America's Oldest Neighborhood is Problematic 

Check out Ekster Wallets here: partner.ekster.com/alanthefisher And don't forget to use my code *URBANIST* at checkout for up to 55% off

American engineers try not to put a highway through neighborhoods challenge.

"Any serious world-class city does not allocate its waterfront land for ugly highway infrastructure." Someone, please tell Chicago.

When you’re so pro “historical preservation” that you’d rather let a beautiful 150 year old structure get torn down and replaced with an apartment building. We’ve come full circle

As an archaeologist, this frustrates me to no end. The principle of Adaptive Reuse is widely accepted in academic and professional spheres, the proposed church plan being a prime example. Unfortunately nimbys love to weaponise the idea of historic preservation as freezing a building in time in order to just do the whole nimbg thing. I spoke with a man this summer when I was working on an environmental campaign (unrelated to archaeology) who told me he was fully against solar panels, hest pumps and weatherisation because he lived in a historic building. All of those things are fully accepted adaptations for making a historic building suitable for modern use, as are things like ramps and elevators for ADA compliance, or indeed completely repurposing the building, which is seen as a gold standard. Anyway I have a suspicion the man I was talking to did have central heating, electricity and air conditioning in his building, and was just using preservation as a convenient excuse for nimbyism

"don't let perfection be the enemy of good" is a statement that is unfortunately not said enough times

It's crazy how that highway completely ruins the waterfront. Idk in what world someone would vote for that to be implemented. People are crazy

Hope that someday streets like these will be so common again that they don't have to be designated as "tourist attractions"

The thing with the church is downright infuriating. I love the architecture of old churches and would personally love to live in one if I could. Knowing that a historic, beautiful, and well-built church was just falling apart then destroyed, for not being used as originally intended, is just frustrating. This should not be what we do with our history. These buildings have stood for countless years, and it takes alot to build things of the same longevity. Why is it that our American way of doing things is nothing but destruction first then stubborn preservation second? We do all in on one or the other. We can't have people living in an old church that would be renovated, but we also can't have it stay either. Same idea as why we can't go to places in anything but a car. We destroyed all the other infrastructure in most smaller towns, now are having to replace said infrastructure for so many times more expensive and more difficult to plan.

Nimbyism is killing so many areas. We suffer from them everywhere.

Yes, as a Philadelphian, it can become very very frustrating with "perfectionists" and historic neglect-until-unsalvageable groups. Thanks for calling them out.

It's amazing to me that in 2023 the name of Robert Moses still comes up when you talk about bad planning but to hear it mentioned in Philadelphia when he did all his damage in NYC is proof to me just how bad he was to NYC.

The church story is absolutely shocking, ridiculous, and not uncommon. Here in Carson City we lost our beloved sandstone engine house as recently as 1991. One of the culprits, though not the only one, was competing Preservation interests fighting each other for it. Now nobody has it, and thirty years later, it’s still a vacant lot in the middle of prime (and historic) downtown real estate.

I used to think that people who drive down St-Paul in Old Montreal are wretched psychopaths but nothing could prepare me for this

4:55 They unironically ended up with a more authentic style British garden by the looks of it. Fresh with dead grass and trash everywhere. Very authentic

The zoom out to the urban freeway is horrifying and yet not surprising at all. I’m more surprised when we see things done right.

I can't believe they demolished that church to do exactly what they were so apposed to. they could've had new apartments and the same facade, but they just couldn't bare the idea of change. it's shameful.

I'm really glad Interstate 95 was routed around Baltimore despite Maryland's enthusiasm for highway building, it's crazy to have a road that big going through a historic part of a city like that

Transit fan here. When I go to Philadelphia, I like to take whatever transit is available to where I want to go (unless it’s a bus) I walked along narrow streets, saw beautiful neighborhoods, not everywhere was touristy, and I saw South Street

I hate the trope of “rental housing ruining the fabric of communities”. In some of the nicest neighbourhoods in Toronto, where most single detached or semi houses have turned into duplex or triplexes, you might actually find multiplexes spread throughout ur the neighbourhood. And they’re often times some of the nicest buildings in the area. It is unbelievable that there’s such a stark contrast in what we’re allowing to be restricted in various neighbourhoods across the same city here. Great video as always, btw. Keep up the good work! You’re making super accessible work that I can share with people that are not urbanists, which is important! Thanks

ugh, i hate that balding patch of grass! I'm super sad to hear it could have been something beautiful and functional that i would have actually benefitted from :/

I absolutely hate seeing repairable buildings getting torn down just to be replaced. It's bad for the environment.

Historic preservation is a tricky topic because it varies entirely by state and locality. Boston’s historic commission has done a good job at not adhering to the “perfectionist” mindset. Granted, if the city used Philly standards, nothing would ever get built and half of the stores wouldn’t even be able to operate. I mean, boston has an old state house primarily used as a subway station and a chipotle in a building constructed in the 1700s (both next to each other). Additionally, all the abandoned churches have been, or are, in the process of being turned into housing with open arms to preserve their history. I’ve worked on one before in its very early stages, and now I believe it’s going to become fully affordable housing. I think cities could learn a lot of how boston sees historic preservation because even when the building is compromised, the main rule is that you find a means of keeping the facade & the interiors can be gutted.

I was getting sad about the old church building and then you got to the end and I’m actually angry. NIMBYing a change of use until the building you wanted to preserve is gone is just… incredible.

fascinating that a street that look the same as half of every city center in the uk is a tourist attraction lmao

"The food establishment equivalent of 2fort" has me going.

I lived in the historic area in my city Fake London.Its called Wortley and I was in love with it, my old house even housed a young Walt Disney for a short period. But as a renter over time it so expensive, like originally I was spending 800$ for a 1 bedroom, then I moved to a 2 bedroom for 1800$ in 2019. In July my landlord used a loophole to get rid of me and the apartment is on the market for $2600 now. The neighbourhood was always a "nice" neighbourhood but apparently even nice and safe places can get gentrified.

I live in Philly and went on a Free walking tour of this street a few weeks ago. The guide was equally as frustrated about the complications of historic preservation but she was quite funny about it. It helped my feel less insane lol

I guess a lot of historic preservationism in the US are traumatized by centuries old, beautiful neighborhoods being turned into lifeless car centric hell, and I do get that. So they swing back in the other direction and become complete nimbys with no nuance. We can make modern changes to cities that aren't car centric! A new parc is usually a good thing! We have that conversation constantly in old european cities. Yes the architectural patrimony should be conserved when relevant, but what are the limits of urban conservatism, who does it serve to conserve the "identity of a neighborhood", when is it relevant to bring that up? It's not like there aren't often good solutions that both preserves identity of neighborhoods and provides housing and a good urban experience for people.

I would have liked to see what the alternative Elfreth's Alley park might look like. The proposed park, with concrete pavements and a large metal sunshade, definitely doesn't fit well with brick and cobble. It's a whole different set of materials and overall style. Also, I'm also curious as to the difference in costs and who would have borne that extra cost. Too often we see developers skimp out instead of building the right thing. Forcing the site to remain undeveloped might be the right tactic, as otherwise the developers would simply say "we built the park" and nothing would happen for decades.

At least it isn't single family housing...

These problems regarding historical preservation are a huge problem in Brazilian cities, where city centers full of incredible old buildings get abandoned because of the cost of repairing them and extensive requirements to repurpose these buildings, although things have been improving slowly.

The Saint Laurentius church story hits home for me because there's various similar stories in my city of Providence with a few churches and synagogues that have been abandoned for years partially because the owners won't let anyone buy/restore them unless they intend to use it for religious purposes. Yes, it's not as extreme as the Saint Laurentius church story but it could end up like that in a few more decades of structural neglect and decay

The church thing is so sad and a great example of historic preservationists getting it wrong. Here in Los Angeles, in downtown there's an Apple Store that took residence in a historic theatre. The theatre is gorgeous and was built in the early 1900s (that's old for us out here) but hadn't been in operation since the 80s (maybe? Maybe 70s?) and has been left to sit and rot all this time. Apple bought it, did all the construction to fix it while maintaining it's original beauty and now there's an Apple Store inside. It's majority celebrated but there's a small group who are upset and say it's some corporate blah blah nonsense Apple had no right to it etc. I think it's amazing!!! Not only did they fix it up but now anyone can walk in and enjoy this beautiful architecture! I say more of this!!!

I did some historic preservation work, and on one of the days a leader came in to give us a break/class on historic preservation techniques. It was disappointing to hear him talk so much about how to use historic preservation as a tool to stop development in a neighborhood. I like working on old things so they can continue to be useful, not to prevent more people from using it or the surrounding area.

Here's a good plan. Here's how it will benefit the community both personally, aesthetically and financially. 5 year later and a lawsuit because we can't agree on the color of the "brick" insert complaint. How about a stripmall/suburb/self-storage? HECK YAAAA!

7:26 that’s good idea for a video who Robert Moses was and the damage he did

That 2fort joke definitely caught me off guard in the intro 😅

7:10 I look forward to your video showing off your favorite locations in Philly. Quince street looks downright pleasant 😊

Wow that apartment developer even agreed to put a nice little park there but I wasn't OLE ENGLISH enough for the "historic nimby's." Now it just languishes away in nothingness that looks worse for the street than the actual proposed park.

Great exploration of a nuanced topic. Historic preservation is a tool that can be used just as much as it can be abused. It dampens the idea altogether when it simply becomes a means for rich people to maintain their status quo bias and sense of almighty control.

That new apartment building looks horrible. No wonder people got upset.

If you’re gonna talk about greater Philly area nimbys you can’t ignore the mainline suburbs. Saying this as a Lower Merion resident.

I agree the English style garden is the best design for the park/entrance to the alley. And it doesn't necessarily have to be more expensive than the other designs. Also, that's not an excuse to build nothing at all.

I see it in my community too, NIMBYism masquerading as caring for historic or environmental issues so much so that it's impossible to build anything.

god that new apartment building is ugly they couldve atleast designed the building in the same style as the houses on the alley

In my early days as an Urbanist, I definitely was tricked a few times by historical societies claiming to want seemingly Urbanist goals, like the preservation of historic mixed use/missing middle structure, while at the same time blocking projects that would lower housing costs, rebuild density, or increase walk ability. Happily, I found the way but it's frustrating to see this outside of my own local bubble... Also, wtf, how did I95 bulldoze that part of phili so late in the game?

I'd argue that the Vine Street Expressway is almost worse than I95.

Another detail regarding the Saint Laurentius church preservation, was that a huge part of the "Save St. Laurentius" group refused to accept an apartment for the most NIMBY reason of all: they didn't want their parking occupied by more residents that the proposed apartment building would bring. Now...there are even more units coming in, so the bright side is some NIMBY tears.

Wake up feeling TUFF ALAN FISHER VIDEO DAY IS SAVED

As a future Historic Preservationist, there's many departments that do better than this. The key difference is that they're run by trained HPPists and not Nimbys using it as a front to prevent development What proved it to me was how they didn't even bother petitioning for soundproofing after I-95 was built (or even trying to prevent it from being put up for blatantly ruining the atmosphere), they let the city DOT do it. Noise is one of the biggest things most sane HPP departments try to curb

Another point about historic preservation is that it's not just about preserving an aesthetic, its preserving a function. Much of the classic car-dependent suburban layouts we think of especially on the coasts were developed in the 1960s, almost nearing their time that can technically fall under preservation. But are you _really_ going to want Houstons stroad filled low density hellscape preserved, or whats left of the Downtown which is still relatively livable without a car? People are definitely going to see more value in the latter, which makes NIMBYism so destructive to the social fabric of our urban (and rural) environments. It prevents us from being able to use the best we have, to the best ability.

Yeah, we have similar problems with historical preservation gatekeeping here in Germany. Don’t get me wrong historical preservation is very important, but if it means a place can’t function properly it isn’t doing its job correctly. The plaza in front of the Munich opera is an ugly gray mess with the entrance to an underground parking garage taking up way too much space. About a year ago the city proposed planting local heat resistant shrubs and plants too make it a lot more inviting and cooler in summer, which looked amazing. Well it didn’t happen because the historic preservation guy claimed it would be against the original architects vision of an Italian plaza in front of his building. I’m sure the architect envisioned his „plaza“ to have a parking garage instead of the plants during a time where summer gets hotter every year… They did actually come to an agreement of some boring grass patches instead which will do nothing for the local climate and need constant watering. So why is that plan acceptable? Because there is some never built 1800 plan to do it like this. Why we can’t build it to a better never built 2022 plan instead is beyond me, it’s exactly as historically accurate as the other one.

I think this was a pretty good video, and I think it highlighted how ‘historical preservation’ can hinder neighborhoods. But whenever I watch your videos abt Philly specifically, I sometimes feel like they mostly cover issues like this one that mainly focus in on center city, and obviously from a YIMBY perspective. Philadelphia is the poorest city above 1 million ppl in the US, and I think a video covering inequality between areas like center city and north Philly are warranted. And in doing a video like that, I think it’s paramount to talk about gentrification-a topic I’ve noticed a lot of ‘Urbanists’ like to ignore. I think a lot of ppl don’t like acknowledging the reality that developers aren’t exactly viewed favorably by poor, nonwhite communities-because most new construction im low income areas displaces the communities existed there previously. Much easier to basically ignore this contradiction and only talk abt cases in rich, white areas like old city where NIMBYism is pervasive.

Yes Quince Street! I was privileged to live there while attending grad school. Thanks Phil!

As much as I hate freeways plowing through neighborhoods and along shorelines, I do understand why it happens and why people let it happen. NYC is a good example. Manhattan has the FDR and the West Side Highway. Back when both were built, each waterfront they displaced was mostly industry and being on the water wasn't seen as a luxury but a detriment to one's health - the Hudson and East River were not exactly clean nor stunning to look at. Those with means want to see Manhattan, not Weehawken, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens. Add in brutal winter winds coming off both and a shore full of buildings and parks wasn't really anyone's priority at the time. Nowadays, Battery Park City is a good show that one can place neighborhoods along the shore just fine and I do wish there was more but so long as the piers all remain along the West Side Highway, that's not happening. Plus, it'd be in the style of Hudson Yards anyways and that's just not helping anyone if that happened. Yes, perfection is the enemy but uh, Hudson Yards is anything but good either. Least they could do is thin the West Side Highway from 6 to 4 lanes and same with the FDR. Make it less appealing to drive along both for starters.

Whoa the fact that that tiny street isn’t ped-only is absurd.

A really great video. I think that sometimes urbanism does get too obsessed with the "perfect" - often warping back into their own form of NIMBY-ism.

5:00 as someone from Britain, there are thousands of parks similar to that design across the island.

I feel like part of the reason they put highways on waterfronts is to park that land while it gains value, when the highway comes down that land is going to be super valuable

In thinking about all those modifiers you put on elfreth's alley as being the oldest residential street, it made me think about other older places that don't quite fit all those modifiers. Like the Taos pueblo. It doesn't count because it's not a street, but it is the oldest structure people have lived in and continue to live in to this day.

your street recommendations looks so wonderful

I once owned a home in historic Charleston, SC. Putting in a wall oven that required an exterior vent, a small four inch vent took two months to be approved by the HPC. The house was old but the interior was mid to late 1980's construction.

Historic preservation is a double-edged sword. It saved old walkable neighborhoods from being torn down, but it also prevents improvements to the neighborhood.

"you might have to walk more" while SUV's don't belong in it, that mentality goes against everything for ADA compliance.

Awesome video. I love the tight focus on just a single piece of urbanism. I feel like you can go more into detail rather than just blanket statements

Thanks for this. I lived in Philly in the early 70s and, while in North Joisey now, have fond memories of it. I used to work at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (1971-74) as a reserve naval officer. How about a piece on "historic preservation" at PNSY? There is much to cover there, from 19th Cenury fabrication shops on Broad Street to the houses on "Admiral's row," and the former Naval Aviation Mustin Field, among other locations.

I lived on Elfreth's Alley for almost a decade. So two things: 1) *NEVER* did I believe what I was told about the flagpole park being converted into a new park by the developers of The National. That being said, no one told me it was the society (made up not exclusively of alley residents) who nixed the deal - I always assumed the goal was to provide a patch of dirt for the new suburban transplants to curb their dogs and call it a day. Thanks for the info. 2) 5:35 - I understand cars may not be authentic or aesthetic, but if you’re against the overuse of “historical preservation” then please allow me to contextualize: these are real homes with real people living in them, and they very often need to drive their cars up to do things like unload groceries. Tourists or general traffic NEVER came down the alley; in fact I very frequently got dirty looks from tourists who assumed that's what I was (because people still had trouble believing it was just another residential street, even though my neighbor's backyard had a Nerf basketball hoop and we literally frequently let tourists into the house).

Ekster! 😅 Keep it up Alan. We need more rail advocacy...

I think you are barking at a wrong tree, though I agree with the general take and as a serial historic preservationist I absolutely hate a lot of the approaches that are peddled by the academic circles, particularly the idea that we can not “recreate” historic architecture and that it is super expensive. As a hands on preservationist, it’s obvious that it is completely wrong. Its not particularly difficult or expensive, but traditional construction methods have been pushed into this bespoke and super elite niche. The plaza render with the modern wavy canopy garden is fucking vile(just as anything(no exceptions) built after 1930s), but a more appropriate english style garden or just a basic little square with brick pavers does not cost too much in actual labor and materials. Of course it becomes very expensive due to lengthy review processes and need for credentialed academic bozos(that do not know which way to hold a trowel) I also can explain the strong language from the local preservation people. Even if a developer commits to building something correctly, you really need to watch them like a hawk. Look away and you will have a “brick” wall made out of cement board and brick appliqués. In summary, the problem is not with historical preservation per se, but with the fact that it has painted itself into a very expensive and niche corner

over here in britain my town has done and is still doing conversions to old buildings. Though the traditional churches haven't been turned into apartments, more kept in use and opened up to the public as museums with cafe's and public spaces. Theres the Wesley chapel right bang in the center of town from the 1800's it was turned into a nightclub then abandoned for few decades, The roof caught fire a few years ago but despite that a plan went ahead to convert it into a hotel, just recently the side building was set on fire whilst work was going on though still the conversion will go ahead (even with a section of wall collapsing onto the nearby street). Even buildings in supposedly bad condition can still be converted and restored.

This almost happened in Baltimore but was stopped.

Just wanna see that as someone who visited Philly for the first time this year, I refused to stand in line for the Liberty Bell and didn't have any Cheesesteak. Thank you!

Solution for vacant park in the meantime? Buy a few inexpensive bulk bags of eastern wildflower seeds, spread seeds under the cover of night. Wildflowers will grow in 2024

So often people won’t “settle” and just lose the whole thing all together. It’s baby steps till you build the momentum to break through.

The most insane historic preservation anecdotes I know are both from Boston. In the first, the Boston Redevelopment Authority used eminent domain to seize the historic Fanueil Hall and Quincy Market buildings in the 70s, which were home to numerous small food wholesalers who had been there for generations (thankfully most of them were able to stay in business and relocate to a place called Widett Circle, from which the City attempted to evict them about 10 years ago to build a stadium for its thankfully failed Olympic bid and now the MBTA wants to get rid of them so that they can build another railyard in order to not run commuter rail service during the day). The BRA then "restored" the buildings to a state they had never actually been in! The complex was built piecemeal, so that by the time the new section was built, the previous section had already been sold off and modified. So now instead of a living group of buildings home to small businesses essential for the City's restaurants and hotels, it's now a tourist trap shopping mall full of overpriced crap. The second was more recent, when the hoidy toidy Beacon Hill Neighborhood Association used historic preservation reasons to object to a City plan . . . to install ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps.

Toronto thanks Jane Jacobs. Well, downtown Toronto does, anyway. The burbs are Stroad Hell just like the rest of North America.

That thing with the church felt like a horror story! The tragic irony of nimbyism...

No dam way I was standing in that line for hour's in the summer heat when I could just look at the bell right there with no obstruction.

"we want to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood" [bulldozes most of it for an 8 lane highway]

I wouldn't be too keen on flashing cards in the type of cities that you visit.

Letting the pursuit of perfection eliminate any and all good progress is the defining characteristic of the US “progressive” left and it infuriates me to no end.

Transport companies need to unite to use one system across cities.

Well hey, there would be no 95 if New Jersey hadn’t raised it’s drinking age decades ago. It would have stayed on the Turnpike. Was some other highway going to be built in its place? It’s possible

Fabulous segment.🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

"Any serious world-class city does not allocate its waterfront land for ugly highway infrastructure." Seoul, South Korea is also bad on this...

Re: Church Preservation Most old cities in the United States host magnificent religious buildings. Almost all of them were built by 1930s, meaning they average 100+ years old at this point. Due to waves of inner city depopulation, poverty, and disaffiliation, many of these churches are operated by congregations than cannot keep up with basic maintenance costs. In many cases, the church ultimately closes because it becomes structurally unsafe, with repair costs estimated at several million dollars. At this point, adaptive reuse is often prohibitively expensive, with only the most charitably-minded developers willing to commit their time and capital to such a low-return project. Tack on years of legal wrangling and historic preservation committe hearings, further deterioration of the structure and basic inflation makes most of these projects unviable. In the end, the historic, architectural, and community treasure gets torn down, just like St Laurentius and many other churches in Philadelphia over the past few decades. The main problem is that we really only care about historic preservation when something is on the brink of destruction. That means we're trying to preserve things at the moment they have become the most expensive to preserve. If you want these churches to be around in the future--even in the form of adaptive reuse--we have to find ways of preserving the structures while they in their original religious use. If Europe can figure out how to preserve centuries-old churches (the little ones too, not just the cathedrals), we can figure out how to do it here too.

Top video Alan,👍 hope your Thanksgiving went well! Totally agree with 'don't let perfection be the event of good, I bet the people living there really enjoy their 'park'

Looking good 👍, Dave. I still have the boxcar you gave me. It looks good on the layout.

I grew up in the Philadelphia area and always thought that Elfreths Alley was closed off to vehicle traffic by bollards on each end. Did that change? Also, the residents were very protective of their privacy at one time.

Honestly, you wouldn't even need to completely remove I-95 from the equation. The highway is elevated and significantly larger than it needs to be. Reduce it to three lanes each side on the upper deck, extend the pedestrian and light roads underneath, and create park spaces under and beyond the highway. Ideally, you wouldn't want to have a highway going through the middle of a city like that anyway, but it's already there and rerouting it is an extremely expensive fix. As for the park, honestly, I would have caved into the Historical Society's demands, on the grounds that the Historical Society provides the additional funding.

The key takeaway is that these highways weren't built for people in those neighborhoods or even anywhere within the city proper. They were built for suburbanites rapidly leaving the cities but held jobs there. Now that gentrification is on overdrive in most American cities, tearing down the highways to make the urban environments beautiful again is fashionable...and is happening already with green spaces. Once the locals have been completely uprooted, improving/building rail and public schools will also become important again!

Good timing, since I'll be in Philly next weekend. When I last went to Philly a couple of years ago, my friend wanted to do a cheesesteak tour. So, he actually researched what was good vs what was touristy. We got a good variety. Yes, I did run up the art museum steps. But, that was mixed in with a run on the Schuylkill trail.

My ancestors continuously occupied their homes in various towns in Massachusetts since LONG before Philadelphia existed. My family has occupied Plymouth alone continuously since 1620. There are streets in Plymouth that have been continuously occupied as residential streets since at least the 1630's though likely since 1628. The only thing Elfreth might be able to claim is to have been the oldest continuously PAVED street and even that is doubtful

You hit the nail on the head. This is also one of the many factors of why there’s barely any dense, home structures in in San Francisco. So many of the streets are designated historical, and purely for the reason to not let anyone else move in. I live by this, Alley the highway noise is unbearable. To get there from my area in fishtown, I have to walk a very wide dangerous road 2nd Street. It’s crazy that cars can drive through this Alley but somehow a park was too modern for them.

I get what you said but, am English styled park sounds like a perfect replacement. 🤔

I just moved to outside Philly from NJ. Yes, please make a video of places to visit!

when everything is problematic, nothing really is

as a long islander that last line really hit home

I've been to Philly a couple of times and would love a video of your recommended places.