Mistress Saffron Strikes Again
After canceling my Philadelphia Inquirer subscription last month, the one thing that I miss desperately is Inga Saffron’s column. Every once in a while I’d get a kick out of Tom Ferrick or Tanya Barrientos, or I’d read the latest on the City Hall corruption probe, but Inga was the only staff writer that had my undivided attention, week in and week out.
I set up an RSS feed of the paper to My Yahoo, but because they don’t attach bylines to the excerpts, I usually miss her stories now. So, muchas gracias to Philebrity.com for pointing out Inga’s latest withering attack on Philly architecture. 
Specifically, the six or so massive civic projects that have been built in the last five years: Kimmel Center, Linc, Constitution center, the ballpark, etc. While every Philadelphian is delighted to have snazzy new concert halls and football stadiums, all of these constructions are, aesthetically speaking, uninspired heaps of concrete and red brick. Philebrity sums up the critique this way: “Even though Ed Rendell was all like Mr. Bold when it came to greenlighting big new buildings, the fact of the matter is, they all pretty much look like university cafeterias.” Not quite as elegant as the Pulitzer prose of Ms. Saffron, but well said nonetheless.
December 8th, 2004 at 3:11 pm
I’m not fully persuaded. As she readily admits, “Lots of dazzling designs have turned out to be functional failures; others quickly got old.” The interior of Seattle’s library does look like Pod, but the outside strikes me — from the photos, because I haven’t seen it in person — as pretty wacked. I’m curious how it will be viewed in ten or twenty year’s time. Will Seattle residents view it as “an ambitious public dare” or some wacky concoction that has a disparaging nickname?
Anyway, some of her other points are valid, although the location of the ticket box in the Kimmel center, or the lack of engaging walls for the rest rooms at 5th street, don’t strike me as major failures. But anyway, my second thought is: does she (or did she) do anything to try and influence the design of Philadelphia buildings? Or did she just let this once in a generation spat of design pass her by? I’m just curious.
December 8th, 2004 at 3:19 pm
OK, I have more thoughts. I think the point about Philly needing to get away from the red brick is a great one. But the Milwaukee art museum, like the Seattle library, looks to me like a wacky shape (bold design?) that doesn’t trigger any association with the city. I prefer things like the Sydney Opera house and Boston’s Zakim bridge, which make some connection to the locale, but that’s just me.
December 9th, 2004 at 2:51 pm
Whether or not the Seattle library is wacky, don’t be dissing my woman, ya hear!
And yes, to answer your question, she does an awful lot to influence the design of Philly architecture. She wouldn’t be nominated for the Pulitzer if her writing was solely critical and ineffectual. Though she does do as much Monday morning quarterbacking as the next architectural critic, a large portion of her pieces deal with as-yet unbuilt structures and city planning. Her critiques of the Penn’s landing plans–including asinine schematics calling for more office space and a giant Ferris wheel–were withering and dead on. Her commentary on the Free Library addition really helped the designers to recognize some flaws in their plans. And her personal campaign to stop the building of ginormous parking lots on Rittenhouse square, while unsuccessful, were valiant and pro-active nonetheless.
So, say what you want about Milwaukee, but don’t even think about badmouthing Inga with that same filthy mouth.
December 12th, 2004 at 4:19 pm
Saffron, Schmaffron. I haven’t bothered reading the Inquirer since Mike Leary left.