Proposal for reforming preservation practices in Philadelphia

by Alan Krigman

Efforts at preserving period buildings which are viable for current applications and contribute to the character of vibrant urban communities need not impose excessive burdens on property owners, as they do at present through the vehicle of historic designation of neighborhoods. An approach that utilizes newly enacted provisions for establishing “neighborhood conservation districts” in Philadelphia – either on their own or as a first stage in recognizing areas with genuine historic significance – may prove to be much more appropriate.

Visual aesthetics and the desirability of preservation

Many people who live or work in Philadelphia, as well as those who visit, appreciate the older stock of buildings in this city. Much of the property comprises "period" structures, whose individual characteristics are enhanced by the synergy of complementary surroundings. Some areas have become blighted for economic and social reasons resulting from widespread problems in many urban areas, and others have undergone redevelopment involving the modification or demolition of older buildings. Yet, many remain in which owners, often acting as individuals and without specific regulations or incentives, have invested sometimes scarce resources in rehabilitating and/or maintaining the essential original configurations.

There is widespread agreement that preserving the visual aesthetics of Philadelphia neighborhoods: residential, commercial, and – as is often the case – mixed, is a desirable objective. Property owners and investors maintain or enhance the value of their assets, tenants gain by the lower rents it’s possible to find as well as the quality and charm of touches nobody duplicates today, and everybody who spends time in the city gains from the ambience.

The unnecessary burdens of historic designation

So, in principle, programs that encourage preservation of older buildings should have wide support. However, when this involves designating neighborhoods as "historic" under Section 14-2007 of the Philadelphia Code, as presently interpreted by the Philadelphia Historical Commission, the process and practice are fraught with problems. The Philadelphia Historical Commission and the “preservation” community tend to use the term "historic" when "period" would actually be more appropriate. This is done to qualify the neighborhoods for protection by the Historical Commission. Unfortunately, “historic” has an emotive connotation that tends to distort the issue. Further, the protection afforded by historic designation involves punctilious requirements that go beyond ensuring structural integrity and maintaining the “fabric” of the built environment. In so doing, they often ignore the financial and bureaucratic impact on affected owners and tenants by imposing truly onerous encumbrances far out of proportion to any benefits which can possibly be derived, valuing bricks and mortar over human factors.

In essence, once a neighborhood is designated as a “historic district,” buildings which are classified as merely “contributing to the historic character” of the area and in some cases those that are not so labeled, become subject to regulations that add to the cost and time involved in performing any exterior work visible “from the public right of way.” This, even if the people who must approve projects have to stand in a certain place, know exactly where to look and what to look for. By and large, the result is that owners can forget about replacing leaking slate or tile mansard roofs with modern materials they can afford. They won’t be installing vinyl thermopane windows for energy efficiency. The new porch spindles or columns they may want to use for safety or appearance won’t be coming from Home Depot or Lowe’s – they’ll have to be ordered from a custom mill house if, after the price shock wears off, they’re ordered at all. And the list goes on.

Neighborhood conservation districts

It wouldn’t necessarily be wise, let alone politically feasible, to advocate throwing the baby out with the washwater by eliminating the Historical Commission or the “district designation” category. Moreover, it’s both possible and practical to bring a sense of proportion to the process through a different channel. In 2004, City Council enacted a bill which enables the creation of “Neighborhood Conservation Districts.” The intent of this designation is to preserve the visual aesthetics of an area, without arbitrarily and disingenuously classifying it as “historic.” The salient features of conservation districts are:

1.         Conservation district nominations can be made by Community Associations acting in strict accordance with their by-laws and presumably with the support of a majority of the affected parties, or by a petition supported by at least 30% of the affected parties.

            a.         This can help ensure that a broad cross section of a community is involved in and generally supports the proposal from the outset.

            b.         It can also avoid conflicts involving third parties who bear none of the burdens resulting from any regulations that might be imposed.

2.         The “design guidelines” applicable to properties in an area are specific to a conservation district and focused on visual aesthetics rather than determined by strict standards of historical authenticity.

            a.         This can avoid restrictions on elements such as windows in alleyways, decks or other alterations on the rears of buildings, or other factors that are either barely visible “from the public right of way” or that the untrained eye would not notice as inconsistent with the original design.

            b.         It can also lead to a negotiation process during the development of the nomination, with compromises in what will and what won’t be covered, such that the legally mandated degree of support of the designation will be found among affected parties.

3.         A proposal can be quashed by a petition of 51% or more of the affected parties. This formalizes the manner in which property owners can express their approval or opposition. It also provides an incentive for negotiation on the standards to be adopted for a particular district and helps ensure that small cliques of residents don’t usurp the enforcement powers of the city in attempting to control the behavior of their neighbors and in doing so deny them the rights intrinsic to property ownership.

A practical solution to the dilemma

I therefore propose the following alternative to the process of historic district designation now practiced in the City of Philadelphia.

1.         That an area be designated as a Neighborhood Conservation District before being eligible for nomination as a Historic District.

2.         That a Neighborhood Conservation District designation be in force for at least five years before an area becomes eligible for historic designation.

3.         That differences between the standards applicable to the existing Neighborhood Conservation District and the proposed Historic District be stated explicitly in any nomination for the former to become the latter.

4.         That a nomination as a historic district explicitly identify those factors that justify the qualification of an area as having true “historic” merit as opposed to one whose overall physical appearance is considered important enough to preserve under the requirements of the neighborhood conservation district.

            a.         Such factors may relate to the Neighborhood Conservation District having synergy as a whole – for instance because it might have been built as housing for workers at a factory important to the early industrial development of the city.

            b.         Factors that might suggest true historic qualification might also include several buildings within the Neighborhood Conservation District with evident cultural or architectural historic significance.

Alan Krigman is president of KRF Corporation, 211 S 45^th St, Philadelphia PA 19104, 215-349-6500, fax 215-349-6502, email krfapt@aol.com.

shhd502A