I support the historic district designation, although I do not live in Spruce Hill. I think that some valid concerns have been raised regarding how the Historic Commission functions, but these issues can and should be addressed separately and apart from the concept of a historic district.
I am almost 50 years old, and I lived in Philadelphia my entire life. I grew up in South Philadelphia, in the neighborhood now known as Southwest Center City. ...[rest of story snipped]
thanks, karen, for your story. it's another example of how complex the hd issue is. for example, you cite the wholesale destruction that occured in your old neighborhood. and then point out that that wholesale destruction did not happen in this neighborhood, that it survived more or less intact and has a cohesive aesthetic. it makes one wonder, doesn't it, about the extent to which wholesale destruction is going on in this neighborhood, and, related to that, the extent to which historic districting would be the appropriate tool necessary to stem it... many factors are responsible for fostering healthy stable neighborhoods over time, and some would argue that these factors should include those which encouraged a mix of uses and people in an area, factors which would prevent an unhealthy and vulnerable 'homogenization' ('ghettoization') of an area... the very factors which, it could be argued, historic designation would mitigate, if not eliminate. something to think about.
karen, have you ever read jane jacobs' book, written 1960 I think, called the life and death of great american cities. she describes four urban design principles necessary for the creation and preservation of vibrant, diverse cities: (1) high densities of population and activities; (2) mixtures of primary uses; (3) small-scale, pedestrian-friendly blocks and streetscapes; and (4) the retention of old buildings mixed in with new. jacobs was critical of a planning style that destroyed communities, separated land uses, and fostered homogenization -- the very effects of the urban renewal and garden-city movements of her time. she often challenged established orthodoxy. for example, she called for the preservation of old buildings not for aesthetic or historical reasons, but on economic and social grounds: part of the physical diversity of a healthy district, she argued, was the retention of old buildings *mixed in with the new*. jacobs also argued that urban health and vitality require effective local participation in the political process, as it affects all areas of city life, including land use.
I mention this because I see in all this discussion about the neighborhood a contest of visions -- one of neighborhoods as organic and dynamic vs one of neighborhoods as managed/engineered and static. I think there's a middle ground somewhere, where these two visions come together, and I think jacobs offers an interesting model/set of principles that many consider sound (at least, she's still taught in urban design courses). I also mention jacobs because in an earlier post you talked about drafting a zoning letter, and along the way you said "UC community groups will challenge zoning changes that will adversely impact on the community" -- it reminded me that what you and these groups think of as 'adverse' to the community may well be precisely what jacobs would call 'healthy,' namely, a mix of uses that prevents homogenized 'ghettoization' and fosters thriving, healthy cities. something to think about.
......... laserbeam [aka ray]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
