Thursday, July 24, 2008

what if philadelphia ceases to be philadelphia?

In his novel Invisible Cities, Italo Calvino writes about changes to the city of Maurilia:

In Maurilia, the traveler is invited to visit the city and, at the same time, to examine some old postcards that show it as it used to be: the same identical square with a hen in the place of the bus station, a bandstand in the place of the overpass, two young ladies with white parasols in the place of the munitions factory. If the traveler does not wish to disappoint the inhabitants, he must praise the postcard city and prefer it to the present one, though he must be careful to contain his regret at the changes within definite limits: admitting that the magnificence and prosperity of the metropolis Maurilia, when compared to the old, provincial Maurilia, cannot compensate for a certain lost grace, which, however, can be appreciated only now in the old postcards, whereas before, when that provincial Maurilia was before one’s eyes, one saw absolutely nothing graceful and would see it even less today, if Maurilia had remained unchanged; and in any case the metropolis has the added attraction that, through what it has become, one can look back with nostalgia at what it was.

Beware of saying to them that sometimes different cities follow one another on the same site and under the same name, born and dying without knowing one another, without communication among themselves. At times even the names of the inhabitants remain the same, and their voices’ accent, and also the features of the faces; but the gods who live beneath names and above places have gone off without a word and outsiders have settled in their place. It is pointless to ask whether the new ones are better or worse than the old, since there is no connection between them, just as the old post cards do not depict Maurilia as it was, but a different city which, by chance, was called Maurilia, like this one.

I find myself with a funny set of wants—I want more college graduates and professionals to stay or to come to Philadelphia, to work here and contribute to the economy, and to make this a better city. Yet I also know that this very revitalization is playing an integral role in the gentrification in my neighbourhood, destroying historic black communities in West Philadelphia.

I deeply desire to see this city revitalized, to become the “next great city”—for its “soul-stirring desolation” as Jonathan Franzen put it, to be turned into soul-stirring hope and community. But when does Philadelphia cease to be Philadelphia? When does some other minor deity saunter in and takes its place and its name, while the old Philadelphia is put in a body bag and dumped into the Delaware River? In hoping for Philadelphia’s life, am I also wishing its destruction?

As Philadelphia changes, the spirit of this city will change. But I want to see the soul of Philadelphia grow out of its sighs and tears and into something wise and beautiful, with history and complexity, rather than see it squeezed out and left to die, while some other young, fashionable imposter comes to stretch its personality over these streets.*


* There’s been an interesting series in the Philadelphia Inquirer on homeless men sleeping, eating, bathing and having sex in Rittenhouse Square. I’ve blogged about this park and my appreciation for the diversity of its users. Sometimes, when I try to imagine what Philadelphia would look as a person, I picture a homeless man, dirty and filthy, staggering through the streets (I have other images too). I don’t want this homeless man shut away in a shelter far, far way—I want him to find a job, build a family and live in a home. As for the Rittenhouse Square issue, I understand the local residents’ aversion to having their local park overrun by homeless at night, and I also understand the need to provide the homeless with more permanent housing options than park benches, but something about excluding before including, hiding before healing, and ultimately separating without ever integrating, strikes me as being the wrong approach. And I hope that we do not take the same approach to the poor (of pushing them out to suburbs rather than including them in a vital way) as we try to bring new life to Philadelphia.
** On a lighter note, I think I may be breaking a significant trend with this post. Have you noticed that I will post frequently for a month, and then I will go on hiatus for the next month before resuming frequent posts again? Somehow, I’ve managed this time to only wait about two weeks before the posts resume again.

4 comments:

Nicholas said...

First post!

I hadn't noticed, but you're right about the pattern:

January: 1 post
February: 10 posts
March: 0 posts
April: 8 posts
May: 2 posts
June: 9 posts
July: 5 posts so far

Here's to more quality blogging for me to read!

M. Weed said...

March was zero posts because she was down South being EPIC and MARRIED


So the question being asked here is, can you change without changing? That is, can you alter without swapping? Can we have more of those people without having less of these? Less of this attitude without more of that? I don't know.

Nicholas said...

The Maurilia nostalgia reminds me of "The Four Yorkshiremen," a hilarious old skit done by Monty Python.

I think they would dump the old Philadelphia in the Schuylkill, rather than the Delaware. The Schuylkill is more polluted.

Yeah, I'm afraid that the vision of revitalization that many have in mind is of the sort you fear, of turning the city into some generic outpost on the Space of Flows while pushing the old problems out and forgetting they existed.

But that's why we're here. As salt and light, by God's grace we can restore without replacing. As Jesus will "make all things new," rather than "making all new things" and pressing a reset button, we as his body can begin that work now.

M. Weed said...

Besides, Philly is full of crusty, crass losers like me, and that's part of what makes it Philly! That may help keep it from turning into NYC Junior. Given that it has INTACT "historic specificity" out the wazoo (not that NY doesn't, but most of it has been erased), and people mostly know that and at least pretend to appreciate it, we're in a good position to start with. I think with the right people being loud, the city could experience a rebirth and then mature as something radically different than its neighbors... actually moving to solve its problems instead of removing them. Like that Rittenhouse Square blogger guy... what a swell dude. He doesn't mind the homeless people, and he's right to point out that the park has been there a LOT longer than the rich people that live around it. It's for everyone. If that attitude spreads in Philly, it's for the better.