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.
The effect in many rural areas was to move commerce off the Main Street of nearby towns out to the interchange of the highway.
Which was an unintended consequence. The Interstate System was designed to bypass small towns, unlike the roads referenced by Mircea.
Don't forget that initially, the primary purpose of the Interstate Highway System was to move military vehicles. The secondary purpose was to function as obstacles to armored (tracked) vehicles. The third purpose was transportation corridors to move war materiel or provide support during periods of National Emergency.
That tax-payers could drive on the Interstates was a perk.
Army reorganization under Division '66, plus other changes in deployment operations made the Interstates obsolete for military use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
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'm not seeing where you can argue that 100%.
Yes, I-75 through Cincinnati paved over the West End -- an all Black neighborhood, but that was the most logical place to run the interstate. The West End is bounded by the Mill Creek running north-south and emptying into the Ohio River. Situated on the east bank of the Mill Creek running north-south are the rail lines. Having I-75 parallel the Mill Creek and rail lines and then cross the Ohio River into Kentucky parallel to rail lines is both the most logical and logistical placement.
You can't make that argument for I-71 either.
Yes, I-71 was supposed to move south through Clermont County, across the Ohio River into Kentucky, then continue south just east of Campbell County before turning east to Louisville.
Yes, the city fought and lobbied hard to change the course bringing I-71 through Hamilton County to merge with I-75 and then cross the Ohio running with I-75 until the planned crossing point.
Yes, I-71 did cut through a Black neighborhood, but it also cut through two poor White neighborhoods.
Now, if you want to make the argument for I-75 through Dayton, Ohio, you surely can, and your first clue would be as you head south from Tiffin, Ohio, the gigantic friggin' "S" curve that forces you to drop your speed from 75 mph to 20 mph so that you can stay in your lane, without rolling your vehicle and killing everyone in it.
I guess the point is you have to look at it from a case-by-case basis instead of sweeping generalization.
Not generalizing...
Well, maybe for the first time ever, I agree with you, Mircea!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
I'm not seeing where you can argue that 100%.
Globeville, the Denver example, is not a black neighborhood; it's currently very majority Hispanic. I have no idea what it was like in 1964; I was in high school in Pennsylvania at the time, never thought I'd live in Colorado. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globeville,_Denver "Even in its early years, Globeville was isolated from the rest of the city. The railroads and South Platte River served as physical barriers. There was only one streetcar stop, located just outside of Globeville, and the automobile was not yet a viable transportation option. With such limited access, the majority of people who worked within Globeville also lived in the neighborhood. The diverse immigrant populations thrived as churches and social organizations grew up around the various nationalities.
Globeville’s isolation was further impacted in the mid-20th century when two interstates were constructed that bisected the neighborhood. Construction of Interstate 25 began in 1948 and was completed in 1958. It runs north and south through the middle of the Globeville neighborhood. Interstate 70 was subsequently completed in 1964. Interstate 70 divided the eastern residential area of Globeville, and its construction resulted in the loss of 30 homes.
Globeville’s history as a home for immigrants has continued into the present. Over the past few decades, an increasing Latino or Hispanic population has moved into the Globeville neighborhood. The current mix of multi-generational residents and new immigrants continues the rich diversity that the Globeville neighborhood experienced in the past.
Today, portions of Globeville continue to be physically isolated from the rest of Denver by the freeways, railroad lines, and South Platte River. However, the freeways and railroads have also continued to make Globeville an attractive location for business and industry. Several large operations and employers are located within the neighborhood and nearby, including the Denver Coliseum and Stock Show complex, the Bannock Street furniture business district, and the Pepsi bottling plant.[3]"
Last edited by nei; 03-10-2014 at 08:55 AM..
Reason: unnecessary
I couldn't post that much yesterday, and this thread went everywhere. As for assuming you haven't walked much for transportation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
While I do not, now, walk much for transportation, anyone who says I don't know what I'm talking about is lying. [snipped]
Furthermore, I have walked a lot in my lifetime.
Sorry for making the assumption. But it seems really strange to me that sidewalks would be the only thing you'd care about as a pedestrian. I assumed anyone's whose walked a lot would notice more and would agree with this, or at least could relate a bit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
Just having a sidewalk doesn't make somewhere walkable.
I can't really relate much, I guess this is the logic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
I walk daily, mostly for exercise but also for transportation to the convenience store, the dry cleaner, the produce store, etc., thankyouverymuch. Yet I am still capable of crossing a six-lane street, crossing a sea of asphalt from the sidewalk to the store, or walking alongside 45 mph traffic. The aforementioned curb cuts can be a concern (and me with my old knees, the elevation changes are a problem!), but awareness of your surroundings - and a mean stare at the driver - help.
The bolded sound like they'd be unpleasant to me. Sure one could walk there, but I don't see much appeal unless you had no choice. And some multi-lane intersections can be dangerous; if the roads are fast, multiple lanes of turning traffic who may not have the best of the crosswalk in the distance. There are some I'm unwilling to cross, even though I'm comfortable (illegally) crossing midblock in some places when I can see across.
Note OhioGirl agreed about finding lots of curb cuts unpleasant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
No one's angry here that I know of. Also, no one has singled you out as far as I can see.
Here's the thing. If you have lived without a car, and you claim that this is walkable:
You think you can get a Google shot of some totally unwalkable scene and use that as some sort of "proof" when for all we know, there's a crosswalk with a nice pedestrian bridge just outside of the picture. Not going to work, for me anyway.
It's not proving anything about that place. It's finding an example of a contrast between a walkable and not walkable place. As to the bolded, instead of criticizing, we do know from the link what's just outside the picture, you can click around. Why don't you check before criticizing. Even if there were a nice crosswalk, it would mean a pedestrian would make a detour. Not that pedestrian friendly. The intersections in the view, in my experience with similar ones, are unpleasant to cross with multiple lanes of turning traffic. I assumed anyone who's walked a lot for transportation would find either of those things bothersome. I guess it doesn't you, but that just seems.
Sure, you can walk in both links, but why would anyone who didn't have to walk for very long in something like the first view? After spending time in places like the second view, it's hard to tolerate places like the first view much.
Here are some more views. To all posters, which would commercial streets find more walkable? Which would you want to walk in? Avoid walking if practical:
there's no intention of cherry picking, the second link in particular varies, I had to pick somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Oh, the irony. LOL That looks like a lovely neighborhood, but is it by your definition walkable? Where are the trendy restaurants? The overpriced shops? The happy hip urbanists? Where do you walk to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack
Lol, so true. If you have side walks and busses then you could easily travel much farther and much faster than you would if you just had to walk. They want walkable as in can walk to an coffee house, up scale boutique, over priced green grocery store, ect. Walkable as in can walk to an corner store that sells meat that isn't very fresh, or restaurants that are chains then the committee just isn't impressed.
Not trying to pick on posters too much, but sometimes I reads like more comments about "hip shops" are posted more by those arguing with the "urbanists" than by those interested in walkable neighborhoods. It reads mostly as stereotype tossing, there's plenty of posts on being able to walk to useful things.
Sidewalks obviously are important for safety, but they don't give any indication if there's anything in walking distance, as well as some of the factors.
Don't forget that initially, the primary purpose of the Interstate Highway System was to move military vehicles. The secondary purpose was to function as obstacles to armored (tracked) vehicles. The third purpose was transportation corridors to move war materiel or provide support during periods of National Emergency.
The problem is, a lot of common military equipment (like a Patton on a "dragon wagon" would not fit under a standard highway underpass. And I'm not sure how highways could function as obstacles to tracked vehicles if they were designed to move our military vehicles around--when we invaded Germany, autobahns sped our own military vehicles' advance. Generally, this military purpose was never used nor integrated into the design of highways--military material was still mostly moved by rail or aircraft.
Quote:
That tax-payers could drive on the Interstates was a perk.
Army reorganization under Division '66, plus other changes in deployment operations made the Interstates obsolete for military use.
But for some reason the "perk" became the primary purpose? Not so sure about that.
Quote:
I'm not seeing where you can argue that 100%.
Yes, I-75 through Cincinnati paved over the West End -- an all Black neighborhood, but that was the most logical place to run the interstate. The West End is bounded by the Mill Creek running north-south and emptying into the Ohio River. Situated on the east bank of the Mill Creek running north-south are the rail lines. Having I-75 parallel the Mill Creek and rail lines and then cross the Ohio River into Kentucky parallel to rail lines is both the most logical and logistical placement.
You can't make that argument for I-71 either.
Yes, I-71 was supposed to move south through Clermont County, across the Ohio River into Kentucky, then continue south just east of Campbell County before turning east to Louisville.
Yes, the city fought and lobbied hard to change the course bringing I-71 through Hamilton County to merge with I-75 and then cross the Ohio running with I-75 until the planned crossing point.
Yes, I-71 did cut through a Black neighborhood, but it also cut through two poor White neighborhoods.
Now, if you want to make the argument for I-75 through Dayton, Ohio, you surely can, and your first clue would be as you head south from Tiffin, Ohio, the gigantic friggin' "S" curve that forces you to drop your speed from 75 mph to 20 mph so that you can stay in your lane, without rolling your vehicle and killing everyone in it.
I guess the point is you have to look at it from a case-by-case basis instead of sweeping generalization.
Not generalizing...
Mircea
I didn't argue for it 100%--it was a beneficial side effect from the point of view of most city governments and chambers of commerce, not the primary purpose. There were other ways to get rid of nonwhite neighborhoods, like eminent domain and redevelopment. And poor whites were considered just as expendable as poor blacks (or poor Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese, etc), so the elimination of poor white neighborhoods isn't much of an argument against the use of highways to relocate undesirable neighborhoods...also, there was a time when ethnic whites, from Italians to Irish, weren't considered "white." Also note that, technically, the standard was called "blight," which was a term meant to describe, not slums, but neighborhoods likely to become slums. One of the determining factors was close proximity to nonwhite neighborhoods. So a poor Jewish or Polish community that was near a growing Black neighborhood might be considered "blighted" as it was the most likely place where the nonwhite population would expand.
I couldn't post that much yesterday, and this thread went everywhere. As for assuming you haven't walked much for transportation:
Sorry for making the assumption. But it seems really strange to me that sidewalks would be the only thing you'd care about as a pedestrian. I assumed anyone's whose walked a lot would notice more and would agree with this, or at least could relate a bit:
I didn't say the bold. I do believe that having sidewalks is a great enhancement to walkability. I have done much walking of the nature of getting from "Point A" to "Point B". I don't have to be entertained the whole way, nor do I have to look at a beautiful environment the whole time. Sure, that's nice, but not necessary for walking.
I can't really relate much, I guess this is the logic:
The bolded sound like they'd be unpleasant to me. Sure one could walk there, but I don't see much appeal unless you had no choice. And some multi-lane intersections can be dangerous; if the roads are fast, multiple lanes of turning traffic who may not have the best of the crosswalk in the distance. There are some I'm unwilling to cross, even though I'm comfortable (illegally) crossing midblock in some places when I can see across.
It's unpleasant, but it's not impossible to cross a six lane street, or walk alongside 45 mph traffic.
Note OhioGirl agreed about finding lots of curb cuts unpleasant.
Unpleasant, yes, but she seems to feel they are not unduly restrictive. My neighorhood has a bunch of cul-de-sacs off the north side of one of the main roads. When my friend and I walk, we walk on the south side to avoid the interruption, mostly b/c you have to watch for cars entering/exiting. (Not so much when we go at 6:45 AM, though!)
These are great examples.
It's not proving anything about that place. It's finding an example of a contrast between a walkable and not walkable place. As to the bolded, instead of criticizing, we do know from the link what's just outside the picture, you can click around. Why don't you check before criticizing. Even if there were a nice crosswalk, it would mean a pedestrian would make a detour. Not that pedestrian friendly. The intersections in the view, in my experience with similar ones, are unpleasant to cross with multiple lanes of turning traffic. I assumed anyone who's walked a lot for transportation would find either of those things bothersome. I guess it doesn't you, but that just seems.
No, it's not. IIRC from yesterday (I'm not going back to open them up again), the shots were mostly of multilane roads. So what? Is the goal of urbanism to get rid of all multilane roads? As far as having to go out of one's way, again, what is the HUGE deal? It seems like some urbanists want the whole enchilada: universal two lane roads, preferably narrow; ability to cross wherever and whenever they wish. You don't get that with any form of transportation, certainly not with driving.
Sure, you can walk in both links, but why would anyone who didn't have to walk for very long in something like the first view? After spending time in places like the second view, it's hard to tolerate places like the first view much.
Here are some more views. To all posters, which would commercial streets find more walkable? Which would you want to walk in? Avoid walking if practical:
there's no intention of cherry picking, the second link in particular varies, I had to pick somewhere.
I'll look at these later. I spent too much time on CD yesterday! Of course, pleasant surroundings enhances the walk. Again, this sounds like wanting no inconvenience whatsoever.
Not trying to pick on posters too much, but sometimes I reads like more comments about "hip shops" are posted more by those arguing with the "urbanists" than by those interested in walkable neighborhoods. It reads mostly as stereotype tossing, there's plenty of posts on being able to walk to useful things.
Well, we've read a lot of posts about how some people can't just go out and walk w/o something "interesting" such as a coffee shop, bar (lots of emphasis on bars), movie theater, dance club, restaurant, whatever to pass along the way. We've read that an area has to be "interesting" to be considered "walkable". If you could see some of the places I've walked in the day, you'd be shocked. There was a steel mill on the main street of my hometown (not quite in the shopping area). I've walked by it many times on my way to someplace else. And I can just walk around the 'hood and enjoy the scenery w/o having to drop in at a coffee shop, or take my dry cleaning somewhere. The most I can do here in the hood is catch a sermon at the Mormon church!
It's unpleasant, but it's not impossible to cross a six lane street, or walk alongside 45 mph traffic.
As to similar comments, I never said anything about impossible, nor make any claims about possible. Possible is not much of a thershold, how about is it practicable? Convenient? Not unpleasant?
Quote:
No, it's not. IIRC from yesterday (I'm not going back to open them up again), the shots were mostly of multilane roads. So what? Is the goal of urbanism to get rid of all multilane roads? As far as having to go out of one's way, again, what is the HUGE deal? It seems like some urbanists want the whole enchilada: universal two lane roads, preferably narrow; ability to cross wherever and whenever they wish. You don't get that with any form of transportation, certainly not with driving.
For through streets, fast multilane roads make sense. But they're usually pedestrian unfriendly. In that example, the stores were spread out, the intersections somewhat hostile looking, the road noisy and devoid of pedestrians. And IMO, those roads are often really ugly [not saying something should be done] but I do dislike them aesthetically. Going out of your way makes things less convenient, especially on foot, small detours eat up less time on a car. These add up and eventually make walk impractical. What's the big deal of going out of your way? Would spending ten extra minutes for a trip not be a big deal? Most drivers dislike long delays, pedestrians don't either.
And there are many real life examples that are the "whole enchilada" some that come close, they're nowhere the same as ones as fast multilane roads. If you're used to the nicer As for it being not walkable, I guess it comes down a definition. I'm not using is "possible to walk", almost everywhere except the truly horrible roads can pass that.
My ideal would be for most commercial streets to on the narrow side and easier to cross. Through streets can be wider, but with fewer shops. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a town where the main streets to walk on would be a strip-mall styled fast moving multilane road. Not much of a town to me.
Quote:
I'll look at these later. I spent too much time on CD yesterday! Of course, pleasant surroundings enhances the walk. Again, this sounds like wanting no inconvenience whatsoever.
That's not the point, the point is some road designs are much more practical for walking than others. Some are also more pleasant for walking than others. They all have sidewalks, but some are more pedestrian friendly than others. Yes, in every one walking is possible, but they're not the same. If you like being able to walk to things, wouldn't you want to live in one where walking around is pleasant rather a chore?
Repeating myself since you haven't responded, people shouldn't criticize something (for being misleading) when checking is available.
As to the bold, I was impressed at the posting volume, last weekend. Also, when you look, note that I've walked in all of them, though the two ones I would rate as pedestrian unfriendly barely. One of them years ago my mom well, strongly suggested, not to walk across the street. We drove instead. So I would rate that place unwalkable by default.
Quote:
Well, we've read a lot of posts about how some people can't just go out and walk w/o something "interesting" such as a coffee shop, bar (lots of emphasis on bars), movie theater, dance club, restaurant, whatever to pass along the way. We've read that an area has to be "interesting" to be considered "walkable".
There hasn't been more on architecture? Especially on pedestrian volume? Out of curiosity, do you like the feeling of non-residential having more people on them? I find built-up streets full of cars but few pedestrians kinda bleak.
Oh, heck! Someone posts a picture, that's what they're trying to show. Sure, I could have played around with those pictures to see if I could find a crosswalk, but that's not what the poster was trying to show. S/he (can't remember who and they're almost all "he" on this forum) was using those particular shots as evidence of "unwalkable" streets.
I don't know what there's been more posting on. I'm commenting on this issue: we read a lot, especially from certain posters, about needing to be entertained by the environment when venturing out the door.
As for non-residential (streets I presume?) having people on them, you're not likely to see that except in shopping areas. You don't usually see a lot of pedestrians in industrial and/or office areas.
Oh, heck! Someone posts a picture, that's what they're trying to show. Sure, I could have played around with those pictures to see if I could find a crosswalk, but that's not what the poster was trying to show. S/he (can't remember who and they're almost all "he" on this forum) was using those particular shots as evidence of "unwalkable" streets.
My point is you can check to see what's there instead of saying "we don't know". We certainly do. A google streetview link (like the ones I posted) means to me "here's a spot to show the general area", it doesn't mean the poster is only trying to show that exact spot [you have to pick somewhere for the link]/ There were crosswalks at all the intersections in that link, though no pedestrian bridges.
Quote:
I don't know what there's been more posting on. I'm commenting on this issue: we read a lot, especially from certain posters, about needing to be entertained by the environment when venturing out the door.
Hmm. I've definitely posted more on other things, maybe more of the forum is similar to my posts. Here's what I posted on being "entertained"
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Why is one interested in walking? I'm thinking two possibilties:
1) you don't have access to a car.
Then yes, safe passage is the main objective. However, sidewalks aren't the only factor in safe access. And it is a plus that where youre walking is at least somewhat appealing.
2) you're walking because you like being out in your community or whereever you're visiting. In a car, you whiz by a place or are shielded from the area in a way you're not on foot. Having other pedestrians (which = activity) is a huge plus, you get to see other locals going about their day. Not buskers. If you're walking isn't the least bit interesting or appealing, why would I care about walking there? For most, people aren't going to choose walking if it takes much longer. But walking past an area that's ugly and no other people isn't going to be walkability I'm as interested in; I have a car.
Why focus on the types of stores? Amount of other people on the street, interesting architecture, and just stores against the street are mentioned plenty of times.
I think many posters care more about 2. I care about 2 more, but 1 is still important. Sometimes the walking environment switches to less appealing but I'm already, I want to safely walk on the road and cross.
I guess I meant shopping streets, though offices can be mixed with shops.
I didn't argue for it 100%--it was a beneficial side effect from the point of view of most city governments and chambers of commerce, not the primary purpose. There were other ways to get rid of nonwhite neighborhoods, like eminent domain and redevelopment. And poor whites were considered just as expendable as poor blacks (or poor Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese, etc), so the elimination of poor white neighborhoods isn't much of an argument against the use of highways to relocate undesirable neighborhoods...also, there was a time when ethnic whites, from Italians to Irish, weren't considered "white." Also note that, technically, the standard was called "blight," which was a term meant to describe, not slums, but neighborhoods likely to become slums. One of the determining factors was close proximity to nonwhite neighborhoods. So a poor Jewish or Polish community that was near a growing Black neighborhood might be considered "blighted" as it was the most likely place where the nonwhite population would expand.
I've got a little history correction here. Blight was not a justifiable reason to use eminent domain (combined with subsequent redevelopment) to clean up a neighborhood until 2005's Kelo v. City of New London (a highly controversial use of eminent domain). Separation was certainly used to divide poor & nonwhite communities from others, but that was primarily done through racially restrictive covenants (until outlawed in the 1960s).
We can certainly speculate about the use of highway and rail construction to separate those communities as well. I would agree that in many cases the effect of such construction was to separate those communities, though I am not so sure that we would find that the intent of the construction was to separate poor and nonwhite communities.
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.
- help.
Of course, pleasant surroundings enhances the walk. Again, this sounds like wanting no inconvenience whatsoever.
