Thanks for your response. I did read "The Life and Death (or it may have been "The Death and Life") of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs in Urban Studies 101 at Temple. It's been a long time since I read it, but I do recall the points you raised: that buildings should have human scale (3 or 4 stories instead of skyscrapers) , and that a variety and mix of buildings and uses on a street keeps an area vibrant. Maybe those of us who have been writing on the HD issue can take some time to read or reread this book.
It was pointed out to me by other correspondents that other reasons for the deterioration in Philadelphia that I mentioned included economic and racial changes, redlining, and other causes that would not be addressed by designation of an Historic District. This may be true. But I thought it was important to express the emotional response I have when I see what has happened in the other areas of the city even with zoning and other various laws that are supposed to govern land use.
Another correspondent pointed out that it was better to suffer the occasional tacky renovation than to be subject to an oversight body with draconian rules, but the point I hoped to make was that we can demand of our elected representatives that the rules for any designation be rewritten to be fair and reasonable, and not set unreasonable costs. The worst case scenarios most often cited are those of the HC dictating paint colors, or demanding things that are unreasonably expensive. I am not particularly swayed by the paint argument, because Spruce Hill, and in particular the area around the 4200 block of Pine Street, is awash in newly painted buildings which spectacularly highlight the artistic details of the facades. I can't foresee the HC coming in and telling everyone they have to repaint everything in Philadelphia Brown (an actual color, you know!).
We don't now live in 1890 or 1900, so I would not expect, nor should anyone else expect that a building owner is going to be able to replicate a building component that existed then. But at the same time, it is not unreasonable, nor should it be unduly expensive to make a repair that is at least visually compatible with the age of the building in question. A Home Depot porch spindle is not going to be identical to an original one, but it's more in keeping with the original aesthetic than putting up a cinderblock wall or ripping off the porch altogether. If the HC does not allow the Home Depot spindle, it is being unreasonable; if the property owner wants to rip off the porch altogether, he or she is being unreasonable and flat out destructive.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with your dynamic vs. static argument, however. While it could be said that preserving the past is static, I don't believe that preserving the physical remnants of the past to be, insofar as architecture is an art form, and probably one of the few that is rourinely subject to alteration and destruction (for example, think of the demotiion of the old Pennsylvania Station in New York in the 1960's in the name of "progress"). I've been inside of some absolutely magnificent homes in this neighborhood, and to me, the fact that these homes are still stunning 100-plus years later speak to their quality as works of archetectural art. Your mention of a "managed/engineered" neighborhood may be the only way some of these structures will be able to survive.
Thanks again for your response. Karen
From: L a s e r B e a m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: L a s e r B e a m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [UC] HD : an Ad Hoc, Non Binding, lots of time and reasons to change your mind, POLL - Just Do It!
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 13:10:46 -0400
KAREN ALLEN wrote:I support the historic district designation, although I do not live in Spruce Hill. I think that some valid concerns have been raised regarding how the Historic Commission functions, but these issues can and should be addressed separately and apart from the concept of a historic district.
I am almost 50 years old, and I lived in Philadelphia my entire life. I grew up in South Philadelphia, in the neighborhood now known as Southwest Center City. ...[rest of story snipped]
thanks, karen, for your story. it's another example of how complex the hd issue is. for example, you cite the wholesale destruction that occured in your old neighborhood. and then point out that that wholesale destruction did not happen in this neighborhood, that it survived more or less intact and has a cohesive aesthetic. it makes one wonder, doesn't it, about the extent to which wholesale destruction is going on in this neighborhood, and, related to that, the extent to which historic districting would be the appropriate tool necessary to stem it... many factors are responsible for fostering healthy stable neighborhoods over time, and some would argue that these factors should include those which encouraged a mix of uses and people in an area, factors which would prevent an unhealthy and vulnerable 'homogenization' ('ghettoization') of an area... the very factors which, it could be argued, historic designation would mitigate, if not eliminate. something to think about.
karen, have you ever read jane jacobs' book, written 1960 I think, called the life and death of great american cities. she describes four urban design principles necessary for the creation and preservation of vibrant, diverse cities: (1) high densities of population and activities; (2) mixtures of primary uses; (3) small-scale, pedestrian-friendly blocks and streetscapes; and (4) the retention of old buildings mixed in with new. jacobs was critical of a planning style that destroyed communities, separated land uses, and fostered homogenization -- the very effects of the urban renewal and garden-city movements of her time. she often challenged established orthodoxy. for example, she called for the preservation of old buildings not for aesthetic or historical reasons, but on economic and social grounds: part of the physical diversity of a healthy district, she argued, was the retention of old buildings *mixed in with the new*. jacobs also argued that urban health and vitality require effective local participation in the political process, as it affects all areas of city life, including land use.
I mention this because I see in all this discussion about the neighborhood a contest of visions -- one of neighborhoods as organic and dynamic vs one of neighborhoods as managed/engineered and static. I think there's a middle ground somewhere, where these two visions come together, and I think jacobs offers an interesting model/set of principles that many consider sound (at least, she's still taught in urban design courses). I also mention jacobs because in an earlier post you talked about drafting a zoning letter, and along the way you said "UC community groups will challenge zoning changes that will adversely impact on the community" -- it reminded me that what you and these groups think of as 'adverse' to the community may well be precisely what jacobs would call 'healthy,' namely, a mix of uses that prevents homogenized 'ghettoization' and fosters thriving, healthy cities. something to think about.
......... laserbeam [aka ray]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
_________________________________________________________________
Limited-time offer: Fast, reliable MSN 9 Dial-up Internet access FREE for 2 months! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup&pgmarket=en-us&ST=1/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
