The Crisis On Jewelers Row: Mayor Kenney We Need You

September 27, 2016 | by Aaron Wunsch


Photo: Michael Bixler

Earlier this month barricades and safety gates went up unannounced in front of 702-710 Sansom Street on Jewelers Row, leading uninformed tenants and passerby to believe that demolition had begun. Without notice, Uni-Tech Drilling Co. of Franklinville, New Jersey cordoned off the block to perform geological testing to assess the suitability of ground soil to accommodate the construction of Toll Brothers’ proposed 16-story residential tower. | Photo: Michael Bixler

It would be an exaggeration to claim that Mayor Jim Kenney won his post on a preservation platform. Philadelphia is a sprawling metropolis that struggles to improve its schools, parks, and infrastructure—causes to which the mayor has already devoted himself to good effect. Yet, those of us in the preservation world who supported his candidacy had high hopes. These stemmed from published interviews and public statements and from Kenney’s own initiatives while on City Council, particularly a bill he introduced that would have dramatically increased the number of properties on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places and grown the Historical Commission’s budget.

Even before last month’s announcement by a suburban real estate development company, Toll Brothers, that it plans to demolish 702-710 Sansom Street, a sizable chunk of Jewelers Row, in order to build a 16-story luxury condominium tower, some preservationists had begun to doubt the Mayor’s commitment to protecting the city’s historic fabric. Why had the Historical Commission’s budget, which lags far behind those of peer cities, still not been increased? Where were the new historic districts that candidate Kenney had declared a citywide priority?

The Jewelers Row crisis has given focus to these questions. Toll Brothers’ still-nebulous proposal—no renderings have been released to the public—jolted us out of a complacency that architectural historian David Brownlee and architect George Claflen aptly summarized in the Inquirer: “We thought, surely its small-scale business bustle is safeguarded by appropriate zoning, and its quaint charm must have earned it protective historic designation.” Turns out that City officials had approved the highest-density classification available, CMX-5, for that block. And though Jewelers Row is on the National Register of Historic Places and is adored by city residents and revered by tourists, it somehow escaped local protection—the properties were not listed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places.

So far, Mayor Kenney has avoided speaking publicly on the project, but that hasn’t stopped other City officials from doing so. The script goes something like this statement from Kenney spokesperson Lauren Hitt to Hidden City Daily managing editor Michael Bixler on August 12:

“Given our current laws and codes the City had no choice but to approve this project. This is all by-right and above-board. It’s our understanding that the Toll Brothers are preserving the cornice line, putting jewelers back on the ground floor, and doing a design that is in concert with the rest of the street, but we understand why the preservations are still upset.”

Let’s parse these propositions briefly, starting with “by-right and above-board.” Er, not so much. Although Toll is legally required to post zoning notice of their demolition plans on all five of the effected buildings, “along each street frontage (unless impractical) in a place and manner conspicuous to the public,” they posted a single notice in an obscure location on 7th Street. A hasty pedestrian could be forgiven for thinking Jewelers Row itself was safe. Then there’s the small, but telling detail of the sales agreement forms Toll Brothers presented to the clerks at the City’s Department of Licenses and Inspections. The developer submitted only the first page of the agreements and employed the name of a reputable real estate broker without her knowledge or consent. Whether the plan can move forward “by right” is also unclear. Close review of the Toll Brothers proposal reminded City officials that the size of the 107,000-square-foot building they proposed had triggered the Civic Design Review process, which will occur later this fall. Technically, this is still a “by-right project,” but one that must clear a significant administrative review hurdle before approval.

Then there’s the matter of a recent court ruling. After hearing a case involving 4046-4048 Chestnut Street, the Common Pleas Court released an opinion on law governing demolition permits, reversing a long-held interpretation of the law that allowed submitted demolition permit applications to trump nominations to the Historic Register. The Court’s opinion, instead, says that once a property has been submitted for nomination to the Historical Commission the property in question is legally under the Historical Commission’s jurisdiction until the Commission votes on the nomination. Where does that leave 704 and 706-708 Sansom Street, both buildings of which have been nominated to the local register?

Photo: Michael Bixler

Toll Brothers has stated that they intend to preserve the cornice line of the buildings to be demolished and provide a design that is fitting with the rest of the street. Such a plan would likely fail in accommodating Sansom Street’s signature collection of eclectic façade treatments and an irregular cornice line that give Jewelers Row its historic character and visual context. | Photo: Michael Bixler

With adequate time and space, one could use charts and tables to show how the City created what has become a perfect storm on Jewelers Row. One could point out that the City ignored its own planners’ 2013 recommendation that the block be downzoned or that the City’s tax abatement program is the taxpayer-borne perk that has made the proposed project so lucrative. (It’s worth bearing these Big Government measures in mind next time you hear the high value of Jewelers Row lots discussed as if the property values had blossomed in a market vacuum.) But, more crucially, the City now has the tool it needs to mitigate a pernicious effect of these measures. The case of 4046-4048 Chestnut Street, in the Common Pleas Court, was the first to actually read and interpret the City code. The Court found that the correct interpretation of the City code amounts to a stay of demolition for historic buildings—enough time to evaluate their significance and issue protections if warranted.

Here is where Mayor Kenney has the chance to demonstrate his preservation bona fides. Over the last decade, the Nutter administration built a track record of using the Law Department and the Historical Commission to quietly support applications to demolish buildings protected by the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. Sometimes these cases turned on “economic hardship,” sometimes on “public interest,” and sometimes on technicalities. But the aggregate result was the same, and it wasn’t pretty. Now that we’ve elected a preservation-friendly mayor and declared ourselves a World Heritage City, we’re positioned to ask for something more. Watching City staffers become de facto members of developers’ legal teams was always unpalatable. Now it is also unacceptable.

How might Mayor Kenney set out to assure preservationists that a new day has dawned? He could begin by urging his Law Department to accept the Common Pleas Court opinion instead of fighting it. He could ask them to interpret it broadly. And that’s only the beginning. Back in 1983, when developer Richard Dilsheimer wanted to demolish historic structures on the 1600 block of Locust Street, then-City Councilor John Street introduced a bill that downzoned the area. Could Councilman Mark Squilla, whose district includes Jewelers Row, accomplish something similar with adequate mayoral support? Precedent suggests he could.

There are other options, too. Cities like New York use a legal tool known as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to allow preservation-minded horse-trading. If Philadelphia adopted something similar, the City could encourage Toll Brothers to build its tower in another location (there are empty lots nearby) and use TDR to sweeten the deal. Finally, it is worth remembering that while Toll Brothers has purchase agreements on the Sansom Street properties, they have not yet acquired them outright. This limits the company’s exposure, and it likewise raises the possibility of the City buying out Toll Brothers’ interest at a relatively low cost.

Now, let’s return to another party-line claim, namely “that the Toll Brothers are preserving the cornice line, putting jewelers back on the ground floor, and doing a design that is in concert with the rest of the street.” When you stand before 702-710 Sansom Street what you see is a vibrant commercial row accommodating the sorts of small businesses and mixed uses that politicians and planners have claimed to embrace since the publication of Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life of Great American Cities in 1961. What you don’t see is anything like a uniform cornice line that might serve as the basis for ersatz contextualism. With effort, one could argue that the cornice on the leftmost building, 700 Sansom (which is the oldest of these buildings and is not part of the proposed development), provides such a datum. But doing so ignores the very heterogeneity—social, architectural, and chronological—that makes Jewelers Row so appealing. While Philadelphia has a long tradition of rebranding itself as an 18th century theme park, most of its historic fabric is a product of the 19th century and the Gilded Age, which left the city studded with unpolished gems.

An advertisement from 1894 for Lea Brothers’ Gray’s Anatomy. Note the company’s address at bottom: 706, 708, 710 Sansom Street.

The buildings at 704-710 Sansom Street show the firm of Collins & Autenrieth designing increasingly exuberant facades for client Henry Charles Lea, American publisher of Gray’s Anatomy and other important works. Before Jewelers Row obtained that moniker in the early 20th century, it was a denizen of printers of national renown. As the National Register nomination observes, “Though many of the founding companies are no longer in existence, the discarded buildings recall the personalities and optimism of the giants of industrialization.”

On Jewelers Row, the social and the architectural are inseparable. In addition to the artistic merit of their façades, the buildings Toll Brothers has placed in the crosshairs contain the small, but versatile spaces in which jewelry makers and jewelry sellers thrive. (Inga Saffron, among others, has written compellingly on the subject.) There is no doubt that Internet and shopping mall sales have cut into these sectors’ profits, but there is also no question that many of the practitioners want to stay. At several public meetings, spokesmen for the Jewelers Row Association have insisted that a vast majority of their members favor Toll Brothers’ scheme. But these numbers are likely misleading, in part because they are weighted toward building owners rather than tenants.

The Toll Brothers’ rumored plan to assist displaced jewelers rings hollow. Even if the craftspeople and retailers who occupy these spaces were temporarily relocated and promised future accommodation in the new building, their delicate economic ecosystem would be compromised. And even if they somehow bounced back, the neighborhood would be irreparably changed. Would the street life come back, too? What would keep similar towers from rising elsewhere on the block? Would residents of the new towers shop at these stores? Whatever the answers and no matter how desirable the promotion of economic development may be, it is fair to say that Jewelers Row’s value transcends the wishes of immediate title-holders. As Philadelphians, we, too, are stakeholders, and we deserve leaders who champion public interests as well as private ones. Mayor Kenney has made precisely this case while promoting his soda tax. Will he apply it to Jewelers Row, and to historic preservation in general? Only time will tell, but time is also swiftly running out.


Soapbox gives readers and contributors of Hidden City Daily the opportunity to share their thoughts on topical issues with smart, engaging discussion. Have an idea for an op-ed? Drop us a line and join the conversation:


About the Author

Aaron Wunsch Aaron Wunsch is an architectural historian and assistant professor in Penn's Graduate Program in Historic Preservation.


  1. Joseph J. Menkevich says:

    Thank You Aaron,

    But I have no faith in Mayor Kenney as an alt-preservationist.

    Councilman Kenney once proposed a Bill which illustrates that he does not understand the Philadelphia Historical Commission, Historic Preservation or the Public’s Right to Preservation under Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution or as a First Amendment Right under the Federal Constitution.

    “The Bill to Amend the Code” proposed that the staff of the PHC nominate 1000 properties (paid as city employees with all their paid benefits), while punishing Joe-Six-Pack who would submit a voluntary nomination.

    PHC staff would have been relegated to writing nominations full time. The up-side: it might have slowed down their review and approval of demolition permits.

    If the Proposed Bill had ever been passed, perhaps it would have saved Jeweler’s Row, but it would have ended nearly all voluntary nominations. Excerpts:

    AN ORDINANCE Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled “Zoning and Planning,” by creating an entity to review properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places for possible designation on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, requiring certain information be provided to the City, and providing for the imposition of fees and their disposition for certain actions to be taken by the Philadelphia Historical Commission, all under certain terms and conditions.

    Special Committees for Consideration of National Register of Historic Places.

    (a) The Commission shall appoint one or more Special to review any buildings, sites, objects or structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but not designated on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, for the purpose of determining whether they should be nominated for designation on the Philadelphia Register.
    (b) Within six (6) months of the effective date of this subsection (3), the Special Committee or Committees shall collectively nominate a total of at least one thousand (1,000) additional properties for designation to the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 14­1004. Nominations shall be determined based upon the historical significance of the buildings, sites, objects or structures and whether they are at risk of being lost.
    (c) Each Special Committee shall consist of no fewer than three members and shall include persons learned in the historic traditions of the City and interested in the preservation of the historic character of the City and may include existing Commission members and members of existing committees of the Commission.
    § 14­1004. Designation. * * *
    (8) Nomination Fee
    (a) Any person or organization, other than the Commission, members of the Commission or the Commission’s Special Committees, that nominates a building, site, object or structure for designation shall pay a fee to be included with their nomination essay and photographs.
    (b) The fee shall be: (.1) One hundred ($100) dollars for the nomination of a residential building(s), site or structure…

  2. Eugene Desyatnik says:

    Thank you. I appreciate the level of depth and consideration the article gives to how the incentives were not accidental (CMX-5 + 10yr abatement = potent combination) to make this particular site attractive and afford a developer to pay premium for the properties in question, and exploring the various legal and political remedies that may still be available to avert the demolition.

  3. Kathy says:

    Mayor Kenney made some strong appointments to the Commission, but that seems to be the only real effort made to change a dismal status quo. This is a terrific article and explanation of a complex and interrelated set of circumstances that is decimating our city’s historic fabric. The city can say that its hands are tied, but it’s their rope – they can untie it.

  4. Joseph J. Menkevich says:


    A World Heritage City which gets demolished and then rebuilt by the demolitionists is not a World Heritage City at all. It’s a lie.

    Historic Preservation in Philadelphia will end with the demolition of Jewelers Row.

    I also apologize for the few errors in my last post. It should have read: “as an alt-preservationist, I have no faith in Mayor Kenney,” because Jim Kenney is not a preservationist at all.

    FYI, the term “alt-preservationist” is a newly coined neologism used by one of the guest speakers at Building Industry Association’s annual meeting 21 September 2016.

    Your article only scratches the surface outlying symptoms of a serious ills within Philadelphia City Government and its obtuse treatment of historic preservation.

    Your article is way too polite to Mayor Kenney.

    Mayor Kenney’s faults may play out like Fairy Tales Told for Children, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen. Kenney doesn’t read anything for himself.

    Perhaps his staff reads everything for him and discards anything that involves the Philadelphia Historical Commission or Historic Preservation.

    There is no other explanation as to why Mayor Kenney has never responded to this, (excerpted from 28 pages):

    May 3, 2016

    To The Honorable Jim Kenney
    City of Philadelphia
    City Hall, Office 215
    Philadelphia, PA 19107

    RE: Certified Local Government Program Periodic Evaluation Report

    Dear Mayor Kenney: Enclosed please find the final report detailing the findings and recommendations of a recently completed evaluation of the City’s historic preservation programs by the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office.

    Among the key findings and recommendations from the 2002 evaluation were the following:

    • The Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and the potential demolition of historic resources. Apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and coordinate any demolition and reconstruction between the Planning Commission and Historical Commission.

    • The increased workload on the Historic Commission staff as a result of additionally regulated historic districts. Consider adding staff.

    • The inadequate promotion of the city’s historic architecture, historic districts and neighborhoods. Coordinate with Philadelphia’s tourism organizations.

    • The lack of interdepartmental coordination and communication between crucial city departments (Planning, L&I, HPC) consider a coordinated approach to historic preservation.

    • The public perception of the Historical Commission’s politicizing of the historic designation process. Adhere strictly to findings of fact, base decisions on Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Provide reasons for or against decisions. Avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions. Consider adding qualified professionals to the Commission pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations 61, who are not on the city’s payroll.

    • The failure of PHC staff and some PHC members to meet the training requirements pursuant to CLG regulations. Apply for CLG grant funding to fulfill this requirement.

    • The lack of a citywide comprehensive historic preservation plan. Consider applying for matching funds from local foundations and a Certified Local Government grant to develop such a plan.

    PA SHPO makes no claims as to the factual accuracy of these comments, but does accept them as legitimate first-hand observations.

    • Philadelphia Historical Commission lacks adequate budgetary and staff resources

    • Philadelphia Historical Commission is not fulfilling critical aspects of its mission and purpose related to public education and advocacy

    • Significant resources and neighborhoods remain unprotected as a result of slow designation efforts and inadequate procedures

    • The City lacks a comprehensive survey of historic resources

    • Planning and zoning processes have mixed outcomes for historic properties

    • Financial hardship decisions place historic resources at a disadvantage

    • There are few effective incentives for historic preservation

    • The permit review process does not adequately protect archaeological resources

    • There is inadequate enforcement of Historical Commission permit requirements or unpermitted work

    • Public participation in the Commission’s activities is hampered by space and technology

    • There is concern over the training and expertise of the Commission

    • The reporting relationship of the Commission to economic development officials compromises independence and objectivity

    • Conclusions and Recommendations …

  5. Dane Wells says:

    Aaron’s article is great. I hope the Mayor takes it seriously.

    What we need now, until more funding is available and new laws are passed, is a tool to make Developer’s take preservation more seriously.

    I have a suggestion that I think should be explored. I support the 10-year tax abatement, but am willing to listen to those who says it needs a bit of a haircut. What if the Historic Commission had to sign off on any tax abatement application of a building over 50 years old. If the developer decides to tromp all over history and preservation, the Commission could then block the tax abatement for the offending property, even if zoning allows his development.

    With such a tool, Paul Stenike and his team would have some real bargaining power. Could this be put in place before Toll submits an application for abatement?

    1. Aaron Wunsch says:

      Thanks, Dane. And agreed: that’s a smart idea. Let’s get some traction for it!

  6. Marianna Thomas says:

    Thank you Aaron for the article. Its explication of logarithmic impact of zoning designation and tax abatement raises your article to a general critique of how Philadelphia’s policies and development incentives subvert the underfunded work of the Historical Commission. I also agree about exploring a new PHC tool of review authority over eligibility for tax abatement based on whether a project meets preservation standards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.