SIGN OF THE TIMES

Kellie Dinh
Jul 21, 2017 · 11 min read

Evolving notions of community through the built environment in Society Hill, Philadelphia


In 1959, with population growth and Philadelphia’s economy riding the postwar wave, Edmund Bacon produced an outline for the future of the city in his essay, “Philadelphia in the Year 2009.” He envisioned a city with harmony in its transportation systems, shopping and entertainment centers promoted to international prominence, and urban redevelopment in housing, parks, and infrastructure.[1] In particular, Bacon’s urban renewal plan for the rejuvenation of the Society Hill neighborhood hoped to eventually be “regarded as the finest achievement of American redevelopment”.[2] Bacon’s imbued optimism for Philadelphia was challenged, cast aside, and overly optimistic for the era, but his continuous work in the rejuvenation of the Society Hill neighborhood proved to be enduring. At a time where row houses were the dominant housing style, Bacon introduced the I.M. Pei-designed Society Hill Towers, three 32-story high rise condominiums, to the ground of the neighborhood and to the skyline of Philadelphia (See Figure 1). At the peak of Bacon promoting his unified vision for the Society Hill neighborhood, urban theorist Jane Jacobs released The Death and Life of Great American Cities, a manifesto that outlines how urban renewal projects fail to meet the needs of city-dwellers.[3] Bacon’s approach to urban renewal seemed to be counterproductive in creating community according to Jacobs, however his outline for Society Hill and its Towers were crafted with a humanistic precision that Bacon later came to be best remembered for. The Society Hill Towers were a recalibration of what defines community within a neighborhood that is adapting to evolving times and new ways of interacting with the built environment. Through assessing Jacobs’ theories of the uses of city spaces, this paper argues that the Society Hill Towers helped connect and redefine the community, rather than isolate its inhabitants and neighbors.

In the first quarter of the 20th century, the beloved row house form received updates to adapt to its evolving times. These residential structures defined Philadelphia neighborhoods and encouraged social interaction, and the Society Hill Towers did not lend themselves to that interpretation according to theories of community spaces. The front porch became a design staple and a way of life for row house communities, promoting inclusivity, entertainment, and safety as well-maintained streets and porches deterred criminals.[4] The movement of people within the neighborhood is informed by the layout and structure, which continues the cycle in form and function. Jacobs, in her chapter about the uses of sidewalks, equates this synergy to a “ballet in the street”, writing, “This order is all composed of movement and change, and although it is life, not art, we may fancifully call it the art form of the city and liken it to the dance.”[5] The introduction of the Society Hill Towers to the neighborhood in 1964 brought a new residential style along the streets of historic row houses, one without street level neighbor interaction, front porches, or gardens. While inhabitants of the Towers during the first decade of its inception enjoyed its privacy and sense of isolation within the bustle of the city,[6] it certainly lacked the formal characteristics that once previously defined community in residential spaces. Early residents had a different purpose when settling in the Society Hill Towers; more people wanted temporary housing that provided close access to Center City, and less people were interested in owning a home. Many relocated from other cities and then chose live in Society Hill, so integration within the neighborhood and the city was an important factor in the Towers’ success. The towers marked a paradigm shift in ways that community could be defined by the built environment. Homes did not have to be single-family detached structures with a front porch and street to play on. Community was able to be built with concrete, glass, and a dedication to integration with the landscape and neighborhood through the eyes of I.M. Pei and Edmund Bacon.

High rise structures incorporate many facilities within its self-contained walls, and to an extreme act as a “vertical neighborhood”, encompassing every aspect of community life like parks, recreation, and services so that an inhabitant would never have to leave the building. One could liken aspects of this interpretation to the Society Hill Towers, whose forms for residential structures abandoned previous notions. However, the experience of living in the Towers transcended more than just its form. Resident accounts tell of being able to view major monuments of the city through their floor-to-ceiling windows which inspired them to explore the surrounding neighborhood more.[7] Ron Freedman remembers his first impression when visiting the Towers:

I walked into a Towers apartment, looked at Dock Street and the river, marveled at the unobstructed view, and said, ‘I’ll take it.’ I went back to the store and people asked me about the kitchen and the closets and the bathroom, and I told them I didn’t know and I didn’t care. The first night in my new home I sat up all night staring out the windows.[8]

For the Society Hill Towers to promote its occupants to utilize the city aligns with Bacon’s plan to rejuvenate the community through advancing and enhancing its infrastructure. A hidden success described as a “unique residential community in the heart of Philadelphia,”[9] its factors that were a departure from earlier housing forms actually helped enhance the creation of community within the Towers and neighborhood. By taking away and closing off forms of community like a porch and backyard, other forms opened up to fill that void. In the case of the Towers, the floor-to-ceiling windows and high rise structure promote its occupants to utilize the city more, integrating them within the community and neighborhood, even though these forms are a delineation from earlier residential community formats.

The success of the Towers and their integration within the surrounding landscape can be attributed to Edmund Bacon’s concept for the area. His attention to detail and humanistic approach to urban planning, coupled with his philosophies of having a “deep and evolving understanding of the city”[10] helped shape the vision for the Society Hill Towers that architect I.M. Pei and developers Webb and Knapp were able to fully realize. In his biography of the late Edmund Bacon, Greg Heller writes affectionately of a man who was passionately in love with Philadelphia and walked throughout the city at all times of day during every season.[11] Bacon equates his successful urban planning ideology to being able to “coalesce into positive, unified action on a scale large enough to change substantially the character of the city.”[12] By coupling his ideologies for the pedestrian experience with urban planning, Bacon was able to make an unconventional residential space like the Society Hill Towers effective in creating notions of community through the careful landscape planning and direction of pedestrian flow within the surrounding area.

At the same time as the erection of the Towers, Bacon added to the master plan of Society Hill various landscaped pedestrian pathways linking major historical sites called “greenways”.[13] These pathways connected the community by providing clear mid-block walkways to neighborhood restaurants, churches, museums, and notably, a central shopping center built around the Society Hill Towers.[14] These pathways mimic the function of sidewalks as a critical feature in the success of a neighborhood in promoting community. Jacobs writes of sidewalk life extensively in The Death and Life, and focuses on its role in creating casual public interactions that help integrate its inhabitants within the neighborhood. Interactions like asking for directions or nodding hello to admiring a walker’s dog are “ostensibly trivial but the sum is not trivial at all,”[15] writes Jacobs. The engagement with the community in spaces like the greenways allowed the inhabitants of the Society Hill Towers to interact on a level that was previously only reserved for front porch banter. Bacon drew upon already held notions of community, like the sidewalk, and evolved that concept to better fit the new lifestyles of the Society Hill resident. Walkways that were meant to lead to important areas in the neighborhood as well as the center shopping court next to the Towers show a careful consideration by Bacon and the development team to integrate inhabitants of the Towers with neighborhood life and vice versa. Connecting these two communities, the Towers residents and the inhabitants of Society Hill, was at the zenith of Bacon’s career as Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. When questioned about the difficulty of placing these towers within the existing historic fabric, Bacon replied,

The positioning of the Towers in Society Hill is deeply purposeful in relation to the details of footways and garden paths through the area… so that they at least made the effort to relate the most intimate scale of the footpaths between the 18th century structures and the Delaware River.[16]

The placement of the Towers and the landscape planning surrounding the area were a deliberate decision by Bacon in order to integrate the residents with the surrounding environment. Thus, a rethinking of what forms could build community was established.

The greenways not only connected the residents of the Towers to the neighborhood, but also brought Society Hill residents to the Towers. In front of the Towers lies a courtyard with a large fountain and an array of sculptures surrounding it. The creation of this space invited non-residents to interact with the Towers and its surrounding areas. The erection of this plaza was not arbitrary, but rather an intentional move by Bacon to revitalize the area. The sculptures that surround the plaza, Gaston Lachaise’s “The Floating Figure” (See Figure 2), and Leonard Baskin’s “Society Hill Sculpture” (See Figure 3), were the result of the Percent for Art Program, adopted for the first time in the United States by the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority in 1959.[17] The Percent for Art Program mandated developers to “dedicate at least one percent of the total building construction costs toward the commissioning of original, site-specific works of art.”[18] This program, established the same year as Bacon’s essay “Philadelphia in the Year 2009”, aligns with Jacobs’ ideas of the purpose of art within cities. She writes, “We need art, in the arrangement of cities as well as in the other realms of life, to help explain life to us, to show us meanings.”[19] The resulting art works that were able to be created due to the Percent for Art Program have had tremendous impact on the urban fabric of Philadelphia, and have enhanced the entrance courtyard of the Society Hill Towers through their inviting nature for passersby to reflect and contemplate on the surrounding landscape. The Towers and its neighboring sculptural area create a synergy between its inhabitants and the greater community, connecting them with each other and promoting a heightened sense of community within Society Hill. Without the detailed assembly of these structures within the built environment of the neighborhood, they would not have been as successful in their redefinition of community forms.

Today, the Philadelphia skyline is dotted with countless high rise residential structures, each creating or defying notions of community in their own way (See Figure 4). The Society Hill Towers still stand and continue to redefine community within its space, even creating a Council to establish policy for the Society Hill Towers community.[20] The vision of Edmund Bacon for a revitalized Society Hill was able to be realized through I.M. Pei’s designs for the towers, promoting its inhabitants to utilize and get to know the city around them. The Towers and their surrounding landscape marked an alternative method for creating community, instead of the porch and row house form that defined the decades prior. Adapting to evolving times, the Towers’ floor-to-ceiling windows, walkable greenways, and sculptural courtyard all connected its residents back to the neighborhood. Despite theories that seemed to be posed against the idea of the Towers in fostering community, the Society Hill Towers through the vision of Edmund Bacon and I.M. Pei recalibrated what forms could create community through the built environment, and continue to be a lasting example of positive urban renewal in historical neighborhoods. If exploring this topic in more depth, the aspect of community through mostly rented homes versus owned homes could add understanding to the arguments posed. When the Society Hill Towers were built, they were rented apartments. However, in 1979 some 15 years after their erection, the units switched to condominiums with the ability to be fully owned.[21] One could explore more broadly the effects on neighborhoods of having mostly renting residents rather than owning ones. The Towers allow us to reflect on these themes, and will continue to be a beacon of curiosity in urban form for decades to come.

Figure 1: Society Hill Towers, view from the west.[22]
Figure 2: The Floating Figure outside the Society Hill Towers.[23]
Figure 3: Plaza, view to the north. View of Society Hill Sculpture[24]
Figure 4: Contemporary View of Society Hill Towers.[25]

Works Cited

Browne, Stanhope S. “Society Hill History.” Society Hill Civic Association || About Society Hill. 2007. Accessed April 16, 2017. http://www.societyhillcivic.org/aboutSH/history.asp.

“DIALOGUE: Urban Design.” Official Architecture and Planning 33, no. 7 (1970): 615–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43963680.

Heller, Gregory L. Ed bacon: planning, politics, and the building of modern philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Univ Of Pennsylvania Pr, 2016.

Hirshorn, Paul. “The Comparative Rowhouse Study: An Introduction to Architectural Design.” Journal of Architectural Education 36.1 (1982): 14–17. Web.

I.M. Pei and Society Hill: a 40th anniversary celebration. Collingdale, PA: Diane Pub. Co., 2003, 54.

Jacobs, Jane. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books, A division of Random House, Inc., 2011.

Knowles, Scott Gabriel. Imagining Philadelphia: Edmund Bacon and the future of the city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

“Percent for Art.” Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. November 09, 2015. Accessed April 16, 2017. https://www.philadelphiaredevelopmentauthority.org/percent-for-art.

“Society Hill: a modern community that lives with history: Philadelphia (Pa.). Redevelopment Authority.” Internet Archive. Accessed April 16, 2017. https://archive.org/details/cu31924015704780.

“SOCIETY HILL TOWERS.” Society Hill Towers. Accessed April 16, 2017. http://societyhilltowers.com/.

[1] Scott Gabriel Knowles, Imagining Philadelphia: Edmund Bacon and the future of the city. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).

[2] Ibid., 10.

[3] Jane Jacobs, The death and life of great American cities. (New York: Vintage Books, A division of Random House, Inc., 2011).

[4] Paul Hirshhorn, “The Comparative Rowhouse Study: An Introduction to Architectural Design.” Journal of Architectural Education 36.1 (1982): 14–17.

[5] Jacobs, The death and life, 30.

[6] I.M. Pei and Society Hill: a 40th anniversary celebration. (Collingdale, PA: Diane Pub. Co., 2003), 54.

[7] I.M. Pei and Society Hill, 38.

[8] Ibid., 47.

[9] Ibid., 39.

[10] Gregory L. Heller, Ed bacon: planning, politics, and the building of modern philadelphia. (Philadelphia, PA: Univ Of Pennsylvania Pr, 2016).

[11] Ibid., x.

[12] Ibid., x.

[13] Stanhope S. Browne, “Society Hill History.” Society Hill Civic Association, accessed April 16, 2017, http://www.societyhillcivic.org/aboutSH/history.asp.

[14] “Society Hill: a modern community that lives with history: Philadelphia (Pa.). Redevelopment Authority.” Internet Archive, accessed April 16, 2017, https://archive.org/details/cu31924015704780.

[15] Jacobs, The death and life, 56.

[16] “DIALOGUE: Urban Design.” Official Architecture and Planning 33, no. 7 (1970): 615–19, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43963680.

[17] “Percent for Art.” Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, last modified November 09, 2015, accessed April 16, 2017, https://www.philadelphiaredevelopmentauthority.org/percent-for-art.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Jacobs, The death and life, 372.

[20] “SOCIETY HILL TOWERS.” Society Hill Towers, accessed April 16, 2017, http://societyhilltowers.com/.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Available from: Architect Magazine, http://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/society-hill-towers-6432#

[23] Available from: Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, https://www.pcf-p.com/projects/society-hill/

[24] Available from: Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, https://www.pcf-p.com/projects/society-hill/

[25] Available from: Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/army_arch/1527530001/

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade