PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
Mobile
Home Delivery
philly.com
email
font size
comments
0
options
 
Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Is a new Family Court building even necessary?
The old Family Court building on Logan Square.

From Wednesday's commentary page, by John Andrew Gallery, executive director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia:

I recently joined a tour of the Family Court building on Logan Square, organized by the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corp. in conjunction with its request for proposals to buy the historic property from the city. I had heard about the building’s outstanding interior spaces and distinctive New Deal-era murals, and I was eager to see them for myself.


The tour was enlightening in more ways than I expected, raising doubts about the whole plan to sell and replace the building.


The Family Court building has a large, magnificent entrance hall, off of which are two handsome waiting rooms, each with access to two courtrooms. These seven spaces, plus the extraordinary stairway that connects the first three floors, are as beautiful as I had been led to believe.


The entrance hall is divided in two by large, arched openings. Distinctive murals surround the doorways, and the elevator lobby has an outstanding stained-glass window by D’Ascenzo Studios, perhaps the greatest stained-glass designers of their time.


Each of the waiting rooms is lined with pilasters, creating panels for murals around the top of the room. The adjacent courtrooms are dignified, high-ceilinged spaces with large murals behind the judges’ benches.


Remarkably, all these ceremonial spaces are in perfect condition. They were restored relatively recently — at considerable expense to the city — by Kelly/Maiello Architects. I was shocked to realize that the illustrative plan for private use of the building, developed by the City Planning Commission and included in the request for proposals, suggests destroying four of these grand spaces.


The upper floors of the building are more utilitarian — offices, judges’ chambers, small conference rooms. But, contrary to comments I’ve read, these spaces are in very good condition. And almost every room has natural light as a result of the building’s plan and two interior light wells.


When I talked to the people who work in the building — from administrative personnel to security guards — all said they loved it, that it was a great place to work, and that they hated the idea of leaving. One woman said, “If we have to move, that’s when I’ll retire.”


The conclusion I drew from the tour was that there is absolutely no need to replace the space in the Family Court building. It is a dignified place for judicial functions, and a far better environment for employees than an office building at 15th and Arch Streets, as has been proposed. The idea of spending $200 million to replace a perfectly adequate space is hard to understand.


On the other hand, it is true that the additional Family Court space being used at 11th and Market Streets is a poor environment for everyone who uses it. It clearly needs to be replaced.


But this does not require a $200 million new building. What’s needed is an annex close to the Family Court building on Logan Square, which would replace the Market Street space and relieve occasional crowding in the historic building. As far as I know, this idea has never been examined.


This is a new era in which sustainability and environmental impact are supposed to be high priorities. What could be more sustainable than preserving the existing building and adding only the amount of space needed to consolidate court operations?


The Committee of Seventy has recommended that the new Family Court building be put on hold while its handling is investigated. But my visit to the historic Family Court building suggests this entire project has not been properly studied.


What’s the hurry? Why are the Nutter administration and PIDC rushing to sell the building with barely two months’ notice?


I’ve heard only one explanation: The deal has to be done before Gov. Rendell leaves office. But this is not an adequate justification for hastily selling off an important public asset or spending $200 million in public funds on a questionable project.


As a candidate, Michael Nutter spoke about the need for orderly planning. That has not taken place on any aspect of the Family Court project.


Now is the time for Mayor Nutter to demonstrate leadership. He should stop the sale process, ask the state to put the new building on hold, ask the Historical Commission to protect the Family Court’s seven ceremonial rooms and stairwell, and begin a thoughtful analysis of Family Court needs and alternatives. That could lead to a course of action that deserves public support. The present approach does not.
Posted by Josh Gohlke @ 12:29 PM  Permalink | Post a comment
Comments   


0 comments
About The Inquirer Editorial Board
Welcome. You're reading the Inquirer Editorial Board's Say What? opinion blog. We hope you enjoy commentary from the Editorial and Commentary pages, in addition to up-to-the-minute opinion postings that appear here for the first time. Here are thumbnail bio sketches and contact information for the editors and writers who produce the newspaper's opinion pages, as well as an archive of recent cartoons by Tony Auth. (Our blog roll follows the ad below.) Please check out the videos from our One Great Idea project. And don't miss our daily online reader polls.
Join on Facebook    Follow on Twitter

Advertise Here