REPORT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION Robert Thomas, Chair Commission Offices, One Parkway, 13th Floor, 1515 Arch Street 31 January 2000 Present Robert Thomas, Chair Penelope Batcheler Daniel McCoubrey Randal Baron, Assistant Historic Preservation Officer Diane M. Hughes, Executive Secretary Laura M. Spina, Historic Preservation Planner Richard Tyler, Historic Preservation Officer Also D. P. Kopple, DPK&A Sherman Aronson, DPK&A William Menke, Menke & Menke Thom Nickels, Philadelphia Style John Hunter, Venturi, Scott-Brown & Associates Lorna Katz, John Lawson Architects Ken Magsan, William J. Trefz Jeanne & Roger Doherty, 100 Delancey Street Robert Rossi, East Coast Signs Chris Beardsley, AIA Mary Clare Marshall, DPDC Stephen Wagner, 2210 Brandywine Street Christian Busch, The Sullivan Company Thomas Buck, 2208 Brandywine Street Vincent Costello, Director of Communications, City of Philadelphia 2951 Market Street, 30th Street Station Dan Peter Kopple, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1929-34 PROPOSAL: Metal and glass canopy at Market Street entrance Dan Kopple and Sherman Arronson presented the revised proposal for the canopy at the Market Street entrance to 30th Street Station. In response to previous comments by the Committee and Commission, the architect submitted a more rectilinear design. Mr. Kopple noted that the pyramidal forms reflect the ceiling coffers on inside the station. Mr. Thomas stated that the proposal clearly meets Standards 9 and 10 of the Secretary of the Interior=s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, because it does not obstruct the building, it matches the building in size and scale, is easily removable without damaging the building in the future, yet at the same time the canopy does not give the false impression that it was a part of the original design. The canopy will have a translucent ceiling and the metal will be painted a green color to match the other metal work on the facade. The Committee voted to recommend approval with staff to review details for approval. 25th & Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia Museum of Art William Menke, Architect/Applicant DATE: 1919-28 PROPOSAL: Repave East Terrace William Menke presented the proposal to repave the area in front of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Originally the area between the Museum and the steps had a geometric pattern of paving of large slabs of flagstone framed in granite. The Museum reinstalled this paving in the 1980s, but heavy traffic around the Museum and poor sub-base installation resulted in significant breakage of the stones. This proposal calls for installing
between the Museum and the steps had a geometric pattern of paving of large slabs of flagstone framed in granite. The Museum reinstalled this paving in the 1980s, but heavy traffic around the Museum and poor sub-base installation resulted in significant breakage of the stones. This proposal calls for installing new flagstone, 12 x 12x 22 inches, to prevent cracking from the weight of traffic, and new granite edging to match the old. If the flagstone proves too expensive, the applicant proposes concrete pavers that match the color and texture of the flagstone. Although the pavers are smaller than the original, the overall pattern will remain. The Committee agreed that the proposal meets Standard 6. The Committee voted to recommend approval, with staff to review details for approval. College Hall, University of Pennsylvania Richard Russell, Applicant DATE: 1870-72 PROPOSAL: Create exterior portico south facade Mr. McCoubrey recused himself owing to his firm=s involvement in the project. John Hunter, the architect, explained the proposal. The University is trying to create substantial entrances on all buildings that face Wynn Commons. For College Hall, this would involve removing non-historic infill in openings that previously held doors and transoms and changing a former, interior vestibule into an exterior portico. The proposal includes installing granite on the former interior walls. The staff and Committee stated that installing granite would give the false impression that this always stood as an exterior portico. They suggested finishing the walls in smooth stucco to echo the former interior plaster walls that exist now. The Committee agreed this proposal, with the smooth stucco, follows Standard 3. The Committee voted to recommend approval on the condition that the walls are finished in smooth stucco rather than granite, with staff to review details for approval. College Hall, University of Pennsylvania Marianna Thomas, Architect DATE: 1870-72 PROPOSAL: Air conditioning vent in rose window Mr. Baron explained that the Commission submitted the documentation for the initial proposal to an independent consultant, Michael Henry of Watson and Henry. Mr. Henry concluded that if the ductwork and vent are placed farther back behind the wood tracery and the chamfered edges of the tracery are removed, the system should get a sufficient intake of fresh air, while at the same time keeping the circular tracery relatively intact. Ken Magsan, mechanical engineer for the project, agreed that this is an acceptable compromise. This new proposal meets Standard 2.
and the chamfered edges of the tracery are removed, the system should get a sufficient intake of fresh air, while at the same time keeping the circular tracery relatively intact. Ken Magsan, mechanical engineer for the project, agreed that this is an acceptable compromise. This new proposal meets Standard 2. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the removing the chamfering of the tracery, removing the glazing and installing the vent for the HVAC system. 100 Delancey Street a.k.a. 328 South Front Street Christopher Beardsley, Architect DATE: c. 1970 PROPOSAL: Rear addition The proposal calls for an addition to the rear of this corner property. The building is part of a row developed during the Redevelopment Period and has a contemporary design. The addition matches the scale and shapes of the original building. The Committee noted that the proposal meets Standards 9 and 10. The Committee voted to recommend approval. 201 South 18th Street a.k.a. 1724 Walnut Street Brian Sutcliffe, Contractor DATE: 1955 PROPOSAL: New storefront Mr. Baron explained the proposal. Two previous storefronts will be combined into a single composition with a central double-leaf door flanked by plate-glass windows. After discussions with the staff, the applicant proposed to leave the buff-brick above the storefront exposed and to cover the vertical piers with dark grey stucco, set back one inch from the brick facade. Mr. Baron noted that the piers originally had fluted, dark metal cladding, but previous tenants had removed the historic material. Also, the storefront has already been partially constructed without a permit or Historical Commission approval. The Committee agreed that the proposal meets Standards 9 and 10. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the storefront with the buff-brick above the storefront exposed and the dark grey stucco, with horizontal scoring, on the piers, with staff to review details for approval. 201 South 18th Street a.k.a. 1724 Walnut Street Neil Rosenberg, Applicant DATE: 1955 PROPOSAL: Sign and awning Along with the previous proposal, Mr. Baron stated that the new store will have solid metal lettering with halo lighting for signage and two shed awnings with the store=s name on the aprons over the windows. The awnings will be grey, not green as previously proposed. This proposal meets Standards 9 and 10. The Committee voted to recommend approval, with staff to review details for approval. 235-245 South 18th Street, The Barclay Christian Busch, Architect DATE: 1928 PROPOSAL: Masonry
name on the aprons over the windows. The awnings will be grey, not green as previously proposed. This proposal meets Standards 9 and 10. The Committee voted to recommend approval, with staff to review details for approval. 235-245 South 18th Street, The Barclay Christian Busch, Architect DATE: 1928 PROPOSAL: Masonry repair Mr. Baron explained that the building is U-shaped. The architect proposes to replace damaged brick on the interior of the U and infill non-historic breaks in the facade created by air-conditioning units that have been removed. The project includes replacement of about 40 percent of the bricks. Mr. Baron noted that the colors of the brick range from a buff to an orange to purple, with various mixes of the different colors. He is working closely with the architect to find the right match. This proposal meets Standard 6. The Committee voted to recommend approval, with staff to review details for approval. 2208 Brandywine Street Thomas Buck, Owner / Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Rebuild front facade Owing to the extreme bowing of the front wall, Thomas Buck, the owner, proposes to rebuild it. The application calls for keeping the historic marble watertable, wood door surround and wood cornice. The application also includes new 2/2 windows with full-screens and a replacement 4-panel door. Mr. Buck wishes to replace the historic wood lintels and sills with limestone, stating that stone is more resilient than wood. Mr. Baron suggested that the limestone be painted to give the same visual appearance as wood, noting that these worker houses would not have had the expensive limestone in the first place. Mr. Buck does not wish to paint the stone. The Committee discussed the proposed facade. Mr. Buck stated that the thin butter joints now found on the house do not meet code regulations; therefore, the new facade will have slightly larger mortar joints. Mr. Buck wishes to follow the historic pattern of symmetrical window placement and brick seams. The Committee noted that perhaps the mortar should be colored, otherwise the bright white of the larger mortar joints would stand out in the overall streetscape. Mr. Baron noted that the original shutter hardware exists on the facade. The Committee asked that the hardware be reinstalled in the new facade. Mr. Buck agreed. Committee members noted that the proposal meets Standard 6. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the new facade with a colored
streetscape. Mr. Baron noted that the original shutter hardware exists on the facade. The Committee asked that the hardware be reinstalled in the new facade. Mr. Buck agreed. Committee members noted that the proposal meets Standard 6. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the new facade with a colored mortar to minimize the larger joints, new windows with full-height screens, new door, and limestone lintels and sills, with staff to review details for approval. 2210 Brandywine Street Stephen Wagner, Owner/Applicant DATE: c. 1859 PROPOSAL: Rebuild front facade This application, similar to the one for the neighbor above, includes rebuilding the front wall, new 2/2 wood windows and limestone lintels and sills. Mr. Baron stated that an engineer has inspected the property and concluded that star-bolts will not solve the structural problems. Stephen Wagner, the owner, does not plan to replace the door at this time. The Committee voted to recommend approval of the new facade, windows, and limestone lintels and sills, with staff to review details for approval. City Hall Vincent Costello, Director of Communications, Department of Public Property, City of Philadelphia, Applicant DATE: 1871-1901 PROPOSAL: Radio Antennas The Architectural Committee and Commission previously reviewed this application for antennas on the tower and asked for a redesign. Mr. Costello had Motorola, the vendor, alter the proposal to match the request of the Committee and Commission. The antennas will project out through the portals and reflect the bottom curve of the openings. This proposal meets Standard 9. The Committee voted to recommend approval, on the condition that the antennas are painted to match the metal background, with staff to review details for approval. Respectfully submitted, Laura Spina Historic Preservation Planner