Urban Design Sensitivity
“If a modern city wants lively streets and a vibrant public realm, it has to provide public space as a fundamental prerequisite. As today’s citizens have more options on how to spend their time, they will only spend it in the public realm if it is of high quality and accessibility is easy and convenient.”
-Jan Gehl
The extent of the study area for this urban design sensitivity analysis included the historic neighborhood of Society Hill. Using analytical diagramming employed by Kevin Lynch, paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks help frame the context of the neighborhood. The area is officially bound by Walnut and Lombard Street on the North and South, and Front Street and 8th Street on the East and West. Laid out in the last quarter of the 17th century, Society Hill encompasses Washington Square, one of four central parks in William Penn's original grid plan of Philadelphia. The neighborhood borders the Delaware River, which it overlooks from a hill named for the Free Society of Traders — a company chartered in 1682 by Penn and the namesake of Society Hill.[1] Society Hill as seen today developed out of the post-war planning efforts of Edmund Bacon. Under Bacon’s direction, the Philadelphia Planning Commission sought to capitalize on postwar optimism and looked to the future with coordinated, comprehensive plans to eliminate blight and liberate Philadelphia from its obsolete industrial clutter. Whereas urban renewal projects in cities like New York and Chicago meant the wholesale demolition of unsavory neighborhoods, Bacon emphasized small-scale demolition and often restored older structures so that new features like shops and parks were interwoven with the existing landscape. Particularly in Society Hill, the city's Redevelopment Authority, working closely with a newly established Historical Commission, acquired hundreds of dilapidated properties and sold them inexpensively to owners who would restore them according to strict standards. In addition to sensitively scaled infill housing, the program featured walkable mid-block "greenways" and public art. Architect I.M. Pei's iconic Society Hill towers, a trio of 26-story apartment buildings were built during this time and injected new ideas about architecture and urbanism.[2]
Characteristics of Society Hill:
- street grid system
- curvilinear off-grid Dock street
- relatively small neighborhood blocks
- generally narrow street widths
- complex system of pedestrian and interconnected greenways
Land Use percentages of Society Hill:
- 39% residential
- 25% park open space
- 10% culture
- 8% commercial
- 5% civic/institutions
MONOFUNCTION
Society Hill suffers from the unfortunate modernistic planning ideals of the post-war period. Even though an increase in diversity has been achieved, many of the different functions are still clustered in a way that promotes mono-functional areas, which are active at limited time periods. Almost all non-residential functions are concentrated along the south side of Walnut Street and around Dock Street. Areas with one primary use, such as offices or cultural institutions, tend to be areas that are only lively in the morning, lunch, and during the evening rush. Outside these hours, the areas appear deserted and can act as barriers within the neighborhood. Even at the landmark Ritz 5 movie theater, the latest show time is usually never past 10 p.m. The clustering of similar functions can be perceived as detrimental for neighborhood life and safety.
AMENITIES
Within the cluster of retail and restaurants along Walnut and Dock Streets, there are few opportunities to sit and linger. Apart from one single restaurant’s outdoor café seating, which was unused due to the cold weather, there is no public seating provided; benches are limited to the Memorial Plaza and parks. Public seating is important for people to walk around and enjoy the public realm by creating opportunities for pausing and resting. With this in mind, perhaps a reason why public seating is under provided along Walnut Street is the relatively unappealing street level frontages of the buildings. I found many of the ground floor frontages to be either ‘dull’ or ‘inactive’ according to Jan Gehl’s evaluating criteria. While perhaps attractive in historic architectural detailing, there is often no level of transparency that would engage a person walking along the street and are often lengthy frontages with no visible variation. Therefore there is no reason to provide public seating. Despite the neglect of amenities along the commercial strip, a high level of attention has been given to the residential streets. Numerous street trees and attractive historical coordinated markers and street lighting unify the neighborhood, thanks to strict guidelines from the Historical Commission. At least in the residential areas, consistent design language improves the visual quality and enhances the pedestrian experience.
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
As a result of Ed Bacon’s planning efforts, the pedestrian environment of Society Hill is quite comprehensive. Under Bacon’s direction, a public framework around which Society Hill would be revived was proposed. Removing dilapidated structures would leave gaps in the neighborhood fabric, and Bacon proposed linking them together in a network of pedestrian paths that would run through the neighborhood blocks rather than filling the holes with new buildings.[3] This network of pedestrian paths would provide shortcuts and tie together the neighborhood. In my walk through the neighborhood in both the middle of the day and in the evening, I found the cut through pedestrian paths to actually be quite heavily used. In one specific path off of Spruce, it seemed as though the surrounding neighbors utilized the alley as an impromptu public space for a block party. These street paths clearly play a vital role in neighborhood connections between functions of the area, and provide space for comfortable walking, urban furniture, street trees, and other street elements.
CONNECTIONS TO CBD/WATERFRONT
While walking in the heart of the neighborhood is a pretty pleasant experience, in many areas it isn’t always easy to walk to adjacent districts. In particular, I-95 creates a major physical barrier between Society Hill and the Riverfront on the east. However. The Korean Memorial Park and Plaza covers I-95 between Dock and Spruce Streets, creating a safe access to a city park and promenade along the Delaware. With the lower expressway, the overpass helps the legibility of the pedestrian network by increasing visual connections along the pedestrian network, however slightly disrupted by the slight hill the towers sit on as well as the tall towers themselves. Additionally, connections to the CBD are supported by numerous SEPTA bus stops, and a natural flow from the neighborhood to the Independence Historic Mall, continually westward.
GREEN/OPEN SPACE
25% of Society Hill is composed of green or open spaces. Most of this green space is made up of Washington Square. Although historically part of the Society Hill, in my opinion Washington Square does not fall within my perceived boundaries of the neighborhood. I found the corner where the park intersects 6th and 7th to be somewhat awkward. Regardless, Washington Square along with the numerous pocket parks spread throughout the neighborhood are beautiful and in good quality, and generally inviting. Conversely, the Korean War Memorial Park/Plaza that is the primary open space is somewhat isolated and uninviting. While it serves the purpose of an easy connection to the waterfront, the plaza itself feels uncomfortable and unwelcoming to public life. However, the time of day certainly has everything to do with use of public space; I was only there in the middle of an afternoon on a workday, and in the evening on a weekend. Therefore it is unclear to the level at which the open space is used under normal circumstances. I have been told the plaza is regularly filled during lunch hours on days with pleasant weather. With this in mind however, both the park and plaza perhaps would benefit from diverse programming so that people are encouraged to use them day and night all year around, especially with such close proximity to a rather dense residential neighborhood.
Without question the renewal efforts of the city’s leaders in the late 50s and 60s resulted in a vastly improved neighborhood full of historic charm and social diversity. With such rich history it is difficult to make a concrete assessment for whether Society Hill is well or poorly designed, especially if trying to analyze the neighborhood through the lens of present day design models. I do believe that the residential portions of Society Hill exhibit all the qualities of good urban design, but the commercial strip could use some work. Understanding that the neighborhood is part of a rich historical architecture, design, and planning fabric, overall the area would gain from a continued policy of introducing more mixed uses and opportunities for the public to enjoy the rich architecture Society Hill has to offer.
[1] "Society Hill Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." Society Hill - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. American Planning Association, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/2008/societyhill.htm>.
[2] "Society Hill Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." Society Hill - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. American Planning Association, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2012. <http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/2008/societyhill.htm>.
[3] Lynch, Sarah. "Ed Bacon: Shaping Philadelphia." Panorama (2007): 26. Penn Design. Web.
