Divided testimony as Pittsburgh council hears historic-nomination bid for Donnie's Place

Pittsburgh City Council held a public hearing July 10 on Bill 17-52, a resolution to designate a neighborhood bar known as Donnie's Place as a historic structure under Title 11 of the Code of Ordinances. Councilwoman Deborah Gross (District 7) read the bill title and opened testimony; the Department of City Planning told council the property owner does not support the nomination and that listing would require a supermajority because the Planning Commission gave a negative recommendation.

The Department of City Planning’s Kevin Kunek said the historic nomination (DCPHN 2024-00641) was filed on Oct. 24, 2024, and summarized prior proceedings: the Historic Review Commission found reasonable cause to consider the nomination on Feb. 5, 2025, the HRC later offered no recommendation after a March 5 public hearing, and the Planning Commission held a March 25 public hearing and voted to provide a negative recommendation to council. Kunek also told council the nomination packet is available on the city’s Legistar database.

The nomination prompted sharply divided testimony from more than a dozen speakers. Supporters of the nomination urged council to preserve queer and trans history; opponents said the building is derelict, the nomination is being used to block housing, and the property owner and estate oppose the listing. Lizzie Anderson, the nominator, said the nomination was meant to "visibly honor queer and trans history" and argued that imperfect or modest sites deserve preservation rather than waiting until all such places are gone. Preservation Pittsburgh speaker Melissa McSwiggan urged formal recognition of queer nightlife sites and noted Donnie's Place "was in business almost 50 years," saying that history can otherwise be lost.

Speakers opposed to the nomination emphasized property rights, public safety and housing needs. Thomas Yargo, who identified himself as executor for the estate of Donald R. Thinnes, told council the estate opposed the nomination and said Thinnes had entered an agreement of sale with Laurel Communities LLC on March 13 (the parties described the project as having been downsized from an earlier 27-unit plan to 19 units). John Kamin, counsel for the estate and the developer, presented photos and a structural report from LLG Engineering Consulting that he said documented extensive rot, shifting, cracking and post-fire damage and concluded the building could not be saved.

Speakers tied the question to housing and transit. Amy Zayes of Pro Housing Pittsburgh and other opponents said the site sits next to a high-performing transit asset, the East Busway, and that delaying construction of homes harms residents; Zayes said the nomination would "directly undermine the city's objective for transit oriented development" and warned that "housing delayed is housing denied." By contrast, Dan Yablonski of Pittsburghers for Public Transit said preservation and equitable, transit-oriented development are not incompatible, citing other Pittsburgh projects that preserved portions of historic structures while adding dense, affordable housing.

Multiple speakers reported that artifacts and records from Donnie's Place have been delivered to the Heinz History Center; bar owner Scott Knoxon and others said they had transferred material to the museum. Several speakers, including people who identified as longtime patrons or friends of Donald ("Donnie") Thinnes, said the building had fallen into severe disrepair and that fire damage had worsened the condition since the nomination was filed.

No formal council vote on Bill 17-52 was taken at the hearing. Councilwoman Gross said the legislation will be placed on an upcoming agenda; she and Councilman Anthony Charland expressed support for advancing housing and for not using the historic nomination process to block development. The Planning Department reiterated that a supermajority would be required to place the property on the city register because of the Planning Commission's negative recommendation.

The hearing record included several procedural and legal points: the estate and developer have filed litigation related to the nomination and the development, the nominator has been named in that suit, and counsel for the estate asked to cross-examine the nominator during the hearing (the nominator was not available on Zoom when counsel attempted to proceed). Council paused briefly to confer with the solicitor's office on process. Council adjourned the hearing with the item to be scheduled for a future vote.

What happens next: Bill 17-52 remains before full council. If council intends to list the structure on the local register despite the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation, a supermajority vote will be required under Title 11. The record assembled at the hearing — Planning Department materials, the LLG structural report supplied by the estate, public testimony and the prior HRC and Planning Commission proceedings — will accompany any future council action on the resolution.