The Future of History WINTER 2013
Gray Areas and Provocative Preservation Finding the Future in No Man’s Land Saving Joe Frazier’s North Philadelphia Gym THE CARNEGIE LIBRARY AT MANAYUNK HILLS RENEWABLE HISTORY
context | WI2013/14 | 1
www.keasthood.com 601 Walnut Street, Suite 450W Philadelphia, PA 19106 215.625.0099
Philadelphia | Washington
A tradition of insightful engineering and exceptional service since 1953.
New Construction • Renovation • Addition • Adaptive Reuse • Historic Preservation • Masonry Stabilization • Structural Intervention
Mainstay_AIA_Ad2013_002_Layout 1 3/7/13 5:54 PM Page 1
Site/Civil and Structural Engineering Consultants Corporate HQ: 110 West Butler Avenue • Ambler, PA 19002 • p. 215.646.5595 New Jersey Office: 3 Executive Drive, Suite 200A • Somerset, NJ 08873 • p. 732.868.8636
Reading Terminal Market Expansion Philadelphia, PA
www.megr.com
Arcadia University Parking Garage Glenside, PA
Rite Aid Retail Stores, Exton, PA McNeil Consumer Healthcare Designed using Revit Structure Ft Washington, PA
A trusted reliable source for office, retail, university, schools, hospitals, government, and manufacturing projects. USGBC LEED certified and ICC certified special inspectors on staff
contents the future of history in this issue of CONTEXT, we look at what is happening with historic preservation in Philadelphia now and where the practice is headed. from new leadership to out-of-the-box thinking, our heritage and the future of preservation appears to be safe and secure.
5 EL editors’ letter 6 UC UP CLOSE
8 OP opinion
COVER Photo: CHANDRA LAMPREICH
10 Gray Areas and Provocative Preservation Now in its third iteration, the GRAY AREA project continues to pose questions with no guaranteed answers in a year-long experiment aimed at pushing the boundaries of preservation. by elise vider
16 Finding the Future in No Man’s Land Once the organizing thread of vibrant industries in “workshop of the world” Philadelphia, an old North Philadelphia rail corridor and the ideas of University of Pennsylvania students may hold the key to understanding the future of preservation. by randy mason
20 Saving Joe Frazier’s North Philadelphia Gym
A giant in the boxing ring as well as the community, Joe Frazier offered training and refuge in his Broad Street Gym. When the structure was threatened, a partnership of preservationists, preservation organizations, and students kept it in place. by DENNIS PLAYDON
28 DP design profiles
24 ex expression
ON THE COVER The interior of Philadelphia’s Boyd Theater, an Art Deco treasure that was added to the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia’s endangered properties list in December.
context | WI2013/14 | 3
CONTEXT The Journal of AIA Philadelphia CONTEXT Staff Managing Editor Dominic Mercier Circulation Gary Yetter Art Director Dominic Mercier Layout and Design Dominic Mercier Publisher AIA Philadelphia CONTEXT Editorial Board Harris M. Steinberg, FAIA – Chair Penn Praxis Todd Woodward, AIA - Chair SMP Architects David Brownlee, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania Steven Conn, Ph.D. Ohio State University Susan Miller Davis, AIA Sally Harrison, AIA Temple University Timothy Kerner, AIA Terra Studio Stephen P. Mullin Econsult Corporation Rashida Ng Temple University Rachel Simmons Schade, AIA Drexel University Anthony P. Sorrentino University of Pennsylvania David Zaiser, AIA KSS Architects AIA Philadelphia Board of Directors Robert Hsu, AIA President Antonio Fiol-Silva, FAIA President-Elect Jim Rowe, AIA Treasurer
Nancy Bastian, AIA Director Nicole Morris Dress, AIA Director Robert J. Hotes, AIA Director Carol A. Hermann, AIA Director James Scott O’Barr, AIA Director Joshua Otto, AIA Director Denise E. Thompson, AIA Director Todd K. Woodward, AIA Director Jules Dingle, AIA AIA Pennsylvania Director
From the President It has been a whirlwind year for AIA Philadelphia and 2013 saw tremendous participation in our keystone events. Let me highlight just some of the recent ones. In October, we celebrated DesignPhiladelphia as a signature event of the Center for Architecture for the first time. That was followed with our Design Awards ceremony during which we recognized recipients of the Harbeson Award, the Young
Robert C. Kelly, AIA AIA Pennsylvania Director
Architect Award, fellowship to the American Academy in Rome, and
Elizabeth C. Masters, AIA AIA Pennsylvania Director
sign awards accorded to Philadelphia firms. Our annual conference for
Michael Skolnick, AIA AIA Pennsylvania Director Erike De Veyra, Assoc. AIA Associate Director Alan Urek Public Member John Claypool, FAIA Executive Director The opinions expressed in this - or the representations made by advertisers, including copyrights and warranties, are not those of the editorial staff, publisher, AIA Philadelphia, or AIA Philadelphia’s Board of Directors. Copyright 2013 AIA Philadelphia. All rights are reserved. Reproduction in part or whole without written permission is strictly prohibited. Postmaster: send change of address to AIA Philadelphia, 1218 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
the inaugural Paul Philippe Cret Award. In addition, there were 22 de-
design professionals, Design on the Delaware, was a rousing success and brought with it a slew of engaging speakers and an impressive number of sessions and tours. The annual meeting of Greenbuild was in November and this afforded our chapter an opportunity to showcase Philadelphia firms’ contribution to sustainable design at the Center for Architecture. We can all take pride in what the Chapter has accomplished this year and I know the tradition of excellence will continue as I prepare to hand leadership to incoming President Antonio Fiol-Silva, FAIA. A principal at Wallace Roberts & Todd, Antonio has served on the Board as a director and president-elect and his energy and engagement will continue to push the Chapter forward. I hope you’ll join me in giving Antonio and the incoming Board of Directors a warm welcome at Induction on January 16 at the Athenaeum of Philadelphia. We’ll also be feting the Chapter’s Executive Director, John Claypool, FAIA, with the Thomas U. Walter Award for his contributions to the architectural community through service to the AIA and all of its initiatives. I hope to see you there.
Keith C. H. Mock, AIA Past President
Robert Hsu, AIA 2013 AIA Philadelphia President
context | WI2013/14 | 4
editors’ letter
EL
The Future of History “It has been said that, at its best, preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future.” - William Murtagh, first keeper of the National Register of Historic Places
We tend to take our rich historic resources for granted, assuming that various regulations are in place to protect them. But preservation of the past is not, by definition, always an effective way of helping cities grow. The natural evolution of any city inevitably involves the destruction of the old as population increases and industry grows. How does society decide what to preserve and what to let go? Decisions about the value of historic fabric are always influenced by the current perspective.
When did historic preservation in Philadelphia start? One might argue that the writing of the first Historic Preservation Ordinance in 1955 is the critical milestone. Others might point to the formation of the activist groups such as the Preservation Coalition and the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation in 1979, which merged in 1996 to become the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia with the assistance of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the William Penn Foundation.
What is happening in preservation in Philadelphia now, and where are we headed? Meet Caroline Boyce, the new executive director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. She has some exciting ideas about encouraging more public awareness by both carrying on the great work of her predecessor as well as planning fundraising events in historic structures. In this issue you will find a collection of essays that address some radical new perspectives on the topic of preservation, ranging from an update on the GRAY AREA project and some intriguing work by Penn Historic Preservation students on no man’s land. You will notice the convergence of projects both large and small scale and everyday landscapes, including the recent successful nomination to the National Register and the Philadelphia Historical Commission of Joe Frazier’s Gym on North Broad Street and the role students at Temple University played in that initiative. A number of references encourage us to look forward to future inventories of our built heritage available through digital media.
The future of history in Philadelphia is looking promising indeed.
Susan Miller Davis, AIA, Sally Harrison, AIA, and Rachel Simmons Schade, AIA Guest Editors
context | WI2013/14 | 5
Caroline Boyce THE NEW HEAD OF THE PRESERVATION ALLIANCE OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA HAS SOME NEW IDEAS UP HER SLEEVE
By JoAnn Greco When Caroline Boyce, the newly appointed executive director of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia, considers her favorite buildings in town, her bright blue eyes brighten even more. The first that comes to mind, she says, is Reading Terminal, whose praises she recently lauded in the Alliance’s newsletter as a “quintessential place where historic preservation and daily life come together.” But that seems an obvious choice. Folding her hands, accented with deep purple nail polish and a striking onyx ring, she thinks a little deeper and then unveils a fondness for Mid-Century Modern. She loves it all, Boyce says, from the celebrated Roundhouse to the Rohm & Haas (now Dow Chemical) building on Independence Mall. “It’s just incredible,” she comments about the last. “At night, the interior just sparkles with that beautiful chandelier. Incredible.” Boyce promises that the period will continue to be an Alliance focus. “We have plans to develop an online interpretive exhibit,” she says, “and we’ll identify approximately one dozen of the 600 or so buildings from the era that we’ll nominate for local protection. The style is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, but I’m not afraid to have those kinds of conversations.”
Photo: Dominic Mercier
up close
Indeed, the London-born Boyce is used to listening to all sides of the story while trying to bring people around to the one she favors. Her penchant for advocacy stems to her college days as a pre-law student, a trajectory that derailed after she interned on a project aimed at helping low-income homeowners repair their properties, many of which were in historic districts. “It transformed my whole thinking,” she says now. After graduating from Connecticut College, she gained a master’s degree in historical preservation from Cornell University and then landed a gig as preservation planner for the city planning department in Pittsburgh, where she’d grown up after her British mother and South African father relocated there. That work will come in handy, she believes, when it comes to the Alliance’s often-contentious relationship with the Philadelphia Historical Commission. “I see us as partners with different roles. We’re advocates, but they have a regulatory role, and I understand the challenges they face because I served in an equivalent capacity in Pittsburgh,” she observes. “I communicate regularly with [commission executive director] Jonathan Farnham and I think that good, open lines of communication during normal times create better understanding for times when the conversation is more crucial.” After leaving Pittsburgh, Boyce assumed executive positions at Preservation Pennsylvania in Harrisburg and the Office of Statewide Partnerships for the National Trust for Historic Preservation in D.C. For the last decade, she served as executive vice president of AIA Pennsylvania. Through the years, then, she’s become quite familiar with Philadelphia. For now, Boyce lives in an apartment west of Rittenhouse Square, but as she gets to know the city still better - spending time in North Philly, for example, at historic sites like Joe Frazier’s Gym, the Blue Horizon, and the John Coltrane House - she’s not sure where she’ll end up. “Really grasping the size of the city has been a big surprise,” she says. “You see how many opportunities there are to engage with property owners.” And such efforts will be at the top of her to-do list. “Looking ahead, I see us doing work in four main areas,” she says. Bending her distinctive blonde halo to the blank page in front of her, she writes them down, as if to cement their promise. The organization is already adept at the first two, she says: saving places and pro-
UC
viding knowledge. It will continue in those areas by seeking to expand its easement program to cover a total of 250 properties (up from the current 237) and by strengthening its Preserve Philadelphia web site and mapping project.
“The city just has such incredible resources. I wouldn’t have been interested in this position if I didn’t think there were great things happening here.” But Boyce has got a lot of new ideas up her sleeve, including architectural dinners where participants will enjoy meals in places usually off limits, and outreach programs to help realtors better market and sell historic properties. These projects come under the public engagement rubric. “I want to work to create a movement that inculcates a stronger preservation ethic,” she says. “It should be a normal course of business for everyone to understand and appreciate what is around them and to make re-use common because it’s the right thing to do.” Of course, the staples -the endangered properties list and the awards dinner - will continue. “But, I’ll tell you one thing, Boyce says coyly, the ceremony won’t be held at The Crystal Tea Room this year.” But besides renewed emphasis on Mid-Century Modern, Boyce wants to see some other movement in its practice areas, such as looking at adding more conservation districts and interiors to the historic roster. And, she’d like to see Philadelphia develop something like the intervention program that she managed while working at the state level. Meanwhile, she’s excited by the state historic tax credit ,which went into effect this summer, pointing out that Philadelphia is already one of the biggest users of the federal program. “The city just has such incredible resources,” she says. “I wouldn’t have been interested in this position if I didn’t think there were great things happening here.” JoAnn Greco is a regular contributor to PlanPhilly.com. Her writing on the built environment has also appeared in The Washington Post, Planning, Metropolis, The Atlantic Cities, ArchitectureBoston, and Urban Land. context | WI2013/14 | 7
OP opinion Striking a Balance Between Old and New By Lee Huang and Stephen Mullin
As the historic preservation community assesses its mission, roles, and strategies for the 21st century, preservation’s role in and impact on local economic growth is an increasingly important consideration. By its very nature, economic growth is the result of new investment and involves changing the physical capital stock to make or keep it productive. Ours is now an increasingly competitive world, and this competition will grow forever. There will be no turning back. The prescription for this increasing competition is a relentless pursuit of greater productivity and efficiency in every walk of life, but in particular in buildings and other capital infrastructure. As a result, defining and then striking an appropriate balance between preserving the old and ushering in the new, rather than seeing them as necessarily at odds, is needed more than ever. That balance can be better found by understanding the dynamic nature of urban real estate markets and examining the economic benefits associated with specific preservation efforts as a well as the impacts of overall economic growth on the value of current and future preservation goals. The stereotype of a preservationist lamenting recent economic good fortunes of cities (that have suffered through more than a half century of disinvestment and decay) because “that will mean historic buildings will be demolished” represents a luxury than we can no longer afford in our rapidly changing world. Indeed, in recent years, the old stereotype of the preservationists ever duking it out with the developers has given way to a richer and more complex landscape of negotiation, compromise, and even collaboration. In other words, people are waking up to the idea that this does not have to be a zero-sum game. It is more commonly known now that preservationists and developers can be on the same side of the table when it comes to objectives and opportunities. Developers, especially in older cities like Philadelphia, recognize the overall value of historic preservation in making certain areas more interesting and attractive, generating increased demand. They also understand that preservation plays an important role in the feel, feasibility, and funding of specific projects. Preservationists, in turn, are learning to speak the language of economic impact when making their case for specific sites and districts and for an overall pro-preservation agenda. Our company, Econsult Solutions, Inc., and others have provided
supporting analysis and arguments for all of these efforts, and in the process we have strengthened our respect for the role of historic preservation in making cities great. We know that cities require constant vigilance in both preservation and development efforts to stay competitive. We know that without preservation, cities lose their authenticity and are weakened in their ability to be all they can be. And we know that preservation projects represent an important component of construction activity, attracting significant outside reinvestment funds, and drawing in new spending from visitors. The economic value of historic preservation is well documented. A recent study estimates the economic impact on Pennsylvania’s economy of the federal historic tax credit program since 1978. The study estimates the total economic impact of these preservation investments over those years to have been greater than $17 billion; generating nearly $400 million in state tax revenues and supporting
“While ‘economic hardship’ has long been a factor (even if begrudgingly) in the historic preservation decision-making process, the more encompassing ‘economic cost-benefit analysis’ is now accepted as one of the key lenses through which to evaluate preservation projects.”
context | WI2013/14 | 8
approximately 150,000 person years of employment. On average, historic preservation annually contributes over a half billion dollars a year in economic impact to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and supports almost 5,000 jobs. Furthermore, the designation of historic districts has been associated with housing values between 3 percent and 36 percent higher than non-designated but similar neighborhoods. A recent study of state impacts of historic preservation tax credit activity, conducted by Washington, D.C.’s Historic Preservation Office (HPO), generated similar positive results, and highlighted the important point of leveraging federal funding to increase economic redevelopment. While “economic hardship” has long been a factor (even if begrudgingly) in the historic preservation decision-making process, the more encompassing ”economic cost-benefit analysis” is now accepted as one of the key lenses through which to evaluate preservation projects. Local government economic development efforts will in-
opinion
creasingly be examined in this cost-benefit light, and preservation efforts will have to become more aware of the concept and practice. As a result, the preservation community will have to be even more imaginative about the potential for modern day reuse of historic buildings. Such efforts are currently underway: in an innovative collaboration, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has just begun work with the Philadelphia chapter of the Urban Land Institute to aggressively identify new ways of looking at re-using historic buildings in their Partnership for Building Reuse program. This may also mean that the preservation community may have to rethink some of its most taboo subjects, including where to draw the line between alteration and demolition, the concept of trading off one historic building to save others, and loosening the definition of which changes are allowed and which aren’t. On the other hand, preservation is accepted as one of many tools that localities, especially older cities, have to pursue economic development and new investment to regenerate their capital stock. Rightly so, since there has been over $7 billion in historic preservation projects in Pennsylvania since 1978. Historic, or heritage, tourism is a strong component of many cities’ and regions’ efforts to attract visitors. In Philadelphia, attendance at historic sites represents 32 million visitors and $1 billion in visitor spending each year. The state-level historic preservation tax credit recently implemented by the commonwealth can generate a meaningful return to the commonwealth and to its localities. At an individual project level, this means pursuing preservation investments that employ local companies and labor, that increase property values to add to the local property tax base, and that generate new economic activity and increase visitor spending. Now that there seems to be an established, secular trend toward
OP
reinvestment in our older cities, there seems to be a sense of anxiety about the fate of historic buildings by the historic preservation community. Renewed and rapidly increasing demand for residential, commercial or retail land uses in urban areas means new investment, new construction, and change – sometimes this rapid change makes us feel uncomfortable. But increased demand and more vital cities and neighborhoods are exactly what will make historic preservation more successful in the long run. This means that preservation may have to be seen more as a long-term mission, as opposed to a series of seemingly disconnected battles fighting the redevelopment or demolition of individual buildings. Many more historically significant buildings have been lost due to general disinvestment than by redevelopment in areas that have seen a return of demand and investment. Disinvestment hurts us all, but it hurts the preservation of historic assets more. Our increasingly competitive world means that resources must be allocated in more efficient ways. Scarcity of resources is an unfortunate but unavoidable reality, so we have to make tough choices about how and where we (individually and as communities and governments) spend time and resources. The public body of knowledge on the economic benefits of preservation is growing, and it can help in the cost-benefit analyses that will be used in making sound, databased choices about whether and where to expend resources in the name of preservation and economic impact. The good news is that preservation has a positive economic value, and a wonderful mix of historic and modern is and will continue to be one of the competitive advantages of older cities like Philadelphia. Lee Huang and Stephen Mullin are principals of Econsult Solutions, Inc. context | WI2013/14 | 9
By Elise Vider
For several years, preservationists in Philadelphia have been immersed in a gray area, which the dictionary characterizes as “an ill-defined situation or field not readily conforming to a category or to an existing set of rules.�
context | WI2013/14 | 10
LEFT: with its exuberant architecture, Hawthorne Hall, built in 1895 on Lancaster Avenue in West Philadelphia, is a much-loved neighborhood landmark.
and carry out preservation? “GRAY AREA is an important effort to explore the boundaries of preservation’s effectiveness and to frankly experiment how it can be more effective. How might we approach conventional kinds of projects and problems with unconventional means? What new allies or new results could we realize? How can we approach the most difficult, intractable preservation challenges – the hard cases – by thinking or working differently from our traditional means of research, scientific rigor and advocacy?” Central to the current phase of GRAY AREA is the study of two real Philadelphia buildings that serve as laboratories for unconventional thinking. We won’t be building anything, nor will we be doing preservation planning in the typical sense. But we are at work to actively engage community members, design professionals and those in the field in order to deliver provocative ideas
Indeed, historic preservation in Philadelphia and elsewhere, in both theory and practice, has been buffeted by myriad fastchanging circumstances: economic pressures, environmental imperatives, demographic shifts, infrastructure challenges, advancements in technology and real estate trends. Now in its third iteration, the GRAY AREA project continues to pose questions – no firm answers guaranteed – as it engages in a yearlong experiment and public dialogue aimed at crafting approaches to interpretation, design and reuse that push the boundaries of preservation and could be replicable else-
where in Philadelphia and other older cities. Randall Mason, chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate Program in Historic Preservation and a member of the GRAY AREA study team, puts it this way: “There’s a strong feeling these days that preservation is limited. By lack of public support? By bigger problems like schools and crime and economic development? By a belief (however unfounded) that new is always better than old? Because it’s out of fashion? Do we need to convince people more effectively? Do preservationists need to rethink and reinvent how we think about, talk about
about how historic buildings can honor both their history and circumstances on the ground – and about the process for getting there. Our stated goals are simple: • Create an effective and replicable model for innovative historic preservation and redevelopment; • Be provocative both during the process and when creating design solutions; • Engage audiences in order to create positive ideology and advocacy for innovative historic preservation and redevelopment; • Support mutual learning and collaboration. Early on the team determined to approach its work by inverting the traditional preservation process, by “looking through the other end of the telescope,” says Mason. Our initial focus, the team determined, was to start with the immaterial aspects of the building under study – neighborhood culture, history and collective values – rather than, as typical, context | WI2013/14 | 11
ABOVE: the 1902 Max Levy building at Wayne Junction in Germantown is emblematic of the citywide challenge of repurposing vacant industrial structures. OPPOSITE PAGE: at Wayne Junction, the GRAY AREA team envisions the Max Levy building as a welcoming beacon at the gateway between Germantown and adjacent Nicetown. Signage and lighting at the building and nearby could enhance the visual connection between the historic and active rail corridor, the building and its users. site-specific physical fabric, conditions and constraints. “It’s a way to enhance the value of the building without embalming a cornice,” says Brian Phillips of Interface Studio Architects, a team member and a GRAY AREA founder. “Our goal is to leverage the building’s historic value to engage with and benefit the surrounding community. Instead of starting with the specifics of its history, we start with its more general context: social, physical, economic and environmental.” GRAY AREA was born in 2011 when, with the recession on and development pressure (temporarily) off, the time was right for the Pew Center for Arts & Heritage (PCAH) and DesignPhiladelphia to convene a small group to brainstorm about preservation in the modern city. Before long, these questions emerged: • How can Philadelphia best use its historic built environment as a catalyst for design invention, innovation and experimentation? • What is worth preserving – neighborhoods, landscapes, buildings, interiors, stories? • How can we create new ways of looking at old buildings? • How can we protect Philadelphia’s greatest asset, its unique urcontext | WI2013/14 | 12
ban character? • What are the connections among preservation, environmental sustainability, emerging technologies and economic development? We started referring to our musings, and the project that emerged from them, as “GRAY AREA” because they were just that – and because we thought the term emblematic of the realization that preservation at its best is nuanced, neither white nor black. The first phase of GRAY AREA, staffed by Hilary Jay, director of the Center for Architecture, Brian Phillips, and myself, comprised a standing-room-only panel of forward thinkers and a published catalog that reveals a wide range of ideas about preservation, everything from traditional restoration to bold contemporary infill in historic contexts to highly conceptual visualizations of historic settings. The next year, at the invitation of PCAH, GRAY AREA hosted more than 80 community and thought leaders at a facilitated dinner conversation. The discussion provided a rare and useful glimpse into how preservation is actually perceived and functioning from people in neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia. The attendees told us there is: • Interest in stabilization and temporary uses for derelict buildings
• Interest in “surgical” insertion of modern and sustainable design in historic contexts • Demand for community gathering spaces • Value in diverse architectural design in urban settings • Negative associations with the regulation of historic preservation in many communities • Need to democratize a quality built environment. The current GRAY AREA project is an attempt to synthesize all that we’ve learned so far and to grow the conversation among diverse audiences: neighbors and residents who live or work in proximity to the study sites, design and preservation professionals, academics and anyone with an interest in how a historic building stock can best coexist with a fast-changing city. We’ve completed work at our first study site, the Max Levy building in Germantown, near the Wayne Junction SEPTA Station and part of the new Wayne Junction National Register Historic District. GRAY AREA has now moved on to study Hawthorne Hall, a funky, 1895 commercial structure and neighborhood landmark on Lancaster Avenue straddling Powelton Village and Mantua. The Max Levy building, built in 1902, with multiple additions from 1912-1950, is a handsome Beaux Arts Classical building. It was
home for decades to the Max Levy Autograph Company, a pioneering maker of optical and photoengraving components. The company was awarded multiple patents, medals and awards for its technical innovations that included military and photographic processes. In 2008 – after much longer than many other Philadelphia manufacturers – Max Levy vacated its historic building, moving to Northeast Philadelphia, where it is still in business. Left behind was a vacant, 26,000-square-foot, disused industrial building, one of thousands in the city. Ken Weinstein of PhillyOfficeRetail, an active real estate developer in Northwest Philadelphia, acquired the building in 2012. GRAY AREA started its work in Germantown by sharing oral history interviews and research by team historian Patrick Grossi of Temple University that placed the building and its long-time occupant squarely within the context of Philadelphia as the “workshop of the world” and the emerging “city of homes.” At community meetings, Germantown residents expressed their hopes for the building and its surroundings and had no shortage of reuse ideas: a portable fish market, a small business incubator, a return to manufacturing, a hub for progressive education, a café or luncheonette, an adult gathering space, outlet shopping, an arts space, a farmers’ market, a proud gateway to Germantown.
context | WI2013/14 | 13
And their concerns? “That nothing will happen.” That redevelopment will happen “to the neighborhood, not with the neighborhood.” That gentrification will drive out residents and successive generations. That preserved buildings alone aren’t enough: “Its not just about making buildings better, but about people.” With those considerations in mind, the GRAY AREA team began developing a toolkit - still a work in progress – that we hope will provide communities with a mechanism for brainstorming about historic
These, in turn, break down into a wide range of fine-grained “tactics,” or specific actions, interventions and uses: for example, bike parking, constructed wetlands, exterior lighting, murals, signage, community kitchens, additions or subtractions to the building’s massing and more. GRAY AREA is planning to create a deck of cards, a user-friendly and accessible way in which to implement the system, and will test it at upcoming community meetings in West Philadelphia.
ABOVE: the Max Levy building could accommodate limited public circulation to provide access to a cleaned-and-greened adjacent lot or new uses on the roof. The building has dramatic views of the nearby railyards and neighborhood that suggest a roof garden, rooftop café or observation deck. The building is big enough to accommodate such access and uses while still retaining maximum leasable space for more traditional, revenue-producing uses. sites and evaluating actual development proposals. Led by Phillips and his associate, Alex Gauzza, GRAY AREA identified a set of broad “impacts,” the kinds of effects design interventions can produce. These include social interaction, revenue generation, environmental sustainability, civic engagement, cultural preservation and more. Once impacts are identified, categories of “strategies” come into play: greening, information, program, infrastructure and alteration. context | WI2013/14 | 14
In Germantown, GRAY AREA incorporated the system into a set of ideas for the Max Levy building and its surroundings that could begin to change perception from blight to asset. Our suggested tactics include turning the building into a welcoming beacon at the gateway between Germantown and adjacent Nicetown with signage and lighting at the building, nearby highway overpasses and at the Wayne Junction Station. They also include strengthening the visual connection between the historic and active rail corridor, the building and its
“The building itself is a bit player. Preservation of the structure means far less than engaging it with its context. And all this is much more than the developer alone can deliver, ever.”
users. That corridor was key to the development of the area and can be again. The building itself could accommodate limited public circulation to provide access to new uses on the roof, which provides dramatic views of the nearby railyards and neighborhood that suggest a roof garden, rooftop café or observation deck, or to a cleaned-and-greened adjacent lot. The building is big enough to accommodate such access and uses while still retaining maximum leasable space for more traditional, revenue-producing uses. “The idea for the building,” says team member Aaron Goldblatt, an exhibit designer at Metcalfe Architecture & Design, “is simply to highlight it. Clean it, light it, have it show pride in its place in community history and the physical landscape. “The building itself,” he adds, “is a bit player. Preservation of the structure means far less than engaging it with its context. And all this is much more than the developer alone can deliver, ever.” So the questions now become: What should be next steps to maintain interest in this building and its surroundings? What is the role going forward for neighborhood groups, CDCs, SEPTA, the city, the owner/developer? GRAY AREA continues to both pose and encounter challenging questions like these. Dialogue with the public, and particularly with the architectural and design community, is at the heart of suggesting answers. One way to participate is to join GRAY AREA at its community meetings and at “Preservation Provocateurs,” our free speaker series that brings forward thinkers on historic preservation to Philadelphia, discussing challenging preservation theory and practice beyond our own city limits. (Watch for registration information.) Our next Preservation Provocateur is Cara Bertron, director of the Rightsizing Cities Initiative at PlaceEconomics, a Washington, DC consulting firm, speaking on “Right Size, Right Place: A New Role for Preservation” at 6 p.m. Wednesday, February 12, 2014 at the University of the Arts. Even though Philadelphia’s population decline has halted, it and other older industrial cities have lost significant population over the past 50 years. Bertron, a graduate of Penn’s preservation program, will discuss rightsizing – adapting the physical city for current and expected populations – and how preservation strategies can help shape and strengthen legacy cities
On May 6, GRAY AREA will welcome Rick Lowe, a Houston, Texasbased artist, community activist and founder of Project Row Houses, who will speak on “Art Making and the Future of Preservation” at 6 p.m. at the African-American Museum in Philadelphia. Houston’s definition of a “row house” is different from ours in Philly, referring to small, freestanding “shotgun-style” houses. Since 1993, Project Row Houses, an arts and cultural community located in Houston’s 3rd Ward, a historically significant and culturally charged neighborhood, has grown its campus to 40 properties including artist exhibition and/or residency spaces, houses for young mothers, artist residencies, office spaces, a community gallery, a park, low-income residential and commercial spaces. Lowe will discuss how Project Row Houses has incorporated the preservation of its distinctive buildings and the character of the historic neighborhood into its communitybuilding work. You can also stay engaged with GRAY AREA online. Our website, www.GrayAreaPhilly.org is a repository for our findings, news coverage, a blog (with comments), project background, events and much more. We’re also on Facebook (facebook.com/GrayAreaPhilly) and Twitter (@GrayAreaPhilly) GRAY AREA is a unique opportunity to encourage provocative, new ways of thinking about older buildings in Philadelphia and beyond. The more voices, the more points of view, the more meaningful our work will be. One thing, though, is made clear: historic preservation will always reflect an inherent tension between preserving the past and embracing the future. Neither black nor white, preservation is a gray area. GRAY AREA is a project of the University of the Arts and DesignPhiladelphia and is supported by the Pew Center for Arts & Heritage. Elise Vider is the project director and a founder of GRAY AREA. She holds a master’s in historic preservation from the University of Pennsylvania and has been involved with preservation in the region for many years, both professionally and through her civic commitments, including as a founding member of the Design Advocacy Group (DAG). She is also an award-winning journalist with a focus on the built environment and economic development; Elise Vider Editorial Services (elisevider.com) provides writing, editing and project management to publications and nonprofit organizations. context | WI2013/14 | 15
FINDING THE FUTURE By Randy Mason
Historic preservation has long been established in Philadelphia and has contributed a great deal to the city we’ve inherited. Traditional preservation of monumental buildings, greatly significant historic sites, and districts of distinctive houses has advanced the cause and character of the city immensely. One cannot imagine Philadelphia without its robust record of preservation. But preservation has met some difficult challenges of late, and Philadelphia is one city where the need to reimagine and reinvigorate the practice of preservation is evident. These days, historic preservation in Philadelphia faces a raft of specific challenges. We lack a citywide survey of historic buildings and places. Landmarks and neighborhoods of great character remain threatened (sometimes even after being listed). Political support for preservation is uncertain. The Historical Commission remains underresourced. A glut of public assets (schools, churches, underutilized and vacant buildings) urgently need protection, repair and repurposing, and so on. The depth of these problems will worsen (absent a dramatic shift of political winds), the scope of preservation chalcontext | WI2013/14 | 16
lenges is also likely to grow, and preservationists will face new types of heritage: alternative kinds of sites, and alternative histories. To meet these challenges, the preservation field, across the country and the world, is exploring new riffs on traditional preservation. The rules of old - buildings as the pre-eminent type of heritage resource; architectural values assumed to be pre-eminent; listings a one-size-fits-all yes or no - need revision. Real innovation is beginning to change preservation thinking. For instance: the concept of “cultural landscape� as object of preservation think-
PHOTOS COURTESY RANDY MASON
IN NO MAN’S LAND ing (a concept wonderfully encompassing as an intellectual notion but elusive as a basis for public policy); “creative placemaking,” integrating small-scale preservation, public art, community development, and urban design moves aimed at raising levels of economic development and urban vitality; engagement with “dark histories” and other narratives; and welcoming new design and development that amplifies the value of historic buildings and urbanism. These ideas are being pursued by an evolving mix of organizations across public, private and NGO sectors. Historic preservation is a resilient, progressive field – yet in some ways it remains deeply conservative. Preservationists have the reputation of opposing change, yet the preservation field itself has changed quite dramatically. Given these internal conflicts, how will the practice of historic preservation in Philadelphia adapt, evolve, struggle and transform? The future of preservation in Philadelphia will likely bring more and different kinds of heritage and heritage sites, more and different means of preservation, and more and different partners involved in the preservation. Preservation institutions will continue to care curatorially for our great buildings, and extend their reach by using preservation as a means to pursue greater social impact, economic development, and environmental sustainability. Next-generation preservation will think beyond current issues, concepts, positions, and players. This future is already being explored, for instance, by new ways of looking at and designing familiar heritage places (the Pew Center for Arts and Heritage-supported GRAY AREA programs), creative programming of heritage sites (Cliveden, Hidden City Philadelphia, Eastern State Penitentiary), and finding heritage in unlikely places and forms such as the Northeast Rail Corridor. With students and colleagues at PennDesign, I’ve been
ABOVE: multiple views of the Northeast Rail Corridor, an example of where heritage can be found in an unlikely place.
looking at this particular part of the Philadelphia landscape to speculate and explore what future preservation might be able to achieve in the face of these manifest challenges and uncertainties. In the middle of the map of Philadelphia - not the City Hall middle, but the broad sweep of North Philly - a diagonal line stands out (in views from above) distinct from the grids, the rivers, and the vast green-ness of Fairmount Park. This old rail corridor - once the Pennsylvania Railroad’s Connecting Railway, now the Northeast Corridor shared by Amtrak and SEPTA - arcs from Strawberry Mansion across to Frankford. The rail corridor was once the organizing thread of vibrant industries and communities surrounding it. Today it has a dual life as a busy passenger rail line and a no man’s land. It is a vexing place, a forbidding zone of active rail traffic (all passenger now), fallow land, abandoned buildings, and neighborhood edges. The city backs up to it. It is a leftover landscape, the opposite of a destination. In preservation terms, the significance of this sprawling landscape represents “Workshop of the World” Philadelphia in its glory of myriad enterprises and densely packed rowhouse neighborhoods. In social terms, it is a no-go zone - once an attractor of activities and livelihoods, now a “sink” (as Grady Clay would’ve called it) of overgrown weed trees, junk heaps, tattered buildings, and the fabric of more-or-less struggling neighborhoods. You may know it from the train window, from living near it, from driving over or around it, but it’s not inhabited in any traditional sense. Here are some facts: The Connecting Railroad, known today as the Northeast Rail Corridor (NEC), was opened in 1867. The 6.75mile route the joined the mighty Pennsylvania Railroad’s east-west Main Line to New York-bound freight and passenger line, a connection of strategic importance that stimulated new development context | WI2013/14 | 17
fueling Philadelphia’s industrial heyday. Construction of the line sparked new industrial and commercial enterprises feeding off the access (rail spurs reached right in to factories and yards) and new real-estate development of neighborhoods to house. Historic maps show the detailed evolution of the landscape forming around the network of rail corridors. The corridor ranges from a few dozen to a few hundred meters wide, and is today defined visually by the trace of the rail lines, rights-of-way, catenaries and masts. Factories, rail spurs, other infrastructure, reveal the connectivity, density and grain of the late19th century neighborhoods. Industrial complexes are mostly gone or empty, and jobs with them. Communities have been left with concentrated poverty and few resources for self-improvement. The historic landscape, in other words, has partially disappeared already. The bones remain, if not much of the flesh, but the livelihoods associated with the Connecting Railroad have disappeared altogether. Thousands use the rail corridor daily, traveling to and from New York, Trenton, and points between yet it is otherwise abandoned.
context | WI2013/14 | 18
Notable exceptions to the abandonment include the remarkable Glenwood Green Acres community garden and the North Philadelphia Rail Station. An aesthetic of decay and loss pervades the place. In cultural terms, the Northeast Corridor shares some qualities with other no man’s lands – the trenches of WWI, the Korean DMZ, the ruined zones around Chernobyl – a kind of culturally significant mistake or regret marked by the dogged resilience of some of social and material fragments of the place’s past lives. Whether the product of war, violence, or economic and social transformation, these places are a type common to many cities, overlooked and undervalued spaces that demand understanding for their cultural significance if not for their celebrated status and attractiveness. How could historic preservation respond to such a large and heterogeneous swath of urban landscape? To such a vast restructuring/ unbuilding? Is the NEC too big and too far gone to even contemplate a preservation-centered response? The future relevance of preservation writ large will be advanced, and see new ideas sparked, by embracing new kinds of sites, projects, and institutions.
University of Pennsylvania graduate students took part in a 24-hour ideas competition and focused on ideas for the Northeast Rail Corridor. Ideas included using tall balloon beacons (ABOVE) or light displays (OPPOSITE PAGE) to make the corridor visible from all around Philadelphia. What’s so interesting and significant about the NEC? A geography professor of mine, Peirce Lewis, was fond of saying, “there’s no such thing as an uninteresting landscape,” and he meant overlooked and uncharismatic places like semi-abandoned rail corridors. There is a lot to learn from them if only one takes the time to read them. In every city, there are left-behind, neglected, invisible-inplain-sight territories that are essential to understanding the evolution of the city. For historic preservation this means exploring new ways to make the cultural significance of buildings and landscape relevant and useful for contemporary society. Certainly there is value in the corridor’s raw territory for its ecological, infrastructural and potential economic uses. After understanding how this landscape came to be historically, the next question we might ask is, “how do we connect the experience from the train to the experience of the Corridor from the ground?” The irony is that thousands of riders experience the landscape only through passing glances out the window, while North Philadelphia residents experience this same territory mostly as a barrier, an absence, an intimidating no man’s land. How can we create some connection of understanding across such a cultural barrier? Referring to such places collectively as no man’s land poses the design and public-history challenge of interpreting them, and raising awareness and appreciation, and provokes us to think creatively about future re-use and redevelopment. With grant support from the Pew Center for Arts & Heritage, I began researching and thinking about the function of no man’s lands and how they might yield cultural, ecological and social benefits in their current state. A 2012 PennDesign Preservation Studio project built a deeper understanding of the significance of the Connecting Railroad land-
scape in shaping North Philadelphia and fueling its economy. The boom of post-Civil War Philadelphia is so clearly visible in the evolution of this world of work and home. Historic preservation graduate students created proposals for infill development, the creation of a trail in the right-of-way, for interpretation (including a video to be viewed from the train), and landscape design that recovers traces of lost infrastructure harkening to the lost connectivity. A year later, another, diverse group of Penn grad students took on a 24-hour ideas competition aimed at interpreting inaccessible urban landscapes by combining art, design, and the humanities. Part of PennDesign’s IDEA Days festival, a couple dozen students from landscape architecture, city planning, architecture, and historic preservation departments for 24 hours on ideas to build awareness of the complexities, legacies and opportunities of the NEC. Currently, Penn’s landscape architecture studios are designing an amazing range of urban interventions to repair and redevelop the NEC landscape as a future core of Philadelphia development. Our ideas have been all over the map, in a good way. They range from building new structures in the right-of-way to programming underutilized spaces with socially-driven and community-supportive uses to interpreting the history and presence of the no man’s land creatively. Ideas include using tall balloon beacons or light displays to make the corridor visible from all around the city, creating an activeuse trail connecting the corridor and its wayside communities to other parts of the city, cultivating or reshaping fallow land to increase ecological performance resilience, and, of course, adaptive reuse of existing historic structures to advance architectural preservation, economic development, community development and environmental stewardship goals. They all emerge from the notion that the NEC should be regarded as a landscape worthy of preservation “in the public interest,” and illustrate the notion that historic preservation doesn’t have to be pursued as an end in itself, but rather a means of achieving other social ends (like dealing with gentrification, environmental well-being and public health, and creating public spaces for art or play). These thought experiments are the first step toward reimagining preservation practices. Who will champion or implement such an ambitious raft of proposals? Existing institutions don’t fully align with this sort of preservation-conservation-development-recovery strategy - nor do they express much interest in no man’s lands – though adventurous ideas like Pennsylvania Horticulture Society’s Civic Landscapes of the 21st Century can be regarded as an important step in this direction. New institutions, partnerships and enterprises will have to be invented. Randy Mason teaches in the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation at the University of Pennsylvania and is Associate Professor in the Department of City & Regional Planning. The 2012 Preservation Studio project on the Northeast Rail Corridor was the work of five PennDesign graduate students in historic preservation: Michele Craren, Kasey Desirens, Ellis Mumford, Brett Sturm, and Sarah van Landingham. context | WI2013/14 | 19
SAVING JOE FRAZIER’S NORTH
PHOTOS COURTESY TONY FISCHER/TONY FISCHER PHOTOGRAPHY VIA CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE
context | WI2013/14 | 20
PHILADELPHIA GYM By Dennis Playdon
“Time may well erode that long morning of drama in Manila, but for anyone who was there those faces will return again and again to evoke what it was like when two of the greatest heavyweights of any era met for a third time, and left millions limp around the world. Muhammad Ali caught the way it was: ‘It was like death. Closest thing to dyin’ that I know of.’” - Mark Kram, Sports Illustrated, October 13, 1975. Thought of as the greatest fight ever in the Golden Age of Boxing, the “Thrilla in Manila” underscored both Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier as giants in the world of sport. The last of a trilogy of fights between the two depleted them both so much that Frazier ended up in the hospital, 15 pounds lighter than before the fight. Smokin’ Joe was finally downed by George Foreman in 1976 in a return match and retired that year. Frazier’s stature did not however only arise from his magnificent boxing career. He was a giant in his community, readily helping those who asked for it. He opened his gym to those who wanted training, often supporting parents whose young sons needed protection from the streets. The gym became a mecca for ambitious young fighters and many went forward to prominence from their Frazier Gym training, including Frazier’s son Marvis, who later remained as a trainer. Frazier’s primary stipulation to trainees however was adherence to rules of behavior and self-discipline: the code of conduct was pinned to the wall. He helped businessmen and families alike, defined what it was to be upright and “a man.” Frazier was born in Beaufort, SC, in 1944 and shortly after winning a gold medal in
the 1964 Olympics he moved to Philadelphia to make the city his home for the rest of his life. His training for his important fights occurred in the North Broad Street gym. As his fame grew people from all over the world flocked to the gym. Among his greatest fans was Burt Lancaster, a frequent visitor. Other celebrities to visit were Norman Mailer, Reggie Jackson, Harry Connick Jr., and others too many to list. In 1990, when Nelson Mandela visited the United Nations in New York to deliver his first speech there after gaining his freedom, he requested that he meet Ali and Frazier. In a gesture that reflected Joe Frazier’s admiration for Mandela, he presented the South African leader with his most prized possession: his World Boxing Council heavyweight championship belt, won by defeating Ali in 1971. The building that housed Joe Frazier’s gym is located opposite the 1896 North Philadelphia Station that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992. The gym was initially set up by the Cloverlay group in 1969, and in 1975 was acquired by Frazier with proceeds from the Manila fight. The façade was altered to contain the stucco “stone” relief that reads “Joe Frazier’s Gym” flanked by two sets of boxing gloves. The context | WI2013/14 | 21
gym occupies the front three-story portion of the original industrial structure. In later years, Frazier lived in the rear portion. The earliest records indicate that it was originally a “Blind, Door and Sash” factory, serviced from flanking railroad sidings. Various changes over the years added a brick veneer to the front, plaster patches over upper windows. In readying the front portion to house the gym, the Coverlay group introduced steel bracing to the structure. The rear interior portion remains an untouched example of nineteenth century industrial building. The gym’s North Philadelphia neighborhood lies directly on axis with City Hall and about three miles away. Broad Street is home to an array of significant African American institutions, including the Uptown Theater and the legendary Blue Horizon boxing center, where Frazier initially trained in Philadelphia. The area was once a sporting center for Philadelphia. From 1887 to 1938 the Phillies played at the nearby Baker Bowl at Broad and Lehigh. “For all that has disappeared, though, the intersection of Broad Street and Glenwood Avenue is still a busy one. As Simmons and Hughes spoke (two local Residents) Wednesday morning, dozens of workers en route to Temple Hospital or the nearby Social Security Administration facility scurried past. Above the hum of Broad Street’s morning traffic, a SEPTA train rumbled across a bridge that cast
context | WI2013/14 | 22
morning shadows on the former boxing gym below. But litter, the frequent wail of police sirens, and the decaying ghosts of factories infuse the neighborhood with an aura of hopelessness. Frazier, the old men said, provided some pride for a neighborhood badly in need of some.” - Frank Fitzpatrick, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, May 3, 2013. In 2011, a group of in the newly established Historic Preservation degree program in Temple University’s Department of Architecture discovered that the famous gym was for sale. Alarmed that the building would be lost, the class set out to bring this to public attention. Responding to a general invitation by the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia for nominations of endangered structures, the class submitted the former Joe Frazier’s Gym to be considered one of the alliance’s nine most-endangered Philadelphia sites for 2011. While the nomination was being prepared the building was sold for back taxes to an investor who leased it to a furniture store. In November 2011, Frazier died. The nomination succeeded and this was the first step to saving the gym. As a close correspondent with the Preservation Alliance, the National Trust for Historic Preservation took notice of the gym’s recognition, immediately setting up a three way partnership between Temple’s Department of Architecture, the alliance, and itself with the
Our combined efforts gained momentum with the national “endangered” listing. The National Trust proposed a national listing for the gym and in the process successfully nominated the site to a National Treasure listing. Temple preservation students also began to write a nomination for a local Philadelphia Historic Commission listing. Along with these efforts in the more established arena of preservation, Temple students began a more experimental strategy. With a grant from the National Trust, matched by Temple University, they set out to construct a digital model of the gym with the aim of virtually preserving the structure as a working gym. The planned outcome of this model is an interactive website that will allow a visitor to enter the gym, move around and see it as it was. It also would encourage connections with news reports, sports writings, film records, photographic archives, movies and perhaps most importantly, oral histories from those who knew Joe Frazier. Because this is a relatively new method of documenting a site, the students are working with few precedents, crafting a model that not only ABOVE: Frazier’s famous knockdown of Ali during their 1975 fight in illustrates the physical nature of the structure, but also building its Manilla. OPPOSITE PAGE: a community pillar, Frazier’s gym was open human content. to all who wanted training, and he often worked with parents whose This past year saw final efforts to list the gym at national and sons needed protection from the streets. local levels. In April, the trust announced the successful nomination to the National Register prepared pro bono by The Heritage Consultobjective of saving the gym. The partnership advanced the project ing Group. This status created the potential for an owner to utilize wherever it could, and attempted to find a sympathetic buyer who historic tax credits to rehabilitate the building. As the trust noted, might engage in the gym’s preservation. The National Trust’s first the nomination is one of the nation’s first National Register listings step was to hold a press conference in Temple’s new Architecture associated with a person from the 1970s. In June, The Preservation building, to which some people in Joe Frazier’s life were invited. Alliance for Greater Philadelphia announced that their nomination The publicity surrounding the announcement that day that the gym submitted to the Philadelphia Historic Commission was successful. would be placed on the National Trust’s “11 most endangered” listUnder Philadelphia law, the success of the local listing will preserve ing for 2012, gave immediate national recognition to the forgotten the structure on its exterior, so that it may not be changed in the gym. While the trust’s designation carried with it no legal protection, future. the listing reminded the nation that Joe Frazier’s legacy was alive. Each phase of the process of saving Joe Frazier’s Gym was reIt is significant that the laws that define preservation in the ported in national and local newspapers, television and radio. It has United States give protection to its National Historic Monuments but touched local residents. not to the thousands of structures and sites on its National Historic “‘I was so happy to read that news in the paper’” said Lamont Register. Also significant and unusual is the fact that the National Hughes, 71, as he stood in line at an adjacent convenience store. Trust for Historic Preservation is a non-profit organization within the “‘So many things in North Philly are going away. I’m glad they’re National Park Service. The trust is the primary caretaker and advogoing to save Joe’s place. He would have wanted that.’” - Frank cate for historic properties and has huge influence in the country Fitzpatrick, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, May 3, 2013. regarding the preservation of cultural heritage. Private organizations Here then, is the success of the system that preserves and makes such as the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia are also visible sites of cultural importance. non-profit bodies pledged at this local level to preserve Philadelphia’s heritage. The partnership between national and local preservation Dennis Playdon is Adjunct Professor at Tyler Architecture, organizations greatly strengthens the effort. Temple University. He leads its new Historic Preservation program. context | WI2013/14 | 23
ABOVE: Geng Yengo, Datong’s mayor, was quoted as being fed up with a neighboring city attracting all of the tourists with their intact walls and notable historic buildngs. One city spokesman even declared “cultural resources” were “renewable resources.”
Renewable History Photographs and text by Mark L. Brack, Ph.D.
ABOVE: detail of a new “old” wall reconstruction. context | WI2013/14 | 24
This past September, the Westphal College of Media Arts and Design at Drexel University sent four of its professors of art and architectural history to present lectures at the Central Academy of Fine Arts in Beijing. Two of my colleagues decided to extend our trip by taking a sixhour train ride to Datong, a city of nearly 3 million in the northern part of Shanxi province. Aside from the nearby Yungang Buddhist Grottoes (dating back to the 5th Century AD) and the Yingxiam Pagoda (1056 AD, the world’s tallest traditional wooden building), we were amazed to find a number of “historic” projects under construction. The magnificent and massive 14th century Ming Dynasty city walls were being rebuilt, complete with moats and elaborate wooden towers above the gates. Sixty feet wide at the base, and forty feet tall, the effect was convincing, at least when one doesn’t glimpse their internal concrete frame.
expression
EX
ABOVE: Huayan Si with new Ming walls in the distance.
Within the old city, one of its greatest surviving temples, Huayan Si, has been extensively restored but also expanded. Tourist literature made no attempt to distinguish the two, but I think only an expert would have been able to tell the difference. From the top of the temple’s pagoda, extensive changes to the old city were apparent. A traditional neighborhood, a hutong, was in the process of demolition, as they are throughout China. They are being replaced by enormous tower blocks to house those displaced by redevelopment and the masses of new migrants to the cities.
context | WI2013/14 | 25
ABOVE: demolition of historic neighborhoods with new apartment blocks in the distance.
The new concrete housing towers feature indoor plumbing, heating and cooling systems lacking in the old hutong, still it was a shock to see a city so concerned with bringing back the past actively taking down an old neighborhood. Even more surprising were the newly built “hutong”; historicist but more elaborate and spacious, repurposed toward commercial and tourist markets. The projects in Datong demonstrate how remarkably contrary (or even schizophrenic) recent Chinese history has been. Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution stigmatized practically anything old and led to the wholesale destruction of historic fabric. Now some of the leadership in the Communist Party see nothing problematic in the creation of new historic cityscapes. What is happening in China is not without precedent in the Western world, expert replicas of monuments lost in world wars have been built throughout Europe adjacent to skyscrapers and highways. As a species, humans are remarkable for their dynamism and adaptability. But we are also the only animals capable of collective historic memory. Perhaps inevitably, any great cultural or environmental transformation will elicit nostalgia within us for what came before cityscapes. The author would like to thank his travel companions for their insight and good humor: professor Pia Brancaccio, professor Charles Morscheck and Peggy Morscheck. Mark Brack, Ph.D., is a professor of Architecture History at the Westphal College of Media Arts & Design at Drexel University. context | WI2013/14 | 26
ABOVE: a new traditional shopping district. LEFT: new Buddha hall and plaza built at the Yingxian Pagoda.
context | WI2013/14 | 27
DP
design profile
DIGSAU:
Sister Cities Park The Carnegie Library at Manayunk Hills
Bello Architects
When the historic Carnegie Library, Manayunk Branch was built in 1908, the elegance of the structure commanded attention. Dramatically sited at the top of a steep grade, the building faces south, overlooking Manayunk. Originally designed by Philadelphia architect Benjamin Rush Stevens in the Beaux Arts style, the building is a symmetrical T-plan balance of brick and terracotta ornamental trim. The property was one of the original libraries endowed by steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie but was eliminated from the library system in 1984. It was used as a home for the elderly until 2000, then remained empty for more than 10 years, disrespected and poorly maintained. It was subsequently slated for demolition but such action was challenged by neighborhood council and a compromise for residential use was proposed by The Philadelphia Zoning Board in
2006. Planning began in 2009 and with the help of Bello Architects the restoration was completed in 2013. According to the firm’s president, Tom Bello, “We were able to give new life to this amazing building that had been something to see in its prime. We tried to maintain the appearance of the building and keep it as much intact as possible.’ The scope of the project consisted of complete exterior restoration and creation of seven apartments: three one-story flats in the rear and four bi-level apartments in the front. Creating seven new living units within the existing building footprint without changing the facade was a major challenge. All existing window and door locations had to remain with no additional penetrations allowed. Consequently, all units had to be designed within this parameter. Working within the existing structure of the building, large open living spaces were achieved. Additional spaces were tucked under the roofline creating a loft area accessed by a spiral stair. New large windows within the existing opening allow the flow of natural light into the living areas
context | WI2013/14 | 29
context | WI2013/14 | 30
and bedrooms. Again, working within the confines of the existing footprint, the heavy timber girder trusses, large tie rods and floor framing original to the building had to remain. “Our challenge,” says Bello “was to create inviting living spaces within the building using open plans and changes in ceiling height and lighting.” Exterior restoration included repairing the existing brick and terracotta and recreating damaged or missing moulding and trim to match the original. A new window design, reminiscent of the original windows, worked with the new plans as well. The side and rear area of the building, removed and damaged during the poorly executed 1980s renovation for the senior center, was restored to the original design. The dentil trim, double chim-
neys, rafter tails and keystones were repaired and replaced to match the trim and details remaining from the original building. Due to the existing roof design the central flat roof area allowed for a master bedroom suite to be tucked into this area, with full bathroom, his and hers closets and a private roof deck. The roof deck, concealed from view from the street by the existing front cornice, allowed for two private roof decks with amazing views of the Philadelphia skyline for residents. Currently, the building is being marketed as Manayunk Hills by Philadelphia Residential Development Corporation and features seven upscale apartments. It is fully occupied and the community continues to enjoy the historic beauty that was once a magnificent Carnegie library.
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA CLIENT: Philadelphia Residential Development Corporation ARCHITECTURE: Bello Architects, P.C.; Thomas Bello, AIA, president; Michael G. Labetti, Assoc. AIA, senior project manager GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Philadelphia Residential Development Corporation STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Mulhern & Kulp Structural Engineering GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Bittenbender Construction PHOTOGRAPHY: B. Graham Jr. Photography context | WI2013/14 | 31
DP
design profile
Allentown Art Museum Renovation and Expansion
VSBA, LLC
The Allentown Art Museum, a vibrant regional center for the visual arts, is home to collections and special exhibitions of impressive variety and quality.
context | WI2013/14 | 32
It’s located on a downtown block adjacent to the Baum Art School and overlooks the Allentown Arts Park, a focus of the city’s Art District. Housed since 1959 in a former church with a stately neoclassical facade, the museum was significantly expanded and reorganized in 1975. This addition placed the museum entrance within a landscaped setback, abandoning the portico entrance. Above, the addition was windowless. The overall effect did little to celebrate the urban vitality of the museum. After assisting in program development,
VSBA was charged with renovating existing galleries and adding much needed space for new galleries, education facilities, and collection storage, as well as new visitor amenities including a café, museum shop, and reception lobby. Of particular importance was strengthening the museum’s civic identity and engagement with the surrounding community, especially in light of the recently completed Arts Park across the street. VSBA’s three-story addition fills the setback in front of the 1975 wing and returns the entry to the portico. A new metal, glass,
and stone façade connects and contrasts with the neoclassical building - echoing its palette, civic scale, and the rhythm of its columns. Large windows provide broad views to and from the Arts Park. Vertical accents in the metal columns enliven the façade, picking up the color of the brick used in the Baum School of Art and Arts Park. The addition’s canted end inflects towards the Baum School of Art and welcomes visitors approaching by car or on foot. It overlooks the site of a future sculpture garden and guides visitors arriving from the parking area behind the garden. Large carved letters announce the institution and give interest to the granite base. At night, LEDs provide festive highlighting of the metal columns. Although small, VSBA’s addition greatly enhances the museum’s civic presence, providing a suitable backdrop to the Arts Park while returning prominence to the original neoclassical façade. The new main entrance at the portico includes an accessible ramp carefully integrated with the portico stairs. From the portico, visitors pass through an original church entry to the new reception lobby, museum shop, and café. The expanded shop carries a wide array of merchandise, and the café - overlooking the sculpture garden - has become a popular lunch venue. Both are accessible without paying for admission to the museum. The upper floor houses a new sculpture gallery filled with natural light and a fully equipped art classroom; the lower level extends collections storage areas. An addition to the rear, infilling an existing terrace, provides new gal-
leries above an expanded loading dock with leveler. Existing galleries were completely renovated with new finishes and building systems; interior finishes were stripped and new insulation and spray vapor barrier systems were added to the exterior walls and roofs to maintain proper environmental conditions. Throughout the 1975 building, horizontal and vertical circulation was clarified and made universally accessible, and new wayfinding and donor signage was incorporated. LOCATION: Allentown, PA CLIENT: Allentown Art Museum ARCHITECTURE: VSBA, LLC STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Keast & Hood Co. MEP ENGINEER: Marvin Waxman Consulting Engineers CIVIL ENGINEER: Barry Isett & Associates LIGHTING CONSULTANT: Grenald Waldron Associates SECURITY CONSULTANT: Steve Keller & Associates LIFE SAFETY CODE CONSULTANTS: Hughes Associates GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: ARM Group, Inc. GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Alvin H. Butz PHOTOGRAPHY: Matt Wargo
context | WI2013/14 | 33
DP
design profile
The Hamilton Family Children’s Zoo and Faris Family Education Center
SMP Architects
The Hamilton Family Children’s Zoo and Faris Family Education Center, also known as KidZooU, is the keystone project in the ongoing transformation of the Philadelphia Zoo’s historic campus. The renovation of the former pachyderm exhibits provides a new home and expanded program for the much-loved children’s zoo. The focal point of the project is the new Education Center, housed in a environmentally responsive adaptive reuse of the historic Pachyderm House, a Paul Cret design from 1938. SMP Architects collaborated with a multidisciplinary team of consultants that included ecological site designers, interpretive designers, Zoo staff educators, and animal exhibits specialists. A fundamental goal of the project is restoration of the historic building. The exterior’s context | WI2013/14 | 34
Wissahickon schist and Vermont slate were found to be in relatively good condition and were repaired or replaced, where necessary. Original window profiles, lost to single pane replacement units, were recreated based on historic photos and onsite investigation of the one remaining original window, hidden in an upper tower crawlspace. Historic paint colors of khaki and burnt orange, long covered by brown aluminum and faded red paint, were rediscovered and now provide a bright contrast to the stone and slate. Heavy timber animal doors, including the iconic elephant door, as well as window shutters and
decorative medallions, were also restored or reconstructed. Two small additions, a stair tower and enclosed ramp (with green roof), provide code compliant access to the off-exhibit teaching animal collection and to staff offices in the former hayloft. Other major work involves energy efficiency upgrades through spray insulation on the interior of the building envelope and a new ground-coupled/geothermal heat pump system. The fixed replacement skylights, facing west and south, originally captured heat to support a hot humid interior, which was ideal for large African animals, but not appropriate for the new education center program. In lieu of skylights, new operable dormers now flood the interior with appropriately controlled daylight and are linked to the HVAC system for fresh air intake.
The interior renovation celebrates the original steel roof structure while creating a meandering path through a series of small animal exhibits and education spaces within the former pachyderm stalls. Two new flexible classroom structures moderate the ‘elephant-scale’ of the space by creating ‘kid-scale’ learning zones in each wing of the building. For landscape and site design, SMP worked with Viridian Landscape Studio and Meliora Environmental Design to transform the existing sloped and heavily divided animal yards into a fully accessible series of pathways and plazas that connect the Education Center to other areas of the children’s zoo. Formerly a backdrop to the pachyderm yards and experienced only from the Zoo’s main path, the historic building now welcomes visitors to enter directly through the same doors that large animals passed for nearly 75 years. Sustainability Plaza, a gathering area at the Center’s north wing marks the location of the underground cistern that stores harvested rainwater for reuse in toilet flushing.
The Center’s south wing leads to a new vegetated roof stables complex for rare domestic breed animals where children and families interact with chickens, mini-horses and the main animal attraction – goats. Goats enjoy the freedom to move from one end of the site to the other, including up through a 25 foot tall climb structure and over a glulam bridge that spans the pedestrian path at the main entrance. The site design invites visitors to pass through a series of salvaged boulder and historic stone retaining walls where lushly planted native landscapes manage stormwater in raingardens, infiltration beds, and weeping stone walls. Throughout the project, the Zoo’s interactive exhibits and education programs link animal conservation with environmental stewardship. Wherever possible, connections are made with the green design strategies to show kids and families how every day actions can help to save our environment – and save animals. By adaptively reusing the Pachyderm House, the Zoo has also demonstrated the cultural importance of preserving Philadelphia’s historic architecture.
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA CLIENT: Zoological Society of Philadelphia ARCHITECTURE: SMP Architects LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE: Viridian Landscape Studio SITE ENGINEER: Meliora Environmental Design MECHANICAL ENGINEER: Bruce E. Brooks and Associates ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: Arora Engineers STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: CVM Engineers LIGHTING DESIGN: David Nelson & Associates GRAPHICS, INTERIOR EXHIBITS, AND PLAY AREA: Cambridge Seven Associates INTERIOR ANIMAL EXHIBITS: Work As Play GENERAL CONTRACTOR: W.S. Cumby EXHIBITS CONTRACTOR: Maltbie PHOTOGRAPHY: Carina Romano for SMP Architects context | WI2013/14 | 35
DP
design profile
Community Legal Services
Atkin Olshin Schade Architects
Community Legal Services is a non-profit law firm whose mission is to help low-income Philadelphia residents obtain equal access to justice by providing them with advice and representation in civil legal matters. Community Legal Services has had a presence in North Philadelphia near the intersection of Broad Street and Erie Avenue since the 1970s. This busy intersection is a transit hub and allows easy access for their clients. As the CLS team grew and their existing space continued to require more costly repairs, they looked for new rental space. A context | WI2013/14 | 36
lack of quality space in the neighborhood led them to purchase land and build a new structure. The site, just west of Broad Street, is located between two existing buildings and originally consisted of six separate parcels that had been cleared by the city’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. The original programming and concept design were done
with the Community Design Collaborative. CLS’ caseload reflects the demand for their services in North Philadelphia; in 2011 the office served over 7,000 people and responded to 4,000 new civil legal cases. The program required a three-story office building with individual offices for 45 people, a large waiting area, a community meeting room, a conference room, library, lunch room, and file storage. A major design goal was to create a welcoming facility that was fully accessible and provided a higher level of service for their clients. The new building’s qualities of light,
space and openness provide an enjoyable work environment for the attorneys and their clients. A patterned glass window wall on the front facade provides both transparency and privacy. The efficient U-shaped plan allows daylight and fresh air to all occupied areas of the 20,000-square-foot building. A central courtyard garden provides a formal organizing element as well as a peaceful and secure space for waiting clients. To optimize energy performance, the design employs an HVAC system that includes a dedicated outdoor air unit with heat recovery and highly efficient heat pumps, sophisticated lighting controls, and a high-performance building envelope clad with terra cotta and fiber cement rainscreen panels. The majority of the roof is an extensive green roof and is insulated to R-50. All south, east, and west facing windows have exterior sun-shading devices to minimize solar gain. The staff of CLS had several requests for the new space that were incorporated into
LOCATION: Philadelphia, PA CLIENT: Community Legal Services ARCHITECTURE: Atkin Olshin Schade Architects OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE: Innova CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: Clemens Construction Co. CIVIL ENGINEER: Hunt Engineering STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Keast & Hood the design: all of the offices have operable windows; the client waiting rooms is open and airy, and looks out to the planted courtyard; the large conference room faces the street and is available for public meetings; the stairs are well lit and finished to encourage their use in lieu of the elevator; and a shower is provided along with bike storage. The project was funded through private donations, State of Pennsylvania Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program, New Market Tax Credits, and the City of Philadelphia.
Company MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: In Posse BUILDING ENVELOPE: Edwards & Company ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT: Metropolitan Acoustics SPECIFICATIONS: Wilson Consulting COMMISSIONING: Brooks + Wright PHOTOGRAPHY: Halkin Mason Photography context | WI2013/14 | 37
Career Center
Structural Engineers
Building up
Grow your business.
With nearly 4,000 design-related résumés, AIA Career Center is the best source for highly qualified candidates. Post jobs
Analysis & Design :: Evaluation of Existing Structures Historic Preservation :: Due Diligence Studies Facade Investigations :: Expert Testimony
instantly, search résumés, and manage candidates. Take your pick. Go to www.aia.org/careercenter.
www.LarsenLandis.com 1400 N American Street . Suite 205 . Philadelphia, PA 19122 p. (215) 232-7207 f. (215) 232-2708
W i l m i n g t o n , D e l a w a r e . P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pe n n s y l v a n i a
Southstar Lofts
BROAD & SOUTH STS., PHILADELPHIA, PA Architect: JKR Partners O’Donnell & Naccarato is providing ongoing structural engineering services for the new, 4-and-7-story, mixed-use, multi-family residential and retail building in construction now on the Avenue of the Arts. The completed structure will house 85 luxury loft rental apartments ranging from 541 SF to 1,046 SF, as well as more than 10,000 SF of street-level retail spaces. A 1-level, below-grade garage will support the facility's parking needs.
O-N.COM | 215.925.3788
ERNST BROTHERS: “FOCUSED ON THE DETAILS” — Phillip C Lederach, Lederach Associates Architects & Engineers. 215.453.5124 www.ernstbrothers.com
PAWA contractors... ... efficiently and skillfully handle any variety of architectural millwork projects. Individualized attention is our hallmark for custom millwork. ... specialize in trim, moulding, displays, staircases, exhibits, doors and windows, cabinetry, work stations, and much more. Our shops specialize in fabrication and installation ... have elite crews from Local 359 of the Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters
Skill, Productivity and Professionalism. www.PAWAonline.org Follow us on