DEVELOPMENT:Cap Over Connector (Atlanta: neighborhood, taxi, property taxes)

[ElleKaye]

Originally Posted by taurus2000

What does it mean to "cap the connector"?

I was wondering the same thing.

Originally Posted by bryantm3

this is the basic idea:



the rendering above is in austin, texas— our connector is at least twice as wide as that, so even if you sunk the connector down, "capping" our connector would pretty much mean a giant treeless park, as you can't build anything over such a thin bridge structure, and correct me if i'm wrong, but i can't imagine trees being able to grow very large in such a shallow patch of dirt.

the fact that it would basically be an empty plot of grass combined with the fact that the freeway would have to be lowered to make it happen, it seems to me like you might as well tunnel the thing rather than spend just as much money to build a huge lawn where the freeway used to be.

if you tunnelled the connector, at least you'd be able to reclaim the land where the connector was for real development, whether it's a street grid, skyscrapers, a park with giant oak trees, etc. "capping" pretty much leaves you one option: grass and shrubs.

if it were smaller like the freeway pictured above, it would be fine since you could create a little boulevard, but i don't see the point in paying billions of dollars to create a 1/4 mile wide monument to the great plains in the middle of midtown.

forget the "cap"-romise and pay 10% more for a real tunnel. otherwise, leave it as is and try to work with what we've got. i'm not opposed to capping over the sections that can be easily done, but when you have to start tearing up the connector to move it down 20 feet, you might as well tunnel the damn thing.

So the answer is a tunnel?

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by ElleKaye

I was wondering the same thing.





So the answer is a tunnel?

the idea commonly being tossed around is that you wouldn't have to modify the connector at all; just build a big bridge over the entire thing, except put grass on top of the bridge instead of a road; that would be a "cap". however the expense involved in building a complete "cap" over the entire connector would be so high— and the benefits so few— that building a tunnel might be a better solution.

[dreDREb13]

I never understand. Cities are built with a giant river running in the middle of them. Granted, they're built with that in mind from the very beginning, and the Connector pretty well separated neighborhoods with its construction, but why is it people don't just sort of... treat it like a river and build along it? I realize it's not the most aesthetically pleasing "river", but we're sort of stuck with it, and a cap is not gonna happen any time soon.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

the idea commonly being tossed around is that you wouldn't have to modify the connector at all; just build a big bridge over the entire thing, except put grass on top of the bridge instead of a road; that would be a "cap". however the expense involved in building a complete "cap" over the entire connector would be so high— and the benefits so few— that building a tunnel might be a better solution.

You could achieve similar results by just capping the below-grade sections from North Avenue to 14th Street, Peachtree to Piedmont, and the Capitol Gateway park proposal between Memorial and MLK.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by dreDREb13

I never understand. Cities are built with a giant river running in the middle of them. Granted, they're built with that in mind from the very beginning, and the Connector pretty well separated neighborhoods with its construction, but why is it people don't just sort of... treat it like a river and build along it? I realize it's not the most aesthetically pleasing "river", but we're sort of stuck with it, and a cap is not gonna happen any time soon.

Yes, because I like to wake up in the morning with 14 lanes of traffic right outside my window.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by Gulch

You could achieve similar results by just capping the below-grade sections from North Avenue to 14th Street, Peachtree to Piedmont, and the Capitol Gateway park proposal between Memorial and MLK.

I agree. Those sections would easiest to do with minimal relative cost and offer just as much impact as capping the entire connector. As has been mentioned several times, the template is already there at the 5th street bridge and the benefit of that bridge has been huge for Tech.

[bryantm3]

that's my whole point. the connector is not below grade from 14th to north avenue; in fact, it's above grade for much of that stretch. capping it would be impossible; you'd have to lower the interstate, and by the time you do that, you would be better off building a tunnel.

[J2rescue]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

that's my whole point. the connector is not below grade from 14th to north avenue; in fact, it's above grade for much of that stretch. capping it would be impossible; you'd have to lower the interstate, and by the time you do that, you would be better off building a tunnel.

The point is to create greenspace /amenities where it makes sense. It may be at grade in a couple of spots but I don't see anywhere that it is above grade in that stretch

[thebigATL]

Here is everything you need to know about the project.
ISSUU - I-75/85 Connector Transformation by Central Atlanta Progress

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by thebigATL

Here is everything you need to know about the project.
ISSUU - I-75/85 Connector Transformation by Central Atlanta Progress

That link is probably required reading (or skimming, anyway) for anyone interested in debating this -- the plan is clearly not to attempt to bury miles and miles of interstate, but to A) improve the caps that are already there, like Courtland & Ralph McGill Blvd; B) add new caps where they make sense, like the Capitol Gateway Park; and C) improve the aesthetics of the existing connector streetscape wherever they can.