Well, outside of your questionable taste in clothing. The question shouldn't be whether, even with the rather unlikely possibility of a well-designed casino development integrated with street-style mall shopping, Market East might be a better location for a casino than some other less desirable location. As you say, the question should be what is an "agenda for a sustainable and just city." The decision as to whether a casino should be located at Market East shouldn't be based on whether it is a better location than some other location, but whether having a casino in this city is an integral part of a comprehensive vision for what the residents of this city need over the next five, twenty five, fifty years.

Where I would differ with you is whether that agenda should be set via our elected leaders. I think the agenda should be set through a comprehensive plan developed over an extended period of time - and the agenda should be set by a reasonable set of stakeholders. Models for this type of city planning exist, are are being implemented in a number of communities. In such a model, planners and government officials don't develop a plan and then ask for input. In such a model, planners and government officials function as informed collaborators alongside representatives of a wide variety of community groups who in turn obtain input from a wide variety of citizens through a well-established process of community meetings and information sharing sessions. A top-down methodology, whereby elected leaders and planners with their studies in hand dictate what the objectives should be is an antiquated model, and will inevitably result an end product that reflects a disproportionate influence of moneyed interests. I recently participated in a planning process, on a much smaller scale, conducted to plan a "wash station" at Weaver's Way Urban Farm. The stakeholders walked into that planning process with very a very divergent set of desired outcomes, and all walked away with a feeling of satisfaction and investment in the end product. This is not rocket science, but an approach based on the belief that consensus-building as an effective tool for planning projects.

Is a street-style mall at the top of this City's development priorities? Would that be the best use of that section of the city? I don't think so. For one thing, such a mall would likely result with high-end retail outlets; the city already has such shopping and people who do use The Gallery go their because they can't afford to shop in such stores. But perhaps a significant majority of Philadelphians would like to see such a mall developed at Market EAst. The problem is that, unfortunately, our mayor is seems to be content with setting planning priorities without investing in a process of finding out what citizens' priorities are.

I'm basically a white yuppie if you take it from the strict definition of young urban professional, though I make crap money and live in a crappy apartment in an awesome neighborhood (chinatown). I shop at the Gallery and really don't want it to go away either. Sorry, I'm too time and money poor to afford to go miles out of my way to king of prussia.

But if we have to have one and a casino to boot (which I neither believe or accept) then, lets agree, our idea of the future Philly is not a world-class city like New York or Paris but a tier or two down...think Cleveland. Fine. If we want to take the low road to development, then I want South St. to be our version of Beale St. 24 hours of booze, ruffians and raunch. In fact, we can make South St. a theme park version of how cool Philadelphia and Manhattan USED to be. Whoa, that's post-modern or something.

for pointing out so quickly all that is so disappointing about the proposal to move Foxwoods to the Gallery.

All that can be said in favor of this idea is that the Gallery is not as bad as the Delaware Riverfront. A casino on a riverfront is just a ridiculous waste of a scare resource. A casino in a vibrant downtown area is not such a waste.

But, and Ray puts his finger on the key issues, why should we settle for not as bad? Why not do some real visionary thinking about Market East in an open, transparent planning process? If a casino fits put it there. And if, as I would strongly suggest, it does not, then don't. We know that Philadelphia can do this kind of planning...we just had a model planning process for the riverfront.

(Idea for a satirical piece I don't have time to write: Looking back from 2032 at the revival of urban planning in Philadelphia we find that the location for the proposed Foxwoods casinio moved from place to place every three to four years. This lead to progressive planning efforts for the waterfront, Market East, Nicetown, the Navy Yard, the Betsy Ross Bridge area and finally the airport. In 2032 the casino had still never been built, but the opposition it stirred as it was shifted from site to site lead to an explosion of creative planning in each of those areas and the economic and cultural revitalization of the city. So by 2032 neighborhood leaders secretly clamored to be the next Foxwoods site, believing that this was the only way to get the city to do serious planning in their neighborhood. Adn that is why Mt. Airy and Overbrook are the leading contenders for the "new" Foxwoods location.")

And, of course, the other key issue is the effect on Chinatown and the racial politics that plays a role in this decision.

One last thought: I could imagine a very upscale, London style casino working at the gallery with no slots but various table games including chemin de fer, which ought to be located at a train station.