Freeways or Parks?

The Atlantic Cities recently ran Alex Marshall's article, Tearing Down and Urban Highway Can Give Rise To a Whole New City. It's an interesting read, and given the proposals for Penn's Landing, it's a timely read.

He accurately points out the ill effects of the country's mid-century highway initiatives. He cites numerous cities that have successfully demolished some of their arterial highways for park space. But it's not as simple as "highways are bad and parks are good," and the article hides some of the misleading notions in the sheer number of words.

After the Great Depression and most notably after World War II, Americans were fleeing the inner cities for a better life in the suburbs, a life that cities couldn't offer. While we may view highways as necessary evils almost a century later, they weren't built without reason. By the 1950s and 60s, city planners began to recognize that the problem needed to be addressed or our cities would be completely lost. In order to compete, they began offering suburban creature comforts to compete with neighboring counties, which included accommodating traffic.

This led to the construction of some of our more controversial freeways, including our own I-95 and Vine Street Expressway. It wasn't long after they were approved that residents began to grow concerned. By the 1980s many American cities were beginning to see a renaissance. But for the most part, these freeways ran through deplorable neighborhoods. When I-676 finished driving itself through Vine Street in the 1990s, few cared.

However, by then the United States had already created a need for speed. Even I-676 serves a prominent purpose. This is where Marshall gets lost, and you start smelling his farting unicorn. He points to Portland - naturally - as a shining example of a city that has successfully demolished a major highway for the Tom McCall Waterfront Park. Portland's waterfront seems to be the go-to for any waterfront park project. I mean, they tore down a highway. That's unheard of in the United States, right?

Well implying that Portland demolished a freeway for a park is just as inaccurate as implying that the freeway was unnecessary. Portland didn't demolish the freeway, they moved it to the other side of the Willamette River. The industrial east side of the river is a better place for a highway, but the waterfront parks seems like less of a good deed when you consider the fact that the city decided one neighborhood deserved a park while another deserved concrete flyovers. Those unicorn farts don't smell like cupcakes.

While there is a renewed interest in urban living and walkability, the hard truth is that it's not nearly significant enough to make major freeways irrelevant. All too often those touting public transportation and sidewalks look at an America with a large blind spot. Most of the country isn't Marshall's Brooklyn neighborhood, even in most of our cities. Suburbs have been established and they're going to grow. We can't deal with that by replacing roads with parks.

Ironically, Marshall's spiritual kin in Philadelphia, those who laude public transportation, walkability, and park space are seeking to convert one of our only ready-built rail lines into a sunken park just west of the Reading Viaduct. We'll be just as likely to see the Vine Street Expressway converted into a park.

Where to Cool Off

While the Weather Channel said yesterday's high was 98, I'm certain it was at least 100. Philadelphians are no strangers to brutally hot summer days, but it's not even summer. If this is any indication of what's to come, where do we go to seek relief? 

I've been to a Philadelphia public pool...once. If I wanted to stew in lukewarm city water I'd put a baby pool in my living room. Honestly, it wasn't that the pool grossed me out, it was the way it was managed. There were no changing rooms or restrooms. Your possessions had to be stashed away from the pool, out of sight. 

Additionally, the typical crowd control rules applied: No jumping, No splashing, No diving, No swimming. Essentially, if you did anything other than simply stand in place, you'd hear a whistle. Those sorts of things are understandable in an overcrowded swimming pool, but they don't make me want to return.

Then you have your private pools. I haven't found one that costs less than $1000 for the season. My advice, join Philadelphia Sports Club in Washington Square at their monthly rate for June, July, and August. They have a great outdoor pool and you won't be bothered by kids.

Then there is always Philadelphia's most popular "public pool", Swann Memorial Fountain in Logan Square. Now I'm not condoning the massive legal liability the city is opening itself up to by looking the other way as kids climb their way to the top of this massive metal and concrete impromptu splash park. But on hot days, when your alternatives are the overcrowded petrie dishes or something most just can't afford, it's hard to put the hammer down on this tradition. They tried a few years ago, and once the mercury rose as high as yesterday, enforcement relented.

 Several years ago officials began enforcing a "no swimming" policy on public fountains. Public backlash and a debilitating heatwave forced the city to look the other way, particularly at the popular Swann Memorial Fountain.

I'll admit, it's gross. I'll also admit that I've climbed to the center, looked down on the Delaware's representation, and yes, he is in fact anatomically correct. 

I've heard all the arguments. I know homeless people bathe in public fountains, among other things. But with no restrooms available at public pools, they aren't any cleaner. Chlorine bleach kills everything. One time I had my feet in Washington Square's fountain and a nosy woman came up to tell me, "You can't put your feet in there. The homeless pee in there." To which I replied, "So the homeless can use it as a toilet, but I can use it to cool off my piggies?" 

Mind your own business.

But I digress. Cleanliness aside, Swann Memorial Fountain is not an amusement park. While a 14 year old lifeguard will call me out of a public pool for splashing, Swann Fountain remains an unsecured recreational landmark. As much as I love the tradition, I understand we live in a litigious society, especially in Philadelphia, and it's really only a matter of time.

But don't misunderstand me. I'm not being negative. I'm certainly not saying shut it down. I'm saying offer an alternative. I hate to repeatedly cite Portland as an example, but let's face it, they know how to please their people. Tom McCall Waterfront Park in downtown Portland has several fountains, including Salmon Street Springs and Bill Naito Legacy Fountain designed specifically to be interactive.

 Salmon Street Springs in Portland, OR was designed with interactivity in mind. Understanding that Philadelphia summers can be particularly brutal, we have no modern fountains designed to accommodate the needs met by Swann Fountain's usage as an impromptu watering hole.

With the wildly successful improvements to the Museum of Art and the Schuylkill Banks which continue to make their way down the Parkway, developers could be looking at utilizing some of the available green space, perhaps the vacant Calder Sculpture Garden, as the site for a new landmark fountain, one designed to meet the needs that are currently met by Swann Fountain.