Committee on Historic Designation — Aug 30, 2021

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 30 AUGUST 2021, 9:30 A.M. REMOTE MEETING ON ZOOM EMILY COOPERMAN, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:00:00 The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. The following Committee members joined her: Committee Member Present Absent Comment Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen, Ph.D. X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy, Ph.D. X * Owing to public health concerns surrounding the COVID-19 virus, all Committee members, staff, and public attendees participated in the meeting remotely via Zoom video and audio- conferencing software. The following staff members were present: Jon Farnham, Executive Director Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner III Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Shannon Garrison, Historic Preservation Planner I Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner II Allyson Mehley, Historic Preservation Planner II Leonard Reuter, Esq., Law Department Megan Schmitt, Historic Preservation Planner II The following persons attended the online meeting: Celeste Morello Janette Davis Bill Hallahan Donah Beale Michelle Fondi Kevin Chun Mary Beth Lederer Baranosky Adrian Trevisan Oscar Beisert Ava Boyle Valerie Smith Bernadette Cole Becca Dennis COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 2 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Nancy Pontone Pat Stevens Chris Gibbons Sue Leimbach Denise Baron Sherry Ferraiolo Tina Thompson Diane Bentz Dorothy Burton Lorraine Rocci Patrick Hayes Tony Forte Celeste Oliveri Sarah Antonelli Kate Evans Sharon DePrince Rita Miziorko Patrick Sweeney Kimberly Anne Martin Jody Connelly Patrice Goodman Alex Balloon Maria Dias Anna Marie Beech Jim Duffin Gerry Dever Barbara Russell M. Fox Theresa Stuhlman Rich Leimbach Suzanne Edinger Barbara Ebner Christine Crutchley Patrick Grossi Fran Deviney Kelly Mahon Jim Marino Bella Amichetti Dolores Lukomski Clare McAneny Jay Farrell Kyrstin Franz David Traub Jana Monaco Tina Krovetz Richard Mendez Nan Gallagher Benjamin Derby Steven Peitzman Dennis Carlisle Dylan Benson COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Paul Steinke Mary Mulson Anne Lauer Matthew Murphy Deb McNichols Jackie Kelly Lisa Mallon Holly Scally Bernie Mann Debbie McKinley Ballard Holly Duncan Jocelyn Baron Shakirra Clark Herbert Gossamer Zoraida Pinero Danielle Giangreco Jackie Fedeli ADDRESS: 225-31 N 15TH ST Name of Resource: Klahr Auditorium- Hahnemann Medical College 1938 Building Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Harrison Street Real Estate Nominator: Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate a portion

Herbert Gossamer Zoraida Pinero Danielle Giangreco Jackie Fedeli ADDRESS: 225-31 N 15TH ST Name of Resource: Klahr Auditorium- Hahnemann Medical College 1938 Building Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Harrison Street Real Estate Nominator: Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate a portion of the property at 225-31 N. 15th Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination, which is limited to the 1938 Klahr Auditorium building of Hahnemann Medical College designed by Horace Trumbauer and constructed in 1938, contends that the building is significant under Criteria for Designation A and E. Under Criterion A, the nomination asserts that the building exemplifies the growth and development of Philadelphia’s medical-educational industry and culture in the first half of the twentieth century. Under Criterion E, the nomination argues that the building is significant as likely the last work of Horace Trumbauer, a prominent Gilded Age architect, whose designs influenced the development of Philadelphia. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the 1938 Hahnemann Medical College building, a portion of the property at 225-31 N. 15th Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A and E. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:10:37 PRESENTERS: • Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Steven Peitzman represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. The staff noted that they had not heard from the property owner. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 4 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Mr. Peitzman noted that it is not a spectacular building but is one of architectural and historical merit and appears to be the last Horace Trumbauer building constructed prior to his death, other than the continued work on the Duke University campus. • Mr. Cohen opined that it is an elegantly researched, written, and argued nomination. He noted that he was initially skeptical about Criterion A, but that the nomination makes an excellent argument for this building’s special place in Philadelphia’s medical-educational history. o Mr. Laverty and Ms. Cooperman agreed. • Mr. Laverty commented that the nomination does an excellent job placing this building in the context of the history of medical education in Philadelphia and the role that Hahnemann played in it. He noted that this building was part of a much more ambitious plan and is great indicator of what might have been. He praised

does an excellent job placing this building in the context of the history of medical education in Philadelphia and the role that Hahnemann played in it. He noted that this building was part of a much more ambitious plan and is great indicator of what might have been. He praised the nominators in terms of the attribution to Trumbauer and dealing head-on with his potential involvement in the design. He noted that other scholars have been much more reckless in terms of attribution, but this nomination provides a more agnostic approach to the design, letting the dates speak for themselves in terms of how it was executed, which will be better in terms of long-term scholarship. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The nomination is limited to the 1938 Klahr Auditorium building of Hahnemann Medical College, a portion of the larger property at 225-31 N. 15th Street. • The 1938 Klahr Auditorium building is the only part of a larger planned complex that was constructed. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The building exemplifies the growth and development of Philadelphia’s medical- educational industry and culture in the first half of the twentieth century, satisfying Criterion A. • The building is significant as likely the last work of Horace Trumbauer, a prominent Gilded Age architect, whose designs influenced the development of Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the 1938 Hahnemann Medical College building, a portion of the property at 225-31 N. 15th Street, satisfies Criteria for Designation A and E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 5 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ITEM: 225-31 N. 15th St. MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A and E MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 ADDRESS: 1801 MEADOW ST Name of Resource: The Free Burying Ground of Frankford Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: City of Philadelphia, Wilmot Park Playground Nominator: Joseph J. Menkevich Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1801 Meadow Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the site, now known

Designation Property Owner: City of Philadelphia, Wilmot Park Playground Nominator: Joseph J. Menkevich Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1801 Meadow Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the site, now known as Wilmot Park Playground, is the location of the Free Burying Ground of Frankford, opened in 1811, and satisfies Criteria for Designation A, G, I, and J. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the site is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past, including the soldiers of the United States Colored Troops, and William Chippy, a prominent African American politician of Frankford who was buried there, and exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, and historical heritage of the Black community of Frankford. Under Criteria G and I, the nomination contends that the site is significant as part of a square, park, or other distinctive area which should be preserved, being a Free Public Burying Ground which has yielded and may continue to yield information important in history. The nomination also includes information on the property at 1736 Meadow Street, the Wilmot Public School, which was listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places in 2016 and for which Criterion I was included owing to the property being part of the same Public Burial Ground. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1801 Meadow Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, G, I, and J. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:17:45 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • No one represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 6 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Mr. Laverty asked if the date the site ceased to be used as a burial ground is known, and if there is a record of the disinterment of the bodies. o Ms. Chantry responded that she does not believe that the nomination provides a specific date as to when the site ceased to be an active burial ground, but that the nomination does state that no records of disinterment were located. o Ms. Cooperman opined that it would not have been uncommon for the removals to have been done piecemeal or not at all. • Mr. Cohen asked if the

site ceased to be an active burial ground, but that the nomination does state that no records of disinterment were located. o Ms. Cooperman opined that it would not have been uncommon for the removals to have been done piecemeal or not at all. • Mr. Cohen asked if the site had grave markers historically. o Ms. Chantry directed the Committee’s attention to Figure 8 in the nomination, a photograph which shows a fence around the burial ground and some grave markers. • Mr. Cohen commended the nominator on the extensive amount of research and suggested that it could be better organized in terms of a narrative. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The Free Burying Ground of Frankford opened in 1811. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The site is associated with the lives of persons significant in the past, including the soldiers of the United States Colored Troops, and William Chippy, a prominent African-American politician of Frankford who was buried there, satisfying Criterion A. • The site is significant as part of a square, park, or other distinctive area which should be preserved, satisfying Criterion G. • The Free Public Burying Ground has yielded and may continue to yield information important in history, satisfying Criterion I. • The site exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, and historical heritage of the Black community of Frankford, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1801 Meadow Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, G, I, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 7 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ITEM: 1801 Meadow St. MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A, G, I, and J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 ADDRESS: 914-26 CHRISTIAN ST Name of Resource: St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Parochial School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Christopher Columbus Charter School Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 914-26 Christian Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the school building and site satisfy Criteria for Designation

Owner: Christopher Columbus Charter School Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 914-26 Christian Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the school building and site satisfy Criteria for Designation A, B, E, and I. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the site has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth or Nation, as the location of the c. 1833 Moyamensing Hall, which was converted to the first Civil War U.S. Army Hospital in 1861, and then built onto for the 1898 St. Paul’s Parochial School. Under Criterion B, the nomination contends that the site is associated with an event of importance to the history of the Nation, the Civil War, which necessitated the hospital. Under Criterion I, the nomination contends that the site, now a paved parking area and school yard but once home to the hospital and school building which were demolished c. 1957, may be likely to yield information important in history should it ever be excavated. Lastly, the nomination contends that the existing school building on the site, constructed in 1905, satisfies Criterion E, as the work of Edwin F. Durang, an architect whose work significantly influenced the historical and architectural development of the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 914-26 Christian Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, B, E, and I. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:29:20 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Celeste Morello represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 8 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION DISCUSSION: • Ms. Morello summarized the significance of the property as outlined in her nomination. • Mr. Cohen commended the nominator on a well-researched nomination. o Mr. Laverty agreed and remarked on the significance of the architect. PUBLIC COMMENT: • None. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The nomination attributes historic significance to both the extant building and the paved parking area fronting Christian Street. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The site has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the

Historic Designation found that: • The nomination attributes historic significance to both the extant building and the paved parking area fronting Christian Street. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The site has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth or Nation, as the location of the c. 1833 Moyamensing Hall, which was converted to the first Civil War U.S. Army Hospital in 1861, and then built onto for the 1898 St. Paul’s Parochial School, satisfying Criterion A. • The site is associated with an event of importance to the history of the Nation, the Civil War, which necessitated the hospital, satisfying Criterion B. • The existing school building on the site, constructed in 1905, is the work of Edwin F. Durang, an architect whose work significantly influenced the historical and architectural development of the city, satisfying Criterion E. • The site, now a paved parking area and school yard but once home to the hospital and school building, which were demolished about 1957, may be likely to yield information important in history should it ever be excavated, satisfying Criterion I. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 914-26 Christian Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, B, E, and I. ITEM: 914-26 Christian St. MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A, B, E, and I MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 9 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ADDRESS: 5115-39 BELFIELD AVE Name of Resource: “Sleepy Hollow” Mill Complex and Site Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Belfield Lofts LLC Nominator: Keeping Society Staff Contact: Kim Chantry, kim.chantry@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 5115-39 Belfield Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, I, and J. From c.1736–44 to 1983, the site was home to a variety of manufactories including a paper mill, a grist mill, chocolate and mustard mills, woolen and worsted yarn mills, a tenanted textile mill, and a surgical instruments factory. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the former mill complex

c.1736–44 to 1983, the site was home to a variety of manufactories including a paper mill, a grist mill, chocolate and mustard mills, woolen and worsted yarn mills, a tenanted textile mill, and a surgical instruments factory. Under Criteria A and J, the nomination argues that the former mill complex speaks to two and a half centuries of commercial and industrial development and heritage, and represents the cultural, economic, and social history of the community, city, and state. Under Criterion I, the nomination contends that the site may be likely to yield archaeological information important in the history of the colonial and industrial age economies in Germantown. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5115-39 Belfield Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, I, and J. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:35:35 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Chantry presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Mr. Beisert summarized the historic significance as outlined in the nomination. • Ms. Chantry noted that the Historical Commission recently provided comment on a National Register nomination for this property, owing to a potential historic rehabilitation tax credit project for the site. • Ms. Cooperman commented that Criterion I may also be applicable for anything that remains below ground from the water power system that was on the site. • Mr. Laverty commended Oscar Beisert and Jim Duffin for a well-researched and documented nomination. o Mr. Cohen agreed. • Ms. Cooperman and Mr. Beisert discussed the importance of Criterion I in the nomination. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub, representing Save Our Sites, supported the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The site was home to a variety of manufactories beginning in the mid-1700s and ending in 1983. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 10 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The former mill complex speaks to two and a half centuries of commercial and industrial development and heritage, and represents the cultural, economic, and social history of the community, city, and state, satisfying Criteria A and J. • The site may be likely to yield archaeological information important in the history of the colonial and industrial age economies in Germantown, satisfying Criterion I. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The

represents the cultural, economic, and social history of the community, city, and state, satisfying Criteria A and J. • The site may be likely to yield archaeological information important in the history of the colonial and industrial age economies in Germantown, satisfying Criterion I. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 5115-39 Belfield Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A, I, and J. ITEM: 5115-39 Belfield Ave. MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A, I, and J MOVED BY: Cooperman SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 ADDRESS: 1301 W HUNTING PARK AVE Name of Resource: Sacred Heart Free Home for Incurable Cancer Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Servants of Relief for Incurable Cancer Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the former Sacred Heart Free Home for Incurable Cancer at 1301 W. Hunting Park Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, E, and H. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the property is significant for its association with Rose Hawthorne Lathrop, daughter of author Nathaniel Hawthorne who converted to Roman Catholicism and dedicated her life to helping individuals diagnosed with cancer. Under Criterion D, the nomination argues that the 1950s building follows Pennsylvania Hospital’s eighteenth-century plan. Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the building is significant for its design by architectural firm Gleeson & Mulrooney and as an example of builder John McShain’s work. Under Criterion H, the nomination argues that the building is a distinguished Catholic institution in the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination fails to demonstrate that the property at 1301 W. Hunting Park Avenue satisfies any Criteria for Designation. While Rose Hawthorne Lathrop’s work was important in establishing homes and advancing care for cancer patients, she died in 1926, several decades before the Hunting Park Avenue building was COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 11 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION constructed and cannot be directly associated with the property. The nomination cites a connection between the plans of the original Pennsylvania Hospital building and that of this building as the basis for the satisfaction of

Park Avenue building was COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 11 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION constructed and cannot be directly associated with the property. The nomination cites a connection between the plans of the original Pennsylvania Hospital building and that of this building as the basis for the satisfaction of Criterion D; any connections between the plans are superficial and do not support the satisfaction of Criterion D. While John McShain is undeniably significant for his work in Washington DC, his construction company built hundreds of buildings; McShain’s prosaic connection to this building does not satisfy Criterion E. Moreover, Gleeson & Mulrooney is not a sufficiently significant architectural firm to support the inclusion of Criterion E. Finally, the nomination fails to provide evidence that the building has either a unique location or a singular physical characteristic that makes it an established and familiar visible feature; therefore, it does not satisfy Criterion H. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:53:20 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Celeste Morello represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Morello stated that the building exists because it is part of the mission established by Rose Hawthorne. She argued that Gleeson & Mulrooney designed buildings throughout the Northeast and questioned how the staff can deny John McShain’s role. She called Hunting Park a neglected area, adding that this building is interesting. • Mr. Laverty asked whether an owner was present. o Ms. Keller noted that the owner has not contacted the Historical Commission. • Mr. Cohen stated that he takes the staff’s recommendation quite seriously but that it raises questions as well. He questioned whether the nomination satisfies Criterion E, noting that the staff’s recommendation states that Gleeson & Mulrooney is not a sufficiently significant architectural firm to satisfy the Criterion. He opined that it seems there is a set of architects deemed significant and a set of architects considered less significant. He commented that he does not know how the distinction is made. Some, he continued, may not have been researched enough, and others may be very typical for a moment in time. To make that argument, he added, more research would need to be included in the nomination to discuss the firm’s work and why it is significant. Regarding Criterion D, he remarked that Pennsylvania Hospital’s plan is common to any

and others may be very typical for a moment in time. To make that argument, he added, more research would need to be included in the nomination to discuss the firm’s work and why it is significant. Regarding Criterion D, he remarked that Pennsylvania Hospital’s plan is common to any hospital that has wings, which, he noted, includes most hospitals before Modernism. He commented that McShain was a prolific contractor, but that there would be a very long list of designations if each property were listed on the Register. He then stated that Rose Hawthorne Lathrop made an extraordinary donation and enabled the construction of the building, though it was built about a quarter century after her death. He argued that designating the property based on her contribution would mean every large charitable donation would lend significance to that donor under Criterion A. • Mr. Laverty argued that the connection to Pennsylvania Hospital is a stretch. He then asserted that Gleeson & Mulrooney were prolific Roman Catholic architects in the second half of the twentieth century and designed many buildings for the Catholic Church during the postwar years. He opined that the staff recommendation against Gleeson & Mulrooney may be a little harsh, though he added that he is unsure that he would fight to include Criterion E in support of Gleeson & Mulrooney. He COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 12 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION questioned whether the building stands as an established landmark, adding that he does not feel strongly that the building satisfies any of the Criteria. • Ms. Cooperman stated that the Committee must be careful in recommending the satisfaction of a Criterion for a property’s association with a builder. Unless one can ascribe a certain amount design agency to a builder or a certain quality in their work, the builder should not be significant enough to satisfy Criterion E. She argued that having a large body of work does not alone create significance. She commented that she does not know enough about Gleeson & Mulrooney to argue for the firm’s significance. She added that it is important to note that Rose Hawthorne Lathrop died several decades before the building’s construction, so there is no direct association to her. She then questioned whether there is enough of a connection to the corporate association Lathrop established to satisfy Criterion A. Ms. Cooperman contended that there is no

is important to note that Rose Hawthorne Lathrop died several decades before the building’s construction, so there is no direct association to her. She then questioned whether there is enough of a connection to the corporate association Lathrop established to satisfy Criterion A. Ms. Cooperman contended that there is no direct justification for the Criteria as stated in the nomination. She commented that she appreciates the clarity of the staff’s recommendation and added that she is undecided about her own recommendation but does not see much information in the nomination that helps her decision. • Mr. Cohen suggested that discussing Gleason & Mulrooney’s work may allow it to become a stronger Criterion, but that he did not agree with the nomination’s arguments related to Criterion D and the building’s association with Pennsylvania Hospital. He questioned whether the building holds a commanding presence along Hunting Park Avenue and whether it serves as an established and familiar visual feature, noting that the staff recommended against including the Criterion. He concluded that he does not know the neighborhood well enough to determine whether the building functions as an established and familiar visual feature. He then stated that the most compelling argument would be for Gleeson & Mulrooney’s significance, despite the fact that the firm is not widely recognized. He asked the Committee members whether there was enough information to support a recommendation of designation under Criterion A, D, E, or H. • Regarding Criterion H, Ms. Cooperman stated that just because a building is large does not mean it is important or familiar. She stated that the Committee must determine whether such a large building is a familiar feature. o Mr. Cohen opined that the building has a large frontispiece and has been scaled for the passing automobile, adding that the classicism of the expanded frontispiece stands at a larger scale than the scale of the typical domestic Colonial Revival architecture. He asserted that the building uses bold classicism as a monument to philanthropy. o Ms. Cooperman stated that the nomination would have benefited from clear color photographs to offer the Committee a good understanding of the building’s appearance. She argued that when a property is nominated under visual Criteria, such as Criterion C or D, the Committee needs to have detailed photographs. She asserted that the front elevation included in the nomination does not offer the required detail. She then stated that

good understanding of the building’s appearance. She argued that when a property is nominated under visual Criteria, such as Criterion C or D, the Committee needs to have detailed photographs. She asserted that the front elevation included in the nomination does not offer the required detail. She then stated that she is starting to change her opinion and is in agreement with Mr. Cohen that the property may satisfy some Criteria. o Mr. Laverty contended that if the Committee recommends the property for inclusion on the Philadelphia Register, it should do so only on the basis of Criterion H. • Ms. Cooperman questioned whether the property satisfies Criterion C, which was not included in the nomination. She opined that the building represents a period in which there is a strong postwar palette that retains the use of red brick with white cast COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 13 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION stone or limestone. She remarked that the building is a blending of those postwar motifs with the organization and planning of institutional and hospital buildings noted in the nomination. • Ms. Morello stated that the area is unsafe and she would not take any risks getting out of her car. She added that she was at the site twice and both times found it not conducive to her leaving her car and walking around to take pictures. She asked the staff to consider more buildings in North Philadelphia, adding that Hunting Park has great buildings. She asserted that she is interested in exploring “uncharted” areas to show that they are part of Philadelphia’s history. This property, she continued, offered her that opportunity to show there is merit to buildings in this part of the city where people do not care about preservation or “anything that is of an esoteric nature.” She commented that she hopes that in the future there is more open- mindedness to venture into more of these areas in North and Northeast Philadelphia. • Mr. Cohen stated that he believes that a case can be made for Criterion H and agreed with Ms. Cooperman’s remarks regarding Criterion C. He added that no case is made for either Criterion in the nomination, though one Criterion is identified. He contended that more research would be required for the Committee to recommend designation under Criterion E for Gleeson & Mulrooney’s significance. o Mr. Laverty agreed to support

remarks regarding Criterion C. He added that no case is made for either Criterion in the nomination, though one Criterion is identified. He contended that more research would be required for the Committee to recommend designation under Criterion E for Gleeson & Mulrooney’s significance. o Mr. Laverty agreed to support Criteria C and H. • Ms. Cooperman stated that she welcomes nominations that expand beyond the areas of previous focus. She encouraged moving out of Center City and designating properties in areas with less attention and commented that it is rewarding for her as a volunteer to see more confirmation of the depth and interest of Philadelphians, as well as the accomplishments the city has achieved over centuries. She asserted that designations should reflect different ethnic groups and those of different economic means, adding that the Historical Commission has made great strides to recognize such properties through designation. She commented that she hopes to continue and strengthen those designations, noting that North Philadelphia is under- recognized and that nominations should continue to include such areas that have received less attention. • In response to Ms. Morello’s comments, Mr. Farnham stated that the meetings of the Historical Commission and its advisory committees are public meetings, at which members of the public including Ms. Morello may speak. The Historical Commission provides an opportunity for all to speak, and occasionally people make statements that may be offensive. He stated that he found Ms. Morello’s comments about the neighborhood and its residents to be offensive. He asserted that her comments do not reflect the opinions of the Historical Commission, the Department of Planning and Development, or the City of Philadelphia. He stated that, although he found her comments to be offensive, she has the right to express herself. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Steven Peitzman supported the nomination, stating that he once drove by the site. • Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia supported the nomination under Criterion H. • Oscar Beisert of the Keeping Society supported the nomination. • Dorothy Burton supported the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The property was constructed in the Colonial Revival style of architecture in 1951. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 14 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • The nomination argues that the property is significant under Criterion A for its association with Rose Hawthorne Lathrop,

Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The property was constructed in the Colonial Revival style of architecture in 1951. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 14 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • The nomination argues that the property is significant under Criterion A for its association with Rose Hawthorne Lathrop, who dedicated her life to helping individuals diagnosed with terminal cancer. • The nomination does not make an argument for the property’s significance under Criterion C. • The nomination contends that the property is significant under Criterion D, because it follows Pennsylvania Hospital’s eighteenth-century plan. • The nomination assigns significance to architectural firm Gleeson & Mulrooney under Criterion E, and contends that the building is the work of prolific builder John McShain. • The nomination asserts that the property is an established Catholic Institution in the Hunting Park neighborhood. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • Rose Hawthorne Lathrop died several decades before the building was constructed; therefore, the property does not satisfy Criterion A. • Designed in 1951, the building represents the postwar Colonial Revival style found throughout the city and satisfies Criterion C. • Pennsylvania Hospital’s plan is common to any hospital with wings and does not provide a distinct model for this property. The nomination fails to satisfy Criterion D. • The nomination does not provide sufficient information to determine the significance of Gleeson & Mulrooney and does not satisfy Criterion E. • A builder may satisfy Criterion E with sufficient evidence provided to establish a connection between the builder and the building’s design. No such connection is provided in the nomination. The nomination fails to satisfy Criterion E. • The property satisfies Criterion H as an established and familiar visual feature along W. Hunting Park Avenue. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1301 W. Hunting Park Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation H, as well as Criterion C, which is not discussed in the nomination ITEM: 1301 W. Hunting Park Ave. MOTION: Satisfies Criteria C and H MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 15 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ADDRESS: 319 N 19TH ST AND 312 N 18TH ST

BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 15 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ADDRESS: 319 N 19TH ST AND 312 N 18TH ST Name of Resource: John W. Hallahan Catholic Girls’ High School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Archdiocese of Philadelphia Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 319 N. 19th Street and 312 N. 18th Street, now collectively known as John W. Hallahan Catholic Girls’ High School, as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Located in the Logan Square neighborhood, the school’s buildings were constructed in 1911 and 1914. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that John W. Hallahan Catholic Girls’ High School represents the first Catholic girls’ high school in the United States and played an important part in the development of the city’s educational system in response to the demands of an industrializing economy. Under Criterion E, the nomination contends that the building at 319 N. 19th Street was designed by one of Philadelphia’s leading architects of ecclesiastical buildings, the firm of Ballinger & Perrot. The firm designed numerous Roman Catholic and Methodist Episcopalian churches and parish schools, influencing the development of the city. The period of significance begins in 1911, the year the school began construction, and ends in 2021, when the school is scheduled to close as announced by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in November 2020. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 319 N. 19th Street and 312 N. 18th Street satisfy Criterion A, and the property at 319 N. 19th Street satisfies Criterion E. START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:43:40 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, represented the nomination. • Attorney Tony Forte represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Mr. Forte stated that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is not taking a formal position in support or opposition of the nomination as it believes it is premature to reach a final determination on the nomination. He explained that the Archdiocese just closed the school in June and is now actively investigating the feasibility of a preservation- oriented redevelopment

is not taking a formal position in support or opposition of the nomination as it believes it is premature to reach a final determination on the nomination. He explained that the Archdiocese just closed the school in June and is now actively investigating the feasibility of a preservation- oriented redevelopment and adaptive reuse of the property. Mr. Forte said when its investigation is complete, it will have a much better idea of the type of limits, if any, the designation should include. He noted, for example, adaptive reuse may require some flexibility for alterations along the much less ornamented Carlton Street facade. He continued that in this case, the Historical Commission may adopt a designation that specifically acknowledges the lesser significance of that facade. Mr. Forte added that an adaptive reuse may require alterations to the Parish School building while fully preserving the original Hallahan High School building, something that would require the Commission to take a much harder look at the nomination of the Parish School building. He continued that since it does not know these answers yet, it cannot determine the extent to which it would request a narrowing of the designation, or what type of flexibility should be included in it. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 16 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • Mr. Forte said that, in the Archdiocese’s opinion, the nomination has one glaring deficiency. He pointed out that it seeks to nominate both the original Hallahan High School building and the adjacent Parish School building as if they are of similar significance. Mr. Forte said that a critical reading of the nomination clearly shows that this is a case of apples and oranges. He noted that, while the original high school building may arguably have significance under Criterion A, as Philadelphia's first diocesan Catholic girls’ high school, the same cannot be said of the Parish School. Mr. Forte contended that it was built as a parish elementary school, not unlike scores of other parochial schools around city. He pointed out the fact that simply because Hallahan High School began to expand into the adjacent building as its space needs grew, this does not give the expansion space a similar claim to significance. Mr. Forte pointed out that the Parish School was not built for that purpose and was never intended to be connected to the high school. He said the fact that overflowing enrollment

building as its space needs grew, this does not give the expansion space a similar claim to significance. Mr. Forte pointed out that the Parish School was not built for that purpose and was never intended to be connected to the high school. He said the fact that overflowing enrollment resulted in a makeshift expansion into the second and third floors of the next-door building does not give the other building a claim of history the same as the original high school building. Mr. Forted noted that, at its peak enrollment in the 1930s, Hallahan had a network of annexes around the city at other schools, where Hallahan students would spend their ninth grade at another parish school, while still enrolled at Hallahan. He added that, by the same logic used in the nomination, all those annexes would qualify under Criterion A, and as stated earlier, the nomination does not even claim that the Parish School meets Criterion E. Mr. Forte contended that the Parish School only claims to meet one criterion, Criteria A, by bootstrapping to the historic significance of its adjacent building. • Mr. Forte continued that the nomination incorrectly states that Hallahan was the first Catholic girls’ high school in America. He stated that this is not true. He noted that the nomination offers no evidence to support its claim as the first Catholic girls’ high school in the United States. Mr. Forte said that, as he understands it, the first was Ursuline Academy in New Orleans founded in 1727. He continued that many other Catholic girls’ schools were founded before Hallahan. Mr. Forte explained that in the Philadelphia area there were numerous private Catholic girls’ high schools founded in the 1800s, such as Mount Saint Joseph Academy in 1858, Gwynedd Mercy Academy in 1861, and Sacred Heart Academy in 1869. Mr. Forte said the distinction Hallahan can claim is being the first diocesan Catholic girls’ high school. He pointed out that the nomination was not clear about this and seems to try to hide this fact. • Mr. Forte pointed out that the nomination does not address the many non-historic alterations and interventions such as the replacement of exterior windows and doors, and other changes. He acknowledged that the building is in otherwise good condition and is a testament to the stewardship of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia over the past century plus. Mr. Forte noted these

address the many non-historic alterations and interventions such as the replacement of exterior windows and doors, and other changes. He acknowledged that the building is in otherwise good condition and is a testament to the stewardship of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia over the past century plus. Mr. Forte noted these alterations are certainly relevant to the Committee’s review. Mr. Forte contended that another consideration in determining whether these buildings should be designated together as one package; they were never intended to be connected to each other. Mr. Forte pointed out that the floors are at different levels, at such a steep slope that no ADA access from one to the other is feasible without the addition of several new elevators. He said that the existing bridge only connects the buildings at a couple points and requires climbing a set of stairs on the bridge to go from one building to the other. Mr. Forte noted that it is this type of accessibility issue that may determine whether these two buildings remain connected in the future as part of some adaptive reuse. He added that the buildings lack modern HVAC, loading and service areas, as well as elevators. Mr. Forte stated that any adaptive reuse will likely require some significant interventions to create a modern, efficient facility. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 17 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • Mr. Forte said that, as he has previously discussed with the Committee and Historical Commission, the Archdiocese is engaged in the arduous work of exploring avenues that are not the easiest or most obvious options but require more deliberate and thoughtful outreach and consultation. Mr. Forte reiterated that his client is requesting that the Historical Commission temporarily withhold any final decision on the nomination. Mr. Forte concluded that as the owner continues to work on potential options for a preservation-oriented redevelopment and to identify the type of flexibility that may be needed to make such a redevelopment feasible. • Mr. Cohen stated that the Historical Commission’s process is a kind of a democratic process, and it seems that there is a tremendous amount of interest in preserving these buildings. He stated he takes that quite seriously, not just from the voices present speaking at the meeting, but from the emails submitted to the Commission, and from the groups on social media. Mr. Cohen acknowledged there is a lot of attachment to both

amount of interest in preserving these buildings. He stated he takes that quite seriously, not just from the voices present speaking at the meeting, but from the emails submitted to the Commission, and from the groups on social media. Mr. Cohen acknowledged there is a lot of attachment to both buildings. He noted that he takes this as a primary point but also asserted that the nomination makes quite compelling arguments for Criteria A and E. Mr. Cohen noted that, as Mr. Forte pointed out, Criterion A primarily relates to the main building and not the Parish School, at least as originally constructed, and it looks like Criterion E has been qualified to only refer to the work of Ballinger & Perrot as it relates to 319 N. 19th Street only and not the Parish School as well. Mr. Cohen said he feels the public support is behind the retention, preservation, and protection of both buildings, so he is not quite sure how address this issue. • Ms. Cooperman said that Criterion A is applicable to the ex-Cathedral Parish School because of its institutional use. She added that the period of significance is proposed to begin in 1911 and end in 2021 when the school is closed. That covers the change in use of the Parish School. o Mr. Laverty said he agrees with Ms. Cooperman on this point. o Mr. Cohen said he was glad to hear this because otherwise the job is more complicated. • Ms. Cooperman stated that she does not think that designation criteria must apply to every portion of the property, noting that they have encountered that with several previous nominations. She stated that she appreciated the public comment suggesting Criterion J and she also thinks it is applicable here and that there is larger significance to the city. She stated that there is significance to particular constituencies, the students and families of the students who have who have attended Hallahan. • Mr. Cohen said he thinks the word “community” in Criterion J can be interpreted in two ways, those immediately in the local community, but also as a community of people who attended the school. Ms. Cooperman agreed. • Mr. Cohen raised Criterion H, as it was proposed earlier in public comment. He noted that it appears to be on a square but pointed out it is not an intentional public square but rather

but also as a community of people who attended the school. Ms. Cooperman agreed. • Mr. Cohen raised Criterion H, as it was proposed earlier in public comment. He noted that it appears to be on a square but pointed out it is not an intentional public square but rather facing a parking lot. The Committee members agreed that there eventually will be a building in that location. Mr. Cohen suggested that Criterion H would not apply in this situation. He agreed with adding Criterion J. • Mr. Cohen noted that one of issues raised by Mr. Forte is the nomination’s claim of being the first girls’ Catholic school. He pointed out that a few terms like “diocesan” and “four-year” could be added for greater clarification. Ms. Cooperman also pointed out that Louisiana was not within the United States in the eighteenth century. • Mr. Cohen raised Mr. Forte’s concerns about physical changes to the building. He pointed out that the nomination includes a good record of the original buildings through historic photographs. Mr. Cohen noted a historic photograph on page 41 that COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 18 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION shows the original fenestration pattern of the windows within the large openings that have since been modernized with horizontal windows. He said that the photograph on page 41 shows that it was really a light filled place as much as it was meant to be a classical box and they made the original windows as big as they could. Mr. Cohen added that you can see how the architects were really attempting to marry classicism with modernity in an adventurous way. • Ms. Cooperman stated that the design speaks to the importance of Philadelphia's industry. She said this is not a factory and it was never intended to look like a factory, but the industrial scale windows are ones that speak to Ballinger & Perrot and their background and their strengths in building institutions. Mr. Laverty agreed and added that the architects had plenty of experience in getting light into workspaces and so getting light into classroom spaces would have been easy for them. • Ms. Cooperman returned to concerns about whether Hallahan was the first Catholic Girls’ High School in the United States or not. She said that in the historical significance business just because you are first does not mean you are important necessarily

classroom spaces would have been easy for them. • Ms. Cooperman returned to concerns about whether Hallahan was the first Catholic Girls’ High School in the United States or not. She said that in the historical significance business just because you are first does not mean you are important necessarily and that she thinks the Committee has very ample documentation that speaks to the significance of this institution in women’s education in the city, if not the country. She added that the argument of being first or not, is not insignificant, but it is not the building’s most salient feature. • Mr. Cohen complimented the nominators on finding the early rendering of the Parish School building. He noted that the Parish Building was clearly the smaller of the two. Mr. Cohen pointed out that it has a giant order above a tall basement and is a dignified expression, even a monumental expression. He continued that, in a way, it provides a foil for the high school. • Mr. Cohen pointed out that Criteria A and E are on the table with the possibility of adding Criterion J. He asked Ms. Cooperman and Mr. Laverty if they felt there was enough in the nomination to support Criterion J. Ms. Cooperman agreed there is enough to support Criterion J. Mr. Laverty agreed with adding Criterion J as well. • Mr. Cohen said the nomination is extraordinarily well researched and well presented. • Mr. Laverty said he would like to commend all the people who sent letters and emails in support of the nomination. He stated that, in his 21 years on the Committee, he had never seen this kind of overwhelming response in support of a nomination. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Suzanne Edinger supported the nomination. Ms. Edinger pointed out that 593 emails and letters of support for designation were currently posted on the Historical Commission’s web site. • Celeste Morello supported the nomination. • Seamus Carney supported the nomination. Mr. Carney proposed designating the buildings for Criterion H in addition to Criteria A and E. • Danielle Giangreco supported the nomination. • Lorraine Rocci supported the nomination. • Jana Monaco supported the nomination. • Chris Gibbons supported the nomination. Mr. Gibbons stated he is the president of Roman Catholic High School’s alumni association and an officer with the American Catholic Historical Society. He noted the special connection between Hallahan and Roman Catholic

Lorraine Rocci supported the nomination. • Jana Monaco supported the nomination. • Chris Gibbons supported the nomination. Mr. Gibbons stated he is the president of Roman Catholic High School’s alumni association and an officer with the American Catholic Historical Society. He noted the special connection between Hallahan and Roman Catholic as brother and sister schools. • Dorothy Burton supported the nomination. • Bill Hallahan supported the nomination. Mr. Hallahan stated that he is direct descendent of John Hallahan and Mary McMichan. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 19 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • Kevin Chun supported the nomination. • Janette Davis supported the nomination. • Jim Marino supported the nomination. Mr. Marino said he is second vice president of Roman Catholic High School’s alumni association. He pointed out that Hallahan was the first diocesan high school for girls in Philadelphia like Roman’s Catholic being the first diocesan high school for boys. Mr. Marino explained that being a diocesan school made them distinct from private Catholic schools at the time. He noted that diocesan high schools charged no tuition until the 1970s and therefore made a Catholic high school education attainable to all prospective students regardless of their social or financial background. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • Both 319 N. 19th Street and 312 N. 18th Street satisfy Criteria for Designation as the original high school building and Parish School building were used as a single institution for an extended length of time within the proposed period of significance. • Although greater clarity is needed about the claim that Hallahan High School is the first all-girls Catholic high in the United States, the Committee believes there is ample documentation that speaks to the significance of this institution in women’s education in the city, if not the country. • Ballinger & Perrot’s 1911 design of 319 N. 19th Street combined classicism with modernism to create a light-filled modern school building. • The nomination’s research and documentation support Criterion J in addition to Criteria A and E. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • John W. Hallahan Catholic Girls’ High School represents the first four-year diocesan Catholic girls’ high school in Philadelphia and possibly the United States. The school played an important part in the development of the city’s educational system in response to the demands of an industrializing economy, satisfying Criterion

that: • John W. Hallahan Catholic Girls’ High School represents the first four-year diocesan Catholic girls’ high school in Philadelphia and possibly the United States. The school played an important part in the development of the city’s educational system in response to the demands of an industrializing economy, satisfying Criterion A. • The building at 319 N. 19th Street was designed by one of Philadelphia’s leading architects of ecclesiastical buildings, the firm of Ballinger & Perrot. The firm designed numerous Roman Catholic and Methodist Episcopalian churches and parish schools, influencing the development of the city, satisfying Criterion E. • John W. Hallahan Catholic Girls’ High School exemplifies the cultural, social, and historical heritage of Philadelphia and the Catholic community. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 319 N. 19th Street and 312 N. 18th Street satisfy Criteria for Designation A and J, and the property at 319 N. 19th Street also satisfies Criterion E. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 20 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION ITEM: 319 N. 19th St and 312 N. 18th St MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A and J (both buildings) and E (319 N. 19th St. only) MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Laverty VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 DISSTON-TACONY INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT HISTORIC DISTRICT Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Various Nominator: Tacony Community Development Corporation Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the Disston-Tacony Industrial Waterfront Historic District and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The proposed historic district is in the Tacony neighborhood and includes 16 tax parcels containing 45 historic resources. The proposed historic district is the location of the Henry Disston & Sons Keystone Saw Works which resided there from 1872 to 1955. The company transformed the saw making and tool making industry not only in Philadelphia but throughout the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The company was founded by English immigrant Henry Disston in the 1840s in the Northern Liberties neighborhood. With plans for expansion, he began developing the Tacony property for his company in 1872 with plans to move all operations to this waterfront location. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the historic district

was founded by English immigrant Henry Disston in the 1840s in the Northern Liberties neighborhood. With plans for expansion, he began developing the Tacony property for his company in 1872 with plans to move all operations to this waterfront location. Under Criterion A, the nomination contends that the historic district comprises the buildings, structures, and other physical features that historically represent, the formative and most important industrial complex in the Tacony neighborhood, as well as one of the most significant in Philadelphia. The firm and its manufacturing plant also satisfy Criterion A in the area the development of saw and tool manufacturing in Philadelphia and throughout the United States. Under Criterion G, the nomination asserts that the district is a distinctive industrial area which should be preserved for its ties to Philadelphia’s manufacturing history, and as an intact industrial plant that exemplifies the economic heritage of Tacony and Philadelphia. Finally, the nomination argues that the Keystone Saw Works and its manufacturing plant satisfy Criterion J in the areas of cultural, economic, and social heritage, as related to the Tacony neighborhood, and economic and social trends in the larger City of Philadelphia. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the Disston-Tacony Industrial Waterfront Historic District satisfies Criteria for Designation A, G, and J. For the purposes of this nomination, staff recommends that all vacant land more than 20 feet from a resource identified in the inventory as contributing or significant shall be considered non-contributing. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 21 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION START TIME IN ZOOM RECORDING: 02:39:32 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Alex Balloon of the Tacony Community Development Corporation and Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. • No one represented property owners at the meeting. Prior to the meeting, David G. Wolf, who was representing the ownership of three properties, 6801 New State Road, Units A, B, and C, sent letters to the Historical Commission opposing the nomination. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Cooperman asked why buildings labeled Block 7 are included when they are considered non-contributing. o Ms. Mehley explained that the property was included in the district because the Historical Commission designates by parcel and the parcel includes contributing walls and landscape features. She confirmed all buildings on the parcel are non-contributing. o Ms. Cooperman agreed that the walls are important to the overall Disston

o Ms. Mehley explained that the property was included in the district because the Historical Commission designates by parcel and the parcel includes contributing walls and landscape features. She confirmed all buildings on the parcel are non-contributing. o Ms. Cooperman agreed that the walls are important to the overall Disston Saw Works property. • Ms. Cooperman said that as someone who has spent a fair amount of time researching Tacony, it is indisputable that the Disston Saw Works are extremely significant to the history of Philadelphia. She stated they are foundational to this part of the city and the development of Tacony would not have existed without it. • Mr. Laverty commended the nominators for taking on a complex but extraordinarily important property and parsing it out in a legible and justifiable way. • Ms. Cooperman raised the question of adding Criterion I to the designation criteria for the historic district. She said that although much of it is likely made land, it is waterfront land which can be archaeologically sensitive. o Ms. Mehley provided information about the historic district’s land. She said archaeological maps show no documented burial grounds in the area of the historic district. Ms. Mehley provided additional information from the Planning Commission about land contamination in the proposed district owing to its industrial use for an extended period. She pointed to 6801 New State Road on the historic district map and explained that the largely vacant parcel was highly contaminated and defined as a superfund site. Ms. Mehley said she did have specifics on the levels of contamination in other areas of the district but noted that chances of development on the vacant land of 6801 New State Road and nearby vacant parcels is low owing to the issues related to contamination and long-term industrial use. o Ms. Cooperman agreed to proceed without Criterion I. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub, representing Save Our Sites, supported the nomination. • Patrick Grossi, representing the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, supported the nomination. • Steven Peitzman supported the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 22 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • The Disston Saw Works are significant to the history of the Philadelphia and foundational to the Tacony neighborhood. • The proposed historic district is a complex property, and the nomination identifies and explains its

Historic Designation found that: COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 22 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION • The Disston Saw Works are significant to the history of the Philadelphia and foundational to the Tacony neighborhood. • The proposed historic district is a complex property, and the nomination identifies and explains its history and resources in a manner that is both readable and comprehensive. • Owing to issues of documented soil contamination in the proposed historic district, Criterion I was not proposed. The staff confirmed that the proposed historic district does not include any documented burial grounds. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The historic district comprises the buildings, structures, and other physical features that historically represent the formative and most important industrial complex in the Tacony neighborhood, as well as one of the most significant in Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion A. In addition, the firm and its manufacturing plant were significant in the area the development of saw and tool manufacturing in Philadelphia and throughout the United States, also satisfying Criterion A. • The historic district is a distinctive industrial area that should be preserved for its ties to Philadelphia’s manufacturing history, and as an intact industrial plant that exemplifies the economic heritage of Tacony and Philadelphia, satisfying Criterion G. • The historic district satisfies Criterion J in the areas of cultural, economic, and social heritage, as related to the Tacony neighborhood, and economic and social trends in the larger City of Philadelphia. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the Disston-Tacony Historic District satisfies Criteria for Designation A, G, and J. The Committee also recommended that all vacant land more than 20 feet from a resource identified in the inventory as contributing or significant should be considered non-contributing. ITEM: Disston-Tacony Historic District MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A, G, and J MOVED BY: Laverty SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 3 2 ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 12:30 p.m. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 23 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION PLEASE NOTE: • Minutes of the Committee on Historic Designation are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the video recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the

adjourned at 12:30 p.m. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 30 AUGUST 2021 23 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION PLEASE NOTE: • Minutes of the Committee on Historic Designation are presented in action format. Additional information is available in the video recording for this meeting. The start time for each agenda item in the recording is noted. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION §14-1004. Designation. (1) Criteria for Designation. A building, complex of buildings, structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.