ShareThis Page
Firm hired to create Hill District plan has little to show |

Firm hired to create Hill District plan has little to show

| Monday, October 4, 2010 12:00 a.m

A Philadelphia firm hired to create a comprehensive plan for the Hill District has little to show for it after nine months and $75,500 in payments from Pittsburgh’s Urban Redevelopment Authority.

CHPlanning Ltd. edged out 24 other companies that competed last year to conduct a “master planning” process to guide how public officials and private corporations develop land around the new Consol Energy Center and elsewhere in the economically depressed neighborhood.

The firm’s contract with the URA began Jan. 7 and authorized spending up to $350,000 to produce — by Thursday — “no more than 10 bound, two-sided copies of the Final Master Plan” and present its recommendations at a public hearing.

That won’t happen, said Charnelle Hicks, CHPlanning’s president.

She’s not sure when the master plan will be finished because CHPlanning is stepping down as the prime consultant.

“The approach that we had undertaken just didn’t seem to fit with what the URA was going for,” Hicks said. “So it’s been about trying to tinker and rework it.”

Her firm organized two public hearings, she said. Its contract calls for four public meetings by October.

“We have not moved forward on the actual work in the last couple of months,” Hicks said.

CHPlanning was too small and inexperienced to handle the demands of the project, said Tonya Payne, a former member of both City Council and the URA’s board of directors.

Payne was initially skeptical about hiring CHPlanning but ultimately voted in favor of the contract because she had lost her re-election bid and could not persuade board members — including state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, and Yarone Zober, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s chief of staff — to join her in rejecting CHPlanning.

Hicks, who’s from the Hill District, rejected the notion that her 15-member firm wasn’t capable of handling the project. She said she has done projects of similar scope, including disaster recovery work in hurricane-ravaged Louisiana and work for the city of Chester in Delaware County.

Asked to provide a list of tasks that her firm completed during the past nine months, she declined and referred other questions about how much she was paid to URA Executive Director Rob Stephany.

Rep. Jake Wheatley, D-Hill District, said his constituents generally supported CHPlanning and wanted to see a business owned by a female minority succeed.

However, he questioned the need to earmark $350,000 for a planning effort.

“I’m baffled that it took this long,” Wheatley said. “There’s been so many studies of the Hill District that I think we could have collected them and had this done six months ago.”

Work on the plan could be finished by year’s end, said Carl Redwood, founder of the Hill District Consensus Group.

Redwood and Wheatley said the URA is negotiating with the Boston-based urban design firm Sasaki Associates to complete the project. Sasaki has been assisting CHPlanning.

Redwood said a professional consultant will be needed to raise money and create “initial drawings and renderings” of potential developments in the Hill District.

The URA’s Stephany declined to be interviewed for this story, but he said in an e-mail that he couldn’t discuss a “settlement agreement” because it’s still being negotiated with CHPlanning.

Stephany said the plan won’t be ready on time. He doesn’t know when it will be done.

“We continue to be really excited about the prospect of working on this community plan,” he said.

To cover the potential cost of the $350,000 contract, the URA and Allegheny County contributed $100,000 apiece; The Heinz Endowments and Pittsburgh Foundation each chipped in $75,000.

Heinz Endowments spokesman Doug Root said such setbacks are not unusual. He said the nonprofit is pleased the URA recognized a problem with the consultant and began to shift the work to someone else.

Categories: News
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.