|
In a message dated 12/14/2004 8:31:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
http://PhilaDeco.com I looked at this website. The arguments in favor of saving this building
are as follows (quoted from the site):
There's quite a bit of history in both buildings, really in the case of Convention Hall you'd have to say a preponderance of history. In major party political conventions you had FDR in '36 nominated for his second term, Wendell Wilkie's 1940 GOP nomination, and, in '48, three conventions, including that of the Progressive Party, gave the nod to Harry Truman, Thomas Dewey and Henry Wallace. Beyond the political conventions, Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandella and Louis Farrakhan all spoke from the stage of Convention Hall, Wilt Chamberlain performed magic with the Philadelphia Warriors, the Beatles, the Stones, the Mummers' âShow of Shows,â the Flower Show, UPenn and high school commencements and countless other cultural and civic events all happened over the decades since 1931 in Convention Hall, a magnificent Art Deco edifice. Philadelphia has fewer examples of Art Deco architecture â a range of styles that predominated worldwide in the first half of the 20th century â than many cities. We really need to hold on to the few grand Art Deco buildings we do have. Somehow, these points don't seem to make the point about "preponderance of history." And this may be an example of art deco architecture, but it seems to be art deco at its worst, cheapest, ugliest, least artful and least decorative. The fate of this building was probably sealed when Penn got the old Phila Gen'l Hospital grounds and the world class medical center now on the west side of Civic Center Blvd went up, then when it was decided to build the new convention center in Center City. This property seems a natural for expansion of the medical treatment and research capabilities that will do more for the city and humanity in general, by light years, than any conceivable use to which Convention Hall could be put. Further, I'm no fan of Penn's swallowing more of the community and am certainly an opponent of property rights abuse (see www.emdo.blogspot.com). But the east side of Civic Center Blvd seems a natural for the important facility being planned. Nobody is being forced out of a home or business by eminent domain, nobody is being displaced. No tax-based property is being taken off the books. No traffic problems are being created. No greenways are being destroyed. No vital or desirable functionality is being set adrift or deprived of a needed venue (in fact, given the infrastructures of "Avenue of the Arts" on South Broad Street, the Pennsylvania Convention Center at 13th St north of Market, and the sports complex in South Philly -- anything of this type for the old Convention hall would be an orphan with two strikes against it from the get-go -- as the foundering/floundering Bridge Theater complex demonstrates on a smaller scale). The revitalization of Philadelphia may have room -- even a need -- for the preservation of certain properties with genuine social, political, or architectural historic merit. But to claim that Convention Hall should be salvaged for any or all of these reasons is cheapening and not honoring history. Historical Commission chairman, Michael Sklaroff, (with whom I have openly disagreed on many points) has called for balance in recognition that the future of the city depends on looking ahead as well as back. A cancer research center as part of the medical complex that has emerged east of the Penn Campus can be an important element in that future. One other thing. It's all very well for people to campaign for saving Convention Hall. We each should stand up for the things in which we believe. But, who's going to pay for whatever is involved? Do the people who want to save it have the money, or plans to get the money, to do whatever it is they think should be done with it -- in terms of initial construction and rehabilitation as well as ongoing support? Or is this just some more of the third party meddling that caused the State Assembly to take "standing" in zoning appeals away from people not "detrimentally harmed" by the decisions in question? Always at
your service and ready for a dialog, Al Krigman |
