The effort to preserve Donny’s Place — a former gay bar in Polish Hill and the site of a proposed historic landmark designation — hit a major roadblock this week when the Pittsburgh Planning Commission unanimously voted against recommending it for historic status. The building, once Pittsburgh’s longest-running gay bar, now awaits a final decision from City Council.
Founded in 1973 by the late Donald R. Thinnes, Donny’s Place was more than just a nightlife venue. It operated as a hub for LGBTQ life in Western Pennsylvania, hosting community fundraisers, drag shows, and early HIV/AIDS outreach efforts. If designated, it would be the first LGBTQ-specific historic site recognized in Pittsburgh and all of Western Pennsylvania.
Despite the building’s cultural legacy, all six commissioners present voted “no” at Tuesday’s meeting, citing concerns about the physical condition of the site, its architectural insignificance, and opposition from Thinnes’ estate.
A Historic Space or a Development Obstacle?
The push for designation, initiated by Polish Hill residents Lizzie Anderson and Matthew Cotter, focuses on the building’s social and cultural significance rather than its architecture. Anderson emphasized that their nomination only includes the bar’s structure and the immediate surrounding area — not the full 2.5-acre site that Laurel Communities plans to develop into 19 market-rate townhomes.
“What we’re asking is for [Laurel Communities] to build around it,” Anderson told the Commission, noting the opportunity to create the region’s first officially designated queer and trans historic space.
But representatives of Laurel Communities and the Thinnes estate argued the nomination was a delay tactic intended to block housing development. Attorney Jonathan Kamin, representing both, characterized Donny’s Place as “unremarkable,” citing testimony from several of Thinnes’ personal friends and business associates who echoed that the bar was no more historically significant than others from the same era.
Thomas Yargo, executor of the estate and longtime friend of Thinnes, told the commission that preserving the bar would go against the late owner’s wishes, stating, “There was nothing specifically significant, with all due respect, about the man or the site.”
Planning Priorities vs. Queer Preservation
Commissioners acknowledged the building’s symbolism. Chair LaShawn Burton-Faulk called it a “wounded survivor” and Commissioner Philip Wu — who identifies as part of the queer community — referred to it as “a reminder of resilience.” But both ultimately sided with the argument that honoring Thinnes’ supposed wishes and avoiding urban blight outweighed preserving the structure.
Preservation architect Gerald Morosco called the building a “ubiquitous” early 20th-century commercial space and claimed that historic designation would conflict with the city’s housing and transit-oriented development goals.
Yet, community advocates and preservationists maintain that the very act of erasing places like Donny’s Place reinforces the longstanding invisibility of queer people in urban planning and public history.
“This designation would absolutely align with the city’s larger plans of preserving community character and valuing community ownership,” said Lawrenceville resident Penny Cuda, who voiced support during the meeting.
Local historian Dade Lemanski, one of several advocates backing the nomination, pointed out that while Pittsburgh once had numerous LGBTQ venues, most have since closed, been redeveloped, or forgotten. “Donny’s is still standing — even in its charred state — and that makes it rare,” Lemanski said.
A Tension That Runs Deeper Than One Building
This decision underscores a larger debate happening in cities across the country: Who decides what is worthy of preservation, and whose histories get remembered in public space? For Pittsburgh’s LGBTQ community, the loss of Donny’s Place would not only mark the physical disappearance of a landmark — it could also set a precedent that makes future queer landmarking efforts even more difficult.
City Council now holds the final say. Because the property owner opposes the nomination, at least six of the nine council members would need to vote in favor of designation for it to pass. A date for the vote has not yet been set, but a decision must be made within 120 days.
Whether or not Donny’s Place survives this political process, advocates say their fight has already ignited an important conversation — about what it means to protect queer history in a city still catching up to its responsibility to do so.
“It’s not just about a bar,” said Anderson. “It’s about making space for queer and trans people to be remembered — not erased.”
