Using data collected from an online survey and energy audits, the thesis has numerous findings. First, electricity consumption, as measured by individual energy audits, is dominated by the refrigerator making up over a majority of total electricity consumed. Wasted electricity is minimal making up only 1% of total electricity. Additionally, survey respondents indicated that students were willing to support sustainable initiatives on campus. Lastly, according to survey results, the initiatives that could be most effective in lowering electricity use require the individual metering of rooms to track consumption. Several of the suggested techniques to lower energy consumption include: 1) encourage the use of or provide energy efficient refrigerators, 2) highlight preexisting university initiatives, 3) start educational campaigns for students on energy conservation, 4) facilitate energy conservation through subsidies, and 5) improve the design of the rooms to ensure energy conservation. By implementing some or all of these techniques, it is likely there will be a reduction of electricity in student housing.

I begin by discussing the theory behind walls and boundaries, then applying this theory to the urban environment and then to town-gown relations, finally applying these theories to the case of Penn and West Philadelphia.

In order to fully understand the walls that stand between campus and community, I look at the history of town-gown relations—both nationally and at Penn, dividing up the history into three phases: first, the nineteenth century, during which the “Ivory Tower” relationship of division first began; next, the post-World War II era, when race and class issues became relevant in campus-community relations, as relations became increasingly divided and turbulent; and finally, the post-cold war era that has lasted until the present day, during which the importance of knocking down barriers between institutions and communities has been emphasized.

After this theoretical and historical background, I will begin to look more specifically at the current walls between Penn and West Philadelphia. I conducted a series of focus groups to define and analyze these walls. I asked 32 undergraduate students to answer a series of questions about their perceptions of and relationship with West

Philadelphia—through a short written survey, a cognitive mapping exercise, and finally a group discussion. After these focus groups, I arrived at 4 general claims:

1.) There are physically definable walls between Penn students and West Philadelphia. Even though these are not literal walls of stone, Penn students can define specific physical boundaries between themselves and West Philadelphia.

2.) Students’ perceptions about the neighborhood tend to create these physical boundaries more frequently than personal experiences do.

3.) The nature of the remaining walls leads to a specific type of relationship between Penn students and West Philadelphia—one that is based on community service and daytime activity over social and/or nighttime activity. This relationship is hierarchical in form and it involves a number of racial and class issues.

4.) These walls can be broken down by factors such as transportation options, aesthetics, and social and commercial activity, as these often change students perceptions of West Philadelphia

I conclude that the best way to knock down the barriers between town and gown is to encourage individuals from Penn and West Philadelphia alike to mix in neutral spaces such as restaurants, bars, and cafés, where hierarchies are not involved and barriers can organically deconstruct.

At first I wanted to research how New Urbanism affected the community in terms of social cohesion. But when the rubber met the road, my ideas were too large to be accomplished in one semester. At the drawing board again, I decided to concentrate on how people used and interacted with the built environment compared to how the architects of MLK Plaza intended for the space to be used. I would research the plan and the planning process and observe the area to discern the architect’s intent for the space versus how the community was using the space. This would provide an assessment of New Urbanism in practice, revealing how the community’s behavior was in fact shaped by the built environment.

As the data came in, I struggled to make sense of it all. I was trying to isolate the work of the architect and the response of the community, when in fact MLK Plaza development is part of a greater context of multiple public and private players, and includes not only the project site but the surrounding area as well. I began to understand just how many forces were working to create this neighborhood, this place. The residents, the businesses, the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the developers, the architects, the Avenue of the Arts, the neighbors, the councilman, the displaced. I had been trying to confine my research to the architects and the current residents without seeing the rest of the equation.

Though many questions remain, through my research, observations and interviews, I have been able to draw some conclusions about the impact this public development is having on the neighborhood and its future. I give special thanks to those who made time for interviews, and to my cousin Cheyenne who first enlightened me about New Urbanism and set me down this fascinating path.