Highway Cap Model for I-75

The potential capping of the highways that gash through the fabric of Detroit's neighborhoods as been discussed here many times but there was a great blog in the Chicago Tribune's Cityscapes blog today highlighting a project in Columbus that seems the most economically feasible plan I've seen yet. I realize Detroit, like Chicago and the rest of the U.S., has a glut a retail space but perhaps there is a way to conceive something similar to this between John R and Cass on I-75 or any of a number of other locations.

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-offers-m.html

This would be a good, fairly low-cost way to goose the area between Woodward and the Masonic, and the money could mostly come from elsewhere. Walking through Short North today in Columbus it's hard to imagine that it was once a pretty blighted area. It's hopping day and night.

Here's an idea: Freeways shouldn't go through cities. They should go around them. Route interstate traffic around the city, and use the foundation for the decommissioned sunken interstate highway to lay in a subway line and cover it over.

Very interesting!

I don't think it would work everywhere, but we have some obvious starting spots for consideration:

Woodward over I-75
Woodward over I-94
Canfield over I-75

This spots are just because I'm familiar with this area. There may be more obvious spots in other location that would work better.

The problem with doing this over the Kennedy would be the age of the roadway. Modern interstates have more depth and the Kennedy, not to mention less complex entrance and exit ramps.

With Detroit, you would have to do this in a place that makes economic sense. The additional cost of developing such a wide bridge would need to be bourne by the retailers that line it. THrowing out locations that may make economic sense could stimulate this debate. One place I would like to suggest is Cass over I-94. There is little retail in the N campus area and many need to walk the bridge to get from WSU facilities N of the Bridge to the main campus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Cass over I-94

---

I concur, it might make a lot of sense there.

This idea makes a lot of sense. I agree the Woodward/I-94 area could really use this. But the area I see the most benefit would be a beautiful park from Brush Street to Cass over I-75. Reconnect those areas of "Downtown."

What about Russell over 75? Seems like it would help bring more connectivity to the Eastern Market area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

...
With Detroit, you would have to do this in a place that makes economic sense. The additional cost of developing such a wide bridge would need to be bourne by the retailers that line it. ...

---

Why?

Infrastructure. Reasonable Infrastructure. Civic Infrastructure. Should be built for good developmental reasons for citizens. The road was paid for by tax dollars. Why not features to properly integrate into urban environments?

[[I do recognize the danger of public funds for private purpose -- see Ed McNamara and I-275 for example, and no doubt countless others.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

[[Cass over I-94) I concur, it might make a lot of sense there.

---

Remember that I-94 is 'scheduled' for a rebuild. Great time for better urban integration like this.

FHWA and MDOT are not going to pay to build retail spaces. This is out of thier mission. In order to get this to work, you are going to need the place to be located where it makes economic sense. I don;t know how many of you have been to Columbus to see this, but it is located on what we could consider Columbus' Woodward [[Old US-23). To the north is the burgeoning area of OSU students and a few blocks to the South is Downtown. It is also located directly next to the convention center. Hence there is a lot of foot traffic in the area.

To sell this to MDOT or FHWA you are going to need to justify that it will make money and either build it as part of a bridge reconstruction with a private company partnership or to have MDOT be the landord and charge rent for the space. Typically it costs about $2 million just to re-deck a road of this size. In order to redeck the existing structure and to widen the bridge to accommodate retail on both sides, it could cost up to about $15 million, or $13 million more than the re-decking just of the engineering, footings, decking and right of way. In either scenario, the private partner or MDOT would need to charge a pretty high rent in order to make this work. It would cost considerably more than it would cost to build the same amount of retail on a piece of land that does not have a bridge under it. Take a look at the amount of abandoned retail there is in many of these areas. You will see that this is going to be a hard sell.

Eastern Market could be a partner but it would be economically risky for both partners.

Remember every dollar MDOT spends on this stuff is one less dollar available to resurface roads or build transit down a street they own like Woodward. Do you really want your Transportation agency to be investing in dogs just because they look pretty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

The problem with doing this over the Kennedy would be the age of the roadway. Modern interstates have more depth and the Kennedy, not to mention less complex entrance and exit ramps.

With Detroit, you would have to do this in a place that makes economic sense. The additional cost of developing such a wide bridge would need to be bourne by the retailers that line it. THrowing out locations that may make economic sense could stimulate this debate. One place I would like to suggest is Cass over I-94. There is little retail in the N campus area and many need to walk the bridge to get from WSU facilities N of the Bridge to the main campus.

---

Those entrance and exit ramps aren't really needed. They get decent usage during rush hour, but could be shut down completely and it wouldn't generate all that much negative impact. It would probably benefit through traffic on the Kennedy more. Some of those ramps have been removed recently. But one portion was capped awhile ago. So it can be done.

Ideally, you'd funnel all the Loops traffic onto Upper and Lower Wacker to the Congress, to the Circle Interchange. Wacker to the Congress is currently demolished and gone, and they are rebuilding it to handle more traffic, and also raise the clearance height of the ceiling on lower wacker

Even a park over the freeways in Detroit would be a huge benefit. Anything to eliminate the sightlines of the freeway. Biggest issue with parks is they are "heavy" and will require some deep structure which may cut into your clearance. The buildings in Columbus are relatively light-weight so alot of the girders underneath aren't all that deep. I've been in the bar / restaurant in one of those buildings. The expansion joints run right through the space and the buildings actually shake a bit. It's kind of cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

FHWA and MDOT are not going to pay to build retail spaces. This is out of thier mission. ... Remember every dollar MDOT spends on this stuff is one less dollar available to resurface roads or build transit down a street they own like Woodward. Do you really want your Transportation agency to be investing in dogs just because they look pretty?

---

Libertarian speaking here, and seldom eager to ask government to do more, but this approach makes sense.

Sure, its expensive. So are new roads. And we don't have money. True.

But if the idea is good, removes some of the blight caused by the construction in the first place, and commerce can be aided [[purpose of the road in the first place, btw), then I think you first decide that this is what you want your roads to look like, and then you lobby for federal support. And you might never get it.

Sure better way to spend money than ADA curbs, don't you think.

Using bridges as retail space AND traffice space is nothing new. In the Middle Ages the bridges of the Thames and Seine in London and Paris were teeming with ramshackle retail structures. In fact when French King Henry IV in the early 1600s built the Pont Neuf [[new bridge) over the Seine, Parisians considered it a novelty... because you actually had a view of the water and beyond from the bridge. Of course these "retail bridges" were also fire traps, and in later centuries were banned.

Some famous survivors are the Ponte Vecchio over the River Arno in Florence. It was the only bridge the German's didn't blow up [[surprisingly) when they retreated from Florence towards the end of WWII. Interestingly enough, not only does the Ponte Vecchio have shops on the bridge, but above the shops is a corridor called the "Vasari Corridor". This very long elevated corridor connected the Town Palace of the Medici's [[Palazzo Vecchio) with their administrative buildings [[Palazzio Uffizi), and went over the Ponte Vecchio and went uphill to the Palazzio Pitti, the fortified Palace of the Medici's... used in times of turmoil....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponte_Vecchio

A more modern version of a "retail bridge" is the famous one in Bath England... the Pulteney Bridge... supposedly only one of 4 bridges in the world with complete shops on both sides...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulteney_Bridge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Libertarian speaking here, and seldom eager to ask government to do more, but this approach makes sense.

Sure, its expensive. So are new roads. And we don't have money. True.

But if the idea is good, removes some of the blight caused by the construction in the first place, and commerce can be aided [[purpose of the road in the first place, btw), then I think you first decide that this is what you want your roads to look like, and then you lobby for federal support. And you might never get it.

Sure better way to spend money than ADA curbs, don't you think.

---

Sure its a great idea, but the last thing you want is the government spending money on this only to have the stores empty or have other businesses complain how MDOT has subsidized the new businesses that are taking traffic away from their door.

OK. What if you built government facilities there such as a police or fire station in that space so that you would open up other land in the downtown area for redevelopment?

Ask the mayor if he wants to spend tens of millions on new police fire facilities while so many are sitting vacant and his biggest capital project right now is putting an HQ in an old casino. I am willing to bet you will get a chilly reception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Ask the mayor if he wants to spend tens of millions on new police fire facilities while so many are sitting vacant and his biggest capital project right now is putting an HQ in an old casino. I am willing to bet you will get a chilly reception.

---

Well, one of the issues with redeveloping the area behind the Fox is what to do with Engine 9/Squad 2 behind the Fox. If you put something big back there [[like a new hockey arena) any available space is vital. However, nobody wants to get rid of that engine house because of the cost savings on insurance rates for downtown buildings. Building a replacement engine house nearby would free up that space but maintain the insurance rates.

Also, this doesn't have to be an all or nothing financed project. Meaning the funding can come from multiple sources. The road agencies involved could pay for the bridge portion and the city could pay for the additional construction of ancillary buildings attached to the bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

OK. What if you built government facilities there such as a police or fire station in that space so that you would open up other land in the downtown area for redevelopment?

---

There is land all over Detroit that's "ready for development".

I like this concept, it would just need to be implemented as a public\private partnership. There's a public benefit of rejoining two areas with contiguous retail and housing, and the private benefit of adding more space to a growing area of Detroit.

Putting public buildings on there would be a waste, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Sure its a great idea, but the last thing you want is the government spending money on this only to have the stores empty or have other businesses complain how MDOT has subsidized the new businesses that are taking traffic away from their door.

---

Dont' think the government should build anything. Just the sub-structure to enable the land to be developed at a cost that is comparable to any other regular land in the area. [[Allow me to dream of a competent government that could/would do such a thing without subsidizing it to someone's benefit. Somehow, government has turned into a plaything for business and selfish interests.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Dont' think the government should build anything. Just the sub-structure to enable the land to be developed at a cost that is comparable to any other regular land in the area. [[Allow me to dream of a competent government that could/would do such a thing without subsidizing it to someone's benefit. Somehow, government has turned into a plaything for business and selfish interests.)

---

Yep, you are so right. Ten years ago there was a similar restructuring of a highway in downtown Montreal to extend the Convention center westward and build the ten story CDP headquarters
on top.The result was the CDP HQ, [[a government investment fund) had been projected to cost 100 million or so dollars. The building is like a skyscraper lying on one of its sides over 3 small city blocks for less weight. It ended up costing 400 million because of structural design and build issues that needed addressing. So, I guess if you need to spend money wisely in this economy; dont build over a viaduct when there is all that vacant land in need of attention, just pick one of the parking lots, that will do the trick.

Incidentally there is talk of extending the coverage of highway 720 in downtown Montreal, and Richard Bergeron, the mayor's main opponent is against this, he favors developing the empty lots around the freeway first and not burden the taxpayer with as he says "sterile expenditures". He is an urban planner and a major proponent of tramway in the city. I am not myself in favor of this in Montreal because the subway and suburban rail are a better bang for the buck with our weather.

Why would anyone fund such a project in a low cost area like Detroit?

Detroit needs programs and projects to lower the cost of buisness, not raise it.
Who would pay for such a cap when there are empty buildings surrounding the freeways?!!!!

It seems as though DYesers want all the flourish of success without the underlying success.
We want cheese shops without cheese consumers, we deny the obvious conclusion that bus rapid transit would be more effecient and want glitzy light rail.

As the person who originally posted this, let me clarify that I think this is a long term, currently low-priority project/goal. I agree that there is plenty of cheap, buildable land in the surrounding areas where density could be added first. However, for the long range growth of the downtown area and the way the neighborhoods connect and interact with it, I think it will be important to bridge these literal and figurative gaps in the city.

In the past, and again in this thread, there are mentions of building parks over the freeways and I can never see that being financially viable. However, a major part of this article is being overlooked. While retail may not be a need right now, the act of simply eliminating the line of sight to the freeway seems to be a major psychological factor in the walkability and connectivity of the bridges. Perhaps, there is some way to build something relatively inexpensive with landscaping that would go a long way towards creating a congruent neighborhood.

I don't think that Detroit wants anyone to fund any boondoggle-- I'd just like get the city back from the transportation department! Freeways are a drain on a community in more ways than just "draining" people away. They are a cost with no return in revenue. And it is not just Detroit. Look at a map of Novi, for instance. Close to 10% of the surface area of Novi is taken up with I-96, M-5, and interchanges. No tax revenue in return. Yes, it adds access to shopping areas, but for the most part it is just a pass-through, 12 hours a day for shopping centers, 16 hours a day for office buildings. But Novi has to provide police, fire, and EMS services to all of those drivers, with some help from the State Police.

We have two "caps" here in the area-- Cobo Hall, and the pedestrian park over I-696 in Oak Park. That was a solution that was three decades in the making. It took almost 30 years to build I-696 because of the strong opposition from groups who knew what that ditch would do to their community. They saw the evidence in what the ditches had done to Detroit.

I visited Columbus last year, and to tell the truth, I didn't even realize that there WAS a bridge between downtown and Short North [[which seems to me after my one visit to be a very cool neighborhood). That's how seamless High Street is. I recall the buildings shown in the photos in the blog article, but I had no idea that it was a cap.

Just look at what the freeways did in Detroit [[ I know these DTE photos have been linked to DYes before)

1949
http://www.clas.wayne.edu/photos/par...9/ha-3-144.pdf

1997
http://www.clas.wayne.edu/photos/par...5739-25-57.pdf

Fulton River District / K-station City, Chicago, IL

Here's a construction photo of another phase of K-station for another residential highrise. I don't know whether to call this a cap or not. Basically it's raising the level of city streets [[double decking them) but I'm not sure if this makes sense in Detroit since there's very little change in geography.

The Kennedy Expressway runs beneath a corner of this site [[where that giant drill bit is.) The column grid for the highrise will be tricky since the cap wasn't originally designed to support a large building on top. You can see they've already begun to cap over the Metra Rail commuter tracks, center of photo. Ideally, all rail coming into the city would be out of sight and hidden beneath city streets and buildings. As always, air rights above Metra tracks are for sale.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6045/...8c62de4c_z.jpg