Move forward with Convention Hall

It was the philosopher, poet and literary and cultural critic George Santayana who said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." While truer words have perhaps never been spoken, Santayana's saying is a double-edged sword. It's all well and good to learn from the past, but it's also important to not remain stuck in it.

We need to be constantly moving forward with an eye towards the future. Yet some residents of Philadelphia choose not to do this. Those protesting the imminent demolition of the old Philadelphia Convention Hall and the adjacent Civic Center Museum located on the southeast edge of campus choose to remain mired in history. As Don Henley, lead singer of the Eagles, sang in one of their hit songs, "Get over it."

The site does have quite a history to it. The Daily Pennsylvanian noted that "Convention Hall was the site of the Democratic National Convention that nominated Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his second term in office. In 1964, the Beatles performed there, and the Rolling Stones appeared there only two years later, in 1966." However, the site hasn't been used for much since the new Convention Center in Center City opened in 1993. The old site was bought by Penn Health Systems from the city in 2003 to be used on for a then-undisclosed purpose.

Local preservation activist Mario Cimino commented in the DP that the University "wanted to get this done before anybody knew about it. That's what really annoyed me." This is despite the fact that the project has been in the works for several years and received funding from the state to proceed in mid-September. If the site really meant that much to Cimino, he should have been aware of this.

The complaints stress that there is much value in preserving artifacts from the site. That's quite an astute observation, which is why Penn and Baltimore-based Second Chance, an architectural-salvage company, each put up $35,000 to help salvage the site as The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. Chandeliers, leaded-glass windows, intricate brass radiator covers and fluted marble columns are all things people are trying to salvage. While initially expected to be a quick "deconstruction," work could go on until the end of the year. The paper further commented that "Buildings as large as the Civic Center are rarely harvested, typically because companies under contract to demolish them are on a tight schedule."

But naysayers still want their way. They claim that the building must be saved at any cost. Never mind the fact that neither Convention Hall nor the adjacent museum is architecturally capable of providing what Penn needs. Never mind the fact that Penn Health Systems conducted a study that concluded that eventual demolition of the site is the best alternative. Never mind that the fact that even Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia John Gallery agreed with Penn by saying in the DP that, "saving [the building] ... is not feasible." Oh, and never mind the projected $80 million price tag for renovation.

So why is Penn Health Systems so gung-ho on destroying a site that these protesters feel contributes so much to the "essence" of Philadelphia? I mean, it's not like they're trying to cure cancer or anything.

Oh, wait, never mind. They are.

The eventual demolition of the site will make way for a new, state-of-the-art cancer research center. The brightest minds in the world will be drawn to this site to research cancer and perhaps find a cure or better treatment. Is this not a noble cause? Is this not something that would make the destruction of the Convention Hall site worthwhile? The University should be commended for taking this bold step, not dwelling in the past but rather looking towards a better future. That seems like a worthwhile job to me.

But people still can't seem to understand that. Sharon Pinkenson, director of the Greater Philadelphia Film Office, said in the DP that "It was a great place to make a movie. It's a disgrace that a historical building like that should be demolished, even for something like a cancer center." Ahh, I see. How silly of me. I must have my priorities mixed up.

Those who are protesting the ongoing demolition need to get over it. It'd be nice to preserve the building, but it can't be done. The University is doing all that it can, and that's all we should ask for.

At the most basic level, the protesters don't want the site destroyed because of all the alleged "value" it adds to the city. So I'd like to posit a question: what will, in fact, bring more value to the city or even the country? A building that's barely used or a new state-of-the-art cancer research center? To me, the answer seems pretty straightforward.

Craig Cohen is a Wharton junior from Woodbury, N.Y. He Hate Me appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.