Talk:Edmund Bacon (architect)

message: Spikebrennan 14:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two names

message: The Ed Bacon Foundation, an organization specifically set up for the propogation of Ed Bacon propaganda, is called The "Ed Bacon" Foundation. So, how offensive could he have found that name? He was also commonly known as Ed Bacon, so it seems clear to me the article should be under "Ed Bacon." It's unclear how any of this is related to what anyone calls Shakespeare. 
How "bohemian" South Street may or may not be is certainly a point that can be argued. What can't be argued is that the area is today a commercial success. It is that success today because the residents and businesspeople of that area rose up and resisted the Edster's paternalistic, Soviet-style plan to basically eliminate their area. If the people who populated what is now Independence Mall had done the same, Old City wouldn't be separated from Center City by a preposterous area of open space that is only beautiful or useful if viewed from a high floor of the Rohm and Haas building. Independence Mall ghettoized Old City for years by creating a barrier between it and Center City; we need to thank Eddie Bacon for that.
And, Penn's Landing? Again, like his work on Independence Mall, the Edmeister has basically no sense of pedestrian flow. Penn's Landing is an island on the wrong side of I-95. 95 acts as a barrier that makes pedestrian traffic to Penn's Landing unlikely; the difficulty of accessing it by car and subesquently parking make an auto visit equally unlikely. More open space that is really useless space. One may ridicule paid events down there, but they are the only reason any sane person would venture to Penn's Landing, unless s/he really admires the Camden skyline.
Everything Bacon did is "beautiful" in and of itself, but doesn't advance the overall goal of a liveable or economically thriving city. His work is revered on exactly that level, mostly by people who don't have to live with it on a daily basis and don't know the city well enough to understand how his discrete projects interact with the city and its people. Bacon's work reminds me of Mies' work on the Farnsworth_House. It's beautiful, but when you give it 10 minutes of critical thought, you realize it's unliveable.
This article is already too reverential to a man who helped handicap and restrict the growth of Philadelphia in the name of what he percieved as beauty and order. The last thing it needs is more input from people "who knew him" and have fallen under the spell of his cult of personality. He built "districts, parks, and famous places"; he also was the city planner for a city that lost roughly 25% percent of its population under his watch. Balance in this article would note that. I'd edit it, but I'm sure the Baconites would flip it right back to their reverential view.Meersman 05:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed's Name & A Plea For Balance 

message: Ed Bacon was an important figure in planning and developing Philadelphia, but not without controversy.  This article is lacking in references, and lacking in any serious discussion of choices. More is needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and controversy 

message: An anon IP added that he was a Quaker.  Can anyone verify this or should it be removed? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaker? 

message: Edmund Bacon was not an architect, he was an urban planner.  BIG difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.65.8 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an architect