By: Anne Krulikowski

Anne Krulikowski — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:30:29 +0000

The housing in Eastwick was NOT largely dilapidated. See my dissertation, “A Workingman’s Paradise: The Meadows Neighborhood in Southwest Philadelphia” (U of Delaware) and several articles. Engineering reports in Temple Urban Archives state the great majority of housing was above or at standard, a percentage that needed upgrading, and only a small percentage that needed to be demolished; most of these were in the southernmost area near the marsh and had been erected during World War I and the Depression. The vicinity was underdeveloped, not a slum. Internal memos written by reformers in the Philadelphia Housing Association show that they were appalled that the area was going to be demolished, but didn’t publicly protest for political reasons. Some of the sources here simply repeat inaccurate information from other secondary sources.

By: Tom Rubillo

Tom Rubillo — Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:22:53 +0000

The information about Eastwick is inaccurate. The area was a peaceful, well-integrated community where the vast majority of housing was in good condition. It was not a swampland or anything like it. It simply lacked infrastructure to deal with sewage and storm water. That was the city’s fault, not that of residents. The area was not overly industrialized. It was not a slum. It was an harmonious community that was destroyed by the greed and corrupt motives of politicians and developers, aided and abetted by a gullible press that misreported what was going on. I lived there. I saw it all unfold.

Comments on: Urban Renewal

By: Anne Krulikowski

By: Tom Rubillo