I get a bit of a twinge of nostalgia about Convention Hall. The Beatles played there in 1964 on their first American tour. One would think that would be a point to keep the building. The Stones also played there one one of their first American tours. I am not certain, but I venture that many other famous people either played there or spoke there.
I also loved the descent down the escalator into the Philadelphia Flower Show accompanied by the fragrance of hyacinths on a cold, sometimes snowy early Spring evening. Entering the show at The Convention Center just does not have the same effect. Another place that had lots of great acts was The Arena at 46th & Market which was consumed in a fire I believe. Considering the present dearth of musicians and musical acts that have changed the medium forever, and the musical heritage of Philadelphia and its contributions to culture (pop and otherwise), I have often wondered why these places are razed so often. It's a sense of tradition an artist feels of playing on the same stage as one of the earlier greats or using the same dressing area. There were great places in West Phila. that contributed to the City's musical heritage and perhaps worth keeping. Just another point of view. Wilma de Soto On 1/2/05 10:02 AM, "L a s e r B e a m �" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill Sanderson wrote: >> Precisely. There are shades of grey to every issue. I don't expect UCHS to >> go to the wall for every possible encroachment on a historic structure in >> west Philly. Clearly you know a lot more about that body than I do, but I >> would expect such a group to pick their battles. The way I read what the >> University has said about its process in looking at whether the buildings >> could be preserved, I don't think I'd pick this battle. >> >> Others might--I'm not knocking jayfar's efforts, but this issue isn't one >> that I can get too excited about. OTOH, I'm in favor of a historic >> district, too. > > > shucks, I know as much as the next person about what uchs is > doing/not doing. as far as I can tell, uchs is a local > organization which has been publicly battling on our > collective behalf to establish an historic district in > ucity, on the grounds of 'history' and 'preservation' and > 'non-encroachment.' and I am trying, as a citizen of ucity, > to understand uchs's definitions of 'history' and > 'preservation' and 'encroachment' -- definitions which will > affect my life and your life in ucity, definitions which > will need to be publicly understood as new examples of > 'history' and 'preservation' and 'encroachment' arise in ucity. > > and so I ask, publicly: given that uchs has thus far defined > 'history' and 'preservation' and 'non-encroachment' in its > efforts to establish an historic district, what is the > uchs's stance on the imminent destruction of convention hall > and the commercial museum? you may recall that I began this > discussion by wondering if there was selectivity at work, in > how some histories may be legitimized while others may not. > > unfortunately, it is not enlightening for me to know whether > you are personally excited about any of this or not, or > whether you personally favor historic districts or not, or > whether you would personally pick this battle or not. I'm > asking about something rather more public. > > > ......... > 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>. ---- 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>.
