StructureHub

All the hullabaloo about New York’s latest, trendiest attraction has spurned, besides the predictable backlash, the efforts of other motivated individuals who think their city should get in on the fun.  Among them is Seattle, which apparently has a few candidates for a makeover; Chicago also has a 3-mile stretched of abandoned elevated railways that is well on its way to becoming an emerald necklace linking parks throughout the city.

And then there is Philadelphia’s Reading Viaduct, coursing northward from the convention center to a terminus west of the Edgar Allan Poe historic site.  Long abandoned by trains and now a roost for the homeless, the tracks snake through Callowhill on a bed of stone and elevated earth, with somewhat shorter lengths held up by iron trusses like those supporting the bulk of the High Line in New York.

Whereas Seattle is still only dreaming and Chicago is much closer to breaking ground on the future Bloomingdale Trail, Philadelphia is somewhere in between, and thus worth talking about (and advocating for).  Why should Philly get a high line?

Because all urban elevated rail beds are not alike.  Notwithstanding the sentiments of many bloggers, who deplore the thought of other cities imitating the High Line concept by reclaiming old rail beds for parkland, the Reading Viaduct’s appeal does not flow from the High Line’s success alone (even if it did, this would hardly qualify as a reason for not making the rail bed a park and, in any event, the French were first).

The two lines are quite different, actually; unlike the Reading Viaduct, the High Line is entirely elevated on trusses, isolated from life below and nearby, which turns Chelsea into the stage for, and not foyer to, a never-ending play.  The Reading Viaduct on the other hand is as much a stage as a viewing balcony; substantial portions are at street level (resting on soil and rustic masonry), offering intimate vistas and welcoming (and wide) corridors to local street life.

The vistas themselves are much different as well, with structures near the viaduct shorter (and in worse repair) than their cousins in New York.  One consequence of this is that the Reading Viaduct seems more expansive and open to the sky, despite being closer to the ground.  Moreover, this hints at another great thing about the Reading Viaduct: Callowhill is the sort of raw (i.e., run-down) neighborhood developers dream about - and as the High Line has shown, even narrow, unconventional park space can trigger new investment with aplomb.

According to a 2003 government study, the Reading Viaduct’s transformation would cost a measly $5.1 million, which is much, much less than the High Line (costing a ridiculous $240 million, $172 million for the first phase alone, plus a couple mil per year for maintenance) and is small enough that celebrity endorsements could be avoided.  Even better, city officials could proceed without worrying about complaints from other residents that valuable funds are being diverted to a small, “elitist” park like the High Line at the expense of other, equally enjoyable ones.

If you think Philly deserves a chance to run with the big boys on this, help the boosters out / learn more at The Reading Viaduct Project.  It’s a good thing.