AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: kernals12 on November 26, 2020, 06:13:08 PM

Title: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on November 26, 2020, 06:13:08 PM
It seems wasteful to use that space for makeshift homeless camps and parking lots. Why not put homes and shops there?
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 26, 2020, 06:17:34 PM
Seismic activity and that nobody wants to shop/hang around something unattractively dystopian like that. 
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
Seattle has a park under I-5. That is another  use for the unused area.
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, deterring would-be occupants. If there were to be buildings under the freeway, their property values would be low.


SM-G965U
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 26, 2020, 06:22:43 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
Seattle has a park under I-5. That is another  use for the unused area.
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, so if there were buildings under the freeway, the property value would be low.


SM-G965U

You need not look far to what was the Alaskan Way Viaduct for all of those things.  That was probably the most universally reviled structure in Seattle before it was demolished.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: TheGrassGuy on November 26, 2020, 06:26:25 PM
Speaking of which, there are a lot of elevated highways in cities in China, like Shanghai. The only buildings I've ever seen under them, though, are maintenance substations and public restrooms.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Flint1979 on November 26, 2020, 06:46:19 PM
I like how I-5 snakes it's way through Seattle. That is pretty cool.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Big John on November 26, 2020, 08:33:43 PM
The area under the bridge is in the the right of way of the bridge maintainer; and they don't want the liability the buildings if they were built.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: TheGrassGuy on November 26, 2020, 08:50:47 PM
Here's an example from Hong Kong (albeit temporary):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fLXybMqhY8BizzGC7

A more concrete example in Taipei:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jzn1qk5LtyW77edHA

Also in Taipei, found this ball court:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aiYVe8iNtcHm5xbMA

But Japan takes this to whole new levels:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gGdzk93DMU5vriVg6
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: hbelkins on November 26, 2020, 09:20:12 PM
The government owns the ROW. If they put buildings beneath them, they would most certainly have to be used for government offices. The free market would frown on the government going into the residential or commercial rental business to compete against private owners.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on November 26, 2020, 09:40:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2020, 09:20:12 PM
The government owns the ROW. If they put buildings beneath them, they would most certainly have to be used for government offices. The free market would frown on the government going into the residential or commercial rental business to compete against private owners.
That's even better, they can make money by selling that land.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: In_Correct on November 26, 2020, 10:42:22 PM
They can make money by Tolling it. They can also provide parking and temporary housing for the Toll Road's staff, but most of the space can be used for Parks & Recreation.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: allniter89 on November 27, 2020, 12:29:14 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
Seattle has a park under I-5. That is another  use for the unused area.
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, deterring would-be occupants. If there were to be buildings under the freeway, their property values would be low.


SM-G965U


City Park in New Orleans is partially under 610.
Pensacola has an outdoor recreation area under I 110.
any others? Or should I start a new thread?
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Bruce on November 27, 2020, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
Seattle has a park under I-5. That is another  use for the unused area.
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, deterring would-be occupants. If there were to be buildings under the freeway, their property values would be low.

It's a mountain biking course and is not particularly pleasant to hang around. It's loud, it smells of car exhaust, and it gets drafty. Freeway Park (which sits over I-5) is way more pleasant.

Buildings under railroad viaducts are somewhat common in dense cities (e.g. London or Tokyo), so it is possible. But not desirable until it's the last available space.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: TheStranger on November 27, 2020, 12:48:23 AM
I think there's a spot underneath the Capital City Freeway/Business 80 in midtown Sacramento that is essentially a mini-mall, at 29th and K:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/29th+St+%26+K+St,+Sacramento,+CA+95816/@38.5723684,-121.4684363,3a,75y,75.23h,89.27t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5u6Xas46o2C8V3UpCuup4g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D5u6Xas46o2C8V3UpCuup4g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.gws-prod.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D360%26h%3D120%26yaw%3D18.199791%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x809ad09535659e8d:0x80b5612653f16ee5!8m2!3d38.5723924!4d-121.4683715
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on November 27, 2020, 08:51:54 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 26, 2020, 06:17:34 PM
Seismic activity and that nobody wants to shop/hang around something unattractively dystopian like that.

The reason why the space under highways is dystopian is because it's dark and abandoned. If you put buildings there, the appearance would be greatly improved.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on November 27, 2020, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
Seattle has a park under I-5. That is another  use for the unused area.
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, deterring would-be occupants. If there were to be buildings under the freeway, their property values would be low.


SM-G965U

With enough soundproofing, it doesn't need to be noisy and with buildings, it wouldn't be so dark. The freeway would just be a roof.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on November 27, 2020, 09:01:48 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 27, 2020, 12:34:51 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
Seattle has a park under I-5. That is another  use for the unused area.
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, deterring would-be occupants. If there were to be buildings under the freeway, their property values would be low.

It's a mountain biking course and is not particularly pleasant to hang around. It's loud, it smells of car exhaust, and it gets drafty. Freeway Park (which sits over I-5) is way more pleasant.

Buildings under railroad viaducts are somewhat common in dense cities (e.g. London or Tokyo), so it is possible. But not desirable until it's the last available space.

I can think of many places that are out of space. Check out this space under FDR Drive in Manhattan currently used for parking
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7346901,-73.974898,3a,75y,143.76h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sv6DzhqjoZ6gbz-Mms_w7sQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Or looky here under the Williamsburg Bridge in Brooklyn. I'm sure hipsters would love it
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7117859,-73.9653243,3a,60y,161.46h,91.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spNmdcGsGUO9R0eAadPRojw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: CardInLex on November 27, 2020, 09:11:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2020, 09:20:12 PM
The government owns the ROW. If they put buildings beneath them, they would most certainly have to be used for government offices. The free market would frown on the government going into the residential or commercial rental business to compete against private owners.

Surprised you didn't point out this KY example, HB... KYTC's Trimarc offices underneath the 9th Street ramps in Louisville.

https://goo.gl/maps/Ejk9ymgsuzX9kKMN9
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 27, 2020, 09:32:30 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2020, 09:20:12 PM
The government owns the ROW. If they put buildings beneath them, they would most certainly have to be used for government offices. The free market would frown on the government going into the residential or commercial rental business to compete against private owners.

Quote from: CardInLex on November 27, 2020, 09:11:13 AM
Surprised you didn't point out this KY example, HB... KYTC's Trimarc offices underneath the 9th Street ramps in Louisville.

https://goo.gl/maps/Ejk9ymgsuzX9kKMN9

What a great logo for the KTC.  I've never seen it before.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kphoger on November 27, 2020, 01:09:47 PM
The Canal Route here in Wichita gets pretty close, but not quite.  I'm specifically thinking of this house on 3rd Street (https://goo.gl/maps/4Tk7aKDhJeKJwXeW8).  (The cul-de-sac underneath the highway here was one stop on the Wichita roadmeet a few years ago.)

Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, deterring would-be occupants.

It being dark was actually what attracted my wife and me to use the hike/bike path underneath the Canal Route for jogging.  During the summer months, the shade of the highway helped keep us cooler than we would have been at other locations.  (However, there are definitely some sketchy folks who use that path every day, and I never felt totally comfortable leaving our car parked on that cul-de-sac when arriving for a jog.)

(https://i.imgur.com/c5lXuTV.png)
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kphoger on November 27, 2020, 01:10:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 26, 2020, 06:13:08 PM
It seems wasteful to use that space for makeshift homeless camps ...

Where would you prefer homeless people sleep?  Out in the rain and snow?  They're exposed to the elements enough as it is.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: citrus on November 27, 2020, 01:59:12 PM
There's a skate park under a freeway overpass near me! Always thought this was a good use of the space. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7701603,-122.4216451,3a,75y,69.77h,93.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swFBX-XyO1RfDIKakwWJMyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: roadfro on November 27, 2020, 05:30:45 PM
In Reno, NV, the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County currently has some transportation offices and bus garage/maintenance facility underneath the I-580/US 395 viaduct section that spans the Plumb Lane/Villanova Dr/Reno Airport interchange. (Street View from NB frontage (https://goo.gl/maps/fiJ5Q9sF2TeWYiLe8), Street View from SB frontage (https://goo.gl/maps/VN9bXnKXYXTWvNs87)) I believe the RTC has had long-range plans to relocate to a new facility–NDOT now has long-range plans to widen the freeway as part of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl makeover, and the RTC would lose some of the buildings on this site.

More interestingly: In Sparks, NV, along I-80 between the Rock Blvd and Pyramid Way interchanges is a viaduct section. The Nugget, a major casino/hotel resort, also resides in this section, with most of the casino and both hotel towers on the south side of the freeway and another portion of casino and their showroom on the north side of the freeway. The two portions of casino floor are connected under I-80 with a substantial section of building that includes more casino floor space (currently where most of the table games are located), at least one restaurant, and much of the shipping/receiving/support areas. When you're actually in the casino, multiple sets of thick triple columns give away the fact that you're under I-80. (Google Maps aerial view (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5337073,-119.7582117,227m/data=!3m1!1e3), Street View from Victorian Plaza Cir east (https://goo.gl/maps/8aYArApt7KNLwJKk7), Street View from Victorian Plaza Cir west (https://goo.gl/maps/m7zvx5XSCfM1jEZy7), Street View on I-80, where a Nugget HVAC unit appears between the two carriageways (https://goo.gl/maps/jgDNsUAaG7Qk4kNs5)) The viaduct is nearing the end of its design life and has been a choke point during rush hour because it's not wide enough for peak travel demands–NDOT has long range plans to widen/rebuild it as part of a future phase of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl project, but it will be interesting to see how NDOT is going to accomplish this without significant impacts to the Nugget (which is a major economic driver for Sparks).
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Bitmapped on November 27, 2020, 08:39:41 PM
Bridges and overhead structures inevitably require maintenance. A DOT isn't going to want to sell or lease the land because they would then have to re-acquire it at a higher cost in the future.

Parking, storage, and park space are ideal uses of areas beneath bridges. Since they have few or no permanent facilities, they can easily and cheaply be moved in the future if the DOT needs the land again.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: hbelkins on November 27, 2020, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: CardInLex on November 27, 2020, 09:11:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 26, 2020, 09:20:12 PM
The government owns the ROW. If they put buildings beneath them, they would most certainly have to be used for government offices. The free market would frown on the government going into the residential or commercial rental business to compete against private owners.

Surprised you didn't point out this KY example, HB... KYTC's Trimarc offices underneath the 9th Street ramps in Louisville.

https://goo.gl/maps/Ejk9ymgsuzX9kKMN9

I thought about it, but neglected to mention it. I toured that facility several years ago.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: bulldog1979 on November 27, 2020, 09:45:47 PM
The parking lot and visitor's center for Fort Michilimackinac in Mackinaw City is under part of the Mackinac Bridge/I-75. Google Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7877058,-84.7319936,3a,75y,340.86h,85.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAUIAceXqVHt4gVLn-QCLJQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Revive 755 on November 27, 2020, 11:10:28 PM
Part of the Greyhound Bus Station near downtown St. Louis goes under an elevated entrance to WB US 40. (https://goo.gl/maps/phQaUxPsfXgtt8pPA)

Looks like part of the same transportation center may extend under the main lanes of US 40. (https://goo.gl/maps/J8chk2sw2UxQVSsj9)

There's another bulding under US 40 just west of 18th Street. (https://goo.gl/maps/zcakBUTPvcd9trTF8)
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 28, 2020, 12:50:54 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 26, 2020, 08:50:47 PM
But Japan takes this to whole new levels:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gGdzk93DMU5vriVg6

But this building (https://goo.gl/maps/xsGxZC8jiqfQ1GCS7) may "lobby" to be counted as well.

Quote from: citrus on November 27, 2020, 01:59:12 PM
There's a skate park under a freeway overpass near me! Always thought this was a good use of the space. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7701603,-122.4216451,3a,75y,69.77h,93.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swFBX-XyO1RfDIKakwWJMyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Skate park under SR 99 (https://goo.gl/maps/fnCekqw2WzjnU12H6)

And unrelated to the above:

Streetcar barn, Portland, Oregon (https://goo.gl/maps/45SxEJGDXwTC3GxQA)
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: froggie on November 28, 2020, 10:06:39 AM
One other reason, not mentioned yet, against permanent-use structures under freeways:  the concentration of particulates from the vehicles above would most likely exceed federal/state/local air quality standards.  Things like parks and parking lots are acceptable because they're considered "temporary use"...the users are not there for long.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: TEG24601 on November 28, 2020, 02:35:45 PM
They do it under bridge viaducts in much of the world.  The UK (as seen in Coronation Street), and Japan are prime examples.  Also, something like the H-1/Nimitz Highway setup is a great way to better utilize the space with the freeway above, and a surface street below, with stores and everything.  It would be a bit like the streets in downtown Chicago, with multiple levels for multiple uses.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: I-55 on November 28, 2020, 08:28:45 PM
I would imagine maintaining the bridges would take more than the average effort
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: US 89 on November 29, 2020, 12:23:16 AM
This may or may not have something to do with it...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Cypress_structure.jpeg/640px-Cypress_structure.jpeg)
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Bickendan on November 29, 2020, 06:16:40 AM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on November 26, 2020, 08:50:47 PM

A more concrete example in Taipei:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jzn1qk5LtyW77edHA

Apropos of nothing, Ludwig must be proud :D
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: TheGrassGuy on November 29, 2020, 04:35:12 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 28, 2020, 02:35:45 PM
Coronation Street

Which one? There seem to be tons of them.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: mgk920 on November 30, 2020, 12:36:02 AM
Quote from: US 89 on November 29, 2020, 12:23:16 AM
This may or may not have something to do with it...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Cypress_structure.jpeg/640px-Cypress_structure.jpeg)

Wasn't that bridge that collapsed in Genoa, Italy a few years ago built over a bunch of multi-story apartment buildings?

Also, the service barn for the nascent tram system in Milwaukee ('The Hop') is built under I-794.

Mike
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: sparker on November 30, 2020, 02:21:45 AM
There were businesses under the US 101 viaduct in Santa Rosa circa 1989 (I actually bought a computer from a store under the freeway).  Don't know if they're still there, haven't been on the ground in that city for several years.  But there were at least 2 full blocks of small businesses there -- I'd venture a guess that the rent was relatively cheap compared to the more "toney" areas of downtown Santa Rosa to the east.  But, IIRC, it wasn't that unpleasant; the areas not occupied by commercial buildings were purposed for parking -- and the noise level wasn't particularly annoying (probably because US 101 in that area just didn't have the levels of traffic seen farther south circa the late '80's/early '90's). 
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: UCFKnights on December 02, 2020, 08:53:27 PM
Orlando is planning to build a park with some buildings under it starting after the I-4 revamp is completed.... supposed to include community rooms, bathrooms, and food and vendor kiosks. The bridges are being built higher to allow for more natural lighting and a more open feel. Heres a rendering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJPV125KJxw&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: webny99 on December 02, 2020, 09:26:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 27, 2020, 01:09:47 PM
The Canal Route here in Wichita gets pretty close, but not quite.  I'm specifically thinking of this house on 3rd Street (https://goo.gl/maps/4Tk7aKDhJeKJwXeW8).  (The cul-de-sac underneath the highway here was one stop on the Wichita roadmeet a few years ago.)

Quote from: ozarkman417 on November 26, 2020, 06:20:35 PM
It would be very noisy and dark under a freeway, deterring would-be occupants.

It being dark was actually what attracted my wife and me to use the hike/bike path underneath the Canal Route for jogging.  During the summer months, the shade of the highway helped keep us cooler than we would have been at other locations.  (However, there are definitely some sketchy folks who use that path every day, and I never felt totally comfortable leaving our car parked on that cul-de-sac when arriving for a jog.)

[img snipped]

Your post and image reminded me of this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1213028,-77.6455616,3a,90y,88.44h,90.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipMMbkuHXPwEk6IAYB8yWC-8oOPUuH10GvvkDQwS!2e10!7i3840!8i1920!5m1!1e1), one of several trails at Genesee Valley Park that runs under an elevated section of I-390. You can see several of the trails and a small turnaround under the freeway here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1200465,-77.6413134,17.5z/data=!5m1!1e1); no proper street view under that side, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Bruce on December 03, 2020, 03:09:41 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 02, 2020, 08:53:27 PM
Orlando is planning to build a park with some buildings under it starting after the I-4 revamp is completed.... supposed to include community rooms, bathrooms, and food and vendor kiosks. The bridges are being built higher to allow for more natural lighting and a more open feel. Heres a rendering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJPV125KJxw&feature=youtu.be

I predict that no one will actually want to gather there. It's going to look nothing like the renderings.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: bing101 on December 03, 2020, 05:01:06 PM

Apparently in this clip there was a building under I-10 Santa Monica Freeway when the 1994 quake in Northridge took place. Sure in California its rare to see buildings under freeways and in our case its quake damage.


Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: TheGrassGuy on December 03, 2020, 06:37:51 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 03, 2020, 05:01:06 PM

Apparently in this clip there was a building under I-10 Santa Monica Freeway when the 1994 quake in Northridge took place. Sure in California its rare to see buildings under freeways and in our case its quake damage.




Japan would like to have a word with you.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 10, 2020, 08:40:46 PM
Former Baltimore City fire station (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2714376,-76.5557213,3a,30y,16.58h,93.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSpI0algZpD9V_I6uYCJGLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) under I-95 (and almost under I-895) on Holabird Avenue at South Newkirk Street.  The fire station is older than I-95 and is now owned by the Maryland Transportation Authority.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: mgk920 on December 11, 2020, 01:42:43 AM
Don't forget the Aldrich Chemical building that the original Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee, WI wrapped above and around.  It was retained when the interchange was first built in the mid-late 1960s in that Aldrich was a critical defense contractor/supplier during the Vietnam era.  Since that need was no longer there when the interchange's replacement was being planned in the mid-late 1990s, it was demoed for to make way for that replacement.

Mike
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kphoger on December 11, 2020, 12:47:56 PM
So, have we had any examples yet of a privately-owned building underneath a highway in the USA, still in existence?
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: sparker on December 12, 2020, 03:00:55 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 11, 2020, 12:47:56 PM
So, have we had any examples yet of a privately-owned building underneath a highway in the USA, still in existence?

Right here in San Jose, occupying part of the space under the I-280 overpass of South 10th/11th Streets, is a prefab building serving as the office for the PS Storage units there, also right under the bridge.  It's been there since at least 1980.  There is a similar storage facility in Hollywood, CA at the location where the unbuilt CA 2 freeway would have intersected the US 101/Hollywood freeway; as the latter's carriageways separate there in order to accommodate LH ramps (in a fashion similar to the I-5/710 interchange in the City of Commerce).  The storage buildings are mostly in the space between the US 101 lanes but are also sited directly under the 101 viaducts as well. 
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 12, 2020, 07:07:32 AM
I'm actually surprised there aren't any on I-495 between the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and Van Dam Street.

BTW, I found some really rusty segments of that bridge on Google Street View. Maybe I should report it to NYSDOT Region 11.



Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: brad2971 on December 12, 2020, 08:55:42 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 11, 2020, 12:47:56 PM
So, have we had any examples yet of a privately-owned building underneath a highway in the USA, still in existence?

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7589121,-117.2021763,3a,75y,33.76h,89.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssyPQ2LB4Kn95fpkIcpn-Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At least a portion of the EZ-8 motel is under the NB 5 to EB 8 ramp in San Diego, plus there's a storage place that looks to be under some of the EB 8 mainlanes.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: Bitmapped on December 13, 2020, 07:17:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 11, 2020, 12:47:56 PM
So, have we had any examples yet of a privately-owned building underneath a highway in the USA, still in existence?

For about 35 years, there was a warehouse below the I-64/I-77 interchange in Charleston, WV. The building predated the interchange. They ended up putting a hammerhead pier through the building to support a ramp, but otherwise, the building was undisturbed. The warehouse itself was demolished a couple years ago.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on December 13, 2020, 08:34:39 PM
The Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization in Texas considered the idea in their study on improving FM 60
(https://i.imgur.com/Ql06Emy.png)

I think such an idea should be considered for MA 9 near the Golden Triangle.

And in Arlington, Virginia, a local group is urging the VDOT to drop its proposal to replace 3 grade separated interchanges with at-grade intersections near Crystal City, as they feel that it would be woefully dangerous and inconvenient to have to walk across a 6 lane boulevard, and instead to make do with what they have and put shops under the overpasses (https://livability22202.org/route-1-working-group/)

Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on December 15, 2020, 05:37:22 PM
Here's a grocery store located under a highway overpass in the Netherlands. And actually, they build the grocery store before they built the bridge
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4632561,4.8100982,3a,75y,341.82h,91.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spN0CUYpAwKjTsF3pljmTcw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2020, 05:51:58 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2020, 05:37:22 PM
Here's a grocery store located under a highway overpass in the Netherlands. And actually, they build the grocery store before they built the bridge
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4632561,4.8100982,3a,75y,341.82h,91.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spN0CUYpAwKjTsF3pljmTcw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Normally I'd find that very easy to believe. But looking at this overpass and how the grocery store is so integrated with the structure of it makes me think the store is the same age. If not, newer.


Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: CardInLex on December 16, 2020, 01:16:02 PM
Louisville is also planning on building a park with a few buildings that will be underneath I-64 along the waterfront.

https://ourwaterfront.org/about/phase-iv-expansion/
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: kernals12 on December 16, 2020, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on December 16, 2020, 05:51:58 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2020, 05:37:22 PM
Here's a grocery store located under a highway overpass in the Netherlands. And actually, they build the grocery store before they built the bridge
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4632561,4.8100982,3a,75y,341.82h,91.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spN0CUYpAwKjTsF3pljmTcw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Normally I'd find that very easy to believe. But looking at this overpass and how the grocery store is so integrated with the structure of it makes me think the store is the same age. If not, newer.

I guess I didn't phrase that right. I meant that they planned out the highway and the grocery store simultaneously, built the grocery store and then put the highway on top.
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: ErmineNotyours on December 16, 2020, 09:50:45 PM
Do airports count? (https://goo.gl/maps/Avuzg7DRn3i8band9)  :)
Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: jdbx on December 22, 2020, 06:57:12 PM
How about a self-storage facility which was built beneath the lanes of CA-4 in Concord, CA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0003336,-122.0535221,471m/data=!3m1!1e3

Backstory here:  Southern Pacific used to have a branch line that ran parallel to Solano Way in this area, so when they built the CA-4 freeway in the late 1970's, they built the bridges across both Solano and the adjacent railroad ROW.  The railroad was decommissioned in the 1980's, and the tracks were removed.  Most of the railroad ROW in the Concord area was sold off to private interests, and so the storage facility was built in this area.

Title: Re: Why don't they put buildings underneath elevated freeways?
Post by: ErmineNotyours on December 26, 2020, 10:40:54 PM
The Alaskan Way Viaduct was built partially over one building. (https://goo.gl/maps/ShpYi8UL1gLjeU1NA)  The building survived longer than the viaduct.