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.
Some roads seem to do more of a job of dividing a city than others. I-70 in Denver cut through several neighborhoods. I-25, which somewhat follows the Platte River, not so much, maybe because the Platte itself divides the city into east side/west side.
In the Bronx they built a highway that literally slices through old existing neighborhoods and then has limited connection to the highway and severed connections of neighborhoods.
If you have an existing neighborhood and a highway is built to cut through it, you metaphorical and often times physically lose connection to the other part of the neighborhood.
Concur. Robert Moses castrated the Bronx with I-95. Sucked the life right out of the South Bronx, leading to the Burning Bronx of the 1970s.
Some roads seem to do more of a job of dividing a city than others. I-70 in Denver cut through several neighborhoods. I-25, which somewhat follows the Platte River, not so much, maybe because the Platte itself divides the city into east side/west side.
Makes sense, and I've noticed that highways along rivers divide cities less, too (and probably required less neighborhood demolishion). Shame, though because they usually make the riverfront unappealing. Though often at the time they were built, some of them were unattractive and industrial. Maybe a necessity, but though often a riverfront can be some of the nicest public spaces a city can have.
Concur. Robert Moses castrated the Bronx with I-95. Sucked the life right out of the South Bronx, leading to the Burning Bronx of the 1970s.
I'm sure I-95 wasn't good for the South Bronx, but I find it difficult to believe it was responsible for its decline. Plenty of it wasn't right next to the highway. Wherever the BQE and LIE went through neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn it didn't lead to decay, it just caused the adjacent blocks to be less attractive.
I'm sure I-95 wasn't good for the South Bronx, but I find it difficult to believe it was responsible for its decline. Plenty of it wasn't right next to the highway. Wherever the BQE and LIE went through neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn it didn't lead to decay, it just caused the adjacent blocks to be less attractive.
I-95 was a major factor in the decline of the Bronx, and the rest of the highways cutting through the Bronx didn't help either, but more so than just I-95, it was Robert Moses who lead to the decline of the Bronx because he carved it up and then turned it into a public housing burough.
Also, Brooklyn was dangerous burough at one point, though it didn't lead to any massive destruction of buildings and wasn't plagued with landlords burning their own buildings down like the Bronx was.
Freeway construction was also a method used to destroy nonwhite neighborhoods. If they could not be destroyed outright, cutting a path through a neighborhood's heart would have the same effect as cutting off blood flow to a limb, resulting in further decay and providing justification for bulldozing the rest of it--urban amputation.
Freeway construction was also a method used to destroy nonwhite neighborhoods. If they could not be destroyed outright, cutting a path through a neighborhood's heart would have the same effect as cutting off blood flow to a limb, resulting in further decay and providing justification for bulldozing the rest of it--urban amputation.
I think that was a side effect and not the reason, most highway construction is about the path of least resistance which meant that it was easier to run a highway through a low income area than it was a high income area.
The US is still a developing country. Interstate highways have been around for 50 to 60 years, but most of the towns and cities themselves have only been around for 150 to 200 years, maybe 300. Some more, some less.
It isn't like they have been going through ancient urban civilization, other than the occasional pre-Columbian ruin or burial ground. The freeways have always been just another part of the landscape for me. An exciting part, too.
The communities are in constant flux themselves anyway. I don't see any harm. Just change.
I think that was a side effect and not the reason, most highway construction is about the path of least resistance which meant that it was easier to run a highway through a low income area than it was a high income area.
A side effect, but I'm fairly certain that leaders of that era considered it a beneficial side effect--even in the 1950s and 1960s it was politically unpopular to outright talk about destroying a nonwhite neighborhood, but it was much easier to accomplish if put in terms of "property values" and "progress" instead of just "kicking out the brown people." The "path of least resistance" wasn't just in terms of economics but also in terms of political power, and nonwhite neighborhoods (along with "ethnic white" and poor white neighborhoods) had the least political power to resist things like a proposed freeway project. Even Eisenhower was disappointed at the way that highways plowed through downtowns and neighborhoods, unlike the European prototypes he saw in German, that mostly ran around cities and connected them via feeders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbradleyc
The US is still a developing country. Interstate highways have been around for 50 to 60 years, but most of the towns and cities themselves have only been around for 150 to 200 years, maybe 300. Some more, some less.
It isn't like they have been going through ancient urban civilization, other than the occasional pre-Columbian ruin or burial ground. The freeways have always been just another part of the landscape for me. An exciting part, too.
The communities are in constant flux themselves anyway. I don't see any harm. Just change.
It doesn't really matter whether a city neighborhood being demolished by highway development had been there for 20 years or 2000 years, from the perspective of people whose homes, businesses, churches and communities are being uprooted.
I think that was a side effect and not the reason, most highway construction is about the path of least resistance which meant that it was easier to run a highway through a low income area than it was a high income area.
I was going to chime in, during that period, these areas weren't necessarily low income. Due to the segregation rules and other policies, they were generally pretty mixed income, compared to their fates post "development."
Many had middle class blue collar workers as well as the high income people as well.
Wburg sums it up, about political power being the keyword.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
A side effect, but I'm fairly certain that leaders of that era considered it a beneficial side effect--even in the 1950s and 1960s it was politically unpopular to outright talk about destroying a nonwhite neighborhood, but it was much easier to accomplish if put in terms of "property values" and "progress" instead of just "kicking out the brown people." The "path of least resistance" wasn't just in terms of economics but also in terms of political power, and nonwhite neighborhoods (along with "ethnic white" and poor white neighborhoods) had the least political power to resist things like a proposed freeway project. Even Eisenhower was disappointed at the way that highways plowed through downtowns and neighborhoods, unlike the European prototypes he saw in German, that mostly ran around cities and connected them via feeders.
It doesn't really matter whether a city neighborhood being demolished by highway development had been there for 20 years or 2000 years, from the perspective of people whose homes, businesses, churches and communities are being uprooted.
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.
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.
