PostFeb 03, 2010#1
- 4
I'm a novice to this stuff. Are there examples of a cities that built interstates that were less destructive to neighborhoods?
I can name another city where their highway destroyed its "city."... Seattle and the Alaskan Freeway. The stupid thing cuts the city off from the bay. So you can walk down to Pikes Place, overlook Puget Sound... but you also have to deal with the freeway noise and watching all the cars zoom by.arthurdietrich wrote:I'm a novice to this stuff. Are there examples of a cities that built interstates that were less destructive to neighborhoods?
- 3,796
^Obviously in the case of St. Louis, 55 may have been the most damaging. It ripped Soulard apart and took out blocks of homes. It almost took the Demenil Mansion and the Lemp. It did take out some of the caves connecting to the Lemp Caves. that was unfortunate. It would have been nice if 55 could have ran along the riverfront, between Broadway and the River. Can you imagine all of the buildings saved and the connection of Soulard and Benton Park. I am not that familiar with the losses created by the construction of 44. Does anyone know how many historic buildings and structures were lost due to construction of 44 in the City?
Interstates that were less destructive to neighborhoods include only those which were not built in the first place.arthurdietrich wrote:I'm a novice to this stuff. Are there examples of a cities that built interstates that were less destructive to neighborhoods?
- 11K
^ love the "nginx" - but c'mon get past it! We're up and running!
Anyway, that's an interesting pic. It may be the only one of an Interstate under construction in the city that I've seen.
Anyway, that's an interesting pic. It may be the only one of an Interstate under construction in the city that I've seen.
My Dad took my brother and me to ride mini-bikes on the newly-paved, but not-yet-opened I-44 somewhere in Shrewsbury by the natural gas tanks. I'm sure it was illegal, but nobody seemed to mind back then. Nice memory.