CITY LIMITS: Historic Reservations

Will Old Philadelphia Be 'Disneyfied'? While Independence National Historical Park is often referred to as America's most historic square mile, few visitors spend more than an hour visiting the district which contains Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. Trying to reverse this trend, Mayor Ed Rendell and park officials have released plans to enhance the tourist experience for visitors and city residents alike. And recently, everyone from architects and city planners to historians and academics have engaged in dialogue over the fate of the historic area. Currently on the table are six alternative plans devised by the National Park Service. One of the six plans or a combination of the plans will be tentatively accepted in late spring, but will remain open for public discussion. By December of 1995, however, the National Park Service will announce its final plan, which will be implemented in the next 10 to 15 years. Last month, the city and Mayor Ed Rendell unveiled their favored proposal. It calls for a $170 million high-tech Constitution Center to be built on Independence Mall. In addition, the plan recommends relocating the Visitor's Center. If Rendell's plan is accepted, the Liberty Bell would move to the north side of Market Street and would be enclosed in a new glass and steel pavilion. Rendell said he hopes to have Constitution Center plan completed by 1998. Under the Rendell plan, the Constitution Center would run above and below ground and be filled with the newest in museum technology, including multi-media exhibits, television town meetings, discussion theaters, educational galleries and a "Signer's Hall" where visitors can sign the Constitution with a laser pen. Political Science Professor William Harris said he vigorously endorses a home to celebrate the Constitution because it is the foundation and backbone of the United States. "This was the place where the nation was really founded, not by writing documents but by creating institutions," he said. "We need to try to recapture what it is like to make this constitution work in the first phase of its existence. That's the moment to focus on." He said that a constitution center should have the mission of educating the public, especially children. But he cautioned that a center should not be treated as a "shrine." "I don't see this just as commemoration," he added. "If it works, it works because it teaches citizens the capacity to deal with the kinds of problems the framers dealt with on their own terms." · The city's favored proposal -- the sixth proposed by the National Park Service -- has received the most attention, and has caused the most controversy. And although it is the city's plan that received the lion's share of publicity, the final decision will me made by the National Park Service. Independence Mall, the proposed home of the Constitution Center, was created between 1952 and 1969 as Independence Mall State Park by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia. In the process, three city blocks, containing 143 building dating from the 19th and 20th century, were demolished. And in the early 1970s, Pennsylvania turned the mall over to the National Park Service. Ann Marie DiSerafino, spokesperson for Independence Park, said that the National Park Service will not publicly endorse a plan yet, but is considering all the alternatives. She added that the overwhelming public response to the issue has been extremely helpful. While some architects favor the idea of a Constitution Center and increased building on Independence Mall, others are vehemently opposed to the idea. Former City Planning Commissioner Edmund Bacon, who is responsible for the design of Independence Mall, said he loves the idea of an underground Constitution Center. He added, however, that he strongly opposes proposals for buildings in the center of the mall area. "The purpose of the mall is to give dignity and a setting to Independence Hall," Bacon said. "There is no way you can put a major building in the center of mall, without making it overshadow the importance and dignity of Independence Hall." Bacon was passionate in describing the potential experience of an individual walking through the below ground Constitution Center and rising up a stairway to stare in awe at Independence Hall. He added that artificial light in the exhibit, will greatly add, rather than detract from the experience because the lighting can be controlled. "It will change this area from one which is dark and forbidding to one that is a magnet and very attractive." He also advocated the relocation of the Liberty Bell north of Market Street. But John Lawson, one of the designers of the original Liberty Bell pavilion, said he would be sad to see the Bell moved. "I thought it would be there forever," Lawson said. "I'm very upset about using the Liberty Bell as a pawn in a private individual's hand?" He said that from the beginning in 1974, he and his colleagues had envisioned the view of the Liberty Bell with Independence Hall in the background. George Thomas, professor of historic preservation and Philadelphia historian, strongly disagrees. Thomas, who lectures at the University, said there is no connection or "link" between the Liberty Bell pavilion and the history it is trying to portray. The real problem with Independence "Maul," as Thomas referred to it, is that it is a big open space with a "little tiny" 18th century brick building at one end. He added that some of the buildings that were demolished to create the mall were historically significant. "It's a sterile, never, never land shrined in green open space," he said. Deidri Gibson, a landscape architect for the National Park Service, said the problem is not with the mall itself, but with the surrounding buildings. "Classic ingredients for failure of a public space," Gibson said. Many officials agreed, and some cited the U.S. Federal Court House as an architectural disaster. Thomas stressed that the focus on a Constitution Center is placing the emphasis in the wrong area. It should be focused on the city of Philadelphia, Thomas said. He added that the Constitution is a "big yawn" and "has nothing to do with our day to day existence. "The tragedy of it it that they have such a small view of what's important about Philadelphia," Thomas said. "It is not just the Constitution, it's a whole series of revolutions. The modern world was invented in Philly and that's the tale their missing." · In comparison to Philadelphia, one of the most successful and educational tourist attractions in the country is Colonial Williamsburg. Thomas said that while Williamsburg had to be completely recreated, Philadelphia does not need to be rebuilt in this manner because it's home to many 17th and 18th century buildings already, with a huge collection in Society Hill. Milton Mark of the Preservation Committee agreed with Thomas, saying that other historic sites in Philadelphia are being slighted if they are not given more prominence by the city. He said the 19th century was a vital time in Philadelphia history, yet gets little attention. In addition, he said tourists should visit West Philadelphia, Germantown, and Eastern State Penitentiary. · One of the most controversial aspects of the new park plan is the prospect of commercialized history. When Mark heard rumors of the Constitution Center being "Disneyfied" like an attraction at Disney World, he said he was very disenchanted. "I was a little horrified at the the thought of it," Mark said. "I have a problem with contrived patriotism." The whole "Disney" issue has come to the forefront of the debate in the last week. Some see the the idea of glitzy Constitution Center as a move that will attract thousands of tourists to Philadelphia, increasing city revenues and spurring job growth. While others believe the Constitution Center should be less jazzy, and more on substance and meaning. Stuart Feldman, senior vice president of the National Constitution Center, has dedicated the last few years to the creation of a Constitution Center. He said the Disney argument is an attempt to dismantle his idea. And no arguments concerning Disney had been mentioned at the public forums. "We're not here to present Disneyland east," Feldman, a University alumnus said. "The Disney argument is a red-herring that is ridiculous." Feldman, like Harris, said the Constitution is a living document that must be examined for its impact not only on the past, but on present and future. "Those documents are not from ancient history, but affect us every day in our lives," he said. "The mall is largely deserted and we have to find a way to make this area be one of the best public spaces in the world." In order to fulfill these goals, there are plans for a massive television bulletin board with a constant flow of news emanating from it and for a public town meeting. Feldman is confident that his Constitution Center will be a reality. "We're confident the leadership of the Park Service will seize the significance of what were trying to do." Even though the Constitution Center has a price tag of around $200 million, he thinks fundraising efforts, similar to the $415 million raised for the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, are plausible. The Constitution Heritage Act of 1988 also provides the Constitution Center with $250,000 a year. And challenge grants and federal funds could also be raised. "We believe Republicans will be as sympathetic to this project as the democrats," Feldman said. He stressed the importance of a new Visitor's Center to attract tourists and tell them about the wonders of the rest of the city, and added that he hopes to put restaurants and shops outside of the many "unsightly" office buildings. "I want to make this place come alive," Feldman said. But Craig Eisendrheh, former executive director of the Pennsylvania Humanities Council, is worried about the "Disneyfying" of the Constitution Center. "If were talking about $200 million we better know what we are doing," Eisendrheh said. "Simple building a glitz temple for the Constitution is not idea of what to do. "The Constitution is in somewhat of a crisis now," he added. "This is a time where we have to be taking seriously the mission of the Constitution." Harris agreed, and said that, "anything that makes it silly or cute is radically inconsistent with the Constitution." Eisendrheh worked at the National Constitution Center in 1987, but by 1990 had left along with other colleagues because of a difference in opinion over which direction the Constitution Center was headed. "We wanted to have some permanent legacy after the confetti," Eisendrheh said. He added that the Constitution is a complicated issue and has to be dealt with seriously. And issues that Congress is currently debating, such as the First and Fourth amendments, should be addressed. Like many other scholars and officials, Eisendrheh pointed to the U.S. Holocaust Museum as an example to be followed. And Ralph Appelbaum, leading designer of the Holocaust museum, is working on the effort. Karen Butler, an official working on the project in the Mayor's office, said she sees problems with teaching the Constitution. "We're not giving people the right kind of context," Butler said. "There is no common ground from which to absorb things." The Constitution center will fill that void and make that connection, Butler said. As for the Disney issue, Butler said many cities across the country are working hard to attract visitors, and Philadelphia should be no exception. "It's a matter of balance," Butler said. "I think we can use it to help us enhance the story."