There are subcultures who built local identities around these parishes (i.e Irish, Polish, Italian, etc) that are independent of the hierarchical institution of the Catholic Church. St. Michael’s is more reflective (to me) of local Philadelphia Irish than of the larger institution. There’s a time and a place, but it doesn’t need to be dragged through the mud in the context of this post. My own opinion.

St. Michael’s (pictured) and St. Augustine’s were both burned down during these riots. Obviously, subsequently rebuilt. The cathedral’s defensive architecture was a direct response. Notably, the “German” Catholic Church on 5th and Girard (St. Peter’s) was spared during the riots. Definitely a culturally targeted initiative.

Jim Thorpe could use more restaurants — speaking as a “tourist” who enjoys spending time there. That would be my only critique; the options are super limited.

Well, since you’re interested, here’s my summary:

The Philly Historical Commission (PHC) allows “demolition in the public interest” of designated historic buildings under Rule 12. This rule is a “catch all” enabling a demolition applicant to circumvent all the other rules. Critics (like myself) believe the rule was originally intended to enable demolition only in cases where a public good is required to replace the building (i.e. some type of public utility infrastructure). However, the rule has been used by developers’ lawyers as justification for taking down “unsafe” buildings, regardless of its future replacement. The PHC allows this.

The reason it’s problematic for the PHC to allow liberal use of Rule 12 is because we have another functioning rule that is perfectly adequate for dealing with safety issues. Rule 9 allows a developer to demolish a historic designated building if they can show “financial hardship” making it impractical to preserve or convert the building in question. Obviously, developers with deep pockets who simply don’t want to pay for restoration and are interested only in a cash-grab are not able to use Rule 9 for their purposes. So they hire a lawyer (many times, a very specific one who curiously sat on Mayor Kenney’s “Historic Preservation Task Force” - what a joke), to argue in favor of Rule 12 as a public safety matter.

Then the developer hires (that is, pays) an “independent” structural engineer to issue an opinion on the safety of the building. Invariably, these engineers find irreparable flaws and imminent danger requiring the buildings to be taken down immediately. Occasionally, a non-profit preservation organization will pay for a counter-opinion from an alternative engineer. The PHC will host a dog and pony show hearing allowing the counter-opinionated engineer to testify as to a.) why the building is not actually imminently dangerous, or b.) the many ways the building could be saved, or c.) both a and b - but curiously the PHC doesn’t ever lean on this testimony to trigger a Rule 9 (financial hardship) analysis. Instead, they let the testimony volley back and forth until everyone is tired and justify taking down the building - “because we simply can’t risk the safety of our residents” - while the developer runs victoriously to the bank.

Occasionally (particularly for high profile cases), members of the public will give volunteer testimony and ask why Rule 9 is not applied. The PHC more or less dusts over these questions, redirecting all the misled peons to the matter at hand, which is a Rule 12 decision! How could they ever enforce a Rule 9 investigation when dealing with a Rule 12 decision?? Clearly, the PHC is either complicit or dumb. You can make your own judgments on that.

The PHC gets away with this because a demolition applicant often applies specifically for a “Rule 12 demo permit” — and procedurally the PHC hides behind that. So in the PHC’s eyes, they would need to either dismiss the case and/or require an amended application including a Rule 9 demo request. Of course, the PHC never goes this route. It’s also questionable whether they even need to do this. The PHC Rules don’t explicitly distinguish between types of demolition applications; the PHC has authority to apply all of the rules for the purpose of an application request. But of course, they don’t. They hide behind this charade that the demolition applicant gets to decide on the applicable rules. Are you sensing a trend?

And the wheel continues to turn. And slowly but surely we lose our significant historic buildings in favor of tri-color paneled apartment buildings.

This could all be fixed if Rule 12 was applied properly (meaning, only in instances where public infrastructure is replacing a building). Otherwise, Rule 9 should be the default. Even for public safety. If a developer has the funds to preserve a historically designated building, then they should be held to it, or they should sell. Instead, we have developers who squat on designated buildings for the underlying land value until they fall into disrepair sufficiently to tap Rule 12.

P.S. - This is true of city-designated buildings. For federally designated buildings (such as this one), I’m not sure the PHC has jurisdiction. Thankfully.

Historic designations don’t mean very much to the bureaucrats of this city. All it takes is a developer to pay off an engineer to say the building is unsafe, and all bets are off. Part of a broader discussion for another time.

Can’t believe it’s not being demolished for an 8-story apartment building with tri-color paneling.

K&A — for a bunch of reasons

Get this to the marketing team ASAP

We need Ranked Choice Voting. Would eliminate these extremist weirdos.

This needs a ton more momentum, like, yesterday. What’s a realistic plan for implementation in PA?