Things That Won’t Be There Anymore: Parks!
There’s an old edition we have lying around of this book called Philadelphia Then And Now: 60 Sites Photographed In The Past And Present. Have you ever seen it? It’s fascinating, for two reasons: One being how fortunate we are to have so many historical sites and streetscapes in Philly that remain almost perfectly intact, and another being how unfortunate we are that so many of our historical and public spaces have been lost over the years, almost always due to either neglect or rough financial times. As the economic crisis has lumbered on, we keep going back to this book, wondering at what point exactly the crisis will force hands, and when we’ll start to, as a City, lose things.
We haven’t had to wait long: Last week in City Council, Councilwoman Joan Krajewski introduced a frightening bill, intended to squeeze money out of city parks and public spaces, allowing the following uses on public spaces presently zoned as recreational:
· Catering Facilities, including accessory live entertainment and dancing;
· Conference centers;
· Detached single-family dwellings;
· Meeting facilities;
· Museums; or
· Public or private parking lots.
Scary. Not because the City can (and in some cases, probably should) find ways to make some money in these times off of underused spaces, but because of everything else that comes along with it. If you read the bill (reprinted in full after the jump), you’ll see that the language is pretty rough, and paints a lot of different kinds of spaces with one brush — and that could only lead to trouble. The anti-blight group SCRUB is already all over this, and don’t be surprised if it becomes a hot-button issue in the coming months. For everything that the City is losing right now, parks and public spaces are something that we really shouldn’t have to lose. There has to be a more forward thinking bill out there than this one.
BILL NO. 090380
Introduced May 7, 2009
Councilmember KrajewskiReferred to the
Committee on RulesAN ORDINANCE
Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled “Zoning and Planning,” by
amending Chapter 14-700, entitled “Recreational Districts,” by amending the uses
permitted in the District, and by adding provisions with regard to signs.THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
TITLE 14. ZONING AND PLANNING.
* * *
CHAPTER 14-700. RECREATIONAL DISTRICTS.§14-701. Classes.
(1) Recreational Districts shall be designated as: “Recreational (REC)”, “Passive
Recreation (REC-P)”, and “Active Recreation (REC-A)”.
§14-702. Designation.(1) Parcels of public land under the jurisdiction of the City of Philadelphia Department of Recreation, FairmountPark Commission, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the National Park Service of the United States Government which are devoted to=2 0park and/orrecreational purposes and permitted related uses may be designated on the zoning maps as Recreational (REC), Passive Recreation (REC-P), and Active Recreation (REC-A).
§14-703. Recreational District (REC).
(1) Use Regulations. The specific uses permitted in this district shall be the erection, construction, alteration, or use of buildings and/or land for:
(a) [a]Any type of recreational use or activity, including recreational activities related to the use of creeks and rivers; [provided, that any private operation for private profit located within this district at a distance of 500 feet or less from any district boundary shall be permitted only if a certificate from the Zoning Board of Adjustment is obtained.](b) Catering facilities, including accessory live entertainment and dancing;
(c) Conference centers;
(d) Detached single-family dwellings;
(e) Meeting facilities;
(f) Museums;
(g) Public or private parking lot, accessory to any use permitted in the district;
(h) Public or private parking area, accessory to any use permitted in the district, limited in use to special events or special occasions. Such parking areas shall be unpaved, due to the occasional use of such parking areas;
(i) Accessory uses, customarily incidental to any of the above permitted uses;
(j) All limitations on multiple buildings on a lot, whether stated or implied, shall not apply in this district.
(2) Area and Height Regulations. Where a Recreational District is in the same block with any other district, said Recreational District shall comply with the area and height regulations of the most restrictive district which abuts upon said Recreational District.(3) Signs. Accessory signs shall be permitted upon approval by the Art Commission.
* * *
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Between the casinos and now turning parks into parking lots it seems the people running the city can’t turn it into AC fast enough.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I’ve always thought it would be killer if someone would actually have a spot or two in the city parks selling water and other delicious cold drinks on hot days. maybe even a snack or two. maybe in some parking lots along fairmount park. a small stand or two in the wissahickon wouldn’t be that crazy either. or there are those unused park buildings. the city could do this in fairmount park and the wissahickon (other than the valley green inn, there is nothing) amongst other places and thirsty joggers, bikers, hikers, etc. would be so happy to get cold drinks and maybe this money could help pay for park cleanup and such.
remove “parking lots” and “detached single family dwellings” and this wouldn’t be so horrible if the wording was right in usage. having a museum in a city park, or using a park space as a meeting place wouldn’t be that bad unless it closes it off for significant amounts of time. those things would be likely to bring more people into the park and more people in the park – more appreciation of the space, more public support hopefully… more people giving a damn about the space.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Wissahickon has Valley Green, as you mentioned, which has a sit-down restaurant as well as a kiosk for drinks and snacks. We do have museums in the park (Please Touch) and there are other places to get food and drinks (like Lloyd Hall on Boathouse Row, and the Ohio House on Belmont). There’s another existing building in East Falls called the Bathey House that will soon become a café. And there are buildings in the park that are available for event rentals, like Lemon Hill.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I know someone who called Frank DiCicco’s office about this and the person who answered had never heard of this. But if you search on http://legislation.phila.gov/mattersearch/ by either Fairmount Park or by bill number (090380) it does come up, and it was introduced a week ago.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Citiesinpixiedust – I agree wholeheartedly about the lack of concessions in the park and, more importantly, how concessions have a tendency to add more life, texture, and vibrancy to our park spaces. And speaking as someone close to the Fairmount Park Commish, more concessions are coming. The delay is because we’re trying to do it right. It takes a while to design a policy, create and zone mobile concession zones, bid the zones individually, and specify what can go there, what can be sold at what price, how trash is to be disposed of, etc. Basically, we’re trying to balance the need for revenue and active parks with a park aesthetic people have come to cherish.
If we’re applying the surgical knife, Krajewski’s bill is a meatax. It’s one of the most hamhanded (and borderline illegal) pieces of legislative gibberish I’ve ever seen. From my understanding it’s an attempt to rectify one constituent’s problem—to make sure one entity’s zoning rigamarole never happens again. So suddenly now we’re legislating with frightening universality? Without discernment and nuance across vast swathes of open space? Allowing parking lots, meeting facilities (not meetup-spots), museums, and single family homes, any type of rec facility associated with creeks? This is too broad a brush.
I hate to break it to you folks but this is the “accountability” and “transparency” you voted for with the merger. As bumbling and secretive as the Commission was, they ensured due process and deliberation about what happened in the park. You may not get this with Council. Folks, the Fairmount Park Commission has a month before dissolution and already the doomsday scenario is on the table.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Any news on the Horticultural Center greenhouse? Been hearing rumors they might be shutting it down.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Walter Sobchak cites some great examples. More stuff like that would be great. Washington Square has been much improved with the recent changes.
As with most things it’s about balance.