But Los Angeles has 4 million people now. Most of the city's growth occurred during the freeway era. By 1930 Detroit was at 90% of its peak population.
Printable View
Actually, I think the freeways can be narrowed. Expansion costs more money, both up-front and in the long-term [[Remember--MDOT doesn't even have money to maintain the existing road network.). Expansion would also result in scads of $$$ for additional earth movement and create an uglier, more disconnected environment. There's no reason [[MDOT's plug-and-chug formulas be damned) why you couldn't have a network of parkways with 2-3 lanes max. in each direction. I don't think "parks", per se, are the answer--there would be a whole hell of a lot of dead-space parks that would go unused--but rather, re-forested areas along the corridors.
All of which were surrounded by dense residential neighborhoods. From the Connor Road factories east to the GP border and west to Indian Village was all residential. So how did the existence of the plants kill those neighborhoods? More like it was the closing of the plants.Quote:
The Packard Plant, Connor Creek, the fruitless industrial project by St. Cyril, City Airport, Jefferson North, Poletown Plant, basically everything in Milwaukee Junction.
The point was that while the freeways did have some negative impacts on the city [[as well as positive impacts), it was not the sole cause of the city's decline, and not even the primary cause.
Otherwise, every other city with freeways as extensive as Detroit's would have declined to the same extent Detroit did if that were the case...
Who says that didn't happen? Check out St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Memphis, Birmingham, Baltimore, etc.
Detroit built its freeways through the city's most densely populated areas. This absolutely did have a detrimental effect on the city and its ability to stem its substantial population decline.
I live just off of John R at Auburn Road [[21 Mile). The building I work in is in the CBD. If John R were contiguous and some modifications to optimize timings I could survive without I-75. Also, if a bus service was offered in my area, I would consider taking it [[depending on the time penalty I would incur).
Apparently you're new to Detroit.
The entire "economic development" policy for the last 50-60 years is getting "upper middle class families from Novi" to shower dollars on the city. What are the major projects in the city? Stadia, convention centers, office, destination restaurants, etc. This is almost entirely geared towards separating dollars from suburban pocketbooks.
There is almost nothing getting built/subsidized downtown that doesn't require 90%+ suburban participation. So, yeah, if you are part of the downtown/midtown cheering squad, you better want Barb from Novi to have easy accessibility downtown, or no one's going to show up at Comerica or Orchestra Hall or the Motown Hoedown or whatever the hell it's called.
It's simple math. Detroit comprises 10% of the region's population, and probably not even 5% of the region's wealth. The city is overwhelmingly poor and destitute. There is no way to have any sort of economic policy for downtown/midtown without courting those living outside Detroit.
Indeed they would disappear. The few people traveling into Detroit would become even fewer, and the remaining businesses would perish. Then the armchair urban planners of DYes could rant and rave against the evil, racist suburbanites, and their refusal to travel 2 hours on surface roads for a taco in Mexicantown.
And Williamsburg, Brooklyn, arguably the hottest neighborhood basically anywhere, has an elevated freeway gashing right through the heart of the neighborhood. While it's hideous and probably shouldn't have been built, and sits in a city where most people don't even own cars, no one would seriously advocate for its removal.
And the surrounding blocks have tons of development and vitality, with projects being built right up against the freeway.
It depends on how you define the return on investment ane taxpayers.
For suburbanites, they receive the non-monetary benefit of being able to work/play in and travel through isolated parts of the city without having to face the major problems that plague the city. Given that we have yet to see any large scale change in regional/state policies and living/commuting patterns, this sunken cost was obviously worth it to them for that benefit.
And given that these same suburbanites now control majority of lansing and make up majority of the region's populations, I wouldn't hold my breath for things to be done differently any time soom...
Unfortunately, Bham1982 is right. While what he says doesn't seem to align with how most on DYes feel, everything he says is exactly how the silent majority in "SE Michigan" feel...
Except none of those are "heavy industry", or specifically located on the East Side. The only "heavy industry" that lead to the demise of the East Side was Krack Sales, and possibly the loss of jobs @ some of the places you mentioned. It is because of those jobs, and the lack of crime from jobless residents not needing a fix, that the East Side grew. Freeways were needed to bring in raw materials, and take out finished product.
Ah, yes. Just a few more years of study. To confirm what everybody else already knows. ;)
Look at a freeway. What do you see when you look at it? Look carefully and minutely. Stand there for an hour and watch it and formulate in your mind exactly what it is you're looking at and what aesthetic value it has.
You will realize you are looking at something monumentally ugly and wasteful. Ask yourself if you would want your neighborhood near anything like it. Or, if your neighborhood were near one, ask if you'd want it enlarged.
We all know the answer already.
Cities like Vancouver are experiencing growth, rising values, prosperity, and no doomsday traffic jams without any freeways at all. We don't need them.
But, whatever. Keep on "studying" the problem.
That's an excellent case in point. Why, when I-696 was being built, did the route get such resistance from people with money and resources? Why was I-275 never completed? Why didn't the moneyed people of the proposed corridor welcome the prosperity and development the freeway was bound to bring?
We all know the answers. You can bet that anybody who still champions the freeway as the way of the future is just engaging in some increasingly dubious sophistry. The future will look very different from the 20-lane freeways our local planners still feverishly dream of. We should start planning that transition now, instead of when we have to take a crash-course in 21st century realities.