Thrive
St. Pete council approves Gas Plant study discussion
“What did we learn from getting the best master developer in Hines and the Rays that walked away from us?”
The City of St. Petersburg will consider hiring the world’s oldest and largest network of cross-disciplinary land use experts to study the Historic Gas Plant site.
Home to Tropicana Field and a sea of surface parking lots in the heart of a land-scarce city, the roughly 86-acre area is also the subject of oft-contentious debate and several multi-billion-dollar redevelopment proposals. Councilmember Brandi Gabbard said Thursday that St. Petersburg lacks an unbiased, professional study on the Gas Plant’s best uses.
Gabbard also believes the Urban Land Institute (ULI) can provide that “guiding document” for city officials. Her colleagues unanimously agreed to discuss utilizing the think-tank’s local affiliate at a future committee meeting.
“I believe that this is an important step forward to making sure we have voices at the table who have that experience, but have no skin in the game,” Gabbard said. “They’re not here to make money off of this property.
“They are here to give us guidance so that we make sure we make the best deal, the best negotiation possible, for the residents of the City of St. Petersburg.”
The Tampa Bay Rays exited an arduously negotiated $6.5 billion redevelopment stadium deal in March. ARK Investment Management, Ellison Development and Horus Construction submitted a $6.8 billion vision for the site Oct. 3, and Council Chair Copley Gerdes told the Catalyst that it “checked a lot of boxes.”
Two key stakeholders expressed support for Gabbard’s proposal at Thursday’s meeting. Chris Steinocher, CEO of the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce, noted the city previously hired ULI Tampa Bay to help create a waterfront master plan.
He said the previous study provided “good data and opportunities for thinking differently.” While the Ark Ellison Horus proposal has “a lot of great ideas,” Steinocher said other groups could “have some great ideas, too.”
“What did we learn from getting the best master developer in Hines and the Rays that walked away from us?” Steinocher continued. “What do we want this to really do for us?”
Jason Mathis, CEO of the St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership, said a ULI study wouldn’t impede Mayor Ken Welch from potentially moving forward with the latest redevelopment proposal. “In fact, the ULI concept predates this bid by several months.”
“I believe the Ark Ellison team is hoping to work with ULI to refine their proposal no matter what,” Mathis added. “If you select their unsolicited bid.”
Ark Ellison Horus included a “Gas Plant Hall” in the latest proposal to reimagine the area. Rendering provided.
Mayor Ken Welch has prioritized fulfilling long-deferred promises to the thousands of Black residents and businesses displaced from the site in the 1980s. He is also up for reelection in 2026, and Gabbard recently confirmed her long-rumored candidacy.
She said the ULI report would help determine if “it’s even right to go with a master plan developer.” Welch is also considering letting the city lead efforts to build affordable senior housing and a new Woodson African American Museum of Florida on parcels recently retaken from the Rays.
“This is not to put aside anything that may be before the administration at this point,” Gabbard said. “This is to really give the city council some guidance … How can we really get the biggest return on our investment?”
Gabbard added that “anytime a developer comes to you, it is based upon the yield that they’re going to make on the property.” ULI Tampa Bay, which serves seven regional counties, will evaluate the site’s rich history, previous studies and city goals.
A ULI study was broached immediately after the Rays exited their redevelopment deal in March. Administrators received a presentation and proposal over the summer that “didn’t move forward, for whatever reason.”
Gabbard said Ark Ellison Horus has the same information. She wants the city to partner with the chamber and other organizations to split the study’s cost.
“It’s a pretty inexpensive study,” Gabbard said. “It’s only about $135,000.”
Councilmember Deborah Figgs-Sanders noted that she and colleagues frequently debate how a $10,000 or $15,000 appropriation could benefit other organizations. However, she will “always entertain a conversation” to see “what we could possibly gain.”
Councilmember Lisset Hanewicz said officials should first explore how a massive redevelopment might require additional services, including a new fire station. She supported Gabbard’s request to, hopefully, discuss “some of these basic things” with the administration.
“We’re not in discussions with ULI right now,” said City Administrator Rob Gerdes. “If this goes to committee, we’re happy to have the discussion.”
Council members unanimously approved Gabbard’s committee referral without setting a date.
Peter Kent
October 19, 2025at4:12 pm
Who Should Benefit from St. Petersburg’s Tropicana Redevelopment?
Before the city issues another master plan or developer RFP for the Tropicana Field site, we must first ask a fundamental question: who should truly benefit from redeveloping this publicly owned land?
After a $300 million public investment in roads, parks, and infrastructure, about 60 acres of prime real estate would remain. At current zoning and market values, private builders could pay roughly $900 million—leaving an estimated $600 million in public surplus value that rightfully belongs to St. Petersburg residents.
Yet recent proposals—from both the Rays and the Ark-Ellison-Horus team—take all that $600 million surplus to pay for city requested affordable housing, a stadium, museum, etc., and profits. They are assuming limited financial risk and retaining control of the land. The taxpayers fund the project while developers capture the upside.
For the past five years, I’ve led public discussions on this issue at the college level. One alternative deserves serious consideration: a phased, 30-year, city-led redevelopment that keeps the land in public hands. This approach would allow the city to reinvest half of the $600 million surplus in affordable housing across all neighborhoods and the other half in storm-hardening infrastructure—two urgent and enduring needs.
When fully developed, the site could generate more than $100 million annually in new property tax revenue—funding essential services and easing pressure on other taxpayers.
Before we rush into another developer-driven deal, let’s agree on who should benefit from the Trop redevelopment. This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to shape St. Petersburg’s future. Let’s make sure it benefits everyone.
Neil Irwin
October 18, 2025at11:37 pm
And one more thing, for the pier projects the renderings offered a coral reef with crystal clear water and a pier head wrapped in special material to offer shade.
I see some sort of shiny-ball-dome thing in these renderings. I hope the land is sold in parceled, but if a master developer is more efficient, with respect to executing renderings, please hold their feet to the fire.
Neil Irwin
October 18, 2025at11:03 pm
Does anyone have links to the previous studies? I bet they are good, however, could be dated.
If the proposed ULII study gives a clear direction on how to divide the land into 200’ X 200’ parcels* showing locations for public amenities- walking streets, enlarged creek, parkland; then, hotels, convention center, possible stadium, office, retail, etc.., in phases, that would be a useful spend.
Selling parcel by parcel, in phases, will yield the most for the city.
Please help the schools near downtown, their rankings say they need it. Can the city create a bonus fund/grant to attract the best teachers?
*I have read studies that 200 X 200 parcels are the right size for an efficient structure, also creating a walkable and competitive-ground-floor retail environment- think many developers forced to differentiate, by bringing cool retail businesses, which fosters jobs.
Not edited
JAMES GILLESPIE
October 18, 2025at8:34 pm
I thought development of the Gas Plant area had been carefully studied already? While it will be a mixed-use project, it must complement the needs of the city and add measurable value to the area.
S. Rose Smith-Hayes
October 18, 2025at7:25 pm
$135,000 for an opinion???Why not go look at the past opinions on this issue. Please. Stop wasting our money. Please
Lauren Lopez
October 18, 2025at7:00 pm
Oh for Pete’s sake….enough with these studies! This City Council is so breathtakingly dysfunctional.
Alan DeLisle
October 17, 2025at1:24 pm
OMG. The Kriseman administration did a third party plan that was done by a professional planning team prior to its development RFP. Mayor Kriseman selected Midtown based on this third party plan.
Is anyone focused? Stop going in circles. Please.
ULI is great but it won’t be as thorough as the third party Kriseman plan. Welch and his advocates ignored all this groundwork and got burned.
Steve Sullivan
October 17, 2025at3:02 pm
Alan this is the one time I’m going to agree with you. But, you need to disclose you were a major staff member in the prior Kriseman administration. Welch is too caught up in having a physical asset represent the legacy of the people who occupied the gas plant property by having all this housing versus jobs and business opportunities. I think tha Ark proposal is close to what would be beneficial. We don’t need a single use convention center that is not always active. The site needs to be a destination at all hours and I don’t mean a bunch of bars or wild entertainment district. This council is always late and slow. Stop with the studies and ULI is old news. You just end up a copy cat of every other city in this country
HAL FREEDMAN
October 18, 2025at3:26 pm
Alan is correct. This is the 2nd time a Trop site study was done by Kriseman in the past (convention center, and master plan)…that doesn’t need to be re-done. The 86 acres haven’t changed; the city’s needs haven’t changed. It’s almost like what’s going on at the Federal level: if it was done by a previous administration, throw it out and do it over. We are wasting time and opportunity.