8 Monster Interchanges That Blight American Cities

[bugo]

They are right on 90/5 in Seattle and 64/65/71 in Louisville.

Where could they have run I-64? If had been south of the current location, it really would have plowed through parts of town. I don't recall there being a whole lot along the route where it was built. The Louisville riverfront ain't that great. I see it at least once a year.

You just hate Louisville.  Jesus Christ Himself could make His return to Louisville atop a unicorn with a rainbow out of his ass and you'd find something wrong with it.  Why do you have such a hatred for a city in your own state?  I don't like some towns around here but I don't have such a seething hate for any of them.

[tidecat]

Even though I support the 8664 concept, the Kennedy doesn't belong on this list.  It's location along the waterfront doesn't blight any neighborhoods, unless you count the fish in the Ohio River.  Once the parallel span for I-65 is built, it might be a different story, but it will have more to do with what damage the new approach has done to Downtown Louisville and Downtown Jeffersonville. The area along Adams Street in Louisville, for example, will get a huge shadow from the new ramps.

What I-64 over Waterfront Park does is limit the park's capacity to be a gathering place.  This is most apparent during Thunder Over Louisville, when crowds 3 to 5 times the size of those who attend the Kentucky Derby watch the airshow and fireworks along the Ohio River.

Remove I-64 between I-65 and 9th Street, and I-64 is no longer casting a shadow over the Belle of Louisville, Great Lawn (part of Waterfront Park), the Yum Center!, etc.  None of that has anything to do with the presence of I-65 or I-71.

[mrsman]

I always accept Streetsblog with a grain of salt.

Streetsblog does a very good job of publishing articles that deal with changes to streets, highways, and transit.  You can find out about proposed bus and train lines, new bikeways, road diets, and other changes to our road network, particularly local to the cities they cover intently -- NY, LA, SF, CHI.  I read the NY and LA sites extensively because they provide news on these topics that you can't find elsewhere.

However, their anti-road politics is a little hard to swallow.  They might make it easier for themselves if they focus on low traffic expressways that can be removed without too much impact, like the Sheridan Expy in the Bronx (and yes they have many articles on that).  But what is the purpose of singling out these 8 interchanges?  These are all very important interchanges and cannot be removed despite the "blight" that they may cause.

I can tell you that in some of those urban neighborhoods (particularly S Central LA) were absolute slums to begin with and the highways did no additional damage.  And as said by others here, highways are critical for commerce and they have to be put somewhere.  And yes, we need an interchange to efficiently connect the freeways and relying on Breezewoods to connect the 110 to the 105 just to have less of an impact on S Central LA is not acceptable.

[roadman65]

California seems to do a good job with their wide area interchanges.  You will see many with the local streets passing between them and the businesses along them still in place.  If you are on street level and visit the areas in between the ramps you would never know in many places that you are inside an interchange.

[Pete from Boston]

I can tell you that in some of those urban neighborhoods (particularly S Central LA) were absolute slums to begin with and the highways did no additional damage.

I see your point (I was a little surprised that anyone anywhere in LA minded large interchanges) but by that same token, plenty of neighborhoods in this country that were slummy during the era of highway construction aren't now.  The point could be implied (and often is) that some places with massive interchange footprints could have otherwise joined that group, and/or that they were chosen because they were slums whose residents were powerless to complicate construction. 

*   *   *

The first red flag to me on this piece is the word "blight."  It's one of those loaded words that has a very specific connotation and vague actual meaning.  Politicians love it until they offend someone with it.  People use it to define the conversation – once blightedness is accepted as part of the terms, it becomes unquestionable that "something must be done!"

The very best attempted use I can remember of "blight" as a tool is in a line attributed to someone in the Tom Menino administration (possibly the mayor himself) when plans were afoot to seize and level a thriving but unpretty commercial district to move Fenway Park.  When the "urban blight" motivation in the proposed project in a healthy corridor was questioned, the response was, "It's really blight prevention."  The story may be apocryphal, but it's one of my favorites.

[roadman65]

I know in Orlando I can say for sure that I-4 is responsible for what both Parramore and Holden Heights have become.  The fact that industry is east of I-4 and a social class area to the west of it shows the highway formed what is of the neighborhoods today.  Also through Downtown you have the Business District stop immediately at I-4 itself acting as its western border to another social class neighborhood.

[MikeTheActuary]

Interchange?  Blight?  But, but, but....interchanges are by definition beautiful things (well, with perhaps the exception of one or two fugly ones: 84/91, I'm looking at you!).  How can they be considered blight?



Seriously though...I reject part of the premise behind the article.  There's a certain "tear down the freeways" bias that leads me to discount much of what's written.

That being said, I'll admit that one of the flaws of the U.S.'s freeway system is the set of decisions that lead to long-distance freeways doubling as local/intrametro arterials, and I'm not a fan of sprawl.  There is something to be said for a simplicity and efficiency of design in attempting to make freeways and interchanges have no more impact on an urban environment than is strictly necessary, while still performing the essential function of helping move people and goods efficiently into and out from the urban centers. 

I don't necessarily object to a desire to make highways less disruptive on the cityscape; I just cringe about the tax bills that would arise from effectively pulling that off.

As to the interchanges mentioned, I can see the point of being annoyed with the 71/670 interchange, but the others seem reasonable given the hands that have been dealt  with the decision to run major freeways into city centers.

[6a]

what is going on in this render?  what is the "checkerboard" paving at lower right intended to convey?

I think that is very simply...identification of where the road surface turns to concrete (instead of asphalt) due to using an overpass.

That is correct. I was a bit surprised to see that one show up on the list. There's a college to the south, an old base to the north (and in the middle), a bakery and Abbott Nutrition to the northwest, and fuck-all everywhere else.  The freeway itself was run mostly along old railways for crying out loud.

[rschen7754]

Surprised that the East LA interchange didn't make it on there, though the area east of there is a bit run-down.

[Zeffy]

I don't see how this article calls freeways blight. As mentioned upthread, they may be a cause of blight, but the interchanges themselves aren't blight. THIS is blight:

[DevalDragon]

This is one article you only read for the pictures. 

[yankee.peddler]

The description of the interchange between I-5 and CA 163 in San Diego made me laugh.  I suspect the author has never driven through that interchange and simply looked at a few satelitte images before drawing misinformed conclusions.

That stack interchange occupies the end of a relatively shallow canyon, and compliments the surrounding topography exceedingly well.  Furthermore, pedestrians may easily access Balboa Park from downtown either via the Cabrillo Bridge or Park Boulevard; the interchange is not a barrier.

[hbelkins]

Why do you have such a hatred for a city in your own state?  I don't like some towns around here but I don't have such a seething hate for any of them.

I didn't have a dislike for Louisville until I began attending work-related conferences in downtown. The venues are difficult to access. It's a decent drive to shopping or other activities I'd enjoy in the evening hours. And in at least one of the hotels where the conferences are sometimes held, it's a challenge to find a parking spot if you do go somewhere in the evenings. It's in walking distance of the 4th Street Live district, but I can do without overpriced restaurants like Hard Rock Cafe.

My feelings are pretty much confined to the downtown area. I don't mind the St. Matthews, Preston Highway, Middletown or other areas out of downtown. I keep trying to convince the conference organizers to move to hotels out of downtown but my pleas fall on deaf ears.

I spent a week 10 years ago at a conference at the Renaissance in Washington DC. Hated it too. Didn't move my vehicle from the time I parked it when I got there until I left. I actually took a cooler and some lunch meat, chips and bread for sandwiches for my evening meals because I knew I'd get tired of eating in the hotel's restaurants all week. It was in January and it was dark at 5 o'clock, and I didn't know what was close by the hotel in the way of restaurants and I had no desire to walk around in DC after dark.

[CrystalWalrein]

I-375 coming out I could understand – it really doesn't serve a purpose now that the area to the north and east of it is pretty much empty. (I personally think that the fall of industry there is a far bigger factor in the increase in crime.) Widen the frontage roads and zone the reclaimed land for commercial and retail.

If the new ON 401 crossing goes through, you could actually take out the last part of M-10 as well.

[realjd]

Why do you have such a hatred for a city in your own state?  I don't like some towns around here but I don't have such a seething hate for any of them.

I didn't have a dislike for Louisville until I began attending work-related conferences in downtown. The venues are difficult to access. It's a decent drive to shopping or other activities I'd enjoy in the evening hours. And in at least one of the hotels where the conferences are sometimes held, it's a challenge to find a parking spot if you do go somewhere in the evenings. It's in walking distance of the 4th Street Live district, but I can do without overpriced restaurants like Hard Rock Cafe.

My feelings are pretty much confined to the downtown area. I don't mind the St. Matthews, Preston Highway, Middletown or other areas out of downtown. I keep trying to convince the conference organizers to move to hotels out of downtown but my pleas fall on deaf ears.

I spent a week 10 years ago at a conference at the Renaissance in Washington DC. Hated it too. Didn't move my vehicle from the time I parked it when I got there until I left. I actually took a cooler and some lunch meat, chips and bread for sandwiches for my evening meals because I knew I'd get tired of eating in the hotel's restaurants all week. It was in January and it was dark at 5 o'clock, and I didn't know what was close by the hotel in the way of restaurants and I had no desire to walk around in DC after dark.

You missed out then! That part of DC is full of fantastic restaurants and is perfectly safe after dark. I visit that area regularly for work and it's one of my favorite business trip destinations. Of course nowadays with Yelp and Urbanspoon it is much easier to find good food while traveling.

DC is weird though. It has an extraordinarily high crime rate, yet most of the city is extremely safe. The crime really is concentrated to a few really bad areas.

[US 41]

Ramming highways through the middle of American cities was undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century

No it wasn't. It was one of the best moves. It would take forever to get to the downtown of a big city going through 457 stop lights. No one would ever go to the downtown area.

[Pete from Boston]

Ramming highways through the middle of American cities was undoubtedly one of the worst mistakes of the 20th century

No it wasn't. It was one of the best moves. It would take forever to get to the downtown of a big city going through 457 stop lights. No one would ever go to the downtown area.

Both of these are broad and hardly universally-applicable generalizations.

Some cities with interstates downtown are doing fine.  Others are doing terribly despite the access.  But this is ground well covered here and elsewhere.   

[SP Cook]

I don't see anything in this article than a bunch of anti-choice out-of-touch types who want everybody to live the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves (and, truth be know, are probably mostly subsidized in said lifestyle because it economically unviable) . 

IMHO, the interstate system is the greatest acomplishment of the last 80 years.  It got people out of the clutches of greedy old-money urban landlords and into nice safe suburbs where they could live as they wished, and got business out of the clutches of monopoly railroads and moving on a truck. 

As to Louisville, I find it to be about typical of Ohio River cities.  Probably a little worse than most.  Most Ohio River cites saw their best days about 1955 or so.  Most are pretty fouled up with idiot "brownfield redevelopment" projects, which don't work.

[froggie]

You missed out then! That part of DC is full of fantastic restaurants and is perfectly safe after dark. I visit that area regularly for work and it's one of my favorite business trip destinations. Of course nowadays with Yelp and Urbanspoon it is much easier to find good food while traveling.

HB also mentioned that it was 10 years ago.  Most of those restaurants didn't exist back then, especially east of 6th.

I don't see anything in this article than a bunch of anti-choice out-of-touch types who want everybody to live the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves

The same could just as easily be argued for those who want to eliminate bike/ped and transit funding and shift all transportation funding to roads only...

(and, truth be know, are probably mostly subsidized in said lifestyle because it economically unviable) .

Speaking of "broad and hardly universally-applicable generalizations"...

It got people out of the clutches of greedy old-money urban landlords and into nice safe suburbs where they could live as they wished,

First off, this completely discounts the vast numbers of single-family homes that have long existed in the cities.  Second, the safety of the suburbs is an illusion.  True, they may have been "safe" at first, but that is no longer the case.  Thirdly, thanks to how those suburbs were designed, it requires driving an ungodly amount of miles just to go do anything.

and got business out of the clutches of monopoly railroads and moving on a truck.

The shifting to an information, technology, and service economy did far more to get business "out of the clutches" than the Interstates ever did...

[bugo]

I don't see anything in this article than a bunch of anti-choice out-of-touch types who want everybody to live the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves (and, truth be know, are probably mostly subsidized in said lifestyle because it economically unviable) . 

IMHO, the interstate system is the greatest acomplishment of the last 80 years.  It got people out of the clutches of greedy old-money urban landlords and into nice safe suburbs where they could live as they wished, and got business out of the clutches of monopoly railroads and moving on a truck. 

As to Louisville, I find it to be about typical of Ohio River cities.  Probably a little worse than most.  Most Ohio River cites saw their best days about 1955 or so.  Most are pretty fouled up with idiot "brownfield redevelopment" projects, which don't work.

I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but this is an exception.

[Pete from Boston]

Most are pretty fouled up with idiot "brownfield redevelopment" projects, which don't work.

Tell us what your preferred alternative to redeveloping these sites would be.

[SP Cook]

Tell us what your preferred alternative to redeveloping these sites would be.

Speaking SPECIFICALLY about the various cities along the Ohio River, they were developed in the first place because they fit a particular niche in a particular economic situation that no longer exists.  All up and down the Ohio, on both sides, politicians and planners of all political and economic stripes, are trying, and mostly failing, recapture that magic.  Especially with plans about the riverfront (generally either some sort of parkland or some sort of arena or mall, or both).  Rarely work at all, sometimes only work within the artificial bubble of subsidy.

Maybe it time to just accept that the part of the country simply is going to be smaller in population than it was when they were the center of a coal-steel-car economy, and riverbanks that were, for a million years, a riverbank and then were, for 50 years a steel mill, are probably intended to be either a steel mill or a riverbank.

[hbelkins]

You missed out then! That part of DC is full of fantastic restaurants and is perfectly safe after dark. I visit that area regularly for work and it's one of my favorite business trip destinations. Of course nowadays with Yelp and Urbanspoon it is much easier to find good food while traveling.

HB also mentioned that it was 10 years ago.  Most of those restaurants didn't exist back then, especially east of 6th.

It was also late January (I drove into DC on MLK Day) and cold as crap, and IIRC there was also some snow during the week, and I had no desire to be wandering around out in the weather.

[Pete from Boston]

Tell us what your preferred alternative to redeveloping these sites would be.

Speaking SPECIFICALLY about the various cities along the Ohio River, they were developed in the first place because they fit a particular niche in a particular economic situation that no longer exists.  All up and down the Ohio, on both sides, politicians and planners of all political and economic stripes, are trying, and mostly failing, recapture that magic.  Especially with plans about the riverfront (generally either some sort of parkland or some sort of arena or mall, or both).  Rarely work at all, sometimes only work within the artificial bubble of subsidy.

Maybe it time to just accept that the part of the country simply is going to be smaller in population than it was when they were the center of a coal-steel-car economy, and riverbanks that were, for a million years, a riverbank and then were, for 50 years a steel mill, are probably intended to be either a steel mill or a riverbank.

Is a low-density big-box shopping center a good reuse of a steel site?  I see a fair amount of that.

They built a Walmart atop a slag pile in West Mifflin, PA.  Was that site intended to be a slag pile, a Walmart, whatever came before the slag pile, and nothing else?

[vdeane]

I don't really understand the hostility some people have with driving to the grocery store.  I honestly prefer it.  Who wants to lug five bags of groceries down a few blocks?  It's not even an extra trip for me since I go after work.