Planning Municipal Investment A Case

Study of Philadelphia William H. Brown

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/planning-municipal-investment-a-case-study-of-philad
elphia-william-h-brown/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Philadelphia Printing Industry A Case Study John W.

Seybold

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-philadelphia-printing-industry-
a-case-study-john-w-seybold/

Student Study Guide and Solutions Manual for Brown s

Organic Chemistry 7th Edition William H. Brown

https://ebookmeta.com/product/student-study-guide-and-solutions-
manual-for-brown-s-organic-chemistry-7th-edition-william-h-brown/

The Philadelphia Upholstery Weaving Industry A Case

Study of a Declining Industry in and Old Manufacturing
Center C. Canby Balderston

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-philadelphia-upholstery-
weaving-industry-a-case-study-of-a-declining-industry-in-and-old-
manufacturing-center-c-canby-balderston/

Fundamentals of Investment Appraisal An Illustration

based on a Case Study 2nd Edition Martina Röhrich

https://ebookmeta.com/product/fundamentals-of-investment-
appraisal-an-illustration-based-on-a-case-study-2nd-edition-
martina-rohrich/
The Case Study Handbook, Revised Edition: A Student's
Guide William Ellet

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-case-study-handbook-revised-
edition-a-students-guide-william-ellet/

Philadelphia Libraries A Survey of Facilities Needs and

Opportunities Bibliographical Planning Committee

https://ebookmeta.com/product/philadelphia-libraries-a-survey-of-
facilities-needs-and-opportunities-bibliographical-planning-
committee/

International Trade and Central Planning Alan A. Brown

(Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/international-trade-and-central-
planning-alan-a-brown-editor/

A Pillared Hall from a Temple at Madura India in the

Philadelphia Museum of Art W. Norman Brown

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-pillared-hall-from-a-temple-at-
madura-india-in-the-philadelphia-museum-of-art-w-norman-brown/

Messrs. Carey and Lea of Philadelphia: A Study in the

History of the Booktrade David Kaser

https://ebookmeta.com/product/messrs-carey-and-lea-of-
philadelphia-a-study-in-the-history-of-the-booktrade-david-kaser/
 PLANNING ^
MUNICIPAL äjp*
INVESTMENT:

a case study of Philadelphia

G o v e r n m e n t Studies

FELS INSTITUTE SERIES

University of Pennsylvania Press

This volume is one of a series devoted to

problems of current and long-range significance
which are of particular interest
to students of local and state government.

Other volumes in the series are:

Metropolitan Analysis—
Important Elements of Study and Action
Education for Administrative Careers in Government Service

F E L S I N S T I T U T E OF L O C A L AND STATE G O V E R N M E N T
U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y L V A N I A
P H I L A D E L P H I A
 P L A N N I N G j».
MUNICIPAL ^
INVESTMENT:
a case study of Philadelphia

jjgft, W. H . Brown, J r . · C. E. Gilbert

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE

Philadelphia
University of Pennsylvania Press
Copyright © 1961 by the Trustees of
the University of Pennsylvania

All Rights Reserved

Published in Great Britain, India, and Pakistan

by the Oxford University Press
London, Bombay, and Karachi

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 61-5540

Printed in Great Britain by

W. & J . Mackay & Co Ltd, Chatham
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THE F O L L O W I N G study owes much to the kindness and

candor of a number of officials and knowledgeable observers
of Philadelphia's city government. We want to thank all
those who so freely shared with us their experience, in-
formation, insights, and evaluations. We are particularly
grateful to several persons who submitted to repeated in-
quiries and requests for data. Those persons include Robert
Coughlin and Charles Pitts of the Philadelphia City Plan-
ning Commission; Kirk Petschek of the Office of the Develop-
ment Coordinator; James Patterson of the City Finance
Director's office; Lennox Moak, Edwin Rothman, and John
Carson of the Bureau of Municipal Research-Pennsylvania
Economy League; Aaron Levine of the Citizens' Council on
City Planning; Mrs. Dorothy Montgomery of the Philadel-
phia Housing Association; and William Wilcox of the
Greater Philadelphia Movement. We are deeply indebted
to Professors Joseph Conard and J . Roland Pennock of
Swarthmore College and C. E. Lindblom of Yale University
for critical comment on the manuscript. Parts of Chapter
I X appeared in the American Political Science Review for
September, i960; and we wish to thank the editor and
publisher for permission to include that material here.
Since completion of our manuscript (May, i960) the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission has completed its
comprehensive plan for the City and has begun to apply the
plan to capital programming. This is a continuation and, in
a sense, a culmination of developments described in this
volume. Neither the content of the plan nor its current
contributions to capital programming seem to us to require
any modification of our analysis and conclusions. This point
has special reference to Chapter X.
W.H.B.
C.E.G.
 & CONTENTS

Introduction I I

PART I

I The City Charter 17

II The Departments 32
III The Administration 68
IV The Planning Commission 87
V The Council 98
VI Citizen Organizations I 12
VII Capital Budget Execution 158
VIII Capital Improvements and Budgetary Perfection 170

PART 2

IX Politics, Administration and Public Investment 191

X City Planning and Capital Programming 224
XI Criteria for Public Investment 253
XII Conclusion 286
]Index .290
 TABLES

ι Capital Budgets by Major Objectives 171

2 Tax-Supported Funds by Major Function as Per-
centage of Total Tax-Supported Funds 172
3 Total Funds Scheduled for 1959 Capital Budget in
Previous Capital Programs 174
4 City Funds Scheduled for 1959 Capital Budget in
Previous Capital Programs 174
5 Funds Scheduled for Sixth Y e a r of Capital Pro-
grams 175
6 Project Changes at Various Stages of 1958 and 1959
Capital Budgets 178

7 Changes Made by Council in Planning Commission's

1958-63 Capital Program 180
 ^ p k INTRODUCTION

THIS ISa study of capital programming in Philadelphia.

Broadly, it is an attempt to discover and describe how a city
makes its investment decisions—among, say, ports and parks,
public hospitals and police stations—and to determine what
can be learned from that city's experience.
Capital programming itself is a method of separate budget-
ary decision upon " c a p i t a l " as distinguished from "operat-
i n g " expenditures. T h e r e are two common justifications for
this procedure. O n e emphasizes fiscal planning and perspec-
tive regarding projects that are loan-financed. T h e other is
couched in terms of physical planning of items distinguished
by "lumpiness" and longevity. O n this justification the
principal advantages of a separate budgeting process are (ι)
that it emphasizes the long view and the process of research;
(2) that it attends to the integration of projects and programs,
thus averting the diseconomies of overlap and early obsoles-
cence; and (3) that it provides more explicit attention to end
values (of planners, administrators, politicians, or publics)
and to means to those ends—that is, to criteria for public
investment decisions.
Capital programming in practice is a variety of institutional
and intellectual activities. A practical manual should include
sections on how to be a city planner, sensitive politician,
successful administrator, financial magnate, social philoso-
11
12 Introduction
pher, and how to simulate the market, all to the end of
"welfare." There is, of course, no such work extant.
Several studies have examined substantive trends in
municipal capital outlay, though the comparative data are
extremely difficult to interpret.1 The more general political
and administrative aspects of capital programming in local
governments have not been much studied.2 The largest body
of analytical literature on the subject is that dealing with
"underdeveloped areas," to which American cities are some-
times compared in their fiscal and physical problems.
Recently economists have given increased attention to criteria
for public investment in some federal government programs.3

1
See, e.g., Pennsylvania Economy League (Western Division), Public
Capital Improvements Planning and Finance by Major Governments in the
Principal Metropolitan Areas (Pittsburgh, 1956). Sec also the statement by
Amos Hawley that " . . . it is evident that capital improvement costs
(i.e., expenditures) are responsive to different (urban) characteristics
than are operating costs." "Metropolitan Population and Government
Expenditures," in Paul K. Hatt and Albert J . Reiss, Jr., eds., Cities and
Society (Glencoe, 111., 1957), p. 778.
s
A good general treatment, together with references to the literature,
is Jesse Burkhead, Government Budgeting (New York, 1958), Ch. 8. Three
summary studies of the New York City experience have been published,
all aimed at immediate fiscal and administrative problems. These are:
J o h n D. Millett, "City Planning;" Ch. 5 of The Mayor's Committee on
Management, Modern Management for the City of New York (New York,
1953), Vol. I I ; Frederick C. Mosher, "Fiscal Planning and Budgeting
in New York City," in New York State-New York City Fiscal Relations
Committee, Report (New York, November, 1956), pp. 65-84; and Henry
Fagin and C. McKim Norton, "Physical and Fiscal Planning," ibid.,
pp. 85-94.

* One of these programs is water resources, on which see: Edward F.

Renshaw, Toward Responsible Government (Chicago, 1957); Otto Eckstein,
Water Resources Development: The Economics of Project Evaluation (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1958); J o h n Krutilla and Eckstein, Multiple Purpose River
Development (Baltimore, 1958); Roland N. McKean, Efficiency in Govern-
ment through Systems Analysis (New York, 1958); and, for a review of the
 Introduction 13

T h e common elements in all this literature are its recency,

its departure point in practical policy problems with wide-
spread ramifications, and its commitment to planning and
"rationality" in public decisions. T h e literature m a y reflect
a minor trend in American politics from a "politics of reform"
to a "politics of improvement" affecting all levels of govern-
ment. Apart from studies of policy-making at the federal
level there have been, however, few essays at locating in-
vestment criteria and decisions in their administrative and
political context. 1
Capital improvements planning has been " g o o d practice"
for American municipalities for a number of years, but few
cities have developed it intensively or extensively. Philadel-
phia has carried capital programming as far as—some say
farther t h a n — a n y other major American jurisdiction. T h e
process encompasses most City facilities; it is the subject of
continuing attention by officials and publics; and it has
produced a large number of public works. It thus provides a
promising context in which to study investment planning.
T h e study that follows is formally divided into two parts.
Part I consists in description of the process of decision on
investment priorities, of the issues and interests relating to
decisions, and of the resultant and relevant trends in city

literature, Vincent Ostrom, "Tools for Decision-making in Resource

Planning," Public Administration Review, 19 (1959), pp. 114-120. Another
field is that of military investment, on which see: Frederick C. Mosher,
Program Budgeting: Theory and Practice (New York, Public Administration
Service, 1954); and Arthur Smithies, The Budgetary Process in the United
States (New York, 1955), Part I V .
1 A good example of a political and administrative counterpart to
economic analysis in the water resources field is Arthur Maass, Muddy
Waters (Cambridge, Mass., 1951). For the local level, see Martin Meyer-
and son Edward Banfield, Politics, Planning and the Public Interest (Glencoe,
111·, 1955)·
14 Introduction
policy. The three chapters of Part 2 are intended as analyti-
cal essays dealing with the roles of political and administra-
tive processes, comprehensive city planning, and formal
investment criteria in capital programming. These chapters
build on the material in Part 1, but they can be read
separately.
The background of this study may be of some interest. We
began with an interest in the values, techniques, and criteria
that might be employed in municipal investment. Philadel-
phia, for reasons suggested above, seemed to offer a useful
case-study. As we examined the experience of capital pro-
gramming in Philadelphia, the critical role of political and
administrative processes—their relevance for theory as well
as practice—became clear. Hence our attempt to provide a
reasonably complete description of the process of decision
before undertaking any discussion of formal criteria. The
generalizations offered in Part 2 thus followed the description
in Part 1 in our thinking and writing, as they follow in the
format of this volume.
φ PARTI
 Λ1f*
I The City Charter

THE FORMAL framework of capital programming in Phila-

delphia is set forth in the City Charter. The Home Rule
Charter, adopted in 1951, is basically of the strong-mayor
type. It replaced a more-or-less weak-mayor form of govern-
ment, and the commission that drafted it expressly chose the
strong-mayor form over the council-manager model which
an earlier charter commission had unsuccessfully recom-
mended to the state legislature in 1939. The chief factors in
this choice appear to have been a belief in the leadership,
energy, and direct accountability of an elected chief executive
and the dearth of big-city experience with council-manager
government. 1
In order to strengthen the Mayor and his administration
the Charter Commission both streamlined the City Council

1
See especially Lennox L . Moak, "Background and Principal Features
of the Philadelphia C h a r t e r , " Appendix i - A of Leverett S. L y o n (Ed.),
Modernizing A City Government (Chicago, 1 9 5 4 ) ; Bureau of Municipal
Research-Pennsylvania Economy League ( B M R - P E L ) , A Discussion of
Some Proposed Revisions of the Home Rule Charter: The 1951-1956 Experience
(Philadelphia, 1 9 5 7 ) ; Editors of Fortune, The Exploding Metropolis (New
York, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958), Ch. 3 ; Joseph D. Crumlish, A City
Finds Itself: The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter Movement (Detroit, 1958);
Charleton F . Chute, " H o w to Get a City C h a r t e r , " National Municipal
Review, 40 ( 1 9 5 1 ) , pp. 4 0 3 - 1 0 . Our account also relies upon interviewing
and upon materials in the files of B M R - P E L .

«7
18 Planning Municipal Investment

and circumscribed its powers. Council today consists of

seventeen members of whom seven are elected at large. T h e
minority party is guaranteed at least two of the Councilmen-
at-large; in fact, there are presently (i960) two Republican
Councilmen.
Council's powers were curtailed in the following w a y s :
Council now appropriates lump sums rather than line times
in the operating budget; Council can no longer determine
personnel policy through the appropriations process, nor does
it confirm the appointment of any official save the City
Solicitor; Council approval is now required for only a few
types of contracts, and all others are administratively
negotiated; Council has no authority over administrative
organization, and such authority is exclusively vested in the
administration; rate-making is defined in the Charter as an
administrative determination. In addition, the Charter pro-
vides for an austere system of personnel administration a n d —
via a series of court decisions—subjects nearly all City
personnel to that system. T h e last provisions have been felt
as body blows by the regular Democratic organization which
has attempted without success to amend the Charter so as to
ameliorate them.
T h e seat of "organization" control in the City government
is the Council; neither of the two Democratic Mayors under
the new Charter have been identified with the organization. 1
Intra-party political conflict has, then, been an incident of
the separation of powers since 1952; but there is now a good
deal of governmental, social, and " p u b l i c " leverage on the
side of the "strong M a y o r " — a t least, when he is personally as
strong as have been the last two.

1 For a recent study of Philadelphia politics, see James Reichley, The

Art of Government: Reform and Organization Politics in Philadelphia (New
York, The Fund for the Republic, 1959).
 The City Charter 19

In its early versions the new Charter placed the theretofore

advisory City Planning Commission in a line Department of
C i t y Development together with the Zoning Board of Adjust-
ment, the Board of Building Standards and Appeals, and the
A r t Commission. This provision did not endure, however,
and the Planning Commission emerged as a quasi-indepen-
dent body. Six of its nine members (including the Chairman)
are private citizens. T h e other three, who are ex officio
members, are members of the Mayor's cabinet. In conse-
quence, the Planning Commission is neither a pure example
o f the traditional independent commission, nor is it a staff
agency to the M a y o r — n o r is it a compromise between these
two. Certainly it is well insulated from line activities. O n the
whole it seems to be regarded—both popularly and within
the City government—as closest to the traditional indepen-
dent commission. 1
Three other aspects of the Charter merit introductory
notice. O n e is the adoption of the "general manager" idea in
the form of a Managing Director, who has sweeping re-
sponsibility for day-to-day conduct of ten of the City's line
departments. Some commentators have seen the office as an
attempted compromise with the city manager plan. But
Managing Directors have regarded themselves as the Mayor's

1 T h e annotation to the City Charter confirms this point. Those w h o

designed the original Planning Commission and saw it instituted in 1943

were anxious to avoid an independent commission with independent
powers, and settled, after considerable study, for a purely advisory
commission. See Walter Phillips, " L e t the Citizens Play a P a r t , " National
Munidpal Review, 37 (1948), 529-533, esp. p. 530.
For a discussion of opinion within the city government on how the
Charter organization of the Planning Commission has worked, see B M R
P E L , op. cit., pp. 43-45. It is there reported that "predominant thinking
in the community at this time supports the existing arrangement" over
any proposal to shift the planning function closer to the M a y o r and to
line operations.
20 Planning Municipal Investment
men in principle and in practice, and this seems to have been
the intention embodied in the Charter. 1
A second position—that of the City Representative—was,
however, the product of compromise. Intended originally for
an incumbent who would be a "ceremonial alternate" to the
Mayor with responsibility for public relations and promotion,
the final version of the Charter added supervision of the Port,
Airport, and several of the City's commercial facilities:
Convention Hall, the Commercial Museum, Exhibition Hall.
A third aspect of the Charter also broke new ground for large
cities; this was the centralization of nearly all budgeting,
accounting, and fiscal functions (save for auditing) in one
office under a Director of Finance.
The form and theory of the Charter thus split the operating
and budgeting functions squarely between the Managing
Director and the Director of Finance and placed them
potentially at loggerheads; and the form of the Charter (there
seems to have been no theory on this point) splits off the
City's two chief transportation termini for the supervision of
the City Representative (who is alternatively called the
Director of Commerce). These three officials and the City
Solicitor form the Mayor's Cabinet. Beneath them range the
heads of City departments or facilities, and under those
officials in turn sprawl a number of departmental boards and
commissions in charge of other City facilities and improve-

1 M o a k , op. cit., p. 339. O n the merits and demerits of this approach to

city management see: Joseph E . M a c L e a n , " W e d d i n g Big-city Politics
and Professional M a n a g e m e n t , " Public Administration Review, 14, (1954)
5 5 - 6 0 ; W a l l a c e S. Sayre, " T h e General M a n a g e r Idea for Large Cities,"
Public Administration Review, 14 (1954) 2 5 3 - 2 5 8 ; and the rejoinder b y
J o h n E . Bebout, " M a n a g e m e n t for Large Cities," ibid. (1955) 18&-195.
For an account of how the charter worked in its earliest years, see the
statement of then-Mayor, Joseph S. Clark, Jr., "Experience with
Philadelphia's N e w Charter," A p p e n d i x i - B of Leverett S. L y o n (Ed.),
op. cit.
 The City Charter 21
iments. Yet the number of line departments is not large, nor
dlo the surviving boards and commissions seem seriously to
iimpede City administration. Most observers and officials feel
tlhat the City's topside administrative structure has served
tlhe Mayor and the City well. 1
Two fields of substantive policy—urban renewal and trans-
portation—seem not to have been well served by the Charter,
fcor reasons that the Charter Commission could probably
nieither anticipate nor control. Urban renewal not only cuts
aicross planning and operating agencies already mentioned
b)ut is in large part administered, as in most cities, by a
Redevelopment Authority and a Housing Authority. The
pjrogram is intended to receive coordination and drive from
tlhe Office of the Development Coordinator attached to the
M a y o r ' s own office. In 1959, in a move for more coordination,
tlhe Development Coordinator became executive director of
tlhe Redevelopment Authority. Some observers have tended
tco view this office as a rival to the Planning Commission
biecause of its active concern with planning, capital improve-
rments, and central coordination and its strategic administra-
tiive placement. How serious such rivalry becomes will
dloubtless depend upon the priority attached to "urban
rcenewal" in City policy. So far, renewal has been simply one
bmndle of objectives among many others; it has not been an
owerriding goal despite some administrative and citizen
pressures to make it such.
A second area of administrative ambiguity is that of trans-
portation. This field is also one of more recent concern, of
ccomplex inter-governmental relations, of prolix relations with

• Joseph S. Clark, Jr., op. cit. See also BMR-PEL, op. cit., for accounts of
interviews with a large number of City officials, and for arguments pro
aind con the retention of boards for administration of certain facilities
weithin the departments.
22 Planning Municipal Investment
private providers, and of novel forms of City ownership or
subsidy. In recent years a citizen Urban Traffic and Trans-
portation Board and a Transportation Coordinator attached
to the Mayor's office have had chief responsibility for such
integration as transportation policy has received. In 1955
U T T B produced a long-range circulation plan, but to date
both coordination and delivery on the plan have been spotty. 1
Although the difficulty stems in large measure from pro-
grammatic and organizational complexities just suggested, it
seems also to result from "the inability of the Administration
(plus U T T B plus the Planning Commission) to control
the Streets Department" and to counter the cordial and
occasionally porkbarreling Departmental liaison with City
Council. 2
It should be noted that both redevelopment and trans-
portation policy have given rise to similar problems in other
cities. Finally, it should be noted that Philadelphia has a
separate School Board with its own fiscal base and budgeting
process and that public education does not, therefore, figure
in the capital budget and program. Cooperation between the
School Board and the Planning Commission on land use
problems has generally been cordial, but the lack of more
formal integration of redevelopment planning has been
criticized.
Where capital programming is concerned, the Charter is
not explicit as to underlying values and aims; but it does
provide in some detail the framework of decision. It mandates

1 Here again there has been some overlapping in planning between

U T T B and the Planning Commission, though U T T B ' s plan was pro-

duced with Planning Commission assistance. See City of Philadelphia,
Urban Traffic and Transportation Board, Plan and Program 7555.
1 The quotation is from a comment upon an earlier draft of this chapter

by a knowledgeable member of the Planning Commission staff.

 The City Charter 23
a capital budget and puts teeth in it; and it defines at least
loosely the agencies involved in its formulation, the basic
order and chronology of the process, the form and content
of the capital budget and program, and the financial frame-
work that supports the capital budget.
(1) Capital budgeting in Philadelphia dates from 1945;
but prior to the Charter of 1 9 5 1 , the budget assembled by the
Planning Commission constituted nothing but advice. It was
never a part of appropriations legislation; and as a rule, bonds
were voted for projects and projects were approved by
Council before the Planning Commission's belated advisory
document was assembled. The Charter of 1951 provided for
both a capital budget and a six-year capital program. Each
is adopted by Council; and the former constitutes an
appropriation, thus giving to Philadelphia's capital budget
a status virtually unique among American municipal-
ities.
(2) The Charter provides that Council shall adopt a six-
year program of capital improvements and a capital budget
for the coming year at least thirty days before the end of the
fiscal year (which, in Philadelphia, is the calendar year).
Council adoption occurs at the end of a long process that
begins, formally, with the operating agencies. The Finance
Director is to gather from these agencies and transmit to the
Planning Commission such information as the Commission
needs to develop the program and budget. The Planning
Commission, in turn, must transmit a program and budget to
the Mayor at least 120 days before fiscal year's end; the
Mayor must forward these to Council at least ninety days
before fiscal year's end "to the extent approved by the
Mayor." Council may delete items at its pleasure or cut
estimates or appropriations; it may not, however, otherwise
amend the budget until thirty days after it has requested,
through the Mayor, the advice of the Planning Commission.
24 Planning Municipal Investment
No Council amendment to the capital budget is valid unless
it conforms to the capital program, which may itself be
amended on the same terms as the budget. T h e Charter
further provides that:

The City Planning Commission shall make recommen-

dations, to be transmitted to the Council through the
Mayor, on all bills originating in the Council which shall
in any manner affect any zoning ordinance, the Physical
Development Plan of the City, or the capital program, or
which would authorize the acquisition or sale of City real
estate. Unless such recommendations are received by the
Council within thirty days from the date any such bill shall
have been introduced, the approval of the Commission shall
be presumed. 1

Although the basic chronology of capital programming

is thus set forth in the Charter, it is not clear from the bare
phraseology which points along the way are to be crucial
and which parties to the capital program are intended to
have major influence. T h e operating departments are
mentioned only as an implied source of ideas and materials;
yet this bare mention is potentially a base for forward plan-
ning in the line. T h e Finance Director, it seems, is simply
to gather and transmit infomation; yet this prescription can
and does carry with it control over the format and much
of the required content of program and budget justification.
T h e Planning Commission has five months (from April to
September) to " p r e p a r e " and " s u b m i t " a " p r o g r a m " and
budget to the M a y o r ; evidently it is here that the depart-
mental fragments are composed into a " p r o g r a m , " for this
is the first mention along the w a y of such a program; yet

1 Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, Sec. 4-604.

 The City Charter 25
this suggestion will not prevent others taking part 1 . The
Mayor has thirty days to review the program, and his free-
dom to revise it implies that the program and budget are
his\ yet the annotation to the Charter makes plain that
the Mayor is bound to transmit in full the pristine product of
the Planning Commission while indicating the extent to
which it has failed to meet with his approval. Council's
discretion to overhaul the program is subjected to the advice
of the Planning Commission; yet this transaction is to move
through the Mayor, as is Planning Commission advice to
Council on other legislative matters connected with the
capital program.
The Charter is thus complex and reticulate, and its intent
is not plain regarding the question of whose program is the
capital program. One possible interpretation is that this was
the extent of Charter Commission intent: there was no
explicit decision for or against an "independent" Planning
Commission, for or against the primacy of fiscal concerns in
capital programming; it merely provided a multipartite
decision and left the actual distribution of influence to shift-
ing developments in the channels of government, the tides of
politics, and the shoals of personality. Generally speaking,
this interpretation seems correct. The ambiguities in the
Charter reflect in part a statesmanlike aversion to con-
stitutional detail. But the Charter does embody (on the
testimony of participants in its drafting) a rejection of the
purely independent planning commission, a desire to secure
city planning against the vicissitudes of city politics, and an

1 The official Charter annotation to this section reads: " T h e capital

program and capital budget are vital steps in planned city development.
For that reason their initial preparation is a function of the City Planning
Commission," Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, Sec. 4-602, p. 60 (our
emphasis).
26 Planning Municipal Investment
intent to make fiscal planning and capital programming both
expert and effective.
Four further aspects of the chronology require notice. One
is the fact that the fiscal year is the calendar year, which
places the period of most intensive administrative preparation
in the vacation season and the dog days. A second point, or
hiatus, is of more moment: while it was doubtless assumed
that the term of capital budget execution was to be annual,
the Charter neglected to say so. This left room for a longer
executory period, and the life of all capital budgets since the
first one has in fact been eighteen months. Moreover, save for
the requirement of Planning Commission advice on Council
initiatives, the Charter says nothing about amendments to
the capital budget. Thus, the decision that is finally reached
thirty days before year's end is not necessarily a final one and
is, in fact, freely amended during the life of the budget. 1
Finally, the Charter does contain some procedural safeguards
over capital budget execution, which at once protect archi-
tectural and contractual standards and tend to delay
execution.
(3) The Charter defines, if loosely, the form and content of
the capital budget. Since the definition of "capital" is
everywhere difficult, it seems best to quote the Charter itself:
§2-300. Expenditures for the repair of any property, for the
regrading, repaving, or repairing of streets, for the ac-
quisition of any property or for any work or project which
does not have a probable useful life to the City of at least five
years following the time the expenditure is made for it shall
be deemed to be ordinary expenses to be provided for in the
annual operating budget ordinance. . . .

1
Amendments are normally passed by Council, but the Finance Director
in 1952 assumed discretionary authority to vary appropriations among
projects by 10 per cent. For details on amendments see Ch. V I I .
 The City Charter 27
§2-303. The capital program shall embrace all physical
public improvements and any preliminary studies and
surveys relative thereto, the acquisition of property of a
permanent nature, and the purchase of equipment for any
public improvement when first erected or acquired that are
to be financed in whole or in part from funds subject to
control or appropriation by the Council. It shall show the
capital expenditures which are planned for each of the six
ensuing fiscal years. For each separate purpose, project,
facility or other property there shall be shown the amount,
if any, and the source of the money that has been spent,
encumbered or is intended to be spent or encumbered prior
to the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year and also the
amounts and the sources of money that are intended to be
spent during each of the ensuing six years.

The Charter thus attempts to guarantee the integrity of the

capital budget and program against the most obvious
deferred maintenance, and the fiscal integrity of the City
against the temptation to borrow.
In fact, all capital budgets enacted since the Charter was
adopted have carried a considerable amount of what every-
one agrees is deferred maintenance, and many observers have
been critical of this. The Finance Director's office has, how-
ever, been inclined to accept most of it, arguing that capital
budgets carry no provision for depreciation, that replacement
and repair expenditures must occupy a considerable portion
of future capital programs, and that these facts together with
the seriously run-down state of many facilities in 1952 argued
placement of the deferred maintenance in the capital pro-
gram.
(4) The City Charter is silent concerning the amounts and
mechanics of capital budget financing, but the State re-
strictions on debt apply to these subjects. Indebtedness for
"self-supporting" projects is not limited, but the State
28 Planning Municipal Investment
constitution and judicial doctrine narrowly define the "self-
supporting" category. 1
State law, plus considerations of financial rating and
integrity, form the outer financial limits on capital programs.
But the City itself has adopted a "fiscal program" which
today imposes a $25,000,000 limit on city funds for the tax-
supported segment of the capital budget, of which a stated
proportion must come from current revenues. The "pay-as-
you-go" percentage began at 5 per cent in 1954 and was
raised to 6 per cent in 1957 when the limit on City funds was
raised from $20,000,000 to $25,000,000. It is to rise by one
per cent a year until in 1961 it amounts to ten per cent. At
that time, presumably, the policy will be reviewed and per-
haps extended; and there are many both in and out of City
government who believe that "down payments" should rise
to at least twenty-five per cent.
The mechanics of authorizing and incurring City debt
can be briefly described. The State constitutional debt limit
applies to authorization of debt, not to issuance of debt.
Tax-supported debt proposals are voted by City Council and
placed on the November ballot. These proposals cover general
authorizations for general purposes rather than specific pro-
jects. Tax-supported and self-supporting debt proposals are
separately listed. After authorization by popular vote the
City issues bonds as needed to cover its expenditures. Although
the bonds are earmarked for particular capital purposes or

1
Tax-supported debt in Philadelphia is limited to 1 3 J per cent of the
average of the previous ten years' real estate valuations. Councilmanic
debt is limited to 3 per cent; all further obligations require voter
authorization. The courts have also held that the self-supporting category
may only be used for "systems" of projects and not for individual
projects or bond issues (with the exception of transit projects). Thus, if
an airport as a whole cannot qualify for "self-supporting" treatment then
airport projects that are individually self-supporting will not qualify.
 The City Charter 29
groups of purposes they may, in fact, be used for subsequent
purposes, the original purpose having been financed by a
previous bond issue, and so forth. The transactions all move
through the consolidated loan fund, which contains the
proceeds from sale of all City bonds.
Authorization of bonds by ordinance and popular vote
may thus precede by some years the actual sale of the bonds;
the consolidated loan fund permits some pacing of bond sales
to the course of the money market and permits the aggre-
gation of authorizations and their sale at some savings in
underwriting expenses. The popular vote upon bond author-
izations therefore bears little relation to the capital program.
Bond authorizations must be voted upon before Council has
voted upon the capital program and before the program is
in any way before the voters qua program. 1 For many pro-
jects, however, the administration requests authorizations
annually for annual sums rather than asking for approval of
the entire project. For the City this practice has the advan-
tage of lowering its annual debt authorization requests, thus
easing political and legal limits on borrowing. For voters and
taxpayers the practice offers the putative advantages of more
accurate cost estimates and more opportunities to check spend-
ing. In fact, neighborhood organizations have been critical
of the practice and "sometimes resent being called on several
times to generate interest and support for a single project." 2
Philadelphia under the Home Rule Charter may be
termed an "executive-centered" city, although, as we shall

1 It was suggested b y M a y o r Clark that the time-table of capital program

preparation be moved u p to "permit the question of electoral loans to be
considered b y Council and the electorate in the light of an approved
Capital Budget and Program. . . . " Mayor's 1956 Capital Budget
Message to Council (October io, 1955), p. 9.

' From a staff memorandum to the Citizens Budget Committee, courtesy

of M r . W i l l i a m H . Wilcox, Executive Director.
30 Planning Municipal Investment

see, there is some tendency toward decentralization as urban

renewal and redevelopment move toward the forefront of
concern. 1 A p a r t from this tendency—as yet a minor one—
there appear to be three potential obstacles to thorough-
going authority in the chief executive. One of these
is the continued use of citizen boards for particular projects
and activities within the departments—for example, the
Fairmount Park Commission in the Recreation Department
or the board of Philadelphia General Hospital in the Public
Health Department. Another is the quasi-independent
Planning Commission, and the third is the division of
functions and interests between the Managing Director and
the Director of Commerce.
W e have noted, however, the general belief that none of
these institutions has seriously curtailed central authority.
M a n y old City hands believe they are a necessary hedge
against the day when a " r e f o r m " administration is no longer
in office, and most reformers believe that the quasi-indepen-
dent Planning Commission has an important contribution to
make to any regime. 2 So far as decisions on priorities in

1
See Robert A. Dahl, "Organization for Decisions in New Haven,"
a paper prepared for delivery at the 1958 annual meeting of the American
Political Science Association, St. Louis, September 4-6, 1958. Dahl
distinguished between two broad categories of municipal organization,
which he terms "executive-centered" and "multi-centered;" and he
stresses that the labels are simply for convenience rather than for the
delineation of precise types. Both orders, he says, are "pluralistic." They
differ, however, in three respects: the locus of decisions; the distribution
of influence over decisions; and the means of coordinating decisions.
1
There is, of course, a seeming contradiction in this statement: if such
institutions are now no obstacle to executive authority, what good will
they be against "organization" control? Old City hands argue that
citizens and/or independent boards provide leverage for sound ad-
ministration in " b a d " times while responding to executive leadership
in "good" times, and that the present topside administrative organization
may allow professionals to carry on under an organization Mayor.
 The City Charter 31
capital programs are concerned, administrative boards make
little difference since departmental priorities are by-and-
large settled at the departmental level. The quasi-indepen-
dent planning commission device is generally regarded as the
heart of capital programming, though we shall argue later
that the ex officio City members of the Commission carry
decisive weight in the process. We shall also argue that this
fact, combined with the division of interests between the
Managing and Commerce Directors, has on occasion led to a
"bargaining" approach to capital programming. Yet it must
be said that none of these institutions is a serious qualifi-
cation of the generalization that Philadelphia is an "executive-
centered" city, probably as much so and possibly more so
than any other American metropolis. It conforms to most of the
conventional canons of "sound" city organization, and it
would seem to provide as favorable a framework as possible for
capital programming.
These aspects of structure having been described, it
remains only to emphasize that Philadelphia is a metropolis
—a jurisdiction of a diversity of politically relevant regions
and interests. Administrative departments are large, and most
of them have developed traditions and clientele affiliations.
In such a situation policy normally proceeds by negotiation
rather than by exercise of authority, and "planning" is as
much institutional as intellectual.
 Λ1f*
II The Departments

IT is commonly said in city circles today that planning is not

exclusively the j o b of the Planning Commission; that capital
programming requires and should stimulate departmental
planning; and that Planning Commission review will be
neither informed nor effective lacking a basis in long-range
planning in the line. Nevertheless, such planning has been
slow to develop for four principal reasons.
O n e reason is the vast backlog of improvements that existed
in 1952. This led to an emphasis upon simply getting the
work out on the assumption that nearly everything that
might be done was of pressing and roughly equal importance.
A second and allied reason was the renovation and restaffing
of the top levels of some departments. As experienced and
energetic commissioners were hired (some from careers in
other cities), they brought with them faith in their personal
judgment together with the desire to make a record and put
their stamp on their departments. A third reason was a lack
of departmental personnel for planning and a nationwide
shortage of research and doctrine on the determination of
service levels in many fields. A final reason was the lack of an
administration philosophy to dictate where in the City
machinery planning was to take place, together with heavy
reliance upon the reviewing activities of the Planning Com-
mission, which alone was staffed for planning purposes.
32
 The Departments 33
T h e C o m m i s s i o n in its turn relied heavily upon " t e c h n i c a l
advisory c o m m i t t e e s " in the fields of transportation, re-
creation, health a n d welfare as well as u p o n direct consul-
tation w i t h the departments. These fields—largely oriented
to " w e l f a r e " — r e c e i v e d h e a v y emphasis in the early years of
the C l a r k administration, 1952-1956. In these fields standards
o f " n e e d " w e r e a m b i g u o u s ; and the tradition of administra-
tive responsiveness to public d e m a n d , h o w e v e r expressed,
w a s strong. I t w a s also true, as it still is on occasion, that as the
P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n got its comprehensive planning pro-
g r a m u n d e r w a y it initiated projects w h i c h were then taken
u p b y the r e l e v a n t departments.
O b s e r v a t i o n o f the departments today reveals a b r o a d
r a n g e of p l a n n i n g practices. T h e s e practices c a n be seen as
representative o f four conceptually distinct approaches to
d e p a r t m e n t a l p l a n n i n g . A first a p p r o a c h seeks to define in
g e n e r a l terms the extent of d e p a r t m e n t a l (that is, of public)
responsibility in a given field. A second a p p r o a c h is the search
for standards to determine levels of service or of investment in
facilities. A third a p p r o a c h is the simple programming of
facilities a c c o r d i n g to some order of priority. T h e fourth
" a p p r o a c h " is n o a p p r o a c h at all save ad hoc decision, a
m e t h o d still characteristic of some departments. W e should
a d d , h o w e v e r , that project planning—that is, specifications
and design—is still necessary, and that its timing is
crucial in the central review and assembly of capital
program.
W e h a v e then three c o n c e p t u a l approaches to long-range
p l a n n i n g proper, involving determinations of (1) respon-
sibility, (2) standards, a n d (3) p r o g r a m m i n g . Distinctions
a m o n g these approaches are not always sharp; w h e t h e r they
are likely to b e depends somewhat upon the field. I n fields
where such sophisticated criteria as benefit-cost analysis
m i g h t b e applied, responsibility, standards, a n d p r o g r a m m i n g
P.M.I.—Β
34 Planning Municipal Investment
would in theory result from application of the criterion. 1
In fields,—for example, recreation and welfare—in which
such a criterion is adjudged unreasonable, the reasonable
procedure then becomes a decision, in order, on extent of
responsibility, standards, and the order of programming. In
this method, departmental responsibility results from what has
been termed a "requirements" approach; that is, a decision
that substantially ignores comparative inter-departmental
or inter-programmatic evaluation. 8 Such evaluation is thus
deferred to the stage of capital budget review, at which stage
it must take place, if only implicitly.
Although the scope, methods, sophistication, and sincerity
of long-range planning have varied widely among the
departments, no department has utilized such quantitative
criteria as benefit-cost or rate-of-return analysis. Almost no
department has taken a formal approach to determination of
(ι) responsibility. Where this has been done the method has
been that of a more-or-less broadly representative committee,
supplemented, however, by top-level administrative and
political judgment. Similarly the question of (2) standards
has generally been answered by tradition and political or
administrative judgment. In fact, it is sometimes difficult to
decide when administrative judgment is sufficiently explicit
to be termed a "standard." Sometimes it is simply a response
(often incomplete or modified) to someone else's standard—
for example, the standards of fire underwriters on the location
and quality of fire-fighting stations and equipment. Some-
times professional activities evolve into something approach-

1 We say "in theory" because in no field is the criterion easy to apply

without including a number of administrative judgments. See M c K e a n ,

Efficiency in Government through Systems Analysis; Eckstein, Water Resources
Development: The Economics of Project Evaluation.
1 Cf. McKean, op. cit.
 The Departments 35
ing standards—for example, in recreation—though such
standards may be seen as the interested preaching of a
pressure group. Standards may be set entirely by the depart-
ment concerned or by a committee representative of function-
al specialists from without as well as within the department.
Few Philadelphia departments have made an explicit
approach to standards. Finally, (3) programming takes
different forms. Departmental programming of capital
facilities has rarely been a committee function, and it has
rarely received extra-departmental attention except for
some instances of Planning Commission advice and
consultation resulting from Commission research and
projections.
It should be added that departments differ, both in-
herently and circumstantially, in the extent to which re-
sponsibilities or standards of service directly relate to capital
facilities. In the case of the Free Library, for example, it is
broadly agreed that its function is to foster—in fact, to
merchandise—reading; and decisions on the type and location
of facilities directly relate to this objective. Similarly for
recreation. T h e r e would seem to be an inherent difference
between, say, the Police Department and the Water Depart-
ment in that the level of service of the latter is much more
dependent upon capital facilities. There would seem to be a
circumstantial difference (in Philadelphia) between, say, the
Water Department and the Public Welfare Department in
that the latter does not today face serious problems of obsoles-
cence and replacement.
T h e examples of departmental planning that follow illus-
trate the approaches just discussed.
Public Health. In Philadelphia, health is a field in which it
has been difficult to define the extent of public responsibility.
Techniques and costs change, as do cultural traditions
bearing on the extent and division of public and private
36 Planning Municipal Investment
burdens. 1 There is a strong eleemosynary tradition in local
medicine; and as a result, Philadelphia has fewer public hospi-
tals and facilities than most other large cities. There is also an
enviable reputation for private medical training and research.
Today both capital and operating costs are rising rapidly in
public health, a trend that provokes demands for both more
public participation and more public cost-consciousness.
The Department of Public Health has for its chief con-
stituency a small but articulate public of functional specialists
federated in the Health and Welfare Council, which attempts
the integration of public and private endeavors and the
surveillance and encouragement of public activities. Other
elements of the environment are the medical profession
(organized in the County Medical Society), those leading and
influential Philadelphias still philanthropically interested in
medical institutions, and the public at large for which public
health is a popular service. Of these three groups the first two
tend to view public health somewhat warily. The problem of
the Department of Public Health has thus been to operate in
ways that would appear complementary rather than com-
petitive to private endeavor, to integrate its program with the
private activities of functional specialists, and to place the
traditional private leadership behind its program. Probably
for these reasons the committee approach to definition of
problems and functions has been a common one.
The principal object of the Department's capital outlay
has been Philadelphia General Hospital. In addition, the

1 "Surveys . . . have aided the Department in arriving at the following

conclusions on which the program is based . . . that the utilization of

the acute hospital facilities . . . will gradually diminish because of
changing concepts in medical practice, a continuing increase in utili-
zation of health and hospital insurance . . ., and the probable reductions
in the length of stay for patients presently being admitted. . . ."
Capital Program 1953-1958 (Philadelphia, 1953), p. 35.
 The Departments 37
City is divided into ten health districts; and the Department
has pressed and gradually programmed a policy of decen-
tralized administration that would provide a health center for
each district. One such center has been completed (in 1952,
at the time present capital programming procedures began),
four more are at once under construction and in partial use,
and three others are scheduled in the 1958 capital program. 1
In 1956 the Mayor appointed a committee "to make a
study and advise as to Philadelphia's proper role in the field
of public medical care of needy persons." 2 Chaired by a
prominent Philadelphia lawyer, for whom it was known as the
"Duane Committee," it consisted of 20 members including
"members of the medical profession, other persons long
experienced in the field, leaders of union labor and of
business and finance, and four of the leaders of the Philadel-
phia City government, including the President of City
Council and the Managing Director." 3 The Committee's
purview did not extend to the entire program of the Health
Department, aspects of which had been covered in the studies
of previous committees. "Medical Care for the Needy" (the
title of the Duane Committee's report) is, however, the
aspect of public health most likely to give rise to capital

1
" T h e need for a health center is determined by the extent and urgency
of the community's health needs, population development and changes,
the type and scope of such services in relation to the need of the people
and the adequacy of existing facilities. Selection of site is determined by
transportation facilities, requirements of the neighborhood, proximity
to hospitals, medical schools and other major health facilities, and by
other factors." Capital Program 1954-1959 (Philadelphia, 1954), p. 40.
This was the first capital program in which a number of health centers
appeared.

* Report of the Policy Committee on Medical Care for the Needy to the Mayor and
City Council (Philadelphia, February 5, 1957), p. 2.
3
Ibid., p. 2.
38 Planning Municipal Investment
facilities. When the Committee reported in 1957, its study
had included a survey of public health in ten other cities.
The report classified "medical care" in six conventional
fields (prevention, rehabilitation, mental illness, tuberculosis,
chronic and acute illnesses), and essayed a broad definition of
public responsibility for each. "The needy" were likewise
broadly defined, and Departmental discretion to extend this
category from time to time was accepted. The City's overall
objectives were declared to be "the prevention of disease, the
cure and alleviation of illness, the promotion of public health,
and the advancement of medical knowledge, all within
reasonable and practical limits." Because of changing
economic circumstances, the report continued, no standard
or generally applicable formula for determining "need for
free care" could be devised—this would have to be fixed by
"community decisions made from time to time in the light
of . . . circumstances and the then state of medical know-
ledge and public opinion on these matters." The report thus
sketched a generous outline of public responsibility, to be
filled in by Departmental judgment.
The Committee emphasized throughout that public and
private medical facilities should be regarded together in
charting a public program; and it proposed to institutionalize
this perspective in an advisory planning board of both public
and private representatives, to which proposals for the
creation of new hospital facilities, public and private, should
be referred. In its recommendations respecting capital pro-
jects the Committee saw the City's function as essentially
supplementary to existing private facilities. It did not
recommend an enlarged public hospital program (except for
minor additions) and urged that the City contract with
voluntary facilities to meet expanded needs. The chief pro-
posals for new facilities were recommendation of a re-
habilitation center, acceptance of the Department's health
 The Departments 39

center program, and an emphasis on keeping Philadelphia

General Hospital up to date.
Given the study and report, the next step for the Health
Department has been to win acceptance for the report from
the administration, that is, from the Mayor, or at least from
the Managing Director (who was, in fact, a member of the
Committee). Such acceptance, in the view of the C o m -
missioner of Public Health, would serve as a City commit-
ment to a capital program embodying the facilities endorsed
in the report. It might be that the report itself, in light of the
City personnel on the Committee, could be construed as
carrying sufficient official endorsement; but the C o m -
missioner, alert to the need for leverage for his program, has
striven for formal acceptance.
As this account is written there has been no such acceptance,
and the 1958-63 Capital Program in fact reduced the number
of new district health centers in the capital program. T h o u g h
the City's commitment to the program is generally assumed
and though formal acceptance of the report might lend
impetus to its programming, even an explicit City decision on
departmental responsibilities and service levels cannot deter-
mine the pace at which health facilities will be programmed
relative to other objects of investment. This outcome suggests
the conclusion that the M a y o r and the overhead administra-
tors resist broad or " p r e m a t u r e " commitments and that the
capital program itself tends to remain a vehicle for annual
policy making.
Recreation. Public health and public recreation are similar
programs in several respects. Both fall essentially in the
" w e l f a r e " category, and the extent of public responsibility in
each is subject to debate. In each case proponents of increased
public responsibilities consider the debate itself a result of
cultural lag and of failure to recognize the consequences of
urbanization. T o some considerable extent the same publics
40 Planning Municipal Investment
are involved in each program, with the Health and Welfare
Council as principal protagonist; and proponents of public
recreation have linked it closely to health. Both programs are
characterized by strong professional organizations. 1
The City's planning for public recreation, however, has
differed importantly from that just described in the field of
health. For one thing, the planning has emphasized standards
(and their physical and fiscal implications) rather more than
the definition of public responsibility; and it is thus representa-
tive of the second type of planning discussed above. In the
second place, the machinery of planning has differed im-
portantly. The Planning Commission has been more directly
involved; and the committee work has drawn less broadly
upon lay members of the community, more directly on
professionals and officials.
The principal capital expenditures of the Recreation
Department go for playgrounds and recreation centers; and
by the standards of most departments, capital costs are large
relative to operating costs. The Department budget also
includes the Fairmount Park Commission, the Zoological
Garden, the Atwater Kent Museum, and the Art Museum.
The 1958 capital budget allocates $ 1 . 2 million to the Re-
creation Department, which is about 4 per cent of the City
funds; in the past the Department has commanded as much
as 10 per cent of the City funds in individual capital
budgets.
Recreation centers and playgrounds are politically among
the most popular of capital items. Councilmen vie for their

1
For discussions of the development of public recreation in the United
States, see Arthur Hillsman, Community Organization and Planning (New
York, 1950) and the references there cited; Martin H . and Esther S.
Neumeyer, Leisure and Recreation (3d ed.; New York, 1958); and Howard
G . Danford, Recreation in the American Community (New York, 1953).
 The Departments 41
location (they are generally spread judiciously through the
Councilman districts), and the Commissioner of Recreation
does not face a difficult time at Council hearings on the
capital budget and program. The Commissioner is a career
man in his field, recruited from a successful career in another
city by the Clark administration. He is a vigorous and person-
able salesman for his program. The topside staff of the Depart-
ment is small but able and is interested in the development of
more sophisticated and persuasive programming. Depart-
mental programming in the past has been largely a matter of
informed administrative judgment, together with some ad-
ministrative responsiveness to neighborhood pressures, gov-
erned by such considerations as population densities and the
present location of recreation centers.
As we have seen, the Department's program is largely a
matter of facilities. The facilities, moreover, are largely a
matter of real property, which brings the Department close to
the center of land use planning in both its utilitarian and
esthetic aspects. For this reason the Planning Commission has
since 1945 maintained an advisory committee on recreation.
T h e fifteen members of the committee largely represent public
agencies—the Planning Commission, Recreation Depart-
ment, FairmountPark Commission, School Board, Redevelop-
ment Authority and the Development Coordinator's office—
but such private groups as the Citizens' Council on City
Planning, the Health and Welfare Council, the Catholic
Youth Organization, and the Philadelphia Recreation Asso-
ciation also have representatives on the committee. In recent
years this committee has played a major role in the location
and scheduling of facilities.
In 1957 a subcommittee of the technical advisory com-
mittee, chaired by a representative of the Health and Welfare
Council and staffed from the Planning Commission, produced
the first stage in a long-range plan for recreation facilities in
42 Planning Municipal Investment
1
Philadelphia. T w o basic considerations appear to have
prompted the study. One was the need of the Planning Com-
mission for standards of recreational land use for inclusion in
the comprehensive plan and of the Commission and Depart-
ment of Recreation for standards for programming. T h e other
was the commitment of many in the Planning Commission to
the idea of a city marked by open space and circumferential
parks and a recognition that, if this were to be achieved, land
should be reserved early and opportunely. The development
of standards for "recreation space" thus became a matter of
urgency on both counts.
Though it was later modified, the subcommittee's study will
be reviewed in some detail here as an illustration of the
application of professional standards and the evolution of land
use standards.
The study begins and concludes with an argument for City
responsibility in recreation. Recreation is a public responsibility
since (a) open space and active play are essential to individual
development in the crowded conditions of city life, and (b)
in such conditions no one but the City can provide the neces-
sary facilities. From these considerations the study draws
some "principles" to govern public recreational policy:
recreational facilities and qualified leadership should be
provided on a city-wide basis; voluntary agencies should
handle special programs designed to meet the particular needs
of particular groups not served publicly; both public and
private efforts should be integrated through a central co-
ordination agency; governmental boundary lines should be

1
Recreation Space Standardsfor Philadelphia: Preliminary Report (Philadelphia
City Planning Commission, 1957). The seven members of the sub-
committee included (besides the chairman) the Commissioner of
Recreation, representatives of the Board of Education, the Development
Coordinator, the Health and Welfare Council, and two staff officials of
the Planning Commission.
 The Departments 43
crossed in the process, and a regional recreational program is
strongly to be recommended. T h e last recommendation is
necessary if the large, circumferential parks envisaged in the
study are to be part of the ultimate picture.
In its effort to provide standards the recreation study is the
most elaborate statement of criteria for public investment yet
produced in Philadelphia. T h e study considers seven types of
general recreation facilities and a number of specialized
facilities. A s guides to site selection it offers considerations of
accessibility, relationships to other facilities, and complemen-
tarity among facilities. A s standards for acquisition (that is,
for space) the study offers the following:

Playgrounds are to serve up to 15,000 people within a

quarter-mile radius, for all types of playgrounds. T h e re-
commendations are derived from study by the staff of the
Planning Commission of use of existing playgrounds in City
areas of different population densities. In addition, and from
the same effort, the study makes recommendations as to
e q u i p m e n t for playgrounds.
Greenways and Small Parks: E a c h of these acquisitions is
aimed at esthetic enhancement of the City, and especially
" t o bring green open space into densely built a r e a s . " Green-
w a y s are to be reserved where public or community facili-
ties are built (they are simply strips of l a n d ) ; small parks
should be developed only in connection with the active play
areas of the neighborhood greenway system, due to the high
maintenance cost of isolated park areas. As a standard, there
should be public park area within 1,000 feet of all homes in
areas of more than 5 5 % building coverage. This program,
that is, is aimed at high-density areas, and there is a more
detailed f o r m u l a provided for the amount of green space
required.
Playfields are to range from eight to twenty acres in size,
and there is to be one for each five or six playgrounds.
W h e r e v e r possible, school grounds should be used.
44 Planning Municipal Investment
District Parks are to provide, in a "natural setting," the
facilities for day camps, hiking, picnics, boating, etc.; that is,
open country on a small scale. T h e y may range from twenty
to ι oo acres in size; they should have approximately a one
mile service radius, though this may be modified by ease or
difficulty of reaching them by public transportation.
Regional Parks and Reservations: Regional parks range from
300 to 2,500 acres; regional reservations consist of 1,000
acres or more. There should be one of the first within 40
minutes' travel time of the majority of the homes in a region;
there should be one of the second within two hours' travel
time of every home in a region. Some proposed land ac-
quisitions are listed.

A c h a p t e r on " S p e c i a l i z e d R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s " identifies

as p u b l i c responsibilities s w i m m i n g pools, museums, zoos and
a q u a r i u m s , trails, libraries (the Free L i b r a r y ' s l o n g - r a n g e plan
is a d o p t e d here), b o a t i n g and marinas, c a m p i n g areas, and
golf. T h e r e is no labored attempt at standards for provision of
a n y of these facilities save for s w i m m i n g pools, w h e r e the
effort is elaborate. Starting w i t h the A m e r i c a n P u b l i c H e a l t h
Association standard of seventeen square feet per user a n d a
staff study showing that, where pools are a v a i l a b l e , a b o u t
3 p e r cent of area population use t h e m d a i l y , the study
calculates a present deficiency of 970,000 square feet w h i c h ,
at a n a v e r a g e 5,500 feet per pool, leaves a shortage of 194
s w i m m i n g pools. Provision of these pools w o u l d m e a n one
pool for each 10,000 population.
A l l o f the standards are then applied to arrive at an a c r e a g e
deficit; a n d for each type of general recreational facility save
the " r e g i o n a l " ones, the same step is taken. I n the end, the
study arrives at a shortage of 2,102 acres for such facilities a n d
r e c o m m e n d s a thirty-year " c a t c h i n g u p " p r o g r a m of site
acquisitions. L a n d acquisition costs for such a p r o g r a m w o u l d
a m o u n t to over $7,000,000 a n n u a l l y ; b u t , it is a r g u e d , the
 The Departments 45
program could be had for significantly less if geared into the
redevelopment program in the form of "non-cash" city
contributions.
In summary, the draft recreation standards study does two
things: (ι) it sets forth broadly and without detailed argument
a position on the scope of City responsibility for recreation;
and (2) it moves from this position to a thirty-year program
via the derivation and application of "standards." In out-
lining the scope of public responsibility the committee could
take official notice of the fact that recreation is an administra-
tively successful and politically popular City activity. It is
fundamentally—but tacitly—from this fact that the "stan-
dards" derive, for they are largely based (so far as the ratio
of services to population is concerned) upon extension of
existing patterns of public use in a reasonably well-developed
program.
The standards and program produced by the committee
were the first stage of the recreation phase of the City's ultimate
comprehensive plan. The next stage was review of this pro-
duct at the top level of the Planning Commission. This
review, together with some negotiation and compromise with
the original committee, resulted in the final, published re-
creation plan. 1 No outside observer can say what con-
siderations governed the review, but it resulted in a number of
changes which may be summarily indicated.
The plan as published omits all discussion of coordination
of Recreation Department activities with related efforts of
other departments, and discussion of the history and objectives
of public recreation is sharply attenuated. In general, both
standards and objectives are more conservative in the public
version: though the standard governing playgrounds and

1
Recreation Plan for Philadelphia (Philadelphia City Planning Commission,
September, 1958).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the poor corpse, and sends a thousand men chosen from
his whole array to attend the last service of woe, and lend
their countenance to the father’s tears, a scant solace for
that mighty sorrow, yet not the less the wretched parent’s
due. Others, nothing slack, plait the framework of a
pliant bier with shoots of arbute and oaken twigs, and
shroud the heaped-up bed with a covering of leaves. 5
Here place they the youth raised high on his rustic litter,
even as a flower cropped by maiden’s finger, be it of delicate
violet or drooping hyacinth, unforsaken as yet of its
sparkling hue and its graceful outline, though its parent
earth no longer feeds it or supplies it with strength. Then 10
brought forth Æneas two garments stiff with gold and purple,
which Dido had wrought for him in other days with
her own hands, delighting in the toil, and had streaked
their webs with threads of gold. Of these the mourner
spreads one over his youthful friend as a last honour, 15
and muffles the locks on which the flame must feed: moreover
he piles in a heap many a spoil from Laurentum’s
fray, and bids the plunder be carried in long procession.
The steeds too and weapons he adds of which he had
stripped the foe. Already had he bound the victims’ 20
hands behind their backs, doomed as a sacrifice to the
dead man’s spirit, soon to spill their blood over the fire:
and now he bids the leaders in person carry tree-trunks
clad with hostile arms, and has the name of an enemy
attached to each. There is Acœtes led along, a lorn old 25
man, marring now his breast with blows, now his face with
laceration, and anon he throws himself at his full length
on the ground. They lead too the car, all spattered
with Rutulian blood. After it the warrior steed, Æthon,
his trappings laid aside, moves weeping, and bathes his 30
visage with big round drops. Others carry the spear and
the helm: for the rest of the harness is Turnus’ prize.
Then follows a mourning army, the Teucrians, and all the
Tuscans, and the sons of Arcady with weapons turned
downward. And now after all the retinue had passed on 35
in long array, Æneas stayed, and groaning deeply uttered
one word more: “We are summoned hence by the same
fearful destiny of war to shed other tears: I bid you hail
forever, mightiest Pallas, and forever farewell.” Saying
this and this only, he turned to the lofty walls again, and
bent his footsteps campward.

And now appeared the ambassadors from the town of

Latium, with the coverings of their olive boughs, entreating 5
an act of grace: the bodies which were lying over the
plains as the steel had mowed them down they pray him
to restore, and suffer them to pass under the mounded
earth: no man wars with the vanquished and with those
who have left the sun: let him show mercy to men once 10
known as his hosts and the fathers of his bride. The good
Æneas hearkens to a prayer that merits no rebuke, grants
them the boon, and withal bespeaks them thus: “What
undeserved ill chance, men of Latium, has entangled you
in a war so terrible and made you fly from us your friends? 15
Ask you peace for the dead, for those on whom the War-god’s
die has fallen? Nay, I would fain grant it to the
living too. I were not here had not fate assigned me a
portion and a home: nor wage I war against your nation:
it was the king that abandoned our alliance, and sought 20
shelter rather under Turnus’ banner. Fairer it had been
that Turnus should have met the death-stroke ye mourn.
If he seeks to end the war by strength of arm and expel the
Trojan enemy, duty bade him confront me with weapons
like mine, and that one should have lived who had earned 25
life from heaven or his own right hand. Now go and
kindle the flame beneath your ill-starred townsmen.”
Æneas’ speech was over: they stood in silent wonder, their
eyes and countenances steadfastly fixed on each other.
Then Drances, elder in birth, ever embroiled with the 30
youthful Turnus by hatred and taunting word, thus speaks
in reply: “O mighty in fame’s voice, mightier in your own
brave deeds, hero of Troy, what praise shall I utter to
match you with the stars? Shall I first admire your sacred
love of right, or the toils of your hand in war? Ours it 35
shall be gratefully to report your answer to our native
town, and should any favouring chance allow, make you
the friend of king Latinus. Let Turnus look for alliance
where he may. Nay, it will be our pride to uprear those
massive walls of destiny, and heave on our shoulders the
stones of your new Troy.” He spoke, and the rest all
murmured assent. For twelve days they make truce, and
with amity to mediate, Trojans and Latians mingled roam 5
through the forest on the mountain slopes unharming and
unharmed. The lofty ash rings with the two-edged steel:
they bring low pines erst uplifted to the sky, nor is there
pause in cleaving with wedges the oak and fragrant cedar,
or in carrying ashen trunks in the groaning wains. 10

And now flying Fame, the harbinger of that cruel agony,

is filling with her tidings the ears of Evander, his palace and
his city—Fame that but few hours back was proclaiming
Pallas the conqueror of Latium. Forth stream the Arcadians
to the gates, with funeral torches in ancient fashion, 15
snatched up hurriedly; the road gleams with the long
line of fire, which parts the breath of fields on either hand.
To meet them comes the train of Phrygians, and joins the
wailing company. Soon as the matrons saw them pass
under the shadow of the houses, they set the mourning city 20
ablaze with their shrieks. But Evander—no force can
hold him back; he rushes into the midst: there as they
lay down the bier he has flung himself upon Pallas, and is
clinging to him with tears and groans, till choking grief
at last lets speech find her way: “No, my Pallas! this was 25
not your promise to your sire, to trust yourself with caution
in the War-god’s savage hands. I knew what a spell
there lay in the young dawn of a soldier’s glory, the enrapturing
pride of the first day of battle. Alas for the
ill-starred first-fruits of youth, the cruel foretaste of the 30
coming war! alas for those my vows and prayers, that
found no audience with any of the gods! alas too for thee,
my blessed spouse, happy as thou art in the death that
spared thee not for this heavy sorrow! while I, living on,
have triumphed over my destiny, that I might survive in 35
solitary fatherhood. Had I but followed the friendly
standards of Troy, and fallen whelmed by Rutulian javelins!
had I rendered my own life up, so that this funeral
train should have borne me home, and not my Pallas!
Nor yet would I blame you, men of Troy, nor the treaty
we made, nor the hands we plighted in friendship; it is
but the portion ordained long ago as fitting for my gray
hairs. If it was written that my son should die ere his 5
time, it shall be well that he fell after slaying his Volscian
thousands, while leading a Teucrian army to the gates of
Latium. Nay, my Pallas, I would wish for you no
worthier funeral than that accorded to you by Æneas
the good and his noble Phrygians, by the Tyrrhene leaders, 10
and the whole Tyrrhene host. Each bears you a mighty
trophy whom your right hand sends down to death. And
you, too, proud Turnus, would be standing at this moment,
a giant trunk hung round with armour, had your age been
but as his, the vigour of your years the same. But why 15
should misery like mine hold back the Teucrians from the
battle? Go, and remember to bear my message to your
king. If I still drag the wheels of my hated life now my
Pallas is slain, it is because of your right hand, which owes
the debt of Turnus’ life to son and sire, yourself being witness. 20
This is the one remaining niche for your valour and
your fortune to fill. I ask not for triumph to gild my life:
that thought were crime: I ask but for tidings that I
may bear to my son down in the spectral world.”

Meantime the Goddess of Dawn had lifted on high her 25

kindly light for suffering mortality, recalling them to task
and toil. Already father Æneas, already Tarchon, have
set up their funeral piles along the winding shore. Hither
each man brings the body of friend or kinsman as the rites
of his sires command; and as the murky flames are applied 30
below, darkness veils the heights of heaven in gloom.
Thrice they ran their courses round the lighted pyres,
sheathed in shining armour; thrice they circled on their
steeds the mournful funeral flame, and uttered the voice
of wailing. Sprinkled is the earth with their tears, 35
sprinkled is the harness. Upsoars to heaven at once the
shout of warriors and the blare of trumpets. Others
fling upon the fire plunder torn from the Latian slain,
helms and shapely swords and bridle-reins and glowing
wheels; some bring in offering the things the dead men
wore, their own shields and the weapons that sped so ill.
Many carcases of oxen are sacrificed round the piles:
bristly swine and cattle harried from the country round are 5
made to bleed into the flame. Then along the whole line
of coast they gaze on their burning friends, and keep
sentry over the half-quenched fire-bed, nor let themselves
be torn away till dewy night rolls round the sky with its
garniture of blazing stars. 10

With like zeal the ill-starred Latians in a different quarter

set up countless piles; of the multitude of corpses
some they bury in the earth, some they lift up and carry
off to neighbour districts, and send them home to the city;
the rest, a mighty mass of promiscuous carnage, they burn 15
uncounted and unhonoured; and thereon the plains
through their length and breadth gleam with the thickening
rivalry of funeral fires. The third morrow had withdrawn
the chill shadows from the sky: the mourners were
levelling the piles of ashes and sweeping the mingled bones 20
from the hearths, and heaping over them mounds of earth
where the heat yet lingers. But within the walls, in the
city of Latium’s wealthy king, the wailing is preëminent,
and largest the portion of that long agony. Here are
mothers and their sons’ wretched brides, here are sisters’ 25
bosoms racked with sorrow and love, and children orphaned
of their parents, calling down curses on the terrible
war and on Turnus’ bridal rites; he, he himself, they cry,
should try the issue with arms and the cold steel, who
claims for himself the Italian crown and the honours of 30
sovereignty. Fell Drances casts his weight into the scale,
and bears witness that Turnus alone is challenged by the
foe, Turnus alone defied to combat. Against them many
a judgment is ranged in various phrase on Turnus’ side,
and the queen’s august name lends him its shadow; many 35
an applauding voice upholds the warrior by help of the
trophies he has won.

Amid all this ferment, when the blaze of popular turmoil

is at its height, see, as a crowning blow, comes back the
sorrowing embassy with tidings from Diomede’s mighty
town: the cost of all their labours has gained them nought:
gifts and gold and earnest prayers are alike in vain: the
Latians must look for arms elsewhere, or sue for peace 5
from the Trojan chief. King Latinus himself is crushed
to earth by the weight of agony. The wrath of the gods,
the fresh-made graves before his eyes, tell him plainly that
Æneas is the man of destiny, borne on by heaven’s manifest
will. So he summons by royal mandate a mighty 10
council, the chiefs of his nation, and gathers them within
his lofty doors. They have mustered from all sides, and
are streaming to the palace through the crowded streets.
In the midst Latinus takes his seat, at once eldest in years
and first in kingly state, with a brow that knows not joy. 15
Hereupon he bids the envoys returned from the Ætolian
town to report the answers they bear, and bids them repeat
each point in order. Silence is proclaimed, and Venulus,
obeying the mandate, begins to speak:

“Townsmen, we have looked on Diomede and his Argive 20

encampment: the journey is overpast, and every chance
surmounted, and we have touched the hand by which the
realm of Ilion fell. We found him raising his city of Argyripa,
the namesake of his ancestral people, in the land of
Iapygian Garganus which his sword had won. Soon as 25
the presence was gained and liberty of speech accorded, we
proffer our gifts, inform him of our name and country,
who is our invader, and what cause has led us to Arpi.[275]
He listened, and returned as follows with untroubled mien:
‘O children of fortune, subjects of Saturn’s reign, men of 30
old Ausonia, what caprice of chance disturbs you in your
repose, and bids you provoke a war ye know not? Know
that all of us, whose steel profaned the sanctity of Ilion’s
soil—I pass the hardships of war, drained to the dregs
under those lofty ramparts, the brave hearts which that 35
fatal Simois covers—yea, all of us the wide world over
have paid the dues of our trespass in agonies unutterable,
a company that might have wrung pity even from Priam:
witness Minerva’s baleful star, and the crags of Eubœa,
and Caphereus the avenger. Discharged from that warfare,
wandering outcasts on diverse shores, Menelaus,
Atreus’ son, is journeying in banishment even to the pillars
of Proteus[276]; Ulysses has looked upon Ætna and her Cyclop 5
brood. Need I tell of Neoptolemus’ portioned realms,
of Idomeneus’ dismantled home, of Locrian settlers on
a Libyan coast? Even the monarch[277] of Mycenæ, the
leader of the great Grecian name, met death on his very
threshold at the hand of his atrocious spouse; Asia fell 10
before him, but the adulterer rose in her room. Cruel gods,
that would not have me restored to the hearth-fires of my
home, to see once more the wife of my longing and my own
fair Calydon! Nay, even my flight is dogged by portents
of dreadful view; my comrades torn from me are winging 15
the air and haunting the stream as birds—alas that the
followers of my fortunes should suffer so!—and making
the rocks ring with the shrieks of their sorrow. Such was
the fate I had to look for even from that day when with
my frantic steel I assailed the flesh of immortals, and impiously 20
wounded Venus’ sacred hand. Nay, nay, urge
me no longer to a war like this. Since Pergamus fell, my
fightings with Troy are ended; I have no thought, no joy,
for the evils of the past. As for the gifts which you bring
me from your home, carry them rather to Æneas. I tell 25
you, I have stood against the fury of his weapon, and joined
hand to hand with him in battle; trust one who knows
how strong is his onset as he rises on the shield, how
fierce the whirlwind of his hurtling lance. Had Ida’s
soil borne but two other so valiant, Dardanus would have 30
marched in his turn to the gates of Inachus, and the tears
of Greece would be flowing for a destiny reversed. All
those years of lingering at the walls of stubborn Troy, it
was Hector’s and Æneas’ hand that clogged the wheels of
Grecian victory, and delayed her coming till the tenth 35
campaign had begun. High in courage were both, high
in the glory of martial prowess; but piety gave him the
preëminence. Join hand to hand in treaty, if so you may;
but see that your arms bide not the shock of his.’ Thus,
gracious sire, have you heard at once the king’s reply,
and the judgment he passed on this our mighty war.”

The envoys had scarcely finished when a diverse murmur

runs along the quivering lips of the sons of Ausonia, as, 5
when rapid streams are checked by rocks in their course,
confused sounds rise from the imprisoned torrent, and
neighbouring banks reëcho with the babbling of the waves.
Soon as their passions were allayed, and their chafed countenances
settled in calm, the monarch, first invoking 10
heaven, begins from his lofty throne:

“To have taken your judgment, Latians, ere this on the

state of the common-weal, would have been my pleasure,
and our truer interest, rather than summon a council at a
crisis like this, when the foe has sat down before our walls. 15
A grievous war, my countrymen, we are waging with the
seed of heaven, a nation unsubdued, whom no battles
overtire, nor even in defeat can they be made to drop the
sword. For any hope ye have cherished in the alliance of
Ætolian arms, resign it forever. Each is his own hope; 20
and how slender is this ye may see for yourselves. As
to all beside, with what utter ruin it is stricken is palpable
to the sight of your eyes, to the touch of your hands. I
throw the blame on none: manly worth has done the utmost
it could: all the sinews of the realm have been strained 25
in the contest. Now then I will set forth what is the judgment
of my wavering mind, and show you it in few words,
if ye will lend me your attention. There is an ancient
territory of mine bordering on the Tuscan river, extending
lengthwise to the west, even beyond the Sicanian frontier; 30
Auruncans and Rutulians are its tillers, subduing with the
ploughshare its stubborn hills, and pasturing their flocks
on the rugged slopes. Let this whole district, with the
lofty mountain and its belt of pines, be our friendly gift
to the Teucrians; let us name equal terms of alliance, and 35
invite them to share our kingdom; let them settle here, if
their passion is so strong, and build them a city. But if
they have a mind to compass other lands and another
nation, and are free to quit our soil, let us build twenty ships
of Italian timber, or more if they have men to fill them:
there is the wood ready felled by the river side; let themselves
prescribe the size and the number; let us provide
brass, and hands, and naval trim. Moreover, to convey 5
our proffers and ratify the league, I would have an embassy
of a hundred Latians of the first rank sent with peaceful
branches in their hands, carrying also presents, gold and
ivory, each a talent’s weight, and the chair and striped
robe that are badges of our royalty. Give free counsel 10
and help to support a fainting commonwealth.”

Then Drances, hostile as ever, whom the martial fame

of Turnus was ever goading with the bitter stings of sidelong
envy, rich, and prodigal of his riches, a doughty
warrior with the tongue, but a feeble hand in the heat of 15
battle, esteemed no mean adviser in debate, and powerful
in the arts of faction: his mother’s noble blood made proud
a lineage which on his father’s side was counted obscure:—he
rises, and with words like these piles and heaps anger
high: 20

“A matter obscure to none, and needing no voice of ours

to make it plain is this that you propound, gracious king.
All own that they know what is the bearing of the state’s
fortune; but their tongues can only mutter. Let him
accord freedom of speech, and bate his angry blasts, to 25
whose ill-omened leadership and inauspicious temper—aye,
I will speak, let him threaten me with duel and death
as he may—we owe it that so many of our army’s stars
have set before our eyes, and the whole city is sunk in
mourning, while he is making his essay of the Trojan camp, 30
with flight always in reserve, and scaring heaven with the
din of his arms. One gift there is over and above that
long catalogue which you would have us send and promise
to the Dardans: add but this to them, most excellent
sovereign, nor let any man’s violence prevent you from 35
bestowing your daughter in the fulness of a father’s right
on a noble son-in-law and a worthy alliance, and basing
the peace we seek on a covenant which shall last forever.
Nay, if the reign of terror is so absolute over our minds
and hearts, let us go straight to him with our adjurations
and ask for grace at his own hands—ask him to yield, and
allow king and country to exercise their rights. Why
fling your wretched countrymen again and again into 5
danger’s throat, you, the head and wellspring of the ills
which Latium has to bear? There is no hope from war;
peace we ask of you, one and all—yes, Turnus, peace,
and the one surety that can make peace sacred. See,
first of all I, whom you give out to be your enemy—and 10
I care not though I be—come and throw myself at your
feet. Pity those of your own kin, bring down your
pride, and retire as beaten man should. Routed we are;
we have looked on corpses enough, and have left leagues
enough of land unpeopled. Or if glory stirs you, if you 15
can call up into your breast the courage needed, if the
dowry of a palace lies so near your heart, be bold for once,
and advance with bosom manned to meet the foe. What!
that Turnus may have the blessing of a queenly bride, are
we, poor paltry lives, a herd unburied and unwept, to lie 20
weltering on the plain? It is your turn: if you have any
strength, any touch of the War-god of your sires, look him
in the face who sends you his challenge.”

At these words Turnus’ violence blazed out: heaving a

groan, he vents from the bottom of his heart such utterance 25
as this: “Copious, Drances, ever is your stream of
speech in the hour when war is calling for hands; when the
senate is summoned, you are first in the field. Yet we
want not men to fill our court with talk, that big talk
which you hurl from a safe vantage-ground, while the rampart 30
keeps off the foe and the moat is not foaming with
carnage. Go on pealing your eloquence, as your wont is:
let Drances brand Turnus with cowardice, for it is Drances’
hand that has piled those very heaps of Teucrian slaughter,
and is planting the fields all over with its trophies. What 35
is the power of glowing valour, experience may show
you: enemies in sooth are not far to seek: they are standing
all about the walls. Well, are we marching to the
encounter? why so slow? will you never lodge the War-god
better than in that windy tongue, those flying feet?
What? beaten? I? who, foulest of slanderers, will justly
brand me as beaten, that shall look on Tiber still swelling
with Ilion’s best blood, on Evander’s whole house prostrate 5
root and branch, and his Arcadians stripped naked of their
armour? It was no beaten arm that Bitias and giant
Pandarus found in me, or the thousand that I sent to
death in a single day with my conquering hand, shut up
within their walls, pent in by the rampart of the foe. No 10
hope from war? Croak your bodings, madman, in the
ears of the Dardan and of your own fortunes. Ay, go
on without cease, throwing all into measureless panic,
heightening the prowess of a nation twice conquered already,
and dwarfing no less the arms of your king. See, 15
now the lords of the Myrmidons[278] are quaking at the martial
deeds of Phrygia, Tydeus’ son, Thessalian Achilles,
and the rest, and river Aufidus is in full retreat from the
Hadrian sea. Or listen when the trickster in his villany
feigns himself too weak to face a quarrel with me, and 20
points his charges with the sting of terror. Never, I
promise you, shall you lose such life as yours by hand of
mine—be troubled no longer—let it dwell with you and
retain its home in that congenial breast. Now, gracious
sire, I return to you and the august matter that asks our 25
counsel. If you have no hope beyond in aught our arms
can do, if we are so wholly forlorn, destroyed root and
branch by one reverse, and our star can never rise again,
then pray we for peace and stretch craven hands in suppliance.
Yet, oh, had we but one spark of the worth that 30
once was ours, that man I would esteem blest beyond
others in his service and princely of soul, who, sooner than
look on aught like this, has lain down in death and once
for all bitten the dust. But if we have still store of power,
and a harvest of youth yet unreaped, if there are cities 35
and nations of Italy yet to come to our aid, if the Trojans
as well as we have won their glory at much bloodshed’s
cost—for they too have their deaths—the hurricane has
swept over all alike—why do we merely falter on the
threshold? why are we seized with shivering ere the
trumpet blows? Many a man’s weal has been restored
by time and the changeful struggles of shifting days: many
a man has Fortune, fair and foul by turns, made her sport 5
and then once more placed on a rock. Grant that we shall
have no help from the Ætolian and his Arpi: but we shall
from Messapus, and the blest Tolumnius, and all the
leaders that those many nations have sent us; nor small
shall be the glory which will wait on the flower of Latium 10
and the Laurentine land. Ay, and we have Camilla,[279] of
the noble Volscian race, with a band of horsemen at her
back and troops gleaming with brass. If it is I alone that
the Teucrians challenge to the fight, and such is your will,
and my life is indeed the standing obstacle to the good of 15
all, Victory has not heretofore fled with such loathing from
my hands that I should refuse to make my venture for a
hope so glorious. No, I will confront him boldly, though he
should prove great as Achilles, and don harness like his, the
work of Vulcan’s art. To you and to my royal father-in-law 20
have I here devoted this my life, I, Turnus, second in
valour to none that went before me. ‘For me alone Æneas
calls.’ Vouchsafe that he may so call! nor let Drances
in my stead, if the issue be Heaven’s vengeance, forfeit
his life, or, if it be prowess and glory, bear that prize 25
away!”

So were these contending over matters of doubtful debate:

Æneas was moving his army from camp to field.
See, there runs a messenger from end to end of the palace
amid wild confusion, and fills the town with a mighty 30
terror, how that in marching array the Trojans and the
Tuscan force are sweeping down from Tiber’s stream
over all the plain. In an instant the minds of the people
are confounded, their bosoms shaken to the core, their
passions goaded by no gentle stings. They clutch at arms, 35
clamour for arms: arms are the young men’s cry: the
weeping fathers moan and mutter. And now a mighty
din, blended of discordant voices, soars up to the skies,
even as when haply flocks of birds have settled down in a
lofty grove, or on the fishy stream of Padusa hoarse swans
make a noise along the babbling waters, “Ay, good citizens,”
cries Turnus, seizing on his moment, “assemble
your council and sit praising peace; they are rushing on 5
the realm sword in hand.” Without further speech he
dashed away and issued swiftly from the lofty gate.
“You, Volusus,” he cries, “bid the Volscian squadrons arm,
and lead out the Rutulians. You, Messapus, and you,
Coras[280] and your brother, spread the horse in battle array 10
over the breadth of the plain. Let some guard the inlets
of the city and man the towers; the rest attack with me in
the quarter for which I give the word.” At once there is
a rush to the ramparts from every part of the city: king
Latinus leaves the council and the high debate unfinished, 15
and wildered with the unhappy time, adjourns to another
day, ofttimes blaming himself that he welcomed not with
open arms Æneas the Dardan, and bestowed on the city
a husband for the daughter of Latium. Others dig
trenches before the gates or shoulder stones and stakes. 20
The hoarse trumpet gives its deathful warning for battle.
The walls are hemmed by a motley ring of matrons and
boys: the call of the last struggle rings in each one’s ear.
Moreover the queen among a vast train of Latian mothers
is drawn to the temple, even to Pallas’ tower on the height, 25
with presents in her hand, and at her side the maid Lavinia,
cause of this cruel woe, her beauteous eyes cast down.
The matrons enter the temple and make it steam with
incense, and pour from the august threshold their plaints
of sorrow: “Lady of arms, mistress of the war, Tritonian[o] 30
maiden, stretch forth thy hand and break the spear of the
Phrygian freebooter, lay him prostrate on the ground,
and leave him to grovel under our lofty portals.” Turnus
with emulous fury arms himself for the battle. And now
he has donned his ruddy corslet, and is bristling with 35
brazen scales; his calves have been sheathed in gold, his
temples yet bare, and his sword had been girded to his
side, and he shines as he runs all golden from the steep
of the citadel, bounding high with courage, and in hope
already forestalls the foe: even as when a horse, bursting
his tether, escapes from the stall, free at last and master
of the open champaign,[281] either wends where the herds of
mares pasture, or wont to bathe in the well-known river 5
darts forth and neighs with head tossed on high in wanton
frolic, while his mane plays loosely about neck and shoulders.
His path Camilla crosses, a Volscian army at her
back, and dismounts from her horse at the gate with
queenly gesture; the whole band follow her lead, quit 10
their horses, and alight to earth, while she bespeaks him
thus: “Turnus, if the brave may feel faith in themselves,
I promise boldly to confront the cavalry of Troy and
singly ride to meet the Tyrrhene horse. Let me essay
the first hazard of the combat; do you on foot remain by 15
the walls and be the city’s guard.” Turnus replies, gazing
steadfastly on the dreadful maid: “O maiden, glory
of Italy, what thanks shall I strive to speak or render?
but seeing that soul of yours soars above all, partake the
toil with me. Æneas, as rumour and missioned spies tell 20
me for truth, has cunningly sent on his light-armed cavalry
to scour the plain, while he, surmounting the lonely
steeps of the hill, is marching townward. I meditate a
stratagem of war in that woodland gorge, to beset the
narrow thoroughfare with an armed band. Do you in 25
battle array receive the Tuscan horse. With you will
be keen Messapus, and the Latian cavalry, and Tiburtus’
troop: take your share of a general’s charge.” This said,
he exhorts Messapus and the federate leaders with like
words to the fight, and advances to meet the enemy. 30
A glen there is, narrow and winding, suited for ambush
and stratagems of arms, pent in on both sides by a mountain-wall
black with dense foliage; a scant pathway leads
to it, with straitened gorge and jealous inlet. Above it
on the mountain’s watch-tower height lies a concealed 35
table-land, a post of sheltered privacy, whether one be
minded to face the battle right and left, or, standing on
the slope, to roll down enormous stones. Hither repairs
the warrior along the well-known road: he has occupied
the spot and sat him down in the treacherous forest.

Meantime, in the mansions above Latona’s daughter

was addressing Opis the swift, a maiden comrade of her
sacred train, and was uttering these words in tones of 5
sorrow: “Ah, maiden, Camilla is on her way to the ruthless
war; in vain she girds herself with the arms of our
sisterhood, dear to me that she is beyond all beside: for
no new tenderness this that has come on Diana, nor sudden
the spell wherewith it stirs her heart. When Metabus, 10
exiled for the hate which tyranny genders, was parting
from Privernum, his ancient city, as he fled from the heart
of the combat, he bore away his infant child to share his
banishment, and varying Casmilla, her mother’s name,
called her Camilla. The father, carrying her in his bosom, 15
was making for the long mountain slopes of the solitary
woods, while bitter javelins were showering all around him,
and the Volscians with circling soldiery hovering about:
when lo! intercepting his flight was Amasenus, brimming
and foaming over its banks, so vast a deluge of rain had 20
burst from the clouds. Preparing to plunge in, he is
checked by tenderness for his child, and fears for the precious
load. At last, as he pondered over every course,
he hit suddenly on this resolve. There was a huge weapon,
which he chanced to be carrying in his stalwart hand 25
as warriors use, sturdy with knots and seasoned timber:
to it he fastens his daughter, enclosed in the cork-tree’s
forest bark, and binds her neatly round the middle
of the shaft; then, poising it in a giant’s grasp, he thus
exclaims to heaven: ‘Gracious lady, dweller in the woods, 30
Latona’s maiden daughter, I vow to thy service this my
child: thine are the first weapons that she wields as she
flies from the foe through air to thy protection. Receive,
I conjure thee, as thine own her whom I now entrust to the
uncertain gale.’ He said, and, drawing back his arm, 35
hurled the javelin: loud roared the waves, while over the
furious stream fled poor Camilla on the hurtling dart.
But Metabus, pressed closer and closer by the numerous
band, leaps into the river, and in triumph plucks from the
grassy bank his offering to Trivia, the javelin and the maid.
No cities opened to him house or stronghold, for his wild
nature had never brooked submission: among the shepherds’
lonely mountains he passed his days. There in the 5
woods, among beasts’ savage lairs, he reared his daughter
on milk from the breast of an untamed mare, squeezing
the udder into her tender lips. And soon as the child
first stood on her feet, he armed her hands with a pointed
javelin, and hung from her baby shoulder a quiver and a 10
bow. For the golden brooch in her hair, for the long
sweeping mantle, there hang from her head adown her
back a tiger’s spoils. Even then she launched with tiny
hand her childish missiles, swung round her head the sling’s
well-turned thong, and brought down a crane from Strymon 15
or a snow-white swan. Many a mother in Tyrrhene
town has wooed her for her son in vain: with no thought
but for Dian, she cherishes in unsullied purity her love for
the hunter’s and the maiden’s life. Would she had never
been pressed for warfare like this, essaying to strike a blow 20
at the Teucrians: so had she still been my darling and a
sister of my train. But come, since cruel destiny is darkening
round her, glide down, fair nymph, from the sky,
and repair to the Latian frontier, where now in an evil hour
the tearful battle is joining. Take these arms, and draw 25
from the quiver an avenging shaft: therewith let the foe,
whoever he be, Trojan or Italian, that shall profane with
the stroke of death that sacred person, make to me in like
manner the atonement of his blood. Afterwards in the
hollow of a cloud I will bear off the body of my lost favourite 30
undespoiled of its arms, and lay her down in her
own land.” Thus she: and Opis hurtled downward through
the buoyant air, a black whirlwind enswathing her form.

But the Trojan band meanwhile is nearing the walls

with the Etruscan chiefs and the whole array of cavalry, 35
marshalled into companies. Steeds are prancing and
neighing the whole champaign over, and chafing against
the drawn bridle as they face hither and thither: the field,
all iron, bristles far and wide with spears, and the plains
are ablaze with arms reared on high. Likewise Messapus
on the other side and the swift-paced Latians, and Coras
and his brother, and maid Camilla’s force appear in the
plain against them, couching the lance in their backdrawn 5
hands and brandishing the javelin: and the onset of warriors
and the neighing of steeds begin to wax hot. And
now each army had halted within a spear-throw of the
other: with a sudden shout they dash forward, and put
spurs to their fiery steeds: missiles are showered from all 10
sides in a moment, thick as snow-flakes, and heaven is
curtained with the shade. Instantly Tyrrhenus and fierce
Aconteus charge each other spear in hand, and foremost
of all crash together with sound as of thunder, so that the
chest of either steed is burst against his fellow’s; Aconteus, 15
flung off like the levinbolt or a stone hurled from an engine,
tumbles headlong in the distance, and scatters his life in
air. At once the line of battle is broken, and the Latians,
turned to flight, sling their shields behind them and set
their horses’ heads cityward. The Trojans give them 20
chase: Asilas in the van leads their bands. And now
they were nearing the gates, when the Latians in turn set
up a shout, and turn their chargers’ limber necks; the
others fly, and retreat far away at full speed. As when
the sea, advancing with its tide that ebbs and flows, one 25
while sweeps towards the land, deluges the rocks with a
shower of spray, and sprinkles the sandy margin with the
contents of its bosom, one while flees in hasty retreat,
dragging back into the gulf the recaptured stones, and
with ebbing waters leaves the shore. Twice the Tuscans 30
drove the Rutulians in rout to their walls; twice, repulsed,
they look behind as they sling their shields backward.
But when in the shock of a third encounter the entire
armies grapple each other, and man has singled out man,
then in truth upsoar the groans of the dying, and arms and 35
bodies and death-stricken horses blended with human
carnage welter in pools of gore: and a savage combat is
aroused. Orsilochus hurls a spear at Remulus’ horse—for
the rider he feared to encounter—and leaves the steel
lodged under the ear. Maddened by the blow, the beast
rears erect, and, uplifting its breast, flings its legs on high
in the uncontrolled agony of the wound: Remulus unseated
rolls on earth, Catillus dismounts Iollas, and likewise 5
Herminius, giant in courage, and giant too in stature
and girth: his bare head streams with yellow locks, and
his shoulders also are bare: wounds have no terrors for
him, so vast the surface he offers to the weapon. Through
his broad shoulders comes the quivering spear, and bows 10
the impaled hero double with anguish. Black streams
of gore gush on all sides: the combatants spread slaughter
with the steel, and rush on glorious death through a storm
of wounds.

But Camilla, with a quiver at her back, and one breast 15

put forth for the combat, leaps for joy like an Amazon in
the midst of carnage: now she scatters thick volleys of
quivering javelins, now her arm whirls unwearied the
massy two-edged axe: while from her shoulder sounds the
golden bow, the artillery of Dian. Nay, if ever she be 20
beaten back and retreating rearward, she turns her bow
and aims shafts in her flight. Around her are her chosen
comrades, maid Larina, and Tulla, and Tarpeia, wielding
the brazen-helved hatchet, daughters of Italy, whom
glorious Camilla herself chose to be her joy and pride, able 25
to deal alike with peace and war: even as the Amazons
of Thrace when they thunder over the streams of Thermōdon
and battle with her blazoned arms, encompassing
Hippolyte, or when Penthesilea, the War-god’s darling,
is careering to and fro in her chariot, and the woman 30
army, amid a hubbub of shrill cries, are leaping in ecstasy
and shaking their moony shields. Who first, who last,
fierce maiden, is unhorsed by your dart? How many stalwart
bodies lay you low in death? The first was Eunēus,
Clytius’ son, whose unguarded breast as he stood fronting 35
her she pierces with her long pine-wood spear. Down he
goes, disgorging streams of blood, closes his teeth on the
gory soil, and dying writhes upon his wound. Then
Liris, and Pagasus on his body: while that, flung from
his stabbed charger, is gathering up the reins, and this is
coming to the rescue and stretching his unarmed hand to
his falling comrade, they are overthrown in one headlong
ruin. To these she adds Amastrus, son of Hippotas: 5
then, pressing on the rout, pursues with her spear-throw
Tereus, and Harpalycus, and Demophoon, and Chromis:
for every dart she launched from her maiden hand there
fell a Phrygian warrior. In the distance rides Ornytus
accoutred strangely in hunter fashion on an Iapygian 10
steed: a hide stripped from a bullock swathes his broad
shoulders in the combat, his head is sheltered by a wolf’s
huge grinning mouth and jaws with the white teeth projecting,
and a rustic pike arms his hand: he goes whirling
through the ranks, his whole head overtopping them. 15
Him she catches, an easy task when the hosts are entangled
in rout, pierces him through, and thus bespeaks the
fallen in the fierceness of her spirit: “Tuscan, you thought
yourself still chasing beasts in the forest, but the day is
come which shall refute the vaunts of your nation by a 20
woman’s weapons. Yet no slight glory shall you carry
down to your fathers’ shades, that you have fallen by the
dart of Camilla.” Next follow Orsilochus and Butes, two
of the hugest frames of Troy: Butes she speared behind
’twixt corslet and helm, where the sitter’s neck is seen 25
gleaming, and the shield is hanging from the left arm:
Orsilochus, as she pretends to fly and wheels round in a
mighty ring, she baffles by ever circling inwards, and chases
him that chases her: at last, rising to the stroke, she brings
down on the wretch again and again, spite of all his prayers, 30
her massy battle-axe that rives armour and bone: the
brain spouts over the face through the ghastly wound.
Now there stumbles upon her, and pauses in terror at the
sudden apparition, the warrior son of Aunus, dweller on
the Apennine, not the meanest of Liguria’s children while 35
Fate prospered his trickery. He, when he sees no speed
of flight can escape the combat, or avoid the onset of the
dreadful queen, essaying to gain his base end by policy
and stratagem, thus begins: “What great glory is it