1722 Pine Street is in the Rittenhouse-Fitler Historic District. To obtain a building permit, a property in a historic district must receive approval from Philadelphia’s Historical Commission for work visible from the public way. In this property, this means work that is visible from Pine Street and Waverly Street is under the Commission’s purview. The Commission bases its decision to approve or deny proposals on its interpretation of the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for renovating historic buildings.

We proposed the following exterior work for the renovations at Pine Street:
1. Replace all windows with Passive House quality windows—Pine Street windows to be simulated double-hung (fixed upper sash and tilt-turn bottom sash), and rear casement ( tilt-turn) windows to replace the existing casement windows.
2. Install an exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) over the failing rear brick.

TIMELINE
April 2016 – Laura submitted our proposed design to the Historical Commission, who referred it to the Commission’s Architecture Review Board.
May 2016 – Laura presented in front of the Historical Commission, including drawings, specifications, and photos of the deteriorated masonry and brick porosity testing result. The Commission approved the Passive House simulated double-hung windows with a proviso they be six over six divided lights. Still, it denied the exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) for the rear masonry façade.
June 2016 – Laura was allowed to resubmit with revisions in response to the Architecture Review Board’s comments. Scope work still included the EIFS finish on the rear brick, replacing all windows with PH windows, and installing canvas awnings at windows on the South façade.
July 2016 – Laura represented the importance of the EIFS on the rear brick, backed by building science evidence of the deteriorating brick wall. She challenged the cultural/historical significance of Wavery St with a video of stucco walls, blocked-up windows, trash cans, buttends of cars, and a cacophony of decks. Additionally, she included hygrothermal models showing the moisture risk from the porous brick and the 3rd-floor tenant’s official mold study. All to emphasize that we wanted to provide a healthy indoor environment, stabilize the wall, and meet our own, as well as the City’s sustainable goals with this project. After an extended discussion, the Commission denied the proposed work based on Historic Preservation Standards and Guidelines 2, 6, and 9 (See Background below).

Following the hearing, two professionals insisted on speaking with Laura. A Harvard preservation architect told Laura that Harvard’s research confirmed her findings, and he argued for the urgency to educate preservationists about the building science risks of modern air conditioning to unprotected porous walls. The second advocate was Michael Sklaroff Esq, an attorney for Ballard Spahr and former Chair of the Historical Commission. He noted that Pennsylvania incorporated the Environmental Bill of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution in 1971 (see Background below). This constitutional mandate was grounds for a case to appeal the ruling. Only six states declare a right to a quality environment besides Pennsylvania: Hawai’i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, and New York.

To our surprise, Mr. Sklaroff received approval from Ballard Spahr to offer pro bono services if we found a nonprofit sponsor. The North American Passive House (NAPHN), currently rebranded as The Passive House Network( PHN), stepped up and sponsored us. We would never have afforded the appeal otherwise.

With Michael Sklaroff, Esq at the helm, and David Gest, Esq, and some of Ballard Spahr’s finest, along with much work on our part, we appealed the Commission’s decision to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas based on the Environmental Bill of Rights. The Court agreed and ordered the Commission to reconsider the proposed work through a new lens; the obligation under the Environmental Bill of Rights is higher than the Interior Secretary’s Standards and guidelines. The City of Philadelphia Law Department concurred and directed the Commission to allow us another proposal submission.
December 2017 – Mr. Sklaroff, Esq, and Mr. Gest, Esq, accompanied Laura and Paul to represent the facts of the case to the Commission. We used outside experts to present and confirm the same building and climate science facts this time. Our presentation included:
• Powering Our Future: A Clean Energy Vision for Philadelphia, from the Philadelphia Office of Sustainability
• EnerPHit Certification Criteria
• Testimony by Jeffrey Klemens, Ph.D., Biology: Assistant Professor of Biology, Philadelphia University and expert on Climate Change,
• Testimony by Evan Oskieroko-Jeznacki, MS, Historic Preservation and Master of Environmental Building Design, PhD student, Architecture, University of Pennsylvania,
• Testimony by Ken Levenson, CPHC, Executive Director of PHN,
• Photos of the building, its context, and historical description of the property,
• Building science testing, including PHPP Energy model results, WUFI hygrothermal analysis, and Rilem Tube Moisture Absorption Tests,
• Proposed product specifications and installation information
Following the presentation, the Commission unanimously approved the proposed work, including installing EIFS on the exterior.

Philadelphia is a classic walkable urban environment, an old city formed by historic structures, infrastructure, and streets all imbued with cultural memory. The beauty of older cities requires preserving the traditional cityscape while balancing the preservation of the old and the need to modernize appropriately to remain relevant, viable, and healthy (for people and the planet).

Paul and Laura assert that approval for exterior work on historic structures must balance building science, cultural value, existential challenges, best practices, and newly developed information and knowledge. To this end, we proposed the following criteria for the Historical Commission to evaluate proposed changes to historic structures:

EVALUATING HISTORIC RETROFITS
1. Rank the value of historic facades as “significant” or “non-contributing.” All bricks are not historically significant, and all “historic” bricks are not equal.
2. Covering or altering the façade must significantly improve energy efficiency, sustainability, and health outcomes.
3. The proposal must be backed by proven building science-based analysis and implemented with best practices.
In this way, we avoid covering facades willy-nilly but allow thoughtful review and installation of materials and systems that promote well-being, meet climate mitigation goals, and do not diminish the overall cultural viability of historic neighborhoods as well as individual building.

BACKGROUND
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
The Historical Commission relies on Department of Interior Standards, written in 1976, when evaluating and approving historic properties. 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 … The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
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.
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.
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.

Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
§ 27. Natural resources and the public estate.
“The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”
(May 18, 1971, P.L.769, J.R.3)