A small question about streets
I would once again have a small question. This time it's about streets. I would like to ask if it's feasible to reroute streets a bit to make room for a building. To better understand what I mean I have made a small scheme about it. The original is no. 1 and the new would be no. 2. Is this feasible?
http://i53.tinypic.com/124tyrd.jpg |
Does this have anything to do with making room for a new twin freedom tower?
|
Depends on the location of the street, and what the rerouting of the street would effect with other property rights. There are lots of variables depending on the streets. If this is about urban streets, usually the patterns of the streets don't really change much or make changes like that without there being a lot of money from a developer to help pay for a change like that.
|
Quote:
|
Rebuilding the road isn't the problem. It's the surrounding properties that would be affected, the utilities that would have to be moved, etc.
There's so many factors that estimating costs and considering feasibility don't really have value unless you are looking at a specific site. If there is a building where you want the road to go, it would obviously require removing that building. If the land is still empty, it would still require the land to be purchased, and perhaps swapped with the city. If there's many utilities under the road, with lots of connections to other buildings, it would really be a logistical nightmare to move a road. The situation reminds me a little bit of the BOW tower in Calgary, although the road was not moved. Google maps shows the permanent bridge, which the public will never suspect as being a bridge when the development is complete. The road could likely have moved here, had they wanted to, the limited distance to use allowed no discussion of moving the road to ever happen. In this case, the company building the tower, bought the public street in an agreement with the city, with the condition that the road would be built there again (with parkade underneath) and would be open to the public. The road was closed for about a year, and has been open to the public ever since, with construction happening on both sides of the road, as well as underneath. I think the only real way to get what you propose done would be for the developer to own all of the affected land, and then make a similar agreement with the city in question. |
BTW, I've always been impressed with how the buildings had to be moved back in Detroit to accommodate the widening of Woodward Ave. As you can see, the road doesn't run perfectly straight either, it's got a bit of sway. Not all buildings were moved, and some were just truncated, and then the facade pushed back into place. But on the ground, you'd never notice the difference. Can you imagine the cost of trying to do something like that today?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2232/...efff8bf4_b.jpg Photo Credit: me |
Hayward, good mention, actually about 100 years back when the city of Portland built the Burnside Bridge and connected it to a two lane street that needed to be expanded to a six lane street, the city actually cut off those portions of the buildings that were effected and ran the road through. Which is why we have some odd shaped building along that street and a number of those buildings have basements that run under Burnside because of this.
|
It's surprising how often they moved buildings back in the 1800s. Almost all of the buildings in my area built at that time were moved to their present locations after being built elsewhere. The hotel that used to be across the street from where I live now (burned down in 2000) was moved three times in its history, but the railway station it was trying to stay across from was rebuilt every time its position was moved. The city's oldest house was moved over 2 miles away from its original location.
|
Quote:
|
So it looks like street rerouting happens all the time. That's nice to know. Thanks folks.
|
Quote:
|
Despite our having had a different federal government system in the 19th and early 20th century than the Chinese do today, the US used to get things done in a hurry like in contemporary China.
Now, enormous sums of money payoff bureaurocracies from the city through the federal level. In addition, in the US, we have lost much of private enterprise complex that was capable of building on a vast scale. 100 years ago, property owners and politicians would get together at a fancy bar and broad brush major construction plans in one evening. Newspapers would carry the story a week or two later with 'do' or 'don't' editorials, voters would gather and talk about it and communicate desires to their precinct chairman, and, in a short time the dirt would be flying. And the results built often were better designed and engineered than what our processes end up building now. Oh, well, keeps desk jobs, even if nothing gets done now days. Besides, a desk jocky with a PC does not have the expenses of steel and concrete...LOL |
Today it takes 2 years to pave a residential side street. In the 1920s, my city paved them before houses were built on them, and even provided a streetcar to them.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
LOL, if it means making room, then I mean making room for a twin. After all, I'm the Twin Towers crusader :tup:
|
Wow, this has gotten beyond stupid...if we keep telling Kanto this is the greatest idea ever, will it go away??
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Well, in my opinion "stupid" is an insult :no:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.