A Pennsylvania court has overturned the Washington Square West Historic District designation in Center City Philadelphia, a ruling that removes demolition protections for more than 1,400 buildings and raises legal questions about how the city applies its historic preservation law.
Court of Common Pleas Judge Christopher Hall issued the ruling after residents challenged the Philadelphia Historical Commission’s 2024 decision to create the district. The designation had protected most structures within its boundaries. Washington Square West sits beside Old City and covers a 26-block area with irregular borders that run roughly from Walnut Street on the north to Lombard Street on the south, and from Juniper Street on the west to 8th Street on the east.
Inside those boundaries are 1,441 properties containing buildings constructed between 1740 and 1985. When the Historical Commission approved the district in 2024, it was the largest historic district created in the city in decades. The Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia and the Washington Square West Civic Association supported the nomination.
Judge Hall issued a one-page order overturning the designation. In the document, he wrote that the nomination “was not in accordance with law” and that the Historical Commission’s decision “was not supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” The order includes a footnote referencing a city ethics rule stating that a city officer or employee “shall assist another person by representing him directly or indirectly … in any transaction involving the city.”
🚨The designation of the Washington Square West Historic District by the Philadelphia Historical Commission has been reversed by the court🚨
Proliferation of historic districts has really gotten out of hand in Philly (and other US cities) so great to see some judicial scrutiny. pic.twitter.com/blkhOkgQfc
— Daniel Trubman (@dmtrubman) March 2, 2026
The case began when residents Jonathan Hessney, Colin Murphy, and Joshua Zugerman filed a lawsuit contesting the designation. Their attorney, Dan Auerbach, argued that the process used to nominate and approve the district did not meet legal requirements and imposed costly restrictions on property owners. Historic district rules require property owners to follow design guidelines for historically accurate features such as windows, doors, roofs, and other architectural elements when performing repairs or renovations.
“Designations subject property owners to burdensome restrictions,” Auerbach said. “Imposing them demands real evidence. It demands real procedures that respect the rights of property owners. The Historical Commission should take this case as an opportunity to implement those procedures.”
After the ruling, Auerbach said the court agreed with the residents’ claims. “Washington Square West was designated through a flawed process that lacked any evidence whatsoever. We are delighted that it has been overturned.” In another statement he wrote, “Washington Square West was one of the most significant historical district designations in the city’s history. There was absolutely no evidence to support it. We are delighted that it has been overturned.”
Part of the legal dispute involved Emily Cooperman, a member of the Historical Commission who drafted the nomination for the Washington Square West district. Auerbach argued that her involvement violated city ethics rules because she helped prepare a proposal presented to the agency on which she serves. In a legal brief he wrote that “violating due process, the commissioners sat in review of their colleague’s factual claims and advocacy.”
Cooperman did not participate in the vote on the district designation. In a phone interview, she explained that she had helped write an earlier nomination for a Washington Square West historic district in 2009, before joining the commission, and later updated the document for the Washington Square West Civic Organization. She said she believed that work complied with city ethics rules as long as she recused herself from the vote. “There have been other members of the commission that have had work before the commission, so that’s particularly surprising,” Cooperman said about Hall’s decision. “That’s what the whole recusal aspect of the city’s ethics regulations are for.”
Judge Hall also agreed with the arguments that the Historical Commission did not provide sufficient evidence during its proceedings to support the district designation. His order states that the commission’s decision “was not supported by ‘substantial evidence.’”
The issue surfaced during a Feb. 19 court hearing when Hall repeatedly asked the city’s attorney, Leonard Reuter, to point to evidence supporting the commission’s action. During that exchange, the judge dismissed some of Reuter’s responses as “a conclusion” instead of evidence.
Auerbach maintained that the nomination lacked factual support during the commission’s hearing. In his legal brief, he wrote: “There was literally no evidence to support that. Nobody testified. The nominators seeking designation put no facts or evidence into the record.”
He also criticized the structure of the nomination document submitted to the Historical Commission. The petition totaled 1,482 pages. According to Auerbach, most of the document consisted of property lists without explanations describing their historical importance, and it referenced supporting materials that were not included.
The lawsuit also argued that the nomination justified a large geographic district using claims about the historical importance of a smaller group of buildings. According to the complaint, only 173 properties in the district were described as meeting the definition of historical significance. The plaintiffs said the nomination did not explain why the remaining buildings should be included. “It failed to show why it was necessary to designate the other properties—many of them built in the latter-half of the 20th century with no apparent historical significance,” the lawsuit said.
Judge Hall’s order did not address those arguments directly. He also wrote that he did not consider claims presented in two other lawsuits challenging the same designation.
Organizations that supported the district expressed surprise at the outcome. Paul Steinke, executive director of the Preservation Alliance of Greater Philadelphia, said the group was “kind of stunned.” He added, “We’re baffled, confused, why this nomination, of all nominations, doesn’t meet this judge’s standard.”
Steinke said the nomination contained detailed documentation explaining the district’s historical importance and how it satisfied the criteria set out in the city’s preservation ordinance. “It’s a lengthy statement of significance that does provide evidence,” he said. “From our standpoint, it was a strong and solid nomination that demonstrates how the district meets the criteria in the preservation ordinance. That’s the name of the game, and the commission agreed unanimously.”
He also referred to the history of Philadelphia’s preservation ordinance. “The city’s historic preservation law has been working on a pretty consistent basis across multiple neighborhoods for decades, since the ordinance was amended in the 80s to allow Philadelphia to designate districts,” Steinke said. “So for 40 years, we haven’t had this problem and now suddenly we do. It doesn’t hold water to me.”
Historic districts apply review rules across groups of buildings within defined areas. Preservation supporters say this approach protects architectural and cultural features that attract residents and visitors to Philadelphia. The city expanded its creation of historic districts after 2017, when public reaction to the demolition of several notable buildings led the Kenney administration to increase funding for the Historical Commission.
As additional districts have been proposed, property owners have raised objections. Critics say the designation process increases renovation costs because repairs must follow historic design guidelines. Others say the rules affect property rights, redevelopment, and housing costs.
The Washington Square West case is one of several recent legal disputes involving the Historical Commission. According to Steinke, a court rejected a challenge to the Southeast Spruce Hill Historic District, though that decision is currently being appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Another case concerning the Northwest Apartments Thematic Historic District — which includes 30 properties built during the first half of the 20th century — has not yet received a ruling.
Hall’s decision does not affect cases that have already been decided. City officials are reviewing the ruling and considering their next step. A spokesperson for the city’s Law Department declined to comment further. “At this time, the Historical Commission staff is working with the city’s Law Department to review the court’s decision and are preparing to evaluate their options,” city spokesperson Bruce Bohri said in an email. “We don’t have further comment beyond that right now.”
If the city appeals the ruling, Judge Hall would issue a more detailed explanation of his reasoning. A footnote in the decision references a 1983 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case involving the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment and a variance that allowed a Ridge Avenue home to be converted into a steak and sandwich shop. That ruling examined the type and amount of evidence required to justify a zoning variance and determined that the homeowner had presented sufficient evidence, overturning a lower court decision that canceled the variance.
Residents who filed the lawsuit said they intend to defend the ruling if the city pursues an appeal. Hessney and the other plaintiffs declined to comment during the 30-day appeal period. In an email sent to supporters, they described the case as “a long, hard process.”
Discussions about revisions to Philadelphia’s preservation ordinance are already underway. City Councilmember Mark Squilla has been working on proposed amendments after concerns were raised by developers and property owners. A working group including Squilla, a building industry representative, real estate attorneys, preservation advocates, and others has met four times to discuss potential changes, with another meeting scheduled later this month. The city’s Law Department is preparing revisions to the proposal.
Squilla has said the legislation was intended in part to discourage spurious nominations. An early draft drew objections from preservation groups who said it would make demolition of historic buildings easier. Squilla did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the court’s ruling.
Historic nominations often face legal challenges, though courts usually rule in favor of the Historical Commission. Paul Steinke described the result in this case as “a surprise and disappointment.” He added that, based on his understanding, “the provisions of the city’s historic preservation ordinance with respect to designating historic districts were followed. We are confused as to what aspect of that process did not comply with the law.”
