## Facts

- The Howe-Childs-Gateway House in Pittsburgh, a Gothic Revival dwelling built around 1860, was designated a historic structure under a city preservation ordinance in April 1986.
- The property was sold to Alvin and Shirley Weinberg in February 1988 for $175,000, after historic designation had already been imposed.
- The Weinbergs performed initial repairs costing about $36,000 but contended the structure required extensive rehabilitation and that redevelopment would be more financially favorable.
- The Weinbergs applied to the City of Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the house; the Commission denied the application.
- At the Commission hearing, the Commission presented testimony from an experienced local realtor who opined the house could be sold “as is” for approximately $200,000 to $300,000; this marketability testimony was not rebutted.
- The Court of Common Pleas reversed the Commission, finding economic hardship; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, discounting the realtor’s testimony as not competent.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to address the standard for “economic hardship” and reversed, reinstating the Commission’s denial.

## Issues

1. Under Pittsburgh’s historic preservation ordinance, what must owners prove to establish “economic hardship” justifying demolition of a designated historic structure?
2. Whether the owners met their burden to show the Commission’s denial left them unable to make any economically viable use of the property.
3. Whether the Commission’s realtor testimony regarding “as is” market value and marketability was competent evidence supporting denial.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the Commission’s denial of the demolition certificate.
- The Court held the owners did not prove economic hardship because they failed to show they could not make any economic use of the property.
- The Court held the realtor’s valuation and marketability testimony was competent and supported a finding that the property retained economic utility, including sale “as is.”

## Legal Principles

- A demolition request based on “economic hardship” requires proof that the owner cannot make any economically viable use of the property, not merely that rehabilitation is costly or less profitable than redevelopment.
- The burden of proving economic hardship rests on the property owner.
- Experienced real-estate testimony may constitute competent evidence of marketability and value without rigid comparable-sales proof when supported by substantial, relevant experience.
- When the administrative record contains competent evidence that economic use remains, a preservation commission’s denial of demolition will be sustained.

## Conclusion

The court required a stringent showing of hardship: owners must demonstrate that a preservation denial leaves no economically viable use of the property. Because unrebutted expert testimony showed the historic house could be sold “as is” for substantial value, the owners failed to meet their burden, and demolition was properly denied.


City of Pittsburgh, Historic Review Comm’n v. Weinberg, 676 A.2d 207 (Pa. 1996)