Brent, Darlene, and members of the Planning Commission (except Ms. Cohen, for whom I do not have a permissible email). Lawyer Durso has been informed of my request below through her firm’s web site.
Good People:
Take #4
Since I have provided all parties with access to substantive materials that indicate that a Northside Commuter Lot, though not in the parking plan submitted to and approved by the City and apparently unknown to the Director of Planning and Zoning, is part of the Lehigh parking plan rolled out to employees in September 2018,
and since Lehigh has announced plans to initiate its parking plan around April 1,
and since Lehigh’s implied denial of the very existence of that lot in their thinking about making up for lost parking spaces on campus made me look rather foolish in front of the Planning Commission, the public, and the press,
I respectfully request that 124 E. Morton be added to the agenda for the Thursday March 14 meeting.
It will probably be the last time to set the record straight before Lehigh’s plan becomes operational.
Ms. Heller and Chairman Melosky, I will be glad to make a presentation based on the presence of the Northside Commuter lot in Lehigh documentation if that is permissible.
(12th in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability)
Paige Van Wirt is a Bethlehem City Councilwoman, physician, and small business owner.
Dr. Thode,
Since we have never met, it stands to reason that you are not aware of my positions about walkability and downtown development. I don’t know where you got incorrect facts.
“Since Councilperson Van Wirt is on record opposing high rise development of any kind in the urban cores of Bethlehem, good luck with that.
I wonder how many miles Councilperson Van Wirt logs on her car each year. Where does she shop for groceries? Where does she go for medical services? Where does she shop for household items? Where does she go to see a movie, or hear a concert? Does she walk to these places? Does she take LANTA? Or, does she take private transportation?
Stephen Thode”
I am not on the record opposing high rise development of any kind in urban cores of Bethlehem. Please, show me where I said that? I voted FOR the Benner/Parks project on West Broad Street, which went against HARB recommendations, precisely because I do believe we need increased amounts of downtown residential development. My remarks at the time of the vote reflect this belief. I am for the use of the Boyd for market rate housing. I voted FOR the vacation of 2nd avenue for the Armory project. I have never once said I oppose high rise development in Bethlehem. I have been on council for one year and my voting record is crystal clear for all to see. Please, be sure of your facts before having them published, in a blog or otherwise.
I am a physician for nursing home patients. I take care of patients at over 25 different nursing homes and ALFs in the Valley. You can bet that if they were in one walkable radius, I would be walking there. How inconvenient for my personal transportation beliefs that they are spread from Sellersville to Hometown.
I shop for groceries at the Wegmans. I would be more than happy to shop at a local food market, such as C Town, if there was one in North Bethlehem. But there is not, which is why my husband and I joined the Bethlehem Food Co-op, to help establish a market in a food desert.
I live in the heart of downtown Bethlehem, a choice my husband and I made so we could walk to as many activities as possible. The fact that you cast aspersions on how I live my life without even knowing me gives me great pause. I do not understand why you took your feelings on Bethlehem’s walkability to Bernie, without even bothering to have a conversation with me about this. You are substantively and factually incorrect in your assertions.
Dr. Thode, I am deeply surprised that an educator such as yourself would not do the research before making assertions. The sad thing is, we share the same beliefs about what would make Bethlehem better in terms of walkability. If you ever would like to sit down with me and hear my own beliefs and then come to a conclusion on their validity, I would be more than happy to make the time.
(11th in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability)
Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development.
Gadfly:
So, I guess Mr. Thode (for whom I have a great deal of respect) believes in unequal application of the law as well? Because, what both Bethlehem Councilwomen Van Wirt and Negron have been battling is exactly that issue. Neither one is anti-development, but those who are attacking them are trying their best to portray them in that fashion.
Both zoning and historic district ordinances have requirements. In historic districts you are supposed to build to the scale and mass of the resources that qualified those areas to become National Register Historic Districts in the first place. In zoning certain uses are permitted in certain areas. These laws are not being applied equally in this City, and both Negron and Van Wirt see that, and many residents do as well.
Mr. Thode makes absolute sense with his assessment. And, for example, there was no public argument against the development directly across from the Fowler Center on East Third Street, because it was not subject to Historic Conservation Commission review and subject to the local Historic District ordinance. Both the 6 story office building and public parking garage on South New Street were. 510 Flats is a fantastic development that “fits” where it’s built.
And then to compound matters, everyone involved with the South New Street office development, including the City administration and five Members of Council, conveniently buried their heads in the sand when an unauthorized expansion of the 6th floor restaurant was undertaken without the proper review. The citizen commission recognized the faux pas and refused to endorse it because it contradicted the highly negotiated compromise of the original Certificate of Appropriateness!
So, the difficult part of Mr. Thode’s observation for Bethlehem is that both central business districts are also in whole or in part located in National Register Historic Districts. Studies have shown that a sense of place, including preservation of historic buildings and areas, is critical to these areas being successful. In these cases you can’t have it both ways, and that is exactly the position both Councilwomen have taken. You can build higher around them but shouldn’t within them. It’s that simple.
As far as Councilwoman Van Wirt’s use of her vehicle to do her job vs. her endorsement of walkability, these are totally different issues that can coexist. When your employment requires you to work at various locations throughout the Lehigh Valley, it’s plain and simple, you drive. Schedules, services, accessibility and appointments do not make walking conducive from say downtown Bethlehem to the Gracedale County Home, and public transportation options are limited. So, you drive your auto from one to the next point of service because you have to meet the obligations of your employment.
However, what you also do is walk from your residence to City Hall, restaurants on Main Street, visits with friends, parks, etc.
The bottom line is that both Van Wirt and Negron are not anti-highrise, density, or development. They want compliance with City ordinances and City Hall’s complicity with developers stopped. They want the developer to be treated the same as the homeowner who needs a permit to add a porch, or build a garage, or a historic district property owner who wants to paint their home. All they have been advocating for is equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less!
(10th in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability)
Stephen Thode is recently retired as director of the Murray H. Goodman Center for Real Estate Studies at Lehigh University. These comments appeared today in the Lehigh Valley Ramblings blog.
Several factors mitigate against increased “walkability” in Bethlehem. Let’s walk through them:
1) The urban cores of both the North Side and South Side have relatively low population densities (both residents as well as day visitors and workers) resulting in
2) A paucity of mass transportation AND a paucity of resident services in the urban cores, i.e., supermarkets, medical services, shopping, entertainment, etc. resulting in
3) The automobile becoming the default mode of transportation for all residents who can afford a car (or know someone who can drive them around).
Bethlehem will not become more “walkable” unless:
a) The urban cores become much more densely populated by residents as well as office, retail and shopping venues which will only occur if
b) A substantial number of high-rise apartment buildings and office buildings (with first-floor retail) are developed in the urban cores, and;
c) Mass transportation becomes frequent enough and broad enough to be a viable option for people to take to and from the urban cores.
Since Councilperson Van Wirt is on record opposing high rise development of any kind in the urban cores of Bethlehem, good luck with that.
I wonder how many miles Councilperson Van Wirt logs on her car each year. Where does she shop for groceries? Where does she go for medical services? Where does she shop for household items? Where does she go to see a movie, or hear a concert? Does she walk to these places? Does she take LANTA? Or, does she take private transportation?
The gadflies of the insect world are nasty, pesky critters. Your Bethlehem Gadfly of the homo sapiens world is surely earning his sobriquet (good SAT word) with this thread on Lehigh University.
And you may be tired of it.
What’s your beef, Gadfly Gallagher?
There are two elements to this “case” bound to engage a gadfly:
1) what seems like conscious and willful inconsistency between Lehigh’s statements and the actuality
2) what may be (not sure) potential unfairness to the “little guy”
In relative briefness, let me lay it out once again:
Lehigh is constructing three major buildings on existing parking lots and, in total, by its own published figures is thereby losing 518 existing parking spaces on campus, almost the equivalent of the new New St. Garage. Lehigh’s July 18, 2018, parking study, approved by the City, indicates that Lehigh meets all zoning requirements and that all lost parking space will be absorbed on campus. That claim of absorbing all lost parking spaces on campus was affirmed by Lehigh before the Planning Commission, even when questioned by Gadfly at a meeting.
However, when Lehigh rolled out its new parking plan in a September 10, 2018, memo to employees and in perhaps a score of large and small group meetings with employees in the Fall, there was in the plan an off-campus Northside Commuter Lot at 123 W. Lehigh St., ¾’s of a mile and a good 15-minute walk from Farrington Square at the very bottom of main campus – a lot not mentioned in the July study submitted to the City. In the documentation circulated on campus to employees, bus service from that Northside lot to Farrington Square, where employees can connect with other buses to their work location, is described.
It seems clear from Lehigh documentation that all parking demand cannot be satisfied on campus and that the Northside lot is part of several elements to resolve that shortfall. In addition, the new Lehigh parking plan involves an annual fee of $500 for most spaces close to work locations. Some people might choose to park in the Northside lot because it is free. But it’s possible that others – among them Bethlehem residents and taxpayers – will be forced into that lot because they can’t afford the fee.
The fundamental problem, though, is that neither Lehigh or the City has recognized the inclusion of the off-campus lot in testimony before the Planning Commission, despite clear, overwhelming evidence that it is part of the Lehigh plan. Gadfly would like to see the existence of the off-campus lot recognized before the Planning Commission at which time any potential unfairness to Bethlehem residents and taxpayers can be addressed. There may be no unfairness, but we won’t know that without focused discussion.
Well, that wasn’t so brief, was it?
So here’s audio of the public comment section of the 2/21 Planning Commission meeting:
in the beginning “with-it” PC members do ask about parking
Gadfly makes his soulful pitch for the underdog (min. 1:20)
the Lehigh lawyer responds (min. 6:55)
there is a brief interchange between the lawyer and Gadfly (min.8:20)
astute PC members question again, and City official Ms. Heller resolves the discussion for the PC (9:20)
an astute concerned PC member, though, suggests an addition to the main motion before the vote, indicating still some uncertainty about parking (min. 12:25)
also comically (to Gadfly anyway) interesting is the Lehigh lawyer implying bike parking as part of the solution to the specific question about the specific kinds of people Gadfly is concerned about (min 13:50)
Lehigh plans to begin parking allocation around April 1 (3 weeks) for a July start to the new plan.
The Planning Commission meets next this Thursday March 14.
If anything is to be done, the time is now.
As you might note from his last letter to Lehigh, the City, and the PC, Gadfly has asked that the authorization given at the 2/21 meeting be revoked till the issue of the Northside lot and potential unfairness to City residents and taxpayers is thoroughly aired.
The next event in this year-long series is a panel discussion on “H.D. and the Natural World,” Tuesday, April 16, 6:30-8:00pm at the Bethlehem Area Public Library.
Gadfly is following this wonderful program on Bethlehem-born world-renown author H.D. (1866-1961), the Lehigh Valley’s most important literary figure – who most of us, Gadfly included, know very little about.
Here is the full recording of Prof. Mary Foltz’s lecture on “Challenging Limited Understandings of Gender and Sexuality” last Wednesday.
After the intro by Jennie Gilrain, Mary introduces the overarching questions we should think about during her talk (min. 2:30), introduces H.D.’s The Gift (min. 5:01), discusses and interacts with the audience about two poems by Rosa Lane for context (min. 8:04 and min. 20:54), and concludes this context by showing how the Lane poems set up four themes that characterize H.D.’s work (min. 30:25). Mary turns to H.D.’s autobiographical narrative The Gift for the main focus of her talk (min. 32.18) and the Q ‘n A follows (min. 1:14:50).
As we’ve done with the lectures by Profs Moglen and Atwood, we’ll ration out Mary’s presentation in blog-worthy-size slices between here and the next event in the series — the panel discussion April 16. But you do have the full event on audio above for immediate reference.
In her intro, Jennie Gilrain spoke of her past experience with Mary’s “Whoa!” and “Wow!” questions. And Mary served us up a heap of ‘em with her first breath of introduction.
Listen (above, the first 5 minutes of the lecture on audio) and look (below).
And do your Whoa! and Wow!
“What does it mean for us here tonight and for our city to rethink the history of our community and the central values of our community through engagement with a bisexual feminist poet? How would placing a woman poet at the center of our civic identity change the historical narratives that we share about Bethlehem and our visions for the future as we imagine the city we want to become? How might H.D.’s criticism of the damages of sexism and patriarchy (societies in which men hold positions of power within and outside of the family) challenge us to see our city—our history and our present-day institutions—with fresh eyes, awake to the legacy of devaluing women’s lives, voices, and contributions and the persistence of sexism? How does this poet’s work call us as readers, as her newest ‘kin’ in the city that she once called home and that haunted her throughout her life, to engage with the hopes and promises of Moravian ancestors that imagined egalitarian communities in which multi-ethnic, multi-racial citizens created a shared economy to support the well-being of all members and valued the intellectual, spiritual, and physical contributions of women and men?”
Prepare to think new.
The new and used editions of H.D.’s The Gift on Amazon are kinda pricey unfortunately, though there is an inexpensive Kindle version, looks like, but even if you can’t follow along in the text, you will learn a lot from Mary’s presentation.
We’ll take up another slice next time.
Remember: the next event in this year-long series is a panel discussion on “H.D. and the Natural World,” Tuesday, April 16, 6:30-8:00pm at the Bethlehem Area Public Library.
Lynn Rothman, a twenty-year resident of Bethlehem and Chair of the Bethlehem Environmental Advisory Council, took this photo at a local gas station.
I continue to be impressed with our City and the actions of our police department.
As stated in the Mayor’s State of the City Address: “Our Police and Health Departments responded to the increase in overdoses by creating the BPAIR program, in which a drug addicted person, can call or show up to the police department, and request assistance in finding treatment, with no criminal consequences.”
Not only did they institute the program, but they are getting the word out!
While I recognize the need (or desire) to demolish Martin Tower in order to redevelop the 50+ acre site on which it stands, it also raises the issue of the very selective and at times ignored preservation of history in Bethlehem. History is Bethlehem’s singular most important asset when it comes to marketing this city, yet building upon it seems to be secondary to convenience.
People who have any connection with the city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, or Bethlehem Steel, are very unhappy with the news that Martin Tower is said to be taken down in 2019. As a result of this news, we, the signatories, do not wish to support or patronize any businesses that will build on the Martin Tower property after it has been taken down. We want to see this building renovated, and turned into something beneficial to the community.
Martin Tower is an important part of the city’s history. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is a landmark that can be seen for miles. It is an important part of Bethlehem Steel’s history, just as much as are the Blast Furnaces. This building could be an attraction, such as a Visitor’s Center, offices, and provide living space. Martin Tower is a local treasure and should be treated as such.
Martin Tower is a skyscraper in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania that was built as the world headquarters for Bethlehem Steel. Since Bethlehem Steel closed and left the Tower, other companies occupied the Tower until the last tenant left in 2007. The Tower has now been vacant for several years and was taken off of a protection list. This page is for anyone who feels this building is worth saving and reusing. I believe that it is a historical symbol of the Lehigh Valley and the Steel company. You may voice your opinion here, and please like and share the page with as many people as you can! You are free to share stories, memories and photos. I believe that together, the citizens of the Lehigh Valley and beyond can help to save this beautiful building! Thank you for your time and your appreciation!
(13th in a series of posts on candidates for election)
What questions shall Gadfly ask? See post 10 for a list asked of candidates for the two-year seat last year. Modify them? New ones? What’s on your minds? Let Gadfly know. Pass the word that we hope Gadfly will be a great place to learn about candidates. Let’s turn out a big, informed vote!
Saturday, March 9
Willie, Michael, Paige, Grace, Carol, Will, David
One of my main goals in starting the Bethlehem Gadfly blog was to inform myself and to help others inform themselves about Council members and prospective Council members. Too many times I have voted with scant basis for my choices. And I know I am not alone. If voting means anything, it has to be informed voting. Good government starts with the best people.
So I need your help. Gadfly has about 200 followers. Serious people. People who pay attention. People who are involved. People who will talk to other people. People you should want to reach.
So I’m inviting you to use Gadfly as one of the means you use to motivate voters to choose you in the upcoming election. And in doing so you will spur the wide range of healthy dialogue and debate that energizes public participation.
I would like Gadfly to be one of the main places concerned Bethlehem residents come to learn about you.
Gadfly has a thread called “Candidates for election” that you can find on the top menu under “Serious Issues” or on the right-hand sidebar under “Topics.” There are posts about you there now. As you start to contribute, I will open a separate thread for each of you so that blog followers can easily consult, as it were, your response portfolio.
We have a little over 2 months to election. I would like to fill that time on Gadfly with as much substantive information about you and your views as possible.
I am open to just about whatever you want to contribute, but I will periodically feed you focused prompts.
And the first prompt is: “What uniquely qualifies you to serve (or to continue to serve) on Bethlehem City Council?”
In answering these prompts, I would like you to think of limiting yourself to one focused paragraphso that I can put together a handy comparative chart toward the end of the campaign period.
“What uniquely qualifies you to serve (or to continue to serve) on Bethlehem City Council?”
Will you join in? Your response to that prompt can be sent directly to me by email or through the “Contact” space (see top menu) on Gadfly.
You all deserve many tip o’ the hats for service rendered and/or for service sought. It takes a special kind of person.We are fortunate.
This is the 3rd email in Gadfly’s recent conversation with the involved Lehigh and City parties over this puzzling issue of Lehigh’s “Northside Commuter Lot” and its possible negative effect on lower-paid Bethlehem residents and taxpayers who work at Lehigh.
Saturday, March 9
Brent, Darlene, and members of the Planning Commission (except Ms. Cohen, for whom I do not have a permissible email)
Take #3
There is a discrepancy here. The most obvious reason is that Lehigh has in some fashion (not a lease) made arrangement to use the Bethlehem Parking Authority Lot, discussed it openly with Lehigh employees as an option in their new parking plan, but not told the City, since Ms. Heller has no knowledge of it. But there are other possible interpretations as well.
My suggestion would be that the Planning Commission revoke its 2/21 approval till Lehigh explains the discrepancy, at which time the possible impact of bumping or forcing lower-wage Bethlehem residents, taxpayers, and voters into the Northside lot may be explored fully. There may be no problem, but let’s be sure.
The College of Health at 124 E. Morton is a major undertaking and a great additional distinction for the University and the City. The Mayor just highlighted it in Thursday’s “State of the City” address.
That new College and fair practices for lower-wage Bethlehem residents and taxpayers are not incompatible. Let’s just pause and make sure fairness is in play.
Here is evidence to consider–
Direct quotes from recording of the 2/21 Planning Commission mtg:
1) The Lehigh lawyer (so sorry, I don’t have her name): “[Lehigh has done] a study to prove and confirm to the city that with all these projects that would be coming both proposed now and what may be coming in the future that there’s adequate parking through out the campus based on the zoning ordinance requirements. That is public record here at the City, so whether Mr. Gallagher took the opportunity to review that, I don’t know. The lot that he’s talking about that there be a lease of some City lot does not exist, so the comments about lower income, lower whatever he’s trying to describe parking in that lot, there is no leasing of that City lot. And that is not even part of the parking study. The parking study took into account existing projects as well as the projects proposed. . . . There is no leasing of the lot with the City. All I can say is the lot you are claiming Lehigh is leasing is not under lease. . . . It’s not in the Comprehensive Plan. It’s not in the plan the City reviewed.”
2) Darlene Heller, Bethlehem Director, Planning and Zoning: “So that there will be some satellite parking spaces, none that I know of on the northside. . . .”
From the Lehigh Parking Study referenced above:
1) “The commuter lot is located on Goodman Campus [over the Mountain, Stabler Arena locale] with frequent bus service.” (32)
2) “Lehigh University intends to make use of off-site parking as an option for non-residential students at the Goodman Commuter lot.” (41)
From Lehigh U material on web site Sept 2018 and used as basis for widespread campus discussion throughout the Fall:
— see the attached image from the Campus Parking Map from the Lehigh U parking regulations document showing notation for Northside (other areas in the documentation reference bus service from the Northside lot to Farrington Square)
From personal conversation with a score of current Lehigh employees on Friday:
— everybody I talked with is aware of the Northside Commuter Lot in the mix of parking locations in the new plan
Assoc. VP Stringfellow and other Lehigh reps perhaps closer to implementation details of the parking plan than the Lehigh lawyer were present 2/21 but did not participate in discussion, though led to do so by Ms. Heller. Stringfellow is signator to the Sept 10, 2018, document that was circulated on campus that is the basis for my concern.
“The walk provides plenty of time to reflect and enjoy the environment, specifically gardens. I have come upon wonderful examples from highly manicured to seemingly very natural gardens. Common to all of them is the absence of grass lawns. Rather, gardens are filled with trees and perennials or are planted with seasonal vegetables and fruit trees, I have contended that grass lawns are one of humankind’s worst land uses – wasted person hours cutting grass and the overuse of pesticides and herbicides. Perhaps we can learn from these examples.”
Many Gadfly followers know Ron and Sharon Yoshida.
Ron was my boss for a while.
He is a great talker.
He talked me into things.
But now Ron is a walker.
As I write, he is a day or two or three into the arduous 88-Temple walk in Shikoku, Japan.
A multi-site pilgrimage of 88 temples associated with the Buddhist monk Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi), who lived c. 800.
A walk that will take about 60 days.
And not always on flat rail trails.
I knew he was walking. For exercise, I thought.
I had no idea what he was really walking for.
What IS he walking for? (See his T Minus 3: 27 February 2019 post)
He will reconnect with his Japanese roots.
I get that. Like many retirees, Gadfly has turned to genealogy, producing small books on each of his parents. And hoping to go back further.
But there’s something more.
It’s contained in the answer from an Australian finisher of the walk to Ron’s question about what effect the journey had on him: he said that the pilgrimage “restored his faith in mankind.”
I get that too. There must be (for want of a better term) a spiritual dimension to Ron’s journey, his “pilgrimage.”
I envy him the quest for that goal. And hope for its completion.
So I’m going to follow Ron like he’s been following Gadfly.
Gadfly did some research in the City Hall vaults for this follow-up message.
Thursday, March 7
Take #2
Brent, Darlene, and members of the Planning Commission (except Ms. Cohen, for whom I do not have a permissible email)
On 2/21 the Lehigh lawyer (sorry, I did not catch her name) “invited” me to look at the July 18, 2018, parking study submitted to the City.
I did. And, indeed, it has nary a mention of a Northside Commuter Lot. Which is consistent with the first testimony I heard from Lehigh when I inquired whether all lost parking spaces could be absorbed on campus. And was told they could.
So how does that square with the appearance of the off-campus Northside Lot on this document on the Lehigh web site and in conversations with Lehigh faculty and staff in the Fall when news of the parking changes was rolled out?
In fact, here is a blow-up of that lower right corner of the map clearly showing the presence of the Northside Commuter Lot in the Lehigh parking plan:
Why before the Planning Commission is the existence of this lot not recognized?
The 2/21 Lehigh lawyer was careful to say that Lehigh has no lease for that lot. But she did not say that Lehigh wasn’t using it.
Is Lehigh using that lot? Has that use been approved? Why the mystery?
Here’s the Mayor’s talk today thanks to CM Reynolds. As with usual Gadfly procedure, let’s take time to soak everything in first. Lot’s here. Then come back to comment or discuss.
(9th in a series of posts on Walkability and Bikeability)
A Gadfly tip o’ the hat and wave o’ the wing to follower Tony Hanna (Redevelopment Authority Director) for recommending the work of Jeff Speck on this subject. Gadfly is reading Speck’s Walkable City books now.
Gadfly followers will recognize that he is engaged in a bit of a beef with Lehigh University over the possible negative impact of the new parking system on the lower income strata of workers, some of whom, no doubt, are Bethlehem residents, taxpayers – and voters.
But
that new parking system is the result of a laudably ambitious plan to foster a multi-modal culture on campus.
“Lehigh University’s Connections Plan will reduce the reliance on the automobile for on campus travel, promote ridership and expansion of the Lehigh University transit system and encourage health and wellness through walking and cycling, resulting in a more collaborative, less congested, and more sustainable environment for students, faculty, staff, alumni, and visitors alike. The Connections Plan will seek to accomplish the following thematic goals:
Foster a multimodal culture
Achieve environmental sustainability
Enhance health & wellness
Minimize investment in new parking structures”
For more details, see the links on this main Connections page to The Pedestrian Experience, Transit System, Parking System, and Mobility Solutions for such specific sub-goals as:
Create a car-free zone of nearly 39 acres in the academic core of campus bounded by Packer Avenue, Taylor Street, University Drive, and Brodhead Avenue
Provide convenient, timely, and comfortable transportation options to eliminate vehicle dependence in the core of campus and provide access to all existing parking facilities
Limit vehicular access and parking throughout the core campus and establish the car-free zone
Partner with the public and private sector to deliver various transportation, carpool and ridesharing options (LANTA/LYFT/Enterprise).
Drilling down on the Pedestrian Experience, we find:
So there’s gonna be free Lanta, carpooling, car-sharing, bike sharing, etc., etc. – all kinds of things!
Gadfly has many followers on the Lehigh campus. Would anybody like to comment on this plan? It’s quite ambitious. Lehigh is built on the side of a hill (and I’ll bet somebody can tell us what degree of slope). Does the plan look good from your ground-level? Or how about other followers who are expert in such plans – is Lehigh on track?
So probably at 8AM this very moment I just punched the “Send” button and perhaps the very moment you might be reading this, the Mayor is beginning his “State of the City” address to the Chamber of Commerce at a breakfast at Arts Quest.
Gadfly suggested a different venue and etc., etc. for this annual event.
As usual Gadfly enters these modest proposals on the record during public comment at Council meetings — and did so Tuesday night. It so happens the mayor was not there.
CM Reynolds took up the idea and suggested to Business manager Evans who was sitting in for the Mayor that this talk could be given during the Mayor’s report time at Council meetings.
Yes, it could.
But a couple things that CM Reynolds said struck me as not so good.
CM Reynolds said — paraphrasing now — 1) the talk is basically a bunch of slides and 2) it wouldn’t take too much time and require a different preparation. I hope I have that right.
Now that didn’t strike me quite right.
It made the “State of the City” event sound perfunctory to me.
I said last time that I’m not a big spectacle kind of guy (another wink-wink to you-know-who-you-are). And I rather dislike the wind-demon politicians who are always talking or who are all-talk. Especially if they are also no-action.
But I must admit that there are times that I want, that I need some rah-rah.
And an event called “State of the City” feels that way to me.
Respectfully, one time a year I’d like to have the Mayor throw away the slides and the stop-watch and light us up a bit.
The next event in this year-long series is “Challenging Limited Understandings of Gender and Sexuality” by Lehigh University’s Mary Foltz, TONIGHT Wednesday, March 6, 6:30-8 at the Bethlehem Area Public Library.
Wunden Eiland, where the ceremony in H.D.’s vision took place and the controversial and ultimately “sifted” “Litany of the Wounds” are two of the most intriguing elements of the H.D. story told by Prof Atwood.
Let’s linger on them for a moment. Gadfly loves this stuff.
Here is H.D.’s vision:
This, I could remember, letting pictures steadily and stealthily flow past and through me. When the terror was at its height, in the other room, I could let images and pictures flow through me, and I could understand Anna von Pahlen who had been the inspirer of the meetings at Wunden Eiland when the unbaptized King of the Shawanese gave his beloved and only wife to the Brotherhood. I saw it all clearly. (The Gift, 134)
And there was an actual Wunden Eiland (Island of the Wound), in the Monocacy — gone now — but down behind Brethren’s House on Church St. in the 18th century.
You can see it on this 1766 map. Follow the Monocacy heading down the left side of the map toward the Lehigh River. See Wunden Eiland on the left just after the Monocacy turns right toward the bottom of the map. Tip o’ the hat to Scott Gordon for the reference.
Now here’s a taste of the graphic “Litany of the Wounds,” an example of the hidden, sifted liturgy at the original core of the Moravian Church that attracted H.D. (For the whole thing, see at end of Craig Atwood, “Zinzendorf’s ‘Litany of the Wounds’.”)
Now on to Mary Foltz’s lecture. Tonight! Be there!
On January 17, 1943, Hilda Doolittle (1886-1961), known as H.D., Bethlehem native, whose family home, in fact, was on this very spot, world-famous writer, the Lehigh Valley’s most important literary figure, was living in London when the German Luftwaffe resumed bombing raids after months of inactivity. H.D. had previously endured nearly one hundred straight days of night bombing we now know as The Blitz – a sustained systematic attempt to break the fighting will of England by inflicting abject terror on its civilians. H.D. was then a middle-aged woman “shattered by fear” as the “tidal-wave of terror” swept over her again, ironically, through bombs possibly made before the war by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation. You can imagine what she was thinking. What sense did this brutal war make? Why did she have to go through this bombing again? Hadn’t she endured enough? What madness had gripped her entire world? “I could not visualize civilization other than a Christmas tree that had caught fire,” she felt as the bombs dropped. In this agonized state, H.D. has a vision of a ceremony during the 1740s on Wunden Eiland, the Isle of the Wound, an island in the Monocacy Creek, now gone, down behind the Brethren’s House on Church St. A ceremony of cultural exchange in which the Moravian Anna von Pahlen is initiated into the Native American culture and the Native American Morning Star is baptized Moravian. A ceremony embracing a wisdom that could make “a united brotherhood, a Unitas Fratrum of the whole world” but which the later more conventional Moravians condemned as a scandal and erased from Moravian cultural memory. In H.D.’s vision, though, Anna’s voice is still “pure and silver and clear like a silver trumpet.” The original Moravian possibility of Unitas Fratrum is still there. And H.D.’s subsequent work is marked by the energetic urge to engage and transform world events with a vision of power and peace.
H.D., The Gift, New York: New Directions Press, 1982.
On that same page you can find the agenda for the meeting, any pertinent documents for the meeting – and, for later reference, the print version of the minutes plus audio and video recordings of the meeting.
The next event in this year-long series is “Challenging Limited Understandings of Gender and Sexuality” by Lehigh University’s Mary Foltz, TOMORROW Wednesday, March 6, 6:30-8 at the Bethlehem Area Public Library.
Here again is the full recording of Prof. Craig Atwood’s lecture on “H.D.’s Moravian Roots in Bethlehem” a week ago.
After a general introduction, Lehigh University Seth Moglen’s introduction to Craig’s lecture begins at min. 4:25, Craig’s lecture itself begins at min. 6:27, and the Q ‘n A session begins at min. 1:05:00.
Gadfly’s been reabsorbing Craig’s lecture in handy slices. In this third and last slice (mins. 40-65), Craig connects H.D. with repressed elements of Zinzindorf’s theology (especially interesting the “Litany of the Wounds” and the feminine nature of his theology), and concludes that H.D. “understood the Moravians had repressed what was central to the founding of Bethlehem and tried to reclaim that mystical tradition in her writings” and that the “Moravians failed because they turned away from this radical theology which she hoped to reclaim in her poetry.”
It is startling to Gadfly to learn how central Bethlehem and the Moravians are to H.D.’s work. H.D. is not just an author born in Bethlehem; Bethlehem is in her.
Again, crank up the audio, and listen along!
Here are Gadfly’s “class notes” on mins. 40-65:
all of the repulsive imagery of the bleeding side of Christ was for H.D. the prayer that reaches Heaven because it’s the wounded Christ who restores the balance between masculine and feminine
“Island of Wounds” the Wunden Eiland, in the Monocacy creek, believed it was shaped like the side wound of Christ
Single Brothers would gather there after dark for singing and other rituals
in her autobiographical narrative The Gift, England, where she was living in the early 1940s during the war, becomes the Wunden Eiland
The Gift ends with sharing a ritual from 200 years earlier: “The Litany of the Wounds”
“Litany of the Wounds” is one of the most controversial parts of Moravian devotion
for the Bethlehem Moravians, this was one of their most important liturgical elements
a Savior did not conquer but suffered and ruled through love
The Wounds liturgy was not sifted, not repressed until the 19th century
Moravian art puts the side wound of Jesus over the heart
in H.D.’s time Moravians are removing all this wound language from their hymns
possible that her pastors told her this was pathological nonsense
she would have heard it as something whispered about in private
wounds are multi-valent religious symbol
the wound is a portal into the mind of God, was God opening his heart to the people
doorway into mystical union with God
security, healing, womb/birth canal, vagina in His side
Jesus is a man, but a man with a womb
H.D. picks up on all of this – Jesus as androgynous figure
echoes of bi-sexuality
Zinzendorf was interested in mysticism, union with God as sexual act
intercourse is re-enactment of union with God, done with spirit of reverence, that is
sacred sex important in Bethlehem
sex is good even without procreating children
sex not shameful, marriage consummation celebrated
first sexual experience a blessing
all of the above was what was repressed, but H.D. intuitively saw through it
view of Holy Spirit, degenderized
feminine aspect to their religion
was central to Zinzendorf’s theology
something missing that H.D. realized
Holy Spirit was a Mother, giver of life
repression of Holy Spirit as Mother begins
H.D. grasped essence of Zinzendorf in unity of masculine and feminine aspects of divinity and humanity
she understood the Moravians had repressed what was central to the founding of Bethlehem and tried to reclaim that mystical tradition in her writings
Moravians failed because they turned away from this radical theology which she hoped to reclaim in her poetry
The presence of a “Wunden Eiland” in the Monocacy where the Single Brothers “would gather after dark for singing and other rituals” and the stunning physicality of the “litany of the Wounds” cry out for further elaboration. So — shameless tease — look for a post on these things tomorrow.
And tomorrow night, of course, is Mary Foltz’s lecture. New dimensions to H.D. to learn.
John Marquette is a retired librarian/archivist, author, historian, and a resident of Bethlehem. His current project is focused on the restoration of the interior of the Archibald Johnston Mansion in Housenick Park.
Gadfly:
Regarding your post on Lehigh Northside parking, here is a map of the environs of 123 West Lehigh Street.
The lot is generally vacant except during Musikfest. Police officers sometimes use it for bike training. Why isn’t a traffic study being conducted for the added volume to the streets feeding into this lot? A new crossfit facility has just been permitted at Conestoga and Union. The Conestoga and Spring intersection is famous for traffic collisions (though I have no statistics to corroborate the statement). The main parking lot for Moravian’s Priscilla Payne Hurd campus is less than 200 yards away. And the neighbors (me, for example, plus the condo owners on Lehigh and Spring Streets) have not been notified of the proposed use. We’re lacking transparency here.
John
John: The answers seem so easy, I don’t understand why Lehigh just doesn’t give ’em. It has always just seemed odd to me that with what at first glance/thought seems like such a big campus, that Lehigh needs to push parking so far away. And, if it is true that Lehigh is using that lot — remember, they are not saying so, even though it’s in the material distributed to faculty and staff — then there is still the issue of a bus running apparently at both rush hours that will probably need to stop somewhere in the “canyon” of New St. between 3rd and 4th before heading to Farrington Square.
But there’s something more.
