U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2013, 12:32 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,749,193 times
Reputation: 8803

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1 View Post
Yeah, the French Quarter and the Garden District were thankfully preserved. In the early 1900s the French Quarter was actually in decay and was populated by a lot of poor immigrants. Then people started to appreciate the area more and that historic commission was founded. But the area still saw some demolitions. For example, the area that the French Quarter preservation commission was in charge of was reduced a little bit, so buildings could be torn down and new ones built (along Canal Street and the Mississippi river). There are some big non-historic intrusions in the French Quarter too. There was even a proposal to build an elevated highway along the Mississippi river in front of the French Quarter in the 1960s. In the 1930s (a little early for urban renewal) the area directly northwest of the French Quarter was torn down for a housing project (the infamous Storyville district). Also another area directly northwest of the French Quarter was torn down in the 1960s for a park. Those areas looked like they had some very nice architecture.
The Iberville is slated to be demolished soon and replaced with housing of various income levels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2013, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Dallas
2,092 posts, read 2,571,400 times
Reputation: 3428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
I think what you mean is housing that's left from before World War 2. I don't know the history of Dallas or Houston in Atlanta in detail, but most American cities demolished a lot of their pre-World War 2 housing. They were demolished for freeways, for convention centers, for office buildings. What's happening now is that some of that housing is being returned, in different from.
Bingo!

I've been researching as much as I can about Dallas's urban past, and there have sadly been numerous historic buildings, a vast streetcar network, and even entire neighborhoods destroyed. IH-345 is to blame for most of it. There is a strong but vocal minority in Dallas(including myself) who want to see that sucker torn down, and have the city and private developers re-stitch the grid. There's a whole website devoted to it:A New Dallas

The city and many neighborhood groups are trying to correct decades of failed urban planning mistakes, but it takes lots of time, and money. The city finally realizes that designing a city for people, and not cars is the only way to build vibrancy, and bring in new residents. The Klyde Warren deck park was built over a sunken highway to connect DT to Uptown, and light rail and a new streetcar line are being expanded, many one-ways are being repainted to be two-ways, an entire street is being removed to be replaced by a pedestrian boulevard like Las Ramblas in Barcelona Spain, so it's catching on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,371,197 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieinDallas View Post
The city finally realizes that designing a city for people, and not cars is the only way to build vibrancy, and bring in new residents.
[emphasis added]
Well, it looks like the anti-driving cult is out in full force today. Who cares if people have access to the city? Who cares about increasing congestion? Who cares if drivers have to sit at traffic lights half the time belching out pollution? Who cares how much time people waste on your inadequate road network? Hell, who even cares if the new boulevard is as much of a barrier to walkability as the old freeway? Just as long as drivers are punished and the evil freeway is demolished everything will be peaches, right? Gridlock and congestion is the natural end of such a plan, and ironically both of these things also increase pollution and discourage people from going downtown.

Demolishing freeways is the antithesis of maintaining an efficient transportation system. People will have a better quality of life and economic growth will be improved if people have many options for getting around town and beyond, and that includes mass transit as well as a well-functioning freeway network that meets the demand placed on it. Your ilk talk as if cars are autonomous creatures with a malevolent agenda of sprawl, but the one fact you avoid is that cars are owned, driven, and controlled by people. Suppression of the car is suppression of the driver.

With the congestion endemic to most American cities* if anything we need more capacity on our freeways, not less, and investing in a new mass transit system is a good way to take the load off of these freeways and improve traffic flow for all trips and modes of transportation, but removing freeways and lowering the capacity of the road system negates all the gains that mass transit might produce in terms of overall efficiency. It's as if your objective is to make highways as congested and unpleasant as you can get away with. Why would you want to do something like that to people? You should be aware that people drive on highways, and increasing congestion lowers both their quality of life and acts as a drag on the economy as a whole.

*This isn't confined to sprawling cities - even cities that are not sprawling like the Sun Belt have horrible congestion on their roads.

Last but not least, some basic arithmetic. In the case of Interstate 345, at its maximum extent the freeway is 360 feet wide. That's it. The neighborhood you say was destroyed by the freeway is 3000 feet wide. The footprint of any freeway compared to any urban area is very narrow, so even if some historic sites were destroyed most of the area was left intact. If there are any problems with the neighborhood they aren't related to the highway, and frankly I don't see how severing a transportation link will help anyone. The freeway is an eyesore and looks like it's decaying, but that means the freeway should be replaced with a new structure, not removed. Perhaps Dallas could adopt the Big Dig Model, or sink the new freeway below grade with footbridges across the top of it. You know, something that's positive for both pedestrians and drivers instead of punishing the latter to serve the former?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Dallas
2,092 posts, read 2,571,400 times
Reputation: 3428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Well, it looks like the anti-driving cult is out in full force today. Who cares if people have access to the city? Who cares about increasing congestion? Who cares if drivers have to sit at traffic lights half the time belching out pollution? Who cares how much time people waste on your inadequate road network? Hell, who even cares if the new boulevard is as much of a barrier to walkability as the old freeway? Just as long as drivers are punished and the evil freeway is demolished everything will be peaches, right? Gridlock and congestion is the natural end of such a plan, and ironically both of these things also increase pollution and discourage people from going downtown.

Demolishing freeways is the antithesis of maintaining an efficient transportation system. People will have a better quality of life and economic growth will be improved if people have many options for getting around town and beyond, and that includes mass transit as well as a well-functioning freeway network that meets the demand placed on it. Your ilk talk as if cars are autonomous creatures with a malevolent agenda of sprawl, but the one fact you avoid is that cars are owned, driven, and controlled by people. Suppression of the car is suppression of the driver.

With the congestion endemic to most American cities* if anything we need more capacity on our freeways, not less, and investing in a new mass transit system is a good way to take the load off of these freeways and improve traffic flow for all trips and modes of transportation, but removing freeways and lowering the capacity of the road system negates all the gains that mass transit might produce in terms of overall efficiency. It's as if your objective is to make highways as congested and unpleasant as you can get away with. Why would you want to do something like that to people? You should be aware that people drive on highways, and increasing congestion lowers both their quality of life and acts as a drag on the economy as a whole.

*This isn't confined to sprawling cities - even cities that are not sprawling like the Sun Belt have horrible congestion on their roads.

Last but not least, some basic arithmetic. In the case of Interstate 345, at its maximum extent the freeway is 360 feet wide. That's it. The neighborhood you say was destroyed by the freeway is 3000 feet wide. The footprint of any freeway compared to any urban area is very narrow, so even if some historic sites were destroyed most of the area was left intact. If there are any problems with the neighborhood they aren't related to the highway, and frankly I don't see how severing a transportation link will help anyone. The freeway is an eyesore and looks like it's decaying, but that means the freeway should be replaced with a new structure, not removed. Perhaps Dallas could adopt the Big Dig Model, or sink the new freeway below grade with footbridges across the top of it. You know, something that's positive for both pedestrians and drivers instead of punishing the latter to serve the former?
Expanding highways never relieves traffic for the long run. Places don't become destinations by being car friendly. The drive thru nature of highways threatens the "destination" status of a place, constantly setting it up for cannibalization by the next place further up the highway. This is not growth. It is the same wannabe destination over and over again but newer. This is what we call "sprawl" and decline and urban blight are what's left over after this foolish pattern keeps repeating. The system has failed. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Stop drinking the big government kool-aid you've been spoon fed all your life! None of it's true! Most people can't imagine tearing down a highway, and why would you? This idea seems completely foreign. You are in phase one of grief, your precious highway is being knocked down. Pleas don't panic! I assure you these things make sense and despite your fears traffic will keep moving after this highway is removed. Traffic engineers disagree, but tearing down highways has worked in every city it's been done, and despite the traffic engineers phony data traffic always disappears, Land values sky rocket, and cities become livable, and everyone wins.

You are not familiar with Dallas. Dallas suffers from low demand in DT, but astronomical land prices. A few investors own almost all the land in DT Dallas, and are holding on to it for dear life. They plan on making giant windfall profits when they finally sell it one day. Developers aren't buying it, so development has stagnated. Tearing down IH 345 would kill two birds with one stone. Currently, 254 acres of prime DT Dallas real estate sit under this highway. Once it is down supply will increase and lower cost, because of increased supply and lower costs(not to mention the absence of an ugly highway) demand will go up. This would cause the perfect storm for development. All that land will quickly be sold to private developers, and bring in at least $4 billion worth of development. In a few short years 25,000 new residents will call DT Dallas home. The city currently receives $3 million in property taxes from the land surrounding IH-345, if it were to be developed the city would increase it's tax rolls by $100 million a year.

Cool fact: if only 1/2 of Dallas households gave up 1 car, it would Pump 3 billion dollars into the local economy!

Back to IH-345. This highway is 39 years old and falling apart, it only has a 40 year life span. It will cost 60-65 million to tear down but 300 million to rebuild it. Automatic savings by NOT building it.

Where will the 160,000 cars go?
  • The cars are only there because of the highway, once it's gone they will find other routes.
  • http://pics3.city-data.com/forum/
  • Regional traffic shouldn't be there to begin with, so if your not heading to DT find another route. The loops are intended to serve regional travelers, and this highway was never for them.
  • The street grid that connects downtown to East Dallas has the capacity to move all other commuters at a faster pace, and currently is underutilized because of this highway.

BTW, all of this information and sources are in this website: A New Dallas

Last edited by RonnieinDallas; 06-06-2013 at 01:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2013, 02:29 PM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,127,138 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonnieinDallas View Post
Expanding highways never relieves traffic for the long run. Places don't become destinations by being car friendly. The drive thru nature of highways threatens the "destination" status of a place, constantly setting it up for cannibalization by the next place further up the highway. This is not growth. It is the same wannabe destination over and over again but newer. This is what we call "sprawl" and decline and urban blight are what's left over after this foolish pattern keeps repeating. The system has failed. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Stop drinking the big government kool-aid you've been spoon fed all your life! None of it's true! Most people can't imagine tearing down a highway, and why would you? This idea seems completely foreign. You are in phase one of grief, your precious highway is being knocked down. Pleas don't panic! I assure you these things make sense and despite your fears traffic will keep moving after this highway is removed. Traffic engineers disagree, but tearing down highways has worked in every city it's been done, and despite the traffic engineers phony data traffic always disappears, Land values sky rocket, and cities become livable, and everyone wins.
I agree that in the long run increasing capacity does not work as drivers who normally use the road will be joined by new drivers. Increase capacity means little if nothing is done with the roads that intersect the newly widened freeway. The traffic has to go somewhere and the increase traffic is thrown on roads that can't handle it. Most of the traffic jam occur near off ramps, where people are getting off the freeways onto streets that can't handle it.

More attention should be focus on land-use and better driving etiquette. As much as I don't mind mass transit, they can't reduce traffic on its own. Highways through neighborhoods has never created economic growth for the community it goes through because most of the traffic aren't going in those community, they're passing through.

Who quality of life is the freeway improving? Where does the economic growth occur? Where is the traffic of the freeway coming from? Who needs to get around town? is the destination is in the city or in another suburb? Who really reaping all of the benefits?

Last edited by Phyxius; 06-06-2013 at 02:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 03:35 AM
 
8,287 posts, read 11,831,265 times
Reputation: 4948
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Not so far as that. South Florida is just an annex of New Jersey with nicer weather.
I think people don't know the history of SE Florida & Miami. It was basically built and developed by Northerners hence the rigid street GRID system and Zoning that reflects very high population densities. Miami's average population density of people per square mile is closer to Philly's than say Atlanta or Houston. Miami's sprawl from east to west is basically 20 miles & north to south the metro extends 75 miles.
So basically you have almost 6 million people living in about 1100 square miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 04:18 AM
 
Location: "Daytonnati"
4,245 posts, read 5,982,537 times
Reputation: 2967
^
probably in a lot of multifamily. I think the Everglades pretty much constricts Miamis ability to spread out? Or is the desire to be closer to the ocean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2013, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,371,197 times
Reputation: 2387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyxius View Post
I agree that in the long run increasing capacity does not work as drivers who normally use the road will be joined by new drivers.
If that's the case, why not just use two-lane dirt roads everywhere ? I never cease to be amazed by the rampant stupidity on this forum with regards to highways. Freeways work because they take traffic off the surface streets, are controlled-access, and are usually bigger and wider than side streets. A trip that otherwise would proceed through, say, 5 miles of surface streets now takes place on 4 miles of freeway and 1 mile of surface street, and that reduces the number of cars that are on the surface streets at any one time, and also enables people to move faster, at 50-70 mph as opposed to 20-40 mph.

Do I want to bulldoze urban neighborhoods left and right to pave paradise? No, but this anti-freeway position is ridiculous and will not improve quality of life or land values in the least. Sitting in traffic longer and turning every road into a congested, low-speed nightmare may appeal to you, but it certainly doesn't appeal to me or to most other people. If this ideology moves forward and starts to really have an effect on traffic flow, the suburbs and exurbs will start looking more attractive to anyone that wants to be able to move when they drive their car.

Induced demand is finite, and is no problem if it is taken into account when planning capacity increases. It also is not limited to roads - subways, bus lines, train lines, and even bike paths all experience induced demand. It's a natural side effect of maintaining an efficient transportation system, an objective that some of you here have completely lost sight of. I would think that you pro-downtown people would be happy to have more people come into your city and do business there both via highways and public transit, but I guess you have to keep those evil suburbanites away .

I do concede that traffic is quite congested in most cities despite freeway-building and many capacity increases, but that's because of population growth. As the population increases more people will be using the roads and that growth in demand must be matched by a growth in road capacity to avoid increased congestion, but most cities have failed to do that, hence the increased congestion. If a road system served the city well in 1980 when it had a population of 500 000, a similar system will serve it poorly in 2013 when it has a population of 1 000 000. Cities with more stable populations tend to not experience as many difficulties in terms of congestion getting worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob View Post
I think people don't know the history of SE Florida & Miami. It was basically built and developed by Northerners hence the rigid street GRID system and Zoning that reflects very high population densities. Miami's average population density of people per square mile is closer to Philly's than say Atlanta or Houston. Miami's sprawl from east to west is basically 20 miles & north to south the metro extends 75 miles.
So basically you have almost 6 million people living in about 1100 square miles.
Miami is a curious case, since it's basically a narrow strip of land that hugs the coast for dozens of miles. It probably has something to do with being near the ocean and Interstate 95, as well as the swamps that exist further inland in some areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 12:56 PM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,127,138 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
If that's the case, why not just use two-lane dirt roads everywhere ? I never cease to be amazed by the rampant stupidity on this forum with regards to highways. Freeways work because they take traffic off the surface streets, are controlled-access, and are usually bigger and wider than side streets. A trip that otherwise would proceed through, say, 5 miles of surface streets now takes place on 4 miles of freeway and 1 mile of surface street, and that reduces the number of cars that are on the surface streets at any one time, and also enables people to move faster, at 50-70 mph as opposed to 20-40 mph.

Do I want to bulldoze urban neighborhoods left and right to pave paradise? No, but this anti-freeway position is ridiculous and will not improve quality of life or land values in the least. Sitting in traffic longer and turning every road into a congested, low-speed nightmare may appeal to you, but it certainly doesn't appeal to me or to most other people. If this ideology moves forward and starts to really have an effect on traffic flow, the suburbs and exurbs will start looking more attractive to anyone that wants to be able to move when they drive their car.

Induced demand is finite, and is no problem if it is taken into account when planning capacity increases. It also is not limited to roads - subways, bus lines, train lines, and even bike paths all experience induced demand. It's a natural side effect of maintaining an efficient transportation system, an objective that some of you here have completely lost sight of. I would think that you pro-downtown people would be happy to have more people come into your city and do business there both via highways and public transit, but I guess you have to keep those evil suburbanites away .

I do concede that traffic is quite congested in most cities despite freeway-building and many capacity increases, but that's because of population growth. As the population increases more people will be using the roads and that growth in demand must be matched by a growth in road capacity to avoid increased congestion, but most cities have failed to do that, hence the increased congestion. If a road system served the city well in 1980 when it had a population of 500 000, a similar system will serve it poorly in 2013 when it has a population of 1 000 000. Cities with more stable populations tend to not experience as many difficulties in terms of congestion getting worse.
I elaborated on my reason. Did you read it? You need space for increase road capacity. What happens when you run out of it and the problem isn't solved? Don't bother responding, it's a rhetorical question.

Last edited by Phyxius; 06-12-2013 at 01:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2013, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
2,701 posts, read 4,668,795 times
Reputation: 3671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Well, it looks like the anti-driving cult is out in full force today. Who cares if people have access to the city? Who cares about increasing congestion? Who cares if drivers have to sit at traffic lights half the time belching out pollution? Who cares how much time people waste on your inadequate road network? Hell, who even cares if the new boulevard is as much of a barrier to walkability as the old freeway? Just as long as drivers are punished and the evil freeway is demolished everything will be peaches, right? Gridlock and congestion is the natural end of such a plan, and ironically both of these things also increase pollution and discourage people from going downtown.

Demolishing freeways is the antithesis of maintaining an efficient transportation system. People will have a better quality of life and economic growth will be improved if people have many options for getting around town and beyond, and that includes mass transit as well as a well-functioning freeway network that meets the demand placed on it. Your ilk talk as if cars are autonomous creatures with a malevolent agenda of sprawl, but the one fact you avoid is that cars are owned, driven, and controlled by people. Suppression of the car is suppression of the driver.

With the congestion endemic to most American cities* if anything we need more capacity on our freeways, not less, and investing in a new mass transit system is a good way to take the load off of these freeways and improve traffic flow for all trips and modes of transportation, but removing freeways and lowering the capacity of the road system negates all the gains that mass transit might produce in terms of overall efficiency. It's as if your objective is to make highways as congested and unpleasant as you can get away with. Why would you want to do something like that to people? You should be aware that people drive on highways, and increasing congestion lowers both their quality of life and acts as a drag on the economy as a whole.

*This isn't confined to sprawling cities - even cities that are not sprawling like the Sun Belt have horrible congestion on their roads.

Last but not least, some basic arithmetic. In the case of Interstate 345, at its maximum extent the freeway is 360 feet wide. That's it. The neighborhood you say was destroyed by the freeway is 3000 feet wide. The footprint of any freeway compared to any urban area is very narrow, so even if some historic sites were destroyed most of the area was left intact. If there are any problems with the neighborhood they aren't related to the highway, and frankly I don't see how severing a transportation link will help anyone. The freeway is an eyesore and looks like it's decaying, but that means the freeway should be replaced with a new structure, not removed. Perhaps Dallas could adopt the Big Dig Model, or sink the new freeway below grade with footbridges across the top of it. You know, something that's positive for both pedestrians and drivers instead of punishing the latter to serve the former?
Excellent point! Some people on here need to realize that cars and driving in general are NOT the source of any city's problems. And as you said, mass transit is not the answer as a full replacement to people driving- it only works as a compliment to driving- as another option people have to get from one place to another. Give people other options, but realize mass transit will not always be the most convenient depending on what people are doing and where specifically they are going- so it is only an OPTION for going CERTAIN PLACES.

And even places that do have better mass transit are not getting rid of highways, everyone even in those places realizes that freeways are necessary.
Look at the modern cities in China- they have great mass transit with trains, subways, and very extensive bus services that go to almost every area in each city that you can think of with great frequency. But even in those circumstances people realize that roads/cars are necessary and will not go away. So guess what they are doing in those cities? Adding new freeways or expanding existing ones! Even in those places many people do drive because to go certain places driving is the best option, and roads/highways were quite clogged with drivers so those cities know they needed to expand their road network to accommodate the heavier usage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top