One interesting pattern in large American cities is that the south sides of cities that are located below a city's central core are almost always blue collar, working class areas.
South Boston. South Philly. South Baltimore. Southeast DC. The South Side of Chicago. Southwest Atlanta. South side of Houston. Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. South Central Los Angeles.
Not that is not to say there are no nice southern sections of cities are that sections of cities north of their downtowns may not be as working class as southern sections. But in many cases the south sides of cities are not only infamous in their own right but they can also define the working class character of the entire city. South Boston and Southies have been prominently shown in recent big budget films like The Town and The Departed. Philadelphia is inextricably linked to South Philly because of cheesesteaks and Rocky. The South Side of Chicago, Lower Ninth and South Central dominate the working class images of their respective cities on a national scale.
For port cities, it's easier to connect the dots on why the southern sections of cities became large working class communities. These cities were often located on rivers and waterways that forced cheap working class labor to live on the cheapest land (as well as unwanted ethnic groups as well. You might have heard America was a little racisty back then), which was often swamps and marshy land that were located just below major ports and factories. South Boston, South Philadelphia, Southeast DC and the Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans were literally built on swamp land. The cramped conditions of these cities original working class helped foster the image of their city's working class to this day. Chicago's famous south side which is bordered by lake Michigan was also built on swamp land but did not develop around port factories. Chicago's South Side was developed around the Union Stockyards, the city's meat-packing district and the Pullman railroad company.
But for the other major cities in the South and West the connection to why the south side of their major cities are working class are not as clear. Did cities in the South and West which developed into major cities only within the 20th century just repeat the development of older cities because of precedent? I don't know but I find it very peculiar.
No matter the case, here's my shout out to the American city South Side:
Common ft Kanye West - Southside
Showing posts with label Philadelphia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philadelphia. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A Planner's reality: Segregation in America
Salon.com recently posted a great slideshow of the most segregated cities in America. The post had a map of the racial breakdown of each city as well as an explanation of the history of segregation in each city. Check out the slideshow in this link.
What's interesting is that even in some of the most segregated cities, there is a new trend of young affluent white suburbanites moving into back into the core of cities and working class and middle class city black populations moving into inner-rung suburbs. While this new trend is causing some existing places to become more diverse as one population slides into a new neighborhood as the group is leaving, what's fascinating is that the new trend is still reinforcing the old trend of segregation. The shifts in population among races are not quite coexisting with each other as they are displacing one another.
And this displacement is causing a lot of ugly fights between new and existing populations throughout urban America. In Philadelphia and Washington D.C., historically black neighborhoods are trying to protect their community's identity from white and now black gentrifiers and in suburban Detroit, elite black suburbs or worried about the waves of working class blacks from inner-city Detroit moving into their communities.
These new tensions are now issues that planners now have to listen to and address. These tensions are no longer just a sensitive issue for the inner-city but now affect suburban planners as well. In my jurisdiction, my office worked on an historic black community (historic in culture but not in the building preservation sense) that began as a segregated community and had faced decades of discrimination. Their struggles in overcoming these obstacles helped cement the community's identity and it was very important that we preserve and honor that community's history. But from a strictly planning sense, none of their history of segregation was going to greatly affect how we planned and designed their future housing developments and open spaces. We could not ignore their history but we could not plan around their history either without a historical landmark or building. There was a disconnect between the community and the planners. To the community, their history was the number one concern. For the planners, designing safe spaces was our number one concern.
This disconnect between preserving the people's history in a community over the preservation of buildings is one of city planning's biggest challenges and up to now one of it's biggest failures. As a whole, city planners do not know how to at least help a community on the wrong side of gentrification. As city planners we almost always side with the gentrifiers because our number one goal is to create better designed spaces and buildings. The influx of gentrification helps remove and redevelop empty debris filled lots, rehabilitates vacant buildings and brings commercial vitality back into neighborhoods. Who wouldn't want that?
Newcomers into gentrified inner-city neighborhoods are often dismayed when they find out that it is the existing long term residents who do not want the positive changes of gentrification. The standard answer for newcomers to existing long-term residents is that they should be thanking them for improving their neighborhoods. The issue for long-term residents is not that they want to live in sub-standard conditions but they are seeking a permanent stake in their community in which they felt they established. Whether that neighborhood is an affluent community or a poor community, long term residents feel that it is their neighborhood in large part because of the history of segregation. A lot of older black inner-city neighborhoods were purposefully segregated and became the only neighborhoods blacks could live in within a metropolitan region.
Despite their struggles these older black communities formed identities that were important not only to the psyche of blacks that lived in that community but to urban black America as a whole...for that time. Over time, these communities have often lost their identities as segregation slowly ended and middle class blacks moved out, leaving some of the working class blacks who couldn't afford to leave feel abandoned. But even with all that said there is still some high reverence for some of these communities no matter how poverty stricken or crime riddled they have become. While saying you are from Harlem or the Southside of Chicago or the 9th Ward of New Orleans may be looked down upon by some, for some in urban black America it is still a source of pride.
And this source of pride, which is wrapped around decades of segregation, self-empowerment, decline and then decades of poverty is what gentrification threatens to end. These communities have seen the life cycles of the black community within those cities and while they may be dying, those that still live in those communities do not want to see it end. So how do we as planners preserve that sense of pride? We all know that cities and neighborhoods go through changes, death and rebirth. Do we interfere with the natural life cycle of neighborhoods? Or is it important to maintain the cultural identity of a place like Harlem from becoming just another nice gentrified neighborhood?
What are your thoughts? Thanks for reading!
What's interesting is that even in some of the most segregated cities, there is a new trend of young affluent white suburbanites moving into back into the core of cities and working class and middle class city black populations moving into inner-rung suburbs. While this new trend is causing some existing places to become more diverse as one population slides into a new neighborhood as the group is leaving, what's fascinating is that the new trend is still reinforcing the old trend of segregation. The shifts in population among races are not quite coexisting with each other as they are displacing one another.
And this displacement is causing a lot of ugly fights between new and existing populations throughout urban America. In Philadelphia and Washington D.C., historically black neighborhoods are trying to protect their community's identity from white and now black gentrifiers and in suburban Detroit, elite black suburbs or worried about the waves of working class blacks from inner-city Detroit moving into their communities.
These new tensions are now issues that planners now have to listen to and address. These tensions are no longer just a sensitive issue for the inner-city but now affect suburban planners as well. In my jurisdiction, my office worked on an historic black community (historic in culture but not in the building preservation sense) that began as a segregated community and had faced decades of discrimination. Their struggles in overcoming these obstacles helped cement the community's identity and it was very important that we preserve and honor that community's history. But from a strictly planning sense, none of their history of segregation was going to greatly affect how we planned and designed their future housing developments and open spaces. We could not ignore their history but we could not plan around their history either without a historical landmark or building. There was a disconnect between the community and the planners. To the community, their history was the number one concern. For the planners, designing safe spaces was our number one concern.
This disconnect between preserving the people's history in a community over the preservation of buildings is one of city planning's biggest challenges and up to now one of it's biggest failures. As a whole, city planners do not know how to at least help a community on the wrong side of gentrification. As city planners we almost always side with the gentrifiers because our number one goal is to create better designed spaces and buildings. The influx of gentrification helps remove and redevelop empty debris filled lots, rehabilitates vacant buildings and brings commercial vitality back into neighborhoods. Who wouldn't want that?
Newcomers into gentrified inner-city neighborhoods are often dismayed when they find out that it is the existing long term residents who do not want the positive changes of gentrification. The standard answer for newcomers to existing long-term residents is that they should be thanking them for improving their neighborhoods. The issue for long-term residents is not that they want to live in sub-standard conditions but they are seeking a permanent stake in their community in which they felt they established. Whether that neighborhood is an affluent community or a poor community, long term residents feel that it is their neighborhood in large part because of the history of segregation. A lot of older black inner-city neighborhoods were purposefully segregated and became the only neighborhoods blacks could live in within a metropolitan region.
Despite their struggles these older black communities formed identities that were important not only to the psyche of blacks that lived in that community but to urban black America as a whole...for that time. Over time, these communities have often lost their identities as segregation slowly ended and middle class blacks moved out, leaving some of the working class blacks who couldn't afford to leave feel abandoned. But even with all that said there is still some high reverence for some of these communities no matter how poverty stricken or crime riddled they have become. While saying you are from Harlem or the Southside of Chicago or the 9th Ward of New Orleans may be looked down upon by some, for some in urban black America it is still a source of pride.
And this source of pride, which is wrapped around decades of segregation, self-empowerment, decline and then decades of poverty is what gentrification threatens to end. These communities have seen the life cycles of the black community within those cities and while they may be dying, those that still live in those communities do not want to see it end. So how do we as planners preserve that sense of pride? We all know that cities and neighborhoods go through changes, death and rebirth. Do we interfere with the natural life cycle of neighborhoods? Or is it important to maintain the cultural identity of a place like Harlem from becoming just another nice gentrified neighborhood?
What are your thoughts? Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sights from the Philly El
Below is a list of the completed Murals, their titles, and the direction which they are best viewed while traveling on the Market-Frankford Elevated line.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Big City Attitudes
The stereotypes that you often hear are that small towns are friendly and that big city are rude, unfriendly places. I don’t know if that stereotype is still true in some places or if it was ever true but here on the east coast it’s almost impossible to gauge the small town from the suburb or ex-urb of the big cities. The east coast at times feels like just one giant metropolitan area especially from D.C. in the south to north of New York City in Hartford. The “small towns” that are in between these cities are often never more than 45 minutes to a city beltway or an hour from a city line and they are probably now filled with people who are now making an hour commute of more from the city.
So with this spatial mismatch of people the idea of a true small town to me is lost…or maybe it’s just lost along the I-95 corridor. As a community planner, I know of whole inner-city communities (usually ethnic-nationality or single industry communities) that literally picked up and moved into an outer ring suburb and then picked up and moved again to a further ex-urb. While those communities may have been long separated from their inner-city roots, they certainly maintained their inner-city characteristics, which are both good and not so pleasant at times. Like most northeastern and Midwest cities, there has been a purging of all types of communities leaving the city for it’s suburbs which now blurs the imaginary line of city and suburb leaving little distinction between the two in some parts.
Now when my family first moved to the Baltimore suburbs in the mid 1980’s, there were definitely some “Leave-it to Beaver” type neighborhoods. The neighborhoods where you would drive by and everyone would just smile and wave at random strangers. While appearance wise, those neighborhoods are still around; the people in them are definitely not around anymore. In fact there are very few of those “Leave it to Beaver” type neighborhoods around anymore, even in the ex-urbs. The stereotypical “big city attitude” is found everywhere throughout the east coast and most prevalent in the Mid Atlantic.
But what’s most ironic about “big city attitude” myth is that the nicest people I have met on a day to day basis, whether it be a neighbor or a random stranger are the people actually living inside the big cities. For all the flack that New York City and Philadelphia get for being rude, inhospitable, uncouth places, I have received the warmest greetings from total strangers in these big cities then I ever have in the suburbs of Baltimore and D.C. While it’s true the people living in bigger cities maybe more direct and aggressive, I bet you will be treated more kindly by strangers in Midtown Manhattan of Center City, Philadelphia then you would in downtown Baltimore or D.C.
What’s your opinion on this? Anyone else have any similar or different experiences?
So with this spatial mismatch of people the idea of a true small town to me is lost…or maybe it’s just lost along the I-95 corridor. As a community planner, I know of whole inner-city communities (usually ethnic-nationality or single industry communities) that literally picked up and moved into an outer ring suburb and then picked up and moved again to a further ex-urb. While those communities may have been long separated from their inner-city roots, they certainly maintained their inner-city characteristics, which are both good and not so pleasant at times. Like most northeastern and Midwest cities, there has been a purging of all types of communities leaving the city for it’s suburbs which now blurs the imaginary line of city and suburb leaving little distinction between the two in some parts.
Now when my family first moved to the Baltimore suburbs in the mid 1980’s, there were definitely some “Leave-it to Beaver” type neighborhoods. The neighborhoods where you would drive by and everyone would just smile and wave at random strangers. While appearance wise, those neighborhoods are still around; the people in them are definitely not around anymore. In fact there are very few of those “Leave it to Beaver” type neighborhoods around anymore, even in the ex-urbs. The stereotypical “big city attitude” is found everywhere throughout the east coast and most prevalent in the Mid Atlantic.
But what’s most ironic about “big city attitude” myth is that the nicest people I have met on a day to day basis, whether it be a neighbor or a random stranger are the people actually living inside the big cities. For all the flack that New York City and Philadelphia get for being rude, inhospitable, uncouth places, I have received the warmest greetings from total strangers in these big cities then I ever have in the suburbs of Baltimore and D.C. While it’s true the people living in bigger cities maybe more direct and aggressive, I bet you will be treated more kindly by strangers in Midtown Manhattan of Center City, Philadelphia then you would in downtown Baltimore or D.C.
What’s your opinion on this? Anyone else have any similar or different experiences?
Friday, December 11, 2009
All things being equal, I'd rather be in Baltimore
A freind of mine on facebook recently said in his status update that:
"You know I hear people say all the time...'I'm sick of Baltimore and I can't wait till I leave'....well make sure you are leaving for a good reason because I guarantee you that after a while you are going to get sick of wherever you move to if you are not doing anything positive. Every place is like the next place without motivation and a game plan!....move for a reason and not an excuse."
Great point. I have definitely been guilty before about complaining about the lack of night life in Baltimore and wanting to leave for a bigger city. Both of my parents are from Philadelphia and when I was young I would always go up for weeks at a time to stay with relatives during the summer and visit them during holidays in the winter. It was from these visits that I fell in love with Philly and just the general feeling of being in a big city. Even though I lived less than a year of my life in Philly after being born there, I would even tell people growing up proudly and directly, I'm from Philly. The truth was I really a kid from suburban Baltimore who happened to visit Philadelphia often.
So ever since I was a kid, I have always been wishing to be somewhere else than Baltimore. Somewhere bigger. Somewhere more grand. Somewhere more flavorful. I never really appreciated Baltimore for what it was because I was too focused on what other cities had that Baltimore lacked. Throughout my childhood I would go back and forth from Philadelphia by train and by car and I would marvel at how fast the bigger city moved, the skyscrapers, the different cultures, the subways, the trolleys, the elevated trains. All Baltimore had was a bus and subway line that did not run on my side of town.
So when it was time to go way to college, naturally I choose to go to school in Philadelphia to no longer be a visitor but a resident of a big city. I enjoyed my time there, I soaked up everything Philly had to offer. The museums, the night life, the history, the sporting events, the culture, everything. The big city was everything I wanted it to be but also everything I did not expect it to be. The big city was colder. The big city made you rush and become brash because everyone was trying to hustle to get over. At times the city felt too dense, it would take sometimes an hour to get to another side of the city and park. The big city did not have much open grass and trees but had a lot of brick, concrete and steel. The big city was not laid back and relaxed.
After college was over, I got a job opportunity to go back to Baltimore. While I would certainly miss Philly and would love to move back, a part of me was relieved to go back home. Being back home made me relaxed again. Over the next year, I would travel back and forth from Philly to visit old friends when I realized something. I had spent my whole life wishing to be somewhere else only to get there and realize it wasn't what I thought it would be.
Don't get me wrong, I still got a lot of love for Philly and I would still move back there...if the situation was right. I would go back with my eyes wide open and I would not just jump back to the city at the first opportunity. So you would think, I would have learned my lesson about appreciating home but I did not. While back in Baltimore, I would travel south a lot to visit friends and sometimes just wander around in the city of our Nation's capital, D.C. I soon developed an adult wanderlust of D.C. similar to the childhood desires I had to be in Philadelphia.
Unlike Philadelphia, D.C. was not a big city. D.C. had a very similar scale to Baltimore but just exuded an overabundance of sophistication and hipness while still keeping a neighborhood charm from within its local neighborhoods. D.C. had what seemed like an endless amount of beautiful women and lots of young folks with money who spent it on the numerous megaclubs, clubs, lounges, restaurants that were defacto lounges, bars, entertainment venues that seemed to trump Baltimore's nightlife.
D.C. is a small city but I would have endless amounts of fun or course with the nightlife but also going to different museums, checking out it's many hipster-like neighborhoods and going to random cultural events. Everything was pretty much within walking distance of the Metro, which is one of the cleanest and best subway systems I have been on. Once again, all Baltimore had was a bus and a subway line that did not run on my side of town.
While I have never moved to D.C., it is only an hour away and I have come to really know the city through my frequent visits. And while I still love the town for it's endless amounts of beautiful women and nightlife, the amount of money you would have to make to enjoy said women and nightlife is outrageous. The amount of hours you would have to work to afford a lifestyle where you could enjoy the nightlife on a regular basis would run you ragged. And if the cost of living doesn't run you ragged, the horrible traffic and parking in D.C. and its surrounding areas will. One weekend of receipts from partying in D.C. often makes me appreciate the cheapness of my favorite local bars in Baltimore that much more.
Would I still move to D.C.? Maybe. D.C. has a lot of great neighborhoods and places with a lots of scenery and things to do. While I'm sure those places are nice, they are not quite home though. While in comparison to other cities, Baltimore may be small and laid back but I kind of dig that about my hometown. Here, I move around with ease. There's nothing here forcing me to move faster then I want too and there's no need to try to show off to keep up with the Joneses. This city allows you to be exactly who you are and not much more. Could it stand to have a better nightlife, transportation system and an overall hipness to it? Absolutely.
But all things being equal, I'd rather be in Baltimore.
"You know I hear people say all the time...'I'm sick of Baltimore and I can't wait till I leave'....well make sure you are leaving for a good reason because I guarantee you that after a while you are going to get sick of wherever you move to if you are not doing anything positive. Every place is like the next place without motivation and a game plan!....move for a reason and not an excuse."
Great point. I have definitely been guilty before about complaining about the lack of night life in Baltimore and wanting to leave for a bigger city. Both of my parents are from Philadelphia and when I was young I would always go up for weeks at a time to stay with relatives during the summer and visit them during holidays in the winter. It was from these visits that I fell in love with Philly and just the general feeling of being in a big city. Even though I lived less than a year of my life in Philly after being born there, I would even tell people growing up proudly and directly, I'm from Philly. The truth was I really a kid from suburban Baltimore who happened to visit Philadelphia often.
So ever since I was a kid, I have always been wishing to be somewhere else than Baltimore. Somewhere bigger. Somewhere more grand. Somewhere more flavorful. I never really appreciated Baltimore for what it was because I was too focused on what other cities had that Baltimore lacked. Throughout my childhood I would go back and forth from Philadelphia by train and by car and I would marvel at how fast the bigger city moved, the skyscrapers, the different cultures, the subways, the trolleys, the elevated trains. All Baltimore had was a bus and subway line that did not run on my side of town.
So when it was time to go way to college, naturally I choose to go to school in Philadelphia to no longer be a visitor but a resident of a big city. I enjoyed my time there, I soaked up everything Philly had to offer. The museums, the night life, the history, the sporting events, the culture, everything. The big city was everything I wanted it to be but also everything I did not expect it to be. The big city was colder. The big city made you rush and become brash because everyone was trying to hustle to get over. At times the city felt too dense, it would take sometimes an hour to get to another side of the city and park. The big city did not have much open grass and trees but had a lot of brick, concrete and steel. The big city was not laid back and relaxed.
After college was over, I got a job opportunity to go back to Baltimore. While I would certainly miss Philly and would love to move back, a part of me was relieved to go back home. Being back home made me relaxed again. Over the next year, I would travel back and forth from Philly to visit old friends when I realized something. I had spent my whole life wishing to be somewhere else only to get there and realize it wasn't what I thought it would be.
Don't get me wrong, I still got a lot of love for Philly and I would still move back there...if the situation was right. I would go back with my eyes wide open and I would not just jump back to the city at the first opportunity. So you would think, I would have learned my lesson about appreciating home but I did not. While back in Baltimore, I would travel south a lot to visit friends and sometimes just wander around in the city of our Nation's capital, D.C. I soon developed an adult wanderlust of D.C. similar to the childhood desires I had to be in Philadelphia.
Unlike Philadelphia, D.C. was not a big city. D.C. had a very similar scale to Baltimore but just exuded an overabundance of sophistication and hipness while still keeping a neighborhood charm from within its local neighborhoods. D.C. had what seemed like an endless amount of beautiful women and lots of young folks with money who spent it on the numerous megaclubs, clubs, lounges, restaurants that were defacto lounges, bars, entertainment venues that seemed to trump Baltimore's nightlife.
D.C. is a small city but I would have endless amounts of fun or course with the nightlife but also going to different museums, checking out it's many hipster-like neighborhoods and going to random cultural events. Everything was pretty much within walking distance of the Metro, which is one of the cleanest and best subway systems I have been on. Once again, all Baltimore had was a bus and a subway line that did not run on my side of town.
While I have never moved to D.C., it is only an hour away and I have come to really know the city through my frequent visits. And while I still love the town for it's endless amounts of beautiful women and nightlife, the amount of money you would have to make to enjoy said women and nightlife is outrageous. The amount of hours you would have to work to afford a lifestyle where you could enjoy the nightlife on a regular basis would run you ragged. And if the cost of living doesn't run you ragged, the horrible traffic and parking in D.C. and its surrounding areas will. One weekend of receipts from partying in D.C. often makes me appreciate the cheapness of my favorite local bars in Baltimore that much more.
Would I still move to D.C.? Maybe. D.C. has a lot of great neighborhoods and places with a lots of scenery and things to do. While I'm sure those places are nice, they are not quite home though. While in comparison to other cities, Baltimore may be small and laid back but I kind of dig that about my hometown. Here, I move around with ease. There's nothing here forcing me to move faster then I want too and there's no need to try to show off to keep up with the Joneses. This city allows you to be exactly who you are and not much more. Could it stand to have a better nightlife, transportation system and an overall hipness to it? Absolutely.
But all things being equal, I'd rather be in Baltimore.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Answer is Back in Philly
And so is the population.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20091202_Hey__Philly__You_re_bigger_.html
Philly grew by 93K people in the last decade.
I knew the city had to be growing, there has been too much new development and new restaurants opening up in the city during a recession for the city not to be growing. And from being in the city in 99 to visiting there recently, there is a different vibe and energy to the city. There are a lot more things to do in Center City now besides just go to South St and Old City. There's positive development in North Philly since...the early 1940s?, South Philly is gentrifying like crazy and University city is becoming more then just a college neighborhood but a destination.
Monday, May 18, 2009
My Born Place
Philly is like an old grandmother's living room
Old, dusty, a musty smell with a lot of history to share
Just like at my grandmother's house
The walls could use new paint, the ceiling has water spots
and the room could stand for some new furniture
but we don't come here for that
we come for the warmth, the love, the history and pride
through the years, it's been through it all
it's been through years of prosperity and years of mourn
it's seen young man turned into old men
it's seen children wed
it's seen parents wept
there's no denying it's great since of history
and no, I'm not talking about the collection of pictures
which could fill up a museum
I'm talking the history of paint chips that fell off
the banister year after year
the history of that intercom that blew out and was never fixed
I'm talking about the customs and traditions that's been carried out
which made technology adapt to it's ways
For it is not the things in grandma's house that we love
we love the warmth of our grandma
we love the fact that some of us called the place home
we love the fact that there was no better hot meal
we love the fact that the love was unconditional
these old and rusty out dated things in grandma's living roomw
ell...they need to be replaced
but they hold so much intrinsic value to her
we dare not touch them but just wish to polish them
For replacing them would be altering history
and we do not want something foreign to remind us
of our grandmother's living room
For these things she loves and will not part with these objects easily
So we preserve her outdated items
which beam of time gone by and are full of character
And this is what makes Philly what it is...
an old grandmother's living room
it's not the newest
or shiniest
or the best run
but it's home
and will provide you with more warmth
then a new fad ever could
For its not the creak in the step we want to preserve
it's the notches in wood from years gone by
It's not the water spots in the ceiling that we want to keep
but the design of another era gone by
and its not the chipped paint we which to remain on the railing
rather the memories of the scratches we made as children
For it's not the room that we love which is old, musty and out of date
It's the character, history and pride that make up our love for Philly
and all of it's worn out glory
Old, dusty, a musty smell with a lot of history to share
Just like at my grandmother's house
The walls could use new paint, the ceiling has water spots
and the room could stand for some new furniture
but we don't come here for that
we come for the warmth, the love, the history and pride
through the years, it's been through it all
it's been through years of prosperity and years of mourn
it's seen young man turned into old men
it's seen children wed
it's seen parents wept
there's no denying it's great since of history
and no, I'm not talking about the collection of pictures
which could fill up a museum
I'm talking the history of paint chips that fell off
the banister year after year
the history of that intercom that blew out and was never fixed
I'm talking about the customs and traditions that's been carried out
which made technology adapt to it's ways
For it is not the things in grandma's house that we love
we love the warmth of our grandma
we love the fact that some of us called the place home
we love the fact that there was no better hot meal
we love the fact that the love was unconditional
these old and rusty out dated things in grandma's living roomw
ell...they need to be replaced
but they hold so much intrinsic value to her
we dare not touch them but just wish to polish them
For replacing them would be altering history
and we do not want something foreign to remind us
of our grandmother's living room
For these things she loves and will not part with these objects easily
So we preserve her outdated items
which beam of time gone by and are full of character
And this is what makes Philly what it is...
an old grandmother's living room
it's not the newest
or shiniest
or the best run
but it's home
and will provide you with more warmth
then a new fad ever could
For its not the creak in the step we want to preserve
it's the notches in wood from years gone by
It's not the water spots in the ceiling that we want to keep
but the design of another era gone by
and its not the chipped paint we which to remain on the railing
rather the memories of the scratches we made as children
For it's not the room that we love which is old, musty and out of date
It's the character, history and pride that make up our love for Philly
and all of it's worn out glory
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Tales of a City Planner
Why did you decide to become a city planner?
Recently I gave a presentation to a graduate class of future social workers about the rigors of community planning and organizing. Before I began explaining the current ins and outs of planning, I first explained why I choose planning as a career. You maybe surprised to know that many planners in planning offices do not have planning degrees. Whether it’s a good or bad thing to have people from various related fields giving different perspectives, I don’t know. Most people do not grow up dreaming to review development plans and organize monthly community meetings. As a kid, I was always fascinated by cities and always loved gazing at skylines. I had no clue of what a city planner did. I wanted to be an architect.
My dream of being an architect began with legos. Every year a group of architects would hold a design workshop with legos during Baltimore’s Artscape festival where I would help build castles, ships, towers, you name it. As I got older I volunteered with the local architects to help run the lego workshop. Those same architects gave me my first of many internships in high school, which led me to major in architecture at Temple University for two years. To come full circle now, I now review the architectural plans of those same architects as a planner who I met helping kids play with legos as a teen.
It was at Temple University that I grew a deep appreciation for cities. Temple was an urban campus right in the heart of inner-city Philadelphia. I was a kids from an inn-ring suburb and while I had visited Philadelphia dozens of times because my family was from there, I had never lived there. It was an eye opening experience. The big city allowed me to experience the new cultures and neighborhoods, the subway and el trains, lively and crowded downtown streets…and great poverty.
My University was in a neighborhood that had been in blight for over 50 years. In fact, the building my studio building was in was across the street from public housing. The studio space had the top floor in a nine story and from every direction that you looked past the campus, there was a mile or more of blighted neighborhoods. I really liked being in architecture, it was my dream. But studying how people feel and perceive space seemed trivial in the face of abject poverty that was in front of us. No matter how the spaces of the buildings of across the street where designed they were never going to feel safe.
I could not get past the fact that as future architects, if we are designing new and better spaces for people, how are we going to help the people in public housing across the street? When I asked my professor, “Who designs buildings for the poor?” The answer I got was, very few. Since architecture is still a business, there is no profit in building for the poor. Your future clients will be those with means (being individuals or institutions) and that’s who you will essentially work for.
This is not to say that all architects do is design buildings and spaces for the rich. As an intern for several architectural firms, I worked numerous public projects that would affect almost everyone from hospitals, schools, government buildings and for commercial projects intended for low income neighborhoods. Even if architects were to design pro bono for low income neighborhoods, at best all they could do is change the perception of how they felt about their neighborhoods. And while it is important for everyone to have a positive relationship about their environment, especially the poor, it is not going to bring jobs to their neighborhoods, it will not provide a better education, and it will not provide them with better skills or healthcare. Can a city planner do all these things? Probably not but at least we can educate people and help guide communities into a better direction.
So I left my major of understanding how people live and interact within their immediate spaces for a major that studies how people live and interact with their community. Both professions seek to improve the quality of how people experience their environment. The planner’s job is to help communities envision a better environment.
Well I hoped you enjoyed reading my “Johnny Do-Gooder” city planning story. Most city planners have similar tales of wanting to change their world. And while working for government can be slow and arduous, most of us still hold on to the belief that we can impact the world we live in. If you read my past tales of a city planner, then you know that changing the world I know is a lot harder then I thought. And in this line of work, it is very hard to measure any discernable success or to gauge how much of an impact you really have on your community. But all I can do is learn from the mistakes from the past so I can help plan a better tomorrow. And from these blog posts, I hope that any future planners can learn from my mistakes.
Thanks for reading!
Recently I gave a presentation to a graduate class of future social workers about the rigors of community planning and organizing. Before I began explaining the current ins and outs of planning, I first explained why I choose planning as a career. You maybe surprised to know that many planners in planning offices do not have planning degrees. Whether it’s a good or bad thing to have people from various related fields giving different perspectives, I don’t know. Most people do not grow up dreaming to review development plans and organize monthly community meetings. As a kid, I was always fascinated by cities and always loved gazing at skylines. I had no clue of what a city planner did. I wanted to be an architect.
My dream of being an architect began with legos. Every year a group of architects would hold a design workshop with legos during Baltimore’s Artscape festival where I would help build castles, ships, towers, you name it. As I got older I volunteered with the local architects to help run the lego workshop. Those same architects gave me my first of many internships in high school, which led me to major in architecture at Temple University for two years. To come full circle now, I now review the architectural plans of those same architects as a planner who I met helping kids play with legos as a teen.
It was at Temple University that I grew a deep appreciation for cities. Temple was an urban campus right in the heart of inner-city Philadelphia. I was a kids from an inn-ring suburb and while I had visited Philadelphia dozens of times because my family was from there, I had never lived there. It was an eye opening experience. The big city allowed me to experience the new cultures and neighborhoods, the subway and el trains, lively and crowded downtown streets…and great poverty.
My University was in a neighborhood that had been in blight for over 50 years. In fact, the building my studio building was in was across the street from public housing. The studio space had the top floor in a nine story and from every direction that you looked past the campus, there was a mile or more of blighted neighborhoods. I really liked being in architecture, it was my dream. But studying how people feel and perceive space seemed trivial in the face of abject poverty that was in front of us. No matter how the spaces of the buildings of across the street where designed they were never going to feel safe.
I could not get past the fact that as future architects, if we are designing new and better spaces for people, how are we going to help the people in public housing across the street? When I asked my professor, “Who designs buildings for the poor?” The answer I got was, very few. Since architecture is still a business, there is no profit in building for the poor. Your future clients will be those with means (being individuals or institutions) and that’s who you will essentially work for.
This is not to say that all architects do is design buildings and spaces for the rich. As an intern for several architectural firms, I worked numerous public projects that would affect almost everyone from hospitals, schools, government buildings and for commercial projects intended for low income neighborhoods. Even if architects were to design pro bono for low income neighborhoods, at best all they could do is change the perception of how they felt about their neighborhoods. And while it is important for everyone to have a positive relationship about their environment, especially the poor, it is not going to bring jobs to their neighborhoods, it will not provide a better education, and it will not provide them with better skills or healthcare. Can a city planner do all these things? Probably not but at least we can educate people and help guide communities into a better direction.
So I left my major of understanding how people live and interact within their immediate spaces for a major that studies how people live and interact with their community. Both professions seek to improve the quality of how people experience their environment. The planner’s job is to help communities envision a better environment.
Well I hoped you enjoyed reading my “Johnny Do-Gooder” city planning story. Most city planners have similar tales of wanting to change their world. And while working for government can be slow and arduous, most of us still hold on to the belief that we can impact the world we live in. If you read my past tales of a city planner, then you know that changing the world I know is a lot harder then I thought. And in this line of work, it is very hard to measure any discernable success or to gauge how much of an impact you really have on your community. But all I can do is learn from the mistakes from the past so I can help plan a better tomorrow. And from these blog posts, I hope that any future planners can learn from my mistakes.
Thanks for reading!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
A Remedy for Blight - Land Banking in Baltimore
The Baltimore Sun ran an article today about Mayor Dixon's Land Banking plan. The article states:
"Despite owning more than 9,000 abandoned properties in Baltimore, the city sells about 250 a year to community developers and individuals. At that rate, Baltimore will never rid itself of this behemoth of blight. That lopsided ratio argues strongly for a better system of selling these rundown houses and vacant lots so that they can be returned to the tax rolls. Mayor Sheila Dixon has proposed creation of a land bank that would take control of the city's vast inventory of abandoned houses and streamline a process known to be cumbersome and time-consuming."
Baltimore is trying to proposed a land banking plan similar to the plans in Cleavland and St. Louis that were successful in revitalizing the outer fringes of those cities. Unfortunately for Baltimore, the outer fringes of the for the most part are stable, the bulk of the blight is located deep within the inner-city. As we know there are a whole host of factors that could have triggered blight in the inner-city versus the fringe.
My concern for the plan is from the struggles of a land banking program in Philadelphia, a city which shares more similarities with Baltimore then the previous aforementioned cities. Philadelphia's, Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative created by former Mayor Street, acquired large amount of vacant rowhouses and properties only to get quagmired by the demolition process by absentee landlords and individual property owners refusing to sell. While thousands of new housing units were built many neighborhoods were scarred even further by blocks that were partially cleared with only one or two rowhouse units remaining on the block. This created a scattered tooth effect which just accelerated blight even further. The article alludes to ownership problems when it states:
"The debate on this bill is just beginning, but the glut of vacant properties in this city - an estimated 30,000 - is too great not to approve the proposal, with some protections. Abandoned, rundown buildings have compromised the safety and health of too many city neighborhoods for too long. Most aren't owned by the city, though they are the city's problem. But 25 percent of vacant houses are city-owned, and a streamlined process to sell them would help generate more economic development opportunities and, ultimately, improve the quality of life throughout Baltimore."
Despite the predicted dilemmas that will come with the proposed Land Banking plan, one thing is clear, the problem will not solve itself and the city has to act. In this respect, the land banking plan is similar to the Federal banking bailout and stimulus plans. The failure to act now will only continue the decline of property values of the inner-city; however buying all these vacant properties is an expensive proposition for tax payers who will be left to finance these vacant properties if the city can not sell them.
"Despite owning more than 9,000 abandoned properties in Baltimore, the city sells about 250 a year to community developers and individuals. At that rate, Baltimore will never rid itself of this behemoth of blight. That lopsided ratio argues strongly for a better system of selling these rundown houses and vacant lots so that they can be returned to the tax rolls. Mayor Sheila Dixon has proposed creation of a land bank that would take control of the city's vast inventory of abandoned houses and streamline a process known to be cumbersome and time-consuming."
Baltimore is trying to proposed a land banking plan similar to the plans in Cleavland and St. Louis that were successful in revitalizing the outer fringes of those cities. Unfortunately for Baltimore, the outer fringes of the for the most part are stable, the bulk of the blight is located deep within the inner-city. As we know there are a whole host of factors that could have triggered blight in the inner-city versus the fringe.
My concern for the plan is from the struggles of a land banking program in Philadelphia, a city which shares more similarities with Baltimore then the previous aforementioned cities. Philadelphia's, Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative created by former Mayor Street, acquired large amount of vacant rowhouses and properties only to get quagmired by the demolition process by absentee landlords and individual property owners refusing to sell. While thousands of new housing units were built many neighborhoods were scarred even further by blocks that were partially cleared with only one or two rowhouse units remaining on the block. This created a scattered tooth effect which just accelerated blight even further. The article alludes to ownership problems when it states:
"The debate on this bill is just beginning, but the glut of vacant properties in this city - an estimated 30,000 - is too great not to approve the proposal, with some protections. Abandoned, rundown buildings have compromised the safety and health of too many city neighborhoods for too long. Most aren't owned by the city, though they are the city's problem. But 25 percent of vacant houses are city-owned, and a streamlined process to sell them would help generate more economic development opportunities and, ultimately, improve the quality of life throughout Baltimore."
Despite the predicted dilemmas that will come with the proposed Land Banking plan, one thing is clear, the problem will not solve itself and the city has to act. In this respect, the land banking plan is similar to the Federal banking bailout and stimulus plans. The failure to act now will only continue the decline of property values of the inner-city; however buying all these vacant properties is an expensive proposition for tax payers who will be left to finance these vacant properties if the city can not sell them.
Friday, January 30, 2009
L.A. Sprawl
Years ago, one of my Urban Studies Professors challenged the current notions of sprawl by stating that Philadelphia has more sprawl then L.A. The professor stated that the Philadelphia suburbs consume more square miles of countryside given Philadelphia's size when compared to Los Angeles and it's suburbs.
Could this be true? Do east coast cities actually generate more sprawl then auto-dependent L.A.? Well, it depends on how you calculate density. The popular myth of East Coasters when they think of L.A. is that it is a giant collection of suburbs when in fact it is a densely populated city.
But how dense is dense? While L.A. is undoubtedly urban is it as dense as Philadelphia? The answer to that question is no. Philadelphia is the most compact city in the county, even more so then New York City. So if one city is denser then another but it's suburbs consume more land, how would you calculate which is more sprawled?
Fast forward to a book review I ran across recently in Metropolis Magazine about Robert Bruegmann’s book, Sprawl: A Compact History. The book which advocated that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is more densely populated than New York’s, set off a whirlwind of debate between planners. While most planners believe in traditional regulation of development, found most prominently in the east coast, there is a rising faction of planners that believe in minimal regulation and allowing the market to dictate development. Bruegmann's book about sprawl and density seem to ignite both camps of planners.
The book review was not favorable to Bruegmann's claim that L.A. was statistically more populated then New York and sought to disprove this notion. The review poked a major hole in Bruegmann's theory by detailing that the units of measurements that was used to compare L.A. and New York were not the same. The article quotes:
"The UCLA study, which appears on the Livable Places Web site, concedes that Bruegmann is technically right since he merely claims that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is denser than New York’s urbanized area. As a unit, the greater Los Angeles metro area boasts 7,009 people per square mile, far in excess of the New York metro area’s paltry 5,239, according to the 2000 census. But just what is an urbanized area? And are they really enough alike to bother comparing?
As the UCLA group discovered, the census bureau’s official statistical units vary considerably in size and character. The land mass of New York’s urbanized area—defined as the city and the suburban counties within its gravitational pull—is twice the size of Los Angeles’s. New York’s statistical unit also has a third more people. Thus the two units are the proverbial apples and oranges. 'We believe comparing density by urbanized area is deceptive,' the UCLA group wrote."
That is a major hole to Bruegmann's article. To try to prove that L.A.'s miles of low rise housing is denser then New York's miles of high rises and skyscrapers not only goes against conventional wisdom it goes against common sense by just looking at the two cities. The review later goes onto show that L.A. and the cities that have followed it's growth patterns such as Phoenix and Atlanta have very low urban densities, which further my beliefs that few major cities in the south and west are actually urban. Phoenix and Houston have overtaken Philadelphia as being in the top 5 largest cities despite Philadelphia being in Phoenix case, over 10 times as dense. The article quotes:
"Even a modestly congested place like Philadelphia, where people cherish their single-family row houses and postage-stamp gardens, packs in 11,000 people per square mile, in contrast to L.A.’s 7,828. As for Phoenix and Atlanta, the cities that most closely mimic Los Angeles’s land-use patterns, the density barely hits 1,700 per square mile—hardly an indication of efficient, or environmentally sustainable, land use."
So back to the original question, does Philly have more sprawl then L.A. Technically yes if you just compared the two cities sizes in comparison to the size of their suburbs. However, the lower density of L.A. allows the city to consume more square acreage then Philly. So one can easily make the argument that there is sprawl even inside the city boundaries of L.A. given it's density. On top of that many Philadelphia suburban townships mimic Philadelphia development which would make them denser then the city of Los Angeles. Which means the answer that would be most correct is the Los Angeles Metropolitan region has more sprawl then the Philadelphia region.
Your thoughts?
Could this be true? Do east coast cities actually generate more sprawl then auto-dependent L.A.? Well, it depends on how you calculate density. The popular myth of East Coasters when they think of L.A. is that it is a giant collection of suburbs when in fact it is a densely populated city.
But how dense is dense? While L.A. is undoubtedly urban is it as dense as Philadelphia? The answer to that question is no. Philadelphia is the most compact city in the county, even more so then New York City. So if one city is denser then another but it's suburbs consume more land, how would you calculate which is more sprawled?
Fast forward to a book review I ran across recently in Metropolis Magazine about Robert Bruegmann’s book, Sprawl: A Compact History. The book which advocated that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is more densely populated than New York’s, set off a whirlwind of debate between planners. While most planners believe in traditional regulation of development, found most prominently in the east coast, there is a rising faction of planners that believe in minimal regulation and allowing the market to dictate development. Bruegmann's book about sprawl and density seem to ignite both camps of planners.
The book review was not favorable to Bruegmann's claim that L.A. was statistically more populated then New York and sought to disprove this notion. The review poked a major hole in Bruegmann's theory by detailing that the units of measurements that was used to compare L.A. and New York were not the same. The article quotes:
"The UCLA study, which appears on the Livable Places Web site, concedes that Bruegmann is technically right since he merely claims that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is denser than New York’s urbanized area. As a unit, the greater Los Angeles metro area boasts 7,009 people per square mile, far in excess of the New York metro area’s paltry 5,239, according to the 2000 census. But just what is an urbanized area? And are they really enough alike to bother comparing?
As the UCLA group discovered, the census bureau’s official statistical units vary considerably in size and character. The land mass of New York’s urbanized area—defined as the city and the suburban counties within its gravitational pull—is twice the size of Los Angeles’s. New York’s statistical unit also has a third more people. Thus the two units are the proverbial apples and oranges. 'We believe comparing density by urbanized area is deceptive,' the UCLA group wrote."
That is a major hole to Bruegmann's article. To try to prove that L.A.'s miles of low rise housing is denser then New York's miles of high rises and skyscrapers not only goes against conventional wisdom it goes against common sense by just looking at the two cities. The review later goes onto show that L.A. and the cities that have followed it's growth patterns such as Phoenix and Atlanta have very low urban densities, which further my beliefs that few major cities in the south and west are actually urban. Phoenix and Houston have overtaken Philadelphia as being in the top 5 largest cities despite Philadelphia being in Phoenix case, over 10 times as dense. The article quotes:
"Even a modestly congested place like Philadelphia, where people cherish their single-family row houses and postage-stamp gardens, packs in 11,000 people per square mile, in contrast to L.A.’s 7,828. As for Phoenix and Atlanta, the cities that most closely mimic Los Angeles’s land-use patterns, the density barely hits 1,700 per square mile—hardly an indication of efficient, or environmentally sustainable, land use."
So back to the original question, does Philly have more sprawl then L.A. Technically yes if you just compared the two cities sizes in comparison to the size of their suburbs. However, the lower density of L.A. allows the city to consume more square acreage then Philly. So one can easily make the argument that there is sprawl even inside the city boundaries of L.A. given it's density. On top of that many Philadelphia suburban townships mimic Philadelphia development which would make them denser then the city of Los Angeles. Which means the answer that would be most correct is the Los Angeles Metropolitan region has more sprawl then the Philadelphia region.
Your thoughts?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Favorite Movie Scenes of Cities - Trading Places
Shot in beautiful Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia, one of the parks planned by William Penn, the founder of the city.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Rust Belt Cities stay losing...Population
The census report for population growth was recently released and as the New York Times reports, many older cities continue to see their ups and downs. The only major East Coast or Rust Belt city to see a significant net increase was New York City. However it should be noted that since 2000, NYC has lost over 200, 000 residents.
As the trend has been since the 1970's Americans continue to move to the Sun Belt and suburban locales. Small to medium sized cities in the South and West have now become major cities as seen with Phoenix and San Antonio, which are now the nation's 5th and 7th largest cities. Houston, the nation's 4th largest city has now ballooned to 2.2 million people and Atlanta is one of the largest Metropolitan regions in the country. Surprisingly, Washington D.C., the nation's capital is no longer within the top 25 largest cities in the country.
As planners, this should be rather distressing. In my opinion many of the "cities" out west are just amorphous jurisdictions that happen to capture an urbanized place and it's suburban surroundings. In no way can these cities be compared to the traditional cities in the east or even the instant growth cities we see in China and in other parts of Asia. These blobs of cities are uniquely American and given the sheer land mass of their size have the lowest populations densities of any city found in the world. By Comparison, Phoenix, the 4th largest American city which has approximately 75,000 more residents then the 5th largest city, Philadelphia, is over 2.5 times the larger then Philly in total square footage. In order for Philadelphia to be of the the same square footage as Phoenix it would have to absorb it's entire neighboring county.
One does not have to tell you that the need for sustainable neighborhoods and cities is greater than ever. One has to look no further then the local newspaper to look at inflated gas prices, the mortgage crisis and a weakening infrastructure that we have to change the way we develop cities. It's not only up to the planners but it also up to the people to reform their ideologies of desirability and realize the desires of a green pastures and McMansions is not a sustainable way of life.
To read more of the New York Times article, click here. And as always, please leave a comment.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
How the Candidates stack up on Public Transit
Public Transit is one of the most important pieces of infastructure for sustaining a city and it is also one of the most expencies peices of infastrucutre as well. While in the last 40 years, Federal and state governments have spent more money on highway construction than on public tranist, it is important to note that all of American cities were developed and grew from public transit lines. With out public transit today, our best cities such as New York, Chicago and Sna Francisco would not be able to sustain themselves.
With a piece of infreastucture so vital to the daily lives to the city dwellers of this country, coast to coast, what are the Democratic candidates saying about the need to improve public transit. Well, according the the Philly Daily News...not that much.
From the Philadelphia Daily News:
"..."Transportation, which affects virtually everyone in the country, is barely on the radar of any of the candidates," said Samuel I. Schwartz, of Sam Schwartz PLLC, a transportation-planning firm."
Here's how Obama and Clinton plan to address the nation's transportation needs:
Barack Obama
Will create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to receive $6 billion annually to finance transportation projects around the country.
LOCAL TRANSIT: Will double the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program, which provides federal money to help low-income people get to work. Will increase resources for local public transportation, but doesn't provide a dollar amount.
AMTRAK AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: Will continue to fight for more funding. Supported a bill to provide $11 billion over six years. Supports development of high-speed freight and passenger rail, but does not indicate how much money he would provide.
AIR AND SEA: Wants to modernize air-traffic-control system to reduce delays. Will develop an accurate terrorist watch list to improve safety of air travel.
Hillary Clinton
INFRASTRUCTURE:Will establish a $10 billion emergency fund for repairs to roads, bridges and seaports. Another $250 million will fund "Emergency Assessment Grants" to help states inspect infrastructure.
LOCAL TRANSIT: Will provide $1.5 billion in additional funding annually for public transit.
AMTRAK AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: Will increase funding for "inter-city" rail systems by $1 billion over five years. Also plans to invest more in Amtrak.
AIR AND SEA: Would devise a national policy to expand port capacity. *
With a piece of infreastucture so vital to the daily lives to the city dwellers of this country, coast to coast, what are the Democratic candidates saying about the need to improve public transit. Well, according the the Philly Daily News...not that much.
From the Philadelphia Daily News:
"..."Transportation, which affects virtually everyone in the country, is barely on the radar of any of the candidates," said Samuel I. Schwartz, of Sam Schwartz PLLC, a transportation-planning firm."
Here's how Obama and Clinton plan to address the nation's transportation needs:
Barack Obama
Will create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to receive $6 billion annually to finance transportation projects around the country.
LOCAL TRANSIT: Will double the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute program, which provides federal money to help low-income people get to work. Will increase resources for local public transportation, but doesn't provide a dollar amount.
AMTRAK AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: Will continue to fight for more funding. Supported a bill to provide $11 billion over six years. Supports development of high-speed freight and passenger rail, but does not indicate how much money he would provide.
AIR AND SEA: Wants to modernize air-traffic-control system to reduce delays. Will develop an accurate terrorist watch list to improve safety of air travel.
Hillary Clinton
INFRASTRUCTURE:Will establish a $10 billion emergency fund for repairs to roads, bridges and seaports. Another $250 million will fund "Emergency Assessment Grants" to help states inspect infrastructure.
LOCAL TRANSIT: Will provide $1.5 billion in additional funding annually for public transit.
AMTRAK AND HIGH-SPEED RAIL: Will increase funding for "inter-city" rail systems by $1 billion over five years. Also plans to invest more in Amtrak.
AIR AND SEA: Would devise a national policy to expand port capacity. *
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Richard Florida's take on Philly's Economic Future
Older readers of this blog may remember an earlier post made about the University of Toronto's professor, Richard Florida and his theory on the "Creative Class."
Well Professor Florida is once again making waves by declaring that today, a city's vibrancy is becoming the top factor for people making the critical decision of where they want to live. On a March 30th Philadelphia Inquierer article, Richard Florida describes why he believes Philly's economic future is bright.
Here is a excerpt of the article:
"Our moves are crucial to our lives, affecting everything from our job opportunities and career options to our investments, the friends we make, the people we date, the mates we choose, and the way we raise our families. Our choice of place to live is the most important decision we ever make - largely because it influences and shapes all the others...
...The quality of place matters a lot more than you might think. People expect their communities to provide basic services and public safety, and most places do. So while very important, they're not a huge competitive advantage. But we found that the higher people rate the beauty of their community, the higher the level of community satisfaction. Philadelphia's green spaces, parks and trails, historic buildings, and access to the outdoors are attractive to people of all income groups, races and ethnicities, and education levels."
To read the rest of the article, click here.
Well Professor Florida is once again making waves by declaring that today, a city's vibrancy is becoming the top factor for people making the critical decision of where they want to live. On a March 30th Philadelphia Inquierer article, Richard Florida describes why he believes Philly's economic future is bright.
Here is a excerpt of the article:
"Our moves are crucial to our lives, affecting everything from our job opportunities and career options to our investments, the friends we make, the people we date, the mates we choose, and the way we raise our families. Our choice of place to live is the most important decision we ever make - largely because it influences and shapes all the others...
...The quality of place matters a lot more than you might think. People expect their communities to provide basic services and public safety, and most places do. So while very important, they're not a huge competitive advantage. But we found that the higher people rate the beauty of their community, the higher the level of community satisfaction. Philadelphia's green spaces, parks and trails, historic buildings, and access to the outdoors are attractive to people of all income groups, races and ethnicities, and education levels."
To read the rest of the article, click here.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Dems to debate strictly on "City Issues"
From the Washington Times:
"Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter, whose city is a key battleground in the state's Democratic primary, is inviting the candidates to answer residents' questions at a town-hall meeting — an exchange with ordinary people that he says Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton's and Barack Obama's campaigns lack...
... Philadelphia voters need answers about urban issues, including school funding, re-entry programs for convicts, jobs initiatives and plans for federal grant programs for policing and community development, the mayor said."
To read more, click here.
"Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter, whose city is a key battleground in the state's Democratic primary, is inviting the candidates to answer residents' questions at a town-hall meeting — an exchange with ordinary people that he says Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton's and Barack Obama's campaigns lack...
... Philadelphia voters need answers about urban issues, including school funding, re-entry programs for convicts, jobs initiatives and plans for federal grant programs for policing and community development, the mayor said."
To read more, click here.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Proposed Philly Skyscraper would be taller than the Empire State Building
Image of the proposed skyscraperThe Philadelphia Business Journal is reporting that a developer is proposing a 1,500 foot skyscraper on 18th and Arch Street. The new Comcast Center, which currently the city's largest skyscraper stands at 1,000 feet. Philadelphia is definitely booming with skyscrapers with several office and condo towers being built within the last fiver years and even more being proposed. The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported that the owners of the parcels along the south side of Market East may soon be proposing more high rise offices and condos.
Let's hope that these new skyscrapers do not continue the Curse of William Penn on the city's sports teams.
.
Here is an excerpt of the article:
.
"The structure is being called the American Commerce Center. It would have 1.3 million square feet of office space, a 300-room, high-end hotel and 315,000 square feet of retail space above and below street level. An underground garage would have 383 parking spaces...
.
...So far, Walnut Street has lined up tenants for the retail portion, Miller said. While he declined to give specifics, Miller said a high-end home store, restaurants ranging from moderate to high end, a gourmet food store, a health club as well as a movie theater have committed. The theater, based on a new concept emerging from Australia, would have eight screens that can seat 18 to 40 people each and offer light fare, spirits and first-run movies. The hotel flag is in negotiations and would be a full-service, five-star facility."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Universities step up to the plate of City Redevelopment
The Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article about universities across the country becoming major city developers and de facto planning commissions of their own neighborhood. The main focus of the article was on the University of Pennsylvania's (UPENN) $2 Billion redevelopment of a 42 acre parcel on the Schukill River, which separates the campus from downtown Philadelphia, that will include a 50 story plus high-rise.
Proposed UPENN redevelopment site
Focusing on UPENN, which has been lauded by many developers and universities outside of Philadelphia for successful redevelopment and partnership with surrounding neighborhoods and the university, leads the question of whether having universities as a developer or a de facto city planning agency is ultimately a good thing for cities.
The answer would seem obvious in UPENN's example, the redevelopment of the site will bring over 4,000 new jobs and the University has the resources and capital that the city of Philadelphia does not, with UPENN almost having an operating budget larger than the entire operating budget of the city. There is a down side that is not talked about, especially in UPENN's example outside of Philadelphia. UPENN's continues growth beyond it's campus whether it's for university use or economic development growth has uprooted many long term residents and has almost totally cleared some neighborhoods original character.
While change is inevitable, many neighborhoods adjacent to UPENN feel that change is only accommodated when the old neighborhood is completely removed and their needs go unaccounted for as new residents reek the benefits of new amenities that long term residents never had. Many long term residents do not feel their neighborhood were gentrified, they feel their neighborhoods were steam rolled over by the university.
With the previous example in mind, one has to wonder about the danger of having a university, which is still a private entity take on de facto planning roles that should be handled by a city planning agency which could help better integrate existing needs of a neighborhood with the the new demands of a university. If Universities are left alone solely to be the developer they may only look out for the interests of their clientele which are the students and faculty who are a lot of times of a different socio-economic class then the residents of adjacent neighborhoods and expect different needs and services.
So what is your opinion of Universities becoming major developers or de facto planners? Has University development been successful or unsuccessful in cities where you live? Let us know.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Designers push to make cities more female-friendly
Late last year, the USA Today wrote an article about Designers pushing to make cities more female-friendly. The article explores what the City of Philadelphia is doing to make a safer and comfortable environment for women, especially in districts where more than 2/3's of the households are headed by females and over 2/3's of the elderly are female.
This blog has previously made post about the lack of female designers of urban space and this article by USA Today points out the need for a better planned urban environment that is accommodating for everyone’s needs. Issues such as neighborhood violence, crumbled sidewalks, poorly lit streets, multi-story rowhouse stairs that make it tough to carry strollers or walk with a cane not only may disproportionably affect some women but also children and the elderly as well. The article argues that all of these factors create an urban environment that is not contusive to walking which is creating several health concerns for some women in these environments.
Excerpt from the article:
Consider these statistics:
This blog has previously made post about the lack of female designers of urban space and this article by USA Today points out the need for a better planned urban environment that is accommodating for everyone’s needs. Issues such as neighborhood violence, crumbled sidewalks, poorly lit streets, multi-story rowhouse stairs that make it tough to carry strollers or walk with a cane not only may disproportionably affect some women but also children and the elderly as well. The article argues that all of these factors create an urban environment that is not contusive to walking which is creating several health concerns for some women in these environments.
Excerpt from the article:
Consider these statistics:
- There are 118.5 million women in the nation's central cities and their suburbs, more than half the urban population.
- About 17 million women in those areas are age 65 and older — almost 60% of the total number of seniors in cities.
- Women 65 and older are three times as likely as their male counterparts to live alone.
- More than 14 million women live alone in cities.
- More than 23 million women are heads of households.
- More than 60% of those who care for an older person are women.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Preserving Historic Black Neighborhoods
The AP has recently written in article about the historic preservation of subdivisions that were built for blacks. This issue has often been somewhat of a touchy issue because the argument is about preserving the cultural heritage of a neighborhood instead of the aesthetic character or the significant age of the site. Factors that work against these sites in historic preservation is that some of the neighborhoods have lost their cultural significance as the black population has dwindled out or was displaced and these neighborhoods are often times not as old as the typical historic neighborhoods already in the inventory of historic places.
Many historic, culturally rich black neighborhoods have already succumbed to development and gentrification while others are still fighting to keep their cultural identity. Examples of historically black neighborhoods that have completely lost their identity can be seen in Philadelphia in the Society Hill neighborhood which was the basis of W.E.B. Dubois's ground breaking anthropology, The Philadelphia Negro. Other neighborhoods that are struggling to maintain their identities include the iconic black neighborhoods of Compton, CA, Harlem in New York City and the Atlanta neighborhood of Dr. King which is already listed in the register of historic places.
Here's an excerpt of the article:
"Some of the early black homeowner neighborhoods around the country are trying to win historic recognition before their place in the history of homeownership fades. The residents want to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which would make them eligible for federal tax credits or grants for historic preservation. ... Persuading black property owners to seek the designation can sometimes be difficult because some equate preservation with gentrification or higher taxes."
For the entire article, click here.
So what are your thoughts on preserving neighborhoods based on their cultural identity and history?
Many historic, culturally rich black neighborhoods have already succumbed to development and gentrification while others are still fighting to keep their cultural identity. Examples of historically black neighborhoods that have completely lost their identity can be seen in Philadelphia in the Society Hill neighborhood which was the basis of W.E.B. Dubois's ground breaking anthropology, The Philadelphia Negro. Other neighborhoods that are struggling to maintain their identities include the iconic black neighborhoods of Compton, CA, Harlem in New York City and the Atlanta neighborhood of Dr. King which is already listed in the register of historic places.
Here's an excerpt of the article:
"Some of the early black homeowner neighborhoods around the country are trying to win historic recognition before their place in the history of homeownership fades. The residents want to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which would make them eligible for federal tax credits or grants for historic preservation. ... Persuading black property owners to seek the designation can sometimes be difficult because some equate preservation with gentrification or higher taxes."
For the entire article, click here.
So what are your thoughts on preserving neighborhoods based on their cultural identity and history?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)