4 ms·
On the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Par... Moreover the
by abalone 12y ago
On the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Par...
Moreover the simpler solution would be to build up. The article just dismisses that in one sentence saying "nobody wants" it, but do people want entire new microblocks built in the middle of streets?
Plus, narrowing streets would come at a significant cost to the city to reconfigure the roads and infrastructure. Not only tearing up sidewalks and paving new roads, but also burying all the wires on those telephone poles and lord knows whether the gas and sewer lines under the street could support construction on top of them (and how would you service them after?). We'd also lose/downsize trees. On the other hand, building taller is entirely privately funded and quite economical in comparison.
- pouetpouet 12y agoHausmann widened some streets because all of them were small. When most streets are wide, narrowing some is the thing to do.
- mauricemir 12y agoI thought the wide streets where to allow better firing lanes for the artillery vs the mob :-)
- CaptainDecisive 12y agoI'm also not convinced on the OP's idea, although I found it very interesting how the street cross section diagrams highlighted just how much space is consumed by streets. By it's also very interesting to see how public opinion goes in circles by comparing the 1850 Paris example. Some of the examples of slums that were demolished (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris#/media/File:Charles_Marville,_Rue_du_Jardinet,_ca._1853%E2%80%9370.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Par...) were obviously very run down, but are precisely the sort of places that have been gentrified and are now worth crazy money and considered very desirable places to live.
- reedlaw 12y agoWouldn't the sale of the property by the city offset the cost of reconfiguring the infrastructure? It seems even likely to make a profit considering property values.
- digi_owl 12y agoAnd we have a reason...
- abalone 12y agoMoving sewer, water & gas lines? Burying electrical & telecom? I don't know without running the numbers, but that is hugely expensive and disruptive in exchange for a relatively small amount of low-rise development. Just the planning process alone... (shudder). Whereas building up would increase property taxes at basically no cost to the city. It's literally a pipe dream.