In the heart of Reading, Pennsylvania, a unique opportunity has arisen amidst a series of unexpected resignations. The sudden departure of all members from the city's Historical Architectural Review Board (HARB) has sparked a conversation about the future of historical preservation and the potential for positive change. This article delves into the recommendations offered by the state's historical agency and explores the implications for Reading's rich historical fabric.
Historical Preservation in Focus
The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission stepped in to guide Reading's City Council on reestablishing the HARB. With five historical districts under its belt, Reading's commitment to preserving its past is evident. The HARB plays a crucial role in this process, ensuring that any alterations to buildings in these districts align with historical guidelines.
A Moment for Reflection and Action
Megan McNish, a representative from the state's preservation office, sees the mass resignations as a chance for Reading to reassess and improve its preservation efforts. Her recommendations are comprehensive, covering immediate, short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals. From updating ordinances to developing design guidelines and conducting surveys, McNish's plan aims to strengthen the city's preservation program.
Immediate Actions and Long-Term Vision
For the immediate future, McNish suggests rewriting the city's historic preservation ordinance. She questions whether the current framework, the Historic District Act, is the best fit for Reading's needs. The Municipalities Planning Code, she argues, might offer a more flexible approach. This revision could be funded through grants, and McNish offers her assistance in securing these funds.
In the short term, McNish recommends assessing staffing responsibilities and integrating historic preservation into the digital permitting process. This phase also involves adopting bylaws for the preservation review board to align with the updated ordinance. The medium term focuses on developing design guidelines for each historic district, ensuring each area's unique character is preserved.
Finally, the long-term plan involves implementing the survey plan to comprehensively document and preserve Reading's historical districts.
A Thoughtful Process and a Long Journey
Community Development Director David Barr welcomes these recommendations, acknowledging the potential for a lengthy process. He estimates that fully implementing these measures could take until early 2029. This timeline raises questions about the temporary role of City Council as the HARB and the need for transparency in the approval process.
Councilmember Jaime Baez Jr. highlights concerns raised during exit interviews with former HARB members, suggesting potential bias in the approval process. However, the city's historical preservation officer, Amy Johnson, vehemently denies these claims, emphasizing the fairness and impartiality of the process.
Reconstituting the HARB: A Priority
Council President Donna Reed emphasizes the urgency of reconstituting the HARB, comparing it to the American principle of a jury of one's peers. She believes that having homeowners, architects, and individuals with vested interests on the board ensures a fair and balanced approach to historical preservation.
Conclusion: A Journey Towards Preservation
Reading's journey towards effective historical preservation is a complex and ongoing process. The recommendations offered by the state's historical agency provide a roadmap for the city to navigate this path. While the process may be lengthy, the potential for positive change and the preservation of Reading's rich history make it a worthwhile endeavor. As the city moves forward, it must ensure transparency, fairness, and a deep commitment to preserving its past for future generations.
