3 ms·
>I grew up near Boston during the big dig and the city is a drastically different place before and after the Central Artery. What did the Big Dig do that a bet
by dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I grew up near Boston during the big dig and the city is a drastically different place before and after the Central Artery.
What did the Big Dig do that a better central artery with more decks wouldn't?
The whole "highways are ugly" argument really is mostly from/for upscale people who don't want their view ruined. Very few people who actually has to use or live/work near the infrastructure really cares all that much about it's presence. It's just a fact of life. Heck, if you painted it like something interesting everyone would stop caring in a couple years (i.e. same thing that happened to the rainbow natural gas tank on the side of I93).
Putting stuff underground is expensive and complicated compare to building above ground.
- brlewis 7y agoHi. I work near the infrastructure and I care about its presence or lack thereof. Fortunately the oppressively loud, reverberating steel structure is no longer a fact of life. When I walk through that area I am literally no longer in its shadow. https://ourdoings.com/brlewis/2008-05-14 https://ourdoings.com/brlewis/2008-05-14
- untog 7y ago> The whole "highways are ugly" argument really is mostly from/for upscale people who don't want their view ruined. That's really, really not true. And "it's ugly" isn't the argument usually presented, either - it's that it's a tremendous waste of space. Move all the roads underground and you can reuse that land. Maybe for a park, but also maybe for high-density housing that will make things more affordable for everyone.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoThe big dig is way more pedestrian friendly than multiple decks and pedestrian overpasses. And pedestrians are a huge positive for cities in so many ways.