Liz- I just wanted to correct a few assertions you make in your message. ----- Original Message ----- "Elizabeth F. Campion" wrote:
> I love Historic property. > I want to see our neighborhood improved and (where appropriate) restored. > But, > IMPOSING an ideal &/or > GIFTING Tax Credits to folks (like RAPAPORT) for non-change &/or Tax credits are given only if approved renovations are completed on a building--I doubt that Rapoport did any projects like that. If he did get tax credits on his decaying buildings (and he may have) I doubt they were historic preservation credits. > UNCOMPENSATED TAKING on SIDE or REAR FACADES > (at corners) &/or The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that historic preservation regulations do not constitute uncompensated taking. > LIMITING developement (including improvement) &/or How does designation limit development? New construction on vacant lots is allowed and no restrictions on use of buildings (other than those already in place under other city ordinances) is imposed under historic designation. It seems to me that development is more of a zoning issue. > COMPLICATING resale &/or How would historic designation complicate resale? > IGNORING that many uglifications are done without L&I permit And historic designation provides a tool to address those cases. > ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES that > > EXCLUDE > all of PENN and many buildings worth saving and Historic districts are not merely random collections of old buildings. The Spruce Hill Historic District is thematically-defined as a residential area that developed based on changes in transportation technology and on the rise of speculative building by real estate developers for a growing middle class market in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While the arrival of Penn in the neighborhood is certainly a part of that story, it is not the central feature. The Penn Campus is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is certainly eligible for listing on the Philadelphia Register (and I'd guess that several individual buildings probably already are listed). > the green spaces, such as Clark Park and All of Clark Park is within the boundaries of the proposed district. > the Non Spruce Hill neighborhoods of UC > Cedar Park, Squirrel Hill, etc. All of those neighborhoods, as well as Garden Court and Powelton are also eligible for listing (and are on the National Register, too). Spruce Hill first applied for designation in the mid-1980s, but the process slowed (in large part because of court challenges to the city historic preservation ordinance that eventually led to the Supreme Court decision I mentioned earlier). When the it became obvious that the process had ground to a halt, UCHS pushed for and gained the listing of the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District on the National Register. When the Historical Commission again took up local historic district designations, I wrote a letter to the Designation Committee of the Historical Commission requesting that they consider expanding the proposed Spruce Hill boundaries to conform to the Streetcar Suburb district (which includes Spruce Hill, Cedar Park, and Squirrel Hill). The Committee decided that such a district included too many distinct periods of development to be a coherent historic district, but did agree that CP and SqH could certainly be designated on their own. You also seem to be, on the one hand, complaining of the unfairness of historic designation, and on the other hand, complaining that all of UC is not included. > > AND > > INCLUDE > TAKING of EASEMENTS on most of the homes in Spruce Hill What easements are you talking about? There are no easements provided by designation. > > strikes me as foolish and counter productive. > > Your reference to the site: > http://sprucehill.uchs.net/factsheet.htm > was welcome. But, the site contains as much editorial as fact. > > For example actual conclusions under "studies show", might also reveal > that heavily promoted is actually condo, commercial and apartment > developement and that what is lost is the "family home" and that the > studies had poor or nonexistent "controls" and are therefore not > particularly conclusive. Further, the folks who are saying "it won't > increase cost or delay or complicate permitting" are flat out LYING. > They may be ignorant of the reality and naive enough to repeat what has > been told to them, but they are not speaking fact. > Please trust me when I say... > any extra step through a Phila city bureaucracy, even a "simple" step is > a frustrating, time consuming, often frightening chore and > any extra charge, even one as small as $50 or $100 dollars translates to > a lot of deferred developement when it is multiplied over thousands of > projects in thousands of homes. It also creates a paper nightmare for > the small contractor. Note: in our neighborhood often the best and less > expensive craftsmen are the worst at paperwork. There is no charge for the Historical Commission approval--they simply stamp whatever permits L&I requires. If a craftsman or homeowner chooses to ignore completing required city permitting or paperwork, that's their choice, but they should also be prepared for the consequence that may follow. That paperwork is one of the costs of doing business. > > I recently attended a HISTORIC COMMISSION HEARING which debated the > merits of a mural painted on an wall on Waverly Street at 15th. This is > a street so small that it makes Ionic St. (located between Chestnut and > Sansom at 44th) look large. The wall is the north side of a 3-story tall > row home. The top two floors are brick. The first floor has been a > damaged stucco graffiti billboard for all of my memory (20 + years) of > it. The wall faces the Dumpster of a Student Dormitory for a Center City > college. The mural is at the beginning of a row which leads to backyard > parking. I don't think there are any homes fronting onto the 1500 block > of Waverly. Certainly no entrances anywhere near the mural. The > Historic Commission ordered the Mural "Painted Over" with Red-Brick > colored Paint. > At an appeal of that the decision, the Historic Commission tied, > half wanted it painted over, > half were convinced it qualified as "art" and could stay. > But, members of the commission made comments that convinced me that > Color > Content and > Petty Spats between neighbors > influence what is permitted (or fined) and what is not. I'm not familiar with this case, but it sounds to me like the type of case that causes the Historical Commission the most trouble--jobs where a property owner goes ahead and does something without investigating what the city requirements are. If you contact the staff at the Historical Commission early in the process, they can usually guide you toward a solution that gives the property owner the chance to do the kind of work they want to do while at the same time respecting the historic character of the building and/or neighborhood. If the proper approvals are not applied for in advance, then the work is reviewed, usually with the type of Historical Commission hearing you attended. Just as in the case of L&I or zoning permits, if the work was acceptable it will likely be approved after you've done the proper paperwork and paid the fees; if not then they'll tell you to remove it. > > I would not have gone to the trouble to restore my "Fish Scale" siding if > I had to paint it ochre. > Because it is restored, the folks who follow me into my home can choose > Ochre, but I want to enjoy light and color and the pleasure of coming > home to something which feels like a retreat from my auto and office. > I choose rainbow colors, partly in support of those troubled by the > actions of some homophobic thugs in Powelton Village. I left the HC > hearing fearful that > a homophobic person might create a complaint or hassles under the guise > of > preventing my "Bright" "Not Historic" color choices or that > a racist person could object to my mural, > without revealing that the content > which portrays the joyful interaction of folks with > nonhomogeneous skin tones, > is what really caused their offense. The Historical Commission does not review paint colors or paint schemes on wood or metal parts of the house--as you rightly note, the next owner could choose to research the original colors and use them. They generally do not approve painting of masonry, though, as that can cause damage to the building (and removing the paint often causes further damage). If, as you say, your home is your largest asset, then historic designation provides a tool for the protection of that asset. It helps to prevent irresponsible neighbors from doing things to their property that may negatively affect yours. It provides a tool with which to prevent demolition by neglect when a homeowner simply does not care about the fact that the roof is caving in or the porch is falling off--conditions that affect all who pass by or look at the property. It recognizes that the neighborhood has a distinctive character and history that are worth preserving. Neighborhood historic preservation does not seek to freeze a place in time--it simply seeks to get residents to take a breath and think about what they want their neighborhood to look like and to think about how changes made by individuals effect the community as a whole. -Tim Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
