Saw this on urbanophile - Louisville proposed highway interchange. Im rarely at a loss for words - it's scale and size is simply shocking. It sort of reminds me of those early 20th century giant neoclassical plazas in communist countries. It eats the city yet is breathtaking in it's scale and scope. I want to drive on it but it feels so wrong. What is this this thing?
from the urbanophile quoting another blog comparing Louisville to Stockholm.....
""Stockholm, a city roughly the same size as Louisville, is literally blanketed in a web of public transit. This access grew out of investment and planning dating back to the 1940's, when Louisville was foolishly dismantling its electric street cars. The result today in Stockholm is a beautiful city that is drastically quieter, cleaner, and more accessible to everyone than Louisville is. In my several months here I have been inside a car only a handful of times. Buses, bicycles, pedestrians - they all coexist in the same space and breathe the same air.
Just like Louisville, Stockholm was originally founded because it was a natural stopping point for shipping. The boats had to stop here and therefore a community grew around that pause in the transport of goods. Sure, Stockholm is more than half a millennium older than Louisville, but that should make its lessons of modern growth more of an example than not. Despite the age difference, the two cities share a lot of parallels and similar challenges when it comes to transit - namely, a similar population, surface area, high water table, commuter culture.
The difference is that in Stockholm they made tough choices for the greater good. They moved their air traffic away from the city instead of continuing to expand an old airport in the middle of where everyone lives. They built an extensive underground rail system which meant carving deep into the bedrock below lakes and rivers.
Both of these things happened more than sixty years ago and neither was cheap, but in the long run, they were ultimately worth it. They required sacrifices but they became gifts to future generations that people today are enjoying.""
Wow, this proposal is just 'wrong'. I mean the one evil posted. I have been to Louisville and even today, the downtown is totally cut off from the river. I wanted to walk along the river, but did not find any well-developed pathways, jogging tracks etc. It seemed very odd compared to the beautiful city and its downtown.
Does louisville really need that stupid interchange? There did not even seem to be enough traffic volume to warrant that kind of infrastructure. We got into a traffic jam once, but there is nearly not enough volume to be even thinking of something like this.
The 8664 proposal is quite interesting actually, giving back the riverfront to the city and alleviating the traffic by diverting it...
Holy shit... That freeway interchange looks like a highway engineer's wet dream. I could see something like that being built in the 50's or 60's in northern New Jersey, but you'd think cities have learned their lessons by now. That $4.1 billion would certainly go a long way towards building a comprehensive regional light rail system.
Further up the river, Cincinnati is hoping to move its own spaghetti junction further away from downtown as part of the Brent Spance Bridge replacement project, and they recently rebuilt Fort Washington Way so that it didn't form as much of a barrier between downtown and the riverfront.
Wait, WHAT? Wait a minute, people are still proposing shit like this in 2009?!?!?!?!?!! Are they SERIOUS? Have they not read a newspaper or, say, visited another city in 50 years?!?!?!?!
Seriously, who is pulling for this stuff? Why would anyone desire such a thing? Who benefits from it (except civil engineers and road contractors)? -- and I mean that as a serious question, not a rhetorical.
Oh my goodness, and to think how many cities are spending billions of dollars to extricate themselves from messes like this that were created in the blighted planning realm of the 1960s. Man. To have lived through Boston's big dig and then see something like this proposed... it's like a slap in the face to human environments.
Technically, with 4.8 billion dollars to throw at a moderate problem... they'd be better off building parallel with no exit suspension bridges over the whole thing.
Eliminates the interaction between the surface level and through traffic.
The even bigger problem with this is that even you architects are to blame. How many brand new awesome buildings are being built that are drive-to locations? I mean dwell is almost entirely dedicated to "selfish" home design.
Downtown Louisville seems to have more parking spaces than ground cover anyways-- so it is entirely fitting. Good? No. But still fitting.
Yes, but why would planners pull for it? Are they not more enlightened than this proposal, in this day and age? I mean that honestly. What do planners strive for -- this? Do planners go home after a long day working out spaghetti junction and settle into sleep happy and contented with their work and their legacy? If so, WHY? What would make anyone happy about designing this?
Also, excuse me but architects nowadays are pulling for adaptive reuse, over and over and over again. This is coming up again and again in building construction discussions. The architect usually comes in AFTER the client buys the land -- so who is pushing for "drive-to" locations? That's right, the client. Who makes it possible for these drive-to locations to exist? The planners that plan the roads and the exurban development. The planners that provide for city grid & sewer extensions to new greenfield development areas. Why why why does this keep occurring? How do we stop drive-to development? At what level can we pull the plug?
Planners, for the most part, represent the public and their wishes. Very few planning divisions in the US are actually proactive. Most of them operate in a defensive or reactionary point-- they don't do anything til there is an actual problem.
The moment a planner stands up and starts saying "no" is the same moment they get labeled a communist and lose their career.
For smart asses like myself, this proves extremely burdensome as it limits your career potential and or stops your career completely.
"Are they not more enlightened than this proposal, in this day and age? I mean that honestly. What do planners strive for -- this?"
Depends on the planner and their political orientation. If you're fairly conservative or an immigrant or pro-family... yes, this is the kind of thing you strive for. This is what the government has been trying to guarantee for years.
Their are more active planners out there but most of them work in the private sector.
"Do planners go home after a long day working out spaghetti junction and settle into sleep happy and contented with their work and their legacy? If so, WHY?"
Yes, they actually got something built. And they actually got something built that will address a problem... no matter if the problem is the "right" or "wrong" problem. You could argue the same about fuel efficiency, hybrids and the like... The way a car works is not the problem. It's the car.
Once we "get over" cars, most of these problems will come to an end.
"What would make anyone happy about designing this?"
See above... because it will actually get done.
"Also, excuse me but architects nowadays are pulling for adaptive reuse, over and over and over again. This is coming up again and again in building construction discussions."
Yes but for every one cool building that follows this... there's a dozen cool buildings that don't. And then there's a gross of buildings made by no name architects who don't get the coverage that the "cool" architects get.
"The architect usually comes in AFTER the client buys the land -- so who is pushing for "drive-to" locations? That's right, the client."
Yes but you're still enabling them. You're not sitting down with them to explain other alternative, you're simply not saying no... That's business. You're in business to get paid. You're not in business to save the world. There are a few major companies and NGOs who are... but their successes are often far and few.
Who makes it possible for these drive-to locations to exist? The planners that plan the roads and the exurban development.
County planners... not urban planners. Technically, since you don't need a license or a formal educattion to be a planner... these decisions are often made by county commissioners and not planners. So, it's the "wonderful people's" club of car dealers, lawyers and other local millionaires essentially making these decisions.
All a planner can do in tihs capacity is betray their bosses by whining to the EPA, BLM or the Forest Service. Then the planner will get fired and move onto another city.
"The planners that provide for city grid & sewer extensions to new greenfield development areas. Why why why does this keep occurring?"
Because they are "greenfields." They're green. That's the problem with green is that to most people... green and new york urbanism are no mutually exclusive.
Also, only about 40% of the entire united states is on actual functioning sewage systems. Out of that 40%, I would say less than half of that 40% is on sewage systems that actually treat waste to some capacity. Most of the rest of the sewers just dump straight into a lake, river or ocean.
"How do we stop drive-to development? At what level can we pull the plug?"
You could start by simply flat out saying that unless you need a car or can afford a Ferrari... "fuck you." We could stop hyping up cars in general. And, oh my god, we could start paying more taxes.
County, suburban and exurban development happens because American households are already worn so thin that few can afford the 1,000 dollar a year increase in taxes to live in an actual city, town et cetera.
No one necessarily wants to pay taxes. Fair enough. But this country is starting to fall apart at the seems because we deem other things more important than taking care of what we have-- car ownership for instance.
If we also get rid of this drive-to mentality, we also kiss a lot of jobs goodbye and we also have to abandon redneckism. We don't have enough educated people in this country to fill the jobs that would be replaced by urban jobs. Fast food workers would have to become fine dining waiters, bakers and so on. Lawn guys would have to become landscape architects. Handymen would have to become a la carte residential contractors.
I don't think people in the US are necessarily that stupid... but this comes back full circle. To support the educational environments required to turn Lou Anne and LaJonda are the What-a-Burger into le cordon bleu pastry chefs, we would need stronger urban cores and more urbanism to make that education system work.
Louisville at a crossroads
Saw this on urbanophile - Louisville proposed highway interchange. Im rarely at a loss for words - it's scale and size is simply shocking. It sort of reminds me of those early 20th century giant neoclassical plazas in communist countries. It eats the city yet is breathtaking in it's scale and scope. I want to drive on it but it feels so wrong. What is this this thing?
from the urbanophile quoting another blog comparing Louisville to Stockholm.....
""Stockholm, a city roughly the same size as Louisville, is literally blanketed in a web of public transit. This access grew out of investment and planning dating back to the 1940's, when Louisville was foolishly dismantling its electric street cars. The result today in Stockholm is a beautiful city that is drastically quieter, cleaner, and more accessible to everyone than Louisville is. In my several months here I have been inside a car only a handful of times. Buses, bicycles, pedestrians - they all coexist in the same space and breathe the same air.
Just like Louisville, Stockholm was originally founded because it was a natural stopping point for shipping. The boats had to stop here and therefore a community grew around that pause in the transport of goods. Sure, Stockholm is more than half a millennium older than Louisville, but that should make its lessons of modern growth more of an example than not. Despite the age difference, the two cities share a lot of parallels and similar challenges when it comes to transit - namely, a similar population, surface area, high water table, commuter culture.
The difference is that in Stockholm they made tough choices for the greater good. They moved their air traffic away from the city instead of continuing to expand an old airport in the middle of where everyone lives. They built an extensive underground rail system which meant carving deep into the bedrock below lakes and rivers.
Both of these things happened more than sixty years ago and neither was cheap, but in the long run, they were ultimately worth it. They required sacrifices but they became gifts to future generations that people today are enjoying.""
I cant imagine a worse proposal to a waterfront - even the existing condition seems to act as a barrier as shown in the pictures
yep.
the 8664 proposal is interesting for exactly those reasons.
doesn't seem to be getting a fair hearing, exactly, because too many people have too much money tied up in the proposal you posted...
Wow, this proposal is just 'wrong'. I mean the one evil posted. I have been to Louisville and even today, the downtown is totally cut off from the river. I wanted to walk along the river, but did not find any well-developed pathways, jogging tracks etc. It seemed very odd compared to the beautiful city and its downtown.
Does louisville really need that stupid interchange? There did not even seem to be enough traffic volume to warrant that kind of infrastructure. We got into a traffic jam once, but there is nearly not enough volume to be even thinking of something like this.
The 8664 proposal is quite interesting actually, giving back the riverfront to the city and alleviating the traffic by diverting it...
In the pictures it looks like Louisville really has a shot to make an enormous, continuous waterfront - what a shame if this thing obliterates that.
Holy shit... That freeway interchange looks like a highway engineer's wet dream. I could see something like that being built in the 50's or 60's in northern New Jersey, but you'd think cities have learned their lessons by now. That $4.1 billion would certainly go a long way towards building a comprehensive regional light rail system.
Further up the river, Cincinnati is hoping to move its own spaghetti junction further away from downtown as part of the Brent Spance Bridge replacement project, and they recently rebuilt Fort Washington Way so that it didn't form as much of a barrier between downtown and the riverfront.
Wait, WHAT? Wait a minute, people are still proposing shit like this in 2009?!?!?!?!?!! Are they SERIOUS? Have they not read a newspaper or, say, visited another city in 50 years?!?!?!?!
Seriously, who is pulling for this stuff? Why would anyone desire such a thing? Who benefits from it (except civil engineers and road contractors)? -- and I mean that as a serious question, not a rhetorical.
Oh my goodness, and to think how many cities are spending billions of dollars to extricate themselves from messes like this that were created in the blighted planning realm of the 1960s. Man. To have lived through Boston's big dig and then see something like this proposed... it's like a slap in the face to human environments.
"Seriously, who is pulling for this stuff?"
Planners. They do the public's bidding!
Technically, with 4.8 billion dollars to throw at a moderate problem... they'd be better off building parallel with no exit suspension bridges over the whole thing.
Eliminates the interaction between the surface level and through traffic.
The even bigger problem with this is that even you architects are to blame. How many brand new awesome buildings are being built that are drive-to locations? I mean dwell is almost entirely dedicated to "selfish" home design.
Downtown Louisville seems to have more parking spaces than ground cover anyways-- so it is entirely fitting. Good? No. But still fitting.
Yes, but why would planners pull for it? Are they not more enlightened than this proposal, in this day and age? I mean that honestly. What do planners strive for -- this? Do planners go home after a long day working out spaghetti junction and settle into sleep happy and contented with their work and their legacy? If so, WHY? What would make anyone happy about designing this?
Also, excuse me but architects nowadays are pulling for adaptive reuse, over and over and over again. This is coming up again and again in building construction discussions. The architect usually comes in AFTER the client buys the land -- so who is pushing for "drive-to" locations? That's right, the client. Who makes it possible for these drive-to locations to exist? The planners that plan the roads and the exurban development. The planners that provide for city grid & sewer extensions to new greenfield development areas. Why why why does this keep occurring? How do we stop drive-to development? At what level can we pull the plug?
"Yes, but why would planners pull for it?"
Planners, for the most part, represent the public and their wishes. Very few planning divisions in the US are actually proactive. Most of them operate in a defensive or reactionary point-- they don't do anything til there is an actual problem.
The moment a planner stands up and starts saying "no" is the same moment they get labeled a communist and lose their career.
For smart asses like myself, this proves extremely burdensome as it limits your career potential and or stops your career completely.
"Are they not more enlightened than this proposal, in this day and age? I mean that honestly. What do planners strive for -- this?"
Depends on the planner and their political orientation. If you're fairly conservative or an immigrant or pro-family... yes, this is the kind of thing you strive for. This is what the government has been trying to guarantee for years.
Their are more active planners out there but most of them work in the private sector.
"Do planners go home after a long day working out spaghetti junction and settle into sleep happy and contented with their work and their legacy? If so, WHY?"
Yes, they actually got something built. And they actually got something built that will address a problem... no matter if the problem is the "right" or "wrong" problem. You could argue the same about fuel efficiency, hybrids and the like... The way a car works is not the problem. It's the car.
Once we "get over" cars, most of these problems will come to an end.
"What would make anyone happy about designing this?"
See above... because it will actually get done.
"Also, excuse me but architects nowadays are pulling for adaptive reuse, over and over and over again. This is coming up again and again in building construction discussions."
Yes but for every one cool building that follows this... there's a dozen cool buildings that don't. And then there's a gross of buildings made by no name architects who don't get the coverage that the "cool" architects get.
"The architect usually comes in AFTER the client buys the land -- so who is pushing for "drive-to" locations? That's right, the client."
Yes but you're still enabling them. You're not sitting down with them to explain other alternative, you're simply not saying no... That's business. You're in business to get paid. You're not in business to save the world. There are a few major companies and NGOs who are... but their successes are often far and few.
Who makes it possible for these drive-to locations to exist? The planners that plan the roads and the exurban development.
County planners... not urban planners. Technically, since you don't need a license or a formal educattion to be a planner... these decisions are often made by county commissioners and not planners. So, it's the "wonderful people's" club of car dealers, lawyers and other local millionaires essentially making these decisions.
All a planner can do in tihs capacity is betray their bosses by whining to the EPA, BLM or the Forest Service. Then the planner will get fired and move onto another city.
"The planners that provide for city grid & sewer extensions to new greenfield development areas. Why why why does this keep occurring?"
Because they are "greenfields." They're green. That's the problem with green is that to most people... green and new york urbanism are no mutually exclusive.
Also, only about 40% of the entire united states is on actual functioning sewage systems. Out of that 40%, I would say less than half of that 40% is on sewage systems that actually treat waste to some capacity. Most of the rest of the sewers just dump straight into a lake, river or ocean.
"How do we stop drive-to development? At what level can we pull the plug?"
You could start by simply flat out saying that unless you need a car or can afford a Ferrari... "fuck you." We could stop hyping up cars in general. And, oh my god, we could start paying more taxes.
County, suburban and exurban development happens because American households are already worn so thin that few can afford the 1,000 dollar a year increase in taxes to live in an actual city, town et cetera.
No one necessarily wants to pay taxes. Fair enough. But this country is starting to fall apart at the seems because we deem other things more important than taking care of what we have-- car ownership for instance.
If we also get rid of this drive-to mentality, we also kiss a lot of jobs goodbye and we also have to abandon redneckism. We don't have enough educated people in this country to fill the jobs that would be replaced by urban jobs. Fast food workers would have to become fine dining waiters, bakers and so on. Lawn guys would have to become landscape architects. Handymen would have to become a la carte residential contractors.
I don't think people in the US are necessarily that stupid... but this comes back full circle. To support the educational environments required to turn Lou Anne and LaJonda are the What-a-Burger into le cordon bleu pastry chefs, we would need stronger urban cores and more urbanism to make that education system work.
See, how this is a vicious cycle already?
Boo.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.