4 ms·
Did they see it as neutering cities? Transportation infrastructure is typically seen as a means of supporting growth by connecting regions. Freeways were like
by II2II 7y ago
Did they see it as neutering cities? Transportation infrastructure is typically seen as a means of supporting growth by connecting regions. Freeways were likely seen as a natural extension of that approach. While many modes of transportation had a negative impact in the immediate vicinity, it is probable that they underestimated the impact of freeways both in terms of environmental factors and encouraging urban sprawl. In other words, they embarked upon a grand experiment without realizing that it was an experiment.
- iguy 7y agoRight. I think they failed to imagine how big the local disruption would be. Especially since they were busy demolishing & re-planning districts anyway, replacing slums with big block projects. They clearly had no idea how awful these new districts would be, and to me this seems like a very similar misunderstanding of how cities work. I also wonder a bit if they learned the wrong lessons from rail. Some cities, like London, added a ring of terminal stations, which still today means you have to schlepp across town to continue. Other cities, like Berlin, re-built so that lines ran through, and in hindsight the disruption was worth it.
- Gibbon1 7y ago" and to me this seems like a very similar misunderstanding of how cities work." This is an interesting rebuttal to those re-inventing cities. From 1965. Short summary: The new hierarchical designs are callously authoritarian and socially disruptive and pathological. http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexander-A-city-is-not-a-tree.pdf http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexan...
- iguy 7y agoThanks, that's an interesting take. Some were sane! But the power was all on the other side then, I think. High modernism, central planning, creating the new man, etc.