Back in 2017 I wrote a short paper for the International Making Cities Livable Conference titled “A Return to the Town Square.” I spent a lot of time doing research and came up with three case study cities—Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia, Times Square in New York City, and the Railyard in Santa Fe, NM. I spent so much time pulling that paper together and was thrilled when it was selected for the conference. Six years later I’m my own worst critic of it. Regardless, I began the paper with the following:
Most town squares in the United States are a piece of art, rather than a fully functioning space. They have been turned into a beautiful park-like atmosphere, devoid of any real purpose beyond aesthetics. In some countries, the square is an integral part of daily life for citizens like the piazzas of Italy. The most basic definition of the town square is “the principal square in a town, often centrally located and used for markets, festivals, etc.” Few town squares in the United States function in such a manner.
Path in Rittenhouse Square leading to central area
I had never been to any of the cities I wrote about, but have since made it to both Santa Fe and most recently Philadelphia to see firsthand how the squares function in reality. Six years ago what I did not realize is that you can’t really understand how a place functions without being their in person. It is also hard to get a good idea of a space in just one short visit. In my paper, I wrote that “Rittenhouse is exemplary of a functioning and interactive square. It has a mix of uses, both residential and commercial to provide 24/7 activity by concerned and invested citizens. It is accessible by multiple modes of transportation and has both active and passive recreation and activities.” What I actually saw when passing through on a Friday morning was a dead space void of any activity. I was one of the only people in the square and the adjacent streets were very quiet. Not exactly the 24/7 activity I wrote about. The lack of activity could have been just the early morning visit while many people were likely working because a former colleague mentioned when they went later in the day the adjacent street was bustling with activity as people shopped the adjacent businesses.
Central area of Rittenhouse Square
View from inside Washington Square
Conversely, when I passed by Washington Square a little later, one of the other five public squares designed by William Penn in his 1681 Plan for Philadelphia, it was a much busier place. There were people there with their children, someone playing fetch with their dog, and others strolling through the square. I walked through this space shortly after visiting Rittenhouse Square and based solely off these observations I likely would have written about Washington Square instead of Rittenhouse Square. The squares have a nearly identical layout, but Washington had more greenspace and open areas for visitors to use as they saw fit, whereas Rittenhouse was more formal with rows of benches along areas with pavers and structured garden beds. It was a space to sit or walk through, whereas Washington Square you had more options, making it a more welcoming space. It’s proximity to the more touristy area with the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall could also have helped to activate the space early on a Friday morning.
Looking into Washington Square
I concluded my 2017 paper by stating:
The successful features of the town square are easy to identify. They include sporadic, continuous use throughout the day enabled by multiple uses and activities that draw in residents. Land use should be carefully considered surrounding the square to ensure high concentrations of activity throughout the day and night. Allowing for spontaneous interaction among residents and visitors is central to advancing democratic dialogue that enhances livability.
While much of this holds true, the only way to really identify these successful spaces is to see them first hand and over multiple days. In my profession, planners have come to realize that planning from a desk is not a successful way to plan a community. So much happens that cannot be seen from Google Streetview or internet research. Experiencing how a space functions and how the people use it is the only way to create valuable gathering areas for people to use. I realized this lesson once again after finally visiting Philadelphia to see the square I wrote so highly about six years ago.
