


	search citypaper.net

Also this issue:

Model Citizens
-Ted Mann

November 14-20, 2002

cityspace

National Pride

Old city?: Even though the National Building facade dates from the late 1950s, the Philadelphia Historical Commission voted to preserve it. Photo By: Michael T. Regan

Preservation forces win a round in the battle over the orange-tiled Old City landmark.

by Daniel Brook

Only a month ago, it looked as if the National building on North Second Street in Old City was doomed. A hole had mysteriously appeared in its bright orange art moderne terra cotta tile façade after the Department of Licenses and Inspections (L&I) approved a permit allowing a contractor to “remove front tiles” from the building. After an outcry from the neighborhood, L&I revoked the permit, ruling that the developer had misled them; it appeared that the developer planned to demolish the façade, not simply remove a few tiles.

With the building under threat, preservationists moved to have it protected through historic designation. Ironically, on the original L&I permit, when asked whether the building was historically certified, the applicant checked both "yes" and "no." Last Friday, the Historical Commission put an end to that debate, certifying the building in a nearly unanimous vote. Only one member, David Perri, a deputy commissioner at L&I, voted no.

For preservationists, it was a significant victory, in part because of the Old City location of the National building. In a neighborhood boasting scores of buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries, convincing the Historical Commission to preserve a 1950s façade was hardly a foregone conclusion. At the Historical Commission hearing Friday, Richard Thom, chair of the developments committee of the Old City Civic Association argued that because the building stands out from Elfreth's Alley, not in spite of it, the National should be saved. The counterpoint of 20th-century architecture mixed in with the older buildings "makes [Old City] real and not [Colonial] Williamsburg or Disneyland," Thom told the commission.

John Gallery, who heads the Preservation Alliance, argues along similar lines. "One of the things that is unusual about Old City is that it contains within it commercial buildings of significance from many periods," he says. While the National is "not [architecturally] consistent with Elfreth's Alley, [as a commercial building] it is consistent with Old City."

Harris Steinberg, an architect who sits on the Historical Commission but was out of town during the hearing, said he was "pleasantly surprised" at the committee's decision. Steinberg, who is one of the leading preservation advocates on the commission, described the National as "a delightful 1950s addition to the street. It's important to bear in mind that we have a lot of relatively contemporary buildings that we need to be looking at with a critical eye before it's too late."

But for local residents, the fat lady has yet to sing. "This is a minor victory, but we're not popping champagne corks," Richard Thom said four days after the hearing. Thom says he subsequently heard that a paralegal from Klehr Harrison, the firm representing the prospective developers of the property, filed for a demolition permit at L&I the day before the Historical Commission hearing.

Carl Primavera is the Klehr Harrison attorney representing the would-be developers of the National building, who are negotiating to purchase the property from longtime owner Linda Levin. Primavera says the timing of the permit application was coincidental. "We didn't try to sneak it in," he says. "I think [the paralegal] went looking for a foundation permit," not a demolition permit, Primavera says, though he concedes he isn't entirely sure.

Mary Isaacson, the Klehr Harrison paralegal, did not return a request for comment by press time. Neither did L&I spokesperson Andrea Swan.

Primavera expressed hope that the developers and the community could work together to find a mutually beneficial plan for the National building, but says he is worried that a "dogmatic approach" -- being sticklers about historic preservation -- could "kill the project."

"A museum that gives an idea of what it was like to sell industrial kitchenware in 1950" would not be profitable, Primavera quipped. He could, however, see putting in a restaurant. "Get Steven Starr, call it ŒThe National Restaurant.' Then we're talking about something that makes sense in the real world."

While Primavera hopes to come up with a workable plan, he says he will appeal the decision of the Historical Commission. Appeals are routed first to the L&I review board and then through the Pennsylvania courts. But since the appeals process is so time-consuming, Primavera would prefer to get moving on a mutually agreed upon project while the Old City real estate market is still hot.

"It is rare," says Thom, "that the courts overturn a historic designation." At the same time, he doubts that Primavera's clients have any intention of opening up a restaurant or anything else in the National building. "The guys who are the buyers are only flippers," Thom says, referring to the process of buying properties, hoping their value will go up and then reselling them. "They never develop anything."

-- Respond to this article in our Forums -- click to jump there