Stats on Ridership Decline, please
Exile on Market Street
I've crossposted this to alt.planning.urban because a broken clock on
that newsgroup has recently stated (without citing sources) that
elderly Philadelphians have been abandoning SEPTA at a higher rate
than the ridership as a whole.
Now, the broken clock in question is a native of the city (but hasn't
lived there in some time, and the block on which the broken clock grew
up is now occupied by Penn's High Rises), so I imagine it *may* have
contacts, but I'd like to see some hard numbers from a reputable
source, if indeed these are available.
Is it possible to see ridership figures over the past 5-8 years with
the Lottery-funded senior trips broken out?
Replies via post are preferred, so the readers of alt.planning.urban
can see them, but if that's not possible, e-mail me with instructions
how to cite them.
____________________________________________________________________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Univ of Pennsylvania, News and Public Affairs 215.898.1423/fax 215.898.1203
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
Practice safe food -- always use a condiment when eating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Conklin
In article <32ef35ff...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Sandy, I guess you don't know as much about Philadelpha
as you think. The quote came from Railroad and Railfan
Magazine, which of course is pro-rail travel.
And the Pennsylvaniza Gazette this month points out that
student high-rise housing at Penn has been a failure and
tearing it down is now an option. High density didn't work
for Penn. Your own president is proclaiming that. Do you
want me to go home and post the article? Better yet, read
your own publications.
Exile on Market Street
In article <5cqaa3$7...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) wrote:
> Sandy, I guess you don't know as much about Philadelpha
> as you think. The quote came from Railroad and Railfan
> Magazine, which of course is pro-rail travel.
Thanks for the cite. Most recent issue, I presume?
> And the Pennsylvaniza Gazette this month points out that
> student high-rise housing at Penn has been a failure and
> tearing it down is now an option. High density didn't work
> for Penn. Your own president is proclaiming that. Do you
> want me to go home and post the article? Better yet, read
> your own publications.
I read the "Gazetteer" item in the January 1997 _Pennsylvania Gazette_
(which, for the benefit of the non-Penn-alumni readers of this newsgroup,
was illustrated with the cover of the October 1968 _Gazette_, which
depicted a groundbreaking ceremony for Penn's Student Housing Program, "A
$56 Million Project Gets Under Way", and the caption "The brave new world
of high-rise dormitories turned out to be a bust. Now the question is what
to do with them and other parts of a changing campus."), and indeed, one of
the changes being considered involves the undergraduate High Rises (three
of them).
President Rodin is quoted as saying, "We've told [Biddison Hier, the
planning firm doing a study of Penn's campus housing] that restoration,
renovation and take-down are all viable options" for the High Rises.
I should note the following before commenting further:
--Given the choice between the three options described above, I'd choose #3.
--Demolition of the [shorter and smaller] high-rise Graduate Towers, built
at the same time (and in one of which my office is located), is not being
discussed as an option -- at least not yet.
Now the comment:
There's a flaw in your logic, George. Saying that high-rise housing
doesn't work is not the same as saying that high-density housing doesn't
work -- you can have high density still with structures of no more than
four or five stories, such as the Quadrangle, Penn's oldest dorm, or Hill
House.
It is quite possible that the High Rises will be demolished and replaced by
low-rise housing, but it's quite likely that if that happens, it will be of
the courtyard variety (like the Quad or the dorms found at Harvard and
Yale), and any reduction in overall population density on the four blocks
in question will be slight.
And on a campus designed mainly as a pedestrian precinct, which means the
students live within walking distance of the classrooms, a student body the
size of Penn's (~10,000 undergraduates) means that you will have high
population densities in the immediate area, regardless what the individual
buildings look like.
__________________________________________________________________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Univ of Pennsylvania, News & Public Affairs 215.898.1423/fax 215.898.1203
I speak for myself here, not for Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"No force on earth, no power in nature, is equal to the need to change
someone else's draft."
--------------------------------------------------------------H.G. Wells--
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
smi...@pobox.upenn.edu (Exile on Market Street) wrote:
> In article <5cqaa3$7...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
> Conklin) wrote:
> > Sandy, I guess you don't know as much about Philadelpha
> > as you think. The quote came from Railroad and Railfan
> > Magazine, which of course is pro-rail travel.
>
> Thanks for the cite. Most recent issue, I presume?
>
> > And the Pennsylvaniza Gazette this month points out that
> > student high-rise housing at Penn has been a failure and
> > tearing it down is now an option. High density didn't work
> > for Penn. Your own president is proclaiming that. Do you
> > want me to go home and post the article? Better yet, read
> > your own publications.
>
> I read the "Gazetteer" item in the January 1997 _Pennsylvania Gazette_
> (which, for the benefit of the non-Penn-alumni readers of this newsgroup,
> was illustrated with the cover of the October 1968 _Gazette_, which
> depicted a groundbreaking ceremony for Penn's Student Housing Program, "A
> $56 Million Project Gets Under Way", and the caption "The brave new world
> of high-rise dormitories turned out to be a bust. Now the question is what
> to do with them and other parts of a changing campus."), and indeed, one of
> the changes being considered involves the undergraduate High Rises (three
> of them).
If you're refering to Pei's towers tell the asshole that its not that they
are highrises, but rather that they were very badly designed highrises. It
was with this complex that the implication of highrise disposition on wind
velocity acceleratipon was first discvered and subsequently investigated
internationally.
> President Rodin is quoted as saying, "We've told [Biddison Hier, the
> planning firm doing a study of Penn's campus housing] that restoration,
> renovation and take-down are all viable options" for the High Rises.
>
> I should note the following before commenting further:
>
> --Given the choice between the three options described above, I'd choose #3.
>
> --Demolition of the [shorter and smaller] high-rise Graduate Towers, built
> at the same time (and in one of which my office is located), is not being
> discussed as an option -- at least not yet.
Tell this shithead that the housing to which you refer was built as
temporrary housing for vets returning from WWII and should have been torn
down long ago!
>
> Now the comment:
>
> There's a flaw in your logic, George. Saying that high-rise housing
> doesn't work is not the same as saying that high-density housing doesn't
> work -- you can have high density still with structures of no more than
> four or five stories, such as the Quadrangle, Penn's oldest dorm, or Hill
> House.
>
> It is quite possible that the High Rises will be demolished and replaced by
> low-rise housing, but it's quite likely that if that happens, it will be of
> the courtyard variety (like the Quad or the dorms found at Harvard and
> Yale), and any reduction in overall population density on the four blocks
> in question will be slight.
In relation to the amount of space around Pei's towers, I would guess that
the density will INCREASE.
>
> And on a campus designed mainly as a pedestrian precinct, which means the
> students live within walking distance of the classrooms, a student body the
> size of Penn's (~10,000 undergraduates) means that you will have high
> population densities in the immediate area, regardless what the individual
> buildings look like.
It is one of the most extraordinary campuses in America. It is mixed in
use (student/faculty/housing/town community) and Locust Walk (once a city
street) will turn you into a pedestrian in a flash as you walk it free of
the noxious fumes of inernal combustion engines.
Nelson
Exile on Market Street
nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
>In article <smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>smi...@pobox.upenn.edu (Exile on Market Street) wrote:
>If you're refering to Pei's towers tell the asshole that its not that they
>are highrises, but rather that they were very badly designed highrises. It
>was with this complex that the implication of highrise disposition on wind
>velocity acceleratipon was first discvered and subsequently investigated
>internationally.
Yes, I am referring to the three Pei towers, High Rise East (Harnwell
House), High Rise South (Harrison House) and High Rise North, and the
wind-tunnel effect is indeed severe when walking through the plaza
between them. But -- despite the fact that many of the rooms in the
High Rises have better amenities than in other Penn dorms (e.g.,
kitchenettes and private baths) -- the students find the buildings
cold and soulless. Now that may also be ascribed to the design of the
buildings rather than the mere fact that they are 26 stories high, but
what would you expect when you're building five towers for $56
million? Brick and carpeting?
(Let me modify that a bit: the hallways in Grad Towers *are*
carpeted.)
>> --Demolition of the [shorter and smaller] high-rise Graduate Towers, built
>> at the same time (and in one of which my office is located), is not being
>> discussed as an option -- at least not yet.
>
>Tell this shithead that the housing to which you refer was built as
>temporrary housing for vets returning from WWII and should have been torn
>down long ago!
Actually, I'm not sure we're talking about the same structures. The
Grad Towers (Richard Neutra, 1970-71) were built expressly as graduate
student housing -- the plaque in the plaza between the two towers says
as much. I'm not aware of any "temporary housing" standing today on
Penn's campus (although there is a persistent rumor on the campus that
the High Rises were supposed to be "temporary"); were you referring,
perhaps, to the West Park Towers housing project about 6 blocks NW of
the Penn campus (at the point where the Market Street subway becomes
the Market Street elevated)?
>It is one of the most extraordinary campuses in America. It is mixed in
>use (student/faculty/housing/town community) and Locust Walk (once a city
>street) will turn you into a pedestrian in a flash as you walk it free of
>the noxious fumes of inernal combustion engines.
Actually, it's all the more extraordinary when you consider that it
was once shot through with streets -- including a major thoroughfare.
The transformation took place in the 1960's and 1970's, and
incorporates some of the best (Locust Walk) and worst (Superblock,
where the High Rises are) thinking about mixing the city with the
garden.
____________________________________________________________________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
George Conklin
In article <32F14C...@cris.com>, Marc Mednick <mr...@cris.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> And the Pennsylvaniza Gazette this month points out that
>> student high-rise housing at Penn has been a failure and
>> tearing it down is now an option. High density didn't work
>> for Penn. Your own president is proclaiming that. Do you
>> want me to go home and post the article? Better yet, read
>> your own publications.
>
>their dollars for ever-bigger homes, etc.
>
>Then why is it that governments force *minimum* lot sizes? Why have
>zoning at all, for that matter? If everyone really wants low density,
>then aren't those laws redundant?
>
>I thought the only purpose of a laws was to compel people to do things.
>If everyone *wants* low densities, then why do they have to be
>*compelled* to live in low densities?
>
>--
>
>Marc Mednick --> mr...@cris.com
>
>
Logic not here. Students want those horrid highrises torn
down. They may be. They should be. Or they can become
commuters and live in Drexel Hill.
George Conklin
In article <nbenzing-300...@cha-nc10-54.ix.netcom.com>,
Nelson S. Benzing <nben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>smi...@pobox.upenn.edu (Exile on Market Street) wrote:
>
>> Conklin) wrote:
>> > Sandy, I guess you don't know as much about Philadelpha
>> > as you think. The quote came from Railroad and Railfan
>> > Magazine, which of course is pro-rail travel.
>>
>> Thanks for the cite. Most recent issue, I presume?
>>
>> > student high-rise housing at Penn has been a failure and
>> > tearing it down is now an option. High density didn't work
>> > for Penn. Your own president is proclaiming that. Do you
>> > want me to go home and post the article? Better yet, read
>> > your own publications.
>>
>> (which, for the benefit of the non-Penn-alumni readers of this newsgroup,
>> was illustrated with the cover of the October 1968 _Gazette_, which
>> depicted a groundbreaking ceremony for Penn's Student Housing Program, "A
>> $56 Million Project Gets Under Way", and the caption "The brave new world
>> of high-rise dormitories turned out to be a bust. Now the question is what
>> to do with them and other parts of a changing campus."), and indeed, one of
>> the changes being considered involves the undergraduate High Rises (three
>> of them).
>
>are highrises, but rather that they were very badly designed highrises. It
>was with this complex that the implication of highrise disposition on wind
>velocity acceleratipon was first discvered and subsequently investigated
>internationally.
students like highrises, no one can. Just like public
housing high rises, they are a failure with Penn students
too. Why should that surprise anyone? Urban packers
always fail. Those high rises at Penn replaced pleasant
streets with trees with urban hell. The old housing needed
to be refurbished, not replaced with urban hell.
>
>Tell this shithead that the housing to which you refer was built as
>temporrary housing for vets returning from WWII and should have been torn
>down long ago!
The housing Penn is talking about was not temporary
housing. It was urban planning best.
George Conklin
In article <32f1d590...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>
>>In article <smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>>smi...@pobox.upenn.edu (Exile on Market Street) wrote:
>>If you're refering to Pei's towers tell the asshole that its not that they
>>are highrises, but rather that they were very badly designed highrises. It
>>was with this complex that the implication of highrise disposition on wind
>>velocity acceleratipon was first discvered and subsequently investigated
>>internationally.
>
>House), High Rise South (Harrison House) and High Rise North, and the
>wind-tunnel effect is indeed severe when walking through the plaza
>between them. But -- despite the fact that many of the rooms in the
>High Rises have better amenities than in other Penn dorms (e.g.,
>kitchenettes and private baths) -- the students find the buildings
>cold and soulless. Now that may also be ascribed to the design of the
>buildings rather than the mere fact that they are 26 stories high, but
>what would you expect when you're building five towers for $56
>million? Brick and carpeting?
>
Cold and souless. Yes, that is what urban planners give
us. Keep up the good work Nelson. Your version will be
especially evil, I am sure.
Geenius at Wrok
On 31 Jan 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> In article <32F14C...@cris.com>, Marc Mednick <mr...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >I thought the only purpose of a laws was to compel people to do things.
> >If everyone *wants* low densities, then why do they have to be
> >*compelled* to live in low densities?
>
> Logic not here.
This sentence no verb.
--
"If it's all the same to you,
I'd like to run for my life now."
-- "Lois & Clark"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"This must be what evil tastes like!"
Keith Ammann is gee...@albany.net
http://www.albany.net/~geenius/
Analects 2:24
Geenius at Wrok
On 31 Jan 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> In article <nbenzing-300...@cha-nc10-54.ix.netcom.com>,
> Nelson S. Benzing <nben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >If you're refering to Pei's towers tell the asshole that its not that they
> >are highrises, but rather that they were very badly designed highrises. It
> >was with this complex that the implication of highrise disposition on wind
> >velocity acceleratipon was first discvered and subsequently investigated
> >internationally.
>
> Pei is a world-famous architect. If he cannot make
> students like highrises, no one can.
Pure bunk. Le Corbusier was a world-famous architect too, and his designs
are unlivable. "Famous" does not equal "good." Read Stewart Brand's "How
Buildings Learn" for some truly laughable examples of buildings rendered
completely inappropriate for their intended purposes by FAS (Famous
Architect Syndrome).
Besides, where the hell do you get the idea that everyone here is
advocating high-rises? I don't. Density, yes; high-rise, no. I
subscribe to Christopher Alexander's recommendation of a four-story limit.
Now, to you, anything over two stories may be "high-rise," but I doubt
that most people share that definition.
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <32f1d590...@netnews.upenn.edu>, smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
(Exile on Market Street) wrote:
> nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
>
> >In article <smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
> >smi...@pobox.upenn.edu (Exile on Market Street) wrote:
> >If you're refering to Pei's towers tell the asshole that its not that they
> >are highrises, but rather that they were very badly designed highrises. It
> >was with this complex that the implication of highrise disposition on wind
> >velocity acceleratipon was first discvered and subsequently investigated
> >internationally.
>
> Yes, I am referring to the three Pei towers, High Rise East (Harnwell
> House), High Rise South (Harrison House) and High Rise North, and the
> wind-tunnel effect is indeed severe when walking through the plaza
> between them. But -- despite the fact that many of the rooms in the
> High Rises have better amenities than in other Penn dorms (e.g.,
> kitchenettes and private baths) -- the students find the buildings
> cold and soulless. Now that may also be ascribed to the design of the
> buildings rather than the mere fact that they are 26 stories high, but
> what would you expect when you're building five towers for $56
> million? Brick and carpeting?
>
> (Let me modify that a bit: the hallways in Grad Towers *are*
> carpeted.)
Agreed.
>
> >> --Demolition of the [shorter and smaller] high-rise Graduate Towers, built
> >> at the same time (and in one of which my office is located), is not being
> >> discussed as an option -- at least not yet.
> >
> >Tell this shithead that the housing to which you refer was built as
> >temporrary housing for vets returning from WWII and should have been torn
> >down long ago!
>
> Actually, I'm not sure we're talking about the same structures. The
> Grad Towers (Richard Neutra, 1970-71) were built expressly as graduate
> student housing -- the plaque in the plaza between the two towers says
> as much. I'm not aware of any "temporary housing" standing today on
> Penn's campus (although there is a persistent rumor on the campus that
> the High Rises were supposed to be "temporary"); were you referring,
> perhaps, to the West Park Towers housing project about 6 blocks NW of
> the Penn campus (at the point where the Market Street subway becomes
> the Market Street elevated)?
I was referring the the concrete lift-slabs in the same block as your
office and the Institute for Contemporary Arts. The rumor that they were
to be temporary was passed on to me by Adele Santos when she was Chair of
Architecture. But then, they are marginally classifiable as
highrise/midrise.
>
> >It is one of the most extraordinary campuses in America. It is mixed in
> >use (student/faculty/housing/town community) and Locust Walk (once a city
> >street) will turn you into a pedestrian in a flash as you walk it free of
> >the noxious fumes of inernal combustion engines.
>
> Actually, it's all the more extraordinary when you consider that it
> was once shot through with streets -- including a major thoroughfare.
> The transformation took place in the 1960's and 1970's, and
> incorporates some of the best (Locust Walk) and worst (Superblock,
> where the High Rises are) thinking about mixing the city with the
> garden.
Agreed.
Nelson
George Conklin
In article <smiths-ya02408000...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>Conklin) wrote:
>> Sandy, I guess you don't know as much about Philadelpha
>> as you think. The quote came from Railroad and Railfan
>> Magazine, which of course is pro-rail travel.
>
>Thanks for the cite. Most recent issue, I presume?
It is the one I just got in the mail. The date is March.
It is a news item in the transit section.
George Conklin
In article <nbenzing-310...@cha-nc5-04.ix.netcom.com>,
>>
>> Actually, it's all the more extraordinary when you consider that it
>> was once shot through with streets -- including a major thoroughfare.
>> The transformation took place in the 1960's and 1970's, and
>> incorporates some of the best (Locust Walk) and worst (Superblock,
>> where the High Rises are) thinking about mixing the city with the
>> garden.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Nelson
As a former resident of Locust Street, the transformation
from a pleasant city street in need of investment funds to
Locust Walk was a major step back into the world of planning
principles which work out only on paper and not in the real
world. Penn's plans for the area were opposed by some
faculty at the time as producing an area where students
would not want to live. Local stores such as E-Ray's were
forced out. The trolley line on 40th likewise. In place of
a viable old neighborhood went the planning dream of
highrises and 'walks.' The streets were viable: the
'walks' simply artsy-fartsy creations substiuting looks for
real life.
George Conklin
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970131...@magik.albany.net>,
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
>On 31 Jan 1997, George Conklin wrote:
>
>> In article <nbenzing-300...@cha-nc10-54.ix.netcom.com>,
>>
>> >If you're refering to Pei's towers tell the asshole that its not that they
>> >are highrises, but rather that they were very badly designed highrises. It
>> >was with this complex that the implication of highrise disposition on wind
>> >velocity acceleratipon was first discvered and subsequently investigated
>> >internationally.
>>
>> students like highrises, no one can.
>
>Pure bunk. Le Corbusier was a world-famous architect too, and his designs
>are unlivable.
As I said, urban planning produces designs which are
unlivable. Penn's example of planning is a good example of
why people leave cities. I used to live in what is now
Locust Walk. A walk is a bad substitute for a real street.
3913 Locust Street to be exact. The street needed
reinvestment, not to be destroyed by planners. It was. So
now they will have to tear it all down and put up something
with current ideology built in. The streets need to be
reestablished.
Geenius at Wrok
On 31 Jan 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970131...@magik.albany.net>,
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
>
> >On 31 Jan 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> >
> >> Pei is a world-famous architect. If he cannot make
> >> students like highrises, no one can.
> >
> >Pure bunk. Le Corbusier was a world-famous architect too, and his designs
> >are unlivable.
>
> As I said, urban planning produces designs which are
> unlivable.
Are you suggesting that Le Corbusier is synonymous with urban planning (a
ludicrous statement), or are you just reiterating yourself, novena-style?
Corbusier modernism and neotrad/new urbanism are night-and-day opposites.
The latter adapt the plan to the person; the former forces the person to
adapt to the plan, however psychologically impossible that may turn out to
be.
I also notice that you deleted my statement that not everyone here
supports high-rises. Am I to assume, then, that you accept that statement
without challenge, or (as I suspect is more likely) do you simply plan to
pretend that you never saw it and to continue to accuse us of mindless
high-rise-mongering? It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty on your
part that really bugs the hell out of us.
r...@inetworld.net
On 30 Jan 1997 09:13:23 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
wrote:
> Sandy, I guess you don't know as much about Philadelpha
>as you think. The quote came from Railroad and Railfan
>Magazine, which of course is pro-rail travel.
That's all well and good, George, but like I asked before; did the
article speculate on why ridership among seniors was dropping? We all
learn from other's mistakes, so I'd be interested in hearing what
Philly did wrong.
> And the Pennsylvaniza Gazette this month points out that
>student high-rise housing at Penn has been a failure and
>tearing it down is now an option. High density didn't work
>for Penn. Your own president is proclaiming that. Do you
>want me to go home and post the article? Better yet, read
>your own publications.
One of your problems, George, is that you equate our arguments
regarding New Urbanism with high-rises. That's hardly the case.
Mixed use, with stores on the first floor, maybe offices on the 2nd if
traffic noise warrants and a couple of floors of apartments or condos
above is hardly the same as a student-ghetto highrise. Why don't you
get with the program?
=Bob
Exile on Market Street
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> As I said, urban planning produces designs which are
>unlivable. Penn's example of planning is a good example of
>why people leave cities. I used to live in what is now
>Locust Walk. A walk is a bad substitute for a real street.
>3913 Locust Street to be exact. The street needed
>reinvestment, not to be destroyed by planners. It was. So
>now they will have to tear it all down and put up something
>with current ideology built in. The streets need to be
>reestablished.
Here, George, you're constructing a false dichotomy as well as
painting with too broad a brush.
If you bothered reading my previous posts completely, you will note
that I consider Superblock (the 3800 and 3900 blocks of Locust, where
the High Rises sit) an example of the worst of the urban-design
thinking of the time.
The fact is, Locust Walk works well indeed as a pedestrian
thoroughfare -- where the essence of the old Locust Street, the
buildings that lined it -- were left standing (east of 38th). What
Penn did wrong west of 38th was not to close the street off to
traffic, but to remove all traces of urban form from it and (as Jane
Jacobs would have said) "plunk chunks of Radiant Garden City" down in
its place. Had they built a series of 5-story courtyard dorms in the
same space, they would have had the same density but a lot friendlier
streetscape, and one that would have blended in better with everything
surrounding it.
BTW, the trolley tracks on 40th are still in place. They are only
used for scheduled service when the cars are not running in the
subway. This has been the practice since the West Philadelphia
surface-car subway opened in *1955*, well before Superblock was
leveled.
Exile on Market Street
nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
>In article <32f1d590...@netnews.upenn.edu>, smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
>(Exile on Market Street) wrote:
>> Actually, I'm not sure we're talking about the same structures. The
>> Grad Towers (Richard Neutra, 1970-71) were built expressly as graduate
>> student housing -- the plaque in the plaza between the two towers says
>> as much. I'm not aware of any "temporary housing" standing today on
>> Penn's campus (although there is a persistent rumor on the campus that
>> the High Rises were supposed to be "temporary"); were you referring,
>> perhaps, to the West Park Towers housing project about 6 blocks NW of
>> the Penn campus (at the point where the Market Street subway becomes
>> the Market Street elevated)?
>
>I was referring the the concrete lift-slabs in the same block as your
>office and the Institute for Contemporary Arts. The rumor that they were
>to be temporary was passed on to me by Adele Santos when she was Chair of
>Architecture. But then, they are marginally classifiable as
>highrise/midrise.
The lift-slabs are where my office is located. Those *are* the
Graduate Towers. Since they were built from the proceeds of the same
$56 million bond issue that built the High Rises, maybe it's not
surprising that the same rumor arose surrounding them as well. I
don't think that the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Philadelphia (which assembled the land on which they sit) and the
Pennsylvania Higher Education Facilities Finance Authority (which
floated the bonds) would have gone to those efforts to build temporary
structures.
That said, it appears they may as well have been: the parking garage
located underneath the plaza separating Grad Tower A from Grad Tower B
has been closed ever since chunks of the ceiling started falling onto
the top level, and the concrete High Rises develop unsightly streaks
when it rains.
George Conklin
In article <32f3c48c...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>
>> As I said, urban planning produces designs which are
>>unlivable. Penn's example of planning is a good example of
>>why people leave cities. I used to live in what is now
>>Locust Walk. A walk is a bad substitute for a real street.
>>3913 Locust Street to be exact. The street needed
>>reinvestment, not to be destroyed by planners. It was. So
>>now they will have to tear it all down and put up something
>>with current ideology built in. The streets need to be
>>reestablished.
>
>Here, George, you're constructing a false dichotomy as well as
>painting with too broad a brush.
>
>If you bothered reading my previous posts completely, you will note
>that I consider Superblock (the 3800 and 3900 blocks of Locust, where
>the High Rises sit) an example of the worst of the urban-design
>thinking of the time.
I recall Philip Reiff complaining about it before it was
built. But what you call the worse of urban design at the
time was also considered the BEST at the time. It stressed
open space made possible by high rises.
When professors like Reiff were complaining about the
plans, he got about the same treatment you dump on me.
And after this year's fads prove just as bad, you will
move onto some other style of criticism.
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970131...@magik.albany.net>,
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
> On 31 Jan 1997, George Conklin wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970131...@magik.albany.net>,
> > Geenius at Wrok <gee...@magik.albany.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On 31 Jan 1997, George Conklin wrote:
> > >
> > >> Pei is a world-famous architect. If he cannot make
> > >> students like highrises, no one can.
> > >
> > >Pure bunk. Le Corbusier was a world-famous architect too, and his designs
> > >are unlivable.
> >
> > As I said, urban planning produces designs which are
> > unlivable.
>
> Are you suggesting that Le Corbusier is synonymous with urban planning (a
> ludicrous statement), or are you just reiterating yourself, novena-style?
> Corbusier modernism and neotrad/new urbanism are night-and-day opposites.
> The latter adapt the plan to the person; the former forces the person to
> adapt to the plan, however psychologically impossible that may turn out to
> be.
Of course Corusier modernism and netrad/new urbanism are opposites. But I
would have to differ with you about the facilitation of human occupancy.
It was premodern housing that was prescriptive and one of the goals of
modernism was to create generic spaces that could be used by occupants in
a variety of ways without extensive internal revision. The problem was
that most of it was built during times of austerity to provide the most
possible for the least amount of money (enforced largely by government
policy prescribing minimum standards). As you posted earlier, using
materials such as concrete disallowed major internal expansion as it was
subsequently demanded by a more affluent populace. Corbu's work was a
great success, according the those who lived in his housing blocks in
France, until the demands that accompany economic affluence could no
longer be served by minimal housing.
While there are the good and the bad in neotrad housing, I've found very
little that is not highly prescriptive in it's use. I think there is much
to be learned from the aspiration of modernism to create generic spatial
organizations that allow inhabitants to use spaces within in a variety of
ways; such is the popularity of the loft, a purely modern idea in the
re-use of space that was intended only for storage and manufacturing in
the pre-modern period.
>
> I also notice that you deleted my statement that not everyone here
> supports high-rises. Am I to assume, then, that you accept that statement
> without challenge, or (as I suspect is more likely) do you simply plan to
> pretend that you never saw it and to continue to accuse us of mindless
> high-rise-mongering? It's that kind of intellectual dishonesty on your
> part that really bugs the hell out of us.
You're obviously correct in the second part. Did it ever occur to anyone
that this man thinks anything over three stories is a highrise? It's very
nearly the case in his town, as far as housing goes.
BTW, Pei's three Society Hill Towers (Philly) are diffucult to get into.
That they are not dormitories; that their floors are sudividable from one
apartment per floor to four apartments per floor; that they overlook the
Delaware River, Center City, Old City and Southwark; and that they are in
the midst of the most active part of their city rather than plunked down
in the middle of a University campus might have something to do with that.
What happens to old hotels in center cities? Most, by my observation, have
become successful retirement communities or housing for the
physically-challenged and elderly..
Lesson for George:
Your generalized judgment of things has served up to the world most
everything from religious inquistitions to the Jim Crow laws. High-rises
in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. A highrise can be evaluated
only by the particularities of its design and its specific cultural and
physical context. Quad apartments on my campus, accessed across seas of
student parking are the number one choice among our American students. The
three highrises adjacent to the academic core with recreation facilties
and dining hall within, is the choice of most (but not all) of our Asian
and African students and some of our American student population.
Nelson
Nelson S. Benzing
In article <32f3c2e2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Your doubt may be well placed. OTOH, the lift and tilt-slab construction
utilized was specifically invented to meet urgent housing needs were
generally considered temporary structures. As ugly as they were to the
public eye, it may well be that calling them "temorary" structures was a
public relations ploy.
>
> That said, it appears they may as well have been: the parking garage
> located underneath the plaza separating Grad Tower A from Grad Tower B
> has been closed ever since chunks of the ceiling started falling onto
> the top level, and the concrete High Rises develop unsightly streaks
> when it rains.
Practice safe parking...........wear a hardhat!
Ciao,
Nelson
George Conklin
In article <nbenzing-020...@cha-nc9-32.ix.netcom.com>,
Nelson S. Benzing <nben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970131...@magik.albany.net>,
>Of course Corusier modernism and netrad/new urbanism are opposites. But I
>would have to differ with you about the facilitation of human occupancy.
>It was premodern housing that was prescriptive and one of the goals of
>modernism was to create generic spaces that could be used by occupants in
>a variety of ways without extensive internal revision. The problem was
>that most of it was built during times of austerity to provide the most
>possible for the least amount of money (enforced largely by government
>policy prescribing minimum standards). As you posted earlier, using
>materials such as concrete disallowed major internal expansion as it was
>subsequently demanded by a more affluent populace. Corbu's work was a
>great success, according the those who lived in his housing blocks in
>France, until the demands that accompany economic affluence could no
>longer be served by minimal housing.
>While there are the good and the bad in neotrad housing, I've found very
>little that is not highly prescriptive in it's use. I think there is much
>to be learned from the aspiration of modernism to create generic spatial
>organizations that allow inhabitants to use spaces within in a variety of
>ways; such is the popularity of the loft, a purely modern idea in the
>re-use of space that was intended only for storage and manufacturing in
>the pre-modern period.
What is generic space? Medieval rooms had beds which
were taken down during the day for living space. Those
living in villages in Asia live there in generic space all
right. They share living area at night with the cows and
put the rope beds next to cows, which children kind of like,
since it makes the cows pets too.
A sign of minimal affluence was the ability not to have
to take the bed down during the day and leave it in a
bedroom. Needing the bedsheets for the table is not what
people want to do today.
High-rises
>in and of themselves are neither good nor bad. A highrise can be evaluated
>only by the particularities of its design and its specific cultural and
>physical context. Quad apartments on my campus, accessed across seas of
>student parking are the number one choice among our American students. The
>three highrises adjacent to the academic core with recreation facilties
>and dining hall within, is the choice of most (but not all) of our Asian
>and African students and some of our American student population.
>
>Nelson
The highrises at athe University of Pennsylvania
reflected the best urban planning had to offer at the time.
They were the usual urban planning disaster, and now
consideration must be given to blasting them down, just like
the public housing equivalents. Same design; same disaster.
Highrises fit no known cultural preference. They also
make crime easy.
Jason Makofsky
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <nbenzing-020...@cha-nc9-32.ix.netcom.com>,
> Nelson S. Benzing <nben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970131...@magik.albany.net>,
...snip...
> >While there are the good and the bad in neotrad housing, I've found very
> >little that is not highly prescriptive in it's use. I think there is much
> >to be learned from the aspiration of modernism to create generic spatial
> >organizations that allow inhabitants to use spaces within in a variety of
> >ways; such is the popularity of the loft, a purely modern idea in the
> >re-use of space that was intended only for storage and manufacturing in
> >the pre-modern period.
>
> What is generic space? Medieval rooms had beds which
> were taken down during the day for living space. Those
> living in villages in Asia live there in generic space all
> right. They share living area at night with the cows and
> put the rope beds next to cows, which children kind of like,
> since it makes the cows pets too.
Ah-HA!...
There's part of the problem -- a sociologist is trying to debate
urban planning topics without the education, training, ...or jargon.
...snip...
> The highrises at athe University of Pennsylvania
> reflected the best urban planning had to offer at the time.
> They were the usual urban planning disaster, and now
> consideration must be given to blasting them down, just like
> the public housing equivalents. Same design; same disaster.
>
> Highrises fit no known cultural preference. They also
> make crime easy.
Hey, George!
What known cultural preference do your trailer-homes fit?
Bonehead.
Jason Makofsky
George Conklin
In article <32F609...@mapc.org>,
Jason Makofsky <jmak...@mapc.org> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <nbenzing-020...@cha-nc9-32.ix.netcom.com>,
>> Nelson S. Benzing <nben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >In article <Pine.SUN.3.95.970131...@magik.albany.net>,
>
>...snip...
>
>> >While there are the good and the bad in neotrad housing, I've found very
>> >little that is not highly prescriptive in it's use. I think there is much
>> >to be learned from the aspiration of modernism to create generic spatial
>> >organizations that allow inhabitants to use spaces within in a variety of
>> >ways; such is the popularity of the loft, a purely modern idea in the
>> >re-use of space that was intended only for storage and manufacturing in
>> >the pre-modern period.
>>
>> What is generic space? Medieval rooms had beds which
>> were taken down during the day for living space. Those
>> living in villages in Asia live there in generic space all
>> right. They share living area at night with the cows and
>> put the rope beds next to cows, which children kind of like,
>> since it makes the cows pets too.
>
>
>Ah-HA!...
>There's part of the problem -- a sociologist is trying to debate
>urban planning topics without the education, training, ...or jargon.
>
The jargon is used to obscure meaning in order to fool
the public. You have to use the jargon in place of
intelligence, thought, logic and knowledge.
>> The highrises at athe University of Pennsylvania
>> reflected the best urban planning had to offer at the time.
>> They were the usual urban planning disaster, and now
>> consideration must be given to blasting them down, just like
>> the public housing equivalents. Same design; same disaster.
>>
>> Highrises fit no known cultural preference. They also
>> make crime easy.
>
>
>Hey, George!
>What known cultural preference do your trailer-homes fit?
>
>Bonehead.
>
>
>Jason Makofsky
Upper class snotty responses against trailers. Trailer
homes fit a local preference for an inexpensive place to
live. This is of no known concern to you.
Exile on Market Street
nben...@ix.netcom.com (Nelson S. Benzing) wrote:
>BTW, Pei's three Society Hill Towers (Philly) are diffucult to get into.
>That they are not dormitories; that their floors are sudividable from one
>apartment per floor to four apartments per floor; that they overlook the
>Delaware River, Center City, Old City and Southwark; and that they are in
>the midst of the most active part of their city rather than plunked down
>in the middle of a University campus might have something to do with that.
This is as good a place as any to correct a false impression I left in
a previous post on this thread.
Nelson referred to I.M. Pei's towers in a follow-up to a post I made
on the likely fate of Penn's late-'60's/early-'70's high-rise dorms.
Thinking he was referring to buildings on the Penn campus, I went on
to talk about the High Rises. I should have known better. Pei's
architecture is anything but brutalist, which is the right word to
describe the High Rises -- which were not designed by Pei, or by any
other well-known architect, for that matter.
Wrt Nelson's observation about Society Hill Towers vs. the High Rises:
The former are also situated closer to each other than the High Rises
are, and the total land cleared for their construction is less than
that cleared to create Superblock. Although I doubt it, it is quite
possible that had Penn not cleared three city blocks for the High
Rises, there might have been a little more activity at their base and
they might not seem so bleak.
George Conklin
In article <32f7314c...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
There were faculty at Penn who were objecting to the
urban clearance plan and superblock before it was done.
However, they were given the same level of abuse that Nelson
dumps on me. Architects are a lot like art critics. There
are things that in style and out the next year. Since they
have no concrete basis for their opinions, they rely on pure
nastyness to make their points. When faculty wondered if
students would like the highrises, they were given that same
old 'choice' crap. How do we know they would not like the
highrieses? They don't have a CHOICE now. No one asked the
students.
So we have another disaster, which will cost Penn a
fortune to try to clean up. Urban planners such as Nelson
have moved on to a new fad, but they continue to make fun of
what real people want, and substitute scorn, sarcasm and
the 'choice' argument for real behavior. Cisneros' piece
about using behavior to gague the results of architcture was
really a cry against architects who rely on emotion, not
fact. Urban planning disasters: look at Penn. Look at the
new urbanims.
Iris
> OK, say high densities *are* undesirable, Americans are voting with
> their dollars for ever-bigger homes, etc.
>
> Then why is it that governments force *minimum* lot sizes? Why have
> zoning at all, for that matter? If everyone really wants low density,
> then aren't those laws redundant?
You got it. The laws are worthless and redundant, and your taxes are
raised to justify said laws. And let's not forget all those government
jobs that go along with enforcing thos redundant laws.
Irises, feeling a bit punchy, so please forgive me for this sarcastic post...
********************************************************************
* Iris mest...@post.drexel.edu *
*"You can't win. But there are alternatives to fighting." *
* -- Alec Guiness, "Star Wars" *
********************************************************************
George Conklin
fly...@ism.net
Pure politics until a pig farm moves in next door...pure politics until
it serves your selfish interests.
George Conklin
City planners would be glad to put in pigs too, if it met
one of their long-term density goals.
bbrey...@aol.com
In article <5df4jd$u...@nina.pagesz.net>, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George
Conklin) writes:
George gives new meaning to "bring home the bacon"...but only if each pig
gets its
own 2,400-square-foot/three-car-garage sty.
Bruce B. Reynolds, Systems Consultant: Founder of Trailing Edge
Technologies---Sweeping Up Behind Data Processing Dinosaurs