Is it a good idea for entire Philly neighborhoods to be designated as “historic” to keep architecturally and culturally significant buildings from being demolished, as so many have been over the years?
Or does the designation go too far — burdening homeowners with new costs, stunting development, raising rents and home prices, and pushing out low- and middle-income residents?
That long-running debate was at the fore once again Wednesday when an advisory group, the Committee on Historic Designation, discussed whether to recommend the Washington Square West neighborhood in Center City for historic designation.
The group ultimately endorsed the proposal and sent it on to the Historical Commission for further discussion and possible approval.
If the area ends up getting designated, property owners will have to get commission approval before doing exterior work or making alterations, and will be required to follow the commission’s rules, for example on what kind of windows they can install. In some cases owners can be required to fix up buildings that are in poor condition.
The city has been creating historic districts since the 1980s, and in recent years the designations have often faced intense opposition from some residents and developers. They typically argue that designations infringe on their property rights and make it nearly impossible to demolish buildings, reducing the attractiveness of their properties to developers and depressing their value.
At the same time, preservationists and supportive residents maintain that the restrictions are essential to prevent the erasure of distinctive buildings that make people want to live in and visit Philadelphia, and to preserve their unique architectural and cultural histories.
The neighborhood “where rowhouses really got started”
The proposed Washington Square West Historic District would cover an irregularly shaped 26-block area bounded, very roughly, by Walnut Street to the north, Juniper Street to the west, Lombard Street to the south, and 8th Street to the east.
The area has 1,441 properties, of which 53% are already on the city’s historic register, according to the Historical Commission, which is part of the city’s Department of Planning and Development. Much of the proposed district is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
Washington Square West meets the criteria for protection because of its many buildings designed by influential architects over more than two centuries, its churches and other institutions associated with Black heritage, and its role in the public emergence of the city’s LGBTQ+ community, among other reasons, said Hanna Stark of the Preservation Alliance, which co-nominated the neighborhood for designation.
It’s “a key Center City neighborhood which illustrates the development of Philadelphia’s residential and commercial core over more than two centuries,” she said during Wednesday’s committee meeting. The neighborhoods to the east and west — Society Hill and Rittenhouse/Fitler — have been historic districts since the late 1990s, Stark said.
“Washington Square West has really exceptional merit, even in a city that has so much of our country’s greatest history,” neighborhood resident and former Historical Commission member Randal Baron said in written testimony. “In terms of architecture, it is the place in the whole country where rowhouses really got started. It has the greatest collection of Federal and Greek Revival style houses in the country, our first real national styles.”
Supporters of the designation said they were haunted by the loss of historic properties that were not protected by designation.
Katie Dillon Low, a board member at the Washington Square West Civic Association, the other co-nominator of the designation, said she was a “displaced victim of the Jewelers’ Row debacle.” That historically significant district saw several properties controversially demolished in 2020 and is now under consideration for designation.
“Over and over, Philadelphians have watched their beloved places taken down by developers from elsewhere for their own gain,” said Low, who favors a “light” or “tiered” historic designation for Washington Square West. “We want some sort of protection, and because of the rights given to land owners in this country, and the generous culture that Philadelphia has around development, a historic district that not everybody wants is one of the only ways to get that protection.”
The archeology of parking lots
Opponents, meanwhile, rued the bother and expense they believe they will be burdened with when undertaking home renovations, as well as the potential impact on development and what they described as weak justification for making the whole area a historic district.
Homeowner Jonathan Hessney questioned the validity of the nomination process, describing the nomination document as “almost comically vague and broad.” For example, it describes buildings with historic ties to specific groups, like Black and LGBTQ+ communities, but it’s not clear why those associations justify designating the neighborhood, he said.
“Almost every neighborhood in the city does host some [sites] where groups originated,” he testified. “By this logic, almost every neighborhood in the city should be historic by that criteria.”
The full nomination document — which runs to 1,482 pages, including many photos and images — describes the histories of many specific buildings, including the communities and individuals who used them. The civic association spent “thousands” of dollars preparing the application over the last few years, board member Drew Moyer said.
Hessney similarly questioned why the neighborhood’s prominent architects justified the designation, and he criticized the nomination’s focus on its rowhouses. “I’m a little at a loss why that’s significant. Philadelphia is a city of rowhouses,” he said. He also argued designation would harm the very characteristics that proponents are citing.
The nomination “says it’s celebrating a diversity of styles here. But designating it historic would seal it in amber and there would be no more diversity. Much of the diversity of styles here would be lost,” he said.
A number of people criticized the nomination’s citation of the potential architectural significance of some vacant lots.
Attorney Matt McClure spoke on behalf of Parkway Corporation, which owns a parking lot at Locust and 13th Street. He argued the nomination doesn’t show the lot meets the legal requirement for significance and asked that it be listed as a “non-contributing” property where renovations would be subject to less stringent review.
“I think what happened here, in the zeal to kind of throw everything in and as a kitchen sink approach, folks forgot about actually complying with the rules and regulations in the ordinance,” he said.
Preservationist Oscar Beisert responded that the absence of evidence of the significance of some properties reflects a long-standing lack of research on past residents “who did not have a voice,” including Black families who were among the original homeowners there.
“I find it offensive to suggest that these places that once housed, and may have, archaeological resources would not be eligible because we can’t tell you what happened there,” said Beisert, who supports the designation. “We won’t be able to tell you unless there is archaeological work done there.”
Opponents favor protecting individual buildings
The commission received dozens of emails opposing the designation, many of them the same form letter, from residents of Washington Square West and various other neighborhoods. They cited the potential increased complexity and cost of making home repairs, and the effects on housing costs and supply.
“As demand for housing continues to rise… wealthy areas like Washington Square must contribute their fair share of new housing to the city,” West Philly resident Karl Keat wrote, in one of the longer emails. “Otherwise we will see continued and disproportionate gentrification of poor neighborhoods and displacement of residents in areas like West Powelton, where I live, as unmet demand pushes rents and home prices up.”
The opponents almost universally said they favored protection of individual, historically significant properties but were strongly against a blanket designation. Several also said they were unaware the civic association was developing the designation application and never received required notifications about the hearing.
“We do not want to continue seeing loss of beautiful architecture, but to force a policy such as this will dramatically increase the current and future cost of homeownership on taxpaying homeowners without… seeking out collaborative discussion,” homeowner Colin Murphy told the committee.
Members of the Committee on Historic Designation acknowledged the district contains a hodgepodge of buildings of different styles and from different periods, including homes built in the 1960s, 1980s, or more recently that might not be considered historically, architecturally or culturally significant.
But the area’s architectural diversity, they argued, is part of the reason it needs protection. Suzanna Barucco, a preservation consultant who also chairs the State Historic Preservation Board and previously headed the Preservation Alliance, said the field has moved on from principally trying to just preserve colonial sites, or what she called the “Washington slept here” perspective.
“We’ve changed our outlook to understand that it’s not just one early period, but this continuum that makes places significant, whether it’s a historic site that has changed over decades or centuries, or whether it’s a community,” she said. “To think otherwise is to take a very narrow and siloed approach to preservation which is something that we’ve been trying to really get away from.”
Committee members also noted that it was not within their purview to consider the financial impact of designation.
Councilmember Mark Squilla, whose district includes Washington Square West, has not taken a position on the designation. “We are paying close attention to the hearings, as this was a community-led process and we want to make sure all voices are heard,” he said.
The city’s Historical Commission is expected to discuss and possibly approve the designation at its next meeting on June 14 at 9 a.m. The meeting will be held via Zoom.
The description of Jonathan Hessney’s comments about buildings’ ties to historic communities has been clarified to more accurately reflect his remarks.