Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7
It's always amusing when someone is both insulting and demonstrably wrong.
https://www.visitphilly.com/articles/philadelphia/must-see-attractions-philadelphia/
Yes, there are historic landmarks, but the vast majority of tourists never set foot on anything but the edges of SH.
Sure, people may visit Washington Square -- technically in SH -- but usually as an addition to Independence Mall. Or some may check out the old churches, if they're already in the city and that is their kind of thing, but most people are sticking to Christ Church. Food tourists may have reservations at Zahav, but that's kind of like saying people going to the Linc are there to see South Philly.
I did not suggest that SH has nothing of value. I personally enjoy walking the neighborhood on occasion (as long as no one tries to make me take 5th St.), but it is simply not an important tourism draw. |
I work in the tourism industry and I would say that you are both right and wrong. Society Hill is not the main draw for history tourism and the majority of the tourists will stay not just in Old City, but really within the 8 or so blocks that constitute Independence National Historical Park.
But I think you'd be surprised how many tourists want to walk around Society Hill. Some of them want to explore Society Hill without even knowing the name Society Hill nor where it is. There is a well ingrained idea amongst tourists that Philadelphia is a city where you can walk around in the type of tree covered, historic area with cobblestones roads that parts of Society Hill fit to a T. As you mentioned there are tourist sites in Society Hill but no one is exactly itching to view the Thaddeous Kosciousko House or Old Saint Mary's Chuch. But that's not the point, because the neighborhood ITSELF is an undeniable draw. It is believed there are more 18th century residences in Society Hill, than in any other entire city in this country.
If you went and sat out on a corner like 3rd and Pine or 4th and Spruce, on a nice summer day, the number of tourists you'd see go by would easily number in the thousands. They would drive by on buses, bikes, surreys and on horse and carriage tours. They'd walk by on history tours and ghost tours and many would just be exploring the beautiful neighborhood on their own.
Would it hurt Philadelphia's tourism if Society Hill was remarkably changed so that tourists could no longer feel like they're walking though a preserved 18th century neighborhood? I think the obvious answer is yes and clearly more than you think.
That said, I think there are plenty of ways to improve Society Hill without ruining the historic fabric of the neighborhood. Despite the large number of preserved historic buildings, anyone who has walked in society hill at all, knows there are also plenty of non historic buildings in the neighborhood. It's not like the acme for example fits the historic character of society hill anyway, there would have be no change to the historic fabric if that became a 4 story apartment building and it would have been better for the city.
Similarly adding restaurants or corner stores to non historic buildings doesn't have to hurt anything and can make the neighborhood more livable for more more people and draw even more people and tourists to the neighborhood. And the high rises proposed on he edges of society hill are already surrounded by high rises and obviously have no negative impact on the historic character of other parts of society of hill that remains in intact.
I agree with you that there are plenty of ways to improve Society Hill, and that their desire to never change hurts the neighborhood and Philadelphia. But I believe strongly that any changes to Society Hill need to be made thoughtfully and with the respect that it is important to our history and our tourism economy, a respect that you seem to lack.
Prev
Linear Mode
