On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Jay Farrell wrote: > Your friend, Bruce Andersen, asked us to send you > a copy of an email they wrote City Council about Save Convention Hall!.
Just a minor clarification; the from line in the previous mail notwithstanding, the letter was Bruce's, not mine (though, of course, I wholeheartedly agree with him). He used the 'forward a copy' feature of the fax bank at Hallwatch. Another list member wrote to me privately concerned about the lack of specifics, such as how we know the buildings can be reused and how do we know Penn didn't review the various options for adaptive reuse. Following is my edited reply: [snip] We don't even provide a suggested template letter for our fax bank, preferring that people write in their own heartfelt words (although some seem to borrow from previous writers there). For my own excrutiatingly lengthy letter, posted on the fax bank yesterday, scroll down at bit from: http://www.hallwatch.org/faxbank/conventionhall/readletters Look for the Dec 27th letter from JF (with my full name at the bottom). There is additional info on the intro page to our fax bank: http://www.hallwatch.org/faxbank/conventionhall/ And a great deal more at http://PhilaDeco.com in the running chronology on the main page, but also see our Press Releases: http://philadeco.com/csch-pr.html The public, members of our committee included, knows next to nothing about what options Penn explored. That was very much Penn's own doing, despite their protestations of being very open to the public during their planning. Of the two people who responded to my query on the UnivCity list about Penn's 'First Thursday' meetings (where Penn claims to have heard little or no opposition to demolition), both said they hadn't heard of the demolition at the meetings they attended; both would have opposed. A survey I ran in the University City section of PhillyBlog (frequented by people active in the community), garnered 12 responses - not a single one aware of the First Thursday meetings. Half of what we're asking for is that Penn revisit their planning, this time involving the public in a substantive manner. Our other request is that they put the demolition on hold pending that (demolition is, after all, irreversible). It is most noteworthy that Penn tried to block an Inquirer article last month about architectural salvage work at Convention Hall, as if to limit public awareness until after any protests are rendered moot by commencement of exterior demolition. How do I know of the unsuccessful attempt to supress the Inquirer article? A source in a position to know at the Inquirer told me. I'll also mention that the two architectural firms engaged by Penn for the proposed expansion's site planning were Rafael Vinoly and Skidmore Owings Merrill. Neither firm built their reps on historic preservation or adaptive reuse. --end self quote-- Cheers, Jayfar -- PhilaDeco.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://PhilaDeco.com AIM: PhilaDeco Committee to Save Convention Hall fax bank http://www.hallwatch.org/faxbank/conventionhall/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---- 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>.
