Architectural Committee — May 26, 2009

ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 1 MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION TUESDAY, 26 MAY 2009 COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM, ROOM 578, CITY HALL DAVID AMBURN, CHAIR PRESENT David Amburn, Chair John Cluver Shawn Evans Nan Gutterman Suzanne Pentz Dan McCoubrey Rudy D’Alessandro Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Planner III Jorge Danta, Historic Preservation Planner II Rebecca Sell, Historic Preservation Planner II Karen Gonski, Administrative Technician ALSO PRESENT Paul Pincus, Philadelphia Museum of Art Gavin Langley, Gehry Partners Jim Bryan, Philadelphia Museum of Art Al Shaikdi, Philadelphia Museum of Art Kane Tekinsky, Senior Care Centers Tully Speaker, Logan Square Neighborhood Association John Gallery, Preservation Alliance Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll Michael Viscuso, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll David Searles, Dagit Saylor Vincent Maiello, Kelly/Maiello James Karmolinski, Kelly/Maiello Stephen Maffei, Abitare Design Studio Teddy Varno, Queen Village Neighborhood Association Jean Barr, Queen Village Neighborhood Assocation Mary Nixon Roy Ingraffia Terry Kennedy Kirk Loubier, Alder Gray Smith Gibbs Connor Kevin Rasmussen, Rasmussen Su Anita Mcelvey ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 2 CALL TO ORDER Mr. Amburn called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Gutterman and Messrs. Cluver, D’Alessandro, Evans, and McCoubey joined him. Ms. Pentz joined the Committee later in the meeting. 201 N. 21 ST STREET, THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE Owner: The Franklin Institute, City of Philadelphia Applicant: Michael Sklaroff, Esq. History: 1932-1934, John Windrim and Morton Keast, architects individually designated, 1976 Project: In concept: Construct addition on south side OVERVIEW: The application in concept proposes the construction of an addition to the Franklin Institute building. The addition would house exhibition and circulation spaces. The addition would be constructed behind the southern arm of the main wing facing Logan Circle. It would connect to that wing and the Franklin Memorial, the grand rotunda behind the main portico. Architects John Windrim and Morton Keast designed Franklin Institute building to occupy the entire block with wings facing all four streets, Logan Circle, and Winter, Race, and 21st Streets. However, owing to funding limitations during the Great Depression, the design was revised several times. Ultimately, only the Logan Circle and Winter Street wings and the Franklin Memorial rotunda were constructed. The grand, central hall that planned to run north-south through the block to the west of the Franklin Memorial was never constructed. Therefore, the portico along Winter Street

the design was revised several times. Ultimately, only the Logan Circle and Winter Street wings and the Franklin Memorial rotunda were constructed. The grand, central hall that planned to run north-south through the block to the west of the Franklin Memorial was never constructed. Therefore, the portico along Winter Street is centered on the north façade, but does not open onto an interior space. In 1990, a large, asymmetrical addition known as the Mandell Futures Center, designed by Geddes Brecher Qualls Cunningham, was erected to the west of the rotunda, forever preventing the completion of the original, symmetrical, Windrim design. The new addition would run south to Race Street from the rotunda behind the wing facing Logan Circle. It would connect to walls of the historic building that were not ornamented or finished with fine materials because they were originally intended to serve as interior walls. The addition would mediate between the original neo-classical building and the bold Late Modern Mandell Futures Center addition. The Race Street façade would include a very large bay that would allude to but not replicate the central porticos on the east and north facades. The addition would be contemporary in style, but would defer to the historic building. Alternative designs for the bay are included with the in-concept application. The application also proposes other work such as green roofs. None of these alterations would be visible from the public right-of-way. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval in concept of the design with the pergola-like structure, pursuant to Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 3 DISCUSSION: Mr. Baron presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Attorneys Michael Sklaroff and Michael Viscuso and architect David Searles represented the application. Mr. Sklaroff stated that he was seeking an approval in concept, especially for the massing of the proposed addition. Mr. Searles described the project in detail. He displayed photographs of the context. He explained that building as depicted in the original plans was not constructed. He displayed an early plan for the building that showed that it was intended to fill

especially for the massing of the proposed addition. Mr. Searles described the project in detail. He displayed photographs of the context. He explained that building as depicted in the original plans was not constructed. He displayed an early plan for the building that showed that it was intended to fill the entire block. Only two of the original wings were built. He noted that the exterior walls of the historic building are brick in the areas where the addition would connect. He explained that the brick walls were originally intended to be interior walls. The finished exterior walls on the main wings are clad in stone. He pointed out the asymmetrical Futures Center, which was built in 1989. He contended that the Futures Center would prevent the completion of the original building as planned by architect John Windrim. He asserted that a symmetrical building can no longer be constructed. He explained that his addition does not proposed a portico on axis with the northern portico because the building was not constructed as planned and was then added to asymmetrically in the 1980s. He noted that his proposed addition would allow for a second addition extending west along Race Street. Mr. Searles described the program for the added interior spaces. The first floor would house a meeting and conference center. The second and third floors would be used for exhibition space. The second floor would house an exhibit on the brain; the third floor would be temporary gallery space. He noted that the addition would allow for larger temporary exhibitions and for the space in the historic building to be used more appropriately. Mr. Sklaroff added that the Franklin Institute is seeking to optimize its facilities. Mr. Searles noted interior renovations that would take place simultaneously in the basement and in offices. He stated that the addition project would be seeking silver or, perhaps, gold LEED certification. It would include green roofs, a didactic roof on the addition and roofs covered with sedum on the historic building. Mr. Searles explained that his firm is still working on the façade design, but he would like comments on it. He stated that he is emphasizing the exhibition space with a projecting bay, which alludes to the porticoes. He explained that there will be a secondary entrance at the ground level. He proposed a curtain wall for the bay that would have a vertical

he would like comments on it. He stated that he is emphasizing the exhibition space with a projecting bay, which alludes to the porticoes. He explained that there will be a secondary entrance at the ground level. He proposed a curtain wall for the bay that would have a vertical structure to complement the rhythm of the historic facades. He noted that he is also considering a “shimmer wall,” an art installation on the wall that would move with the wind and shimmer in the light. Mr. Evans asked the applicants if a master plan for the development of the museum was created at the time of the 1989 addition. Mr. Searles replied that the museum does not have a master plan for the build-out. Mr. Evans stated that the applicants should consider Windrim’s original plan. He suggested that the design of the addition should maintain the original symmetry. Mr. Sklaroff stated that maintaining that symmetry is not possible. The construction of the asymmetrical Futures Center precludes the possibility of ever completing Windrim’s original but unrealized plan. Mr. Searles stated that the proposed addition was intended to overcome circulation problems in the building related to the Futures Center. He stated that the intent is to use the Franklin Rotunda as a central circulation node. Mr. Searles explained that the original Windrim plan included a very large central courtyard to the west of the rotunda that would have been the central circulation point for the entire building. The north and south central porticos facing Winter and Race Streets would have been on the axis of this courtyard. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 4 However, the central courtyard was never constructed and the Futures Center was later built on the site. The north portico does not open into the planned central courtyard, but instead is a dead-end. The north-south axis does not exist and a central south portico opposite the north portico is no longer possible and no longer makes sense. The Franklin Rotunda therefore must serve as the central circulation hub. Mr. Evans commented that he is troubled by the idea of creating a new portico-like bay so close to the east end of the south façade. Mr. Searles disagreed, stating that the projecting portion of the addition would be appropriately located near 20th Street and Logan Circle. He asserted that the south side of the 2000-block of

by the idea of creating a new portico-like bay so close to the east end of the south façade. Mr. Searles disagreed, stating that the projecting portion of the addition would be appropriately located near 20th Street and Logan Circle. He asserted that the south side of the 2000-block of Race Street is smaller scale and residential. The entrance should open onto the public zone near 20th Street, not the more private residential area to the west. Mr. Evans again suggested that the architect should study the original Windrim plan. Ms. Gutterman agreed, contended that the architect might want to leave open the possibility of completing the south façade according to the original Windrim plan. Mr. Searle again stated that the original Windrim plan had been abandoned when the building was constructed and then ignored when the very large, asymmetrical addition had been constructed in the 1980s. Mr. Sklaroff noted that they are only seeking approval in concept for the massing and would continue to develop the façade design. John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance stated that a symmetrical portico on the south side on axis with the original portico on the north side cannot be accomplished. He asserted that the Futures Center prevents completing the original Windrim plan. He contended that the building had already diverged too far from the original Windrim plan. Mr. Cluver disagreed. He asked for more study into Windrim’s original intentions. Mr. Searles stated that the architects had undertaken significant research into the Windrim plans. He asserted that the full-block building was never fully developed by Windrim, but had only presented as a concept for fundraising efforts. He observed that the Windrim plan had been revised numerous times as the project evolved in the 1930s. There is no one master plan on which to base the design of the addition. And, even if there was, it was precluded by the construction of the sprawling, asymmetrical Futures Center. Mr. Sklaroff agreed and again asserted that the Futures Center prevents completing Windrim’s original design. He added that the Futures Center was designed to be emphatically different from the original building. Mr. Cluver stated that the architect should consider the impact of this addition on a later addition that might be built at the south along Race Street. He argued that the proposed addition would handicap a later addition. Ms. Gutterman and Mr. Cluver asked if the attachment

the original building. Mr. Cluver stated that the architect should consider the impact of this addition on a later addition that might be built at the south along Race Street. He argued that the proposed addition would handicap a later addition. Ms. Gutterman and Mr. Cluver asked if the attachment of the addition to the original building would cover the lunette window in the Franklin Rotunda. Mr. Searles explained that it would be enclosed by the addition, but that the addition would include a large skylight or light well that would bring natural light to the lunette and into the Franklin Rotunda. He noted that the lunette was not intended to be seen from the street in the original design. It is only visible because the building was not completed. He noted that the others cannot be seen from the street and that the lunette at the north is completely covered. Mr. Evans applauded the green roofs, but asserted that they should be visible from the street as a statement of the museum’s support for green technology. Mr. Searles stated that the green roofs will not be detectable from the street. He said that he did not consider it appropriate to make the green roofs on the historic parts of the building visible. Tully Speaker of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association asked if the architect had studied solar panels for the facade. Mr. Searles answered that he had and had determined that solar panels on the façade would not be cost effective. However, solar panels may make sense on the roof of the addition, but would preclude a green roof. Mr. Speaker then questioned the ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5 shimmer wall, stating that it may not be appropriate across the street from residences. Mr. Searles acknowledged his concerns and added that they will buffer the addition from the residences with large trees. He noted that the bay will allow views to the east and west, but not south, directly to the residences. Mr. Sklaroff stated that any reflections from a shimmer wall would be carefully controlled. Mr. McCoubrey suggested that the architect’s conception of the addition as a portico has limited his thinking on the addition. He suggested rethinking the addition, especially how the façade might be continued to the west along Race Street. Ms. Gutterman agreed. Ms. Gutterman stated that she found the proposed

controlled. Mr. McCoubrey suggested that the architect’s conception of the addition as a portico has limited his thinking on the addition. He suggested rethinking the addition, especially how the façade might be continued to the west along Race Street. Ms. Gutterman agreed. Ms. Gutterman stated that she found the proposed massing acceptable, but thought that the elevation needs more study. Mr. Amburn suggested that the architect study the joint between the old and new. He also noted that the projection of the bay may reduce the significance of the historic corner. Mr. Searles explained that the cladding material will be French limestone, rusticated at the bottom. Granite may be used for the first course. He also noted that the utilitarian elements currently at grade along this façade will be moved to the roof, out of sight. Also, the loading docks and parking garage exit will be cleaned up. Mr. Gallery supported the application. He stated that it would give the Franklin Rotunda a central role, which it now does not have. He observed that the Futures Center changed the building forever. He suggested that the south side will be different from the historic facades of the building. He stated that the addition could make the break from the historic to the Modern. He asserted that the concept is strong and the symmetry has been lost already. He objected to the portico conceived as a bay and suggested that the projection should be carried from the ground to the roof. Mr. Gallery encouraged the incorporation of public art. He noted a shimmer wall at the airport in Los Angeles, which he called “subtle.” Mr. Baron stated the façade design of the addition should maintain the verticality of the historic facades created by the columns and pilasters. The facades of the historic building have a vertical orientation at the wings as well as the porticos. The Architectural Committee offered several suggestions for additional study including study of the massing, the elevation on Race Street, the connection between the new façade to the historic façade, the projection of the bay or portico, and the covering and lighting of the lunette. Some Committee members suggested conceptualizing the addition as a three-story infill addition rather than a portico. They also suggested that all new architectural drawings depict the existing cornice on the historic building and its proposed connection to the addition. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The

the covering and lighting of the lunette. Some Committee members suggested conceptualizing the addition as a three-story infill addition rather than a portico. They also suggested that all new architectural drawings depict the existing cornice on the historic building and its proposed connection to the addition. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval in concept of a three-story addition at the proposed location, pursuant to Standard 9. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 6 2600 BENJAMIN FRANKLIN PARKWAY, PHILADELPHIA MUSEUM OF ART Owner: City of Philadelphia Applicant: Paul Pincus History: 1928, Horace Trumbauer, Zantzinger, Borie & Medary, individually designated 6/29/1971. Project: Construct a loading dock. OVERVIEW: This application proposes the construction of a loading and delivering area along the south west elevation of the podium on which the museum building sits. The proposed addition would not alter the museum building itself; all proposed work would take place along the rusticated ashlar podium of the building only. The application proposes the construction of an addition and walled yard that would connect to the service spaces currently found in the podium of the building. The yard would be enclosed with a copper finish corrugated gate. The addition and yard walls would be clad with stone. The proposed addition is an elegant and unobtrusive solution to the museum’s existing inadequate conditions for the loading and delivery of art works. Although the proposed addition would be visible from certain view points, it does not negatively affect any of the iconic views of the museum, or negatively impacts the axis of the museum building to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. DISCUSSION: Ms. Pentz joined the meeting. Mr. Danta presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Philadelphia Museum of Art representatives Paul Pincus and James Bryan and architect Gavin Langley represented the application. Mr. Evans stated for the record that, although his firm Atkin Olson Schade Architects is currently involved with the parking garage at the Art Museum, he has no involvement with this project. Ms. Gutterman stated for the record that, although her firm Vitetta is currently involved with the the exterior restoration project, she has no involvement with this project. Mr. Pincus stated that the Museum is requesting final approval of Phase One of a larger project that would include reopening the north entrance along Kelly Drive for visitors and creating

her firm Vitetta is currently involved with the the exterior restoration project, she has no involvement with this project. Mr. Pincus stated that the Museum is requesting final approval of Phase One of a larger project that would include reopening the north entrance along Kelly Drive for visitors and creating exhibition space in the lower level of the museum. He explained that this phase of the project would involve the relocation, consolidation, and expansion of the loading dock facilities. Mr. Langley presented a Powerpoint presentation on the loading dock project. Mr. Langley stated that the walls of the podium on which the museum sits are clad in Minnesota limestone. A section of the podium wall along the south would be surveyed stone by stone, dismantled, and then reconstructed after the completion of the addition. Mr. Langley explained that the loading docks would be housed in an addition extending off the podium wall. An open yard outside the loading docks would be surrounded by a wall and accessed through a corrugated gate with a copper finish. The gate would remain closed at all times when not accepting deliveries. The walls of the addition and around the yard would be clad in stone quarried from the museum site; the stone would not match the podium walls, but would be compatible with them. The addition walls would be nine feet shorter than the podium walls. Mr. McCoubrey asked if any new mechanical equipment would be installed. Mr. Langley answered that all new equipment would be located on the southeast corner of the yard and that it would not be visible to the public. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 7 Mr. Cluver suggested that the proposed addition would benefit from a green roof. He asserted that this would be a perferct location and it would soften the view of the addition from the podium. Mr. Pincus noted that the museum is exploring the possibility of a green roof on the loading dock addition. Mr. Langley stated that they are currently proposing a pebble roof. He added that the existing perimeter walls on the podium are over three feet thick, which will make it difficult to see the roof from the podium around the museum. Mr. Cluver asked if this phase of the project would include any work at the north entrance. Mr. Pincus stated that this phase would not. Mr. Evans

on the podium are over three feet thick, which will make it difficult to see the roof from the podium around the museum. Mr. Cluver asked if this phase of the project would include any work at the north entrance. Mr. Pincus stated that this phase would not. Mr. Evans asked if the podium wall would be cleaned during the project. Mr Bryan stated that the wall would be restored in the area of the addition. Mr. Pincus confirmed that the stone cladding on the addition will not mimic the podium wall stone. Mr. Amburn applauded the project, which he called “incredibly positive.” ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review details. 626 S. FRONT STREET Owner: David & Lynda Sciolla Applicant: Stephen Maffei History: c. 1790 for John Coburn; individually designated, 6/24/1958 Project: In-Concept; construct a third-story and three-story additions and alter gambrel OVERVIEW: This application in-concept proposes to rehabilitate a significant eighteenth-century building from its current commercial use back to a residential use. This house is a rare surviving late eighteenth-century building with a gambrel roof. The house possesses a remarkable level of original fabric, which includes the original punch and gouge cornice and Flemish bond brick work at the second floor, third floor, and gable end of the main block. The rear ell retains its original brick work at the second floor. The building was altered in the early twentieth-century. At that time, the ground-floor brick of the main block was replaced and the ground floor at the rear ell was extended to the property line. The main block and rear ell were also parged with stucco at that time. The rear of the property is currently occupied by a one-story non-historic addition. Most of the proposed work would take place at the rear of the property. The applicant proposes to demolish the non-historic addition at the rear of the property. In its place a three-story addition with a garage at ground floor and roof deck is proposed. This addition would connect to the main block of the house through the existing rear ell. The applicant proposes to modify the rear ell, which will serve as connector between the new addition and the main block, by constructing a third-story addition. The existing second-floor of the rear ell, which retains its eighteenth century fabric, would be largely demolished to incorporate five

the existing rear ell. The applicant proposes to modify the rear ell, which will serve as connector between the new addition and the main block, by constructing a third-story addition. The existing second-floor of the rear ell, which retains its eighteenth century fabric, would be largely demolished to incorporate five French doors opening onto a terrace. This work would require the demolition of portions of the rear facade of the main block and the rear portion of the cornice; all of which are original eighteenth century fabric. The main block of the house would be largely restored. However, several items are of concern. The reconstructed ground floor would not have its entrance door with pediment centered as shown in a photograph taken circa 1868. Instead, the applicant proposes to shift the entrance door to the west. The missing portion of the cornice that framed the gable end of the gambrel would not be reconstructed. The applicant proposes to construct two dormers; one along the Front street elevation of the property and a second on the rear slope of the gambrel. Neither dormer is based on historic evidence. The rear dormer is especially problematic owing to its massing, design, and location on the roof. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 The staff would also like to raise a point of caution with the wording used in the application’s cover letter. The applicant states in the cover letter that the intent of the application is to: 3- “Repair 2nd through 4th floor existing brick on all facades of the existing historical structure” 7- “Repair and/or replace in kind all dentil and cornice work at perimeter of roof” The wording of these two items is too general and vague. The Commission should not entertain approving any work to the surviving eighteenth-century fabric, even in-concept, without more detailed information. The proposed alterations to the rear ell, and the impact on the rear façade of the main block cause a negative effect on this significant eighteenth building and its original fabric. The proposed dormers are not based on any historical evidence and no dormers would be appropriate on this building. The proposed reconstruction of the ground floor can not be considered a restoration. The shifting of the entry door is driven by the program and directly contradicts the historic evidence. The overall program proposed for this property has an adverse effect and

no dormers would be appropriate on this building. The proposed reconstruction of the ground floor can not be considered a restoration. The shifting of the entry door is driven by the program and directly contradicts the historic evidence. The overall program proposed for this property has an adverse effect and fails to meet seven of ten Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. DISCUSSION: Mr. Danta presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Architect Stephen Maffei and prospective property owners David and Lynda Sciolla represented the application. Mr. Danta introduced a letter from the Queen Village Neighbors Association asserting its opposition to the demolition of the property. He noted that the proposal would include only selective demolition of the historic building. However, the non-historic, one-story kitchen addition at the rear would be completely demolished. Mr. Maffei stated that the Sciollas now have the property under agreement. He expressed that the intent of the proposect buyers is to restore the house, while making it fit their lifestyle and programatic needs. He noted the decayed conditions in the interior, especially at the fourth floor, owing to water infiltration. He asserted that the biggest challenge is creating convenient circulation between the historic house and the new construction at the rear. Mr. Maffei stated that a dormer is necessary at the fourth floor. He acknowledged that the plan requires the removal of historic fabric at the second-floor of the rear ell; he expressed his willingness to keep the two windows at the second floor of the rear ell and convert them into two french doors instead of removing them entirely. Mr. Maffei addressed the concerns the staff raised regarding the rear façade of the main block and the rear section of the cornice. He noted that, owing to the floor to ceiling heights, the loss of a section of the cornice and brick façade would be necessary to link the main block of the house to the new construction at the rear. He repeated the challenge he encountered in making the interior circulation work with the existing structure. Mr. Maffei expressed that the existing cupola over the stair well is blocked and that the owners would like to reopen it for light. Mr. Danta noted that the file for the property contains a fire insurance survey from 1810 that mentions

the interior circulation work with the existing structure. Mr. Maffei expressed that the existing cupola over the stair well is blocked and that the owners would like to reopen it for light. Mr. Danta noted that the file for the property contains a fire insurance survey from 1810 that mentions a skylight over the stair well. Mr. Amburn asked whether any historic fabric remained at ground floor. Mr. Maffei answered that a steel lintel had been inserted to support the historic brick on the upper floors. The brick at the ground floor is not original. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 Mr. Baron repeated the staff’s recommendation of denial and stressed the great historical significance of this building. He noted that its intact gambrel roof is an extremely rare survivor. He asserted that the dormers are inappropriate because they did not exist historically. He explained that corner buildings did not have dormers because windows were inserted in the gable end. Mr. Maffei stated that the interior ceiling height at the top floor is 6’-6”, which does not meet current requirements.He contended that cutting into the roof is necessary to make the top floor space more usuable. He also stated that the addition of the dormers would provide more light and air into this space. Mr. Amburn stated that he deemed the proposal extremely problematic. Ms. Gutterman concurred. Mr. Amburn stated that project would sacrifice too much of this extremely important building. He opined that all the new construction should be located at the rear, where the non- historic structure stands. Ms. Pentz agreed with Mr. Baron’s assertion that the project proposed inappropriate alteration to this unique eighteenth-century building. She stated that even the addition of one dormer would adversely impact this building. The Committee members agreed that the historic house should be restored. The proposed changes were unacceptable. Mr. Danta stated that he visited the site with the architect and prospective owners. Mr. Danta explained that, during the visit, advised them that the alterations should be limited to the non- historic kitchen addition. He explained that he advised them to approach the main block of the building as a pure restoration. He explained that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation would not endorse anything but a restoration of such a significant eighteenth- century building. Mr. Evans pointed out the extraordinary cornice. He noted that the

advised them to approach the main block of the building as a pure restoration. He explained that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation would not endorse anything but a restoration of such a significant eighteenth- century building. Mr. Evans pointed out the extraordinary cornice. He noted that the wording in the cover letter describing the proposed work disturbed him. He opined that the replacement of the handmade cornice would not be appropriate. It is highly significant and should be restored rather than replaced. An unidentified woman noted that, until five years ago, the building had housed a successful tavern. She stated that there had never been complaints of deteriorated conditions inside the building. She noted that the previous owners had moved to another location, owing to their need to expand. Mrs. Sciolla invited the woman to examine the interior damage herself. Ms. Pentz stated that she was opposed to any project that would result in damage to the cornice or roof line. She stated that the cornice must be conserved. She contended that dormers should not be intorduced into this unique roof. John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance stated that the Committee must recommend denial in cases such as this when the historic resources have great importance. He asserted that the recommendation should be denial, not approval provided the design is revised. Mr. Danta explained that the Architectural Committee is advisory; it offers non-binding recommendations to the Commission. He stated that the Commissioners receive the minutes of every Architectural Committee review, and therefore are aware of all suggestions made on the proposals. Mr. Evans stated that the Committee could never recommend approval of this application, even with revisions. Mr. Danta contended that, even if the addition on the rear ell was dropped below the cornice line, the project would still not comply with Standards 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. Mr. Danta explained that the eighteenth-century fabric is very significant. The proposal is clearly counter to the Standards. Mr. Evans stated that there was little room for compromise with this significant house; he added that he understood the need to make it inhabitable, but the historic fabric must ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 be treated appropriately. He contended that the cornice must be considered sacrosanct. Mr. Danta stated that the proposed program is too substantial and not compatible with this highly important historic resource.

need to make it inhabitable, but the historic fabric must ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 be treated appropriately. He contended that the cornice must be considered sacrosanct. Mr. Danta stated that the proposed program is too substantial and not compatible with this highly important historic resource. Mr. Sciolla stated that he would abandon the project if he cannot connect the upper floors of the main block and new rear addition. He acknowledged the importance of the historic building, but noted that he could not live in a house that did not have a convenient circulation plan. He stated that the denial of an upper-floor connection would prevent him from converting the property back to a single-family dwelling. He claimed that there are few people who would restore and live in this historical building. He asked the Committee to reconsider its conclusions and not throw away an opportunity to have this property restored. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10. 318-22 S. 19 TH STREET Owner: Salem Shuchman Applicant: Roy Ingraffia History: 1895, Furness, Evans & Company for Horace Jayne individually designated, 10/25/1982; Significant to the Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, 2/8/1995; Preservation Alliance façade easement Project: Coat all terracotta OVERVIEW: This application proposes to coat all terracotta units with Edison Coatings System 90-II. The proposed coating is a urethane. The façade was cleaned in the 1980s as part of the restoration of the building. The terracotta units appear to have been damaged at that time owing to an aggressive cleaning campaign that left several units bleached. The fire skin on the units is remarkably intact; however the color has faded from the vibrant red it once was. The fading is not consistent. The damage is noticeable in some units, even when those are adjacent to areas of relatively consistent color. It should be noted that original color was not uniformly red. The terracotta has bands of charcoal colored areas that appear to have been deliberately applied or were created as a result of the fire process. It is likely that the bands were deliberately applied at the time of manufacturing. The applicant conducted tests of five products over a period of nine months. The selection was made after a careful study of the cured samples. The proposed Edison Coatings System 90-II is described

the fire process. It is likely that the bands were deliberately applied at the time of manufacturing. The applicant conducted tests of five products over a period of nine months. The selection was made after a careful study of the cured samples. The proposed Edison Coatings System 90-II is described in the specifications sheet as a consolidant. The product has been chosen not for its consolidation qualities but owing to its improvement of the color of the terracotta. The fire skin does not require any consolidation at this time. Consolidants are generally non-reversible. However, the applicant has submitted evidence that the coating can be removed from the surface of the terracotta without causing any noticeable damage using a paint stripper or acetone gel. The staff has approach this proposal with conservative caution. This landmark building is one of the most outstanding residential buildings of the late nineteenth century standing in Philadelphia. The house has been described as one of the residential masterpieces of Frank Furness. Furthermore the terracotta units’ unusual sponged finish and color variations make them unique. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 11 The staff recommends that the Committee consider the three following issues during its deliberation: the life span of the coating; the possible damage to the fire skin of the units; and the long term maintenance of the coating. No masonry coatings lasts indefinitely; all coatings and sealants eventually breakdown and fail. The proposed Edison Coatings System 90-II would conservatively last on the surface of the units for at least 50 years. The staff requested from the applicant case studies by the Edison Company that focused on the aging process of the product. However, the applicant was unable to provide such documentation given that none have been conducted by the manufacturer. The staff is unable to evaluate the effects the unavoidable chemical breakdown of the coating would have on the surface of the terracotta or on the uniformity of the color. The breakdown of the sealant could cause micro-growth to colonize the surface of the units, or to a change in its reflective qualities. More importantly, the eventual breakdown of the coating could lead to changes in the color, defeating the purpose for which it is being proposed. The applicant has proven that the sealant could be removed from the surface of the units with paint strippers. However, the application of paint strippers is

More importantly, the eventual breakdown of the coating could lead to changes in the color, defeating the purpose for which it is being proposed. The applicant has proven that the sealant could be removed from the surface of the units with paint strippers. However, the application of paint strippers is not immune to damaging side effects stemming from careless application or excessive dwell time, which may lead to further damage of the units, and possible irreversible damage to the fire skin. Lastly, once the units are coated it is likely that they will continued to be coated in years to come. The staff recommends that the Committee consider the aesthetic gain the proposed coating would produce versus the conservation and necessary maintenance of the units well into the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff does not offer a formal recommendation, but requests the professional guidance of the Architectural Committee. DISCUSSION: Mr. Danta presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Preservation consultants John Carr and Roy Ingraffia represented the application. Mr. Ingraffia spoke about the proposed chemical products and the tests performed. He presented a lengthy Powerpoint presentation that addressed the issues raised by the staff in the overview of the project. During his presentation, he explained that the evidence proved that the fire skin of the units that were most faded were more susceptable to water. He summarized that the proposed coating would not only enhance the color of the terracotta units but it would also protect the fire skin. Ms. Gutterman asked if the samples had cured properly before the tests were performed. Mr. Ingraffia stated that all samples had cured for nine months and that they had been monitored through the winter months. Ms. Gutterman stated that she does not approve of chemical treatments because of the unknown effects they can have on the surfaces to which they are applied. She contended that the benefits of the treatment must be weighed against the risks. Mr. Ingraffia noted that 60% of the units are affected and that, in his opinion, the proposed intervention would not only have a tremendous aesthetic effect, but it would also slow the deterioration of the most vulnerable units. Ms. Gutterman stated that she was uncomfortable with the application of the coatings on some but not allof the terracotta. She claimed that the intervention may impact the porosity of the entire façade. Mr. Ingraffia answered that

effect, but it would also slow the deterioration of the most vulnerable units. Ms. Gutterman stated that she was uncomfortable with the application of the coatings on some but not allof the terracotta. She claimed that the intervention may impact the porosity of the entire façade. Mr. Ingraffia answered that mortar joints separate the units and that those joints would not be coated. Mr. Cluver questioned the long term effect of a chemical treatment. Mr. Danta informed the Committee that the staff requested that the applicants obtain a case study from the manufacturer, but learned that none exists. Mr. Ingraffia answered that he had spoken to the manufacturer and that it had assured him that the product had not caused any adverse effects in over 30 years of use. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 Mr. Danta questioned whether the color would be consistent throughout if only the most faded pieces were to be coated, rather than the entire façade. Mr. Ingraffia answered that any color differences would be minimal. John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance stated that the Alliance has a façade easement on this property. He noted that he was not an expert and that he trusted the professional judgement of the Milner-Carr office as well as the expertise of the Architectural Committee. He opined that, if the coating presented no adverse effects on the teracotta units, then the aesthetic improvement would be a tremendous benefit. Mr. Ingraffia assured the Architectural Committee that he would provide a field report describing the areas treated. He noted that this would be helpful for future conservation of the terracotta. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review the details. 1400 S. PENN SQUARE, RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL Owner: Arden Group, Inc. Applicant: Thomas Chapman, Esq. History: 1905-1908, Furness, Evans & Co. and McKim, Mead & White individually designated, 5/2/1970 Project: Install awnings and signage OVERVIEW: This application proposes the installation of six awnings along the Chestnut Street elevation of the former Girard Bank building at the corner of Broad and Chestnut Streets. In addition the application also includes the installation of two metal plaques; one at each corner of the intersection of Broad and Chestnut Streets. The Girard Bank was designed by the firms of Furness, Evans & Co. and McKim, Mead & White and constructed from 1905 to 1908. McKim, Mead &

addition the application also includes the installation of two metal plaques; one at each corner of the intersection of Broad and Chestnut Streets. The Girard Bank was designed by the firms of Furness, Evans & Co. and McKim, Mead & White and constructed from 1905 to 1908. McKim, Mead & White was at the forefront of the American Renaissance, a period in which American architecture reflected democratic ideals through the classical language of ancient Greece and Rome. The Girard Bank is a prime example of that philosophy and one of the few exemplary commissions of the prestigious firm in Philadelphia. This building is superb example of the Neoclassical style. Inspired by Rome’s Pantheon, this building is characterized by its clean, monolithic marble form, large tile dome, heavy classical pediments and cornice, and a great Ionic colonnade with uninterrupted voids. Awnings would be an inappropriate addition to this Neoclassical building. They would clutter the bold, stark forms and directly contradict McKim, Mead & White’s aesthetic vision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the installation of two plaques, provided existing holes are reused, pursuant to Standard 9. Denial of the installation of awnings, pursuant to Standard 9. DISCUSSION: Ms. Sell presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Attorney Thomas Chapman represented the application. Mr. Chapman stated that this project is intended to create a presence on Chestnut Street for the Ten Arts Restaurant located in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. He explained that there is currently nothing to indicate the presence of the restaurant on the street. He claimed that the business ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 cannot survive without the signage. He distributed photographs of other restaurants with similar signage schemes in the area. Ms. Gutterman asked the applicant if he had considered using banners. Mr. Chapman stated that, if awnings were not acceptable to the Commission, he would appreciate guidance regarding approvable signage. Ms. Gutterman stated that she is concerned about the use of permanent bronze plaques when restaurants change their names frequently. Mr. Evans asked about the need for signage along Chestnut Street when the patrons of this restaurant typically have reservations; the predominant clientele is not a walk-in clientele. Mr. Chapman responded that a passerby could see the signs and decide to make a reservation. Mr. Evans asked when the Commission approved the awnings on the addition portion of the building. He stated that their approval weakens the

typically have reservations; the predominant clientele is not a walk-in clientele. Mr. Chapman responded that a passerby could see the signs and decide to make a reservation. Mr. Evans asked when the Commission approved the awnings on the addition portion of the building. He stated that their approval weakens the argument for denial of this proposal. Ms. Sell stated that the addition differs from the main domed building, which is colonnaded. She reviewed the property file and determined that the Commission had reviewed an application for awnings in 2004 and had denied the awnings proposed for the domed building, but approved the awnings for the addition. John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance stated that the awnings within the colonnade are problematic. Mr. Cluver disagreed with Mr. Gallery and the 2004 Commission decision and stated that he finds the awnings in the colonnade to be less problematic than those in the windows. Ms. Sell reported that the addition with the awnings is a different building than the domed building. Mr. Evans responded that the addition was designed by McKim, Mead & White, copying the window openings of the main building exactly. Ms. Sell again stated that the domed building is colonnaded; the addition is not. Awnings are not appropriate for colonnades. Mr. Cluver suggested darkening the color of the awnings in the colonnade so that they would be more recessive. Mr. Amburn stated that any awnings in the colonnade would be awkward and inappropriate. He explained that he would be in favor of a banner or signage within the window. The Committee members agreed that the installation of plaques would be appropriate, provided existing holes were reused. Mr. Cluver advocated for awnings, provided they were limited to the colonnade, did not project further than the columns, were darker in color, and were reversibly installed. Mr. Amburn rejected the awnings. Ms. Gutterman agreed and stated that the applicant should look for other means of advertisement. Mr. McCoubrey advocated for denying the awnings. He stated that he would prefer advertising behind the glass. Mr. Evans rejected the awnings. Mr. D’Alessandro and Ms. Pentz advocated for a recommendation of approval as submitted. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the two plaques, provided existing holes are reused, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9; denial of the awnings, pursuant to Standard 9. 2325 SPRUCE STREET Owner: Henry

advocated for a recommendation of approval as submitted. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval of the two plaques, provided existing holes are reused, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9; denial of the awnings, pursuant to Standard 9. 2325 SPRUCE STREET Owner: Henry Charlton Applicant: Kirk Loubier History: c. 1875; contributing to Rittenhouse Fitler Historic District, 2/8/1995 Project: Construct second-story addition OVERVIEW: This project proposes to demolish a second-story bay window and construct a second-story rear addition. The addition would enclose the existing second-story deck and ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 become flush with the width of the existing rear ell. Vinyl-clad awning windows and a stucco finish are proposed for the addition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the windows are one-over-one, double-hung, windows, pursuant to Standard 9. DISCUSSION: Ms. Sell presented the application to the Architectural Committee. General contractor Kirk Loubier and architect Terry Kennedy represented the application. Mr. Evans asked why the staff recommended approval of the demolition of a rear bay. Ms. Sell explained that this bay has been significantly altered and faces onto a service alley. Mr. Amburn asked Ms. Sell to clarify the staff’s recommendation for one-over-one windows. Ms. Sell stated the proposed awning windows do not have the proportions of the historic windows in the building and are therefore incompatible. She suggested one-over-one, double-hung windows with the proportions of the historic windows. Ms. Gutterman recommended that the staff review any window revisions. Mr. Cluver asked about the color of the proposed addition. Mr. Loubier stated that the existing stucco is off-white, but that all of the existing stucco would be recoated. Therefore, he is open to suggestions regarding the color. The Committee members agreed that the standard off-white or cream color was appropriate. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, provided the windows are vertically-proportioned, one-over-one, double- hung windows, with the staff to review details, pursuant to Standard 9. 4002 PINE STREET Owner: Board of Trustees, Alpha Psi Veterinary House Applicant: Sharin Skolnik, VMD History: 1853 by Thomas White, developer; Sloan & Stewart, architects individually designated, 5/25/1965 Project: Legalize installation of siding over cornice OVERVIEW: This project proposes to legalize the installation of siding over a large Italianate cornice owing to financial hardship. The Committee on Financial Hardship will also review the application. This building was designed by architects Sloan &

& Stewart, architects individually designated, 5/25/1965 Project: Legalize installation of siding over cornice OVERVIEW: This project proposes to legalize the installation of siding over a large Italianate cornice owing to financial hardship. The Committee on Financial Hardship will also review the application. This building was designed by architects Sloan & Stewart and was constructed in 1853. It was individually listed on the Philadelphia Register in 1965. It is classified “significant” on the National Register in 1979. The Alpha Psi Fraternity took possession of this property in 1942. Owing to lack of proper maintenance over the past 67 years, the cornice has deteriorated, creating a self-induced hardship. No information has been provided regarding its current condition. In January 2009, the Fraternity illegally installed siding over the cornice without Historical Commission approval or a permit by the Department of Licenses & Inspections. A neighbor filed a complaint with the Historical Commission staff about the illegal work. A staff member subsequently visited the site, observed the illegal work in progress, and requested that a violation be issued. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 15 The cornice of this historic estate is a character-defining feature that must be preserved. Installation of siding violates four Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation that state the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features that characterize the property will be avoided; distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property will be preserved; deteriorated features will be repaired rather than replaced; where the severity of deterioration requires replacement the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial pursuant to Standards 2, 5, 6, and 9. DISCUSSION: Ms. Sell presented the application to the Architectural Committee. No one represented the application. Mary Nixon of 4017 Pine Street introduced photographs she had taken of the illegal work in progress. She stated she had made several attempts to advise the owner and contractor of Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms. Nixon stated she received a voicemail from the owner telling her to mind her own business. Ms. Nixon asserted she spoke with the building manager and advised her that the work required a building permit, especially because it is historically designated. She stated that she contacted several preservation professionals who offered help to the owner including Marianna Thomas and Lauren Leatherbarrow. They both offered services

business. Ms. Nixon asserted she spoke with the building manager and advised her that the work required a building permit, especially because it is historically designated. She stated that she contacted several preservation professionals who offered help to the owner including Marianna Thomas and Lauren Leatherbarrow. They both offered services pro bono to help with a maintenance program. She stated she also communicated with Dick Tyler, a neighbor, and John Gallery, who both offered assistance. She stated a realtor in the area offered a loan to cover the historically appropriate work. She stated she made sincere efforts to assist the owner. Ms. Nixon stated she had asked the owner to stop the roofers, saying that violations and fines would add to the cost of the appropriate repairs. She stated she was surprised by the animosity exhibited by the owner, but would like to continue to offer her support. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standards 2, 5, 6, and 9. 1230 ARCH STREET Owner: 1230 Arch Street Condominium Associates Applicant: Gray Smith History: 1909, architect, Charles Bolton, Individually designated, 1990 Project: Remove paint from brick, legalize paint on terracotta cornice OVERVIEW: This application seeks to resolve some aspects of a violation that was issued at the conclusion of the rehabilitation of this building a couple of years ago. The Commission approved the rehabilitation of this building with an addition. That approval included new storefront systems at the ground-floor retail space and the removal of paint on the ground-floor brick piers and terracotta cornice. During the construction, inappropriate storefront systems were installed without the requisite shop drawing review, the cladding at the base of the storefronts was removed without approval, and the brick piers and terracotta cornice were painted rather than having the paint removed. A violation was issued for the illegal and non-compliant work. The staff approved a plan to bring the building into compliance and lift the violation that included revisions to the storefronts, replacement of the removed bases, and removal of the paint on the terracotta. A sample of the paint was satisfactorily removed and the terracotta is in good ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 16 condition. The missing stone bases were replaced, but the other work stipulated in the compromise was not undertaken. Therefore, the violation still stands. The applicant is now proposing to remove the paint from

satisfactorily removed and the terracotta is in good ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 16 condition. The missing stone bases were replaced, but the other work stipulated in the compromise was not undertaken. Therefore, the violation still stands. The applicant is now proposing to remove the paint from the brick piers, but not the terracotta cornice. No work to the non-compliant storefronts is proposed. It must be noted that, even if the application is approved and the work satisfactorily undertaken, the storefronts will remain out of compliance and the violation will remain on the books. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial, pursuant to Standard 6 and 7. DISCUSSION: Mr. Baron presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Architect Gray Smith and contractor Marty Friko represented the application. Mr. Baron explained that, at the time of designation, parts of the storefront cornice were already painted black and white. The building was recently redeveloped as residential and commercial space. During the rehabilitation, a contractor attempted to remove some of the paint from the cornice, but, when he did not like the results, decided to paint the cornice beige instead. However, he did not have an approval from the Commission to paint the cornice and was stopped during the painting. Mr. Amburn asked the applicants why they were not intending to remove the paint from the terracotta cornice. Mr. Smith explained that the ownership of the building is transitioning from the developer to a condominium association. The certificate of occupancy is held up pending the correction of the violation for the illegal paint and other matters. Regarding the paint removal, Mr. Smith stated that the developer commissioned a masonry contractor, Mr. Friko, to perform a test to remove the paint. Mr. Fricko found as many as four coats of paint including black paint in some locations. He stated that the preservation consultant for the rehabilitation, Powers & Company, had promised to remove the paint, but had not undertaken any testing to determine whether the removal was feasible. Mr. Friko used five applications of Prosoco Sure Klean fast acting stripper and a bristle brush to get paint out of the deeper grooves. Some residue of paint is still visible in the recesses. He fears that attempting to remove 100% of the paint will damage the terracotta and allow water infiltration. The applicants are now proposing to remove paint from the brick and to rinse and

get paint out of the deeper grooves. Some residue of paint is still visible in the recesses. He fears that attempting to remove 100% of the paint will damage the terracotta and allow water infiltration. The applicants are now proposing to remove paint from the brick and to rinse and paint the terracotta with a coating called Thorocoat to match the underlying cream terracotta color. On the 13th Street side, a broken section of the cornice would be repaired. They would use all the appropriate environmental protection. The cost without stripping the paint from the cornice would be $17,000. With the cornice paint stripping, it is estimated at $25,000. Mr. Baron praised the work performed by Mr. Friko on the paint removal. He said that this is not a shiny glazed terracotta but a matte unglazed terracotta. He saw no evidence of damage from the paint removal. He said the removal was successful even if a small amount of paint remained in the deeper grooves. Mr. Friko said the terracotta is in good shape, but that its lifespan will be extended if the material is coated. He emphasized that the paint stripping could weaken the material. Ms. Gutterman opined that, if this is glazed terracotta and there are fractures in the glaze, then the chemical could filter through and damage the material. Mr. Baron said he saw no evidence that the terracotta is glazed. Mr. Fricko agreed. He also pointed out that, unlike the consolidant proposed for the terracotta at 19th and Delancey Streets in an earlier application, the paint on this terracotta is almost certainly not breathable and therefore could damage the terracotta itself. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 17 Mr. Amburn reminded the Committee that the paint removal is part of a compromise. If the applicant does not wish to undertake the paint removal, then the compromise has not been met. Without the compromise, the incorrect storefronts will again become an open issue. Unless all of the elements of the compromise are accomplished, the violation will stand open on the books. He reminded the applicant that they have twice promised to remove the paint from the terracotta. Mr. Baron reiterated the staff’s recommendation of denial of the legalization, but approval of the paint removal. He said that the storefront was not part of the current application, but that the violation would remain until all aspect

that they have twice promised to remove the paint from the terracotta. Mr. Baron reiterated the staff’s recommendation of denial of the legalization, but approval of the paint removal. He said that the storefront was not part of the current application, but that the violation would remain until all aspect of the work in violation are brought into compliance. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend denial, pursuant to Standard 6 and 7. 1826 DELANCEY PLACE Applicant/Owners: Barbara & Steve Shapiro History: 1856, Mantle Fielding, architect Individually designated 1972; Contributing to Rittenhouse Fitler District, 1995 Project: Construct rear addition with deck OVERVIEW: This application proposes alterations to the rear of this house, which faces the backs of other houses. The architect proposes to add a bay at the second-story over the existing bay. He also proposes to remove the two windows and brickwork at the third-story rear and install a wall of windows and French doors onto a new deck, which would sit on the enlarged bay. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the wall of windows and French doors at the third floor are deleted and the existing windows are cut down to doors instead, thereby preserving spatial relations and more historic fabric, pursuant to Standards 9 and 10. DISCUSSION: Mr. Baron presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Architect Kevin Rasmussen and property owner Steve Shapiro represented the application. Mr. Rasmussen explained that the intent of adding the French doors with the sidelights is to open up the interior dining room and provide greater light. Mr. Shapiro explained that the living areas are on the upper floors. The dining room is on the third floor. Ms. Gutterman questioned whether the rail would be replaced in kind. Mr. Rasmussen replied the replacement will be a simple vertical balustrade. Mr. Shapiro stated that there is currently an unusable deck on top of the bay. It has a 12”-high railing and is accessed through existing windows. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval as submitted. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 18 1112 LOCUST STREET Owner: Gibbs Connors Applicant: Gibbs Connors History: c. 1815 Project: Construct three-story addition OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a three-story addition at the west elevation of the building at 1112 Locust Street. The building with addition would house a café and gallery on the first floor and apartments on the

Gibbs Connors Applicant: Gibbs Connors History: c. 1815 Project: Construct three-story addition OVERVIEW: This application proposes to construct a three-story addition at the west elevation of the building at 1112 Locust Street. The building with addition would house a café and gallery on the first floor and apartments on the second and third floors. The building at 1112 Locust Street is the only survivor of a row of four houses constructed about 1815. A storefront with a large shop window and metal cornice was added to the building about 1905. The building to the east at 1110 Locust Street was demolished in the early twentieth century. The Redevelopment Authority demolished the buildings to the west at 1114 and 1116 Locust Street, which were individually designated, in the 1970s. The Commission rescinded the phantom designations of the vacant lots at 1114 and 1116 Locust Street in April 2005. The proposed addition would stand to the west of the historic building on a portion of the parcel historically known as 1114 Locust that has been consolidated into 1112 Locust. The addition would connect to the historic building at 1112 Locust Street at the stuccoed, former party wall. The front and rear facades of the historic building, the only facades that were historically exposed, would not be altered. The front and rear façades of the addition would be clad with glass and metal infill panels that would echo the glass and metal 1905 storefront. The west elevation would be clad primarily in brick with bands of glass and metal panels, again echoing the historic building. The roof would be metal. The Commission reviewed and unanimously approved an application proposing a very similar addition for this property at its April 2009 meeting. The applicant has submitted the second application for review because the design has been revised slightly from the approved design to incorporate suggestions offered by the Washington Square West Civic Association. The changes include the addition of a base at the new storefront to echo the historic storefront base; the addition of storefront windows on the west façade of the addition to enliven and break up the mass of the façade; and a slight adjustment of the glass to metal panel ratio and a change in the spandrel designs at the upper stories of the front façade. During the reviews of the design approved in April 2008, one interested party asserted that

enliven and break up the mass of the façade; and a slight adjustment of the glass to metal panel ratio and a change in the spandrel designs at the upper stories of the front façade. During the reviews of the design approved in April 2008, one interested party asserted that the proposed design was not compatible with the historic building. Voting unanimously to approve the design, the Commission flatly rejected that claim as well as the recommendation of denial from its Architectural Committee. The Commission concurred with the staff, which asserted that the proposed design satisfied Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. The approved and proposed additions would not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. The addition would connect to the party wall, where the historic neighboring building connected to this building. No historically significant material would be removed or ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 19 altered for the addition. No features or spaces would be altered from their historic conditions. The new addition would be differentiated from the old; it would not be confused as historic fabric. The new addition would be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing of the historic building. The window and door sizes, floor heights, and other elements that provide scale are drawn from the historic building; both the new and historic elements have the same vertically-oriented proportioning. The massing is likewise compatible; the addition is neither too large nor too small for the historic building, but sits comfortably next to it. The materials - brick, metal, and glass - are all drawn from the historic building but are used in contemporary ways. The features are also compatible; for example, the storefront and residential windows of the addition are derived from those of the historic building and, like their historic counterparts, indicate the activities that take place behind them. Standard 9 provides a basis for assessments of compatibility, but it should not be allowed to shackle notions of compatibility. During the earlier review, it was suggested that the addition should have punched openings

the historic building and, like their historic counterparts, indicate the activities that take place behind them. Standard 9 provides a basis for assessments of compatibility, but it should not be allowed to shackle notions of compatibility. During the earlier review, it was suggested that the addition should have punched openings like the historic building. Such a superficial notion of compatibility predicated on formal resemblance should be rejected. It is often nothing more than a rationalization for an aesthetic preference. When confronting questions of taste, the Commission must privilege the property owner’s aesthetic preferences over its own as well as those of third parties, especially when those preferences have no bearing on historic preservation. Moreover, when compatibility is founded on a “kit of parts” notion of design, in which new construction at historic sites and in historic districts is nothing more than an assemblage of historic features and elements drawn from the surroundings, both preservation and design suffer immeasurably. “Compatible” does not mean “identical” or “looks like”; it means “able to exist in harmony.” Context can be interpreted in myriad ways and on myriad levels and compatible design can spring from myriad interpretations of context. Superficial formal visual resemblance is but the most obvious basis for compatibility. More complex notions of compatibility will lead not only to more satisfying new architecture that itself will qualify as historic in the future, but also to deeper and more satisfying interpretations of historic architecture. Mandating that new architecture merely visually resemble the historic architecture around it will unduly restrict our futures and our pasts. The request for punched openings provides an excellent means of exploring ways of thinking about context and compatibility. The historic building has brick load-bearing walls that are two wythes of brick or 8 inches thick. The structure and the cladding, i.e. the brick, are one. The window openings are deep and the windows are deeply inset because the walls are thick. Masonry load-bearing wall represented the state of the technology when this building was constructed in 1815. The punched openings are a candid expression of the technology of the time and are symptomatic of the masonry load-bearing wall. By the middle of the nineteenth century, masonry load-bearing walls were eclipsed by new framing technologies. The development of metal framing systems and other technologies allowed for a separation of structure and cladding. Despite these advances in technology, some architects continued to

and are symptomatic of the masonry load-bearing wall. By the middle of the nineteenth century, masonry load-bearing walls were eclipsed by new framing technologies. The development of metal framing systems and other technologies allowed for a separation of structure and cladding. Despite these advances in technology, some architects continued to construct buildings that appeared to have masonry load-bearing walls, even though they actually had steel frames with non-structural cladding hung on them. To achieve the effect of a masonry load-bearing wall, these architects designed the cladding to give the appearance of punched openings. Modernist architects of the early twentieth century reacted against this mode, calling it “dishonest.” Le Corbusier’s famous Dom-ino House drawing of 1914 (to right) is considered the definitive exposition of the divorce of structure and ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 20 cladding; the house stands without any cladding; light cladding can be hung from the structure. Although architectural theorists have moved beyond the Modernists’ ethical polemics, the Modernists’ demand for “honesty” has value in this context. Punched openings are not the essence of the 1815 building; the “honest” expression of its structural system, the load-bearing brick walls, is its essence. Like the historic building, the proposed addition would “honestly” express its essence, its structural system, and therefore could be considered compatible in this way with the historic building. Compatibility can be conceived in myriad ways and still satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, pursuant to the Commission’s approval of 9 April 2009 and Standard 9. DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the application to the Architectural Committee. Architect Kevin Rasmussen and property owner Gibbs Connors represented the application. Mr. Rasmussen summarized the project for the Committee. He stated that the Commission approved a design that was very similar to the one proposed today at its April 2009 meeting. He stated that the Committee had reviewed an earlier version of that proposal and offered comments at its March 2009 meeting. Mr. Rasmussen explained that he revised the design presented to the Committee in March based on its comments as well as those of the Preservation Alliance and presented that revised design to the Commission in April, which the Commission approved. He stated that he adjusted the heights and alignments of the windows to make them more compatible with the historic building. After receiving the Commission’s approval, he presented the design to the Washington

the Preservation Alliance and presented that revised design to the Commission in April, which the Commission approved. He stated that he adjusted the heights and alignments of the windows to make them more compatible with the historic building. After receiving the Commission’s approval, he presented the design to the Washington Square West Civic Association, which also offered comments. The design proposed today incorporates the comments of the civic association. He noted that the storefront windows had been wrapped around to the side façade. A base has been added to the storefront at the addition to mirror the base at the historic storefront. The panel and window design has been adjusted slightly at the upper floors. However, the design is very similar to that approved by the Commission. He presented a three- dimensional rendering as seen from the northwest corner. Mr. Cluver expressed concerns about the brick side wall, saying the plane of brick sticks up past the cornice line creating a blank façade. He stated that an historic building would have had a gabled end. He objected to this design feature. Mr. Rasmussen said that he and his client continue to assert that the original structure benefits from a differentiated addition. He remarked that this is an infill project and should not look like it was cut from the same cloth as the historic building. The addition reads as contemporary, but is compatible with the historic building. Mr. Connors noted that the side of the historic building is a blank party wall. He noted that, historically, these walls were painted with signs. Mr. Evans stated that the staff’s comments regarding compatibility were apt. He observed that personal taste should not play a role in the Commission’s decisions regarding compatibility. He stated that he, personally, prefers the middle iteration, but commented that the third version is a compromise between several positions. He noted that the height of the base might be adjusted slightly. John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance offered an alternative approach. He distributed a rendering of an addition he considered compatible. He reminded the Committee of their previous recommendation of denial. He again stated that the proposed addition is not compatible with the historic building. He stated that the addition is too different. He felt that the ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 21 design is not a balance between compatible and differentiated. He asserted that the

of denial. He again stated that the proposed addition is not compatible with the historic building. He stated that the addition is too different. He felt that the ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 21 design is not a balance between compatible and differentiated. He asserted that the facades of the addition should be constructed in the same materials and colors. Mr. Gallery asserted that the side façade would not satisfy the fire code. Mr. Rasmussen thanked Mr. Gallery for his comments. He stated that the proposed design offers a balance between sameness and difference. He stated that the addition is contemporary, yet compatible. He asserted that the addition has the same massing, size, scale, proportion, features, and materials as the historic building. Mr. Amburn noted that he approved of the earlier version. He stated that he preferred the brick that extended down to the ground at the front corner of the addition in the earlier versions. Ms. Gutterman and Mr. D’Alessandro questioned the compatibility of the addition with historic building. Mr. D’Alessandro suggested trimming the projection of the party wall above the roof line. Like Mr. Amburn, Mr. Evans approved of the design. He stated that it would instigate conversations about the historic building. He deemed it a healthy addition to the discourse. Mr. McCoubrey likewise voiced his approval of the application, but echoed Mr. Amburn’s suggestion that the brick at the corner of the addition be again extended down to the ground. The Committee members agreed that the staff should be authorized to review and approve of minor modifications to the design of the addition because the design might be revised slightly to satisfy the many interested parties. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Architectural Committee voted to recommend approval, with the staff to review details, pursuant to the Commission’s approval of 9 April 2009 and Standard 9. ADJOURNMENT The Architectural Committee adjourned at 1:30 p.m. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CITED IN THE MINUTES Standard 2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinct materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Standard 6:

relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Standard 4: Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new works shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE, 26 MAY 2009 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 22 Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.