An editorial in today's Daily News highlights a big part of the Historic Designation problem in a nutshell. I was at the meeting where the Commission ruled against designating only the facade and took control of the whole building away from its owners. This Commission was arrogant and self-righteous about the whole affair; they weren't interested in the compromise suggested in the editorial (which the attorney for the owner tried to promote) -- putting down the statement that the community supported facade rather than whole building designation with the remark "This is not a popularity contest."
Most of us want to do what will make our community a better place for us all to live and work. But putting ourselves into the clutches of the uncompromising, smug bureaucrats at the Philadelphia Historical Commission ain't the way.
Al Krigman
-------------
Here's a link to read it in the flesh.
Click here: Philadelphia Daily News | 11/21/2002 | SAVING FACE
-------------
But it's short enough to reproduce below in its entirety.
SAVING FACE
EVERYONE WINS IF WE PRESERVE THE NATIONAL PRODUCTS BUILDING FACADE
IT'S HARD to find anyone who doesn't think the warm terra cotta and cool stainless steel National Products building isn't worth saving as a prime example of 1950s architecture. Or that it adds character to Old City. Or that the building is a welcome antidote to the soulless corporate architecture that surrounds us.
That is, unless you count the building's owner, who sold the property to a group of developers with plans to demolish it for a big project that most probably included condominiums.The building was about to fall to the wrecking ball when the city's Historical Commission was asked to step in and designate it as a historical property, which halted the demolition.
The lovers of this building, who are many, cite its significance not only in modern design, but in adding to the eclectic mix of Old City, where warehouses and factories converted to trendy housing share the streets with hip galleries and cafes.Some detractors - including the developers - scoff at the idea of a historic designation's being given to a building only 45 years old.
According to their attorney, the developers have appealed the historical designation - a designation that essentially stops all work and planning on a building and subjects all future work and planning to the approval of the commission.This is exactly the role the commission should be playing - essentially to protect us from ourselves, from giving up our rich past for the next pretty face with big development promises.
But in this case, it's the pretty face that is the key. The National property includes four buildings, some dating from the 19th century, and some from as recently as 1980s. It is hard to argue that those buildings should be saved. But letting development proceed as long as the facade is saved is the ideal compromise that all parties should find easy to reach.The developers say they are amenable to coming up with a plan that would incorporate the facade. After all, it could ultimately be one of the coolest buildings in the city, which adds further value to the property.
We urge all the parties, including the Historical Commission, to be flexible and committed to making this work so that the facade remains and development can go forward.
Everyone wins: The neighborhood, which keeps this beautiful example of modern design. The developers, who could bring in some further growth to this neighborhood. And the city, which always wins when it makes the right choices about priorities.To lose the opportunity to show off this gem would be a National disgrace.
