What if all the freeways within the city limits were turned into boulevards?

[EL Jimbo]

I agree that Woodward would have no problem running 90,000 vehicles a day. Now since Woodward has such a capacity I was wondering is it safe to say that downtown Detroit could have a max population of around 65,000 or so?

Who knows? It depends on what you want downtown for. Is downtown a population center or a business center. 60k is a LOT of people in the current downtown area to still have room for offices and shops. It would be a nice goal that is for sure.

However, keep in mind, more traffic = more potential customers which could have benefits up and down the entire corridor from Downtown all the way up to Pontiac.

[Brian1979]

Who knows? It depends on what you want downtown for. Is downtown a population center or a business center. 60k is a LOT of people in the current downtown area to still have room for offices and shops. It would be a nice goal that is for sure.

However, keep in mind, more traffic = more potential customers which could have benefits up and down the entire corridor from Downtown all the way up to Pontiac.

I think a vibrant urban setting that is active 24 hours a day is what downtown should be for. It's kind of a high number, Downtown's that Detroit should strive to be like would be Columbus, OH; Indianapolis; Chicago and Minneapolis. All are northern midwestern cities like Detroit and have vibrant downtowns for the most part. I wouldn't use Cleveland as an example, I was there in 2006 and wasn't impressed with their downtown. I don't like Milwaukee's downtown either.

I saw that there is a proposed park and ride lot at the State Fairgrounds which will be nice once this is complete up to 8 and Woodward. I think north of the Fairgrounds they should have dedicated bus lanes with frequent service. Then have a transfer station to the light rail at the Fairgrounds stop. I wonder how many trains and busses they'd have to run to have trains and busses running every 10 minutes. I don't know how many times I have sat in traffic on the Chrysler wondering why Detroit doesn't have a rapid transit system. I would even extend the light rail to Grand River from Greenfield to downtown and Gratiot to 7 Mile, the Grand River/Gratiot line would be the same line and then running rapid transit to Metro Airport with a hub with all three lines meeting somewhere downtown.

[Russix]

Check it out. Freeways pushed back an average of a mile from downtown onto arterial roads.

[Brian1979]

A few examples of why this would be a bad idea. As I was driving down Greenfield between Schoolcraft and Ford Road the NB side of Greenfield was backed up from Schoolcraft/Jeffries all the way past Joy Road. The reason for this traffic is because of the Southfield being closed, all the traffic that normally uses the Southfield is now diverted to city streets like Greenfield, Evergreen or Telegraph. I know that if the Southfield was open that this traffic would be on the Southfield instead, but you are throwing a lot of traffic onto city streets that can't handle that much traffic.

[Russix]

A few examples of why this would be a bad idea. As I was driving down Greenfield between Schoolcraft and Ford Road the NB side of Greenfield was backed up from Schoolcraft/Jeffries all the way past Joy Road. The reason for this traffic is because of the Southfield being closed, all the traffic that normally uses the Southfield is now diverted to city streets like Greenfield, Evergreen or Telegraph. I know that if the Southfield was open that this traffic would be on the Southfield instead, but you are throwing a lot of traffic onto city streets that can't handle that much traffic.

I don't think it's fair to judge this idea based off a construction closure of a major route. Terminating freeways onto large arterial roads the last mile into downtown is alot different then removing a freeway that runs freeway-to-freeway.

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/attachm...7&d=1303500855

[begingri]

Does Destroying Highways Solve Urban Traffic Congestion?

Matthew Philips

Strange how the traditional laws of supply and demand go out the window when it comes to traffic. Studies over the last decade [[like this one, this one, and this one; plus the book Suburban Nation) have pretty much dismantled the theory that more roads equal less traffic congestion. It turns out that the opposite is often true: building more and wider highways can increase traffic congestion. If only people like Robert Moses and Le Corbusier had known this before their grand urban plans left our cities clogged with traffic, and carved up by ugly, value-destroying highways.

As part of its series on urban transportation, the Mother Nature Network has this recent post, which includes a nice rundown of the evidence against highways as congestion relievers, plus a discussion of the latest idea taking hold in urban traffic management circles: destroy highways to reduce congestion.

A particularly dramatic case in point comes to us from traffic-clogged Seoul, Korea, where a few years ago a handful of “crazy” visionaries in the transport department somehow managed to sell a new mayor on the demolition of an elevated downtown highway. Fast-forward to today: the highway’s gone, a formerly paved-over river has been rehabilitated, the resulting green space is a source of urban pride, and — wait for it — motor vehicle travel times have actually improved in the neighborhood of the old highway.

The MNN piece reminds us that highway tear-downs have had similar results in New York City and San Francisco, but that it took natural disasters for those to happen: New York’s West Side Highway collapsed under the weight of a cement truck in 1973, and San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway was removed after suffering damage from the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989.

One final tidbit on the economic costs of traffic: according to the Texas Transportation Institute, traffic congestion costs us $87 billion a year in wasted fuel. And that’s not even counting all those hours lost [[and road rage)!

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/05/...ic-congestion/

[EL Jimbo]

See. Perhaps I was not so crazy after all.

[jtf1972]

Don't sell yourself short. Just because you're right doesn't negate a touch of insanity!

[DetroitPlanner]

Does Destroying Highways Solve Urban Traffic Congestion?

Matthew Philips

Strange how the traditional laws of supply and demand go out the window when it comes to traffic. Studies over the last decade [[like this one, this one, and this one; plus the book Suburban Nation) have pretty much dismantled the theory that more roads equal less traffic congestion. It turns out that the opposite is often true: building more and wider highways can increase traffic congestion. If only people like Robert Moses and Le Corbusier had known this before their grand urban plans left our cities clogged with traffic, and carved up by ugly, value-destroying highways.

Le Corbousier built freeways? Where? The wiki article mentions Cabrini Green, but CB was far too dense to be a Le Corbousier project. It was also missing most of the elements and was used only to house poor folks, not a mixed used property at all.

[ghettopalmetto]

Le Corbousier built freeways? Where? The wiki article mentions Cabrini Green, but CB was far too dense to be a Le Corbousier project. It was also missing most of the elements and was used only to house poor folks, not a mixed used property at all.

Does the article even *claim* that Le Corbu constructed freeways? No, it does not. That's your own selective interpretation of the article, and it alludes to your continued injection of personal biases into facts.

You know damn well, as does anyone else who practices your profession, that Le Corbu advocated steel-framed, glass-covered "towers in the park", which would be connected by an infinite web of "flying" expressways. American city building in the latter half of the 20th century conformed lock-step with the principles he advocated, leading to a hollowing-out of once-grand cities like Detroit and Chicago.

Atlanta, God-forsaken unmitigated traffic disaster that it is, is probably most representative of Le Corbu's bullshit grandstanding. And yes, I'll use the word "bullshit", because even his own city of Paris--nearly universally regarded as one of the most beautiful cities in the world--rejected his principles outright, deeming them inappropriate.

1925 Voisin Plan for Paris:



Funny enough, Le Corbu never seemed to anticipate the massive acreages of surface parking lots that would be required to achieve his ideas.

[EL Jimbo]

Don't sell yourself short. Just because you're right doesn't negate a touch of insanity!

Well I didn't say I wasn't crazy. I just said I wasn't AS crazy as some people may have thought.

[DetroitPlanner]

Does the article even *claim* that Le Corbu constructed freeways? No, it does not. That's your own selective interpretation of the article, and it alludes to your continued injection of personal biases into facts.

I think it does: " It turns out that the opposite is often true: building more and wider highways can increase traffic congestion. If only people like Robert Moses and Le Corbusier had known this before their grand urban plans left our cities clogged with traffic, and carved up by ugly, value-destroying highways."

I am not disagreeing with the overall intent of the article, though to say that Le Corbusier had an impact on traffic is a bit of a stretch when none of his plans came to fruition and the article is linked to a Wiki that does not discuss highways, but does discuss Cabrini Green. La Grand Voisine was never built, though La Defense did take its place.

Towers in the park concept would work only under hyper-controlled conditions that would mix uses in the towers as well as incomes. Unfortunately that is not how economics structures land use. Yes I agree that you can't place 2011 Detroit into this equation without having a terrible mess of parking and congested roadways. Heck you could not even do this for a single economic strata in 1950's Chicago without it being a disaster [[Cabrini Green). However a 1925 Paris would be remarkably different. In 1925 there were comparatively few cars in Paris. It was not an automotive center like Stutgart or Turin, and outside of the Gand Boulevards there would be few streets that could service much if any auto traffic. It would still have to deal with how things sort themselves out economically.

[ghettopalmetto]

Towers in the park concept would work only under hyper-controlled conditions that would mix uses in the towers as well as incomes. Unfortunately that is not how economics structures land use. Yes I agree that you can't place 2011 Detroit into this equation without having a terrible mess of parking and congested roadways. Heck you could not even do this for a single economic strata in 1950's Chicago without it being a disaster [[Cabrini Green). However a 1925 Paris would be remarkably different. In 1925 there were comparatively few cars in Paris. It was not an automotive center like Stutgart or Turin, and outside of the Gand Boulevards there would be few streets that could service much if any auto traffic. It would still have to deal with how things sort themselves out economically.

You're either being intentionally silly, or you simply haven't paid attention to a single damned thing that has been built in the U.S. since the end of World War II. Which is it?

Ever wonder why 95% of our country looks perfectly identical? That's because economics doesn't structure land usage or transportation policy--ZONING does.

[RaumVogel]

I have a better idea. Decide which section of the city is the most run down/dangerous and offer it to the Feds to build a Military base. Then the freeways will be used more for transportation of military vehicles.

[DetroitPlanner]

You're either being intentionally silly, or you simply haven't paid attention to a single damned thing that has been built in the U.S. since the end of World War II. Which is it?

Ever wonder why 95% of our country looks perfectly identical? That's because economics doesn't structure land usage or transportation policy--ZONING does.

Economics are a factor in zoning. Land use is based on geographic assets. Transportation or Environmental Policy unfortunately does not drive either, they are afterthoughts. Thats why I asked where there was a Le Corbusier Freeway. I can document dozens of highways built by Robert Moses in New York State. Le Corbusier was much of a dreamer, little if any of his projects were realized and certainly not to the point where they would impact transportation policy decisions.

[ghettopalmetto]

Economics are a factor in zoning. Land use is based on geographic assets. Transportation or Environmental Policy unfortunately does not drive either, they are afterthoughts. Thats why I asked where there was a Le Corbusier Freeway. I can document dozens of highways built by Robert Moses in New York State. Le Corbusier was much of a dreamer, little if any of his projects were realized and certainly not to the point where they would impact transportation policy decisions.

Well, I agree that none of Le Corbusier's actual plans, per se, were adopted. His work lives on, however in the environments that we build. Hell, look at Troy or Southfield. Tell me that's not consistent with Le Corbu's vision.

The comment that "economics are a factor in zoning" is pure malarkey. The vast majority of cities and counties in the United States adopt a model zoning regulation [[just as they do with building codes) because elected officials don't have the knowledge or wherewithal to develop their own. So, what we get are:

1. Subdivisions of beige plastic houses
2. Strip malls
3. Office buildings in "parks"
4. All of the above connected strictly by freeways, highways, and collector roads.

Anything beyond that only exists because it was constructed prior to adoption of the zoning reg.

The same, identical subdivisions in Southeast Michigan are built by Pulte Homes in Northern Virginia, New Jersey, Texas, and everywhere else in the country. The same developers and REITs construct the same bland glass box office buildings and shopping malls/strip malls/lifestyle centers across the nation. Where does the economics kick in? Surely a nation with such diverse economic climates among its regions should look at least *somewhat* different if your assertion is correct, yes?

I maintain that we're simply made shitty design choices, and since our planners and architects don't want to recognize:

1. That the ideas from the 1950s have failed and
2. Their own incompetence to come up with anything better

they excuse it all by throwing the blanket term "economics" out there, as if we're all suppose to be mystified and scared of that term and accept the design excuses at face value.

[Gistok]

GP, in general I agree with your assessment... but what galls me is when modern architecture students frown up any type of ornamentation on a new building style... deriding it as "pastiche".

The Comerica Tower, for example... architectural critics of the 1990's hated it because of its' German Gothic fancy top. Most lay people find it a pleasing design that shows a soaring style reminiscent of the Gothic cathedrals of the past.... and it doesn't look "dated", as do many older buildings of the buildings of the 50s.

Interestingly enough... WSU has some good and bad architecture.... The G. Flint Purdy Library has to be one of the ugliest buildings on campus [[as are the Kohn Building and State Hall)... but the McGregor Center is very beautiful. And you'll find few building additions as ugly as the relatively new addition to the back of Old Main... it has absolutely no relationship to the older architecture... just a bulky ugly barnacle added onto an elegant old building.