4054 CHESTNUT ST Proposed Action: Rescission Property Owner: Eapen Kalathil Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, [email protected], 215-686-7660

4054 CHESTNUT ST Proposed Action: Rescission Property Owner: Eapen Kalathil Staff Contact: Jon Farnham, Jon.Farnham@Phila.Gov, 215-686-7660

OVERVIEW: This application proposes to rescind the historic designation of 4054 Chestnut Street, a property which was designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places on 8 July 2016. At that time, the Commission found that the property satisfied Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, and J. The property owner claims that the property is “largely devoid of character-defining features.”

Section 14-1004(5) of the historic preservation ordinance stipulates that “any designation of a building … as historic may be amended or rescinded in the same manner as is specified for designation.” Section 5.14.b.1 of the Rules & Regulations stipulates that the Commission may rescind the designation of a building … and remove its entry or entries from the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places if: a. the resource has ceased to satisfy any Criteria for Designation because the qualities that caused its original entry have been lost or destroyed; b. additional information shows that the resource does not satisfy one or more Criteria for Designation; or, c. the Commission committed an error in professional judgment when it determined that the resource satisfied one or more Criteria for Designation.

Section 5.14.b.2 of the Rules & Regulations requires that “a person who seeks to have a designation rescinded shall make a written and documented submission to the Commission that demonstrates one of the three bases cited in Section 5.14.b.1 of these Rules & Regulations. The content of such a submission may vary from case to case. For example, a demonstration of the loss or destruction of qualities may require a report by a structural engineer.”

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommended to the Committee on Historic Designation at its June 2016 meeting that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 4054 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. The staff contends that the property owner has failed to make a written and documented submission to the Commission that demonstrates that one of the three bases enumerated in Section 5.14.b.1 is satisfied.

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

Nomination 1. Nomination, submitted to Historical Commission on 10 May 2016

Documents generated by the Historical Commission 2. First Notice Letters, Historical Commission to Property Owner, 16 May 2016 3. Historical Commission Overview included with First Notice Letters 4. Committee on Historic Designation Minute, 15 June 2016 5. Historical Commission Minute, 8 July 2016 6. Final Notice Letters, Historical Commission to Property Owner, 20 July 2016 7. Historical Commission Overview included with Final Notice Letters

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

EXHIBIT 1

NOMINATION OF HISTORIC BUILDING, STRUCTURE, SITE, OR OBJECT PHILADELPHIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION SUBMIT ALL ATTACHED MATERIALS ON PAPER AND IN ELECTRONIC FORM ON CD (MS WORD FORMAT)

1. ADDRESS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE (must comply with an Office of Property Assessment address) Street address: 4054 Chestnut Street Postal code: 19104 Councilmanic District:

2. NAME OF HISTORIC RESOURCE Historic Name: 4054 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street Common Name: 4054 Chestnut Street

3. TYPE OF HISTORIC RESOURCE X Building Structure Site Object

4. PROPERTY INFORMATION Condition: excellent good fair poor ruins Occupancy: occupied vacant under construction unknown Current use: Apartment House

5. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION Please attach a plot plan and written description of the boundary. SEE ATTACHED SHEET.

6. DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHED SHEET. Please attach a description of the historic resource and supplement with current photographs.

7. SIGNIFICANCE Please attach the Statement of Significance. [See Attached Sheet] Period of Significance (from year to year): from 1872 to 1921 Date(s) of construction and/or alteration: 1872-1876 Architect, engineer, and/or designer: Unknown Builder, contractor, and/or artisan: Unknown Original owner: Thomas H. Powers Other significant persons: Unknown CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION: The historic resource satisfies the following criteria for designation (check all that apply): X (a) Has significant character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth or Nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past; or, (b) Is associated with an event of importance to the history of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; or X (c) Reflects the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style; or, X (d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen; or, (e) Is the work of a designer, architect, landscape architect or designer, or engineer whose work has significantly influenced the historical, architectural, economic, social, or cultural development of the City, Commonwealth or Nation; or, (f) Contains elements of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or, X (g) Is part of or related to a square, park or other distinctive area which should be preserved according to an historic, cultural or architectural motif; or, (h) Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or City; or, (i) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or X (j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social or historical heritage of the community.

8. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Please attach a bibliography. SEE ATTACHED SHEET.

9. NOMINATOR AARON WUNSCH, HISTORIAN ELIZABETH STEGNER, PRESIDENT

Name with Title Oscar Beisert, Historian Email [email protected] Organization University City Historical Society Date 10 May 2016. Street Address P.O. Box 31927 Telephone (215) 387-3019 City, State, and Postal Code: Philadelphia, PA 19104 Nominators are not the property owners.

PHC USE ONLY Date of Receipt:______Correct-Complete Incorrect-Incomplete Date:______Date of Notice Issuance:______Property Owner at Time of Notice Name:______Address:______City:______State:____ Postal Code:______Date(s) Reviewed by the Committee on Historic Designation:______Date(s) Reviewed by the Historical Commission:______Date of Final Action:______Designated Rejected 4/11/13

5. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION The boundary description of the 4054 Chestnut Street is as follows:

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, described according to a Survey and Plan thereof made by G. L. Martin, Esquire, Surveyor and Regulator of the Twelfth Survey District, on the Eleventh day of August, A. D. 1920, as follows, to with:

BEGINNING at a point on the South side of Chestnut Street at the distance of seventy-five feet Eastward from the East side of Forty-first Street in the Twenty-seventh Ward of the City of Philadelphia.

CONTAINING in front or breadth on the said Chestnut Street twenty-five feet and extending of that width in length or depth Southward between lines at right angles to the said Chestnut Street one hundred twenty-nine feet nine inches.

BEING known as No. 4054 Chestnut Street.

Lot No. 88 Tax Account No. BRT NO. 88-1602900

The lot numbers related to 4042-4060 Chestnut Street. Courtesy City of Philadelphia.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 1

The boundary for the subject property is in red. Courtesy Philadelphia Water.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 2

Looking south. Courtesy Oscar Beisert.

6. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Located on the south side of Chestnut Street below 41st Street, 4054 Chestnut Street and 4056 Chestnut Street comprise the east and west sides of a semi-detached twin that stands in a row of twin houses the comprise the Thomas H. Powers Development: 4046-4060 Chestnut Street. The houses stand three-and-one-half stories tall, measure three bays across, and are built of primarily of red brick. Originally, the main section of each house featured a side-gable roof with paired end chimneys and a central dormer; (this is no longer the case at 4054, where the gable roof has been eliminated in favor of a flat one). A five-bay service wing originally extended south from the main block, dropping from three to two stories in the terminal bay. Built in pairs, each wing had a shed roof that formed a gable with its adjoining neighbor. This gable ran perpendicular to the main roof and dropped to a low hip above the terminal bay. 4050 retains its original two- over-two wooden sash windows, while 4052 has replacement windows.

Stylistically, the Chestnut Street houses amount to a restrained interpretation of the Italianate. Their paneled doorway reveals, bracket-and-dentil cornices, and segmental-pediment dormers with paired, round-headed sash are all hallmarks of the style. In other respects, though, these buildings are simply refined versions of a standard Philadelphia type. Their facades consist of top-quality pressed brick laid in running bond with exceedingly thin mortar joints. While the distinctively Italianate features are rendered in wood, the lintels, sills, and raised basements are clad in smooth-faced sandstone. Other refinements include chamfers at the bottom of sills,

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 3

round-headed doorway arches built of thin-mortared soldier bricks, and ornamental iron gateways on marble thresholds across intervening alleyways.

All of this frontal finery contrasts with the stark treatment of the side walls. These are built of a softer brick and are blind on the main block. There are windows in the rear wings but these are smaller than those on the front and generally equipped with wood surrounds; (stone lintels on basement windows are the exception). However, even the rear zone is not entirely devoid of ornament. A corbelled brick cornice on the three-story portion of the wing echoes the same feature on the rear wall of the main block, and the upper (frame) half of the two-story extension has Italianate brackets and window heads.

Accompanying photographs indicate the how these buildings have changed over time. While it is impractical to itemize all of these alterations, it is important to note the most significant ones. These may be seen at 4054, which, in addition to its lowered roofline, has replacement sash (six- over-one instead of two over two) and reconfigured door and window openings on the first floor. A larger tripartite window has been installed in the same location at 4056. The corner house at 4060 has been stuccoed and its first floor reconfigured to accommodate a restaurant. Despite these and lesser modifications, the string of houses remains visually coherent. The buildings’ envelopes and massing have change little.

Looking southwest. Courtesy Oscar Beisert.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 4

Looking southwest. Courtesy University City Historical Society.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 5

Looking southwest. Courtesy University City Historical Society.

Looking south. Courtesy University City Historical Society

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 6

Looking south. Courtesy University City Historical Society.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 7

Looking south. Courtesy University City Historical Society.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 8

Looking south. Courtesy University City Historical Society.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 9

Looking south. Courtesy University City Historical Society.

Looking northeast. Courtesy University City Historical Society.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 10

Looking south, the rear gateway of the houses at 4048 and 4050 Chestnut Street. Courtesy Oscar Beisert.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 11

Looking south at the rear elevation of 4050 Chestnut Street. Courtesy Oscar Beisert.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 12

Looking south. Courtesy the University City Historical Society.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 13

1849 Map of Blockley Township, by S. M. Rea & J. Miller. Courtesy West Philadelphia Community History Center.

7. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE No. 4054 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street is a significant resource that merits designation by the Philadelphia Historical Commission and inclusion on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Located on the south side of Chestnut Street in West Philadelphia, the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation a, c, d, g, and j.

(a) Has significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, Commonwealth, or Nation or is associated with the life of a person significant in the past;

(d) Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or engineering specimen;

(g) Is part of or related to a square, park or other distinctive area which should be preserved according to an historic, cultural or architectural motif; and

(j) Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social or historical heritage of the community.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 14

Atlas of West Philadelphia including the 24th & 27th Wards of the City of Philadelphia from actual surveys & official records. Philadelphia: G. [Griffith] M. [Morgan] Hopkins & Co., compiler and publisher, 1872. Courtesy the West Philadelphia Community History Center.

J.D. Scott's 1878 Atlas of the 24th and 27th Wards, West Philadelphia. Philadelphia: J.D. Scott, 1878. Courtesy the West Philadelphia Community History Center.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 15

Atlas of West Philadelphia, 24th and 27th wards. Compiled from official records, private plans and actual surveys based upon plans deposited in the Department of surveys, by Wm. G. Baist. Philadelphia: J.L. Smith, 1886. Courtesy the West Philadelphia Community History Center.

Walter S. Bromley's 1892 Atlases of West Philadelphia's 24th, 27th and 34th Wards. (Philadelphia: 1892). Courtesy the West Philadelphia Community History Center.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 16

E.V. Smith's 1909 Atlas of the 27th & 46th wards, West Philadelphia. (Elvino V. Smith, compiler and publisher, 1909.). Courtesy the West Philadelphia Community History Center.

Atlas of the City of Philadelphia, wards 24, Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 17

27, 34, 40, 44 & 46, West Philadelphia, from actual surveys and official plans. Philadelphia: G. W. Bromley, 1927., Plate 24. Courtesy the West Philadelphia Community History Center.

Looking east toward the 4000 Block of Chestnut Street. Courtesy University of Pennsylvania Archives.

Criteria C, D, and J No. 4054 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street is one in a group of houses that represent a house type and evolution that speaks both to Philadelphia’s rich architectural legacy and tradition, as well as the cultural, economic, social or historical heritage of the West Philadelphia. Criteria C and J are related and equally important as the architectural style, as well as the cultural and social factors are related to the developer, Thomas H. Powers. The houses reflect the environment in an era characterized by a distinctive architectural style and exemplify the cultural, economic, social and historical heritage of the community.

The restrained brick twins that Thomas H. Powers erected on the 4000 block of Chestnut Street in the early to mid-1870s represent a careful calculation on the part of their sponsor. Served by the recently completed Philadelphia City Horse Car Passenger Railway, which terminated one block to the west, these houses aimed to accommodate the sorts of white-collar commuters whose influx into West Philadelphia had fueled suburban development in the area for the last two decades. The wealthiest of the new arrivals inhabited large, freestanding villas on lots that spanned one-sixth of a city block or more. A notch down on the socio-economic ladder were capacious “double houses” like those designed by architect Samuel Sloan for elegant “terraces” that stretched south of Baltimore Avenue between 40th and 42nd Streets. Ample setbacks, porches, and yards gave such houses a distinctive suburban character despite their denser configuration. Finally, there were conventional row houses, concentrated locally either along the

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 18

commercial corridor of Market Street or on narrow side streets that were largely devoid of architectural pretension and served a working-class population.

Powers eschewed all of these models. Instead, he favored genteel but closely spaced twins of a sort seldom seen the area. Similar buildings had cropped up in the northern reaches of Philadelphia in the last generation, especially toward the eastern end of Spring Garden. Powers evidently believed that the 4000 block of Chestnut Street had become sufficiently urban and urbane by the early 1870s to support genteel rental housing that nodded slightly to suburban norms in its spacing and ornament (Italianate was the preferred mode for villas) but not in other respects. Renters, he must have reasoned, had little need for large yards but would appreciate the hallmarks of refinement in their houses’ size, brickwork, metalwork, and stone. The first sets of these twins were built at the eastern end of Powers’ tract in the early 1870s. By the end of the decade there were five such pairs, extending to 41st Street. Behind them, a row of fifteen more modest row houses filled Powers’ property on the corresponding section of Sansom Street and a small but respectable freestanding house used remaining frontage on 41st Street. Most of this development stands today but the Chestnut Street houses are its most distinctive element. The easternmost twin (4042-4044) was demolished in early 2016 to make room for a multi-unit apartment building. Ironically, perhaps, that token nod to suburban spacing has now become a liability.

Historic Context—4054-4056 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street Thomas H. Powers, the eminent “Manufacturing Chemist”, inventor, and real estate developer, purchased the larger parcel that encompass the lots now known as 4042-4060 Chestnut Street from William W. Keen on April 16, 1869 for the sum of $41,666.1 4042 Chestnut Street was complete by August 31, 1869, when Thomas H. Powers purchased Policy No. 7508 for fire insurance from the Mutual Assurance Company. He paid $153 for a policy insuring a house worth $7500.2 Attached, 4044 Chestnut Street was completed at the same time and insured on the same day.3 4046 Chestnut Street was complete by September 8, 1870, when Thomas H Powers purchased Policy No. 7590 for fire insurance from the Mutual Assurance Company.4 He paid $123 for a policy insuring a house worth $6,000. Attached, 4048 Chestnut Street was completed at the same time and insured on the same day.5

G.M. Hopkins & Co.’s Atlas of West Philadelphia including the 24th & 27th Wards of the City of Philadelphia of 1872 verifies that the twins at 4042-4044 and 4046-4048 Chestnut Street of the

1 Deed Poll: WWK to THP, 16 April 1869, Sheriff Deed Book No. JTO 229, p. 467, District Court Records, CAP. 2 “Policy No. 7508 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 31 August 1869, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter HSP). 3 “Policy No. 7509 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 31 August 1869, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter HSP). 4 “Policy No. 7590 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 8 September 1870, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter HSP). 5 “Policy No. 7591 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 8 September 1870, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter HSP). Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 19

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street were completed.6 Between the publication of G.M. Hopkins & Co.’s Atlas of West Philadelphia including the 24th & 27th Wards of the City of Philadelphia in 1872 and the publication of J.D. Scott's 1878 Atlas of the 24th and 27th Wards, West Philadelphia in 1878, the twins at 4050-4052, 4054-4056, and 4058- 4060 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street were completed.7

Like with many of his projects, Thomas H. Powers no doubt commissioned both an architect and a contractor to complete Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street. While the records for this property are not available, Thomas H. Powers made plans to develop parcels on the North and South sides of Chestnut Street between 44th and 45th Streets in the late 1870s. In renewed agreement dated April 18, 1879, the Estate of Thomas H. Powers honored a previous contract with Abraham Ritter, a contractor of Philadelphia, to construct twenty houses on the south side of Chestnut Street and twenty-fourth to the north.

…agrees to complete for the said party of the first part in a good substantial and workmanlike manner with good material and according to the best art and skill and to deliver to the said party of the first part free and discharged of all claims liens or other incumbrances…8

The agreement also specified that Abraham Ritter would use the “specification” of George W. Hewitt, Architect of Philadelphia. While these specific “Articles of Agreement” were found in the Johnston-Harris Papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, these are the type of papers that were usually filed in the manner of a deed. This indicates the type of architect used by Powers in his development project, also proving that he must of have had some influence over the design.

After the completion of the buildings, 4046-4060 Chestnut Street were used by Thomas H. Powers and later his estate as rental properties. The Estate of Thomas H. Powers continued to own the buildings that encompass complete the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046- 4060 Chestnut Street until April 1, 1921 when they were sold to Clarence Pennington.9

6 Atlas of West Philadelphia including the 24th & 27th Wards of the City of Philadelphia from actual surveys & official records. Philadelphia: G. [Griffith] M. [Morgan] Hopkins & Co., compiler and publisher, 1872. 7 J.D. Scott's 1878 Atlas of the 24th and 27th Wards, West Philadelphia. Philadelphia: J.D. Scott, 1878. 8 Agreement between the Estate of Thomas H. Powers, manufacturing chemist, and Abraham Ritter, contractor, 18 April 1879, Papers of the Estate of Thomas H. Powers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 9 Deed Poll: THPE to ICP, 1 April 1921, Sheriff Deed Book No. JMH 1150, p. 25, District Court Records, CAP. Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 20

“Policy No. 7590 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 8 September 1870, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Courtesy the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 21

Page One of “Policy No. 7590 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 8 September 1870, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Courtesy the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 22

Page Two of “Policy No. 7590 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 8 September 1870, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Courtesy the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 23

Criterion A No. 4054 Chestnut Street is part of a twin at 4054-4056 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street has significant character, interest, and/or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the twin- type housing and the formation of West Philadelphia as a suburb.

Constructed between 1869-1872, the twin at 4054-4056 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street was represents a transitory period of development in West Philadelphia, as previous stated under Criterion J. Located immediately upon transportation venues to Philadelphia, the buildings are set upon the street in an urban format with a store at the corner. While these are built on the street, they also offer a suburban quality in that they are essentially twin-type buildings, representing a transitory period in the development of West Philadelphia. This is further justified in a historic context previously accepted by the Philadelphia Historical Commission—Appendix A: The Suburbanization in West Philadelphia: 1804-1870s. . The building at 4054 Chestnut Street of the Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street was one of a group of twins commissioned by Thomas H. Powers, the eminent chemical magnate and real estate developer, as part of a larger development of the block, representing a twin-type. With the demolition and loss of Thomas H. Powers’ primary business buildings, the plants of Powers & Weightman, his mansion at the Falls of the Schuylkill, and much of the neighborhood he grew up in at 7th and Arch Streets, the extant real estate development projects completed by him gain additional importance in representing his accomplishments and commitment to Philadelphia. The old fashion aesthetic tone of the buildings, yet with an immediate proximity to public transportation represents both the traditional and business savvy Philadelphian that Thomas H. Power was in the mid-nineteenth century. This is further justified in a historic context previously accepted by the Philadelphia Historical Commission— Appendix B: Biography of Thomas H. Powers

Criterion G Is part of or related to a square, park or other distinctive area, which should be preserved according to an historic, cultural or architectural motif.

This building is one of ten houses that comprised 4042-4060 Chestnut Street, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as contributing resources within the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District. This building is one of eight houses that survive among the ten NRHP-listed properties. This building satisfies Criterion G, as it is part of and related to a distinctive area, which should be preserved according to an historic cultural and architectural motif, as prescribed by the NRHP.10

10 “National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District.” National Register of Historic Places. (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 5 February 1998), pp. 30. Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 24

8. Bibliography

Contributors. Sponsored by the University City Historical Society, this nomination was a collaborative effort that was written by Oscar Beisert, J.M. Duffin, and Aaron Wunsch.

Sources Cited. “A Plan of the Village of Hamilton,” 1804, Of 607 1804, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter HSP). Agreement between the Estate of Thomas H. Powers, manufacturing chemist, and Abraham Ritter, contractor, 18 April 1879, Papers of the Estate of Thomas H. Powers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Allinson, Edward Pease and Boies Penrose. Ground Rents in Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Series on Political Economy and Public Law, vol. [1], no. 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1888. “Annual Message of the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia with Annual Reports of the Departments, Volume 1.” Published by the City of Philadelphia, 1907. Atlas of West Philadelphia including the 24th & 27th Wards of the City of Philadelphia from actual surveys & official records. Philadelphia: G. [Griffith] M. [Morgan] Hopkins & Co., compiler and publisher, 1872. Baist, William G. Atlas of West Philadelphia, 24th and 27th Wards. Philadelphia: J.L. Smith, 1886. Brief of Title to A Tract of Land in the Twenty-Seventh Ward of the City of Philadelphia containing Twenty Acres, more or less, called Satterlee Heights. Philadelphia: King & Baird, 1870. Bromley, G.W. Atlas of the City of Philadelphia, vol. 11, 27th Ward. Philadelphia: G.W. Bromley, 1892. Cooledge, Harold N., Jr. Samuel Sloan: Architect of Philadelphia, 1815-1884. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986. Deed Poll: THPE to ICP, 1 April 1921, Sheriff Deed Book No. JMH 1150, p. 25, District Court Records, CAP. Deed Poll: WWK to THP, 16 April 1869, Sheriff Deed Book No. JTO 229, p. 467, District Court Records, CAP. Denhoff, Erica and Kim Franklin. “West Philadelphia: The Basic History, Chapter 2: A Streetcar Suburb in the City: West Philadelphia, 1854-1907.” West Philadelphia Community History Center, University Archives and Records Center, University of Pennsylvania, accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/wphila/history/history2.html . Ellet, Charles, Jr. A Map of the County of Philadelphia from Actual Survey, 1843. “Fuller, Pliny B.” Find A Grave http://www.findagrave.com/cgi- bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=88642601&ref=acom Accessed 20 July 2015. Gopsill’s Philadelphia City and Business Directory for 1868. Philadelphia: James Gopsill, 1868. Hardy, Mike, Historian. Personal Interview. 10 July 2015. Hopkins,G.M. Atlas of West Philadelphia including the 24th & 27th Wards of the City of Philadelphia from actual surveys & official records. Philadelphia: G.M. Hopkins, 1872. Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 25

Jackson, Joseph. Market Street, Philadelphia: The Most Historic Highway in America, Its Merchants and Its Story. Philadelphia: John Wanamaker, 1918. Jane Campbell Collection, HSP. Johnston, Alma Calder, “Personal Memoirs of Walt Whitman.” The Bookman: An Illustrated Magazine of Literature and Life 46 (1917). Magnus, Charles. Satterlee U.S.A. General Hospital, West Philadelphia. Philadelphia, 1864), colored lithograph. Marriage Announcements, New York Evening Post. New York, 19 June 1843 Miller, James. “Plan according to Survey by Jas. Miller.” Philadelphia: May 1869. Miller, Roger and Joseph Siry. “The Emerging Suburb: West Philadelphia, 1850-1880.” Pennsylvania History 47 (1980): 99-146 “Mortuary: John Matthew Hummel.” Shoe and Leather Reporter 58 (1894): 246. “National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District.” National Register of Historic Places. (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 5 February 1998), pp. 30. Official Hand Book, City Hall, Philadelphia. Published by the City of Philadelphia, 1901. The Phi Gamma Delta, Volume 36, Issue 5. University of Pennsylvania, 1914. Philadelphia Architects and Buildings, s.v. “Samuel Sloan (1815-1884), Architect.” by Roger W. Moss and Sandra L. Tatman, accessed 15 July 2015, https://www.philadelphiabuildings.org/pab/app/ar_display.cfm/21518 Philadelphia on Stone Biographical Dictionary of Lithographers, s.v. “John Weik.” Library Company of Philadelphia. “Policy No. 7508 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 31 August 1869, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. “Policy No. 7509 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 31 August 1869, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. “Policy No. 7590 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 8 September 1870, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. “Policy No. 7591 of the Mutual Assurance Company,” issued 8 September 1870, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Potts, Thomas Maxwell. Historical Collections Relating to the Potts Family in Great Britain and America. Canonsburg, Pa: s.n., 1901), 573. Property files for 501-520 Woodland Terrace, Philadelphia Historical Commission. Rea, S.M. and J. Miller. Map of Blockley Township including all public places, property owners, etc., 1849, Library Company of Philadelphia. Scott, J.D. Atlas of the 24th and 27th Wards, West Philadelphia. Philadelphia: J.D. Scott, 1878. Sidney, J.C. Map of the Circuit of 10 Miles Around Philadelphia, 1847. Skaler, Robert Morris. West Philadelphia: University City to 52nd Street. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2002. Smith, Elvino V.. Atlas of the 27th & 46th Wards, West Philadelphia. Philadelphia; E.V. Smith, 1909.

Repositories Visited. City Archives of Philadelphia, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Library Company of Philadelphia , University City Historical Society, and University of Pennsylvania Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 26

Appendix A: The Suburbanization in West Philadelphia: 1804-1870s

Detail from Charles Ellet, Jr., A Map of the County of Philadelphia from Actual Survey, 1843.11

The Roots of Suburbanization in West Philadelphia: 1804-1849 The earliest impetus for development and/or expansion of Philadelphia west of the Schuylkill River was invoked by the construction of the first permanent bridge at Market Street in 1804-05, which enabled greater use of the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, established nearly a decade before the bridge.12 Soon after these advancements, William Hamilton (1745-1813), grandson of the famous Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton, and heir to his great estate, became the earliest developer in West Philadelphia when he began subdividing parts of his 600- acre estate for the establishment of Hamiltonville (now Hamilton Village) between 1804 and 1809.13 Hamilton’s development extended the Philadelphia gridiron to his side of the Schuylkill River, and his subdivision was bound by Filbert (late Green) Street at the north to Woodland Avenue at the southeast, and from 32nd (late Mansion) Street at the west to 41st (late Till) Street. In order to promote his development, Hamilton prepared a map of the proposed development, which included lots, measuring roughly one-quarter of an acre fronting major east-west thoroughfares. The map was an early real estate development tool used to entice wealthy Philadelphians to consider moving westward.14

11 Charles Ellet,, Jr., A Map of the County of Philadelphia from Actual Survey, 1843. 12 Joseph Jackson, Market Street, Philadelphia: The Most Historic Highway in America, Its Merchants and Its Story (Philadelphia: John Wanamaker, 1918). 13 Roger Miller and Joseph Siry, “The Emerging Suburb: West Philadelphia, 1850-1880,” Pennsylvania History 47 (1980): 99- 146; and “A Plan of the Village of Hamilton,” 1804, Of 607 1804, Historical Society of Pennsylvania (hereafter HSP). 14 “A Plan of the Village of Hamilton,” 1804. Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 27

While Hamilton’s subdivision did not lead to immediate dense suburbanization, development occurred as transportation modes expanded and population increased in Philadelphia. Wealthy citizens purchased large tracts of the subdivided land for use as their own private estates in the neighborhood of Chestnut and Walnut Streets between 37th and 40th Streets. Hamilton’s labors may not have established the suburban movement in West Philadelphia, but, at this early date, his genteel clientele planted footings in the area, early on making it an upper class suburb of estates.15

West Philadelphia expanded gradually during the first decades of the nineteenth century. Commercial and industrial development huddled close to the Schuylkill River in the neighborhood of Market Street, extending nearly ten dense blocks from the riverfront. A notorious string of taverns on Market Street supported the early commerce and industry of the river-adjacent area. While the wealthy had certainly planted roots in West Philadelphia between 1804 and 1850, a decided working class population formed a community in close proximity to the wealthy residents. A residential section in Hamilton Village in and around Market Street included streets of attached houses that existed for the working class population. The wealthy Philadelphians were generally drawn to the area because of its high elevation and open space. The working class presence, however, was circumstantial to the commerce and industry and only later did their desire to remain likely relate to familiarity that came with time.16

Northwest corner of 33rd and Chestnut Streets, West Philadelphia, November 1, 1903. Courtesy the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.17 In 1844, the town of Hamiltonville, as well as the villages of Greenville, Powelton and Mantua to the north were incorporated as the Borough of West Philadelphia. The Borough became the West Philadelphia District in 1851. The decade of organizing local government west of the

15 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” 16 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” 17 Dr. Broomall, N.W. Corner of 33rd and Chestnut, November 1, 1903, Jane Campbell Collection, HSP. Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 28

Schuylkill came to a head with the incorporation of all governments within Philadelphia County into one municipal body—the City of Philadelphia. Nevertheless, the need for consolidation became evermore necessary in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, as many communities across the county underwent dramatic growth. The growing population and the subsequent development exceeded the capacities of the small municipalities to provide basic public services. Local police force was essentially non-existent in this early period of increased density. Consolidation was the only way to fix the problem as these areas physically joined due to the tremendous development that had occurred.18

West side of 42nd Street, North of Chestnut Street, circa 1900. Courtesy the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Antebellum Philadelphia experienced incredible growing pains that exhausted much of the land between the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers by the time of the Civil War. Naturally, as the population steadily grew, this intensified development in West Philadelphia in the mid- nineteenth century. By 1850, the Market Street corridor was home to a vibrant population of working class people who served both the transshipment center and the workshop.19 Situated at the center of important roads, railroads, and the river, West Philadelphia was a major transshipment area. The aforementioned taverns included at least nine inns and/or hostelries within the ten dense blocks that comprised Market Street and served much of the transient shipping population as well as locals. Among these inns and hostelries was a continuation of Philadelphia’s then well-established calling card in domestic architecture—the attached row

18 Erica Denhoff and Kim Franklin, “West Philadelphia: The Basic History, Chapter 2: A Streetcar Suburb in the City: West Philadelphia, 1854-1907,” West Philadelphia Community History Center, University Archives and Records Center, University of Pennsylvania, accessed July 6, 2015, http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/wphila/history/history2.html . 19 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 29

house, proving housing for the blacksmiths and wheelwrights that overwhelmed the immediate population, but also including boat builders and ship chandlers in lesser quantity than the former trades. Development for this class was much like it was in Philadelphia proper—a modest, but respectable Federal style that persisted and aged to become familiar and comfortable.20

Detail from J.C Sidney, Map of the Circuit of 10 Miles Around Philadelphia, 1847.21

While Philadelphia’s population had risen by nearly thirty percent between 1840 and 1850, but the gradual, pleasant incline did not prepare the municipality for the mass influx that was to come in the next decade.22 As the century opened in 1850 so did the floodgates of immigrants and other resident folk, leaving both old country and outlying farmlands for the promise that came with the industrial age. In the decade that spanned before the Civil War, Philadelphia experienced its greatest period of growth, reaching just over a 365 percent rise—from inhabitants numbering 121,376 in 1850 to 565,529 in 1860.23 While the permanent bridge of 1804 had been an early means of stabling estate suburbs, the density of Philadelphia’s once-quaint center was perhaps the great boon to the suburbanization of West Philadelphia that would occur between 1850 and 1880.24

20 Jackson, Market Street, Philadelphia.

21 J.C. Sidney, Map of the Circuit of 10 Miles Around Philadelphia, 1847. 22 U.S. Census Population Schedule, 1850. 23 U.S. Census Population Schedule, 1860. 24 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 30

Detail from S.M. Rea & J. Miller, Map of the Blockley Township, Including all Public Places, c. 1850.25 Courtesy the Philadelphia Historical Commission.

The desire for expansion also coincided fortuitously with the development of a system of omnibuses that provided transportation to commuters who lived in West Philadelphia but needed to arrive at their place of business in Philadelphia proper. These omnibuses, eventually replaced by horse car lines, represent the coming of the street railway to West Philadelphia, which enabled the greater development of the area for more than just a wealthy class.26

The Early Stages of Suburbanization in West Philadelphia, 1850-1870s After much success as a lawyer, John C. Mitchell built a three-story stone Italianate mansion at 3905 Spruce Street in 1850 (extant). While Mitchell orchestrated the construction of this house for his own use, he began dabbling in real estate development in the neighborhood of his new

25 S.M. Rea, and J. Miller, Map of Blockley Township including all public places, property owners, etc., 1849, Library Company of Philadelphia. 26 Denhoff and Franklin, “West Philadelphia: The Basic History, Chapter 2.” Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 31

dwelling. Another important house of this period was designed and constructed the same year. The eminent Philadelphia architect, Samuel Sloan (1815-1884) was commissioned by railroad builder, Charles Eastwick to construct his Italianate mansion—Bartram Hall, also in West Philadelphia, but no longer extant. Sloan would go on to design several other mansions for the important men of the day that desired a fashionable retreat from the city in West Philadelphia.27

Aside from the small-scale nature of these developments, another important factor was location. Mitchell’s stone house, for example, stood on a lot in what was known as West Hamiltonville. As the working class population rose in Hamiltonville during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the stratification between the wealthy and the working man grew greatly, as the suburban development moved farther away from the working elements. This trend would increase towards the mid-century, as Philadelphians with means sought refuge from density. While development had crept in this direction in the 1840s, the third quarter of the nineteenth century would see the greatest stride; indeed, the true initial stride and establishment of West Philadelphia as one of the great early American suburbs. Like Mitchell and Eastwick, other wealthy Philadelphians built substantial houses and mansions in West Philadelphia or, more specifically, in this area away from density. The eminent financier, Anthony J. Drexel, also commuted to his office from his West Philadelphia mansion.

After the District of West Philadelphia was created in 1851, Samuel A. Harrison, a tile manufacturer, and Nathaniel B. Browne, a lawyer and landowner, embarked upon one of the early developments that would prove formative to the character and growth of West Philadelphia. The project included the design and construction of a series of buildings to the southwest of Hamiltonville. Having done some initial work in the area, Sloan was a desirable candidate to devise plans for a group of detached and semi-detached houses that would comprise Harrison’s and Browne’s development. While the use of the semi-detached house in this early period was for a wealthy to upper middle class clientele, it represents an early employment of the twin. Sloan designed more than twenty residences for Harrison and Browne between 1851 and 1856.28 These early designs include a row of eight attached houses in the 3900 block of Locust Street and a pair of detached houses at 3803 and 3805 Locust Street. These developments were in close proximity to the wealthier residents of Walnut and Spruce Streets. The “wealthier” citizenry included important doctors, lawyers, judges, and businessman, largely related to industrial and/or financial investments.29

The advent of passenger transportation in West Philadelphia was the catalyst for the availability and plausibility of expanding the net of those interested in suburban homes. Established as early as 1833 in Philadelphia proper, the omnibus lines of West Philadelphia extended from the railroad station at the foot of Market Street across the Schuylkill into Philadelphia at fifteen minute intervals throughout the day and making its last trip of the day to West Philadelphia in

27 Harold N. Cooledge, Jr., Samuel Sloan: Architect of Philadelphia, 1815-1884 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986); Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” 28 Philadelphia Architects and Buildings, s.v. “Samuel Sloan (1815-1884), Architect,” by Roger W. Moss and Sandra L. Tatman, accessed 15 July 2015, https://www.philadelphiabuildings.org/pab/app/ar_display.cfm/21518 29 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 32

the late evening. Horse cars on rails replaced these lines in 1858 and served specific streets of residential development as it expanded southwest.30

Through the 1850s a number of developments were completed that attributed to forms and styles seen later in the widespread development of the suburb that West Philadelphia became in later years. For example, one of the important projects of the era was the development of Hamilton Terrace, also attributed to Sloan. Extant to-date as an extension of 41st Street between Baltimore and Chester Avenues, the project included a carefully planned row of houses that made an unique and cohesive architectural expression, maintaining a variation of type, color, and massing by architectural style and whether attached, detached or semi-detached. The corner houses were fully detached, being sold as “Elizabethan cottages,” while the twins were “double villas in the classical manner.” European-inspired, but distinctly American in architectural style, these projects established a new suburban standard in West Philadelphia, which led to the popularization of suburban lifestyle.31

While slowed due to the Panic of 1857, land speculation and development continued in West Philadelphia through the 1860s. The pre-Civil War innovations of Sloan’s, attached, semi- detached and detached houses alike and in concert were further adapted to make room for more houses appealing to a wider audience of Philadelphians.32

Italianate Twin, Woodland Terrace. Courtesy of the University Archives.

30 Denhoff and Franklin, “West Philadelphia: The Basic History, Chapter 2.” 31 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” 32 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.”

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 33

Charles M.S. Leslie, an enterprising conveyancer and real estate agent gone developer, proved himself during the war years. Assembling a parcel as early as 1857, Leslie began construction of Woodland Terrace in 1861.33 Naturally, Leslie chose the name Woodland Terrace due to its immediate proximity to the popular pleasure ground that The Woodlands Cemetery had become since its establishment in 1840. The houses, also attributed to Sloan, were built between April 1861 and June 1862. The twenty houses within Woodland Terrace appeared as ten large mansions in the Italianate style with carefully hidden entrances at the side, but within the main elevation. Some of the houses were unfinished when sold to carpenters, plasterers, and stair builders, who retained title until the work was completed.34 Leslie also sold five of the houses to individual buyers for the seemingly average price of $6,100 and later less money to manufacturers. And by 1870 only two buildings in Woodland Terrace were actually owner- occupied. This suggests that the projected clientele was not present for the quality level of Woodland Terrace. However, regardless of the profit made by Leslie, the twin motif, appearing as one large mansion, is a trend that caught on like a mania within Philadelphia’s world of real estate development. Similar “unified dwellings” were occupied by residents of like-backgrounds and professional endeavors, many of whom were merchants who lived in West Philadelphia and commuted to their offices in the city.35 Subsequent projects by Leslie included a nearby street of six twins known as Fountain Terrace and a set of five attached houses across from the Hamilton Terrace.

Leslie’s projects were generally developed in a very carefully executed manner; however, this was not the constant model to be found during the Civil War years. Most housing built west of 40th Street required an initial outlay of capital and control of a smaller parcel of land, which led to the early manner of plot division and house types with both detached and semi-detached buildings. These projects mimicked earlier, grander developments, using Italianate and Second Empire style details, which had come to represent fashionable sets of the period. In the 4000 block of Pine is an example of a small project of the period. The first houses in this block were 4000 and 4002 Pine Street, which were three-story, white stuccoed Italianate houses built between 1852 and 1856. Benjamin Knight and the successive generation occupied the house at 4000 Pine Street from the time it was built until 1910. At 4002 Pine Street, Edward C. Warne, a wholesale jeweler, was also a real estate investor. Both represent the type of individuals who were settling in West Philadelphia.36 Mitchel, earlier, commissioned the design and construction of another cohesive row of buildings at 4009-4018 Pine Street, which included a design that also mimics earlier, architecturally cohesive forms. Residents included a successful contractor in one of the center houses.

33 Denhoff and Franklin, “West Philadelphia: The Basic History, Chapter 2.” 34 Property files for 501-520 Woodland Terrace, Philadelphia Historical Commission; and Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” 35 U.S. Population Manuscript Census Schedule, 1870, City of Philadelphia, Ward 27, District 2; McElroy’s City Directory for 1870 and 1871; U.S. Population Manuscript Census Schedule, 1880, City of Philadelphia, Ward 27, District 572; and McElroy’s City Directory for 1880 and 1881. 36 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.” Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 34

The eastern section of old Hamiltonville was also under development during the 1860s. The old estate lots were subdivided and new houses, including large but like row houses and twins, were put up.

New residents in this part of West Philadelphia were less exclusively wealthy and native born, though the new developments continued primarily to accommodate heads of house hold who worked the central city rather than those were dependent on the local economy.37

Another important developer emerged between 1868 and 1878. Annesley R. Govett, a lumber merchant and West Philadelphia resident, completed three major projects during this period, which included an entire square of houses between Walnut and Sansom, and 34th and 36th Streets; one block along Spruce Street between 37th and 38th; and another between Pine Street and Woodland Avenue. Govett was careful in his execution; although, in a different way than Leslie had been, as these projects involved linking the quality of the house to the most desirable of his locations. His house type also varied including middle to working class houses, set upon small streets and alleys in some cases. In several cases, Govett would negotiate the sale of an entire row to a builder, including not only covenants on payment of the mortgage and terms of construction, but also design restrictions including set-back from the street. The builder would then either construct the buildings and then sell them to individuals or perhaps pass the project on to a second builder and sometimes a third. Partnerships were sometimes created. This was a mortgage financed building practice known in Philadelphia as bonus building. The practice is described extensively in the nomination for the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places for 3612-28 Lancaster Avenue, which was filed with the Philadelphia Historical Commission in the Spring of 2015.

By the 1870s, the housing boom included large, dense housing developments west of 42nd Street. Developments continued to emulate elements seen in earlier developments like Woodland Terrace, but were largely downsized in architectural effect, features and materials. The 1870s saw a widespread extension of the Philadelphia gridiron over vacant tracts of land. Landholders subdivided their land and in many cases their mansions were demolished for tracts of houses. It is during this period that the standardization of development really takes hold. This was shown by some of Govett’s work, but in a less varied fashion and appealing to a solidly middle class clientele. Repetition in design, plans and architectural motifs resonates with trends that suburbanization of the post-1880 period took on for the completion of large-scale development projects.

Among the larger projects of the early 1870s, several blocks of both Lombard Street (now Larchwood) and Osage Avenue, between 43rd and 45th Streets, were developed as part of a planned subdivision that included multiple blocks. Unlike earlier projects that encompassed one to two blocks or a single solid city block, these projects involved the design and plan of a neighborhood- and/or subdivision-like motifs as we know it today, rather than a single street or a

37 Miller and Siry, “The Emerging Suburb.”

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 35

terrace. Such developments required an extensive outlay of capital for procurement of land, construction, and paying debts. Large parcels near transit systems were ripe for this type of development and these early developers were seeking new ways to profit on a larger scale and make their projects feasible as the supply and demand of land of West Philadelphia saw a dramatic increase in property value. These larger developments took the chance of building beyond established neighborhoods because they were confident that the close proximity to wealth and transit would attract the type of buyer who could afford the new housing. The developers of this period profited and suffered from the great change in development that this period witnessed, as the older, smaller development project types faded away and newer, larger ones traded architectural variation for the demand that dramatic rises in population, as well as prosperity in Philadelphia at large required.

Appendix B: Biography of Thomas H. Powers

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 36

Daguerreotype of Thomas H. Powers38 Courtesy the Rosenbach Museum and Library.

Thomas H. Powers (1812-1878) A birthright Quaker of Philadelphia, Thomas Henry Powers was born on October 17, 1812, one of two children of Thomas and Susan (Pearson) Powers. However, due to the early demise of his parents, who lived at 17 North Seventh Street, he was under the care of his aunts, Mary and Martha B. Pearson—his mother’s sisters, who were mantua makers and operated a dry goods store at the above-referenced address of his parents. 39

At seven years old Powers was enrolled in the Ludwick School, once located in the 600 block of Walnut Street. Having shown a great aptitude in Science, Powers first apprenticed with Daniel B. Smith in 1828, who operated a pharmacy at Arch and Sixth Streets. Shortly after Powers’ apprenticeship, Smith entered into partnership with William Hodgson, Jr., an important pharmacist and chemist. Hodgson had recently purchased the “celebrated establishment” of John Bell & Co., late of Oxford Street in London. The two businessmen formed D.B. Smith & William Hodgson, Jr., which survived for nearly two decades until it was taken over by Bullock & Crenshaw in 1848.40

Powers attended the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, from which he graduated in 1833. Around this time he inherited $2,000 from a wealthy cousin, which would eventually aid him in his business ventures and allow him to care for his elderly aunts. At the same he also left the Quaker fold and became an Episcopalian which undoubtedly also help him in business. In 1835, Powers was elected a trustee of the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, a post he served in for roughly six years. After graduation, Powers continued working for Smith & Hodgson, where he eventually became a minor partner.41 During this time, the nascent pharmaceutical world was constantly undergoing changes and development, which led to the replacement of opium with a more refined version, morphia, as a major narcotic. Understanding that the manufacture of this drug could be a lucrative business, Powers proposed manufacturing to his partners, Smith and Hodgson, but the risk seemed to high to the otherwise solid concern. 42

In 1836, John Farr, an established chemical manufacturer, took an interest in the work of Powers, which led to his removal from Smith & Hodgson to work for Farr. The firm of John Farr & Co. had been founded on Coates Street, above Fourth, in which Farr’s nephew also worked—Mr. William Weightman.43 An earlier concern, Farr & Kunzi, also manufactured chemicals and had a solid reputation. Powers dedicated all of his energy to the business for several years, allowing, in part, the reputation of the firm to growth rapidly.44

38 James E. McClees (1821-1887), portrait of male sitter. Daguerreotype; leather case. Philadelphia, 1861. 2001.7 39 Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, The First Century of Philadelphia College of Pharmacy (Philadelphia: 1922), 645. 40 “A Memoir of Thomas H. Powers, Read before the College [of Pharmacy and Science] at a Stated Meeting December 30, 1878,” American Journal of Pharmacy, 51 (1879): 39. 41 “A Memoir of Thomas H. Powers,” 42, 43. 42 Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, The First Century, . 43 Kutney, Gerald, Sulfur: History, Technology, Applications & Industry (Toronto: Chemtec Pub., 2007), 36; “A Memoir of Thomas H. Powers,” 44. 44 Griffenhagen, George B. and Mary Bogard, History of Drug Containers and Their Labels, Publication American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, n.s., 17 (Madison, WI : American Institute of the History of Pharmacy, 1999), 86. Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 37

In 1841, Powers married Anna Matilda Cash, together having two children—only one of which, Mary Powers, would survive to adulthood. Also in 1841, John Farr & Co. became Farr, Powers, & Weightman, which evolved to Powers & Weightman in 1847 at the death of Farr. The company’s manufactory was removed from Northern Liberties to the Falls of the Schuylkill. One of the great successes of the firm was the more economic manufacture of alkaloids of cinchona barks in a condition of purity, for which Powers was eventually recognized by the Franklin Institute with a Gold Medal in 1874. 45

Powers & Weightman manufactured a number of products including the following chemicals, drugs and dyes: Acetanilid, Acetone, Butyric Acid, Chromic Acid, Citric Acid, Hydrobromic Acid, Hydrobcyanic Acid, Muriatic & Nitric Acides, Sulphuric Acid, Tannic Acid, Tartanic Acid, Aloin, Alum, Ammonia Salts, Aqua Ammonia, Antimony Salts, Apiol, Barium Salts, Blue Mass, Calcium Salts, Calomel, Camphor-Refined, Carbon Bisulphide, Chloroform, Cinchona- Alkaloids & Salts, Codeine, Collodion, Copperas, Copper Salts, Ether, Ethyl Salts, Gold Chloride, Gold Oxide, Idodine, Iodoform, Iron Salts, Lead Salts, Lithium Salts, Lunar Caustic, Magnesium Salts, Maganese Salts, Mercury Salts, Morphine, Oils, Pills, Potash, Potasssium Salts, Salts (medicinal), Silver Salts, Styrchnine, and Tin Salts.46

Mary Powers married James Campbell Harris in 1869 and the young couple lived with the Powers at 1607 Walnut Street, then the most fashionable part of the city. Powers died in 1878, leaving the Weightman as the sole chemist, manufacturer, and financier of the firm.47 Powers & Weightman merged with Rosengarten & Sons in 1905, which were eventually purchased by Merck & Co.48

45 “A Memoir of Thomas H. Powers,” 45, 47. 46 “Power-Weightman-Rosengarten Co.,” The Pharmaceutical Era 30 January 1908, 134-35. 47 Bromberg, Howard, Great Lives From History: The Incredibly Wealthy (Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 2011) 3: 985. 48 Griffenhagen and Bogard. History of Drug Containers, 86. Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 38

Miniature Portrait Presumed to be Thomas H. Powers.49

49 John Henry Brown (1818-1891), portrait miniature. Watercolor on ivory; leather, glass, and metal frame. Philadelphia, 1861. Purchase funded by an anonymous donor. 2001.7

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 39

Advertisement showing the factory complex built 1825-1876 between 9th, Parrish, Brown, and Darien Streets.

View showing the laboratory complex of processing plants and storage sheds established in 1848 on Ridge Avenue near Schuylkill Falls (i.e., East Falls).

Thomas H. Powers Development: Nos. 4046-4060 Chestnut Street, West Philadelphia Nomination to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, May 2016 – Page 40

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

EXHIBIT 2

16 May 2016 Off Penn Properties LLC 111 S. 42nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

Re: 4054 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Dear Off Penn Properties LLC:

The Philadelphia Historical Commission, the City of Philadelphia’s historic preservation agency, is pleased to inform you that the property at 4054 Chestnut Street has been proposed for designation as an historic landmark and inclusion on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places.

The Historical Commission seeks to safeguard the city’s unique heritage and wealth of cultural resources as it encourages economic development, promotes healthy and sustainable communities, enhances property values, attracts new residents, businesses, and tourists, provides educational opportunities, and fosters civic pride. Under the City’s historic preservation ordinance, Section 14-1000 of the Philadelphia Code, the Historical Commission is authorized to designate as historic and then promote the preservation of buildings, structures, sites, objects, interiors, and districts that are representative of and important to Philadelphia’s heritage, traditions, and values. More than 23,000 properties illustrating Philadelphia’s history from its earliest years to the recent past have been designated as historic and listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. A brief overview of the Historical Commission is attached to this letter.

The Historical Commission will consider the proposal, called a nomination, to designate your property at 4054 Chestnut Street as historic at two public meetings. The Historical Commission’s advisory Committee on Historic Designation will consider the nomination at its meeting on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 18-029, 1515 Arch Street, a City office building also known as the One Parkway Building. The Historical Commission will consider the nomination and its advisory committee’s recommendation at its regular monthly meeting on Friday, 8 July 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in the same Room 18-029 of 1515 Arch Street (One Parkway Building). You are invited but not required to attend these meetings, which are open to the public. The meetings provide you, as the owner, as well as the public with opportunities to participate in the Historical Commission’s discussions about the historical significance of the property and deliberations on the merits of its historic designation. A copy of the nomination proposing the designation of this property is available on our website, www.phila.gov/historical.

The designation of a property as historic provides benefits to the owner. There is, of course, the satisfaction derived from the ownership of a recognized historic landmark and from the trusteeship for the past and future that accompanies ownership. The owner of a designated property may call upon the Historical Commission’s staff for historical and technical services and assistance at no charge. In addition, the protection against inaccurate or unsympathetic alterations and against unnecessary demolitions offers some assurance that the historic character of the property will be preserved and improved. In Philadelphia and other cities, studies show that designation has helped to enhance resale values and foster community pride. Finally, a well-maintained, accurately preserved property may also be eligible for a Historical Commission plaque, which, when mounted on the exterior, identifies the property as a historic landmark.

In addition to benefits, the designation of a property as historic entails some restrictions. If adopted, the designation of the property as historic would include the site, the exterior envelopes of all buildings on the site, and any permanent site appurtenances. To promote the preservation of historic buildings and sites, the Historical Commission reviews all building permit applications and other proposals for exterior alterations to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards. The Historical Commission also reviews all demolition proposals for designated properties. The Historical Commission and its staff approach such matters reasonably and practically, and understand that historic buildings must be adapted for evolving uses and requirements. The Historical Commission’s goal is to manage change, not prevent it, and to ensure that any changes to historic properties meet historic preservation standards.

The Historical Commission begins to exercise jurisdiction over the subject property as of the date of this letter. If the Historical Commission votes to designate the property as historic, its jurisdiction continues; if it rejects the nomination, its jurisdiction lapses as of the vote.

The Historical Commission welcomes your participation in the efforts to preserve the Philadelphia’s unique, significant, and valuable heritage. Philadelphia’s remarkable collection of historic landmarks is one of its greatest resources. Working together, property owners and the Historical Commission can protect and preserve those resources, ensuring a rich future for the city. Should you have any questions about historic preservation or the work of the Historical Commission, please do not hesitate to contact the Commission’s staff at 215-686-7660 or to explore the Commission’s website at http://www.phila.gov/historical.

Yours truly,

Jonathan E. Farnham, Ph.D. Executive Director

16 May 2016 Owner 4054 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

Re: 4054 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Dear Owner:

Yours truly,

Jonathan E. Farnham, Ph.D. Executive Director

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

EXHIBIT 3

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR OWNERS OF PROPERTIES NOMINATED FOR DESIGNATION AS HISTORIC

Established in 1955, the Philadelphia Historical Commission is the City of Philadelphia’s agency responsible for ensuring the preservation of historically significant buildings, structures, sites, objects, interiors, and districts in Philadelphia. The Historical Commission identifies and designates historic landmarks, listing them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, an inventory that currently includes more than 23,000 properties. After designation, the Historical Commission collaborates with property owners to ensure the preservation of landmarks through the City’s building permit process.

Before the Historical Commission can designate a property as historic, it must determine whether the property has the requisite historical significance to merit designation. To make this determination, the Historical Commission and its advisory Committee on Historic Designation review what is called a nomination, a document that outlines the property’s history and explains its significance. Both the Historical Commission and Committee on Historic Designation conduct their reviews of nominations at public meetings in which property owners and the public may participate. Owners of properties under consideration for designation are notified by letter of the time and place of the public meetings at least 30 days prior to meetings. The Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over the property begins as of the date of that letter, meaning that it must review all building permit applications for the property before a permit is issued. If the Historical Commission votes to designate the property as historic, its jurisdiction continues; if the Commission declines to designate, its jurisdiction lapses.

The City of Philadelphia’s historic preservation ordinance requires that owners of properties designated as historic (and those nominated and under consideration for designation) seek and obtain the approval of the Historical Commission and a building permit from the Department of Licenses & Inspections prior to commencing any work that would require a building permit and/or would alter the exterior appearance of the building, site, or permanent site features such as fences or walls. To protect historic properties, the Historical Commission reviews the work proposed in the building permit application to determine whether it satisfies historic preservation standards including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Historical Commission’s jurisdiction extends over the entire exterior envelopes of buildings including all facades and roofs, but the Commission concentrates its reviews on facades and roofs that are visible from the public right-of-way. Protecting public views of historic properties is the Historical Commission’s primary goal. The Historical Commission is sensitive to time constraints and completes most reviews on the day of submission. More than 85% are completed in five days or less. All reviews must be completed within 60 days. Except in extreme cases of neglect, the Historical Commission cannot require an owner to undertake work to a property, but may only review within the scope of work defined by the owner. Moreover, alterations in place at the time of designation, such as non-historic windows, are grandfathered and may be retained until the owner determines that they need replacement. - over-

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 1515 ARCH STREET, 13TH FLOOR, 215-686-7660

The Historical Commission requires reviews for projects including but not limited to:  construction, alteration, and demolition of buildings and addition to buildings;  construction, installation, alteration, repair, removal, replacement, or covering of: o windows, storm windows, dormers, doors, storm doors, security doors, garage doors, and shutters; o exterior light fixtures, window boxes, railings, grilles, grates, and star bolts; o porches, steps, stoops, ramps, decks, balconies, and patios; o fences, walls, gates, sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots; o façades, façade elements, and trim such as cornices and doorways; o roofing and flashing; o storefront features, signage including awnings and lighting; o exterior mechanical equipment, vents, wiring, conduit, pipes, and satellite dishes (except seasonal window air conditioners that require no window alteration);  masonry cleaning, painting, pointing, repair, replacement, alteration, or removal;  painting, coating, staining, or sealing surfaces except wood trim and metal trim; and,  all other projects that would alter the exterior appearance of the building, site, or permanent site features.

Reviews are not required for ordinary maintenance and repair such as scraping and painting wood trim, cleaning gutters, and replacing clear window glass. Also, reviews are not required for gardening, landscaping, tree trimming, or temporary holiday decorations, provided no historic features are altered or removed. Moreover, the Historical Commission has no jurisdiction over the use of historic properties, but only their appearances.

The Historical Commission recommends that property owners confer with its staff early in the planning stage of any construction or rehabilitation project, especially if the project is complicated. The staff can provide valuable guidance regarding the Historical Commission’s processes as well as appropriate preservation techniques. It can also assist property owners in researching the histories of their properties. The Historical Commission charges no fees for any of its services.

The Historical Commission seeks to safeguard the city’s unique heritage and wealth of cultural resources as it encourages economic development, promotes healthy and sustainable communities, enhances property values, attracts new residents, businesses, and tourists, provides educational opportunities, and fosters civic pride. The Historical Commission welcomes your participation in the efforts to preserve the Philadelphia’s unique, significant, and valuable heritage. Philadelphia’s remarkable collection of historic landmarks is one of its greatest resources. Working together, property owners and the Historical Commission can protect and preserve those resources, ensuring a rich future for the city.

Should you have any questions about historic preservation or the work of the Historical Commission, please do not hesitate to contact the Commission’s staff at 215-686-7660 or to explore the Commission’s website at http://www.phila.gov/historical.

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 1515 ARCH STREET, 13TH FLOOR, 215-686-7660

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

EXHIBIT 4

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY, 15 JUNE 2016, 9:30 A.M. ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET EMILY COOPERMAN, PH.D., CHAIR

PRESENT Emily Cooperman, Ph.D., chair Janet Klein Bruce Laverty Douglas Mooney David Schaaf, R.A., Philadelphia City Planning Commission

Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Kim Broadbent, Historic Preservation Planner II Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner I

ALSO PRESENT Qiong Zhao Schicktanz Laurence Mester, Esq. Kathy Dowdell Ken Milano Eapen Kalathil, Off Penn Properties Kelly Wiles, University City Historical Society Michael Phillips, Esq., Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Ben Leech, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Kevin McMahon, Powers & Co. Arielle Harris, University of Pennsylvania Edward Jackson, Champion Development Corporation John C. Manton Jim Campbell, Campbell Thomas & Co. Justin Roczniak Joseph Kavanagh Liam Anderson Jack Bienenfeld, Champion Development Corporation Ryan Pensabene, The Flynn Company Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Ballard Spahr George Thomas, Civic Visions David Gest, Esq., Ballard Spahr Ellie Devyatkin, Frankford CDC Malcolm Burnley, Philly Mag J.M. Duffin Mark Mills, Metropolis Group Sarah Chiu, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Matthew Pickering, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Andrew Palewski

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 JUNE 2016 1 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION

Bill Schicktanz Aja DeGross, Star News Andrew Fearon Melissa Romero, Curbed Philly Jed Levin Robyn Willner Tony Forte, Esq., Saul Ewing Joshua Schrier, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (PREIT) Albert Rex, MHA Tim Kerner, Terra Studio Sean Whalen, Esq., Klehr Harrison John Henry Scott, Spirit News George Poulin, University City Historical Society Elizabeth Stegner, University City Historical Society Debbie Klak Richard Thomas Rachael Fowler, CHRS, Inc. Joseph Menkevich Silvia Callegari Oscar Beisert Stephanie Haller Jill Betters Henry L. Schirmer, Esq.

CALL TO ORDER Ms. Cooperman called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Ms. Klein and Messrs. Laverty, Mooney, and Schaaf joined her.

2007-13 N. 2ND STREET, COLUMBIA SINGING SOCIETY Nominator: Staff of the Philadelphia Historical Commission Owner: Yu Zhen Pan, Qiong Zhao Schicktanz, Selina Zhao, Tiffany Zhao

OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 2007-13 N. 2nd Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the former Columbia Singing Society (or Gesang Verein) hall satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. The nomination argues that the property, constructed in 1889, is a fine example of the Second Empire style as interpreted by Victorian-era German-American architects Schaeffer & Ausfeld. The nomination further contends that the property is significant as a rare surviving example of a German-American singing society and social hall, an important cultural contribution of Germans in America.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 2007-13 N. 2nd Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J.

DISCUSSION: Ms. DiPasquale presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Ms. DiPasquale and Mr. Baron represented the nomination. William Schicktanz and property owner QiongZhao Schicktanz represented the property. Sarah Chiu of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission translated to and from Mandarin Chinese for Ms. Shicktanz.

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 JUNE 2016 2 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION

DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Committee on Historic Designation. Oscar Beisert represented the nomination.

Mr. Schaaf inquired whether the Architectural Committee can review a building that has not yet been designated. Mr. Farnham clarified that the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction over a nominated property begins as of the date of written notice to the property owner that a nomination will be considered. The Department of Licenses & Inspections must forward all building permit applications for the property received on and after the date of the mailing of the notice to the Historical Commission for review. The Architectural Committee recently reviewed an application for the property in question and recommended for approval with some modifications, to which the property owner agreed.

Andrew Fearon voiced his support for the nomination and commented that designation would aid in protecting the city’s rapidly disappearing industrial heritage.

Ms. Cooperman asked if the property owner or a representative was present. Mr. Farnham explained that, although no one representing the property is present at today’s meeting, the Historical Commission’s staff met with representatives of the property owner, who indicated that they are aware of the nomination and its review process.

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 1132-40 N. Front Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, D, and J.

4046, 4048, 4050, 4052, 4054 AND 4056 CHESTNUT ST Nominators: Aaron Wunsch, Elizabeth Stegner, Oscar Beisert Owners: 4046-48 Chestnut Street LP (4046 and 4048 Chestnut Street) DPL Properties LP (4050 and 4052 Chestnut Street) Off Penn Properties LLC (4054 Chestnut Street) Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania; 40th St Live Assoc. LP (4056 Chestnut Street)

OVERVIEW: These nominations propose to designate the properties at 4046, 4048, 4050, 4052, 4054 and 4056 Chestnut Street as historic and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nominations contend that the “restrained interpretation of the Italianate” twins satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G and J. The nominations argue that the twins, constructed between 1869-72 as part of the Thomas H. Powers development consisting of 4046-60 Chestnut Street, are a group of houses that have significant value as part of the development of the twin housing type and the formation of West Philadelphia as a suburb for white-collar commuters. The nominations further contend that the twins are part of and related to a distinctive area, owing to their listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing resource within the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District.

Regarding 4046 and 4048 Chestnut Street, the property owner submitted a demolition permit application for the complete demolition of this twin to the Department of Licenses & Inspections on 17 March 2016, nearly two months prior to the receipt of the nomination by the Historical Commission. The Historical Commission has no authority to review or intervene in the work proposed under this permit, which was issued on 26 May 2016.

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 JUNE 2016 23 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION

Regarding 4050 and 4052 Chestnut Street, the property owner submitted a demolition permit application for the complete demolition of this twin to the Department of Licenses & Inspections on 16 May 2016, the same day that the Historical Commission notified the property owner of the consideration of the nomination, initiating its jurisdiction over the property. The Department may not issue the demolition permit without the Historical Commission’s review and approval.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the nominations demonstrate that the properties at 4046, 4048, 4050, 4052, 4054 and 4056 Chestnut Street satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J, but not Criterion G. The staff suggests that Criterion G, which reads “Is part of or related to a square, park or other distinctive area which should be preserved according to an historic, cultural or architectural motif,” should be reserved for squares, parks or truly unique and distinctive areas.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Broadbent presented the nominations to the Committee on Historic Designation. Oscar Beisert, Aaron Wunsch and Elizabeth Stegner represented the nominations. No one represented the property owners of 4046, 4048, 4050 or 4052 Chestnut Street. Eapen Kalathil of Off Penn Properties attended as the owner of 4054 Chestnut Street. Attorney Laurence Mester represented the master lessee of 4056 Chestnut Street.

Mr. Wunsch stated that he lives in this neighborhood and wrote the architectural description for the nominations. He stated that he did so because he is distressed about the loss of historic nineteenth-century fabric in his neighborhood. He stated that he would like to stop this kind of demolition. Ms. Stegner stated that she is the president of the University City Historical Society, and she would like to rewrite Criterion J to use “and” instead of “or.” She stated that West Philadelphia is unique, and contains the greatest number of intact Victorian buildings in the United States. She stated that more of the neighborhood needs to be designated, and the Historical Society will be nominating more West Philadelphia properties in the future.

Mr. Mester, the attorney representing the master lessee of 4056 Chestnut Street, stated that his client has a long-term lease for this property. He stated that there is a failure to connect the dots between the history of the area and the history of construction with the actual buildings themselves, and he questioned the lack of substantive architectural ornament on the building. He stated that the nomination states that these buildings are refined versions of a standard Philadelphia style. He opined that these buildings do not constitute a significant architectural style or one that is unique to the particular area, and a historic designation would be misplaced. He noted that the buildings have been altered. He stated that what separates these buildings from the ones already reviewed at this meeting is the “wow factor.” This is not the Ott Camera building, nor is it the façade of a Robinson’s building on Market Street, nor does it have the architectural uniqueness of the Columbia Singing Society or the PECO Delaware Station. He stated that the twins do not possess distinctive architecture, and noted that the nomination does not identify an architect. He stated that the nomination focuses heavily on Thomas Powers, the original owner, who was a chemist and not an architect, and is not known for his building prowess. He noted that the buildings are situated in the University City District, an area that has undergone enormous change over the last two decades. He stated that he is sensitive to the fact that many older buildings have been demolished, and, in fact, the two twins in this row have already been demolished and an apartment building constructed in their place, but this is the nature of change in the area. He summarized that the historic importance of the buildings has been overstated in the nomination, and he requested that the Committee recommend to not designate the properties.

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 JUNE 2016 24 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION

Eapen Kalathil, the owner of 4054 Chestnut Street, commented that Thomas Powers used the buildings as rentals, as they are used today. He stated that he likes that his building is simple. He stated that the building has been altered over time, including window replacement, lowering of the roof, removal of original chimneys, door, front dormer, and steps, and reworking of the masonry at the front of the building. He stated that he is saddened to see the demolition of great buildings that are replaced with cardboard boxes, but his opined that his building has been too altered to qualify for historic designation. He asked about 4058 and 4060, the twins to the west, which were not included in the nominations. Mr. Beisert responded that the long-term goal would be to nominate those as well.

Ms. Broadbent clarified that there are active demolition permits for 4046 and 4048.

Mr. Beisert claimed that Thomas Powers and his partner William Weightman were significant real estate developers, who developed projects all over the city.

Ms. Cooperman asked if there are any property owners or representatives for 4046, 4048, 4050 or 4052 Chestnut Street present who wish to speak. No one came forward.

Ms. Cooperman asked for public comment.

Aaron Wunsch commented that it is a valid argument that these buildings are not great individual works of architecture, and these buildings are not the known works of a noted architect. However, he opined that they are representative of the best urban fabric of the area. Patrick Grossi, representing the Preservation Alliance, seconded Mr. Wunsch’s comments. He stated that the nominations stem from the state of demolition in West Philadelphia. He opined that the merits of the nomination are strong, and stated that the Preservation Alliance supports the designation of these properties. Hal Schirmer, the attorney for the University City Historical Society, stated that the buildings are good representations of the urban fabric of the neighborhood and should be protected. Justin Roczniak, a tenant at 4052 Chestnut Street, commented that the buildings may not have the “wow factor” but they are well preserved and are representative of the neighborhood. He stated that he cannot imagine the block of Chestnut Street without them, and he supports the historic designation. Ben Leech commented that the buildings exist in a unique position in what was once envisioned as a historic district. He stated that they are located in the far northeast corner of what was proposed as a boundary for the historic district, and are therefore a gateway to the district.

Ms. Cooperman asked about ownership of the gates between the twins. Mr. Wunsch explained that the property lines run down the middles of the gates.

Mr. Beisert questioned Criterion G, and asked if it is reserved for landscape features. Mr. Farnham responded that Criterion G is cited very infrequently. The staff has considered that Criterion G is applicable to a park or urban planning feature, like Rittenhouse Square, or a property that is somehow associated with the planning feature, for example the buildings surrounding Rittenhouse Square that help to form the street wall around the Square. He stated that the staff disagrees with an interpretation that any building within a National Register district satisfies Criterion G.

Mr. Mester commented that he is further concerned that some proposed significance is tied to things unrelated to the buildings themselves. He stated that the Committee should look at the buildings themselves and determine whether or not they are significant architecturally, instead of simply designating buildings because the surrounding area is changing. Ms. Cooperman

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 JUNE 2016 25 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION

responded that the Committee will evaluate the designation based on the merits of the nomination.

Ms. Stegner commented that the staff overview mentioned that the demolition permit for 4046 and 4048 Chestnut Street was applied for in March 2016, but that someone at the Department of Licenses & Inspections told her it was applied for on 24 May 2016, with an accelerated review, and was approved on 26 May 2016. She stated that the nominations were submitted on 10 May 2016. Mr. Farnham responded that the dates Ms. Stegner obtained from an inspector at the Department of Licenses & Inspections are incorrect. He stated that he confirmed with the Department that the demolition applications for 4046 and 4048 Chestnut Street were submitted on 17 March 2016, predating the submission of the nomination and predating the notice letter to the property owner. The mailing of the notice letter initiates the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction. He continued that, if that demolition permit application is valid and a permit is issued under that application, the Historical Commission has no jurisdiction to review it, and the demolition may proceed without the Commission’s intervention. He commented that, if there are questions about the validity of the permit application, the Department of Licenses & Inspections will determine whether the permit is valid, not the Commission. He stated that the demolition permit applications for 4050 and 4052 Chestnut Street were submitted to the Department of Licenses & Inspections on 16 May 2016, the same day that the Commission mailed notice of the consideration of the nominations to the property owner; no demolition permits will be issued for those properties under those demolition permit applications unless and until the Historical Commission approves them. Ms. Stegner thanked Mr. Farnham for clarifying.

Mr. Schaaf commented that it is difficult to look at these buildings two at a time, because all together they establish a streetscape, similar perhaps to Portico Row. Mr. Laverty commented that it would be dangerous for the Committee to say these buildings do not have a wow factor. He continued that, if the Committee was told in 1960 that the city would not have any movie palaces remaining today, the Committee would have thought it was crazy. He stated that the Committee cannot just say that there are plenty of these types of buildings, so these particular buildings are not important. On the contrary, they are the DNA of Philadelphia buildings. Ms. Cooperman agreed.

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nominations demonstrate that the properties at 4046, 4048, 4050, 4052, 4054 and 4056 Chestnut Street satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, and J.

339 E. WISTER ST Nominator: Oscar Beisert and J.M. Duffin Owner: Twin Enterprise, LLC.

OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 339 E. Wister Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the property satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J. The nomination argues that the property, constructed as a country seat in three phases beginning in 1797, is important for its association with several prominent figures: Martin Godfrey Dorfeuille, a French educator and entrepreneur, who built the original residence when Germantown was gaining popularity as a resort for wealthy Philadelphians; Tench Coxe, an important Philadelphia merchant and politician, who resided at the property as a tenant; and Jeremiah Hacker and Beulah Morris- Hacker, two prominent Quakers responsible for the phased enlargement of the building and for

COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION, 15 JUNE 2016 26 PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

EXHIBIT 5

THE MINUTES OF THE 647TH STATED MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION

FRIDAY, 8 JULY 2016 ROOM 18-029, 1515 ARCH STREET BOB THOMAS, CHAIR PRESENT Robert Thomas, AIA, chair Duane Bumb, Department of Commerce Emily Cooperman, Ph.D. Michael Fink, Department of Licenses & Inspections Antonio Fiol-Silva, AICP, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C Melissa Long, Office of Housing & Community Development John Mattioni, Esq. Dan McCoubrey, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Rachel Royer, LEED AP BD+C Betty Turner, M.A.

Jonathan Farnham, Executive Director Randal Baron, Historic Preservation Planner III Kim Broadbent, Historic Preservation Planner II Laura DiPasquale, Historic Preservation Planner II Meredith Keller, Historic Preservation Planner I

ALSO PRESENT Shannon Pitt, UBC Frank Graff, MFD James O’Neill, Elsee Nancy Weinberg, Save Our Sites Darin Steinberg, Esq. Nicole White, Philadelphia Museum of Art Timothy Rub, Philadelphia Museum of Art A. Robert Torres, ART Studio Todd Sussman, Colliers Jose Hernandez, JKRP Architects Ambrose Liu, Mural Arts Ken Milano Stephen J. Maffei, Abitare Design Studio Ellie Devyatkin, Frankford Community Development Corporation Diana Hunalde, Philadelphia Museum of Art John C. Manton Sean Whalen, Esq., Klehr Harrison William Schicktanz Qiong Zhao Schicktanz Laura Blau, BluPath Design Kimberly Washington, Frankford Community Development Corporation Andrew L. Miller, Esq. Jesse Neubelt J.M. Duffin

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2016 1 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

Aaron Wunsch Kathy Dowdell Betsy Manning Carolina Pena, YCH Architect Justin Stevenson, YCH Architect Paul Steinke, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia David Gest, Esq., Ballard Spahr George Thomas, CivicVisions Alfred Dragani, DMAS Architects Andrew Fearon Ben Leech Phil Axbury, Mural Arts Marcus Balm, Mural Arts Elizabeth Stegner, University City Historical Society Richard Orlen, VMDT Partnership Kent Lessly Katherine McGonigle, DMAS Architects John Henry Scott, Spirit News Eapen Kalathil, Off Penn Properties Tony Forte, Esq., Saul Ewing Joshua Schrier, PREIT Albert Rex, MacRostie Historic Advisors, LLC R. Genlen, CHRS Tim Kerner, Terra Studio Aja Beach, Starr News Arielle Harris, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Jim Campbell, Campbell Thomas & Co. Jed Levin Katherine Robinson, Archdiocese of Philadelphia Jack Bienenfeld, Champion Development Corporation Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum Patrick Grossi, Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia Joseph Menkevich Sarah Chiu, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Jean-Michel Rabaté Michael Sklaroff, Esq., Ballard Spahr Richard Orlow, Esq.

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2016 2 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

Joseph Menkevich interjected that the judge in the 4046 and 4048 Chestnut case may be waiting for the outcome of the Commission’s consideration of the nominations for these properties. He suggested that the Commission move forward with the designation, to show the judge exactly what the Commission does. Mr. Miller clarified that there is no dispute pending before the court related to 4050 and 4052 Chestnut Street.

Mr. Thomas stated that the Commission typically receives a letter outlining the continuance request and the reasons for the request. Ms. Cooperman agreed, noting that it is a very late request. Mr. Miller responded that he has a sufficient basis for the request, but prefers to not address it at this time. He indicated, however, that the manner and method of the transmittal of the notification of the consideration of the designation sent to the property owner by the Commission allegedly on 16 May 2016 is the subject of his investigation. He stated that it is a valid issue and is of great concern. He stated that there was testimony in court that the application was encouraged somehow to be expedited by the Commission, and he does not know if that is true. Mr. Thomas opined that the Commission should proceed.

ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nominations demonstrate that the properties at 4050 and 4052 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, and J, and to designate the properties as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Royer seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 7 to 1. Mr. Fink dissented. Mr. Fiol-Silva abstained.

Mr. Bumb excused himself from the meeting.

4054 CHESTNUT ST Nominator: Aaron Wunsch, Elizabeth Stegner, Oscar Beisert Owner: Off Penn Properties LLC COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 4054 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, and J.

OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the property at 4054 Chestnut Street as historic and list it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the “restrained interpretation of the Italianate” twin satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G and J. The nomination argues that the twins, constructed between 1869-72 as part of the Thomas H. Powers development consisting of 4046-60 Chestnut Street, are a group of houses that have significant value as part of the development of the twin housing type and the formation of West Philadelphia as a suburb for white-collar commuters. The nomination further contends that the twin is part of and related to a distinctive area, owing to its listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing resource within the West Philadelphia Streetcar Suburb Historic District.

DISCUSSION: Mr. Farnham presented the nomination to the Commission. Aaron Wunsch and Elizabeth Stegner represented the nomination. Eapen Kalathil represented the property owner.

Mr. Kalathil explained that he is the majority owner of Off Penn Properties LLP, the owner of record for 4054 Chestnut Street. He has managed this property for 15 years, and considers himself to be a small landlord. He has spoken to many other owners of nominated properties,

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2016 42 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

and all are opposed to designation. He considers the designation to be a decrease in his property value without compensation. He explained that he has limited time and money. He stated that he strongly opposes the designation for the following five reasons.

Not all buildings built by Thomas Powers are being nominated. He stated that there are 28 buildings built by Mr. Powers in the immediate vicinity, yet only six are nominated. He stated that this weakens the argument for Criteria A, D, G and J, because, if the Commission wants to preserve buildings by Powers, it should designate all of the buildings built by him. He stated that he cannot accept the excuse of a “lack of manpower,” which was Oscar Beisert’s explanation for why he did not nominate the other Thomas Powers buildings. He stated that it is unfair to nominate a few buildings at a time and rely on the excuse of a “lack of manpower.”

These are the most average buildings in University City. He opined that they are plain buildings, with no porches, no bay windows, and no ornamentation. He noted that this building has been altered, and opined that the cornice was added simply to give it some visual interest. He expressed concern that if this building is designated, then all other historic buildings in University City could be designated. He stated that the Commission should nominate all historic buildings in University City, to be fair.

As a small, independent landlord, Mr. Kalathil explained that he does not have the deep pockets or manpower to offset the difficult requirements of the designation. He noted that he was unable to bring a lawyer. He stated that he has spoken with other owners of designated buildings, and now realizes how difficult it can be. He stated that he would not purchase a rental property that is designated, even if someone gave it to him for free, and in fact, that person would have to pay him a significant amount of money to manage a rental property with a historic designation. He asked why he is forced to accept the designation, after putting 15 years of hard work into the building.

The nomination offers many reasons that this building is historic, including a sloped roof, projecting dormers, three-and-a-half stories with attic, A-frame roof, arched entrance and stone steps. He noted that none of these elements apply to his building, as significant alterations were made after a fire in the late 1930s or early 1940s. He commented that there is no attic, no sloped roof, no projecting dormer, the first floor windows have been enlarged, the front steps were removed, and the arched entranceway was bricked in and dropped down to street level.

This building was completed in the 1870s when Mr. Powers was in his 60s. Mr. Kalathil stated that he disagrees with the idea that Mr. Powers was a visionary and that these buildings were constructed to leverage the trolley system. Rather, he opined, Mr. Powers was successful by the time he built this row and the scars of being an orphan early in life and his humble beginnings was a reason that he wanted to give something back to struggling people with less means. He continued that the construction of these buildings gave employment to many and provided housing to those of lesser means. He stated that these small units were built for people of lesser means, including elderly widows, struggling young people, or couples. He opined that the original tenants of these buildings probably would not have been able to afford the trolley service, and instead would have walked everywhere.

Mr. Kalathil concluded that these are average buildings built for average people. He stated that it is ironic that Powers’ intention for these buildings was to provide housing for people of less means, an idea itself that is challenged with the designation. He explained that many of his tenants are not that well-off either, and the designation will ensure that he can no longer rent at

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2016 43 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

reasonable prices. He opined that Mr. Powers, if he were still alive, would not agree with the designation, because it is contrary to his original mission.

Joseph Menkevich interjected that the landlord sounds like he is a good landlord, but he did not explain how a designation would stop him from being a good landlord or continue to provide quality housing. Mr. Kalathil responded by asking Mr. Menkevich why every single landlord on the block is opposed to the designation.

ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 4054 Chestnut Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, and J, and to designate the property as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Mr. McCoubrey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

339 E. WISTER ST Nominator: Oscar Beisert and J.M. Duffin Owner: Twin Enterprise, LLC. COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATION: The Committee on Historic Designation voted to recommend that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 339 E. Wister Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J.

DISCUSSION: Ms. Keller presented the nomination to the Commission. Nominator J.M. Duffin represented the nomination. No one represented the property owner.

Mr. Duffin stated that he contributed to the nomination and offered to answer any questions. The Commissioners discussed the nomination and determined that the property warrants designation.

ACTION: Ms. Cooperman moved to find that the nomination demonstrates that the property at 339 E. Wister Street satisfies Criteria for Designation A, C, D, and J, and to designate the property as historic, listing it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Ms. Turner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 8 JULY 2016 44 PHILADELPHIA’S PRINCIPAL PUBLIC STEWARD OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

EXHIBIT 6

20 July 2016 Eapen Kalathil Off Penn Properties LLC 111 S. 42nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

Re: 4054 CHESTNUT ST, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Dear Eapen Kalathil:

On 16 May 2016, the Philadelphia Historical Commission informed you in writing that it would consider designating the property at 4054 CHESTNUT ST as historic. Following that notice, the Historical Commission and its advisory Committee on Historic Designation reviewed the document defining the proposed designation, called a nomination, and accepted testimony on the matter at public meetings. I am pleased to inform you that, at the conclusion of its review on 8 July 2016, the Historical Commission designated the property at 4054 CHESTNUT ST as historic and listed it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, pursuant to the City’s historic preservation ordinance, Section 14-1000 of the Philadelphia Code. The Commission found that the property satisfied Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, and J as delineated in Section 14-1004 of the Philadelphia Code. The property has been subject to the Historical Commission’s regulation since 16 May 2016, the initial notice date; with the designation, the property continues to be subject to the Historical Commission’s regulation.

and assistance at no charge. In addition, the protection against inaccurate or unsympathetic alterations and against unnecessary demolitions offers some assurance that the historic character of the property will be preserved and improved. In Philadelphia and other cities, studies show that designation has helped to enhance resale values and foster community pride. Finally, a well-maintained, accurately preserved property may also be eligible for a Historical Commission plaque, which, when mounted on the exterior, identifies the property as a historic landmark.

In addition to benefits, the designation of a property as historic entails some restrictions. The designation of the property as historic includes the site, the exterior envelopes of all buildings on the site, and any permanent site appurtenances. Building interiors are not included. To promote the preservation of historic buildings and sites, the Historical Commission reviews all building permit applications and other proposals for exterior alterations to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards. The Historical Commission also reviews all demolition proposals for designated properties. The Historical Commission and its staff approach such matters reasonably and practically, and understand that historic buildings must be adapted for evolving uses and requirements. The Historical Commission’s goal is to manage change, not prevent it, and to ensure that any changes to historic properties meet historic preservation standards.

The Historical Commission welcomes your participation in the efforts to preserve Philadelphia’s unique, significant, and valuable heritage. Philadelphia’s remarkable collection of historic landmarks is one of its greatest resources. Working together, property owners and the Historical Commission can protect and preserve those resources, ensuring a rich future for the city. Should you have any questions about historic preservation or the work of the Historical Commission, please do not hesitate to contact the Commission’s staff at 215-686-7660 or to explore the Commission’s website at http://www.phila.gov/historical.

Yours truly,

Jonathan E. Farnham, Ph.D. Executive Director

20 July 2016 Owner 4054 CHESTNUT ST Philadelphia, PA 19104

Re: 4054 CHESTNUT ST, Philadelphia, PA 19104

Dear Owner:

Yours truly,

Jonathan E. Farnham, Ph.D. Executive Director

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION RECORD OF THE DESIGNATION OF 4054 CHESTNUT STREET

EXHIBIT 7

AN OVERVIEW OF THE PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION FOR OWNERS OF PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC

As the attached letter indicates, the Historical Commission recently designated your property as historic and listed it on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The City of Philadelphia’s historic preservation ordinance requires that owners of properties designated as historic seek and obtain the approval of the Historical Commission and a building permit from the Department of Licenses & Inspections prior to commencing any work that would require a building permit and/or would alter the exterior appearance of the building, site, or permanent site features such as fences or walls. To protect historic properties, the Historical Commission reviews the work proposed in the building permit application to determine whether it satisfies historic preservation standards including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Historical Commission’s jurisdiction extends over the entire exterior envelopes of buildings including all facades and roofs, but the Commission concentrates its reviews on facades and roofs that are visible from the public right-of-way. Protecting public views of historic properties is the Historical Commission’s primary goal. The Historical Commission is sensitive to time constraints and completes most reviews on the day of submission. More than 85% are completed in five days or less. All reviews must be completed within 60 days. Except in extreme cases of neglect, the Historical Commission cannot require an owner to undertake work to a property, but may only review within the scope of work defined by the owner. Moreover, alterations in place at the time of designation, such as non-historic windows, are grandfathered and may be retained until the owner determines that they need replacement.

The Historical Commission requires reviews for projects including but not limited to:  construction, alteration, and demolition of buildings and addition to buildings;  construction, installation, alteration, repair, removal, replacement, or covering of: o windows, storm windows, dormers, doors, storm doors, security doors, garage doors, and shutters; o exterior light fixtures, window boxes, railings, grilles, grates, and star bolts; o porches, steps, stoops, ramps, decks, balconies, and patios; o fences, walls, gates, sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots; o façades, façade elements, and trim such as cornices and doorways; o roofing, flashing, gutters and downpouts; o storefront features, signage including awnings and lighting; o exterior mechanical equipment, vents, wiring, conduit, pipes, and satellite dishes (except seasonal window air conditioners that require no window alteration);  masonry cleaning, painting, pointing, repair, replacement, alteration, or removal;  painting, coating, staining, or sealing surfaces except wood trim and metal trim; and,  all other projects that would alter the exterior appearance of the building, site, or permanent site features.

- over-

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 1515 ARCH STREET, 13TH FLOOR, 215-686-7660

The Historical Commission seeks to safeguard the city’s unique heritage and wealth of cultural resources as it encourages economic development, promotes healthy and sustainable communities, enhances property values, attracts new residents, businesses, and tourists, provides educational opportunities, and fosters civic pride. The Historical Commission welcomes your participation in the efforts to preserve the Philadelphia’s unique, significant, and valuable heritage. Philadelphia’s remarkable collection of historic landmarks is one of its greatest resources. Working together, property owners and the Historical Commission can protect and preserve those resources, ensuring a rich future for the city.

PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION, 1515 ARCH STREET, 13TH FLOOR, 215-686-7660