Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, p. 96
Thursday afternoon I was on my way from UPenn to HSP for a 2pm appointment. After stopping for lunch, I still had about 45 minutes to kill. I debated where I'd go on my bike especially since I was worried about the rain, so Rittenhouse Square seemed like the perfect place. I could engage in one of my favorite pastimes--people-watching. Even at 1:15, on an overcast Thursday afternoon, the square was bustling. Ben & Jerry's was giving free samples, UPenn Doctoral students were conducting a survey, the bike messengers were just hanging-out between deliveries, dog lovers were walking their four-legged friends, business-types were walking through on the way back from a power-lunch, couples were enjoying each others company and even the pigeons were making use of the park.
After about ten-minutes, I got thinking about how Jane Jacobs wrote about Rittenhouse Square in 1961. A lot of what she said still resonates almost fifty-years later. It's a challenge to find scholarly work which has that type of shelf-life. I read Death and Life for the second time this past semester but I was able to appreciate it much more. The first time I read it was as a junior in college and while my school was in the Philadelphia area, I didn't know much about Philadelphia history and planning. Since I've been living in the city for five-years and I've taken classes where I learned more about the Philadelphia's past, Jacobs made more sense. For me, this was significant when Jacobs compares the four Philadelphia squares and their success. I had an understanding of historical context which was previously absent.
In essence, Jacobs argued Rittenhouse Square was successful because the surrounding neighborhood was comprised of mixed-use properties (residential, retail and commercial). When the three other squares were compared, they were found to lack the same necessary mix for success. Four decades later, Rittenhouse is still thriving. The surrounding streets are a mix of high-end condos, fancy restaurants with outdoor seating for all those who want to be seen, mid- to high- shopping and even small hole-in-wall cafes.
Even the presence of the Doctoral students exemplified the mixed-use nature of the park. They believed Rittenhouse offered them enough of a cross-section of respondents where their results could be seen as random. And as a matter of fact, one of my favorite actors Neil Patrick Harris (he's just NPH to me) was filming a movie in the square today. Oh how Doogie Howser M.D. has grown-up. But I digress.
The city has worked hard in trying to improve the quality of the other three squares but none have thrived the way Rittenhouse has thrived. Each receives foot traffic during the day but it is usually limited to certain parts of the day. They don't possess the perpetual attraction of Rittenhouse. If the other squares were redeveloped in a manner which mirrored Rittenhouse, would they become clones of Rittenhouse? I don't really have an answer but I believe we should wonder what would happen.
I would say I am a believer in Jane Jacobs. I agree with her principles and ideas; people, especially those who have been empowered, make a city thrive. I think community was at the core of Jacobs' beliefs, it was never explicit in her writing about what made Rittenhouse successful. Mixed-use property has been a central factor but I think a community of concerned citizens who have the means and agency has been equally important. The park matters to the local citizens and we can't overlook the impact they've had on the parks continued success.
After about ten-minutes, I got thinking about how Jane Jacobs wrote about Rittenhouse Square in 1961. A lot of what she said still resonates almost fifty-years later. It's a challenge to find scholarly work which has that type of shelf-life. I read Death and Life for the second time this past semester but I was able to appreciate it much more. The first time I read it was as a junior in college and while my school was in the Philadelphia area, I didn't know much about Philadelphia history and planning. Since I've been living in the city for five-years and I've taken classes where I learned more about the Philadelphia's past, Jacobs made more sense. For me, this was significant when Jacobs compares the four Philadelphia squares and their success. I had an understanding of historical context which was previously absent.In essence, Jacobs argued Rittenhouse Square was successful because the surrounding neighborhood was comprised of mixed-use properties (residential, retail and commercial). When the three other squares were compared, they were found to lack the same necessary mix for success. Four decades later, Rittenhouse is still thriving. The surrounding streets are a mix of high-end condos, fancy restaurants with outdoor seating for all those who want to be seen, mid- to high- shopping and even small hole-in-wall cafes.
Even the presence of the Doctoral students exemplified the mixed-use nature of the park. They believed Rittenhouse offered them enough of a cross-section of respondents where their results could be seen as random. And as a matter of fact, one of my favorite actors Neil Patrick Harris (he's just NPH to me) was filming a movie in the square today. Oh how Doogie Howser M.D. has grown-up. But I digress.
The city has worked hard in trying to improve the quality of the other three squares but none have thrived the way Rittenhouse has thrived. Each receives foot traffic during the day but it is usually limited to certain parts of the day. They don't possess the perpetual attraction of Rittenhouse. If the other squares were redeveloped in a manner which mirrored Rittenhouse, would they become clones of Rittenhouse? I don't really have an answer but I believe we should wonder what would happen.
I would say I am a believer in Jane Jacobs. I agree with her principles and ideas; people, especially those who have been empowered, make a city thrive. I think community was at the core of Jacobs' beliefs, it was never explicit in her writing about what made Rittenhouse successful. Mixed-use property has been a central factor but I think a community of concerned citizens who have the means and agency has been equally important. The park matters to the local citizens and we can't overlook the impact they've had on the parks continued success.
What an awesome post-it totally makes me miss Rittenhouse Square! Your description (especially the laundry list of folks you saw walking by) made me feel like I was back there :) I have never considered what made Rittenhouse a successful gathering spot...I was just always drawn to it. I agree that Jane Jacobs nailed it. It's almost like anyone can feel at home in the park because it touches so many different walks of life and types of people. Amazing how it has continued to thrive, as you say, for all these years. (Oh, and I like any post that makes mention of Neil Patrick Harris.)
ReplyDeleteCan't wait to read future posts!