VisitPhilly.com, a tourist information site, features a list of the 25 most visited attractions in Philadelphia. A significant number of the places listed here involve experiencing a part of Philadelphia's history, from more explicitly historical institutions, like Eastern State Penitentiary, to fun locations that have an added historical bonus, like Reading Terminal Market. No matter the subject, Philadelphia's history is spread out across many different institutions.
The 25 Most Visited Attractions in Philadelphia, via VisitPhilly.com
The authors of A Vision for a Historical Center in Philadelphia recognize this. They cite this spread as a key factor for forming what would become the Philadelphia History Museum in the first place — they suggest that instead of having all of these disparate organizations, there should be a single museum to encompass the entirety of Philadelphia's history.
What do you notice about that map?
Of the most visited institutions in Philadelphia, almost all of them are located with the Center City area. This presents to tourists a biased and incomplete picture of Philadelphia history, and of the city itself, that ignores the rich culture and history of other neighborhoods in Philadelphia. The concept of a single Philadelphia History Museum, especially given its eventual location at 7th and Market, only makes this issue worse. Even if PHM's galleries include narratives that highlight people of color, immigrant neighborhoods, more recent history, etc, its location primes visitors to only pay attention to white colonial history.
For comparison, here is a map of Philadelphia's
neighborhoods, with a cutaway of Center City.
So what should they do instead?
The Vision article cites PHM's eventual competition with other historical institutions, and outlines what it would need to do to come out ahead of other institutions. Frankly, in light of that acknowledged competition, it seems selfish to me to want to create another institution to join the pool.
Instead, a better alternative would have been to support the existing institutions. The article cites a fundraising goal of $50M, including a $20M endowment, and that money could instead be used to create a framework that could encompass all existing historical institutions, to make them a more cohesive network instead of disparate organizations.
This could include ideas like:
- Admission passes that will encourage tourists to visit multiple organizations under a single ticket;
- Scholarships for admission and transportation to improve accessibility for populations typically left out of the cultural sector;
- A city-wide catalog, similar to PACSCL, that can help locate artifacts, exhibits, and other resources held by different institutions;
- Cross-institutional lecture series;
- Promotion of smaller, farther away, and more obscure museums and historic houses to encourage visitation;
- Outreach efforts to better include and support neighborhood organizations and community centers;
- A financial safety net to support growth and encourage historical institutions to take risks.
Not only would this kind of plan help existing institutions and the larger cultural sector, but it would also benefit Philadelphia's economy at large, as it would encourage the tourist industry to expand past the few blocks of Center City.
TDC proposed a similar approach, what they call a "system." While they note small budgets as a major obstacle in realizing their History System Project, the reappropriated funds raised for the PHM could theoretically diminish that barrier.
What other qualities or features would you want to see in this kind of system or consortium of historical institutions?
100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative 