Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Tampa Union Station slated for $4 million exterior and interior restoration
Summary
City historic‑preservation staff updated the Architectural Review Commission on an ongoing $4 million rehabilitation of Tampa Union Station, including exterior repairs, interior plaster work and ADA restroom upgrades funded by the Community Redevelopment Agency.
Tampa historic‑preservation staff told the Architectural Review Commission on June 2 that Tampa Union Station, a local landmark and one of the city’s oldest continuously used train stations, is beginning a $4,000,000 restoration funded by the City’s Community Redevelopment Agency.
Elaine Lund, Historic Preservation staff, presented a history of the station and the current project at the ARC public hearing. “This is one of the oldest buildings in the city still being used for its original purpose, and it's undergoing a $4,000,000 restoration,” Lund said.
The presentation traced the station’s origins to railroad development in the 1880s and the Plant system; Joseph F. Lightner designed the Italian Renaissance–style terminal, which opened in 1912. Lund said the station was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1974 and designated a local historic landmark in 1988. She reviewed Sanborn maps, historic aerials and existing photos to show the building’s original plan and later changes. The rehabilitation is described in staff documents as including exterior repairs to windows, doors, trim and the rear canopy; interior plaster repairs and restroom ADA improvements.
Lund said staff recently issued an administrative approval to begin the main terminal rehabilitation and that work is intended to be completed within a year. The presentation noted that Tampa Union Station’s rehabilitation follows the city’s design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for treatment of historic properties, which ARC uses when it reviews projects with preservation impacts.
Commissioners and staff did not take formal action on the presentation itself; the session functioned as an informational briefing and to notify the public of the funded rehabilitation project. Lund remained available for follow‑up questions and to coordinate permit review with applicants and contractors.
The project’s funding source was listed in the staff presentation as the Community Redevelopment Agency. Staff did not provide a construction schedule beyond saying work had begun under an administrative approval and staff hoped the restoration would be wrapped up “within the year.”
