 |
 |
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 ________________________________________________ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%