservation was to document the structure and transfer some artifacts and
the archives to the Pittsburgh History Center to enable the City of
Pittsburgh to condemn the property via eminent domain and transfer it to the
Heinz Co. for construction of a 75,000 sq. foot warehouse. Newspaper
coverage from yesterday's hearing may found at this url:Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review: <http://triblive.com/news/pheinz0807.html> (Headline: Heinz
'seriously considering' Ohio move). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette did not load
its article covering yesterday's hearing.

Now here's the dilemma (among others). Given that there is no local support
for preserving Pittsburgh Wool and that the only supported mitigation
involves documentation and demolition, despite my pleas to PHLF to consider
heritage tourism options, I am in a difficult position.  On the one hand, if
this is the only way to preserve a modicum of this once very important
component of Pittsburgh's social and economic fabric, then as a professional
historian I should support it and let the building be demolished for Heinz.
On the other hand, however, the business conducted inside the building --
wool pulling -- will not be conducted if the owners are forced to relocate.
That means that this craft would disappear from the American landscape since
Pittsburgh Wool is the last wool pullery in the United States. By
writing-off the building, and hence the craft, I would be signing on to the
eradication of not just a demonstrably unique and valuable historic
resource, but also an intangible folklife resource: the wool pullers
themselves.  Furthermore, because of the way in which the City of Pittsburgh
has pursued the acquisition of Pittsburgh Wool on behalf of a private
corporation (Heinz) under the guise of the eminent domain proceeding being
in the public interest, it should be the property owners -- Pittsburgh
Wool -- who decides ultimately what the outcome should be. Not the City of
Pittsburgh. Not the PHLF. Not Heinz. For the owner's side of the story,
their op-ed article (Sunday Aug. 8, 1999) is available at the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette website:
<http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990808edkumer7.asp>

As if that's not all to consider, I suggest that by withdrawing its support
for a resource it says is clearly historic, the PHLF is facilitating the
establishment of a dangerous precedent whereby large corporations can
acquire historic resources by pressuring economically insecure local
governments. Resources well beyond Pittsburgh's corporate limits may be
affected by this case because if successful, Pittsburgh officials will be
able to point to it at as a successful way of thwarting local historic
preservation efforts.

Thoughts, comments, debate anyone?

David Rotenstein
________________________________________________
David S. Rotenstein, Ph.D., RPA
Consulting Historian
Columbia, SC 29201
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://davidsr01.home.mindspring.com
Phone: (803) 376-1442
________________________________________________



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%