Table Of Content

UNIVERSlTYy PENNSYLVANIA. UBKAR1E5 THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA JAMES MORSE JONES A THESIS in The Graduate Program in Historic Preservation Presented to the faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE 1992 V K-^ /c£x^' John C.Keene, Chairman, Department of City and Regional Planning, Advisor Donna Ann Harris, Vice President, Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, Reader UNIVERSITY OF PENNSVlv/.nia LIBRARIES ... TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION A. THE PHILADELPHIA PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSES AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO INCLUDE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, THEREBY PROMOTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1 B. LANDI'lARK PRESERVATION PRESENTS TANGIBLE BENEFITS TO CENTER CITY 8 1 Landmarks Promote Tourism 8 2. Landmarks Promote the City's Film Industry. .9 . . 3. Landmarks Assist the City in Attracting New Businesses and Residents 10 C. LANDMARK PRESERVATION PRESENTS INTANGIBLE BENEFITS TO CENTER CITY 1. Preservation of Landmark Buildings Exerts a Beneficial Influence on the Public 11 D. TRADITIONAL DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH LANDMARK PRESERVATION PROGRAMS UNDERSCORE THE ADVANTAGES OF TDR IMPLEMENTATION 14 1. Government Landmark Acquisition is Economically Unfeasible 14 2. Municipal Designation Programs Generate Political Opposition 15 3 Municipal Landmark Preservation Agencies are Understaffed 16 4 TDR Programs Remedy These Traditional Difficulties 17 E. ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF LANDMARK PRESERVATION IN CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: AN OUTLINE OF THE THESIS 19 CHAPTER TWO: THE DEMOLITION PROBLEM IN CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA A. CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 21 B. AN OVERVIEW OF DEMOLITION ACTIVITY IN CENTER CITY 21 1. Current Demolition Proposals 21 a. 26-30 South 21st Street b. 1908 Chestnut Street c. Ninth & Chestnut Streets, Southeast Corner ... . 2. Recent Victories in the Demolition Battle...,22 a. Lit Brothers b. 17th & Locust Streets, Northeast Corner c. Holy Trinity Church 3. Recent Defeats in the Demolition Battle 22 a. Gimbels Department Store b. McCrae Houses c. Finneas Meade Antique Store d. Victory Building e. 1600 Block Chestnut Street, North Side ECONOMIC AND GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS GENERATE DEMOLITION PRESSURE 23 1 Market Forces . a. High-Income/Efficient Land Uses Drive out less-remunerative Historic Buildings. .24 . . 2. Governmental Factors 27 a. 15 Million Square Feet in the Zoning Envelopes above City-certified, Historic Buildings 28 b Wide-Streets Incentive 28 c. Zoning Code Encourages Parcel Assemblage 29 CURRENT PROGRAMS AND THEIR SHORTCOMINGS 31 1. Historic Commission's Preservation Ordinance 31 a. Provides of Commission Review of Proposed Demolitions 32 b. Fails to Safeguard Historic Buildings in Many Situations 33 c. Commission is Understaffed 35 d. Ordinance Presents Regulation Without Incentive 35 2. Investment Tax Credit Credited with Revitalizing Several Philadelphia Buildings and Neighborhoods 36 a ITC History and Current Status 36 b. Decline of ITC Attributed to Changes in Federal Tax Law 41 c. National Register Listing does not Safeguard Buildings from Private- Sector Demolitions 44 3. PHPC Facade Easement Program 44 a ProgramExplanation 44 b. Factors Causing Declining Rate of Facade Easement Contribution 45 1. Decline in ITC Activity 48 2 Tax Law Changes Decrease Demand for Tax Shelters and Complicate EasementDonation 48 3. Lack of Clear IRS Regulation 48