Committee on Historic Designation — May 21, 2025

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2025 REMOTE MEETING ON ZOOM EMILY COOPERMAN, CHAIR CALL TO ORDER START TIME IN AUDIO RECORDING: 00:00:00 The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:33 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 Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy, Ph.D. X The meeting was held remotely via Zoom video and audio-conferencing software. The following staff members were present: Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Kim Chantry, Historic Preservation Planner III Shannon Garrison, Historic Preservation Planner III Kristin Hankins, Historic Preservation Planner II Heather Hendrickson, Historic Preservation Planner II Ted Maust, Historic Preservation Planner II Allyson Mehley, Historic Preservation Planner III Alex Till, Historic Preservation Planner II The following persons attended the online meeting: Allison Weiss, SoLo Germantown Civic Association Abbey Lewis Amy Lambert, University City Historical Society Austin Huber David Dean David Traub, Save Our Sites Hanna Stark, Preservation Alliance Jay Farrell Joseph DeStefano Julia Hayman Katie Low Misha Wyllie Oscar Beisert, Keeping Society Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance Steven Peitzman COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 2 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AGENDA ADDRESS: 428-34 N 4TH ST Name of Resource: National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Mark H. Rubin Nominator: Misha Wyllie Staff Contact: Alex Till, alexander.till@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 428-34 N. 4th Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The two-story commercial building was constructed in 1966-67 to serve as a union hall for the National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, which owned the property until 1990. The nomination contends that the building satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. The former union hall was constructed amid widespread demolition of the surrounding neighborhood as part of the Callowhill East Redevelopment Project, and thus the nomination argues that it exemplifies the economic and political heritage of the community in the era of urban renewal, meeting Criterion J. Addressing Criterion D, the nomination cites the post-war turn to Modern architecture in the United States and contends that this building reflects the built environment of that era. Finally, the

that it exemplifies the economic and political heritage of the community in the era of urban renewal, meeting Criterion J. Addressing Criterion D, the nomination cites the post-war turn to Modern architecture in the United States and contends that this building reflects the built environment of that era. Finally, the nomination cites Criterion C and describes the subject property as embodying the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style—New Formalism. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the property at 428-34 N. 4th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:06:32 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Till presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Misha Wyllie represented the nomination. • Attorney David Dean represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Wyllie summarized the nomination. She highlighted the labor union history of the building and its relationship to urban renewal in Philadelphia. • Mr. Dean, an attorney representing the property owner, commented that the property owner is not in support of the nomination. He stated that he and his client do not believe that the property meets the Criteria for Designation. He further explained that the building is a small one set among parking lots, it was not designed by a significant architect, and its designation would hinder both the City’s goal to densify the area around it and the building’s potential reuse. He added that the Rubin family has owned the property since 1990, longer than it was used by the union, and that the nomination highlighted other, more significant buildings in the city with similar architectural qualities. • Mr. Cohen complimented the nomination as well written and researched. He added that most discussion of Modernist buildings focuses on larger monumental examples, but that there are many characteristic smaller buildings in the style as well that receive less attention. He explained that he would have liked to have seen the nomination compare the subject property to more smaller scale examples from the 1950s and 60s and to explore the differences in post-war Modernist buildings COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 3 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES through the decades. • Ms. Milroy agreed with Mr. Cohen about the quality of the nomination. She added that the Historical Commission has designated a variety of smaller-scale buildings used by social clubs and unions from many time periods

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES through the decades. • Ms. Milroy agreed with Mr. Cohen about the quality of the nomination. She added that the Historical Commission has designated a variety of smaller-scale buildings used by social clubs and unions from many time periods and the nomination connects back to some of the earlier nineteenth and twentieth-century examples. She additionally pointed out a misspelling of an artist’s name in the nomination. • Ms. Barucco complimented the nominator on a well-done first nomination. She added that she had not considered Ms. Milroy’s point about the nomination as part of a continuity of club buildings and agrees that it is a worthy theme to explore. She also commented that she would like to see more nominations of buildings from the mid-century and later Modernist time periods. • Mr. Laverty expressed his support for the nomination as well. He connected the building to the importance of Philadelphia’s relationship to its port, which was located primarily on the waterfront in Center City in the 1950s and 60s before it moved to South Philadelphia. He added that the building also has connections to the importance of organized labor in the city and highlighted a few examples of union buildings that have been lost. He also pointed out that the design of the building somewhat resembles a cargo shipping container, whether that was intentional or not. • Ms. Miller praised the building but wanted to focus her comments on archaeology. She pointed out that the adjacent Willow Street follows the course of a now buried creek and that such an area is generally highly active as it relates to prehistoric archaeological resources. She additionally pointed out the likelihood of there being a privy beneath the parking lot of the property as it features a distinctive round divot that collects water and other debris due to the unstable nature of the soil beneath it. • Ms. Cooperman offered a series of comments. She agreed with Mr. Laverty’s characterization of the building as it related to the nearby port facilities at the time it was constructed. She also offered some advice to the nominator and suggested that a nomination does not need to extensively discuss all aspects of the larger subject and can focus more on the details that are specific to the subject property. She also pointed out that the term

time it was constructed. She also offered some advice to the nominator and suggested that a nomination does not need to extensively discuss all aspects of the larger subject and can focus more on the details that are specific to the subject property. She also pointed out that the term “New Formalism” is a later one applied to the architecture of this time period and general style and was not used at the time the building was designed. She explained that the Committee on Historic Designation struggles with this concept with several architectural terms and she wants to stress that nominators be careful when using them, though it does not detract from the points made in this nomination. She further suggested that the nominator focus more on the building itself rather than the aspects ascribed to the term “New Formalism.” Finally, she commented that the nomination describes the architect, Irwin Weisberg, as primarily working in New York and wonders how he came to Philadelphia for this building and what connections he may have had to the organization that hired him. She agreed that Criterion E should not be included in this nomination but thinks there is likely more information about Irwin Weisberg out there. • Mr. Cohen commented on the list of four architects that the nomination enumerates on Page 4. The first three are very famous. He asked about the fourth name, Robert F. Swanson, and mentioned he is not sure he has heard of him and asked why his name was included in a list with three world-famous architects. o Ms. Cooperman commented that she has heard the name before but, when looking at the design, she thought of the architectural firm of Carroll, Grisdale, and Van Alen, who designed many mid-century buildings in Philadelphia that appear visually similar to the subject property. o Mr. Laverty pointed out that Robert F. Swanson had been a partner of architect COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 4 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Eliel Saarinen, a Finnish American architect active in the first half of the twentieth century. • Mr. Cohen also asked about the use of the term “overall dimensionality” in the nomination and asked what was meant by it. o Ms. Cooperman offered that it refers to how the footprint of the building is different from the overall width. • Mr. Cohen

of the twentieth century. • Mr. Cohen also asked about the use of the term “overall dimensionality” in the nomination and asked what was meant by it. o Ms. Cooperman offered that it refers to how the footprint of the building is different from the overall width. • Mr. Cohen additionally asked for a label to be added to an aerial photograph to locate the subject property on it. PUBLIC COMMENT: • Julia Hayman commented in support of the nomination. Along with praising the Modernist design, she added that the building is already surrounded by new developments and is in danger as a result. • Katie Low commented in support of the nomination. She added that the building could be incorporated into future denser uses in the area since it has so much parking around it. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The building at 428-34 N. 4th Street was constructed by the National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association in 1966 and 1967. • The building was designed in a distinctive Modernist style that was later referred to as New Formalism. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The nomination demonstrates that the property embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, New Formalism, satisfying Criterion C. • The nomination demonstrates that the property exemplifies the post-war turn to Modernist architecture in the United States and contends that this building reflects the built environment of that era, satisfying Criterion D. • The nomination demonstrates that the property was constructed amid widespread demolition of the surrounding neighborhood as part of the Callowhill East Redevelopment Project, and thus it exemplifies the economic and political heritage of the community in the era of urban renewal, satisfying Criterion J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 428-34 N. 4th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 5 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ITEM: 428-34 N 4th St MOTION: Satisfies Criteria C, D, J MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, Chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1461-65 N 52ND ST Name of Resource:

St MOTION: Satisfies Criteria C, D, J MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, Chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1461-65 N 52ND ST Name of Resource: The George Institute Library Proposed Action: Designate Property Owner: City of Philadelphia Nominator: Joseph E. DeStefano Staff Contact: Heather Hendrickson, heather.hendrickson@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate 1461-65 N. 52nd Street, the former George Institute Library, and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criterion for Designation A through its association with Jesse George and the George Family, one of the earliest families to settle the area that would be known as Hestonville, one of West Philadelphia’s oldest communities. Under Criterion C, the nomination asserts that the George Institute’s Federal Revival style is distinctively characteristic of Philadelphia’s and Hestonville’s architectural history and language. The nomination also contends that the architect of the George Institute Library, E. Allen Wilson, significantly influenced the form and functional development of Philadelphia buildings during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, satisfying Criterion for Designation E. Lastly, the nomination maintains that, owing to the property’s unique location and the building’s flat-iron shape, it has become an established and familiar visual feature of the Hestonville neighborhood and satisfies Criterion for Designation H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that 1461- 65 N. 52nd Street, the George Institute Library, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, E, and H. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:33:57 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Hendrickson presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Joseph DeStefano represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Milroy noted that she was intimately familiar with the George family, owing to her knowledge of George’s Hill, which was donated to Fairmount Park. She spoke in COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 6 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES favor of adding the George Institute Library to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. She added that she wished there was more information in the nomination about why the George Institute was created and what it meant having something like the George Institute in this neighborhood along with history about its life as part

George Institute Library to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. She added that she wished there was more information in the nomination about why the George Institute was created and what it meant having something like the George Institute in this neighborhood along with history about its life as part of the Free Library system. She noted she wished the nomination discussed comparable organizations and if there was a connection between Jesse George and the Georges who founded the George School. She explained there was a push by leading Quakers in the city to create these kinds of institutions on various scales and that she would be curious to know how this property related to that. Ms. Milroy also raised the name of Eli Kirk Price, who owned much of the land around this property and was involved with Westtown School and Quaker education. She opined that if the nomination was arguing for Criterion H it should have said something about how the George Institute fit into the larger culture of educational institutions in the city before the Free Library system and was therefore very important to the neighborhood at the time. • Ms. Cooperman noted that she believed that, since the Georges, who funded the Institute, were deceased at the time of its construction, the significance could not rest on them. She noted that for the nomination to hang its significance on the Georges was problematic from a chronological standpoint so it would have been nice to have more information about the institution that was founded than on the family. • Ms. Cooperman opined that she did not think it was appropriate to compare the George Institute Library building to Chiswick as it did in the nomination. She added that she appreciated the nominator bringing E. Allen Wilson to the forefront as she believed he was one of the most important Philadelphia architects who is ignored. • Mr. Cohen suggested fixing the sentence in the nomination that placed the Federal style before the Georgian style rather than the other way around. He also opined that Colonnade Row being included as an example of the Federal style was a stretch. He wondered about the idea that the library building was taking a cue from the early nineteenth-century buildings nearby when he thought it was actually embracing a later moment in a much more highly articulated form than the buildings that

as an example of the Federal style was a stretch. He wondered about the idea that the library building was taking a cue from the early nineteenth-century buildings nearby when he thought it was actually embracing a later moment in a much more highly articulated form than the buildings that were cited in the nomination as possibly influential. Mr. Cohen stated that he believed the building attempted to stick out more than belong, that there were some historical roots but that the elements like the soldier courses, panels, and the horizontal channeling really tried to go beyond anything historical and create a new identity. He agreed with Ms. Cooperman that it would have been beneficial to have included more information about the institution. • Mr. Laverty noted that he initially thought the Federal elements that Wilson put on the exterior were applique but that, after seeing the photos of the interior that were provided by the nominator, he believed that Wilson was clearly designing a Federal building. • Ms. Barucco asked about the period of significance, noting that she did not understand the end date. o Ms. Cooperman asked if the applicant could explain why he chose to take the end date to be 2001. o Mr. DeStefano replied that 2001 was when the building closed as a public branch of the Free Library. He also noted that the George Institute ceased to function in that branch as of 1927 and that in 1928 it started as a branch of the Free Library. • Ms. Cooperman asked the applicant to elaborate on the George Institute rather than about the Georges themselves. o Mr. DeStefano replied that the George Institute was a community resource for COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 7 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES various charitable organizations, community archives, and public knowledge libraries at a time when there were not any other libraries or civic institutions in the neighborhood, to his knowledge. He noted that this was prior to the founding of many major institutions and universities in the city, and especially the founding of the Free Library of Philadelphia. Mr. DeStefano added that, from what he had seen on maps and other real estate listings at the time, there was not much comparable to this in the area so it would have been a major cornerstone for people entering the

especially the founding of the Free Library of Philadelphia. Mr. DeStefano added that, from what he had seen on maps and other real estate listings at the time, there was not much comparable to this in the area so it would have been a major cornerstone for people entering the community to learn, especially at a time of rampant illiteracy. • Ms. Milroy noted that the George Institute Library is directly south of George’s Hill and the Pennsylvania Museum of Industrial Arts had been near 40th and 41st Street since 1876. She noted that West Park and West Fairmount Park became akin to a cultural district thanks to the Centennial Exhibition and that many schools were built in the neighborhood during the 1880s and 1890s. The Free Library had not opened a branch in the neighborhood yet, but it was a period of intense construction of educational institutions in the area. The nomination should have provided more background on the neighborhood. • Ms. Cooperman asserted that Criterion J could be more appropriate than Criterion A because the George Institute was an important local institution. o Ms. Milroy asked how they would move forward with recommending the inclusion of Criterion J. o Ms. Cooperman stated that the Historical Commission must base any designation on evidence but that it does not have to be limited by the nomination. She noted that a nomination was certainly important but that the Historical Commission could make its own finding with regard to what Criteria might be applicable. o Mr. Farnham agreed that Ms. Cooperman was correct, that the nomination was a starting point but that the Historical Commission could make additional or different decisions about significance based on its knowledge and understanding. o Ms. Cooperman added that the record of the meeting would provide a basis for a recommendation of Criterion J. o Ms. Barucco stated that she did not think that there was any question that they could suggest Criterion J as they have suggested alternative Criteria in the past. o Ms. Milroy said that she was in support of adding Criterion J. • Ms. Barucco noted that she believed the period of significance should be amended to end in 1927 when the Institute was closed because, for the 2001 end date, there would need to have been more information in the nomination about the Free Library system in Philadelphia and how the building

Ms. Barucco noted that she believed the period of significance should be amended to end in 1927 when the Institute was closed because, for the 2001 end date, there would need to have been more information in the nomination about the Free Library system in Philadelphia and how the building fit into it. • Mr. DeStefano asked if it would be helpful to provide an addendum of any other knowledge he learned about the building while researching. o Ms. Barucco did not think this was necessary. o Ms. Milroy agreed with Ms. Barucco. o Ms. Cooperman said that it would be helpful to have any additional information added to the Historical Commission’s files. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub of Save Our Sites spoke in support of the nomination. • Amy Lambert of the University City Historical Society spoke in support of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 8 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • Criterion J would be more appropriate than Criterion A, as the George Institute was founded after the passing of Jesse George and because the Institute served as an important resource to the Hestonville community. • The period of significance should end in 1927, the last year of the George Institute, and not include the years the location served as a branch of the Free Library as there was not enough information on this period in the nomination. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion C, owing to the Institute’s Federal Revival style. • The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion E, owing to the George Institute being a work of architect E. Allen Wilson. • The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion H, owing to the unique shape of the building and prominent corner location. • The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion J, owing to it being an important local institution in the Hestonville area. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1461-65 N. 52nd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, E, H, and J, with an amended period of significance to end in 1927. ITEM: 1461-65 N 52nd St MOTION: Satisfies Criteria C, E, H,

The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1461-65 N. 52nd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, E, H, and J, with an amended period of significance to end in 1927. ITEM: 1461-65 N 52nd St MOTION: Satisfies Criteria C, E, H, J; period of significance to end in 1927 MOVED BY: Milroy SECONDED BY: Cohen VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, Chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 4027-31 HAVERFORD AVE Name of Resource: Engine House of Truck Company F Review: Designate Property Owner: Frankie Francis Nominator: University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Ted Maust, theodore.maust@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 4027-31 Haverford Avenue and add it to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The building was constructed in 1884 as the Engine House of Truck Company F, one of the earliest firehouses built in West Philadelphia by the Fire Department. The nomination argues that the former firehouse COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 9 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES exemplifies the rapid development of residential neighborhoods in West Philadelphia in the late nineteenth century and the City of Philadelphia’s efforts to provide services throughout its borders. The nomination contends that the building’s importance to the history of neighborhood and the City of Philadelphia satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the property at 4027-31 Haverford Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 00:59:38 PRESENTERS: • Mr. Maust presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Amy Lambert of the University City Historical Society represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Barucco suggested that the nomination could have expanded on a couple of points, specifically the historic context of firehouses and firefighting. She also noted that the nomination does not include dates of alterations such as the expansion of the garage openings and the addition of the hose tower. She wondered if it would be possible to research those alterations and add the dates. o Despite her criticisms, Ms. Barucco expressed support for the nomination and for the designation of the building. • Ms. Milroy also sought to clarify the year

openings and the addition of the hose tower. She wondered if it would be possible to research those alterations and add the dates. o Despite her criticisms, Ms. Barucco expressed support for the nomination and for the designation of the building. • Ms. Milroy also sought to clarify the year of the garage alteration but, after some discussion, the Committee on Historic Designation could not narrow the date beyond the 1927 to 1934 range provided in the nomination. • Mr. Cohen suggested placing this firehouse within a broader story of the architecture of firehouses in Philadelphia. He cited a collection of paintings by an artist named Granville Perkins, which documents the firehouses of private fire companies and the later, grander city firehouses designed by John Torrey Windrim and others. He positioned this property as a middle point in that timeline. o Mr. Cohen further expressed appreciation for the architecture of the subject property. He also noted that there is an inconsistency in the name of the property owner at the time of construction in the nomination; it is presented as both “Kern” and “Kerr.” • Ms. Cooperman complimented the nomination’s research showing the relationship between the Truck Company F and the surrounding neighborhood. • Ms. Miller commented that the nomination does argue persuasively for the Criteria, but that there could be more content about the cultural and social history of firefighting in the city. • Mr. Laverty suggested that the Historical Commission’s staff could provide previously reviewed nominations for firehouses to potential nominators, so they are not starting with a blank slate. o Mses. Miller, Milroy, and Cooperman considered whether it would be helpful for the Historical Commission’s staff to create templates of some kind for nominations but acknowledged that doing so would be labor intensive and may not be the best approach. o Ms. Barucco suggested that nominators reach out to the Historical Commission’s staff so that they can be pointed to previous nominations and other sources that might assist their research. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 10 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES o Mses. Cooperman and Milroy agreed. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub of Save Our Sites commented in support of the nomination. • Steven Peitzman commented in support of the nomination. • Julia Hayman commented in support of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee

HISTORIC RESOURCES o Mses. Cooperman and Milroy agreed. PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub of Save Our Sites commented in support of the nomination. • Steven Peitzman commented in support of the nomination. • Julia Hayman commented in support of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The subject property represents a period of transition in firehouse architecture between those built by independent fire companies and those built for the City of Philadelphia’s professional fire department. • That the subject property is a familiar element of the built landscape in a neighborhood undergoing significant development. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The nomination demonstrates that the property embodies significant characteristics of the development of the City of Philadelphia and its immediate neighborhood and thus satisfies Criteria A and J. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 4027-31 Haverford Avenue satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. ITEM: 4027-31 Haverford Ave MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A and J MOVED BY: Barucco SECONDED BY: Milroy VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, Chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 ADDRESS: 1439 N 15TH ST Name of Resource: William Ivins and Hamilton Disston Houses Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 15th St Partners LLC Nominator: Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Allyson Mehley, allyson.mehley@phila.gov OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1439 N. 15th Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The property is comprised of two four-story late nineteenth-century twin houses that historically were two separate properties at 1437 and 1439 N. 15th Street, that were consolidated. The building at 1437 N. 15th Street, known as the William COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 11 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Ivins House, was constructed in the early 1860s and modified into the Chateauesque style in 1899 by industrialist William Ivins. The building at 1439 N. 15th Street, known as the Hamilton Disston House, was constructed about 1872 as a Second Empire style dwelling by industrialist Hamilton Disston. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. Both houses exemplify the late nineteenth-century development of

The building at 1439 N. 15th Street, known as the Hamilton Disston House, was constructed about 1872 as a Second Empire style dwelling by industrialist Hamilton Disston. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. Both houses exemplify the late nineteenth-century development of Lower North Philadelphia by families of industrial wealth including Ivins, co-founder of one of the city’s largest carpet mills at the time, and Disston, the second president of the Disston Saw Works, the largest saw manufactory in the world at that time; they thereby satisfy Criteria A and J. Both houses also represent the evolution of house construction and architectural style in Lower North Philadelphia during the late nineteenth century; the Ivins house is a significant example of the Chateauesque style, and the Disston House is a significant example of the Second Empire style, satisfying Criteria C and D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the property at 1439 N. 15th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:30:05 PRESENTERS: • Ms. Mehley presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. • Hanna Stark of the Preservation Alliance represented the nomination. • No one represented the property owner. DISCUSSION: • Ms. Mehley explained to the members of the Committee on Historic Designation that two notice letters were mailed to the owner. One letter was sent to the owner’s address as listed with Office of Property Assessment and one to the property proposed for designation. The letter sent to the property was returned as undeliverable. • Ms. Barucco stated that the nomination was well written. She commented that it has been a while since they reviewed a nomination from this period of Philadelphia’s history. Ms. Barucco said she supports the nomination of this building. She concluded that she would like to see a historic district nomination for all of the surviving nineteenth-century buildings constructed by industrialists in this area of North Philadelphia. • Mr. Cohen said he agreed with Ms. Barucco’s comments. He said the nomination is remarkably well researched and rich in content. He said he had a question about how this appeared after the initial construction. Mr. Cohen pointed out that the homes on this side of the block were originally developed as twins. He wondered if it was possible if these looked identical when they were built.

and rich in content. He said he had a question about how this appeared after the initial construction. Mr. Cohen pointed out that the homes on this side of the block were originally developed as twins. He wondered if it was possible if these looked identical when they were built. Mr. Cohen then asked if the mansard roof alone on the Hamilton Disston House was enough to describe it as Second Empire in style. He commented that a building should only be described as Second Empire if there are other design details that reflect the style besides the mansard roof. • Ms. Cooperman agreed that, overall, it is a great nomination. She did have one concern about information in the building description. Ms. Cooperman recommended that information about existing windows and doors should not only address sash and doors but also describe the historic elements such as moldings and casings. She noted that it is important to document whether they survive. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 12 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PUBLIC COMMENT: • David Traub of Save Our Sites commented in support of the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: The Committee on Historic Designation found that: • The nomination is thoroughly researched and well written. • The houses represent a pair of surviving residences constructed in Lower North Philadelphia by nineteenth-century industrialists who chose to live outside established affluent areas of the city. The Committee on Historic Designation concluded that: • The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion A and J, as both houses exemplify the late nineteenth-century development of Lower North Philadelphia by families of industrial wealth. • The nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criterion C and D, as the two row houses represent the evolution of house construction and architectural style in Lower North Philadelphia during the late nineteenth century. The Ivins house is a significant example of the Chateauesque style, and the Disston House is a significant example of the Second Empire style. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1439 N. 15th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. ITEM: 1439 N 15th St MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A, C, D, J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Barucco VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse

Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1439 N. 15th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. ITEM: 1439 N 15th St MOTION: Satisfies Criteria A, C, D, J MOVED BY: Cohen SECONDED BY: Barucco VOTE Committee Member Yes No Abstain Recuse Absent Emily Cooperman, Chair X Suzanna Barucco X Jeff Cohen X Bruce Laverty X Debbie Miller X Elizabeth Milroy X Total 6 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 21 MAY 2025 13 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, PRESERVATION@PHILA.GOV PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ADJOURNMENT START TIME OF DISCUSSION IN ZOOM RECORDING: 01:48:56 ACTION: The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 11:23 a.m. PLEASE NOTE: • Minutes of the Philadelphia Historical Commission and its advisory Committees 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. • Application materials and staff overviews are available on the Historical Commission’s website, www.phila.gov/historical. 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

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.