Committee on Historic Designation — Feb 15, 2017

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 1 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2017, 9:30 A.M. ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET EMILY COOPERMAN, PH.D., CHAIR PRESENT Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., chair Jeffrey Cohen, Ph.D. Janet Klein Bruce Laverty Douglas Mooney, M.A. Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Kim Broadbent, Historic Preservation Planner II Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner I ALSO PRESENT Jim Campbell, Campbell Thomas & Company Qiongzhou Schicktanz Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Amy Lambert, University City Historical Society David Gest, Esq., Ballard Spahr Brett Feldman, Esq., Klehr Harrison Nicole Norcross, Esq., Obermayer Theresa Shockley, Community Education Center Elizabeth Stegner, University City Historical Society Helma Weeks, Powelton Village Civic Association John Phillips, Powelton Village Civic Association George Poulin, Powelton Village Civic Association Caryn Healy, Powelton Village Civic Association Joyce Evans, Fox29 William Martin, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP Celeste Morello Oscar Beisert CALL TO ORDER Ms. Cooperman called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Ms. Klein and Messrs. Cohen, Laverty, and Mooney joined her. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 2 2041-55 CORAL ST Name of Resource: Harbisons' Dairies Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Fozan Ehmedi Nominator: Keeping Society of Philadelphia, LLC Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 2041-55 Coral Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the four buildings and iconic milk bottle water tower formerly owned by Harbisons Dairy satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, F, H, and J. The nomination argues that Harbisons Dairy developed into a leading dairy company that served many Philadelphians through what began as a home milk delivery service and later expanded into a large-scale production facility. The nomination asserts that owners Robert and Thomas Bartly Harbison were significant Philadelphians, owing not only to their role in establishing and growing the prominent dairy business, but also for their involvement in educating and promoting the safe storage and transport of milk products. The nomination further contends that the milk bottle water tower is significant for its innovative use as an advertisement and as a familiar visual feature of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 2041-55 Coral Street

storage and transport of milk products. The nomination further contends that the milk bottle water tower is significant for its innovative use as an advertisement and as a familiar visual feature of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 2041-55 Coral Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, F, H, and J. DISCUSSION: Attorney William Martin stated that he submitted a request for a continuance and explained that his team started significant investigatory work on the building’s iconic milk bottle water tower. From his perspective, he continued, the milk bottle water tower is particularly noteworthy. He noted that the property owner hired Vertical Access of Ithaca, New York, to conduct a study with drones and climbers who accessed the milk bottle structure. The results of the study, he added, came in a couple weeks ago. He indicated that he met with representatives of the Commission’s staff and reached out to the nominator to begin a dialogue with the Keeping Society. He also noted that he initiated a dialogue with the Preservation Alliance and will meet with the organization in a few weeks. He explained that their investigations are to allow them to develop creative ways to address the milk bottle water tower in such a way that will be successful to all parties. That process, Mr. Martin continued, will take some time, because further analysis will be necessary, pricing is required, and discussions on how to identify resources are needed. He concluded that a continuance is appropriate to enable a consensual approach. Ms. Cooper asked if the nominator concurs with the continuance request. Nominator Oscar Beisert replied that he is open to dialogue and compromise, but argued that the continuances are out of control, even beyond this one specific case. He contended that there were approximately 19 sites designated last year with approximately double the number of nominations submitted. Mr. Beisert questioned whether nominations with continuance requests were unnecessarily taking up spots on the Committee’s agenda or whether such requests were factored into the planning process. Ms. Cooperman responded that the Committee would make a motion to continue the review of the nomination to a specific meeting date, so it would not be an open-ended continuance. Mr. Beisert clarified that his question was to determine whether nominations with a continuance request were holding a place on the agenda when only a

Committee would make a motion to continue the review of the nomination to a specific meeting date, so it would not be an open-ended continuance. Mr. Beisert clarified that his question was to determine whether nominations with a continuance request were holding a place on the agenda when only a certain number of items can be reviewed because of time constraints. Essentially, he added, the review is dragged out and the reason for the continuance request has no bearing on the building’s historical significance. He reiterated that he is not opposed to the continuance, but COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 3 asserted that the Committee could already have reviewed the nomination, and it could then be tabled on the Commission’s agenda for any period of time. Mr. Beisert argued that the Committee on Historic Designation is only considering significance. He again reiterated that he is not opposed to the request, but commented that the continuances are causing too few sites to get designated. He advised the Committee to practice caution, so the requests do not continue in the same manner. Ms. Cooperman commented that Mr. Beisert’s point was well taken. She then explained that, at this particular meeting, the Committee only has the room until 1:30pm and noted that the Committee would need to move expiditiously. Given the current circumstances, she continued, it would be helpful to recommend to the Commission that it grant the current continuance requests. However, she added, it would be important that the minutes reflect Mr. Beisert’s concern. Ms. Cooperman asked there was any other comment on the property owner’s request. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 21 June 2017 meeting. 1642 FITZWATER ST Name of Resource: Tabor Chapel and Mission School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: The First Colored Wesley Methodist Church Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1642 Fitzwater Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that property is significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and J. The nomination contends that the church is significant under Criteria A and J for its association with

at 1642 Fitzwater Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that property is significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and J. The nomination contends that the church is significant under Criteria A and J for its association with the African American church and community in Philadelphia, and as a representation of the physical development of the larger Presbyterian Church through the establishment of mission chapels or congregations by the Philadelphia Sabbath-School Association. The nomination further argues that the Samuel Sloan-designed church is significant as an early example of his commissions, satisfying Criterion E, but little information is provided as to how the building embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, mentioned in the nomination as Italianate or Italian Romanesque, and how the building reflects the environment in an era characterized by said distinctive architectural style. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1642 Fitzwater Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. The staff contends that the nomination, not the building itself, does not make a cogent argument for Criteria C and D. Additionally, the staff notes that the correct address for the church building is 1642 Fitzwater Street, rather than the 1640 Fitzwater Street address that is found on the nomination form and throughout the body of the nomination. DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee. Attorney David Gest represented the property owner. Paul Steinke represented the nominator. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 4 COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Historical Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 19 April 2017 meeting. 100 S INDEPENDENCE W ML Name of Resource: Rohm & Haas Proposed Action: Designation of building, public interior, and objects Property Owner: KPG-IMW Owner, LLC Nominator: Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: These nominations propose to designate the building, public interior, and chandeliers at 100 S. Independence W. Mall as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nominations collectively argue that the building, interior and chandeliers are significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, F, G, H and J. The building nomination contends that it is one

100 S. Independence W. Mall as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nominations collectively argue that the building, interior and chandeliers are significant under Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, F, G, H and J. The building nomination contends that it is one of Philadelphia’s most significant mid-twentieth century buildings, satisfying Criteria A and J, for its association with the Rohm & Haas Company, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority and the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, who were heavily involved in its development. The nomination further argues that the building’s high- profile location next to Independence Mall, and the influence that the setting had on its design, satisfy Criteria G and H. Finally, the building nomination contends that the involvement of architect Pietro Belluschi satisfies Criterion E, while the building’s Modernist characteristics and innovative incorporation of modern materials satisfy Criteria C, D, and F. The interior nomination proposes to designate the public interior portions of the north pavilion ground floor lobby and south pavilion commercial space. The nomination contends that the public interior portions of the ground floor are one of Philadelphia’s most significant Modernist interior spaces, satisfying Criteria C and D, and are tied to influential modern designers Pietro Belluschi and György Kepes, satisfying Criterion E. The nomination further argues that the incorporation of Plexiglas into the design of the building, symbolizing the importance of that material to the success of the Rohm & Haas Company, satisfies Criterion A. The object nomination covers the three Plexiglas chandeliers that are located along the west perimeter of the north pavilion in an area of the building designed and used for non-public functions. The remainder of the chandeliers is included in the public interior nomination. The object nomination contends that the chandeliers are significant under Criterion A, for the incorporation of Plexiglas into the design of the building, symbolizing the importance of that material to the success of the Rohm & Haas Company, and under Criterion E, for their association with influential modern designers Pietro Belluschi and György Kepes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nominations demonstrate that the building, public interior, and chandeliers at 100 S. Independence W. Mall satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J. DISCUSSION: Ms. Cooperman recused. Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee. Attorney Brett Feldman represented the property owner. Patrick Grossi represented

demonstrate that the building, public interior, and chandeliers at 100 S. Independence W. Mall satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J. DISCUSSION: Ms. Cooperman recused. Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee. Attorney Brett Feldman represented the property owner. Patrick Grossi represented the nominator. Mr. Grossi stated that the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia is joining in the continuance request while working with the property owner on alternative treatments. Mr. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 5 Feldman stated that they have had multiple meetings with the Alliance’s easement committee and look forward to continuing to work with the Alliance on the matter. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 19 April 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 1600-06, 1608-10 E BERKS ST Name of Resource: Objects in St. Laurentius Church Proposed Action: Designation of Objects Property Owner: Archdiocese of Philadelphia Nominator: John Wisniewski, Friends of St. Laurentius Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the three reredos and 16 paintings satisfy Criteria for Designation D, E, and J. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate 19 objects in the interior of St. Laurentius Church at 1600-06 and 1608-10 E Berks Street and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the three reredos/altarpieces and 16 paintings satisfy Criteria for Designation D, E, and J. The exterior of the property is already listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the objects reflect the heritage of the Polish immigrants, who settled in Fishtown and founded the church. The three reredos, the nomination asserts, were imported from Munich, Germany and are original to the construction of the building in 1890, and are significant as representations of the Gothic Revival style, as is the exterior of the building. The nomination further contends that the 16 oil on canvas paintings, added in 1912, are significant as works of artist Lorenzo Scattaglia and for their depictions of many scenes unique to Polish Catholicism. DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee. Mr. Farnham explained that he spoke to attorney Michael Philips who requested the continuance for two reasons. First, Mr.

in 1912, are significant as works of artist Lorenzo Scattaglia and for their depictions of many scenes unique to Polish Catholicism. DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the continuance request to the Committee. Mr. Farnham explained that he spoke to attorney Michael Philips who requested the continuance for two reasons. First, Mr. Philips is taking his child to a doctor’s appointment that could not be missed, and second, he is in continued discussions with the nominator about the relocation of the objects to an appropriate repository. Mr. Farnham noted that an agreement has not been reached, but the parties are actively working to come to an agreement. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 19 April 2017 meeting. ADDRESS: 509-13 DIAMOND ST Name of Resource: First Mennonite Church of Philadelphia Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Lewis Temple Pentacostal Church of God Nominator: Daniel Sigmans and Oscar Beisert Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 509-13 Diamond Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former First Mennonite Church of Philadelphia satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J. The COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 6 nomination argues that the building housed the largest Mennonite congregation in Philadelphia and provided an urban place of worship for progressive southeastern Pennsylvania Mennonites, who typically left rural Bucks County farms to pursue economic opportunities within the industrialized city. The nomination also contends that Nathaniel B. Grubb, the church’s charismatic leader for 38 years, quickly increased membership after joining as its minister and preached extensively to numerous Mennonite and non-Mennonite congregations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 509-13 Diamond Street satisfies Criterion for Designation J, but that it does not satisfy Criterion A solely on the importance of Nathaniel Grubb. DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Mr. Beisert stated that this nomination serves as a great example of teamwork. He recounted the collaboration by explaining that he posted some details about the building on Facebook, and someone had corrected him. He remarked that he thanked

Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Mr. Beisert stated that this nomination serves as a great example of teamwork. He recounted the collaboration by explaining that he posted some details about the building on Facebook, and someone had corrected him. He remarked that he thanked the person for the correction and asked if he would be interested in writing a nomination. Mr. Beisert stated that the person agreed. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment, of which there was none. She then conjectured whether Criterion for Designation A hinges on Grubb’s importance, noting that there are certainly leaders of congregations who are sufficiently important to the city as a whole to merit designation under Criterion A. She questioned whether Grubb’s significance satisfies Criterion A, stating that she has doubts, though she opined that the property itself may satisfy the criterion as a representation of the Mennonite community. Mr. Cohen agreed that Grubb may not satisfy Criterion A, but argued for the inclusion of Criterion J. He further asserted that there may be an argument for architectural style, adding that the style is intriguing but lacks a name. He noted that in the nomination, Mr. Beisert refers to the style as Italianate, but Mr. Cohen commented that it does not quite apply. Ms. Cooperman agreed, adding that the Committee has seen a number of similar churches with a distinctive style. Mr. Cohen expressed his appreciation to Mr. Beisert for brining the property to the Committee’s attention and remarked that the church escapes the standard stylistic categories. Consequently, he continued, nobody knows what to call the style, though there are several churches and other buildings with the same type of brick. To call it Italianate, he elaborated, does not capture the special character of the building. Mr. Beisert responded that the lack of a clear style prevented him from exploring the architecture further. Mr. Cohen observed that the nomination identifies a builder, H.M. Martin, but not an architect. He asked Mr. Beisert if he found more information on Martin. Mr. Beisert replied that he had not, and Mr. Cohen suggested that the name could likely be found in a directory to determine whether he was a design/builder. Mr. Cohen stated that the nomination was well researched, but noted that the nomination does not need to contain photographs of people at parties. The Committee then discussed including

and Mr. Cohen suggested that the name could likely be found in a directory to determine whether he was a design/builder. Mr. Cohen stated that the nomination was well researched, but noted that the nomination does not need to contain photographs of people at parties. The Committee then discussed including Criterion for Designation A for the church’s representation of Mennonite heritage. Mr. Beisert asked to correct a typographical error on the nomination form. The form indicates that the nomination was sponsored by the University City Historical Society, and he asked that the organization be removed. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 7 Ms. Klein inquired about the building’s current use and whether it functions as a place of worship. She also asked if the adjacent building is a residence, noting that its front façade is boarded. Mr. Beisert answered that he believes the congregation uses a small portion of the building, thought he was not certain. Mr. Cohen argued that the property satisfies Criterion for Designation C, though Mr. Laverty countered that the distinctive architectural style is unnamed in the nomination. The Committee discussed which Criteria for Designation the property satisfies. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 509-13 Diamond Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and J. ADDRESS: 516 WHARTON ST Name of Resource: St. John German Evangelical Lutheran Church Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: New York-Washington C.M.E. Annual Conference, Inc. Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 516 Wharton Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former St. John German Evangelical Lutheran Church satisfies Criterion for Designation A. The nomination argues that the church provides the only existing evidence of the neighborhood’s nineteenth-century German heritage and reflects a period of German unrest during which Germans sought religious freedom in the United States. The nomination further contends that the church typifies a small working-class community of German Lutherans that lived in the neighboring Southwark rowhouses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 516 Wharton Street satisfies Criterion for Designation A. DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Celeste Morello represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner.

lived in the neighboring Southwark rowhouses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 516 Wharton Street satisfies Criterion for Designation A. DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Celeste Morello represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Ms. Morello stated that she selected the church because she felt it was an anomaly and noted that the building is tightly surrounded by rowhouses. She commented that the church serves as active African-American congregation and was told that they sometimes sublet the building to Hispanic groups. She also noted that NBC10 affixed weather devices to the belfry and uses the church as its Pennsport weather center. She asserted that the weather towers mar the church’s architectural integrity. The weather center, she opined, suggests that the congregation is not wealthy. She argued that it had been small and poor in the past and that it went to great lengths to raise funds for the church’s construction. She commented that she nominated the church only on Criterion for Designation, but that Mr. Cohen had informed her that Samuel Sloan designed the building. She explained that her research on the church’s history, which included consulting the American Architects and Buildings website and archives at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, resulted in no affiliation of any architect. Ms. Morello stated that she would take Mr. Cohen’s word that Sloan designed the building, adding that she knows nothing about the architect that would potentially enhance the nomination. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 8 Oscar Beisert commented that the church reminds him of the “squatty tower” on St. Mary’s Church in Manayunk, which also served the German community. Ms. Morello responded that the church is rustic in appearance and the congregation does not properly maintain the property. The photographs of the side, she continued, show simple maintenance issues, such as overgrown weeds and debris. She noted other maintenance issues that she felt should be addressed. Ms. Cooperman asked if the church has brownstone, and Ms. Morello affirmed. Mr. Cohen remarked that when he saw the nomination, he felt the person responsible for the design had to be a known architect, so he conducted a newspaper search and discovered Samuel Sloan affiliated with the design. He then quoted the Philadelphia Inquirer entry he found: “The architect is Samuel Slone; the builder,

that when he saw the nomination, he felt the person responsible for the design had to be a known architect, so he conducted a newspaper search and discovered Samuel Sloan affiliated with the design. He then quoted the Philadelphia Inquirer entry he found: “The architect is Samuel Slone; the builder, Joseph McIlvaine.” Ms. Cooperman commented that McIlvaine is also an important figure in the city, adding that the newspaper mention is likely the best documentation for the period. One reason no name appears in the Philadelphia Architects and Buildings database, she continued, is because many records come from after the period after the city issued building permits, which only started in 1886. Prior to that date, she elaborated, finding notice in the newspaper was a good find, unless original drawings were available. Mr. Laverty stated that the nomination would have stood on its own beforehand. After generating a little investigation, he continued, it has some important new information. Ms. Cooperman added that Sloan in particular stands as a very important figure, and because he was largely working before the issuance of building permits, the full extent of his work is not greatly understood. Mr. Cohen noted that Ms. Cooperman’s statement holds especially true for Sloan’s work in the 1870s, since more information exists on his 1850s work. Mr. Cohen explained that Sloan moved into a different phase following the Civil War. He then applauded the connection Ms. Morello drew to the German community, noting that that connection is no longer visible but that it was clearly shown in historic atlases. Ms. Cooperman requested that the nomination focus on the period of the church and eliminate the very broad history of the denomination, which she claimed does not support the nomination and instead serves as a distraction. Ms. Morello countered that the denomination’s history does support the nomination, because this particular group developed into a sect. Ms. Cooperman agreed with the assertion, but argued that the history need not begin at 1742. Ms. Morello responded that she wanted to show the Lutheran church’s foundation in Philadelphia. Ms. Cooperman replied that a summary would be warranted rather than the entire history, so the reader is not left to search for information on the actual building. She then noted that the nomination identifies the church as marking the presence of Germans in Southwark, which she called crucial, though she stated that the nomination

summary would be warranted rather than the entire history, so the reader is not left to search for information on the actual building. She then noted that the nomination identifies the church as marking the presence of Germans in Southwark, which she called crucial, though she stated that the nomination needs to indicate when the Germans first established a community. She asserted that the narrative buries the information and should be better organized to make for a stronger nomination. Mr. Cohen stated that the nomination contained a point of confusion from a contradicting point on page 9. He recommended that he review the nomination with Ms. Morello to discuss how to improve it and suggested that she include figure numbers, cite sources, and better organize the arguments. Ms. Morello responded that she was finished with the nomination and that no one thanked her for writing it. Ms. Cooperman replied that she hopes Ms. Morello will take the comments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to strengthen future nominations. Ms. Cooperman asserted that her goal is not to criticize or denigrate Ms. Morello’s work and that she realizes writing nominations requires a significant amount of volunteer work. She further noted that Ms. Morello had identified important places, reiterating that the Committee’s comments are COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 9 meant to make future efforts stronger. Ms. Morello countered that people often fail to understand that when she and others such as Mr. Beisert write nominations, they receive no support. Some people, she continued, ask her to address her own neighborhood in South Philadelphia, though she receives no help with expenses. The new generation, she contended, is not attuned to Philadelphia’s heritage. Ms. Klein remarked that on page 6, the nominator’s comments on the need for more maintenance overall is very helpful for members of the congregation. She noted that documents such as Ms. Morello’s nomination are rarely written and provide beneficial information on maintenance. Ms. Morello replied that no member of the congregation has contacted her, which makes her believe they do not care. Mr. Cohen stated that his comments are meant to strengthen the nomination. When a nomination is weak and contains errors, he continued, people find it not to be trustworthy. Consequently, he added, some areas of the nomination need to be revised. Ms. Morello asked if the nomination contains

not care. Mr. Cohen stated that his comments are meant to strengthen the nomination. When a nomination is weak and contains errors, he continued, people find it not to be trustworthy. Consequently, he added, some areas of the nomination need to be revised. Ms. Morello asked if the nomination contains errors of fact. Mr. Cohen replied that it does and offered to review the errors with Ms. Morello. Ms. Morello replied that she did her research at the Athenaeum and spoke with the German Lutherans. Representatives of the church, she claimed, were not amenable to her research. Ms. Morello recounted the difficulties in communicating with a church representative. Mr. Cohen stated that the Committee appreciates the trouble Ms. Morello went through in writing the nomination. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment, of which there was none. Mr. Cohen discussed which Criteria for Designation the property satisfies and determined that Criterion E should be added for the building’s association with Samuel Sloan. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 516 Wharton Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, E, and J. ADDRESS: 400 WASHINGTON AVE Name of Resource: Southwark Iron Foundry/ Merrick & Sons (Sacks Playground) Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: City of Philadelphia, Parks & Recreation Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, meredith.keller@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 400 Washington Avenue as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former site of the Southwark Iron Foundry, now known as Sacks Playground, satisfies Criterion for Designation A. The nomination argues that the site is affiliated with Samuel Merrick, a significant nineteenth-century Philadelphian who became the first chief engineer of the Philadelphia Gas Works, served as an elected official, co-founded the Franklin Institute, and established the Southwark Iron Foundry. The nomination also contends that the site is likely to yield information important in history due to the nearly one-hundred-year production of machinery and parts for commercial, domestic, industrial, and military purposes when the Southwork Iron Foundry was in active use. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 400 Washington Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation I. While the staff acknowledges the importance of Samuel Merrick, it

the Southwork Iron Foundry was in active use. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 400 Washington Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation I. While the staff acknowledges the importance of Samuel Merrick, it contends that the lack of an extant above- ground resource precludes the property from satisfying Criterion for Designation A. DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Celeste Morello represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment, of which there was none. Mr. Mooney thanked Ms. Morello for recognizing the site’s archaeological potential, adding that his colleagues at the Society for Industrial Archaeology would be very happy that the site was nominated. He commented that earlier artifacts, including those associated with the Mischianza, were not likely to be preserved on the site, especially given that the event was short-lived and probably did not leave much of an archaeological signature. The industrial site, he continued, holds huge potential to inform about Merrick’s ironworks. Mr. Mooney also noted that the nomination is timely, given that the site may have been identified by the city for its Rebuild program and may be impacted in the near future. Ms. Cooperman stated that she appreciated the relationship drawn between Merrick’s career and Southwark, adding that Merrick is well known in Philadelphia’s history. Ms. Morello noted that she nominated Merrick for an official historical marker and is hoping by the next meeting that he will not be one of Philadelphia’s “unsung heroes.” A marker at the site, she continued, would likely include the words, “On this site,” since the site no longer exists. She commented that she understands why Criterion A may be excluded. Ms. Cooperman questioned the inclusion of Criterion A, adding that site certainly satisfies Criterion I. Ms. Cooperman asked the Committee for their opinions on the inclusion of Criterion A. Mr. Laverty opined that if no aboveground resource represents the period of significance, then Criterion A should not be applied. He agreed that Criterion I applies to the property, adding that he had no question about Merrick’s or his ironworks’ influence and importance to the city and nation. Ms. Cooperman suggested that other sites with surviving aboveground structures, such as the Franklin Institute, may serve as better candidates for Criterion

He agreed that Criterion I applies to the property, adding that he had no question about Merrick’s or his ironworks’ influence and importance to the city and nation. Ms. Cooperman suggested that other sites with surviving aboveground structures, such as the Franklin Institute, may serve as better candidates for Criterion A as it relates to Merrick. Mr. Cohen voiced his uncertainty over the criterion and asked the staff to speak to its recommendation. Ms. Keller stated that the staff asserted that the site only satisfies Criterion I, because any resource that would represent the site’s affiliation with Samuel Merrick would be belowground. She also clarified that the recommendation does not imply that Ms. Morello’s argument is insufficient, noting that the nominator makes a strong argument for significance. However, she continued, the staff contends that the significance outlined in the nomination can only be represented by Criterion I. Mr. Cohen opined on the site’s future regulation, should it be designated. To designate under Criterion I, he continued, would condition any future construction on archaeological investigation. Mr. Cohen questioned how designation would impact the city’s plans. Mr. Mooney responded that any listing of any site under Criterion I would not preclude future development or modification. He contended that development would need to proceed in such as way that it does not damage or destroy the archaeological resources. He noted that a certain amount of fill has been brought to the site already to create ball fields, adding that the fill provides some buffer COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 11 and that the city’s plans may be surficial in nature. Mr. Mooney reiterated that archaeological investigation would not preclude development and commented that the process would not need to be costly or time consuming. Mr. Laverty stated that the Committee’s role is not to decide how the site will be regulated, even if the owner is the City of Philadelphia. Ms. Cooperman agreed, clarifying that the Committee’s role is technical and that it is tasked with determining whether Criterion A is applicable. Ms. Morello remarked that she sees the site’s value as part of the city’s development and heritage, even as a blank site, since Merrick and his partners chose the site for specific reasons, including its proximity to the railway. Mr. Cohen observed that it would be likely that the site would provide some traces of the

the site’s value as part of the city’s development and heritage, even as a blank site, since Merrick and his partners chose the site for specific reasons, including its proximity to the railway. Mr. Cohen observed that it would be likely that the site would provide some traces of the ironworks’ foundations, adding that there were likely heavy buildings with deep foundations. He concluded the site holds potential for learning more about Philadelphia’s industrial past and noted that Merrick is a remarkable individual for his time. Ms. Cooperman discussed the definition of Criterion A, stating that it does not offer much guidance. Mr. Mooney voiced his support for designating the site under Criterion I. Ms. Cooperman offered information on the definitions used by the National Register, explaining that a property designated under Criterion B, which relates to a person of significance, must have a meaningful association, must illustrate the person’s achievements and be associated with that period of achievement, and must be recognizable. She reiterated that the Committee is not bound by the National Register’s rules. Mr. Cohen stated that the National Register definition is informative in terms of measuring Criterion A regarding a significant person. Ms. Cooperman agreed that it serves as a useful model to determine how well a site illustrates the importance of an individual. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 400 Washington Avenue satisfies Criterion for Designation I. ADDRESS: 2700 S BROAD ST Name of Resource: Christopher Columbus Statue Proposed Action: Object Designation Property Owner: City of Philadelphia, Parks & Recreation Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the Christopher Columbus statue at Marconi Plaza (2700 S. Broad Street) as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the statue is significant under Criteria for Designation A and B, for its depiction of nationally-significant Christopher Columbus, and for its commission by a group of Italian Americans who gifted it to the City for display at the Centennial Exhibition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the Christopher Columbus statue at Marconi Plaza satisfies Criteria for Designation A and B. DISCUSSION: Ms. Broadbent presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Celeste Morello represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. COMMITTEE

Centennial Exhibition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the Christopher Columbus statue at Marconi Plaza satisfies Criteria for Designation A and B. DISCUSSION: Ms. Broadbent presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Celeste Morello represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 12 Ms. Morello explained that she was looking to highlight the connection of the statue to the Hispanic communities of Philadelphia, as well as the connection to the Centennial Exhibition. Paul Steinke, representing the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, commented that the Alliance supports the nomination, and that any significant surviving artifacts from the Centennial Exhibition should be preserved. He inquired as to the date that the statue was moved to Marconi Plaza. Ms. Morello responded that it was moved in the mid-1970s. Mr. Laverty commented that he always assumed it was moved during the Sesquicentennial. Ms. Broadbent confirmed that Parks and Recreation has correspondence regarding the relocation of the statue in 1976, and noted that it is already included in the nomination. Ms. Cooperman commented that she appreciates the effort to determine the artist. Mr. Cohen commented that is was likely an Italian sculptor, but that a local artist would have made the base. He commented that the nomination was especially well-written and researched, especially in terms of highlighting the other celebrations of Columbus, both his American and Italian and Spaniard. Ms. Morello opined that much has been forgotten about the way that Columbus was regarded by the early patriots. Mr. Cohen suggested that more information could be included regarding the relocation of the statue. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the Christopher Columbus statue at Marconi Plaza satisfies Criteria for Designation A and B. ADDRESS: 1114-50 S 5TH ST Name of Resource: George Washington Public School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: School District of Philadelphia Nominator: Celeste Morello Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1114-50 S. 5th Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the 1935 school building is significant under Criteria for Designation C and E, as an example of the popular Art Deco style of the 1920s and 30s, and as a design by prolific Philadelphia

as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the 1935 school building is significant under Criteria for Designation C and E, as an example of the popular Art Deco style of the 1920s and 30s, and as a design by prolific Philadelphia public school architect Irwin T. Catharine. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1114-50 S. 5th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C and E. DISCUSSION: Ms. Broadbent presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Celeste Morello represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Ms. Morello explained that she did not want to repeat any information that was already provided on the National Register nomination, which is why she focused on the artwork and any additional information that was omitted from the National Register nomination. Paul Steinke, representing the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, commented that the Alliance supports the nomination, and that Irwin Catharine was a prolific architect who COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 13 designed public schools in a great variety of styles throughout Philadelphia. Ms. Cooperman agreed, commenting that it is remarkable how much Catharine shaped the environment of the City. She opined that he is not as well-recognized as he should be, simply because he only had one client. She asked for clarification as to whether the school was listed on the original 1980s multiple property National Register nomination, or whether it was only surveyed. She commented that, while she appreciates the effort to keep the information separate, it is not necessary and a lot of the same information can be used in both nominations. Ms. Morello responded that she likes to do her own work. Ms. Klein commented that the property potentially meets additional Criteria for Designation, including Criteria D and H. Mr. Cohen agreed. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1114-50 S 5th Street satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and H. ADDRESS: 111 AND 201 E TABOR RD Name of Resource: St. James Methodist Episcopal Church Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: St. James Methodist Episcopal Church Nominator: Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 111 and 201 E. Tabor Road as

AND 201 E TABOR RD Name of Resource: St. James Methodist Episcopal Church Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: St. James Methodist Episcopal Church Nominator: Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Kim Broadbent, kim.broadbent@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 111 and 201 E. Tabor Road as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the church complex satisfies Criteria for Designation A and J, for its association with the Saint James Methodist Episcopal Church, and as an example of the growth and development of the community which resulted in the congregation building larger churches on several occasions until the construction of the present church in 1910. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 111 and 201 E Tabor Road satisfy Criteria for Designation A and J. DISCUSSION: Ms. Broadbent presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. Mr. Beisert commented that the Pastor wished for the buildings to be designated prior to her retirement, and he assisted with that process. Paul Steinke, representing the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia, commented that the Alliance supports the nomination for this well-deserving and character-defining feature of the Olney neighborhood. Mr. Cohen asked about justification for Criterion A. Mr. Beisert responded that the congregation has been at this site for such an extended period of time, and the site has elements of the congregation’s entire history, so it reflects the way that the City developed over the years. He explained that many congregations often built new buildings on different sites, but this is a more unique example of a congregation that stayed in the same place and constructed new buildings to adapt. Mr. Laverty commented that it is an unusual neighborhood complex in that it has COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 14 maintained its traditional large footprint, which dates from a rural time, even as the surrounding neighborhood became dense. Ms. Cooperman asked about the potential of including Criterion I. Mr. Mooney responded that Criterion I absolutely applies to this site. He explained that the cemetery is listed as a component of the property, and should the owner decide to subdivide or build on the site in the future, having an archaeologist involved to ensure the graves remain preserved on

Mr. Mooney responded that Criterion I absolutely applies to this site. He explained that the cemetery is listed as a component of the property, and should the owner decide to subdivide or build on the site in the future, having an archaeologist involved to ensure the graves remain preserved on the site is important. Mr. Cohen suggested the addition of Criterion H, owing to its unique location as a neighborhood landmark. He also suggested the addition of Criterion C and the removal of Criterion A. Ms. Cooperman opined that Criterion C does not apply to this church complex. Ms. Klein commented that she was pleased to see the interior mentioned on page 15. Ms. Cooperman clarified that it is not an interior nomination. Mr. Laverty asked if the stained glass windows are under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Ms. Cooperman confirmed this, stating that the windows are a part of the exterior envelope. Mr. Beisert asked if the archaeological significance pertains to the entire site, which Ms. Cooperman confirmed. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the properties at 111 and 201 E Tabor Road satisfy Criteria for Designation H, I, and J. ADDRESS: 3500, 3504, AND 3508 BARING ST Name of Resource: Northminster Presbyterian Church and Rectory Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Metropolitan Baptist Church Nominator: Amy Lambert, University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3500 and 3504 Baring Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, E, and J, but recommends that the parking lot at 3508 Baring be considered non-contributing in the nomination. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 3500, 3504 and 3508 Baring Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination argues that the former Northminster Presbyterian Church, built in 1875, is a historically significant work by Thomas Webb Richards, a prominent local architect best known for his design of College Hall on the University of Pennsylvania campus. The nomination contends that Webb’s design for the church, which was originally clad in serpentine, successfully adapted his polychromatic architectural ideas to the symbolic and practical requirements of a Presbyterian congregation. The nomination further argues that the church design represents the transformation in Protestant architecture from a rectangular, center aisle volume to a

that Webb’s design for the church, which was originally clad in serpentine, successfully adapted his polychromatic architectural ideas to the symbolic and practical requirements of a Presbyterian congregation. The nomination further argues that the church design represents the transformation in Protestant architecture from a rectangular, center aisle volume to a more theatrical exterior expression of the Auditorium Plan. The nomination also asserts that the church and its congregation represent the development of the Mantua and Powelton Village neighborhoods of West Philadelphia. Considered contributing to the property is the attached parsonage, constructed in 1904 by architects Wilson, Harris & Richards. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Amy Lambert, the nominator on behalf of the University City Historical Society, represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 15 Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment. Paul Steinke of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia spoke in support of the nomination. He opined that it is a strong nomination for deserving building. He noted that one point that the nomination makes is that the architect, Thomas Webb Richards, was the architect of the four original buildings on Penn’s campus, which are unquestionable landmarks in and of themselves. He stated that this building deserves to be considered in the same category. George Poulin of the Powelton Village Civic Association expressed support for the nomination, noting that it is an important historic resource. Neighbors John Phillips and Mark Brack also spoke in support of the nomination. Mr. Brack opined that it is an important local landmark and a significant example of Gothic Revival architecture. Ms. Cooperman asked when the building was re-clad in schist. Ms. Lambert responded that she could not pinpoint an exact date, but that it does not seem to have been too long after the building was built, somewhere around the turn of the twentieth century. Ms. Cooperman suggested that perhaps it was done in conjunction with the construction of the parsonage. Mr. Cohen opined that it seems like a substantial piece of work to not be documented. Ms. Lambert agreed, noting that she had trouble believing that it had originally been clad in serpentine because the task of re-cladding it in schist would have been monumental. She noted that the congregation seemed to have always been flush with funds, so perhaps it was

to not be documented. Ms. Lambert agreed, noting that she had trouble believing that it had originally been clad in serpentine because the task of re-cladding it in schist would have been monumental. She noted that the congregation seemed to have always been flush with funds, so perhaps it was not terribly difficult for them to take it on. Ms. Cooperman and Mr. Cohen mused on the failure and patching of the serpentine cladding of College Hall. Mr. Laverty questioned whether the serpentine was removed on this building, or whether the schist was applied over top of it. Ms. Lambert responded that she does not know for sure, but that she believes that the serpentine was removed, given the detail of the building, which would be much more clunky if the schist had been applied over top. Ms. Cooperman noted that there must be some other masonry load- bearing construction behind the cladding. Mr. Laverty mused whether it was possible that Richards had serpentine left over from construction of College Hall. Mr. Cohen asked Ms. Lambert to elaborate on her description of the exterior of the building as “theatrical.” Ms. Lambert responded that she saw this building, which was constructed in 1875, as on a continuum from earlier buildings such as Christ Methodist Episcopal Church on N. 38th Street, which was constructed in 1870 and much more linear and symmetrical, and churches such as Columbia Avenue Presbyterian Church on Cecil B. Moore Avenue, constructed in 1891 and much more elaborate. Ms. Lambert noted that this 1875 building shifted the tower towards the neighborhood, with parts beginning to branch off. Mr. Cohen responded that he is not sure he sees it as theatricality. Ms. Cooperman responded that it is easier to see in retrospect. Mr. Cohen asked whether Ms. Lambert meant that the entrance was more theatrical or the volumes. Ms. Lambert responded that there are two entrances, one in the tower at the sidewalk, pulling people in, and then the central, more dramatic entrance. Ms. Cooperman noted that the building addresses both street fronts. Mr. Cohen asked if there was a rarity of corner towers before this building. Ms. Lambert responded that she does not know if there was a rarity, but that she believes this building is expressing something new and interacting with the neighborhood, despite the fact that it has a very monumental presence. Ms. Cooperman noted that

a rarity of corner towers before this building. Ms. Lambert responded that she does not know if there was a rarity, but that she believes this building is expressing something new and interacting with the neighborhood, despite the fact that it has a very monumental presence. Ms. Cooperman noted that this is something that really comes to the fore in the following two decades, but agreed with Mr. Cohen, noting that it is hard not to look at these in a retrospective way. Ms. Cooperman appreciated the use of Jean Kilda’s argument in the nomination, and noted that the dominant corner tower does become the norm in subsequent decades, but this building is not quite there yet. She opined that it is dangerous to say that this architect was anticipating what was to come in the following decades, but that being said, it does have an important street presence no matter what. Ms. Lambert asked if the Committee members read the nomination as being more COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 16 anticipatory of what was to come, noting that she may have failed to put it in its time period. Ms. Cooperman responded that she may have been speaking slightly ahead of the game, but that she is delighted that Ms. Lambert included Kilda, and obviously Richards is an important figure and is not sufficiently recognized. Ms. Cooperman stated that it is a very worthy building, and these are minor architectural historian quibbles. Ms. Klein questioned whether the concrete walkway to the Baring Street entrance would have been the original material for the building. Ms. Lambert responded that she does not know definitively, but that concrete has been used for many centuries. She noted that she did not find any records that indicated that it was a different material. Ms. Klein opined that to have such a bland entry paving material seems stark in comparison to the highly ornamental building. Ms. Cooperman opined that the paving appears to date from the mid-twentieth century. Ms. DiPasquale questioned whether the 1928 photograph in the nomination shows the Baring Street entrance, noting that it appears to be concrete. Mr. Laverty noted that it does not appear to have been changed significantly. Mr. Cohen commented that he has been passing by this church for years and was always confounded by the stonework, which appears to be turn of the

Baring Street entrance, noting that it appears to be concrete. Mr. Laverty noted that it does not appear to have been changed significantly. Mr. Cohen commented that he has been passing by this church for years and was always confounded by the stonework, which appears to be turn of the century, while the building was older, and this explains it. He opined that there are other things about it that are intriguing. He noted that Richards is a High Victorian goth, and that his design for the Presbyterian church is not so much the pointed Gothic, because Upjohn and others thought the Episcopalians got the claim to Gothic. He noted that Richards created a building that is not a pure Gothic Revival. He mused that the entrances with the double doors with the thin windows above suggest a gallery, and are almost announcing something that is more auditorium like, although in Protestant churches, there has something anti-liturgical going on with them since the eighteenth century. Mr. Cohen pointed out some minor architectural description terms, noting that the windows on the side might be segmental rather the elliptical. He explained that this generation of architects was not fond of ellipses. Mr. Cohen noted that the word lintels should be removed, as they are really more voussoirs. Mr. Cohen asked if the Richards in Wilson, Harris & Richards is the same Thomas Webb Richards. Ms. Lambert responded that she does not believe so. Ms. Lambert noted that she sees the building as more of a toned-down Romanesque design. Mr. Cohen responded that it is really a High Victorian approach to the Romanesque. Mr. Cohen asked why Ms. Lambert included Criterion A, and whether the building is significant to the city, state, or nation. Ms. Lambert responded that Richards certainly has city-level importance. She noted that she is not a native Pennsylvanian so she does not know how Richards fits in to the history of the Commonwealth. Ms. Cooperman responded that Richards’ significance is covered under Criterion E. Ms. Cooperman expressed her pet peeve of anthropomorphizing buildings with descriptions such as “welcoming.” She also noted that the term “home” should not be used to describe a “house.” COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J, but not A. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION,

also noted that the term “home” should not be used to describe a “house.” COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation C, D, E, and J, but not A. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 17 ADDRESS: 3500-10 LANCASTER AVE Name of Resource: West Philadelphia Friends Meeting House and School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority Nominator: George Poulin and Amy Lambert, University City Historical Society Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 3500-10 Lancaster Ave satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, and J, but not Criterion H; the property is not situated at the terminus of Lancaster Avenue, as asserted, nor does it have any singular physical characteristic that represents an established and familiar visual feature in the neighborhood. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 3500-10 Lancaster Avenue and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property, constructed in 1901 for the Hicksite West Philadelphia Meeting, satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, H, and J. The nomination argues that the property is a local landmark prominently sited at the eastern terminus of Lancaster Avenue. It further contends that the property is significant as a physical reminder of the religious and cultural importance and influence of the Quakers in the region during the nineteenth century, and specifically in the growing suburb of West Philadelphia. The nomination also argues that the property is significant as an expression of both Beaux-Arts and Colonial Revival architecture. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Amy Lambert and George Poulin represented the nomination. Theresa Shockley represented the equitable owner and tenant of the property. Mr. Poulin requested a continuance of the review, as he just learned that the property tenant has questions and concerns about the nomination, and he would like the opportunity to meet with them. Ms. Cooperman asked Mr. Farnham how to proceed. Mr. Farnham responded that the Committee would make a recommendation to the Commission to continue the matter and remand it to the Committee at a future meeting. Ms. Cooperman asked if the property tenant would like to make any comments. Ms. Shockley introduced herself and explained that she is the

Mr. Farnham responded that the Committee would make a recommendation to the Commission to continue the matter and remand it to the Committee at a future meeting. Ms. Cooperman asked if the property tenant would like to make any comments. Ms. Shockley introduced herself and explained that she is the Executive Director of the Community Education Center, which has been the tenant of the property for 44 years and is soon to be the property owner. She noted that her organization is closing on the property in the next 30 days. She explained that as an arts institution, her board has concerns about freedom in terms of what might or might not want to do with the exterior. She clarified that her organization is interested in being part of the community and preserving the exterior of the building and has no intentions of doing anything drastic, but the board has concerns and would like to discuss the possible designation in greater detail. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment. Patrick Grossi of the Preservation Alliance commented that he does not have any objection to the continuance request, but explained to Ms. Shockley that designation would not have any impact to the interior of the property. Ms. Shockley responded that she understands. Mr. Grossi added that the Community Education Center is important to the history of this building in its own right, given its long tenancy. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the Commission table the review of the nomination and remand it back to the Committee for review at its 19 April 2017 meeting. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 18 ADDRESS: 1647-57 N 3RD ST Name of Resource: St. Jakobus German Evangelical Lutheran Church Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: Qiong Zhao Schicktanz, Tiffany Zhao, and Selina Zhao Nominator: Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Laura DiPasquale, laura.dipasquale@phila.gov, 215-686-7660 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1647-57 N 3rd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 1647-57 N. 3rd Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former St. Jakobus German Evangelical Lutheran Church satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. The nomination argues that the church, built in

nomination proposes to designate the property at 1647-57 N. 3rd Street and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former St. Jakobus German Evangelical Lutheran Church satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. The nomination argues that the church, built in 1856, has significant interest or value as part of the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the city of Philadelphia and its German-American community. As one of the oldest German-Lutheran churches in the city, the nomination contends that St. Jakobus exemplifies the cultural, social, and historical heritage of the larger German community. The nomination further contends that the church embodies distinguishing characteristics of the Georgian Revival architectural style. DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Oscar Beisert represented the nomination. Property owner Qiong Zhao Schicktanz represented the property. Sarah Chiu of the City Planning Commission provided Mandarin Chinese translation for the property owner. Mr. Beisert commented that, because so many early Lutheran churches have been lost, especially in the center of Philadelphia, this turns out to be one of the oldest German Lutheran churches near the center of Philadelphia. He opined that it is also interesting that it is similar to Trinity Lutheran church at the W. Queen Lane and Germantown Avenue. Mr. Cohen agreed, noting that they are remarkably similar. He asked if the architect for the latter building is known. Ms. Cooperman asked if the property owner would like to comment on the nomination. Ms. Schicktanz responded that this is her third Historical Commission-related meeting. She noted that she is now this building’s owner. Ms. Chiu translated for Ms. Schicktanz that when she purchased the church, it was a closed daycare center and the interior was severely deteriorated. On the second floor, one of the beams was completely rotten, so she has hired a structural engineer to fix all of the problems on the interior. She noted that the upper floor windows were all closed with plywood, and she has replaced the windows already. Ms. Chiu explained that Ms. Schicktanz has concerns about the roof, which needs major repairs, and she does not have the means to fix it. She wants to get suggestions from the City how and what to do that will be manageable. Ms. Cooperman responded that the Historical Commission’s staff can provide technical assistance. Mr. Beisert noted that he

the roof, which needs major repairs, and she does not have the means to fix it. She wants to get suggestions from the City how and what to do that will be manageable. Ms. Cooperman responded that the Historical Commission’s staff can provide technical assistance. Mr. Beisert noted that he also could provide names of some affordable roofers who have worked on historic buildings. Ms. Chiu explained that Ms. Schicktanz is a sculptor herself and wants to convert this building into an art museum. She noted that the one exterior change that Ms. Schicktanz would like to make is to remove the cross at the top of the steeple. Ms. Cooperman responded that that would be a question for the full Historical Commission; this Committee is focused on the merits of the nomination. She asked if Mr. Farnham could address that question. Mr. Farnham responded that the staff could certainly look at the cross and make a determination as to whether its removal could be approved at the staff level and if not, could assist the owner in applying to the Historical Commission for its removal. Mr. Farnham noted that the Commission COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 19 previously approved the removal of a cross on a different former German Lutheran church on S. 4th Street several years ago. He noted that the staff would be happy to help the property owner in any way outside of the meeting. Ms. Cooperman asked if there was anything else that Ms. Schicktanz would like to add. Ms. Schicktanz responded that she has no objection to designation. Ms. Cooperman opened the floor to public comment, of which there was none. Mr. Beisert noted that when they decided to build Trinity Lutheran church in Germantown, the English-speaking congregation admired St. Jakobus and hired the same contractor, whose last name was Bender. Ms. Cooperman commented that the property could potentially be by architect Samuel Sloan. Mr. Cohen noted that it is the correct time period for Sloan. Mr. Beisert responded that, although it has been a while since he wrote the nomination, he remembers searching for the architect and not being able to find who designed it. Ms. Cooperman replied that it just may not be recorded or digitized yet. Mr. Cohen opined that overall, the nomination was well-researched, but that Mr. Beisert used some terminology that he was not

the nomination, he remembers searching for the architect and not being able to find who designed it. Ms. Cooperman replied that it just may not be recorded or digitized yet. Mr. Cohen opined that overall, the nomination was well-researched, but that Mr. Beisert used some terminology that he was not familiar with, for instance “canton.” Mr. Cohen noted that Mr. Beisert characterized the building as Georgian, but what is significant is how much the design is actually departing from Georgian. He suggested that it is clearly something that is trying to be post-Georgian, while using the color palette of Georgian. There are elements of the building that are very 1850s, such as arches that have no impost. Ms. Cooperman agreed, noting that Mr. Beisert was correct in calling it out as Georgian, but it is not the sort of archaeological approach to Georgian, it is more a recollection of the Georgian roots of the congregation presumably, in the 1850s version. Mr. Beisert noted that, although there are other examples, it was not hugely popular to build a church of this style and form at that time. Ms. Cooperman agreed, noting that it is an interesting conscious choice. Mr. Cohen opined that it is a remarkable transition from square base to round tower with little diagonal volutes. Addressing the Criteria for Designation, Mr. Cohen noted that he is never sure of the boundary between Criteria C and D. He commented that the question is much more about A, and asked if Mr. Beisert was hinging it on the importance of the German-American community. Mr. Beisert affirmed this and also noted that he drew from Mr. Farnham’s nomination for a church in West Philadelphia that talked about this neighborhood. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. ADJOURNMENT The Committee on Historic Designation adjourned at 11:35 a.m. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION 20 CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION § 14-1004(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

structure, site, object, or district may be designated for preservation if it: (a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or professional engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth, or nation; (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represent a significant innovation; (g) Is part of or related to a square, park, or other distinctive area that should be preserved according to a historic, cultural, or architectural motif; (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City; (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, or historical heritage of the community.