3 ms·
Costs aside, lets not pretend the viaduct was removed just to improve property values. The thing was a ticking time bomb that would have killed dozens or hundre
by Slippery_John 5y ago
Costs aside, lets not pretend the viaduct was removed just to improve property values. The thing was a ticking time bomb that would have killed dozens or hundreds of people the next time a moderately sized earthquake hit, to say nothing of the cost of cleaning up the damage and replacing it.
Speaking a somebody who lived in the area both before and after the demolition (not a property owner), the whole place is just so much more beautiful. Some commuters may have lost a view, but what they lost pedestrians all over the area gained. Even outside of the waterfront itself, the view from the street level in the adjoining neighborhoods is gorgeous now.
- throwawaysea 5y ago> The thing was a ticking time bomb that would have killed dozens or hundreds of people the next time a moderately sized earthquake hit, to say nothing of the cost of cleaning up the damage and replacing it. It could have been replaced with a much cheaper and safer viaduct, instead of a tunnel boondoggle that was way too expensive.