New Orleans Developments & News (Baton Rouge, Claiborne: how much, to buy, construction)

[MetroBTR]

I just don't understand why people think the neighborhood can't be revitalized without the expressway coming down. Elevated viaducts run through some pretty nice areas, also. In Baton Rouge, having I-10 in its midst hasn't stopped the Perkins Road overpass area from thriving.

No...that neighborhood was destroyed by a broken culture, not an ugly expressway. It surely didn't help matters, but I don't see any convincing evidence anywhere that shows me removing this section would change the neighborhood.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by MetroBTR

I just don't understand why people think the neighborhood can't be revitalized without the expressway coming down. Elevated viaducts run through some pretty nice areas, also. In Baton Rouge, having I-10 in its midst hasn't stopped the Perkins Road overpass area from thriving.

No...that neighborhood was destroyed by a broken culture, not an ugly expressway. It surely didn't help matters, but I don't see any convincing evidence anywhere that shows me removing this section would change the neighborhood.

Perkins Road overpass area doesn't lie completely under the freeway the way Claiborne is literally shadowed by I-10. There's nothing attractive about I-110 and N 10th and N 9th streets.

[MetroBTR]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Perkins Road overpass area doesn't lie completely under the freeway the way Claiborne is literally shadowed by I-10. There's nothing attractive about I-110 and N 10th and N 9th streets.

So is taking out the freeway going to fix all the drugs, AIDS, crime, lethargy, and failing schools?

Anyway, the space beneath I-110 is apparently attractive enough to build a fun pedestrian path. And having the freeway through that area hasn't stopped Spanish Town or Beauregard town from gentrifying, and Beauregard Town has freeways on two sides. Sure, the houses directly by the interstate don't get as much attention as those a little farther away, but the point is that the freeway is still right there.

Haley Boulevard used to be a thriving center of the African-American culture in New Orleans, just like that portion of Claiborne Avenue. Only difference is that one got a freeway put atop it and the other didn't...but having access to sunlight didn't stop Haley Boulevard from going down the toilet when the culture began to degenerate.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by MetroBTR

So is taking out the freeway going to fix all the drugs, AIDS, crime, lethargy, and failing schools?

Anyway, the space beneath I-110 is apparently attractive enough to build a fun pedestrian path. And having the freeway through that area hasn't stopped Spanish Town or Beauregard town from gentrifying, and Beauregard Town has freeways on two sides. Sure, the houses directly by the interstate don't get as much attention as those a little farther away, but the point is that the freeway is still right there.

Haley Boulevard used to be a thriving center of the African-American culture in New Orleans, just like that portion of Claiborne Avenue. Only difference is that one got a freeway put atop it and the other didn't...but having access to sunlight didn't stop Haley Boulevard from going down the toilet when the culture began to degenerate.

It's not going to fix any of those things, never claimed it.

The greeway is to attract people, just like tearing down I-10 is trying to attract people. No different.

When did Spanish Town and Beauregard Town gentrify?

Just because a freeway cuts through a neighborhood doesn't mean it will ruin it, and tearing one down doesn't mean it will repair it but every situation varies. I believe it could help that area especially with the dome and the Loyola streetcar near.

[WestbankNOLA]

Originally Posted by MetroBTR

So is taking out the freeway going to fix all the drugs, AIDS, crime, lethargy, and failing schools?

Exactly, that neighborhood was dying before the highway came. That's my biggest problem with this whole thing. They're promoting it as a cure all for all of the problems in that area.

Originally Posted by annie_himself

He is extremely thorough in all arguments I've seen him participate in.

I think he took it as a personal attack. Idk. #shrug

[rburnett]

Taking down the expressway is not supposed to be a cure all for the surrounding neighborhood. It's an option for the future that needs to be looked at and not written off. Here is the full report from last year.

Traffic counts are way down from pre-Katrina and a lot of that is intercity traffic that has plenty of other route options. I see people all the time that get on the expressway only to get off again less than a mile away. That's not what it's there for. The existing street grid is well connected and has the capacity to absorb the extra traffic.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org...ves_071510.pdf

[WestbankNOLA]

Originally Posted by rburnett

Taking down the expressway is not supposed to be a cure all for the surrounding neighborhood. It's an option for the future that needs to be looked at and not written off. Here is the full report from last year.

...but that is the angle proponents of the project are using to push the idea. It starts with how tearing down the expressway will revitalize the area, then it goes into the live oak trees that were torn down to make room for I-10 and finally into how the neighborhood was went to hell as a result of the expressway opening.

If the objective is to look at future needs, why is most of the emphasis on tearing the highway down versus studying all possible alternatives. I'm sure that the upcoming study will do just that, but 90% of what gets to the public is "it should be torn down and this is why".

Traffic counts are way down from pre-Katrina and a lot of that is intercity traffic that has plenty of other route options. I see people all the time that get on the expressway only to get off again less than a mile away. That's not what it's there for. The existing street grid is well connected and has the capacity to absorb the extra traffic.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org...ves_071510.pdf

For some reason I can't open the file, but it may be the one that I read maybe a year ago. One thing stood out to me about the report that I saw was that the traffic counts were much lower than the traffic counts listed by DOTD. Actually, according to DOTD, traffic is nearly at pre-Katrina levels and is actually above them between Canal and Esplanade.

I'm not against bringing it down if it's feasible and economical. I just haven't seen anything presented that actually proves that. Yeah, it's cheaper to tear down than maintain or rebuild if that's the only things being included. When you add in making alternate routes capable of handling more traffic and making them desirable to drivers the price starts going up.

There's also that question of whether the city will be responsible for constructing and maintaining the new street if the Feds decide that it's ok for it to come down.

[WestbankNOLA]

Developer: Forever 21 pulls out of potential Canal Street deal

[rburnett]

Originally Posted by WestbankNOLA

...but that is the angle proponents of the project are using to push the idea. It starts with how tearing down the expressway will revitalize the area, then it goes into the live oak trees that were torn down to make room for I-10 and finally into how the neighborhood was went to hell as a result of the expressway opening.

If the objective is to look at future needs, why is most of the emphasis on tearing the highway down versus studying all possible alternatives. I'm sure that the upcoming study will do just that, but 90% of what gets to the public is "it should be torn down and this is why".

For some reason I can't open the file, but it may be the one that I read maybe a year ago. One thing stood out to me about the report that I saw was that the traffic counts were much lower than the traffic counts listed by DOTD. Actually, according to DOTD, traffic is nearly at pre-Katrina levels and is actually above them between Canal and Esplanade.

I'm not against bringing it down if it's feasible and economical. I just haven't seen anything presented that actually proves that. Yeah, it's cheaper to tear down than maintain or rebuild if that's the only things being included. When you add in making alternate routes capable of handling more traffic and making them desirable to drivers the price starts going up.

There's also that question of whether the city will be responsible for constructing and maintaining the new street if the Feds decide that it's ok for it to come down.

According to the report, the number of local businesses along N. Claiborne dropped by 50% Between 1965 and 1971. That is a precipitous drop that cannot simply be attributed to a "change in culture". The expressway forced everyone to bypass all of those businesses and reduced trips within the neighborhood. Its not the structure that was the problem, its what it did to traffic.

If it is torn down, there will be modifications that will have to be done, but they seem minimal. The report shows a 2 lane flyover ramp from I-610 onto the Ponchatrain Expressway, a diamond interchange at Broad St and Claiborne, and a Galvez connection over the expressway. They give a $50,000,000 figure for rehabbing the existing I-10 segment. Now, weather or not the demolition and modifications would be less than that number, I'm not sure.

Even if the cost is slightly higher, I believe it will be better for the city in the long run. From the traffic counts I've seen and the existing street network, a teardown with modifications could be better than what we have now. Look at Brooklyn, Boston and Chicago: Huge swaths of urban neighborhoods with minimal expressway intrusion. Granted, these cities have large rapid transit networks, but we are much much smaller and are only looking at 2 miles of expressway.

[MetroBTR]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

It's not going to fix any of those things, never claimed it.

The greeway is to attract people, just like tearing down I-10 is trying to attract people. No different.

When did Spanish Town and Beauregard Town gentrify?

Just because a freeway cuts through a neighborhood doesn't mean it will ruin it, and tearing one down doesn't mean it will repair it but every situation varies. I believe it could help that area especially with the dome and the Loyola streetcar near.

Well I know I don't want to walk or drive down a street plagued by those issues...I doubt anyone else does, either. I'm pointing out that the problems in that area of the city are nothing a little more sunlight can fix.

I say when prove they can fix O.C. Haley (also very close to attractions) with it's abundance of sunlight and potential, then lets give them a shot at Claiborne. Till then, I say let that monstrosity of an expressway stand! Do you think the greenway in BR will attract people? If so, why can't cultivating a pleasant space beneath the I-10 expressway in NOLA attract people?

As far as ST and BT here in Baton Rouge, that all depends on who you ask and your definition of "gentrify." Some streets in BT are still somewhat seedy if you ask me, particularly as you move farther south. Fifteen years ago you couldn't have paid me to live there. Same for ST >20 years ago. As a matter of fact I'd say neither of them has completely gentrified. There are still derelict properties even in Spanish town. In BT, I'd say at least 25-35% of housing remains slummish.