Sanctuary for Who?

Abstract

Philadelphia, often recognized as the poorest major city in the United States, became a Sanctuary City in 2014. The designation committed the region to policies limiting cooperation with federal law enforcement in the persecution of undocumented communities. Policies have ranged from refusing to detain individuals without judicial warrants to prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from accessing municipal databases or facilities for detention purposes. At the community level, the notion of the Sanctuary City sought to promote organizing against unlawful persecution of residents. Over the past eleven years, however, the framework of protection it promised has faltered under mounting federal pressure. The Sanctuary City's symbolic authority and limited scope have failed to shield residents from persecution or restrict ICE's intensifying operations within the area. In 2019, Juntos, the city's foremost immigrant advocacy organization, criticized Philadelphia's Sanctuary status as inadequate. Cited the ongoing persecution of its communities and the declining quality of life for all residents, the organization urged the city to abandon the term "Sanctuary." They instead petition the city to focus instead on meaningfully protecting all residents of Philadelphia, stating, "Let us instead work together to build the kind of city we all want to live in." Junto's critique forms the basis of this thesis, using it as an invitation to reimagine the Sanctuary City as a shift from a policy framework toward a general ethic and design sensibility. This thesis proposes that Philadelphia's crux, like all cities, lies in its ability to sustain communities' pursuit of a dignified life. As a primary agent in the formation of cities, the architect must then make this struggle their own and deploy the tools of their discipline to protect life and inspire dignity. By framing Philadelphia as a city shaped by deindustrialization, disinvestment, and policing, the thesis explores how architecture can respond to these forces by reviving the city's industrial character and establishing new boundaries able to safeguard community rights. Integrating legal, spatial, and semantic insights from federal authorities' rules of engagement will provide novel typologies and programs for the city that address its systemic inequities while fostering environments where life and dignity can flourish. By inscribing meaningful boundaries, and re-equipping the city to make for itself, the thesis suggests architecture becomes a tool for collective protection and urban regeneration.