Commentary on Philly Weekly article on West Philly

Chris White and myself both sent letters to the Weekly raising concerns. They were printed in this weeks (Sep 20 - 26) paper...

Coming to a site like this I expected to see the kind of positions tossed around that I have seen here.

Is Penn a giant private institutional force, interested in its own self-preservation above all else? You betcha. Is the "kinder gentler" gentrification approach its taken on in the last 20 years exponentially better than its nasty "blackmail the city to make it do eminent domain for us" approach it took in the sixties with the black bottom neighborhood? You betcha.

To be fair, I think one has to give credit where credit is due say Penn's more enlightened approach to self-interest is exactly what it sets out to be - enlightened self-interest for a very large and powerful private isntitution. Framed in that light, Penn's interest in neighborhood improvement is an extraordinary example of a large private entity - basically an education/research corporation - realizing that improving city services that would normally be provided by local government they can provide a safe bubble for their students and faculty. This helps them compete for students in a competitive field (private universities) where their target consumer (affluent students with wealthy suburban urban-fearing parents) wants their schools environs both to be "hip" and "safe". Nothing more, nothing less.

Penn's interest in West Philly is to help to make it nice environment for them to "sell" an educational commodity to a fairly upscale and young consumer base. It wants to brand itself and the neighborhood a little like Urban Outfitters - youth oriented, with a smattering of palatable "edginess", but over all a safe and easy environment in which to consume 4 or more years of a very, very expensive education.

That said, I greatly appreciate the "new" more community minded version Penn pursuing its private interests. Its a lot more American Apparel these days and a lot less United Fruit to West Philly's Guatemala like it was in the days of bulldozing the Black bottom (the acrtual neighborhood of Hamilton Village - not the shopping plaza named after the neighborhood it and the Super blaock replaced).

A few things Penn did were brilliant - not just for them but for the neighborhood. Encouraging their employees both faculty and medical and service employees to buy in the neighborhood. People should live in neighborhoods close to where they work. They should be able to walk, bicycle or ride the trolley to their place of employ. If you oppose that you are basically saying you believe in sprawl and global warming.

Philly is not a functional city. It fails to provide a decent level of basic local government service for its citizens in a huge number of ways. Affordable housing, sure. How about schools, clean streets, cops that come when call, a beauracracy that doesn't stifle your ability to pull a permit or get anything done legally with Kafka-esque run arounds.

Penn uses the UCD to make up for Philly's failed city government on the cheap. Some of the brightest minds at the Wharton School for Business and the Penn School for Social Policy got together and figured out that for comparitively little investment on their part (because they can do it more cheaply and effectively than Philly city government), they can make the immediate environs around them function as well as some as some Philly's surrounding suburbs do. Do this and voila housing values shoot up to comparable levels as those tonier suburbs whose level of street cleaning, public education, and basic police enforcement they just privately contracted to match.

So in this scenario is Penn's fault that they took advantage of Philly city governments disfunctionality to make a little bubble of suburban-quality functioning city services on the cheap so that its easier for them to sell their educational product to a primarily suburban target demographic or is it the fault of Philly city government that has failed its citizens for decades? Have you ever talked to older West Philly residents about how "nice" Baltimore Ave and 52nd street were back in the '60s and earlier '70s, how you could buy whatever you wanted (not just drugs, bad take-out and blunts) right in the neighborhood, how they felt the streets were cleaner, better maintained and people took more pride int their neighborhood?

I'm just trying to make you guys think about the topic in a wider framework because a lot of what I see here is based on pat easy dichotomies about evil Penn and evil "gentirification' when i think the whole issue is far more nuanced.

while i agree with you, seand, that philly is not a functional city, i disagree that penn's efforts in university city do much to address that. yes, walking to work is a good thing. yes penn has encouraged its employees to invest in the neighborhood (by subsidizing their mortgages). yes, they are supporting a good public school in the area. but these things are not being undertaken for the benefit of the people who are most disadvantaged by the city of philadelphia's lack of services. penn's goals in 'University City' are to create a good enviroment for penn consumers, the majority of whom are decidedly better off than the residents who used to be able to live in the area. since those old time residents aren't there anymore, its unlikely that their children will have the privilege of going to that fancy new public school.
i don't think your argument - that either we make west philadelphia into a walkable university city OR we are proponents of sprawl - shows the 'nuance' for which you are looking. because you see, there were people already living there before Penn came along.

thanks for the challenge. its nice to talk to people with differing opinions. keep coming back!