![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/IMG_0857.jpg\")
Councilmember Mark Squilla. (Philadelphia City Council)<\/p>\nIt\u2019s back to the drawing board for a plan to revamp Philadelphia\u2019s Historic Preservation law.<\/p>\n
Councilmember Mark Squilla said he\u2019s working with the Planning and Historical commissions to revise a bill he introduced that would make several significant changes to the law. The effort follows an outcry from preservation groups who said the legislation would undermine efforts to protect architecturally and culturally significant buildings from demolition.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s a certain understanding that language in the bill would have a rush-to-demo type scenario. Some folks believe that is the case. Other folks believe it\u2019s not the case,\u201d Squilla said in an interview last week.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut I believe that by working together with the Preservation Alliance, the Historical Commission, and our Planning Commission and our Law Department, we\u2019ll get to a language that makes everybody feel comfortable to move forward,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Councilmember Mark Squilla. (Philadelphia City Council)<\/p>\n
Squilla said the commissions are also drafting language to create a tiered system of protections for preserved buildings and for homes in historic districts. That had been considered for the initial proposal but was not included.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A tiered system might exempt homeowners who are replacing roofs from having to satisfy Historical Commission requirements for more expensive, historically accurate slate roofs, for example, as long as the underlying structure isn\u2019t altered.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWe get so much pushback every time we designate either a private property or designate a district. Residents feel like they don\u2019t have a voice in it,\u201d the councilmember said. \u201cSo maybe if we have two different tiers of designation that have certain criterias, it may make it easier, and we won\u2019t have so much anxiety during the process.\u201d<\/p>\n
A demolition \u201cloophole\u201d<\/p>\n
Squilla said he had heard complaints from the development community and property owners about the 41-year-old Historic Preservation law and passed those on to the two commissions, whose staffs drafted the bill language he introduced last month.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most controversial section is a new requirement that the Historical Commission wait 30 days before considering a new nomination to designate a building or a district as historic.<\/p>\n
Currently, the commission gets a nomination from a resident, community group, commission staff or another party, and at a subsequent public meeting starts considering whether to approve it. While the commission is considering the nomination, the city is barred from issuing a permit for demolition or alteration of the building.<\/p>\n
Squilla\u2019s bill would introduce a new step, requiring the Historical Commission to issue a \u201cnotice of intent\u201d to consider a designation, and to give the property owner 30 days\u2019 notice of the coming meeting. During that time the building would not be protected.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis means that simply filing a nomination, something meant to safeguard a building, could instead serve as a warning signal to an owner to rush through demolition before the Historical Commission can act. In practice, this could allow demolition or irreversible alterations before any meaningful evaluation of historic significance occurs,\u201d wrote Paul Steinke, executive director of the nonprofit Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia, in a letter to the Planning Commission.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/first-african-baptist-2.original.jpg\")
First African Baptist Church on Christian Street in South Philadelphia. (Jarey Brey\/WHYY)<\/p>\n
Oscar Beisert, a preservation advocate who has nominated many buildings for protection, said some of them \u2014 like the 115-year-old First African Baptist Church<\/a> at 16th and Christian streets \u2014 would likely not have survived under the proposed rules.<\/p>\n \u201cIf these rules were to pass and this 30-day loophole were to be created for demolition, First African likely would have been demolished. And that\u2019s the case with many other buildings that have been nominated,\u201d he said during a Planning Commission earlier this month.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are also many buildings that are nominated, and then they aren\u2019t designated, and they are demolished, because the Historical Commission uses their judgment to decide which buildings are most worthy to be designated. By taking this power away, the ordinance would be weakened, and the city would lack the authority to stop a demolition, as it currently does,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The Planning Commission voted Dec. 4 to put a 45-day hold on the legislation. Squilla said City Council will consider the revised bill at a meeting in February.\u00a0<\/p>\n Allowances for zoning permits<\/p>\n Steinke and other preservation advocates criticized several other parts of Squilla\u2019s bill.<\/p>\n \u2022 One provision would allow the Historical Commission to decline to issue notice and start the designation process if there\u2019s already an active zoning permit on the property, or a zoning permit application is being reviewed by the Department of Licenses & Inspections.<\/p>\n \u201cThe bill allows pending zoning applications, often not public knowledge, to block designation altogether. This shifts the balance toward private development interests and away from transparent public review,\u201d Steinke said.<\/p>\n \u2022 Another section appears to make it easier for property owners and developers to modify or demolish a building, even after the designation review has started. It would require the commission to approve construction permits if it finds that \u201ca significant material commitment to development plans\u201d was already in place, such as contracts, zoning permits, or \u201csubstantial design development.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022 Currently the commission may designate buildings as historic if they are the work of significant architects or certain other professionals, or if the commissioners believe the properties may later provide archeological information \u2014\u00a0which can allow for the designation of vacant lots.\u00a0<\/p>\n The bill would add artists and artisans to the list of applicable professionals, but remove landscape architects and designers. It also tweaks the section relating to archeology, adding language that says the property must be \u201chighly likely\u201d to yield information that is \u201csignificant\u201d in pre-history or history. Those changes would \u201c[weaken] the city\u2019s ability to recognize and protect landscapes that are central to community character,\u201d Steinke said.<\/p>\n \u2022 The bill would change the way the Historical Commission decides whether to allow alterations to structures that are already historically designated. It would remove language directing the commission to consider the effect of the proposed work on \u201cneighboring structures, the surroundings, and the streetscape,\u201d which Steinke said would eliminate \u201can essential preservation standard and [weaken] design review.\u201d<\/p>\n Pushback after a wave of designations<\/p>\n The pushback Squilla mentioned follows a boom in historic preservation in Philadelphia. Since the Kenney administration revitalized the Historical Commission in 2016, many individual buildings and 44 historic districts \u2014 some of which cover more than 1,000 homes \u2014 have been granted protection, according to a listing<\/a> on the commission\u2019s website.<\/p>\n The percentage of all city properties under historic designation has doubled from 2.2% to 4.4%, moving Philly from well below to slightly above the average rate of designation among large cities, according to a recent report<\/a> commissioned by the Preservation Alliance.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, opposition to the process has also mounted, particularly in the past year.\u00a0<\/p>\n Some homeowners<\/a> in historic districts or proposed districts<\/a> say the historically accurate materials they would be required to use when replacing windows, doors, roofs, bricks and other exterior elements are much more costly than the alternatives. That makes the work unaffordable for some residents, discourages building improvements, and threatens to drive out lower-income residents and cause gentrification, they argue.<\/p>\n Some property owners and developers also say the barriers to demolishing or substantially altering protected buildings infringes on their property rights, protects unremarkable buildings from being replaced, stymies the construction of badly needed new housing and impedes economic growth.<\/p>\n Attorney Michael Phillips, of Klehr Harrison, said the designation of a block of Chestnut Street in 2021, for example, had made it difficult to redevelop those buildings. He represents property owners who are appealing two recent district designations in court.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-12-16-e-lee-philadelphia-mount-airy-pelham-historic-district-100-pelham.jpeg\")
The stately Robert M. Hogue House, built in 1896 at 100 Pelham Road in West Mt. Airy. Some residents have raised objections to creation of a proposed Pelham historic district. (Emma Lee\/WHYY)<\/p>\n