A recent guest commentary in The Philadelphia Citizen characterized the proposed reuse of a historic church as a brewery as the product of a zoning “loophole.” That description misstates both the purpose and history of the zoning incentive involved.
The zoning change at issue was a deliberate preservation policy adopted by Philadelphia City Council in 2019 to address a persistent preservation challenge of how to ensure historic buildings remain viable when their original use is no longer needed. Across Philadelphia, churches, schools, factories, and other “special purpose” buildings face obsolescence as demographics shift, institutional needs evolve, and operating costs rise.
Religious properties, in particular, have become increasingly vulnerable. Congregations shrink or relocate. Buildings become too large or costly to maintain. Without a realistic path to continued use, vacancy and deterioration often follow. Philadelphia has already lost numerous historic religious buildings to demolition, and many others remain at risk.
For decades, Philadelphia’s zoning code unintentionally compounded this problem. Many buildings remain governed by zoning classifications that do not reflect contemporary realities. A church building located in a residential district may legally function as a church, but once that use ends, repurposing the building for another community purpose frequently required a zoning variance. Meanwhile, demolition often faced fewer procedural hurdles.
Recognizing this dynamic, Philadelphia’s Historic Preservation Task Force, created by Mayor Jim Kenney in 2017 and composed of preservation professionals, architects, planners, developers, neighborhood representatives, and city agencies, recommended regulatory reforms to encourage adaptive reuse.
Adaptive reuse is often the mechanism that allows historic places to remain occupied, maintained, and architecturally intact while serving new community needs.
One of those recommendations became Bill No. 190613-A. Enacted unanimously by City Council in 2019, the legislation created a narrowly tailored adaptive reuse incentive for designated historic buildings with existing or historic special-purpose uses. Rather than forcing every reuse proposal through the zoning variance process, the law permits a broader range of by-right uses under specific conditions.
Reasonable questions about a specific project, including daily operations or outdoor activity, are entirely appropriate for public discussion. Those concerns are addressed through other established review and permitting processes. Outdoor seating, for example, requires separate approvals through the City’s Department of Licenses & Inspections, and any proposal to serve alcohol is likewise subject to a separate licensing process that includes opportunities for public notice and community input.
Disagreement over a proposed use should not become an argument against the policy tools that enable adaptive reuse. The question facing many historic properties today is not whether they will remain exactly as they were. More often, the choice is whether they will find a new use or disappear altogether.
Adaptive reuse is often the mechanism that allows historic places to remain occupied, maintained, and architecturally intact while serving new community needs. Philadelphia’s historic preservation zoning incentive was adopted to help ensure that more historic buildings remain standing. Calling this framework a “loophole” suggests an unintended bypass, but in reality, this was intentional public policy.
Hanna Stark is the director of policy and communications at the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia.
The Citizen welcomes guest commentary from community members who represent that it is their own work and their own opinion based on true facts that they know firsthand.
MORE ON ZONING IMPACTS COMMUNITIES
