Uncovering hidden histories

Among the records and books in the University Archives are maps of the Penn Campus divided into numbered sections. An oddly large area beginning at Chestnut Street and stretching to the north bears the label “Unit 3.”

Today, as Drexel and Penn students cross paths on their way to the Market Street subway, few realize they have passed the demarcation line into Unit 3 — an area teeming with remnants of Penn’s controversial urban renewal policies during the 1960s.

Campus Expansion Begins

Beginning in 1948, the University conceived a master plan for post-World War II expansion. This became the “blueprint that the University would follow for the next 20 years,” according to Mark Frazier Lloyd, director of the University Archives and Records Center.

The plans for campus expansion coincided with the urban renewal movement for the improvement of the entire University City area. The first step was closing Woodland Avenue, which ran diagonally through campus, and moving the trolley system underground, Lloyd said.

In partnership with the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, the University continued expanding in all directions. “Superblock,” which now contains the high rises, began development in 1957 while Hill House and field were completed in 1958.

These two expansions were “irritating but not hotly contested,” said Graduate School of Education Professor and Policy, Measurement and Education Chairman John Puckett.

Lloyd explained that the residents and businesses of the areas had been compensated the fair market value for their properties.

With this expansion and the resulting space for student housing, Penn sought to boost its reputation.

“A residential campus was the earmark of a research institution,” Puckett said. Though Penn had always been considered in the top 20 of American universities in 1950, “it wasn’t a top tier.”

The campus continued to grow with the addition of the social science buildings along Locust and Walnut streets from 1962-1966, Puckett said.

Controversy

But the University’s role in urban renewal soon clashed with the West Philadelphia community, as plans for Unit 3 became public knowledge.

The West Philadelphia Corporation was founded as a “proxy organization” for Penn’s involvement in constructing the University City Science Center, Puckett explained. The WPC, which also included Drexel University and the University of the Sciences, would work with the Redevelopment Authority to move hundreds of residents out of Unit 3 in preparation for the Center.

Unlike past expansions, the residents — primarily poor African Americans — rented their homes and would not receive repayment for the property.

“In the process of urban renewal, owners received compensation for land, but tenants received nothing but an eviction notice,” Lloyd said.

Puckett added that the population was almost entirely driven out of the area and there had been no plans for where to move the residents.

“Penn was overwhelmingly the major player,” he said. “This fact was not lost on anyone who was displaced.”

Walter Palmer, lecturer of Social Policy and Practice and community activist, said tensions stemmed from residents’ feelings that the University imposed itself on the neighborhood when it moved from Center City to West Philadelphia in the mid-1800s. “The community had existed a long time before [Penn] moved in,” he said.

Sarah Mack, who has lived in West Philadelphia for nearly 50 years, remembers the era as a time when Penn was distinctly separate from the community.

“The neighborhood had no input,” she said. “You just weren’t a part of it.”

Mack, who was not directly affected by the displacement, explained that the separation did not feel intentionally hostile, but made the University seem indifferent to the community.

To compound the problem of displacement, the Science Center — of which the University was the majority shareholder — began conducting classified military research concerning chemical and biological agents that may have been used during the Vietnam War.

Ira Harkavy, founder and associate vice president of the Netter Center for Community Partnerships, was a student at Penn during urban renewal. He led a six-day sit-in at College Hall, forcing then-President Gaylord Harnwell out of his office.

Harkavy recalls the demonstration — one of the first of its kind at an Ivy League institution — as peaceful but effective..

“My concern was that Penn was behaving in ways that did not exemplify the best traditions of the University,” he said. “It was certainly not a moral and right way to behave institutionally.”

Crime causes more conflict

In addition to the controversial expansion, crime disrupted Penn’s relationships with its neighbors during the 1960s.

“The difficulty and unpleasantness between the University and the community in that time period was as much a function of crime as it was of urban renewal,” Lloyd said.

He cited the 1958 murder of Penn student In-Ho Oh and even the recent 1996 murder of Penn biochemist Vladimir Sled, which caused an uproar on campus and divided the communities.

Lloyd explained that the overwhelming increase in security on campus and the officers’ ability to stop and question nonstudents created apprehension within the community.

Although Penn’s history with West Philadelphia appears to be filled with tension, the community underwent dramatic changes and does not look at all today like it did 50 years ago.

Part 2 of this series explores the transition to current conditions.

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