The transfer of development rights in Center City Philadelphia

434 Pages·1992·5.2 MB·English

by  Jones, James Morse

UNIVERSlTYy
PENNSYLVANIA.
UBKAR1E5

THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA
JAMES MORSE JONES
A THESIS
in
The Graduate Program in Historic Preservation
Presented to the faculties of the University of Pennsylvania in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
1992
V
K-^ /c£x^'
John C.Keene, Chairman, Department of City and Regional
Planning, Advisor
Donna Ann Harris, Vice President, Philadelphia
Historic Preservation Corporation, Reader
UNIVERSITY
OF
PENNSVlv/.nia
LIBRARIES
...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
A. THE PHILADELPHIA PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSES
AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO INCLUDE THE
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, THEREBY
PROMOTING HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1
B. LANDI'lARK PRESERVATION PRESENTS TANGIBLE BENEFITS
TO CENTER CITY 8
1 Landmarks Promote Tourism 8
2. Landmarks Promote the City's Film Industry. .9
. .
3. Landmarks Assist the City in Attracting
New Businesses and Residents 10
C. LANDMARK PRESERVATION PRESENTS INTANGIBLE BENEFITS
TO CENTER CITY
1. Preservation of Landmark Buildings Exerts
a Beneficial Influence on the Public 11
D. TRADITIONAL DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH LANDMARK
PRESERVATION PROGRAMS UNDERSCORE THE ADVANTAGES
OF TDR IMPLEMENTATION 14
1. Government Landmark Acquisition is
Economically Unfeasible 14
2. Municipal Designation Programs Generate
Political Opposition 15
3 Municipal Landmark Preservation Agencies
are Understaffed 16
4 TDR Programs Remedy These Traditional
Difficulties 17
E. ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF LANDMARK PRESERVATION
IN CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA: AN OUTLINE OF THE
THESIS 19
CHAPTER TWO: THE DEMOLITION PROBLEM IN CENTER CITY
PHILADELPHIA
A. CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 21
B. AN OVERVIEW OF DEMOLITION ACTIVITY IN CENTER
CITY 21
1. Current Demolition Proposals 21
a. 26-30 South 21st Street
b. 1908 Chestnut Street
c. Ninth & Chestnut Streets, Southeast Corner

... .
2. Recent Victories in the Demolition Battle...,22
a. Lit Brothers
b. 17th & Locust Streets, Northeast Corner
c. Holy Trinity Church
3. Recent Defeats in the Demolition Battle 22
a. Gimbels Department Store
b. McCrae Houses
c. Finneas Meade Antique Store
d. Victory Building
e. 1600 Block Chestnut Street, North Side
ECONOMIC AND GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS GENERATE
DEMOLITION PRESSURE 23
1 Market Forces
.
a. High-Income/Efficient Land Uses Drive out
less-remunerative Historic Buildings. .24
. .
2. Governmental Factors 27
a. 15 Million Square Feet in the Zoning
Envelopes above City-certified, Historic
Buildings 28
b Wide-Streets Incentive 28
c. Zoning Code Encourages Parcel
Assemblage 29
CURRENT PROGRAMS AND THEIR SHORTCOMINGS 31
1. Historic Commission's Preservation
Ordinance 31
a. Provides of Commission Review of
Proposed Demolitions 32
b. Fails to Safeguard Historic Buildings
in Many Situations 33
c. Commission is Understaffed 35
d. Ordinance Presents Regulation Without
Incentive 35
2. Investment Tax Credit Credited with
Revitalizing Several Philadelphia Buildings and
Neighborhoods 36
a ITC History and Current Status 36
b. Decline of ITC Attributed to Changes
in Federal Tax Law 41
c. National Register Listing does not
Safeguard Buildings from Private-
Sector Demolitions 44
3. PHPC Facade Easement Program 44
a ProgramExplanation 44
b. Factors Causing Declining Rate of
Facade Easement Contribution 45
1. Decline in ITC Activity 48
2 Tax Law Changes Decrease Demand
for Tax Shelters and Complicate
EasementDonation 48
3. Lack of Clear IRS Regulation 48