I’ve decided to write a post (though at the length I expect this will be, thesis might be a better word) regarding my stance on Historic Preservation, development, and Philadelphia. I figured it would be much more constructive for all involved for me to put my entire feelings on the matter out into the open, so that there is no miscommunication or assumption regarding how I feel about these matters. My thoughts on Historic Preservation stem from feelings regarding a myriad of topics, ranging from the environment to philosophical ideals to building codes.
I do not expect any of you to read the whole thing, but I encourage you to.
The first thing I would like to say is that, like anyone else on this forum, I want nothing more than to see Philadelphia succeed. It is my stark opinion that while New York City is the greatest city in America, Philadelphia is the best. I will champion this city until the day I die. I have moved away before, I have returned, and I intend to never do it again.
In my life, I have been fortunate enough to travel the world. Through extraordinary circumstances, I came upon the finances to fund a trip post college that allowed me to see much of the world that I had wanted to see. I have been to Europe, Asia, and Australia, and I have visited major cities in each of those continents. While ostensibly there for tourist reasons, I tried to spend some of my time in each city roleplaying as a resident, rather than a visitor.
From this, I have formulated ideas of what it truly means and takes for a city to be “successful.” I would argue that, of the cities I visited, there is a very broad spectrum of success that presents itself in different ways. Central to our ongoing debate on this forum is the balance of historic preservation, and the idea of evolving and changing with the times. On one end of said spectrum, you have cities like Singapore, Tokyo, and Taipei, and on the other you have cities like Florence, Rome, and Dublin. The first grouping represents cities that have constantly demolished old in favor of new, while the second grouping represents cities that have stringent historic protections in place which make new construction neigh impossible. It is my opinion that, while successful in other ways (far be it from me to argue that Rome or Singapore aren’t successful cities), the most successful cities in this regard are those which balance historic preservation and new development. These are in the middle of the spectrum. (For those wondering, my favorite city outside of the US is Melbourne, VIC. It’s perfect.)
Some examples of cities which fall into this category include London, Melbourne, and Berlin. All three cities have very strict historic protections in place for buildings of a certain age, but have managed to continue to evolve their identity to keep relevance in a contemporary age. Perhaps it is because two of three of these cities were, at one point, ravaged by war and have seen the incredible loss of the built environment which such endeavors bring. Of these three, the one I’d like to focus on is London, England, because it is the city and country with which I am the most familiar.
The United Kingdom has a very effective historic preservation system known as “listed buildings.” There are three grades to this system which represent how significant said listed building is to its built environment. All buildings built before 1700 are listed, with most between 1700 and 1850 being, and then a majority of those built before WWII also listed. Anything constructed after 1945 requires “particularly careful selection,” and is only done for buildings of significant architectural merit that are actively threatened. London is no exception, with roughly 30,000 listed buildings of various grades throughout the city. Once a building is listed, alterations, while not impossible, are carefully vetted by all relevant local historic commissions (much like Philadelphia). Demolition, while not impossible, is rare (the classic example is the Mappin and Webb Building which was demolished in 1994). It is my opinion that this system works incredibly well for Great Britain and Northern Ireland and should be replicated elsewhere (especially in the United States). I would highly doubt that anyone posting on this forum would label London as an unsuccessful city by any definition of the word.
Part of this, I believe, is because Britain has a different culture from ours. There is an immense respect for the past there, which can be seen upon visiting their heritage railways, their museums, and their built environment. I would posit that some of it stems from the War, which I mentioned earlier. Part of me also just likes to believe that growing up around castles gives one an immense appreciation for his place in time and space. It is a culture and nation which I deeply admire.
So, I believe in historic preservation. Why? Well, it is my firmly held belief that whatever replaces an existing structure should be empirically and objectively better that what occupied the site before. For much of my youth, I believed that any new construction held inherent qualities that made it better than what was there. It’s part of the reason I joined this site! As I’ve gotten older, and as I’ve learned more and more through my studies, travel, and work, my opinion has shifted. I now rarely believe that anything built today that is below 12 stories is objectively better than what currently exists. My reasons for this are threefold.
First, it is a fact that the most environmentally friendly building is the one that is already there. We can argue over LEED standards, materials, and construction techniques all day, but the fact remains that building anything releases greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. We ought to be sure, then, that what we’re building is objectively better than what exists! There are a plethora of empty lots throughout the city that we should be building on before a discussion of demolition even occurs.
Second, it is a fact that almost anything built in America today is of objectively worse construction than what was built prior to the 1990s. For those uninformed, the International Building Code (IBC) was a system developed in California in 1994 to attempt to make a standardized, “one size fits all” building code for the entire United States. It specifies what materials can be used in construction, and sets base-level restrictions on said materials and their use. The base codes (as a result of development on the West Coast) have incredibly strict seismic rules for load-bearing masonry (not concrete, masonry). The code effectively makes it impossible to build anything with load-bearing brick that isn’t a 1 story warehouse or a 2 story detached single-family home. This has meant that, since Philadelphia adopted the IBC in the 2000s (I’m still looking for an exact date), it has been against city codes for any new construction to be a brick rowhome. The only attached housing that has been built is of wood frame. As wood frame needs a façade, often developers will cheap out and get the least expensive materials possible: vinyl siding. Some new builds attempt to hide the wood by either using a single layer of non-structural masonry, or by using brick veneer. As long as we are forcing attached housing to be of timber frame construction, I laud this. However, with load-bearing brick, the façade material would be… the brick.
Important to note is that this doesn’t affect structures higher than 4 or 5 stories, as load bearing brick isn’t a useful material beyond that height (City Hall is an exception). Brick buildings you see taller than that are of steel frame construction, with the brick resting on lentils every story. For buildings of such height, brick was (and in my opinion remains) the only sensible material for a façade. Today we have glass curtain walls, which are fine, but let in lots of sunlight and are difficult to insulate well. Even still, I’d happily take glass curtain walls over vinyl siding, because at least it means that the building will last. Do we really believe that any of the timber-frame construction of today will make it past the 2100 mark? There are buildings standing in Philadelphia today that are 300 years old. As long as brick is maintained, the building can last forever. We’re starting to see even well-maintained timber-frame buildings from the 90s suffer in more humid climates, as the wood rots and as mold, mildew, and other undesirables penetrate into the home. If I make it to the 2100s, and there is even a SINGLE plastic rowhome left standing in Fishtown, I will gladly take any of you out for a beer. To that end, we need new build masonry to return, chiefly so that we maintain a solid school of experienced masons who are able to maintain the immense masonry housing stock that the city already has.
Chicago is a fantastic example of a city that held out against the IBC. Walk around anywhere north of the Loop and you’ll find load-bearing masonry construction that was built into the 2020s. This contributes heavily to the feel of the built environment of Chicago, and is part of what makes the city special (and worth living in!). Unfortunately, with the IBC having been adopted by the city in 2020, we are seeing sloppy timber frame being built all around the city.
The IBC is also what effectively started the whole 5-over-1 craze. Long story short, someone realized that the codes allowed for 5 stories of timber-frame construction for multi-family dwellings, as long as whatever below it was built of steel or concrete. The supposed benefit of this construction was the ability to build apartments on the quick and cheap. Unfortunately, more often than not, because the people running these companies are not particularly upstanding individuals, in Philadelphia it is almost always either “student housing” or “luxury.” The entire idea of building apartments on the quick and cheap for the express purpose of keeping rent low in an area is gone.
Take, for example, the new build at 43rd and Baltimore. I know this building had a storied past, with the original Cecil Baker design being rejected for a height variance because of some loud NIMBYism in the area. The stately mansion that occupied the site was torn down around 2008, and the lot had been vacant since. I do not decry the pure desire to put something new there. Unfortunately, the 5-over-1 that ended up being built is charging 2x the local rent (1 BR apartments in the neighborhood go for around $1K a month, and they want $2K). The game plan here, as with many other new builds, is to offer enough rent incentives for someone to move in and agree to that number, even if over the course of a year-long lease they pay less than they would’ve paid if they’d rented elsewhere in the neighborhood. What’s important is that that number, that monthly rent, stays high.
Third is a problem of zoning. While I believe in historic preservation, I do not believe in height limits of any form. West Philadelphia is living proof that they’re stupid and ill-advised. At 47th and Pine, there is a 20 story apartment building next to a 7 story apartment building surrounded by single family detached housing. It is one of my favorite parts of the city. All of it looks like it has belonged there, because despite being of different construction and use, the built environment has consistent materials and motifs!
Recently, all of East Girard Avenue in North Philadelphia was given an artificial height limit of 4 stories. It is my opinion that this is nothing short of a crime. In a perfect world, the best way to combat the negative effects of gentrification is to build dense along transit corridors. Girard Avenue literally has a trolley running down the middle, and yet the highest one can build is 4 stories. For a corridor that wide, it is mind-bogglingly stupid.
If we want Philadelphia to continue to be successful by any metric, we need to continue to not only expand our rail transit but also ensure that the zoning of the parcels surrounding it is as free and unrestricting as possible. Parking minimums are another curse of American urbanism that needs to go. If the entirety of West Market from 46th to 63rd was upzoned to CMX-5, with no height limit or parking minimum, I would have no protest against the demolition of most of those decrepit 3-4 story buildings that line Market today. There are a few that, in my opinion, would be worth preserving, but we’d be exiting the realm of objectivity at that point…
To that end, I will start to get a bit more subjective now. It is my opinion that the only “real” cities worth discussing in this nation are those that hit their peak before the automobile. Nothing I am seeing right now leads me to believe that cities like Austin, TX, Columbus, OH, and Atlanta, GA are anything more than “people storage.” The pure population number isn’t worth much when it’s neigh-impossible to afford living anywhere that isn’t the middle of nowhere. All three of those cities are enveloped by awful, car-centric suburbs and highways which literally choke out downtown. I have little faith in the continued growth of any of those cities beyond the 2040s, especially as the pendulum swings back towards public transit and walkability in our post-COVID world. Few people my age (18-24) want to live in Phoenix, AZ for the same reason they don’t want to live in Fargo, ND: you need a car to get anywhere! Now that anyone can live anywhere, even as some offices return to in-person work, the cities that will continue to thrive are those which can offer their residents a full compliment of urbanism: functioning public transit, walkable neighborhoods, and affordable living. Philadelphia, despite its own best efforts on all three fronts, has this.
Theoretically, if all three of the above problems went away (we allowed load-bearing masonry construction, we abolished terrible American zoning policies, and we built up most of the vacant lots throughout the city), we wouldn’t need historic districts. Rather, individual buildings of architectural and historical merit would be listed (much like the UK). Until that day should come, I fail to see how preserving large swaths of traditional, prewar urbanism contributes any harm to Philadelphia’s success and growth. I’d argue that it’s actually necessary until we begin to realize what makes our city special! Like New York and Chicago, we are cosmopolitan and historic. We have a past and a future. There is much of Philadelphia worth preserving for the future, and I don’t just mean specific buildings.
Until that day should come, I also fail to see how forcing developers to not use literally the cheapest, ugliest materials available is doing any harm. Yes, I do support historic districts forcing new builds to look objectively nice. It certainly makes development more expensive, but as discussed, outside of the Housing Authority anything built new is already rarely affordable to begin with. If they’re charging $2K/mo to rent, I know I wouldn’t even consider living there if the building still looks like a Lionel Plasticville set from the 80s. I’d like to note that literally every reasonably affordable apartment I’ve ever lived in has been in a building built before 1940.
So, what are the solutions in the meantime? First, it would be very easy for the city to amend our adoption of the IBC to allow for load-bearing masonry again. I believe it’s as simple as changing a single number in a single equation that is used to calculate seismic loads on brick structures. Secondly, we could encourage developers to build using these traditional materials by offering incentives (perhaps such as the full 10 year abatement for any masonry construction?). I’d rather reward developers who do the right thing, rather than punish everyone.
I want Philadelphia to succeed, and I realize that the way I define success is different from others. There’s a balance here that we need to strike. Until that day, I absolutely, positively, unequivocally support any historic designation and districts that come around for any building built before 1945. If that means the Robinson Building is preserved, so be it.
Thank you all for your time.
Prev
Linear Mode
