COLUMN: No 30th Street field of dreams

From Kent Malmros', "Everything Old is New Again It would be perfect. And it would be an utter disaster. Several facets of developer Dan Keating's proposal to construct a stadium at 30th and Walnut simply are not viable. Access to the site, parking for the patrons and public safety would all become logistical nightmares. In addition to the already crowded area roads, PennDot has approached the University about shutting down the South Street Bridge to conduct structural repairs during the same time that construction on the ballpark would be in progress. The possibility of needing to reroute hospital traffic because of the closed bridge, in addition to the pure clutter created by the construction site, creates nightmarish scenarios. An ambulance caught in gridlock could result in a price no one is willing to pay for admission to a ball game. But the issue of parking is the plan's fatal flaw. Keating's proposal relies on the blatant misconception that every parking space at Penn and Drexel is vacated at night. Even now, Penn needs 3,000 more parking spaces to accommodate its own needs. In no way will there be enough parking to accommodate the vast majority of 45,000 fans on 81 nights each year. "For [Keating] to assume that all of these parking spaces are going to materialize reflects a matter of a lack of understanding of what the University of Pennsylvanian is about," Penn Executive Vice President John Fry said. An influx of fans into the area would also create a security nightmare. With public safety already a major concern, opposition to this issue needs to be ensured. Penn chose not to handle 10,000 fans for the Philadelphia Public League playoffs. One wonders how four times that number would be handled. "While baseball fans are a pretty good group, you can't assume that everything is going to be risk-free," Fry said. But one of the biggest reasons why the University should have a vested interest in the failure of the Keating proposal is that Penn's eastern boundary is the only possible direction for future expansion. "It's not that self-serving as the city's largest private employer to say we need space to grow over time," Fry said. "We are a major contributor to this economy. We do a lot for the city of Philadelphia." And this is not simply expansion for the sake of expansion. Recreational facilities -- for students, not professionals -- are still badly needed on campus. A 1996 consultant's report called for space well in excess of anything the Penn campus could currently accommodate. Acquisition of the postal plot remains one of the only viable options for gaining enough space to meet the University's needs. The University City community needs to openly voice its displeasure with this plan on all levels -- no matter how nice people think it would be to have professional athletes strolling around campus. Yet, there is no active campaign by the Penn community to dissuade the city. "Other than speaking out publicly when asked, we haven't put on much of a campaign [against the proposal]," Fry said. "We have expressed to various parties our concern about this but we haven't put on the full-court press. We think the proposal will fail on its own merits." Fry's belief that lack of access to the stadium is self-crippling to the proposal is realistic. However, the University has a responsibility to make sure this plan does not come to fruition.