During the Beaver Cleaver era of American history, it was almost impossible to conceive of a bad road–after all, paving things over was synonymous with “improvement.” Sadly, planning mistakes made at highway speed back then will require a huge amount of effort and money to undo today. But as we discussed in an earlier article, doing so is often the best decision a city can make: razing an ill-conceived highway can have huge social, economic, and aesthetic pay offs for a city. And if it’s done right, it can actually improve traffic flow.
Due to efforts of organizations like the Congress for the New Urbanism–which has made and eloquent case for urban freeway removal (we’re echoing a few of their top candidates )–this idea is starting to go mainstream. A number of US cities are poised to follow the examples set by Portland, Milwaukee, and San Francisco and start knocking down poorly planned roads. Here are seven elevated highways doomed to meet the reaper at some point in the not-to-distant future, and views of how their respective cities might look like after they’re gone:
Cleveland: West Shoreway
Today, the West Shoreway freeway divides downtown and west Cleveland from Lake Erie and makes walking between the city center and, say, the Browns Stadium or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame unpleasant at best. The city, working with the Ohio Department of Transportation, has been pushing for a transformation of its waterfront for years and the Shoreway remains the major obstacle. The current plan is to take down the old road without building a replacement. Instead the route will be modified into a pedestrian-scaled avenue, including new and renovated parks, a beach, new housing and offices.
One reason this is possible is that Cleveland’s population has been shrinking in recent decades and is now about half of what it was in 1950. The bright side of that is that the city has more flexibility and potential for redevelopment–as planners hope will the new lakefront boulevard will demonstrate.
Before:
After:
Seattle: Alaskan Way Viaduct
Local and state authorities have a plan in place to take down this two-level freeway, which sustained structural damage in a 2001 earthquake, and replace it with a new surface boulevard and a streetcar line. Doing so would reconnect Seattle’s downtown area to its natural waterfront on spectacular Puget Sound and remove an enormous–and very noisy–eyesore from the cityscape. To make up for the loss of a freeway that handles more than 100,000 cars a day, the $4 billion plan also provides for a four-lane tunnel under the city center with a daily capacity of 85,000 vehicles. The balance of the old traffic would be served by public transit and surface routes.
Before:
After:
Oklahoma City: I-40
The capital of the Sooner state isn’t getting rid of I-40, but it is doing away with the elevated section–which has cut through downtown since 1965. The new highway will be much less intrusive, situated below street level in an old rail right of way, while a much smaller surface street will trace the path of the old I-40.
The best part of OKC’s plan, however, has nothing to do with transportation. Rather, the municipal government will use the highway teardown as the basis for a full-scale urban renewal, adding new parks and denser development in a 1,375-acre zone between downtown and the Oklahoma River.
The plan doesn’t include many provisions for public transportation though, which is a shame–but losing the elevated roadway remains a big step in the right direction.
Before:
After:
New Haven: Route 34
New Haven’s Oak Street Connector has retained the earned reputation of being a road to nowhere since the mile-long freeway was built by Mayor Richard Lee in 1960. Though it was originally intended to continue as a fully grade-separated road into West Haven, construction was (fortunately) halted before it had made it a few blocks out of downtown.
Even in truncated form, the Connector led to the demise of hundreds of homes and businesses in the Oak Street neighborhood and destroyed a healthy swath of the city. To this day, it acts as a barrier between New Haven’s downtown Green and the Union Station rail depot.
The good news is that city officials are planning a new neighborhood in the highway’s place. Mayor John DeStefano envisions a “Downtown Crossing” community that would heal the gash and reestablish the urban grid. The city has been enjoying a downtown renaissance in recent years, and eliminating the Oak Street Connector will be a huge boost to that effort.
New Haven before and after Route 34 was built:
And after the freeway is gone?
Buffalo: Skyway
Like Cleveland, Buffalo has seen its population decline sharply since the 50s. In fact, when the city’s Skyway was built in 1953, the town had 300,000 more people than it has today. It’s very reasonable then to do away with this elevated route which right now makes development on the Lake Erie Outer Harbor area very difficult. Together with I-190, the Skyway effectively serves as a wall between downtown and the lake and makes the commute there — even by car — needlessly difficult.
The Skyway is also costing taxpayers millions of dollars every year in maintenance costs because of its decrepit condition.
While the New York State Department of Transportation has looked at a plan to demolish it, the agency foolishly opted to leave the road in place. Many of the city’s citizens have greeted that decision with loud boos. Fortunately, some local politicians seem to be understand the situation and are now seeking stimulus funds to rid Buffalo of the Skyway.
Before (Pic)
After
Syracuse: I-81
A few hundred miles a away, Syracuse is hoping that state authorities will be a tad more open-minded in moving ahead with a proposal to get rid of I-81–a.k.a. that structure that divides the city in half. The road was built five decades ago, and today several governmental organizations are considering replacing with a surface street.
A local citizens group is making the sensible argument that tearing down the highway would reconnect the downtown street grid and re-energize city center. Their solution is to route I-81’s traffic onto I-481, which encircles the city.
After
(Pics)
Baltimore: Jones Falls Expressway
Recently, mayor Sheila Dixon has been discussing tearing down of the first few blocks of the Jones Falls Expressway. The six-lane elevated road is an obstruction to movement between two sections of downtown and divides the Johns Hopkins Medical complex–one of the city’s economic engines–from the revitalized Inner Harbor district.
Because the expressway already turns into a smaller surface road at its southern tip, converting a few more blocks to a boulevard wouldn’t dramatically affect traffic. It would, however, ensure connectivity for the people who live and work in Baltimore’s urban core. The city, however, has no money for the $1 billion project, and neither does the State of Maryland (which is currently contemplating a scheme to spend $5 billion widening an exurban highway). So, for the moment anyway, the proposal hangs in limbo.
After: (Baltimore Sun conception)
August 4th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Another nomination: 787, a huge, multi-tiered monstrosity, in Albany, NY completely disconnects the city from its riverfront.
August 4th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
No offense, but although I love the concept, most of the “After” pictures look pretty uninspired to me. I’m all in favor of tearing up a freeway. But to replace it with a stadium and parking garages? Or an isolated park with no mixed use to keep in populated? Or office blocks? Or a wide boring street surrounded by blocks of condos? No thanks. Let’s make sure that in addition to removing the mistakes of the past we also apply what we’ve learned since then — mixed use, mixed scales, mixed income, public transit, sufficient density, etc.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Ooh, seconded. Although it does give you a really interesting view of some half-defunct public housing towers.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Umm, Cross-Bronx Expressway?
August 4th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Guys, awesome to see these! Just for interests sake, In the above illustration of the Baltimore plan, you said that neither the city nor the state has the money required for the project. Hypothetically, If $1 billion in private funds were available through a company or consortium of companies to do the tear down and the redevelopment would that be a frowned upon solution?
August 5th, 2009 at 1:14 am
The Buffalo Skyway is possibly the most spectacular industrial-decay-scenic stretch of road I’ve driven. It might be interesting to retain a portion of that as something similar to the High Line in NYC. In any case, if you haven’t driven it and you get the chance before it’s torn down, use it.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:26 am
It’s important to realize that most of these projects were not necessarily “ill-conceived” when they were planned and built. San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway and several of these examples were fine ways to traverse heavily industrialized urban areas in the 50s, 60s & 70s. As the US became a nation of consumers instead of producers, the urban factories, warehouses, dockyards and railyards emptied, and we dreamed up more upscale, greener, less filthy uses for this valuable urban real estate. Not an ounce of freight touches SF’s piers nowadays, so now the lack of the elevated Embarcadero Freeway exposes our lovely redeveloped waterfront. The tourists and joggers love it; the aging union longshoremen, maybe not so much…but you can’t stop progress, right?
August 5th, 2009 at 2:25 am
dont forget providence’s new I-195 route through downtown which is currently in the process of being moved further out of town. half the traffic runs on the old route and half on the new route.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:59 am
Another good example of this trend is the project led by the Société du Havre in Montréal (Canada). They plan to transform one of the downtown highway access (Bonaventure) into an urban boulevard and redevelop old industrial areas near the St-Lawrence waterfront. More details can be found here (www.havremontreal.qc.ca/en): the image bank contains a lot of interesting photos and models.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Really amazing!
Pittsburgh’s waterfront is chocked with freeway, namely the Penn Lincoln Pkwy/376. I’d really like to see that developed in a meaningful way.
It also wouldn’t hurt to get rid of 579, which cuts off the Golden Triangle from Uptown. Historically it (and the construction of the Civic Arena) decimated the neighborhood by tearing down a thriving African American business district. (Now it’s a ghetto). Bringing down the barrier of 579 would really help rejuvenate Uptown.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Another good candidate is Hartford’s I-84 stretch downtown. While completely tearing it down isn’t really on the idea list, some dramatic modifications really need to be made, especially concerning the elevated Aetna Viaduct section. Horrific effects on the city. At least they lowered the riverfront portion of I-91 before I moved here, that most have been really scary, too. It’s still not ideal.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:09 am
What about the Sheridan Expressway: http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/07/17/mr-gee-tear-down-this-highway/. C’mon Jeb, you gotta represent for your own backyard!
August 5th, 2009 at 10:38 am
As a native of Buffalo I agree with Michael, great views from the Skyway. But … why stop at the Skyway in Buffalo? Interstate 190 goes north from the Skyway cutting the city off from LaSalle Park and continues along the banks of the Niagara River … what could be a magnificent riverfront.
Next up, Buffalo’s Inner Beltway. Let’s start with the Scajaquada Expressway (NY 198), running along Scajaquada Creek through the Fredrick Law Olmsted Delaware Park (!!!). Then the depressed freeway in the Olmsted-designed Humboldt Parkway (I guess it was OK to put a freeway through the parkway in the African American neighborhood but not the one in the mansion district: Chapin Parkway).
Yeah, yeah, “What will happen to the traffic?” “Buffalo needs the freeways for economic development.”
Figuring out how to deal with the traffic would take some creative transportation planning, but maybe what Buffalo really needs is some bold thinking for the future.
Here’s a map with links: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&split=0&ei=wZN5SvbpKdDA-QaptqHMBQ&hl=en&msa=0&ll=42.947879,-78.906898&spn=0.163347,0.285988&z=12&msid=100003964992135061831.00047065a0fdb1357f905
August 5th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Just to note on Baltimore - The proposal includes running either a streetcar, a light rail line from the spur at Penn Station to points South, or the full proposed Yellow line. Either way, there are provisions for the line to be run in the proposal-so it does include transit
August 5th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Ken,
Yes, indeed — the Sheridan has gotten a fair bit of attention including from CNU and a widely watched PBS show earlier this year.
This list wasn’t meant to be at all comprehensive or even “top” candidates. I think we’re going to do “roads to get rid of” pieces fairly regularly. Sheridan will def be in a forthcoming edition.
JR
August 5th, 2009 at 11:09 am
OK, not the best example of how the process should work, but tearing down I-93 through the center of Boston and moving the entire thing underground has created an entire new section of the city. Although the Big Dig is the best example of corruptness, lack of oversight and cost overruns, the city of Boston has reclaimed a section of the city it lost and slowly but surely, good ideas are emerging and things are happening to make this a great mixed-use area. Park are already there and there is talk of museums, low level residential buildings, open markets etc…
No, all we need to do is move city hall to Southie and reclaim Scollay Square, to make it as close as possible to the way it was and we’ll be all set.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Not to pick nits, but the “Before” picture of Cleveland is the East side, not the West Shoreway.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The Oklahoma City plan is actually very destructive. The new highway is going to be routed south of the existing right of way, and instead go right alongside Union Station through the existing trackage area. The station is owned by the city, and all of its underlying infrastructure is still extant (pedestrian tunnels to tracks, platforms, etc.) While the new I-40 will keep the building intact, it destroys everything that makes the building useful and severs the existing nexus of railroads. If there is any chance at all of having a city or statewide network of trains, the I-40 project will eliminate it. Given the choice, I’d rather have the elevated highway.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
[...] 2009 August 5 by alexvolberding The Infrastructurist identifies a number of freeways around the country that should be removed in order to provide for [...]
August 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It’s not surprising that the Oklahoma Ciy plan doesn’t include public transit. Both major cities in Oklahoma have among the worst public transit systems in the country. Tulsa’s entire transit system is comprised of 15 bus routes which run Mon-Sat 5am-5pm, with one hour headways. Oklahoma City’s system is even worse, and has even lower ridership, than Tulsa. Cars are the only way to get around in Oklahoma, and there has really been no vision to change this. It doesn’t help that both cities are massively spread out, even within the urban area. Oklahoma City has among the largest city limit land areas in the country, and a set of sprawling suburbs.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Anon and Catbus,
Yeah, I tend to agree that some of these plans aren’t exactly inspired–we considered discussing that but it felt like it was outside the scope of this story. And many of them are still quite preliminary. Thanks for making the point though.
Jebediah
August 5th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
What these comments show to me is the utter mistake it was to bring highways through downtown. They should have ended in Ring streets as in Europe.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thanks for the heads up, Pete. Fixed.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
The Buffalo/Syracuse renderings are hilarious. To render the area accurately, you’d have to depict it under 18 inches of snow. The notion that there is so little undeveloped land in these cities that you have to level an elevated roadway to build a nice area is silly. These cities have shed population by the tens of thousands. There is plenty of land for everyone’s trolley car fantasies to be fulfilled without tearing down a useful transport link.
The one unstated premise behind all of this stuff is that waterfront areas are vastly more desirable now than they were 50 years ago. The reason why the wealthy area in Manhattan is Park Avenue is because that area was furthest from the waterfront with it’s wharves and the like. With the elimination of waterfront industry and shipping, waterfronts are now viewed as nice areas for parks, but a generation ago they made perfect sense for freeway right-of-ways.
The problem with boulevardization of highways, is that you cause traffic to move much more slowly and thus you need a very wide boulvard to do the work of a relatively narrow highway. See, again, Manhattan where a six-lane elevated road was demolished and now you have to cross a 10+ lane boulevard to access the river. I’d rather see an elevated road replaced with a tunnel than a boulevard. But then, my preferences do not revolve around intense hatred for cars as an all-encompassing worldview.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Eric, you clearly failed algebra at school.
The traffic capacity of a highway lane is the same at 60MPH, as at 40MPH, as at 20MPH.
The reason is that at higher speed, you need more following distance to keep to the 2 second rule. So the faster the cars, the more widely spaced, and the number of cars that can go through the lane every minute stays the same.
What a freeway does for drives is it lets the same number of drivers get from A to B every hour get from A to B faster.
That makes it useful, but the question is “useful to whom”? These highways go from A through B to get to C, and they benefit people in A and C, while leaving the people in B stuck with the pollution, the noise, and the lower quality of life. At which point, the people in B might say, “dammit, tear down the highway. If it takes people longer to get through my town, too damn bad.”
August 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The Jones Falls Freeway in Baltimore was originally planned to connect to I-95. In order for it do so Fells Point, one of the oldest sections of the city would have had to be destroyed. City dwellers fought hard to keep Fells Point and it’s now one of the most beautiful parts of the city with many restored 18th century houses.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
A free flowing lane of traffic will handle more traffic than a lane operating at stop-and-go conditions.
“At which point, the people in B might say, “dammit, tear down the highway. If it takes people longer to get through my town, too damn bad.”
Um, yeah, but the people they are cursing may be themselves. Presumably, sometimes they like to get in a car to drive out of town or around town. Also, it takes a very narrow view of life to assume that you don’t use a highway simply because you are not driving on it. I don’t use the port of NY/NJ in Elizabeth or the NJTPK truck lanes from Elizabeth to New York City, but I know very well that most of the stuff I buy got to me that way. People in Buffalo and Syracuse still gotta eat and buy their toys, and that stuff is not coming in on a rickshaw.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
People in Buffalo and Syracuse still got to eat and buy toys, but that doesn’t mean they have to provide a way across town that helps degrade the quality of life in their cities.
It ain’t rocket science. There’s a reason highways in Europe go around cities, not through them.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
And, BTW, in Amsterdam a lot of stuff really does come in on a rickshaw (well, a bakfiets). Doesn’t prevent Amsterdam from being a wealthy city.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Eric,
Amusingly stated, but I think you’re going after a strawman. In Cleveland–also a shrinking city–they’re not talking about pulling down the I-90 section of the Shoreway, but rather the less used western portion of it which creates a barrier between the city center and major local assets like the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. It’s an entirely prudent re-balancing of the structures of the city. Local opinion strongly favors it. Should they leave it up on principle because it has no stoplights? Because no elevated roadway without stoplights–no matter the costs it inflicts on its host community–should ever be remade as a surface roadway that takes into account the other needs and potentials of the city and region?
August 5th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
What about the Whitehurst Expressway in DC, which cuts through what could be a much-more-fabulous Georgetown Waterfront?
Or I-76 in Philadelphia, which covers some very prime real estate. Or burying I-95 on the Delaware in Philadelphia too. 95 has completely choked off the waterfront.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:11 am
[...] Oklahoma City’s I-40 realignment and accompanying Core to Shore plan in a post entitled 7 Urban Freeways To Tear Down Today–And What Tomorrow Might Look Like If We Do. Below is the blurb on [...]
August 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Here here in Dan’s comment about Pittsburgh. We have some really great opportunities to fix past wrongs and improve waterfronts and entire districts, mostly by taking out freeways that are only full on game days. The commuters can work their way along 279, or they can figure out how our wonderful transit system works. PAT buses go just about everywhere, and hopefully the T will be extended in the coming decades.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
[...] 6, 2009 · Leave a Comment Yonah Freemark and Jebediah Reed of The Infrastrcturist bring us this article on freeways that should be torn down. Although there is a lot of crossover between this list and [...]
August 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I-81 is a monstrosity, though the real mess is the can-of-worms-style interchange with the other highway smack dab in the middle of downtown; it really depresses real estate values.
Also, the traffic on that route rangers from slow to dangerous. It’s far too twisty to really support freeway speeds. Redirecting through traffic on the Syracuse beltway makes perfect sense.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Let’s get an Oklahoma Citian’s perspective on the trash being spewn about the I-40 project. When it comes to Union Station, that train station’s railyard will not be completely destroyed, and believe it or not, there is another train station just north, Santa Fe Depot, that could also handle a commuter rail and service terminal. Yes, it will take upgrading, but I do not believe that Union Station is the correct place for the nexus of Oklahoma City’s future transportation needs. So saying that we are destroying all hope of a future system is just moronic. I believe our leaders realize the future importance of that.
Secondly. Yes Oklahoma City has a large land area, but our urbanized portion is around 230 sq. miles and that puts our density up with the average cities. Actually, if you’d really want to know why we don’t have alternative transportation options then you should know that our bus system is crap. But actually, there is a proposal for a downtown streetcar system and the beginning of change of our pitiful bus system. I suggest people study a little more about what’s going on before spreading untrue facts. Yes, as of right now our transportation system is pitiful, but the citizens are actively wanting change. No vision to change? mtpokc.com read it. Also, while you’re at it, check out the recent study commissioned to residents of the city and you’ll see that there definitely is “will to change”.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:15 am
[...] Freemark and Jebediah Reed of The Infrastrcturist bring us this article on freeways that should be torn down. Although there is a lot of crossover between this list and [...]
August 7th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I currently live in Buffalo and grew up in Hamburg, the suburb from which the vast majority of the skyway traffic comes from, so I’m very familiar with the Skyway. It is terrible that they rebuilt the elevated portion of rt. 5, people drive like maniacs on there and it makes it very difficult and nearly impossible as a pedestrian or bicyclist to access the nature preserve or new waterfront development. The new Canal development is fantastic, but the skyway creates a daunting visual barrier, blocking the city scape when you’re down at the canal, and you just see the big ol’ ugly skyway.
I also lived in Syracuse for a year, and yeah, the 81 twisting and turning and connecting with other freeways in the middle of the city is insane, and incredibly dangerous. I remember a rule was to never wander on the other side of the freeway because it was dangerous on that side. It’s a real barrier separating the city.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:47 am
[...] 7, 2009 From our pals at The Infrastructurist, a round-up of some of their best posts of late: 7 Urban Freeways To Tear Down Now During the car-crazy Beaver Cleaver era of US history, there was no such thing as a bad highway. [...]
August 7th, 2009 at 10:47 am
[...] TreeHugger From our pals at The Infrastructurist, a round-up of some of their best posts of late: 7 Urban Freeways To Tear Down Now During the car-crazy Beaver Cleaver era of US history, there was no such thing as a bad highway. [...]
August 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
I live in a Canadian city which had the genius idea of ripping out an elevated freeway and replacing it with a boulevard. So instead of having an elevated 4 lane highway that bypassed the lights we have a 6 lane boulevard that hits every light that crosses it. The city is hemmed in by mountains and lakes so a bypass is impossible. Be careful what you wish for
August 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Eric, I’m not sure I understand your argument.
I grew up in Syracuse and hope they do tear down the section of I-81 that cuts through downtown. Having a vibrant downtown is one thing that could stem the tide of young folks leaving the city (though that alone won’t stop it altogether). It’s not a lack of land for development that suggests we tear down part of 81, it’s that we only have one downtown. That area is more valuable as a downtown and not a thoroughfare.
Furthermore, 81 is not needed as a ‘useful transport link’. If you look at the map of Syracuse you will see that through traffic can easily be diverted to 481. And as far as folks getting in and out of and around the city, the fact that the population is small means there is not really much of a traffic problem.
Nathanael and Brian are right that the I-81/690 interchange is a mess and incredibly dangerous (though I don’t know of the area on one side of the highway being dangerous.)
Also, for the record, the photos of Syracuse and Buffalo above are actual photographs of the cities, proving that it doesn’t snow there all the time (though it sometimes feels like it).
August 7th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The river front stuff is a no-brainer. Cities in the US have a habit of separating river fronts from the population and living to regret it after they see river bank development in other towns. But it is extremely optimistic to think a town can replace a free way with an office / residential or mix-use tower in what was once a industrial park in the middle of a low income part of town. These days developments like need to be rezoned to begin with, then you need to find the cash to tear down the old stuff while you [the city] sells your soul to developers in the form of TIF dollars, tax incentives, public transit etc..
August 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
[...] 7 Urban Freeways To Tear Down Now During the car-crazy Beaver Cleaver era of US history, there was no such thing as a bad highway. But now we understand how damaging poorly planned roads can be to our cities — here are some ugly roads that are coming down soon or ought to be….Read the full story on TreeHugger [...]
August 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I’m surprised nothing from Houston or Texas for that matter made the list.
August 7th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
[...] Now here’s an interesting list: “7 Urban Freeways To Tear Down Today — And What Tomorrow Might Look Like If We Do.”… [...]
August 10th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
[...] The Infrastructurist has an interesting post on seven major, urban, old-school freeways that should be torn down to improve aesthetics, neighborhoods, or even traffic. [...]
August 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
[...] article about demolishing urban freeways and redevelopment opportunities. Can anyone say [...]
August 12th, 2009 at 9:03 am
[...] this list of 7 urban freeways with their dingy “before” photos and the lovingly rendered “after” images [...]
August 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
How does the I-10 overpass through the Treme not make this list?
August 29th, 2009 at 1:54 am
[...] For more info on roads that need to be torn down, visit this Infratructurist article: 7 Urban Freeways To Tear Down Today–And What Tomorrow Might Look Like If We Do [...]
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am
[...] [...]
October 4th, 2009 at 5:39 am
I was thinking about elevated freeways, did a Google search, and I came across many links. One was this page. Another, which I found very interesting, is located here:
http://visions2200.com/CitiesElevHywyBar.html
It discusses the negative aspects of elevated highways, with a focus on San Francisco’s now-demolished Embarcadero Freeway.
What caught my attention the most, however, was a design study at the bottom of the page. An urban design study suggested that, rather than tearing the Embarcadero down, one could fill in the space underneath with useful buildings, and thereby re-connect the two parts of the city that would otherwise become isolated from each other.
Look, unless we’re eliminating car traffic (which I would favor, but try to convince the rest of America), you have to put highways somewhere. I don’t see where an at-grade or a below-grade freeway is any less of a psychological/physical barrier than an elevated one. Comments?
December 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
The before picture of Oklahoma City is actually S Shields Blvd not I-40.
Other candidates: I-280 in San Francisco and I-5 along the Sacramento River in Sacramento.
Unfortunately Sacramento just dropped the ball: http://www.sacbee.com/304/story/2161888.html