3 ms·

That article was on HN recently, and I recall it doesn't prove out any of the points it claims in the intro paragraphs. Nearly every city it alludes to being gu

That article was on HN recently, and I recall it doesn't prove out any of the points it claims in the intro paragraphs. Nearly every city it alludes to being gutted is thriving. Detroit is basically fallen over, of course, but blaming the highway system for that is fairly disingenuous. Mostly, the article just rabble rouses a bit by pointing out connected people used their power to stop highways they didn't like. I guess that's true, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the idea that America's cities are gutted. Of course, as you can see by my sibling comment, very few people let a little truth get in the way of populist emotional resonance.

bluthru 11y ago
>Nearly every city it alludes to being gutted is thriving. What do you mean by "thriving"? The cities that have nice walkable urban centers avoided their destruction via highway. NYC and Boston stood up to their interstate plan. SF's Embarcadero fell down in an earthquake and they wisely didn't rebuild it, which then created a desirable waterfront. >Detroit is basically fallen over, of course, but blaming the highway system for that is fairly disingenuous. Urban planners (the people most knowledgeable on this subject) would not call this "disingenuous". The cities that are most prosperous and desirable in this country are dense without highways cutting through them. People want walkable environments with 24/7 activity, not just buildings peppered throughout parking lots. In Detroit's case they cut through downtown with highways to easily connect them to the suburbs. This also meant adding parking lots. When new buildings were built, the code required a certain amount of parking. This ease of mobility allowed "white flight" to the suburbs. This reduced the amount of people living downtown along with amenities, reducing rent which reduces taxes. Detroit also never annexed its suburbs, so the tax base was reduced even more. It's basically a textbook case of what not to do. Live by the car, die by the car. Here are some more cities: http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/ http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/
- ghaff 11y ago
  Though Boston did still have an ugly elevated highway separating neighborhoods that was only eliminated by the enormously expensive and disruptive Big Dig.

bluthru 11y ago

>Nearly every city it alludes to being gutted is thriving. What do you mean by "thriving"? The cities that have nice walkable urban centers avoided their destruction via highway. NYC and Boston stood up to their interstate plan. SF's Embarcadero fell down in an earthquake and they wisely didn't rebuild it, which then created a desirable waterfront. >Detroit is basically fallen over, of course, but blaming the highway system for that is fairly disingenuous. Urban planners (the people most knowledgeable on this subject) would not call this "disingenuous". The cities that are most prosperous and desirable in this country are dense without highways cutting through them. People want walkable environments with 24/7 activity, not just buildings peppered throughout parking lots. In Detroit's case they cut through downtown with highways to easily connect them to the suburbs. This also meant adding parking lots. When new buildings were built, the code required a certain amount of parking. This ease of mobility allowed "white flight" to the suburbs. This reduced the amount of people living downtown along with amenities, reducing rent which reduces taxes. Detroit also never annexed its suburbs, so the tax base was reduced even more. It's basically a textbook case of what not to do. Live by the car, die by the car. Here are some more cities: http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/ http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/

ghaff 11y ago
Though Boston did still have an ugly elevated highway separating neighborhoods that was only eliminated by the enormously expensive and disruptive Big Dig.