[UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[anm]

The Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation were referred to a
few times in the review meeting.  I was surprised to see that they're actually
quite concise, though obviously open to interpretation.  Standard 9 was the
source for John Gallery's objections:

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation

The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to
historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy
and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the
building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new
construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation
projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and
technical feasibility.

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use
that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building
and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
characterize a property shall be avoided.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place,
and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings,
shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where
the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,
the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual
qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall
be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to
historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if
appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected
and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall
be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not
destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall
be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the
property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken
in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[MLamond]

Here are two more things to consider as the list debates the 40th & 
Pine/Baltimore location for a restored Italianate building and an extended stay 
hotel.  
 As I understand it, when the property was purchased in 2004, no one involved 
knew that the building was on the local register, so they weren't 
anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate house.   And I've been told 
that they 
paid "roughly $1.8 million" for it, and that renovation costs for the house are 
expected to be over $3 million.   So I think we can take "restore it as a 
single family house" off of the list of possible options for it.   As I said at 
yesterday's meeting, it's beyond the abilities of local homeowners to handle 
this property.   

Can anyone suggest other possible uses for it?   Or make a good case for it 
to continue to sit vacant and deteriorated?   Please be practical; we all know 
that Penn has an endowment and a lot of money, but they also have Trustees to 
answer to, and a mission of education.   They don't do projects that don't 
make financial sense.

Also, here's a note about how community association zoning committees work.   
Karen Allen and I both know this, since we work together on the Cedar Park 
Neighbors zoning committee:   

When a change is being proposed, or even thought about, it is best if the 
developer/property owner consults the community association's zoning committee 
right away to make them aware of the possibility.   The zoning committee may 
meet with the owner informally, ask questions and/or make some suggestions 
about 
the project as a start, or may just get enough information to schedule a 
meeting with the nearby neighbors.   The neighbors would always include the 
folks 
on the block, and might also include neighbors further away, depending on the 
type of proposal.   

Sometimes early on, and sometimes not till after the orange zoning alert 
flyers go up, the community association's zoning committee sets up the 
neighbors' 
meeting, notifies the neighbors (CPN leaflets), and lets the applicant make a 
presentation to them.   Then the neighbors weigh in, and the zoning committee 
works with them - the neighbors - to accomplish the goals the neighbors want.  
 It's not about the zoning committee's wants, or the whole area's wants; it's 
about the neighbors' wants - because they are the ones faced with the change. 
   If the neighbors don't agree, then it's harder for the zoning committee; 
they need to either go with the majority or tell the zoning board that they 
can't take a side in the matter.

I remember going to a CPN zoning committee meeting for a conversion of a 
property to multifamily on Cedar Ave. where I personally didn't like the 
proposal, 
and the other CPN folks at the meeting expected the neighbors to be against 
it.  But the neighbors liked the applicant and were in favor of the change.   
We reminded them that it would be permanent, even if the building was later 
sold to someone they didn't like.   They said that was okay with them.   So, 
CPN 
supported the conversion.   

That's how zoning committees function.   They support the neighbors.

Does someone have better suggestions for how zoning committees should 
operate?   Again, keeping the suggestions practical - and doable for local 
community 
volunteers?

- Melani Lamond




In a message dated 10/24/07 10:51:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> The Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehabilitation were referred 
> to a
> few times in the review meeting.  I was surprised to see that they're 
> actually
> quite concise, though obviously open to interpretation.  Standard 9 was the
> source for John Gallery's objections:
> 
> http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/tax/rhb/stand.htm
> 
> The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
> 
> The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) pertain to
> historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and 
> occupancy
> and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and 
> the
> building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related 
> new
> construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation
> projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and
> technical feasibility.
> 
> 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new 
> use
> that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building
> and its site and environment.
> 
> 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
> removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that
> characterize a property shall be avoided.
> 
> 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, 
> place,
> and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such 
> as
> adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings,
> shall not be undertaken.
> 
> 4. Most

Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[Krfapt]

 
In a message dated 10/24/2007 1:31:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

As I understand it, when the property was  purchased in 2004, no one involved 
knew that the building was on the local  register, so they weren't 
anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate  house.  And I've been told 
that they 
paid "roughly $1.8 million" for it,  and that renovation costs for the house 
are expected to be over $3  million.  So I think we can take "restore it as a 
single family house"  off of the list of possible options for it.


The BRT data base lists the owner as OAP Inc. According to the Penn Almanac  
(Almanac, Vol. 46, No. 22, February 22, 2000 -- lest I be accused  of making 
this up), "University City Associates, Inc. and OAP, Inc.,  both formerly 
for-profit subsidiaries of the University have recently been  converted to 
not-for-profit, tax-exempt corporations with Penn as their sole  member."
 
So Penn owns it. Surely, the brilliant folks at Penn wouldn't have bought  
this without knowing little details like it's being on the Philadelphia 
Register 
 of Historic Places. They are the Real Estate mavens of the neighborhood, 
after  all. And, knowing this, they certainly would have known that changes so 
gross  (in both senses of the word) would bring people on the neighborhood out 
to  protest.
 
Let's go a step further. Penn seems to have plenty of money to "invest" in  
its well-touted "partnership with the community." And another step, great  
liberal (in the classic sense) institutions -- especially those whose charters  
explicitly or implicitly confer on them the obligation to inculcate in the  
emerging generation a sense of moral and ethical responsibility -- should be 
the  
entities that accept this responsibility themselves. So, having purchased  the 
property, it wouldn't be a stretch to believe they intended to treat it as  
something of a treasure -- to find some way to utilize it in a way that 
enhances  its original design.
 
Melani's right. It's unlikely that some private individual would spend $1.8  
million to buy the property and another $3 million to restore it. Maybe some  
developer would buy it and create condos with the same sensitivity to outward  
appearance as seems to be being done with the Isenlohr estate (42nd & Pine).  
But the university itself might think about its place in the world and find a 
 use for it that also preserves or enhances its appearance.  

Always at  your service & ready for a dialog,
Al Krigman -- 36-year local resident,  housing provider, curmudgeon, and 
all-around  crank,




** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

As I understand it, when the property was purchased in 2004, no one
involved knew that the building was on the local register, so they
weren't anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate house.  And
I've been told that they paid "roughly $1.8 million" for it, and
that renovation costs for the house are expected to be over $3
million.  So I think we can take "restore it as a single family
house" off of the list of possible options for it.

The BRT data base lists the owner as OAP Inc. According to the Penn 
Almanac (/Almanac, Vol. 46, No. 22, February 22, 2000 --/ lest I be 
accused of making this up/), "/University City Associates, Inc. and OAP, 
Inc., both formerly for-profit subsidiaries of the University have 
recently been converted to not-for-profit, tax-exempt corporations with 
Penn as their sole member."
 
So Penn owns it. Surely, the brilliant folks at Penn wouldn't have 
bought this without knowing little details like it's being on the 
Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. They are the Real Estate 
mavens of the neighborhood, after all.




well, I don't know nuttin' 'bout nuttin', but it looks like 
uchs's own website lists the house as being on the national 
register for historic places, june 22, 1979


  http://www.uchs.net/HistoricDistricts/hamfamest.html

  HAMILTON FAMILY ESTATE
  (4000 block of Pine Street)
  4039, 4041 Baltimore Avenue
  4000, 02, 06, 08, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Pine Street
  Placed on the National Register of Historic Places
  June 22, 1979

excerpt:


The 4000 block of Pine Street forms one of the
handsomest and best preserved mid 19th century suburban
streetscapes of Philadelphia.

As an ensemble it recalls the years when West
Philadelphia was the place of residence of many of the
city's financial, social and professional elite.
Despite the potential variety presented by three
separate groups of houses, the spacing of the
buildings, the under-lyin g staccato rhythm of openings
and the common materials of stucco and masonry, and the
repeated motifs of porches, and bracketed cornices
gives a complex unity to the block all too rarely
encountered in American suburban developments.

Not only does the street survive intact, but the houses
that are its constituent parts are themselves of note,
4000, 4002, 4004-6 being fine examples of their types
and 4008-18 forming an important composition. Each of
the buildings is in sound condition, and as more and m
ore come into single ownership, more can be
incorporated into the unified open space that links the
rear yards.  Third, the 4000 block
of Pine Street is a response to the mid 19th century
fashion of the suburban house promulgated by Andrew
Jackson Downing and locally popularized by architects
Samuel Sloan, John Riddell and later, Isaac Hobbs,
whose published plans for houses of these types
appeared regularly in Godey's Ladies Book . As such,
the block is an important architectural precursor to
the contemporary American ideal of the single family
house on a tree shaded quarter lot in the suburbs. The
continuing value of the houses, despite changes in
architectural style, attes ts to the transcendent power
of the suburban vision. On the other hand , the variety
created here -- single and double houses, later
apartment conversions -- is a powerful argument for the
potential vitality of' the complex suburb which is all
too often lacking in the conventional single class
suburban development. As such, the 4000 block of Pine
Street should be a profoundly telling lesson for
contemporary urban planners.



[also, the 3900 block to the east, the houses to the north 
-- also on the national register of historic places...

http://www.uchs.net/HistoricDistricts/drexdev.html]

- - - - -


what does national register of historic places mean for a 
property?


I don't know the full story, but here's a start:

http://mdah.state.ms.us/hpres/nrfaq.html

> The National Register of Historic Places was established
> by Congress in 1966 to help identify and protect
> historically significant properties. National Register
> properties enrich our understanding of local, state, and
> national history by representing significant events and
> developments, the contributions of notable people, and
> important types of buildings and architectural styles.
> National Register listing can also help preserve these
> important properties through tax benefits, grant
> assistance, and protection from demolition or
> development.
>
> National Register listing does not restrict a private
> owner's use of the property, unless development of the
> property involves federal funding, federal rehabilitation
> tax credits, or participation in some other federal
> program. There are no requirements for public
> accessibility, and information about sensitive sites can
> be restricted from the public.



..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FO

Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Can anyone suggest other possible uses for it? 




I already suggested this, onlist (and I was being sincere):


what about using the existing historic building as a
quaint bed and breakfast (complete with bike rental shop
and rental space for community functions), and the
adjoining lot as a philly carshare lot (bordered by
community garden plots)?





..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
[aka laserbeam®]
[aka ray]
SERIAL LIAR. CALL FOR RATES.
  "It is very clear on this listserve who
   these people are. Ray has admitted being
   connected to this forger."  -- Tony West
  "Ray's falsehoods are more sophisticated,
   more believable" -- Tony West
























































__
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
__


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[KAREN ALLEN]

Dude, you are AWESOME!!!
But hey, Tom Lussenhop wants to make a few bucks, so screw that "historic 
designation" jive [that's the PG rated version, if you know what I mean...]
 
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:50:26 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
> UnivCity@list.purple.com> Subject: Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's 
> standards for rehab> >> well, I don't know nuttin' 'bout nuttin', but it 
> looks like > uchs's own website lists the house as being on the national > 
> register for historic places, june 22, 1979> > 
> http://www.uchs.net/HistoricDistricts/hamfamest.html> > HAMILTON FAMILY 
> ESTATE> (4000 block of Pine Street)> 4039, 4041 Baltimore Avenue> 4000, 02, 
> 06, 08, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 Pine Street> Placed on the National Register of 
> Historic Places> June 22, 1979> > excerpt:> > >> The 4000 block of Pine 
> Street forms one of the> >> handsomest and best preserved mid 19th century 
> suburban> >> streetscapes of Philadelphia.>

Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[Glenn]

"and that renovation costs for the house are expected
to be over $3 million.  So I think we can take
"restore it as a single family house" off of the list
of possible options for it."

Melani,
Penn decided to mothball this building for three
years.  It was a functioning building and it's closure
had nothing to do with a building needing to be
demolished.

This 3 million dollars looks like another disingenuous
red herring.  Was this info given to you by Tom or
directly from those Penn Real Estate guys?Could that
possibly be the figure from the hotel plan?  Or could
this figure have been given when the developer wanted
it de-listed?  I wonder what Penn was thinking when it
bought the building and waited 3 years only to
secretly attempt to get clearance for demolition?

Melani, you are very involved with this project.  Why
did Penn and Lussenhop originally want the historic
house demolished.  Were there early community
objections to demolition?

Melani writes:
 If not for the designation, there would have been no
hearing before the Historical Commission at all about
a reuse of the Italianate building. The developers
could have gotten a demolition permit and torn it
down!  Then they could have gone straight to the
Zoning Board with a proposal for a new hotel on the
site, stating that the lot had previously contained
only a decrepit and deteriorated nursing home in an
old house surrounded by stucco one-story additions and
blacktop. 

Was this the whole argument presented for de-listing
or was there more?  Did they originally want a larger
Hilton?

Thanks in advance for the answers.  And for helping
the community figure out what has been going on so
that we can work together openly for community
improvement.

Glenn
PS: I don't want Penn to go under.  Do you think they
would sell me the building for $1 so they can get back
to research and education without the burden of this
eyesore. 
 













--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Here are two more things to consider as the list
> debates the 40th & 
> Pine/Baltimore location for a restored Italianate
> building and an extended stay hotel.  
>  As I understand it, when the property was purchased
> in 2004, no one involved 
> knew that the building was on the local register, so
> they weren't 
> anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate
> house.   And I've been told that they 
> paid "roughly $1.8 million" for it, and that
> renovation costs for the house are 
> expected to be over $3 million.   So I think we can
> take "restore it as a 
> single family house" off of the list of possible
> options for it.   As I said at 
> yesterday's meeting, it's beyond the abilities of
> local homeowners to handle 
> this property.   
> 
> Can anyone suggest other possible uses for it?   Or
> make a good case for it 
> to continue to sit vacant and deteriorated?   Please
> be practical; we all know 
> that Penn has an endowment and a lot of money, but
> they also have Trustees to 
> answer to, and a mission of education.   They don't
> do projects that don't 
> make financial sense.
> 
> Also, here's a note about how community association
> zoning committees work.   
> Karen Allen and I both know this, since we work
> together on the Cedar Park 
> Neighbors zoning committee:   
> 
> When a change is being proposed, or even thought
> about, it is best if the 
> developer/property owner consults the community
> association's zoning committee 
> right away to make them aware of the possibility.  
> The zoning committee may 
> meet with the owner informally, ask questions and/or
> make some suggestions about 
> the project as a start, or may just get enough
> information to schedule a 
> meeting with the nearby neighbors.   The neighbors
> would always include the folks 
> on the block, and might also include neighbors
> further away, depending on the 
> type of proposal.   
> 
> Sometimes early on, and sometimes not till after the
> orange zoning alert 
> flyers go up, the community association's zoning
> committee sets up the neighbors' 
> meeting, notifies the neighbors (CPN leaflets), and
> lets the applicant make a 
> presentation to them.   Then the neighbors weigh in,
> and the zoning committee 
> works with them - the neighbors - to accomplish the
> goals the neighbors want.  
>  It's not about the zoning committee's wants, or the
> whole area's wants; it's 
> about the neighbors' wants - because they are the
> ones faced with the change. 
>If the neighbors don't agree, then it's harder
> for the zoning committee; 
> they need to either go with the majority or tell the
> zoning board that they 
> can't take a side in the matter.
> 
> I remember going to a CPN zoning committee meeting
> for a conversion of a 
> property to multifamily on Cedar Ave. where I
> personally didn't like the proposal, 
> and the other CPN folks at the meeting expected the
> neighbors to be against 
> it.  But the neighbors liked the applicant and were
> in favor of the change.   
> We re

Re: [Ucneighbors] Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[paintered]

how about a historic looking Taco Bell?


**
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com

___
ucneighbors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.asc.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ucneighbors


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [Ucneighbors] Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[KAREN ALLEN]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:20:30 -0400To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [Ucneighbors] Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards 
for rehabAs I understand it, when the property was purchased in 2004, no one 
involved knew that the building was on the local register, so they weren't 
anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate house.  And I've been told 
that they paid "roughly $1.8 million" for it, and that renovation costs for the 
house are expected to be over $3 million.  
 
I checked the Board of Revision of Taxes database and its records indicate that 
400 South 40th Street was sold on March 25, 2003 for $1,685,000 to "OAP, Inc." 
 
...no one involved knew that the building was on the local register, so they 
weren't anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate house.
 
This doesn't make any sense to me.   If no one knew about the designation at 
the time of sale, how was it eventually found out?  Since it was eventually 
found out, that means that it could have been found out at the time of sale had 
anybody bothered to do research. The title search didn't disclose it?  Penn has 
access to big-time lawyers,  and Penn Law and Wharton School faculty, and they 
couldn't discover this?  I'm sorry Penn didn't do its due diligence, but the 
neighborhood shouldn't have to suffer for it. 
 
This also raises the question of what were they originally planning to do with 
the vacant lot.

Can anyone suggest other possible uses for it?... Please be practical; we all 
know that Penn has an endowment and a lot of money, but they also have Trustees 
to answer to, and a mission of education.  They don't do projects that don't 
make financial sense.
 
Penn can start a campaign among some deep-pocketed donors, foundations, or 
what-have-you to raise money for the specific purpose of restoring that house 
to its former granduer, and using it as a guest house for visiting Penn 
dignataries, akin to Amy Gutman's house on Walnut Street.
  
However, I suspect that any serious suggestions will all be shot down as 
impossible because Penn wants us to believe that the ONLY thing that makes 
financial sense is what they have already decided they want to do, and that's 
to kick some business Tom Lussenhop's way with that 10-story monstrosity.
 
And speaking of "educational mission", exactly what "educational mission" are 
they meeting by buying up all of these properties anyway?
 
Karen Allen 
  

Re: [Ucneighbors] Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's standards for rehab

[Elliot M. Stern]

On 24 Oct  2007, at 2:57 PM, KAREN ALLEN wrote:



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:20:30 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: UnivCity@list.purple.com
Subject: [Ucneighbors] Re: [UC] Secretary of the Interior's  
standards for rehab


As I understand it, when the property was purchased in 2004, no one  
involved knew that the building was on the local register, so they  
weren't anticipating renovation costs for the Italianate house.   
And I've been told that they paid "roughly $1.8 million" for it,  
and that renovation costs for the house are expected to be over $3  
million.


I checked the Board of Revision of Taxes database and its records  
indicate that 400 South 40th Street was sold on March 25, 2003 for  
$1,685,000 to "OAP, Inc."


...no one involved knew that the building was on the local  
register, so they weren't anticipating renovation costs for the  
Italianate house.


This doesn't make any sense to me.   If no one knew about the  
designation at the time of sale, how was it eventually found out?   
Since it was eventually found out, that means that it could have  
been found out at the time of sale had anybody bothered to do  
research. The title search didn't disclose it?  Penn has access to  
big-time lawyers,  and Penn Law and Wharton School faculty, and  
they couldn't discover this?  I'm sorry Penn didn't do its due  
diligence, but the neighborhood shouldn't have to suffer for it.




It makes perfect sense to me. The fact that no one of the purchasing  
group knew at the time of the purchase that the building was on the  
City of Philadelphia Historic Register does not logically entail that  
someone in the group could have at a later time found out that it  
was. You're not making any sense here.


Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
telephone: 215-747-6204
mobile: 267-240-8418
[EMAIL PROTECTED]