Maybe it's a Philly thing I'll never understand, but what's with all the overwrought affection for The Spectrum? I know it was the setting for a lot of sports and music memories, but, really, the place itself was totally generic. Those experiences were about the games and the acts, not the edifice. I saw the Grateful Dead at the Spectrum and, on the inside with the lights down, it pretty much felt like seeing the Grateful Dead at Madison Square Garden. Sticky floors, cramped seats, asshole staff (at least I thought so then), poor acoustics. No great architectural achievement, and located in the middle of a sea of asphalt. We're not talking Winterland Ballroom here.
An article by Bill Lyon in last Sunday's paper, "Long goodbye to proud Spectrum nears end," left me shaking my head. Lyons talked about The Spectrum hosting everything from circuses to Frank Sinatra to indoor football. "Imagine that, all that, under one roof. What a concept. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant." Is it brilliant, really? Didn't every Spectrum-like venue in every city in America host the same line-up?
Speaking of the bleak setting, he thinks it's great that "to see the Eagles, the Phillies, the Flyers, and the 76ers you need do nothing more than simply walk across the street." That's an awful lot of games to see, one right after the other! Who cares that they're all next to each other if you're heading down to South Philly one event at a time? It would be better if this city had taken Jane Jacob's advice about spreading out cultural assets, rather than creating ghettos for entertainment and the arts.
The Spectrum will be replaced by Philly Live, planned as a way to turn the area into a mixed-use zone with retail, dining, etc. If it's ever built (it was recently announced that the grand plans have been scaled back), I won't be one of the visitors missing The Spectrum.
