Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review
Dubin, Elisabeth wrote: Just a thought to add to this discussion-- there is a big difference between advocating preservation and proposing new construction in an imitative style. The former is about many things, including utilizing existing resources from a green or recycling perspective. It can be about trying to save specific buildings because they may be exceptional. It is also about living in an urban fabric that contains examples from throughout a city's history, so that we may be grounded in an experience of both the past and the present. The latter idea is one that I'm not involved in myself, and is based on a different attitude. I don't care for that kind of thing. yeah, I agree that advocating preservation is not the same as proposing new construction in an imitative style. (and yes, like you I tend to personally prefer the former over the latter. I think we're most honest, historically speaking, when we conduct architecture in the language of our own time. creating that urban fabric you speak of.) all this has got me wondering, though, about apparently shifting public meanings of 'preservation' and 'new construction'... ie, how both of the following can be true: A) preservation = replacing a porch in imitative XYZ Style and B) preservation =/= replacing a bldg. in imitative XYZ Style . 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.
RE: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review
Laserbeam wrote: there's a living, breathing dynamic between the two buildings that might've been choked off had they parked some sort of historical-looking imitation of the furness there. Hi Ray- Just a thought to add to this discussion-- there is a big difference between advocating preservation and proposing new construction in an imitative style. The former is about many things, including utilizing existing resources from a green or recycling perspective. It can be about trying to save specific buildings because they may be exceptional. It is also about living in an urban fabric that contains examples from throughout a city's history, so that we may be grounded in an experience of both the past and the present. The latter idea is one that I'm not involved in myself, and is based on a different attitude. I don't care for that kind of thing. My favorite buildings are typically adaptations of old industrial buildings... That's how I got into this line of work. -Elisabeth ELISABETH DUBIN Hillier ARCHITECTURE One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F 215 636-9989 | hillier.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of L a s e r B e a m (r) Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:07 PM To: univcity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review Anthony West wrote: Elisabeth wrote: Tony says that we need to treasure the best from the past while letting the rest go. The problem is that best is a matter of opinion, and in this country we tend towards not being willing to regulate taste. That is the problem indeed. But when we try to sidestep the crucial issue of taste, we wind up creating fake judgement criteria that smuggle it back in under another name. Historicity also boils down to taste. That's because ALL buildings have history and all buildings exemplify history. Anybody can write a two-page release about the period that any building represents. In practice, the history that gets preserved is the history that people like. One way or another, taste will be expressed. The question is: who gets to say which buildings they like and which matter less to them? Who gets to choose now history, now modernity? I'm not sure I have a one-sentence answer. But in general, public tastes matter when it comes to public property. And in general, the public likes some things more than others, just as individuals do. And in general, no building stands forever. Sorting out the particulars case by case is what makes public works projects such a fun spectator sport. (see, I guess this is why I've been asking the questions I've been asking.) * * * btw, I've been admiring the new glass-skinned buildings going up in the area -- the faceted cira center, the circular chop, that slender wedge over on market right next to the old furness bank. I love how glass surfaces integrate new and old -- reflecting the old buildings while quietly asserting their own structures, in a vocabulary that's both inventive and borrowed (ie, in terms of changing skies). and I especially like how the glass wedge on market so perfectly pays respect to the furness building -- by being so utterly different from it, superficially, and angling away from and around it, structurally. there's a living, breathing dynamic between the two buildings that might've been choked off had they parked some sort of historical-looking imitation of the furness there. . laserbeam(r) [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.
RE: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review
When one comes toward West Philadelphia over the Schuylkill, there arethree salientthings to look at as one crosses the bridge: the triumvirate of art deco buildings comprised by the post office, the train station, and the old convention hall. There will soon be a fourth - the Cira Center. Tony says that we need to "treasure the best from the past while letting the rest go." The problem is that "best" is a matter of opinion, and in this country we tend towards not being willing to regulate taste. I would also like to add we shouldn't equate possible adaptive reuse of the Convention Hall with turning it into a hospital. In other works, no one is suggesting using the hall as a new hospital. When I started investigating this topic, I read somewhere that a feasibility study was done for that idea and found it to be unworkable (naturally). I am curious because it seems that there is a lot of land in that area that is empty, so the construction of a world class cancer facility and adaptation of the convention hall wouldn't seem mutually exclusive. The more that area becomes a hospital center, the more it becomes a little city unto itself. People in hospital-city might welcome somewhere to go to shop or have lunch other than the hospital cafeteria. Saying that a commercial adaptation in that area is unreasonable is like saying that Union Station in DC should have been raised and replaced with a government facility instead of the shopping area it is now. All I am saying is that there are certainly possibilities for it's reuse if the situation were amenable. Personally, I'm still trying to collect information on the history of these decisions and always welcome more information on the topic of the Convention Hall. ELISABETH DUBINHillier ARCHITECTUREOne South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F 215 636-9989 | hillier.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony WestSent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 2:20 PMTo: univcity@list.purple.comSubject: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review Intrigued by all the commentary, I went out last evening to view the buildings in question, taking with me an authentic history-loving tourist. My brother,a scholar of Horace, Spenser and Emerson as well as alifelong, obsessive Victorian rehabber, was in town for the MLA Convention. The last time hewas herehe stayed at the high-Vic bed breakfast on Chester Ave. and droppedhis bucks at the Renaissance drawing exhibit at the Art Museum, and he's been keeping Architectural Antiques afloat down on 2nd Street for decades. So he's the sort of person whose judgementshould matter toPhiladelphia-as-trove-of-period-treasures boosters. We brought along an honors student of his for the ride. The two buildings in question areutterly different. There is no question of their forming an architectural unity;they consist oftwo different eras and styles fastened together with duct tape, so to speak,hemmed inbya modernistic hospital complex, a dashing Italianate museum and a ratty old stadium, all ungepatchke. Neither building is a trailblazer architecturally and neither style is rare. But the old CommercialMuseum is quite a pretty piece of fin de siècle Classical Revival style. We rated it a B+. It would be nice to see it recycled for yet another use. One should note, however, that routine Classical designs are not intrinsically significant since they are, by definition, later imitations of an earlier style. If you ever feelthere aren'tenough faux Parthenons around, after all, nothing stops you from commissioning yet another one! Convention Hall -- call it a B-. It looks nice enough, is well balanced and has some pleasing Art Deco trim. But it is not memorable. It is a costly, workmanlike public building that was designed for transient users and transitory experiences. Translation: it's a convention hall. There's a lot better Art Deco arond town, like the old U.S. Court House (now a post offce) at 9th Market. It's not in the same league with the current Convention Center, either historically or esthetically. If it were torn down, our cityscape would suffer small loss. There is a common confusion in some quarters that Old = Lovely. In fact, though, many old books and many old buildings are mediocre, just like many modern cultural artifacts. While they still merit study by specialists, there is no reason to insist that the man on the street be forced to look at either. True "lovers of history" are those who learn how toselect and treasure the best from the past while letting the rest go. So much for the esthetics. As for the supposed historical importance of these buildings, I fear somefolks are confusing the frame with the painting. A full museum is where important things are kept; an empty museum is empty of their importance. A former convention hall in whicha president once stood to give a speech is no
Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review
In a message dated 1/3/2005 1:17:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: who gets to say which buildings they like and which matter less to them? Who gets to choose now history, now modernity? Good point, Tony. And while architects' opinions shouldn't be ignored, neither should they be considered somehow better than anyone else's. This may be another illustration of the point made by James Surowiecki in The Wisdom of Crowds. This reminds me of the furor surrounding the design of the Guggenheim Museum in New York. As I recall, the experts seemed to want another classical "Metropolitan" idiom and might have settled for a minimalist "MOMA" representation. Almost none of the "talking heads" of the day liked Wright's design. Worse than not likingit, they tended to ridicule it. Yet, today, it's as important a structure in New York as just about anything short of the Brooklyn Bridge, the Empire State Building, or the roof of the Chrysler Building.Also, as Kathy Dowdell wrote last week in a letter to the Inquirer, (my interpretation of her point) who's to say what we miss if we don't make room among thevisionaries of yesterday for those of tomorrow? Always at your service and ready for a dialog,Al Krigman
Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review
Anthony West wrote: Elisabeth wrote: Tony says that we need to treasure the best from the past while letting the rest go. The problem is that best is a matter of opinion, and in this country we tend towards not being willing to regulate taste. That is the problem indeed. But when we try to sidestep the crucial issue of taste, we wind up creating fake judgement criteria that smuggle it back in under another name. Historicity also boils down to taste. That's because ALL buildings have history and all buildings exemplify history. Anybody can write a two-page release about the period that any building represents. In practice, the history that gets preserved is the history that people like. One way or another, taste will be expressed. The question is: who gets to say which buildings they like and which matter less to them? Who gets to choose now history, now modernity? I'm not sure I have a one-sentence answer. But in general, public tastes matter when it comes to public property. And in general, the public likes some things more than others, just as individuals do. And in general, no building stands forever. Sorting out the particulars case by case is what makes public works projects such a fun spectator sport. (see, I guess this is why I've been asking the questions I've been asking.) * * * btw, I've been admiring the new glass-skinned buildings going up in the area -- the faceted cira center, the circular chop, that slender wedge over on market right next to the old furness bank. I love how glass surfaces integrate new and old -- reflecting the old buildings while quietly asserting their own structures, in a vocabulary that's both inventive and borrowed (ie, in terms of changing skies). and I especially like how the glass wedge on market so perfectly pays respect to the furness building -- by being so utterly different from it, superficially, and angling away from and around it, structurally. there's a living, breathing dynamic between the two buildings that might've been choked off had they parked some sort of historical-looking imitation of the furness there. . 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.
Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review
Jayfar wrote: Art Deco is a very slippery label and can encompass quite a wide variety of styles, as well as flowing out of Art Nouveau and into Art Moderne. Some peg it's timeline as beginning with the 1925 Exposition Internationale des Arts Decoratifs Industriels et Modernes (say that 10 times real fast), but I've also seen a 1904 train station declared to be one of the first Art Deco buildings. And of course there were varying cultural manisfestations of Art Deco around the world, French (the Boyd Theatre's interior in considered French Art Deco), American and another dialect in the Southwest US for instance. if the 1925 exposition was about showcasing existing design motivations as well as promoting new ones, this could explain why there's no hard and fast cut-off dates for art deco? in any case, it's true for any style, this fuzzy blurring-from-the-preceding-and-into-the-next, along with national/regional variations... btw, I have a friend who insists on pronouncing it [something like] 'ar DAY-keh' rather than 'art DECK-oh' -- and I rather like that, as it pays quiet homage to the original exposition's french title. but sometimes it's annoying, like when you hear van *COUGH* when you're expecting van GO. BTW, the Miami Design Preservation League's Annual Art Deco Weekend is coming up Jan 14-16 along South Beach. I was down there 3 years ago during a January heat wave, with temps in the 80s every day, but SoBe is a Mecca of Deco anytime (I hope to get back down there this winter). just curious, jayfar, why do you like art deco? . 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.
Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review (fwd)
- Original Message - From: Jayfar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review (fwd) Gersil Kay writes, somewhat edited: The Civic Center would be an ideal location for a Gambling Casino. It is accessible, yet away from day-to-day activities. Historic venues are widely used for such purposes in England and Australia. By all means we need an experimental cancer center, but the ancient Romans knew that circuses as well as bread is wanted by the populace.The proposed center can be placed adjacent to the period buildings. A tunnel under the road would have to be provided in any case, to ferry patients back and forth from the main hospital. Penn should employ the automated parking equipment used internationally that holds twice as many cars in half the space. Fumes and noise are eliminated because car motors are turned off once delivered to the facility. AARGH! I was reading along saying, basically, um humm.. and agreeing generally with the points about energy conservation, etc, but also feeling that Penn had already taken those factors into account by my reading of their process, until I got to the paragraph above. Forget it lady--not in My Back Yard (to coin a phrase.) We need a gambling casino so that relatives of cancer patients can have some R and R? I'm afraid this committee has lost credibility completely with me. 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.
Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review (fwd)
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Bill Sanderson wrote: - Original Message - From: Jayfar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review (fwd) Gersil Kay writes, somewhat edited: The Civic Center would be an ideal location for a Gambling Casino. It is accessible, yet away from day-to-day activities. Historic venues are widely used for such purposes in England and Australia. By all means we need an experimental cancer center, but the ancient Romans knew that circuses as well as bread is wanted by the populace.The proposed center can be placed adjacent to the period buildings. A tunnel under the road would have to be provided in any case, to ferry patients back and forth from the main hospital. Penn should employ the automated parking equipment used internationally that holds twice as many cars in half the space. Fumes and noise are eliminated because car motors are turned off once delivered to the facility. AARGH! I was reading along saying, basically, um humm.. and agreeing generally with the points about energy conservation, etc, but also feeling that Penn had already taken those factors into account by my reading of their process, until I got to the paragraph above. Forget it lady--not in My Back Yard (to coin a phrase.) We need a gambling casino so that relatives of cancer patients can have some R and R? I'm afraid this committee has lost credibility completely with me. Hi Bill, Relax, the Committee to Save Convention Hall is not proposing a gambling hall. Gersil was merely offering one possibility. Our group is of widely varying opinions and we are not at this time endorsing any particular reuse option over another. My eyes rolled too when I first saw that suggestion, but I don't take it upon myself to supress or edit personal comments from members of the committee; we're a very egalitarian, collegial bunch. I personally am the most anti-gambling person you will ever likely find (people who know me well have heard me rant on the topic) and am somewhat distressed that our legislature is foisting slot parlors on us. I might tolerate a bingo hall; at least that form of gambling tends to be more sociable than slots. Not endorsing that option either though. I've got some ideas of my own, but the key concern of the Committee to Save Convention Hall as a whole is that these buildings be retained and thoughtfully reused. 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.
Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review (fwd)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:41:31 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . Subject: Re: [UC] UCHS and Civic Center demolitions: a review (fwd) The Civic Center would be an ideal location for a Gambling Casino. It is accessible, yet away from day-to-day activities. Historic venues are widely used for such purposes in England and Australia. There's a NIMBY answer if I ever read one. Just think what a message that sends to the world -- Come to Philadelphia's Cancer center and while you wait for your appointment, make enough money to pay for your treatment right across the street! Historical venues in Europe use old castles for gambling because the owners of those edifices decided that was the way to pay the rent. And I don't know of one which is less than about 200 years old. NONE of them are merely 70 years old. There are also a tremendous number of faux historical venues used for gambling worldwide ... it is far easier, cheaper, and all around better to build an old-building from the ground up with a new special-purpose core. And of course, we all know that 99% of the gamblers world-wide dress in Tuxedo's and drive around in Aston Martin's and truly appreciate the ease of climbing the facade of such an establishment. Come on, get real. Philadelphia gamblers, even more than the few Philadelphian's who travel to Atlantic City, will NEVER move beyond the nickel-slots. They would be much happier puling the handle while waiting for the El --- but then no money would flow into the pockets of the Politicians who expect to get rich on Gambling in Pennsylvania. Personally, I think the ideal location for Philadelphia's gambling empire is where it has already been proposed, and in the exact design that it has been proposed -- a monolithic block with swinging arc-lights right next to City Hall. or maybe at 17th and Arch. Or maybe to solve both the city's budget crisis and re-use an equally historic white-elephant ... the Casino should go into the Youth Study Center. accessible, yet away from day-to-day activities. I don't believe that you made that statement. It is clear that you do not live in the area and one even wonders if you live in the City of Philadelphia -- you are clearly completely and utterly out of touch with traffic issues in the City, let alone University City area. One wonders how, or even IF, ambulances will deal with the massive amounts of traffic necessary to make a casino profitable. Do you realize what kind of traffic volume you are talking about? You do realize, don't you, that there is barely any public transportation to the area. And that for the Casino to make ANY money, that massive amounts of traffic will be necessary from OUTSIDE the Center City area. Traffic all around that area is already horrendous and ALL highway access routes are strained over capacity -- and yes, I am talking about the Expressway, South Street and 38th Streets. And last but not least, who is going to manage the re-supply trucks for the food trucks in the area ... after all, the gamblers are going to want to eat someplace. The Committee to Save Convention Hall, or whatever its name is -- simply has no idea what they are talking about. And one last point. With your efforts to conserve what are in fact VERY mediocre examples of Art Deco architecture in Philadelphia, you not only demean those Art Deco structures which are good, but slam contemporary Architects -- You can't even design something as well as those turkeys who nobody ever heard of, did 80 years ago. Lets face it -- If Ed Rendel wanted to demolish those buildings instead of the University of Pennsylvania, everybody would be standing up and applauding his foresight and plans for the future. Yes, I'm saying that the ONLY reason that people are opposed to the demolition is because the University of Pennsylvania is the one doing it. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
