Comm Voice
An open letter to St. Petersburg City Council on the Trop Site redevelopment
Welcome to the Catalyst’s Community Voices platform. We’ve curated community leaders and thinkers from all parts of our great city to speak on issues that affect us all. Visit our Community Voices page for more details.
Dear Council Members,
Recently, Council voted to pause selecting, negotiating or advancing a developer for the Tropicana Field site. As I understand it, Council’s approach is to develop a comprehensive planning framework to be done by “independent, professionally qualified planners and guided by City residents, City-based businesses and employees, and organizations that represent City residents.” This approach, which I believe is correct, puts the representatives of the citizens in control of the process – not a single developer.
Community Benefit
In June of 2025, I attended a gathering hosted by the Tampa Bay Times and The Foundation for a Healthy St. Petersburg, to discuss the future use of the Trop site. There were many attendees and a group of panelists, selected for their unique perspectives on the subject. During the discussion, most of the panelists agreed that parkland should be a significant component of the development.
To me, the most compelling panelist was Mozell Davis, a longtime, highly respected educator and a former resident of the Gas Plant area, where the Trop site is presently located. Much of the discussion over recent years has been how best to honor the promises the city made when businesses, churches, and residents were relocated many decades ago to redevelop the area.
When asked what should be on the site, Ms. Davis replied “something that attracts families, groups of people … [a] great place to raise your children.” When asked what it shouldn’t be, she replied “lots of concrete, tall buildings, no parks, no sidewalks, things that don’t welcome walkers.”
Ms. Davis later went on to say that “we certainly need to respect and accept and know what happened … in particular, if the Woodson Museum is constructed as an excellent facility and it shows the correct history … and all of that somehow is archived and presented as a part of the history of St. Petersburg … then I think that would be acceptable to those descendants [of Gas Plant residents].” Earlier in the panel discussion, Ms. Davis commented that we “should look back but don’t stay back.”
Looking Back and Moving Forward
In deciding how to move forward by both balancing the desire to honor those who came before and developing this site in a manner that benefits the entire community, the Council’s approach described above is the obvious way to proceed with the development of these 86 acres of city-owned downtown property.
The future of this site should not be turned over to a single developer, whose approach will be biased toward results that make the development team more money. There is nothing wrong with making money. But it is the city’s land, and a profit-making built-in bias weighs heavily against committing large portions of the site to city priorities such as parkland and other public amenities that do not translate directly into profits for the developers.
The city should first decide what parkland and other public amenities will be contained on the site. Set aside that land, then identify the remaining parcels that are subject to development by private developers and allow them to bid for the parcels. In addition to giving the public amenities top priority, this process allows for a larger group of developers to be part of the process after land for the public amenities is set aside.
Ms. Mozell’s desire, which I think reflects the desires of many in our city, should be central for the approach to this site: A place that has parkland, is not dominated by concrete and tall buildings, that attracts families, groups of people, and is welcoming to our children. Many in our community feel that downtown is not a place they can be part of, because they cannot afford the activities that take place there. A significant portion of this site should be available for enjoyment by all citizens in our city, regardless of means.
St. Pete Commons
With this approach in mind, the core of my suggested approach is the creation of a 30-acre public park that I call St. Pete Commons, because of its similarity to the amazing Boston Common park – a 50-acre park – known throughout the world. I did not respond to the city’s request for proposals because I am not seeking to become an owner or developer of the site; rather I suggest that the city would be better served by taking control of its own future and driving the direction of the redevelopment, not adopting any single developer’s plan for the future of this site. Here is an approach:
- Establish a St. Pete Commons park as the site’s central feature. As a starting place, I recommend that the city’s site plan include, as its centerpiece, a 30-acre park, like that identified on the attached site plan. A significant park element is consistent with the input of the public, as reflected in the speakers at the forum discussed above.
It is our green space that makes St. Pete special. That is important to remember.
The vision of a city focused on parkland and quality of life was established by our founders when they fought to create and preserve our waterfront park system, beginning in the early 1900s. That effort has been embraced, nurtured and expanded by those who followed over the next 125 years.
One hundred years from now, few will remember or comment on the clusters of concrete buildings that have been suggested to the city in various developer proposals. But one hundred years from now – even in two hundred years – people will be thankful for the creation of a large green space for our residents to enjoy and our families to cherish.
People in our community are crying out for a counterbalance to the high-rise, high-density growth of our downtown. I support density development in the urban core – it is far better than invading rural green fields for urban sprawl. But the development of density in our downtown should be balanced with the growth of open green space and pedestrian scale. Our city’s founders realized that. It is time for us to add to what they created.
- Park Amenities.
I recently sat down with Mozell Davis at her home. She told me that the park should be welcoming to families, a place that is nice, that tells our residents you can come here and you don’t have to spend a lot of money. Features like picnic pavilions, playgrounds, flowering trees and decorations at Christmastime. Think of the 50-acre Boston Common, a magnificent public park amenity. Water features, outdoor concerts in the park, wading pools, open green space, bandstands, monuments, carousels, gardens, coffee stands, fountains, and more. St. Pete Commons would be about three times the size of St. Pete’s Vinoy Park and five times the size of North Straub Park. The process of identifying park features should be community driven.
- Reconnect the site to the surrounding transportation grid. As shown on the attached site plan, the road grid should be reestablished within the site. This connects the site by vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle transportation north, south, east, and west. When fully developed, the site will be seen as a seamless part of the downtown core, with the prominent feature being the St. Pete Commons park.
- Development Sites. Assuming the site is 86 acres, carving out 30 acres for St. Pete Commons would leave 56 acres. A certain amount of that land – perhaps 10 acres – will be needed for roads, sidewalks and other public infrastructure. Using this assumption, leaves 46 acres of developable land – the approximate equivalent of 23 downtown blocks. That is a lot of developable land:
Public Parcels. The city should set aside parcels that they wish to reserve for public purposes – museums, performing arts, concert venue, education, parking, conference space, others. A relocated Woodson Museum discussed by Ms. Mozell is an important amenity.
Private Parcels. The remainder of the lots could be sold by the city to developers for designated projects. This could be multifamily housing, hotels, health care providers, office and others. Job creation – one of the commitments that was made to the former Gas Plant residents – should be a focus. Ground floor retail and restaurant should be a component, as presently required in identified corridors downtown.
Use of Proceeds. Proceeds to the city from the lot sales could be divided: (1) to pay for the site redevelopment costs; (2) to establish a trust fund for the park maintenance; and (3) to support other priorities established by the city and community, such as affordable housing, arts, public venues and others.
Selection of Advisors. While a competitive bid should be held to hire civil engineers that execute the site development, the city leaders should be the drivers of the overall process, not a single private developer. This approach assures that public amenities take priority and allows multiple developers to participate in the private parcels – especially those who have already had success building projects in our city.
City Council has a once-in-100-years opportunity before it. The process of developing this site should be driven by our city leaders, and should be informed by our residents’ desires and the historic priorities that have created the magnificent city we have inherited.
Rick Baker was Mayor of St. Petersburg from 2001 to 2010.
Zachary Fritz
May 26, 2026at12:17 pm
Agree! I actually posted on both Nextdoor and on Tampa Bay Times before Rick’s May 14th opinion piece that we should have 43 acres of forever green space using indigenous plants and trees, with trails and parks and water features, and then have 43 acres of LEED certified buildings which would be available for low rent to community organizations, art centers, music education orgs, and other non profits. This is a once in 125 year opportunity for us to do the right thing for ourselves, our community, and future generations.
Domenico Pontoriero
May 21, 2026at5:43 pm
I’ve always loved this idea. The value that Central Park has on Manhattan has been studied and can never be overstated; it is an invaluable asset to the people of NYC. I think the planning of the park should still incorporate public comment, of course. And I believe that a proper monument for those buried there is appropriate, and I don’t know why that isn’t a given in all discussions.
Laura Van Dyke
May 21, 2026at11:47 am
I think in Mr Baker’s first paragraph he sums up how we as a city should approach the development of this large parcel of land:
“Council’s approach is to develop a comprehensive planning framework to be done by “independent, professionally qualified planners and guided by City residents, City-based businesses and employees, and organizations that represent City residents.” This approach, which I believe is correct, puts the representatives of the citizens in control of the process – not a single developer.”
His suggestions for green space etal should definitely be added to the independent professionally qualified planners as they analyze and make recommendations.
Cheri Riley
May 21, 2026at8:13 am
I appreciate Mayor Baker’s call to think bigger about public space at the Trop/Historic Gas Plant site. I would add that this should not simply be planned as green space, but as green infrastructure.
With Booker Creek, the Pinellas Trail, future street connections, and the scale of this site, St. Petersburg has a rare chance to model how dense redevelopment can become cooler, greener, more walkable, and more resilient.
Parks and landscapes should not be treated as decoration. They should shade corridors, reduce heat, capture and treat stormwater, support tree canopy, and create public spaces people can comfortably use in a Florida climate.
The Trop site could become part of a larger living greenway through St. Petersburg, connecting water, trail, canopy, culture, and mobility.
Tom Tito
May 16, 2026at6:33 pm
Some talk about honoring the Gas Plant residents. Many residents remain here, buried in cemeteries that were paved over.
These people deserve our respect and care when planning open space. Any graves that are found should be included in memorial gardens planned to minimize moving their bones.
Darden Rice
May 15, 2026at1:31 pm
Green space is a concept that keeps coming back and draws support from across many corners of the community.
While on Council, I pushed for this in 2020, not in an attempt to be overly prescriptive, but to plant the flag that we want to see substantial green space — not green space like a bourgeois passive park, but an urban, active park, like St. Pete’s version of Central Park in New York City, a park for everyone that connects and unites various parts of the city. Public institutions, such as the very important Carter G. Woodson African American Museum, could be located in a prominent spot overlooking the greenway.
And yes, transit should be a big part of connecting the Historic Gas Plant District locally and regionally.
Thanks for everyone’s work on this.
King Kevin
May 15, 2026at9:43 am
Like any citizen, Rick Baker should be applauded for having ideas for our City – but we’ve been wise to avoid his ideas since he left office two decades ago. If he had his way, Wengay Newton would be Mayor, the new St. Pete Pier (which has been wildly successful) wouldn’t exist right now, concrete would have replaced water near Al Lang Stadium (at a new Rays stadium), St. Pete still wouldn’t have recycling…and going way back, Albert Whitted would be paved over – redeveloped into an urban village and waterfront condos. I appreciate that he’s come back around to the value of green space, and a redeveloped Trop site will undoubtedly have that, but we’re also already blessed with an abundance of such. Having said all that, credit to Mr. Baker and others for caring about our home.
Valeria Steward
May 15, 2026at8:23 am
Thank you Ms. Davis and Rick Baker for that well thought out and community minded focus on this development. I was a person that was displaced and my family lost property to the stadium. My grandfather came here from Jamaican and build several houses which several were taken away supposedly for progress. That is the pass let us focus on an all inclusive future community development. Consider the people of our community and place them first for a change.
Alan DeLisle
May 15, 2026at6:54 am
The Midtown proposal was very close to this. Significant park land, set aside plots for public priorities but it also had infrastructure and parks paid for by the private sector and a small business set aside. After negotiating successful multi-million dollar public-private partnerships deals in four different cities, I can attest to the key not being public or private control. It is to use the strength of both at the same time in perfect harmony. That results in a well negotiated project that allows both public and private to maximize their strengths. This means the public sector stakes outs its goals and then, and only then, finds the best proven private developer with vast experience to carry them out. You negotiate a fair deal that benefits both and results in a well coordinated project that is not driven by city employees but by development professions who have executed and delivered outstanding large development projects in the past. And this process is done before you announce a selection. Welch did not do this. He surrendered to the Rays and squandered the public good. So running to public control has been the response. But there is a much better way!! Midtown was the proof along with thousands of successful public-private economic development projects across the country. Think this through St Pete.
Scott Samuels
May 15, 2026at6:51 am
Mayor Baker. Thank you for this well thought out plan that will last for many generations. If we are going to compare this to Boston Commons it needs to be a park with amazing amenities. Your idea to set aside funds to maintain and improve the park for the future is an essential element. Thank you. I support your plan and would love to help you in getting this to be a reality.
Hal Freedman
May 14, 2026at9:56 pm
Thanks, Rick. As you often have, youhave come up with a sensible concept that will move the City forward in a people-friendly way. You mentioned this concept when we talked several months ago, but this essay fleshes it out in a very appealing way. I’ll be happy to support this approach.
Adam Helenske
May 14, 2026at9:01 pm
What an encouraging and thoughtful plan being presented here. I hope this sort of common sense for the betterment of St Petersburg and its people comes to fruition. Public spaces and natural areas in a bustling metro are what give life to great cities. Reading this article and seeing Mr Baker’s vision give me hope for the future of the gas plant site and its redevelopment for the people.
Steven Noeltner
May 14, 2026at8:54 pm
Thank you Mr. Mayor for your experienced insight. Well thought out, well articulated.
Tom Seelly
May 14, 2026at8:53 pm
I am disappointed to see Rick Baker meddling in this process. The whole community needs to see this move forward. Local yocal politics are slowing the healing down. Some of the proposals have 18 acre parks – like BurgBid -AND lots of cash into the city for sewers upgrades. Who cares about a bigger park if we can’t flush our toilets. If we don’t pick Burg bid we might as well make the whole thing a park anyways because the other group Ark – hasn’t built anything before and it might as well be the jetsons or something. Housing groups should get their little piece. We need affordable housing.
Tom Tito
May 14, 2026at7:54 pm
Good ideas.
I would add make transit a feature.
Sarah Richards
May 14, 2026at7:21 pm
Focusing on green space and selling individual parcels for development and using those funds to support St. Pete Commons is a sound idea! I’m in agreement with Rick Baker. Thank you for presenting this!
Kari Mueller
May 14, 2026at5:02 pm
Mayor Baker has an incredible concept that preserves a substantial amount of the public land as park space.
It’s such a better concept and clearly shows there are better options than the current proposals.
The public needs to advocate for their own interests and demand we meet or exceed what Mayor Baker’s proposal shows! It’s a great concept and makes sense.
CINDY ROBERTS
May 14, 2026at7:01 pm
AMEN AMEN
Phil Graham, Jr. - Founder, Waterfront Parks Foundation
May 14, 2026at10:46 am
Our city continues to grow and prosper with new developments springing up seemingly everywhere, yet it is our urban parks that are some of the most cherished spaces, and arguably, a major reason for our city’s growth. The “St. Pete Commons” concept for the Tropicana Field site would provide welcomed relief from the hardscape of the urban core and create a open green space for human-scale activities for all to enjoy; it could become the most important feature of the development.
Steve Westphal
May 14, 2026at7:37 am
Excellent article. I agree 1000%. As always, thank you for your common sense leadership and forward thinking vision of what could be best for everyone.