Blight
“The process whereby a previously functioning city, or part of a city, falls into disrepair and decrepitude. It may feature deindustrialization, depopulation or changing population, economic restructuring, abandoned buildings, high local unemployment, fragmented families, political disenfranchisement, crime, and a desolate, inhospitable”
Bianka Hayes, 6 year resident of Ludlow St, on her street in West Philadelphia asking, "Renting to who?"
Transit Oriented Development
Neighborhood Displacement
Considered Factor in a 1963 Engineer Proposal
Day & Zimmermann, Inc., Engineers addressed “neighborhood displacement” as a concern within their written proposal for the City of Philadelphia in 1963. This seemed quite surprising for a time period where “neighborhood displacement” was often treated with total disregard. The proposal reveals various construction plans with their costs to the city for “the improvement of public transportation and vehicular traffic” for Market Street.
Figure 1. The actual project proposal letter from Day & Zimmermann, Inc., Engineers that was presented to the City of Philadelphia in 1963. The enlargements below contain the language used suggesting minimal disturbance for residents.
These options for the project specifically addressed “neighborhood displacement” as a factor of consideration. It mentioned on one plan that although the cost was slightly higher than another, its “neighborhood displacement” would be less. This surprising mention sounded encouraging but may be signaling a response to repercussions already experienced of previous community disruptions. Either way, its mention is at least suspect.
(Click on images to enlarge)
One must keep in mind the objective of a contractor’s proposal is to obtain the contract. This may have been simply a marketing ploy to make the proposal sound community friendly. In reality, the true impact upon neighborhood displacement may have been still substantial regardless of the selective plan.
The enlargement of page three specifically addresses elements of Program B and Program D. Notice the disclosing comment states, “…Program B would ‘displace numerous residents’ along the right-of-way for the open cut construction and would close many streets between stations.” It follows up with Program D offering the “minimum public inconvenience” among all four plans. On page four it suggests the City select the slightly more expensive Program D which favors a lesser disturbance to the community.
Again, it must be stressed that the origin of this proposal is a company, having a conflict of interests financially motivated by securing contracts. The expressed consideration offered to ‘resident displacement’ may be a mere public relations tactic presenting an allusion of concern. It would be naive to assume that a business enterprise would place a higher priority toward public concerns ahead of earnings. Sincere or not, the report’s mention of “neighborhood displacement” certainly injects awareness to this vital disruption to neighborhood residents.
Book Reference
Day and Zimmerman, Inc. (1963). West Market Street Transit Line Study: Report to the Dept. of Public Property, City of Philadelphia.
