Committee on Historic Designation — Apr 19, 2017

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 1 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 19 APRIL 2017, 9:30 A.M. 1515 ARCH STREET, ROOM 18-029 EMILY COOPERMAN, PH.D., CHAIR PRESENT Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., chair Jeffrey Cohen, Ph.D. Janet Klein Bruce Laverty Douglas Mooney, M.A. R. David Schaaf Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Kim Broadbent, Historic Preservation Planner II Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner I ALSO PRESENT Jerald Goodman, Esq., Drinker Biddle Reuben Asia, Esq., Drinker Biddle Libby Lescalleet, Boys & Girls Club of Philadelphia Ariel Goldring, Boys & Girls Club of Philadelphia George Thomas, Civic Visions Lisabeth Marziello, Boys & Girls Club of Philadelphia David Woolf, Boys & Girls Club of Philadelphia Matt Heckendorn, HSA Lucia Esther, West Powelton/Saunders Park RCO Brett Feldman, Klehr Harrison Nathan Farris, Ballard Spahr Bryant Snyder, Heckendorn Shiles Architects J.M. Duffin Sue Patterson, Penn Knox Clifton Hayman, Penn Knox Oscar Beisert Connie Winters Charlette Caldwell, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Chris Strom, GSCM Carl Primavera, Esq., Klehr Harrison Sam Corey Harrison Rutherford (H.R.) Haas George Poulin, University City Historical Society Amy Lambert, University City Historical Society J.F. McCarthy, BHN Richard Castor Aaron Wunsch, University of Pennsylvania Kathy Dowdell COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 2 CALL TO ORDER Ms. Cooperman called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Ms. Klein and Messrs. Cohen, Laverty, Schaaf and Mooney joined her. ADDRESS: 100 S INDEPENDENCE W ML Name of Resource: Rohm & Haas Proposed Action: Designation of property, interior, and objects Property Owner: KPG-IMW Owner, LLC Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nominations demonstrate that the building, public interior, and chandeliers at 100 S. Independence West Mall satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J. OVERVIEW: These nominations propose to designate the building, public interior, and chandeliers at 100 S. Independence West Mall as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nominations collectively argue that the building, interior and chandeliers are significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, F, G, H and J. The building nomination contends that it is one of Philadelphia’s most significant mid-twentieth century buildings, satisfying Criteria A and J,

Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nominations collectively argue that the building, interior and chandeliers are significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, F, G, H and J. The building nomination contends that it is one of Philadelphia’s most significant mid-twentieth century buildings, satisfying Criteria A and J, for its association with the Rohm & Haas Company, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority and the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, who were heavily involved in its development. The nomination further argues that the building’s high- profile location next to Independence Mall, and the influence that the setting had on its design, satisfy Criteria G and H. Finally, the building nomination contends that the involvement of architect Pietro Belluschi satisfies Criterion E, while the building’s Modernist characteristics and innovative incorporation of modern materials satisfies Criteria C, D, and F. The interior nomination proposes to designate the public interior portions of the north pavilion ground floor lobby and south pavilion commercial space. The nomination contends that the public interior portions of the ground floor are one of Philadelphia’s most significant Modernist interior spaces, satisfying Criteria C and D, and are tied to influential modern designers Pietro Belluschi and György Kepes, satisfying Criterion E. The nomination further argues that the incorporation of Plexiglas into the design of the building, symbolizing the importance of that material to the success of the Rohm & Haas Company, satisfies Criterion A. The object nomination covers the three Plexiglas chandeliers that are located along the west perimeter of the north pavilion in an area of the building designed and used for non-public functions. The remainder of the chandeliers is included in the public interior nomination. The object nomination contends that the chandeliers are significant under Criterion A, for the incorporation of Plexiglas into the design of the building, symbolizing the importance of that material to the success of the Rohm & Haas Company, and under Criterion E, for their association with influential modern designers Pietro Belluschi and György Kepes. DISCUSSION: Ms. Cooperman recused from the review. Mr. Laverty temporarily chaired the meeting. Ms. Broadbent presented the continuance requests for 100 S. Independence West Mall to the Committee on Historic Designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 13 September 2017 meeting. COMMITTEE

100 S. Independence West Mall to the Committee on Historic Designation. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 13 September 2017 meeting. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 3 Ms. Cooperman returned to chair the meeting. She suggested that the Committee consider the remainder of the continuance requests simultaneously. Her fellow Committee members agreed. ADDRESS: 1642 FITZWATER ST Name of Resource: Tabor Chapel Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Angelo Charles Peruto III Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1642 Fitzwater Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. The staff contends that the nomination does not make a cogent argument for the satisfaction of Criteria C and D. Additionally, the staff notes that the correct address for the church building is 1642 Fitzwater Street, rather than the 1640 Fitzwater Street address that is found on the nomination form and throughout the body of the nomination. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1642 Fitzwater Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that property is significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and J. The nomination contends that the church is significant under Criteria A and J for its association with the African-American church and community in Philadelphia, and as a representation of the physical development of the larger Presbyterian Church through the establishment of mission chapels or congregations by the Philadelphia Sabbath-School Association. The nomination further argues that the Samuel Sloan-designed church is significant as an early example of his commissions, satisfying Criterion E, but little information is provided as to how the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, mentioned in the nomination as Italianate or Italian Romanesque, and how the building reflects the environment in an era characterized by said distinctive architectural style. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 1600-06, 1608-10 E BERKS ST Name of Resource: Objects in St.

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 1600-06, 1608-10 E BERKS ST Name of Resource: Objects in St. Laurentius Church Proposed Action: Designation of Objects Property Owner: Archdiocese of Philadelphia Nominator: John Wisniewski, Friends of St. Laurentius Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the three reredos and 16 paintings satisfy Criteria for Designation D, E, and J. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate 19 objects in the interior of St. Laurentius Church at 1600-06 and 1608-10 E Berks Street and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the property is already listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the three reredos/altarpieces and 16 paintings satisfy Criteria for Designation D, E, and J. The nomination argues that the objects reflect the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 4 heritage of the Polish immigrants, who settled in Fishtown and founded the church. The three reredos, the nomination asserts, were imported from Munich, Germany and are original to the construction of the building in 1890, and are significant as representations of the Gothic Revival style, as is the exterior of the building. The nomination further contends that the 16 oil-on- canvas paintings, added in 1912, are significant as works of artist Lorenzo Scattaglia and for their depictions of many scenes unique to Polish Catholicism. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 1401 S WATER ST Name of Resource: Engine 46 Firehouse Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Cedar-Riverview LP Nominator: Benjamin Leech, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1401 S. Water Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and H. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1401 S. Water Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the former fire station is significant under

1401 S. Water Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and H. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1401 S. Water Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the former fire station is significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and H. The nomination contends that the building represents a period in which the City of Philadelphia invested heavily in the expansion of municipal services and in the architectural character of its facilities, satisfying Criterion A. The nomination argues that the Flemish Revival style reflects the environment of the late nineteenth century, satisfying Criteria C and D, and is an early work of John T. Windrim, satisfying Criterion E. Lastly, the nomination contends that the former fire station represents an established and familiar visual feature of the Pennsport neighborhood, satisfying Criterion H. A small portion of a circa 1999 addition stands on the building’s historic and current legal parcel, and is considered non-contributing for the purposes of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5 ADDRESS: 5356 CHEW AVE Name of Resource: Jonathan Graham House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Sisters of the Good Shepherd Nominator: The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the main building at 5356 Chew Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D, but that the outbuildings should be considered non-contributing for the purposes of the designation, as they do not satisfy the Criteria cited in the nomination. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 5356 Chew Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the building is significant under Criteria for Designation C and D, as an example of the Second Empire style of architecture at a time when the style was commonly employed on residential, commercial, and civic buildings. The nomination discusses three outbuildings for which it assigns neither a contributing nor non-contributing status. These outbuildings should either clearly be included as contributing to the designation, or deemed to

Second Empire style of architecture at a time when the style was commonly employed on residential, commercial, and civic buildings. The nomination discusses three outbuildings for which it assigns neither a contributing nor non-contributing status. These outbuildings should either clearly be included as contributing to the designation, or deemed to be non-contributing. Outbuilding 1 appears to have been constructed between 1910 and 1926. Outbuilding 2’s main block appears to also have been constructed between 1910 and 1926, although a small portion may remain from an earlier outbuilding. The smaller addition to this outbuilding was constructed in 1995. Outbuilding 3 was constructed in 1947. None of the outbuildings exemplify the Second Empire style for which the nomination’s argument is based. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 18 AND 20 E JOHNSON ST Name of Resource: Samuel Harting House, Office, and Stable Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Igor and Nadeshda Jablokov Nominator: The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 20 E. Johnson Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and D. The staff contends that the property at 18 E. Johnson Street does not hold sufficient significance to warrant individual listing on the Philadelphia Register under any Criteria. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 18 and 20 Johnson Street as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the Samuel Harting House, Office, and Stable are significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. The nomination contends that the properties hold significance to the development and heritage of Germantown and together comprised one of several properties purchased by developer Thomas Reilly following the subdivision of the Chew estate. The nomination argues that the structure at 20 E. Johnson Street represents the bracketed mode of the Gothic Revival style, and that all three buildings represent the house, office, and stable typology historically prevalent in the city. The nomination further assigns significance to the properties’ former owner Samuel Harting, a prominent local contractor and builder who lived in the Gothic Revival structure and operated his business out of the adjacent office. COMMITTEE ON

three buildings represent the house, office, and stable typology historically prevalent in the city. The nomination further assigns significance to the properties’ former owner Samuel Harting, a prominent local contractor and builder who lived in the Gothic Revival structure and operated his business out of the adjacent office. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 6369 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: “Genteel Two-Story Stone Dwelling” Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: TVC PA 6365 Germantown Avenue LLC Nominator: The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 6369 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J, but that the property does not satisfy Criterion G. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 6365-67 Germantown Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the building is significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, G, and J. The nomination contends that the property holds significance to the development and heritage of Germantown and is one of several properties purchased by developer Thomas Reilly following the subdivision of the Chew estate. The nomination further argues that the building, while potentially constructed decades earlier, currently reflects the bracketed mode of the Italianate style popularized in the mid-nineteenth-century and applied extensively to other Germantown Avenue properties. The nomination also suggests that, owing to its inclusion in the National Register’s Colonial Germantown Historic District, the property is part of and related to a distinctive area. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 6365-67 GERMANTOWN AVE Name of Resource: Richard and Sophia Thewlis Bew Store and Residence Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: TVC PA 6365 Germantown Avenue LLC Nominator: The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 6365-67 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J, but

and Residence Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: TVC PA 6365 Germantown Avenue LLC Nominator: The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 6365-67 Germantown Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J, but that the property does not satisfy Criterion G. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 6365-67 Germantown Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the Richard and Sophia Thewlis Bew Store and Mill is significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, G, and J. The nomination contends that the property represents the less common industrial typology that included domestic, commercial, and residential buildings located on a single parcel and that the property contributed to Germantown’s industrial landscape through the manufacturing of rag carpets. The nomination further argues that the store and residence exemplify the Queen Anne style, while the rear mill building serves as an COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 7 example of Second Empire architecture. The nomination also suggests that, owing to its inclusion in the National Register’s Colonial Germantown Historic District, the property is part of and related to a distinctive area. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 23 W PENN ST Name of Resource: Germantown Boys’ Club Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Germantown Boys’ Club Nominator: Oscar Beisert, Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination fails to demonstrate that the property at 23 W. Penn Street satisfies any of the Criteria for Designation. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 23 W. Penn Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that Germantown Boys’ Club is significant under Criteria for Designation A, D, E, and J. The nomination contends that the building is significant under Criteria A and J for its association with the Boys’ Parlors Association, which became the Germantown Boys’ Club, and which provided a community center to serve the growing working-class community of Germantown. While the nomination recounts the founding of the club

The nomination contends that the building is significant under Criteria A and J for its association with the Boys’ Parlors Association, which became the Germantown Boys’ Club, and which provided a community center to serve the growing working-class community of Germantown. While the nomination recounts the founding of the club and its early years, it never attempts to explicitly demonstrate how the club has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, commonwealth, or nation or how it exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community. The argument for the satisfaction of Criteria A and J may be implicit in the recitation of the early history of the club, but it is never explicit. The nomination further argues that the building is significant under Criterion D, as an example of the Colonial Revival style as articulated in institutional buildings of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The nomination’s discussion of the Colonial Revival style is extremely superficial and imprecise. For example, it claims that the “Colonial Revival style was always popular in Philadelphia,” which is patently untrue. It cites no sources to justify its claims about the Colonial Revival, despite an abundance of scholarly writing on the subject. Lastly, the nomination claims that the building satisfies Criterion E, owing to its designer, architect Mantle Fielding, Jr. However, the nomination fails to demonstrate how Fielding’s work as an architect significantly influenced the development of the city, commonwealth, or nation, as required by the Criterion. Moreover, the nomination cites no sources to justify its claims about Fielding. It claims that Fielding “was one of the great architects of Germantown and Philadelphia, having designed many buildings—commercial, institution, and residential,” but offers no proof for the assertion. DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Architectural historian Oscar Beisert and Penn Knox Neighborhood Association Chairwoman Sue Patterson represented the nomination. Attorney Jerald Goodman represented the property owner. Ms. Patterson stated that the Penn Knox Neighborhood Association values the historic assets in the neighborhood, and understands that preservation and development can coexist without sacrificing one for the other. She stated that the Association looks forward to working with the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 property owner on the issues of concern regarding the property, and believes the organization’s goals can be

preservation and development can coexist without sacrificing one for the other. She stated that the Association looks forward to working with the COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 property owner on the issues of concern regarding the property, and believes the organization’s goals can be accomplished without the needless demolition that is proposed for the building. Mr. Goodman introduced his team, which included Dr. George Thomas, architectural historian, and Matthew Heckendorn from Heckendorn Shiles Architects. Ms. Cooperman requested that discussion related to the condition of the building be reserved for the Commission meeting. Mr. Goodman responded that it is relevant because the building cannot be repurposed. Ms. Cooperman responded that the technical merits of the nomination are the focus of this discussion. Mr. Goodman responded that he understood. He asked that the Committee consider the totality of the history of the site, and not just the building itself. The history of the site is core to the purpose of this discussion, which is continuing to preserve the use of this property. For more than 100 years, this property has been dedicated to serving the youth of the neighborhood. The property was bought for that purpose, and the building was designed for that purpose. It has continued to do that over the last 130 years. As a community service facility, it has had to evolve to meet the changing needs of the community it serves. As a result, there have been a number of developments that have taken place at the property. The original building dates to the 1890s. It was designed for the purpose of being a boys’ club, and was restricted to white boys at that time. It was designed with nineteenth-century notions of recreation and child development. Shortly after it was built, the club outgrew the facility, and in 1910, there was an addition made to the building, which significantly altered the original façade. In 1911, a pool building was added to the rear. This property was never intended to be a monument. It was intended as a living, breathing, evolving facility to serve neighborhood children. Unfortunately, it was recognized that the facility was already obsolete for its purpose by the 1930s. As a result of the Great Depression, World War II, and changing demographics, the club never really had the resources to address the inadequacies of the building. It is an institution

serve neighborhood children. Unfortunately, it was recognized that the facility was already obsolete for its purpose by the 1930s. As a result of the Great Depression, World War II, and changing demographics, the club never really had the resources to address the inadequacies of the building. It is an institution that has struggled financially for decades. As a result, the reality is the facility is completely obsolete, and in deplorable condition. The use of this property has needed to evolve over time to serve the community. It has evolved in many ways, by changing membership to allow girls to be members, children of many races and backgrounds, and it has also evolved to try to address the needs of children today, by offering services that are consistent with modern standards. The nomination is asking you to preserve this structure as an empty shell. The ironic thing about that is, if the Commission chooses to designate, it will in effect end the historic use of the property. The property will not be able to continue to be used for the purpose for which the property has been used for the last 100 years. Mr. Thomas commented that the staff overview did a good job of analyzing the weaknesses of the nomination. He explained that the nomination describes the brickwork as running bond, which it is not, and which is the type of error that made the nomination difficult to read. He stated that the photographs are incorrectly labeled in terms of direction. The condition of the building is marked “good” on the nomination form, but it is not in good condition. The rear wing is collapsing. The basement recreation rooms are damp. Mr. Cohen noted that the condition is marked “fair” on the nomination form. Mr. Thomas responded that Mr. Cohen is correct, but opined that it should be classified as “poor.” The statement of significance ends in 1909, which means that the entire history of the club has largely been omitted. The narrative is pretty clear that this club has a significant history in Germantown, but also a history that raises big cultural issues in Germantown itself. Mr. Thomas referenced the New York Times obituary for Bill Coleman, the African-American civil rights attorney and presidential cabinet member, and what Mr. Thomas claimed were the racist issues that made Germantown one of the preeminent Jim Crow sites in Philadelphia. Mr. Thomas

raises big cultural issues in Germantown itself. Mr. Thomas referenced the New York Times obituary for Bill Coleman, the African-American civil rights attorney and presidential cabinet member, and what Mr. Thomas claimed were the racist issues that made Germantown one of the preeminent Jim Crow sites in Philadelphia. Mr. Thomas asserted that there are major studies of Germantown that also are not included in the nomination. All of this is part of the bigger narrative that needs to be understood. The most interesting example and connection to Coleman is that his father COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 ran the Wissahickon Boys’ Club. Mr. Thomas contended that he was part of the expression of separate but unequal character that pervaded much of the Germantown institutions. This raises the core question that was left out of the nomination, according to Mr. Thomas. The other piece of the narrative is there is a big set of documentary files on this building that are available and they make it clear that in the 1930s, the organization could not raise money to maintain the building, and in the 1980s there was a major study to try to figure out what the club needed. The study found that the building itself was profoundly inadequate and it needed a new gym, new pool, and new playing fields. All of those things did not address the core issue, which is that the building did not meet code, the stair hall did not meet fire ratings, and the rear was collapsing. Mr. Thomas explained that the study was done in the 1980s. Ms. Cooperman commented that this line of argument is not germane to the deliberations of the Committee on Historic Designation. Mr. Thomas responded that it is germane, because it was done in the 1980s, before the Americans with Disabilities Act was written. He summarized that the building and architect of the Boys’ Club are of modest interest. More crucially, the building and the nomination are caught in a battle. It is part of the culture that created two Germantowns, and that is the significant issue. Mr. Thomas stated that the nomination does not succeed, and more critically, the building is being nominated for purposes which are inappropriate. Ms. Cooperman asked for public comment. Aaron Wunsch commented that he previously sent a letter of support for the nomination, which was received by

is the significant issue. Mr. Thomas stated that the nomination does not succeed, and more critically, the building is being nominated for purposes which are inappropriate. Ms. Cooperman asked for public comment. Aaron Wunsch commented that he previously sent a letter of support for the nomination, which was received by the members of the Committee. He commented that Mantle Fielding may not be one of the “heaviest hitters” of Philadelphia architecture, but he is actually quite important on a number of criteria, and one should not substitute one’s own personal opinion on this, especially shy of serious research, and dismiss the architect out of hand. He commented that the elephant in the room is that, rather than doing their homework on this or engaging with the neighbors, the people resisting the nomination have engaged in something that is much easier, which is called “race-baiting.” Paul Steinke, the executive director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, commented that it is safe to say that the existing building could be repurposed. He referred to the building as a landmark in Germantown, and commented that to lose it would be a major change for one of the most historic neighborhoods in the city. He commented that the nomination may be flawed, but that Mr. Thomas’s references to hidden history that may not be in the nomination suggests that there is more to the story than the nomination outlines. He suggested that the building not be thrown away because the nomination is flawed, but rather that it is recognized that there may be important history here, and the nominators should be given an opportunity to strengthen the nomination. Connie Winters, an owner of historic Germantown properties, commented that she has three properties in the Penn-Knox neighborhood and lives in west central Germantown. She commented that what is being overlooked is the context of the building in a neighborhood in Germantown that is very integrated, very welcoming, and pays its taxes. She stated that 53% of the properties in Germantown are tax-exempt. The Penn-Knox neighborhood is a very middle- class, tax-paying neighborhood. The demolition of the building would be disastrous for Penn Street. There are about 17 houses that are of historic importance on the south side of Penn Street. This lot is the majority of the north side of Penn Street. There has never been a traffic problem. A development of 60,000 square

of the building would be disastrous for Penn Street. There are about 17 houses that are of historic importance on the south side of Penn Street. This lot is the majority of the north side of Penn Street. There has never been a traffic problem. A development of 60,000 square feet will have a disastrous affect on the neighborhood. Ms. Cooperman commented that concerns like traffic that do not necessarily pertain to the nomination itself can be raised at the Commission meeting. Mr. Heckendorn, the property owner’s architect, briefly commented about the potential adaptive reuse of the building. He stated that the structure includes many of the typical challenges COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 associated with an older structure, including code compliance, accessibility, and life safety. The overriding issue though is accommodation of modern programming. He agreed that any building with appropriate funds could be rehabilitated, but the primary challenge with this site is the need to accommodate modern programming. He added that he will speak in more detail about the subject at the Commission meeting. Mr. Beisert commented that the nomination discusses how this building represents the development of Germantown as it grew into a larger community and more of its population needed the types of services offered by the Boys’ Club. The nomination includes a discussion of the national development of boys’ clubs in addition to a discussion of this club specifically. There is a discussion of the activities the club engaged in early on. He stated that he was not sure how the staff arrived at the conclusion that this narrative would not satisfy at least Criterion J, noting that nominations with far less content were approved in recent years. He suggested that the nomination is being over-scrutinized owing to the nature of the case. He commented that there is no question that this is a distinguishing example of a Colonial Revival building. He concurred that the discussion of Mantle Fielding could be expanded, but disagreed with Mr. Thomas’s assertion that Fielding was not an important architect. Fielding designed a number of institutional buildings and houses in Germantown. He asked that the Committee look past the criticisms and look at the nomination and all of the information it does provide, which is essentially the most important factor of the building in that it represents how the club formed in Germantown to

of institutional buildings and houses in Germantown. He asked that the Committee look past the criticisms and look at the nomination and all of the information it does provide, which is essentially the most important factor of the building in that it represents how the club formed in Germantown to serve its community. Mr. Cohen suggested that the Committee discuss the Criteria and whether the Committee believes the building merits designation on the basis of the Criteria, rather than go point by point through the different arguments that have been put on the table during this discussion. Regarding Criterion A, Mr. Cohen opined that the case has not been made very effectively, or that the argument is there. However, he opined that it is very strong on Criterion D, that the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style. He commented that it is an excellent example of the Colonial Revival. Regarding Criterion E, that it is the work of a significant designer, Mr. Cohen argued that Fielding is extremely significant at the local level. Ms. Cooperman agreed, commenting that, if one were to erase all of Fielding’s buildings from the northwest section of the City, one would understand his impact on that portion of the city. Mr. Cohen commented that he recently learned that Fielding trained with prominent architect George T. Pearson. He opined that the nomination is strong as it relates to Criteria D and E. He asked that Criterion H be added, as the building is a strong visual feature of the neighborhood. He also supported Criterion J, stating that, putting aside many of the arguments heard today, the building merits designation on these Criteria. Ms. Klein agreed with Mr. Cohen’s comments, but suggested that Criterion A be included, owing to significance associated with the development and heritage and cultural characteristics. She commented that history of the use is part of the definition of the way the building was designed, to be available to young men in the community for their benefit. Mr. Cohen asked if she felt that the significance was at the level of the city, commonwealth, or nation. Ms. Klein responded that it is at the city-level. Ms. Cooperman commented that the case for Criterion A was not made in the nomination. She explained that the nomination is missing the sense of this sort of organization city-wide. That context would need to be understood.

city, commonwealth, or nation. Ms. Klein responded that it is at the city-level. Ms. Cooperman commented that the case for Criterion A was not made in the nomination. She explained that the nomination is missing the sense of this sort of organization city-wide. That context would need to be understood. The nomination alludes to it by dating other clubs, but without understanding what relative significance this club has compared to the others, the reader cannot evaluate whether it does have significance that would satisfy Criterion A. Mr. Beisert responded that he agrees that he did not tell the entire history of the Boys’ Club. Ms. Cooperman responded that it is not so much the history as it is the understanding of where it lies within its context, and the relative significance of one club versus another. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 11 Mr. Cohen commented that there were many arguments put forth at this meeting that he is tempted to rebut in detail. Ms. Cooperman suggested that he only discuss points that are useful for the Commission to know. Mr. Cohen commented that Dr. Thomas’s report speaks of the twentieth-century history of the place. He stated that even the negative history of this place is part of the history of Germantown and enriches our understanding of it. He commented that he would appreciate that the negative history be incorporated into the nomination, as something that supports the case for significance. He agreed that parts of the nomination need fixing, and opined that there needs to be a mechanism for doing so while the building is protected, but based on the strengths of the nomination, he recommended that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, H, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 23 W. Penn Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D, E, H, and J. ADDRESS: 7345 AND 7347 OXFORD AVE Name of Resource: Horace Castor House Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Anthony Bradley Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 7345 and 7347 Oxford Avenue satisfy Criteria for Designation A, D and E. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 7345 and 7347 as historic and list them

staff Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 7345 and 7347 Oxford Avenue satisfy Criteria for Designation A, D and E. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 7345 and 7347 as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the properties are significant under Criteria for Designation A, D, and E. The nomination contends that the properties represent the Queen Anne, Shingle, and Colonial Revival styles, as conceptualized by owner and architect Horace Castor. The nomination suggests that Castor, who designed the twin structure as a young architect, received significant assistance from his father-in-law, Ferdinand Hormann, a successful Philadelphia businessman who founded the Jefferson Flint Glass Works in Frankford. The nomination further contends that Castor, a founding partner of the prolific Philadelphia firm Stearns & Castor, contributed innumerable institutional, industrial, and residential buildings to Philadelphia’s built environment and that the Oxford Avenue house represents one of his earliest designs. DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. No one represented the properties. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment. Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia commended the staff, stating that the nomination was one of the best he has read in quite some time. He added that the nomination was well done, including the illustrations and photography of both the homes and of the projects that Mr. Castor and his partner, Mr. Stearns, designed. He further commented on the illustration of the factory that Castor’s father-in-law owned. Mr. Steinke offered a personal account of growing up near the properties and going to elementary school around the corner. He added that he has been familiar with the properties his entire life and had always been curious about them. He remarked that he is glad to see the buildings getting recognition, and advocated that they satisfy Criterion H in addition to the other criteria. He again congratulated the staff on the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 Richard Castor, the great-grandson of architect Horace Castor, stated that he whole-heartedly supports the nomination. He noted that the buildings are well-preserved and intact structures that document the time of Philadelphia’s industrial boom around the turn of the century. The properties, he continued, contain an unlikely connection to the

12 Richard Castor, the great-grandson of architect Horace Castor, stated that he whole-heartedly supports the nomination. He noted that the buildings are well-preserved and intact structures that document the time of Philadelphia’s industrial boom around the turn of the century. The properties, he continued, contain an unlikely connection to the glass-making industry through Ferdinand Hormann, and that connection is manifested in the development of the northeast. He commended the owner for working hard to keep the buildings in good repair. Mr. Castor noted that little has been done to change the buildings inside or out and that they stand very much as a time capsule in that regard. In the immediate vicinity, he added, there are few structures like the properties, which makes them stand out as a landmark along that stretch of Oxford Avenue. Mr. Laverty thanked Mr. Castor for his comments and for keeping a personal family archive that included the images and documents found throughout the nomination. Mr. Castor replied that the record exists largely because his great-grandfather never threw anything away. Ms. Cooperman suggested that Mr. Castor consider donating those documents to the Athenaeum of Philadelphia, which would be an appropriate repository for those materials, should he wish to do so. Mr. Castor concurred, stating that he hopes that the documents would add to the architectural record. Mr. Farnham stated that, because the owner is not present, he wanted the Committee and public to know that the staff has been in contact with the owner. Mr. Farnham noted that the property owner is apparently in poor health, which may explain his absense. For the record, he added, the owner is opposed to the designation of the properties. Mr. Laverty commented that it is fortunate that a single owner owns both sides of the twin. He then inquired about the garage pictured on page 7 and asked whether it is original to the property and if it is part of the nomination. Ms. Keller answered that, according to deed research, the parcel on which the garage sits was purchased by Horace Castor in 1901, a few years after the house was constructed. She remarked that she would assume Castor designed the garage, and she further elaborated that the garage currently shares a tax parcel with 7347 Oxford Avenue and is part of the site proposed for designation in the nomination. Mr. Cohen asked about the basis for

after the house was constructed. She remarked that she would assume Castor designed the garage, and she further elaborated that the garage currently shares a tax parcel with 7347 Oxford Avenue and is part of the site proposed for designation in the nomination. Mr. Cohen asked about the basis for including Criterion A. Ms. Keller responded that the criterion pertained to the signifance of Ferdinand Hormann, who owned the Jefferson Flint Glass Works and who was involved in the development of the area as a member of the board of directors for the Blake Mutual Land Improvement Company, and Horace Castor, though his significance is further reflected in Criterion E. Mr. Mooney noted that on page 3, the nomination mentions a small, thriving eighteenth-century village called Five Points. He asked whether anything is known about the village and if there is any potential for the properties to overlap with that early village. Ms. Keller responded that it was unlikely that there was overlap. She stated that she believed most of the buildings constructed as part of Five Points Village were located at the Five Points intersection and that the nominated properties stand a little north of the intersection. Mr. Laverty stated that, like Mr. Steinke, he has been familiar with the bulidings for a long time, and they are located along a major street. Unfortunately, he continued, some of the more gentile structures around them have disappeared. He commented that he had no idea the buildings were so important and pointed out the architectural refinement if the rear of the buildings. He remarked that he had seen the front for years and had no idea that the rears consisted of beautiful cascading elevations in the Queen Anne style. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 7345 and 7347 Oxford Avenue satisfy Criteria for designation A, D, and E. ADDRESS: 3500-10 LANCASTER AVE Name of Resource: West Philadelphia Friends Meeting House and School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Nominator: George Poulin and Amy Lambert, University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3500-10 Lancaster Ave satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J, but not Criterion H; the

Property Owner: Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Nominator: George Poulin and Amy Lambert, University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3500-10 Lancaster Ave satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J, but not Criterion H; the property is not situated at the terminus of Lancaster Avenue, as asserted, nor does it have any singular physical characteristic that represents an established and familiar visual feature in the neighborhood. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 3500-10 Lancaster Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property, constructed in 1901 for the Hicksite West Philadelphia Meeting, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, H, and J. The nomination argues that the property is a local landmark prominently sited at the eastern terminus of Lancaster Avenue. It further contends that the property is significant as a physical reminder of the religious and cultural importance and influence of the Quakers in the region during the nineteenth century, and specifically in the growing suburb of West Philadelphia. The nomination also argues that the property is significant as an expression of both Beaux-Arts and Colonial Revival architecture. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Nominators George Poulin and Amy Lambert represented the nomination on behalf of the University City Historical Society. No one represented the property owner. Mr. Poulin explained that he and Ms. Lambert had the opportunity to meet with the current tenant/equitable owner of the property to address its concerns about the designation of the property. He noted that he hoped their conversations had allayed the organization’s fears, but that he cannot speak for the organization itself. Mr. Poulin explained that he believes that the structure is very significant, and that it would be threatened if not protected because there is much development nearby. He noted that immediately to the east of the property is a 28-story building constructed two years ago. He noted that the zoning of the parcel would support the demolition of the structure if it were to change hands. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment, of which there was none. Mr. Cohen opined that the nomination made a strong case for Criterion C. He noted that he disagreed with the staff recommendation that the property did not satisfy Criterion H.

structure if it were to change hands. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment, of which there was none. Mr. Cohen opined that the nomination made a strong case for Criterion C. He noted that he disagreed with the staff recommendation that the property did not satisfy Criterion H. He noted that, although it is not the apex of Lancaster Avenue, it is nevertheless a landmark building. He opined that the nomination’s greatest strength is in Criterion J. He noted that he did not quite know what the argument for Criterion A would be in terms of the property’s significance to the City, Commonwealth or Nation. Ms. Lambert responded that the argument for Criterion A was the influence of the Quakers. She noted that this was one of two West Philadelphia Quaker COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 Meetinghouses; this one was for the Hicksite Quakers, and the other was for the Orthodox Quakers. Ms. Cooperman asked if this was the first Hicksite Meeting in West Philadelphia. Ms. Lambert responded that she believes that it was the first Hicksite Meeting, although the building was not the first actual meetinghouse. Mr. Cohen acquiesced to the significance of Criterion A. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3500-10 Lancaster Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, H, and J. ADDRESS: 1006-08 W LEHIGH AVE Name of Resource: Excelsior Trust Company Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 1006-16 W Lehigh Avenue LLC Nominator: Harrison Rutherford Haas Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1006-08 W Lehigh Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to the designate the property at 1006-08 W. Lehigh Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Excelsior Trust Company building, constructed in 1925, satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination argues that the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of Beaux Arts Classicism, a style often used for grand public buildings. Under Criterion E, the nomination asserts that the building is significant as a surviving example of the commercial work of Horace Trumbauer, one of the city’s best known and well regarded architects. Under Criterion

building embodies distinguishing characteristics of Beaux Arts Classicism, a style often used for grand public buildings. Under Criterion E, the nomination asserts that the building is significant as a surviving example of the commercial work of Horace Trumbauer, one of the city’s best known and well regarded architects. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the bank’s selection of Trumbauer to design an elegant, monumental building signaled a commitment to Lehigh Avenue as a major commercial thoroughfare in the rapidly developing North Philadelphia neighborhood. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Nominator H.R. Haas represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Ms. DiPasquale noted that the property owner had not contacted the staff. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment. Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance commended Mr. Haas on his first nomination, opining that he did an excellent job. Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance commented that his grandfather was the Vice President of this bank until the Great Depression, when, as the nomination makes clear, many banks had trouble. His grandfather lost his job and lost their home. Mr. Steinke joked that that is why he is “so tight with a buck.” He thanked Mr. Haas for bringing his grandfather’s former employer to the fore. Ms. Cooperman commended the quality of the nomination. She noted that the phrase “Beaux Arts style” was balanced by the explanation of the “Beaux Arts method.” Mr. Cohen noted that there were a few very minor typographical errors. Mr. Laverty opined that it was a strong nomination, and pointed out one minor error. On page 17, he commented, the nomination mentioned the Philadelphia “branch” of the AIA, but it should be “chapter.” In regard to a sentence at the beginning of the paragraph on page 19, Mr. Laverty suggested that by 1925-6, this was already a thriving and prosperous neighborhood, but it was not “fashionable,” as the nomination claimed. It was a working-class neighborhood that was thriving. Mr. Laverty opined that the building of this bank was not an indication of a desire to build a high-end building to COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 15 mark a high-end fashionable neighborhood; rather, the idea was to build a high-end quality building here because working-class neighborhoods deserve such buildings. Ms. Cooperman agreed, noting that, not only that, but to present a positive

a high-end building to COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 15 mark a high-end fashionable neighborhood; rather, the idea was to build a high-end quality building here because working-class neighborhoods deserve such buildings. Ms. Cooperman agreed, noting that, not only that, but to present a positive image of the bank itself, to show that it is as good as the Philadelphia Savings Fund Society. Mr. Laverty noted that the neighborhood around Germantown and Lehigh Avenues has parallels all around the city, such as Kensington and Allegheny, 52nd and Chestnut. He explained that those were prosperous working-class neighborhoods, but very few of the people who were frequenting these banks lived in the mansions on Broad Street. By that time, the wealthy of North Broad had already moved to Elkins Park. The fashion of the North Broad Street area was very short-lived and narrow in its geography, Mr. Laverty asserted. Mr. Haas agreed, but opined that the quality and scale of the buildings along this corridor are both larger and richer than at the other intersections Mr. Laverty referenced. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the property at 1006-08 W Lehigh Avenue satisfied Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J. ADDRESS: 862-72 N 41ST ST Name of Resource: Rorke Mansion Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Friends Rehabilitation Program, Inc. Nominator: Harrison R. Haas Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and H. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to the designate the property at 862-72 N. 41st Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property, constructed in 1899, is significant under Criteria for Designation A, E, and H. Under Criteria A and E, the nomination argues that the house is significant for its association with prominent contractor and Republican Party heavyweight Allen B. Rorke and his son Franklin M. Rorke, who constructed some of the city’s most important buildings in the late nineteenth century. The nomination further asserts that the corner property is significant under Criterion H as a neighborhood landmark. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Nominator Harrison Haas represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Ms. DiPasquale explained that the property owner had

century. The nomination further asserts that the corner property is significant under Criterion H as a neighborhood landmark. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Nominator Harrison Haas represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Ms. DiPasquale explained that the property owner had not contacted the staff. Ms. DiPasquale noted that there is a very large hole in the roof that is not visible from the street. Mr. Haas replied that, sadly, the holes in the roof were not visible when he took photographs for the nomination, and that it is sad that the owner who has owned the property for over a decade has not maintained the property. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment. Aaron Wunsch commented that condition is not the purview of the Committee. Kathy Dowdell, resident of West Philadelphia, attested to the fact that the building is a neighborhood landmark. She noted that she did work in the neighborhood 10 or 15 years ago, and it is a captivating building, especially when viewed in the context of the rest of the neighborhood. The large site with its stone wall, she opined, really gives one the feeling of what the area was like at one time. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 16 Mr. Laverty commended the nomination, which provided a background of the neighborhood, the importance of the builder/owner, and the path by which the family came to ruin. He applauded the explanation of the builder as so significant that his obituary was not just front-page news, but was above the fold. He noted that it is one of the minor details that often gets lost in nominations, but that hammers home the significance of one of the Criteria for Designation. Mr. Laverty provided one minor correction, noting that on page 14, Mr. Haas describes Belmont as a North Philadelphia neighborhood rather than a West Philadelphia neighborhood. Mr. Haas opined that it should have been “northwest.” Ms. Cooperman and Mr. Laverty corrected him, noting that it is still considered just West Philadelphia. Mr. Haas clarified that Mr. Laverty had referred to the “greatest builder” article as an “ad,” but in fact it was a profile that he did not pay for. Mr. Haas noted that the builder was likely friendly with the publisher. Mr. Cohen asked for some minor clarifications in the architectural

Haas clarified that Mr. Laverty had referred to the “greatest builder” article as an “ad,” but in fact it was a profile that he did not pay for. Mr. Haas noted that the builder was likely friendly with the publisher. Mr. Cohen asked for some minor clarifications in the architectural description, including the cardinal directions, and the use of the term “lintels” instead of “flat arch.” Mr. Cohen asked if Mr. Haas had any idea who the architect of the building was. Mr. Haas responded that he looked through thousands of unsorted building permits at the City Archives, and that he found the building permit for the construction of the property, but the architect line was left blank. Mr. Haas suspected that the builder designed the building himself or used a pattern book for its construction. Mr. Haas noted that Mr. Rorke had significant construction experience, but often used architects for his larger buildings, including his personal home on Rittenhouse Square. Mr. Cohen mused about Criterion E, noting that it does not explicitly say “builder.” Mr. Laverty and Ms. Cooperman suggested that “designer” could cover a broader range of professionals, including builders. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 862-72 N. 41st Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and H. ADDRESS: 600-08 N 40TH ST Name of Resource: West Philadelphia Title & Trust Company Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Sam Kim Chen and Melinda Chen Nominator: Philadelphia Historical Commission staff Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 600-08 N 40th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D, H, and J. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to the designate the property at 600-08 N. 40th Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation D, H, and J. Under Criterion J, the nomination contends that the West Philadelphia Title & Trust Company building, constructed in 1897, exemplifies the cultural, economic, social and historical development of West Philadelphia as it transitioned from an area of upper-class country retreat to a vibrant streetcar suburb over the course of the second half of the nineteenth century. The nomination argues that the grand, COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 17 eclectic design

historical development of West Philadelphia as it transitioned from an area of upper-class country retreat to a vibrant streetcar suburb over the course of the second half of the nineteenth century. The nomination argues that the grand, COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 17 eclectic design by local architect Walter Smedley satisfies Criterion D for embodying distinguishing characteristics of the Renaissance Revival and Beaux Arts styles. Under Criterion H, the nomination contends that the magnificent bank building is striking for its unique position which architecturally forms a prominent intersection that has hosted important community events, including Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Freedom Now” rally. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Owner Sam Chen represented the property. Mr. Chen stated that he does not understand what is going on, and asked what he should do. Ms. DiPasquale explained that what is happening is that the staff of the Historical Commission is proposing to designate his property as historic. She noted that the designation would not prevent him from using the building for whatever he would like to, or to continue using it as is. She explained that the Historical Commission would not proactively direct him to change the building; anything that is there can stay, but when the time comes to change or repair something on the exterior, he should consult with the Historical Commission to ensure that the historic character of the building is maintained. Mr. Chen noted that he has a roof leak right now. Ms. DiPasquale responded that, if he needs a building permit for roofing work, the Historical Commission’s staff can assist him. Mr. Chen asked how long that would take. Ms. DiPasquale responded that an approval can be granted very quickly. She noted that she would give Mr. Chen her contact information after the meeting and they could discuss the roofing application. Ms. Cooperman noted that the Historical Commission would encourage Mr. Chen to maintain his roof in good condition as a means of preserving his building. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment. Aaron Wunsch asked if the building is on the National Register. Ms. Cooperman responded that she does not believe it is. Mr. Wunsch noted that this is one of the happy cases where the material generated for this good local Register nomination could be re-formatted into a National Register nomination, which would

asked if the building is on the National Register. Ms. Cooperman responded that she does not believe it is. Mr. Wunsch noted that this is one of the happy cases where the material generated for this good local Register nomination could be re-formatted into a National Register nomination, which would then present the owner with the ability to take advantage of historic preservation tax credits. Mr. Wunsch explained that he is aware that the original interior of the building is pretty much gone, but the exterior of the building is extremely significant to the area, and would be a “shoe-in” for National Register listing. Ms. Cooperman agreed, noting that she would recommend the content be adapted under National Register Criteria A and C. Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance noted his organization’s support for the nomination, and commended the staff on an excellent nomination. He argued that the building may also satisfy Criterion A because in its section along Lancaster Avenue, it really is a landmark, and has significant interest, character, or value for a wide swath of West Philadelphia. Nevertheless, he agreed that it satisfied Criteria D, H, and J. Kathy Dowdell agreed with Mr. Steinke that the property is a neighborhood landmark, and commended the current owner, who took the giant billboard off the front of the building. She noted that the billboard had so obscured the building that when Robert Skaler wrote a book about West Philadelphia many years ago, he showed an old photograph of the building at a lecture and said “Sadly, this building is no longer there.” Several attendees at his presentation corrected him, noting that the building actually was there, but that people just could not see it. She also thanked the staff of the Historical Commission for surveying neighborhoods and identifying and recognizing some of the buildings that really are landmarks but have not yet been recognized. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 19 APRIL 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 18 Lucia Esther of the West Powelton/Saunders Park RCO stated her organization’s support for the nomination, and noted that the RCO would like to work with the owner. Ms. DiPasquale noted that the nomination was adapted from work done by her graduate school classmate, Matthew Wicklund. Mr. Cohen noted that the nomination was very well done, and pointed out a few “nit-picking” details. On page 11, he opined that “treasurer secretary” should be “treasury secretary.”

with the owner. Ms. DiPasquale noted that the nomination was adapted from work done by her graduate school classmate, Matthew Wicklund. Mr. Cohen noted that the nomination was very well done, and pointed out a few “nit-picking” details. On page 11, he opined that “treasurer secretary” should be “treasury secretary.” He also debated the use of the term horse-drawn “omnibus” as opposed to “trolley,” noting that an omnibus traveled without rails, while trolleys travel on rails. Mr. Cohen also commented that on page 7, he would not say that the windows are “concealed” by wrought-iron grilles, but perhaps that they are “protected.” Ms. DiPasquale responded that she could fix those minor errors. Ms. Cooperman mused that the plan of the building might be able to be described as a “bent-L” shape. Mr. Schaaf commented that the City Planning Commission showcased two neighborhoods about a decade ago, Francisville and Belmont. A nice history was written for both during the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. This building was a pivotal building in Belmont as a discussion for not only revivification of the neighborhood, but also the significance of Belmont and its urban form. Mr. Schaaf stated that his desire to underscore the fact that this property has been on the City’s radar for a long time. Mr. Cohen asked if that was a published report. Mr. Schaaf confirmed that it was. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 600-06 N 40th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation D, H, and J. Prior to adjournment, nominator Harrison Haas asked the Committee for some procedural clarification. He noted that the Committee had made suggestions of some modifications and edits to nominations, but that the Philadelphia Code is silent as to how those corrections should be made. He asked whether those corrections should be made prior to the Historical Commission’s review of the nomination. Ms. Cooperman responded that the Committee’s motions were simply to recommend designation to the Commission, so the Committee’s action is complete. She noted that the Committee would have proffered different motions had they expected to see changes. For instance, she noted, the Committee could recommend that a nomination be edited and remanded to the Committee for review. She noted that substantive changes between the Committee and Commission reviews would raise issues regarding owner notification. ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation

motions had they expected to see changes. For instance, she noted, the Committee could recommend that a nomination be edited and remanded to the Committee for review. She noted that substantive changes between the Committee and Commission reviews would raise issues regarding owner notification. ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 10:30 a.m.