|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 24-30, 2002 cityspace From Blight to Right
Making sure there is real transformation in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. NTI! NTI will rebuild neighborhoods! NTI will rescue the city! So goes the mantra of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, Mayor John Street’s flagship initiative. But reversing decades of decline of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods is a tall order, and its $250-million cost could end up being wasted. Although NTI is largely a demolition program to eliminate blighted structures, it will lead to land assembly, a step critical to the redevelopment of rotted city 'hoods. Without large tracts of "raw" land, new development "at scale" can never be enticed into the city. Only then will the stage be set for the TRANSFORMATION! This is where the fun begins. Transformation into what? What will it look like? A) Suburban cul-de-sacs of single homes with driveways and two-car garages à la recent developments in Roxborough and Fox Chase? B) Cul-de-sacs of twins à la the East Poplar development in North Philadelphia? C) Rowhouse déjà vu, all over again? D) Strip shopping centers (with huge parking lots)? Car-oriented because that's the American way? Will there be parks? Public amenities? Good transit? Oh, and what about EPA's insistence that combined sewer overflows be eliminated. New development with lots of parking and driveways could make those overflows worse. Oooo! The conventional wisdom among design doyennes in Philadelphia is that "it's such a livable city." Perhaps Center City or Chestnut Hill. Reality check: The physical form in many Philly 'hoods is a big loser -- mean dirty streets lined by dark little two-story houses that occupy lots roughly 50 inches by 16 inches with tiny concrete-slab backyards. To make matters worse, few amenities were provided in these working-class areas such as parks, public squares or street trees. Unlike Center City's cute historic enclaves, these areas are hard to love. The challenge is what niche these neighborhoods can fill in a very competitive, cutthroat housing market. The suburbs already deliver suburban-style living at an affordable cost and without the high taxes, high insurance and poor services of the city. In short, going toe to toe with the suburbs is a losing proposition. I believe the answer lies close at hand. Take Society Hill, formerly the city's worst slum, transformed through a number of deft interventions. Dilapidated and "non-conforming" buildings were demolished. New sites for development were assembled to create anchors, e.g. the Society Hill Towers and nearby townhome complexes. Hundreds of salvageable older properties were restored. A connecting system of new open paths was cut through the neighborhood, introducing usable, defensible green space and pocket parks. Although the automobile was accommodated (underground or with rear driveways), almost none of these new homes had driveways cutting the sidewalk. In fact, the pedestrian environment was respected and glorified with new pavement, lighting and street trees. Recently, my organization, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, together with the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, City Planning Commission and the Association of Puerto Ricans on the March, created a redevelopment vision for one North Philly area led by a team at Wallace Roberts & Todd. The community -- east of Temple, bounded by SEPTA's commuter rail viaduct and Third Street from Girard to Lehigh avenues -- could be a poster child for what ails Philly. A population roughly one-third of what it was 50 years ago. A landscape of trashy vacant lots. A mishmash of well-maintained homes and dilapidated abandoned ones. Huge, hulking, poorly maintained public schools. No public parks and few rec facilities -- unrelenting disorder and neglect. Our planning team put forth a number of demonstration plans, morphing selected little streets as rear driveways and placing housing on others. On those streets, the newly built homes could address the streets with small yards, hold the street wall, and help to secure the sidewalk. There wouldn't need to be cul-de-sacs or driveways interrupting the sidewalk. Streets could remain as outdoor rooms where people, not cars, predominate. Nonetheless, post-development densities would be greatly reduced compared to historical density. Another critical issue was the lack of usable open space. Even the huge, brooding public schools lacked anything approaching adequate play areas. There were few recreation facilities -- all paved. Open space in acres/capita is less than 10 percent of the citywide average. Naturally, the proposed vision would greatly increase the public open space in several ways. First, the schools should have real play areas. Second, Germantown Avenue, as it cuts through on an angle, creates several opportunities for small squares. Furthermore, a large open space could buffer homes near Third Street from the large factory buildings on American Street. This narrow green space would run for several blocks and could also contain storm water in a series of lagoons, that would absorb runoff from new homes and nearby factories. Necessarily fenced, it would nonetheless be a visual asset to the community. The devil is in the details. Are we going to learn from our past or repeat the same mistakes all over again? Patrick M. Starr is vice president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. 
-- Respond to this article in our Forums -- click to jump there
| ||||||||||||||||||||
