Quote:
Originally Posted by mr1138
I can't believe there is anybody still out there who actually thinks the "hangman's noose" of downtown freeways is a good thing. Here are a few more cities that didn't "die" (if that's even the standard we want to use): Kansas City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Minneapolis.
Not one of these places was made better by tearing down dense historic buildings and replacing them with freeways. Nor, would I argue, do they do any better of a job of "moving a large population into and through the city efficiently" than Denver. The speed by which a car can move directly through the center of a major city without stopping is not the standard of good mobility, nor is it the mark of a good city. Sounds like somebody needs to familiarize themselves with Jane Jacobs.
Mind you, I'm not talking about I-70 here. I'm in full support of that plan at this point.
|
I didn't say I thought any of this was a good idea, I asked the question how would Denver have evolved differently if the Skyline freeway had been built. It seems the concensus here is that the city would have died, but I'm not that pessimistic. Detroit didn't die because of a freeway. It died because of economic factors that Denver doesn't have.
The speed at which a car can get through a city is relevant just as how quickly someone can get into a city is also relevant. They are both important. They are important to people who commute which most people do. Have you taken the train from Golden into Downtown? It's not good. Ask anyone on the train. One of the main reasons the southeast corridor has grown so much is because people don't want to commute to downtown.
Jane Jacobs was a great influence in NYC but there are still reasons why neighborhoods were torn down; blight, transients, and crime. And when people were fleeing to the suburbs, cities had to make decisions about what to do with decaying areas. Just like Detroit is doing today. It is a cryin' shame, but it is also a reality. What is Detroit supposed to do today? How is that any different than what most of these cities went through in the 60's?
I am not trying to argue, just have a rational discussion because I don't think we have done a good job of planning for a future metro area of 8M people. That issue reaches far beyond LoDo.