Trouble Ahead for National Product's Tiles

In his excellent book about the complexities of preserving memory and history, The Same Axe, Twice, Howard Mansfield provides a little background to explain the title. He tells the story (which may be apocryphal) of a crusty New Hampshire carpenter who still uses his grandfather's axe, which he claims dates to the 19th Century. The blade has been replaced a couple of times, as has the handle. But the carpenter maintains that it is still an historic object. It's just "the same axe, twice."
Mansfield goes on to ponder what's more important in historic preservation: the original fabric of a building or object, or its continuing usage.
Now the same issue has come up with Philadelphia's National Products Building on Second Street in Old City. Four years ago this month, the city's Historical Commission took the unprecedented step of historically certifying the 1950s-era facade, a funky mid-century modern composition of square orange tiles, zig-zagging canopies and stylized stainless steel signage. All that stuff had been pasted onto a much older - and less distinctive - brick warehouse building. It was the first time the commission honored this kind of vernacular, commercial modernization, and many in the preservation community applauded the decision as a major advance for preservation. After all, cities don't just want to save the buildings of the rich and powerful, but those that that reflect all layers of society.
The designation came in the nick of time, too, because developers were salivating at the prospect of obtaining the National's huge Old City site for condos. But once the building had its historic imprimatur, the developer was obliged to incorporate the facade into the design.
Okay. Fast forward to last week. Developer Steve Patron appeared before the commission's architectural subcommittee. It seems the 1,600 oranges tiles are cracking at a rapid rate, partly because of a manufacturing flaw. According to his consultant, Sam Harris, a respected preservation consultant, the original glaze wasn't extended around the edges of the tiles and now water is seeping between the joints. Patron wants permission to demolish the wall. In exchange, he vows to commission an entire set of new tiles and rebuild the historic facade exactly as it looks today - the same wall, twice.
The architectural sub-committee accepted the argument. Very likely, the full commission will affirm their decision at today's meeting. That will enable Patron to erect the multi-story condos and the new wall simultaneously. No doubt, it's a much easier way to build than having to prop up the tile wall.
Why don't I feel assured by all this?
For one thing, the commission has no budget to hire experts to check on the accuracy of Patron's assessment. For another, Patron hasn't produced any samples of the replacement tiles. He has hasn't even said whether the manufacturer still exists, or whether it still possesses the chemical formula for that particular, mottled orange tile. At the very least, the commission should demand written confirmation from a manufacturer that an exact replica is possible. And then the commission staff needs to examine samples BEFORE a single tile comes off the building.
The good part is, even if the demolition is approved today, it will be what's called an "in concept" approval. That means Patron won't be able to go ahead until he has submitted all the design details to the commission staff and they've signed off. The same National Products Building, twice might be okay, as long it's really the same.