How interstates gutted American cities article

[triplemultiplex]

The interstates were just a natural outgrowth of cheap energy so cities expanded on the basis of that easy access to cheap energy for transportation.
Now we have cities that only function with cheap energy for transportation which means society relies on cheap energy.  And that in turn motivates policies toward cheap energy regardless of the cost; political, economic and environmental.

These days we find ourselves in the initial stages of trying to replace energy sources while trying to maintain existing growth and living patterns to a great extent and it is not possible to do both simultaneously.

[kalvado]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

I heard that is exactly why production stopped: free cost of land didn't cover manufacturing expenses...

[Max Rockatansky]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

It was the lizard people from V the Final Battle all along. 

[mariethefoxy]

I like living in the suburbs or exurbs. I don't mind driving and I enjoy the peace and quiet, and privacy of the suburbs, and not being crammed into a crowded, noisy city.

[Zeffy]

I like living in the suburbs or exurbs. I don't mind driving and I enjoy the peace and quiet, and privacy of the suburbs, and not being crammed into a crowded, noisy city.

I used to hate it, but now I don't mind it. I only mind the congestion in my suburb especially, but I'd rather live in a smaller-sized city/town that has a bit of urbanness to it. Probably a place where I could walk a few blocks if I so choose, but I wasn't crammed with thousands of other people. For example, in my state, Somerville is a great example of this kind of town.

[vdeane]

I prefer close-in suburbs... far enough from downtown that parking is available and you aren't crammed in with a bunch of people, but close enough that your area isn't just an endless expanse of strip malls and arterials lined with traffic lights with congestion and a long commute.

[silverback1065]

everyone has the right to live in the type of area (downtown, suburb, exburb, rural area, in between suburb and downtown area) they want to in my opinion, each type of city has its own pros and cons.  I like living in the suburbs, but i also like downtown where i live. the only way i'd live downtown is if i also worked there and had no car, parking in almost every downtown is a nightmare, also downtown in most cities is almost always way too expensive to live in, which is why suburbs even exist.  but the design of cities and some suburbs is annoying though, endless strip malls, unnecessary signals that are only there to let cars access them and generally bad design when it comes to "complete streets".  some suburbs do it right, like Carmel, IN, and others get it wrong like Avon, IN.  The interstates were built downtown because they needed to be, now not all of them needed to be built, but you do need to move traffic efficiently from suburbs to downtown.  But i do think the routes could have been better.  I've never been to KC, so this may be invalid, but did they really need to put a box (of interstates) around their downtown?  I think that does cut off downtown from the surroundings and could potentially hurt the area. 

[bandit957]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Care to qualify how it was free?  Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know?  I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.

Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.

[Max Rockatansky]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Care to qualify how it was free?  Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know?  I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.

Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.

Actually most of the land in the U.S. is held by the Federal Government at about 28%.  You'd be strapped to find a time in human history where you could say anything was "free."  Someone has always claimed dominion over land, people, property or all the like...be that a king, corporation, land baron, government or anything that might fall under a similar description.  Countless wars have been fought for control of land and will continue to be in the future...it's all trade and barter at the end of the day or conflict when a resolution can't be reached...  Is that who you meant by "they?"  Nothing in your response explains what "they" don't want us to know and what is being covered up.

So with that in mind what does your statement have to do with Interstates degrading the urban core of America?  Clearly a great majority of Americans wanted the Interstates whether they be the individuals, people in politics or even corporate interests.  Whatever you may think of the end result that is hardly the definition of a conspiracy.

Edit:  Now I can't get my mind off Shutter Island.    Was Teddy really insane or did the doctors and staff just do a really good job at convincing him that he was out of his mind? 

There is also this line Tony Soprano told A.J. about getting into real estate because "god ain't making any more of it" that I can't find for the life of me.

[peterj920]

I disagree with this article.  Freeways boost growth.  In Milwaukee for example, two malls were built at the same time.  Northridge and Southridge.  No freeways are near Northridge and Southridge is near I-894.  Northridge closed due to crime problems while the area around Southridge continues to be successful. The north end of Milwaukee doesn't have any freeways and is the worst area of the city.  If not having freeways in that area is so great why are the areas farthest away from freeway access the worst parts of the city?

Green Bay and Appleton have beltways around them and no urban freeways.  Why are the areas near the freeways exploding in growth while the inner city and downtown areas struggle?

I know I'm only citing Wisconsin, but any time a freeway is built it will fuel growth.  If urban freeways weren't built a lot of things that were in downtowns would have just moved out into the suburbs, which would have killed off downtowns.

[GaryV]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Care to qualify how it was free?  Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know?  I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.

Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.

Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.

From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants.  The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world.  That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started.  But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.

Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first.  But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government.  Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.

[Brandon]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Care to qualify how it was free?  Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know?  I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.

Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.

Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.

From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants.  The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world.  That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started.  But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.

Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first.  But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government.  Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.

Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

[Max Rockatansky]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Care to qualify how it was free?  Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know?  I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.

Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.

Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.

From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants.  The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world.  That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started.  But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.

Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first.  But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government.  Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.

Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

Usually there was stipulations that came along with the Homestead Act like working it for several years for farming or cattle grazing before you could receive a titled deed.  So in that sense you still had to earn the land and had to have a skill to maintain it, that's a far cry from someone giving you something for nothing.  Not to mention those lands were largely already occupied by Native Americans that the Federal Government at the time wanted to push onto reservations or annex into society by force. 

[bandit957]

I disagree with this article.  Freeways boost growth.  In Milwaukee for example, two malls were built at the same time.  Northridge and Southridge.  No freeways are near Northridge and Southridge is near I-894.  Northridge closed due to crime problems while the area around Southridge continues to be successful. The north end of Milwaukee doesn't have any freeways and is the worst area of the city.  If not having freeways in that area is so great why are the areas farthest away from freeway access the worst parts of the city?

Green Bay and Appleton have beltways around them and no urban freeways.  Why are the areas near the freeways exploding in growth while the inner city and downtown areas struggle?

I know I'm only citing Wisconsin, but any time a freeway is built it will fuel growth.  If urban freeways weren't built a lot of things that were in downtowns would have just moved out into the suburbs, which would have killed off downtowns.

Then why did crime get a lot worse around here when freeways were built?

[bandit957]

Usually there was stipulations that came along with the Homestead Act like working it for several years for farming or cattle grazing before you could receive a titled deed.  So in that sense you still had to earn the land and had to have a skill to maintain it, that's a far cry from someone giving you something for nothing.  Not to mention those lands were largely already occupied by Native Americans that the Federal Government at the time wanted to push onto reservations or annex into society by force.

What they need to do is pass a new version of the Homestead Act that lets people use land now owned by corporations.

[silverback1065]

you can also argue that big box retailers killed downtowns, especially small town downtowns. 

[Max Rockatansky]

I disagree with this article.  Freeways boost growth.  In Milwaukee for example, two malls were built at the same time.  Northridge and Southridge.  No freeways are near Northridge and Southridge is near I-894.  Northridge closed due to crime problems while the area around Southridge continues to be successful. The north end of Milwaukee doesn't have any freeways and is the worst area of the city.  If not having freeways in that area is so great why are the areas farthest away from freeway access the worst parts of the city?

Green Bay and Appleton have beltways around them and no urban freeways.  Why are the areas near the freeways exploding in growth while the inner city and downtown areas struggle?

I know I'm only citing Wisconsin, but any time a freeway is built it will fuel growth.  If urban freeways weren't built a lot of things that were in downtowns would have just moved out into the suburbs, which would have killed off downtowns.

Then why did crime get a lot worse around here when freeways were built?

While I can't speak for crime statistics in Green Bay nationwide crime has largely been on the decline since the Interstate building era ended..  I added some actually Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI website that shows a huge decline in crime since the 1980s: 

In 2014 here is what the Uniform Crime Report Shows for Violent and Property Crime:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/property-crime

Now 2004:

https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/property_crime/index.html

And 1995 the last year that easily searchable on the FBI website:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec2.pdf

Now that isn't to say that some cities aren't far worse off than when they were before the Interstates were built, my home town of Detroit is an example of this.  Basically Detroit had three major issues that led to it's decline more than anything else; racial inequity, corrupt city government and having an industry completely based in the Automotive sector.  All the Interstate system facilitated in Detroit was urban sprawl and abandonment of former neighborhoods.  The domestic automakers have lost about half of their market-share since the late 1960s which basically gutted all the entry level jobs in the city.  So basically you got a city that has no way to employ it's populace much less draw tax-payer money at 700,000 people today as opposed to the 1,800,000 million that lived in the city in the 1950s.  There was a ton of social injustices in cities like Detroit prior to the Civil Rights era which led to things like the riots of 1967 and what they call "White Flight" to the suburbs.  Then to throw the cherry on top of everything you had majors and city officials who stole millions of what was left that could have been used to reinvest into the crumbling infrastructure.  Basically before I get sounding too uber political I'm trying to say that it was a lot more than just one factor that led to the decline of U.S. cities in the Rust Belt...those are just a few examples from a city I grew up in.  You'll hear similar stories out of Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburg and many more.

Now I've often heard the theory that things were better in the 1970s and 1980s in regards to crime, statistically that just simply isn't true.  Back in those days my parents did stupid things like leave us kids at home alone or even left the doors unlocked when they were home.  People would wander blindly into really bad neighborhoods and it wasn't too uncommon at least in Detroit to hear a whisper of some gang related shootings in local schools.  Basically nobody talked about it....crime wasn't a pleasant topic to talk about it and that's just how society was. 

Switch to today and people feel a lot less safe from crime even though statically they are less likely to be victim's of it.  What has changed in modern times is hyper awareness created by media outlets, social media and the internet.  Back in the 80s people would turn away from a crime...today they would likely bust out a cell phone to video or get directly involved somehow.  Basically people are a lot more aware that bad things can happen to them in today's world and are a lot more afraid of it happening.  Considering the drop in the raw number violent crime with the population boom since the 1980s bears this out even more. 

Usually there was stipulations that came along with the Homestead Act like working it for several years for farming or cattle grazing before you could receive a titled deed.  So in that sense you still had to earn the land and had to have a skill to maintain it, that's a far cry from someone giving you something for nothing.  Not to mention those lands were largely already occupied by Native Americans that the Federal Government at the time wanted to push onto reservations or annex into society by force.

What they need to do is pass a new version of the Homestead Act that lets people use land now owned by corporations.

Actually I would mind seeing something like this on unused BLM land but you would have problems that would be encountered that didn't exist during the original act.  Most of the good workable land close to a serviceable source of water is already being used.  The problem we're having out west is that there just isn't enough water to continue to support expanding development.  That's why all those mining towns in Nevada dwindled and died in Nevada after the Comstock Lode era...because there was no reason for them to exist once the one trick pony disappeared with the mine.  On the flip side that's why many of the Californian Gold Rush towns survived and boomed because they offered much more to various industries than an empty Great Basin Desert with no water.

Basically a lot of Federal Land is used appropriately among the National Park Service, Forest Service, BLM maintained park lands and even military installations like the Nevada Test Site.  There would be just meager scraps to pick off of what is left, there won't be another big land boom.

Besides the mega-corporations you keep mentioning don't hold as much sway as the ones of yesteryear did.  Read up on the history of trust-busting and monopolies like U.S. Steel or Standard Oil.  You'll get a true feel for how much of a death grip they really had over their industries, labor and basically unfair pricing.  There isn't a single company existing in the U.S. today that has the control of their market places like the monopolies did.  GM probably would have been the closest to a modern example in the late 1960s with 65% of the domestic market share but they still had big competition from Ford and Chrysler. 

you can also argue that big box retailers killed downtowns, especially small town downtowns.

Of course they did and the reasons were obvious.  Mom & Pop shops couldn't compete with the prices, standards and selection that major retails all could.  Basically you see that progression from Sears and Roebuck, to Kmart, to Walmart and probably to Target in the last decade.  Basically when a big box wanted to put a 100,000 square foot store in your town you couldn't really say no since they would likely bring it to somewhere else nearby and draw all the money out of your town.  Usually big boxes like to be near the newer highways and easier access roads which in turn lead to urban sprawl.  Basically even in towns 5,000 to 50,000 you see a largely abandoned downtown core while the newer retail strip is generally booming. 

[GaryV]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Care to qualify how it was free?  Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know?  I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.

Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.

Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.

From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants.  The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world.  That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started.  But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.

Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first.  But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government.  Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.

Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

I was thinking of settlers long before the Homestead Acts.  For example, the first people to move west of the Appalachians, the "mountain men", etc.  They took possession of land nobody had yet wanted (natives excepted) and it became "theirs", at least until someone with a valid government claim came forward.

[Max Rockatansky]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Care to qualify how it was free?  Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know?  I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.

Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.

Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.

From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants.  The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world.  That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started.  But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.

Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first.  But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government.  Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.

Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

I was thinking of settlers long before the Homestead Acts.  For example, the first people to move west of the Appalachians, the "mountain men", etc.  They took possession of land nobody had yet wanted (natives excepted) and it became "theirs", at least until someone with a valid government claim came forward.

But acquiring that land wasn't exactly an easy process.  Back then you had to know how to work the land and largely survive on your own with no infrastructure around you.  You were on your own for defending your property and life back in those days as well.  So if you went and made some local tribe angry because you intruded you might have to face their wrath on your own.  Another decent comparison would be the mining booms in California and Nevada.  Basically you had to stake a claim, work it on your own and survive a lawless land on your own.  Free in a sense?...yeah sure, but definitely nowhere in the neighborhood of easy.

[hbelkins]

What they need to do is pass a new version of the Homestead Act that lets people use land now owned by government.

FIFY.

[Bruce]

How about we let the government keep its land and use it in a way that the public can audit, rather than give it away to corporations (who make up the lion's share of acquisitions) who can do as they please with little-to-no oversight?

[silverback1065]

There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer. 

[kalvado]

There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.

Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.

[MrDisco99]

Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.

Yeah labor used to be free, too.  Damn progressives ruining everything...

[silverback1065]

There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.

Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.

The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities.  As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.  Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard"  Doing this is asinine.  Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).  I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed.  I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).  New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America.  Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects.  Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too.  New urbanists hate the fact that America is car centric, I don't see this as a problem, what I advocate is to multiple choices for transportation in a city.  If you want to walk, bike, drive, take the bus/subway, you have the right to do so and every major city should offer these choices.